U.S. Foreign Policy Update

MR. BAILY: Good afternoon and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. Today, for an update on U.S. foreign policy, we have the State Department's Deputy Spokesman, Adam Ereli, who many of you know, and so with no further introduction, I turn the podium over to Adam.

MR. ERELI: Thank you, Jess. Good to see you all again. For an update on -- since the last time we briefed, which was August 10th, a lot of sort of interesting things to note and I think it's useful to take stock of how in the period of just a few short months we've gotten a lot done in the way of basically advancing the Secretary's and the President's agenda of transformational diplomacy.

You'll recall that we've -- the Secretary has done what I would term three major trips. She's gone to Central Asia, in which she had an opportunity to discuss with our partners there the importance of political and economic reform, with a special emphasis on economic reform, empowerment of women, creating opportunities for all members of society to contribute in a way that betters the lives of all citizens. It was an important message in Central Asia.

She also had an opportunity to go visit the earthquake damage in Pakistan, which was an important gesture of U.S. sympathy and solidarity with the people and Government of Pakistan as they were dealing with that terrible tragedy.

She's just concluded, I think, a very successful to the Middle East and Asia. Asia -- joined the President for his participation in the APEC summit as well as visits to China and Japan and Mongolia.

In the Middle East, a couple of important developments -- the second Forum for the Future, following up on Morocco of last year and this year in Bahrain where we announced two significant initiatives: The Fund for the Future and the Foundation for the Future, both of which, I think, give real institutional depth to the idea of helping empower citizens in the region to invest and grow both economically and politically.

In Saudi Arabia, we were able to inaugurate the first senior dialogue with Saudi Arabia between the Secretary and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud.

And then in Rafah -- I'm sorry -- in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Secretary exercised, I think, some significant personal diplomacy in helping both parties to come to an agreement on movement of people and goods between Gaza and the West Bank and the international border on Rafah as well as Israel. So that was a significant accomplishment and one that portends well for peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

In the last couple of months, we've also seen a number important elections, which is worth drawing your attention to. First of all, the referendum in Iraq, in which the constitution was approved by a large number of Iraqis. That's significant in and of itself but also significant as part of a process that builds on elections to the Transitional National Assembly that sets the stage for elections in December for a permanent government. And I think is yet another demonstration that the people of Iraq, despite what the press often reports or despite what others want to focus on, have their eye firmly on the ball and that ball is developing a participatory democracy in which all Iraqis feel they have a role and a stake. And the vote on the constitution -- the referendum on the constitution by demonstrating a larger turn out than the previous election and lower violence than the previous election, I think, is yet another indicator that they are well on the road to a strong and vibrant democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

Elections also in Liberia, which is important to note, not only because of what that country has been through and the fact that this is a -- just a dramatic and welcomed departure from decades of violence and autocratic misrule, but also because of what it can represent for others -- an example of peaceful participation by a body politic in Africa, in a country that has known strife for so long, it's just a great achievement in its own right and a great example for others to follow.

And finally, also in the elections front -- I know I'm not giving justice to all the different elections that have taken place but these are certainly the ones that I think have gotten our attention in the news -- in Egypt, we've seen two major electoral events, the presidential elections in which Egypt for the first time changed -- in which the constitution was changed so that for the first time you'd have multiparty candidates for a presidential election. That was significant. That was important. We noted that and we, at the time, looked forward to Egypt's parliamentary elections in which we hope that the process would be even more open and more transparent and there has been some important progress in that. We've had -- we're in the second round of three-round parliamentary elections. The second round took place today. We're seeing, again, Egyptians being presented with a real choice of candidates for their legislature and the Egyptians exercising their preferences in a democratic way. And that's a good thing and I think it's something we should all note and welcome. Obviously, there remain concerns regarding violence and intimidation and harassment, but that all comes in the context of a steadily improving democratic development in Egypt.

And then in the final area that I just wanted to sort of focus people's attention on by way of introductory remarks beyond the Secretary's personal diplomacy and the progress we've made in seeing people participate as full and free members of a democratic society is, the third area would be in the area of international partnerships. You know, the one thing that we always like to stress, or I always like to stress with you, is that I think contrary to the way a lot of the world sometimes sees the United States, we believe firmly in international partnerships and working with friends and allies in a variety of contexts, whether it be NATO, whether it be the UN, whether it be ad hoc arrangements, whether it be APEC or ASEAN, but working in partnership with friends and allies is, in our view, indispensable to accomplishing American and multilateral goals.

And you've seen in the last couple of months some good examples of that. I would draw your attention first and foremost to the avian flu -- the avian influenza challenge that faces us all and the kind of robust multilateralism that the United States has exercised in order to confront this real threat. You saw in September an international gathering here that we initiated. You've seen follow-on trips to the region by our Secretary of Health and Human Services and our Under Secretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky. And you will continue -- if you look at the way the United States deals with this issue, you'll continue to see, I think, a very intensive engagement with international organizations, with regional organizations and with our bilateral partners, particularly in Asia, in order to develop capabilities of detection, information sharing, first-responding, containment and broader cooperation in order to follow on to challenges that this influenza threat poses to us.

Another example would be the Pakistan earthquake. Again, you know, in the tradition of responding to the tsunami earthquake, in the tradition of responding to Katrina, we have seen the United States work with its international partners in order to come to the help of those in need abroad. And again, in Pakistan our military was first on the ground in a really important way and I think that came as a welcome surprise to many where they see -- the first time they see American soldiers is delivering food and medicine. And those of us who work with the U.S. military know very well what an important and significant humanitarian mission they play. But those who have never seen it before, are often just awed by the experience and I think that was the case also in Pakistan.

So -- and then moving on beyond initial relief operations, we had the conference, the donor conference in Geneva. We had the donor conference in Pakistan this week. The United States has, I think, contributed generously along with a number of other countries, so that we have now exceeded the pledges that exceeded the World Bank's estimate of what's needed over the next three years. That is a welcome development and one that I think shows the strength of how nations working together can help solve crises.

I would also note and draw your attention to an initiative the United States has taken in this regard which is important and which also gives us, I think, something to think about when looking at these crises and these types of crises and that's the initiative President Bush announced a few weeks ago in which five chief executive officers of major American corporations are working to help raise private-sector funds to help the people of Pakistan. And this is an important and necessary adjunct to any multilateral effort in response to a crisis of this scale that not only should you look to governments, but the private sector also has an important role to play and I think that that example is instructive.

Also in the area of multilateral diplomacy, two sort of issues that were around the last time I briefed and that'll be around probably for a little bit more, but I think that we are working with our partners to deal with that is obviously North Korea, Iran, Syria, each of which presents unique set of challenges to the international system, but each of which we are dealing with multilaterally. In Iran, obviously through the IAEA and the EU-3 initiative; on North Korea, through the six-party process; Syria, through the UN Security Council. But again, when looking back over the last three or four months, I think one can see an acceleration and an intensification of the coordination done between countries to confront what is a common threat.

So I'll end there by way of introduction with just the observation that it's been an active three months for the State Department. We've been hard at work on behalf of the American people and frankly on behalf of the kind of peace and security and empowerment around the world that forms really the hallmark intellectually of our foreign policy and with some notable successes.

I'll leave it at that and open it up to questions.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Yeah. Maya Beydoun from Al Jazeera. I'd like to ask you about Iraq. Today was the closure -- I mean, the end of the talks between the different sections and the government is actually talking with the people who used to or still back the resistance and they acknowledge actually the resistance. How does the U.S. see this and do you think it's a way of pressuring the U.S. to withdraw *already deployed* troops in Iraq?

MR. ERELI: You're talking about the Arab League. The preparatory thing earlier. First of all, with regard to talking to the insurgency, I'll leave it to -- we'll leave it to the Iraqi Government to determine how best to deal with the insurgency. We share the goal that the Iraqi Government does which is to end armed attacks against innocent Iraqis and to broaden the base of political participation so that all Iraqis will be a peaceful part of the democratic process. And I think that that is what guides us in our relationship with the Iraqis, with the Iraqi Government and that is why we were there to support them and that is the whole basis for the U.S. presence there.

QUESTION: But you don't mind them --

MR. ERELI: But -- well, we don't have any -- again, we don't have anything against the Iraqis talking to the insurgency, if they can end the insurgency. It's not an issue of talking, it's an issue of taking concrete steps to end and contain and deal with a problem that concerns us all. I would note that, frankly, you know, when you talk about leaving Iraq or withdrawing from Iraq or whatever, the central thing to bear in mind is that, again, we all have the same goal. When I say "we all" I mean the United States, the Government of Iraq and the friends of Iraq who are many and numerous. We all have the same goal, which is a peaceful, stable Iraq. And we are going to stick with the Iraqi people and we are going to stick with the Government of Iraq until we are satisfied that that goal is being realized. And as far as the U.S. military presence goes, I think it's been -- you know, we've been very clear about what our intentions are.

Our intentions are to stay as long as we're needed and as long as the Iraqi Government wants us there. And I think that, frankly, where we are right now is as a welcome and important partner in helping Iraq achieve the kind of stability that they are looking for and that was certainly the substance of a UN Security Council resolution that was passed a few weeks ago in which the mandate of the multinational forces was extended for another year. So that's the basis on which we're there and the basis in which we'll decide, you know, what our presence there is going to be.

Finally, on the Arab League meeting, this is an initiative that we welcome. Why? Because we believe it can help contribute to promoting reconciliation in Iraq, broadening participation in the political process and encouraging or advancing involvement of other states in the region in support of Iraq. So for all those reasons, this initiative is a good one, it's one we support, and we certainly don't see it as hostile to or contrary or at variance with our goals.

In the very back. Yeah.

QUESTION: Joyce Karam from al-Hayat Newspaper. I wanted to ask you about the Lebanese-Israeli escalation today we saw on the borders. It comes just a week after Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, met with the Iranian Foreign Minister in Syria. Does that carry any significance and what do you expect the Lebanese Government to do on that issue?

MR. ERELI: Well, I can't read the tealeaves on what's behind this but what I can tell you is that it's certainly unwelcome. It's certainly provocative and it's certainly something that we should all denounce very clearly. Hezbollah has taken action, has undertaken military activity and aggressive action that serves the interest of no one, including the Government of Lebanon. I don't see how you can look at what Hezbollah did and say that this somehow is in the interest of Lebanon. And things were calm there, there is no reason to undertake these attacks. We strongly condemn them and I think the lesson to be taken away from all this is that Hezbollah is not contributing positively to peace and stability in the region and it underscores, once again, the need to disarm all the militias as provided for in 1559.

Yes, sir. On the side there. Yeah.

QUESTION: Hi. Reymer Kleuver, Sueddeutsche, Germany. Tomorrow will be the inauguration of a new Chancellor in Germany. When do you expect her here in Washington and what do you expect from that visit?

MR. ERELI: I hesitate to make any predictions. Obviously, we will be working closely with the Chancellor and her new government. Germany has and will continue to be a bedrock foreign policy partner of the United States. We look forward to meeting with her at the earliest possible date, whether that be when she comes here or if we go there. I think that it's an important relationship and therefore, we will be looking at our travel plans with our calendars with that awareness in mind.

Sir.

QUESTION: Hi, my name is Arshad Mahmud, Protham ALO in Bangladesh. And my question is regarding the Guantanamo Bay. The United States continues to deny that there has been any torture and there are two recent developments. One is the London conference organized by the Amnesty International where they brought in the victims. One of them is Moazzam Begg and he described the tortures and these things. And the other one is the United States has rejected requests by the United Nations to go and visit there and talk to them personally.

In view of these developments, how do you respond to people who are saying that there are tortures taking place in Guantanamo? Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Our answer to those charges is that we believe, the United States believes, that not only -- let me start over again. The answer to the question is that we have made every effort -- the United States has made every effort, to open up Guantanamo and to show people the reality of what Guantanamo is, as well as the reality of what it is not. And pursuant to that, or consistent with that commitment, what you see is that the ICRC, the International Committee of the Red Cross, has access to Guantanamo and to detainees whenever they want. So anybody who says that we're not providing access to detainees is just flat wrong. We're providing it to the ICRC. We're providing it to representatives of countries of whom some detainees are citizens. That's number one.

Number two, in addition to that, we have provided visits to Guantanamo to hundreds of members of Congress, to hundreds of members of the press -- or thousands of members of the press, and to other interested parties. We've certainly offered that visit to members of the United Nations or members of the United Nations Special Rapporteurs. They chose not to take us up on it. That's their decision. But the fact of the matter is they don't have a mandate to visit -- under international law of war, they don't have a mandate to visit detainees. We take our obligations under international norms very seriously. For that reason we believe the ICRC is the appropriate person -- appropriate body to see detainees, and that's why we provide them the access to the detainees.

As far as the torture allegations go, I'll just take very strong issue with that and tell you, number one, what our President has said and what our Secretary of Defense has said and what others have said is that we do not torture. We do not condone torture. Torture is against the laws and values and principles of the United States. And those are the guidelines that inform our behavior and the way we set up our operations.

Oh, New York. Over in New York. Hi.

QUESTION: Hi. Good afternoon and how are you? I would like to ask you two questions --

MR. ERELI: You can have one. We've got a bunch of people here. One question.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you at least for that opportunity. And the first -- I'll just ask the one that -- in terms of peace, security and development that you have mentioned in your remarks actually about the strong democracy in Asia. And what are your findings and main focus on Bangladesh, especially religious situation? And in recent developments, you know, the extension proposals of SARC membership, would you kindly make any comment on that, too?

MR. ERELI: Well, I really don't have any comment on the SARC membership since that's a regional organization and I'll leave it to members of that group to comment on Bangladesh's relationship to it.

As far as democratic development in Bangladesh goes, Bangladesh, I think, is a healthy and vibrant democracy. We were concerned about political violence earlier this year. I think we spoke out against it and called for all members of Bengali society to work to resolve their differences peacefully.

In the wake of the violence, I think that the government and others acted quickly and responsibly to prevent a further deterioration of the situation. But obviously we need to, in any situation where you've seen political actors failing to respect the rules of the game, we need to be clear and unanimous and speak with one voice about how that's unacceptable because it, frankly, endangers it for everybody.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Ki on Kuk, Segye Times, Korea. South Korean Government announced that it would reduce the troops stationed in Iraq next year by one-third. That's what I heard. And then have you ever been informed the plan by the South Korean Government? If so, have you agreed with the plan? Thank you.

MR. ERELI: First of all, South Korea is an essential member of the multinational forces in Iraq. They're the third largest contributor of troops there. They have played an invaluable role in helping support Iraqi stability and political and economic development, and we all recognize Korea, the Republic of Korea, for that critical contribution.

The Government of Korea is looking at its future in Iraq. I think one thing to us is crystal clear: that they are committed to being part of that future; they are committed to remaining in Iraq as part of the coalition; and that they are looking at, frankly, the logistics of future deployments as a function of the evolution of circumstances in Iraq, which is, frankly, the position that we all have, which -- and that position is as the Iraqis stand up, we'll all stand down. The Iraqis are making steady progress in terms of numbers and capabilities of their security forces, so South Korea is one of a number of countries that are, you know, looking out ahead in the future, examining what's happening in Iraq, what the Iraqi capabilities are, what that means for their own presence there, and that's a discussion that we all participate in, frankly, and I think that that is to be expected.

So notwithstanding the decisions that will be made the Republic of Korea on the specific numbers and missions and deployments, I think what we're certain about, having spoken to the Republic of Korea about and the Government of the Republic of Korea about its deliberations, the one thing we're certain about is that they will continue to be a strong and very visible member of the multinational forces and supporter of Iraq and its peaceful, democratic future.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Jose Lopez, Mexican News Agency. Last week, FBI and DHS officials painted a grim picture of the situation in the U.S.-Mexico border regarding violence.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: They said, for example, that a group called Los Zetas, the hired guns of the Gulf cartel, have become one of the most dangerous in North America, and they operate both in Mexico and the U.S., and that some drug lords actually still control the cartel just by being in jail.

So from the State Department point of view, how the situation has evolved in Mexico since you issued your first warning in January? What else, if anything, you think the Mexican Government should do? And do you feel this situation might spill over to the U.S. side of the border?

MR. ERELI: Well, I don't really have much to add to what we've said on this previously. First of all, for our assessment of the situation on the border, I would refer you to our latest Public Announcements because the information contained in there is up to date.

I mean, basically, we are now where we were a couple of months ago, which is that you've got drug-related violence which has become a regular feature of the landscape and which threatens Americans as well as Mexicans and which both our governments and law enforcement agencies have a shared commitment and shared interest in combating.

So we've been engaged with the Government of Mexico both at a federal level and at a state level and at a local level to develop the kind of coordination and capabilities to effectively fight those who are engaging in drug-related violence. It is a deep-seated and in some places a systemic problem that is going to require sustained action by all of us. Our Mexican counterparts -- law enforcement and political and judicial -- have, you know, been very, very cooperative, working as partners. I mean, I think we, to put it simply, we see each other as sharing a common threat and a common danger and it's going to be a threat we need to fight over the long haul.

So it's not, frankly, the kind of the question that lends itself to a spot answer: What is the situation today versus what the situation was yesterday? It's the kind of situation where you recognize that you've got, you know, a deep-seated, well-entrenched problem and are going to have to provide a system-wide solution to.

Sir.

QUESTION: Lambros Papantoniou, Eleftheros, Greek Daily. Mr. Ereli, one question. It was reported by Human Rights Watch last Friday that U.S. M3-13B* airplanes transferred prisoners, have also repeatedly landed at airports in Greece and Cyprus, to following the recent story by Washington Post of November 3, 2005. I am wondering if you could have anything to say about that.

MR. ERELI: I have absolutely nothing to say. I know absolutely nothing about it.

Sir.

QUESTION: Yeah, two questions.

MR. ERELI: One question.

QUESTION: Xue Jun Li from -- only one question?

MR. ERELI: One question.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. ERELI: And then we'll come around.

QUESTION: From China, Xin Hua News Agency. An editorial by the New York Times Saturday said that the Bush Administration is approaching a new containment policy towards China. And do you agree with that?

MR. ERELI: I don't know if I'd interpret the editorial that way. I think that certainly was a mischaracterization of our policy and I would refer you to two speeches that give you a good sense of where the United States wants to be with China: First and foremost, the President's speech last week in Tokyo in which he laid out, I think, a very clear and compelling vision of our relationship so far and where we hope to take it; and also the Deputy Secretary's speech to the U.S.-China Friendship -- U.S.-China Business -- I don't know the exact group in New York -- a couple of weeks ago, which was following on his trip to Beijing and his initiation of the enhanced partnership, enhanced dialogue, with China, how we see it moving forward.

But the way I would encourage you to look at our dealing with China is, number one, our recognition that China is a rising power that is rather than a rival is a potential -- is a partner in many ways, and one in which we seek to help integrate into the international system and to play a positive and constructive role in enhancing security and prosperity worldwide.

That said, there are actions and decisions and policies of the People's Republic that do cause us concern that we feel it is important to speak out about and to engage with China on. And I think the President was very clear and the Deputy Secretary was very clear about what those issues are and how we hope to have a productive dialogue with China on those issues.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Reha Atasagun of TRT Television, Turkey. Can you tell us what kind of cooperation you have on the PKK issue with the European governments? There are reports that U.S. Government has asked the Danish Government --

MR. ERELI: Right. Spokesman McCormack was asked about that in today's press briefing by one of your colleagues --

QUESTION: Yeah, maybe you have something now?

MR. ERELI: And I -- you know, I don't have anything specific for you on that report. I think you and your colleagues in the Turkish press know very well, and it's surprising that -- it's an issue we have to speak to every time we brief, that the United States and Turkey share a common abhorrence of the PKK, that we both recognize the PKK is a terrorist organization, that we both work together relentlessly to fight the PKK to ensure that the PKK does not pursue its destructive agenda against Turkey or the people of Turkey.

So without responding to whether we've gone into this particular entity to ask it to shut down because I don't know, I can tell you that containing and fighting and preventing the PKK from acting against Turkish interests or the interests of any peace loving people, is a constant element of our foreign policy, whether it be with the Government of Turkey, whether it be the Government of Iraq, whether it be the governments of Europe, it is a regular feature of our diplomacy.

Let's go to the lady in the back. Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. The Secretary recently traveled to Canada and she heard a lot about softwood lumber, including some linkage with energy exports. The Prime Minister of Canada raised it again with the President at APEC, saying that U.S. protectionism was threatening global trade. I'm wondering how the U.S. responds to these kinds of comments from Canada. It's clearly an acceleration and whether you link it at all to the election?

MR. ERELI: Well, the Secretary was very clear about this when she was in Canada. We view this issue as a trade dispute and it needs to be resolved as a trade dispute. And there have been a number of rulings on this issue. We feel that those rulings need to be respected and we are -- I think, we are moving forward to resolve the issue through the appropriate trade channels. But, you know, making it a political issue is not, in our view, where it belongs.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Sarah Hussein, Saudi Press Agency. I wonder if you could comment on the withdrawal of Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from the Likud Party and maybe you can give us some idea of what you expect, what the effects of that will be on the peace process, whether that will stall contacts between the two sides and so on?

MR. ERELI: It's not an issue for us. What happens in Israeli domestic politics is something that is of concern and relevance to the people of Israel. The Government of Israel has made a commitment -- has made a longstanding commitment -- successive, I should say, successive governments of Israel have made a commitment to political -- negotiate a political solution with the Palestinians and we see no reason to believe that there is any -- there'll be any change in that commitment and we have every expectation that no matter what happens in Israel, there is a firm basis for moving forward with the Palestinians in resolving the dispute and creating a Palestinian state.

QUESTION: May I follow up on this?

MR. ERELI: Yes, sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Following on this and the success of Secretary Rice in Gaza, would the U.S. consider to use its influence for a substantive negotiations which will cover the main problems, together with Gaza before the principals are gone forever for the solution?

MR. ERELI: I think what you can look forward to when assessing future U.S. actions is a continued intensive engagement across the board in helping the parties move to a settlement of the issues that divide them. And when I say across the board, I mean, at a working level and at a senior level because, you know, there are so many aspects to this issue. There's the security aspect, there's the movement of people and goods aspect. There are the political aspects, whether it be, you know, some of the final status issues. There is the settlements aspect. So this is dealing with all these and keeping the process moving forward is something that you can expect the United States to remain intensively involved in.

Now, if you ask whether we're going to be pushing for high level negotiations on this issue or that issue, frankly, I think the way to look at it is a lot depends on what the parties prove themselves capable of in the sense that we still have a ways to go on the Palestinian Authority performing in the security area and the continued capability of groups violently opposed to the peace process remains a concern of ours.

We will continue to press the Israelis to meet their commitments. And I think that as the opportunities present themselves -- and the Secretary's last visit to the region was one example -- as the opportunities present themselves, we will involve ourselves and engage ourselves to get the ball over the final yard to the goal line. But first and foremost, what we've got to see is we've got to see that we cannot be a substitute for actions by the parties and we cannot instill or manufacture trust and confidence between the parties that makes for the kind of engagement on the substantive issues that's necessary for the renegotiations to actually begin.

Okay, one more. Two more -- for you and then we'll go to you.

QUESTION: Avian Tumengkol, Indonesia. Recently President Bush and President Yudhoyono met in Korea, discussing a number of issues, one of which was embargo -- the embargo military assistance.

According to Bush's statement, he is referring to the Congress and Senate in the potential results of the lift, in another discussion with Secretary Rice offering Indonesia Defense Minister for the trade of the military weapons. Can you clarify and more importantly give a clear stand on the potential results?

MR. ERELI: You know, I think the decision on whether to pursue -- the decision on what falls and what materials to provide Indonesia is a result of two things: One, interagency consensus within the United States Government and; two, consultations with Congress. So there are both parts of the same equation. And the policy decision will be made by, frankly, considerations regarding human rights and answers to questions about longstanding incidents regarding the Indonesian armed forces and that is a subject of discussion between us and the Indonesians. And as I said, movement on that will, I think, be a continuing subject of those discussions.

Yes, sir. In the back. Uh-huh. Yeah, right there and then we'll go to one more. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Christoph von Marschall, Tagesspiegel, Berlin. I would like to ask something about the UN reform. We read this morning in the newspaper about the pressure of the UN Ambassador Bolton towards a reform, but given the timetable -- now we have Thanksgiving, a very little time left in December before Christmas, next year, there's the election of a new UN General Secretary -- what, realistically, can be reached before the election of the new UN Secretary General?

MR. ERELI: Well, I wouldn't look at it in that strict timetable. I mean, UN reform is -- the U.S. position is that UN reform needs to be systemic and that our approach to UN reform is not just one area or another area, but is system wide. So that's not something that's going to be accomplished in weeks or months.

I think that if you -- our Ambassador Bolton was speaking in terms of a comprehensive approach, that's certainly what guides our handling of this matter. And there might be milestones along the way, but I wouldn't -- we certainly aren't expecting anything conclusive and are not -- in the short term and are not limited to one Secretary General's mandate or another Secretary General's mandate.

Last question. Sir.

QUESTION: My name is Yukio, Japanese newspaper, Sankei. My question is regarding with the six-party talks. You had a little progress in the September session, but not in our last session, which closed on the other day. At this moment, nobody knows, you know, when the next session takes place. But however, if it takes place, you are going to discuss the implementation of the joint statement, which was the issued the last session.

I'm wondering, in the past, you have said over and over that if you don't see big progress in the near future, you might bring this issue to the Security Council, the United Nations Security Council. Do you still have the same position or --

MR. ERELI: Well, that's not our -- you know, frankly, that's not a function of the discussions that I've heard. The fact of the matter is the six-party -- the fourth round that ended in -- when was it, July, yeah, I guess July -- was Iraq did a statement of principles which was important and significant and provides a good basis for moving forward. And the last round albeit short, was I think noteworthy in that it shows that the process has a certain regularity and that the parties have established a working rhythm that serves them well. And for that reason, we expect there to be another meeting at a time that is suitable to everybody.

And so there's no talk, frankly, of looking at alternate pathways or alternate processes for dealing with this issue because we've got agreement on the statement of principles, we were comfortable with the process, the way that it's working and I think we're all looking forward to getting together to actually jump into the nuts and bolts of this issue.