U.S. Foreign Policy

3:00 P.M. EST

Real Audio

MR. DENIG: Before we get started, I just want to make a few announcements. First of all, hello, everybody and welcome, it's good to see you.

This would also be a good opportunity to turn your cell phones off, if you would. Then several announcements of upcoming events: Tomorrow, commemorating Lincoln's birthday, we have a special tour highlighting civil rights. We'll start at 10:30 here with a very good briefing by a Georgetown University professor of law, in fact, the Dean of their law school -- it doesn't get much better than that -- on civil rights. After that, Jennifer will take interested journalists over to the Lincoln Memorial. They're having a special ceremony in honor of President Lincoln's birthday. And then there's the opportunity for a guided tour of a little museum there. I didn't even know there was a museum at the Lincoln memorial, but there is. And the National Park Service will give you a little guided tour.

Number two, for our members, very important, tomorrow afternoon from 4:00 to 6:00 we're having our annual mid-winter party. We don't do this before Christmas because there's too many parties then, so we do it now when everybody's feeling "ughh." Okay? And this will pep you up a little bit, so please, if you can come, if you want to come, again, talk to Jennifer today, please. Give her your name. You don't have to, but if you want to bring a national dish from your country, either that you cook yourself, that your mother cooks, or that you find in a store or whatever, you can bring that, too. But just let Jennifer know, please. That includes you, Chris.

(Laughter.)

All right, next thing: We had a good briefing as you know on Tuesday on the credentials for the G8 Summit down in Georgia. And if you missed that, we did place the transcript up on our Website. The key thing is that March 15th is the deadline for applying for G8 media credentials; you send your fax directly to the G8 people.

Friday we'll have an important briefing of folks who are coming down from the press galleries in Congress, and they will brief on the two political conventions, the Democratic and the Republican ones this summer in Boston and New York. This important briefing will deal with getting credentials and workspace at those conventions; that will be at 11:00 on Friday.

All right, one final possible briefing, just to give you a heads-up, on Friday afternoon, we may have a briefing, possibly at 2:00 dealing with Guantanamo detainees, okay?

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. DENIG: Well, you know, somebody over at the Department who deals with these issues.

QUESTION: Only Guantanamo, or --

MR. DENIG: That'll be the main topic. He's a gentleman who knows a lot about war crimes and stuff like that.

QUESTION: Who will be the person?

MR. DENIG: Well, you know, Peter something, something like that. You know, (laughter) Francois, Pierre, I think --

QUESTION: Oh, that's an American issues thing (inaudible).

MR. DENIG: Well, the main thing will be the Guantanamo detainees.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. DENIG: All right. Now we'll move to our regular briefing.

MR. DENIG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. I'm very pleased to be able to welcome once again to our podium for a regular update briefing on U.S. foreign policy, the Department of State's Deputy Spokesman, Adam Ereli.

Adam.

MR. ERELI: Thank you, Paul. You know, before coming out here I said, "Well, when was the last time I was here?" Does anybody remember? Paul said, "No, it wasn't this year, it was last year." And I said, "No, I thought it was -- I'm pretty sure it was this year."

Yeah, it was actually less than a month ago, on January 14th. So I think what's important for us at the State Department is to keep our word to continue to meet with you regularly as a separate group to give you the access to the more senior levels of the Department, to answer your questions directly, not just as part of the regular State Department briefing, but here at the Foreign Press Center, to deal with you specifically, and also just to have a bit of a dialogue so that we can hear what you guys are thinking about.

One thing I wanted to start off by talking about that has happened since we last spoke was the approval of the Administration's Foreign Operations budget. And I know we talked about it; we had a briefing about it at the State Department. I know that Under Secretary Larson spoke to you about the one piece of the budget, which was the Millennium Challenge Account, but I just wanted to draw your attention to two very, or three very important parts of this budget, which we think are significant.

One is that there's $5.7 billion being spent in support of our allies on the global war on terror. And I think that with all that's going on in the world, it's very important to continue to emphasize that this is an ongoing effort, that it is costing money, that it is costing lives, and that it is a very central focus of our diplomacy to continue to support politically, financially and morally those brave people around the world that are engaged in fighting the war against terror.

The two other aspects of the Foreign Operations budget that I wanted to draw your attention to were: One, the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account and the funding of the Millennium Challenge Account in very real and meaningful terms that, frankly, sets up a new paradigm, if you will, for development assistance.

I think, as Under Secretary Larson said, that it creates benchmarks. It's a sort of contractual, it's a contract between the developing country and the United States on how the money can be spent responsibly and, the better you spend, the more you get, basically. And the fact of the matter is, President Bush and this Administration are serious about helping those nations most in need, and they're putting their money where their mouth is with $15 billion over three years, I think, is the amount.

And the final thing that's important to talk about is the money we've appropriated to combat HIV/AIDS. And we will be unveiling, I think, shortly, a strategy for spending those funds. The Secretary's Special Advisor on AIDS, Ambassador Randy Tobias, will be talking about in the future, I think, in the near future, our strategy for how we're going to spend that money, and I think what's going to be newsworthy there, frankly, again, is how we are not just talking the talk, but walking the walk in terms of coming up with concrete ideas, concrete programs and funding them to make a difference.

And so those are just my opening remarks to kind of highlight what we're excited about at the State Department in the coming year. We've got the money. We've got the ideas. We're going to be unveiling a couple of interesting initiatives. I think we already have with the Millennium Challenge Account. We will be with HIV/AIDS, and we certainly look forward to continuing success in the global war on terror in the year to come, so a good way to start, who wants to ask the first question?

Yes, ma'am.

MR. DENIG: Let me remind, please, to use the microphone and identify yourself and your news organization.

QUESTION: Reha Atasagan with the Turkish Public Television. My question will be on Cyprus.

We know that Secretary Powell called Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul this morning and we were told that, you know, he is going to contact a other parties and also EU. Has he talked to anybody else apart from Gul? And can you give us a sense of why he called, kind of?

MR. ERELI: The Secretary has spoken today with Turkish Foreign Minister Gul, Greek Foreign Minister Papandreou, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and Irish Foreign Minister Cowen, as well as Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov, Spanish Foreign Minister Palacio, and the Director General of the IAEA, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei. So it's been a full morning, and I would note that that was all before twelve o'clock when he was on the Hill to testify before the House Budget Committee, I believe, so very important meeting, a very important, a busy morning of phone calls.

On the subject of Cyprus, that was discussed in his calls with Foreign Minister Gul, with Foreign Minister Papandreou and with the Secretary General. As you know, representatives of the two parties to the Cyprus dispute, the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots, are in New York at the invitation of Secretary General Annan to talk about the Annan Plan and how we can bring this longstanding dispute to an end.

They held discussions there yesterday. The discussions are continuing today. As part of his conversations, Secretary Powell reiterated our encouragement for all the parties to do everything possible to support the Good Offices Mission of the Secretary General and underscored the importance of reaching a settlement and allowing a united Cyprus to join the EU on May 1st.

QUESTION: Can I get a follow-up? With Irish Foreign Minister, Cyprus was not an issue with his talks? Do you -- or Russian?

MR. ERELI: You know, it might have been brought up, but I don't recall the details of that conversation. I'm not saying it wasn't, but I just don't have the details. I don't want to confirm for you that which I'm not absolutely sure about.

Said.

QUESTION: My name is Said Arikat from Al Quds newspaper.

And Mr. Ereli, yesterday there was a delegation representing the Geneva Accord Initiative, Annan Chahakh (ph) a former Israeli general and Nebil Amer (ph), a former Palestinian Authority cabinet minister; they met with Assistant Secretary Satterfield, or Deputy Assistant Secretary Satterfield. Could you tell us what did they discuss? Is there a feeling in the State Department that the roadmap is clinically dead and maybe now we ought to look into other kind of alternatives? Thank you.

MR. ERELI: There's not a feeling in the State Department that the roadmap is dead. To the contrary, the feeling and the commitment of the State Department as well as the feeling and the commitment of the Bush Administration as a whole is that our goal is two states living side by side in peace and security and we see the roadmap as the best way to get there. Why? Because that's what both sides have agreed on and that's what the international community supports, and frankly, despite all the talk, there's no viable alternative to the roadmap.

So we're committed to it, we're working on it. I will grant you that progress isn't as speedy as some would like or some would hope. That doesn't deter us. That, rather, reinforces our view that we need to get both parties engaged, both parties moved in the direction of fulfilling their commitments.

The Secretary, as you well know, met with the authors of the Geneva Plan, as it's called, several months ago. At that time he expressed, I think, the importance of people discussing the issues before them publicly and substantively, and that that dialogue was a good thing, and that the exchange of ideas and the open and public examination of really critical issues to both societies couldn't but be productive, and that our listening to those parties was a part of that dialogue. It wasn't to be interpreted as an endorsement or an abandonment of the roadmap, endorsement of an alternative to the roadmap, or an abandonment of the roadmap, and I think that that dialogue is ongoing. And it was in that context that Ambassador Satterfield met with them.

QUESTION: Can I have follow-up on that, sir?

Today, another former Israeli general, Matan Movai, spoke at the Washington Institute, and he was really quite alarmed because he says that the facts on the ground may not be reversible. And he was urging the U.S. to go beyond just; you know, say, the rhetoric. What are you prepared to do to make sure that the facts on the ground do not because irreversible?

MR. ERELI: And this gets into a debate that I don't wish to engage in between U.S. officials and pundits. You know, everybody has their idea of what's right and what's not right, what's fair and what's not fair, what's reversible and what's irreversible.

And don't ask me to rule on where one action or another falls. I will tell you what the American policy is, and the American policy is that unilateral steps that prejudge issues that should be the subject of negotiation between the parties, we are opposed to. And that is our policy. That is what we reiterate to the parties. That is the subject of our dialogue with the parties. We don't shy away from saying how we view things and what we can and cannot support. And I think our actions back that us.

Yes, Ms. Hoda.

QUESTION: I'm Hoda Tawfik, Al-Ahram newspaper. Okay, thank you.

As you have seen, there is a lot of negative reaction in the Arab world. They question that you are working and then keeping them in the dark about the greater Middle East. What do you tell them?

MR. ERELI: I would tell them that at this point there's not a lot of light to shed on the greater Middle East initiative. It's not as if there is this program ready to go that we are deliberately keeping the wraps on and not telling other people about. So that's number one.

Number two, I don't know who's saying that, but we are talking about the greater Middle East initiative with all our partners. I mean, this is an idea that's out there. It's an idea we're talking about with our European friends, with our Middle Eastern friends, and with our friends in international organizations, and I think it's something the Secretary's talked about, Assistant Secretary Boucher has talked about -- it's a set of ideas that we're looking at that seeks to respond to voices from within the region calling for opportunity, calling for hope, calling for reform and looking at ways that we as the United States, along with our partners in the international community, can support in meaningful ways.

But frankly, it's not like there's some plan ready to go that we're just sort of keeping the wraps on.

I'm sorry, one follow-up and then.

QUESTION: The reaction was from Hariri in Cairo and even when Foreign Minister Maher spoke he said, "We are waiting. We haven't yet received any ideas or anything." And there is a lot of reaction. I see the only people you spoke with was the Bahrainis?

MR. ERELI: I think I would put it this way: The subject of the greater Middle East initiative is an issue that is a feature of our discussions with all of our partners, and for those who have not yet heard enough, I would just urge patience. We are and will be talking about it.
Yes ma'am.

QUESTION: Nadia Charters from Al-Arabiyya Television.

I just wanted to follow up on that as well. The -- some people would describe this initiative as a major shift in U.S. foreign policy. Do you really see it this way? And do you see any similarities between the circumstances or the culture or the climate that led to the collapse of ex-Soviet Union countries at the time and the satellite countries and the Middle East? I mean, do you see it really suitable because it's spelt on the Helsinki Accord and President Bush is supposed to launch it in the G8 Summit.

MR. ERELI: As to the question of whether the ideas behind the greater Middle East initiative are a major departure or a major shift of policy, I would say that the greater Middle East initiative is a continuation of the ideas and priorities that President Bush and the Administration have been articulating for the three years that they've been in power.

And what I mean by that is that we have talked about a forward strategy for freedom. We have talked about helping people around the world realize their potential, create opportunity, build prosperity, live in peace and security, have hope for the future, choose between engagement and extremism. And you should look at the greater Middle East initiative as something that supports these ideas and tries to translate these ideas into concrete programs in partnership with the countries of the region, the greater Middle East, and with the support and assistance of international partners, not just the United States. And to that extent, or in that context, what we're talking about, really, is an expansion, an amplification, a deepening of the principles that we've been discussing for three years.

The comparison with the Soviet Union I think really is academically interesting but not practically relevant to what we're talking about now. It's academically interesting because students of international affairs are always looking for trends and connections and evolutions, and I suppose in an intellectual fashion, you could probably draw some, maybe valid connections. But from a practical sense, I think it's important that you look at what we're talking about in the context of more recent events: In the context of the Arab Human Development Report; in the context of September 11th; in the context of a strategy of partnerships that Secretary Powell has talked about so eloquently in Foreign Affairs and at George Washington University, and other places.

One follow-up, yeah.

QUESTION: Just without going into that, I just -- briefly I just wanted to say that when you talk about certain, I mean, when you're making this comparison between the Soviet Union and Arab countries and you don't --

MR. ERELI: I'm not making the comparison.

QUESTION: Well, okay, you're not making the comparison.

MR. ERELI: I'm not making the comparison.

QUESTION: This is, okay -- but if it's based on the same accord, it is basically was meant for ex-Soviet Union countries.

MR. ERELI: No. I disagree. I disagree.

QUESTION: Consider this one. Let's overlook this matter.

MR. ERELI: This is a separate, distinct, intellectually independent conceptually -- has its own conceptual integrity. It's not tied to something else. It's not a spin-off of what we've done in another region. It is based on the realities, the unique realities of the greater Middle East, the unique needs of the greater Middle East and the reality of the world as it exists in 2004, and without reference to the world as it existed in, you know, 1978, I think it was when you had the Helsinki Accords.

QUESTION: '75.

MR. ERELI: '75. So I mean, this is why I say these connections that you're, that some people might be drawing are in the realm of academic and intellectual theorizing, which may be useful in one context, but in the context that we're dealing in, the policy context, trying to help people in practical ways, it doesn't have a lot of relevance right now.

QUESTION: Not related?

MR. ERELI: No, it's not related.

Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Yes. Lambros Papantonious,Greek Daily.

Adam, do you know if Secretary Powell is going to continue those telephone calls for the Cyprus issue and if he is going to just direct to call to the parties involved? In the meantime, if you could say anything about the contents of the call already he placed today?

MR. ERELI: I would say that Secretary Powell has for some time, or has consistently been involved in supporting the Secretary General's efforts to bring about an agreement and a referendum on Cyprus. And he will continue to work in close cooperation and coordination with the Secretary General in order to help him as he tries to bring, and we all try to bring the two parties together to reach an agreement.

The calls today were made on the basis, I think, of the discussions yesterday, and bearing in mind, frankly, that we're under a pretty tight timetable, and that we have a unique opportunity here. I think the fact that they're in New York, that they're talking with the Secretary General at the UN is important and is significant. And we want to help the Secretary General and we want to help the parties make the most of it, bearing in mind that you've got a May 1 looming, so that the call was really made in all our -- and we will continue to work in that context.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Dubravka Savic, Belgrade Daily Novosti.

I would like to turn your attention to Kosovo and to hear your comment to the fact that standards for Kosovo were approved, although Serbian side, Serbian Government showed very strong criticism to that. Does the opinion from the region count at all?

MR. ERELI: I think we're working with -- the Secretary had a very good meeting last week, I believe, with the Prime Minister of Kosovo.

We noted the very important progress that Kosovo has made in this process, reiterated our support for meeting the standards. So I guess I would take issue with this suggestion that seemed implicit in your question that somehow the international community was abandoning a process and abandoning Kosovo.

I think there's a clear plan. There's a clear way forward. The markers are there for everybody to see. There is progress being made on meeting them. I mean, obviously you can't write the script at this point, but so far I would say it's a drama that's playing out fairly smoothly.

In the back.

QUESTION: Jesus Esquivel, Proceso de Mexico.

I have a question about Haiti. Besides the call from the State Department and the White House to the government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and to the opposition of the government, the situation seems unchanged. And remember the situation of ten years ago when Raoul Cedras was in government in Haiti. My question to you is what's the State Department really trying to do to help to stabilize democracy in that small country in the Caribbean? And do you have any plans to send a commission to meet with Aristide or something like that?

MR. ERELI: I guess there are a number of things that we're trying to do. But they're all based on, you know, accepting certain principles. Principle number one is, that violence has to stop, that violence is not a way to settle to political differences.

Principle number two is that it's only through dialogue and negotiations, and very importantly, compromise, that you can bring some measure of stability to Haiti. So those are, I guess, our guiding principles, and that's what's behind what we are trying to do -- not just by ourselves, but with all the countries that have an interest in this very volatile situation, particularly CARICOM and Friends of the OAS.

Like many of the issues of the very difficult and vexing issues that we face, whether it be Cyprus or whether it be Israeli-Palestinian dispute, what we're trying to do is work multilaterally with partners to bring as much influence [as possible] to bear on the people directly involved to forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement.

I think the CARICOM, you know, CARICOM has some ideas, has some proposals that they're looking at that we are prepared to support. And we will be looking to work multilaterally with our partners in this process. But it's very important as a point of departure for the government to take action to stop the killing and to stop the violence, and to rein in these gangs of outlaws that are randomly murdering people.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Samir Nader with Radio Sawa.

Last Saturday the Washington Post reported that Assistant Secretary of State Burns and two senior officials from the NSC will be traveling to the Middle East. Is there any plan for such a trip and when?

MR. ERELI: Nothing to share with you at this time. Our officials travel frequently to the Middle East. I wouldn't rule out a visit at some point in the future, but I don't believe that Assistant Secretary Burns has firm plans for travel at this point.

In the back, ma'am.

QUESTION: Rossana Rodriguez from National Radio of Venezuela.

The FBI told The Miami Herald that the two Venezuelan military officers accused by their government of being involved in bombing two diplomatic missions in Caracas are not considered terrorist threat for the U.S.

My question is how can you explain that that people who represent a big danger and are considered a terrorist threat for one country cannot be for the U.S.? Don't you think that it is a contradiction of asking country to cooperate with the U.S. in pursuing and capturing terrorists in the world, and at the same time, the FBI official has said that they do not consider these two officials a threat?

MR. ERELI: I don't know the details of this case, ma'am. This deals with two individuals whose case history, number one, I don't have the facts about so I wouldn't want to comment on it for that reason. And number two, that is the purview of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, so I wouldn't want to comment on it for that reason as well. I would refer you to them.

But I would reject the notion that somehow because, based on the facts, we may not agree with one country that certain people are terrorists is a comment on our commitment to the global war on terror. That doesn't necessarily follow.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I'm Kuoji of Nippon Television, the Japanese TV, on the North Korea.

As you know, the next six-party talk is coming up. On the other hand, the Japanese senior official arrived at Pyongyang to talk with North Korea officials as to the kidnapped, abducted families. At this time, what are you expecting in these talks?

MR. ERELI: Well, I wouldn't want to predict because there are three possibilities. I could either predict more than happens, in which case you'd be disappointed; I could predict less than what happens, which would be, I guess, the safest thing to do; or I could be spot on, which is extremely unlikely. So I won't get into the prediction game of what's going to happen out of the six-party talks.

What I will say is that the fact that they're taking place is a validation of what we've been saying for some time. And frankly, I think there were a lot of skepticism. And what we've been saying for a long time is that this is a problem that concerns the entire peninsula. And it is a problem that needs to be dealt with multilaterally by those countries that are directly threatened by North Korea's programs. And the fact that we're having a second round, I think, demonstrates the soundness of this approach, the fact that this approach is gaining traction, gaining momentum.

What we are looking for, quite frankly, is a serious engagement on the major, or the principle issue, which is North Korea's nuclear program, and a recognition that that program is a problem and a recognition that that program has to be dismantled and that the goal of the process is the dismantling of the program.

I think that is an important -- that is the kernel of the process.

Follow-up.

QUESTION: Brian Yang from Nippon TV. Follow-up on the Japanese, the North Korea abduction issues.

Currently there are two Japanese -- Japanese diplomats now in Pyongyang. They were talking about the abduction issues with North Korea. And this issue has been, you know, talked over and over. And the mission of the Japanese diplomat is to negotiate with North Korea and to hopefully, to get this problem resolved before the next round of six-party talks.

Is any, like, further steps from the U.S. Government to make this problem resolved as a, you know, timely manner? And what kind of -- because the U.S. Government always mentions that it's going to -- they strongly support the Japanese actions. But kind of further steps you going to take? And do you have any comment on the Japanese diplomats now in North Korea? Thank you.

MR. ERELI: As you say, this is a tragic issue for which we have great sympathy and feeling for the suffering that the Japanese people have gone through and continue to go through over what is just a horrible, a horrible set of circumstances. And as you say, we do support the Government of Japan fully in their efforts to resolve the question of Japanese abductees.

As far as the specific visit of the Japanese diplomats to North Korea, I don't have anything particular to share with you. I think that we will lend whatever support and assistance we can to resolve the issue in a timely way and, frankly, whatever we can do to help Japan, we will do.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Going back to Venezuela, Mr. Ereli. Sonia Schott, Globovision, Venezuela. Mr. -- Ambassador Noriega announced last month that he is going to have a meeting with some Venezuelan officials. I just want to know, this will be in the frame of the regular meetings between the two governments? What will be the expectations from the U.S. Government side on this meeting? Could you elaborate more on that? Do you have any details on that? Thank you.

MR. ERELI: I don't. I don't know what announcement you're referring to. I don't know what meeting you're referring to.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. It was in Miami when Assistant Secretary was in Miami. I think it was the end of January when he announced that --

MR. ERELI: Yeah, I'm sorry, I just don't have details so I can't answer your question.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Daphne Fan from ETTV, Taiwan.

The two questions of Taiwan's referendum came up last month. You say that the U.S. will keep studying the both the wording and the context. Now after four weeks, do you have further things to say or are you still studying the context?

MR. ERELI: You know, I hesitate. The reason I hesitate is because you're going to be disappointed because you always come and you always expect me to say something and I never say anything new and I'm just afraid you're not going to come any more.

(Laughter.)

But I don't have anything new to say. I mean, really very little has changed since we last discussed the issue. I think Assistant Secretary Boucher spoke to it since I was here and reiterated our policy on the issue. You know, that hasn't changed.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: We know that Beijing has very strong sentiment about this issue. Do you -- I mean, does U.S. receive any message or pressure from Beijing, either when Armitage visited there or when their delegation visited here?

MR. ERELI: No, I would not say we're under pressure from anybody. The United States has a very clear and consistent policy with regard to the issue of Taiwan. It is based on our longstanding relationship with both Taiwan and the People's Republic of China and U.S. interests. And I think that that's the way to look at our position, as opposed to a function of what one country wants us to do versus what another country wants us to do.

QUESTION: They did not thus send a message to you that to ask U.S., United States to say opposed to Taiwan's referendum publicly, right?

MR. ERELI: I guess you're asking two questions. Did they send us a message, and are we under pressure?

QUESTION: Yeah, two.

MR. ERELI: We hear messages all the time between everybody. So that's a normal function of diplomatic business. Are we under pressure? No, I don't think we're under pressure. I think we are trying to pursue our policies based on what we believe, as I said, are our legal commitments, our past policy, and our national interests.

Any other questions? Yes, Hoda.

QUESTION: Can you comment about your plan, when you plan for a greater Middle East, which countries is covered by the greater Middle East?

MR. ERELI: We don't plan for a greater Middle East. You make it sound like, you know --

QUESTION: Instead of --

MR. ERELI: Imperial Britain or something. We're not planning for a greater Middle East. We are discussing with our friends and partners in the Middle East, in the greater Middle East and in Europe, ideas helping people realize their hopes and dreams for a better life. That simple.

QUESTION: My question is about the countries it covers.

MR. ERELI: Well, that's why -- you know, earlier you said, when are you going to, like, shed the light on this plan? And I said, hey, there's not, like, not a lot of -- not a lot of -- there's not a sort of a big --

PARTICIPANT: Not like a (inaudible) --

MR. ERELI: Yeah, right. So those are the kinds of details that really haven't been worked out yet.

QUESTION: And --

MR. ERELI: Countries involved, programs, processes, mechanisms, fora, you know, it's all in the discussion stage.

QUESTION: Okay, you mentioned voices in the countries. What do you mean by voices? You mean (laughter) -- voices of the governments, voices of administrations, or just --

MR. ERELI: I mean there are lots of voices. There's the voices of civil society. There are the voices of students. There are the voices of leaders. There are the voices of intellectuals and academics. There are the voices of dissent.

The question is, how do you, you know, without trying to wax too poetic, how do you help build these voices into a chorus that's singing a harmonious tune?

Yes. I kind of like that.

QUESTION: Again, my name is Said Arikat from Al Quds.

Secretary Powell, today, responding to Congressman Wexler, he asked him if Iraq presented a grave and imminent danger and so on, and he said that in his words and in the President's words that they did not use the word imminent, they used a present danger, and so on, and knowing what he knows now he would use the same thing.

Is that backtracking from what he said last week that knowing what he knows now he may not have advised for to go to war? Is he --

MR. ERELI: He didn't say that. The Secretary did not say, knowing what he knows now he may not have advised to go to war. The Secretary said that we did not have the information then that we have now. And if we had the information then that we have now, that might have affected our thinking in some way. But he didn't say how and he didn't say why. And I think it's a fairly obvious statement of fact that -- and this is very important, and this is what you should all understand very clearly -- that does not cast into doubt the wisdom or the appropriateness or the necessity of the decision that we made in March of 2003, along with our coalition partners, to use force to enforce UN resolutions.

The facts are -- and I think these are indisputable -- the facts are that Saddam Hussein had produced weapons of mass destruction, had used weapons of mass destruction, had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, and remained a threat to his people and to the region, and was in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions on a whole -- in a whole variety of ways. And that the world is better off without him in power than it was with him in power.

QUESTION: Did Saddam Hussein present more of a danger in March 2003 than he did in March 1991, when they stopped the war and they thought that all things had been accomplished at the time?

MR. ERELI: Let me put it this way.

QUESTION: And there was --

MR. ERELI: Let me put it this way: Saddam Hussein, in March of 2003, remained an aggressive tyrant who had murdered and was murdering his own people; who had launched, unprovoked, two wars; who had ties to terrorism; and who continued to have ties to terrorism; and who, given what happened in September 2001, was a threat that could not be ignored and was not abiding by his international obligations as represented by 12 years of UN Security Council resolutions. And that, to me, and I think to a lot of people, especially those who were part of the coalition to get rid of him, was a pretty compelling case.

In the back.

QUESTION: Jyri Raivio, Newspaper Helsingen Sanomat, Finland.

Now that you say many times all over again that the U.S. went to the war to enforce the UN resolutions, do you also say that the war had the endorsement of the United Nations?

MR. ERELI: We think that there was authority under UN Security resolutions for our actions.

QUESTION: Giampiero Gramaglia, Italian News Agency ANSA.

I have two questions: The first one on Libya, the second one on Iraq -- and starting with Iraq. When do you expect that suggestions or a report from the UN mission in Iraq, actually?

MR. ERELI: Don't know. I don't think it'll be very long, but I guess I would ask the UN. They've got a better sense of who they want to talk to, who they've talked to, what questions are outstanding. So we're not looking at a long, long time, but to give you a more accurate timeframe than that, you'd really have to talk to them.

QUESTION: On Libya. Yesterday, the Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Berlusconi paid a visit to Libya and met with the Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi. Was the Secretary Powell in touch with Minister Fratini on this visit, or does he plan to be in touch with him? And in any case, how do you consider this kind of contact?

MR. ERELI: I'm not aware that the Secretary has been in contact with Foreign Minister Fratini recently on this issue. Obviously, they have a a close relationship and frequent communications, but I am not aware that they have been in touch recently on this visit.

As far as the visit itself goes, Italy is going to pursue the relations that it feels are in its interest to pursue. Far be it from us to say whether, you know, we think it's right or wrong.

I would note that since Libya has expressed its willingness to rid itself of its weapons of mass destruction program, and since it has embarked on a policy of cooperating against terrorism, as evidenced in its adherence to UN Security Council resolutions, I would note that the international community is responding by having more normal interaction with a country that had previously been something of a pariah due to its flouting of international norms and standards of civilized behavior; and I would see Prime Minister Berlusconi's visit in that context.

QUESTION: There are some reports of some U.S. diplomats briefing from Tripoli. Is this the case?

MR. ERELI: U.S. diplomats? Yeah. As we said yesterday in the daily press briefing, there are U.S. diplomats currently in Libya. There will be U.S. diplomats in there, I think, pretty regularly to help facilitate our assistance to Libya in meeting its stated desire to dismantle its WMD programs and to work with Libya, as we seek to move ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)?

MR. ERELI: They, no, there is no -- the only American facility there is an old embassy that is in pretty bad shape, that you really can't work out of. So they work out of a variety of facilities that, you know, that serve a temporary purpose.

Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Thank you.