3:25 P.M. EDT
Real Audio of Briefing
MR. ERELI: Well, it's a pleasure to be back at the Foreign Press Center and always a fun exchange, so I don't have any announcements. I think it's been a busy couple of weeks.
Yesterday, obviously, I think the President made news with his statement on peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. And the night before he also made news with his press conference on Iraq, both of which I think are, were noteworthy for two things. One is, making clear what the longstanding U.S. position has been on both issues, both with respect to how we see the future of Iraq and how we see the future of the solution between the Israelis and Palestinians; and two, a restatement of the U.S. commitment to follow through on -- in realizing our vision.
So with that little bit of introduction, let me go to your questions.
Yes.
QUESTION: Dmitry Kirsanov, Russian News Agency TASS.
Two members of the Quartet, Russia and European Union called for urgent Quartet meeting today while commenting on President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon talks.
What's the U.S. Administration position on that? Do you think it is necessary at this point of time?
MR. ERELI: Yeah. We believe a Quartet meeting would be, I think, useful and appropriate, and I would say we are working with our Quartet partners on -- in discussions to, towards looking at when we might be able to hold a Quartet meeting.
So, you know, I think what the President pointed out, too, yesterday is that we have a real opportunity here to advance, to advance a vision of a two state solution. It is an opportunity that, I think, all parties need to seize upon -- the Israelis, the Palestinians, the international community, including the Quartet, to help take advantage of the moment.
So in that context, the Quartet meeting would be useful, would be appropriate, and I think it's a matter -- a matter of discussion between us ant the Quartet partners.
When it would take place, I couldn't tell you. But, you know, we've had a number of envoy meetings in the past couple of months. Those envoy meetings, I think, have laid the groundwork, so a full meeting of the Quartet is something that we're looking at.
Yes.
QUESTION: Michael Backfisch, Germany's Business Daily, Handelsblatt.
Just for clarification, the President said that a final solution between Israelis and Palestinians has to accept the new realities on the ground, which obviously means that Israel can keep some settlements in the West Bank. On the other hand, he said that every solution has to be in accordance with UN Resolution 242, which says that Israel has to withdraw from occupied -- territories recently occupied after the Six-Day War. How does that go together?
MR. ERELI: I would respond to what the Secretary, I'm sorry, to what the President actually said, as opposed to what you -- the way you characterized what he said, and I would refer you to the letter, in which, or the letter, which he -- the White House provided yesterday. And there it says it's unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949; and I would add, all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. He also went on to say that whatever final-status arrangement is made has to be based on mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
So I mean, point one is, what we're saying simply is: There are realities on the ground that have to be taken into account. That's the, sort of, statement of fact. Point number two is, that said, whatever the final arrangement; whatever the final agreement is, is going to be negotiated between the two parties, will be negotiated through mutual agreement between the two parties; and, moreover, anything that we say is not intended or not designed, or does not have the purpose of prejudicing or prejudging what the parties are going to agree to.
Furthermore, the parties have said and we have said that the basis of any agreement has got to -- any agreement has to be based on 242 and 338. You take that as your basis, you go to the table; you negotiate a solution that is mutually agreeable that takes into account the realities on the ground. That seems to me an eminently reasonable proposition -- one that is consistent with what all the parties have previously said, and is not prejudging anything.
Yeah.
QUESTION: To cut it short, 242 talks about complete withdrawal from the territories: West Bank and Gaza, and the President says new realities on the ground have to be accepted, which means not complete withdrawal. So it's a contradiction. How do you want to bridge it?
MR. ERELI: I think that 242 and 338 calls for a negotiated solution. And that, that negotiation, negotiated solution has to be on the basis of neutral agreement. And you have to have secure and recognizable borders. So I don't think there's a real contradiction. I don't -- we don't see a contradiction.
Yes.
QUESTION: Jorge Liu, Central News Agency, Taiwan.
Two questions: Taiwan authorities are expecting U.S. Government to send ranking or high-level delegations to attend the -- its President inauguration, which is scheduled on May 20th. Do you have any updated information on who is leading the delegation and who are the members? Second question is Chen Tang-shan, a Taiwan independence activist who had lived in U.S. for some 30 years, and has been forbidden to go home for quite a long time, is not the new foreign minister of Taiwan. Does U.S. welcome this new appointment? Thank you.
MR. ERELI: On the subject of who will be going to Taiwan for the inauguration of the next president, I don't think that decision has been made yet. On the subject of the reports of the new foreign minister of Taiwan, I don't have any particular comment other than to say that we will continue to work with the Government of Taiwan and who Government of Taiwan chooses as its officials in the future, as we've done in the past.
Yes.
QUESTION: During the visit of Vice President Cheney to China, Beijing several times urge the United States to first to scrap the Taiwan Relations Act, and the second, to stop the arms sale to Taiwan. Any changes of your position on that issue?
MR. ERELI: No change on either. The Taiwan Relations Act is U.S. law and I would note that our defense sales -- our sales of defensive equipment to China, or, sorry, to Taiwan, are also governed by U.S. law, and there's no intention of changing the law or our compliance with the law.
Yes.
QUESTION: I'm with Hong Kong Phoenix Television. Probably two weeks ago, Taiwan's leader, Chen Shui-bian stated in the interview with Washington Post that he intend to write a new constitution to enshrine Taiwan's independence.
At that time, Mr. Boucher replied to my question by saying the U.S. wasn't sure if president, I mean, Chen, really has a plan. So since then, has U.S. requested clarification from Taiwan authority on that?
And my second question, there are reports saying the EU may lift the arms-sales ban to China as early as April 26th --
MR. ERELI: That we may lift the arms-sale ban?
QUESTION: No, no, no -- the EU.
MR. ERELI: EU.
QUESTION: And we've known the U.S. has made it clear it opposes lifting the ban. So is there any steps the U.S. going to take to prevent EU from lifting the ban?
MR. ERELI: On the ban of arms sales to China, we continue to make, make clear to our friends in the EU and elsewhere that we don't think a lifting of the ban at that time is appropriate, given, given our assessment that the reasons behind the ban in the first place, the justification for the ban in the first place haven't material-- have not materially changed, and therefore do not warrant a lifting of the ban.
On the subject of President Chen Shui-bian's plan, I -- I'm not aware of any discussions or other developments that have given us more clarity on what the plan is, and in any case, our position regarding the referendum hasn't changed.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Esther Githui from the Voice of America, Africa Division.
I want to take you on a question on Sudan. This week the State Department is warning of sanctions under the Sudan Peace Act approved by the Congress in 2002. And if they don't finalize or reach a workable solution by the 21st of April, perhaps you are going to renew the sanctions.
I spoke to a representative of SPLA here in Washington, and he feels this is pressure from the U.S. If they are not able to reach any workable solution, do you think the Administration is going to give an extension of this deadline for them to be able to reach some consensus on the talks?
MR. ERELI: These talks have gone for a long time, and they've been close for a long time. And, you know, it's our feeling that we are at a "make or break" phase of the talks; that they're almost there, there's just really one major issue that is dividing them, and they're close to agreement on that issue.
There are obviously difficult political decisions that they have to take. And no agreement is possible without compromise. And we are urging the parties to seek workable solutions and workable compromises to the difficult choices that they have before them.
The Sudan Peace Act requires us to make a determination by April 21st about which party is responsible for failure to reach agreement. That's a legislative requirement, so it's not a question of extending or not extending. The law requires a determination. So we will do that on April 21st.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yes, Riccardi. Italian news wire ANSA.
I wanted to know if Secretary Powell had today some contacts with the Italian authority after these Italian hostage killings, and also if you have more details about what's happening over there with these Italian hostages.
Thank you.
MR. ERELI: I'd refer you to Secretary Boucher's briefing where he listed the Secretary's calls. I don't have the latest list of calls from the Secretary with me. I apologize, so I can't tell you. But I'd refer you to Assistant Secretary Boucher's briefings where he did detail that.
He also spoke, I think, on behalf of the United States Government regarding the brutal, senseless and savage killing of an Italian hostage. It's something that really no, I think, no civilized society can understand. And we find it reprehensible and I think it underscores why -- why we're -- why we are in Iraq, and that is to help restore the kind of democracy, the kind of political dialogue, the kind of state that can practice the norms that the rest of the civilized world follows.
We believe that the perpetrators of this kind of act are precisely those who supported the regime of Saddam Hussein, or support the terrorist ideologies or terrorist activities of people like Zarqawi or al-Qaida affiliates. This is behavior that civilized nations have to stand up to and have to provide a practical alternative to; and that's why it's so important that we continue to work together to see that the future of Iraq is assured.
And I believe that Prime Minister Berlusconi echoed those sentiments when he said, "They might have taken a life, but they have not attenuated our resolve to stand up for what is right."
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Parasuram, the Press Trust of India.
There have been reports recently that some approaches were made to a dozen countries, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh for troops. Will this request come after the new government and so on, and will it come from the Security Council or anywhere else?
And secondly, there's so much talk about Resolution 242. It so happened that I was in New York at the time, was attending the meetings. And from the beginning, when the resolution said withdrawal from occupied territories, the then Foreign Minister of Israel, Abba Ebon, made it very clear that it does not say "the occupied territories," which meant that there is call for some adjustments.
MR. ERELI: On the subject of UN troops or troops, troop contributions to Iraq, what we've -- what we're doing is, number one, talking to existing coalition members; number two, talking to potential coalition members without going into any specifics, about a number of things: first of all, ongoing operations in Iraq; second of all, looking forward to a post-transition Iraq; and thinking about what kind of contributions, what kind of roles, would be useful, helpful, in those circumstances.
Some of those discussions concern, as you've read in the press, a role for contributors to support a force to protect UN personnel there. That's one mission that some countries have expressed interest in. I'm not in a position to sort of detail who or which countries or when, or under what circumstances, but I think it's safe to say it's an idea that has some traction.
And, you know, everybody has a different set of considerations when thinking about going back to Iraq. Some want to do it in the context of a transfer of sovereignty. Some want to do it with a new, more explicit, UN mandate. Some don't necessarily see the need for a new, more explicit UN mandate.
So I think every case is different. Every country has a different set of needs, expectations or considerations. But I think what's safe to say is that as we move forward in Iraq, it's a subject of discussion not only with existing coalition members, which number approximately 30, but also potentially new coalition or potentially new contributors to stabilization, reconstruction and political transition in Iraq.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: The second one?
MR. ERELI: On 242 and 338? That is an old discussion and it's a legal exegesis that I'm just not prepared to get into.
QUESTION: A follow-up, then?
MR. ERELI: Okay. We'll go from there.
QUESTION: Yes. Jyri Raivio, Helsingen Sanomat, Finland.
Did Mr. Brahimi solve the problems of transfer of sovereignty at the end of June, and what's the latest on this new resolution in the UN Security Council?
MR. ERELI: Can he solve or will he?
QUESTION: Has he solved --
MR. ERELI: Has he solved --
QUESTION: -- with the thing that he presented a couple of days ago.
MR. ERELI: Mr. -- Ambassador Brahimi has been to Baghdad twice -- I'm sorry -- been to Iraq twice now, as part of, I think, the UN's -- what we see as the UN's vital role in assisting with the political transition in Iraq. This is a role that involves the UN, the Iraqis, and the Coalition Provisional Authority. Those three parties are working together to help define the structure and process of an interim Iraqi government that would assume sovereignty on June 30th.
The ideas that Ambassador Brahimi presented yesterday are very -- are ideas that we welcome, ideas that we think are constructive, ideas that will form the basis for further discussion with Iraqis and with the Coalition Provisional Authority, and with the Security Council and with the UN, and that we believe will be instrumental in putting together the final government -- or the final government -- the final version of the interim government that will take power in -- after June 30th, parts of which should be in place well before June 30th.
So I wouldn't put the question in the past. The issue has not been solved, but the issue has been considerably advanced by Ambassador Brahimi's ideas, and I think we look forward to giving them more substance as we move forward.
On the subject of a UN resolution, Secretary Powell has said, I think others have said as well, that we expect that there will be a new resolution, in the context of a transfer of sovereignty, that will address a number of issues, including presenting the international community's views on the new government, looking at ways that other countries can help lend a hand in Iraq, talking about a follow-on role for the United Nations, as well as looking at reconstruction activity.
So these are all ideas that are being discussed, being looked at, in the context of a new resolution. But is there a draft? Is there a firm timetable? Not at this point.
You had a follow-up, Mike.
QUESTION: Regarding the UN mandate, you said that some countries are open to participate in a protection force for UN personnel; others want to have it in a context of a power transfer in Iraq.
The President said he's open for a UN resolution just the other day and the Secretary of State also looks into it. Could you just give it the latest, what's into it from the UN perspective, which are the crucial elements?
MR. ERELI: Well, I think I just gave you about as much detail as I can. We're really still at a very -- from the United States -- I can speak for the United States -- from the United States' point of view, we're at a, I guess, a very preliminary stage in our thinking on this resolution.
As I said, there are a number of elements that fit into it in our thinking: Obviously, one is the international community's response to the new sovereign entity in Iraq; number two is consideration of how the international community can, and under what parameters the international community can lend a hand in Iraq and contribute to post-transfer of sovereignty Iraqi reconstruction and stabilization; the role of the UN in that process.
So these are all elements in our thinking. But to suggest to you that we basically have a draft that we're shopping around is -- we're not there yet.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Chris Cockel from the China Post from Taiwan. Relating to Vice President Cheney's recent visit to China, there have been various reports that the Vatican wants to base a representative in China. What role is the U.S. playing in this process, and why has the U.S. found it necessary to act as an intermediary between the two parties?
And I also have a second question.
MR. ERELI: Yeah, we'll go to your second question because I don't have an answer for your first. I'm just not -- I'm not -- I don't have any knowledge of the issue, so I couldn't answer you. I apologize.
QUESTION: Okay, well, I hope you can answer the second one, because I asked the same question to Sean McCormack last week and he didn't have the answer for me so.
MR. ERELI: Uh-oh. We didn't talk before this.
QUESTION: Congress has just passed a bill authorizing Secretary Powell to take steps to help Taiwan gain observer status in the World Health Organization. While last year the State Department supported Taiwan's bid in principle, what further steps will the Secretary take this year on this matter, bearing in mind that the World Health Organization will assembly in Geneva next month?
Thank you.
MR. ERELI: I will promise you an answer. What I would suggest is that if you call our East Asia -- have you talked to our East Asia bureau?
Yeah. They can get you an answer to that question. I can't because it's a little bit technical and I just don't have it in front of me. But they should be able to get you an answer for it. If you just call them up today, they'll have an answer for you tomorrow.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: I'm Rehman from Pakistan. There was a report about Usama bin Laden, his tape or something. Has it been confirmed that it's actually his tape, number one? Number two, what will South Waziristan, the operation going on there, what is progress, et cetera?
MR. ERELI: The -- I think our analysts have concluded that it is likely that it is -- or that all indicators are that it is a tape of -- the voice is authentic. The reaction to it is -- our reaction to it is what you would expect, that it's rather, I think, chilling and cynical, to -- somehow to suggest that they, that al-Qaida will consider -- stop, consider an end to the killing of innocent civilians, innocent victims of one group if they are complicit in the killing of innocents of another group, which is basically what he said. I mean, he said, we won't attack Europe if -- because America's -- if they don't impede us in attacking America.
Well, in response to that sort of, I guess, cynical and inhuman approach is predictable. It's what Prime Minister Berlusconi has said, it's what the British leader has said, it's what other Europeans have said, which is that the only effective defense against terror is a concerted and determined offense against it. And we believe that this kind of -- this kind of message will only serve to, I think, reaffirm the determination and the strength of those with us in the global was on terror.
As far at the ongoing activity in Pakistan, with regard to the global on terror, (inaudible), with the, I think, over the last several months, brave and courageous sacrifices by Pakistan to go after precisely those elements that are making such chilling and horrific threats that we saw in the tape. Pakistan has lost soldiers. They've lost resources. But I think in this fight, but I think they have gained the respect and admiration of all of us who are putting ourselves on the line to prevent a repeat of September 11th or a repeat of the Madrid bombings or a repeat of the Bali bombings or a repeat of the Saudi Arabia bombings or a repeat of Turkish bombings.
The point here is that all of us are under attack, all of us are threatened, and all of us, I think, have a role to play in confronting that danger.
Yes.
QUESTION: Fernando Puchol, Spanish News Agency, EFE. The Spanish new government's going to be in place in, like, three or four days. Has Secretary Powell been in touch with -- plans to be in touch with the future foreign minister? And also, how do you foresee the bilateral relationship starting next week with the change in foreign policy?
MR. ERELI: Well, as you know, Secretary Powell went to the Madrid memorial service several weeks ago and there he was able to meet with the leader of the Socialist Party, who I think, is expected to be the next Prime Minister of Spain. They had a good conversation. They had a good meeting.
I think what was noteworthy there is that they reaffirmed both Spain and America's commitment to work as allies and partners in the war on terror. I would note that Mr. Zapatero spoke of the fight against terrorism as his number one priority. So I think there is a very firm basis for our strong and continued partnership, and a continuation of an excellent bilateral relationship.
Obviously, I think there are probably differing views on the way forward in Iraq, on how we're doing in Iraq. But I think there are also opportunities for cooperation. And we will, I think, be seeking to maximize those opportunities.
Yes. From El Pais.
QUESTION: Yes, Jose Calvo, from El Pais of Spain.
The Spanish, the new Spanish Prime Minister, said this morning in his first address in the Congress that the future of the troops, the Spanish troops, depends of the UN decision or any other multilateral organization.
I don't know. Is there a new UN resolution or a role for NATO, do you think, that could accommodate or fix the Spanish problems?
The new Foreign Minister will be here in Washington next week, I understand. Is there any message for him from the United States?
MR. ERELI: Well, we will -- I wasn't aware that the new Foreign Minister is coming, and obviously, I think we will look -- if he's here, we will look forward to meeting him. He's an old friend and a gentleman who we've worked with and know quite well.
I wouldn't want to sort of speak for the Spanish Government on what might or might not satisfy their need for further international involvement or sanction for contributions to Iraq.
I would tell you that on the issue of a UN resolution and on the issue of NATO involvement, we have, I think, very clearly said that we expect, on the UN side, we expect there to be a new resolution; and on the NATO side, we have been working for some time with our NATO partners to explore possibilities for NATO's involvement and contributions to the situation in Iraq.
The other point I would make on this is that in all of the discussions, there has not been one objection to that proposition. So the issue here is, I think, not if, but when, and not whether, but how. In other words, how can we -- how can we, together, reach a consensus on operationalizing NATO's involvement in Iraq?
There are a number of ideas out there that are being discussed, none of which, I think, we could say right now is, you know, more -- significantly more likely than the other. But the point here is that it's a subject that -- it's a subject that we've been talking about. It's a subject that -- it's an idea that we believe has been broadly accepted in principle, and it's a question of talking about the details. And it's certainly something I think we would welcome.
But I would also point out that 17 of the 26 members of NATO are already involved in Iraq. So it's not as if we're starting from a blank slate. It's really a question of, I think, expanding and building on something that's already been started.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: My name is Esther from the Voice of America, Africa Division. I want to follow up on this Western Sudan fighting in the area of Darfur. And I want to know if the U.S. Government has been engaged in any direct talks with the Khartoum Government.
Are they accepting liability for sponsoring the militias who are fighting there? And is the ceasefire on hold now? Do you know whether it's on hold to allow the humanitarian, you know, people to send whatever they can to the people who are affected in this war?
MR. ERELI: Acting Assistant Secretary Charlie Snyder made clear to the government in Khartoum, when he was in Naivasha last week, that we held it responsible for the actions of the government-supported militia, the jingaweit; and that we expected it to take actions to solve the -- to restrain and -- restrain those militia and get them to abide by a ceasefire.
And I would note that shortly after that there was a ceasefire negotiated. I would also note that that same message was conveyed in other -- in other fora to the Government of Sudan, or through other channels to the Government of Sudan.
So this is a position that we've made quite clear at a diplomatic level, and I think we continue to look to the Government of Sudan to take effective action to restrain the militia and to prevent the repeat of the kind of atrocities that have been committed by them in the past.
On the situation currently on the ground in Darfur, we do not have reports of violations of the ceasefire. There is aid getting into the territory. The World Food Program has reported that some truck shipments of humanitarian assistance are getting through to delivery points throughout Darfur, and the airlifting of some food commodities into Geneina in West Darfur has also commenced.
There is obviously a lot more that needs to be done because the needs are enormous. The United States, for its part, has assembled a Disaster Assistance Response Team. The leader of that team and an agricultural specialist are presently in Darfur to do a needs assessment in preparation of sending a larger team. And we have food specialists in Chad that are also looking at facilitating additional assistance for Darfur refugees in the border area.
Thank you.
