The State Department's senior diplomat to the Middle East said that while the use of force would be a "last resort" in the conflict between the international community and Iraq, the world "cannot afford to allow a country to engage in such a blatant pattern of noncooperation" with repeated United Nations resolutions to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Ambassador William Burns, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, told journalists from Pakistan, Spain and Russia February 6 that the Bush Administration still desired a peaceful solution to the conflict, but for that to happen, the Iraqi leadership needed to follow the example set by countries such as South Africa and Ukraine which had satisfactorily disarmed themselves of such weapons.

"What you need to see is a strategic decision" by Iraq, Burns said, to follow the course of action of such countries as South Africa and Ukraine "when they have set about seriously to comply with obligations to disarm weapons of mass destruction.... We've seen none of that seriousness of purpose on the part of the Iraqi regime." He spoke to the journalists from Washington in a digital video conference (DVC).

The assistant secretary said Secretary of State Colin Powell had made "a very comprehensive and, we believe, compelling case" before the U.N. Security Council February 5 in which he presented evidence that Iraq was willfully not complying with the U.N. weapons inspection team.

When asked about extending the mission of the inspectors, Burns said it was "very difficult to see how the passage of time alone is likely to produce better Iraqi behavior."

The task of the inspectors, he said, "is not necessarily to uncover things in a kind of intricate game of hide and seek in Iraq. Their task is to take from the Iraqis their commitment, their full cooperation, to explain exactly what they've done" with their WMD materials and components.

This conflict, he said, is not just an issue of contention between "the United States and a particular regime in Iraq," but, rather, is based upon Iraq's unwillingness to comply with "the will of the international community."

"And that was the central point that Secretary Powell was making," said Burns. "It is significant that he made that point, that he made that presentation in New York at the Security Council because it reflects our commitment to working to the maximum extent possible through the United Nations and with an international coalition of countries to try to ensure that Iraq complies with its obligations, because the issue is a very stark one."

With regard to the reluctance on the part of some countries to endorse the use of force against Iraq, Burns acknowledged that "there are obviously a lot of questions being raised," and he said the use of force should continue be debated "because no one should look easily or look lightly at some of the choices that are involved here." However, "the international community cannot afford to allow a country to engage in such a blatant pattern of non-cooperation."

The assistant secretary said the United States would also be mindful of other issues of concern in the Middle East, such as the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and the need for economic and political reform in the region. The Bush administration would seek to pursue them "with equal vigor and equal sense of leadership," he said, being aware of how many of these issues were interconnected.

The United States would also need to demonstrate to the people of the Middle East, he said, that "violent extremist groups don't have answers to the questions on the minds of most people in the region," in terms of economic prosperity or a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

"We have to demonstrate that we are actively and deeply committed to producing those kinds of outcomes and to showing that, through diplomatic and political means, you can produce positive outcomes in a way that will never be achieved through violent extremism or the use of terrorism," he said.

Digital Video Conference on Iraq
Speaker: Assistant Secretary Burns
The Department of State, Washington, February 6, 2003 1:20 EST

Moderator: Good evening. Can everybody hear me? On behalf of all of us here I would like to thank you for taking part in our digital video conference. Before I turn the floor over to Assistant Secretary Burns, I would just like to remind you that our time is limited. After Assistant Secretary Burns' opening remarks we will begin with approximately ten minutes of questions for each - Pakistan, then Spain, then Russia. When your time is close to being over I will let you know, so thank you.

Assistant Secretary Burns: Thank you. I apologize for being a little bit late, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to meet with all of you, and in the interests of time, since I'm sure you have a number of questions and comments, I'll limit my opening remarks simply to saying that Secretary Powell yesterday in New York at the United Nations made a very comprehensive and, we believe, compelling case with regard to the pattern of non-cooperation which the Iraqi regime has engaged in, in dealing not only with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, but with the whole series of U.N. obligations into which it entered over more than a decade.

It is our conviction - the president's conviction, Secretary Powell's conviction - that time is running out for Iraqi compliance. That against the backdrop of that pattern of non-cooperation, it is essential for the international community, and for the U.N. Security Council as an institution, to make very clear that non-compliance is not something which can be tolerated.

This is an issue, as we've said before, not just about the United States and a particular regime in Iraq, but about a regime which has defied the will of the international community. And that was the central point that Secretary Powell was making yesterday.

It is significant that he made that point, that he made that presentation in New York at the Security Council because it reflects our commitment to working to the maximum extent possible through the United Nations and with an international coalition of countries to try and ensure that Iraq complies with its obligations because the issue is a very stark one.

No one can look at the possibility of the use of force except as a last resort and except with great care because the use of force, war, is a terrible undertaking however it is carried out, with enormous and very difficult consequences. But it is also true that the United Nations, the international community, cannot afford to allow a country to engage in such a blatant pattern of non-cooperation. And, as I said, we are committed to doing everything we can to work with our partners in the Security Council, and that was one of the main messages of Secretary Powell's appearance yesterday in New York.

So why don't I stop there and, as I said, I'm delighted to have this opportunity to respond to your questions.

Moderator: Can we start with Pakistan please?

Mushahid Hussain: Ambassador Burns, good evening from Pakistan, Islamabad. My name is Mushahid Hussain and I am a syndicated columnist based in Islamabad. I have a comment and a question. My comment is based on the popular perception among Pakistanis and a lot of Muslims who are extremely perplexed at a certain dichotomy in American foreign policy that on issues such as Iraq, where the U.S. is advocating regime change, almost as if that the geopolitical map of the Middle East is going to be revamped as a consequence of upcoming American military action, but on [unintelligible] contentious and long-standing issues which are the root cause of regional instability and whose legitimacy is derived from United Nations resolutions, and I am referring to Palestine in the Middle East and Kashmir in South Asia, the U.S. is only acting as a fire brigade, ignoring these [ ? core] issues and seeking to promote, preserve and protect the status quo, unlike Iraq, where the U.S. wants to change the status quo. This dichotomy is somewhat inexplicable and this is a comment which I have based on popular perceptions in Pakistan.

My question is that on issues of weapons of mass destruction, which I think is a very fundamental issue affecting humanity at large, the U.S. concern is Muslim-world specific or Iraq-specific. We don't see the concern being extended to countries like India or Israel, which have a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And we also have talk from western quarters that the U.S. might even think of using nuclear weapons in any future conflict against countries like Iraq. So I would like to have your response to this question, and also to my comments. Thank you.

Burns: Thank you very much, because it is a very thoughtful comment and question. Let me try first to comment on your comment, and then respond to your question.

First as a matter of principle, the United States supports the implementation of a whole range of Security Council resolutions, and we have worked very hard over the years with others to bring that about. With regard to the question of Iraq, that series of Security Council resolutions leading up to 1441 levies some very clear obligations on the Iraqi regime into which the Iraqi regime entered freely. Those requirements are spelled out very clearly in terms of disarming weapons of mass destruction in a verifiable way, along with advanced missile systems. And it is incumbent upon the international community to ensure that those terms are implemented.

With regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, one of the examples that you cited, we are equally committed to following through on those resolutions. What resolutions like 242, 338 and more recently Security Council resolution 1397 lay out is a process through which to reconcile the legitimate aspirations of Israelis for their state to exist in security in the region, as well as for Palestinians to realize their legitimate aspirations. And what we are committed to is exactly that. And over the years we have worked hard to establish negotiating processes which have produced results - in the Egypt-Israel peace treaty more than 20 years ago, in the first accords between Palestinians and Israelis, and the Jordan-Israel peace treaty, just to cite several examples. So, our commitment is a very strong one across the board. How that commitment is applied is going to depend on the particular resolution and what they call for.

With regard to your question about WMD, we, as the president has emphasized, have a particular concern about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of regimes which have demonstrated no respect for international norms. In the case of Iraq, a particularly egregious and unique case of a regime which has used those weapons against its own people as well as against its neighbors. And that is the situation which has posed a unique threat and has caused the Security Council, most recently in a unanimous vote, to pass some very clear resolutions on that issue.

That doesn't mean that we're not concerned about the broader problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in a variety of parts of the world, and advanced missile systems, and we've approached that with equal seriousness. But on the particular issue of Iraq and the threat that it poses, not just to us, but to countries in the region and to others, given the particularly obnoxious and reprehensible track record of that regime, we believe it's incumbent upon the Security Council to act to enforce those resolutions.

Moderator: Next short question in Pakistan?

Talat Masood: Ambassador Burns, this is Talat Masood here. I also write for the newspapers. My question is that why is it that the United States government is not prepared to give more time to the inspections, for inspections, particularly when we feel, at least from here, that it is quite possible for the United States and the United Nations to achieve the objectives, which are the stated objectives of the United States, through peaceful means, and through a political process, and through the instrument of inspections, rather than waging a war which will naturally have devastating and catastrophic consequences for the region. What we also fail to understand is that the revelations that were made by Secretary Powell yesterday, why were they not handed over to the inspectors in time so that, you know, the evidence could have been more concretized, rather than being somewhat abstract. So, and I think the most important question is that as, what we see from here, that the United States is likely to wage a war in the very near future, and then how do you foresee the events unfolding in Iraq and in the whole of the Middle East and how is the United States or the United Nations going to manage the affairs of the Middle East and of Iraq?

Burns: Well sir, you've packed a great number of interesting comments into that one question. Let me try briefly to address each of the points that you made.

With regard to the information that Secretary Powell talked publicly about yesterday in New York, we have engaged in a very serious and intensive process along with other countries, members of the U.N., of sharing information with UNMOVIC, to try and ensure that UNMOVIC carries out its difficult task in the most efficient way possible, and we will continue to do that.

Second, with regard to the issue of time and inspections. Against the backdrop of the very comprehensive picture which Secretary Powell outlined yesterday, it's very difficult, I think, to see how the indefinite passage of time is going to increase the chances that a regime which is so defiantly and deliberately set out to obstruct the process of inspections, as Secretary Powell documented yesterday with a number of very specific examples, it's very difficult to see how the passage of time makes it more likely that the inspectors are going to succeed in their task because, again, their task is not necessarily to uncover things in a kind of intricate game of hide and seek in Iraq. Their task is to take from the Iraqis their commitment, their full cooperation, to explain exactly what they've done with materials which UNMOVIC's predecessor UNSCOM had outlined.

They didn't do that in the declaration that they provided, which I think any reasonable person would conclude was full of holes, and which both Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei said quite straightforwardly was inadequate and which Secretary Powell talked about yesterday.

So, against that backdrop of non-cooperation and non-compliance, it's very difficult to see how the passage of time is likely to produce -- alone -- is likely to produce better Iraqi behavior.

Finally, with regard to your question about if, God forbid, the use of force does become a last resort, and again, not just for the United States, but for others in the international community who recognize the threat posed by Iraq, the threat posed to the United Nations as an institution by Iraqi non-compliance, if we come to that undertaking as a last resort, then the United States and others in the international community must be committed to ensuring that we do everything possible to bring about a future for Iraqis that replaces the despair and the fear and the terror under which they've live for more than two decades of misrule by Saddam Hussein, with a sense of hope. And what that means is a heavy set of obligations - not just for the United States, but for the entire international community - to try and meet immediate humanitarian needs, to try and ensure that security and stability are preserved, to try and ensure Iraq's territorial integrity and its unity, to ensure the restoration of economic hope and economic prospects for all Iraqis.

All of these are very difficult undertakings, and they are things in which we are going to need the cooperation of the entire international community because it's in the interests of Iraq's neighbors, of countries well outside the Middle East, and most importantly in the interests of Iraqis themselves, those who have suffered so much over the years, to see that future created.

And so, I -- what I am certain that you will see, if as a last resort force is used, is a deep and enduring commitment on the part of the United States and others in the international community to do everything we can to ensure that kind of a future. That's what the region needs, and that's what the Iraqi people deserve.

Masood: Mr. Burns --
Moderator: I'm sorry, we're going to have to move to Spain right now.

Masood: OK, that's fine.

Moderator: I'm sorry.

Burns: I'll look forward to the next opportunity.

Jorge Marirrodriga: Good morning Assistant Secretary Burns, my name is Jorge Marirrodriga. I am a journalist at El Pais newspaper in Spain. My first question is related to the NATO council which has been here today, and in which it has been made clear, at least today, [ ? this big ] disagreement between some of the most important U.S. allies in Europe, especially France and Germany. Do you think that U.S. diplomacy will convince again to France and Germany that a [unintelligible] against Saddam Hussein's regime is necessary?

Burns: Well I think that's the judgment obviously that in the end France and Germany are going to have to make for themselves. All I would say is that what you saw in Secretary Powell's presentation in New York yesterday was a determination not only to speak plainly about the facts and about Iraq's non-cooperation, but also about our determination to work with the international community, with the U.N. Security Council, with our allies to try and move decisively to ensure that either Iraq disarms peacefully, which remains everyone's preferred outcome, or that it is disarmed.

And the one thing the Secretary made clear is that that choice can't be postponed any longer, and we are going to continue to work intensively with our allies in Europe and elsewhere to try and build the strongest possible coalition in support of that position. But I am confident that in the end we are going to see very strong international cooperation on this issue.

Marirrodriga: Today Hans Blix said that Iraq is not doing enough. Do you think that (unintelligible) that position is hardening, and is more clear what is not (unintelligible) than before after Powell's speech at the U.N. agency?

Burns: I think Mr. Blix, you know, speaks quite clearly and eloquently for himself, and I think what he stated today and what he stated before in his report to the council is an expression of fact and of the reality that as the secretary explained in great detail yesterday, Iraq is not cooperating. It is not fulfilling its obligations.

Marirrodriga: In 1991, Israel was very quiet when she was [ ? deliberately ] attacked by Iraq. If, now in the future if again attacked by Iraq, Prime Minister Sharon said she will exercise [unintelligible] self-defense. Does the United States agree with this position?

Burns: Well I think all I can say on that issue is that the question here, as I said before, is one which pits Iraqi defiance, Iraqi non-compliance with the world and the international community, and that's the issue on which we are focused. And obviously anything that the Iraqi regime wants to try to do to broaden that threat would be viewed with extreme seriousness - not just by the United States but by others in the international community.

Marirrodriga: I would like to know, despite some European governments have tried to convince their public opinions about the right of the Untied States, to follow this month the public opinions of the latest polls said that most majority of the European public opinion is against military action in Iraq, and also in the United States there are some kind of protesters. What is doing the United States government in order to have that government [unitelligible] this kind of protestors?

Burns: Well, I think again, Secretary Powell's presentation in New York yesterday was a very clear illustration of the importance we attach to laying out the case about Iraqi non-cooperation and non-compliance. The audience for Secretary Powell's presentation was a very wide one - it wasn't limited just to the member states sitting in the Security Council chamber.

And I think as people digest the presentation that he made, and the other facts and the realities that I think are obvious to any sensible person, they're going to come to the conclusion that the United Nations as an institution and its member states are going to need to act decisively if Iraq does not peacefully disarm. And I think that case obviously is going to be the cause of debate - it ought to be - because no one should look easily or look lightly at some of the choices that are involved here. Particularly when you are talking about the use of force. Particularly when you are talking about all the consequences that could flow from that - both intended and unintended.

But in the end, I think, and this is where I think Secretary Powell's presentation yesterday was so effective, is that as people understand the facts, I think they are going to come more and more, not just in this country where there's already solid support for President Bush's approach on this issue, but also around the world, to the conclusion that the United Nations cannot afford to allow a country to simply, flatly defy its obligations.

Marirrodriga: Is your government in contact with some other governments of the [unintelligible] that are not in favor of this [ ? action] , like Syria for instance? What do you think will be the role of Syria if Saddam Hussein [ ? falls] and it remains like that - one of the only countries in this 'axis of evil', which President Bush has talked about?

Burns: Well, Syria voted for UN Security Council resolution 1441 which resulted in a unanimous vote in support of a very serious and concerted effort to hold Iraq to its obligations. Syria voted for a resolution which talked very clearly about the serious consequences which would follow if Iraq continued to refuse to cooperate. So there are a lot of very difficult questions. We stay in very close touch with a whole range of governments, including Syria, but as I said, the practical reality remains that the international community through the Security Council made very clear, unanimously, the importance of Iraqi compliance and the fact that serious consequences will follow if Iraq continues to refuse to comply.

Marirrodriga: Do you have the full support of your European allies, or not? What says American administration about this, because maybe this is the first time since the Second World War in which there is this great disagreement between allies?

Burns: Well, I think there's obviously a very active debate going on. There are obviously a lot of questions being raised, as I said, quite understandably, about the choices involved in the case of Iraq's non-compliance. And that kind of serious debate ought to continue. But what I also think you see is a trend, and I think Secretary Powell's presentation in New York yesterday helped reinforce that trend, toward a greater understanding of what's at stake here for the United Nations, for the international community, and what has become very clear about the pattern of Iraqi non-cooperation.

And I think over time you're going to continue to see a strengthening international consensus, which includes the United States and its European partners, in favor of, as I said, Iraq's compliance, whether it's done peacefully and willingly on the part of the Iraqi regime, which that regime has shown no indication to date that it's committed to doing, or whether the international community has to act decisively to bring that about.

As I said, it's a difficult question. It should be no surprise to anyone that it's the subject of very intense debate. But I believe that we're moving in the direction of that kind of a consensus.

Marirrodriga: Blix today said that there is one week more for disarmament regime in order to fulfill all the agreements. Do you think Saddam will finally do what the Security Council says, or not?

Burns: That's up to him. All I can do is point to the evidence so far which would give very little reassurance to the notion that the Iraqi regime will fully and completely comply and fully and completely disarm, which is its obligation. There can't be any half measures here. What we need to see is a strategic decision in which Iraq, as some other countries around the world have done in the past, when they've set about seriously to comply with obligations to disarm weapons of mass destruction. There was South Africa, Ukraine and other countries. We've seen none of that seriousness of purpose on the part of the Iraqi regime.

Is it still possible? Yes. But, as the president and Secretary Powell have said, time is running very short.

Moderator: Do you have one short final question?

Marirrodriga: No I have no questions. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Great. Thank you. We move on to Russia.

Boris Volkonskiy: Good evening Mr. Assistant Secretary. I am Boris Volkonskiy and I represent the Kommerant daily newspaper in Moscow. My first question is that, as my Spanish colleague already mentioned, the main countries of concern to the United States as opponents to the use of force are France and Germany. But no one among the U.S. officials speaks about Russia as a country that can oppose the resolution allowing to use force, although Russia also has the veto power in the Security Council. What does this imply, really? Does it mean that you disregard Russia as a serious opponent to use of force or does it mean that you have confidence that Russia will not oppose it? And if the latter is true, then what are the reasons behind it? Maybe some bargaining or some secret agreements?

Burns: Well, let me say just a couple of things first. The last thing we would do is disregard the importance of our relationship, of our partnership with Russia. I think in recent years, President Putin and President Bush have made very clear the potential that exists in our relationship. Second, I would say - again, it's no surprise that in Russia there is a debate about these issues. They are very difficult ones to come to grips with. Third, Russia is no stranger to the problem of terrorism. Russia has suffered from violent extremists itself. And so, when you look broadly at the concerns that the president has laid out, that President Bush has laid out about the prospect of weapons of mass destruction winding up either in the hands of regimes that have demonstrated their willingness to use them before, or regimes that might pass them to terrorists, there is a shared threat there that I think Russians and Americans understand very clearly. So, I think what you will continue to see, and when the secretary met Foreign Minister Ivanov yesterday he emphasized this, is a real determination on our part to try and work as closely with Russia as we can, bearing in mind the significance of our partnership and the importance of the issues that are at stake in the case of Iraq. So, it's going to be a continuing process. We have more work to do with one another, but as we look at ways in which we can work together in the Security Council, obviously the conversations and the dialogue between us and Russia is going to be as important as anything else that we do.

Volkonskiy: Well, still, that means you are confident Russia will not use its veto power?

Burns: I am confident that Russia, in the end, is going to take a very careful and sober look at the threat, at what's at stake for the United Nations, as well as for the interests of the United States and Russia, a very careful and sober look at the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, a very careful look at the facts of Iraqi non-cooperation and non-compliance, and a very careful look at the reality that time really is running out. That is a consultation and a conversation that we're going to need to continue to have. But I'm confident that, in the end, Russia will make a decision which reflects all those realities that I just described.

Volkonskiy: You mentioned that Russia is not a -- no stranger to terrorism and it is reflected in media that State Department is going to include certain Chechen organizations in the black list of terrorist organizations. Does it mean it is part of the bargain?

Burns: No, I think we approach those kinds of issues with regard to groups that get designated on our list of terrorist organizations on the merits. And that's the basis for our decision. So, the issue of Iraq is something that we'll approach in the way that I described before, and the issue of terrorism is one in which, I think, we share some common ground with Russia. But the issue of what groups go on that list is one that we'll approach on the merits or the criteria that are laid out for that list.

Volkonskiy: Well, there are certain statements made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld which sound much more harsh than the statements made by State Secretary Powell, for example, in terms of dealing with France and Germany. In what way are the Pentagon and State Department -- do you cooperate your statements, public statements?

Burns: Well, the simplest thing for me to say, as a careful diplomat, is that U.S. policy gets set by the President of the United States, and that he sets the tone of our statements. And on the question of Iraq, as we discussed before, he set a very clear tone - one of absolute determination to hold the Iraqi regime to account for its obligations, and absolute determination to ensure that decisive action occurs - whether it's voluntary action on the part of the Iraqi regime, or action of the international community it needs to take to enforce compliance. And so, it's the president who sets the tone in the direction of American policy. It shouldn't be any great surprise to anyone who knows our system that there's a debate from time to time over issues. But on this question, I think there is an -- obviously a very strong commitment on the part of President Bush's entire team to ensure that the direction that he's laid out with regard to Iraq is followed through on, and followed through on very thoroughly.

Volkonskiy: [unintelligible] any kind of action against Iraq, have you calculated and how carefully have you calculated reaction in the Muslim world, and in Arabic world, for example in Saudi Arabia, etc.?

Burns: Well, we've obviously thought through very carefully that set of issues because this is a tense time in the Middle East and throughout the Arab world. There are many sources for that tension and that uncertainty. Certainly, the question of Iraq is one of them, but the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is another. So is the question of opening up greater economic opportunities and greater opportunities for political participation throughout the region. So is the question of fighting violent extremists and terrorist groups who threaten, first and foremost, many of our friends in the region.

So we are going to need, the United States is going to need to pursue a policy agenda which covers all of that range of issues, and in which we pursue each of those issues with a great deal of vigor and leadership. We can't, you know the expression, we can't pursue these issues a la carte. We can't simply pick one or another of those issues because each of them affects our interests, American interests in the Middle East. Each of them affects the interest of our friends. And what you will see, I'm convinced from the president and Secretary Powell, is a very determined effort, not just with regard to the question of Iraq, which we've spent a lot of time talking about, but also with regard to the Palestinian issue, with regard to the continuing campaign against terrorism, and with regard to the question of what can we do to support the efforts of our friends in the region, leaders, and societies, to open up greater economic and political opportunities.

Volkonskiy: You said that you hope for a broad coalition forming against Iraq finally, eventually. Can you give a rough idea of how many countries would fall into this coalition?

Burns: Well I think you already have seen literally dozens of countries which, in one way or another, are expressing their conviction that the Iraqi threat needs to be dealt with decisively. And obviously, we are operating on the basis of Security Council resolutions right now. There are many different forms in which people might contribute to such an effort. It's not something that could be measured purely in military terms if it does come to a decision to use force. But I think you are seeing a growing number of countries, as I said, measured already in the dozens, which are willing, as a last resort, to contribute to such an effort. And I think that number is going to increase in the weeks ahead.

Volkonskiy: And my last question. I think that today's, some American newspapers published information based on some source in the White House that if there is a risk of any country, any permanent member of the Security Council using its veto power, then America will not even put up the question of any new resolution, and act according to the existing one.

Burns: Well, again, the president has been very clear in saying that a second resolution in the Security Council going beyond resolution 1441 is something that would be desirable, and that could be very useful, but that we as a government don't regard as necessary considering the basis that 1441 and previous U.N. Security Council resolutions already provides. There haven't been any decisions made beyond that point, and obviously this is something that's going to be the focus of intensive thought and then intensive consultation between us and other members of the Security Council in the days and weeks ahead.

Volkonskiy: Thank you very much.

Burns: Thank you.

Moderator: Perhaps we can maybe take one or two more questions from Pakistan.

Hussain: Ambassador Burns, we were quite surprised at the statement made by Secretary Powell yesterday in the U.N. Security Council where he referred to the role of the Iraqi embassy in Islamabad. We would like to know for the benefit of the Pakistani people, what is the concrete, substantive evidence you have to furnish to beef up this assertion? And secondly, this point has a larger relevance because a lot of Muslim allies of the U.S. in the war on terror, including Pakistan, which has played a very important role and is continuing to be a frontline state in the war on terror, including Egypt or Saudi Arabia, we are sometimes seen as friends, but actually portrayed as foes by policy statements and the press in the United States. So, we would like some clarification on this issue. Thank you.

Burns: Sure. On your first point, I don't have anything to add to Secretary Powell's presentation yesterday except to make the general point that, over the years, we have come across and others of our friends have come across, clear evidence of Iraqi embassies engaged in all sorts of behavior which would undermine the interests of our friends. With regard to your broader point on Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, let me just stress that we consider each of those partnerships to be extremely important ones for the United States. And, it is obviously the case that we have differences from time to time in each of those relationships, and each of them are different. But we are committed, in the case of the two that I am most familiar with - Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- to a continued close partnership. We are continuing to make a serious attempt to renew those partnerships, and taking on the challenges of the Middle East that I mentioned before, ranging from Iraq to the campaign against terrorism, to the Palestinian issue, to the hopes of peoples and leaderships in the region to open up greater economic and political opportunities. And we're convinced that working through those partnerships, we are much more likely to be able to achieve successful outcomes in each of those challenges for the peoples of the region, as well as for American interests.

So, we do have differences from time to time, and they get aired quite publicly sometimes. But I think it is also important to recognize and remember what we have achieved together. In the case of the U.S.-Egyptian relationship, for example, which has provided the cornerstone for successful efforts to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict over the years, which has produced tangible economic benefits for Egyptians, and which has helped stabilize the region in security terms. So those are relationships which we're still deeply committed to, for all the differences that we may have from time to time.

Hussain: Thank you.

Masood: Ambassador Burns, I would like to ask you that in case of war against Iraq, the chances of you losing focus on your war against terrorism are rather great. How do you foresee that? Because the danger is that extremism in this part of the world, and in the Middle East, and in South Asia would increase, and the forces of fanaticism, etc., will get a great impetus. And how do you foresee terrorists, you know, facing this challenge, particularly not only in the U.S., but the coalition as a force?

Burns: That's a very fair question and I think the first thing I'd say is we have to be mindful, as you rightly pointed out, of the connections between issues and of the importance of the United States pursuing a broad agenda which is very forthright and determined with the question of prosecuting the continuing war on terrorism, with regard to decisive action on the question of Iraq, but also with regard to the rest of what has to be a positive agenda, and that is to seek a diplomatic resolution of outstanding regional conflicts, particularly the Palestinian issue and looking at the Middle East, as well as making clear our common purpose with peoples and leaderships in the region and expanding economic opportunities, in opening up educational opportunities, opportunities for greater political participation. And it seems to me that it's only in pursing that wide range of issues with equal vigor and equal sense of leadership that we're going to be able to succeed because it's not enough simply to pursue the war on terrorism, for example, as if the task of law enforcement, intelligence sharing, blocking the flow of financial resources to terrorist groups in and of itself is going to produce the kind of future for the Middle East that the United States wants to see. We're also going to have to demonstrate to people not only that those kind of violent extremist groups don't have answers to the questions on the minds of most people in the region, that they don't have a way to produce greater economic opportunities, for example, or to produce solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We have to demonstrate that we are actively and deeply committed to producing those kind of outcomes, and to showing that through diplomatic and political means you can produce positive outcomes in a way that will never be achieved through violent extremism or the use of terrorism.

Moderator: I'm sorry, I think we're going to have to cut it off for right now. Thank you. Thank you very much Ambassador Burns.

Burns: Thank you all very much for the opportunity. I'll look forward to the next time. Thank you again for the time.

Moderator: Thank you. We can go ahead and sign off now.