Exerpts: August 19 Press Briefing

Mr. Reeker: The accounts of Abu Nidal's demise -- I don't believe I can add anything. We're following the story, but I don't have anything to contribute other than what we've seen in the press.

Abu Nidal is a craven and despicable terrorist and the world would certainly be a better place without people like Abu Nidal. He'd reportedly been living in Iraq since 1998, and as we've talked about for some time, Iraq's record of providing support, safe haven, training, logistical assistance and financial aid to terrorist groups like the Abu Nidal organization is why Iraq is listed as a state supporter of terrorism. And you can read about that organization in the April 2002 -- that is the most recent edition -- of Patterns of Global Terrorism.

Question: Did you say living in Iraq since 1998? There's a slightly different version --

Mr. Reeker: That's what had reportedly been -- I know there are a number of various reports out there, but reportedly he had been living there since 1998. I think that's what we're able to put out, but you might check the Patterns of Global Terrorism because it gives you what we have on that.

------------------------

Question: -- questions about what's called "the Gaza plan," where the Israelis are supposed to be moving their troops back, both from Gaza, out of also Hebron and possibly Bethlehem?

Now, this has been apparently worked out with -- is it the moderate Palestinians that met here at the State Department with that particular group? They seem to have done it themselves.

Mr. Reeker: We certainly welcome reports that the Israelis and the Palestinians have reached agreement on a plan to resume security cooperation and work to end violence and terror. We have always underscored the critical importance of direct discussions between the parties and reports of progress on security issues are encouraging. We understand that there will be a continuation of contacts now between local security commanders. This sort of regular, detailed discussion will be critical to ensuring the long-term success of this initiative, and we strongly urge the Israelis and Palestinians to continue their discussions, not only on security, but also on the Palestinian humanitarian situation, which is of grave concern to us, and on finances and the Palestinian civil reform efforts.

We look forward, as we discussed last week, to the meeting of the International Task Force on Reform, which will take place later this week in Paris. I think it's August 22nd/23rd in Paris. That's a step we believe can assist the Palestinians in their efforts to achieve civil reform.

The International Task Force on Reform is, I believe we discussed last week, represented by the members of the Quartet -- that is, The United States, The European Union, The United Nations and Russia -- and several of the major donors including international financial institutions like the World Bank, the IMF and countries like Japan and Norway. And that's focused on establishing key benchmarks and performance standards to assist with the Palestinians civil reform effort. And we'll be reviewing the work of the Humanitarian Assistance Working Group, which is one of the seven major working groups that are part of this task force. They'll be making recommendations and so senior officials from our Near East Bureau will travel to France to represent the United States at these task force meetings.

Question: A follow-up?

Mr. Reeker: Let Joel follow up and then we'll --

Question: A follow-up. Also, some of the militant groups say that they won't comply and will continue their terrorist type activities. Is this any concerted problem and if --

Mr. Reeker: The focus of everybody should be on ending terror and violence. And as I've said, the cooperation, the security cooperation, is an absolutely essential part of moving forward in the strategy that we've been pursuing with others in the international community, pursuant to the President's vision to bring peace to the Middle East.

Question: Can I try to get a clarification here?

Mr. Reeker: Sure, Barry.

Question: Your use of the word "plan." Are you saying that the two are working together to develop a plan? Or are the two working together on a plan that has been developed? Because as you know, the CIA and others were trying to come up with new approaches.

Mr. Reeker: The reports we've seen, Barry, and we welcome those, are that the Israelis and Palestinians have reached agreement on a plan to resume security cooperation. I think the parties themselves would be where I'd refer you for details of their discussions. Certainly officials from our missions in the region have facilitated the discussions that they've been having, but we would let those two groups provide you with whatever details they wish to share about their plans.

Jonathan.

Question: What are the implications of this kind of agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority for the US policy of regime change in Palestine?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know if I've ever heard --

Question: Well, okay, for a new Palestinian leader.

Mr. Reeker: Oh, I see. Your little spin on that.

Question: Well --

Mr. Reeker: The President, I think, was very clear. I would refer you back to his speech from July 24th on our view of the need for new leadership in the Palestinian community, leadership by those who are untainted by terror and corruption. What we want to see if forward movement in the different areas of this process, and particularly in security. It's always been of critical importance for the two sides to have direct discussions. As you know -- I think you were away, but we had meetings here, where the Secretary of State and other US officials met with a Palestinian delegation that included Mr. Yehihey, who also has met with senior Israeli officials, looking at the security. And we understand that there will be contacts now between local security commanders, which will be very important and critical.

And so we want to urge the Israelis and the Palestinians to continue their discussions and try to move this process forward.

Question: If I could just follow up. I mean, if this continues and if you see more progress along these lines, you welcome the progress, but this progress is being made by the very people whom you want to see changed. It seems to me you can't really reconcile these two --

Mr. Reeker: I think your -- if you go back and look at the President's speech, I don't believe there was reference to any individuals. This is not about individuals; it's about leadership and responsibility in the Palestinian community.

Question: The very institutions you want to see --

Mr. Reeker: And we've talked about those institutions needing reform. There is, as well as a security process that we want to see move ahead, there's a Palestinian reform effort underway to reform the institutions that will be vital for them to have their own state, according to the vision that the President of the United States and other international leaders have endorsed that. So that's, you know, consistent with what we want to see, progress in these various fields, and we'll continue to watch it closely.

Question: Let me put it another way because I'm still confused. If the institutions are reformed in ways which meet your requirements, does that obviate the need for any changes in personnel?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think this is about our requirements or anything else. We've laid out what we think is the way forward and what we want to do. We've dedicated ourselves -- the President has -- to seeing an independent Palestinian state living side by side with an independent Israel, of course, with secure borders.

And the way forward, as the President said, is to have movement in these following areas, including reform of institutions in the Palestinian community, financial reform, other civic reforms that are going to be necessary to have institutions that can be not tainted by terrorism or by corruption, that can provide the Palestinian people with what they need to form a state and to move forward.

And so those are going to be decisions that the Palestinians are making as they pursue this reform. We have meetings going on in Paris with the task force that I talked about, the International Task Force on Reform, which will look at a number of recommendations from the working groups that have been studying, since the last task force meeting, have been studying a variety of these initiatives to look at how all of us in the international community can help them to move forward with that. So that's a positive thing.

Barry.

Question: I'm sorry. Has there been enough progress on security to now move ahead on other tracks, as the Secretary especially in the administration, maybe pretty much by himself among the senior advisors -- but anyhow, he's wanted to move ahead once security is improved. And has that hurdle been cleared now that you can go into action and try to get -- this is apart from reform.

Mr. Reeker: I think, again, Barry, if you look at what I've already said today, we welcome these reports that there's agreement on a plan to resume security cooperation -- a plan to resume security cooperation -- and work to end the terror and violence. And so that is something we have always underscored as being important. We're going to watch closely.

We have already said, as I indicated, that we believe that there's going to be a continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian contacts that have taken place already that will continue at the local level, which is going to be vital, and there's going to have to be regular, detailed discussions that will be very critical to this process. So we urge them to continue these discussions, not only on security but on the other parts of the process, of the strategy, as well.

Eli.

Question: Going back to Jonathan's issue, how is the State Department furthering the President's goal for new and different leadership in the Palestinian Authority by working with the current leadership in the Palestinian Authority?

Mr. Reeker: We're working with people who we think can make a difference, that can represent the Palestinian people, the delegation that traveled here to Washington and met with senior officials in the administration, had good talks. We talked about that at the time. Some of them have gone back. They've been working with Israelis. We're working with the international community. All of this is part of the overall strategy that the President outlined in the July 24th speech, and that's what we'll continue to watch and continue to promote.

The next thing I would point you to is the meeting in Paris later this week, the 22nd and 23rd, where we'll look at some of the ideas coming out of the working groups about how we can help to move forward the reform efforts, and we're also looking closely at the humanitarian issues.

Question: Before the meeting with Powell, Saeb Erekat was asked about this and he said, "I represent Yasser Arafat," who is the current leader, who is tainted by terror, of the Palestinian Authority. So, I mean, and --

Mr. Reeker: I think --

Question: And it looks like Mr. Erekat is going to be in Paris.

Mr. Reeker: I think we went through all those issues, Eli, back at the time.

Question: No, I'm sorry. I don't want belabor it.

Mr. Reeker: This is far beyond a single individual. You know, these issues transcend that. What we're focused on is making progress on the things that the President outlined, and the international community has embraced.

Elise.

Question: In terms of -- we know we have this meeting here in Washington. But in terms of ongoing engagement with Palestinians, whether they are the current leadership or any Palestinians with US diplomats in the region, could you characterize the ongoing engagement?

Mr. Reeker: I think I answered the question before you came in the room. I did discuss the fact that officials from our missions in the region facilitated the discussions that Israelis and Palestinians have had on the security front. And as I said, we would expect that there would be now a continuation of those contacts between local security commanders. And so our missions in the region remain very much in this process, as we pledged we would.

---------------------

Question: Hawkish pundits have suggested this weekend that the State Department has not been fully on board in expressing the President's policy of regime change for Iraq to our foreign allies. So I was just wondering if you could just sort of maybe summarize in a general sense our message. I know you've been talking about this. Have we been telling people and making it very clear that we would seek, we would like to see the Hussein regime ended?

Mr. Reeker: I think anyone -- even you, Eli -- and all of the foreign leaders around the world who have read the President's remarks, the President's speeches, listened to Secretary Powell, listened to officials -- even lowly people like myself from this podium -- know what the US policy towards Iraq is; why we are concerned about Iraq and the threat that Saddam Hussein's regime poses to the people of Iraq itself, to countries in the region, including friends and allies of ours, and indeed, to all of us around the world. Weapons of mass destruction, trying to acquire the means to deliver such weapons, support for terrorism -- these are all things that we've seen from the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein.

And the President has been quite clear that the US policy toward Iraq is that there should be a different regime there, that we would all be better off if there were a different regime in Baghdad. That's been echoed by foreign leaders around the world quite clearly, even more recently when the Spanish Foreign Minister, for instance, was here and spoke to you along with Secretary Powell about a week ago.

So I don't think I can add any more to the discussion. I think it's fairly clear out there, and if anybody's having a problem understanding it, they should just pick up some of your dispatches and read them.

Question: Thanks, but I'm afraid -- but that's what makes our -- the US entreaties to allies and non-allies, Arab governments for instance, puzzling. I mean they all agree. They seem all to agree, the Arabs, with a little bit of, you know, ambiguity, that they would all be pleased to see Saddam Hussein go away.

Now, if the US hasn't decided whether to attack to get rid of him and if we know what their position is -- that they don't like Saddam Hussein -- what are all these discussions about? Are you trying to line foreign governments up to endorse something that hasn't happened yet, to give the United States sort of carte blanche to do the right thing? Because you know their views and they know your views, except to know what option you're going to take.

Mr. Reeker: We like to talk to other governments, Barry, because that's what diplomacy is about -- hearing their views, and perhaps their views that they haven't shared with you, specifically, as we all discuss Iraq and certainly many other things.

Question: Okay.

Mr. Reeker: Certainly in the war against terrorism we have a coalition. It's working very closely together on many, many fronts: financial, law enforcement, intelligence and information sharing, as well as in the military aspects of that effort in Afghanistan.

So I think that will always continue, Barry. We want to hear from allies and friends. We want to have a good discussion about a broad variety of issues, including issues related to Iraq. We've heard their public comments. And as I was pointing out to your colleague, Mr. Lake, many of those public comments reflect exactly the views that we espouse publicly, as well.

So that type of dialogue, that type of discussion, that type of diplomacy is going to continue.

Question: I understand. It's puzzling to those of us who were here last time around during the Gulf War. The US knew what it wanted to do and it went out and made a concerted effort to line up support for what the US wanted to do and managed to get some 30 countries to be part of this coalition. Now we've got discussions going on and we're supposed to believe that the US doesn't know what it wants to do, but still we're having intensive -- we haven't picked an option. I don't mean to --

Mr. Reeker: I will just refer you to what the President said, Barry.

Question: I don't get it.

Mr. Reeker: I can't really add any more. Thank you for the history lesson, but I think you just need to stay tuned.

Question: No, no, it's not a history lesson. It's a little bit -- Phil, it's a little bit of disbelief that the United States is talking to its best friends in a very serious way without telling them or knowing even having made a choice of its own, what option to take, which are the tools, as the President puts it, to use.

Mr. Reeker: I think diplomatic dialogue is an important part of the way we interact in the world and that's going to continue on a broad array of issues, including on how to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

Question: All right, let me ask you a specific, one quick specific.

Mr. Reeker: Yes, Barry.

Question: We know the inspection problem. You know, there's been no budging on it. Will there be -- is there ongoing this, for instance, a page one story in The Financial Times over the weekend. Is the article the last ditch? Because I don't suppose we'll ever give up trying to get a look at what he's got, but is the US making another effort to somehow get Iraq to open its suspect weapons sites to international inspection?

Mr. Reeker: Well, Iraq knows what it has to do. There are UN, United Nations Security Council Resolutions, to which Saddam Hussein's regime agreed at the end of the Gulf War. This is about disarmament under those agreements. And inspectors are a way towards verifying disarmament. They need to have access to assess this.

Instead of readmitting inspectors so that the inspectors can assess key disarmament tasks, the Iraqis continue to propose further discussions and obfuscation and moving of the goal post. So the latest Iraqi letter, for instance, offers nothing new. They continue to refuse to comply with UN Security Council resolutions that mandate verified disarmament.

Matt.

Question: Can I change the subject?

Question: One more on Iraq?

Mr. Reeker: Yes. Elise.

Question: Do you have any reaction to reports over the weekend that the previous Bush Administration aided Iraq in developing a chemical weapons program for use against Iran?

Mr. Reeker: I think as you saw the responses from this Department in that particular press story. Claims that the US was complicit or acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, those claims are complete nonsense and utterly without foundation.

Question: So, one more brief one?

Mr. Reeker: Okay.

Question: That same paper had a small item today saying that the President had called a meeting of his national security team for later this week in Crawford and listed the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and National Security Advisor as being invited, but not the Secretary of State. Is he planning to be there?

Mr. Reeker: More recent reports that I saw about that meeting coming from the White House were discussing a defense -- a review of a variety of defense issues. So I think it's a DOD meeting, but I would refer you to the White House for that.

Matt.

Question: Can I change the subject?

Mr. Reeker: Changing the subject? Yes.

Question: What does the United States make, if anything, of the increasing likelihood that Libya is going to be the next chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights?

Mr. Reeker: I will have to look into that. I don't know how clear-cut that is or if any decisions have been made at this point, but I will check.

Question: Well, it's the -- I mean it is the Africans --

Mr. Reeker: I'm aware of the basic situation, but I don't know the specifics.

Question: -- have chosen Libya and they have not backed down.

Mr. Reeker: Yes, Barry.

Question: Not much of a transition, but I was going to -- I did have a Libya question for you.

Mr. Reeker: And I don't have an answer to that either.

Question: You might. The parents of, you know, a victim of the Pan Am have written the Secretary. They say they are concerned that the US isn't insisting that Libya make a specific statement of responsibility for the attack, for the bombing or the assault on the plane.

Mr. Reeker: I'm not aware of the specific letter. Our position on Libya has not changed one iota. Libya must absolutely comply with the UN Security Council resolutions pursuant to the downing of Pan Am 103. We've been very insistent on that. There are no shortcuts there. And so while I can't move you ahead on letters or anything else, I can try to check into that. There's no change in our position.