Daily Press Briefing for June 7 -- Transcript

   Daily Press BriefingRichard Boucher, SpokesmanWashington, DCJune 7, 2002INDEX:

PHILIPPINES

1-5 Death of Mr. Burnham in Rescue Attempt / Fight against Abu-Sayyaf

JAPAN

5-6 Will Secretary Powell and Japanese FM Kawaguchi Talk at the G-8 meeting?

INDIA/PAKISTAN

6-9 Deputy Secretary Armitages Meetings with Indian Officials / Border Security

IRAQ

9 Conference on Iraqi Kurds

EGYPT

9-10 Secretary Powells talks with President Mubarak

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS

10 Secretary Powells phone calls to the region

10-11 U.S. Engagement with Israeli and Palestinian Officials

TERRORISM

11 Shanghai Group Cooperation against terrorism

DEPARTMENT

11 Secretary Powells to give speech before the Asia Society

NORTH KOREA

12 Pritchard travel to the region?

LIBYA

12-13 Assistant Secretary Burns to meet with Pan Am 103 victims /

13 Libyan compliance with UN Security Council / Weapons of Mass Destruction

DEPARTMENT

14-15 The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security

14 Visa Procedures

EUROPEAN UNION

15 Retaliation against steel tarrifs TRANSCRIPT:

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here. I think you've all seen the statement that we just issued on behalf of the Secretary on the death of Mr. Burnham in the Philippines. We are of course deeply saddened --

QUESTION: I don't think that's out.

QUESTION: Yes, it's out.

MR. BOUCHER: It's out. Okay.

QUESTION: The firewall is slower than normal.

MR. BOUCHER: It's out electronically; is that it? Okay, let me just reiterate what the Secretary says.

First of all, he and all of us here are deeply saddened by news of the deaths of Martin Burnham and Ediborah Yap, and by the injuries to Gracia Burnham.

The United States extends it deepest sympathy to the Burnham family, the Yap family, and the families of the Filipino soldiers who were wounded in this rescue operation.

This tragedy transpired despite the best efforts of the Government of the Philippines to secure a safe release of the hostages. President Arroyo, a staunch ally in the global war on terrorism, has expressed an unwavering determination to bring to justice and destroy the Abu-Sayyaf terrorists. The United States stands with President Arroyo, the Armed Forces and the people of the Philippines in this just cause.

So that's out in the name of the Secretary. And with that at the beginning, I would be glad to take your questions on this or other subjects.

QUESTION: Are you prepared to talk about the reports of the ransom that was paid and basically accepted, but there was no quid pro quo on the part of the kidnappers?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not prepared to deal with all the various reports, rumors and stories that have been out there over time. I reiterate our basic policy: We don't provide concessions to terrorists. We understand it's the clear policy of the Government of the Philippines also not to pay ransom or make concessions to hostage-takers.

QUESTION: Do you deny that any money changed hands with the knowledge of the US Government?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not getting into -- there have been any variety of stories out there, and at this point I'm not getting into any particular ones. But the policy stands and we act according to the policy.

QUESTION: That's not exactly answering the question, Richard. I mean, forget the stories that have been out there. Are you denying any money changed hands with the knowledge of the US Government?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not getting into questions like that. I'm just not in a position to comment on those kind of stories or questions.

QUESTION: But you're calling certain things rumors. Is that -- is this one of the stories that you're calling just a rumor?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not trying to get into any details of -- there's a lot of different things out there. There's stories, rumors, whatever. There's different kinds of things. Is something in a paper a rumor or a story? It may be both.

I'm not trying to be too careful to draw a fine line, except to say that we're just not in a position to comment on this situation as it is right now. There have been a lot of stories. There have been crumors and stories about payments, and we're not going to try to comment on any of them at this point.

QUESTION: Can you say anything about what this government knew about the plans to undertake this raid, or whatever it was?

MR. BOUCHER: As I think we've said before, the Philippine Government has been in the lead on the operations against Abu-Sayyaf and the hostage ordeal specifically. We have been working with them. We have been working with them on things like planning and technical assistance, and they have kept us informed throughout. But this was a Philippine military operation conducted by the Philippine military.

QUESTION: Did they keep you informed about their plans to conduct the operation?

MR. BOUCHER: This specific one -- I guess I have to refer you to the military to find out whether specifically we were informed of this specific operation. But since we've been working very closely with them, we've been informed of various operations they've been undertaking. And I think this one actually has gone on for some weeks now.

QUESTION: Can you say there was any US involvement in this operation?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any particular US involvement in this operation. This was a Philippine operation.

QUESTION: Were there any sort of agreed-upon circumstances under which the Abu-Sayyaf would be engaged between the US and the Philippines?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't quite understand. The Philippine military has been out looking for the Abu-Sayyaf people, trying to take them into custody or attack them in other ways, so the circumstances are that they plan operations to go after these guys and they encounter them when they get there.

QUESTION: Are you able to say whether Mr. Burnham was killed by the hostage-takers when the operation started, or did he die in the crossfire?

MR. BOUCHER: I think there's two things to remember. First of all, the Abu-Sayyaf terrorists have kidnapped these people, they've held them for over a year under cruel conditions, they've rejected all appeals for their release, and they've put them again and again in very dangerous circumstances by their actions. So the Abu-Sayyaf are fully responsible for the death of the hostages. They are criminally responsible for the deaths that have occurred, and they must be held accountable and brought to justice. And we'll continue to work with the Philippine Government in that regard.

The second is just to pass on what we have from the Philippine military sources in terms of what happened. I'm sure they will be in a position to provide more details since, as I said, it was their operation. Philippine scout ranger units engaged a group of approximate -- of Abu Sayyaf terrorists numbering approximately 50 persons at about 1430 local time June 7th in Zamboanga Del Norte. In the ensuing firefight, Martin Burnham and Ediborah Yap were fatally wounded. Gracia Burnham suffered a non-life threatening wound.

According to Philippine military sources, up to seven Philippine soldiers were wounded, and four Abu Sayyaf terrorists were killed. We have no information at this point on the identities of the terrorists that were killed.

QUESTION: Do you know if any were captured?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know at this point.

QUESTION: You're saying no particular role by the US Government. Does that include information provided to the Philippine military about -- concerning the whereabouts of the Abu Sayyaf people?

MR. BOUCHER: I want to be careful. There are no US troops directly involved in this operation. We do, on an ongoing basis, consult and exchange information with the Philippine Government about the situation. We have, as I indicated, done planning and technical assistance with them.

So you get maybe a better definition from the military, as far as how close our people might have been. We were not directly involved in this operation, but we're certainly involved with the Philippine military, working with them against terrorism, working with them against Abu Sayyaf, and we'll continue to do that. That is as important as ever, including the need to bring to justice the people who carried out this kidnapping and are ultimately responsible for the deaths.

QUESTION: Richard, it seems just a little hard to understand or believe that, with the US heavily engaged in advising the Philippine forces and with the focus on there being these American hostages, that the US was not informed, apprised, consulted regarding this operation.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, hold it. I didn't say the US was not informed, apprised, or consulted. I said --

QUESTION: So was the US informed, apprised, or consulted?

MR. BOUCHER: I was asked that question ten minutes ago, and I said I can't confirm specifically in this specific operation, but they have kept us informed of virtually everything that is going on down there. I would have to assume so, I guess is the best answer. But I can't quite confirm it for you at this moment.

This operation has been going on in this area for some time. We have been coordinating with them about operations, keeping each other informed about what the situation was. So the military would have to say, yes, we knew this particular operation was going on. But given the kind of cooperation we have had, I have to assume so.

We have been working with them, encouraging, in terms of training, technical assistance, exercises on counterterrorism operations, and keeping each other very well informed of the situation, particularly with regard to these hostages.

QUESTION: Given that this is the first, I think -- first anyway situation probably that we know about since the hostage policy had its slight revisions, would you be able to say whether you think that the revisions the State Department made to the hostage policy have been proven to be effective and positive changes so far, given this case?

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I'm not sure that any of the revisions really affect this case. What was made clear in the hostage policy is that we're going to go after hostage-takers, and we're going to go after terrorists, and that we will do everything possible to secure the release of Americans who are held hostage, but we're not going to provide concessions to hostage-takers.

And in this case, we indeed supported the capabilities of the Philippine Government to go after terrorists; we supported and worked with them on the specific situation faced by the capture of the Burnhams by this terrible terrorist group; and to the extent it reflects our determination to make sure that hostage-takers don't go unpunished, then yes, this is part of that policy.

QUESTION: This may be covering some old ground, but could you just say what the US Government knows about Abu-Sayyaf, if there's any links to the al-Qaida organization?

MR. BOUCHER: Sorry, I didn't bring it with me, but I'm sure everything we know and can say about Abu-Sayyaf is in the Terrorism Report that we put out just a couple weeks ago.

QUESTION: I understand there are obviously privacy considerations, but are you able to give us any details of when Mr. Burnham's body will be returned? How -- you've been in touch with the family. His wife is in the hospital -- her condition?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can -- I don't have those kind of details at this point, and I don't know whether I can provide them when I do. We are indeed working with the family. I think the White House has said the President himself has already talked to the family members. We've been working with the family, with members of the mission, the New Tribes Mission that they were affiliated with. We are making sure that Mrs. Burnham gets medical care, trying to help her out. And then as far as the other arrangements, I just don't have any information at this point.

QUESTION: Based on what happened in Zamboanga, is State Department a strong advocate to extend joint exercise called Balikatan and making ongoing operation at battalion level to your company level?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the military has to answer questions about a particular operation or particular joint exercise, but the US Government as a whole, including us, I think is as determined as ever -- more determined than ever -- to make sure that we do whatever we can to enhance the Philippine military's counter-terrorism capabilities, that we continue to work with this close ally against the terrorist threat that they face.

And the fact of this kidnapping and the cruelty that was imposed upon the Burnhams, and ultimately the death created by these terrorists, is more evidence to us that we need to keep working until that threat to the Philippines and to Americans in the Philippines is eliminated.

QUESTION: Next week there will be the G-8 foreign minister meetings in Whistler, Canada.

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Can I make sure Secretary Powell will have bilateral talks with Japanese Minister Kawaguchi?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that we have the scheduled bilateral meetings we have there. He certainly looks forward to seeing Ms. Kawaguchi there, Minister Kawaguchi. He has talked to her recently several times on the phone. They both have strong interests together and things to talk about. So I'm sure he looks forward to talking to her there, but I don't have a schedule of his bilateral meetings for that occasion yet.

QUESTION: Minister Kawaguchi leaves for Middle East this weekend, and she will meet with Chairman Arafat and Israeli officials. So do you have any comment on that?

MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary has been in touch with her and talked about her travel, because the Japanese are one of the governments that we coordinate with on Middle East matters, particularly when there's a trip like this involved. And so he has, as I said, talked to her a couple of times in the last few weeks, and I'm sure he looks forward next week to getting a readout from her on her discussions in the region.

QUESTION: India-Pakistan? Could you update us on Under Secretary Armitage's talks -- sorry, Deputy Secretary Armitage's talks? And also, on comments made by Indian officials after he left, saying that they haven't seen any noticeable decrease in infiltration. I wonder if our continuing assessment provides any different information.

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see those comments. Were those on the record by specific people?

QUESTION: Yeah. Indian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Nirupana Rao held a separate briefing, blah, blah, blah.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay.

QUESTION: They have not -- there's no established trends to suggest there has been a change in the situation on the ground.

MR. BOUCHER: All right. I'll give you our best assessment, but let me first describe the meetings Deputy Secretary Armitage had today in New Delhi. He met with Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee, with Minister for External Affairs Jaswant Singh, and with other officials. These were good and very thorough discussions with the Indian Government today. He continues to work in some detail with these governments on the issue of defusing tensions between India and Pakistan.

He conveyed to the Indian leaders the full tone and tenor of his discussions in Islamabad, including President Musharraf's commitment to the United States to stop infiltration across the line of control permanently. We welcome Foreign Minister Singh's statement that his government is committed to carry forward on the path of peace, and we look forward to India taking visible and concrete steps to lower tensions.

We would support any mechanisms agreed to by India and Pakistan to reduce tensions. This could include methods to monitor the line of control. And I realize there are various specific proposals out there about how that might be done; at this point I'm not prepared to commit to any particular method of doing so. But if that's what the parties agree upon, that might be helpful.

In terms of what we see going on, I would say that we have growing indications that infiltration across the line of control is down significantly. But I would also say at this point we can't at this point say that this change has been done on a permanent basis. And that's what President Musharraf has promised; that's what we're looking for.

QUESTION: How do you -- I'm sorry, just how would you know whether or not the decrease or the indications -- growing indications of decrease in infiltration would be permanent as opposed to temporary, given that you can't see into the future?

MR. BOUCHER: That's not something I'm in a position to go into.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, you understand that it's hard -- how would you ever know it was permanent?

MR. BOUCHER: We have excellent capabilities. We may be able to see into the future. (Laughter.) Just to keep the other side guessing about what we can actually do.

No, again, I'm not in a position to get into it. But that's our best -- that's our assessment at --

QUESTION: I mean, but you're talking about --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not talking about anything specifically, Eli. I'm sorry. This is our conclusion; I'm not able to provide you the details of those conclusions, but I can just tell you that we have looked at the situation very carefully. We continue to look at the situation very carefully. We continue to look at all possible information on what's going on, and that is our sort of snapshot assessment of where things stand at the moment.

QUESTION: When you say "permanent," do you mean things like destroying camps, putting people in prison, killing them? What do you mean?

MR. BOUCHER: Why don't you talk to him, and I won't comment on any of the details.

QUESTION: No, you're saying you can't tell us the details of --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not in a position to --

QUESTION: -- how you know, but I'm asking what your definition of permanent means.

MR. BOUCHER: I know, and I'm not able to tell you. I'm just able to give you our assessment without going into the details of what we may or may not be seeing.

QUESTION: May I ask another question?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: You said that Deputy Secretary Armitage conveyed the full tone and tenor of his conversations in Islamabad to the Indian Government. Do you mean he told them he read them the riot act? Or what do you mean?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm saying he conveyed the full tone and tenor of his discussions in Islamabad. I highlighted in particular the commitments that President Musharraf has made, and that President Musharraf made to him to ending the infiltration on a permanent basis.

QUESTION: Is what you've seen so far enough to trigger your expectation that India take a step on its part to lower the tensions?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite in a position to say that at this point. As I said, Deputy Secretary Armitage remains out there. He is working this, as I said, in some detail with both parties. He is reporting back regularly to the Secretary. We are looking with

an end to infiltration across the line. We'll be looking for reciprocating steps by the Indian Government. And that's the way we're talking about -- we look forward to India taking these kind of steps at the appropriate time. I'm not prepared to get into the details of how that might work at this point.

QUESTION: What are the things that he needs to do to convince India to accept what you're calling a snapshot of reduction, reduction in infiltration, rather than saying we need to see in advance, as Eli was saying, that this is permanent? I mean, is that one of the things the US wants, is to see a step just in reaction to a snapshot view?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm being asked the same question in some other way. The question, again, is what you've just shown us, is this sufficient basis for saying now the Indians have to do something. I --

QUESTION: No, not that they have to, but is that one of the things you're trying to convince them to do, to take a step just in response to a temporary decrease?

MR. BOUCHER: I think it boils down to the same situation. The best way I can characterize it for you is to say, first of all, that we are discussing with both sides the steps that they can take to defuse tensions. We have said repeatedly that the Pakistani side needs to stop infiltration across the line of control permanently. We are looking to them to do that. That is indeed what President Musharraf has said he intends to do. And we are looking to confirm that and we are looking for that to happen.

We are also looking to the Indian side to take visible and concrete steps to lower tensions. So that is the subject of discussion. But in order to conduct the diplomacy, we would hope more successfully, we're not going to be able to go into the details of what moment, what steps. And that's kind of where we stand right now.

QUESTION: When will he be returning? Is it over the weekend, or is it undefined so far?

MR. BOUCHER: The Deputy Secretary?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BOUCHER: I think it's over the weekend. I don't know when final arrival here is, but he's also scheduled to do a refueling stop in Estonia so that he can meet with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and give him a readout on where we stand as he leaves the region and as the Defense Secretary goes towards the region.

QUESTION: There will be an international conference about Iraqi Kurds in Washington at the American University tomorrow, and my question is related with that and Iraq opposition groups. What is the US expectation from the Iraqi Kurds and the Iraq oppositions?

MR. BOUCHER: I had more details of the conference with me yesterday. I don't have them with me today, so I think the best thing is probably just to get them for you after the briefing and answer that question.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the Secretary's talks with President Mubarak this morning?

MR. BOUCHER: As you know, the Secretary is meeting this morning with President Mubarak as part of a series of meetings that President Mubarak will have in Washington, and so a lot of the discussion is preliminary to the discussions that President Mubarak will have with the President tonight and then tomorrow at Camp David.

This morning's meeting I would describe as a warm, productive meeting. It was an exchange of information and views on our extensive bilateral relationship, the international campaign against terrorism, and most particularly on the situation in the Middle East. The Secretary spoke a little bit to the press who were standing outside when he came out. I think we'll get you those words, but basically what he said is they talked mostly about the Middle East situation in terms of the Israelis and Palestinians and the search for peace.

As always, I would reiterate we are very pleased to have President Mubarak in town. We welcome this opportunity to consult with him again closely on these issues.

The discussion at this point with the parties focuses on how to move forward, how to implement the three-part strategy we've talked about, and what to do in terms of the meeting that we expect to convene this summer. And those discussions will continue with the President and between President Bush and President Mubarak over the weekend.

QUESTION: Did President Mubarak have any hot tips on al-Qaida, like the ones he shared with The New York Times earlier this week?

MR. BOUCHER: Eli, we discussed rather thoroughly the other day from here what the Egyptians were saying, which to me boiled down to the same thing we were saying last summer, that there was a lot of information about threats from al-Qaida and not a lot of specific information about how those might be carried out. And we put out a whole series of travel warnings. So in terms of the discussion today, I don't think that actually came up.

QUESTION: -- phone calls the Secretary has had? Has he talked to anyone in the Middle East in the last 24 hours?

MR. BOUCHER: No, he hasn't talked to any of the principals in the Middle East. He has talked to people about the Middle East and about India-Pakistan.

Let me remember this. He talked to Secretary General Annan yesterday. He talked to Foreign Minister Saud last night. That's the one I was trying to remember. He talked to Foreign Minister Saud of Saudi Arabia last night as part of our continuing consultations with the Saudi Government as we move forward.

QUESTION: Are you finished with phone calls?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on contacts, just one quick thing? Does the Secretary have any plans to meet Prime Minister Sharon before the Prime Minister sees President Bush?

MR. BOUCHER: Not at this point.

QUESTION: Not at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: -- conversation the Secretary had with Foreign Minister Saud factor into the President's thinking as he prepares to make this statement that he's going to make?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes. It's one of the pieces. The President I think talked a little bit this morning. There's going to be a considerable amount of focus and discussion regarding the situation in the Middle East over the next few days. CIA Director Tenet and Assistant Secretary Burns are both back. They both returned from the region, so they'll be providing readouts of their meetings and discussions with Secretary Powell and President Bush.

The Secretary, as I said, spoke to Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faysal last night, and saw President Mubarak this morning. So those fit into the picture. And then the Secretary and the President will have discussions over the weekend with President Mubarak, and then on Monday with Prime Minster Sharon.

As the President said, these discussions are going to help us look better at how to move forward, and help us determine how to move forward on our three-part strategy. And I think the President even said you'll be hearing more from him in the near future.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) is the arc of security which is being proposed by the Russians and the Chinese and some Central Asian nations with the West and with the United States and NATO?

MR. BOUCHER: The arc of?

QUESTION: Yeah. They're speaking about a coordination in the war against terrorism between Russia, China, the United States and the Western -- well, I suppose NATO. It just I think came out today.

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see the actual statement. I mean, we have worked with all the governments and all the countries that are involved in the Shanghai Group quite closely and many of them -- all of them in some way or the other -- are partners in the fight against terrorism. With some of them, like Russia and some of the Central Asian governments, we've done extensive work together against terrorism. So we do see them as part of the effort to achieve better security for all of us by fighting terrorism. But I haven't seen any details of this meeting or statement at this point.

QUESTION: The Asia Society says that the Secretary's speech on Monday is going to be a major policy address, and they're telling us he'll make news. Could you give us a preview?

MR. BOUCHER: I think I talked about it a little bit yesterday. It will be a --

QUESTION: I'm sorry, which part? Go ahead.

MR. BOUCHER: It will be a comprehensive look at our policy in the Asian region. I think when the Secretary talks in some detail about these policies, he always makes news. But I'm not going to promise any particular news.

QUESTION: Dealing with South Asia or --

MR. BOUCHER: When the Secretary of State gives a thorough, insightful analysis of region, is that news? (Laughter.) I'd like it to be, but beyond that I think you can expect the Secretary always has something interesting to say.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up question.

MR. BOUCHER: Sir.

QUESTION: Is there any progress on sending Pritchard to North Korea?

MR. BOUCHER: Nothing new on that. We're considering how to approach the discussions, and we expect to get back to the North Koreans shortly on their offer.

QUESTION: Will you share an embargoed advance text of the speech with us on Monday?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if I can do that.

QUESTION: Dream on.

QUESTION: It's worth an --

MR. BOUCHER: It depends on drafting and finishing and stuff like that, whether he wants to work on it on the airplane.

QUESTION: It's late -- it's 7:30 in the evening.

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I can't promise it because, in the end, it always depends on whether he wants to make changes on the airplane or not.

QUESTION: Would it be possible to have his words piped into this building?

MR. BOUCHER: That I don't know.

QUESTION: Could you look into it, please?

MR. BOUCHER: I will look into that. We will look into that.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. BOUCHER: S.

QUESTION: Is Secretary Burns going to meet with the Pan Am 103 families?

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, I thought you were going to go to South America this time. Sorry. Let me get more on that.

Yes. At their request, Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs Bill Burns will meet with the families of the Pan Am 103 victims this afternoon. This is part of our regular consultations with them on US policy and our US efforts to secure Libya's compliance with the requirements set by the UN Security Council.

He will of course provide them with a readout of the trilateral discussions with the Libyans in London in the context of our pressure or pursuit of Libyan compliance with these requirements. As we have always said, there is no shortcut for the Libyans to get around the requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions. Our policy and message have never varied, regardless of the channel or the interlocutor. Libyan compliance with Security Council obligations related to Pan Am 103 is a necessary step before there can be any change in the US-Libyan bilateral relationship, and our focus remains on securing Libyan compliance with those obligations.

In the meetings with Libya, Assistant Secretary Burns pressed Libya to comply with its UN Security Council resolution requirements related to Pan Am 103. In the meeting there was no resolution of Libyan compliance with its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. I would reiterate once more Libya knows what needs to be done, and it's up to the Libyan Government to take the next step.

And that's the message that the Assistant Secretary will be giving to the families today, describing the situation.

QUESTION: Are you working on wording for the Libyan acceptance of responsibility?

MR. BOUCHER: Clearly, Libyan acceptance of responsibility is one of the issues that is discussed. But I would just go back to what I have said. At this point there is no resolution of that or the other issues involved.

QUESTION: I know that it's early to ask if you're disappointed, but had you expected something more to come out at this stage? I mean, were the negotiations further forward really until this point?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't think I would describe it in any particular way like that. When we meet with the Libyans, we make clear to them what they have to do. But predicting what the Libyans will do, these things at any particular moment -- at any given moment is not easy, is not something we engage in. We make clear to the Libyans what they have to do if they want out of the UN resolutions, and that's meet the requirements. But when they do that, when they ultimately decide to do that, is up to them.

QUESTION: Their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, does that have anything to do with either our sanctions on them or our decision to go along with lifting UN sanctions?

MR. BOUCHER: It has a lot to do with the US bilateral relationship with Libya. It's a serious concern of ours. It's a serious concern that Assistant Secretary Burns has conveyed to the Libyans. The issue of weapons of mass destruction, as I said yesterday, is well documented, even in public by ourselves, in the CIA Report. But you have to remember, even before that, any detailed discussion of bilateral issues depends on Libya satisfying the UN requirements first.

QUESTION: Right, but on the UN question, would -- I realize that the UN sanctions are not done in such a way that would cover the WMD problem, but, you know, because this a major concern after the axis of evil speech, would the US Government try to get some commitments out of that before they went ahead with it?

MR. BOUCHER: We're looking for compliance with the UN requirements before we take action in the UN context. But weapons of mass destruction is a major and serious concern of ours in the bilateral context. I'll have to, I guess, put it in the bilateral context as opposed -- because that's not, as you point out, what the UN resolution deals with.

QUESTION: You said yesterday that you would talk about how this building would be affected by this proposal by the President to create this new department.

MR. BOUCHER: First let me make clear we absolutely support the President's decisions on going forward on this, and we look forward to working with a Department of Homeland Security in the future. The consolidation of some of the authorities, having a single government entity that looks at all the aspects of foreigners and immigration, as well as coordinates on intelligence, will be an important partner with us as we continue to do the work overseas.

The understandings at this point are that the new department will assume some of the legal authorities involved in issuing visas to foreign nationals and admitting them into the country -- that comes with the functions of the Immigration Service -- but that the State Department, working through our United States embassies and consulates overseas, will continue to administer the visa application and issuance process.

QUESTION: Administer and issue?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. Administer the visa application and issuance process.

QUESTION: So consular officials, will they --

MR. BOUCHER: Consular officials continue to do what they do.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: So (inaudible) database -- the database functions that we've kind of talked about before?

MR. BOUCHER: We check our visa applicants against a database of information that we have from other agencies -- from intelligence agencies, other sources, even from our previous applications and things that we know -- to make sure that people that are applying for visas aren't ineligible under any provision of law, but particularly under the terrorism and security provisions.

So to the extent there's better interagency coordination of that information, a better coordination of the databases, we'll have better ability to do the checks, hopefully not only more thoroughly, but more efficiently than we do now.

QUESTION: So do you mean in terms of linking databases by computer, or do you expect the information to be somehow managed better and more centrally operated than it is now?

MR. BOUCHER: We have procedures now that, frankly, work in different ways for different databases to check information. We have been looking for a long time to work with the other agencies to make that more automated, more computerized, more centralized and more shared. I think our basic view is that if Homeland Security succeeds in integrating this function, it will be better for us all. It will be not only a more thorough check, but as I said, possibly a more efficient one as well.

QUESTION: Will your Bureau of Intelligence and Research be at all affected by this?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of. There are no provisions that I have seen that would affect it.

QUESTION: So what you're really saying is you see no change administratively, bureaucratically in terms of the State Department?

MR. BOUCHER: What the changes will be that some of the legal authorities will shift over there, legal authorities relating to visas, and that some of the things we do with other agencies now will be done with a new agency. That seems to me the impact on us. I can't go through it in absolute detail yet, but those are the basic parameters that we're going to be dealing with and working on.

QUESTION: Briefly. On Monday, it's expected that the European Union will vote to impose sanctions against the US in retaliation for the steel sanctions. Do you have anything on that?

MR. BOUCHER: I will give you our basic position, which is that our measures on steel were compatible with WTO requirements. If anybody wants to challenge that, they can challenge it in the WTO. But the parties should not take action outside the WTO procedures or take unilateral action. There are provisions in the WTO for challenging things that are not compatible. As I said, we believe our actions were totally compatible, and we're prepared to defend them in the appropriate fora.

QUESTION: But what if they do that?

MR. BOUCHER: Then we'll have to decide what to do.

QUESTION: Okay.

THE PRESS: Thank you.