'Focus On A Dialogue'

India -- any new information about US efforts?

Philip T. Reeker: Sure. As you know, we have been very involved in terms of the situation in South Asia. We have talked, as wedid yesterday, about our concerns, about the potential for conflict between India and Pakistan, and about thedanger of that conflict spiraling out of control.

Once again, I would reiterate that it is vital for all sides in Kashmir to exercise restraint, to reduceviolence. We understand India's frustrations and anger over continued terrorist actions, but would reiteratethat rather than being the solution, military action in this crisis would create even greater problems. It isimportant for India and Pakistan to resume a productive dialogue over the issues that divide them, and thatincludes Kashmir. An important component to this process is an end to infiltration into Kashmir, and as wehave done before, we call upon Pakistan to do all it can to achieve this objective. In this context, we notedyesterday President Musharraf's statements, again that Pakistan will not allow its territory to be used byterrorists for attacks anywhere.

The Secretary, on the road with the President, and other senior State Department and Administrationofficials remain in very close touch with their counterparts in South Asia and with colleagues andcounterparts in the international community, and other countries, to prevent a conflict and to reducetensions.

The Secretary spoke today on this issue with President Musharraf twice. He spoke with Foreign SecretaryStraw three times, and expects to be talking to Indian counterparts shortly as well. I believe the Indians, asyou know, are headed back to New Delhi after visiting Kashmir.

Mr. Armitage has spoken several times every day with British and other colleagues on this subject. As wehave discussed before, we are orchestrating very closely with others in the international community to workwith India and Pakistan to see that they can reduce the tensions and encourage them to resume a dialogue.

As you know, European Commissioner Patten is going to or is in the region. Foreign Secretary Straw is goingto the region. And as we discussed before, Deputy Secretary Armitage will be going to the region. We expecthim to be leaving Washington on the 4th of June heading to South Asia, and then meeting with the leadership inboth countries there.

So again, we reiterate those issues and continue to be very seized with this matter.

Indian rhetoric has sort of quieted down. Is there anything -- is that a good sign? Is that something youhave all noticed -- noted with some approbation?

Philip T. Reeker: Well, again, I would just say that what we are looking for is a reduction in tension, exercising restraint,reducing violence on both sides, and fostering an atmosphere where the two sides can resume a productivedialogue over the issues that divide them. That is the way forward and that is the way to seek peacefulsolutions in this situation, and that is what we are encouraging, along with the rest of the internationalcommunity.

When we were there in January, the Secretary, after speaking with both sides, was able to say, along with thePakistani -- I think it was the Foreign Minister -- that Pakistan was going to look at this list of militantsIndia had given them and see what it could do about who had -- would try to figure out who had --

The list of 20.

Yes, the list of 20 -- who had the mandate over these people, and depending on where they were citizens andso on. Can you tell us what has happened since that --

Philip T. Reeker: I don't think I have anything specific on that --

On the list at all?

Philip T. Reeker: -- on that list. You would probably want to check with Pakistanis and Indians on that. Again, our view isthat steps have got to be taken to end infiltration into Kashmir. That's very important. We have repeated ourcall --

From Pakistan?

Philip T. Reeker: From Pakistan. I repeated our call on Pakistan to do all it can to achieve that objective, and I noted foryou the statements that President Musharraf made yesterday. But I don't have any more --

Do you -- can you say if that's on the agenda, though?

Philip T. Reeker: Sorry?

Do you believe that's something the US is following up on, since it was a commitment made while the Secretarywas there?

Philip T. Reeker: We are talking to both India and Pakistan, authorities on both sides, as well as others in the internationalcommunity to pursue all avenues we can to encourage them to reduce the tensions, to foster the atmosphere fora dialogue, a dialogue that will help resolve these issues through peaceful means, because that is obviouslythe overriding goal here.

Do you know -- Armitage leaves on the 4th. Do you know where he goes first?

Philip T. Reeker: I don't have his exact itinerary, no.

But he will go to both?

Philip T. Reeker: Expected to meet with leaders in both countries, according to their availability, yes.

And maybe you also went over this, but do you have any comment at all about the Pakistani decision toredeploy some of their troops from west to east, and also to perhaps remove some of their deployment from theUN peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone?

Philip T. Reeker: I think you would have to talk to the UN about that. I don't know how that will affect that mission. They maybe able to describe it more fully. I don't know the details about what Pakistan is doing. I have seen somepress reports. Certainly we remain convinced that Pakistan is fully committed to supporting the global war onterrorism, and as they make their own decisions in terms of their military deployments, you can talk to themabout that.

But our goal on the issue between Pakistan and India is to get the two countries to focus on a dialogue --

So you're not concerned at all that the movement of troops might have any effect on the terror war?

Philip T. Reeker: I don't think I have anything from here. You might want to ask military experts on that. But we remain fullyconvinced that Pakistan is committed to supporting the war on terrorism. And as far as the effects of that, Icouldn't comment from a diplomatic perspective.

No, no, but -- well, has this been a part of your conversations with --

Philip T. Reeker: Not that I'm aware of. I don't know the details of the phone calls, no.

Well, I'm not asking what effect it will have. I'm just asking --

Philip T. Reeker: I just said, "Not that I'm aware of." You asked me has it been a part of conversations. Not thatI'm aware of. I just don't have any details for you, Matt, on Pakistani decisions in terms of their troopdeployments.

Maybe I missed this during my brief absence, but did the Secretary bring up the question of implications withPresident Musharraf and urge him to do more to --

Philip T. Reeker: I don't have detailed readouts of their calls. I don't normally go into detail of that. But it has certainlybeen on our agenda. It is something that we have talked about publicly. We usually include in our privateconversations the things that we are saying publicly as well. We noted President Musharraf's statements thatwere made yesterday that Pakistan will not allow its territory to be used by terrorists for attacks anywhere,and we have been calling upon them to do all they can to achieve the objective of ending infiltration intoKashmir. So it is definitely one of the issues.

On that note, does the US believe that the Pakistanis have shut down all their terrorist training camps?

Philip T. Reeker: I don't know exactly --

... or allowed any to reopen? I'm just saying that because the Indians have said that --

Philip T. Reeker: As I said before, I don't have any -- I can't discuss intelligence information and things like that, so I amjust not able to delve into those details. We have called on Pakistan to do this. We have seen the statementsthat they have made. We have said we will help wherever we can to affect implementation of this, achievingthat objective. That is obviously the goal. That is very important, and we will keep working toward that endwith the others in the international community.

You have said that you feel that Musharraf is doing all he can in the war on terrorism. Does that apply toPakistan? Is that what you're saying, that he's doing everything within his power to restrain --

Philip T. Reeker: He has certainly made clear in his statements again yesterday -- I also refer you back to his speech ofJanuary 12th, where he talked about his vision for Pakistan and the need to end extremism and not to allow anextremist minority in Pakistan to lead the country down the wrong path. We have heard again yesterday hiscommitment to that, and we will keep working, as I said, with others in the international community to helpthem do all they can to achieve the objectives they have set out.

You all like to say with the Israelis and the Palestinian situation that it's time to put those words intoaction. Would you like to make that same call on the Pakistani --

Philip T. Reeker: I think I have been very clear on what we have been calling for. I have said it many times today. I said itmany times yesterday. It is important in this process, trying to resume a productive dialogue, to endinfiltration into Kashmir, and we have called upon Pakistan to do all it can to achieve that objective.

Ambassador Chamberlin said today that she and Washington expect more attacks on US interests in Pakistan. Doyou know on what basis she is making those remarks?

Philip T. Reeker: I think we have been very clear in our own public announcements or warnings, the fact that we have drawn downour presence of diplomatic missions in Pakistan because of the threats against Americans, and that is quitepublicly available in terms of our statements.

Are there new ones?

Philip T. Reeker: We have a continuous flow, as you know, of threats. Officials have talked about that in terms of domesticthreats, in terms of international threats. There is a lot of intelligence and information out there thatpoints to these things that backs up what we have seen and experienced.

So we have to be ever vigilant. We work with host countries like Pakistan against this because this type ofthreat is against all of us, is against Americans overseas, at home, but is against plenty of other countriesas well. That is why the war against terrorism is a global effort. That is why we have a coalition that isoperating on so many fronts and so many levels to root out the various international terrorist threats againstus.

Change of subject?

Philip T. Reeker: Anything else?

Oh, wait. Can I stay in the region?

Yes, okay.

It should be very short. The situation in Nepal. Do you have anything to say about that?

Philip T. Reeker: I looked into it after you raised it yesterday, Matt, and as you are aware, the King of Nepal, King Gyanendra,has dissolved the lower house of parliament yesterday at the request of the Prime Minister. We understand thatthe Prime Minister, Mr. Deuba, will head a caretaker government until new elections are held. I believeelections are scheduled to be held within six months after the dissolution of the parliament, which is theconstitutional requirement there.

I understand that the dissolution of the parliament followed a split within the Nepali Congress party overthe Prime Minister's parliamentary motion to have the state of emergency extended. That state of emergency isset to expire May 25th. I think at this point it is unclear what action the government will take there. But Idon't have any particular comment on that situation. It's obviously an internal matter to be worked out withinNepal's democratic system through procedures established by their constitution. They certainly continue tostruggle against the Maoist insurgency that we have talked about, and we reiterate the right of the government-- our support for the right of the Government of Nepal to safeguard their citizens against the Maoistguerillas within the framework of their constitution.

Right, but I guess what I'm asking is if -- because you do support the government and its fight against theterrorists, are you worried at all that the internal problems with the government are going to affect thatstruggle?

Philip T. Reeker: I don't think I can make any particular speculation on Nepal's internal situation.

How about extremely specifically, you don't think this is going to have any effect on the consideration of USassistance to Nepal?

Philip T. Reeker: We are assessing their security needs. As you know, we have requested from Congress a supplementalappropriation of $20 million for that, and we haven't made any decisions on how the assistance, if approved,will be allocated. But the dissolution of parliament does not affect our plans to provide economic andsecurity assistance to Nepal.

Now, Jonathan, you want to change the subject.