,
White House Press Briefings
Daily Press Briefing
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, D.C.
February 5, 2004
12:35 p.m. EST
MR. BOUCHER: All right. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements. I'd be glad to take your questions.
QUESTION: As you may have noticed, President Musharraf has pardoned Dr. Khan. Are you satisfied with that action?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me kind of review the situation and what we — what we see and what we expect. First, I think the actions that Pakistan has been taking in regard to this investigation and uncovering information about the actions of various Pakistanis need to be seen in the context of the overall international effort on — against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The spread of nuclear weapons and technology is, indeed, a matter of global concern. The United States has urged all nations that have this technology to take precautions to ensure that it is properly controlled, that it does not fall in the hands of rogue states, non-state actors and individuals. And that why we have said that we value the commitments President Musharraf has made to prevent the expertise in Pakistan from reaching other places and other countries and other nations, and we have welcomed the investigation that they have undertaken into reports that such activities have occurred.
We think that Pakistan is taking serious efforts to end the activities of a dangerous network that, as Director Tenet said this morning, had already done much damage. It up to the Government of Pakistan to take the necessary measures to ensure that this kind of proliferation will not happen again. It important that those measures be comprehensive and they be enduring.
We'd also expect that Pakistan will share information that they're unearthing in their ongoing investigation with the international community.
As far as the specifics of what happens to Dr. Khan, other than making sure that he and whatever other individuals or networks in Pakistan might have been involved in this trade don't transfer anything again, as far as the specifics of sentencing or pardons or whatever, that really is a matter for Pakistan to decide, and they'll take, I'm sure, appropriate measures under Pakistani law and regulations to ensure that he — he and his associates are no longer able to endanger the international community.
QUESTION: Just yesterday, you said you wanted them to take appropriate action, and it seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether pardoning a man, who has transferred weapons-related technology to countries hostile to this one, is appropriate.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it a matter for the United States to sit in judgment on. I think it a matter that we think what important in this case is really two things: one is that the network and the individuals who were doing this in Pakistan or from Pakistan be found out, stopped, prevented from making any such transfers again; and second of all, that the information that they develop in their information is shared with the international community, because the international community as a whole needs to go after this network that extends far beyond Pakistan in some cases.
QUESTION: So it okay if you proliferate as long as you tell us about it and don't do it again?
MR. BOUCHER: No, it not okay. No. It for governments to find out and prevent this kind of thing.
But what penalties, sanctions, controls or steps are used to prevent it from happening again — those are up for individual governments to decide.
QUESTION: But there no penalty or sanction here that I can see. The man been pardoned.
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, it up to the Pakistani Government to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.
QUESTION: Well, is the United States concerned that the pardon sets a precedent for other proliferators who might think, well, I can get away with it because I can say, sorry, give my information in, and receive a pardon?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, it up to Pakistan to decide the specific steps that they need to take in this case. I don't think it a precedent for anything else.
QUESTION: Richard, from the point of view of the United States, is this now done, or do you think, is it “case closed,” or do you think that —
MR. BOUCHER: I think the — I think the Government of Pakistan itself says that the — the matter is ongoing.
QUESTION: So you're not —
MR. BOUCHER: The investigation is ongoing. There are other individuals that need to be looked at. There a network that needs to be found out.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BOUCHER: And there information that needs to be shared.
QUESTION: So this, this — the events of the last two days specifically related to Dr. Khan do not satisfy all of the U.S. concerns about Pakistan proliferation?
MR. BOUCHER: Nonproliferation is and must be an ongoing effort. It is for all of us, whether it this particular network or anything other than this particular network. But in terms of the specific investigation, I think the Pakistanis, themselves, acknowledge that this is an ongoing investigation that not finished yet.
QUESTION: President Musharraf has said, though, that he will not allow an outside investigation into this, i.e., the IAEA, and he also criticized —
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I called for that.
QUESTION: You did. No, you didn't. But that sharing information. He has said he will not share information with the IAEA.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think he said that.
QUESTION: Okay. You didn't think Khan ever said that Musharraf was involved either, and, in fact, he did say that the day before he came out then and said it wasn't true.
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I said — we talked yesterday. I said I saw what he said this morning, yesterday morning.
QUESTION: The day before he said something different.
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't say anything about what he said the day before because I didn't know what he said the day before.
QUESTION: Okay. What about — what about the fact that Musharraf is criticizing two situations that the U.S. is very pleased about, and that is Iran and Libya allowing investigations? Musharraf says that they should have — should not have handed over — not have turned in Pakistan for sharing the technology.
MR. BOUCHER: I think we have spoken quite clearly on the importance of the steps Libya has taken to disclose, dismantle, destroy all its activities in the area of weapons of mass destruction. These are important decisions from Libya, and we believe those do, in fact, serve as a model for others that others should follow.
QUESTION: But Musharraf was criticizing that, so how can you believe that you're on the same page with him?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see the specific comments, but I think the facts are clear that what Libya did is good for the international community.
QUESTION: It seems like you guys are only looking at some of the things that are being said. I mean, Musharraf said this in the same — you know, the same speech that you talked about —
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I know people have been quoted saying this and that. What — I'm not trying to repeat their arguments or defend them. I'm saying what important here is that the Government of Pakistan take steps to make sure that Pakistan won't be a source of proliferation, either with materials, equipment, or especially with the intangibles, the expertise that can help other countries develop weapons of mass destruction.
We see Pakistan taking steps that go to that end. We see Pakistan developing information as part of an investigation that is useful to the whole international community to go after this private network, this network of people sharing materials, information and expertise. And we would expect them to share that information with the international community. Those are the important things.
QUESTION: Would that include documents? Because he says that he will not hand over any documents. He says the IAEA can come and talk to us, but we will not hand over any documents. So would that satisfy your —
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what documents they have. I couldn't make a judgment on that at this point.
QUESTION: Richard, until last year, Pakistan denied that having any hand in any of the nukes spread anywhere, and also I understand that, if I'm correct, in 2002, Secretary of State also said that Pakistan has pledged to him they will not spread any nukes anywhere. Now, until this became public last year by the or from the IAEA and Iranian and Libyan officials, then is the only time the Pakistanis now under pressure to say yes, and now their scientists also admitting.
My question is that how do we know that these weapons have not spread beyond Libya and Iraq and Iran — I mean, Libya, Iran and North Korea, maybe in the hands of Usama bin Laden and his associates?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't speculate, but I think the fact that expertise is easily transferable is one of the — one of the reasons why it very important for all governments to exercise vigilance on these points, and one of the reasons why we have undertaken an international effort to tighten export controls, including on expertise and other intangibles.
We have undertaken steps such as the Proliferation Security Initiative. We have pressed very hard for all countries to sign the additional protocols in the IAEA so that countries do have — there is more scrutiny and control over these things, why the President has proposed that there be a UN resolution to bind countries to nonproliferation goals.
So the fact is that knowledge is more easily transferable than other things perhaps, and that why it is important for all countries to exercise vigilance.
QUESTION: One more. It might become or come in limelight the link between Malaysia and Pakistan. Don't you think this is worried, and should be worry to the United States, of this because it may spread throughout the Islamic world, because it is — because it was an Islamic bond?
MR. BOUCHER: The fact that these two countries are involved — I mean, there are other countries and places that may be involved in this private network. I'm not going to draw conclusions because we've seen two particular countries investigating. Whether these countries are trying to develop an Islamic bond or whether there were individuals in these countries that had expertise and the ability to make equipment that they were sharing for whatever reasons, is also a matter that I can't make assumptions about.
But at this point, what is also clear is the Government of Malaysia has acknowledged that a Malaysian country — company was engaged in proliferation activities that related to Libya uranium enrichment program, and they have promised an investigation as well.
Once again, as I said with the case of Pakistan, it important that this investigation be pursued vigorously and that they, you know, stop these activities, unearth the information and share it with the international community.
They, I think, have sought the assistance and expertise of the International Atomic Energy Agency in that investigation, so that a good thing as well.
So let try somebody else. Steve.
QUESTION: You said earlier that the United States values the commitments Musharraf has made and that they're taking serious steps, but can you say anything more about whether we view the steps to pursue this are adequate in our view, and also whether the sharing of information with the international community is adequate or whether more needs to be done in both those areas?
MR. BOUCHER: As this is an ongoing investigation and an ongoing matter, I don't think I can make judgments at this stage. We've been impressed by the seriousness of the investigation, but I can't make a final judgment for you.
QUESTION: Richard, have the events of the last couple of days in any way caused a reassessment of your earlier judgments of President Musharraf pledges that Pakistan was not proliferating and his continuing assurances that Pakistan own nuclear arsenal is in responsible hands?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure that the information that coming out, or the allegations as well, really question the issue of nuclear safety, of Pakistan materials that they may have.
As far as the judgment, the commitment that President Musharraf made in October of 2002 that Pakistan would not be a source of proliferation, we do think that the investigation and the steps that Pakistan is taking demonstrate that they're serious about that commitment.
QUESTION: Yeah, but it also — doesn't it not suggest to you that that commitment was not entirely serious?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, I think the steps that they're taking to investigate demonstrates that they are serious about adhering to that commitment.
QUESTION: But this is two years later, Richard.
MR. BOUCHER: It not two years later, but anyway.
QUESTION: Well, close to two years.
MR. BOUCHER: Try 15 months. But the point is that President Musharraf made this commitment and has taken steps to ensure that it effective, and we still see him taking further steps to make sure it effective.
QUESTION: Yeah, okay. And you think that — did those steps, to your knowledge, begin with his commitment in 2002? Or did they just — or was he forced, did he force his hand by presenting him with all sorts of —
MR. BOUCHER: They took steps in — when he made his commitment, they started taking steps — government, departments and elsewhere — to try to make it effective, to make it effective. It a commitment that we have said many times is important, that we expect them to keep, and we see him taking steps to keep it.
QUESTION: Richard, are you aware of any Pakistani nuclear proliferation since October of '02?
MR. BOUCHER: That not a question I'd be able to answer at this point.
QUESTION: And just one other thing on this, which kind of gets to an earlier question, so I don't know if you'll actually answer it. But the lack of outrage from Washington on this is — it significant, I think, given the fact that when the Indians and the Pakistanis engaged in their nuclear tests back in 1998, there was sanctions immediately, immediately imposed. And so, I guess the question is: Is the mea culpa enough?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that the question. The question for us is whether Pakistan is taking effective steps to stop this trade and is cooperating in helping the international community uncover the network that we all need to get at and stop. We see Pakistan taking those kind of steps, we welcome that, and we'll continue to work with them to do that.
QUESTION: But Pakistan is — it not even, you know, signatory to the Nonproliferation Treaty, but this is an obvious violation of the international law. So the result of the investigation will, you know, affect your decision on the, you know, sanction issue suspended since the
01?
MR. BOUCHER: That would, in the end, depend on what comes out in the investigation, on what the facts turn out to — how the facts are determined and what the interplay is with U.S. law, and I just can't make a judgment on that at this point.
QUESTION: Richard, what is the interplay generally with a government, especially when you do have a element such as the scientists in Pakistan, or in the case of Iraq with elements within a rogue regime? Are there any particular type sanctions that we should have, as Matt has been saying, should have honed in on earlier?
For instance, in Pakistan, we've had this trouble where, over the border, elements of al-Qaida and Taliban have sought shelter up in the north, and then Pakistan wouldn't allow American troops over the border to search for —
MR. BOUCHER: That — you're going a little too far here.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BOUCHER: Let start with a question and answer the question, and then if we want to go off into other regions, we'll do that a step at a time.
The responsibility of governments is to ensure respect for international standards and laws. In the proliferation area, we rely on governments to regulate and monitor, police, enforce, prevent transfers of materials that could lead to proliferation. That why all these steps I've talked about — improving export control, expanding the nuclear — tightening the Nuclear Suppliers Group regulations, getting countries to sign up to the additional protocols, initiating the Proliferation Security Initiative — these are all steps to tighten that network, that web of government control so that we can stop this kind of activity.
And the responsibility of governments is to make that effort as effective as possible, and therefore governments to take steps to prevent proliferation activity, we welcome that, as we're welcoming what Pakistan is doing to prevent operations of a private network that would be involved in proliferation.
As far as the question of sanctions, there a multitude of U.S. laws that are involved when there are transfers, whether they're — sometimes it depends on whether they're government entities, individuals. You can get hit or listed in different ways. It depends on the facts of this particular case — of the particular matter.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. expect — this ongoing investigation in Pakistan, does the U.S. expect the Pakistani investigating authorities to look into who in the Pakistani Government may have had knowledge of these transfers, and will the U.S. be satisfied if it doesn't? And when I say, “who in the Pakistani Government,” I'm also referring to President Musharraf.
MR. BOUCHER: That is an issue that we would expect the investigators to look at. At this point, we've seen the statements that have been made.
We'll just have to see how things evolve.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. offering to help with the investigation at all, sending any people or —
MR. BOUCHER: I think this is a Pakistani investigation that they've wanted to conduct by themselves on their own.
QUESTION: Is your rather restrained response to all this now due in any way to a concern or a fear that President Musharraf hold on power is so tenuous that it might be further eroded by U.S. condemnation?
MR. BOUCHER: Our concern is that this be a complete and thorough series of steps that can stop the proliferation from Pakistan, stop the activities of these individuals and help the world get at this, sort of, private network of people.
We see Pakistan doing those things and we want to keep — see them continue. That what we're talking about here.
QUESTION: Has the Secretary made any calls to President Musharraf or has Deputy Secretary Armitage made any calls to Pakistani officials about this recently?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I know of.
QUESTION: Just to go back to the issue of the pardon in the context of the investigation, what — is the point of the investigation in your mind just to make sure that this activity stops and doesn't happen again, or is it also to find those responsible and make sure that they're brought to justice?
And what is the incentive, or the disincentive, for other such proliferators or black market operators to not take this type of activity if they see that it won't be punished?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, the matter of punishment, the matter of what to do about the individuals involved, is a matter for Pakistan to decide.
From the United States point of view, the broader picture is to stop the proliferation activity and to help the international community get at the networks that have been involved.
QUESTION: But I mean, just to, just to reiterate the question, I mean, if you're going to —
MR. BOUCHER: I'll reiterate the answer.
QUESTION: Well, but I know, but if you're going to try and stop, if you want to try and stop this activity, I mean, if people see that there no consequences for this, what — why would they not continue to do it?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think people are seeing that there are no consequences for this. There may be different consequences in different cases. There may be different consequences in different countries. But the broader point is to stop the activity and help the international community get at the problem.
QUESTION: So do you expect Malaysia, when it pursues its investigation, to also issue pardons to people who have proliferated?
MR. BOUCHER: We would expect any country that is facing, is conducting an investigation, to decide what the appropriate penalties under their judicial system and their laws.
QUESTION: Richard, you are relying on the Pakistan investigation, and how can you be sure that investigation will be fair and to the point that the way it will satisfy the international community, including the IAEA, because the people investigating are the same people involved in one or another way.
MR. BOUCHER: If you want to ask questions about who investigating and how thorough a job they'll do, really those questions have to be answered on the ground.
QUESTION: But U.S. is not investigating.
MR. BOUCHER: We're not involved in this particular investigation. There certainly —
QUESTION: Not independent investigation by the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll finish my question — my answer. We certainly have been following this situation. We certainly have — have and would continue to develop our own information. Director Tenet spoke today about how we had uncovered much of this activity working with other governments and how our intelligence services had figured much of this out. So it certainly an area that has been of concern and will continue to be of concern to us.
The goal is so that we — all of us in the international community — can find this activity where it occurred and stop it.
The End.
