US Department of State Daily Briefing #37: Friday, 3/13/92

Boucher Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard Boucher Description: Washington, DC Date: Mar, 13 19923/13/92 Category: Briefings Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia Country: Iraq, Israel, USSR (former), Ukraine, Russia, Syria, Turkey Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process, State Department, Security Assistance and Sales 12:38 P.M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements for you, so I'd be glad to take your questions. George.

[Israel: Reported Transfer of US Technology/IG Report on Defense Trade Controls/Secretary's Knowledge of Investigation and Other Issues]

Q Richard, there are new reports today, as I'm sure you're aware, based on what is described as overwhelming evidence, that Israel has sold military technology not only to China but to South Africa and other countries as well. These sales supposedly were unauthorized. Do you have any comment? MR. BOUCHER: George, those of us who were here yesterday, including yourself and myself, won't be surprised to find that I'm not in a position to deal with the specific type of issues that are raised in the press today. There are a few things I can tell you that I'd be glad to tell you. First of all, I have to make clear, though, that we won't comment on confidential Inspector General reports, especially those that are not even final and those that have not been sent forward. The report will be made public, with a classified annex probably, and we will be pleased at that time to comment on the public portion of the report. The Inspector General is working on a report. It's a full-scope worldwide audit of the Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls. That's the office that's responsible for licensing of U.S. munitions exports and for compliance and enforcement of the Arms Export Control Laws and Regulations. The audit has been on-going for several months, both at the State Department and other relevant U.S. agencies here in the U.S. and in a number of posts overseas. Q When will that be made public? MR. BOUCHER: Shortly. I can't give you an exact date, but I think shortly. Q You talking about days or hours or weeks? MR. BOUCHER: My understanding is a couple weeks; something like that. Q One of the Washington newspapers -- MR. BOUCHER: The other thing is, since many of you may not know the exact process that an Inspector General's report or audit follows, I looked that up today since I didn't really know it very well either. I'd be glad to tell you what happens with an Inspector General's report. The reports are written after extensive field work in the Department and overseas. A draft report is circulated, first, internally within the Inspector General's Office for review there, and then an official draft is sent out for comment to any of the offices that are involved in the work related to the audit. Some of these audits would go to Under Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries as well. Those who are given the report in draft have 30 days to provide the Inspector General with written comments. The Inspector General then takes those comments and determines whether or not to make changes in the report based on any errors that might have been pointed out or any views that might have been expressed in the comments. In his report, the Inspector General then identifies the changes in the report, adds the comments to comments, and all the comments are appended to the final report. So it's a fairly open process of back-and-forth as a report is prepared. Then the final report, with any recommendations, is issued to the parties involved. The offices to whom recommendations are addressed then have 45 days to submit their plans to the Inspector General on what they will do to implement the recommendations, and the Inspector General then follows up with a review of the compliance with the recommendations. Q At what point does it become public, though? MR. BOUCHER: It becomes public when the final report is issued. Q So the affected officer has 45 days to comment and then it's released? MR. BOUCHER: The back-and-forth, they have 30 days to -- the various places within the Department that work on the subject matter, specifically, if there are any recommendations or draft recommendations that would affect them have 30 days to comment on it. Q What I'm trying to get at, at what point in the process are we now? MR. BOUCHER: We're at the point where the report is not yet final, has not yet been set forth. Q But it is being circulated to other offices? It's out of the IG's office, right? MR. BOUCHER: I really don't want to deal in anymore detail with this specific report. I would just say the report is not yet final. We expect that to happen shortly. Q If it's a 30-day process and you have two weeks to go, presumably, it's in the middle of the 30-day process? MR. BOUCHER: Presumably, Norm. Q According to the published report, this report is the follow up to an earlier audit and to earlier changes that were made in the office. This is the report that goes back and says, "Well, did the changes work?" Is that accurate? MR. BOUCHER: There are periodic reports on different audits -- on different offices. Some of the Inspector General's reports are done on a calendar basis; some of the Inspector General's reports are done on offices where they've made recommendations in the past and a while later they go back and do another audit to see how everything worked out. Q But I guess the question is -- MR. BOUCHER: This is not that final phase of 45 days, if that's what you're meaning. This is a new -- a separate audit of the office. It's an office that has undergone a lot of changes over the last several years, and, we hope, improvements. Q Partly as a result of previous audits? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Q So my question is, is this a case in which the Inspector General audited the office, found problems a couple of years ago, changes were made -- presumably in accordance with the process you just outlined -- and now they've gone back to check again and now new problems have been found, or a continuation of the same problems? MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, I'm not going to get into what problems or recommendations the Inspector General might come up with in its report at this point. It's an office that has -- as many offices around here -- that has been periodically reviewed, where changes have been made, and we'll see what the Inspector General says about it this time when it comes out. Q Does this refer only to one country or is it universal? MR. BOUCHER: It's my understanding it's a worldwide audit of the office that handles these matters. Q And will individual countries be identified in -- MR. BOUCHER: We'll have to wait and see what happens when the report comes out, Jim. Q Richard, can you tell us anything about what occasioned this report? MR. BOUCHER: The Inspector General's Office decides on where it wants to do its inspections. As I said, my understanding, this is an office -- the function of munitions licensing and defense controls -- which has been the subject of reports in the past. There have been a number of changes that have been made in recent years in this office. I expect they just want to go back there and do another look at it to see how well it's working out. Q So you're saying that this is just a routine follow-up report and not occasioned by any particular concern about the leakage of technology from Israel to other countries? MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to speak entirely for the Inspector General on this matter. It's an audit of the office and the way it does its work. Those are routine for the State Department. We undergo those things all the time. It does happen in the State Department all the time. The Inspector General determines where it wants to focus its efforts. Q Do you have any words on behalf of Assistant Secretary of State Richard Clarke who supervises this office? MR. BOUCHER: There is some speculation in the article about that. Let me say that, first of all, we don't announce any changes in Presidential appointees from this podium. Those announcements, as you know, are made by the White House. However, I think I should be fair and point out that the Department is planning a number of movements of career and political appointees as part of the normal 3-year rotation both here and abroad. Many of these rotations have already been announced by the White House. But I also want to say that the suggestion in the piece that Assistant Secretary Clarke might be fired is simply not true. Q What the piece says is -- it doesn't say that he might fired. What it says is that the Inspector General might recommend that he be fired. The question is, has Secretary of State Baker been advised by the auditor -- the ombudsman, or whatever -- of the State Department that the Assistant Secretary of State, who supervises this office, ought to be disciplined? MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, as to what it's going to say in the Inspector General's report, I'm not going to comment in any way at this point. Q But that wasn't the question. The question was, has -- MR. BOUCHER: You're asking me if the Secretary has been advised that the Inspector General's report is going to say something, I don't see how I could answer that question without getting into what the report might say. Q Has the Secretary been advised that the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of this office be disciplined? MR. BOUCHER: Again, Ralph, that's not a question I'm in a position to answer. Q Has Clarke's name already has been announced by the White House for rotation or a new post? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think so. I'm not aware of that. Q Are you planning to rotate him? MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'm not going to make any announcements involving any particular individual that's the subject of a Presidential appointment. Q I understand that, but you brought up the phrase "rotation." MR. BOUCHER: I brought it up to be fair. Because if people do rotate, then I don't want you to say that we said that he was staying. There are normal rotations that go on without necessarily being of the type discussed in this particular story. Q Can you say whether the Secretary of State has full confidence in Assistant Secretary Clarke at this time? MR. BOUCHER: Yes, of course. That goes without saying. Q Well, it doesn't go without saying, I'm afraid; so if you need to say it, by all means say it. MR. BOUCHER: It went without saying yesterday and the day before -- of course. Q Richard, a Washington newspaper made a kind of allude to linkage between this episode of Israel's military transfer to third countries and the problem of loan guarantees. Do you have any comment on that? MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. I certainly haven't made any linkages like that. Q At what point did Secretary Baker become aware of the contents of the preliminary Inspector General's report? MR. BOUCHER: I guess I don't really know the answer to that, Ralph. Q Has the Secretary looked into this matter and the allegations against the specific office within the State Department? MR. BOUCHER: Again, Ralph, the report is in process. If we're going to talk about allegations in a specific office, I think we owe it to the process and to the Inspector General to let him finish his report and make his recommendations. At that point, we'll be pleased to discuss any public portions with you. Q Well, the Secretary of State is involved in extensive dealings with the Government of Israel, with other nations in Europe and elsewhere, on proliferation/non- proliferation, and so on. These contacts between Baker and many of these other nations have been going on for the entire period of time covered by this report. So it becomes important to know whether the Secretary of State was aware of these allegations when he urged, for example -- just to pick one example out of the blue -- when he urged the Government of Germany to tighten its export controls and regulations to prevent proliferation, was he aware at that time that agencies of the United States Government accused an office within Baker's own Department of failing to enforce those very same sorts of regulations? MR. BOUCHER: First of all, Ralph, I'm not going to be able to answer the question of when the Secretary was apprised of the draft, or the recommendations or what might be in the report. I'm certainly not intending, by any of my comments, to imply that what is written in that article is what the Inspector General is, in fact, saying, or to imply anything about the contents of the report. At the same time, I don't see that it's that relevant. Certainly, our encouragement for Germany and other countries to tighten up their export laws is not something that we apply only to foreign countries. It's something that we apply to ourselves. We have made steps over the last several years to tighten our own regulations in various areas, and to tighten our enforcement. We've worked with other countries in various ways to do that; and I'm sure that anything that we can do, including anything the Inspector General might recommend that we can do to make sure that these systems of export controls work efficiently in the United States or overseas, is well warranted, and therefore I don't see any reason why the Secretary shouldn't encourage others to do what we're also trying to do ourselves. Q Does the publication of this report in any way, in your opinion, diminish the high ground, if you will, that the United States has taken in recent years in urging non-proliferation? MR. BOUCHER: No. Not at all, Ralph. Q Why not? MR. BOUCHER: First of all, a report on an office in the State Department is nothing unusual. We're always periodically looking at what we do to try to do it better. That's the very nature of the Inspector General's process. This, as you know, is an office that has had, as I said, reports done on it before. They've made changes. We think they've made improvements. I think the business community can tell you that they're more efficient in things like that. It's good for the Inspector General to look at them again and see what further improvements can be made, if any. Q Richard, quite apart from any report or investigation, has the United States, in the past two years, expressed concern to Israel at all about potential unauthorized sales, transfers, whatever? MR. BOUCHER: Carol, that's not a question that I can answer apart from reports that have been appearing. Q Why? Because the situation is sensitive or you don't feel that's public information, or -- it seems to me a pretty straightforward question. MR. BOUCHER: I think it's a question that's based on reports that have been appearing, and I'm just not in a position to do it. Q Can you take the question? Q It could be a question based simply on the fact that there's a great deal of U.S. technology transfer to Israel? MR. BOUCHER: Israel, as I think Israel's own statements reflect, is very well aware of the requirements on re-transfers. Those are part of our laws. Those are part of the contracts. That sort of discussion goes on in the case of any arm sale because it becomes part of the contract. Q Would you take the question, though? MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if there's anything additional to say other than the fact that this is something that we routinely deal with whenever we have an arm sale because it's the standard part of contracts. Q Can I change the subject? MR. BOUCHER: Sure. Q I still have some more on this one. Well, we can come back to it later if you prefer. MR. BOUCHER: Whatever. Q New subject. Q Why don't we finish up with this. One question: Does the State Department routinely do its own field checks to see if any technology is leaking, or does it wait until the IG -- which appears to be a separate entity in this sort of audit -- or somebody else reports it? In other words, is there a routine, systematic follow up to make sure that technology is not leaking? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I'll have to see. Q Can you say whether it's accurate, as reported in the Wall Street Journal that a memo was circulated in this Department last August which was intended to send information on technology transfers and allegations of improper technology transfers to Capitol Hill partly as a result of the Inspector General's preliminary reviews of this office? MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't say that. Q Could you take that question? MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't. Q Why not? MR. BOUCHER: We never talk about the internal memos in this Department. Q Never? MR. BOUCHER: Have we ever? Q Richard, Mr. Clarke is on the Hill this morning testifying. Could the Press Office please make arrangements for us to receive copies of his remarks -- of his opening remarks? The Press Office seemed to be unaware of his testimony this morning. MR. BOUCHER: I'll be glad to see if we have copies of his remarks. Q New subject? MR. BOUCHER: Do you want the first new subject, John? Q Yes. Do you have any comment on the reported stoppage of a shipment of nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia? I mean, what is the situation as of today? Have they resumed shipments, perhaps? And, if they have not, is the State Department alarmed about this? MR. BOUCHER: Let me give you the situation today as we see it, and that is that President Kravchuk repeatedly stated his commitment to the withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from Ukraine territories as soon as possible. To that end, he agreed in a December Alma-Ata and Minsk agreements that all tactical nuclear weapons would be withdrawn from Ukraine to Russia by July 1, 1992, in preparation for their dismantlement, and that all strategic nuclear weapons would be withdrawn by the end of 1994. We're aware of his comments yesterday. We're asking the Government of Ukraine for additional information and for clarification. Q I believe that the President of Ukraine suggested or asked the United States to help them build facilities so those weapons could be destroyed. Would the United States be prepared to do that and supervise the destruction of those weapons? MR. BOUCHER: Frank, the comments yesterday by President Kravchuk touched on a number of areas, including this one. It's difficult for me to identify -- to talk about some of those in any detail because, as I said, we're contacting them. We're looking for more information and clarification. I think I'd say in this regard that overall, we want to see the tactical nuclear weapons eliminated as safely and as rapidly as possible. We have the commitments. We've seen the commitments by both the Ukrainian and Russian Governments at the highest levels that the weapons would be withdrawn to Russia by July 1 of 1992 for elimination, and we have been working closely with the relevant authorities to make sure that these eliminations and the elimination of other nuclear weapons are accomplished as quickly and as safely as possible. Q That being the case, are you concerned by the apparent halt in the process? MR. BOUCHER: As I said, that's our overall goal. We've seen the previous commitments that have been made, and we're talking to them about additional information and clarification. If we get anything more detailed that allows us to comment further later, I'm sure we'd be glad to do that. Q Can we confirm whether or not these have been in fact -- these shipments have in fact stopped, and how long they've been stopped? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can do that for you, John. I just don't have that information. Q You don't have the information, or we're not able to do it? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the information here. Q Richard, at what level is the United States trying to get more information? Is this simply on a Foreign Ministry basis, and has the -- MR. BOUCHER: We asked our Embassy in Kiev to talk to the government. I'm not sure at what level they'll do that. Q And has the matter been discussed or raised with the Russian Foreign Ministry? MR. BOUCHER: Let me take that question and see. Q And could you say whether the delay in appointing a -- or naming, rather, a United States Ambassador to Ukraine is linked with American concerns about the nuclear weapons? MR. BOUCHER: Sonia, I'm not aware that the White House has announced any of the Ambassadors to the New Independent States at this point. Q What is it that you're asking for clarification on? You pointed out Kravchuk's statements in December, and you've pointed out his statements yesterday. They don't seem to match. Do you disbelieve one or the other, and, if so, which ones do you not -- do you need clarification on? MR. BOUCHER: Well, clarification on -- Q Are you asking them if they've changed their mind about -- is that what you're doing? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Basically clarification of what the import is of the remarks yesterday, given the repeated high-level public and private commitments that were given in the past and the agreements that were reached in the past. Q Are you reminding the Ukraine Government of the promises that it made both publicly and privately to the United States on that subject? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, this is a matter of record. It's a part of the discussion, I'm sure. Q Richard, does the United States believe that the weapons that are in the Ukraine, both tactical and ICBMs, can be surrendered to Russia with confidence that the Russian Government, Russian officials, army officials, whatever, will handle them in an appropriate fashion? MR. BOUCHER: I guess, Carol, it depends on what you mean by "an appropriate fashion." I think we've always -- we have stressed our concern about the safety of nuclear weapons. We have repeatedly said, though, that in our discussions with people and based on what we know, we think that the weapons are being handled responsibly and safely. The process of withdrawal and elimination is one that we've supported. Q But Kravchuk is -- I'm sorry. MR. BOUCHER: Kravchuk's made some comments about what he felt was handled in an appropriate manner. I think our concern is that the weapons be eliminated as safely and as rapidly as possible. For us a safe and rapid elimination is the appropriate manner, so I would say that we have had confidence that that could be accomplished. Yes. Q But let me ask you this: Do you believe that the Russians would be more reliable eliminating those weapons? Logically, it would seem if the weapons are in Ukraine, and they say, "Come on in, fellows, help us destroy those weapons," that would be the safest, most simple way of handling it instead of shipping those weapons 500 miles across the border. MR. BOUCHER: I think that's the kind of question that I can't answer in any detail at this point. We have to talk to them a little more about where we stand vis-a-vis the previous plans and the previous commitments. Q Richard, one other -- MR. BOUCHER: Howard. Q Back to Frank's earlier question about U.S. supervision of this process, (a) in terms of helping to meet the goal of getting this done as soon as possible -- maybe alleviating Ukrainian concerns, and then this other angle. I mean, it's a hypothetical, I guess, but is there room for an enhanced U.S. role? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, we've discussed in the past, and I think the Secretary discussed in testimony, the -- and I remember Under Secretary Bartholomew testified at the beginning of February -- about various ideas and ways that the United States could help this process, could contribute to this process, and to help make sure that it does take place as safely and effectively and as rapidly as possible. I don't have any more of that sort of detail for you at this point, but it's certainly a process that we have offered to be part of and to help out with. Q Richard, under present plans, is the United States paying the total cost of this destruction, or are the Russian and perhaps other republics expected to pay a share themselves? MR. BOUCHER: I really don't know, Norm. I've never seen anything that specifies it in that level of detail. I'm sure it would be joint. Q Richard, one other suggestion Kravchuk has made is that there be an international commission to oversee this process. Does the United States have any thought about this? MR. BOUCHER: Not at this point. Again, that's the various details that were in the statement yesterday. We're looking for additional information and clarification. If we're able to get enough information to offer you comments on some of these details, I'd be glad to, but I can't do that at this point. Q Is it your preference that the previous arrangement would be carried out that those weapons should be transferred to the Russians, and they can destroy them? Or are you saying that -- or are you concerned about the situation in general? What's the specific concern? I don't quite understand. MR. BOUCHER: The remarks as we saw reported yesterday seemed to diverge from the previous agreements and understandings that have been reached, and therefore we're interested in seeking additional information and clarification from the Ukraine Government. Q Richard, I don't know if you have been asked about the remarks made by Syrian President Assad, criticizing the U.S. policy in the Middle East and with regards to arming the Arab countries and arming Israel. MR. BOUCHER: No. I haven't been asked, but I really don't have anything to say. Q You don't have any comment on that? MR. BOUCHER: No. Q Do you have anything to tell about the relations now? How do you characterize the relations between the U.S. and Syria? MR. BOUCHER: I really don't have any new characterization of the relationship. We've characterized it in the past, and I think that still applies. Q You're not seeking clarification from the Syrian Government of President Assad's remarks, or are you? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware that we'd sent such an instruction, no, Ralph. Q Well, could you find out if there's any communication between here and there on what he said? After all, he lambasted democracy. He dressed you guys down quite considerably. In fact, he dressed Israel down -- it's de regueur -- we expect that. But, I mean, he's supposed to be or seems to be a new-found friend of the United States, and he really let you have with both barrels. You have no comment on this at all? MR. BOUCHER: Jan, the speech, as you say, was a major speech by President Assad. He addressed a number of issues. He addressed a number of subjects. I'm sure we're very interested in his comments. I'm sure we probably don't agree with all of them. I think our views on those issues -- things like non-proliferation and the peace process -- are very well known. I'm not really interested in getting into some back and forth about a foreign leader's speech, but I think our views on these topics are well known.

[Iraq: Skirmishes Between Government Troops and Kurds]

Q Richard, what can you tell us about the standoff between Iraqi troops and the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq? Do we know anything about that situation? MR. BOUCHER: Well, we've checked a couple times in recent days, and it's basically been the same. My understanding is there have been sporadic skirmishes between the Iraqi army units and Kurdish elements over the past week. The activity seems to be located at various points along the Iraqi line of control. Most recently, the skirmishes were east of Kirkuk. At this point we really don't have any further details for you. We would note, however, that Baghdad's continued blockade of the northern part of Iraq has clearly raised the tensions in all of this area. Q Any indication of a build-up on the Iraqi side, or that they'll intend to extend that line of control? MR. BOUCHER: We don't have any confirmation of those reports. Q Does the no-go provision on flights above the 38th Parallel still apply? MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

[Turkey: Air Attacks Against PKK]

Q Richard, were you asked last week or earlier this week about Turkish over-flights of Iraqi territory and attacks on two of the bases inside the northern Kurdish areas of Iraq? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've been asked at the briefing. I think some people might have asked the Press Office. The Turkish Government has announced that it conducted a certain number of air attacks, I think, earlier this month -- the first week or two of this month -- against PKK camps inside Iraq. The PKK, as you know, is a violent terrorist group. Their activities are certainly a subject of concern to all of us. I think we've expressed the hope that attacks like this by Turkey would be carried out in order to avoid any innocent loss of life -- loss of life of civilians, and that attacks like this would be concluded as soon as possible. Q So you're endorsing the attacks, in effect, as long as they're carried out in a way to avoid innocent casualties? MR. BOUCHER: I would just express the views the ways I've expressed them, Ralph. Q The camps were inside Iraq, however, is that correct? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. It's my understanding that is the situation, and that's what they said. Q Is it the U.S. view that Iraqi territory in that section of Iraq is sort of "no-man's territory," that people can just sort of fly over and conduct military -- let's say conduct military activities over that area without paying any attention to Iraqi sovereignty in that section? MR. BOUCHER: I guess it's not a question I can answer in any formal way. I wouldn't necessarily equate attacks against terrorist facilities in an area like this with a change in policy on Iraqi sovereignty. Certainly, there's been none. Q Richard, if we could go back to the East for a minute, the Secretary said that he would like to have Embassies in all of the 12 or 11 republics opened by March 15, which is in a couple of days. Can you tell us whether that date will be -- whether this pledge or intention will be kept -- what the status is now? And are there any plans to establish an Embassy in Georgia soon? MR. BOUCHER: At this point the question of Georgia and recognition and diplomatic relations has not changed. I thought I'd check on Monday and see if we made the March 15th rather than check on Friday and see if we were going to. I know that work is underway -- preparations are underway. We've had some advance teams in various places, so I think we'll make some of -- I hope all. We'll see on Monday. Q Richard, Minister Arens of Israel will be in town early next week. Does the Secretary have any plans to meet with him? MR. BOUCHER: I forgot to check this morning. When I checked yesterday, there was nothing on the schedule. I'll have to check again for you, though, to see if something's been done today. Q When you checked on that, did you check to see whether any U.S. officials have already met with Mr. Arens? MR. BOUCHER: With Minister Arens? Q Since he's been here. MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if he's had any meetings at Defense yet. I don't know if you've asked over there. Q I'll ask over there. Would you mind checking to see whether he's met with anyone at the State Department? MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if I can find out. Q Could you include Rabin in your list of people to check on? I believe he's due in town. MR. BOUCHER: Has Arens met with Rabin, or is Rabin in town? Q I believe he's here in town also. MR. BOUCHER: I wasn't aware of that. I'll see if we know if he's in town or not. Q Richard, since the IG report isn't coming out for a couple of weeks, I'm wondering whether the Press Office could provide today just some salient facts about the Office of Defense Trade Controls. That used to be called the Office of Munitions Control, right? MR. BOUCHER: That's right. Q And perhaps it would have like how many employees, the number of sales, licenses it grants, things like that, and perhaps even the executive summaries of the last IG report when it was the Office of Munitions Control? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure how much of that material we can get for you, Chris. I'll see what we can. Q Can you tell us whether the United States has informed Israel of -- the contents of this IG report that's under review in the Department? MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't, because I wouldn't want to deal in a specific way with what might be in this report. Q Thank you. (The briefing concluded at 1:10 p.m.)