3:15 P.M. EDT
Real Audio of Briefing
MR. DENIG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center and welcome to our monthly review of U.S. foreign policy issues. We are very pleased to have for this review the Deputy Spokesman of the Department of State, Adam Ereli. And, Adam, I'll give it over to you.
MR. ERELI: Thank you, Paul. And thank you all for coming. I don't know what's on your minds. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I guess one sort of thing that I wanted to just mention before or at the top of things is, you know, reviewing what's happened since we were last together.
I think the big thing, obviously, is what's going to take place in about -- what is it? -- five days from now, the transition of sovereignty in Iraq, the end of the Coalition Provisional Authority and the creation of a new government in Iraq, a government that's sovereign and exercises authority over the territory of Iraq. This will be a very significant event in that part of the world, something that we are, I think, that we recognize as significant and important. And many of you probably watched as Ambassador Negroponte was sworn in this week by the Secretary of State and heard what he said in terms of our goals for the new Iraq, which is to work with the government and people to support their exercise of sovereignty over the territory.
The other thing to sort of draw your attention to is the trip of the President. He is on his way or perhaps has just arrived in Ireland for a U.S.-EU summit and will then go from there to Istanbul for a NATO summit. These are very, I think, significant and important visits coming on the heels, as they do, of the G-8 summit which saw a number of important and noteworthy initiatives in terms of supporting development in Africa, supporting reform in the Middle East, enhancing cooperative efforts in the area of nonproliferation and initiatives in the field of liberalizing and expanding trade, many of which will be [subjects of] discussions at the U.S.-EU summit, and in NATO once again welcoming the new members of NATO into that alliance and looking at ways in which the alliance can continue its activities in support of peace throughout the alliance and with the countries that work with the alliance.
So, anyway, those are, I think, the notable developments between the last time I briefed and this time as well as those events that are looming on the horizon and portend big things for us, the United States, as well as for our partners around the world.
Let's go to Dmitry.
QUESTION: Dmitry Kirsanov, Russian News Agency TASS. The lower house of the Russian parliament, Duma, today ratified the adapted Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. Your comment on that? And when do you think we can expect three Baltic new members of NATO to do the same?
MR. ERELI: I wouldn't speculate on the Baltic members. I mean, there's a course and a series of steps and benchmarks that nations have to meet. I think they're involved in that but I wouldn't want to give you a date by when it'll happen. I mean, it depends on their meeting the benchmarks.
As far as the actions by the Duma today, I can’t confirm that the vote was taken. You say it was. I mean, certainly a vote by the Duma to recommend ratification would be welcome, a welcome indication that Russia shares the commitment of the United States and as well of its NATO allies to the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. I would point out, however, that the most important step that Russia can take in terms of moving the adapted CFE Treaty closer to ratification is to fulfill its commitments on withdrawal of all forces from Georgia and Moldova. Those were commitments, you'll recall, that were made at the Istanbul summit in 1999. Almost five years later, those commitments have still not been fulfilled and with another summit in Istanbul looming on the horizon.
So I think all the NATO allies are of the same position that the adapted CFE Treaty can't be ratified until the Istanbul commitments have been fulfilled. It's been five years. While today's step in the Duma certainly is welcome and noteworthy, the real meat of it is moving the forces out of Georgia and Moldova.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Michael Backfisch, German News Daily Handelsblatt.
Adam, could you tell us a little bit about the relation of the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad and the new commander of coalition forces? Is it in a relation of mutual information or is one institution superior to the other or is this partially the case? Number one.
Number two, what's the role of the approximately 200 U.S. consultants? Are they only background people or do they -- and do they deliver advice which could be rejected by Iraqi ministers or do they have some sort of authority?
MR. ERELI: Ambassador Negroponte is the chief of mission. He's the President's representative in Iraq. He has authority over all official Americans in Iraq with the exception of those who are in uniform or fall under the command of the combatant commander of the Central Command. So you've got Ambassador Negroponte and you've got General Casey, who is the commanding general in Iraq and who's in charge of the forces in Iraq. General Casey has authority over the however many forces -- I think 138,000 -- currently reporting to him. Ambassador Negroponte has authority over the embassy and the official Americans working at the embassy.
This is a relationship that exists in a variety of countries where we have ambassadors and military forces so it's not a unique situation, number one. Number two, obviously Iraq is a special case given both the size and importance of the embassy and the size and importance of the military contingent that will be part of the multinational force. But I think if you look at Ambassador Negroponte's remarks at this swearing-in on Wednesday, you'll see that he addressed this question and he said that he and General Casey will have the closest of working relationships.
It's important to remember what the role of the embassy is and what the role of the multinational force and the American forces there are. The role of the embassy will be to work with the Government of Iraq to help support the Government of Iraq's priorities: security and preparing for elections and reconstruction. So that means that Ambassador Negroponte will be supporting the government as they decide what their reconstruction priorities are, how to devote resources to those priorities, how to go about structuring their country for the new elections and defeating the terrorists that are threatening both those priorities. The role of the multinational force and the American forces in Iraq will be to help train, develop an Iraqi security capability as well as to act against those elements that continue to use violence to attack the government and attack Iraqis.
For both to do their job, for Casey to do his job and for Negroponte to do his job, they need to be in lockstep, they need to know what the other one is doing, so they don't step on each other's toes, they need to coordinate with the government. They each have, I think, a distinct role but a complementary role. And in that respect they're going to be talking to each other, they're going to be making sure that they know what each other is doing, that they are complementing each other in support of the Government of Iraq's priorities.
QUESTION: A clarification. It sounds as if it's strictly separated, you know, military affairs and civil affairs, and you compared it to the situation in other countries. But if I remember correctly, for example, the U.S. ambassador in Germany, he is superior at least to some commanders, U.S. commanders, in Germany. Is there a similar construction here?
MR. ERELI: I don't know what you mean by superior. I mean, each -- well, the ambassador is the President's representative to the Government of Iraq so that is a unique and distinct role. I don't know if I'd use the word "superior" or not in the sense that each has a distinct mission and each has distinct authorities and, that said, the missions are complementary.
Yes.
QUESTION: Maria Pena, EFE, Spain. We have two looming issues in Latin America that I wonder if you could address. One is the upcoming -- the new restrictions that the U.S. has decided to impose on Cuba based on the commission's recommendations this past May, number one. And, number two, the referendum in Venezuela in August to try to determine the fate of President Hugo Chavez. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on those two issues.
MR. ERELI: The travel restrictions that were imposed on educational and cultural travel to Cuba that were announced earlier this week, I believe, come as a result, as you said, of the findings on the Commission for a Free Cuba. And let's remember what the principles here are. Our actions are designed to respond to the needs of the Cuban people, to prevent the government from manipulating the possibilities of a free and open society to perpetuate its corrupt and autocratic rule. Our interest is on making sure that the opportunities for expression and political development are there, but, at the same time, to do what we can to prevent resources going to the government that enhance its ability to repress Cuban society.
In the most recent case, what we saw was that there were a lot of, under the guise of education and travel, there was a lot of activity going on that was, frankly, tourism and that tourism was being organized and manipulated by the Government of Cuba to generate funds that go to the Government of Cuba that served the interests of oppression. So what we did is we tightened up the controls so that legitimate academic inquiry was not affected but that commercial activity under the guise of other activity was prevented.
In the area of Venezuela, again, as you note, there will be a referendum on August 15th. This is the result of a constitutional process in Venezuela whereby the people of Venezuela have called for a recall vote on the presidency of Hugo Chavez. This process has been a lengthy one. It has been an orderly one. It has been a transparent one. And for that we recognize the achievements of the people of Venezuela and we look forward to the conclusion of this process. I shouldn't say conclusion, but the latest stage in this process on August 15th when the recall referendum will take place.
As you know, there are international observers that will be participating in this. That's important and we certainly expect that the principles and behavior that have guided the process up till now will continue through the referendum.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up on the observer issue. From a hearing in the Senate yesterday on Venezuela it was not really clear that the U.S. has gotten the formal invitation from Venezuela to get the OAS observers in, number one. And, number two, if the observers finally get in and the pollings are done in a very transparent way, will the U.S. accept the results if Chavez remains in power?
MR. ERELI: On the subject of the observers, I think the procedures and modalities of the observers are being worked out but I think it's generally accepted that this is a welcome and desirable part of the process and have every expectation that they will be there.
On the subject of the results of the referendum, this is a democratic and constitutional process governed by transparency and the rule of law and that is a process that we respect.
Yes.
QUESTION: Reha Atasagun with Turkish Television TRT. My question will be on the NATO summit, especially on the Istanbul cooperation initiative which is expected to be launched at the summit. Can you elaborate what is exactly this initiative, what it aims for?
MR. ERELI: No, I really can't. I think I'd leave that to the party to talk about. I'm not in a position to go into much detail on it. Sorry.
Sir.
QUESTION: Ron Baygents, Kuwait News Agency. Two questions. Can you tell us what your realistic hopes or expectations would be for advancing the Broader Middle East Initiative at the conclusion of the President's trip? And, secondly, how important is it to see some actual progress by Israel in withdrawing from Gaza and could you tell us whether anyone from the Department has been in touch with Israelis in this regard recently and could you just flesh that out a little in terms of where that stands?
Thank you.
MR. ERELI: On the Greater Middle East -- or I think it's the Broader Middle East Initiative -- I'd refer you to the extensive comments that were made at the end of the G-8 summit in Sea Island a few weeks ago because really the sort of way forward was fairly thoroughly discussed there. Generally speaking, they, the G-8, announced a forum for the future which would provide for, I think, regular gatherings between committed reformers in the region and those outside the region to discuss ideas and projects and initiatives that the G-8 and other concerned parties could support. So there is a structure and a mechanism for organizing cooperation and activity between the peoples of the region and those outside the region who want to support their movements towards reform.
I think what you'll see in Istanbul is yet another endorsement of the Broader Middle East Initiative and possible ways that NATO could help in that regard. I think the important point to note here is that before Sea Island there was a lot of skepticism about this initiative, there was a lot of writing among the press that somehow this was an idea cooked in Washington that was being shoved down the throats of people in the Middle East and our European and other partners. And I think what you saw in Sea Island was a very clear indication that those sentiments or those reports were just misplaced. What you did see, in fact, was a very warm and strong embrace of these ideas by the G-8 partners, a commitment to and interest in working together to help countries of the Middle East follow through on their ideas of reform, a recognition that those ideas are coming from the Middle East and not from outside the Middle East, and discussion of practical ideas and practical ways to advance that agenda.
On the subject of Israel and the withdrawal plan and what we're doing, I would note that Assistant Secretary Burns is in Tel Aviv today. He spoke to this subject already -- or earlier this morning our time. He is coming from a Quartet meeting in Taba where he and the other Quartet envoys discussed, again, practical ways that they can follow through on the opportunity presented by the withdrawal plan, both in terms of getting the Palestinians up and running and ready to exercise authority over areas evacuated by Israel, and in moving Israel -- helping Israel to finalize its preparations for leaving Gaza and certain West Bank settlements. So -- and those activities will continue. So what you see, I think, is a fairly steady level of activity, embraced by the Quartet and the G-8, designed to get things moving between the Israelis and the Palestinians and take advantage of this opportunity that Israel's plan presents us.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I kind of want to restate the question again, but basically, I was at Sea Island and I wrote about that and I heard that. So what I'm trying to get is more specific, realistic. What you're looking for at Istanbul that would take it to the next step, more specifically? And then again, on the Israeli thing, how important is it that they get this preparation out of the way? I've been reading stuff from Sharon that -- 18 months sounds okay to him.
MR. ERELI: Istanbul, the purpose is not to flesh out or advance the ball further from what it was in the G-8. I think it's to get a statement of support from NATO and to bring NATO into the initiative to the extent that NATO -- that that's consistent with NATO's activities. But don't think that Istanbul is, you know, the purpose of Istanbul is to amplify and elaborate on what was done at Sea Island. That's not the issue at hand for NATO.
On the timetable for Israel to withdraw from Gaza, I think that's something that the Israelis are working out. Our position is they've said they're going to withdraw fully and that's their intention and that's their goal. And we trust that they, having set that as their goal and having committed themselves to doing that, will find the modalities necessary to bring that to pass.
Yes, Hoda.
QUESTION: Hoda Tawfik, Al-Ahram, Egypt. On this Greater Middle East, the Palestinians said that they accept this initiative, and they are appealing for help from the United States. There was a statement by Erekat who saw Secretary Powell this week. And they are appealing that the United States will help them for elections, presidential elections, parliament and local, whatever. Are you ready to help them in this connection?
And also, I want to ask about the Egyptian initiative, which is a lot misunderstood in the area. How do you look upon this Egyptian initiative? How would it help? Thank you, Adam.
MR. ERELI: As far as Mr. Erekat goes and his ideas, I think the Secretary spoke to this yesterday. Mr. Erekat has talked about the importance of and necessity for elections in the Palestinian Authority. We certainly endorse the idea of elections. We certainly support the idea of a representative government, a government that is elected by the people and held accountable by the people. And clearly, that's important for the Palestinian area, or the Palestinian Authority, as well as other groups in the area.
The second principle that's very important, and one that we recognize, is that ideas for consideration need to have their origins in the people and governments and private actors from the region, and that's clearly the case here.
So, in principle, it's clearly something that is positive and welcome. But at some time -- I'm not aware that there's a concrete proposal, number one; and number two, a plan to consider; and number three, at what stage it is within the Palestinian community itself; and number five, the other point that we make is that, yes, this is all important and yes, this is something to strive for, but at the same time, it's important not to neglect the very, very real and immediate necessity for taking actions on the security side, which is something that the Palestinian Authority has committed to doing for some time, but action hasn't taken place for some time and it's long overdue, and peaceful elections and security go hand in hand.
So while we endorse the idea of democratic elections and representative government, I think it's important and are, obviously consistent with and complementary of the principles of the Broader Middle East Initiative. We also remind Palestinian leaders of the importance of moving on the security front.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. ERELI: On the Egyptian plan, you know, I've seen a lot of reports but there's not a lot of clarity in my mind what people are talking about. What I can tell you about the Egyptians is that they have been really instrumental and critically positive to the efforts to energize an Israeli-Palestinian rapprochement, particularly regarding the activity in Gaza.
Egyptian officials have met, I think, extensively and intensively with Israeli and Palestinian counterparts to help prepare the way for the Palestinians to exercise authority in areas of their control, to help them develop the skills and structures and processes necessary to do that. These have been very bold, in some cases, and creative ideas that the Egyptians have brought to the table. And they've been meeting with, I think, a positive reaction from the Palestinians and Israelis. And so they have really done a lot to move things forward.
I've read things about, you know, the Egyptians proposing international monitors in Gaza or assisting the Palestinians in security functions there. But I haven't seen anything really definitive so I'd reserve comment on those reports. But what I would say is that in terms of helping get the Palestinians ready and responding positively to Israeli initiatives, Egypt has been acting in a very strong way showing great leadership.
QUESTION: Will the United States accept the international monitors?
MR. ERELI: It's not a question of the United States accepting or not accepting. It's a question of, is that something that is appropriate and agreed upon by everybody. And the answer -- there really, at this point, is not an answer to those questions because it's all in the realm of the theoretical right now.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Nestor Ikeda, Associated Press reporter for Latin America. Going back to Latin America again on Colombia. There were some Colombian newspapers report this week on a reported suspension by the U.S. of its financial aid to the talks process between the President Uribe's Government and the paramilitary AUC. And some Colombian officials, of course, reacted with surprise. And a couple of questions. Why the U.S. took that particular step, and if you can confirm the amount involved it was about $2 million?
MR. ERELI: Yeah, I can tell you that nothing has been suspended because nothing was provided in the first place. Let's be clear about what funding the United States is doing and what funding the United States is not doing. The United States provides funding for the OAS observer mission in Colombia which is observing the peace process. The United States provides funding to Colombia's peace commissioner, who is negotiating with the AUC. And the United States -- there's also a USAID program which funds the reeducation of and reinsertion of child soldiers from all three of Colombia's terrorist groups -- the AUC, the National Liberation Army, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. We have never provided any funding to the AUC or programs that the AUC undertakes. And we are not providing, nor have we ever provided, funding or financing for negotiations between the AUC and the Colombian Government. There have been reports of funds appropriated to support demobilization should that come about, but we have never made a decision on those requests for funding.
So I think a lot of your question is premised on a false presumption and that presumption is that there was funding to stop. There was never funding for any of this to begin with.
Yes, Michael.
QUESTION: A reminder for my second question from about 30 minutes ago. What's the role of the U.S. consultants in Iraq past July 1st?
MR. ERELI: Oh, yeah.
QUESTION: Are they providing advice to Iraqi ministries which could be rejected in case of doubt?
MR. ERELI: Yeah, of course. Why not?
QUESTION: Do they have any authority in day-to-day operations?
MR. ERELI: The way to think of these people is the way to think of development consultants in any country. I mean, these are experts who work in local institutions to assist those local institutions to develop their capacity. They work at the request of and at the sufferance of those local institutions, just like they would in, I don't know, in Morocco or in Egypt where we have consultants working in different state institutions. It's the same authority, same procedures.
A follow-up?
QUESTION: Yeah. I want to ask a very blunt question. What's the influence of the U.S. Administration on the development in Iraq? Is there any influence at all? Is it --
MR. ERELI: What do you mean, "the development"?
QUESTION: The political development of Iraq.
MR. ERELI: Influence of the United States on the political development of --
QUESTION: Yes, yes.
MR. ERELI: I think the best answer for that is an Iraqi. I think the best person to answer that would be an Iraqi. I would put it this way. Iraq, the leadership of Iraq, has indicated the direction it wants to go. The leadership, and I would add the people of Iraq, aside from those who are blowing up their fellow citizens at police stations or hiding arms in mosques, those people aside, the majority of Iraqis and their leadership have decided the direction they want to go in in terms of their political development. They want a representative democracy. So the United States will help them achieve that through the provision of, I think, security assistance to stabilize the country, through the provision of economic material assistance to rebuild infrastructure and develop institutional capabilities, and through, I think, international and diplomatic support.
But let's be clear, the future of Iraq is first and foremost determined by the Iraqis. The United States can play a supporting role. It can bring a lot of resources to bear and it can, I think, affect -- can affect to a certain degree the success of this endeavor. But the direction that Iraq is going in is going to be determined by the Iraqis and we're going to -- we can help them get there. But if tomorrow Iraq, Iraq and Iraqis, said we don't want to be a representative democracy, we want to be something else, then I don't see how we could stop them.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Thank you. On Taiwan, do you have anything new on the new representative or Taipei's representative office here in Washington, D.C., and the new representative name is Mr. David Lee? Could you give us some idea of their procedure or progress of agreement? Thank you.
MR. ERELI: My understanding is that there's been no formal announcement of a new TECRO representative so I wouldn't be in a position to speak to any particular individual. As a general proposition, whoever the person may be we would look forward to continuing a strong and vibrant unofficial tie between our peoples.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: I am Dujono Sujono from Suara Merdeka, Indonesia. My question is regarding the Department of Justice announcement yesterday concerning the indictment of the member of the Papua (inaudible) Movement for the killing of two U.S. people in that island two years ago. I wonder if you could elaborate that announcement and what will be the impact of the -- to the U.S. Indonesian military-to-military relation? And also do you think it could influence the restoration of the military assistance and regular IMET program to Indonesia since that issue is one of the condition for the normalization of military-to-military relation between U.S. and Indonesia?
Thank you.
MR. ERELI: Well, as you stated, the Department of Justice yesterday announced the indictment of Mr. Anthonios Wamang in connection with an attack in 2002 on a group of American schoolteachers in Papua. This indictment charges Mr. Wamang with two counts of murder of U.S. citizens, seven counts of causing serious bodily injury to United States citizens and two weapons charges. The indictment also alleges that the defendant, Mr. Wamang, was an operational commander with the Free Papua Movement, and is also known as OPM, and the National Freedom Force, which is the military arm of the OPM. Indonesian police and military cooperation greatly contributed to this indictment.
As to the question of military cooperation, I would tell you this. The resolution of this case is important to the overall bilateral relationship. We believe firmly that those responsible for this crime must be brought to justice, and this is certainly a step in the right direction. As I said before, the role of the Indonesian police and military certainly is a positive indicator of future military cooperation, but I think at this point it's premature to speculate as to what direction that might take.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Diane Oh with Asahi Shimbun, Japan. On North Korea, the statement that North Korean released in the private meetings between the U.S. and North Korea about their nuclear weapons test, I wonder if you can tell us how concerned are you on this particular statement, being released in the middle of the six-party, which is to figure out a way to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula? And also, do you expect to have another private meeting with North Korean before the six-party talks is over? Thank you.
MR. ERELI: I don't know if there will be another bilateral meeting between the two delegations before the end of the talks. I'm just not close enough to the events to be able to offer you an opinion on that. As far as the fallout -- if you'll pardon the expression -- from the threat by -- or statement by North Korea that it may test a nuclear weapon, as indicated earlier, this is not new; we've heard this before.
We certainly made it clear that such an action would not be constructive, we would not view it as constructive. And it was, you know, it was our considered opinion that, following the lengthy bilateral meetings that took place yesterday, that North Korea had undertaken to give our proposal serious consideration and that that was certainly something that we considered a positive step. I think I'd leave it at that.
Sir.
QUESTION: T.V. Parasuram, Press Trust of India. (Inaudible) that welcome the G-8 communiqué on democracy. What is the progress generally on democracy?
MR. ERELI: The progress generally is very good. I mean, first of all, in Sea Island, you had a number of Middle Eastern leaders -- the Crown Prince of Bahrain, the King of Jordan, the President of Yemen, the President of Algeria -- so I think that was a very clear signal that the leadership of many countries in the Middle East were firmly behind this initiative. And I wouldn't even say firmly behind, I would say that, you know, these guys, these gentlemen, these leaders, were among the originators of the initiative, because the initiative is based on steps that they've taken.
You know, you've really got to think about this not at a top-down idea coming from the United States and being presented to the people of the region to accept or reject; that's the optic in which many of you have been reporting about this initiative. And that's exactly the opposite way from which it was formulated and intended, because it came not from the top down, but from the bottom up.
In other words, people in Yemen, people in Jordan, both government officials and private citizens in the business sector, in the education sector, in the men, women, political activists and NGO activity -- in all these countries have been, for a number of years, agitating for reform, saying, you know, looking at reports like the Arab Human Development Report, going to conferences, producing declarations like the Alexandria Library Declaration or the Saana Declaration, and saying, we need to change, we need to reform our political systems and our economic structures and our educational opportunities in order to effectively compete in the 21st century and in order to offer our people and our citizens better opportunity and greater hope. So it's in response to that working with them, this initiative developed.
So the question is not, you know, what has been the response of the people to this initiative. The question is rather, how have you responded to the people? And the answer to that is, we've responded to the people by trying to develop and trying to forge an international partnership with our long-time developed allies to support what the people in the region are already doing. And the result of that was the declaration you saw in Sea Island.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Khali Bughio, Associated Press of Pakistan. Sir, this month, India and Pakistan, they are pursuing their talks, is still on 27th and 28th, and (inaudible) talks about their (inaudible) them. What's the expectation from the U.S. side?
MR. ERELI: The expectation from the United States side is that, frankly, I think what we're seeing is the regularization of something that only a few years ago was historic and groundbreaking. We're seeing a now regular pattern of engagement of dialogue, of reciprocal steps, of confidence-building measures between two countries that not so long ago, were at the point of confrontation, but have now, through, I think, wise and forward-looking leadership, taken steps to meet the concerns of each other and to find ways to develop systems and procedures that normalize relations. And this is welcome, this is positive, this is important, not only for the two countries, but for the well-being of the entire region.
Thank you.
