U.S. Foreign Policy

3:00 P.M. EST

Real Audio of Briefing

MR. DENIG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. We're delighted this afternoon to have at our podium, once again, the Department of State's Deputy Spokesman, Adam Ereli, for a briefing on U.S. foreign policy.

Adam.

MR. ERELI: Thank you, Paul. Hello, everybody, great to be back. There are no announcements today, nothing really worth making special mention of. The Secretary just had a good visit, came back this week from a good visit to Latin America, to Nicaragua, Panama and Honduras. I think one of the things that he remarked on the way back was what a different place it is now than it was 10 years ago, when he was last there, and how, rather than talking about generalities, everybody is focused on the real technical issues dealing with economic reform, with progress, with creating the kind of conditions for investment and economic growth that are technical in nature. They're not real sexy, but they're so very important. And just noting the down to brass tacks nature of what people are doing there to move their country forward and support the aspirations of a younger generation.

Next week, actually, on Monday, the Secretary will be giving a speech at the City College of New York on the occasion of the commemoration of Ralph Bunche, the great American diplomat and Nobel Laureate, on the subject, building on what the President said earlier this week -- yesterday, actually -- on democracy and development and ways that we can work with other countries throughout the world to develop democracy in ways that meet the aspirations of their people and the needs for international stability.

Anyway, those are sort of the general outlines that I'd point to; and Secretary Armitage is in the region -- Deputy Secretary Armitage -- excuse me -- is in the region next week going to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

Who wants to ask the first question? You had your hand up first.

QUESTION: Frank Koller from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Can you outline for what reasons the U.S. Government, not just the State Department, for what reasons the U.S. Government decided to send Mr. Arar to Syria rather than to Canada? He was carrying a Canadian passport, was clearly a Canadian resident, had family and business ties there. If you can, in detail, outline that decision process.

MR. ERELI: I'm speaking for the State Department, so I'm not speaking for all agencies of the U.S. Government. The circumstances of Mr. Maher's arrest -- or, I shouldn't say arrest -- of his detention and deportation were handled by U.S. law enforcement authorities. The answers to those questions are with U.S. law enforcement authorities.

Secretary of State Powell spoke with Canadian Foreign Minister Graham yesterday. Those were questions that Foreign Minister Graham asked of Secretary of State Powell. Secretary of State Powell undertook to look into this issue, to investigate, and to get back to Foreign Minister Graham if and when answers were available. Those answers, as far as I understand are not -- we don't yet have. They are with the law enforcement agencies, since it is a law enforcement matter, and so I can't really speak to the issue more than that.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. Government still believe that Mr. Arar is a suspect of al-Qaida?

MR. ERELI: I wouldn't want to comment on those kinds of law enforcement or intelligence subjects.

QUESTION: Same topic.

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Published reports -- oh, Tim Harper from the Toronto Star. A published report in Canada today suggests that Canadian consular officials told Mr. Arar he was safe in New York because it would be a violation of international law to deport him. Can you -- can you tell me whether the Canadian authorities were mistaken, and can you outline what the policy is in this country for dual-nationals, in this case, a dual-national who is a Canadian citizen?

MR. ERELI: I'm not prepared to do that. I'm just not prepared. I don't have the information. I can't. I can't.

QUESTION: Well, were Canadian authorities mistaken, then, in telling him that this was a violation of international law to deport him to Syria? He was told that --

MR. ERELI: First of all, I don't know what Canadian authorities told him. So I can't confirm to you: One, what Canadian authorities told him; Two, I'm not a legal expert. I don't have the law in front of me. I can't offer you a legal opinion. Number three, I don't know what the thinking or the reasoning was, or what the conditions were upon which law enforcement authorities based their decision.

You know, there are conditions or circumstances where deportations of this kind are permitted and are legal. Were those conditions prevailing in this case, was the decision taken, who took the decision, and under what circumstances was the decision taken, and was the decision taken correctly are all valid questions. But they are questions to be asked of the experts with the information available and with the authority to give answers. I have none of that.

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Said Arikat from Al Quds newspaper. Yesterday the President has acknowledged what, understated acknowledgement, that U.S. policy was not always admirable towards the countries of the Middle East. He mentioned the number of 60 years, and that takes us back to the meeting between FDR and the King of Saudi Arabia Abdulaziz. Should we read more into what -- than what was said?

MR. ERELI: I didn't read that in the President's remarks. I think the President made the point that we and the peoples of the region have a joint interest in stability and progress and meeting the aspirations of the peoples for a better life and more secure future and that developing democracy is the way to achieve those aspirations.

QUESTION: To follow up, is that a refutation of the special relationship that the U.S. has had with Saudi Arabia over the past 60 years?

MR. ERELI: Not at all. The two are -- the ideas are mutually compatible.

Yes.

QUESTION: One clarification. And this is a matter of (inaudible) policy.

Sure.

QUESTION: Florence Rossignol with CTV, Canadian Television. The President just yesterday denounced the policy of torture, the practice of torture in Syria, yet the authorities decided to deport that Syrian-Canadian to Syria, knowing that he could face torture. Is this a policy of the United States, basically, subcontracting torture?

MR. ERELI: The United States, as a matter of policy, is opposed to torture.

QUESTION: Ruben Barrera, Mexican News Agency, Notimex. In the eve of the coming bilateral meeting between Mexico and U.S., could you outline the issues of the agenda for this meeting?

And also, what can we expect of this meeting, especially since there is a lot of expectations from Mexico about the possibility to restart immigration talks between both countries?

MR. ERELI: Obviously, the subject of immigration will be on the agenda, as will a number of other economic issues and political issues. What I'd prefer to do is to leave it to Assistant Secretary Noriega to address all of this in a briefing that he's giving on Monday, I believe, rather than begin getting into it now. So if you can wait till Monday.

MR. DENIG: Yes. Thank you.

QUESTION: Dmitri Kirsanov, Russian New Agency, TASS. An easy one. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is in town, and I believe Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Losyukov is supposed to come sometime later.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: Do you have an exact date yet?

MR. ERELI: No, I don't have any dates for you on our Russian visitor. On Mr. Wang, what I can tell you is that he met with the Secretary this morning. They had an extensive set of discussions, very good discussions. He briefed us on North Korea's -- or, I'm sorry -- on China's visit to North Korea and their discussions with the North Koreans on the issue of six-party talks.

I think we -- the Chinese came out of those talks in Pyongyang and the Secretary came out of his talks with the Chinese encouraged by recent developments and optimistic that another round of talks can be organized. The Chinese obviously are taking the lead in doing this, and we are going to support them.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Daphne Fam, ETTV from Taiwan. So did Mr. Wang and Secretary Powell touch upon Taiwan policy this morning, first?

Second, the spokeswoman of Chinese Foreign Ministry, Ms. Zhang, she talked yesterday, said yesterday that the stay of the President Chen from Taiwan in New York in (inaudible) jeopardized the U.S.-China relation. And can you comment on that please?

MR. ERELI: On the question of whether the subject of Taiwan came up with the Vice Foreign Minister and the Secretary -- not that I'm aware of -- I wasn't in the meeting. I didn't get that detailed a readout. But based on other conversations we've had with the Government of China, I think if it did, it was, you know, brief, and -- it was brief and just a -- not particularly significant exchange.

As to the comments on the visit of President Chen, we've made it clear that we agreed to the visit as transit for the convenience and comfort of the traveler. That is consistent with our past practice. It did not depart from that; it set no precedents. We've done it before for those reasons. And for that reason, we don't find it particularly noteworthy or controversial.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. Matsakatsu Ota, Kyodo News.

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. I missed the chance to, you know, go to a briefing by your boss today, so I don't -- I don't have much content of the meeting that day.

MR. ERELI: You missed a lot.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR. ERELI: It was better than normal.

QUESTION: Anyway, I have a question about it. So today's meeting is Foreign Minister, Vice Foreign Minister, Mr. Wang. And have you found any, you know, kind of a -- some room for compromise on the middle ground, on the very serious issue on the simultaneous principle?

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: Can you say anything on that?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. That issue did come up in the briefing with Assistant Secretary Boucher, the whole idea of simultaneous steps. And what we said then is that -- and what I'll repeat -- is that simultaneity -- or simultaneous -- is a new buzzword, right? And, you know, we just want to stay away from buzzwords, and focusing on this word or that word. The point is, our goal remains the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program and a nuclear-free peninsula. This is an issue that we all agree is of significant concern and a goal that we all share.

The President, in Bangkok, said that we are prepared to consider security assurances in connection with North Korea's meeting, or taking concrete and verifiable and irreversible steps to dismantle its nuclear program.

We are looking at different types of security assurances, different models for security assurances, and hope to develop those ideas. But as far as timing and sequencing and all that sort of stuff, I think it's a subject that is best discussed with our partners, in conjunction with concrete proposals, and not in theoretical terms, based on academic notions.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Thank you. Sonia Schott, Globovision, Venezuela. Mr. Ereli, a few days ago, you said that the U.S. Administration had no plans to cut aid to Venezuela.

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: I just want to know the meaning of that, if that means that -- (laughter) -- that if a confirmation by the Venezuela Government has no links to the irregular -- to the guerilla, to the Colombian guerilla?

And my second question is: If yes or not, it depends what you say, is the -- (laughter) -- is the State Department going to lead any investigation on that issue?

Thank you.

MR. ERELI: I guess there are two issues here: One is links to guerillas, which is obviously an ongoing issue. I don't have anything new to add to what we've said on this before. And as far as the subject of cutting aid or changing our aid program, that is not something that we're looking at, which is what we said the other day, so that there really isn't much new to say on either one.

On the subject of supporting the guerillas or connections between Venezuela and the guerillas, there hasn't been any change in our assessment of the situation. And as far as cutting aid goes, we're not considering it. So I guess there's not much to report on either one of those issues for you.

QUESTION: But the suspicion is relating if the Venezuela Government has links or not with the --

MR. ERELI: That's something --

QUESTION: -- with the Colombian guerilla.

MR. ERELI: That's something -- I think we answered that. That is something that, I think, some parties in Congress have talked about as a theoretical possibility, right? So, and it's nothing the Administration has put forward as an idea, number one. Speaking on behalf of the State Department, that's not something we're putting forward.

And, number two, it's all premised on the fact that there would be a connection, that the connection is proven, which hasn't been the case. So it's just so speculative, as to be, from our point of view, not something that we're talking about or thinking about in serious terms.

Hi. You've had a question for awhile, right?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. ERELI: Yes, go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. Michael Backfisch, German Business Daily, Handelsblatt. In April, there was an outcry in the U.S. Administration and some European countries that now wants to create own European military headquarters.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: In the meantime --

MR. ERELI: What did you say, "outcry?"

QUESTION: Outcry, yes, some people were angry.

MR. ERELI: Okay. I thought maybe who cried out.

QUESTION: Not very happy. You know this project is off the table --

MR. ERELI: Is it?

QUESTION: -- of a European headquarters in Tongeren, the Belgian City of Tongeren.

MR. ERELI: It's off?

QUESTION: Yes, that's what was said, but maybe you know more.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: So the question is: Is it still a contentious issue, or is everybody happy, or does the Administration expect more from the Europeans to increase their defense outlays or to make other contributions?

MR. ERELI: I mean, this is a -- this is an issue that has been discussed within -- within the North Atlantic Council pretty extensively. So I don't have a lot to add to what our -- to what the members of that Council have discussed. There was this idea. It received, I would say, varying degrees of support.

Our view was that it was duplicative and not necessary, and not the best use of people's time and energy resources. That was our view. It was the view of others on the North Atlantic Council. There were other opinions as well. I was not aware that it's been taken off the table. But, you know, this is an issue for, really, the North Atlantic Council to decide, and we've made our views on it clear.

Yes.

QUESTION: Expectations. U.S. expectations towards the Europeans?

MR. ERELI: I think what -- you know, we're part of the North Atlantic Council. So it's not like the U.S. -- and towards the Europeans, we're all in this together. So I think we'll work on a cooperative resolution of this issue.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Rosanna Rodriguez, Radio National of Venezuela. The Ambassador of Venezuela has sent to a Senator a letter asking to include Section 687 in their Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, because the section has a language that could affect the relations between Venezuela and the United States. What do you think on that?

MR. ERELI: I'll have to look into that. I don't know what the specific provision of the bill that you mentioned deals with. So I'm not in a position to answer that question. Sorry.

In the back. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Gaimpiero Gramaglia, the Italian news agency, ANSA. In the last days for the Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Berlusconi, hosted in Rome, a European-Russian summit. How do you appreciate the closer relations between EU and Russia? Are the United States encouraging that or are you think that it was?

MR. ERELI: It's a perfectly natural and healthy relationship. You know, Russia is part of the G-8 now. They're working with the U.S. and Europe in a variety of areas; and to the extent that networks of interaction can be deepened and expanded, I think it's for the good of us all.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Deniz Enginsoy, Turkey's Anatolia news agency. Yesterday, Boucher talked about sensitivities preventing Turkish troops to Iraq today. What are those sensitivities? And don't you think the United States made the mistake, in the first place, asking Turkish troop contribution and not checking with the Iraqis first?

MR. ERELI: I don't think -- I don't think there has been any mistake on any part, either by the United States or by Turkey or by the Governing Council of Iraq, on this issue. I think that Turkey made a good faith and well-intentioned and well-received offer to contribute to the stability and welfare of Iraq. That was for the good of Turkey, it was for the good of Iraq, and it's for the good of the international community.

For a variety of reasons, that offer could not be operationalized, and maybe that's regrettable. I think it would have been great if Turkey's offer could have been realized. But if it's going to cause more problems than it solves, a reasonable solution, and one that is agreeable to all sides, that preserves everybody's concerns is something that should be welcomed.

QUESTION: I want to follow up, please.

MR. ERELI: Sure.

Well, do you have a follow-up?

Oh, okay. Go ahead. Oh, you do. Okay.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: I have a question. (inaudible), Turkey. Speaking of sensitivities, was the U.S. Government -- but they were about your both sensitivities, in regards to Turkish troops in Iraq, when they came and asked Turkey to send troops there? Do you think there was a miscalculation on the part of U.S.?

MR. ERELI: No, I don't think there was a miscalculation. I think that, a lot of times, you don't know until you try. So you've got to try. And it doesn't hurt to try, especially when that attempt is done with the best of intentions. And I think when people look at Iraq, from the very beginning, and they talked about the war, and where things were before hostilities and after hostilities, there is this great tendency to second guess and say, "Oh, you should have known that, and if you hadn't known that, you wouldn't done that", or, "You guys shouldn't have been surprised."

The fact of the matter is -- there is no country or force in the world that is omniscient and omnipotent. And the fact of the matter is, you have to decide, what do you think is the best course of action and in the best interests of everybody and operate on that assumption and deal with the reality of the consequences. That's what we did here.

Together with the Government of Turkey and the Governing Council and the coalition, we thought that Turkish troops could provide a valuable contribution and we went forward with it, and Turkey graciously offered to send troops. That was the right thing to do.

I also think that the situation we're in now is the right thing to do given the circumstances as we found them. But as I said, you don't know until you try. And as long as you're trying with the right intentions and the right spirit of working to make Iraq a more stable and peaceful place, then that's to the good.

I'm sorry. You had a question first.

QUESTION: Yes. I'm just waiting for the mike. Reha Atasagan from Turkish Television. It's still not clear to me. Because, okay, let's forget the word "sensitivities." You said "variety of reasons." Can you tell us at least one reason or two reasons?

MR. ERELI: No, I would say this. I would say that the Turkish Government, it said it would reconsider its offer, and it's best to ask them the specific reasons why it was reconsidered, why it came to that decision.

QUESTION: I was coming here, and I heard CNN reporting a change of heart by Turkey. Is it a change of heart by Turkey? Do you agree with them? But I think there is a change of heart. Whose part?

MR. ERELI: I would think it was a recognition by both sides that, for the moment, it was in the best interest of all if this deployment be put on hold.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Marjorie Friesner, ANSA, Italian News Agency. Deputy Secretary Armitage's visit to the Middle East was announced before the President's speech yesterday, but I would like to know if --

MR. ERELI: Yes, you're right. Okay.

QUESTION: I would like to know if -- if and how the President's speech, which according to his own National Security Advisor, represented a major shift in U.S. policy towards the Middle East. How will that reflect in Secretary Armitage's contacts in the Middle East? And second, will Ambassador Burns be going there any time soon?

MR. ERELI: Ambassador Burns is accompanying Deputy Secretary Armitage. I wouldn't characterize the President's speech as a major shift. I would characterize it as a strong statement of emphasis.

If you look at our National Security Strategy that was put out almost a year ago, the development of democracy and conditions for the realization of human potential is front and center in this Administration's priorities internationally. And what the President said yesterday, I think, was to relate that priority to the situation in the Middle East and give a sort of explanation of why he believes it's in all of our interests to expand democracy in that region.

As far as Armitage's visit goes, his visit was planned well ahead of the speech. It's not tied directly to the speech. His focus is going to be largely on us getting a picture of conditions on the ground in Iraq, particularly on how the large number of State Department personnel operating there are doing, as well as consulting with some valuable and important regional allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, on important issues that we share concerns about.

Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Follow-up.

QUESTION: Including democratic reform?

MR. ERELI: That will probably come up, no doubt, but I wouldn't say that that's the exclusive or principal focus of the visit.

QUESTION: Adam, my name is Khalid Abdul Kareem. And I'm with Egypt's Middle East News Agency. It's another question about sensitivity, but on Wednesday the --

MR. ERELI: About what?

QUESTION: Sensitivity.

MR. ERELI: Sensitivity.

QUESTION: Yeah. It's -- on Wednesday, the State Department hosted is annual Ramadan Iftaar for the Arab-Muslim community. And while some reporters and some TV producers were seated in the same room with the Secretary and other guests, some others were escorted through the kitchen elevator and they were seated in the backroom.

Does it have anything to do -- can you explain that? Does it have anything to do with those with us and those against us and (inaudible), and you can explain the policy, maybe it's a new thing or do you have some favorites, you know?

Thank you.

MR. ERELI: There is no "with us or against us" perceptions out there. The Secretary hosted his third Iftaar, I believe, on Wednesday, as an expression of respect and understanding and friendship with people of all religion, and especially Islam.

The guests invited to that Iftaar included people from a variety of backgrounds, but I think the particular focus was on the youth of Islam, Fulbright students, scholars, young people. There were some journalists invited, although not many, a very few number of journalists were invited. I don't know how many, but I think it was just very small.

I don't know why they were picked, I mean, my guess is there are no journalists in the world with a name, journalists that are not at some point critical of the Administration, of the State Department of the United States. So I would bet you 10 to 1 that all those journalists have at some point written an article critical of the United States.

So they were not either included or excluded on the basis of their views or their writings. There were a lot of other journalists who came to, I guess, cover the event, take pictures and record the things, but afterwards not participate as invited guests. Do you see what I mean? You couldn't have everybody.

So not having been there, I think, what I would imagine happened is -- you're there, okay, you cover the event, you shoot it, and then you're escorted out. But at the same time, since it is Ramadan, and since it is an Iftaar, you do want to provide some sort of food for breaking the fast. And that's what they did.

But it wasn't, sort of, separating people into two classes. You've got the people at the event; you've got the people covering the event. Those are two different groups.

QUESTION: But you have no explanation why some people were invited, in the first place? I mean, some --

MR. ERELI: I would say because not every --

QUESTION: -- some TV producers, and some reporters, some of our (inaudible) actually were inside the room, and we were just waiting for them in one of these corners for a couple of minutes and we were escorted out.

MR. ERELI: There are people with invitations, and there are people not with invitations. So that's like anything. You can't invite everybody to everything, right?
So that's normal, that's natural. Some were invited, some weren't. And those that were invited, I presume, stayed; and those that weren't invited were escorted out, and but at the same time, provided courtesies.

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Samir Nader, Radio Sawa. Is Mr. Armitage and Ambassador Burns will be focusing only about Iraq, or will they be also discussing issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

MR. ERELI: Obviously, that subject, I'm sure, will be raised, as it comes up in almost any discussion with senior leadership in the region. I guess I'd characterize it that way.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Said Arikat, Al Quds. On Wednesday, the Heritage Foundation hosted a book event to underscore how the State Department compromises United States security.

MR. ERELI: Really, who wrote the book?

QUESTION: Joel something-or-another. I don't know. Is that the first shot in a civil war between the State Department and (inaudible), and the Administration?

MR. ERELI: Well, first of all --

QUESTION: Considering that --

MR. ERELI: First of all, it's not the first shot. And second of all, it's not a civil war --

(Laughter.)

MR. ERELI: -- in the sense that these are things, you know, we've heard before. But it's not what I would call a war, just because, you know, we're going to go about doing our job on behalf of the American people and the President. And that's where our focus is. And that's what we're going to -- that's what we're devoting ourselves to, and we'll leave the sort of analysis and commentary to others.

QUESTION: You're not offended by it?

MR. ERELI: No. No.

One more? Sure.

Michael.

QUESTION: Michael Backfisch, German Business Daily, Handelsblatt. At his last summit with the Russian President Putin, Mr. Bush said Russia was a "thriving democracy." Is that still the evaluation of the Administration?

MR. ERELI: I would stand by the words of our President.

QUESTION: In spite of Yukos?

MR. ERELI: On Yukos: Yukos obviously is something that we're all watching with concern. I wouldn't necessarily draw the conclusion from Yukos that Russia's not a democracy.

Thank you.