3:00 P.M. EDT
Real Audio of Briefing
MR. ERELI: One of the reasons we wanted to do a briefing today was because we were sure there would be a news story, and that is the release of the 9/11 Commission report. I think you all probably had the chance to see what the commissioners have said about it; if not, read it for yourself.
By way of preempting your questions, let me just make a couple of comments that I think are important. Number one, I think it's important to focus on not just the report itself but the process that led to the report. And by that, I mean that this -- what this report represents is an attempt to look at what happened, to analyze all the events leading up to 9/11, and through that examination, to get an understanding of what we, as a government, we, as a society, did and can do to better protect ourselves.
And this is, I think, something fundamentally important to understanding the United States, this notion of examination, accountability and transparency. So I would ask that when you read the report to look at it in that spirit, to look at it in the spirit of not casting blame, not saying who was at fault, because as you'll note, the commissioners don't do that. They look at the facts. They look at what happened. They look at decisions that were made and decisions that weren't made, at actions that were taken and actions that weren't taken, and they try to do an analysis -- first of all, they try to get the facts, then they try to do an analysis of those facts, and then present conclusions that people can act upon.
So at its heart, it's a very practical, action-oriented document. It's not polemical and it's not political. And it's important to take note of that because it's, in some sense, that's rather -- that's rather surprising, given the fact that this is such a transformative event, that it was an event of such great emotion, such great impact, that you'd think there might be some -- there might be some attempt to either lay blame or otherwise characterize things in anything but a sort of objective and analytical way. But if you look at the report, I think you'll see that it is very sober, it is very objective, and it is very analytical.
The other point I would make is a point that the President made when he received the report from the commissioners and I think is worth noting, and that is the extent to which all aspects of the United States Government, both this Administration and previous administrations, cooperated in this report. There was no sense of trying to hide something. There was no sense of feeling that the commission was either interfering in government or somehow going beyond what was proper.
The President and Vice President spent hours with the commissioners. The National Security Advisor and members of the Cabinet testified in public before the commission. The commission had access to documents that no previous commission had ever had access to due to their sensitivity and their restricted distribution.
So this really was unprecedented in, I think, the history of American government, and it's an important lesson to all of us who look at not just the United States but who look at the role of government, how government should be and can be answerable to its citizens for its decisions, for its actions and for its policies, regardless of who's in charge. And the fact that this inquiry spanned two administrations of different political parties, and the fact that the access was given to the commission by both, that both administrations were part of the inquiry and that decisions and actions by both administrations are part of the substance of the report, I think is telling.
So anyway, that's what I wanted to say by way of introduction, looking at it not just in terms of what its substantive recommendations are but understanding it in terms of the process and what that process represents about how we, as a government, work.
Anyway, if you have any questions on that or other subjects, I'd be happy to take them.
(No response.)
MR. ERELI: It's going to be a short briefing. (Laughter.)
Yes, Dmitri [Kirsanov, ITAR-TASS].
QUESTION: It's not on the report.
MR. ERELI: Sure.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. Do you have any updates on the situation in South Ossetia?
MR. ERELI: Sure. Obviously, there is, you know, continued tension in the area, tension that we remain concerned about. Our position continues to be that intensified dialogue by all the parties is essential. We continue to urge all sides to avoid any provocative action and work closely to avoid future violence.
I would note that the Joint Control Commission for resolution of the South Ossetian question met in Moscow last week. In that meeting, they agreed to continue their discussions in Tskhinvali this week. And I would also note that President Saakashvili has asked to meet with foreign diplomats tomorrow in Georgia.
We will continue to urge Georgia to work with both Russia and the South Ossetian leaders to reduce tensions. Once again, it's our view that dialogue is the best way to a peaceful solution that ensures Georgia's territorial integrity and avoids further violence.
Anybody else? Nothing on Turkey? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: [Reha Atasagun, TRT Turkish Television.] May I ask, is any diplomacy involved in world concerning this, you know, global posturing, the U.S. forces, and mostly on the Incirlik base and with the -- in regard with the agreements between the U.S. and Turkey, the economic and defense cooperation agreement?
MR. ERELI: The Global Force Posture Review, as you know, is underway. I think we are having discussions with, you know, within the U.S. Administration as well as with our security partners around the world regarding the U.S. defense presence in their countries. The important point to make here is that while these discussions are ongoing, and I don't have any decisions or announcements to make -- that would certainly come from the Pentagon -- the important point to make here is that one should not confuse the movement of, or the possible, potential movement of U.S. forces with any change in the level of U.S. commitment to the security of its allies or its treaty commitments around the world, whether that be with Turkey or with other countries that have developed a security relationship with the United States.
QUESTION: My point was, are you requesting any changes in the agreement with regard to the Incirlik base?
MR. ERELI: Not that I have to report here.
Yes.
QUESTION: Giampiero Gramaglia, Italian News Agency, ANSA. I have two questions. The first is related to the 9/11 Commission conclusions. There is any diplomatic action that you foresee following the conclusion of the commission? And there will be an impact of the conclusions of the commission on the relations towards Iran?
And second question, after almost one month of national sovereignty in Iraq, do you consider that the security is improving in Iraq?
MR. ERELI: The President has said, the Secretary has said, both today, that we are going to, obviously, take the report, look at it carefully, and take its recommendations seriously and act upon them.
So as to what implications that has for foreign relations, I think it's a little bit early to say. I would make one point, however, and that is, many of the points that the commission makes and the report makes relate to actions, diplomatic actions that we have been taking for some time since 9/11. And I would simply say that what you're likely to see is the continuation of a very robust, international, diplomatic effort that focuses on two things: one, taking the fight to the terrorists and acting aggressively to prevent them from conducting operations; and number two, that focuses on getting at some of the root causes of extremism -- or the push factors, if you will -- that propel youths to find solace in extremist ideologies.
And, you know, by that I mean trying to -- and the commission speaks to this -- trying to confront and address and remedy the hopelessness and the despair that grips a lot of youth in countries that traditionally supply the manpower for terrorist organizations, for groups that undertake these kinds of very destructive and uncivilized acts.
So we've been doing that. If you look at, perhaps, most recently, what came out of the G-8 and the Broader Middle East Initiative -- we're trying to work with the countries of the Broader Middle East to support their calls for reform. In the area of taking the fight to the terrorists, we've been very active since, really, right after 9/11, and will continue to be very active in working with allies like Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, to go after the terrorists, to deny them safe haven, to capture them.
I would note that already, we've got many, many of the leaders and top figures in al-Qaida. That effort is going to continue. The effort to stop money flows to terrorists, the enhanced information sharing, all that is well underway and will continue. But as to possible special initiatives that come out as a result of the report, let's give that some time.
On Iran, again, Iran's support for terrorism has long been a concern of ours. It's something we make clear, at every opportunity, is a threat to international peace and stability and it has been at the forefront of our concerns when dealing with that country.
And on Iraq, you ask, has -- in one month since the transfer of sovereignty, or is it three weeks since the transfer of sovereignty -- have we seen an improvement in the security situation? Difficult to say by what measure you're talking about. I think there have been a couple of important developments that are worth noting.
Number one, the speed and decisiveness with which Prime Minister Allawi and his government have seized upon the security issue and developed plans, capabilities, and actions to deal with it. Prime Minister Allawi said, right when he took over, that attacks against Iraqi infrastructure or attacks against the nation, against the people of Iraq -- he made it clear that his government would not tolerate these attacks and would move decisively to counter them and they have done so. Great progress, I think, is being made in developing Iraqi capabilities to provide their own security. Obviously, the attacks are continuing, and obviously, they'll remain an impediment to Iraqi growth and stability.
So we shouldn't fool ourselves. There's still a very real threat out there, but I think we should take heart in the fact that the commitment of the Iraqi government to deal with it is clear, and they are moving decisively to do it.
QUESTION: Any updates on Cyprus issue regarding Turkish Cypriots' situation in -- to put an end to their isolation?
MR. ERELI: There have been a number of steps, I think, to end the isolation. The EU has announced measures that they've taken, including the provision of aid. We've announced the provision of, I think, in the area of $30 million to help in the isolation of northern Cyprus. We have also made it easier for our staff and personnel to travel into and out of northern Cyprus.
This is an ongoing issue that I think we'll be continuing to look at, continuing to coordinate with the European Union. What we want to make sure is that the people of northern Cyprus do not suffer, or that the costs to them of the failure of the referendum are minimal and that the isolation is eased. I would look at that as an ongoing process.
QUESTION: Daphne Fau with ET TV, Taiwan. While China is trying to escalate the military threat to Taiwan by missile exercise, do you have any comment on that? And will you adopt any strategy to build up deterrents against mainland and, you know, just to prevent a crisis in that region?
And second question, our Mainland Affair Minister, Joseph Wu, came to D.C. earlier. Can you -- could you please confirm who did he meet and what did you discuss?
MR. ERELI: On the subject of military exercises, I believe Assistant Secretary Boucher addressed this in his briefing yesterday, where we noted that there were military exercises on both sides of the Straits. Both countries conduct exercises. We're certainly watching them. As always, we make it clear that neither side should take actions or make statements that escalate tensions, and that's something we certainly stand by.
As far as the visit of the individual you mentioned, I know that there are Taiwanese who do come to the United States from time to time. It is not, therefore, unusual or particularly noteworthy in that regard. I don't have any information as to what meetings took place. I'd refer you to him.
Yes.
QUESTION: [Mr. Kosukegawa, Kyodo News Service.] Mr. Boucher may have answered this question, but let me repeat the question here. Deputy Secretary Armitage said or indicated yesterday, Japan may need to revise its constitution if it wants to become a permanent UN Security Council member. Would you clarify the U.S. position on Japan's bid to become a permanent UN Security Council member? Do you support it without any condition or conditionally support it?
MR. ERELI: Number one, Assistant Secretary Boucher did speak to this issue in the briefing today, and he made it clear that Deputy Secretary Armitage's comments with regard to Article 9 broke no new ground. He made those views known in a National Defense University article in 2000 and what he said to Diet Member Mr. Nakagawa were fully consistent with those remarks.
But the most important point to make here is that he made it clear that any change in the Japanese constitution is a sovereign decision or a sovereign responsibility for the Japanese people and that we would certainly respect that decision as a close ally of Japan.
Assistant Secretary Boucher also addressed the question of Security Council reform and Japan in that he said there is no change in the U.S. position on this issue. I would note that there's a special committee, I think, or special group appointed by the Secretary General to look at the question of Security Council reform, and we certainly look forward to hearing the conclusions of their deliberations whenever they're presented.
QUESTION: Ken Karube from Jiji Press. My question is about the commission's report and the role of the State Department. I understand recently that State Department emphasized so-called "public diplomacy," and if my understanding is correct, today's commission's report didn't mention this public diplomacy issue. How do you evaluate the development of public diplomacy recently and do you think it is still effective for preventing the terror or some kind of attack?
MR. ERELI: Well, you know, actually, they may not have used the word "public diplomacy" but I would note that Representative Hamilton, in his remarks when he presented the report earlier today, did say that we need a better dialogue between the West and the Islamic world, and that there is a battle of ideas going on, and that improving communication is important. All those are synonymous with public diplomacy.
So, again, I would recommend to you the report and to read it. There are sections in it that talk about communication and improving dialogue.
I would make a couple of points on the general topic of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy, as a function of the U.S. Government, is not something that you just turn on and turn off. The fact of the matter is it's a rather continuous activity that we engage in. So the question is not do you do it or do you not do it. We're always doing it. I think the question is, how do you do it in a way that's effective, that matches resources -- first defining what your objectives are; second of all, matching the resources and capabilities to meet those objectives. And clearly, 9/11 was a wakeup call for the United States, not just in terms of the terrorist threat that existed, that I think we understood only dimly or relatively dimly before 9/11 than as we do after 9/11, but also to the challenge before us in the marketplace of ideas. And it was a wakeup call that we had a lot of work to do in combating the noxious influence of extremist ideologies that have proven to be surprisingly attractive to people who are committed to using violence to achieve their ends.
So that is a real challenge for us. I think since 9/11, we've focused more clearly on that challenge and what we need to do. It's a constantly evolving job, reaching out, deciding what audiences are -- you know, we need to hit the messages work with them. But I would also point out that it's a long-term issue. I mean, you don't judge public diplomacy's effectiveness in the span of months or even years. It's a long-term effort whose results you see over the course of generations.
When you do exchange programs and you bring people to the United States either to study or to spend a month or work with American colleagues, the impressions and experiences that person undergoes when they come to the United States take years to manifest themselves. And that person who you've engaged with is going to influence other people, but that takes time.
So this is a long-term effort that we are dedicated to, that we've never lost sight of, frankly, but I think our focus has been changed by 9/11. And the proposition that we have dedicated ourselves to is to cultivate or encourage a culture of tolerance, of understanding, of mutual respect, and of freedom and opportunity. And again, it's going to take a while just to see the fruits of that.
Okay. Well, thank you.
