U.S. Foreign Policy Update

3:30 P.M. EDT

Real Audio of Briefing

MR. DENIG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center, and an especially warm welcome to the Deputy Spokesman of the Department of State, Mr. Adam Ereli, who is here for his monthly review of United States foreign policy. We're very pleased to have him here and I will now pass the podium to Adam.

Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Thank you, Paul. A footnote for the transcript. I think the last time I was here was in December, before the inauguration, so not quite monthly. And, you know, I was sort of looking back at everything that's happened since I was last here and it really has been an action-packed couple of months. We've had, as I said, the President's Inauguration, we've had the State of the Union speech, we've had our new Secretary get on board and start putting her team together, which has come along quite a ways. We've had two very important trips the Secretary took to Europe and the Middle East and then back to London again. She's off next week to South Asia and Asia.

I think if you look carefully at what the Administration has said, the President and the Secretary, you'll see a couple of, I think, important themes emerging, taking shape, that might guide your analysis of United States actions and decisions over the next couple of years.

And what I would point to is to the President's NDU speech yesterday, the Secretary's speech in Paris in January -- or was it February, I'm bad with dates, excuse me -- the Secretary's speech in Paris and, obviously, the President's State of the Union speech. And what you'll see there is a recognition that we really are entering a new and historic era because we are coming out of the past four years which, frankly, we were securing the nation, responding to an attack on the United States and taking defensive measures to secure America against those who had demonstrated they wanted to do us ill.

Now, while that global war on terror will continue, we've certainly made a lot of -- some significant strides. While we can never really rest and be complacent about the threats that are out there, we have, I think, achieved a lot in terms of taking the fight to those who would do us harm. And now the focus, a new focus, a very sustained focus, is going to be on helping to create the conditions worldwide that prevent the rise and support of terrorism, and encourage the kind of conditions where people search for other solutions to their problems, by creating the institutions, the practices and the values that lead people to seek peaceful and stable dispute resolution mechanisms and that provide societies and people in societies with an opportunity to pursue their own dreams, their own futures, their own livelihoods, and therefore have a stake in the future in their own countries.

And that approach is really summed up in the idea of supporting democracies and supporting economic opportunity and supporting freedom around the world because freedom is the natural human condition that allows people to secure their own future, to secure a better future and is the best antidote to extremism and violence that we have, together, fought so valiantly to confront in the last four years.

So if you're looking to see where this Administration is going, if you're looking to see what is going to be the sort of significant direction of American foreign policy, it is in helping to support and nurture the condition of human freedom around the world so that stability and prosperity and cooperation and partnership can be the predominant feature of the international landscape, as opposed to violence, extremism and terrorism.

And the other thing I would just underscore in this context is the repeated statements by our national leadership that America recognizes that it cannot accomplish this task alone, that for us to help promote the kind of conditions we're talking about, the kind of societies we're talking about, we have to do it in partnership with our friends and with our allies, and starting with Europe and starting with our Middle Eastern friends.

And that's why I think you noticed the first trips the Secretary took were to those regions, also underscoring the vital importance of Asia, as evidenced by her upcoming trip, as key security partners and as key regional partners in promoting the kind of stability and the kind of peace and the kind of regional alliances and networks of cooperation that are critical to securing the peace and confronting threats.

So I'll leave it with that general overreview and be happy to take your questions, starting in the front.

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

Mr. Ereli, yesterday the Congress took the President's waiver on aid to the Palestinians. In the past, the President had the ability to bypass congressional restrictions and give aid directly to the Palestinian. Could you tell us if the Department is doing anything on that issue, if Secretary Rice is doing anything with Capitol Hill to sort of reinstate the waiver?

Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Well, the Secretary is testifying on Capitol Hill today. And I'm not familiar with the provisions that you're speaking to and I'm certainly not aware that any final decisions have been made, so I think a little fact-checking is probably in order here. There are provisions for providing aid to the Palestinians. Obviously, as you well know, the United States is the largest donor to the Palestinians. We have traditionally provided $75 million a year, in addition to about over $100 million a year to UNWRA that goes to support Palestinian refugees.

President Bush announced additional aid this year, doubling of aid to Palestinians to 150 million and another special, exceptional provision of 200 million to the Palestinians in recognition of, first of all, the needs of the Palestinians, but too, the choice of the Palestinians for a new democratic progressive leadership that is committed to engaging with Israel, is committed to reforming Palestinian institutions and is committed to providing a better life and a brighter future for the Palestinian people.

They need help. They need resources. They need political support. They need economic support. They need diplomatic support. We are providing that both materially, as evidenced by the increased assistance, as well as in terms of diplomacy and policy. In the past, we have provided aid directly to the Palestinian people, most recently, in December, I believe, $20 million in budget support to the Palestinian Authority. That was direct assistance.

I'm not aware of any prohibition to that mechanism of assistance when it's done in consultation with Congress, I think, and with -- in consideration of the national interest and in consideration of specific steps that the Palestinians have taken for accountability and transparency. So I'm not sure the situation is as categorical as you suggest in your question.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thanks. Michael Backfisch, Germany's business daily, Handelsblatt, regarding the new and historic era and China arms embargo.

The Europeans want to abolish the arms embargo and they want to replace it with a tougher code of conduct. The Administration says it has gotten assurances that both quantitatively and qualitatively the Europeans won't deliver more weapons to China. Do you see any chance that there is a common denominator, if there is a tough code of conduct which includes modern, state-of-the-art communication system and so forth?

MR. ERELI: I don't want to speculate on where this is going, frankly. I think the important things to note here are, first and foremost, that the United States and Europe are making an effort to understand one another and making an effort to accommodate each other on this issue.

And I think we have made our point very clear that this is an issue that -- where we need to be careful not to send the wrong signals, either this is signal A that the reason for the arms embargo is somehow no longer valid, i.e., that the human rights concerns that led to the embargo have somehow eased or changed to the degree that the embargo is no longer necessary, and second, that, you know, the balance of power in the region is not going to be affected, not going to be changed, by an end to the arms embargo.

And I think when we went to the Europe, the President went to Europe, the Secretary of State went to Europe, they were very satisfied that their views got a good hearing and a fair hearing, and, obviously, we're going to continue to work with the Europeans to resolve this issue in a satisfactory way.

Sir.

QUESTION: Loick Berrou with the French TV, TF-1.

Adam, this is about Iran. Could you confirm to us that this Administration is considering joining the European diplomatic initiative and supporting the European diplomatic initiative towards Iran? And in that case, what kind of incentive would the U.S. be ready to offer to Iran? Is it WTO membership? Is it Boeing spare parts? What is the thinking in that regard?

MR. ERELI: Well, we can't offer Iran WTO membership. Iran has to qualify for WTO membership, and that is a long process and it requires significant institutional and policy reform. Certainly, the United States is supportive of European diplomacy to achieve a suspension and eventual cessation of Iran's uranium enrichment program and we have been having discussions with our European friends about what we can do to help advance their diplomacy. We are looking at some ideas. I don't think any decisions have been made yet, or not ready to announce anything.

But clearly, what we're trying to do is achieve a common goal, and that goal is an Iran that doesn't have nuclear weapons. It's not about providing incentives. It's not about providing punishments. It's about working with the international community to hold back a threat, to hold back a burgeoning threat, and that burgeoning threat is Iran's nuclear program.

Because there is sufficient, I think, concern among everybody that Iran is conducting nuclear activity that is suspicious, that is -- and that raises questions that Iran has systematically sought to avoid answering, and, moreover, has concealed information.

So, as a result, you have Russia, which used to be, I think, much more supportive of the program than it is now, as reflected in their decision to require any fuel provided to Bushehr rector to be returned to Russia, as well as holding off on moving forward until outstanding questions have been answered; as evidenced by the report of the Director General, numerous reports by the Director General of the IAEA to the Board of Governors, and most recently, last week in which he again reported activity of concern, questions that had not been answered; and finally, by the actions of the European Union, which have -- who have -- which have been directed towards or dedicated to containing and then rolling back a program which Iran has so far made every effort to conceal and to move forward with despite our concerted efforts to address it in a rational and responsible way.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I just want to move on to Lebanon. It seems that the Lebanese -- excuse me -- I'm sorry -- Mike McCarthy, DPA.

It seems that the Lebanese Prime Minister, who had announced that he would resign, is now likely to hold on to the office. I was wondering what your reaction was to that.

MR. ERELI: Well, I don't know if I'd put it that way. They're reforming another government. He has resigned. He did resign. He is serving as a caretaker prime minister. They are forming a new government. There are obviously reports that in the new government the old prime minister may be the new prime minister. I, frankly, don't have any comment on the political back and forth in Beirut because, frankly, that's not the issue.

The issue for us is, for the United States is, that the people of Lebanon need to be able to be free to decide their own government without intimidation and pressure and coercion from outside forces -- from outside forces. And that really is the problem with -- that is a major problem in Lebanon up until now, that you have, with thousands of Syrian forces in Lebanon and thousands of Syrian security and intelligence agents, our concern is that the Lebanese people have not had the chance to do that, to do what I just said: choose their leaders free of outside intimidation and pressure.

So what we're working towards, and I think what the premise of 1559 is, is that -- is to create the conditions in Lebanon in which real, effective democracy can take place and that the people of Lebanon produces a government that reflects their interests, their desires, their vision for their future and not the agenda of a foreign power. And where the United States is going in this, where the international community is going in this, is trying to create the conditions in Lebanon for that kind of political process to take place, to give Lebanon back to the Lebanese. We're not sticking our finger in it. We're not getting involved. We just want to give Lebanon back to the Lebanese, let them choose their own leadership.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

MR. ERELI: We believe it can happen if foreign troops are out of Lebanon.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR. ERELI: Sure.

QUESTION: Khaled Dawoud from Egypt's Al Ahram newspaper.

Again, one major comment in the Arab newspapers today is the failure of President Bush yesterday to comment on the hundreds of thousands who came out from Hezbollah yesterday. They are also Lebanese. They have a vision of their own government and they basically disagree. And you might be intimidating them as much as the Syrians are intimidating another, you know, portion of the population. So why your intimidation is better?

MR. ERELI: Who are we intimidating? How are we intimidating?

QUESTION: I have a second question. I mean, by mentioning intimidating --

MR. ERELI: Who and how are we intimidating?

QUESTION: -- you know, I mean, like the United States expressing an opinion towards another country is not a just up-in-the-sky. It's a form of influencing. You know, so the Syrians are influencing, you're trying to influencing.

But my question is what about the hundreds of thousands who went out yesterday and I have a question on Egypt, too, please.

MR. ERELI: Okay. As I said in my earlier answer, we're not trying to intimidate or influence anybody, except to get Syria out of Lebanon, and that's what 1559 does. But the whole goal of this is to allow the Lebanese to be free to choose their own leadership, free of outside interference, free of outside influence. That means us. That means Syria. That means anybody else. So we're trying to create the conditions for democracy for the people to exercise their basic democratic rights. That's not interference. That's not intimidation.

As far as the Hezbollah demonstration, you know, I would sort of say vive la difference. I mean, let people in Lebanon express their political opinion. Let different parties, let different groupings, engage in the very dynamic back and forth of debate and dialogue openly, freely, without violence and without -- again, without foreign interference.

Now, in everything that's been said in Lebanon, in all the debates and discussions, I have heard painfully few, if any, calls for Syrian forces to stay in Lebanon. You can say, "Give us our country back, don't interfere in our country, we want to be independent, we want to be sovereign, we want to be our own, you know, masters of our fate." Couldn't agree with you more. But that also means getting foreign troops out of Lebanon.

Sir. Let's go around and we'll get back to you. Sir.

QUESTION: Deon Lamprecht from Media 24 News (inaudible) South Africa.

Regarding Zimbabwe, there has been some sharp exchanges and differences of opinion between the U.S. and South Africa in recent weeks. President Thabo Mbeki has said there is no reason for anybody to fear that the upcoming elections in Zimbabwe will not be free and fair. Last Friday, Ambassador Jendayi Frazer said in Johannesburg that President Mbeki's comments made her fear for the future of NEPAD.

MR. ERELI: Mbeki's comments made what?

QUESTION: Made him fear for the future of NEPAD.

How strained has relations between South Africa and the U.S. become on the subject of Zimbabwe and what course of action would the U.S. like to see Mbeki to take?

MR. ERELI: Frankly, I think the -- I wouldn't characterize the relationship as strained or relations as strained. The United States and South Africa share the same goal, which is an electoral process that is free of fraud, free of dirty tricks, free of intimidation of the authorities and suppression of dissent, suppression of freedom of expression, suppression of peaceful assembly. We both agree on those goals.

I think that, for our part, we continue to be very concerned by the fact that the Government of Zimbabwe is tightening restrictions on civil society, on the media, and that a climate persists in Zimbabwe where the opposition fears for its safety. That's not the kind of environment where you can have -- where you can have a free and fair and credible election.

And what we need to do is work together to help create the conditions where you can have an open and honest and peaceful process of debate and dissent and give the people of Zimbabwe a real choice. That's what we are, I would say, working together to achieve there.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Hoda Tawfik, Al Ahram newspaper.

President Bush spoke yesterday about a viable Palestinian state with connected land in the West Bank. Now the report from Israel speaks about new outposts and that the Government of Israel has given the permit to build these outposts. Now, the President spoke also about effort to overcome the obstacles between both parties, so what are you doing to overcome a major obstacle?

MR. ERELI: Yes. We are studying the report that you mentioned. This is report by the -- by a member of the Government of Israel concerning settlement activity and outposts.

As you know, it is long been our policy that unauthorized outposts must be removed. This is a commitment that the Government of Israel has made. It is an important part of the roadmap, just as the commitments that the Palestinian side has made to act against terror and an end to violence are also important commitments that are part of the roadmap.

We, I think, have consistently made clear our views on settlement activity to the Israeli Government. As I said, we will be studying this report and it's our expectation, frankly, that the Government of Israel will find information in that report useful in helping it to meet previous pledges on stopping construction of unauthorized outposts and removing existing ones.

I would say that certainly some of the information in that report is going to be subject of discussion between our two governments.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) measures from your part? Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Let's see. Let's see.

Yes.

QUESTION: Said Arikat again. A quick follow up on this point.

Now, Dr. Condoleezza Rice told Dov Weissglas in their last meeting, who is Mr. Sharon's advisor, that there should be immediate action based on the Sasson report, which came out today. And it's very clear on what is --

MR. ERELI: And she told him before that Sasson report that's coming out today?

QUESTION: Yes, right. Well, because the report was under -- you know, underway. She told them that once the report concludes, she expected immediate action. Could you update us on this?

MR. ERELI: I would simply tell you this. The subject of outposts is an important issue for us. It is an issue that we have an ongoing dialogue with the Government of Israel about, that we are, in our mind, clear about what the commitments were made and we're clear about our expectations that they need to be fulfilled.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Thank you. Kaori Iida with NHK Japanese National Television. I have a question on U.S. beef import -- re-import -- into Japan.

There seems to be a very growing concern or frustration within the Bush Administration on this issue, President Bush calling Mr. Koizumi this morning. On the other hand, in Japan, there is still a huge concern that the U.S. beef is not safe, regarding BSE.

What will Secretary Rice's message be when she goes to Tokyo next week and meets with her counterpart, which I think will be the second time in a month?

MR. ERELI: The message will be we want to see this issue resolved, that obviously we understand Japanese concerns, we have taken steps necessary to meet them and this is an issue that we need to resolve.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Jose Lopez, the Mexican News Agency.

Late January, the State Department issued a warning to citizens traveling to Mexico regarding drug related violence in the border. According to your own figure, 27 Americans have been -- have disappeared in the previous in the previous six months.

Since you issued that warning, has the situation remained the same, improved, worsened, and is this an issue that Secretary Rice plans to raise tomorrow in Mexico City?

MR. ERELI: This is primarily a law enforcement issue. I don't know that it'll be raised tomorrow. I wouldn't presume to tell you it will or it won't be.

I think that we're working this issue with local authorities in the border areas, that, you know, we issued our Travel Warning based on number of incidents. And, you know, we have a responsibility to citizens when there is a heightened risk to them for travel abroad for a certain reason that we have a responsibility to tell them. At the same time, we think, you know, at the same time we want to work to help solve the problem and we will provide whatever assistance we can, whatever advice we can, whatever support we can, to the Mexican authorities to address the problem.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: If I could first, could I follow on the question about the Japanese beef? Could you explain to me how the fact that the border is still closed here to Canadian exports is complicating the efforts to open the Japanese border?

And secondly, if I may, as you know last Saturday, the President and the Prime Minister Martin of Canada spoke and both men said they would move beyond the Canadian missile defense decision. In that context, we're still waiting for some word on when the Secretary is going to visit Canada. What is the time frame now for a potential visit to Canada by the Secretary?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. On the first question, I'll just have to plead ignorance. My knowledge of the issue is not sufficiently deep to be able to tell you what the impact of the BSE problem in Canada is having on our negotiations with the Japanese.

With respect to the Secretary's meeting with her Canadian counterparts, I would note that they met in London when she was there. I would also note that we have been very clear that this is a relationship that is important to us, that we greatly value the relationship with Canada and the Secretary with her -- with Foreign Minister Pettigrew, her relationship with Foreign Minister Pettigrew, that we are working to set up a visit. I couldn't give you a time frame just because I'm not aware of where discussions are, where the planning is. But clearly, we want to have a meeting and we're going to have a meeting. It's a question of when, not if.

Yes, there in the middle. Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Do Woon Lee of Seoul Daily News, a Korean newspaper.

There was a news report that Mr. Boucher be the next Ambassador to Seoul, so can you comment on that?

And secondly, you were supposed to have already nominated a special envoy to North Korea human rights, so would you tell me how the process is going?

MR. ERELI: A --

QUESTION: Special envoy to North Korea human rights?

MR. ERELI: I'm not aware of any nomination for special envoy for human rights in North Korea. Don't think anything's been announced at this point. Can't speak to whether -- to if and we'd do that.

As far as Assistant Secretary Boucher goes, he got this question in his briefing yesterday and it's a unsubstantiated news report, nothing that I have to give it credence or not.

In the very back.

QUESTION: Ignasi Abad from Catalunya Radio.

Next month, Spanish Foreign Minister will come to Washington to meet with Secretary Rice. Will this mark a shift or a change between the relationship between Spain and U.S., which were nearly frozen after the withdrawal of the troops in Iraq a year ago?

MR. ERELI: Well, I would point first and foremost to the travel of Attorney General Gonzales to Spain to participate in the memorial service for the Spanish train bombings, I think March 11, which is a sign of, well, certainly American sympathy for the tragedy that befell Spain, a sense of shared grief and shared loss since we have suffered common tragedies and a sign that whatever our past differences there's more -- we have more in common than -- there's more that we share in common than divides us.

Yeah, you're going to have differences on policy but that doesn't mean you're not NATO allies, it doesn't mean you don't have strong bonds of friendship and shared interests that override any temporary political difference. I think that was clearly the message that the Secretary took to Europe and the same applies for Spain.

Yes, Khaled.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on that. The President asked today about what will happen if Syria did not comply by the May deadline. And also, today the International Relations Committee at the Congress, they approved a resolution condemning Egypt for the arrest of Egyptian opposition figure, Ayman Nour. I wonder if you had a comment on that both and what's next for Syria and in the --

MR. ERELI: Well, on Syria, 1559 calls for the immediate withdraw of foreign forces, full and immediate withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon. That's what we want to see. It's important that -- and also it's important that elections, when they take place in May, be free of foreign interference. That means it's hard to imagine how you can be free of foreign interference if you have foreign troops in the country. So I'd leave it at that.

I think the way forward from our point of view is clear and unequivocal: all foreign troops out of Lebanon now. And until -- and at this point, we have not heard anybody say that. We've not heard anybody say that that's going to happen except for us. We haven't heard it from Syria, we haven't heard it from Lebanon. So that's kind of what we need to hear. Once we hear it, we can -- we'll be very happy to support anybody in working out the details.

As far as Ayman Nour goes, the in the Sense of Congress resolution or whatever the thing that passed today was, I can't speak for Congress. Congress is an independent branch of government. They act on issues they feel strongly about. This is an issue they feel strongly about. It's an issue that the Executive Branch -- the President and Secretary of State -- feel strongly about. It's an issue that Americans feel strongly about. When a opposition leader is jailed for and imprisoned for political activity, it just -- it strikes a nerve here. And I think that's the way to interpret the action of Congress. And we are working with our Egyptian friends to help to try to resolve this issue, which is not helping us.

Yes.

QUESTION: This is Chong Hyuk Kim of Joong-Ahn Ilbo in Korea.

I can't understand that the U.S. Government new foreign policy is putting an emphasis on spreading freedom to all of the world, but in that sense what are you going to do with North Korea? As you know, there is no freedom at all in that country. And is there any progress to resolve the North Korean nuclear matter? How long are you going to wait for them to come back to the six-party talk?

Thank you.

MR. ERELI: I need to be careful when I speak about the subject of democracy because I don't want to mislead people. What we're really trying to do is to help support the spread of democracy. We're not the ones that are spreading it. I mean, there's a very important principle here. Democracy has to come from within. You can't impose it from without. And if there's not a -- if they are not the conditions -- there has to be desire for democracy and the right conditions for democracy for democracy to grow and take root and survive.

The problem that we face with North Korea that confronts us now with North Korea is -- and it's not just the United States but it's the other -- the international community and more specifically the four other countries in the six-party process is a country that has an active nuclear weapons program that the region feels is a threat, that the region feels is destabilizing, and that the region and the international community want to seek to address and dismantle, and that this will lead to a safer, more prosperous, more stable Korean Peninsula in which North Korea is less isolated, where its people are less -- where it's economy is less constrained, and which it can be free to pursue peaceful growth as opposed to pursuing -- you know, spending money on nuclear weapons and paying the price of -- sorry -- spending money on nuclear weapons and paying the price of international isolation.

So it's trying to steer events in a more positive direction, away from isolation and unfruitful armaments programs and towards engagement with the international community, and developing the country in response to the needs of the people. And that's where we are with North Korea.

In the brown. And then we'll go to you, then we'll go to you. Promise.

QUESTION: Thank you. Donghui Yu with China News Service. I have two questions.

The first one is China envoy Ning Fukui is visiting Washington, D.C. Would you please elaborate some details about his visit? Does he bring a new message? And some Americans thought the willingness of Chinese Government to persuade North Korea to come back to the six-party talk table, so what's your comments on that?

My second question is it's report that United States Government has approved the deal between IBM and Lenovo of China, so would you like to say something about that?

MR. ERELI: On the visit of Ning Fukui, he will -- or she will be here Thursday and Friday. She'll be meeting with our special envoy to the six-party talks, Ambassador Chris Hill, and Ambassador Joe DiTrani, or Special Coordinator, Ambassador Joe DiTrani, here as well as meetings at the National Security Council. We'll be discussing with Ning Fukui recent discussions -- the Chinese have had recent ideas, that we both have as well as our other partners in the Six-Party talks -- for getting North Korea back to the table.

I don't want to speculate on prospects for success there, other than to say, obviously, we want to do everything possible to get back to the table, to get back to the talks. Our proposal is still out there. We still think it's a good basis for discussion. And I think what we've seen, frankly, over the last several months is a firm consensus among the five that six-party talks remain the best, most responsible, most promising way to deal with this common problem.

With regard to the Lenovo transaction, let me see what I can tell you on that. This is a issue that's being dealt with by the Treasury Department so I would refer you to them for any comment on where we are in the process of reviewing this transaction.

QUESTION: In the committee (off mike) --

MR. ERELI: Right. Well, but I don't have anything to share with you about where we are on that issue.

Yeah. Phillipe.

QUESTION: Thank you. Phillipe Gelie, Le Figaro.

Adam, Tony Blair's is publish -- presenting tomorrow a broad report on Africa with a series of propositions, among them to cancel the debt in poor countries in Africa. Do you think the United States could agree with this in principle at the next G-8? And more broadly, if this Administration has an agenda on Africa, what is it?

MR. ERELI: As far as agreeing on debt relief, I think we'd have to see the proposal, obviously consult with Congress. But, you know, certainly we are supportive of efforts to help create the conditions for growth and reform in Africa. And I think there's really no more persuasive indication of that commitment than the President's Millennium Challenge Account, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which has raised to the level of -- well, it aims to raise the level to $5 billion a year, the amount of money we spend in development assistance. And it ties development to reform. It's not just throwing money at a problem. It's working with countries, throughout the world and including in Africa, to engage in partnerships, to work to build the policy framework and the economic practices that can support sustained growth, sustained employment and really turn the corner out of chronic poverty.

Obviously, fiscal policies are a part of that, but you've also got to have a sustained commitment to it. It can't be a one-off deal. And this is where, I think, the MCC in terms of providing real money consistently over time, tied to policy reform and implemented through partnership contracts, is the wave of the future.

Another, I think, area that underscores America's real and abiding commitment to Africa is the President's HIV/AIDS initiative. Again, putting our money where our mouth is, devoting historic levels of funding, the level of, I think, $15 billion over five years. I forget the amount exactly. Devoting historic levels of funding to this, focused largely on Africa but also countries in Latin America and Asia. Getting at an economic -- how should I put it? -- a sort of Damocles hanging over the future of Africa because you have an entire middle class, an entire age group, being systematically wiped out, which is economic Armageddon. So focusing on this real threat to the economic, social viability of societies. And we recognize that as a strategic problem and that's why we are approaching it in a strategic way with unprecedented resources.

So I think if you look at the Millennium Challenge Corporation or Millennium Challenge Account idea as a new development paradigm and you look at the HIV/AIDS initiative as addressing some of the really endemic and long-term threats to economic viability in the continent, and you combine that with our existing and ongoing foreign assistance effort, which is significant and important and deals with other social programs like health and infrastructure problems, then you have a very real, very sustained, very material expression of commitment to the continent.

I could keep going.

MR. DENIG: We have one more.

MR. ERELI: Do we really?

Sir, in the back, on the side. Yeah.

QUESTION: Giampiero Gramaglia, on the Italian News Agency ANSA. I have two questions on the tragic accident Friday in Baghdad.

First question, do you have any comment or reaction to the speech of Prime Minister Berlusconi today in the Italian parliament?

Second question, do you regret that the ransom has been paid to liberate Mrs. Sgrena?

MR. ERELI: Well, first of all, obviously we share the grief of the Italian people and the Government of Italy at the death of really a great Italian patriot and a man who has done so much for his country. We have been clear that we view this incident as a horrible accident and one that we are committed to investigating, finding out what happened and taking actions to prevent it from happening again so that nobody has to go through, I think, the pain and suffering that the family has had to go through and, frankly, the people of Italy have had to go through. So we share common cause and a common commitment to that endeavor.

As far as the circumstances for Signora Sgrena's release, I don't have any information on what lead to her release. So it's not something -- I don't know how it came about so it's not something really I can comment on.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

MR. ERELI: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: George Liu (ph), Central News Agency, Taiwan. I have two quick questions. The first one is you just mentioned that Condi Rice is heading to East Asia next week. Is that -- that will be her second foreign trip after she took the office.

MR. ERELI: Third.

QUESTION: Third?

MR. ERELI: Fourth.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Second, I think.

MR. ERELI: Sorry. Her first was to Europe and the Middle East. Then back to London.

QUESTION: Oh, yeah.

MR. ERELI: Tomorrow to Mexico.

QUESTION: Okay. Could you a little bit elaborate on her trip to there?

And second question is about the legislation of anti-secession law by China. The first official reaction from Taiwan is a suspension of ongoing talk of charter cargo flight. Your comment, please.

MR. ERELI: As far as the Secretary's travel goes, the focus of her visit to East Asia will be to talk about our common efforts at global and regional cooperation, particularly what we're doing together in Iraq and Afghanistan. And she will also review with her partners our efforts to reconvene the next round of six-party talks. And, obviously, in each of the countries there will be the full range of bilateral issues to discuss.

On the question of the anti-secession law, three -- Japan, South Korea, and China. As regards to the anti-secession law, I think we spoke to that fairly extensively yesterday. I don't really have much to add to what Ambassador Boucher said. Obviously, it's a move we think is unhelpful and we would continue to encourage both sides to resolve their differences peacefully through dialogue. That's what we see as the best way to solve this problem. And we would hope that both sides would find a way to do that.

Let's go to TASS. Been waiting for a while.

QUESTION: You made my day.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Dmitri Kirsanov from Russian News Agency, TASS. Do you have anything new about Richard Boucher and Scott McClellan said yesterday on the killing of Aslan Maskhadov and how it possibly could affect the situation in Chechnya and the resolution or worsening of the conflict at all?

MR. ERELI: No, not really. I mean, obviously, this gentleman was a key figure in the conflict in Chechnya. But what impact it will have on that conflict, it's really hard to say.

Yes.

QUESTION: Just a quick one on Northern Ireland. Mike McCarthy again from DPA.

You might have noticed on your way from the elevator that Gerry Adams was scheduled to speak in this building on the 17th.

MR. ERELI: I did.

QUESTION: And just a couple days ago, I checked over at State and there was -- the application was still pending, so I was wondering if there's an update on that.

MR. ERELI: What application for what?

QUESTION: A visa.

MR. ERELI: I don't have an update, frankly. I don't have one for you.

Who haven't we called on? Yes.

QUESTION: Tom Blackwell from the National Post of Canada.

Last week, the new Canadian Ambassador to Washington indicated that he thought the Canadian decision on missile defense may have been motivated by all these festering trade disputes, like BSE and softwood lumber, none of which seemed to have much of an end in sight. What do you think the prospects are for getting over that sort of bump and improving relations between the two countries?

MR. ERELI: Well, again, you know, I just -- I guess I take issue with the premise of your question that somehow relations are bad and are in need of improvement. I mean, I just think that's a really simplistic way of looking at things. We're neighbors, we're the largest trading partners, we've got so many issues before us -- economic, trade related, foreign policy related, alliance related -- that I just think it's misleading to give disproportionate significance to one or another and ignore all the others that are going on.

So, you know, yes we've got BSE issue. Yes, we've got the missile defense issue. Obviously, you know, we may not see eye to eye on everything, but there's a broader context in which these issues have to be placed and that is the context of two great countries sharing a very long common border and having such a wealth of issues that require coordination, cooperation and common action that, you know, the relationship is going to be characterized by that overriding reality and not any single issue at one given point of time.

Yes.

QUESTION: You said that freedom and democracy are one of your -- my name is Tarek Rashed, Middle East News Agency. Freedom and democracy are one of your major concerns in your prospective foreign policy strategy. Do you have a specific plan to put this goal into effect in the Middle East, especially as far as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are concerned? Or are you going to make do and cope with the current governments?

Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Well, you know, it's not like making do and coping with the present government is an alternative that we're trying to -- it's not like making do and coping with the current governments is something we don't want to do. I mean, what we're trying -- the plan to support movements for reform in the region is called the Broader Middle East and North African Initiative. That's the plan. And the Middle East Partnership Initiative. And it's premised on working with the governments in the region and the people in the region and the businesses in the region and civil society in the region and education in the region to give sustenance to efforts that they are undertaking to improve their societies, whether that be creating business associations, whether it be creating human rights organizations, whether it be developing new curriculums in schools, whether it be creating new law codes, reforming the court system, developing networks of cooperation between countries or between groups. That's the plan.

And if you look at the statement of the G-8 leaders in Sea Isle, if you look at the statements out of the Forum in Rabat last November, I believe -- again I'm bad with dates -- but the Forum in Rabat, you will see, I think, a very robust program on the part of the United States, on the part of the G-8, on the part of the EU and others to support these movements, these efforts, underway in all these countries at all levels of society, from the top to the bottom.

So it really is a very wide-ranging, very diverse, very diffuse effort that, you know, I would say, defies easy categorization. It's not a plan you can put on a piece of paper and say here's our plan. But if you look at the statements, if you look at the joint action plan, you will see the general outlines of a broad and coordinated and multilateral effort to support change, so that people can participate in politics and economics and educate and prepare themselves to have a better future.

Yeah. Let me get to people who haven't had a question.

QUESTION: Francois Clemenceau with the French Radio Europe.

One, if I can follow up on this theme, what is your precise view about the participation to the election of the Hezbollah in Lebanon? And would you favor the participation to some elections with Islamic radical parties in Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt that you were mentioning about?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. We're not going to dictate to others what their political systems should be. That's the simple answer to your question. With regard to Hezbollah, the United States has labeled Hezbollah a Foreign Terrorist Organization because it has conducted terrorist activities that has killed Americans. That is a fact. There is a history there. That history is problematic. For us, Hezbollah has blood on its hands and has the blood of innocent Americans.

What does that mean for the political dynamic in Lebanon? Again, they have -- they're a political party, they have members in parliament. They are standing for election, you know, far be it for us to tell the Lebanese who can run in elections and who can serve in their parliament. For Americans, the United States, Hezbollah is a Foreign Terrorist Organization that has blood on its hands.

Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from APP, the (inaudible) news agency of Pakistan.

Secretary Rice is going to South Asia while Pakistan team is playing cricket in New Delhi. But diplomacy is also (inaudible) start from (inaudible) in Kashmir. How do you view the bilateral dialogue process that's going on there?

MR. ERELI: It's fabulous. It's wonderful. It's to be commended and encouraged and sustained. I mean, look, we got to remember where we came from. We came from a fear of nuclear exchange three years ago. And look where we are now. And I think it speaks to what can be accomplished when countries work together, step back from the brink and, frankly, listen to their friends. Because the United States, Britain and others were very much involved in helping to, I think, nurture this, nurture the stepping back from the brink and the general -- and the gradual process of engagement or dialogue that we see emerging and flourishing now.

And, obviously, the decisions and courageous steps were taken by the Indians and the Pakistanis themselves and their leaderships, and their leaderships are to be commended for that. But it just speaks to what can be accomplished when you work together and when you have friends that are trying to help you find a peaceful exit to a sticky problem.

Let's do one more question. Mr. Kishida.

QUESTION: Hi. My name Kishida at Ji Ji Press. On the anti-secession law of China, yesterday White House spokesman McClellan required China to reconsider anti-secession law. When Secretary Rice visit China, is she going to raise this problem with leadership and also require to reconsider anti-secession law?

MR. ERELI: I don't know. I don't know if it'll come up. And if does come up, I couldn't predict for you what's going to be said.

Thank you very much.