us-iraqpolicy listserv

New York -- Emphasizing the importance and durability of the trans-Atlantic Alliance and NATO, Secretary of State Colin Powell said May 7 that differences over the war in Iraq "are behind us now. Now we have to come together again" to help the people of Iraq.

Addressing a meeting of the Foreign Policy Association, the secretary highlighted the ties between the United States, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization saying they are too important to ever be taken lightly. Powell and Javier Solana, EU high representative for foreign policy, were guests of honor at the organization's gala annual dinner.

Powell said that the United States would be presenting a new draft resolution to the Security Council that would ask the U.N. "to play a vital role" and lift sanctions against the Iraqis "so that they now can engage in normal commerce with the world."

"More importantly," he said, "it will be a resolution that can bring us all together to give the Iraqi people a better life and hope for a much brighter future."

Secretary of State Powell said he was confident that Security Council members would not bring up the divisions -- "not fight old battles" -- that prevented the council from supporting military action against Iraq earlier in the year.

The United States, and the nations of NATO and the EU "have a special role to defend liberty and open opportunity in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in other areas around the world that are a challenge to the international community," he said.

"If many of our allies and friends in Europe took part in the liberation of Iraq and other friends and allies in Europe did not support our efforts, that is all behind us now. Now we have to come together again ... to help the Iraqi people take their place in the world, take their place in the world as a free, stable, self-governing country," Powell said.

He described the alliances as "vibrant institutions made up of dynamic democracies" which will not always agree, but should be able to overcome their differences to tackle the most challenging issues of the day. "Independent actions and internal pressures are not unheard of within the United States or among the states of Europe," he said. "And so I do not rush to call every contretemps a crisis."

Americans and Europeans can work together making different kinds of contributions in different situations, Powell said.

"Europe doesn't want to be considered only a checkbook, and the United States doesn't want to be seen as just a juggernaut. We do not have to work together the same way every time," he said.

"We can, and do, work together through informal coalitions of the willing, sometimes forged with non-Europeans and American participants as well. Whether it's combating terrorism and proliferation; creating conditions for sustainable development; stemming infectious disease, such as HIV/AIDS, the greatest weapons of mass destruction on the face of the earth today; or promoting good governance, none of us can hope to meet these complex challenges by working alone," said Powell.

Following is the transcript of the secretary's remarks:

(begin transcript)

Foreign Policy Association's Annual Dinner Secretary Colin L. Powell New York Hilton Hotel New York, New York May 7, 2003

Thank you so very much, ladies and gentlemen, for that warm welcome, and I thank you, John Whitehead, my old friend and colleague from the Reagan years, for your warm, kind and generous introduction. It is a special honor to be introduced by such a distinguished public servant as John, who served in the State Department at one time and I think is on every non-profit board in New York City. (Laughter and Applause.)

It is a great pleasure to be here with the premier of Quebec, and we have had a nice conversation, and other distinguished guests, and especially the Foreign Minister of Romania who is here, my dear friend Mircea Geoana. Good to see you, Mr. Foreign Minister. Welcome. (Applause.)

And it is always a joy to see these wonderful young people in front of me, students in the course of the evening, but please give a special hello to these West Point cadets in front of us with their -- (Applause.) I don't know why I did that. They didn't let me in West Point. (Laughter.) They said I was Christmas help. (Laughter.)

I really want to express my thanks to the Foreign Policy Association for providing me this opportunity before such a distinguished audience to offer some thoughts to you this evening about U.S.-European relations. I am especially pleased to do it in the presence of a good friend of mine, and someone who will share honors with me this evening, Javier Solana. (Applause.)

Henry Kissinger once lamented that he did not have a number he could call when he wanted to speak to Europe. That's not my problem. (Laughter.) I have Javier's number.

I also have many other numbers in Europe, Lord Robertson and so many others, and they all have my number. In fact, my European counterparts and I spend a good part of every day talking to one other, staying in touch, in constant touch, and there is no European leader that I spend more time talking to, and whose advice I value more highly than that of Javier.

Though the United States is not a member of the European Union, he and I can attest to how closely we work together almost every day, and very often well into the night in world affairs. Not only interests and institutions matter, people with ideas, people with talent and people with energy matter -- people like Javier. He is both a visionary and a pragmatist. He solves problems, he doesn't make them. He identifies needs and he delivers results. He won't sacrifice concrete achievements for airy theories. There is no stronger or more able an advocate for both the European Union and the NATO Alliance, those two great organizations that we work so closely with, than my friend Javier Solana. No one understands their strengths and shortcomings better. And no one has worked harder or more effectively than he has to help these vitally important organizations adapt to meet 21st century challenges. So, Javier, I am very, very pleased to be with you and to share this honor with you. (Applause.)

For more than 50 years, the ties between the United States and our allies and friends in Europe have been the sinews of security, democracy and prosperity in the transatlantic region. They are the stuff with which President Bush's vision of "a Europe whole, free and at peace" is being built. And in our increasingly globalized age, strong Euro-Atlantic partnerships will be key to security, good governance and growth not only in the transatlantic region but worldwide.

Time and again for more than a decade, with great drama, pundits and analysts have predicted the demise of NATO, growing tensions between the Alliance and the European Union, and crises in the transatlantic relationships. Time and again, I've had to listen to charges of wither NATO . I have had to listen to people say, Well, the Warsaw Pact is over, it is gone. Why isn't NATO over and gone? I don t know how many former Soviet generals I have spoken to who kept saying to me, Well, Colin, since we no longer need an alliance, why do you need an alliance called NATO? And time and time again, they have not understood the reality at all. Time and time again, pundits have been wrong. What we have seen instead of the demise of NATO and other half-century old institutions, we are seeing them rapidly and successfully evolving and expanding and changing to meet profound geostrategic challenges. They have changed as the changes have come to them. We have gone through it all -- the collapse of Soviet communism, the consolidation of new democracies, and the chilling dawn of a post-September 11 world.

Despite the dire prognostications, NATO shows absolutely no signs of shutting down. Why would it? Why should it? You don t close a club that people keep lining up to get in to. A few weeks ago, I warmly congratulated the European Union, when in Athens ten more countries signed their accession treaty for membership in the Union. And I know that tomorrow Javier will heartily greet the expected vote in the U.S. Senate for NATO's further enlargement seven more countries and Minister Geoana will be with us in Washington tomorrow and I hope can deliver that to you tomorrow, my friend.

As President Bush has said:

"All of Europe's democracies from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between should have the same chance for security and freedom and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe."

Not only is NATO welcoming new members, it has also seized an historic opportunity to support Russia's desire for greater integration into the Euro-Atlantic community and it has done so by establishing a NATO-Russia Council. That, too, is part of the transformation of the Alliance. Our vision for Europe encompasses all of NATO's new partners, including Ukraine and countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

We are helping them advance the political, economic, and military reforms that will allow them to succeed, allow them to thrive in a 21st century world. At the same time, a strong and growing European Union is also good for the transatlantic Alliance. A strong and growing NATO is good for the European Union. And both are good for the United States, for the nations of Europe and for the world beyond our Euro-Atlantic community. There is a great deal of work ahead.

To cite only one example, we are committed to seeing through all the efforts that we have made in southeastern Europe. Throughout the region, new institutions are being shaped, economies rebuilt and war criminals are being brought to justice. Just a few weeks ago, the European Union took over NATO's stabilization mission in Macedonia one great organization handing off to another. And to show you how complicated it can be and how tricky it can be, the European Union's mission now in NATO involved 27 countries putting together a force of 330 soldiers. Now this is a challenge for a battalion commander. (Laugher.) But it was done and it showed how everyone wanted to be a part of it. Everyone wanted to play a role. Everyone wanted to be part of this effort to bring peace and stability and a sense of calm and a sense of hope to this nation, Macedonia, that has had such difficulty and still needs the help of friends elsewhere in Europe, whether they come under NATO flag or an EU flag. The point is that they come and they come to help and they come in peace. Whatever the division of labor, all of us know that the hopes we have created in the region will not become realities without our continued involvement and cooperation.

Just last week, I visited Tirana, Albania and took part in the signing of a new Adriatic charter with Albania, Croatia and Macedonia. They were adamant that the fourth signatory in that charter should be the United States of America not the EU in this case, not NATO in this case, but the United States and we were proud to do it. I was proud to be there representing the American people aligning themselves with these Adriatic nations who wanted this connection to the United States as well as integration into the European community and into, eventually, NATO.

Now, we are not just a transatlantic partner, we are also a trans-Adriatic partner. The Adriatic charter will serve as a path to Euro-Atlantic integration for the three emerging, struggling nations. And the charter will serve as a guide to full membership in NATO and other European institutions for them. Not so very long ago, the slogan was "out of area for NATO and even EU or out of business." You either learn to expand your presence and the missions you perform outside of the traditional NATO area or you won t be relevant. NATO stepped up to that challenge. The EU has stepped up to that challenge. Business is booming, and the concept of "out of area" has shifted so radically.

It used to mean the Balkans. And those of you who have experience will think back just five or eight years ago about how difficult it was to convince parliaments to just send troops to another part of Europe, into the Balkans, the peacekeeping operations. But in today's post-September 11 world, "out of area" extends far beyond the Balkans. It goes from Kosovo to Kabul in Afghanistan and Kirkuk in Iraq may not be far behind. Both NATO and the European Union are very much engaged "out of area." And because of their willingness to engage in places far away from Europe they have retained their relevance to world stability and security. And they are thriving, living dynamic organizations. They are involved "out of area" not to prove their relevance alone or impose their influence, but because so many of the 21st century security concerns that affect us originate elsewhere and are best dealt with on a cross-regional or worldwide basis.

For example, just last week, the United States, the European Union, together with our other two Quartet partners, the United Nations and Russia, came together and presented the Israelis and Palestinians with a plan, a roadmap, to help them back onto the road that will lead to a lasting Middle East peace. Working together, we help them do that. Both NATO and the European Union continue to play important roles in the campaign against terrorism, in Afghanistan and across the world.

Every day, U.S. and European experts are arresting terrorists, breaking up their networks, blocking their money, impeding their movement, denying them safe haven and otherwise defeating those who would do grievous harm to our free societies. As my friend, Foreign Minister Geoana, can attest, many aspirants to NATO and European Union membership have gone "out of area" with us as active participants in the global anti-terror effort.

Romania, for example, has provided a 400-man infantry battalion and a military police platoon to support the efforts of the coalition in Afghanistan. American and European diplomats worked hand-in-hand at the Bonn conference last year to help the Afghans establish the most representative leadership in form of government in all of Afghanistan's long history. We and our humanitarian and development agencies are spearheading the international recovery and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. And this coming August, NATO will take over the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul from the current Dutch and German command.

Beyond our collaborative efforts in Afghanistan, all members of the Alliance are now talking about a possible peacekeeping role in Iraq. So when I look at the NATO Alliance and I look at our relationship with the European Union, I see two very vibrant institutions made up of dynamic democracies, tackling some of the most challenging issues of the day. Sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, but when disagreeing it is mostly over means not ends. We argue, we make up, we move on but always, always we are held together and driven forward by common values. With the big changes going on in the world and the complexity of the problems we confront, it would be remarkable if we weren't in disagreement from time to time. If there weren't frictions among us. By definition, the consensus that our democracies seek must be forged in honest, open, rigorous debate. We are all free and sovereign nations entitled to our on opinion. We should never seek agreement for agreement's sake and our goal should always be greater than a lowest common denominator. Each of us brings to any discussion our own experiences, our own perspectives, our history, and our own domestic politics.

Independent actions and internal pressures are not unheard of within the United States or among the states of Europe. And so I do not rush to call every contretemps a crisis. (Laugher and applause.) I do believe, however, that the concerns of Europeans and of Americans about our transatlantic relationship should never be expressed lightly or taken lightly.

The issues are too important and the stakes are too high to posture for effect. The point is to be effective. Asserting the Europeans prerogative to disagree with the United States, my good friend High Commissioner Chris Patten, the European Union's External Affairs Commissioner, once recalled Winston Churchill's observation that: "in working with allies, it sometimes happens that they develop opinions of their own." (Laughter.) This is unfortunate, but it is true. He is right. Our European allies have opinions and we have opinions, too. And it's true all around.

Many long-serving, long-standing members of the Alliance supported our position on Iraq, as did many of the newly invited members of NATO who chose to stand up and speak their minds rather than sit back, be intimidated and be silent. But if many of our allies and friends in Europe took part in the liberation of Iraq, and other friends and allies in Europe did not support our efforts, that is all behind us now. Now we have to come together again. Now, all of us, can come together to help the Iraqi people take their place in the world, take their place in the world as a free, stable, self-governing country.

Some important tasks, like stabilization, will be for military forces. Others tasks, such as humanitarian assistance, are tasks for aid agencies, non-governmental organizations.

There are roles for governments and NGOs alike in political reconstruction that needs to take place to help the Iraq people achieve their human and democratic rights.

The United Nations can be of great help in all of these areas. Later this week, we will present a new draft Security Council resolution to the Security Council that would ask the United Nations to play a vital role and that would lift the sanctions burden from the Iraqi people so that they now can engage in normal commerce with the world. More importantly, it will be a resolution that can bring us all together, to give the Iraqi people a better life and hope for a much brighter future. I am confident that all of our colleagues in the Security Council will work with determination and an earnestness to see if we can quickly come to agreement on a resolution that does not fight old battles but serves the interests of the Iraqi people as we put in place new government, founded on democratic principles and committed to live in peace with its neighbors. The United States has every expectation that the United Nations will play a vital role, but we as democracies, all of the nations represented in the Council and in NATO and the EU have a special role to defend liberty and open opportunity in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in other areas around the world that are a challenge to the international community. How well we perform that role of reaching out and helping is how we ultimately shall be judged, not by this or that passing dispute within our Euro-Atlantic family of democracies. In this great effort, we must bring every tool of statecraft to bear: political, economic, intelligence, technical, cultural, diplomatic, and, when necessary, the use of military force. Not every country has to make the same kind of contribution.

Europe doesn't want to be considered only a checkbook, and the United States doesn't want to be seen as just a juggernaut. We do not have to work together the same way every time. Americans and Europeans can, and do, work together, work together very effectively through NATO and the European Union. We can, and do, work together through informal coalitions of the willing, sometimes forged with non-European and American participants as well. Whether it's combating terrorism and proliferation, creating conditions for sustainable development, stemming infectious disease, such as HIV/AIDS, the greatest weapon of mass destruction on the face of the earth today, or promoting good governance, none of us can hope to meet these complex challenges by working alone.

General George C. Marshall, author of the plan for European recovery, is a great and personal hero of mine. Everyone in this room remembers the Marshall Plan. What people don't remember is that the purpose of the plan wasn't just Europe's economic revival.

The plan aimed higher and farther than that. It was designed, "to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist." Just as the Marshall Plan was about more than Europe's economy, the founders of the NATO Alliance knew that the Alliance was about more than containing communism.

And Monnet, Schuman and Adenauer knew that the European coal and steel community was about more than coal and steel. So, too, President Bush and the other leaders of our Euro-Atlantic community know that our efforts were, and are, about making, making absolutely real a hopeful vision of the world of the future -- a world free from the grip of fear and misery. A prosperous, peaceful world where the democratic values we all cherish can thrive.

Thanks in great measure to the concerted efforts of Americans and Europeans, efforts that have gone on for the past half century, we are much closer to that vision, much closer that world we dream of today. The spread of democratic and economic freedoms that together we have done so much to secure and engender, have opened unprecedented opportunities to help better the lives of millions on every continent. And the hope for realizing that great potential still rests to a great degree on strong and enduring partnerships between Europe and the United States. My good partner Javier and I still have a lot of work to do together. Don t forget my phone number, Javier.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher conducted the noon briefing May 8.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript, I have ommitted the following items 9 and 10, J. Gruber)

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing Index Thursday, May 8, 2003 1:20 p.m. EDT

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

DEPARTMENT -- Foreign Service Day

1. CHINA -- Statement on United States Assistance to China To Combat SARS
2. IRAQ -- Oil for Food Program -- Iraq Oil Contracts -- Lifting of UN Sanctions on Iraq -- Weapon Searches -- Spending of Oil Money -- Status of Iraqi Interim Authority
3. FRANCE -- Consequences and Future Cooperation with the United States
4. RUSSIA -- Assistant Secretary Holmes Travel -- Under Secretary Bolton Travel -- Russian and Iranian Interaction
5. UNITED NATIONS -- New United Nations Resolution
6. NATO -- DPC and NATO Deliberations -- National Atlantic Council and NATO Deployment
7. IRAQ Iraqi Stabilization Iraqi Funds Frozen in Western Banks
8. IRAN -- United States Position on Iran's Nuclear Program -- IAEA Report
9. ISRAEL/PALESTINE -- Israeli Forces and Targeted Killings -- Palestinian Security Issues -- Moving Toward Roadmap
10. KOREA -- Developments in North Korea

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003 (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

1:20 p.m. EDT

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can, let me tell you about two things off the top. The first is that the Secretary will unveil the names of six Foreign Service employees on the American Foreign Service Association's Memorial Plaque tomorrow, May 9th, 10:15, C Street Diplomatic Lobby, in connection with Foreign Service Day.

This year's ceremony will honor six members of the Foreign Service family, including Laurence Foley, who was murdered in Amman, as we know. Additional members of the Foreign Service family are being honored because of recent change in ceremonial criteria to include those who have died in the line of duty in addition to the traditional criteria of heroic or other inspirational circumstances.

So Foreign Affairs Day is a longstanding tradition and we'll be doing that tomorrow.

Second of all, we'll be putting out a statement for you on U.S. assistance to China regarding -- in order to help China combat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. President Bush, in a conversation with President Hu at the end of April, offered to support China in its fight against SARS, as it's known, so we are providing additional assistance in terms of $500,000 in emergency funds to help China bolster its strained public health system. Money will be used by the Red Cross Society of China to purchase protective gear and other medical consumables, including thermometers and protective goggles, gowns and masks to protect against SARS.

Our Embassy in Beijing will be working with the Chinese authorities to monitor the procurement of those supplies.

And now I would be glad to take your questions about these or other issues.

QUESTION: A couple of areas, but let me try Iraq first and the resolution that you're proposing tomorrow. I have two questions. The first is, I can't put together allowing the Oil-for-Food program to go on for four months and, at the same time, lifting sanctions on Iraq. Is there some inconsistency there?

And the second is, does the U.S. want weapons searches to continue? Evidently not, but certainly not a UN weapons search.

MR. BOUCHER: You can't put these things together, but we can, and you'll see how it's done in the resolution when we table it tomorrow.

Lifting the sanctions -- think of it this way. Lifting the sanctions allows the Iraqi people to engage in normal commerce, to have a normal economy, to trade, to invest, to work, to buy things, to develop their own economy and develop their own resources. As they do that, unlike under the Saddam Hussein regime, they will have the wherewithal to buy their own food, to buy their own medicine, to take care of themselves, without depending on a feeding system that's powered by the Oil-for-Food program. As they sell their oil and do it in a manner that's transparent under the resolution, do it in a manner that's audited by international auditors, do it in a manner that's in cooperation with international financial institutions and others who can help, that money can be directed at supporting the Iraqi people.

So, as the private economy and the sales of oil to support the Iraqi people grow, then the provision of resources through the Oil-for-Food program can go down because it won't be necessary any more. This kind of organized distribution system won't be necessary because there will be a real economy that hasn't been allowed to thrive in Iraq for many years.

QUESTION: And what about weapon searches? There is no mention.

MR. BOUCHER: At this point, yeah, there is no mention. Well, I am not going to get into the text of the resolution.

QUESTION: I know.

MR. BOUCHER: But, at this point, I think you have seen our position fairly clearly. U.S. personnel are very active in searching Iraq to learn what we can about their programs of weapons of mass destruction. There was quite a detailed briefing yesterday at the Defense Department including -- talked about the discovery of a mobile vehicle that looks like the biological weapons van, biological van laboratory, that the Secretary spoke about on February 5th.

So we are finding things, we are getting information; we are talking to people now. But we all remember, as the Secretary outlined on February 5th, this is a well-hidden program. These are programs that were designed to be inspected. So as we work on this, we will find more and more information. We, ourselves, are putting more people on the ground.

But we also remember that Iraq is still a difficult security environment, it's still a quasi-military environment. I don't know how to describe it, but it's a security situation where the military has to be integrally involved in everything that goes on, and therefore they are the ones at this moment who are doing this work. Whether, at some point down the road, there is a role for UNMOVIC or others, we'll just have to see. We haven't ruled it out at this point, but it's not something that we think kicks in right away because of the nature of the circumstances right now in Iraq.

QUESTION: Good, thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: Terri.

QUESTION: Back to Oil-for-Food and the private economy. How do you envision -- and I understand that U.S. advisors are working with Iraq on this -- the money getting from the oil revenues out to the vast majority of the population who are, at this point, completely dependent on -- or, I guess, 60 percent of it is completely dependent, but 90 percent gets --

MR. BOUCHER: -- gets something from it.

QUESTION: Yeah. How is it going to dissipate enough to give these people out in the rural areas their food?

MR. BOUCHER: I talked about two or three aspects of this. One is the growth of the private economy, with most citizens of Iraq getting money through their businesses, their activities, their salaries, being able to fund government programs will have an effect. But second of all, then, some of this oil money would be spent by Iraqis, with international auditing, with transparency, with -- in cooperation with international financial institutions on projects that would develop Iraq, that would invest in Iraq, that would create opportunities in Iraq for the Iraqi people. So that's part of the growth as well.

QUESTION: That's why -- I mean, this suggestion is that the advisory board would include the World Bank and the IMF to expand the money that they get into other loans and grants?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. I won't talk in too much detail today because you all will see the text tomorrow, I assume, when it's tabled, if you haven't seen it already. But we specify the kinds of purposes that we would think everybody would want to see this money spent for, and that is specific areas where this money could benefit the Iraqi people. And there would be transparency, there would be audits, and there would be international involvement to ensure that those purposes were served by the money.

Jonathan.

QUESTION: Can I just take you up on exactly that, the auditing committee, which includes the World Bank and IMF? Would they have any say in how the money was spent or would they merely be ascertaining whether any of it had disappeared?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll leave that answer to looking at the resolution, maybe tomorrow, after we table it. We've called for a meeting tomorrow to table the resolution. I think that's tomorrow morning.

QUESTION: Well, it's kind of freely floating around.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, that may be. But I think if you look at the text, when you look at the text, you'll see that the purposes -- how this money can be used to benefit the Iraqi people, by the Iraqis with transparency and in consultation with the international financial institutions and others is fairly well specified in the resolution, and everybody would be cooperating to make sure the money went to those purposes.

QUESTION: What is the role of the future Iraqi interim authority in this draft resolution that you're going to present? And are you seeking through this resolution any kind of international recognition for this Iraqi authority?

MR. BOUCHER: One of the purposes that we've talked about for the resolution is to encourage people to help the Iraqi people, lift the sanctions, encourage people to help the Iraqi people, and help define the vital role that the United Nations can play.

Helping the Iraqi people stand up their own government through an interim authority, and then eventually their own government, is an important part of this, of Iraqis taking charge of their own affairs. So we would encourage international organizations, we would encourage non-governmental organizations, governments, as well as the UN through its coordinator, to support that process and to endorse, as we have said, that process.

QUESTION: Can we stay on this for one more?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Maybe this is too fine a point to deal with here, but as you described the Oil-for-Food program winding down, there are ongoing contracts. Is it a good assumption that those contracts will remain undisturbed? There's no letting of new contracts?

MR. BOUCHER: As you know, at the current moment, the Council has given the Secretary General authority to prioritize those contracts and to deal with them, so you'll see in the resolution how that is dealt with.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Yesterday, we talked a little bit about lifting versus suspending sanctions, and then the President came out and spoke. Is it still your understanding -- could you clarify again for us that what the President did was suspend the sanctions until the -- an Iraqi interim authority can be named? Is that still the explanation?

As it came from Cofer Black, there needs to be an Iraqi government in place before they can be lifted, but I still see stories referring to them as being lifted.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't quibble with those who write "lifted" because the impact, the application of sanctions has been lifted, even if the sanctions exist on paper.

Yes, you're right. In order to -- as we look at this, we have to be able to define an Iraqi government that is not supporting terrorism. And that's a bureaucratic or legal requirement that we'll fulfill, we would hope, in the near future.

Jonathan.

QUESTION: New subject. Yesterday evening, the Secretary spoke in New York, as you know, and he said that you had pretty well put your differences behind you with Europe after the Iraq dispute.

Does that mean that you are no longer considering any punitive measures against France, as you were talking about two weeks ago?

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, he didn't say that. And, second of all, I didn't say that. We never talked about punitive measures against France.

QUESTION: Repercussions.

MR. BOUCHER: Consequences.

QUESTION: Okay. Does that mean there are no longer any consequences? Consequences. Put it that way.

MR. BOUCHER: You want to ask that?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: As I explained two weeks ago, when you asked me similar questions, obviously, we know about this history, we know what we have gone through, and we gauge our future actions accordingly.

I wouldn't agree with the first half of your question either, in that the Secretary didn't say we put our differences behind us. He said that these were matters that have been dealt with and we wanted to move on, but that's not quite the same as saying they have totally disappeared.

QUESTION: So there are still consequences possibly?

MR. BOUCHER: I expect that we will all gauge our behavior according to what has happened in the past, and according to how we can cooperate in the future. But the goal now, the focus now, is to cooperate in the future on the things that need to be done, including on this UN resolution, including in helping the people of Iraq, including the NATO deployment to Afghanistan, the war against terrorism, many other areas where, as the Secretary pointed out, we are working together and can work together more.

QUESTION: Well, on the flip side of that, you have a lot of countries coming to the White House for White House visits here at the State Department with Secretary Powell, just used Poland and, today, Denmark at the Pentagon as two -- and a couple of the NATO countries were very helpful, the new NATO countries.

What about people that say that --

MR. BOUCHER: Some pretty old NATO countries, too.

QUESTION: Okay, well --

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- I mean, specifically, the news ones. But what do you say to people that are saying that you are using some of these visits, some of these recent -- like the signing of the Singapore agreement today -- as rewards for countries that helped you in the coalition, and that there are rewards and punishments for people that don't -- that, according to how they treated the U.S. during the coalition in Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER: There is a lot of work to do, and there are a lot of things, a lot of ways that countries can get involved. The Secretary last night in his speech encouraged everybody to support this new UN resolution. Indeed, we are out around the world encouraging people to support the new UN resolution. Assistant Secretary Holmes is in Moscow today, will be going on to Germany. He's had good meetings with the Russians on the new UN resolution.

The Secretary, yesterday, talked about the new resolution with Secretary General Kofi Annan, he talked with Foreign Secretary Derbez, he talked with European High Representative Solana about the new resolution. We've sent a cable already to all our embassies, our ambassadors in all the Arab capitals for them to start talking about the resolution with the host governments, and we'll be sending a much broader cable, probably overnight, to all our embassies to talk to nations about the new UN resolution in something of more detail. Deputy Secretary Armitage is in Pakistan and has talked about the new resolution there.

So I wouldn't say we are differentiating between those who supported the last one and only working with them in supporting the new one, first of all. Point number one.

Point number two, we have a great deal many things underway with different countries. The Singapore Free Trade Agreement is a great thing. It was ready to be signed. And we're glad we did that. We don't just do Iraq.

So we have military cooperation with some governments that has been active in recent months, and as we look at stabilization in Iraq we have met with the United Kingdom, with the Polish Government, and talked about this in various fora. We've also had meetings and discussions with others who might be willing to contribute.

QUESTION: If I could up, though. Without the -- not including the notion of moving forward on Iraq and other things, but do you dispute the notion of some in Congress and elsewhere that now that the war is over and you had certain countries that supported you in the war, either publicly or with equipment or troops or anything, that now is the time to reward these allies and perhaps punish those that didn't support you?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we quite look at it that way. I would say that cooperation with a number of countries already is a solid basis for even more cooperation now as we go forward into the next stages. And so we're talking to many of the same governments who were part of the coalition about how we can continue to work together in the future. If others want to find ways of supporting that, either through the UN resolution, through humanitarian assistance, reconstruction assistance, that's certainly welcome as well. But certainly, those people that we cooperated with in the coalition want to keep cooperating, want to keep working together to achieve the results of a free and stable Iraq that we set out to achieve. We didn't just fight a war and start over. We fought a war in order to do something. We're still working on doing that.

QUESTION: Richard, I should have asked this yesterday, but does the resolution that we're pushing right now say anything about UN recognition of sovereignty of a future Iraqi government?

MR. BOUCHER: I think you should ask that tomorrow after we all look at the resolution together.

QUESTION: You can't preview and highlight?

MR. BOUCHER: I've previewed and highlighted about as much as I can.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Jonathan.

QUESTION: Richard, can I ask you about (inaudible) the consequences? I'm sure you'll recall that one of the ideas that was floated around was that the United States would shift its emphasis to the DPC in its NATO deliberations. Is that on the table?

MR. BOUCHER: It's been on the table for 30 years.

QUESTION: Okay, but do you still intend --

MR. BOUCHER: I'll give you the same answer you asked two weeks ago when we talked about this, that it has been on the table for 30 years -- I think that's how long the DPC has existed; that we look to work with all our allies on important issues that need to be handled. Because of the disagreements in NATO, allied support for our NATO ally Turkey I think was handled through the DPC. It was a serious matter. We're glad it finally was done.

On the other hand, the NATO deployment to Afghanistan, come summer, was handled through the North Atlantic Council -- all the allies participating in that decision. For the moment, the discussion of what NATO can do in Iraq in the stabilization phase is in the North Atlantic -- is with other members, all the other members of the North Atlantic Council. We'll see how administratively NATO ends up making whatever decisions it decides to make. There are obviously some things that are more appropriate for one place or the other, and some things that could go either place. But for the moment, this discussion on Iraq is with all the members of the North Atlantic Council.

QUESTION: Okay, can I just clarify that? Do you mean that you'll use the NAC whenever possible, and only resort to the DPC when you foresee a potential problem? Is that --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not as steeped in NATO lore as I should be. I'm sure if you ask out there, they'll give you the definition of the roles. There are some things that are not appropriate for the NAC, some things that are not appropriate for the DPC, or maybe -- maybe it flows one way and not the other.

So I don't want to try to explain this. It's the same structure that has always existed, and we use it as appropriate in the circumstances. The fact that all the allies are interested in discussing potential NATO deployments to Iraq means that the discussion has been held with all of the members of the NAC.

Okay, Sonni.

QUESTION: Could you go over the current U.S. position on Iran, and the IAEA specifically? Are you pushing for a resolution in IAEA and -- against Iran? And, specifically, what would you want such a resolution to say?

MR. BOUCHER: The answer to the first question is yes, and you'll see what the answer to the rest of the questions is.

We have long made clear our concern, serious concern about Iran's active pursuit of nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction and longer range missile delivery systems. Iran now openly admits that it is pursuing a complete nuclear fuel cycle. We completely reject Iran's claim that it's doing this for peaceful purposes.

Iran admitted to constructing a nuclear enrichment -- uranium enrichment plant and heavy water plant only after it had no choice because this had been made public, as you know, starting with an Iranian opposition group. The first uranium enrichment plant could be used to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons. A heavy water plant could support a reactor for producing weapons grade plutonium.

There is no economic justification for a state that's rich in oil and gas like Iran to build hugely expensive nuclear fuel cycle facilities. Iran flares off more gas annually than the equivalent energy its desired reactors would produce. States with peaceful nuclear energy programs have nothing to hide, and Iran did its best to hide all of these nuclear fuel cycle activities.

Until this year, Iran had been the only state not to accept the International Atomic Energy Agency's 1992 call for states to declare new nuclear facilities before construction. It finally agreed to do so in late February, only because of intense pressure.

Iran has also refused for several years to sign the additional protocol with the IAEA, which would increase the agency's insight into Iran's nuclear activities. The United States has made clear to the International Atomic Energy Agency, to other governments and to the public that we strongly support a rigorous examination of Iran's nuclear activities. We look forward to a full report at the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors meeting in June, report to be presented by Director General ElBaradei then.

QUESTION: Richard.

MR. BOUCHER: Slow down.

Sir.

QUESTION: Do you think that the Iranians developing these weapons, nuclear weapon is a direct threat to the United States or to the area?

MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to make sweeping judgments at this point. We made very, very clear we think it's a very dangerous development, and that no country should be cooperating with Iran's nuclear program because it is used to support this kind of development.

QUESTION: Richard, you mentioned a uranium enrichment facility, which I am assuming you are talking about Natanz; and then you mentioned also a heavy water plant. Are you talking about the one in Arak, A-r-a-k?

MR. BOUCHER: Don't know.

QUESTION: Okay. And can you confirm here when the Iranians admitted to the heavy water plant?

MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to go back and see. I don't know off the top of my head. I'll check for you. Okay?

Terri.

QUESTION: Did Kim Holmes bring this up at his meetings in Moscow, or was he focusing just on the resolution?

MR. BOUCHER: I think Assistant Secretary Holmes met with the Foreign Minister, with international organizations people, and I think with the Deputy Foreign Minister. But Under Secretary Bolton was just in Moscow. Certainly, Under Secretary Bolton was discussing Iran as well as other kind of G-8 kind of subjects and nonproliferation issues with the Russians. So this is a regular topic of conversation for him and for others. Whether it specifically came up with Assistant Secretary Holmes, I don't know yet.

QUESTION: There's no progress to report after Bolton's meetings?

MR. BOUCHER: I would leave it to the Russians to speak for themselves what they are going to do about their nuclear cooperation.

QUESTION: Are there countries other than Russia who are wittingly or unwittingly helping the Iranians?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to go back and see if there's anything I can say on that, George.

QUESTION: Are you concerned about an arms race in the region if they acquire such weapons?

MR. BOUCHER: Our concern is about the potential acquisition of nuclear weapons by a state that's a known supporter of terrorism. This has been something that the President talked about. That's why he talked about the "axis of evil." We all understand this to be one of the most dangerous combinations of our age, and the United States, for many years, has pressed very hard for people to end nuclear cooperation with Iran because we think that it contributes to that kind of development.

QUESTION: Richard, I don't know if you can answer this -- it might be technical -- but can you give us any sense of comparison between the nuclear program we suspected Iraq had and the nuclear program that we believe Iran has?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't. That's too technical for me. I think I would look at the CIA/DIA 721 Report. You'll get a fairly accurate rundown of what we can say in public.

Elise, you had something?

QUESTION: It might be a little soon for you to have anything --

MR. BOUCHER: I love these questions that start out with, "It might be too technical," and I say, "Yes, it might be too technical." It may be a little soon? Yes, I can confirm it's a little soon. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Maybe this is -- Prime Minister Sharon apparently said today that he's willing to have talks with Syria with no preconditions. I was wondering if this is something he has mentioned to you in recent weeks or if there's anything you have on this.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything on it now. It's a little soon.

Sonni.

QUESTION: I hope it's not too soon to tell us, do you have the votes for a resolution in IAEA that would declare Iran in violation of the NPT?

MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I'm not talking about votes, I'm not talking about a resolution; I'm talking about getting a full report from the Director General of the IAEA at the board meeting in June.

QUESTION: So are you saying you are not --

MR. BOUCHER: What we are looking for now is information that is as full and as detailed a report as possible from him on the situation in Iran, and then we'll decide accordingly what we want to do.

QUESTION: So are you saying you are not lobbying other countries for support and votes at this moment?

New York May 28, 2003

Byliner: Rumsfeld Offers Guidelines for Helping Iraq Build a Free Society (Defense Secretary op-ed in Wall Street Journal) (1820)