US Department of State Daily Briefing #36: Thursday, 3/12/92

Boucher Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard Boucher Description: Washington, DC Date: Mar, 12 19923/12/92 Category: Briefings Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, East Asia, Subsaharan Africa Country: Iraq, Israel, USSR (former), Jordan, China, Sudan, North Korea, Syria Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process, Science/Technology, Security Assistance and Sales, Terrorism, State Department 12:41 P. M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements today, so I'd be glad to take your questions.

[Israel: Reported Patriot Technology Transfer to China/ Legal Bars to Transferring US Technology]

Q What can you tell us about Israel's military ties with China? MR. BOUCHER: Nothing. Q Nothing? Q Let's try the question this way: Can you comment in one form or another on reports that the Administration is looking into intelligence reports that indicate that Israel may have transferred some technology to China? MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, Barry. I'm aware of those reports, but I have nothing to say on them. Q You can't even go as far as Marlin went? MR. BOUCHER: I have nothing to say on them. I don't think Marlin said anything in particular. Q Oh, yes, he did. Q I think he said that the Administration was consulting with the Israelis about the report. MR. BOUCHER: Well, I certainly don't have anything to amplify on Marlin. I don't have any comment on that article. Q What is the U.S. position on the transfer of technology to a third power, technology which has originally been transferred to Israel? Can you restate that for us? MR. BOUCHER: John, that's in the Arms Export Control Act. I think I have something about the section in question. I'm sure that your question, and I'm certain that my answer, are totally without any reference to any articles that might be appearing today in the Washington Times or stories elsewhere. But the law is a matter of public knowledge, and therefore the gist, as I understand it, is that Section 3a of the Arms Export Control Act provides that the President may sell defense articles and services to foreign countries only if certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is that the foreign government concerned must agree that any articles or services furnished will not be transferred to anyone who is not an officer, employee or agent of that government without the consent of the United States. So that's basically what the law says. That's what it says, without reference to any particular stories that might be out there. Q And just as a matter of record, has the United States ever granted to Israel any sort of waiver that would have made possible the transfer of Patriot missile technology? MR. BOUCHER: It's not something I have any comment on. I'm not going to try to deal with those stories out there today in one way or another. Q Is that how that normally would have been undertaken? If Israel wanted to transfer technology, would it have to come back to the United States and seek a waiver? MR. BOUCHER: John, I've told you what the law is as it applies around the world. It's a matter of public record. But I'm not commenting on the stories that are appearing today. I just don't want to touch it. Q I understand it. I'm not asking about the story that appeared today, of course. I'm just asking about the law. MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry. If you want to apply the law to any specific country or case, then you'll have to do that on your own. Q Does the -- Q Richard -- Q Just one more question, please. Does the law provide for any sort of waiver that would permit the transfer of technology from Israel to another country? MR. BOUCHER: That's something -- well, it provides that what I said -- that the foreign government concerned must agree that any articles furnished will not be transferred to anyone who is not an officer, employee or agent of that government without the consent of the United States. Q Richard, are there any penalties -- again, without reference to any story -- any penalties if that section of the law is violated by a foreign country? MR. BOUCHER: I didn't read that part of the law today, so I'm sorry, I just don't know. Q Could you take the question? Q Richard, in the same vein -- MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if I can find it for you, Jan. Q -- does this law affect the transfer of technology that may have been developed by a foreign country under contract with the U.S. Government? In other words, in which the United States paid for the research, but the research was done there? MR. BOUCHER: I don't really know, Norm. Q Could you take that? MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if there are provisions that deal with that in the publicly available laws of the United States. Q In what form and where would that consent be made? It says "without the consent of the United States." In what form is that consent? Is there a written waiver? Is there a public statement? MR. BOUCHER: And what is the procedure of it? Q What is the procedure, and where is it -- MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'm not sure if that appears in the law. I'll try to check and see if I can get you the regulations, again without reference to any stories that might be out there today. Q If there is a piece of paper or some form and that consent is made, then it's a matter of public record, is it not, whether such consent was given on Patriot missile, or let us say Arrow missile technology? MR. BOUCHER: Once again, I'm not going to respond to questions that deal with the stories out there today. Q No. I'm asking, where would consent -- MR. BOUCHER: If there is an established procedure that applies around the world, without reference to any specific country or case, that is a matter of public record, I'm happy to share that with you, Saul, and I'll look into it. Q Richard, does the law make any distinction between defensive and offensive weapons? MR. BOUCHER: Jim, I'm not a lawyer. I've read you what the law says. You can look at it further if you want that. Q Richard, forgive me if this question has already been asked. I came in late. I apologize. Did you answer the question of whether the United States has raised with the Government of Israel questions about transfer of technology to China? MR. BOUCHER: I was asked a question very similar to that, and I said I was not in a position to answer. Q Is that your answer to my question as well? MR. BOUCHER: That's my answer to yours as well. Q And also can you say whether the United States has granted consent to Israel for transfer of any technology to China? MR. BOUCHER: I was asked that question as well, and I repeated -- Q I'm sorry. MR. BOUCHER: -- that any remarks that I make today have to do with publicly available information on the laws of the United States that are a matter of public record that I'm helping you out with and not with any reference to any particular stories that might be out there today about countries. Q So you said "no comment," though, basically? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not saying anything about that. Q Doesn't the State Department -- doesn't a department within the State Department administer the Arms Export Control Act and such things? MR. BOUCHER: Yes, we do. Q You have not checked with them on whether there were any waivers of any sort or another that are public or obtainable? MR. BOUCHER: I am not aware that the waiver process is a public one. I'll double-check on that and see. Q I'd appreciate it. Q Richard, did the State Department demarche the Government of Iran over the shipment -- the alleged shipment in a Korean -- Q Could we stay on this -- Q We are on this. Just a minute. MR. BOUCHER: Over the alleged shipment? Q The Korean goods that were allegedly shipped -- MR. BOUCHER: Of the reports of Scud missiles? Q Yes. MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary, I believe, in Brussels said that we would raise our concerns, and, yes, we've done that. Q Well, my question is, why are you willing to raise concerns about transfer of technology in that instance and not in this one? MR. BOUCHER: We don't do contrasts, Johanna, and I don't really see the comparison. Q Well, you are concerned about the transfer of technology, particularly in the Middle East, is that correct? MR. BOUCHER: Our views on the transfer of surface-to-surface and particular missile technology into the very tense region of the Middle East are something that we've stated many times. Yes. Q Richard, I understand your position up there on the dais, and I know what the situation is -- MR. BOUCHER: Thank you, Joe. Q -- from your standpoint, but it's very weird that all these questions suddenly arise without relationship to the story that appeared today, which makes it appear as, "Look, Israel's culpable, but you won't say it." Can you say as a matter of fact that the State Department is not at this point having anything to do or accusing Israel or anybody else of such a transfer? MR. BOUCHER: Joe, I am not commenting one way or the other on stories that are appearing today. Q Well, can you tell us when you might say something about this? [Laughter] Can you say something? MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, Joe. We don't have anything for you at this point. Marlin, the spokesman of the President, made that clear, I think, in his briefing this morning. He said we don't have any information or conclusions to share with people at this point, and I'm not about to go farther than that. Q Richard, a follow-up -- Q The U.S. views on transfer of missile technology into the tense region, you called it, have been often stated. Do those views also apply to transfer of technology out of the region? MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, look, I know you guys want in 30 different ways for me to say something on this. I'm not going to start drawing implications or conclusions about the stories that have appeared today. I certainly could have left you guys to go out and look up the Arms Export Control Act. It's a matter of public record. But as far as trying to apply some of these things to a particular circumstance, I'm not going to do that. Q Richard, have we approached the Syrians as possible or presumed end-users of the North Korean Scuds, the same way you said we've approached the Iranians? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, Howard. I'd have to check.

[Israel: Loan Guarantees]

Q Can I ask on a related subject to this: Is the markup on the loan guarantees set for next Tuesday -- MR. BOUCHER: That's a question for Congress. Q -- as some people have suggested? MR. BOUCHER: That's not a question for me. Q Do you happen to know whether -- MR. BOUCHER: I do not have that. Q -- that the Administration has agreed that the markup can go ahead next Tuesday? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure we have to agree to Congressional markups, but that's certainly a question for the Congress. Q Do you know of any meetings today between Baker and Senators Leahy and Kasten? MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't heard of one. No. Q Richard, let me go back. The Ministry of Defense in Israel said that the story that appeared in the media about the transfer of technology or equipment -- they denied it flatly. There was no question. And Defense Minister Arens is coming here. I think he's -- is he having a meeting with the Secretary or somebody? MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of. Q You don't know. MR. BOUCHER: He usually meets with Cheney. Q Well, what I don't understand is this looks like many other things in the past. Suddenly some anonymous official says something to the media. Israel is smeared. It takes time, and then it's forgotten about. It seems to me that this is not the way to treat an ally and the only democracy in the Middle East, is it? Come out with it! What is the truth? [Laughter] MR. BOUCHER: Joe, I appreciate your sentiments. I'm not going to go any farther than I have already. Q Since the guarantees were mentioned, let me mention that the only political condition ever imposed on a foreign loan guarantee -- MR. BOUCHER: Joe, I'm sorry. Do you have a question? Q Yes. What I'm saying. $12 billion in loan guarantees have been given to foreign countries, including Kuwait and Yemen without a political condition. Why is there a political condition on Israel, the only country to have a political condition imposed on it? MR. BOUCHER: Joe, the Secretary has explained our policy on this. He's explained the policy of the United States and our desire to stick to that, and I'm just going to stick with that. Q On the same subject, though, Richard -- the loan guarantees -- I think the Secretary indicated in Hill testimony the last time he was up there that the U.S. conditions for loan guarantees -- the U.S. would not have a problem with purely security or military investment in the West Bank, for instance -- like radar sites on the hilltops or something. Rabin, for instance, and the Labor Party historically have argued that the settlements in the Jordan Valley are security settlements. How would the U.S. view Israeli investment in those settlements? MR. BOUCHER: Howard, the Secretary in his testimony -- at least in the end of February when I remember -- described various kinds of things that were being discussed. I'm not in a position to go farther than that. I don't want to take up a hypothetical statement that you say has not even been made recently. Q Do you differentiate between what it calls "security settlements" and "regular settlements"? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new to say on that subject. The Secretary addressed the question in testimony. I'd just have to leave it there. Q Richard, if I may ask -- MR. BOUCHER: Sorry, Joe. There are others in line. Pat? Q On a different subject: What is the U.S. hope or expectation from this visit with King Hussein? MR. BOUCHER: The President spoke this morning about it. There will be a briefing at the White House, since this is taking place largely there. I think the Secretary has a meeting with the King this afternoon. I'd really have to leave it to them, Pat. Q The lead story in this morning's paper here talks about Iraq and the U.N. appear headed for a major new confrontation. How would you assess what the situation is right now? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I really have to leave that to the Security Council. I mean, our assessment, as you know, from the statements of Ambassador Pickering yesterday is that Iraq is not in compliance. That's not only our assessment. That's been the assessment of the Security Council as a whole, and that was clearly stated by the other members. Iraq is not in compliance with the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Now this morning Tariq Aziz was to address the Council at 10:30. There were going to be statements then by other members, followed up by -- a follow-up on the questions that were addressed to the Iraqi delegation yesterday. The Council was going to then hold informal consultations on how to conclude this session, so we expect there would be some kind of closing statement today.

[China: Vice Foreign Minister's Meeting at the Department]

Q Richard, do you have anything on the meeting between Deputy Secretary of State and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister this morning? What's the nature of the Vice Foreign Minister's visit? MR. BOUCHER: I didn't bring my information with me. The Vice Foreign Minister, I think, was in the United States for a U.N. meeting of some kind, and he was coming to Washington to have meetings largely with Under Secretary Kanteto discuss, I think, a full range of issues -- bilateral and international issues. You, I think, are familiar with our agenda with China: human rights, non-proliferation, trade, and other things like that. I'll double-check on the meeting today with Eagleburger to see if it had any different agenda on it.

[Sudan: Deputy Asst. Sec. Houdek's Visit to Khartoum and US Concerns about Terrorism]

Q Richard, this morning's paper talks about a Khartoum-Tehran Axis, and it says that Assistant Secretary of State Robert Houdek -- Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs -- visited Khartoum in December and warned the government of grave consequences if terrorist activity could be traced to Sudan. Do you have something about this? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Our Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Robert Houdek did go to Khartoum in December. He, as well as our Ambassador in Khartoum, have raised our concerns with the Sudanese, and I can describe the situation for you as regards Sudan and terrorism. It's clear to us that Sudan has close ties to several state sponsors of terrorism -- Iran, Iraq and Libya. These ties have been repeatedly demonstrated in the past year, including visits to Khartoum by Colonel Qadhafi in June and President Rafsanjani in December of 1991. Sudan also has an unfortunate history of being a state where terrorists have been able to operate freely. In this regard, we note the 1973 murder of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel in Khartoum, the 1986 shooting of a U.S. Embassy communicator, and the 1988 armed attack on the Acropole Hotel and Sudan Club by the Abu Nidal organization. That attack killed eight persons and wounded more than 20, including three Americans. The terrorists in that attack were released after being held for less than three years. We also continue to be concerned over disturbing evidence that Sudan is allowing various terrorist organizations to increase their presence there. We're also concerned over the potentially destabilizing effects of expanding links between Sudan or any other nation with terrorist groups. We're following the situation closely. We've expressed our views to senior officials of the Sudanese Government, both here in Washington and in Khartoum and to the leader of the National Islamic Front. Q Sudan is not on the terrorist list, is it? MR. BOUCHER: Not at this point. We're monitoring the situation closely. Q How recently are these developments that have caused your concern? MR. BOUCHER: I've cited some of them. The close ties demonstrated, particularly by visits last year of Qadhafi and Rafsanjani. The incidents that have occurred in Sudan, of course, go back some time, to 1973 when our Ambassador was murdered. The question of Sudan allowing various terrorist organizations to increase their presence there is a more recent phenomenon. Q I guess I should ask, why isn't Sudan on the terrorist list if, as you pointed out in your own statement, the country has a long record, in the mind of the U.S. Government, of supporting terrorists and ties with terrorist nations? What's the policy reason for not having them on the terrorist list at this point? MR. BOUCHER: At this point, Ralph, we're following the situation. We have to see if they meet the definition that's in the act of "state sponsor of terrorism," I think is what they're called in there. It's not necessarily just a country where terrorism has occurred. It's to have some form of state-sponsorship. There is an annual report that the Commerce Department sends up in January on the export controls relating to foreign policy. In conjunction with that, we formally review the terrorism list at the beginning of each year. We completed that review, and we've, at this point, concluded that no changes are warranted. Q At this point it would be fair to say that in the U.S. Government's view you can't yet conclude that the government of Sudan sponsors terrorism; you can only conclude that they allow terrorism to flourish, if you will, in their country? MR. BOUCHER: I think that's a paraphrase of what I said, that they're not yet on the terrorism list, or not on the terrorism list, but we have concerns about the situation there. We have concerns about developments there, and that we've raised these with the Sudanese Government. Q Richard, when you say no changes are warranted, are you speaking only of Sudan or are there to be any changes in the terrorism list? Syria had, obviously (inaudible) off -- MR. BOUCHER: The nations on the list -- this was done in January, I think. The nations on the list remain Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea. We follow this, obviously, all the time. Countries can be added to or removed from the list at any time it's warranted. Q Would you repeat the list? Iran, Iraq -- MR. BOUCHER: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea. Q There have been reports of Iranian training of Sudanese militias. Do you have anything on that? MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. Q Do you have anything on the kind of message that the Deputy Assistant Secretary delivered to the Sudanese? MR. BOUCHER: I would just say he expressed the concerns that I've expressed here. Q Richard, have you heard anything at all from some of the Arab countries about the continuation of the Middle East peace process, like venue, timing, and all that? MR. BOUCHER: "Heard anything at all" -- that's pretty broad. I'm sure we're still in touch with the various countries involved. We do that all the time. Q They suggested -- MR. BOUCHER: Do I have any new date, time, and place for you? No, I don't. Q Have any of the Arabs submitted a list of possible sites that they could live with? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that's something for me to comment on. I think that's something you can ask them. Q Can we go back to "anything at all"? MR. BOUCHER: "Anything at all?" I'm sure we're in touch with these governments. We've been in close touch with them all the time. As you remember, Ed Djerejian had a meeting with the Lebanese delegation on Monday, for example.

[Arms Sales: Transfers of Patriots/Israel/US Policy]

Q Can I ask you a question about the shipment of -- alleged shipment -- of Scud-Cs that ended up in Iran? I'm not sure you're going to be able to deal with this question, but it struck me, looking back over it, that, first, the U.S. Government, in effect, leaked information to suggest that the ship contained Scuds -- MR. BOUCHER: Are you certifying that's the source of the story? Are you revealing your source? Q: I'll ask the questions and you can deal with the way you want to answer them. Okay? That's fine. That's the way it always works. Then the U.S. Government talked about shadowing the ship carefully, keeping a close eye on it, watching it, leaving the impression that it was every step of the way, and so on. And then suddenly the ship ends up in an Iranian port and the U.S. Government says, "Well, we just -- gee, we lost it; we couldn't keep an eye on it. We couldn't find it." It sounds like, to me, like a bungle occurred here. Was there something wrong with the original information, or did the U.S. just decide for policy reasons you couldn't go after it? What went wrong here? MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, again, I don't know what you're saying about sources of the original story. I know that I, for one, and I think my colleagues in the other departments, when these original stories started about some ship on its way, did not say much of anything from our podiums. We did not say we were shadowing it or following it or going to get it, or all these other things that we saw reported in the press. I think the Pentagon -- Pete Williams the other day and General Hoar yesterday on the Hill -- talked about this situation quite extensively. We have said that we are concerned about arms transfers, particularly missile transfers into the Middle East. Those concerns are real, and we have, as the Secretary has pointed out, we've done some things to try to deal with that situation. We have supported things like the Missile Technology Control Regime and welcomed adherence to that regime by various countries. So we have efforts underway to deal with this question of the sale of missiles and weapons of mass destruction into the Middle East. But I don't think any of us have ever from here attempted to say anything specific about that ship. Q Of course, the question wasn't whether you -- MR. BOUCHER: The Pentagon has explained, I think, in a careful manner the circumstance of their monitoring effort and how they hail ships, and which ones they found and which ones they didn't. I'd just leave it to them to explain the situation there. Q The question wasn't so much about what was said at the podiums. As you know, U.S. officials speak on Background a lot about things that the U.S. Government doesn't wish to do from the podium. The stories, for the most part, don't come out of thin air. MR. BOUCHER: As you know, we don't stand up here and take responsibility or try to comment on things that unnamed officials say. Q You don't take responsibility for it. That's true. Can you tell me whether the Missile Technology Control Regime -- I just don't remember -- is Israel a signatory to that? Has the U.S. had discussions with Israel on the subject of the Missile Technology Control Regime? MR. BOUCHER: It's something that I'd have to look up. I know we've had discussions. I'm not sure what their exact status is. Q And do you know whether that regime encompasses the type of weapons such as the Patriot? MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, I'm not going to comment on the stories that appeared this morning. Q I wasn't asking about it. I was asking whether the Patriot missile is the type of missile that falls under the scope of the Missile Technology Control Regime? MR. BOUCHER: It's not a question I can answer for you today, Ralph. Q Can you take that? That's a valid question? MR. BOUCHER: I think that question really, solely relates to specifics that are in an article this morning, and I'm not going to comment on it. Q The question could be asked in this way: Does anti-missile technology fall under the Missile Technology Control Regime? MR. BOUCHER: My understanding is that the Missile Technology Control Regime deals with missiles that are able to send a 500-kilogram payload to a distance of 300 kilometers, and I believe it deals with surface-to-surface missiles. Q It would seem to exclude Patriots? Q You keep casting the questions that are asked you about this subject in terms of the stories that appeared this morning. Those were not the original questions that were asked. They were whether or not the United States is investigating a transfer of technology to Israel. Can you answer that specific question? MR. BOUCHER: No. Q From Israel to China? MR. BOUCHER: That's not a question that I'm able to answer for you at this point. Q Can you explain why you can't answer it? MR. BOUCHER: Speaking very hypothetically, John, if there were information or reports of that sort, they would relate to intelligence matters that we would probably not be able to comment on. Q Can you say whether the subject is a subject of discussion between the U.S. and the Israeli Governments? MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm afraid not. Q Richard, why can't you say from the podium what your colleague at the White House has said, which is, "There are reports and they're being looked into?" That's all he said, but at least he said that there are reports and they're being looked into. MR. BOUCHER: Jan, I don't understand why, if that was, in fact, exactly what was said at the White House, why you need me to say it. Q It's not why I need you to say it. What I'm concerned about is why you can't say it? MR. BOUCHER: I have no embellishments or additions to what Marlin (Fitzwater) said. I have no subtractions from them either. He is the spokesman for the President and the whole Administration. I'm not going to go any further, or any less of him. I don't have his transcript with me, so I'm not going to repeat what he said. Q If I might, Richard. The State Department, as we've said earlier, administers the law under which such transfers would be illegal unless the United States consents. You won't discuss whether your Department is looking into this. You won't discuss whether there's anything on the record showing any kind of waiver or consent on missile technology. It would seem to me that it's within the purview of this Department to give the answer and not necessarily the White House. The White House is going to ask you to look into it, I assume. MR. BOUCHER: I don't think Marlin said anything like that today. Q No, but this is where you would find out about it -- or not learn about it, perhaps, because of the intelligence that you wouldn't look into it. MR. BOUCHER: The allegations -- the information that appears in the reports that are appearing today, I think, are made with reference to intelligence information. You know it's our practice that we don't comment on intelligence information. I'm not prepared to go into any specific report of a specific transfer because of the information that we might have around the world on those types of activities. You asked me if the process of getting the consent of the United States for re-transfers is a public one, I offered to look into that. I recognize that from there if the answer is, yes, it is, then the question follows, "What about a particular case such as this?" I'll look into that as well. Q Richard, relations between this country and Israel have now been thrust into the political arena. And for you to stand there and blandly say that you will not comment on this because this may or may not have something to do with intelligence begs the fact that if Israel has transferred technology to another country, that casts Israel in a very bad light politically. It sounds as if you are refusing to comment on this story because it might further tighten relations between Israel and the United States. I suppose that may just be a conspiratorial turn of mind, but one wonders if you're not ducking the question in order not to bring up that embarrassing political possibility? MR. BOUCHER: John, I have given you my reasons for not commenting on these stories -- for not responding to questions on whether there is information, allegations, or something to look into involving possible transfers of Patriot technology from Israel to China -- it was your question -- and I have said that my reasons for that are that any information we might have about possible transfers of U.S. technology from one country that receives it to another country that hasn't, by and large, is intelligence information. And, as you know, we don't comment on intelligence information. I'm not prepared to confirm any of these stories for you. Q I understand your reasoning, and I have no reason to suspect the purity of your motives. I remain skeptical, however, about the State Department's purity of motives. MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Your views are on the record. Your skepticism is recorded, John. Q But by saying that it is an intelligence matter -- and you cannot really comment on it -- you tacitly admit that the United States did not give Israel a waiver because it wouldn't be an intelligence matter then because we would know about it? MR. BOUCHER: Frank, again, I'm not in a position to do that. I was not trying to imply that. I was trying to explain my reasons for not commenting on the story. Q If the United States and China -- Secretary Baker went to China last Fall for a meeting to discuss, among other things -- among many other things -- China's role in arms proliferation to the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, and at the time the United States spoke specifically about its concerns, about Chinese shipments of a certain type of missile, a certain type of technology. Has the United States raised the question of obtaining missile technology from Israel with the Chinese Government? MR. BOUCHER: That's the other side of the coin -- Q Yes, it is. MR. BOUCHER: -- of the question that I was asked, and I'm afraid I'm not able to answer that one either. Q Richard, let me ask it a different way -- Q The two situations are different in some way? One had to do with intelligence information and one didn't, or -- MR. BOUCHER: Our desire to see countries around the world adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime, the fact that we welcome Chinese adherence to that is certainly something that's a matter of policy that I can speak on very easily. Q Let me ask you a different way, if I could. The Patriot missile is a very sophisticated weapon, as we all know. The Administration, over the last year, has repeatedly said that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, missiles, etc., is one of the highest if not highest priorities. Would we view it with alarm -- if such a transfer had taken place -- that China had acquired this capability? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can answer the second half of your question. I would point out that the Patriot missile is a defensive system which has been used and which we are, in fact, selling ourselves to some countries. I think the Defense Department announced yesterday that we were selling some Patriots to Kuwait. Q Would we sell it to China? MR. BOUCHER: As you know, we don't sell weapons to China right now. Q Can you tell us, what countries, besides Israel -- what country besides Israel has Patriot launchers and missiles? MR. BOUCHER: Off the top of my head, there are some in Europe, I think the Netherlands, Turkey, among NATO countries. I know we've announced sales to Saudi Arabia and just yesterday a sale to Kuwait; and, of course, the ones that went to Israel. So those are the ones that I can think of. I think that's the whole list but I'm not positive. Q There were two that went to Israel during the war. Have you already been asked about whether Israel has purchased or requested to purchase an additional battery of Patriot missiles? MR. BOUCHER: There are more than the ones that went during the war, and I'm just not sure of the exact status of that, Ralph. I think that's probably a matter of record. Q Does Japan have Patriots? MR. BOUCHER: Frankly I don't know. It might. As I said, I'm not sure my list is exhausted. Q Thank you. MR. BOUCHER: Thank you. (Press briefing concluded at 1:15 p.m.)