Middle East Update

KIMBERLY NISBET: Good afternoon. I'd like to introduce David Welch, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. If you could please turn off all your cell phones, we're going to go ahead -- the Assistant Secretary is going to start with opening remarks. He's giving an update on the Middle East and we'll then go to Q&A. Please state your name and affiliation before asking your question. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Hello, everybody. Thank you for coming this afternoon. We will try to be quick with opening remarks and then we'll just going directly to questions and answers, because I think that's probably what you're most interested in.

This is the -- I think the first briefing I've done at the Foreign Press Center here in New York and I'm honored to be here. Thank you for having me, Kim. And thank you to you all for showing some interest in our issues. I've been up here today for a conference at Columbia University which is co-sponsored by Columbia* and the *Greenbook Institute*, CSIS, on relations with Libya and democratization in that country. We had a very good session this morning which is on the record if you want a good appraisal for where our relationship with Libya is right now and headed towards, I can point you to our remarks there which should be available on either their website or ours in due course.

As you know, there have been discussions underway here in the Security Council about the next steps forward on the Iranian nuclear issue. We're making progress, so we're not there yet on a presidential statement, but we anticipate with a bit further work and some goodwill on all sides we'll be able to reach a consensus on this important statement, reflecting the rising concern in the international community about Iran's nuclear misbehavior.

The Arab Summit is approaching and we have been meeting with our friends in the Arab world who will be attending the summit to urge that this important conclave representing 22 Arab countries, 22 members of the Arab League, address some key issues in a positive forward-looking way. And one is to provide support, political and otherwise, for the Iraqi government and a new Iraqi government when that emerges soon.

The second is to bolster the push, the international community to see a responsible answer from the new Palestinian government with respect to the three requirements of the international community: acceptance of Israeli's right to exist; renunciation of violence and terror; and agreement to all the package of past agreements, obligations and initiatives, including the roadmap and the Beirut Arab League initiative with respect to the peace process. We think that is a requirement for any Palestinian government. And since the Hamas party we expect will shortly form a government, they should address those on behalf of the international community.

Third, we also have been addressing with our Arab friends and partners the situation in Darfur, where we are gravely concerned about the continuing humanitarian crisis there. There is a need for an international presence to protect people there. The African Union Mission has been performing capably where it is, but we think it needs to be bolstered financially and practically and additional contributions in the international community and the most efficacious way to do that is to transition this to a UN-mandated mission.

We've also been discussing with friends in the region the general situation of reform in the Broader Middle East. From time to time, that's an agenda on the Arab League as well, as well as a bilateral concern of ours and many governments in the region. And we repeated once again our desire to see a cooperative partnership between us, the international community and the Arab states with respect to reform issues: political, economic, social and educational.

I've probably forgotten some important issue, and I hope you don't think that by neglecting it in opening remarks I don't attach importance to it. But let's go right to questions and answers.

QUESTION: Abderahim Foukara from Al Jazeera. I have two points if I may, one on Libya, if you could -- I know that you talked about it this morning at Columbia but if you could just bring us up to date where things stand now between the United States and Libya, following Libya's initiative to junk* its weapons of mass destruction? And is Lockerbie now water under the bridge, so to speak?

And on Syria, sir, we haven't heard anything about U.S., Syrian -- the noise seems to have died down. What's going on, on that front?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, let me start with the second, first. With all due respect, sir, I wouldn't call it noise. There is a very specific set of concerns we have with the destabilizing behavior of the regime in Damascus, first, by unwarranted and unfortunate intrusion into the affairs of Lebanon. Despite the withdrawal of Syrian troops, the exercise of Syria's influence there continues in an unfortunate way. There are several terrorist groups headquartered in Damascus, including Palestinian extremist groups that continue to conduct violence against Israelis in Israel and in the territories, particularly the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is headquartered there. And they appear to be continuing their terrorism.

Third, Syria has an unfortunate human rights record, whereas to one degree or another and elsewhere in the area, one sees progress politically and economically, the reform effort in Syria, if there ever was any, appears to have been stalled. These are just some of the concerns. I wouldn't describe them as noise; I think they're very real and very practical.

On the second -- your first question, sir, with respect to Libya: Where are we? After the decisions of the Libyan Government in December of 2003 to give up their weapons of mass destruction and comprising steps they have taken to address the Pan Am 103 issue, we've been able to make quite a bit of progress on both the WMD and the terrorism accounts with the Libyan Government. We opened a liaison office in Tripoli in the summer of 2004, restoring an American diplomatic presence that has been absent from Libya, oh, I think 25 years at that point, certainly almost the full time of my career.

Since then, we have been trying to -- in working with our Libyan colleagues, address a variety of concerns that allow us to move ahead with normalization of the relationship. That would consist, in our view, of two steps. One is upgrading to full diplomatic relations in the form of an embassy with an ambassador presence. Second is to address any remaining concerns about terrorism so that Libya can be removed from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism. We've been making progress towards both. We're not there yet. The Libya Government is aware of what concerns that we have and we have a benchmark program for how to address them. As I say, we've been making steady progress. Today, I was able to reflect that in my remarks at the Columbia University conference.

Yes.

QUESTION: Sylviane Zehil, L’Orient Le Jour, Beirut. This afternoon the Security Council will be meeting at 3:15 to discuss the report, the Nicolos Michel report on the tribunal, international tribunal. Could you please give us your thought about this report -- the U.S.? And also on its competence, financing and also the timing?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, you have me slightly off-guard. I haven't seen the report yet. I'm aware of the work that has been underway by the United Nations legal team working with the Ministry of Justice in Lebanon to look at aspects of international support for eventual prosecution of those who may have been responsible for the murders of Rafik Hariri, some 20 other people and other crimes in Lebanon. There have been ideas out there about how to address it, but to be honest with you I haven't read the specific report and I'd rather not comment on those details right now. Let me say, though, stepping back from the details of what they might present and give a picture of where we come from -- the United States Government in this respect.

First, there is an investigation under the UN (inaudible) which is proceeding and periodically we receive reports from the UN IIIC head, Mr. Mehlis, and now Mr. Brammertz. The Lebanon Government has decided that it would like international support, not simply in the process of an investigation but looking forward to bringing those who are responsible for these crimes to justice. How that support is defined is a matter between the UN and the Lebanese Government right now.

We agreed, though, that it's quite logical and probably even necessary that the international community look at providing that support. Again, what form it takes, that'll be discussed up here with our partners in the Council. But I would expect that there will be good support in the Council for this idea.

Yes.

QUESTION: Mark Turner, Financial Times. Two questions: one, regarding the Arab Summit. I was wondering if you could go into more detail. Do you have basically concerns that the Arab governments are going to provide lots of support for the new Palestinian leadership even without doing the steps that you outlined and what sort of talks are you having with them to prevent that? And just on the Syria-Lebanon issue, does the U.S. support the continued presence of Mr. Lahoud there or is it time for Mr. Lahoud to go? Are there talks with countries in the region about the possible success* to Mr. Lahoud? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: I expect that the Arab Summit will discuss the Palestinian issue and will discuss the fact that there will be a new government headed by a party that, in our view, is a terrorist organization which has not yet met any of the requirements of the international community, including those that the Arab League, as a collective, agreed to. How the Arab League decides to address themselves to the new Palestinian government is, of course, up to them.

But if your question is have we discussed this with the members of the Arab League, in terms of what our understanding of those requirements are, the answer is yes. I expect that the emergence of a new Palestinian government under an organization that has yet to say yes to anything the international community has asked of it, will present an important issue for the League membership to decide. I don't want to forecast what that decision might be, but the burden is on the new government to respond to these concerns and to bring themselves more inline with the rest of the international community, if that's what they seek to do. If they don't want to do that, that's up to them. But there will be consequences if they do not.

QUESTION: The Arab states (inaudible)?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: No, I don't have that sense, actually. They may express themselves in different ways, but I think they're, you know, quite concerned to see a negotiated track to a two-state solution that results in a peace that recognizes that there'll be one state on one side called Israel, and another state on another side called Palestine and they'd like to get to that negotiation.

And my understanding of the positions -- and I've talked to quite a few members of the Arab League, as you probably know -- is that they don't see that affirmative answer yet from those who are expected to lead the new Palestinian government and the burden is on them to answer.

The second part of your question again was --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Oh, yes. This is a decision for Lebanese to make, consistent with their laws and in accordance with their procedures. We think it's appropriate for this important political office in Lebanon to be occupied by someone that doesn't bear the burdens of the past and looks to the future. And we've made that view known clearly from this and other places. And it's now up to the Lebanese people to make these decisions.

MS. NISBET: Andrey and then we'll go over to Talal.

QUESTION: Andrey Shirikov with ITAR-TASS* News Agency. How do you assess the future of the roadmap when --and the role for the Quartet and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and how they assess the results of the visit of Hamas representatives in Moscow?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: I believe that the vitality of the Quartet and its importance as an organization that can make international community's views known on this important issue -- very strong. There's a good partnership between the European Union and the United Nations collective organizations and Russia and the United States in addressing all the issues that arise in this very difficult and complicated dispute. We've had a very good dialogue with our Russian colleagues on these subjects. My counterpart is Ambassador Yakovlev and he comes with a distinguished diplomatic career. He was just recently Ambassador to United Arab Emirates and I'm sure that he'll continue to make a very strong contribution on behalf of Russia to this organization.

We want to see a way forward. The way forward that everybody has agreed -- it's been endorsed and not just by the Quartet, by others, by the Security Council, the roadmap. The Government of Israel accepts the roadmap. The Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas accepts the roadmap. Most members of the Arab League accept the roadmap. It doesn't seem that even after a visit to Moscow and even after hearing very directly from senior representatives of the Russian Government that the representatives of Hamas political party were prepared to change their positions.

But I mean, you can ask your own government, sir, for its interpretation of what they heard. This is how they briefed us. That said, you know, now Hamas will become a government. When you are in the government, you have different responsibilities. The chief of those is to deliver for the aspirations of your people and to govern responsibly. I think what the international community has asked of this new Palestinian government is the same thing it would ask of any new Palestinian government: Do you agree to a two-state solution that is negotiated in an atmosphere free of violence and terrorism?

And to do that you should have a working baseline of previous agreements and obligations. This is not rocket science. This is pretty straightforward. That's the reason why we have a good, solid international position in support of these things. It's up to them to decide their views.

QUESTION: Talal Al-Haj, Al-Arabiya Television.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: How are you?

QUESTION: Fine, sir. UNAMI has noted lately in their report that there's a marked deterioration in the security and I'm quoting here, "the security environment resulting in hundreds of cases of killings, torture, illegal detention and displacement in Iraq." Now the U.S. forces and multinational forces seems to be unable with Iraqi forces of keeping a lid on this. While the Arabs are meeting in Khartoum, was there ever discussed between the United States and the Arab League the possibility of the Arab countries moving to help their brothers in Iraq, sending forces? Because being Arab and Muslim forces, they might be more acceptable to many Iraqis. Was this possibility ever discussed? Did you ever think about talking to them about it?

And on Iran, sir, my second question is while everybody agrees that Iran mustn't be allowed to get nuclear weapons, apparently it is very obvious there's a disagreement about the duration you're going to give them to comply. There's a disagreement on the language. There's disagreement about the Security Council, whether it should or shouldn't be the instrument for this. Aren't you giving Iran a message of disunity on this? Many people are losing hope of the P-5 reaching agreement on the UN* presidential statements.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Thank you. I hope I get all aspects of your first and second questions. There's a lot packed into those two and they're complicated.

Look, if you were asking me a year ago what is the Arab League role in Iraq, I think I would not have very much to offer in an answer. Today we're in a very different and improved position. The Arab League has sent missions to Iraq, led by the Secretary General of the Arab League in one case -- a productive visit. The Arab League has engaged in support of the process of reconciliation and unity inside the country as ideas on how to proceed forward with them once a new government is formed in Iraq. We think those are good and responsible ideas.

I think, number one, this political role is very useful. Iraq is a member of the Arab League and too long it was divorced from the Arab League. Now it's welcomed back and we look to the Arab League and its member-states to provide support to the new government and to the people of Iraq.

Does this mean in the security area -- point number two? It could. So far, I believe the Arab League's members have not been -- have been reluctant to address this question. And, sir, it's not because we have asked it or have not asked it; I think they themselves have debated it and not arrived at a conclusion yet. We have no prejudice against that or for it. We would like to see a supportive international role, including in the security area. As you know, the military presence in support of the Iraqi people is a coalition presence. It is, of course, heavily American and -- but there are other parties as well. If the Arab League member-states were to take steps in that area, I don't think they would meet any resistance in the United States.

You ask about the security situation there. I mean, this is a deeply disturbing aspect of developments there. Of course, it's not the same throughout Iraq which is a very big country, has 25 million people. There are some parts of the country that are really quite stable, safe and secure, where economic activity is thriving. But regrettably, the center of the country, in particular, remains disturbed and this is a matter of great anxiety, not just for Iraqis, but for their neighbors and for the international community. It's a time for everybody to step forward and support the Iraqi people. They need political support, the kind I described. They need economic support and they need security support.

There have been three elections in Iraq. The people finally have a voice. Three elections in one yea and they finally have a voice. Now is the time for them to unify, form a government that's representative, non-sectarian, unified and can look to the future of their nation. We hope that the Arab League members will support that effort. I expect actually that they will because they see that they're just --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Look, we're not asking them that. I mean, we hope for these voluntary steps on their part. There's a variety of concerns there. Generally speaking, participation of Arab states in peacekeeping activities, on the whole, pretty good. But there are differences in the capabilities of them and that's matter they need to work out themselves.

Your second question on Iran, I'm confident that there will be a unified international result on important nuclear issue. The urgency of this issue surpasses whatever divisions may exist over one letter or one phrase someplace in a statement. We will work this out. You know, no one wants to see this Iranian regime have a capability of nuclear weapons. That's not going to happen. It's not acceptable to the international community. It's a dangerous threat to Iran's neighbors, nearer and far. I'm certain that skilled diplomats that we are, of course, we'll be able to work out something on this.

QUESTION: Hi. I'm Hijime Matsura from Nihon Keizai Shimbun Japan. I'd like to ask -- I would appreciate it if you could share me your opinion over the recent Dubai Ports deal because I believe that it's intimidating Arabian capital. Well, I believe that for a country with a huge trade deficit, foreign direct investment is crucial. And I also believe that Department of State is responsible, rather than the USTR of foreign direct investment.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, actually, I think, happily, we're a free-market economy and I would like to believe that foreign direct investment would follow where the highest possible return is and safest place to put your capital. That is, generally speaking, it is a fact that most countries or corporations or individuals who have the means to do so find the United States a good safe place to invest.

Foreign direct investment is good for our country. We want to see more of it. We have a very open economy, perhaps the world's most open economy, and we welcome this attention and involvement on the part of others. Arab investment is high in the United States, but it is in comparison to say, for example, investment in the U.S. from your country, sir, modest. The largest foreign investors in the United States are Europeans, Japanese, Chinese.

That said, this is a complicated decision and it's now, I believe, on its way to resolution with the firm Dubai Ports World having declared its intention to transfer its U.S. operations to an American entity in a process of divestiture. That's up to them. I hope it draws the matter to a close.

And one further thing. We don't want in this process, while we're trying to address the issues involving strategic investments in our country, which may comprise a number of possible destinations, we don't want to send a signal to people who may be looking at other kinds of investments that this isn't a normal environment in which they can proceed forward. It is.

QUESTION: Now a Japanese electronic company, Toshiba, is considering to buy a huge stake of one of your biggest nuclear contractor, Westinghouse. And in Japan there's a swirling -- we believe that in the United States sort of xenophobia is swirling, emerging.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: No, the only part of that question that I know anything about is xenophobia. This is not a xenophobic nation. Look, we're standing here in New York. This is one of the most international cities in the world. Americans are a people who welcome others. We're a nation of immigrants. You know, I know my family is from Missouri, but after that, where their ancestors came from, I don't know. They're just American. This is not the nature of our nation that we should close our doors to people or to their finances.

I'm sorry, sir. I cover from Morocco through Iran but I don't cover Westinghouse, nuclear reactors or Toshiba, so I can't answer that question. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: If I may just go back to the issue of Syria. There was a time when a lot of noise was made in both directions between the Americans and the Syrians about fighters using Syrian territory to transit into Iraq. I was wondering, how happy are you now with what the Syrians claim to have done to plug those gaps?

And on Hamas, obviously the United States has an image problem in the Arab world and the Muslim world and I think part of the problem now is when the United States says that Hamas ought to stop killing Israelis and recognize Israel, a lot people in the Arab world and Muslim world they say, yes, we agree with that, but Israel ought to recognize Hamas as a representative of the Palestinians and ought to stop killing Palestinians. Is that a problem for you as an administration?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: First on Syria. No, we -- I would not say that we are happy with respect to Syria's control of its borders. The entry and egress of people who would be stopped in any other responsible nation is unfortunately a continuing difficulty in the case of Syria. There is a diminution in the ability of foreign fighters to get into Iraq and the reason is our own and Iraqi military operations, particularly along the Euphrates River Valley. You know, if you can't stop at one place, you've got to stop at another. It would be much better if the regime in Damascus behaved like other responsible governments in the area and prevented people who have evil intentions from using their borders to cross over to murder innocent Iraqis -- the people who suffer most from this behavior. You know, we as part of the coalition do lose troops in Iraq, including to foreign fighters, but the biggest single problem from these people is to Iraqis themselves.

The second question was Hamas? Yes. I think you have to ask the Israeli Government's representatives this question, sir. But if I understand their position and from the statements of Acting Prime Minister Olmert, Israel's committed to the roadmap. It would like to find a Palestinian partner who can say yes to these things. It doesn't appear that Hamas as a party has made that decision yet. It will now be in government. The burden is on them to answer that question. They will also, as a government, have to control violence and terror. I don't know whether they accept that Israel is there. I mean, how are they going to manage the affairs of their people -- several million people -- who live right next door to a country called Israel. This is a question you should also put to them. They have their responsibilities. We'll see how they seek to exercise them. But as a government, they would be now held accountable.

QUESTION: (Mr. Foukara) – Are you having a hard time selling your position?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: No, because I sell our position. I don't sell the United Nations position, the Russian position, the Israeli position or any other. I sell the American Government's views on an issue. And on this, we have been forthright from the start. There has never been any deviation. This was a condition for the PLO. It was a condition for the Palestinian Authority after it was created. President Mahmoud Abbas has said that this is his platform. Sixty three percent of the Palestinian people voted for him as President, which is higher than the number who voted for the Hamas in the legislature. Fifty five percent of the people who voted in the legislative council election did not vote for Hamas. What about their interests? It's up to them to answer this question. It does not present difficulty at all because everybody expected that this would not only be our position, but would be everybody else's position. It is a fundamental part of the architecture of the effort to negotiate a two-state solution. And unless they can address those three parts, it's going to be a significant setback for the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

MS. NISBET: Sylviane, and then --- (off mike).

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, on roadmap (inaudible) initiative, could you tell me if his mandate has been extended to the Broader Middle East?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: He's working under the 1559 mandate. Pursuant to that, he's having discussions with a number of key countries, not just in the region, but outside it, including the permanent members of the Security Council and including the Arab representative on the Security Council Qatar as well as key regional powers. I think it's entirely logical he consult these countries. There are unfulfilled parts of 1559. In particular, the status of free and fair elections and political process there, including the office of the presidency. The continued interference, which I mentioned earlier in response to question about Syria -- on the part of Syria, because after all, 1559 is all about sovereignty and protection for Lebanon and then there's presence of armed militias inside of Lebanon itself and that remains an unfulfilled part of 1559. I see him as discharging the mandate of that resolution.

QUESTION: Again, on Syria, the Brammertz investigation appears to have sort of slowed down going sort of back to basics to put together a case, we're getting a lot less dramatic statements from him about, you know, the case against the Syrian regime, the senior officials there. Do you have a sense in that atmosphere that the Syrians are feeling a little bit more relaxed, a little bit less under pressure from the international community and about more able to do deals? Thanks.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, it may come as a surprise to you but I do not monitor the comfort of the Syrian regime on a daily basis. This is a complicated international investigation of a very sophisticated crime. In any investigation, there is a lot of painstaking forensic work that has to be done. If you look back at the early reports on this subject, you will see the complexity of the task. Whoever murdered Rafiq Hariri and nearly two dozen other people that day had an enormous command of technical capability and resources. I would expect that a sophisticated criminal act of this sort would have behind it people who are very determined in an equally sophisticated and clever way to cover their tracks. I have no doubt this investigation will proceed to its logical conclusion. Sir, I don't know what that conclusion is. Personally, I have a guess, but it's just mine. It's important to see it go through to its end.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) yes or no?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: No, sir. When the investigation transitions to a prosecution, perhaps you'll get a little bit more of the drama that you would like to see. The way these things proceed, crimes of this nature, is unknown in the case of Lebanon because regrettably, despite its long and difficult history, for example, in the civil war, there have really been very few prosecutions of political assassinations. This time, we're likely to see one. And by the way, if I were sitting in Damascus and looking at the course of this investigation, I would be worried about where it would head in the future.

QUESTION: Glen Ashby Trinidad and Tobago. In respect to Iraq, do you differentiate between a resistance fighter and a terrorist?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Not really. I suppose people get a little (inaudible) for language here. The coalition presence is in Iraq under a UN resolution. That resolution is there and acting against it is a crime. Therefore, I would consider that military actions that involve our troops or coalition troops are acts of terrorism. But I'm not here to make this complicated legal argument to you. What is starkly clear is that the most grievous violence in Iraq is directed against Iraqis themselves and I don't see how you could call that anything but terrorism. Putting bombs in mosques is not a military act. It's not an act of insurgency. It's an act of terrorism. You know, walks like a camel, looks like a camel; it is a camel.

QUESTION: Can we do Morocco?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Can we go to Morocco?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Sure.

QUESTION: The Moroccans are -- the Moroccan Government is saying that the Baker plan is dead and buried, but obviously Algeria and the Polisario are saying otherwise. What is the position of the United States on that and what is the importance of the Maghreb to the security of the United States at this particular point in time?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Very good question. The Maghreb -- I'm responsible for three of the four countries, four of the five countries that are the Maghreb union: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. Mauritania is also a member but that's a different part of the State Department.

This area of North Africa is pretty interesting and unique. I mean, in the countries for which I'm responsible there are 80 million citizens who are Arabs and that's a very significant population. And in geographical, political and cultural terms, they have their own sort of integrity and I think we have to pay special attention to that. And if you look at this sub-region within the area that I'm responsible for, it's really quite interesting. We have friendly, good relations -- historically so -- with Morocco and Tunisia; very good and evolving, very productive relations with Algeria; and a new situation with Libya that I spoke to this morning at Columbia University. So the range of interactions on the part of the U.S. Government and the American people with these nations is really changing in quite a positive and dramatic way. We think that's an important thing. We think it's important not just for our interests but for the interests of the people of the area.

Let me give you an example. We have a free trade agreement with Morocco. It's one of the few ones we've negotiated in the Arab world and an important one. The case of Algeria -- and I don't know whether you know it or not, but the United States is now the single largest trading partner for Algeria. Significant energy imports come from Algeria to the United States, including for gas in this area. These are significant forward steps. American business is being restored in Libya in a significant way. We see a pretty bright future for these relationships.

With respect to the issue of the Western Sahara, we're going to be conducting discussions with the Moroccan delegation that's due in Washington tomorrow to cover these issues with us. I don't want to anticipate what the outcome of those might be or what they might present. We would like to see this area stable, secure and peaceful. We believe that a solution should be found that is a realistic one but within the path provided for by the United Nations in the past and supported by the United Nations. We'll have to see what the Moroccan side presents and see how we go forward from there.

I've got to do just one more, if that's all right. Kim, are you okay with that?

MS. NISBET: Yes, that's fine.

QUESTION: Hassan Abuzaitoun from Al Hurra. Concerning the situation in Iraq. Do you share the view of a lot of Iraqis that Iraq now heading to a civil war? And the second one, what about the next step concerning the dialogue between Iran and the United States about the situation also in Iraq?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: I think there's a lot of sectarian violence in Iraq and it is disturbing. We want to see this violence stop. We think the way to do this is to have a political process that succeeds in uniting rather than dividing Iraqis. The next and crucial step in that process is the formation of a new government on a united basis, non-sectarian in character, with the key tools of authority in the hands of people who are responsible and could deal with the interests of the Iraqi people at heart.

We have authorized some months ago our ambassadors in Iraq and in Afghanistan to discuss with their Iranian counterparts issues of concern within their area of responsibility. In the case of Afghanistan, those discussions have occurred. In the case of Iraq, for some reason, the Iranian Government never saw fit to address itself to this suggestion until very recently. If and when we have conversations with the Iranian -- with (inaudible) Ambassador Khalilzad's Iranian counterparts, they will be on issues involving Iranian interference in Iraq, not on issues outside of the borders of Iraq.

So far, there's been mostly talk from the Iranian side indicating their acceptance of such discussions but they actually have not occurred. Why they change their position is a matter of speculation. I'm not going to speculate myself. It is curious that in one arena it was acceptable and in another arena was not until recently, and it may have something to do with events that they, the Iranian regime, may be worried about elsewhere. But that would be speculation.

MS. NISBET: Sir, I don't know if you have time. We have a Washington correspondent -- (off mike) – with the monitor. We may have to make this brief. Thank you.

QUESTION: I'll make it very brief. I can't let you go, Mr. Secretary. Samir Nader with Radio Sawa. Can you hear me?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Yes.

QUESTION: I read the report that you are traveling to the Middle East this weekend.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Well, as usual, you're on top of things.

QUESTION: So can you tell us what is the purpose of this mission this time?

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Not just yet, but I'm not going anyplace unfamiliar to you.

QUESTION: Okay, Mr. Secretary, what's your assessment to this agreement between the executive committee of the PLO and President Abbas and Hamas that they rejected the platform of the Hamas government. Are you concerned that this disagreement could develop into a conflict on the street between Fatah and Hamas? And thank you so much.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: We do not want to see any violence in the Palestinian areas or elsewhere. President Mahmoud Abbas was very clear in his speech to the PLC after the election. He was clear in his communication offering the chance to form a government to the Hamas party, suggesting that they do so on the basis of his platform, as he articulated it in that speech. I'm not involved in the communications between the Hamas Party and the PA president and the PLO executive committee. But it would look to me from afar that so far, like the meeting in Moscow, the Hamas political party has not been able to give an affirmative answer as to whether they agree with the platform of the President of the Palestinian Authority, which would comprise all of the elements of concern to the international community. It's up to them to decide, as I said earlier.

MS. NISBET: Unfortunately, I don't think the Assistant Secretary has much more time left, so we're going to have to wrap this up.

AMBASSADOR WELCH: Thank you all very much for your patience.

# # #