Middle East Update

MR. BAILY: Good morning and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. This morning we have Ambassador David Welch, the Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs, giving you a regional update. I know many of you have questions. He'll have a brief opening statement and then be happy to take your questions both from Washington and our colleagues who are joining us in New York.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Thank you. Good morning. Happy to see you all here today. This is our first discussion of the New Year so I hope we have a chance to take as much time as you need to cover all the issues for which I am responsible. Let me say a few words at the outset. 2005 and the beginning of 2006, very eventful period of time which has seen growth and democracy and freedom continue in the area. There have been three elections in Iraq, two in Egypt, one in Lebanon, one in the Palestinian territories, and we expect of course an election in Israel. This is a sign of change that is growing throughout the area.

We have recommitted ourselves in this same period to trying to improve the conditions between Israelis and Palestinians. The Gaza disengagement proceeded successfully and in the aftermath of that the Secretary of State traveled to the region to negotiate understandings between the Israelis and the Palestinians to provide for greater openness in Gaza and movement within the West Bank and between the West Bank and Gaza.

The Palestinian election was conducted in security and in an environment in which people were able to vote as they wished to vote. The results are what they are and I expect you will have something to ask me about that. But it's very important to recognize that people in the Palestinian territories had an opportunity to go to the polls and do so in safety and security to make their political wishes known. We'd like to see more such opportunities elsewhere throughout the region, too.

We've put a heavy emphasis on improving our bilateral relations throughout the region and I think you can count on us continuing that in the coming months. Let me give you a couple of examples of that. We have quietly but steadily continued our dialogue with Libya designed to move that country further along into becoming a member of the international community in good standing. American bilateral relations with Libya are good and we hope to see improvement in that area.

We've got a number of exchanges of visits and we look forward to more in the coming months.

We just concluded a very successful visit by the new Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to Washington to refresh our dialogue with Israel on issues of concern to us.

We've all witnessed the events in recent days involving the cartoon controversy. Again, you all may have some questions about that. But we have expressed ourselves very forthrightly about the views of the United States in this regard. We think that while people have the freedom to say what they want and do as they wish, there is some responsibility that comes along with that. In our own country and elsewhere, we think that people ought to do this in a manner that is respectful of others. I think the President and the Secretary of State have been very clear in their comments in this respect.

One thing that has disturbed us is, of course, the violence that has accompanied the publications of these cartoons. This is not an acceptable way to vent outrage and it is particularly of concern to us that we've seen it in several locations where the responsibility of some for what may have happened also disturbs us.

I'll pause there and then open it up for questions on anything on your minds. I have a bit of time this morning, so let's try and cover the entire waterfront. Are you going to call on --

MR. BAILY: Yeah. George.

QUESTION: My name is George Hishmeh. I'm with Gulf News.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Good to see you again, George.

QUESTION: Good to see you. I want to repeat some ideas that have been in the area bout following the Hamas election. Some Hamas officials and others are saying, you know, everybody is asking us to declare what we want to do. We never heard Israel declaring what borders it wants. Matter of fact, what is the constitution in Israel (inaudible) Palestinians, especially there are over a million Palestinians living inside (inaudible). What is your position of that?

And may I inject another question quickly? Is -- in the reporting on the moving the Iran nuclear issue to the UN, I noticed in the press here a reference that the U.S. views favorably -- I'm not quoting there exactly -- favorably the idea of a Middle East nuclear-free, nuclear-free Middle East area. Do you have a position on this and what is your (inaudible)? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: The territorial issues between Israel and the Palestinians, in our judgment, should be resolved by negotiations. That's always been our position. That will be our position.

The Israeli Government has concluded a number of agreements with the PLO and then with the PA. The Israeli Government stands behind those agreements and we would expect any Palestinian government to do so as well. You know, to ask where the borders of Israel are is essentially a rhetorical trap on this issue. The issue is whether you're prepared to negotiate with another state about the final status issues, and that is what is expected of the Palestinian side and that is what it has accepted to do on every occasion in the past.

So when the Quartet, for example, laid out the principles that it would expect to see from a new Palestinian government, it put in that it should recognize and accept previous agreements and obligations. And at the heart of those agreements is the process of negotiations to arrive at a solution about the very question that you raised.

With respect to Iran, I should have mentioned in my introductory remarks that this is also an issue where there's been an important transition. The question of Iran's nuclear misbehavior was previously discussed in the IAEA; it will continue to be discussed there. But now it is also the domain of the Security Council. The question will be reported to the Council for its action. In fact, the communication has already gone from the IAEA to the Council in that regard.

In the past, when the issues of nonproliferation or proliferation have been raised in an international context, there's been discussion of a nuclear weapons free zone or WMD free zone in the Middle Est. This is a topic that has come up for some years now. Conceptually, we agree it's a worthy idea and we certainly don't object to exploring it, but it's quite a bit distinct from what I term to be nuclear misbehavior. Iran has violated agreements it's undertaken and that is the reason why it's been a subject of discussion in the IAEA. The IAEA then took it a decision to refer the matter to the Council for further action. So, you know, rather than talking about new things that might be done, this is talking about things that should not have been done because they were in violation of agreements.

MR. BAILY: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up?

SECRETARY RICE: Sure. A follow-up there and then we're going to go to New York.

QUESTION: Hi, Mr. Secretary, you mentioned --

MR. BAILY: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Al-Ahram newspaper, Hoda Tawfik. You mentioned the territory between the Israelis and the Palestinians will have to settle through negotiations. So what territories? Is it negotiations with the facts on the ground? Do you accept the facts on the ground as a basis for negotiations? And to start with the '48 lines, was the United Nations, a Security Council resolution, to create two states. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Look, again, let me distinguish between two parts of your question. The parties have all accepted that there should be a negotiation to resolve the final status issues. Borders are a final status issue. Egypt accepted that when it launched negotiations in the late '70s. Jordan accepted it. The Palestinians accepted to do so. Defining in advance what the outcome of those negotiations would be is not possible, nor would the United States seek to do it. That's why we want negotiations so these questions would be resolved between the parties. That would be our answer.

MR. BAILY: We're going to go to New York, please. New York, go ahead with your question.

QUESTION: Good morning, sir, Ambassador. I'm Sylviane Zehil with L'Orient le Jour, Beirut. You traveled recently to the Middle East. While in Lebanon you have been received by angry demonstrators. Do you characterize the results of your trip -- how can you characterize the result of your trip to Lebanon?

And also, do you believe that the implementation of Resolution 1559 is really on its way to be resolved? Is it going to be -- we are witnessing now, especially last Sunday, we witnessed in Beirut demonstration -- angry demonstrator. It was a demonstration by Syrian, Palestinian and Bedouin in the Christian area. How can you characterize these infiltrations, especially in the Resolution 1559? Is it the implementation? Is it -- can you explain to us?

And also if you have time, I don't know, I have to ask you also on the investigation --

MR. BAILY: Wait a minute --

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: I think three questions at least; I'll take a stab at all of them.

Yes, I was, of course, as all of you know, in the area not so long ago and did go to Beirut. There was a demonstration there. It was a small one. Those things happen from time to time in Beirut and elsewhere. There was unfortunately a confrontation during this demonstration and I'm sorry that that happened. I think while we don’t object to anybody expressing their views, even when they disagree with us, they're entitled to demonstrate. As I said in Beirut at the time, it's unfortunate that there would be violence started by those demonstrators that would have caused a problem. I think it was a small part of an otherwise cordial and successful visit. I had very good discussions with the Government of Lebanon and its representatives at the time and some political figures as well.

On 1559, I think this question revolves around the issue of the disarmament of militias. We understand -- we in the international community understand that this question of the arms in the hands of militias is a very difficult one for Lebanon. And we have always called for a Lebanese dialogue to resolve that, to make progress toward ending the state-within-a-state status that one of these militias, in particular, presently enjoys.

We believe that 1559 should be implemented fully. We think the security, stability and welfare of Lebanese would be stronger were it implemented fully. And of course, as Lebanon makes progress towards that, it can count on our support and the support of others.

However, we also don't want to see a process of dialogue that gives an excuse for any party to avoid their responsibilities under 1559. Again, we think that meeting those responsibilities would be in the interest of the Lebanese people. How they go about it in their dialogue is up to them, as long as that objective of disarmament is clear and that we see progress towards it.

Finally, you ask about the demonstration on Sunday in Beirut. I alluded to that in my opening statements. I think this kind of violence is a very grave and disturbing indication that some people will put their hand into any issue to try and disturb security and stability for their own parochial reasons. The Secretary of State has mentioned her concern about the behavior of Syria and Iran in that regard.

I would just add that it seems to us to be no accident that we see violence there in Beirut on that day and in Damascus the preceding day. It is the responsibility of governments to protect their citizens, to protect guests in their country, and in particular under the Vienna Convention to protect diplomatic establishments. We all expect that of each other.

MR. BAILY: We'll go to Russia here.

QUESTION: Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Dimitry Kirsanov with ITAR-TASS, the Russian news wire service. President Vladimir Putin announced today that Russia intends to invite Hamas leadership for consultations to Moscow in the very near future. My understanding is that Hamas has already confirmed its willingness and intention to accept this invitation. I'm wondering what's the U.S. Administration view on this new initiative of Russia's Government?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: I've -- just as I was coming over here -- seen these reports and they're just reports for me so far. I haven't seen what President Putin has said. So forgive me, but I don't want to answer what you say are his words because the words of any president are important. And while that's what you say he did, I'd like to read them for myself and understand them from speaking to my Russian colleagues what they may intend with this, if that's what they intend.

Let me step back for a minute, though. The Quartet, speaking on behalf of the international community and with Russian representation and agreement, has stated very, very clearly what the principles of the international community are in this matter. We believe that all parties should be committed to the agreements and obligations that they have assumed, and that includes the Palestinian party.

Second, we believe that anybody who wants to sit down and negotiate on this issue should do so in an environment of no violence and no terror.

Third, when you're talking about arriving at a two-state solution, which is the agreed objective of the international community, that means you have to recognize that there is another state party to this conflict, in this case, Israel. You cannot approach this by denying the right of the other to exist.

These are the principles that were clearly articulated now several times by the Quartet and, again, with Russian participation and agreement. We would expect that any meeting that occurs with any Palestinian representatives, including Hamas, would emphasize these principles. That should be the approach for any country; that is, is to drive home what is agreed internationally is the standard for behavior here.

QUESTION: A follow-up?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Sure. Follow-up here.

QUESTION: My name is Khaled Dawoud Al-Ahram newspaper, Egypt. I just -- does this mean you have conditions for the formation of the Hamas government and basically when do you expect this government to be formed? Are what you're saying either you do this or we won't deal with you, won't give you money? It's so many complicated issues, money, the security. So can you clarify this please?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, yes, there are complicated issues, Khaled, you're right. And I mean, perhaps there aren't answers for every single question right now. Since I'm not a member of Hamas, I don't know what their intentions are and when they intend to form a government, if they intend to do so. If you ask me as an American representative, we don't have any contact with Hamas and we won't have any contact with Hamas. It's a terrorist organization, under our law.

But I think that all -- you know, again, let me come back to the basic principles here. What is the principle by which Egypt approached hosting this delegation, for example? We heard from certain senior members of the Egyptian Government that the approach is exactly that of the international community: People should recognize that Israel exists, has a right to exist.

Number two, there are certain standards for behavior as you negotiate with each other. There shouldn't be any violence and there shouldn't be any terror.

Number three, you have to accept that there are obligations and agreements in place already. There is a long record of that kind of effort and we would expect that people to accept that.

As to when they will form a government, the Palestinian process, legal process, is in train and I understand that at some point, perhaps later this month, they will convene the legislative council to be sworn in, and at that point the formal process of a government formation will unfold. I don't know their calendar. You'd have to ask them for the details.

MR. BAILY: Barry.

QUESTION: Thank you. Barry Schweid of AP. Do you expect, Mr. Secretary, as the shock of Hamas begins -- victory begins to wear off, it'll become more difficult for Israel to maintain the support of the United States and the Europeans and others in not dealing with Hamas? You have -- you just made a very straightforward, flat statement. But is it true that the Administration is weighing options of how to deal with this situation? I might even ask if you're waiting for Godot.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: I'm sorry. I don’t even know who Godot is, Barry.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) officials. I just need --

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Godot is an unnamed official?

QUESTION: No, no. My friend here briefed me on the play. I don't remember too well. I'm not (inaudible).

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, I go to more basketball games than I do plays, so sorry if I'm not caught up on Mr. Godot.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Look, the burden here is on Hamas to take a decision. It's not on the United States, not on the international community and not on Israel. What has changed here is that Hamas achieved an electoral victory in the legislative council. Now it must decide what it will do with that political mandate from the Palestinian people. If it wishes to take into account the views of the international community, they were, as you said, very clearly stated.

In terms of the United States, we will do exactly -- we are doing exactly what we said we would do. First, we support the interim government. We believe that it is important that the Palestinian Authority, presently being directed by President Abbas, continue to function to meet the needs of the Palestinian people. When and if a Hamas-led government comes into office, then we have said that we will undertake a full review of our assistance relationship with the Palestinians and with the Palestinian Authority.

Actually, Barry, we already have that underway, as Secretary Rice mentioned yesterday, and I would expect it will be concluded briskly. There will be some consequences in our assistance relationship. That's inevitably going to be the case because we cannot have, as I said earlier, a relationship with a terrorist organization regardless of whether it's in government or out of government, and that will be a driving principle in this review.

Samir.

QUESTION: Samir Nader with Radio Sawa. If a new government led by Hamas is formed and did not respond positively to the requirements by the Quartet, will the U.S. continue to deal with President Abbas?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Yes, because President Abbas's platform has been made clear to us. He was elected on a platform of peace and he has expressed that he believes that there should be one authority, one law and one gun under his leadership. On January 26th, he reiterated the same points speaking to the Palestinian people, and that's the basis of our understanding with him and we will continue to conduct a relationship with the President.

QUESTION: So you will go along with -- so you won't go along with what the Foreign Minister from Israel said yesterday that the situation will be transformed to a terrorist entity?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, you know, look, you have to ask the Israelis directly about how they interpret it. But I think she received the question with respect to the new government under a new prime minister.

MR. BAILY: Go here. Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. This is Salameh Nematt of Al-Hayat newspaper. Thank you. Two questions.

Hamas leaders have indicated they are prepared to declare a truce with Israel, meaning no negotiations but a cessation of hostilities against Israel, as a transitional period in order to rebuild institutions at home, reform, et cetera. Would this be acceptable to the United States, an open-ended truce on the part of Hamas, which complies with the demands for ending terrorism and attacks against Israel?

The other question is: Is there a deadline for Iran to comply with international community's demands or is it an open-ended thing? The diplomacy deadline, is there one? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Salameh, I'd prefer now not to draw distinctions or bring out the fine print of principles. As I said earlier, the burden is on Hamas to understand -- to deliver to the Palestinian people a future that's better, that suits their aspirations for peace and security. How they go about doing that is their decision. It's now their problem to do.

In terms of what we apply as a frame of reference, we have asked for three things and I won't repeat them again because you know them very well. It doesn't seem to me that you can push the "pause" button on terror and say, "Well, today I won't do it, but perhaps tomorrow I will." That is not, in our judgment, an honest and constructive way to address this requirement.

Second, with respect to deadlines for anyone, Iran included, the deadline has passed for sincerity and completeness in their observing all their obligations under the IAEA and under the NPT. They have violated those obligations. The view of the international community has been expressed not once but multiple times. And now we'll have to see whether diplomacy through the UN Security Council track can yield the kind of results and objective conditions that we would like to see.

If Iran can meet those conditions, well, then it's another story. But the concern of the international community is going up on this. A sense of urgency has always been there. You know, we do believe that there is time for diplomacy to work. It's important that diplomacy be given a chance to work. That's why we have called repeatedly for the Iranians to come back to negotiations as offered by the EU-3 and some other interested parties who have become involved now. But we see no sign that they intend to be serious in doing so. That's regrettable and now the subject will, as I said, transfer location.

QUESTION: Tammam Al-Barazi, Alwatan Al-Arabi Magazine. Sir, the point (inaudible) (inaudible) again, you know, we have precedent (inaudible) Dawa with the Shiite Iraqi party was on the terrorist list in the '80s and you have negotiated with it now it is in power in Iraq and they never renounced terrorism or what.

Secondly, the European -- we have Sinn Fein and we have the IRA, the political wing, and Hamas has a political wing and a military wing. Why you are not distinguishing that there is a political wing for Hamas and for a military? Why this double standard?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Actually, you're trying to hold me to standard that we haven't articulated. Our standard is very clear. Again, I'm not going to repeat it again. There are three principles that apply here and I don't think you can point to any statements by Hamas that say that there's a political wing of Hamas and there is a military wing of Hamas and one accepts these standards and the other doesn't. As far as I can tell, none of this terrorist organization has accepted these three principles. When and if they do, perhaps there will be a different situation. But presently, the obligation is on them to address themselves to these requirements. And again, let's point out this is not -- these are not American requirements. These are requirements that the international community has together accepted as the necessary standard for behavior. And you know, it's up to them to accept them.

QUESTION: Yes, Ambassador. Peter Mackler from Agence France Presse. Just to come back on that question, we all know what the three standards are, but I have two questions. We all know what the three standards are, but is there any room for negotiation? Some people have suggested maybe a series of benchmarks leading up to those standards might be more appropriate and more realistic.

And my second question is: As the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday said very clearly that they had a legal and moral right to withhold customs duties and remittances from the Palestinians collected on behalf of the Palestinians if Hamas comes to power, does the United States support that legal and moral right?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: You know, Peter, again, I don't -- I'm not going to be put and I don't want to be put in a position to parse these principles for anyone here. It's up to Hamas or any other such organization to decide how it will discharge its mandate to seek to improve the life of the Palestinian people and realize their aspirations. As far as we're concerned, the way forward is very clear. It's been accepted by others before Hamas, it will be accepted by others after Hamas, and it's up to them to make a decision.

With respect to Israel's decisions with respect to tax revenue return or any other form of interaction with the Palestinian Authority or its components, these are questions that Israel has to decide and will decide. Every country will be undertaking a review of what it does with respect to the Palestinian Authority. By the way, we don't know yet who will comprise the Palestinian government. We're all presuming that it's all in place and it hasn't arrived yet. So in this period we know what we need to do now and Israel has taken one decision with respect to return of tax revenues. We'll see what is done in the future. It said that it will measure this on a case-by-case basis.

We are undertaking a review of our own. The European Union is also undertaking a review. Most European member-states who have bilateral aid programs are also reviewing their relationships. Some of us have some early conclusions; others don't. And we'll just have to evaluate it as the situation goes along.

MR. BAILY: I think we have a follow-up on that, please.

QUESTION: Just to follow up to make sure that this is -- we're not talking about aid. We are talking about something that is collected on behalf of the Palestinians that is part of all the agreements that the U.S. has enforced and actually put pressure on Israel to respect in the past. So my question is that will the United States, in order to aid the economic development of the Palestinians, which you've subscribed to, be putting pressure on Israel to come through in this area in the future?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, Israel will take its own decisions. We don't put pressure on it to decide what its interest is. We communicate our views and they take them into account. And I'm certain that they'll do that in this case, too.

Look, the agreements you're talking about now are ones that the party in question has yet to accept.

MR. BAILY: Let's go to the third row here.

QUESTION: Me?

MR. BAILY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hanan El-Badry (inaudible) Egypt and (inaudible) daily newspaper. I do have three points. First one, I would like to ask you some interest group recently campaigning for put pressure on the State Department to add Al-Ikhwân Al-Muslimûn or the Brotherhood on your list for terrorists. I would like to know how you view this and also how do you view the Al-Ikhwân Al-Muslimûn.

The second point regarding it seems that INR in the State Department again under attack. This is regarding the tapes would be released next week telling that Saddam Hussein moved the WMD from Iraq to Syria.

Last point. How do you assess the meeting, the recent meeting between Sheikh Nasrallah and General Aoun?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, I have to say you've covered an admirable amount of ground.

On the tapes, I'm afraid I don't know this issue and so I'm not prepared on the subject, so I apologize. I'm not avoiding it; I simply don't know it. Rather than mislead you by my answer, I won't deal with it.

On the Muslim Brotherhood, the Al-Ikhwân Al-Muslimûn, in Egypt in the parliamentary election there were a variety of independents elected to the majlis. If those independents wish contact with the United States, we have no objection. We do not have any relationship or contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is not an established political party under the laws in Egypt, and that is presently our policy.

You also asked about discussions among Lebanese politicians.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

AMBASSADOR WELCH: I'm not aware that there's any consideration being given now to modifying the terrorist list by inclusion of any Egyptian parties on it or any Egyptian organizations.

Meetings between Lebanese politicians, this is a matter for the Lebanese and I don't have any comment on who meets with whom in Lebanon. This is a place where many people meet with each other all the time.

I think there are a lot of important topics here that are discussed, including in the meeting that you mentioned. But let's -- our view is this is a discussion between two political currents and not a governmental discussion. In our judgment, what's important here are the established legal authorities of the Government of Lebanon and they have responsibility for these issues.

For us, for the United States, the Hezbollah Party is, as you know, a terrorist organization, labeled as such and considered as such under American law. It receives foreign funding and it tends to respond to foreign guidance. In our judgment, and we would object to characterizations that have appeared from some Lebanese politicians that would appear to justify some of the terrorist actions in the past of that organization; for example, the taking of hostages. As you know, American citizens have suffered at the hands of this organization and that's why we consider it a terrorist organization, and there is no reason in our view why there should be any excuse or any loophole for them to change their behavior and disarm, as according to the rules of the international community as expressed in 1559. I think these rules exist because Lebanon has had a tragic past with militias, including some that were foreign funded, and the people of Lebanon wish to get beyond this and have for the most part gotten beyond it. There is, however, this one large and unfortunate example.

So these are our views. Again, anyone is entitled to a political discussion but we deal with the established institutions of the government and we ask them to respect the will of the international community. That there should be a Lebanese dialogue to achieve that is fine by us and we are patient, but it should be toward that objective, as expressed in 1559, of disarmament.

MR. BAILY: A follow-up. Let's do a follow-up back there.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the issue is not Aoun and Nasrallah only. This is Hisham Melhem, An Nahar newspaper. Do you see or do you believe that the implementation of 1559 has been undermined by this agreement, which essentially defers or postpone the disarming of Hezbollah indefinitely? So that's a question that relates to 1559.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, I can give you a straight answer to that right now, Hisham. We are concerned about any understandings, whatever their status, that would appear to postpone such a decision.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, obliquely, you referred to somebody justifying taking American hostages. You're talking about Aoun? Can you say that on the record?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay, good. Finally, on 1559 also, the Secretary yesterday -- Secretary Rice yesterday -- since 1559 deals also the Syrian presence and role Lebanon, the Secretary accused Syria and Iran of fomenting the violence emanating from the cartoons. Was she referring only to the burning of the Danish Embassy in Damascus or also to the burning of the Danish Embassy in Beirut and was Syria involved in that?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: It strikes us as inescapable that there is a responsibility for governments to protect diplomatic establishments. In the case of Damascus, a place where I have lived and worked before, in my two years in Damascus I never saw a demonstration that wasn't carefully controlled and managed by the authorities.

In the case of Beirut, I would only point out that it is -- it's a pretty interesting fact that of those arrested for violence in the demonstration, a surprising number were not Lebanese.

MR. BAILY: We have a follow-up here and then we'll go into the second row.

QUESTION: Mounzer Sleiman, Al-Mustaqbal Al-Arab. The designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization came after September 11th and has not been counted as related to previous action related to hostages or killing of Americans. So it was not related to that issue. And at the same time, the Prime Minister of the Government of Lebanon declared in the parliament that he never, ever called Hezbollah his militia. He said -- he didn't say the word militia, but he said resistance.

And at the same time, Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese cabinet and United States is dealing with a Lebanese cabinet, despite the (inaudible) of Hezbollah. So how can we justify not dealing, let's say, with Hamas that represent the will of the Palestinian people if they form their government and be the power, why we accept dealing with the Lebanese Government that part of it is Hezbollah -- was recognized by the United States as a terrorist organization?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: The situations can be very different and I have found in my diplomatic experience that sometimes trying to hold to a standard of 100 percent consistency may mean no action at all. We want to be very clear in our views about each situation and make them particular to each situation.

In the case of Lebanon, though, there is one thing that is consistent. We don't have any relationship with the Hezbollah who are in Parliament or in government. We do not interact with them. In terms of the Government of Lebanon's own views with respect to those who participate in politics there, again, that's their decision. We have our own views about these organizations and parties and I have told you what they are.

I did see that Prime Minister Siniora had answered questions in parliament on this subject. Again, he has a responsibility for managing the government. It's up to him how he conducts that political process and that dialogue in the interest of the Lebanese people. In Resolution 1559, it is clear that it refers to militias and it is clear that the international community intended that that meant all non-state armed parties in Lebanon, of which the primary example is Hezbollah.

MR. BAILY: Let's go to the second row here, please. Yes.

QUESTION: Thanks. This is Marwa Karim, Al Hurra channel. Why leaders of Hamas are visiting some Arab countries in order to get financial aid and support? If Hamas got that support and aid, what other steps would the USA take to put pressure on Hamas to comply to the international community and USA's conditions to continue peace talks? Thanks.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, I mean, let's deal with the facts, as we know them. First of all, they haven't undertaken those visits yet and we don't know what results they will get. The Arab position on negotiations with Israel was expressed at the Beirut summit and I don't even know whether Hamas accepts that. So I'm sure that there will be a dialogue between Arab members of the Arab League and Hamas about what their intentions are and I presume that they will put their own questions to them.

I'm not suggesting what they need to do to other governments. They will decide for themselves what they need to do based on their own interest. We believe they should take into account what we have said, and by "we" I mean the Quartet. That's the Security Council, the European Union, Russia, and the United States. That's a formidable element in the international community and the principles of the Quartet on this matter are very clear. I'm confident that Arab governments will take that into account and maybe that's precisely why we see people traveling around from Hamas trying to deal with this reality.

MR. BAILY: We'll do a follow-up here and then to the center.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, let's get people who haven't asked yet.

MR. BAILY: Yeah, just do a quick follow-up.

QUESTION: Quickly. I mean, if we can -- if we -- if Hamas -- isn't it out of this that you deal with Abbas, not deal -- as the President -- not deal with the government as such? Or how much would Hamas membership in the government -- 50 percent of membership would violate this or not -- conditions? I mean, I'm a little confused about this.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, there's no reason for confusion. Maybe I should say it once more. If you accept the right of Israel to exist, you renounce violence and terror and you accept all prior agreements and obligations, then it's a different situation.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the government?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: They need to have this responsibility. It's their choice to make.

MR. BAILY: Can we go to the second row here, please?

QUESTION: Omar Abdel-Razek, BBC Arabic. First, it seems that any fair -- any fair, impartial election with Arab world will lead to a victory of the Islamists or the Islamic groups. Will this put the United States -- or press it to adjust its initiative to promote democracy in the Arab world and the Middle East?

Also, the same regard, how far -- I mean, you expect a revival for the secular and the liberal groups in the Arab world. While those actually, those groups are trying all the time to keep a distance in between themselves and the American administration and sometime they accuse the administration of double standard. For example, you mentioned the full implementation for the Security Council Resolution 1559, while you refuse to mention 242 as a base for any permanent solution to the Middle East.

Does it help the United States diplomacy in the Middle East to win the hearts and minds? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: You know, we have repeated many times that 242 is the basis for negotiations. It's in the roadmap, so every time I say roadmap you should think 242. 1559 is equally clear about what it obliges parties to do. So we are, on this, I think, quite consistent; no difference between the two.

In terms of elections, democracy, and expanding political participation, look, we don't pick winners. The United States believes that societies should open up for their people, open up in terms of their social and educational experiences, in terms of economic opportunity and, yes, in terms of political participation.

We have friendly relationships with governments that you might consider Islamic in character. We have friendly relationships with parties that are Islamic in character: in Morocco, Turkey, other places. So there's no objection on our part to dealing with anybody's political tendency. This doesn't mean that they would agree 100 percent with us and it doesn't mean that we would agree 100 percent with them.

It does mean that we all share a common understanding about the right of people to participate in political life and exchange views on public policy and, yes, compete for election. That we have these questions like the one you asked today is because this is changing in this region. As I said at the outset, these are experiences that have not happened. They are, generally speaking, new to the societies involved. Not in all cases. In some cases, there are important differences between the countries. But as this experience matures, I am certain that the public debate will expand and change on these topics. And you know, we're happy to be participants in that, but it's a matter mostly for the people themselves.

MR. BAILY: Let's go over here.

QUESTION: Talha Gibriel from Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper. Let me go to the other part of the Arab world. According to my information, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld is going to tour the Maghreb Arab states. I have two questions, actually.

Is Libya included in this tour? Secondly, exactly what the topics he is going to discuss with the leaders of the region? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, I guess I have to say, for the record on the subject, that I'm not aware that an announcement of any travel has been made. I also guess I can take a step behind my title here, which is that I work for the State Department.

MR. BAILY: Let's go over here in the second row.

QUESTION: Zaher Imadi, Syrian TV and SANA news agency. The people of the Golan Heights, the Syrian Golan Heights, have been under lots of oppression, suffering. They keep hearing about implementation of UN resolutions, of Geneva conventions. But yet, Israel is implementing every day acquisition of their lands, raising their taxes, jailing their people. Hundreds and hundreds of their people are in jail with no reason, most cases.

Now, they hear all these calls for forces of freedoms and big brothers on the international scene, you know, pursuing freedoms and they don't hear anything that concerns their own aspiration from the United States and other countries. Yet, on top of that too, the General Assembly -- majority of the countries in there have voted in their favor, the Golan Heights favor, but there was a vote, American vote, and two small islands vote that went against their aspiration.

This will, my opinion, not serve very much the reputation, you know, of the American policy in the Middle East. You're trying very hard to improve it. But yet, such shrinking of 242 to only mean the roadmap is not playing justice for them. It is -- there is also a Syrian land that is occupied and other, you know, lands are occupied.

What can you say to help to give them some -- to revive their, you know, hopes for freedom, you know, and better future from -- for regaining their land back, you know, from the Israeli oppression and occupation? What is the United States view at this time? Even though you do have -- it is recognized that you do have differences with the Syrian Government, but yet this has a lot to do with the human rights also and UN resolutions and Geneva conventions.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Sir, if I knew the telephone number for the Qasr Jumhuri in Damascus, I would give it to you, because there is where you should ask your question.

Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel. Jordan does. The Palestinians have a robust package of agreements with Israel that deserve to be protected. Israeli forces have withdrawn from Lebanon, according to Resolution 425, but yes, the conflict between Syria and Israel remains unaddressed and unresolved, but the responsibility for that lies in Damascus.

QUESTION: But Syria has recalled for peace with Israel.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Thank you.

QUESTION: -- have called many times --

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Thank you. I'm happy to know that.

QUESTION: Based on the UN resolution --

MR. BAILY: Let's go to the front row here.

QUESTION: TASS news agency again. Sir, in your opening remarks, I believe you said that the bilateral relations between the United States and Libya are getting better.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: At this point of time, if my memory doesn’t fail, you have liaison missions, right?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: That's correct.

QUESTION: What are prospectives of embassy exchange? Do you think it could happen this year?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: I'm not certain. We hope to be able to do that. We have an increasing dialogue with the Libyan Government. As you know, Secretary Rice met with the Foreign Minister in New York in September. We have had -- I have been to Libya a number of times during my tenure here to work to advance the relationship. Other senior American Government officials have been to Tripoli. Our commercial ties are increasing; not at the rate that we would like, but they are growing. There is a small American business community now in Libya and they are doing -- able to do their work well.

I think slowly but surely, we are on a path to improvement of the relationship. Our ambition is that there should be a full, diplomatic relationship in the sense of having embassies established. We think that that would be normal and productive for both countries. There are some issues that we're working to resolve, but I think with goodwill on both sides they will be resolved.

MR. BAILY: One last question here, please. Thank you.

QUESTION: Guy Dinmore of the Financial Times. While you say you don't pick winners in elections, Secretary Rice expressed considerable surprise at Hamas' victory, an indicator there will be some kind of internal review or introspection as to how this has happened without her being aware of this possibility.

Do you regard it as an intelligence failure that you didn't see a Hamas victory coming, given many comments from officials before the spate of elections in the Middle East that these elections would help liberal, secular parties in the Middle East?

Thank you.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, let's distinguish between being able to forecast what people actually will do with their ballot and being able to deal with the option of elections as part of the democratic process. With respect to the former, I don't know that anybody called this one "right."

That said, you know, we review -- we are reviewing our own analysis and assessments of what the political picture was like and we have been providing that information to my boss, to the Secretary of State, and to others who are interested in the American Government.

You know, you say that we didn't know about the possibility. Strictly speaking, that's not accurate. We knew about the possibility. What we didn't accurately calculate was the probability. But I think that's probably something that every other pollster "made a mistake on."

Second, in terms of, you know, do you -- even if you assess that there is a possibility that somebody you're unhappy with may win the election, is that a reason not to have one? I mean, in our judgment, you have elections because there ought to be a forceful, important dialogue on issues of public policy concern about which people may have great differences, and that helps to resolve those issues. That's, I think, a principle that we would hold on to.

Now, could we do more as a country to promote the growth of participatory -- of a participatory democratic political process? Absolutely, we can, and one big part of our enterprise and the bureau for which I am responsible is to expand those opportunities, working in partnership with countries and institutions in the region. We have a very ambitious democratization effort underway, again, working in tandem and in partnership with the countries concerned.

MR. BAILY: Thank you very much.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Thank you all. Have a good day.