For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 11, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:42 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. The President began his day this
morning with a phone call to Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen. The
Danes and the President of the EU -- the Danes are the President of
the EU, and will host an important EU summit in Copenhagen December
12-13. The President stated his strong support for Turkey's
aspirations to begin negotiations to join the EU. The President noted
the very positive meeting he had with Turkish political leader Erdogan
here in the White House yesterday, and the President expressed his hope
the EU will seize an historic moment and respond to Turkey positively
and with vision.
The President then proceeded to have an intelligence briefing this
morning, followed by his FBI briefing. He taped an interview with
Barbara Walters for 20/20, which will air on Friday night. And then
the President looks forward to meeting this afternoon with the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior and the Chairman
of his Council on Environmental Quality to announce a new initiative to
reduce the threat of wildfire in the western states. That will be an
announcement that will be made here by the Cabinet Secretaries
intelligence his briefing room after the meeting with the President.
That is it on the President's schedule today. I have one
announcement I want to make, and then I'll be happy to take your
questions. The President is very pleased to be able to report today
that an agreement has been reached with Chile on the agreement for free
trade -- a free trade agreement with Chile. The President
congratulates Ambassador Zoellick and Minister Alvear for the fine work
in producing this long-sought free trade agreement.
The teams involved in this have worked long and hard, and this is
important to America's economy and to the economy of Chile. This
agreement with Chile will mean higher, better paying jobs for
Americans, and is important to our outreach in the hemisphere with our
friends and allies. The President looks forward to other initiatives
in the hemisphere and continuing to make progress in -- relevant to
promotion of free trade.
And with that, I'll be happy to take your questions. John
Roberts.
Q Can you tell us what the status is of the ship carrying the
15 Scud missiles that were headed for Yemen? And can you kind of walk
us through this whole incident?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me start on the walk-through, and then I'll
give you the status. There are some developments. This has been a
very successful coalition interdiction effort that took place in the
Arabian Sea. We became aware of the departure of a ship from North
Korea that was carrying what we believed to be weapons of concern.
This was a non-flagged vessel, which gave us further concern. And the
vessel was destined for Yemen. We had a concern about what was on it.
We had a concern before ascertaining, indeed, that it was going to
Yemen that it may have been heading for a nation that was a terrorist
-- a potential terrorist nation.
As a result, the actions that were taken were the ship was stopped
and boarded. And I can report to you now that the matter has been
discussed with Yemeni officials. Secretary Powell has spoken with
Yemeni authorities; the Vice President has done so, as well, and we
have looked at this matter thoroughly. There is no provision under
international law prohibiting Yemen from accepting delivery of missiles
from North Korea. While there is authority to stop and search, in this
instance there is no clear authority to seize the shipment of Scud
missiles from North Korea to Yemen. And therefore, the merchant vessel
is being released.
Q If I could just follow up on that. Were the Yemenis
contacted when the ship left and you thought it was going there? And
did they, in fact, say that they had not purchased any new missiles
from North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I've heard a media report or at least a
question pertaining to that, and I have started to track that down, and
I do not think that's an accurate statement, John. The information I
have does not lend me to support that thesis.
Q Didn't the United States have an agreement with Yemen that
Yemen not purchase this type of equipment from North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: We have, as you know, efforts around the world on
the proliferation front to discourage missile technologies, import, or
export in most cases. And that is part of our ongoing dialogue with
Yemen. It involves some issues that immediately enter the category of
legality in terms of various agreements, international treaties and
agreements and understandings between the United States and Yemen and
around the world vis-a-vis the Missile Technology Control Regime. And
so the conversations have been taking place with Yemen about it, but
it's not possible to reach such a clear conclusion.
Q Well, although it may not be illegal, the Pentagon has been
saying it's in violation of an agreement with the United States. Is
that guidance wrong?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, there are certain legalities that
accompany these understandings with different nations, all of which
need to be fully explored. And that is why we began the conversations
with Yemen as these issues were being explored, and this is also why
the decisions have been made to release the ship.
Q Is that a yes, no, or I don't understand to the question?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's just what I indicated.
Q Have they violated the agreement with the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a series of conversations and understandings
that exist, and the legalities of those conversations are very
important to understand.
Q So we don't know? Is that the answer, is we don't know
whether or not it's a violation of the agreement?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that that would be a bit of an
overstatement, Ron.
Q I wouldn't know what to write right now.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, as I indicated, there is no provision
under international law that prohibits this. And as we discuss this
with Yemen, in terms of our deduction toward international law and to
the honoring of proliferation agreements, those conversations have led
to the conclusion that the ship has been released.
Q But have they given us assurances, verbal or written, that
they would not buy any more missile technology from North Korea after
the August embargo was slapped on the North Korean companies?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that there are indications that things that
took place in Yemen previously were not always going to be practiced
into the future, and it's a question of exactly how to define the
starting date of that future, and that is the point of discussion with
Yemen.
Q So, in other words, an agreement had not been reached yet?
So they didn't violate an agreement because you guys are still just
talking about it, about something that would codify --
MR. FLEISCHER: And exactly what the starting point of any
agreement would be.
Q Okay. So there would be an agreement -- there will be an
agreement at some point in the future, but we're not there yet, in
terms of --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me say this about the future, as well.
Yemen is a partner of the United States in the war on terrorism. There
are many agreements around the world in international treaty law which
have been agreed to, focused on nuclear proliferation, on biological
proliferation, on chemical weapon proliferation. One thing that does
come out of this that the United States thinks needs to be looked at by
the world is that there are less stringent agreements on the
international treaty level dealing with proliferation of missiles.
The nuclear proliferation agreements are well-known. Biological
and chemical are well-known. One thing that this does underscore is
the need to take a look -- and we will do so, with friends and others
around the world -- in a diplomatic sense about whether or not the
international regimes that deal with missile proliferation need a
second look.
Q Let me ask a follow-up. Now that these weapons are going to
go on to Yemen, what's the administration's level of concern about a
haven for al Qaeda and a government that is -- while it's pledged its
cooperation, is still rather suspect -- taking receipt of these kinds
of weapons, possessing them in the first place?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Yemen is a sovereign government. And Yemen
has given the United States assurances -- and this is what Mr.
McClellan referenced this morning -- as conversations took place with
Yemen, Yemen has given the United States assurances that it will not
transfer these missiles to anyone.
Q Has the President or has the White House, anybody here seen
the new -- the intelligence report put out by the Senate committee?
And what do you think of it?
MR. FLEISCHER: We look forward to receiving it and studying it in
its totality.
Q You haven't seen it?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware that it has reached that level yet.
I think they have just come out with it now. Obviously, there were
some press accounts of it that were given out ahead of release. And
it's a question of conveyance and when that will be actually looked
at. But we look forward to looking at this. This is an important
document. This was important work that was done by the Congress
through the intelligence committees that now will be built upon with
the 9/11 Commission. They have some recommendations in there that we
want to review carefully and talk to members of Congress about.
Q I understand that it takes off on practically all the top
officials in this administration in terms of intelligence.
MR. FLEISCHER: Have you read it, Helen?
Q No.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, then how do you know it took off it after all
the top officials?
Q Because I had some good reports.
MR. FLEISCHER: We'll take a look. We'll see what it says. There
was a reason that the 9/11 Commission was based on the intelligence
committees' work. The intelligence committees performed their duties
for the country by taking a look at all the information that was
relevant. And the next step is for the administration to receive it
and analyze it. We appreciate the work that they put into it.
Q Do you go along with the Defense Department having one
intelligence officer over all the agencies?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a separate issue from what the committee --
this report recommends having a Cabinet-level Secretary of
Intelligence, for lack of better words. That's a recommendation that
we'll review. We'll see what the reasons they have in this report and
we'll take a look. But as far as the Department of Defense, the
Department of Defense plays a very valuable role in the intelligence
community. And they organize themselves as such.
Q So you won't have any say in that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I've heard no objections from the White House about
that measure.
Q Back on the ship, does the administration believe that the
government of Yemen has been completely above board and frank on this
matter?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that in our conversations with Yemen, we
have talked this matter through. I think that Yemen understands the
United States' commitment to making certain that terrorist regimes in
the area do not receive weapons. And the United States, as you know
from reading our strategy on combating weapons of mass destruction,
will be vigilant in fighting proliferation, in terms of
counterproliferation efforts and nonproliferation efforts, including
interdiction, as warranted or necessary.
Q I'll follow up on that in just a second. But in talking this
matter through, the Yemenis were honest, frank, and above board with
the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that we have no complaints about the
diplomacy between the United States and Yemen, as we discuss this
matter.
Q So why was the ship unflagged in international waters?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that is one of the reasons that we
had questions about the ship and we did not know where the destination
of the ship was. And I think that these things are still going to be
explored.
Q And why were the missiles hidden under bags of cement?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a question that North Korea or Yemen have to
answer. But, again, because the fact of the matter is, it is not an
illegal product that can be stopped under international law and seized,
that the fact that somebody took those steps is not, in and of itself,
a violation of anything. That's why the ship is proceeding.
Q Did we ask them why they did that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, we have reviewed the matter to see what
steps were necessary to take and whether or not the ship's delivery
should be resumed. And we have no reason legally to stop it in that
sense or in other ways.
Q Has Yemen committed not to take any more shipments from North
Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think that's a question you should address to
Yemen.
Q -- just comment on --
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, if you're asking about something that Yemen
is committing to with other nations, you need to ask Yemen that.
Q No, have they committed to the United States? Have they
committed to the White House after this incident that they will not
take any more --
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, it's not my job to speak for other
governments. I can explain to you what's happened in the case of this
ship.
Q Are you contemplating more sanctions against North Korea for
this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, under the Missile Technology Control Regime,
there is no provision of international law that prohibited this.
Q Well, what good is it?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's why I said there are issues that are
going to be raised that deal with the overall regime of missile in
export. What's clear is that the international regimes that deal with
nuclear and others have provisions that do not apply in this case. And
international law still has to be -- David.
Q Several questions on this, Ari. Let's focus on the North
Korea part of it instead of the Yemen portion for a moment. First of
all, after you turned out this policy on interdiction that makes it
clear you will stop these, is the lesson that North Korea should draw
from this, that while the United States is willing to cut off North
Korean oil, it is free to ship out its Scud missiles, its No Dong
missiles, the Taepo Dong missile if it wants, which are, of course, the
main way that it's financing its other weapons of mass destruction
program? The policy of the United States is as long as the recipient
nation can legally receive it, we will do nothing to cut off North
Korea's export of missiles?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the large majority of the international
community has long opposed proliferation of these type of missiles.
The United States has identified North Korea as one of the prime
exporters of such missiles, and North Korea actions, in the case of
this interception, demonstrate clearly the concerns we have as a
country. Having said that, international law still is international
law, and you have to be careful to separate an agreement North Korea
made with the United States and Japan and South Korea, vis-a-vis the
agreed framework, and their cooperation with the agreed framework on
the issue of oil, which you did raise, separate and apart from whether
or not in this instance the export of the Scud missiles was not
controlled by international law.
Q During the Cuban missile crisis there was not international
law that guided missile exports between the Soviet Union, at the time,
and Cuba, and yet the United States turned the ships around.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is why I suggest to you that -- I said
earlier that Yemen is a partner of the United States and that we had
concerns about whether or not these missiles were going to head to any
rogue regimes. And that would have been a different matter. But the
fact of the matter is the import or export of this which is legal must
be observed under international law. If international law would have
given the United States the right to do other things vis-a-vis other
nations, you can rest assured we would have exercised those rights.
The issue is whether the national security of the United States or
our interests or friends in the region would have been affected had
these missiles been intended for another nation.
Q So we are not going to blockade or embargo missile --
MR. FLEISCHER: Yemen? No.
Q -- missile exports from North Korea?
MR. FLEISCHER: Have we done so?
Q My question is, is that -- from this point forward, the
message from this is the North Koreans are free --
MR. FLEISCHER: If you're asking is there going to be a military
embargo of either Yemen or North Korea, the answer is no.
Q Ari, you and other administration officials have said that
the U.S. has been tracking this ship since about when it left Korea.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Were there attempts made between then and stopping and
boarding the ship to find out what was on the ship, by contacting North
Korea or Yemen? And why did we stop and board the ship when and where
we did?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that given the fact, again, now we
know what is on the ship and what its destination was because of the
international effort that went into stopping the ship. We now have
that information. The intelligence we had, the information that
contributed to this development where we were ably to successfully
determine what was on there gave us these concerns. I think it's fair
to say that if we had concerns about something that we didn't know
where exactly it was going, or exactly what was on there, the last
thing you want to do is to say to somebody, by the way, would you mind
telling us. That would not necessarily lead to any results where the
people who, in the event our worst suspicions had been realized, I
don't think they would have wanted to be very cooperative.
Q So no diplomatic contacts were --
MR. FLEISCHER: Why would that make sense to do that if we have
concerns about what would be on here might have been illegal or may
have been headed to a rogue regime? If it had been illegal or had been
heading to a rogue regime, I doubt the people responsible would have
fessed up if they got a phone call.
Q So why then and there was the ship stopped?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, from an operational point of view, I'm not in
a position to tell you from the boarding of a ship, whether a hundred
nautical miles or 400 nautical miles was the operational imperative. I
think it reached the point where it was decided because of the concerns
we had that the information needed to be ascertained to make certain
that this was not any type of threat.
Q You were just saying that beyond the concern that these
missiles might have been headed to a rogue regime or ultimately to
terrorists, the U.S. really doesn't have much case to make, aside from
that, under international law? And because Yemen has been somewhat
cooperative, I gather, you're not really objecting to the fact?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, we have to be guided by the law in
these matters. This is about our national security, and the law is a
reflection of the protections that have been placed to defend our
national security. And given the fact that it was -- we had concerns
about whether or not this would have raised national security issues;
those concerns were explored, evaluated as a result of the
international action. We had the actual information about what was on
the ship and where it was going. It did not raise to that level and
so, therefore, as the law would require, since there was no provision
that prohibited them from accepting these missiles, the determination
was made that the ship would proceed.
Q On a related national security matter, yesterday the
administration put out this National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass
Destruction. Some reports have suggested that this contains a new
policy or a departure from previous U.S. policy. Could you clarify
what it is that is in here that is new or is a departure, or what we
should take from this new strategy?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the announcement of our National Strategy to
Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction represents a comprehensive guide for
how seriously the United States takes the need to counter weapons of
mass destruction proliferation. And it underscores, as has been
previously underscored, but ties together in a very comprehensive
fashion the fact that we will engage against the development of weapons
of mass destruction through counterproliferation, through
nonproliferation and, if necessary, through response.
Q Now, on the response question, some -- there was a headline
in New York today that said, "Nuke 'em." There have been other reports
that suggested the administration was somehow upping the ante here. Is
that the case?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's a rather declarative statement of
how seriously the United States would take it in the event that weapons
of mass destruction were used. And it's a reiteration of a statement
that has been made previously. But this time, it ties it all together
to make clear that the United States will, indeed, respond.
Q Any departure at all from existing U.S. policy, going all the
way back to the Gulf War, when we made similar statements, as far as I
remember --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, this policy is consistent with that previous
policy.
Q But in an era of stateless terrorism, against who?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me read from it. What is says, to be clear, is
"The United States must be prepared to respond to the use of weapons of
mass destruction against our citizens or military forces and those of
our friends and allies. We will develop and maintain the capability to
reduce to the extent possible the potentially horrific consequences of
WMD attacks at home and abroad."
And the message, I think that people, whether they are states or
whether they are terrorists or whether they are terrorists -- or
states that are hosting terrorists, is that they should not engage in
any such use because the United States will respond, as we deem
appropriate.
Q With weapons of mass destruction?
MR. FLEISCHER: As is necessary and as is deemed appropriate.
Q So even if the --
MR. FLEISCHER: Jean. We're going to -- there are lots of people
in this room, you have to -- keep asking the questions. Jean.
Q Two things on North Korea. You mentioned that there were
some suspicions or concerns that the ship might be headed to someplace
that would have ill intent. Now, what we know is that Yemen legally
bought the missiles, Yemen wanted the missiles, the boat was headed for
Yemen. On what basis did the administration have any reason to
conclude that this boat was going anywhere but Yemen?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because until you could get on board the boat and
talk to the officials involved and look at the paper involved, there's
no telling where this ship could go.
Q So you all have --
MR. FLEISCHER: When you look at a ship in the ocean, merely
looking at a ship in the ocean is not an indication of where the ship
is going.
Q So you had no intelligence -- you had intelligence
beforehand that there were missiles on the ship, that's why you were
tracking it, but you had no earlier intelligence about where it was
destined?
MR. FLEISCHER: We knew it was going to the Middle East.
Q Well, that's all you knew? The Middle East?
MR. FLEISCHER: We knew it was going to the Middle East, and we had
concerns about exactly where it was going.
Q Did you have an indication at all that it was going to Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: We had concerns about where its ultimate
destination might have been, and it applied to terrorist states or
terrorist organizations or rogue states.
Q Right, but you didn't know -- you had nothing that
indicated it was going to Iraq? You had concerns that it might go to
--
MR. FLEISCHER: I'd say we had concerns.
Q But no evidence?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we had concerns based on information.
Q I also wondered, in light of the fact that you all unveiled
this strategy yesterday on nonproliferation, I understand the
legalities as you've stated them, but it seems to me that if the White
House is promoting a new aggressive strategy for interdiction and to
stop nonproliferation, to stop proliferation particularly from North
Korea, and Yemen is our new friend, then why are we letting Yemen have
the North Korean Scuds? Why didn't the administration try to -- or
did the administration try to cut some other deal with Yemen to
actually block these missiles from getting out?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because under international law and under the
rights of sovereign nations, the United States had the right to stop
and search the ship --
Q But not seize?
MR. FLEISCHER: -- or the international community -- in this
case, Spain -- had the right to stop and search this ship. But there
was no right to seize. Now, what this event does show the world is
that the treaties and the international obligations that protect the
world from proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
are far stronger than the treaties that protect the world from
proliferation issues. And those now will be new issues that need to
get looked into as a result of this, to see whether or not there can be
efforts made to tighten up proliferation involving missiles, and to
make it, perhaps, as tight as some of the other conventions that
exist.
Q So did you do this to make a point?
MR. FLEISCHER: We did it because we had concerns about whether or
not this could have national security implications for the United
States.
Q Okay, just you did have --
MR. FLEISCHER: Last question, Jean.
Q Yes, okay. Other than legal options, you had diplomatic
options. And did the administration try to employ any of those to stop
these -- if you're worried about proliferation, to stop these
missiles from delivery? Yemen -- did you try to cut a deal with
Yemen and give them something else? If their -- if they've got
defense concerns, we have a lot of stuff we can give them that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Until yesterday we didn't know what nation to talk
to in terms of who was going to receive these. It may not have been
Yemen. It turned out to be Yemen.
Q But did you try?
MR. FLEISCHER: Try to talk to who?
Q Yemen?
MR. FLEISCHER: We didn't --
Q Once you learned of the ship?
MR. FLEISCHER: Once we learned it was Yemen, we immediately talked
to Yemen.
Q But do you -- on the missiles. Did you try to talk them
out of taking the missiles? Did you try to cut some other deal?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, it's -- it is their right under the law.
That is the case.
Q Two questions on two different subjects. First of all, you
said that there was a basis, legal basis under international law to
interdict the ship.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q Can you just clarify what that was? Is that part of the
missile --
MR. FLEISCHER: No, because the ship was an unflagged vessel, there
was a right to stop and search the ship.
Q And that's a --
MR. FLEISCHER: It's under maritime law.
Q Maritime law.
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.
Q The second question, on a totally unrelated subject, you
said yesterday that President Bush still has confidence in Senator Lott
to be the Republican leader in the Senate, the Majority Leader, despite
what he -- the remarks he made at Senator Thurmond's birthday party.
It now turns out that Senator Lott made comments very similar to those
20 years ago -- more than 20 years ago -- which undercuts his
statement that this was spontaneous. Given what has now come out, does
the President still believe that Senator Lott is --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think you have to -- the remarks
that were made in 1980, according to Senator Lott's staff, were made in
an entirely different -- about an entirely different subject. I
understand also -- I don't know the content of it, but I understand
Senator Lott is going to be speaking out about this later today, so you
may have to -- may have additional information coming from Senator
Lott.
Q The President still believes --
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing has changed from anything that I've
indicated to you yesterday.
Q Senator Daschle just put out a statement saying that the
President himself should make clear that the Republican Party does not
believe the kinds of things that Senator Lott was saying. Is the White
House prepared to actually denounce the statement that Senator Lott
made?
MR. FLEISCHER: I made President Bush's statement very clear
yesterday on this topic about what -- the progress our nation has
made in racial issues and how we are a better nation today as a result
of the civil rights movement and the civil rights changes.
Q Going back to something Jean raised earlier, you said the
President -- I'm sorry, you said there were concerns but no evidence
that these missiles were going to Iraq. Why were there these
concerns?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because of the information we had. A ship
obviously loaded with weapons did leave North Korea destined for the
Middle East. And we wanted to make certain that the weapons did not
hand up in the hands of either terrorists or terrorist nations.
Q Were you speculating that Iraq could be the recipient and --
MR. FLEISCHER: Or rogue nations, terrorists. We have concerns, of
course.
Q Why Iraq, specifically?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Iraq is prohibited under United Nations
charters from having any weapons that have a length of -- missiles
that have a range of greater than 150 kilometers. So if we have
information
that suggests that missiles are on their way to the region,
particularly Scud missiles, which we know have a history of being used
in that region, and if it would raise questions about whether or not
international obligations and United Nations sanctions were being
followed through, we want to determine whether or not that's the case.
Q Ari, Postal Commission. Why is now the time for a wholesale
reexamination of the commission, and are we likely to see a partial or
wholesale privatization of the Postal Service?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the Postal Service is facing many challenges
in the world of e-mail and modern technology, which have changed the
way that many people behave in terms of how they deliver messages to
their neighbors or people across town. And so the Postal Service has
been faced with ongoing financial issues that will require a very
comprehensive look so that we can make certain that we have
sustainability of Postal Service to American people. And so this
commission is going to take a broad look at the efforts of the Postal
Service to deliver mail to the American people, given the modern
recognition of competition toward a Postal Service that comes from all
kinds of sources that never used to exist.
Q Does the President want this panel to look at possibly
privatizing in whole or in part the U.S. Postal Service?
MR. FLEISCHER: This commission has a very broad range, to take a
look at what will work best for the American people in terms of
delivery of mail and in terms of what will work best for the taxpayers
and what will work best for the Postal Service.
Q The President this morning talked to the current President of
the E.U., the Danish Prime Minister, about the possibility of Turkey
joining the European Union. Could you talk a little about that
conversation? And also, it's the view of the administration -- you
said that yesterday -- that the United States doesn't want to
interfere in whether Turkey should go in or not. But why was the call
then made? I mean, the American view on this subject is hardly
unknown.
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't say the United States doesn't want to
interfere. I said this is a decision the E.U. will make, and that the
President will call up and talk to foreign nations and foreign leaders
about his opinions on this matter. And I must have done this before
you got here, but I already read out the phone call from the President
to Prime Minister Rasmussen.
Q Legalities aside, what concerns you more, that North Korea
is selling Scuds, or that Yemen is buying them?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, proliferation remains an important
issue around the world -- to counter efforts of proliferation. And I
think if there's one thing that's going to come out of this, is that
the world community has learned that the efforts of
counterproliferation that exist in the international arena dealing with
missiles needs to be reexamined. This is called a lacuna. Lacuna is a
gap in international law. And this is something that needs to be
explored.
Q Different topic -- has the administration begun to receive
at least preliminary indications of what is in this document now from
Iraq over the weekend? Have you gotten some early reports as to --
as they start to sift through this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President notes that it's too soon to
reach any judgments about it. The efforts are continuing to take a
look at it, and we have reached no conclusions about it. And I don't
anticipate that we will any time immediately. This is still a very
large document that is going to be gone through in a thoughtful and
careful and deliberative manner. The experts are still in the --
deep into that process.
Q Just procedurally, is there a way that -- how is it being
disseminated to the administration? In other words, are you getting
-- are you waiting until it's all been digested to present this to the
President? Or are you getting -- is he getting a blow-by-blow of
what's being found as it goes?
MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, just as matter of policy, whatever the
President is briefed on in his national security meetings is not a
topic that I discuss at any rate. So I'm just not going to be able to
evaluate for you whether he's getting piecemeal information. But in
any case, the fundamental approach is we want to see what the document
says. We want to study it carefully and see it in its totality.
Q Getting back to the Senator Lott situation, the President
has expressed his desire to sort of broaden the tent and bring more
African Americans into the Republican Party. Is he concerned that this
sort of thing is going to undermine those efforts? And what
specifically does he intend to do to try to bring more folks in?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President, as I said yesterday,
understands and knows that America is a much richer and better nation
as a result of the changes that have been made to our society involving
integration and the improvement of relations between races. The
changes made in the civil rights community have been among the most
constructive changes that our society has experienced. And the
President is grateful for that effort. The President has a record of
reaching out and will continue to reach out.
As you know, tomorrow the President is going to be going up to
Philadelphia, where he intends to discuss his initiative on faith-based
actions to help the American people. And this is an area that reaches
deep into American communities, particularly into the black community,
in terms of many of the churches that have played a leadership role in
improving the lives of people in America and helping people who
government programs have not been able to reach. That's one small
example of several of the things that the President has done and will
continue to focus on.
Q -- very helpful to his ultimate goal, can he?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I can only describe to you what the
President is doing and why he's doing it.
Q Ari, the President has repeatedly warned of the danger that
somebody would use one of these Scud-type missiles to attack the
homeland. When he learned this morning that these missiles could not,
in fact, be seized and the ship would have to be let go, how did he
react?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, I think the issue here is the danger
to our homeland comes from nations that would use weapons. After all,
these are not the only weapons in the world. The danger comes from
nations that would use their existing weapons to harm the United States
or our friends. Yemen is not one of those nations. So the issue is
not as much the fact that these are Scud missiles, as much as it is
would the nation receiving them use them to harm the United States or
our allies. In the case of Yemen, that's not what is the case here.
I think the President was pleased and relieved to hear that these
missiles were not going to the hands of somebody who could present a
national security threat to the United States.
Q Could you tell us, in terms of reviewing the existing regime,
anti-missile regime, did the President direct the Secretary of State to
take some immediate action on this? Or how is that review going
forward?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think now that this process has gone through, and
there's, as I indicate, this lacuna has now been focused on, I think
what you're going to say is through the National Security Council at
the State Department, others, all of us who have a concern about
proliferation will take a look at this and see what needs to be done.
Q Did this incident call into question the policy that says
Iraq is target one, but North Korea gets a pass, even though it's got
acknowledged nuclear weapons, chemical and biological stock, and is
shipping missiles around the world?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, our concern about North Korea has been
violation of treaties particularly dealing with nuclear weapons or
other such weapons that involve threats to our national security, or
because their exports violate existing treaty regimes or international
obligations. And we don't have to like everything North Korea does,
but that doesn't mean that we have the right to change international
law out of convenience.
Q Well, that basically says you don't mind them shipping
missiles around the world.
MR. FLEISCHER: The issue again, Ron, is we as the United States
-- as much as we do not like what North Korea does around the world,
the United States still has an obligation to follow international law,
and not let the fact that we believe that North Korea is a proliferator
and presents dangerous problems to the United States in other regards
from telling us that we have a right to violate international law. We
do not. And we still have to obey international law so that we are in
a stronger position to enforce international law on nations like North
Korea.
Q Is Saddam Hussein free to sell his Scud missiles to people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Saddam Hussein, if he said he had Scud missiles, it
would be very interesting, wouldn't it? If Saddam Hussein wanted to
suggest that he had them and they were for sale, I think the United
States would be very interested in the fact that that would be an
acknowledgment that he's in violation of the United Nations resolutions
prohibiting him from having such missiles.
Q A variation on Ron's first or maybe second question. To what
extent is this Scud incident a setback to your antiproliferation
message? Despite legalities, despite all of your regrets, more Scuds
have been introduced into a tinderbox region.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, frankly, as a result of the lights being
shined on this, this may represent a new way to get additional
proliferation -- antiproliferation measures enhanced or new ones
created for the enhancement of existing ones. This has shown that
proliferation, when it comes to missiles, can be reevaluated and
relooked at by the international community.
Q I understand that you've said that already. But to what
extent does this go against everything that this administration has
been preaching about weapons spread to anywhere?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know, one of the ways that the world fights
proliferation is through international treaties. And in order to
adhere to treaties, all nations must adhere to the law. And we have an
obligation to adhere to the international law in this case. I think
the United States would be on thin ground if we, out of convenience or
out of any other reason said, we will violate international law because
we have other concerns. We cannot do that. The fact that we will
adhere to international law, in the end, helps strengthen international
agreements that fight proliferation efforts like this. And as we
freely admit, this incident exposes flaws in international regimes and
international laws that are worthy of having a renewed look by the
world about these efforts.
Q Ari, a couple questions on this intelligence report from
Senator Graham and Shelby. They held a press conference today and
Senator Shelby said that George Tenet has overseen more massive
intelligence failures at the CIA than any other director in history. I
was wondering, does the President still have confidence in that?
Because Senator Shelby obviously is basing that opinion on what he has
found out.
And my other question is, Senator Graham said that he had strong
suspicions that there was a foreign country, or more than one foreign
country, that helped facilitate the lead up to 9/11 attacks -- in
other words, helped the hijackers in this country. Do you have any
indications there was a foreign country involved?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, vis-a-vis what Senator Shelby said, I
think it's important that you represented it accurately. He filed a
one-man minority dissent. That was not the view of the committee that
was charged by the Congress on a bipartisan basis in looking into this
matter. They reached no such conclusion. So this is one man's opinion
and the President respectfully and strongly differs with it.
On the second, since I have not heard any evaluations from the
White House yet about the report, I would hesitate to comment on
anything that is contained in it. We will take a careful look at what
it says.
Q Ari, a slightly different question about Yemen. The
President, when he meets with coalition partners, the people who have
also made commitments to fight this war on terror, he says, I don't
want to hear even what you say, show me what you're going to do, do
something. Here's what we know about Yemen so far: We know that al
Qaeda attacked the Cole in its port. We know that despite its
commitment to beef up its Coast Guard in its waterways through our
help, it wasn't able to stop al Qaeda from bombing a French tanker. We
know there's enough al Qaeda running around there for our unmanned
drones to kill them when they can. And now they're buying Scud
missiles from North Korea. So besides you saying that they're
committed to the war on terror, what proof is there for the public to
see that they're actually making a commitment and not working against
the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, David, you will find -- and you can
address this question not only to the White House, but to international
observers of any stripe -- Yemen faces a variety of challenges which
they are working very well with the United States on. Yemen is doing
everything it can to help us in the war on terror. Yemen, because of
its location in the world and because of certain indigenous factors in
Yemen, faces challenges that other sovereign nations do not face. And
we are very pleased to continue to work with Yemen to help them as they
help us in facing these challenges.
But I'm not sure that you can compare Yemen, say, to Great Britain
or some other nation and say that the circumstances by which a Great
Britain can provide aid can be matched by a Yemen. Not every nation
has the same ease of providing assistance, not every nation has the
internal issues that are presented in Yemen.
Q Just for the record, are they helping us by buying Scud
missiles from a regime led by a leader the President said he hates and
loathes, and by a regime that has been classified as evil alongside
Iraq? Are they helping us by buying weapons from such a regime?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, we have no choice but to obey international
law. And what Yemen has done in this case, because Yemen is an ally of
the United States, in that sense it does not provide a threat to the
United States. In terms of North Korea, we do have ongoing concerns
about North Korea's efforts to be -- to sell arms around the world,
and those concerns are well known.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you.
END 1:24 P.M. EST
|