print-only banner
The White House Skip Main Navigation
  
In Focus
News
More News more news

News by Date

Appointments

Federal Facts

West Wing

Home > News & Policies > Press Secretary Briefings

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 7, 2007

Press Briefing by Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino and Senior Administration Officials
Filing Center
Four Points Sheraton
Sydney, Australia

     Fact sheet APEC 2007

PARTICIPANTS:

Jim Jeffrey, Deputy National Security Advisor
Dan Price, Deputy National Security Advisor for Economic Affairs
Chris Hill, Ambassador

6:15 P.M. (Local)

MS. PERINO: Good evening. I will -- I won't go through the schedule, because you know the schedule; it's at the end of the day. I'm going to have the Deputy National Security Advisor, Jim Jeffrey, talk about the meetings today, especially the foreign policy and political aspects of the meeting. Dan Price will again go over the economic issues, of which there are significant ones, obviously, at the economic conference. And then we have the special treat of having Ambassador Hill here, who will talk to you about some six-party talks and a development there. And then I will come up at the end if you have anything else.

Jim.

MR. JEFFREY: Thank you, Dana. Good evening.

There's quite a bit to cover today, so I will try to go through it fairly briefly. Let me start with the ASEAN lunch that the President offered to the ASEAN leaders. The meeting -- the luncheon began with the President emphasizing his great esteem for ASEAN, ASEAN's role in the region, its particular position within the constellation of organizations that are so important to us, beginning with APEC here in the Asia Pacific region. The President then, to underline this, announced that he was appointing an ambassador to ASEAN and, at the same time, invited the ASEAN leaders to a summit in Texas to celebrate the 30th anniversary.

The President then talked a bit about terrorism, following up on the themes that he raised in his address this morning to the business leaders, praising the efforts in Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere. This was followed by an exchange with the leaders on terrorism in the region, how not only to combat specific groups, but also how to reach out to the peoples of the region, how to ensure that we have programs in place that will help us nip in the bud those who are inclined to move towards terrorism.

This led to, very interestingly, queries by the various members of ASEAN on how security structures and security activities support the overall situation in this region and throughout -- and globally. We were gratified to hear the Sultan of Brunei state to the President that America's efforts with our allies and friends in the security realm had helped the countries of ASEAN and the countries of Asia focus on trade and economic development.

They were very interested in the Middle East and more than one acknowledged that security in the Middle East was a security concern not just for the United States or the people of the Middle East, but also for the people of East Asia. And the President described in some detail our policies on Iraq, why he believes that we have turned the corner and that we're seeing more and more victories in Anbar and Baghdad. He's made these comments publicly again this morning and elsewhere when he was in Anbar.

He then described problems with Iran, the very serious threat that Iran poses for the international community. He talked about our efforts collectively -- and he emphasized "collectively" -- to deal with this problem, finding a peaceful solution by getting Iran to yield on the enrichment question, suspending that in return for a suspension of U.N. Security Council resolution sanctions. He also talked about the overall threat of terrorism and extremism in the Middle East. He described in some detail his vision of a Middle East conference later this fall to bring together the Palestinians and the Israelis, and how important that is for the region and for global security, the need to see Arab countries, for example, participate in this effort. He underlined the importance of that to ensure that we do have success. And we had, as I said, a very, very good discussion of the security aspects of the East Asia Pacific architecture.

Let me cover quickly the discussion with President Roh of Korea. It began with a discussion again of Iraq. The President described the very high esteem in which the Korean soldiers in Irbil are held in by U.S. commanders. The President of Korea thanked the President for this and he described the situation with the Korean forces, that he's looking for ways to continue to support the international effort in Korea. And the President very much appreciated that. The President of Korea underlined that Korea wished to remain a good friend and a good ally of the United States, and contribute to the situation and our efforts in Iraq.

The two sides, of course, talked about the six-party discussions that we're having -- and you'll hear more of that from Ambassador Hill in a second. President Roh described the particular importance that he places on the emphasis of several aspects of the September 19, 2005 and February 2007 agreements on a peace and security mechanism in Northeast Asia, as well as the question of an eventual end under the right circumstances of the Korean War.

As you heard in the public statements at the end, the President agreed, referred to our position that we took in supporting the 2005 and 2007 agreements, but underlined that this is only a situation that we can realize if North Korea follows through entirely on the program of disabling its nuclear programs and providing a complete and accurate disclosure of all of its nuclear activities. The President of Korea was in full agreement with that.

After some more discussion of the situation in East Asia, the President and the President of Korea talked about the visa waiver program. We're trying to move forward to include South Korea in that program. And President Roh was very appreciative.

With President Putin, the discussion began with Iran, and the two sides reviewed where we are with the effort by the U.N. Security Council to stop the enrichment activities. President Putin was in full agreement with President Bush that this is necessary, that the -- what we call suspension-for-suspension program is the right way to go. They discussed a little bit President Bush's support for the Bushehr plan that the Russians are working on. The Russians would provide supplies of nuclear fuel.

The President underlined in this discussion his support -- I underline support -- for civilian nuclear programs in Iran. This offers Iran a way forward -- both nuclear energy, as well as a much different relationship with the international community. Again, there was full agreement on that particular subject.

There was also a discussion about terrorism, including terrorism in the Caucuses. The President raised the question of Georgia, how relations were between Georgia and Russia. President Putin described briefly the situation there. Again, they discussed the problem of international terrorism. They reviewed the particular problem along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and the efforts that we are making in collaboration with President Musharraf of Pakistan to deal with that.

Finally, the two discussed the missile defense situation, particularly how to move forward on the offers that have been made by the Russian side and the U.S. desire to have an effective missile defense system that would cover most of Europe and the United States from threats from the Middle East, specifically what we believe is a forthcoming threat from Iran.

President Putin reiterated his offer to host a U.S. military delegation with Russian experts at the Gabala radar site in Azerbaijan. We agreed, and in principle, this will happen later this month.

And that sums up the political side. In a second, Dan Price will come up and talk about the economic issues, which were equally extensive. What I would like to do very quickly is to review what's going to happen tomorrow with President Bush. First of all, he will have a breakfast with his Japanese and Australian counterparts to discuss basically East Asia Pacific architecture and broader political security issues. He'll then have a bilateral first with the Japanese Prime Minister and then with the Indonesian President. We will then get into the APEC program, first the meeting with the business forum, the luncheon, then the APEC retreat, followed by the cultural event and tomorrow night's dinner, wrapping it up.

Thank you very much. Dan.

MR. PRICE: Thank you, Jim. Good evening. I want to go over -- before getting into the details of the meetings today, I wanted to go over a number of themes, both from today that kind of ran through the meetings, as well as theme that will inform tomorrow's meetings.

First, Doha is the front and center economic issue at this meeting. As you heard in the President's speech this morning, the United States is committed to seizing this opportunity and has both the will and flexibility to help conclude a successful round. And by success, we mean a round that actually creates new trade flows in goods and services. The President has made and will make clear in his meetings that other countries must also show flexibility and commitment and make a contribution.

In terms of regional integration, in the meetings today and tomorrow, and as you heard in the speech this morning, the President noted the incredibly rapid and extensive expansion of trade in goods, services flows, and the phenomenal growth of cross-border investment, almost 400 percent since 1990.

Now, there's been a fair amount of chatter in some circles questioning the U.S. commitment to this region. As the President made clear today, as well as in the meetings and as he will make clear, U.S. engagement in APEC is permanent, unshakeable and growing. We have five FTAs already done, two more awaiting congressional approval, and one under active negotiation with Malaysia. This remarkably dynamic region is integrating through this proliferation of FTAs and other mechanisms, and the U.S. is not on the sidelines. The President has made clear that we will continue to work both bilaterally with individual countries to expand trade and investment, even as we pursue within this region the vision of the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific.

Finally, on trade and investment, I want to underscore one of the points made by the President in his speech, which he will reiterate tomorrow in the business dialogue, and that is his call upon business leaders to educate their employees and communities about the benefits of open trade and investment and to enlist their support in pushing back against any impulses to isolationism or protectionism.

I mean, as you look at it, the very competitive global businesses, both in the United States and elsewhere, where is the delta of their growth coming? It's coming outside, principally outside of their national markets. And the way they engage the global economy is through trade and goods and services, as well as cross-border investment. And if the economy, if the global players want to continue that, if they want to maintain that level of growth and competitiveness, they need to get behind the trade and investment liberalization agenda vigorously, vocally and visibly.

Let me turn now to the ASEAN lunch. Really a remarkable gathering. When you look at ASEAN, it represents for the United States, our fourth largest trading relationship. And it was very gratifying to hear the leaders express unanimous support on the importance of the conclusion of an ambitious Doha Round. And the leaders acknowledged that both developed and developing countries must make a contribution. As one leader put it, it was time to act. It was time, as this leader put it, to "move beyond our comfort zones."

The President, of course, reiterated the U.S. will and flexibility to get it done. He also assured ASEAN leaders that the absence of trade promotion authority, the absence of TPA, was not an impediment to the successful conclusion of the negotiations, and that if, in fact, a good agreement resulted, we would certainly get TPA.

And as you looked around the room, you couldn't help but notice that the ASEAN countries, many of them are real success stories, showing the benefits of liberalization both through multilateral negotiations and through actions they've taken themselves, through domestic reform to open their economies.

On regional matters, the President confirmed U.S. engagement, that the U.S. would be at the table and needed to be at the table. ASEAN leaders themselves acknowledged the importance of U.S. engagement and how the United States, through its policies and its market has, in fact, been a force for integration. They observed that even when they are exporting goods or shipping goods back and forth among themselves, often the ultimate destination is the United States market.

On the free trade area of the Asia Pacific, the leaders confirmed that it was an important long-term goal that should be achieved through incremental but concrete steps.

Climate change was also a subject of great discussion during the lunch, a very wide-ranging discussion covering renewable and alternative energies, deforestation, conservation, technology development and deployment, energy efficiency, sectoral initiatives, and all the leaders welcomed the attention that APEC was giving to the climate issue and likewise welcomed the U.S. initiative this fall to host a series of major economy meetings. The discussions covered both adaptation concerns and mitigation issues.

Let me move on now to Korea. Trade issues: both Presidents confirmed their support for the approval and implementation of the Korea FTA. President Bush pledged his support to work with Congress to get that approved and President Roh underscored his desire to have the National Assembly approve it, hopefully before he left office.

On beef, President Roh reiterated the commitment of Korea to comply with OIE standards. OIE is the international animal health standards setting body which a little while ago found that U.S. beef of all cuts and all ages is safe. President Bush assured President Roh that the United States was urging all of its trading partners to comply with OIE standards.

On climate, a very good discussion. The two leaders confirmed that climate could and should be addressed comprehensively and in a manner that did not harm economic growth.

The Russia bilateral: The principal economic issue under discussion there was the WTO and Russia's intending accession to the WTO. President Bush confirmed that the U.S. was working hard and constructively and President Putin acknowledged that. The U.S. wants Russia in the WTO, and is assisting Russia in the multilateral negotiations. President Bush encouraged President Putin to enact legislation and make the commitments necessary to move the process forward.

On climate -- and then I'll finish up -- President Putin welcomed President Bush's major economies initiative and pledged his support for that process, and noted at the brief press statement at the end of the meeting that Russia and the United States were very, very close in approach on the issue of climate change and energy security.

Thank you. Chris.

AMBASSADOR HILL: Thanks very much. I just have a very brief announcement about an activity within the six-party process. And we've made this -- we're making this announcement here in Sydney because this has been an opportunity to consult with all our partners in the six parties.

But the announcement is that at the invitation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the DPRK, North Korea, a delegation of nuclear experts from the three nuclear states of the six parties -- that is, the United States, China and Russia -- will travel to the DPRK September 11th -- that is next Tuesday -- to the 15th, to conduct a survey of nuclear facilities to be disabled as part of the six-party process aimed at denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The experts will also engage in discussions on the scope and the technical feasibility of specific actions to be taken to disable the DPRK nuclear facilities. This visit follows the shutdown and sealing in June of the key facilities of the Yongbyon nuclear facility, would mark another significant step toward the goal of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The experts will report to the next meeting of the six-party plenary.

Let me just say, the United States, along with all of our six-party partners, remains firmly committed to achieving denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, through the implementation of the September 19th, 2005 joint statement, and the February 13th, 2007 agreement on initial actions for implementation of the joint statement. We look forward to working with all the parties to make rapid progress in implementing this second phase set forth in the February 13th agreement in which DPRK has committed to declaring all of its nuclear programs and disabling all of its existing nuclear facilities.

Thank you.

MR. JEFFREY: We'll take questions now on everything we've covered.

Q Yes, I'm not sure who the right person is to answer this question, but was there something missing in the translation when -- between President Roh and President Bush? Was there something that -- some explanation for the apparent miscommunication --

MR. JEFFREY: It was perhaps a translation error. Once again, the President in the meeting and after the meeting confirmed the U.S. position. As I said, we're signed up to both the 2005 and 2007 statements that foresee as part of this process, in return for performance on the part of the North Koreans on their nuclear programs, that there would be a movement towards a Northeast Asia peace mechanism, as well as, in an appropriate fashion and way, the four powers that are involved in the Korean War sitting down and working on a peace treaty. And that's been our policy for some time.

Chris, do you want to comment further on it?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Yes, let me just say, those are two elements that are spelled out in the September '05 agreement, that is that there would be a peace mechanism on the Korean Peninsula among directly related parties; and secondly, there would be a forum -- that is a Northeast Asia Peace and Security mechanism, starting with the six parties. So these are elements that are embedded in the September '05 agreement. They're repeated in the action -- first actions agreement in February '07. But of course, the condition to these is denuclearization.

Q Was there any tension between the Presidents, or was it just --

MR. JEFFREY: No, there was no tension. The President was very clear, I think both in the meeting and in the questions that were posed to him, he supports and stands by these commitments. He said he did want to move forward on an eventual peace treaty, but he made it very clear that this has to come as essentially a quid pro quo for -- and you've all heard this -- the disabling of the nuclear systems and programs and weapons of North Korea, and a full and complete and correct disclosure of their programs. There's no difference; it simply came out that way.

Q Can I just follow? Was President Roh -- was he looking for something additional from President Bush? Do you know why there was some sort of miscommunication?

MR. JEFFREY: You need to ask President Roh that. We can only basically comment on -- I mean, we can try to interpret our President, as well as give the statements. We don't want to try to interpret his interlocutors.

Q Well, the two of them had talked privately, and the President said they had this understanding that they agreed. So was there some sort of understanding that President Roh was supposed to -- that President Bush was supposed to give an additional statement to make it clear? And did the President make it clear after they were before the cameras?

MR. JEFFREY: The President made clear in his statement before the cameras exactly what he said during the meeting.

Q Well, afterwards, when President Roh said he wanted it to be clearer, President Bush answered the question, did they have some sort of discussion afterwards to help them understand?

MR. JEFFREY: No.

Q Did the U.S. translator say anything about what was missing, since we were hearing mostly the Korean translator? What was the significant -- what specifically happened here? I mean, lost in translation -- what?

MR. JEFFREY: The Korean side wanted to hear a specific reiteration of what went on in the meeting. As soon as that was clear to President Bush, he reiterated what he had said in the meeting. And that's what you heard. And no more, no less.

Q Just to follow on Suzanne's question, do you have any reason to think that President Roh might have wanted to prod President Bush into making a further statement? In other words, was he trying to use this public session to extract something from President Bush?

MR. JEFFREY: Once again, President Bush went no further than -- publicly than he did during the meeting. And I mean, again, you have to address this to your Korean colleagues.

Q To what extent was this really just all about South Korean politics, this guy playing to the cameras for back-home coverage?

MR. JEFFREY: Once again, that's a speculative question. We're not going to get into it. You saw and heard what happened.

MS. PERINO: Let me just add, I think that there might be just a little bit of over-interpretation of what happened in there. I can tell you, they had a very warm meeting. The President made a clear statement of his support for ending the Korean War once and for all. And both leaders agreed on that. And there was no tension in the meeting, there was no tension after the meeting amongst staff or amongst the leaders. And I think that everyone is trying to make a little bit too much of it.

Q Well, Dana, when we hear the President saying -- what, three times -- "thank you, sir," "thank you, sir," to those of us who have covered him that sure sounded tense.

MS. PERINO: The President was not tense. I think the President made it -- reiterated his statement. You heard it, you can go back, he said the exact same thing three times. And I think that that was enough. And he did, too.

Q Jim, on the attendance of Burma at what's going to be the meeting in Texas -- first, when you say that the level of the representation is to be determined, can you flesh out what that means? And second, do you see any problem with inviting Burma? I mean, the President has been ratcheting up the rhetoric on Burma for the last couple weeks. Mrs. Bush has -- involved. Can you really call a country tyrannical and its behavior inexcusable, and then turn around and say, come to Texas and meet with me?

MR. JEFFREY: As we said, we'll work out the level of attendance of the various countries, including, hypothetically, the attendance of Burma, at another time. This was an invitation in principle; we have to work out the details later. First of all, as the chair of the ASEAN group, he made very clear they first have to check this out with all of their member states and ensure that there is a right time on the calendar. But once again, while this was an invitation in principle, it's a very serious, very warm, very friendly invitation. And we'll work out the details including any related to Burma later.

But our position on Burma remains as it has been. We're very unhappy with what's going on now. And you've heard this particularly in the last week from us.

Q Ambassador Hill, can you talk a little bit more about this trip next week? Do you have an agreed-upon list of facilities that you all are going to visit, that the experts are going to visit? Is there the possibility for looking at things that aren't on the list, almost like a surprise inspection? And is it just going to be a listing of these things, or you're actually going to start steps during this trip?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, I think this invitation grew out of the visit, the meeting, our bilateral meeting that took place in Geneva. And the concept was that if we're going to get to full disablement, disabling nuclear facilities, and the declaration of nuclear -- full declaration, we wanted to get going with some site surveys.

I don't think it will be the only such trip, but there are many different ways you can disable a nuclear facility. You can drill a hole in the side of a reactor, you can fill it with cement, you can do various things. But it helps if you have a site survey and have a look at the reactor first. So that's the concept here. I don't think it's the only visit that's going to take place. But it's certainly an effort to try to get really

-- real nuclear experts to look at some of these facilities with their own eyes, to look at some of the ideas that we've had in the denuclearization working group that took place a few weeks ago in Shenyang and to see whether those ideas are really applicable to the actual equipment they will be looking at.

So they will be meeting with, of course, North Korean officials and, in fact, working with North Korean officials. Presumably, there will be a discussion about which facilities they'll have a look at. But this is the first time we've had real nuclear experts together with Chinese and Russians, so the three nuclear states in the six-party talks to go and have a look.

Q You don't have an agreement on this right now? You're just going to take it as it comes?

AMBASSADOR HILL: I think the plan is to go in there and to discuss some of the -- we know what some of the main facilities are. For example, in Yongbyon, obviously, the reactor itself is something that needs to be disabled. And there are various ideas of how to disable it, but it will be helpful if we have a team go to the site and have a look at the reactor and see what is feasible. And remember what we're trying to do is to have disabling, which is a -- which is to make it very difficult to bring a facility back on line -- we want this disabling to take place by December 31st. So we have to look at our ideas for disabling against the actual facility.

Q Can you -- I know this is part of the process, agreeing to allow folks to come in, but can you characterize the significance of what you've just announced?

AMBASSADOR HILL: You mean as in like good news or bad news?

Q No, as in, is the timing any later or sooner than you expected? Did you have trouble getting them to --

AMBASSADOR HILL: No, actually, this was an idea the North Koreans came up with. I think it's a sign that this current phase of disabling is -- it's an ambitious phase and I think it's a sign of the seriousness of purpose that all parties, including the North Koreans, bring to bear on this issue.

Q Can you make it by December 31st?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Our plan is to get this done by December 31st. To do that, we need to have some nuclear experts get some eyes on, and we thought the sooner the better.

Q Can you talk about the delegation going to Gabala and what you hope to accomplish with that?

MR. JEFFREY: As I think it's generally well known, the Russians, in raising objections to the missile defense plan that we have put forth involving radar systems in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland, suggested that perhaps systems that are already available in Russia or under Russian control or joint use, as in the case of the Gabala site in Azerbaijan, could be made available. We said, in principle, yes, we would like to do this, because what the President wants -- and he underlined this with President Putin again today -- is to move forward together with the Russians.

This is a common threat. This is a threat from the Middle East. We believe it's real. We're working to convince the Russians to believe to the same degree that we do that it's real. We think that they understand the underlying threat, but the specific missile component they may not be quite where we are. And therefore, this is an opportunity to see what the Gabala site offers, see how this could be integrated into basically a theater or continent-wide missile defense system. And we're looking forward to that.

Q Is the issue just the extent of their technological capability now, or are you also going to look at whether new technology could be installed there?

MR. JEFFREY: Well, I think first of all, there's the -- I mean, this is a complex question and it's well beyond my technical expertise. But from what little I do know about this, there are geographical issues when you are putting up a radar site, both in terms of what area a specific kind of radar or specific kinds of radars can cover. There are other issues, such as the likely direction from which a threat will come and such. And therefore, it's basically to see what is there now, what possibly could be there, and does this make sense to integrate into a larger system. I think there's goodwill on both sides to see how this site might play a role. We'll see.

MS. PERINO: Any last ones for these gentlemen? Go ahead.

Q Yes, could what happened with North Korea, is there something there that could be applied to Iran? Is there something that is going on in Iran maybe that we don't know, considering everything --

MR. JEFFREY: One of the things that President Bush has emphasized repeatedly in as many interventions and discussions here is the need to approach these common threats to international security from a multilateral standpoint. While he believes, as you all know, that force is always an option in extremists, the best way to move forward is through a multilateral approach, either in the U.N., as we're doing with Iran and the Security Council, or with the six-party talks as we're doing with Korea.

The specific question of, can you use experiences in one area and apply it to another, to some degree you can, bearing in mind that our primary -- not our only, but our primary concern with Iran is an enriched uranium-based nuclear threat that we see with their program of enrichment; in the case of Korea, it's plutonium-based with their reactor at Yongbyon. So to some degree there are technical differences.

Nonetheless, the basic underlying skill sets, in both cases we use the IAEA, I think very effectively, as an investigatory arm of the international community. They're active in Iran; they're active in North Korea. And so by and large, there is a certain familiarity of the two problems, but they are distinct.

MS. PERINO: All right, any more for me? We'll let you gentlemen go. Thank you.

Q Dana, President Bush didn't say much after the Putin meeting. I'm wondering if we should read anything into that, or --

MS. PERINO: No, in fact, I would not at all. It was a good meeting. In fact, one of the things that -- when President Putin started, he -- I think Elvis has left the building, we've got lots of folks running out to see Ambassador Hill -- but a very warm meeting. And the first thing President Putin said was, I have to tell you that I can't get those beautiful images of Kennebunkport out of my mind, and that he wants to -- in his retirement, he plans to go back there. And then he invited the President to go to Siberia at some point, where I think President Putin has been fishing this summer and rafting. And the President seemed eager to take him up on the invitation. That was on the lighter side of the meeting.

And then in terms of the substance of the policies that they're working together on, I think it was a very good meeting. So I wouldn't read anything out in terms of the President not saying a lot afterward. Obviously, it was at the end of a long day, and he's got another long one tomorrow.

Hey, Geoff.

Q Hey, Dana. I'm just wondering, with this creation of the new Asia Pacific Democracy Partnership the President announced today, I suspect you're not expecting China to join that. And I'm just wondering who will join that sort of partnership?

MS. PERINO: Let me ask Jim if he wants to answer that.

Q And also, can I just add, it's interesting, Australia has a sort of an agnostic position when it comes to trade with countries such as China, it doesn't formulate democracy into that.

MR. JEFFREY: The idea is to set up a non-exclusionary program of countries that are democracies that wish to work together to coordinate policies in a structured but not overly formal fashion, to reach out to other countries on such things as rule of law, election monitoring, democracy training, working with the free media in these countries. We really don't have any fixed idea on who could be members. One example, it's a very general example, is the OSCE, formally the CSCE in Europe, as an organization that focuses on election monitoring, focuses on training of groups of people, focuses on civil society and rule of law. It's that kind of thing. We are working not only with, but to some degree, on the initiative of some of our democratic partners here in the region who are interested in seeing a more political component to what is a very effective constellation of economically-oriented organizations in the Pacific Asian realm.

Q Can I just ask, has Canberra backed it as well?

MR. JEFFREY: We believe that we have -- we've had conversations with most of the democracies in the region. I think you should ask your government exactly where they are. But as I said, we feel that we have enough support to have gone forward with the idea in principle. There has to be a lot of work on something as important as this.

MS. PERINO: Can we end it there?

Q Dana, do you have any information about a possible tape from Osama bin Laden?

MS. PERINO: I'd refer you back to what Fran Townsend, the President's Homeland Security Advisor, was on your network today talking about it. We'll have to see if a tape does show up. And as she said, we will make sure to analyze it carefully and take it from there. But I think that one of the things that this reminds us of is the terror threat that is evident around the world, especially as we had the arrests in Germany and in Denmark during this week. And so if there's a tape, we'll see what it is from there.

But one of the things the President said yesterday was, this is an enemy that is very sophisticated, very technically savvy, and they use propaganda in order to send out their messages. And we have to keep that in mind. And so if we get

-- when we get more, if we get more, we'll let you know.

All right, thanks, everyone.

END 7:56 P.M. (Local)