3:50 P.M. EST
Real Audio of Briefing 
MR. ERELI: Good afternoon, everybody. It's a pleasure to be back with you at the Foreign Press Center.
I thought I'd begin with just a couple of brief remarks with the subject of the week, which is Iraq. As you know, the Foreign Press Center has been doing a number of events this week to commemorate the first anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which began on March 19th and ended three weeks later with the liberation of Iraq.
I think there's been a lot of controversy about events leading up to that operation and the events subsequent to that operation. And there's been a lot of debate about it, but I think there are a couple of points that I'd like to make so that we can be clear and have a consensus on, which is: Number one, that a dangerous dictator is gone; number two, that a captive people is free; number three, that democracy is taking root in a way that it wasn't possible before; and that these are positive things.
And you know, as I said yesterday, I think when the subject was raised about our response to a poll that showed a number of countries sort of having negative views about the United States, I think that history will judge -- the judgment of history will be favorable on the action that we've taken. And when we look back 20 years on what happened, I think the wisdom and the rightness of the course that the coalition of the willing took in Iraq will be quite clear.
Anyway, those are just some observations I wanted to make and I'm happy to take your questions.
Sir?
QUESTION: Me? Excuse me. Thank you. Ron Baygentz, Kuwait News Agency.
Could you touch on the Secretary's visit to Kuwait? What was the primary reason for that visit, and what he had hoped to accomplish by stopping into Kuwait, please?
MR. ERELI: Well, as you all know, Kuwait is a very valuable and, I think, cherished partner of the United States. They are a major non-NATO ally.
We view it as important to go to Kuwait regularly to consult with our friends. The Prime Minister of Kuwait was here a few months ago. And so it is entirely timely and appropriate for Secretary Powell to to reciprocate, I should say, by going to Kuwait.
I think he will be having meetings tomorrow with the Kuwaiti leadership on a number of issues including I think the Middle East peace process, the situation in Iraq, the Greater Middle East Initiative, as well as other bilateral issues of concern.
In the back.
QUESTION: Mike Werbowski, CKUT Radio, McGill [University], Canada.
Sir, are you concerned that the polls have expressed some reservations about staying on to the expected day that they should be -- they might be withdrawing earlier than anticipated from Iraq their troops following the Spanish lead?
So my question is are you concerned about their reservations? And secondly, do you think that the UN could come in with a feasible stabilization force, when the U.S. withdraws in July?
MR. ERELI: Since the election of Mr. Zapatero and his statements concerning the possible future actions that might be taken regarding Spanish forces, there has been a sort of frenzy of speculation about cracks in the alliance and partners going wobbly. I think that that speculation is overblown and unwarranted.
Poland is, and we have every confidence will remain, a solid, reliable, committed partner in Iraq, that their troops will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the troops from 25 other countries that are currently in Iraq to help provide the Iraqi people the security and stability they need to move forward in the building of democracy.
So, you know, we've seen those remarks. We don't see in them any indication of a weakening of resolve. To the contrary, we have every indication from the Poles that they're going to be with us, and with all the other partners in the international coalition to see this job done.
As Secretary Armitage, I think, has said very eloquently, you know, the only exit strategy we have is success. So I think, we and our Polish friends and the others, look forward to going home when the job is done. And that will be when the Iraqis have a peaceful and secure democracy.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Hi, Adam. Nadia Tsao with the Liberty Times, Taiwan.
We're going to have presidential elections on Saturday. Because it's a very tight election, there is some bizarre rumor about, you know, a riot or unstable situation after elections. I don't know if you have any information about that.
Does U.S. worry there will be something unstable after the elections? And were any policy change or reviews is got undergoing, you know, to improve the relationship after election? Thank you.
MR. ERELI: There's no way for me to comment intelligently on bizarre rumors, so I just won't.
As far as policy changes in the works, no, nothing is in the works. Taiwan is a democracy, is a vibrant democracy, and we support the exercise of democratic rights in Taiwan.
Sir.
QUESTION: Yeah. Can I follow up on that? Norman Fu of The China Times of Taiwan.
I suppose you have seen The New York Times story about this subject today. Is the U.S. concerned at all about the implications in the event that Mr. Chen Shui-bian, who is the incumbent President of Taiwan, gets reelected?
And also, it's quite clear the U.S. has failed in trying to dissuade Mr. Chen from holding the referendum, which the U.S. has expressed strong reservations about. Can you comment on these two things?
MR. ERELI: On the first subject, I would say this: this isn't about personalities; it's about policies. So the Taiwan people will have their say. They will elect the leaders that they believe best represent them, and we will work with those leaders in partnership for a peaceful resolution of the cross-straits tensions through dialogue.
As regards the referendum, let's just wait and see what happens, is the way I'd put it. I wouldn't characterize it as success or failure. I would characterize it as a process that we are working on with both sides to this dispute to ensure that it is resolved, as I said, through dialogue and not as a result of unilateral action.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yes, Khaled Abd El-Kareem with Middle East News Agency of Egypt.
And my question, Adam, is about the back-and-forth talk between Egypt and Israel on the possibility of amending the Camp David Treaty of 25 years ago, which the U.S. sponsored in order to allow Egyptian troops to amass on the Egyptian side of the Gaza borders.
And my question is, is the U.S. in any way contributing to these discussions between the -- Egypt and Israel? And does it have any, any say, any reservations about amending or not amending these treaties, or just leaving that to the two countries to solve? And I will just have another question after you finish that.
MR. ERELI: The issue of security in Gaza is something that has been under discussion between the Egyptians and Israelis. We have been talking to both sides, but I think this is an issue that is being dealt with directly between them.
We don't really have any specific comment on the ideas under discussion, other than they are ideas. And I think we would be supportive of whatever accommodations the two sides could reach that they believed were in their mutual interest and advanced the cause of security in the region, and were consistent with previous agreements.
QUESTION: Yeah, just, first of all, often there's -- in relation to these talks or these discussions, can you give us an update on the sort of discussions that the Egyptian Intelligence Chief, Omar Suleiman, had in the US over the past couple of days? That's first.
And I wondered if the State Department had some feedback from its Embassy back in Cairo about this Alexandria conference, which was held on reform possibilities in the Arab world. Thank you.
MR. ERELI: On the discussions with Mr. Omar Suleiman, he is a valued interlocutor, a person for whom we have great respect and admiration. We meet with him regularly. I think he has a stature and respect in the region for what he can contribute and for what Egypt can contribute, so we speak to him regularly. We speak to him on issues related to counterterrorism, attempts to put an end to terror between Palestinians and Israelis as well as broader ideas about regional issues including Iraq. So we have an ongoing dialogue on a full range of issues with Mr. Suleiman and that was what was discussed this week.
QUESTION: With whom at the State Department?
MR. ERELI: I believe he met with Deputy Secretary Armitage.
Nadia.
QUESTION: Second part.
MR. ERELI: Oh, second part. Sorry. The second part was on Alexandria, yeah.
I would really commend to all of you the closing declaration of the meeting of reformers and civil society activists in Alexandria this week. It goes to the heart of much of what we have been saying is behind the Greater Middle East Initiative, which is a recognition by the people in the region that the time for change has arrived and an embracing of the challenge ahead, and a declaration that we are responsible for our own futures and we are going to rise to that challenge.
And that is the spirit, really, that animates our efforts and our policies to help them help themselves. But it really is a very moving declaration and something that I commend to you all.
Nadia.
QUESTION: [Nadia Charters, Al Arabiya TV.] In getting rid of Saddam Hussein, in the aftermath of the war, some people will say that you have created very unpredictable, volatile and chaotic situation in Iraq, apart from the usual statement about getting the UN, giving them a bigger role.
What -- how do you expect the situation to improve? And can you truly say that democracy has taken roots in Iraq now?
MR. ERELI: I would say democracy is taking root, and it's going to be an extended and messy process.
It's been that way, really, if you look at the development of democracy around the world, it's been that way wherever you go from a closed society that has been ruled by brutal dictators and one-party states, and then all of a sudden, you lift those controls and people are free to say what they think and agitate on behalf of their interests, versus, or against, or in competition with the interests of other members of society. That is a messy situation.
Let me put it to you this way. There were those who said that, "You need a dictator like Saddam Hussein to keep Iraq together because there are so many different factions."
I would say that we are going to prove -- and the Iraqi people are going to prove -- that that's not true; that the Iraqi people are going to prove that Iraq is a nation; that Iraqis, regardless of their ethnic or religious or tribal background are Iraqis, and that they can work together in harmony, in social harmony, for the good of the collective and for the good of the nation; and that Iraqi nationalism and Iraqi sense of pride in what their country is will prevail over the particular interest of one group or another group.
But it's going to take time, and as we've seen, it's going to involve conflict and compromise. But in the end, as we've seen with other countries that go through this experience, the results will be positive.
QUESTION: But some people are going to go say that because the U.S. has not thought of a well plan, well though after the war, that the country might be on the brink of civil war.
MR. ERELI: I don't think that's true.
I think that -- a) I think the plan is pretty good as expressed in the November 15th Agreement where you've got a kind of way forward that has been worked out with the Iraqis.
I mean, this isn't a question of the United States going into Iraq and then tell the Iraqis what their future is and what they need to do. This is a case of the Iraqis deciding for themselves how they want to move forward and us helping them to do that.
And the second point about civil war, like I said, I think that there is a strong enough sense of nationalism that people will, in the end, put aside parochial concerns in favor of the collective good.
Sir.
QUESTION: Joe Tabet, Al Hura TV.
What can you tell us about reports that Ayman al-Zawahri is being cornered in Afghanistan?
MR. ERELI: I can tell you that I don't know -- I'm reading the same reports and don't know much more than you do. This is a Pakistani operation. The information is coming from the Pakistanis. I'm not aware that we have any information in greater detail than is being reported in the press. But it's ultimately up to the Pakistanis to talk about.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Yesterday, I think the Secretary said that President Musharraf is the biggest ally of the U.S. outside the usual allies. And now, today, we have seen this operation that's happening on the border with the prospect of capturing al-Zawahri. Do you think this is kind of a reward for Pakistan for -- I mean, this is kind of plain here -- that it's something more to read than it's just coincidence that happened the day after this declaration?
MR. ERELI: If you look at what's been going on, you would note that the actions that Pakistan is conducting in this part of the border area have been going on for several weeks now, in fact, several months -- as many as several months -- maybe not in this area. But for several months, Pakistan has been actively pursuing terrorists operating from its territory in the frontier territories bordering Afghanistan.
So, I think, Secretary Powell's comments recognizing the close and important partnership between the United States and Pakistan, that was really, I think, given meaning by the statement that we would be seeking major non-NATO ally status for Pakistan, is a recognition of Pakistan's and President Musharraf's bold and courageous actions in support of the global war on terror, some of which we are witnessing today, but which have been going on for some time and have involved, I should add, the loss of Pakistani soldiers and other forces in this cause, which is a great sacrifice, one that we recognize, one that we mourn, and one that we pay tribute to.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Sam Rocha, RCN TV, Colombia.
I have a question about the upcoming visit from President Uribe next week to Washington. Do you have any information, specific information about his agenda or what are the greatest expectations? And specifically with the State Department, what has to do with the negotiations within the Colombian Government and the AUC -- especially after concerns from members of Congress that these negotiations are not transparent in that probably there are other things that needs to be looked at.
And Mr. Castaneda has produced a letter, his web page, where he requested two points: No extradition, and not to be tried by the ICC. Do you have any comments or do you have an input into those points?
MR. ERELI: No. I really don't have any comments on those. I think it's primarily a law enforcement matter.
On the visit of President Uribe, the President was here several months ago. He had a very good visit with the Secretary and the President. I think what we can look forward to is a continued dialogue on the important issues between our countries: The counternarcotics efforts; support for the reforms that President Uribe is trying to -- and very successfully implementing in Colombia; our continued joint action against terror; and again, the expansion of trade and commerce.
These are all issues that are ongoing topics of discussion. I think we've seen, you know, excellent cooperation between our two countries. And the fact that he's coming here, really, on such a regular basis, and that we have a sort of open and welcome access in Colombia is just a recognition of how strong the relationship is.
Yes. Friend from Italy.
QUESTION: Giampiero Gramaglia, Italian News Agency, ANSA.
A question on Kosovo. Do you see any relation between the riots in Kosovo now and the terroristic activities in Europe those days?
MR. ERELI: I think it would be highly speculative to draw that kind of a link.
The incidents of recent days in Kosovo, the violence between ethnic Albanians and Serbs, appears to be homegrown and doesn't appear to be linked to any sort of outside terrorist activity.
That said, it is certainly of serious concern, and I would refer you to a statement that we issued yesterday calling on all sides to restore calm and calling on the political leaders to use their influence to urge constituents to refrain from violence and express their views through peaceful means.
This is a part of the world that has seen too much bloodshed; that is on the path toward reconciliation and rebuilding, and we and our other partners involved in trying to help Kosovo don’t want to see anything happen that could derail that progress.
So I think the response of the international community, as represented by increased NATO forces there, the actions in the UN Security Council today, the actions of the UN Special Representative, the Secretary General's Special Representative, all show that we are acting in a concerted and united way to help restore calm and promote dialogue over conflict.
Yes.
QUESTION: Jose Calvo, El Pais, Spain.
There is still no new government in Spain, but it will be one in two or three weeks. Do you forecast a quick invitation for the new foreign minister to Washington to reestablish or rearrange or -- the relationship?
And on a close subject, Mr. Armitage explained, I think that yesterday, the defeat of the Spanish Government because of the -- in part, of the handling of the information on the terrorist attack. How official or how personal is this comment?
MR. ERELI: Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. ERELI: President Bush called the leader of the Socialist Party, Mr. Zapatero, very quickly after his electoral victory and together they, I think, reaffirmed the importance of U.S.-Spanish relations and reaffirmed the commitment of both governments to continue their close cooperation in the war on terror.
I think that the fact that the call took place so quickly, and that the substance of the call was positive and forward-looking, is indicative of the way we're going to be -- the United States looks forward to dealing with the new government in Spain. So without going into specifics of who will be invited when, and by whom, and I think that the general approach, the general climate to the new government has been, the precedent has been set with that phone call.
As far as the Deputy Secretary's comments on the electoral victory in Spain, you know, I was with the Deputy Secretary when he made those comments, and frankly, I was very surprised that they created the stir that they did because they struck me as being fairly innocuous and more of just a statement of fact than a statement of personal opinion.
What the Deputy Secretary was saying was -- first of all, it was response to a question about: Do you think that the voters voted for the socialists because of the bomb attacks or because of al-Qaida and the terrorist attack? He said, no, I don't think that the voters voted in response to the terrorist attack. In fact, the voters of Spain, irrespective of party, as demonstrated in their massive turnout the day after the attacks, showed that they were united against terrorism.
So if anything, the effect of the terrorist attack was to reawaken and reaffirm the conviction of every Spaniard about the horror of this phenomenon and the determination to fight against it, and that that determination knows no political party or no nationality, for that matter.
And then the Secretary went on to say, based on what the Spanish were saying, not based on what he thought, but based on what the Spanish were saying and based on what other observers were saying, it appears that what motivated the voters was their response to how the investigation was handled.
So let's be clear. It's not the United States saying the investigation was mishandled. It's simply saying that this is what analysts, Spanish analysts, appear to be saying about what motivated Spanish voters.
Khaled.
QUESTION: Again, Khaled Abd-El-Kareem with Middle East News Agency of Egypt.
Adam, yesterday -- at yesterday's briefing, you spoke about events and riots taking place back in Syria and Lebanon, and you said something to the effect that you made your concerns known, in that effect.
Can you go a little bit further and let us know what level of exchange you provided that message to? Did the U.S. Ambassador in Syria, Margaret Scobey, I guess, provided that message or you provided that message to the Syrian Ambassador here? That's first.
And just quickly, yesterday, you blamed the Syrians for something happening in Lebanon, and you said that it's because of the Syrian domination in Lebanon.
Wouldn't you agree that it's a little bit too far to blame the Syrians for something that the Lebanese police did for some Lebanese groups?
MR. ERELI: Yeah. I don't have anything for you on who raised what with whom. I will look into it and see if I can't get you something on what demarches, if any, were made.
I think the point I wanted to make, or we wanted to make on the repression or suppression -- the point I wanted to make is this: That in Lebanon there were student demonstrators protesting against the presence of Syrian troops. And, in Syria, there were Kurds calling for minority rights, ethnic minority rights.
And in both cases, those demonstrations were brutally suppressed. And our point is that these are peaceful demonstrations calling for things that are imminently reasonable and there is no cause for using force to suppress them.
We also made clear our view -- and this has been made, you know, this is a point of U.S. policy -- that it's time for Syrian forces to leave Lebanon, and it's time for Syria to end its domination of the Lebanese political scene.
QUESTION: Yeah, just a last follow-up on that -- as far as the situation in Syria is concerned, I'm not going to argue with you on the facts that the -- it all started when two groups of audience at a stadium started fighting.
It wasn't exactly a peaceful demonstration, but anyway, there is an argument that you are somehow fomenting ethnic troubles in Syria by talking about Kurdish Syrians and Arab Syrians and the Kurdish, Kurdish rights. And somehow you are making a replay of what happened in Iraq when the country is really divided along ethnic and religious lines. Would you agree to that argument? Thank you.
MR. ERELI: No, I would not. I would reject it categorically.
You know, I don't know how you can say the United States is fomenting or promoting ethnic divisions in either country because the fact of the matter is, there are different groups and the government recognizes those groups.
And those groups each one recognizes each other. So they're a fact of life that everybody lives with. And us recognizing that is not fomenting it or promoting it, it's just saying, "Hey, there it is." And it is nothing that people in the region aren't saying. So that's point number one.
Point number two: It's been the clear policy of the United States that we respect and think that the territorial integrity of the countries of the region must be preserved.
So to those who would say somehow we are promoting ethnic divisions or territorial divisions, that's just wrong because we are and we've always been in favor of territorial integrity. So you've got countries that exist and that should continue to exist the way they are.
That said, within those countries, you have citizens who are asking for their rights and who are doing so peacefully. And, again, that is not something we are encouraging them to do; that's not something we're saying that they're doing because we're saying it; it's something that they're doing because that is what they want. And because they are expressing their views, all we're saying is, "Let them express their views. Let them do it peacefully."
And you know, the mark of responsible government is to be responsive to the needs of its citizens and not to deny the needs of its citizens, or not to say because the citizens express a desire, peacefully, that somehow they're traitors or somehow they are subversives, or that somehow they need to be put in jail. That's not a recipe for success and it is not a recipe for stability. That's all we're saying.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Mike Werbowski, again, CKUT, MacGill.
Sir, this week, the French and Chinese conducted joint naval maneuvers in the Taiwan Straits, and I'd like to ask you, did the Chinese or the French inform you diplomatically of these naval maneuvers? And are you concerned that this may raise tensions in the region?
MR. ERELI: I think these were long-planned -- these were long-planned exercises. They're a part of -- they're normal, regular bilateral exercises that did not raise alarms from us and we see no reason that they should be construed as provocative or meriting undue concern.
QUESTION: But the question is whether the U.S. was pre-informed, were you informed?
MR. ERELI: As I said, I think these were long-planned exercises.
Yes, Samir.
QUESTION: Is there any -- any time -- when do you expect the White -- I'm sorry, Samir Nadir with Radio Sawa.
Is there any hints when do you expect the White House to announce the sanctions on the -- on the Syria through the Syria Accountability Act? And another question, sorry. Is there any possibility for Secretary Powell to visit any countries in the Middle East after Kuwait?
MR. ERELI: I will leave it to the Secretary's party to comment or talk about what their -- what plans, if any, they have for additional stops.
On the question of the Syria Accountability Act, I think Secretary Powell and Deputy Secretary Armitage have been fairly clear that there will be a decision soon out of the White House, but I wouldn't want to get into any more detail on what "soon" means because I don't know.
Yes.
QUESTION: I'm Miroslav Konvalina, Czech Radio.
I'm interested -- tomorrow, some ambassadors are invited to the White House. Who will be there and what is the main reason? Celebrate, unite, what?
MR. ERELI: Right. Well, it's a White House ceremony so I don't really have a lot of the details and I'd leave it to the White House to talk about it, but what I can tell you is it is an invitation to ambassadors of the members of the coalition in Iraq to commemorate, as I said at the beginning of this briefing, the one-year anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Yes, Nadia.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR. ERELI: With the socialists coming to power in Spain, and if you examine the major allies of the United States in the war with Iraq, all of them, with the exception of Britain, which supports the U.S. regardless of labor or conservative, consists of right-wing governments. And in fact, most of them are in countries where there are the strongest anti-war movements, whether it was Spain or Italy or Britain or Australia.
QUESTION: Do you think that this election and this government's change and the alliance is not as solid as it is, in fact, it's quite fragile, and you might lose this alliance?
MR. ERELI: I don't know if that's -- I don't know if the assumption on the question is entirely true. I think, I don't know if I'd characterize the Dutch Government as right wing. I don't know if I'd characterize --
QUESTION: But they're not a major country. I'm talking about the biggest allies, not as big as 2,000 troops as to the Italians or the British.
MR. ERELI: What about the Japanese? What about the Polish?
QUESTION: They're just 2,200. I mean, we're talking a big number, big alliance.
MR. ERELI: What about the Polish? Are they right wing?
QUESTION: Britain has the biggest alliance there, plus Italy and Spain and Australia. I'm just citing these four countries.
MR. ERELI: Well, those -- I mean, I guess I would put it this way: I think that -- I don't want to speak for those countries.
I think those countries have made -- and the leaderships of those countries -- have made the decision based on what they feel is in their national interest to do.
We certainly welcome their commitment. We welcome their participation. I would also say, and this is very important, that we value the contribution of all the countries involved in the coalition.
You talk about the four biggest. Well, you know, maybe because they have the most resources. But that, in our view, does nothing to diminish the importance and the value of the contribution of countries like Japan, the Netherlands, Korea, Honduras, El Salvador, Hungary and others -- Italy, who may be contributing less forces but are making a very important statement of solidarity and support that, I think, speaks well of them.
If their parties changed, would the countries' policies change? You know, golly, there's no way to answer the question. I think that what is clear is that, regardless of the form that their contributions take, there is widespread recognition, again, regardless of party as well, that we have a stake in the future of Iraq; that it's important that what we're trying to accomplish in Iraq succeeds; and that one way or another I think most countries are helping to bring about that goal.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. ERELI: There's no quid pro quo.
QUESTION: No?
MR. ERELI: No. I think the calculus is, this is the right thing to do and we want to be on the right side of this issue. That's certainly the way we've been approaching our discussions with our partners.
One last question in the back.
QUESTION: Thank you. Oliver Lin with the Central News Agency from Taiwan.
Chinese leaders has been saying that in case that a referendum questions are approved by Taiwanese people they will have to take some action. And PLA leaders are saying that they are well prepared to preserve the integrity and unity of motherland, now, which seems to be a little bit scary. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. ERELI: No. I think we've spoken to this issue. You know, we've spoken to this issue extensively in the past and I really don't have more to add to what our longstanding policy on resolving this issue is.
Thanks.
