3:10 P.M. EST
MS. NISBET: Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome the newly appointed Deputy Spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, Adam Ereli. It's a pleasure to have you here with us today, and I hope this is one in the many of visits you will make to the New York Foreign Press Center. Thank you.
MR. ERELI: Thank you, Kim. Thank you.
Hello everybody. It's great to be here in New York. I love New York. It's a great town. I want to thank Kim and her wonderful staff at the Foreign Press Center for giving us such a warm welcome.
I took over as the Deputy Spokesman at the State Department in August. I think you know my good friend and predecessor, Phil Reeker, who make it a practice to come to New York regularly to meet with all of you, not just to give briefings, but to also sort of see how things are going here.
You know, we're in Washington and we kind of get caught up in the merry-go-round or rat race of Washington and forget that there's a whole other world out there. So you have my promise to try and get up here as often as I can to meet with you and see what's going on here.
What I'd like to do today, before I answer your questions, is just give you a little bit of an overview of what we at the State Department are looking to achieve in the coming year.
I think, looking back on last year, there are a number of accomplishments that we're particularly proud of, and Secretary Powell addressed those in his op-ed piece in the New York Times on January 1st. And what Secretary Powell stressed is, basically, the diplomacy of partnerships, that the United States feels is the surest way to ensure the protection of our interests and the advancement of that which we care about, which is prosperity and democracy and freedom throughout the world.
So we're going to be looking in 2004 to build upon the partnerships we've established, to work to solve international problems, and to promote international peace. I think there are some areas that you might want to look particularly to in the year ahead. Obviously, the war on terror will continue to be a primary focus of this Administration.
In 2003, we built on our previous accomplishments in terms of law enforcement, fighting financial networks of terror, diplomatic efforts to combat terror, but it's an ongoing problem, it's an ongoing struggle, it's not over. It's going to take a long time, and 2004 will be as serious as an engagement as it was in the past.
Afghanistan will also take a lot of our attention. They've got a new constitution that the Loya Jirga adopted a few weeks ago. That's a great step forward. And I think if you looked at where Afghanistan was two years ago, it's hard not to recognize the great achievements that that country has made, particularly when you compare it to what they had under the Taliban.
Next up are elections and the selection of a government that can basically work, not as a transitional government, but as a full-fledged, popularly empowered authority to take the country forward. That's something that we're going to continue to support.
Iraq is very much in the news. There's a plan to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people by July 1st, 2004. That plan, despite a lot of the reporting to the contrary, is still very much in force, is still very much a subject of consensus, and is, really, the operating plan for us as it is for the Iraqis, as we try to respond to their request for an accelerated transfer of sovereignty.
Sudan. We are hoping to have an agreement to end what is now the world's longest running civil war. The parties had said they were going to try to reach an agreement by the end of the year 2003. That didn't happen. But they're very close, and we are hopeful that they will be able to meet their stated desire of coming to an agreement soon.
North Korea. I think in 2003, we saw what I like to call the triumph of multilateralism in dealing with the problem of North Korea. And I say triumph guardedly. I don't mean that the problem is solved, but what I do want to indicate is that, before this Administration, North Korea was a bilateral problem between North Korea and the United States. We said that the way to solve this problem is not just between the United States and North Korea. The threat that North Korea poses is a threat to the entire region. Everybody has a stake in that problem, and in order to solve the problem it needs to be solved multilaterally.
And that is the approach that we argued made the most sense. I think that we've achieved a consensus among the five parties of Russia, China, South Korea, [Japan] and the United States, as well as the sixth party, North Korea, said the six-party framework is the way to address this issue. And that is what we continue to push, looking for a second round of talks soon, with the goal of achieving the complete, irreversible and verifiable dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program, which, I think, would be a -- I want to say Godsend to the region, but maybe that's overstating it -- but certainly, a huge step forward for those countries in the region who live under the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a regime that is connected to terrorism and weapons proliferation.
Finally, let me just also draw your attention to two very important social aspects of the Administration's policy in the coming year, which, first, will be our continued funding for and support of programs to combat AIDS. President Bush has embarked upon the most ambitious program of any administration to fund and institute a program to counter this deadly scourge. And second, the Millennium Challenge Account, which is a new way of looking at foreign assistance, which ties foreign assistance to concrete achievements in transparency and openness and concrete criteria. And, finally, the Bush Administration's commitment to democratization throughout the world. I think you'll be seeing some interesting developments there, particularly the President's State of the Union speech.
So, with that little introduction into what lies ahead for us in 2004, let me just reiterate my pleasure at being here and answer your questions.
Yes, ma'am.
MODERATOR: I remind you to wait for the mike and state your name and media.
QUESTION: Good afternoon, my name is Sylviane Zehil from l’Orient Le Jour. My question is what about the peace process, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the Syrian track?
MR. ERELI: I would say that, you know, if you're looking back at 2003, that is one of the areas where, frankly, I don't think as much has been achieved as we would have hoped.
Looking ahead to 2004, we have a pretty clear idea of what's the way forward in terms of achieving progress. That way forward is the roadmap. It remains, if you will, the only plan that both parties, the Israelis and Palestinians, have committed themselves to, have signed up to, and it is the only plan that has the support of the international community, as expressed by the Quartet. The way forward is to honor the commitments established in the roadmap. And if they can't, we've got a tall hill to climb.
QUESTION: What about the Geneva Initiative?
MR. ERELI: The Geneva Initiative is, I think, as we've said before, an interesting set of ideas. But it's important to remember what the Geneva Initiative is. The Geneva Initiative is a proposal or a set of ideas on how to deal with the final status issues. But, frankly, you know -- it's not me -- the parties aren't there yet, so -- excuse me just a second -- (laughter) the parties aren't there yet. They're not ready yet to negotiate final status.
Once they get there, you know, some of the ideas that are proposed in the Geneva Initiative might be useful. But what I would point out is that the Geneva Initiative is not a substitute for the governments, i.e., you know, the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, dealing with each other to fulfill the commitments that they have made. And you can't get to Geneva until they've done the groundwork.
QUESTION: What about Bashar al-Assad?
MR. ERELI: Bashar al-Assad? You know, there is, as you say, an unresolved issue between the Israelis and Syrians with respect to the Golan Heights. That is an issue that needs to be resolved through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Syrians.
We certainly welcome and encourage and will do everything we can to facilitate such direct negotiations. But, you know, the decision to engage in that kind of dialogue is a decision that the Government of Syria and the Government of Israel will have to make.
QUESTION: Welcome to New York, Adam.
MR. ERELI: Thank you.
There is a meeting on the 19th, on Monday, between Kofi Annan and the delegation of the Governing Council. Are you going to take part? Is the Administration sending Bremer or anybody at high-level officials take part in that meeting? And if not, why not?
MR. ERELI: Right. I think it's a little bit premature for me to talk about whom we're going to send to the meeting on the 19th with the Governing Council and the Secretary General. I think it's safe to assume that we will be represented in some form, but at what level and who, I don't really have any details to share with you.
You know, obviously, this is an important meeting. Obviously, our position is we want to see the UN back in Iraq as soon as soon as possible and as soon as circumstances permit. We are doing everything we can to facilitate the UN's return to Iraq, both in terms of discussing possible security arrangements, in terms of exploring with the UN and with the Iraqis what their specific role would be, and in trying to just make this a smooth and cooperative process.
Sir.
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Gabriel Plesea. I'm a correspondent for Romania Liberal of Bucharest. Going back to diplomacy of partnership, Colin Powell was gracious enough to give an exclusive to Romania Liberal, my paper, on partnership, diplomacy. And I know Romania enjoys well, you know, a privileged status in this policy.
Can you detail some other areas, other countries? And why is it so important, this diplomacy? Does it replace the preventive diplomacy and the preventive approach that the Bush Administration took, you know, with Iraq and so on? Thank you.
MR. ERELI: I really think that the notion of preemptive diplomacy, as you mentioned, has gotten more press than it deserves. Secretary Powell is fond of saying, or is fond of calling on people to read the Administration's National Security Strategy of last year, which kind of lays out the Bush Administration's strategy for dealing with national security, obviously, but, you know, in layman's terms, what it does is it says, how does the United States approach international affairs? Read it. It's a 50-page document. One page of that document talks about preemption. And if you read international press, you'd think that the whole thing was basically justification for acting unilaterally. The other 49 pages of the National Security Strategy, which nobody talks about, is about partnerships, is about multilateralism, is about working with other countries to advance common objectives.
So I really want to caution you against writing that in 2004 the Bush Administration is going to turn a new page and move from unilateralism/preemption to multilateralism/cooperation. Because it's our contention, and would be my contention -- and I'm willing to discuss it at length with anybody who wants to discuss it -- that from the very beginning, the Bush Administration has preferred, or has had as its preferred option, to work in partnership with countries to meet shared objectives while reserving the right, when its interests are threatened and there is no alternative, to acting with like-minded states in defense of its national interests. And I think any country would be hard-pressed to say that in similar circumstances they would act differently. That's by way of introduction.
But to your specific question about what are some examples of partnership in the year ahead, I could point to a couple. I think getting NATO involved in Iraq. I think expansion of NATO and the EU, and looking at the ways in which the United States and the EU can work together. I would look at the Middle East Partnership Initiative, which is a wide-ranging program funded by Congress to develop partnerships with the countries of the Middle East, to provide opportunity for the peoples of that region
in ways that they don’t have, and in ways that promote stability and prosperity.
North Korea -- as I cited, the six-party process, the multilateral process, which is a partnership to counter a threat to the region.
In the economic area, look to the active pursuit of free trade agreements throughout the world. You have the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, which was started this year, which will be continued next year, and which aims to create a hemispheric market without trade barriers, which to me is one of the most concrete examples of partnership that you can come to.
The Middle East Free Trade Area is another priority that we're looking at. We've already achieved sort of significant progress in that. We've got a free trade agreement with Jordan. We're far along in free trade agreement negotiations with Bahrain. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco are all expressing sort of advanced interest in this idea. So I think that while we may not see something happen in 2004, we'll see progress on it. I think we've just signed free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore, which are the first free trade agreement in Asia and in Latin America outside of NAFTA.
So these are all examples of, I think, looking to multilateral solutions for international problems, which is the surest way of achieving long-term stability and prosperity.
Sir.
QUESTION: Haider Masood. I represent Dawn of Pakistan. Sir, recently, I mean, (inaudible) there have been accusations in the American press about media, about Pakistan sharing its nuclear secrets with the likes of Iran or Libya, and that Mr. Musharraf's credibility is at stake. What is the position now of the State Department on these reports?
And I have a follow-up, which is that President Bush, yesterday, on Monday, as a matter of fact, announced a sharing of high-tech technology with India. How do you think it will impact the relations between India and Pakistan?
MR. ERELI: On the question of proliferation from Pakistan, it is an issue of concern with the United States. We have discussed it with the Government of Pakistan. We have received assurances from President Musharraf that he will act decisively to investigate possible cases of proliferation and act to prevent further cases. To date, we have been very satisfied with President Musharraf and his fulfillment of those commitments.
On the question of high technology cooperation with India, it was announced by the President on Monday, the so-called "Glide Path Program," and its impact on Pakistan -- I don't think it should have an impact. We have a strong bilateral relationship with India. We have a strong bilateral relationship with Pakistan. Those relationships we see as mutually reinforcing. One does not come at the expense of the other. We deal with each country on its merits, not as a function of our interest with the other country.
What we are discussing with India, it is fully possible we can discuss with Pakistan; missile defense, for example. The key thing here is export controls, regulatory controls, following through on commitments in a phased approach.
That's the basis on which the agreement with India is premised, and there is no reason why it couldn't be with Pakistan. It just depends on, frankly, how far things get along. But with Pakistan, as I said, missile defense is something that we are perfectly willing to discuss with Pakistan.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied so far with the (inaudible)?
MR. ERELI: Yes.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Celhia De Lavarene from Radio France Internationale. It's about Afghanistan. You said that the new constitution is a great step forward, which, in a way, it's true. But I believe you know that it was very difficult to establish that new constitution. Some people got $1,000, you know -- like, how do you put it? -- under the table, in order to vote.
So are you -- I mean, are you optimistic, especially because the Taliban in some part of the country are coming back strong, thanks to the money given to these voters. So how your government is, you know, will deal about that? Because it seems that --
MR. ERELI: Right. I would note a couple things. I mean, frankly, I don't know about reports that people were paid to vote for the constitution. I think that -- how should I put it? I don't have any basis on which to talk about the credibility of those reports.
I would say this. Based on our observations and our analysis that the constitution, the constitution of Afghanistan has legitimacy and credibility with the people of Afghanistan, and that's what's important.
As far as the Taliban is concerned, yes, the Taliban is still there. Yes, the Taliban is a force, I think, that one cannot afford to ignore. But at the same time, I would argue that the Taliban is a spent force. It is a movement that has had its opportunity to prove itself to the people of Afghanistan, and it has failed abjectly. It condemned the people of Afghanistan to medieval servitude and embroiled the people of Afghanistan in a war that was not of its own making, and was not of its own choice, and that brought it nothing but suffering. And I think the people of Afghanistan know that.
And what the Taliban can do, is the Taliban can kill innocent civilians in small numbers, and be a nuisance, and be a distraction, but it cannot and will not be allowed to be a force, a political force in Afghanistan because the people of Afghanistan know what the Taliban represent, they're disgusted by it, they don't want to have anything more to do with it.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: I'm Tony Lin CTS News, Taiwan. Go back to the multilateral issue earlier. I wonder if there is such a solution for the Taiwan Straits. And secondly, two days ago in Washington, D.C., you said that you had nothing new to say about the referendum issue in Taiwan.
Yesterday, President Chen and several high-level officials said that they believe the referendum issue is being misinterpretated by United States and they want to consult with the U.S. about the subjects of referendum. I wonder if you think that you are misinterpretating the referendum issue in Taiwan.
MR. ERELI: I don't know what to interpret the referendum issue. Nobody has -- nobody has said specifically what the referendum is and what the referendum isn't. So there's nothing to misinterpret because there's nothing to interpret. Everybody talks about this referendum. What is the referendum? What are the terms of the referendum? It is a moving target. Do you know what a moving target is, because I used this in another briefing and somebody -- a moving target is something that is continually moving, you can never focus on it.
So I don't know what the referendum is. The Government of Taiwan has never specified what the specific terms of the referendum are. So that's point number one.
Point number two, anything dealing with the status of Taiwan -- well, I'll put it this way. When I say our policy hasn't changed, what do I mean? I mean that we oppose any attempt by either Taiwan or the People's Republic of China to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. In that regard, we would be opposed to any referenda that would change Taiwan's status and move toward independence.
Now, you ask me, "What's your position on this referenda?" Well, what I told you before is what I -- what I'll tell you now is what I told you before. What is the terms of the referenda? But we have made clear what our position is, and that position is not going to change.
Our other point that we consistently make is that the way to solve cross-strait dialogue -- the way to solve -- I'm sorry -- tensions in the Taiwan Strait is through a cross-strait dialogue rather than, you know, statements here and statements there. You know, cross-strait dialogue is the way to go.
As far as, you know, the Taiwan Government explaining to the United States, I think Assistant Secretary Boucher addressed that very well the other day when he said we have plenty of channels of communication. I don't think communication is the issue.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: My name is Olaolu Akande for The Guardian of Lagos. I want to talk about Charles Taylor.
Allegedly, the U.S. Government has put a ransom of $2 million on Charles Taylor and the Nigerian Government is saying that the United States Government knew about the plan of the Nigerians to bring Taylor in asylum in Nigeria, and then, you know, they are saying that they embarrassed about the move of the Nigerian -- of the U.S. Government trying to hacksaw the arrest of Charles Taylor.
How do you respond to this?
MR. ERELI: I would respond by urging you to check your facts. The U.S. has not put a ransom on -- $2 million on the head of Charles Taylor. The legislation that you refer to provided, set aside, up to $2 million for a reward of Charles Taylor should it be determined that that reward is necessary or useful. So, and it leaves it to the State Department to make that determination. The State Department has not made that determination.
So point number one, there is no reward for $2 million on the head of Charles Taylor. There is authorization by Congress for the State Department to make that money available, should it deem it necessary. It has not yet deemed it necessary. That's point number one.
Point number two, the United States is committed to bringing Charles Taylor to justice for his crimes. And we are working with the Government of Nigeria, with a special tribunal, on a way to do that. He is currently in Nigeria. We appreciate the Government of Nigeria's contribution to getting Charles Taylor out of Liberia and allowing -- you know, providing an opportunity for responsible members of the international community to bring about some measure of stability to that country. It's going to be a long process to sort of put it back together following his depredations, but we believe we're well on the way to doing that.
I would note that there will be a donors conference for Liberia here in New York in the beginning of February, which will be an important step in getting Liberia back on its feet.
But, you know, you should make no mistake. We are committed to ensuring that Charles Taylor answer for his crimes before a court of law. We will work with the Government of Nigeria and the Government of Liberia and the special tribunal and the UN to see that that happens. But there's no bounty of $2 million on his head.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. ERELI: I mean, I wouldn't want to speculate on that. I mean, I'm not going to rule it in; I'm not going to rule it out. What I am going to say is that we want to see Charles Taylor brought to justice and we will work with our partners in Africa and in the international organizations to see that he not get off scot-free.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) can you say the State Department's view on U.S.-Russia relations in this year? Are there any difficulties in these relations after parliament elections in Russia? And what issues could form the agenda for so-called strategic partnership between the two countries? Thank you.
MR. ERELI: Right. I think, you know, first of all, it's important to point out that U.S.-Russia relations are on a very firm foundation. We have, I think, built up over the last ten or 15 years, really since Reagan and Gorbachev, and furthered by, you know, President Bush the first -- (laughing) -- President Bush the first -- President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton and the current President Bush, a very close partnership based on mutual respect and shared interests.
That partnership's going to continue, certainly in 2004, and I would feel safe with saying well beyond. President Bush and President Putin have a good relationship. I think, you know, like in any relationship, there are areas where we differ. There are issues on which we do not necessarily agree. But we certainly have the kind of relationship where we can work together to build on those areas where we have common interests and we can talk frankly as friends in those areas where we don't see the situation in the same way.
Certainly, the areas where, I think, where there's a commonality of vision are in the Quartet, in Middle East peace, in strategic issues, hopefully on market reform, international economic cooperation. I think there is a growing consensus on Iraq. That's what immediately comes to mind for now. The areas where we differ, I mean, I think those are also sort of well known. But we will work to deal with those differences as friends.
Yes.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) How does President Bush intend to address the problem, because I remember Ambassador Holbrook at this time calling for security stations, comfort stations. That was the first time ever.
MR. ERELI: Yes. Yes.
QUESTION: They did not reach a consensus because when it comes to peacekeepers, it's like a Catch-22. They go to countries, they bring AIDS. So how do you put it in, well, yes, you know --
MR. ERELI: Peacekeepers bring AIDS? Okay, well, let me --
QUESTION: Well, you know, but they do.
MR. ERELI: Peacekeepers?
QUESTION: Well, yes, because they don't protect them.
MR. ERELI: Well, I'd say the problem of AIDS is much bigger than peacekeepers.
QUESTION: Well, how -- no, not really. But it's like a Catch-22 because peacekeepers should, you know --
MR. ERELI: Well, yeah. Let me explain what -- you know, President Bush, there are a couple of things that he's doing, I think, that are new. First of all, he is funding, he is putting his money where his mouth is. And over five years, we are contributing $15 billion to combat AIDS. That's a lot of money. We are focusing on 14 countries, 12 in Africa, two in Latin America, that account for, I believe, over 70 percent of the AIDS cases in the world.
Third, we are working in partnership with NGOs and those countries to develop programs and fund those programs to at least -- at first, just stop the spread of the disease through education, through testing and through treatment. And then -- I mean, that's the first stage -- and then to actually roll it back.
So I think what we've got here is a plan, a good plan and a funded plan that looks at where's the problem, targets resources to those areas, targets resources to those areas, comes up with concrete ideas about what to do about it, and then funds them and is going to see it through.
And so you've got the three elements. You've got money, you've got ideas and you're doing it over time. That's meaningful. And it represents a real, I think, and tangible commitment that is important.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: The American Administration gave itself another few months to reach a final agreement with the Iraqi Governing Council concerning the status of the forces, the American forces, in Iraq after independence. Is that right or not? I mean before June.
MR. ERELI: Not that I'm aware of.
QUESTION: Before June they have to reach an agreement with the Governing Council concerning the status of your forces in Iraq.
MR. ERELI: I don't think there's a deadline on that. There's not a deadline on when we have to reach an agreement on the status of forces. Obviously, I think what we're looking to do it is -- well, I'll put it this way. We would be reaching an agreement with the transitional national authority, which takes over after June 30 -- July 1st, and that's who we are going to be talking about with -- in terms of, you know, the sovereign Iraqi entity who would be on the other side of the signature paper. But we haven't put a deadline on when we have to reach an agreement.
QUESTION: Okay, that's commendable because I had an impression from -- or perception from reports that you're going to reach an agreement with the appointed council, which you have appointed, concerning the permanent status of your forces in Iraq.
MR. ERELI: No, uh-uh. It would be with the trans -- the indirectly elected transitional national authority.
Sir.
QUESTION: In Turkey, U.S. Air Forces are using Incirlik Air Base for operations for Iraq and as a transit hop for the soldiers. And these days there are some rumors about a second base. Are you planning to use a second base in Turkey for transferring soldiers or for Iraqi operations?
MR. ERELI: Yeah. I don't know. I would say a couple things. One is, the best people to answer that are the Department of Defense.
Second of all, we are currently conducting a global force posture review, which you might have heard about, which has, I think, been talked about a lot, particularly by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, in Turkey, I believe, in December. Maybe it was Under Secretary of State Grossman in Turkey. I don't know who -- which one went, but one of them went.
Anyway, this global force posture review is looking at redeploying American assets abroad and at home to respond more effectively to the current -- respond more effectively to worldwide threats.
So we're going to be moving people around, changing base structures, changing force structures worldwide. Obviously, I think it will have implications for Turkey, it will have implications for Europe, it will have implications for everywhere where there are U.S. forces.
So maybe we're looking at some stuff for Turkey that involves different bases, but at this point it's all speculative; no decisions have been made. I don't know if it includes opening a second base. I don't know. But this is a worldwide review that is at the planning stage.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: I have two questions. Number one, on Monday who will be representing U.S. in Iraq meeting at the UN?
Number two, secondly, Minister of External Affairs, Indian Minister of External Affairs Yashwant Sinha, he will be in Washington next week and he will be meeting Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Could you please tell us more about those meetings?
MR. ERELI: Yeah. I think on the first question, I already answered it. We haven't decided who's going to be attending the meetings on Monday.
On Minister Sinha's meetings in Washington, I think you can expect that they will address the full range of issues. Obviously, they will talk about "The Glide Path," which we discussed. I think they will be talking about, broadly speaking, South Asian security, the recent very encouraging meeting that Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf had in Islamabad at the South Asian Regional Cooperation Conference. They will be talking about, obviously, Indian-American trade. I think that will probably -- I mean, those will be the major items on the agenda.
QUESTION: Will Kashmir be on the agenda?
MR. ERELI: Yeah, I mean, Kashmir, obviously, to the extent that you're talking about South Asian security, it's going to come up. I think, you know, our position on that issue is well known. And I think what we'll be stressing is the very welcome steps that Pakistan and India have taken in recent months and encouragement to continue confidence-building measures and continue engagement and dialogue.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: I have two questions. I want to know about autonomy in Kurdistan. How do you envision the future of Iraq? Will it be whole, as a whole, or will it be divided under the federation?
MR. ERELI: The United States has consistently said that we support the territorial integrity of Iraq. That remains our position.
As far as the political future of Iraq, that is a matter for the people of Iraq to decide, and that is what they will be discussing as we move forward, particularly with the transitional administrative law, which they are -- no, sorry -- the -- what is it called now? The administrative law, the basic administrative law, which they are drafting now and which will be drafted by February 15th. They will be discussing it in their constitutional assembly. They will be discussing it, you know, in terms of drafting the constitution.
So this is, fundamentally, an issue for Iraqis to decide. How is power shared in the country? How is the country divided into regions? What are the powers and privileges of each region versus the other regions? What's the role of the central government versus the role of the regional governments? These are questions that are up to the Iraqis to decide and that are fundamental to the nature of the state.
Our view is, you guys decide what's best for you; however, we're not going to support anything like an independent state or a division of Iraq into separate sovereign entities other than one sovereign entity that it is now.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: I'm talking the $15 billion AIDS money from the United States. I'd like to know how much of the money is going to be available this year, or what is the criteria that the U.S. is using for the 12 countries that are selected for it in Africa?
MR. ERELI: I think this year we're going to have something like $2.3 billion. And criteria for the countries, the 12 countries, were those with the highest infection rates of AIDS.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) in the State Department yesterday on the Middle East, at which it was determined that Israel was responsible for killing of 34 American airmen in the attack on USS Liberty.
MR. ERELI: That's not exactly true.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. ERELI: There was a conference at the State Department on Monday and Tuesday, the subject of which were recently declassified documents from the U.S. Archives on the 1967 war. One panel of that conference dealt with the incident that you describe, the Liberty incident, because one small portion of the documents dealt with the Liberty.
So, first of all, the whole conference was not about this. The conference was about the '67 war; one panel was about it. There was no conclusion of the panel. So your characterization of what the conclusion was, I would take issue with. Basically, the purpose of the conference was to say, "Hey, here are the documents. Here's what the documents say. You scholars interpret them however you want."
And the reason I'm sort of very stressing this is because what we're talking about is academic inquiry. Academic inquiry is open and it is subject to a variety of interpretations, none of which is completely convincing. I think there were some people who came away from that conference saying what you said, that Israel deliberately attacked a U.S. Naval vessel.
QUESTION: This is a Reuters report. It's their report, yeah.
MR. ERELI: Well, a Reuters report, you can't -- and this is irresponsible, and if the Reuters report says "so-and-so said," okay, fine. The Reuters report should also say "So-and-so said X, so-and-so said Y."
QUESTION: (Inaudible) State Department official.
MR. ERELI: If a Reuters report says, "So-and-so are the facts, and this is the conclusion," then that report is wrong. And what I'm telling you is what happened at the conference. What happened at the conference is, a lot of different theories -- the documents were presented and a lot of different theories were discussed, and no conclusions were reached because you cannot -- because it is a historical incident and it does not lend itself to conclusive determination.
MR. ERELI: Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Well, I am a new correspondent of Phoenix Media (inaudible) media, and I have three questions, since you're here. You previously, you said that you want to see European Union and United Nations in Iraq. But what kind of role would you like the EU and UN have in Iraq, if they're coming there?
MR. ERELI: Well, I think -- I mean, I don't know if I said the EU. I mean, obviously, we would welcome the EU. But, particularly, what we're talking about with the United Nations is we -- if you look at UN Resolutions 1441, 1500, 1483, 1500 and 1511, all of those resolutions call for a vital role for the UN in Iraq. We think the UN can do a lot. I mean, they can do humanitarian programs, which they are doing now.
They can also play a role in helping the Iraqis discuss and debate and come to conclusions about what we discussed earlier, their federal structure. They can help organize for elections, conduct elections, develop systems of representation. They have a lot of expertise in drafting of legislation, in administrative law, in project administration.
So, you know, the UN, we recognize the UN has done this before and has done it successfully and we're hoping that it will do it in Iraq.
As far as the EU is concerned, I think what's important to note is the EU contributed to Madrid. They've already gone on record as saying, you know, we have a stake in the reconstruction of Iraq. We're contributing resources. We're contributing money. We're contributing people. So that's great. I'd like to see more of it.
I mean, the fact is, Iraq is not a -- how should I put it -- closed market. It's not -- we don't see Iraq as the purview of, you know, of a few. We think that Iraq, the future stability and prosperity of Iraq, is critical to regional stability. And we called upon all those who are interested in regional stability to contribute and make that happen.
QUESTION: What about -- I have one question about European Union that, why is it so that the United States rather discuss with separate nations rather than with the European Union organization?
MR. ERELI: I don't know that that's true. I mean, I don't know that that's true? On what subject? I mean, we have U.S.-EU dialogue. I mean, the Secretary was in Maastricht in December for the U.S.-EU dialogue. So I would argue that, to the contrary, we recognize the EU as an important institution that has a pan-European as well as an international role. We seek to work with the EU in the areas where we have, where we can both bring something to the table.
QUESTION: All right. And could I also ask one question? Rather -- previously you talk about AIDS and told us about the Bush program dealing with AIDS, the problem in Africa. But as far as I have discussed with persons working in Africa, they say that the most important thing that you can, you have to do is to increase women's literacy and you know, teaching women and family planning. And as far as I have understood, those are not topics in the Bush program.
MR. ERELI: No, I think they are. I think you -- they are. Female education, female literacy, female healthcare are all key, key components --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. ERELI: Family planning? Different thing.
Yes.
QUESTION: Sudanese (inaudible.) agreement in weeks?
MR. ERELI: Hopefully.
QUESTION: Hopefully. Are you going to say to them, are you welcoming them to come over to Washington to sign the agreement, are you going to say, in Arabic, (inaudible).
MR. ERELI: Yes. President -- I mean, Secretary Clinton -- Secretary Powell said in Kenya when he met with Dr. Garang and Vice President Taha that should they reach an agreement, President Bush would be willing to host a signing ceremony on the White House lawn.
QUESTION: The foreign minister of Sudan already said (inaudible) Africa, would that be a snub to the administration?
MR. ERELI: Let's wait till they get an agreement and then we'll -- hopefully, we'll have the problem to deal with.
Sure, go ahead. And then we'll go to you.
QUESTION: A quick one on U.S. VISIT program. It is our understanding that this the domain of the Department of Home Security, but knowing that the process starts in the U.S. consular offices abroad, what is the important -- what is your, so to say, say in this process? Are they directing you? Are you contributing to policy-making and so on?
MR. ERELI: Yeah, I would say that -- I would say that this is a coordinated effort. We have our role. Department of Homeland Security has its role. Our role is to issue the visas and to take the biometrics, in other words, the biometrics of the fingerprints and the photograph. Right now, we're doing that at 50 embassies around the world. By October 2004, we will be doing it in every embassy in the world.
So basically what you're doing when you arrive in the United States, you'll be doing at the embassy of the United States in the country where you get your visa, when you get your visa and that when you come to the United States, it would be to confirm that you are indeed the person, so I would say, basically, two sides of the same coin. It's trying to monitor more carefully who is coming in and out of this country, while at the same time minimizing the disruptions to our visitors and to commerce and tourism.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Go back to Taiwan again. I wonder how would you describe your current relationship, or trust, if you will, over Taiwan after the so-called referendum move.
Secondly, do you have a Plan B should the presidential election in Taiwan get too hot?
MR. ERELI: You know, I would -- on our relationship with Taiwan; I think that, you know, our relationship with Taiwan is marked by a couple of constants. Number one, you know our appreciation for and support of Taiwan's democracy and democratic development. I think the President has been also very clear and uncompromising on the issue of Taiwan's security and our commitment to that. I think that one of the reasons that ties between the United States and Taiwan are so close is because of the democracy that continues to flourish in Taiwan.
I would also say that we continue to believe, as I said before, that cross-strait dialogue is the way to deal with the issues between Taiwan and the People's Republic if China. I think in that regard that we take very seriously President Chen's "Three No’s" in his inaugural speech and that we continue to be regarded by -- in our policy by the Taiwan Relations Act.
So, in that sense, you know, what we're looking at is a relationship marked by constants, as enshrined by law, and as marked by public statement and public commitments.
In terms of what will happen if, that's not -- we're not in a position to speculate on that. We'll deal with the situation as we encounter it.
Thank you, guys. Appreciate it.
