Published on: 2003-04-17 <a href=www.fayettevillenc.com>Fayetteville By Al Greenwood Staff writer

Gas prices are putting a damper on some people's Easter travel plans.

On the East Coast, the average price for a gallon of gasoline is $1.561, up 12 percent from $1.373 in December, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

As a result, Randall Reeves of Wilmington will spend less time fishing at Town Creek this Easter. His boat uses a lot of gasoline, he said.

Reeves was talking about gas prices Wednesday at the BP gas station on Cedar Creek Road in Fayetteville. He works for System Design & Integration Inc. of Wilmington, a company that installs electrical controls for customers in Fayetteville and other cities in North Carolina.

Gas prices have been so high for so long that System can no longer absorb the increase, said Dean Krause, who also works for the company. System Designs is passing the increased costs to its customers.

Unlike Reeves, Krause has no plans to travel during Easter, he said. ''As hard as I'm working, I'm staying home.''

Bill Spurr of Wake Forest was also buying gasoline at the BP station. He said price increases have not affected his travel plans. He was driving to Charleston, S.C., with his grandparents. He returns Friday and said he plans to stay in Wake Forest during Easter.

Throughout the country, Easter is not a big travel day, said Tom Crosby, spokesman for AAA Carolinas.

But many of the soldiers at Fort Bragg travel during Easter weekend because they have a training holiday Friday and because Easter falls in conjunction with spring break, said Jackie Thomas, Fort Bragg spokeswoman.

Soldiers filling up their cars will notice that gas prices are down from an average high in February of $1.663 a gallon, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Trend uncertain

That drop, however, is not enough to encourage people to get in their cars and travel, Crosby said. And this week's average price for gasoline is still nearly 10 cents higher than last year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

There's no telling if gas prices will continue to decrease or if they will begin to rise again, said Ed Erickson, an economics professor at N.C. State University who specializes in energy.

Prices could continue dropping because the war in Iraq is winding down and the downturn in the world economy has caused demand for gasoline to drop, he said. Strikes have ended in Venezuela, a major oil exporter, but Venezuela is not at full production, Erickson said. Also, prices usually increase as Memorial Day approaches, which is a big travel day.

Refineries are still producing heating oil, and not all of them have switched to gasoline, he said. Gas inventories in the United States are low.

''The fundamentals are still gritty,'' he said. ''It could change for the worse anytime.''

Staff writer Al Greenwood can be reached at greenwooda@fayettevillenc.com or 486-3567.

Posted on Thu, Apr. 17, 2003 CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER KansasCity.com-Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela - They used to be keepers of the peace. Now the 500 police officers under Miguel Pinto's command are mostly just killing time.

Ever since President Hugo Chavez clamped down on the Caracas police, charging them with instigating a coup, Pinto's 500 motorcycle cops spend most of their days playing chess or exercising at their hilltop precinct.

Soldiers search them as they enter or leave the building, and allow only limited patrols. They've also taken away the officers' submachine guns, tear gas grenades and shotguns.

"They took all of our arms except the .38-caliber revolvers," said Pinto, chief of the police department's Phoenix motorcycle brigade. "We're practically defenseless."

On Friday, Chavez brushed aside a Supreme Court ruling and said he would keep his firm grip on the 9,000-strong city police because they were "the lance that started the coup" last year. Police deny it and complain crime is booming because of the restrictions.

The coup began after 19 people were killed and more than 100 were wounded when gunfire erupted during an opposition march to the presidential palace on April 11, 2002.

The bloodshed prompted several generals to oust Chavez. Loyalist troops restored the president on April 14.

The government insists city police fired indiscriminately at civilian Chavez supporters and illegally detained cabinet ministers. Police deny firing at pro-Chavez gunmen and say they had no hand in the detentions.

In December, Venezuela's Supreme Court ordered the government to return police control to Caracas Mayor Alfredo Pena, a Chavez opponent.

The government has yet to do so. On Wednesday, a court ordered the arrests of eight police officers accused of killing two people and wounding 35 at the march.

The same court had dismissed murder charges against four Chavez supporters who allegedly were videotaped shooting into the crowd. It upheld lesser charges of improper use of firearms.

Demoralized police commanders say that Chavez's takeover has reduced patrols and given criminals the edge in this capital of 4 million people.

Soldiers have confiscated weapons, impounded many police vehicles and stationed armored personnel carriers outside police precincts to monitor officers' movements.

Pena says police are now outgunned by criminals using Uzi submachine guns, grenades and high-powered rifles equipped with silencers and armor-piercing bullets. Bandits recently launched a rocket-propelled grenade on a city highway to rob an armored truck.

"These violent groups enjoy total impunity," Pena said. "Chavez wants to maintain that impunity and the police are an obstacle to that plan."

Since November, 16 officers have been killed and more than 100 wounded, Pena said. One officer was killed in an ambush by government supporters, police say.

Chavez supporters say the police needed to be reined in.

"The police force was equipped like a small army," said legislator Nestor Leon, who claims city police routinely suppressed pro-government demonstrations.

Lina Ron, a prominent Chavez street activist whose followers have attacked opposition marches, insists police must be punished for the events of April 2002.

"They executed our comrades," Ron said. "The takeover must continue and those responsible for the deaths that day must be brought to justice."

By Vanessa Bauza <a href=www.sun-sentinel.com<South Florida SUN sentinel HAVANA BUREAU Posted April 17 2003

HAVANA -- At a time when Cuba has meted out severe sentences for prominent government critics and almost dismantled a growing opposition movement, it is unclear whether Fidel Castro's government will be censured by the United Nations Human Rights Commission -- as it has been for nearly a decade -- when that body votes today on the island's human rights record.

The vote, often decided by the narrowest of margins, was scheduled for Wednesday. However, the 53-member commission postponed it after several last-minute amendments were introduced, including one urging the immediate release of 75 dissidents who were recently sentenced to as much as 28 years in jail on charges they worked with U.S diplomats to undermine Castro's government.

Costa Rican envoy Manuel Gonzalez Sanz said his country introduced the amendment as a result of "serious events … which oblige us to make a more vehement appeal to Cuba with a view to achieving greater respect for human rights."

However, some diplomats and human rights activists said the amendment's harsher tone may jeopardize approval of the controversial resolution, which previously had sought only for Cuba to accept a visit from a U.N. rights monitor.

In an unexpected turn of the tables, Cuba introduced two amendments of its own: one condemning the U.S. economic embargo as a human rights violation against the Cuban people, the other calling for the high commissioner on human rights to investigate terrorist acts planned from the United States against Cuba.

Subhed can move

Rights activists and diplomats said it was far from certain that the Costa Rican resolution would be passed by the commission. For some Latin American countries with strong leftist constituencies, censuring Cuba is as much an internal policy decision as an international declaration, said Jaime Suchlicki, director of the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies.

"I don't know that it's going to pass," Suchlicki said. "Argentina is looking at an election, Venezuela supports Cuba, and Brazil is probably going to abstain. The key factor is how countries consider … the power of the left in their country and the elements that support Cuba. In many of these countries, Cuba has a following."

Anger over the U.S.-led war in Iraq also has affected the stance of some members. Argentina's transitional president, Eduardo Duhalde, announcing in Buenos Aires that his country would abstain on the Cuba vote, said his delegation "is not going to condemn Cuba, a small country under embargo.

"We consider the vote very inopportune, given this unilateral war that has violated human rights," Duhalde said.

To some Cuban dissidents, the wording of the U.N. human rights resolution was not as important as simply having an international body scrutinize Cuba's rights record.

"A resolution in Geneva, even if it's light, always signifies moral support [for human rights]" said Elizardo Sanchez, head of the independent Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation, which has tracked the dissident crackdown. "The Cuban government insists that it cooperates with the United Nations; one way of proving that is to accept a United Nations monitor."

Subhed can move

During testimony on Capitol Hill at a hearing of the House Committee on International Relations, which is looking into the recent dissident crackdown in Cuba, some State Department officials said a weaker resolution is better than no resolution.

"We will try to pursue as strong a language as we can, but we also want to make sure we have a victory," said Kim Holmes, assistant secretary in the State Department's Bureau of International Organization Affairs. Holmes said a victory is needed to send a message to people in Cuba that the world is watching developments on the island.

The New York Times reported that the President Bush was likely to make a public statement soon about the crackdown, and that the administration is considering a series of steps to punish the Cuban government. Among the more drastic are the possibility of cutting off cash payments to relatives in Cuba -- a mainstay for millions of Cubans -- or halting direct flights to the island, officials said.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission has censured Cuba almost every year. . Last year's resolution, presented by several Latin American countries, was approved by 23 countries and rejected by 21 countries. Cuba accuses the United States of tainting the vote with aggressive lobbying.

Staff Writer Rafael Lorente contributed to this report, which was supplemented by Sun-Sentinel wire services.

Vanessa Bauza can be reached at vmbauza1@yahoo.com

<a href=www.zwire.com>zwire Alex Lekas April 16, 2003

It is the right to free speech and expression that makes America different from Iraq, for instance; you can protest your government's actions and live to tell about it.

I may disagree with them, but I'll also defend their right to speak their minds, even if what they say makes me mad.

Protests, speeches, marches, and banners don't make the participants treasonous or traitorous anymore than changing the name of deep-fried potatoes to freedom fries makes sanctimonious politicians patriotic.

It is the right to free speech and expression that makes America different from Iraq, for instance; you can protest your government's actions and live to tell about it.

Still, there is some misunderstanding about the First Amendment. The right to say something does not have a corresponding requirement that people hear it. There is also the possibility that your free speech or expression may have some consequences. Blocking roads and bridges might lead to you being arrested; your comments may lead radio stations to pull your records or the public to avoid your albums, movies, or television shows; and, waving signs in front of the Market House may lead those who disagree to shout insults at you. Finally, if you're going to protest, is it too much to ask that you bring forth a good argument? To date, you've not done a good job:

We're against Mr. Bush's war. Motivated by a visceral dislike for the President, these folks are more interested in the defeat of the Republican Party than the Republican Guard.

Inspectors should have been given more time. Twelve years, people; 12 years.

Thousands of innocent civilians will be killed. Thousands of Iraqis, perhaps millions, have already been killed, and by their own government.

This war is about oil. If it were, we would just invade Canada and Venezuela, each of which is a far greater supplier to the US than is Iraq.

This is bleeding money from domestic priorities. The primary role of the federal government is to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility.

Iraq is no threat to us. An already belligerent regime with a history of attacking its neighbors only becomes bolder if allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction. Would you have the same conviction about a nuclear Iraq?

Signs referring to Bush and Britain's Tony Blair as Hitlers and calling the US a terrorist nation. The attempt to draw moral equivalency between the two sides is so intellectually bankrupt it's not worth rebutting.

What about North Korea? This is not a bad question, and it speaks precisely to why we're in Iraq. North Korea, now with nuclear capability, is the result of the same hand wringing, pleading, negotiating, and capitulating anti-war protesters wanted regarding Iraq.

We're opposed to military intervention, period. Not a very practical stance, but at least pacifism is principled. Those preaching it, however, should use a language other than English, because if their point of view had prevailed in the past, who knows what we would be speaking today.

We're against the war but support the troops. Sorry, you can''t have it both ways. It's logically impossible to oppose an action while simultaneously to support those executing it. You can, however, hope for a swift conclusion with as few casualties as possible.

At this point, it's reasonable to ask exactly what is being protested? The coalition is not going to retreat or withdraw. The battle plan and strategy can certainly be debated, and plenty of retired and armchair generals are doing that, but that's just a question of tactics.

Continued protesting against the action itself leaves anti-war voices sounding as though they hope coalition forces are defeated, and while that may qualify as free speech, it is beyond that which I'm willing to defend.

Post your opinion and share your thoughts with other readers!

Name: Vickie Pleiss Date: Apr, 16 2003 Thank you, thank you, thank you! I absolutely agree! Is the idea of personal accountability really so foreign to so many? If they protest...it's part of their freedoms. If I don't agree with their protests, I'm intollerant. If they use their position as a forum for political opinion, that is absolutely their right...but it is MY right to NOT agree, or watch their movies or purchase their CD's. Our politicians are held accountable for their words AND actions. So are we...we are free to say and do as we please (within legal limits) but must also be willing to live with the consequences of our actions and our words. Again, thank you!

Associated Press Thursday, 17 April 2003, 2:18 pm Press Release: US State Department Washington, DC April 16, 2003

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, to start with an easy one, Saddam Hussein. It's been awhile since we've heard whether the U.S. knows if he's dead or alive or -- is there any new information on that?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, not that I have. We don't know if he's dead or alive and we're not making any claims or statements until we actually do know.

The fact of the matter is, though, he is gone. Whether he is dead or alive, he is gone. He is no longer in the lives of the people of Iraq. The dictator has been removed and his entire regime has been removed, and you can see the joy on the faces of the people of Iraq when faced with the absence of Saddam Hussein and his regime.

QUESTION: Now, the notion that your suspicions that Syria has given haven to some Baath Party people, some Iraqi Government people, is there any more evidence of that? Because I don't think they've ever been directly accused of it, but the U.S. was concerned they might be doing it.

SECRETARY POWELL: We have provided some information to the Syrians that there are individuals that we believe are in Syria who should be returned to Iraq so that they can be held for the justice of the Iraqi people. And we have been candid with the Syrians and we have also made clear to the Syrians that we don't think it would be in their interest to be a draw for people who are trying to either get out of Iraq or get out of other places in the world and find a safe haven. Syria does not want to be a safe haven in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

QUESTION: Apart from this touchy issue, is there a discourse already going on? The Syrians were saying today in Damascus that they're having quiet diplomacy with the U.S. I don't know if it's an intent or an actual beginning of something, because you have said you would hope there is a place for them ultimately in an overall settlement. Are we doing anything with them directly at this point?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we're doing quite a bit. If you recall earlier in the year, every time I went to New York for a UN meeting I had occasion to meet or say hello, or at least have words, with my Syrian counterpart, Foreign Minister Shara, and we have spoken on the phone a month or two ago with respect to UN resolutions and other matters. We have a very vigorous diplomatic exchange with them through our Ambassador in Damascus, Ambassador Kattouf, and lots of messages have been passed back and forth in that channel.

In addition, I've used visits of some of my fellow foreign ministers. Foreign Minister Straw, Foreign Minister Palacio, Foreign Minister de Villepin, have all been to Syria in the recent past; and coming up, Foreign Minister Palacio will be there this weekend, and I spoke to her today about messages she might deliver.

I have been to Syria twice and I would expect to travel to Syria again to have very candid and straightforward discussions with my foreign ministercolleague and with President Bashar Assad.

QUESTION: On these talks that have begun of the Iraqi groups, opponents all of Saddam Hussein, are you satisfied that we've launched a good process? There have been some grumblings that not all Iraqi groups are represented, and I wondered if this -- long question, but is this a lead-on, a lead-up to some sort of a U.S. military occupation, or do we get out of the way as quickly as we can?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, there will have to be a governing authority in Iraq for this initial period after hostilities are declared over, and that will have to be a military authority. We have obligations under Hague and Geneva Conventions to act as that kind of authority.

But, as quickly as we can, we want to transition this more and more to civilian authorities, as represented by General Garner and the civilians who are working for him from a variety of government agencies, and as quickly as we can after that, move it to the Iraqi people themselves, initially with an interim authority that we hope will be able to take on government-like elements to it and government-like activities, while waiting to become the government.

And so we hope that the process that was started this week, with people coming together representing different factions within Iraq, was a good start. They all came together. They talked about democracy. They thanked the coalition. They're glad Saddam Hussein is gone. They want to build the right kind of country and the right kind of government.

I think it was a very promising start. Now, the fact that there were some who were happy with it or demonstrated, that, in and of itself, is a remarkable thing when you consider when we're in beautiful, downtown Iraq, that people can actually do that and demonstrate and protest without fear of any repression. This is a change, and a healthy change.

QUESTION: A quick one on the Middle East and I'll give way to my colleague here. You've spoken many times of the U.S. announcing the roadmap once things were in place on the Palestinian side. I just wonder if you're going to do the announcing on the trip to the Middle East, if you care to tell us whether we should pack our bags.

But you spoke just a moment ago about Syria. Will you get into this thing personally on the ground there pretty soon?

SECRETARY POWELL: The term of art we use with respect to the roadmap is that we will release it to the parties. And the President has made it clear that as soon as there is a Prime Minister in the Palestinian Authority who has been confirmed by a vote of confidence by the Palestinian Legislative Council, we will release the roadmap to the parties. That is almost an administrative action; it doesn't require me to do it.

But I think as soon as that has happened and both sides have accepted the roadmap and the rest of the world has seen the roadmap, we will see a more -- a much more active American engagement, for the simple reason we now have a Prime Minister on the Palestinian side that we can work with. And so you will see us become much more active, both with my own involvement and travels, as well as in other ways. The President will be much more deeply involved and much more active.

With the confirmation of a Prime Minister on the Palestinian side and with Prime Minister Sharon, through his elections and the formation of a new government, we do have a new situation. And the most dramatic part of that new situation, the most dramatic element, is the Palestinian Prime Minister, because the President said in his speech on June 24th last year that we needed new transforming leadership to arise out of the Palestinian Authority; Yasser Arafat was, frankly, a failed leader. And with a new Prime Minister, we have that transformed leadership, and with other ministers that we know about already, such as the Finance Minister Mr. Fayyad, who is doing such a good job.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, North Korea. Could you talk about your hopes and aspirations for the Beijing meeting, the three-way meeting?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, as was reported today, we have been in intense consultation with our friends in the region and we have now put in place arrangements for a multilateral meeting, initially consisting of the United States, North Korea and China. And we hope this meeting will take place in the near future, we hope it might be next week, but we'll have to see the reaction we get from the news of this arrangement.

The Chinese are playing a very active role and they will be there as a participating party, not just as a convener of the meeting. And we will keep the South Koreans and the Japanese and the Russians and other interested nations in the region, the Australians, completely informed on what we are doing.

So I think this is good news. This is good news for the region. It is good news for North Korea, frankly, because it gives them the opportunity to present their positions, to come into this trilateral meeting and speak candidly in front of the United States and the Chinese with respect to their concerns; and it gives us the opportunity to do the same; and it gives the Chinese, who have a commitment to a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula, to express their point of view as well.

We hope that this initial meeting will be just that, an initial meeting where positions are discussed and explained, and where there will be a basis created for follow-on meetings. We're not looking for a solution in one meeting of a couple days' duration. We believe this is a beginning of a long, intense process of discussion.

We will lay out clearly the concerns we have with respect to their nuclear weapons development programs and other weapons of mass destruction, their proliferation activities, missile programs, and all the other issues that I think they are familiar with already.

QUESTION: Are the North Koreans doing anything else besides agreeing toattend the meeting that you find interesting? Have they lowered their rhetoric? Are they rethinking their nuclear program in any way that you're aware of?

SECRETARY POWELL: We've made it clear that we were placing no conditions on the meeting. We are not afraid of talking. We're not reluctant to talk to those who wish to talk to us, and this was a case of just coming up with the necessary arrangements. We are hopeful, however, that nothing will happen that would make the political environment difficult for such meetings, and right now I think the political environment is relatively calm and satisfactory and lends itself to such a meeting. We hope it stays that way.

I will not speculate on what they might or might not be thinking about with respect to the future of their nuclear weapons programs. The programs are important to them, but the programs are also a hindrance to them in their desire to create better lives for their people.

QUESTION: When you're saying the political environment is calm, it seemed like daily, for months on end, they were issuing provocative statements. Has that stopped, more or less?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, they always have a way of delivering provocative statements on a daily basis, but they seem to be not particularly more provocative than usual. And so by the standards of normal discourse between us and the DPRK, it is a relatively calm period right now and I hope it stays that way.

It's important to note that the President is looking for a diplomatic solution. The President has said repeatedly that we will stand on principle, we will express our concerns candidly and clearly, but there are many tools available to the United States to deal with these kinds of proliferation problems and issues. And in this case, he is anxious to find a political solution, a diplomatic solution.

QUESTION: Your friend Jorge Castaneda, the former foreign minister of Mexico, has written in Foreign Affairs Magazine some interesting things about U.S. relations with Mexico and with Latin America. A brief quote. He says, "The United States has replaced its previous, more visionary approach to relations in the Western Hemisphere with a total focus on security matters. This disengagement is dangerous because it undermines the progress made in recent years in economic reform and democratization. Rarely in the history of U.S.-Latin American relations have both the challenges and the opportunities for the United States been so great. It is certainly not a time for indifference."

What do you say to that?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I have great respect for former Foreign Secretary Jorge Castaneda. We became close friends and associates while we worked together. But I disagree with his analysis.

The United States, of course, has security concerns. Every nation in the world, and especially in this hemisphere, after 9/11 should have security concerns about defending yourselves against terrorists who might come across your border; but at the same time, we're working hard to make sure the United States remains an open society. We want to see an open hemisphere from Canada all the way down to Chile, and that's why we have committed ourselves to a Community of Democracies that was identified at the Quebec Summit at the beginning of President Bush's administration; that's why we're committed to a Free Trade Area of the Americas; that's why we're working on bilateral trade agreements with nations throughout the hemisphere; it's why the President had the Central American Presidents, the five Central American Presidents, up here just a few days ago to talk about progress toward creating a Central American Free Trade Area.

That's why the President created the Millennium Challenge Account. And a lot of the monies in the Millennium Challenge Account, which is new aid money that will go to those nations committed to democracy but who are in need, I suspect will benefit some of our Caribbean American friends.

So we have a rich agenda that includes security as an item, but also economic development, social development, counterterrorism activity, counter-drug activity.

I spent a good part of my time up before Congress this hearings' season talking about our counter-drug initiatives and talking about what we want to do with the countries of the Andean region to help them with alternative forms of economic development and alternatives to drugs, and all sorts of things. So I think our agenda is a rich one and it's a full one. And it certainly goes far beyond security.

QUESTION: On Venezuela, do you think that President Hugo Chavez is a reliable democrat who can be counted on to preserve democratic institutions built up over 40 years in Venezuela?

SECRETARY POWELL: We have had some concerns about President Chavez and his commitment to the kinds of democratic institutions that we believe are vital within a democracy, as we know democracy to exist in this hemisphere. And he is going to be given a test in the very near future, and a test is before him now.

Representatives of his government and representatives of the opposition have come up with a constitutional solution to the current crisis, putting in place a referendum -- a recall referendum -- to be held later this year. And it is now before President Chavez. And I think if he accepts this referendum and comes into agreement with the opposition and allows the Carter Center and the OAS and others to put this all in play, and to allow the Friends of Venezuela, of which America is one, a group called Friends of Venezuela, to help bring this referendum about later in the year, then he will be showing a commitment to democracy of the kind that we believe is the correct form of democracy for our hemisphere.

But it's up to the people of Venezuela to make that judgment, and this referendum will allow the people of Venezuela to make that judgment as to what kind of democracy they want to see in their country.

QUESTION: Thank you. If I can stay in the region for a minute. The UN Human Rights Commission put off the vote on Cuba today and the debate is, the curtain is collapsing. And I'm wondering -- your tone has been consistently harsh. You've called it horrible, this situation. What else can the U.S. do to get a meaningful censure, one that isn't too watered-down nor too stiff that it can't get passed?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, as you know, the vote's been put off until tomorrow, the 17th, and I have been calling foreign ministers in various parts of the world this afternoon to encourage them to vote for a resolution that would point out Cuba's terrible human rights record.

The Costa Ricans have come forward with an amendment that toughens the original Latin American Resolution -- and that toughening takes account of some of Cuba's recent actions against dissidents, against people who are just speaking out and trying to exercise their democratic rights -- human rights -- of free speech, and they are being thrown in jail for 10, 15, 20 years.

So I think the Costa Rican amendment is appropriate, and I hope that those voting will recognize that it is in the interest of human rights for the Cuban people for them to vote for that resolution with that Costa Rican amendment.

The Cubans, predictably, tried to undercut it all with two killer-amendments, and if you voted for the Cuban amendments, you would essentially be destroying the resolution. So, once again, the Cubans are doing everything they can imagine to try to keep the Geneva Human Rights Commission from speaking the truth with respect to the situation in Cuba. And I hope that by tomorrow the nations in Geneva will come together and vote in a way that shows that this august body in Geneva finds the Cuban human rights situation to be deplorable and worthy of censure.

QUESTION: Okay. If we look at -- more than a year has passed after taking control in Afghanistan. The U.S. is still engaged in a process of helping with an effective government, but they've been plagued by problems. So if you look at Afghanistan and you look at Iraq and meeting our -- what lessons do you think we've learned from that process in Afghanistan that maybe can be applied to Iraq?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, you say we've been plagued by problems. I would also submit that we have been blessed with success.

Afghanistan is now being led by a President who represents all of the people. We are seeing a government grow and become more effective with each passing day. A national army is being created and growing and is committed to the nation. We are seeing some economic activity really start in the country. However, there's still some instability within the country and there are some dangerous areas throughout the country.

I would submit that it is an incredible record of success. We are now using our military forces to provide a presence in the outlying provinces that will give more confidence to the people and we're going to chase down al-Qaida and Taliban outfits. The campaign isn't over in Afghanistan, but I think that we have seen a great deal of success.

In Iraq, you have an entirely different country and it's obviously in a different situation. But I think the experience that General Franks and his commanders obtained in Afghanistan with respect to the use of special forces, with respect to the providing of security in cities, with respect to integrating their work with that of the United Nations and other agencies, all of the lessons that were learned there will be applied to Iraq.

QUESTION: But Iraq is different.

SECRETARY POWELL: Iraq is not a broken country. Iraq has a great deal of potential. This war did not destroy Iraq to the point where reconstruction is necessary. Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq to the point that reconstruction of the kind we're talking about is necessary, and that reconstruction will be financed, for the most part by the Iraqis because they have oil. They have the wealth of oil that will allow them to rebuild their country and not build weapons of mass destruction.

And so we have different situations and I think we will use the lessons of Afghanistan, but not misuse the lessons of Afghanistan. I have enormous confidence in General Franks and his commanders, in General Garner and his people, and all of the State Department people that I've sent over to work with General Garner.

Thank you very much.

[End]

Released on April 16, 2003