The events of March 21st at the United Nations refugee camp in Mondolkiri have caused the United States and other countries to reassess the near-term prospects for a population whose future has been unresolved for far too long. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has concluded on the basis of March 21st and other incidents that unfortunately conditions that would allow for a satisfactory voluntary repatriation of the Montagnard population do not exist at this time.

In light of the urgent humanitarian needs of the asylum-seekers, the United States formally offered resettlement in the United States to all among this group who qualify and wish to be resettled. We request the Royal Government of Cambodia respond to this offer as quickly as possible.

We continue to support voluntary repatriation to Vietnam as one of several durable solutions for this population. In this case, the solution should adhere to the core principle that all repatriations must be voluntary, based on credible, meaningful pre- and post-repatriation inspections and counseling by the UN Refugee Agency.

We urge Cambodian and Vietnamese authorities to work with the United Nations to establish a framework which would permit voluntary repatriation under these conditions. However, voluntary repatriation on these terms is not now available, and we urge the Cambodian Government to facilitate resettlement for those who seek it.

Questions about that?

QUESTION: There was a report out there that the Cambodian Government had, in fact, agreed to this. Do you know anything about that?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't know exactly if they have at this point. We obviously look forward to them agreeing to let us work this out, and we will go in and interview people.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you know how many people (inaudible)?

MR. BOUCHER: There's about 1,000 camp residents, and so all of those residents would be eligible for interviews for resettlement, and then those who qualify could be resettled in the United States.

QUESTION: Did the Vietnamese get any say in this matter?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, the actions of the Vietnamese were the cause of some of the heightened concerns that we have at this point. We talked about our grave concern about the incident on March 21st.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, these are Vietnamese citizens, correct? Do the Vietnamese have anything -- do they get any say in this?

MR. BOUCHER: No, they don't have a right of approval of any of these people. These people are out of Vietnam and being considered by the international community for resettlement.

QUESTION: How does one become eligible?

MR. BOUCHER: How do you qualify?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BOUCHER: It is basic refugee law, first of all, which is well-founded fear of persecution, and then there are specific groups who qualify in different ways within our law, and then you have to meet some standards with regard to health and criminal record and other things. So it's a series of qualifications, but our willingness to sit down and go through this with people means that we can look to see who's qualified and take those who are.

QUESTION: Can you say when you made this decision? And what the exact reason for it -- was it because the UN had made its conclusion on Friday that voluntary repatriation wasn't possible?

MR. BOUCHER: I think --

QUESTION: Or is that why you didn't have an answer to this question when I asked it yesterday -- because you were deciding that --

MR. BOUCHER: This decision was made just -- I don't know exactly when, but over the last 24 hours or a day or so. The issue became more prominent with the March 21st incident. Our concerns grew based on some of the reactions we saw. Here we are, not even five days later --

QUESTION: Well, no, I'm not saying it took too long to make.

MR. BOUCHER: -- having made the decision. No, but I can't account for -- the moment that you ask, we give you the actual answer, and the fact is, sometimes by the next day, we've decided to go ahead and do something.

QUESTION: Are these people who fought with the United States during the Vietnam War?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if all of them are. Certainly we all know the record of the Montagnards in that regard.

QUESTION: So the answer is yes?

MR. BOUCHER: The answer is probably some of them are. But I don't know them personally. We haven't interviewed them all yet. That clearly is one of the grounds for resettling people, too. One of the factors. It is one of the factors that gets considered.

QUESTION: And are their relatives inside Vietnam going to be eligible to come with them?

MR. BOUCHER: I would have to double-check on what status this gives them and how long it is. But in some cases, yes, eventually.

QUESTION: Did Secretary Powell have to -- either have to or did he personally approve this decision?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, frankly. I don't know.

QUESTION: Other than right of approval on this, have you had any contacts with the Vietnamese on this issue since you made the offer to take them in?

MR. BOUCHER: I just made the offer to take them in.

QUESTION: Well, no, actually, the offer, Richard -- I mean, it's been going on for the last 18 hours.

MR. BOUCHER: You are right. We do this in private before we do it in public. I don't know if we have had any talks with the Vietnamese. I'm not sure we need to.

QUESTION: Is this part of a broader finding that the Montagnards inside Vietnam face persecution?

MR. BOUCHER: This is part of a concern about a place in the camp. If you want to know about the situation of Montagnards inside Vietnam, I would invite you to read our Human Rights Report, which talks about that. We have always had close cooperation -- close concern about the situation of the Montagnards. I know when I was working in Hong Kong we resettled some of them from there who qualified. So we have always looked at this group, particularly those who fought with US forces, and considered their resettlement.

Okay, Afghanistan. According to the United Nations, there was a series of earthquakes in Afghanistan, the strongest one measuring 6.0 on the Richter scale, on March 25th and early morning March 26th. The epicenter of the earthquake was in Nahrin district, Baghlan province.

According to initial reports, the town of Nahrin has been seriously affected, almost 90 percent of the town destroyed. There was a French NGO in Nahrin, and their office collapsed completely. The Afghan Interim Authority is estimating up to 1,800 dead, with 1,200 bodies counted so far, 4,000 injured, 1,500 homes destroyed, 20,000 people left without shelter. Obviously those are very preliminary numbers, but one can see that it is a serious disaster.

We are anticipating our Embassy will make the appropriate disaster declarations soon. We have aid agencies and USAID-funded organizations, which are on the ground, who are already working in the affected area and responding to the crisis. UNICEF is there, the International Organization for Migration, Doctors Without Borders, this French NGO, ACTED, A-C-T-E-D -- I'm not sure what it stands for -- they all have a strong presence in the affected area, so these organizations are already providing food and non-food items, including tents, clothing and blankets.

There is an aerial assessment that began today at 5:00 p.m. local time, so that's probably over by now. But the International Security Assistance Force is providing the helicopter for that, so they are there. The UN Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance, World Health Organization personnel, including medical and engineering specialists, have gone out to do the aerial assessment to the region, see what else they might need other than supplies that we had on hand.

Because we have been doing so much in Afghanistan in terms of food relief and non-food relief, we have sufficient supplies on hand to take care of people in this affected area, although we will need to go back and replenish supplies that are turned over for that use right now.

The International Security Assistance Force has been very, very helpful, helped with telecommunications and coordination facilities. The UN is looking at transportation needs. But there are some trucks available already from the International Organization of Migration. And need for additional air and land assets is being tallied. So we're in there; there are people already working in this region. We already have some supplies going into the region, and we're doing the assessment for what more is needed.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) which are the American-funded organizations that are helping?

MR. BOUCHER: We give some money for all these organizations -- UNICEF, International Organization for Migration, and I think some of the NGOs as well, for their work in these various areas.

QUESTION: Richard, there's been some preliminary White House reaction to fast-moving developments, Middle East situation. We needn't go back over what Sharon is saying about Arafat's travels, but is there any sense in the US Government that he's making sense, that -- no, I mean, are his demands unacceptable on the face of it? Are they being mulled, or is it simply not acceptable to the US? On the return part of this. Arafat going back to Ramallah.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think, Barry, your question saying let's not talk about what Sharon may or may not have said -- I think one of the things he has said is that there's no final decision.

QUESTION: That's true.

MR. BOUCHER: So I don't want to react to --

QUESTION: No, I just didn't want to take through the whole thing.

MR. BOUCHER: -- the final decision. I know there was a shouted question out there at the Secretary; I couldn't tell if it was what do you think of Sharon's decisions not to let him go or to let him go, and in the end, there's no final decision on that. That's one point to note is still evolving. We have made clear what our position is. We think it is better that Chairman Arafat should be able to go to Beirut and return. We have made that position clear both publicly and privately, and we think the Israeli Government should consider this seriously. So we will look to see what they say in the end.

QUESTION: Wouldn't going back serve the purpose of putting him on top of the terrorism situation, and be easier for him to get on top of it, if he chooses to?

MR. BOUCHER: We have always discussed this with both the parties, or with others who are talking about it, as a round trip. We think he should be able to go to Beirut, but also that he needs to return and work on the implementation of the Tenet security work plan. We continue to believe the focus needs to be on moving down the road of ending the violence and returning to talks.

QUESTION: When you say that there's been no final decision, are you just surmising that there's been no final decision, or has the Israeli Government told you there's been --

MR. BOUCHER: I've gotten half a dozen different accounts of this, and I can't say -- put all the pieces together yet. But one of the pieces seems to be that there is no final decision.

QUESTION: But the Israeli Government has not told this government that --

MR. BOUCHER: We have been in touch with them privately as well as seen what their public statements are, but basically I think it's all the same thing.

QUESTION: Okay. But your bottom line is you understand that they haven't made up their mind that he cannot go? The Israelis haven't made up their minds whether Arafat can or cannot go?

MR. BOUCHER: As Barry said, it's a fast-breaking story, but based on the public statements I've seen and what we know in private, my understanding was that there's not a final decision.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I ask you then, what do you make of President Mubarak's decision to stay away from the Summit?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I have too much comment on that, because I think it will be up to the Egyptians to explain it.

QUESTION: Well, certainly you must -- I mean, you made no secret of the fact that you think it would be a good idea if Arafat were able to go; why don't you have anything to say when Mubarak is perfectly able to go and chooses not to? And for that matter --

MR. BOUCHER: Because after that, what do I think of Saddam Hussein's not going?

QUESTION: No -- well, yes, sure, go ahead. That would be interesting to know, too. But what -- but, you know, the Emir of Qatar isn't going either, and if you look at Egypt -- obviously Iraq is not a country that you have a great deal of direct contact with, and you're certainly not lobbying the Iraqi -- or Saddam -- to do anything other than to let weapons inspectors back in. You don't really care about his travel. But I presume that when the President of Egypt, one of the countries that you are most -- one of your closest allies in the region, as well as the Emir of Qatar, decide that they're going to stay away, that you would have something to say about it, considering that you've had so much to say about Arafat going?

MR. BOUCHER: Do you have anything more to say about it?

QUESTION: No, that was my question.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, if that was a question, I think it was a presumption rather than a question, first of all. Second of all, it is not our meeting. We are not taking attendance. We are not telling people who to go and where to go to. We do think on the matter of policy that it is good for Arafat to be able to go. We do think on a matter of policy it is good for the Arabs to get together and discuss peace with Israel. But I am not taking attendance at this meeting.

QUESTION: But could you address the importance of Mubarak --

MR. BOUCHER: Mubarak has been a very important player --

QUESTION: I mean, he's your key player -- one of your key players. Question mark?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm waiting for it. Anybody got a question mark to lend Barry?

QUESTION: Go ahead.

MR. BOUCHER: Mubarak has been a very important player in the peace process. Whether in the end he goes or doesn't go to Beirut, I am sure he will continue to be an important player in the peace process.

QUESTION: If you're looking -- and you've said in various ways that you hope that the Arab leaders will come out with a statement that says something about peace with Israel in relationship to the Saudi proposal --

MR. BOUCHER: Normalization, even.

QUESTION: Are you worried that the absence of some moderate leaders at this summit, such as Mubarak, could mean that the statement that comes out might be a little bit more --

MR. BOUCHER: One, I haven't seen anything from the Egyptian Government yet about why he may not be going or anything that connects it to the support or lack thereof for a moderate course, and I think Egypt's credentials are frankly pretty strong in that regard.

But second of all, you can do your analysis after a final statement comes out as to whether it is weaker or stronger because of the presence of different people, but I'm not going to do that yet because the statement is not done.

QUESTION: Yes, but there's a draft, and the draft doesn't speak of the Saudi peace overture; it speaks only of the other part of the deal, which is that Israel give up X, Y and Z. Isn't that sort of a bad omen for the US wanting the Arab leaders to endorse the Saudi proposal, especially recognition of Israel?

MR. BOUCHER: Are we going to do what we did yesterday for 20 minutes?

QUESTION: Probably not.

MR. BOUCHER: I've got to say, that's the same question we had yesterday and it's the same answer.

QUESTION: No, but it's a draft --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not commenting on somebody else's draft. I'm not commenting on somebody else's statement until they issue it.

QUESTION: All right. This you might be able to do. If the Israeli thing is still up in the air, is the Secretary back on the phone with Sharon? Are you making any concerted effort that you can tell us about to influence the decision?

MR. BOUCHER: We have had continuing discussions of this issue with the Israeli Government, and of course the most important thing going on in the region is that General Zinni continues to be engaged directly in the work of ending the violence. He's in intensive bilateral and trilateral discussions with the parties, trying to move forward on the key issues of stopping the violence and implementing the Tenet plan.

But in addition, yes, we are in touch diplomatically with the different parties about this whole question of Arafat's travel to Beirut, about the chance for the Arab League meeting in Beirut to be a productive contribution to peace. And that discussion will continue, I am sure.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary make any calls today to Prime Minister --

MR. BOUCHER: No, not to the parties.

QUESTION: Was the Ambassador in to --

MR. BOUCHER: The Ambassador has been in and out of the Israeli Government throughout, as our Consul General is with the Palestinian Authority. I can't remember -- I don't think he has had any particular meetings with Sharon, but he talks to the office all the time. They're in close touch.

QUESTION: Can you expand on exactly what it is, when you say that Zinni is involved in intensive discussions? There were some reports that Zinni said that he's not allowed to talk politics. So are these solely focused on security matters or are they discussing security in a way that could get them back to political negotiations?

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I haven't seen General Zinni actually say this, so some reports that Zinni said I'd rather wait and see if Zinni actually said something, and I don't know that Zinni ever said anything like that.

Clearly we all understand that the process of achieving an end to the violence, the process of implementing the security work plan that George Tenet worked out, the process of implementing the Mitchell recommendations, is a process that leads us to the political issues. The political issues, political perspective is certainly part of that. There is an intense focus on the specific security steps that the sides need to take as a means to get down this road and to facilitate the implementation of the plan, but there has also always been sort of a political perspective involved in this.

QUESTION: Richard, given that the State Department for some time has called on Arafat to exercise leadership to bring violence down and to arrest the terrorists, are you concerned that in the last couple days the public pleading and the private pleading with the Israelis to allow him to travel, and also to allow him to return, may play domestically with his constituency in such a way that would diminish his leadership? Isn't this in some way publicly weakening him that the US has to intervene with the Israelis to ask him, to pressure him, to leave and to return?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: You don't think so?

MR. BOUCHER: Matt.

QUESTION: I just want to go back to the Mubarak issue for one thing. You seem to be implying that you are not really sure if, in fact, he is not going to attend. You have used the words "may," "why he may not be going," and then you also said that you hadn't seen anything official from the Egyptian Government about this.

MR. BOUCHER: No, I said we have certainly seen that there has been an announcement from the Egyptian Government that he is not attending, but I think I said I hadn't seen anything officially from the Egyptian Government saying exactly why or linking it to the hypothesis that he wasn't supporting a moderate course any longer.

QUESTION: No, no, no. I mean, Foreign Minister Maher said in Beirut that it was because of domestic reasons. I just want to make sure you're not thinking that there's still a chance that Mubarak might go, are you?

MR. BOUCHER: I have no reason to expect that. This subject, I know, has been discussed in Egypt actually for a couple days, at least, but it seems like they have come out with an answer at this point.

QUESTION: What do you make of the comments published today in which Prime Minister Sharon says he is sorry that he promised the Bush Administration, President Bush personally, that he wouldn't harm Arafat? And do you think this indicates a potential that -- the potential that that policy might be changed now that there may actually be a stepped-up effort against Arafat himself?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I want to speculate on that. I think our views have been well stated, and I'm happy to state them again: Chairman Arafat is the chosen leader of the Palestinian community. He needs to exercise that leadership and exercise that authority, but we need to deal with him to get him to do that.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Afghanistan?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: I'm just trying to get my head around exactly what it is the United States is doing with regards to the earthquake. I get the impression that you're saying that there hasn't been a sort of specific request yet about what help is needed.

MR. BOUCHER: There hasn't been a specific assessment -- or the specific assessment of what is going to be needed in this area is under way. What I wanted to point out is that the various organizations have supplies in the area and available -- are already being sent to the area. Those supplies and activities are to some extent funded by the United States. We are happy that they're out there; we're happy they have what they need to get on the case and to start taking care of people right away. But, yes, there will be a slightly more detailed assessment that comes out of this aerial assessment and other efforts on the ground to make sure that we, over time, continue to supply what's needed to the people in the area.

QUESTION: I'm wondering why you gave them a sort of PR and victory you could get by taking the initiative and just going right on in there and fixing it as best you can --

MR. BOUCHER: We are in there. We are in there helping. We are in there fixing, as you say. But the goal is not PR. The goal is to help people in need, and you need to not only feed them tonight and give them blankets and shelter for the evening, but you need to assess what they might need tomorrow and the day after and make sure that you're not just shipping tons of blankets to people who actually need bricks. So we need to get a good assessment of what's going to be needed there. But clearly we will be moving things in, and we have the ability to take care of the immediate needs from supplies that are on hand.

QUESTION: But there's no question of American forces who are out there getting involved in transport or anything like that?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to rule it out. I suppose the Pentagon would comment on that. But I would note that the International Security Force is already providing helicopters, logistics support and things like that. So I think they are in a position geographically, particularly, to be a little more helpful.

QUESTION: Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday said that the State Department is going to have an important role to play in persuading governments to contribute to what it will cost to train and create an Afghan national army. And he said it in a way that sounded like this is an operation, or a diplomatic initiative that's very sort of active. Can you say anything about that, as to whether that is in fact ongoing, and whether there's any progress being made, in coaxing money from any of these countries?

MR. BOUCHER: I will have to double-check on the specifics of where we stand now. During the Secretary's visit to Afghanistan, one of the subjects was building a national army and a national police, and from that time and the Tokyo Conference, which was devoted to the other needs of reconstruction of Afghanistan, we have talked with other donors, we have talked to other supporters about how to take the lead, how to support the building of a national army and national police in Afghanistan. I think the Germans stepped forward to take on the task of helping with the creation of a national police force. As you know, the US military has offered to help with the military aspects of that.

And what the other needs are and how they are being met I will have to look at. But certainly on an ongoing basis, we are quite aware that this is an expensive proposition, and we will need support from others. I will just have to check on where we are in getting that at this point.

QUESTION: One of the things that Secretary Rumsfeld said was that he mentioned the Tokyo Conference as being disappointing in terms of what countries were willing to commit to this particular issue. Has the State Department noticed yet that -- or come to a conclusion that it's going to be difficult to persuade countries to --

MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't say we have come to that conclusion yet. By its nature, the Tokyo Conference was more prepared on the civilian reconstruction side, because those studies had been done and the World Bank had been out there. The Afghan Interim Authority's own ideas about how to rebuild the military were at an early stage at that point. They hadn't been worked through -- for example, General Franks and CENTCOM were going out right afterwards, I think, to start talking through more specifically some of these things.

So I think just by the timing of it, Tokyo wasn't the place where that kind of assistance was forthcoming, although we were already discussing it with other donors in our meetings there, and there were some donors that were already starting to come forward on the military and police side of things.

Be that as it may, I think since then we have had a lot of discussions with others about who might support this effort. But as I said, I don't have a specific update for you at this moment.

QUESTION: Did the US facilitate -- this is a new subject -- did the US facilitate or in any way help with a payment to Abu Sayyaf rebels for the release of the Burnhams?

MR. BOUCHER: I want to be very careful about this topic because, first and foremost, our interest in this matter is about the Burnhams and about the Americans that are being held and about the threat that these terrorists pose to the Philippines. We are working very closely with the Government of the Philippines, not only in their efforts to gain the release of hostages, but also in their efforts to counteract, to fight terrorism on their soil.

You are, I think, very aware of our policy on not making concessions, not allowing terrorists, hostage-takers, to benefit from ransom or other concessions. I am not going to try to explain that further today. It has been very clearly stated in the policy statements, which we can give to you.

There have been all kinds of rumors in the Philippines and elsewhere about people negotiating, things happening or not happening, and I am afraid because of our overriding interest in seeing the Burnhams safely released, I am not going to start commenting on all those rumors. And the more we start narrowing down what may be the case or not the case, the more it makes it difficult for us to pursue our ultimate goals, which are to see the Burnhams released and to see the hostage-takers brought to justice.

QUESTION: New topic? Can you comment on a report that was in Al Hayat today that US diplomats from the Embassy in Damascus -- I think the American Cultural Center there -- met with the PFLP, a Foreign Terrorist Organization?

MR. BOUCHER: I think so.

QUESTION: True or false?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let me give you the whole story.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: It is our understanding that during the course of some meetings with a broad array of Arab media, one of our public affairs officers from the American Embassy in Damascus unwittingly met with officials from a radio station funded by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, PFLP-GC. At the time of the meeting, the officer was not aware of the connections of that organization or of these individuals or the radio station. This contact was immediately terminated once the officer became aware of this PFLP-GC connection.

For the record, our policy remains unchanged. The PFLP-GC remains on our list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and US officials are instructed not to meet with members of these organizations.

QUESTION: Two follow-ups. Does the US official have a name, and can you tell us when this meeting was?

MR. BOUCHER: The US official has a name, but I can't give it to you. And I have to double-check when this happened.

QUESTION: Richard, on this, you said during the course of some meetings? Was this one large meeting with a bunch of different journalists or was he meeting separate --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I think our public affairs officers are going around visiting radio stations and media outlets.

QUESTION: So he went to a PFLP-GC radio station?

MR. BOUCHER: Radio station, as part of that. Having made a list of media outlets, went out to visit them and say, hi, how are you doing.

QUESTION: Is this guy new in Damascus?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.

QUESTION: The name was PFLP-GC and he didn't figure out it had something to do with the PFLP --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say that.

QUESTION: Oh.

QUESTION: Was it WPFLP?

(Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: No, I mean let's get serious here. This is a radio station, which one of our officers visited, and after the visit found out that the radio station was, in fact, funded by the PFLP-GC. At the time of the visit, the officer did not know that that's where the funding came from.

QUESTION: Well, hold on, Richard. You said earlier that he learned that -- when he learned that it was a PFLP radio station, he terminated the meeting. Now you've just said --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say he --

QUESTION: In fact, you did. Now you say that --

MR. BOUCHER: The contact was terminated once the officer became aware of the connection, meaning contact with this radio station. Normally when we go to visit somebody, we tend to stay in touch with them. The officer is not staying in touch with these people.

QUESTION: Do you know what -- is this just a hello, how are you, kind of thing? What was the purpose of -- the other meetings, I mean, not just this one?

MR. BOUCHER: The normal course of business is for our public affairs officers to get to know the media in the country where they are located.

QUESTION: So is it fair to say --

MR. BOUCHER: And it would be normal to get to know them and to maintain a certain level of contact.

QUESTION: Okay. So is it fair to say that this diplomat, whoever it was, was fairly new to Damascus?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know exactly how long the person was there.

QUESTION: Is he going to be disciplined?

QUESTION: I'm not even suggesting sex.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not in a position right now to give any particular details of the individual involved. If somebody makes a mistake, we take appropriate action. But the policy action is to make sure that we don't unwittingly have this kind of meeting again, and they seem to have done that as soon as they figured out what had happened.

QUESTION: And you said it was a public affairs officer. Were they touring the radio station or did he go on the air? Was there an interview?

MR. BOUCHER: I think it was a meeting, a meeting with officials from the radio station. That's what we have.

QUESTION: Would it be fair to say that this was part of your effort to reach out on the post-September 11th phase? Could you possibly say whether this meeting might inadvertently actually have helped your goals?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, we are making an effort to get out and make sure we are in touch with Arab media both internationally as well as locally. And, no, I don't see how this meeting could have helped our goals. We want to maintain as clear a position as we can on the issue of terrorism. We list people on our list of terrorist groups because of the activities they are involved in that are abhorrent to all of us. President Bush has made clear we are in a fight against terrorists of global reach, and I think we all want to make sure that, to the best of our knowledge and ability, we uphold the policy of not meeting with people like that.

QUESTION: Is tomorrow the date that the actual designation of Al-Aqsa as an FTO takes effect?

MR. BOUCHER: Wednesday, yes.

QUESTION: How does that happen? Do you know? Does it come out in the Federal Register?

MR. BOUCHER: I think it does. There is a seven-day period required in the law for notification to Congress, so I think at that point in comes in the Federal Register.

QUESTION: And the Treasury, if everything is in effect as of that moment, everything has been prepared to take effect tomorrow morning?

MR. BOUCHER: You will have to ask Treasury exactly what the moment is.

QUESTION: But that's the theory?

MR. BOUCHER: That's the theory.

QUESTION: On US-China relations, Hu Jintao, the vice president and possibly the next president, was supposed to visit the United States but there hasn't been any announcements. Do you know, has it been postponed for some reason?

MR. BOUCHER: I think any announcements on that would come from the Chinese Government, not from us.

QUESTION: And there was a US warship visit to Hong Kong was canceled recently; am I correct there?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, you are. Let me give you the rundown on ship visits to Hong Kong. The Chinese Government denied a request for the USS Curtis Wilbur, a US Navy Arleigh Burke-Class Destroyer, to visit Hong Kong from April 5 to 9. The ship has a crew of 346, operates out of Yokosuka, Japan. This would have been a routine port call. They didn't give any reason for the disapproval. They notified our Consulate General in Hong Kong on March 18th.

Over the last year or so we have had a number of ship visits to Hong Kong. The USS Germantown was there in February, end of February. The John Stennis battle group, with a number of ships, including an aircraft carrier, was there in late November. We had minesweepers in July. The USS Constellation, another carrier, visited in August of 2000. So we do see ship visits to Hong Kong as an ongoing and routine stop for the US Navy, but occasionally, yes, we have been turned down by the Chinese, who are in charge of this matter for Hong Kong.

QUESTION: If I could follow up, do you think this may be related to Chinese displeasure over the contacts with Taiwanese officials, US contacts with Taiwanese officials?

MR. BOUCHER: In their announcements and statements and their notification to us, they haven't given any rationale for this. As I said, we see it as a routine matter for US ships to visit Hong Kong. We see it as part of Hong Kong's status as an open and free port, and we see this matter as distinct from official US Navy ship visits to Mainland Chinese ports. But if you want to understand the Chinese action, you would have to ask them way.

QUESTION: Are you appealing the decision in any way, or do you consider the matter closed and you're not going to --

MR. BOUCHER: I think when it comes down to it -- and having been in Hong Kong, I've dealt with a few of these -- the practical matters are that once you are turned down you have to reschedule a stop for the ship, you have to make all the logistical arrangements, so there's not a whole lot of time to go back -- and as I said, in this particular area, China does have the responsibility of saying yes or no.

QUESTION: Has there been any reciprocal move by the US to deny access of any kind of, you know, Chinese military unit to any place they might be wanting to visit that's a US possession?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know of any such opportunity or decision, but you might check with the Pentagon and see if there is.

QUESTION: Please pardon my ignorance of the exact timing of your career in Hong Kong, but were there ever any -- did the British Government ever turn down, or the Hong Kong Government under Britain ever turn down one of these requests? Did you ever deal with --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't remember the British Government ever turning any down, but I remember a couple the Chinese turned down while I was there.

QUESTION: Okay. And the other thing is you see this as distinct from Mainland just because of the SAR status; is that right?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, Special Administrative Region.

QUESTION: On Pakistan, is the US satisfied that Pakistan is taking enough steps to deny Taliban and al-Qaida fighters sanctuary in the border area?

MR. BOUCHER: We have, as I did yesterday, praised the efforts that Pakistan is making. We understand that that's a difficult region. For the military aspects of this, I think you really need to talk to the Pentagon. They can give you more information on what may or may not occur across that border, but we have noted that Pakistan has made efforts in that region to control the area and to make sure they know and control who goes in and out.

QUESTION: On Pakistan, yesterday I think you mentioned it, but I'd just like to get it clear again, there are reports that Pakistan -- that Musharraf is going to hold a referendum in order to continue in power for five years. What is the United States view of that?

MR. BOUCHER: That's the view that Phil stated on Friday, the view that I stated yesterday, and the view that you can hear again in full if you just ask the Press Office after the briefing. I'm not going to go through it all.

QUESTION: Are you hearing any new information on reports that an American citizen may be held in Iraq? It came up last week when you weren't here and I wasn't here.

MR. BOUCHER: Are you talking about Commander Speicher?

QUESTION: No, not Speicher. Eli can fill you in.

QUESTION: I got one.

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think -- I don't -- whatever we said last week I am sure still applies because I don't know of anything new. I'm not even aware of the situation.

QUESTION: Are you aware of the arrest of an American citizen in Pakistan, particularly a movie actor of the movie, "Dude, Where's My Car," who was arrested for carrying opium into the country?

MR. BOUCHER: I have not heard anything about that. I will have to check on it. And as always with Privacy Act questions, we may or may not be able to talk about it if there is any truth to the matter.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Richard, your friends the Europeans, as predicted yesterday, have gone ahead and approved the Galileo GPS project. In your Media Note from a couple weeks ago, you talked at length about -- or the Department; maybe your name wasn't on it -- talked at length about how you didn't think this was a good idea, but then at the very bottom you said if they decide to go ahead with it we'd be more than willing to work with them.

And I notice that your office in Brussels has today, after this decision, eliminated the top half of that media note and gone only with the, "Well, we'd like to work with the Europeans on this." Aren't you at all upset that they've gone ahead and done this?

MR. BOUCHER: We have always recognized that it is ultimately up to them to decide whether to fund this project and whether to go ahead, and as you know, ministers of the European Transport Council today made the decision to develop the Galileo system. Given that, I would say that the basic concern that we have always had that this system be interoperable with the US Global Positioning System is our foremost concern at this point. It needs to be able to benefit users worldwide.

We will continue our discussions with the European Commission on cooperation between the Global Positioning System and the Galileo system. We started talks two years ago with the United States and the Europeans trying to look for a cooperative agreement on how the two systems could provide benefits for users of both systems. We anticipate delegations of experts will convene in Brussels this spring to address these issues.

We would be opposed to regulations or systems-driven standards that effectively mandate the use of Galileo. We believe users should be free to choose the service or combination of services that best meets their needs. And that will be the point that we continue to make on this.

There also needs to be equal access to technical information for both US and other non-European manufacturers. They need this information to fully participate in the equipment manufacturing and services markets.

But we also expect that European allies won't propose a system that would result in degrading or interfering with signals, either civilian or military, of the existing Global Positioning System. So if Galileo is designed and built so that it is compatible and interoperable with the existing Global Positioning System, the two can complement each other, resulting in benefits to users in Europe, North America, and around the world.

QUESTION: And the bit before the interoperability thing when you were talking about whatever it was that you were talking about, that basically means you want your GPS system to be available to consumers in Europe, right?

MR. BOUCHER: We want the systems to be interoperable. We want the systems to be available to consumers, no mandated requirements on using Galileo. We want the suppliers within Europe and outside Europe to have the same access to technical information that's necessary to make that work. And we don't want to see any degrading or interfering with the signals involved in this spectrum, civilian or military signals. If it proceeds on that basis, if it is available, if it is interoperable, if it is compatible, then the two products can compete in the market.

QUESTION: Do you actually really have any doubt that the Europeans would like it to be interoperable and compatible, if that's what you said?

MR. BOUCHER: We don't know yet.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, you've had a monopoly on this for years. I mean, you seem to be suggesting that since you've had the monopoly for so long, the Europeans don't have a right now to come in and compete with you.

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't say they don't have a right to compete. I've just said that if we keep -- we need to keep the interests of users in mind. And we don't want to see a situation where there's users who are already on a particular system that seems to work very well in terms of standards and operability -- we don't want to see people forced out of that system for some arbitrary reason. We don't want to see spectrum interfered with if there are already communications in this spectrum. We don't want to see technical information being used to deny outside manufacturers access to the equipment market.

So what I'm saying is let them compete. Let's have an interoperable standard, and then manufacturers and systems can compete within that standard.

QUESTION: There seems to be some progress in talks between the Burmese Government and the UN on rescheduling of the canceled or postponed visit of Mr. Rizali. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I have any particular news on that, except that the UN is discussing that with the Burmese regime. As you know, we were disappointed that Ambassador Rizali's visit was postponed; believe the regime should reschedule an early visit, preferably before the Burmese Water Festival holiday in mid-April.

QUESTION: On Yugoslavia, any response to the release of the Kosovar Albanian prisoners? And has Belgrade now done enough to be certified for continued aid?

QUESTION: And the handing over of people to the tribunal.

QUESTION: Oh, yes. Who do you want on trial?

MR. BOUCHER: First, the situation and the release. Serbia today transferred 146 Milosevic-era Kosovar Albanian prisoners to the Kosovar administrative boundary under the terms of their agreement with the United Nations. All Milosevic-era Kosovar Albanian prisoners in Serbian jails who wish to return to Kosovo have been transferred to United Nations custody.

This is an important step forward in the establishment of the rule of law in the region. Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Covic and UN officials made commendable efforts to reach an agreement that resolves this longstanding issue.

At this point the prisoners have been transferred to the custody of the UN Interim Administration in Kosovo, and they will determine their disposition. So for further questions on that at this moment, I will refer you to the United Nations.

And as far as the issue of certification goes, the Secretary has made no decision yet with respect to certification. As we approach March 31st, we have made it repeatedly clear that Yugoslavia must cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal, take steps to support the Dayton Peace Accords, to take steps to implement policies respecting minority rights and rule of law. The release of the Kosovar Albanian prisoners today represents a positive step.

QUESTION: Now, Richard, today the Cuban -- the official Cuban newspaper came out with some really harsh criticism of Foreign Minister Castaneda, accusing him of being a US lackey and pressuring Castro or pressuring Cuba for Castro to leave the development summit in Mexico.

Do you have anything more to say about -- well, do you have anything to say, because you didn't have anything to say about it last week? Do you have anything to say about this now that they are accusing someone by name?

MR. BOUCHER: I think they -- I thought they accused somebody by name last week, too, but I don't remember completely the reports. But I thought last week they accused President Fox by name, and this week they're accusing Foreign Minister Castaneda by name. No, I don't have anything new to add to that.

QUESTION: I have one last one on New Zealand. I presume that the Secretary and Mrs. Clark covered everything that they talked about in their meeting downstairs, but I wanted to ask about

-- if they didn't, can you fill us in? But if they did, then I have just one question about the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Lange, has come out and said that Vice President Quayle wanted him liquated in the late '80s because of his anti-nuclear posture. And he did then say that he did not -- he was told that the threat wasn't credible because the Vice President wasn't credible, but I'm wondering if you have anything to say about what US policy towards Mr. Lange might have been in the late '80s.

MR. BOUCHER: You can do the history. That subject didn't come up at lunch today.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:45 p.m.)