QUESTION:  Do you have a readout on that?

MR. REEKER:  I don't, no.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) the President (inaudible)?

MR. REEKER:  No, we never do his --

QUESTION:  Any comments about Arafat?

MR. REEKER:  No.

MR. REEKER:  So let me just start that we'll put out a statement afterwards.  I don't think this is a surprise.  It may have come up earlier, and if you've seen your Federal Registers  you've seen that we removed as of today, effective March 29th, 2002, that is today, we have amended the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the proscribed list of those regulations which appears at 22 CFR Section 126.1a, to reflect that it is no longer the policy of the United States to deny licenses or other approvals for exports and imports of defense articles and defense services destined for or originating in Armenia or Azerbaijan.

QUESTION:  And there's a statement on that?

MR. REEKER:  Yes, there is a written statement.

QUESTION:  Can I ask one question on that?

MR. REEKER:  Yes, sure.

QUESTION:  Yesterday there was a woman, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, in Baku promising them military aid that I assume, until it appeared in the Federal Register today, was barred.  Do you know anything about that?

MR. REEKER:  I think this process has been under way for a long time.  That's why I think we actually -- didn't we have a discussion about that?

QUESTION:  Do you have an explanation why you've done this?  I thought you had said it, but I didn't --

MR. REEKER:  Sure.  I mean, the statement actually says it too that -- maybe the statement doesn't, but the guidance does.  Removing them from the proscribed destinations list will help deepen our military cooperation with both countries, which we feel will contribute to peace and stability in the Caucasus.

QUESTION:  Of course the natural question is, Phil, arming two countries that have been at war with each other --

MR. REEKER:  Who said anything about arming?

QUESTION:  Well, you're now allowing them to buy US weapons, and they've been fighting over Nagorno-Karabakh for ten years.

MR. REEKER:  We believe there have been positive developments in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and it is in our foreign policy and national security interest to remove them from that proscribed list.  Both countries have been placed on this proscribed destinations list on July 22nd, 1993, and that has meant since that date our policy has been to deny licenses for any export of defense items or services to Azerbaijan or Armenia.  So there are obviously no current licenses issued for either country.  I think that is about all there is on that one.

QUESTION:  On Iraq --

QUESTION:  I want to continue speaking about that region.  Can I ask one in the same region?

MR. REEKER:  Sure.

QUESTION:  Same region, different country, about Georgia.  At March 28th meeting with the press, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov made a statement that the United States administration has not yet made a specific decision concerning American special forces to be sent to Georgia.  He also mentioned that the American train-and-equip program in Georgia would not probably be implemented the way it had initially been planned, and it will be subject to corrections.

In addition, Minister Ivanov said that deployment of American special forces in Georgia might have an effect on the time frame of withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia.  How true these statements are?  And what is the position of the American administration in this respect?

MR. REEKER:  You mean he did not refer you to the Pentagon?

QUESTION:  Please don't.

MR. REEKER:  No.  Look, as you know, the US and Georgia had been planning a train-and-equip assistance program for the Georgian Ministry of Defense, for border guards and other security forces, to enhance Georgian capabilities to respond to crises, control borders, and combat terrorism.  It is part of our larger ongoing effort to assist Georgia in these areas, in border security, in law enforcement, military reform.

The exact scheduling of the arrival and deployment of the US train-and-equip team is independent of any Russian troop withdrawal decisions.  They are not -- you know, they are separate issues.  The President, I think, has made quite clear that he remains committed to conducting this train-and-equip program in Georgia, and the preparation needed to move forward is on track.  I would just note that Russia's 1999 Istanbul summit commitments on withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia are, as I say, completely separate from the US train-and-equip program, and Russia has already fulfilled some of those commitments.

So we call upon Russia to work with Georgia to resolve the remaining issues and fulfill all remaining commitments as quickly as possible.  In the meantime, we will be working with the Georgians on our program, much as we have described.

QUESTION:  There is no exact position yet whether America sends special troops or not?

MR. REEKER:  Well, the President has made quite clear we are committed to doing this program.  The exact deployment of the train-and-equip team, its scheduling, is something I just don't have any details on at this point.  The preparation, however, to do that is on track, I am told.  But it is very separate from Russia meeting its commitments that it made in 1999.  Two separate issues.

Now, George, you want to talk about Iraq?

QUESTION:  Yes, I wanted just some reaction to what the Arab summit did yesterday concerning Iraq, the collective show of support for the Iraqis and --

MR. REEKER:  Didn't we talk about that yesterday?  Richard did that yesterday on the record.

QUESTION:  Well, I don't know.  That was mostly in the context of the Saudis and the Iraqis, and the Saudis and the Kuwaitis -- and the Iraqis and the Kuwaitis.  But I don't think he talked about -- did he talk about the -- you know, the "an attack on Iraq is an attack on all Arab countries" and that sort of thing?

MR. REEKER:  I don't know that we had tried to parse the Arab League summit statement to that degree.  But I think what Ambassador Boucher said yesterday on the subject generally applies.  You know, we consult regularly with the Kuwaitis and others in the region regarding policy towards Iraq.  As you know, the Vice President recently visited many countries in the region, and one of the subjects discussed was Iraq and our efforts to ensure Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, with their international obligations.  That of course includes respect for Kuwaiti sovereignty and territorial integrity.

I think the fact remains that the Iraqis continue to flout international obligations, defy the international community as they have expressed their will through UN Security Council resolutions.  And anyone who trusts Saddam Hussein is taking a big chance.

The President underscored this in his State of the Union address, that Iraq, the regime of Saddam Hussein, not only pursues weapons of mass destruction and missiles, but has shown no reluctance to use them, even against its own people.  Saddam Hussein's regime remains a serious threat to the Iraqi people, to Iraq's neighbors, and more generally to international peace and stability.  And we are going to continue working closely with our allies in the international community to secure Iraq's compliance with its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions, including to fully declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors.

So we will continue to keep all our options available regarding Iraq.  We are not going to wait on events while dangers gather.  Iraq remains a threat to -- as I said, the regime remains a threat to the people of Iraq, to the people of the region, and to all of us in the world.

QUESTION:  On the same issue, have you ever gotten your special invite to Iraq?  The team that the Iraqis said?  And if you have, have you RSVPed?

MR. REEKER:  Have not heard a thing.  Nothing to add from what Richard said yesterday.

QUESTION:  So you still haven't gotten it?

QUESTION:  They did say that they told the ICRC on Tuesday, so the ICRC isn't passing on these --

MR. REEKER:  I can double- or triple-check for you.  As we said, we schedule those meetings fairly regularly and they have skipped them for the last three years.

QUESTION:  No, no, no, but this is a different -- can I move on, unless someone else --

MR. REEKER:  Elise was next.

QUESTION:  Yugoslavia certification is coming up.

QUESTION:  Can we stay on Iraq?

QUESTION:  Oh, yeah, sure.

QUESTION:  Given what you just said about Saddam Hussein and what not, what do you make of the reconciliation between Iraq and Kuwait at the --

MR. REEKER:  We did that yesterday.  Richard went through all that yesterday.  As I said, I don't know -- I mean, Iraq has requirements, including respecting Kuwaiti sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we consult with the Kuwaitis about that.  And we have certainly done our part to try to help ensure Iraqi compliance with those things.  The fact remains that they flout their international obligations, and anyone who trusts Saddam Hussein is taking a big chance.

QUESTION:  Have you told the Kuwaitis you think that?

MR. REEKER:  That has been our message for as long as I can remember.

Now Elise.

QUESTION:  Yugoslav certification is coming up --

MR. REEKER:  The date hasn't changed.

QUESTION:  Last week, even though -- or earlier in the week, even though the Albanian prisoners of war were handed over, Secretary Powell said that Yugoslavia still had more to do to cooperate.  Has anything changed during this week to -- on that assessment?

MR. REEKER:  I don't have anything really to add to what the Secretary said when Deputy Prime Covic was here.  The Secretary has made no decision yet with respect to certification.  We  have repeatedly made clear that Yugoslavia must cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal, take steps to support the Dayton Peace Accords, and take steps to implement policies respecting minority rights and rule of law.  So none of that has changed.

We did, at the time, note that Serbia's transfer of Milosevic-era Kosovar Albanian prisoners to the UN was an important step forward in the establishment of rule of law in the region, and we also welcome their decision to allow cooperation with the UN International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague.  We have always believed that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has an obligation under international law to cooperate with the Tribunal regardless of local law.  It is the same issue Richard addressed yesterday.  And they are well aware, at both the Serbian level and the Federal Republic level, of the need for full cooperation in practice in terms of respect -- in terms of access to relevant archives and rendering of indictees.

So the Secretary will continue to look at that.  As you know, the date for certification is the 31st of March, which means at midnight Sunday night, going into Monday morning, that time -- I suppose one could use the word "expires."  The point there being, however, that it is at that point that until there is a certification we wouldn't be basically writing new checks, is the significance of that.  So, as we said before, don't call on Sunday because we won't have anything for you.  We will look at this Monday, Tuesday, end of next week.

QUESTION:  I have a question.  If perhaps they don't meet the certification by Sunday, but on Monday or Tuesday they meet the requirements for certification, is there a long process that has to renew this -- you know, for renewing certification?

MR. REEKER:  No, no.

QUESTION:  Or it just kicks in --

MR. REEKER:  Certification happens when it happens.

QUESTION:  Okay, but if they don't meet this deadline, there's not like a long, cumbersome process --

MR. REEKER:  What the deadline is, Elise -- the deadline is not a deadline for certification.  The deadline is until -- once that deadline passes, until certification, no more checks can be written, I think is the best way to look at it.  So at any point thereafter.  So that is why we have said, you know, we don't want everybody panicking on Sunday and calling us at home.  We will look at this Monday, Tuesday, into next week, whenever the Secretary is able to look at the situation.

QUESTION:  What's really at stake?  How much money?

MR. REEKER:  In terms of figures, I don't have them.  I would have to try to get them.  We have got all kinds of programs going with Yugoslavia.  The money that -- I'm sure you have figures in the budget accounts.  I think somewhere upwards of 50 percent of that is already gone.  So it would be additional new expenditures that would be on hold until such time as there was certification.  But I don't have any -- we can check and see if somebody has got some more stats for you.

QUESTION:  Let me ask about my favorite small Himalayan Hindu kingdom.

MR. REEKER:  You have been there, right?

QUESTION:  Yes.  And the Maoist bombs went off today.  What do you have to say about that?

MR. REEKER:  Yes.  We were in touch with our embassy in Kathmandu, and they reported that a bomb exploded in the middle of a small bridge west of Kathmandu's historic Durbar Square  at approximately 8:45 a.m. today -- that's March 29th.  At least 26 people were injured in the blast, including four schoolchildren who were transiting the area, two of whom sustained serious injuries.  According to the embassy's reports, there were no fatalities from that, and we are not aware of any Americans that were injured.  The bridge itself sustained minor damage and was reopened by noon, we understand.

So once more, we would urge the Maoists in Nepal to lay down their arms immediately and stop these brutal and senseless attacks against civilians, and to engage in the peaceful pursuit of their aims within the democratic framework of Nepal's constitution.  And we reiterate our support for the right of the Government of Nepal to safeguard its citizens within the framework of the constitution.

And just to remind you, there are currently public announcements alerting Americans to that conflict.  And it also discusses -- I think the most recent one discusses the general strike that was called for next week, April 2nd through 6th.

QUESTION:  Richard said that the American that's being held in Pakistan on drug charges -- Erik Aude, I think his name was -- was going before the magistrate today.  Do you know --

MR. REEKER:  I don't have any update.  I would be happy to check with the Consular Affairs or South Asia Bureau people whether that took place.

We didn't hear anything, did we?

QUESTION:  No, nothing.

MR. REEKER:  Okay.  I will double-check, because it was today, I think.  So we will see.

QUESTION:  Change the subject, Korean Peninsula.  Next week on the 3rd, South Korea is going up to talk to officials in Pyongyang.  What's your reaction on that, how much do you know?  What's going to be on the table there?  And how will you guys be communicating at this end?

MR. REEKER:  Certainly we keep in very close touch with the South Koreans on this, and we welcome the announcement that South Korea's special envoy is going to visit North Korea for talks next week.  I think the Secretary himself noted, on his return Sunday night or Monday, that this was encouraging news.  We continue to believe that inter-Korean dialogue is absolutely central to establishing lasting peace and security on the Korean Peninsula.  And we hope that the talks lead to a sustained renewal of high-level dialogue and cooperation and family exchanges, as well as fulfilling the other elements of the North-South joint communiqué from June 2000 -- and of course once again would reiterate our own willingness to meet with the North Koreans to discuss issues of concern, as the President himself has noted many times.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. REEKER:  The standard thing the President has noted.

QUESTION:  One more on Iraq?  Weren't you at all surprised, shocked, disappointed, when you -- I mean, I'm sure when a lot of Americans opened the paper and saw this, it's somewhat of a stunner.  And you don't seem to be expressing any of that.

MR. REEKER:  I mean, I think both -- Richard talked about this yesterday --

QUESTION:  Yes, I know.

MR. REEKER:  And what I had to say was simply our views on Iraq remain.  We consult very closely with Kuwait and so many other countries in the region on our views.

QUESTION:  Well, I know you what your views are.  But what was your reaction when you found this out?

MR. REEKER:  I don't think I --

QUESTION:  Apart from your policy, what was your reaction?

MR. REEKER:  I don't think I could -- I mean, my reaction, I don't think, would matter to you or anybody else.

QUESTION:  "Yours" meaning the US Government's.

MR. REEKER:  And I don't think I have a particular reaction.  I think I described our views of it, and the fact that we are in regular touch with the Kuwaitis on these issues.  And our view and reaction is, you know, you have to be very careful in terms of trusting Saddam Hussein, because you are taking a big chance there.

I don't think, you know, a photograph of a handshake requires any particular reaction.

QUESTION:  Well, given --

MR. REEKER:  The realities remain.

QUESTION:  Given what happened at previous Arab summits since the invasion, between the Iraqis and the Kuwaitis, this is completely the opposite.  That doesn't --

QUESTION:  Can I try?

QUESTION:  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  What about with the Saudis?  I mean, you know, as the US decides -- no policy has been made, but as the US decides what it wants to do regarding Iraq, Saudi support has always been crucial to anything the US wanted to do in the region.  And what do you make of this recent apparence of a détente between Saudi Arabia and Iraq?

MR. REEKER:  I don't think we make too much of it.  I think it's very possible just to get a little carried away here.  The reality of the Saddam Hussein regime has not changed one iota.  He continues to flout his international obligations.  Handshakes at a meeting don't change that reality at all.

And we have seen, the whole world has seen, that Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted.  He has continued to try to develop weapons of mass destruction, he has continued to support terrorism, he has continued to oversee a brutal and despotic regime that has brought nothing but misery and international isolation to Iraq.  So that kind of speaks for itself.

Anything else, just to wrap up?  You can all have a good Easter.

THE PRESS:  Thank you.