01 April 2004
Afghanistan Donors' Conference Produces $8 Billion in Pledges
$4.4 Billion in pledges to be delivered this fiscal year
Afghan officials reached their goal of obtaining $4.4 billion in pledges to help meet their expenses for the new fiscal year at the International Afghanistan donors' conference in Berlin.
In all, the two-day conference, which closed April 1, produced $8 billion in pledges toward the country's three-year goal of $12 billion. A senior State Department official noted that the multiyear pledges did not include money from the United States because the U.S. Congress only appropriates funds one year at a time.
The official observed that "a number of countries, a number of organizations, noted that they had over-fulfilled the pledges that they made at the Tokyo conference."
He said this was true of the United States, Japan, the World Bank and other international organizations.
The 2002 Tokyo donors' conference generated $4.5 billion in multiyear pledges, most of which have been collected.
The official added, "I think the experience in Afghanistan so far is that people have fulfilled their pledges."
The State Department official reported that discussions at the conference addressed the issues of narcotics trafficking and Afghanistan's security needs.
Following is the text of the briefing by two senior State Department officials:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
(Brussels, Belgium)
April 1, 2004
BACKGROUND BY TWO SENIOR DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICIALS
International Conference On Afghanistan
Schweizer Hof Hotel
Berlin, Germany
March 31, 2004
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: We'll start.
(cross-talk)
If I can, let me talk very briefly about the bilateral meetings that we had today and then turn it over to #2 to talk about the way the Afghan Conference is going, which is very good.
Just to go briefly through the bilats today, I would say that the themes that weaved their way through, a lot of talk about is Afghanistan, obviously, and everybody's desire and commitment to keep working on Afghanistan, moving forward. Second of all, a lot of talk about Kosovo among us, the Germans, the Russians. And third of all, some talk about Cyprus and The Secretary has been working very hard on Cyprus, talking to Foreign Minister Gul, talking to the Greek Foreign Minister today. He's talked to Kofi Annan once already today and is probably going to talk to him again some time very shortly. You all remember how hard we have been working that Cyprus issue with the Secretary's phone calls over the weekend, the President's phone calls to Prime Minister Erdogan over the weekend and the President's promise that we would do everything we could, including personal involvement by the Secretary. So, we will be hearing in the next few hours how things are turning out in Switzerland.
With President Karzai....Chairman Karzai?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: President Karzai.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: President Karzai. The...I think the first thing of note is he expressed very strongly his appreciation, Afghan appreciation, for everything the United States has done. He said at one point that, "My Finance Minister tells me not to say this, but a billion dollars is a lot of money, and we really appreciate it." And so, I think our total has come to four billion already. They talked about the problems: problems of narcotics, the problems of warlords, and the issue...really the emphasis...we are all placing right now on moving forward with the election process.
With Foreign Minister Fischer, they talked about NATO Summit issues, including the Greater Middle East Initiative: what NATO could do and how we handle it at the U.S.-EU. The Secretary expressed to him our appreciation not only for their hosting the conference on Afghanistan, but also for everything that the Germans have been doing in Afghanistan. They talked about Iran, both emphasizing the need to remain firm so that Iran meets its commitments on the nuclear issue. They also discussed the situation in the Balkans, particularly with Kosovo.
With Chancellor Schroeder, some of these topics came up again: appreciation for the Afghanistan effort that Germany is making, the situation in Iraq, the situation with Iran, the situation in the Balkans. The conversation with Chancellor Schroeder was very friendly, very positive, very constructive, extensive discussion of some of these issues.
With Foreign Minister Li of China, they talked about upcoming visits and exchanges, including the Vice President's visit to the region in the next week or two. Foreign Minister Li briefed him on his meetings in Pyongyang and the state of play with regard to the Six Party Talks - both of us trying to work toward working group meetings and then another round by the end of June...All of us expressing a strong desire to move forward towards complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. They talked about Taiwan. They talked about the human rights resolution in Geneva. The Secretary made clear that given China's record we felt we had to go forward with that.
With Foreign Minister Lavrov: the Secretary and he know each other from UN dealings from the past, they know each other fairly well from all those efforts we have made together with the Russians. But this was the first time they met as Foreign Minister, as Foreign Ministers. It was a fairly long discussion. It went about an hour with Foreign Minister Lavrov. They talked about the NATO-Russian Council Meeting coming up on Friday and also some of the ideas that are around for how NATO-Russian Council can work more in the future. They talked about the relationships that NATO and the EU have, and that Russia has with NATO, that Russia has with the EU, and how we can look at those together. And they talked a good bit about Kosovo. They talked about Iraq and the possibility of a new UN resolution, and then touched on a number of other subjects there briefly at the end.
So that's the basic rundown on the bilats. We'll take more questions later but why don't I let my colleague talk about how the Afghan Conference is going.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: Thank you. This is, of course, day one of two. This morning I am sure you observed the opening session with President Karzai and Chancellor Schroeder. The second session then following the lunch and photo opportunity was the focus on political and the setting of the elections in September--both elections, that is presidential and parliamentary--is the main piece of that. The second session was on reconstruction, and this was actually the pledging session. This was the donor's session part of this international conference, which just ended maybe 10 minutes ago, just before we came over.
The Afghans were very pleased that they were able to meet the targets, or the target for their fiscal year that just began. Their fiscal year just began last weekend. They say they need about $4.4 billion, that's both on the reconstruction side and the operating costs side, salaries. And they received pledges of about 4.4 billion, so they were very pleased at that. On the longer term, an account of the three-year target, they were looking for about 12 billion over three years - and they got about eight billion of that without any contribution from the United States on the out years.
As you know, we only pledge one year at a time because the Congress only appropriates one year at a time. So Secretary Powell, when he gave our pledge, pledged the billion dollars that you have heard about, which, in addition to the $1.2 billion that Secretary Snow pledged in September to Afghanistan, completes the fiscal year 2004 pledge of the United States to Afghanistan for 2.2 billion. These numbers I can answer questions about if they are of interest. That's the main part of today. Of course tomorrow we have a discussion of security issues. Secretary Powell will have another intervention at that time.
QUESTION: Did you say that the goal was 4.8 or 4.4?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: 4.4
QUESTION: So they hit it right on the money.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: They hit it on the money.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: If I can make one point, because it's a question I get asked about. One thing that struck me and it's probably very familiar to people who work at this, but a number of countries, a number of organizations, noted that they had over-fulfilled the pledges that they made at the Tokyo Conference. We said that, the Japanese said that, the World Bank said that and I think some of the other international organizations said that, too. So, it's somewhat in the nature of these things that the calculations are easier to do for this year or next year than they are for out years, and I think the experience in Afghanistan so far is that people have fulfilled their pledges. As you know, we've occasionally undertaken major efforts to make sure people did. But those pledges have not only been fulfilled but in many cases over-fulfilled. The EU said it too.
Okay, now other questions.
QUESTION: Did the UN say anything about $80 million to be able to procure equipment for the elections?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: The UN came in this morning...Jean Arnault came in this morning and said their target was 63 million. Now, I don't know, you may have heard there was a discussion last night at which the target was stated 80 million. It was stated 80 million, the one you just mentioned. And we pledged last night some money towards that. Others did too -- came up short.
QUESTION: You pledged $25 million?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: We did. Actually, technically we pledged 20, and then we said another five if there is a match. And there wasn't a match last night but they, as they did in the Congress, they kind of stopped the clock and said that the next round would continue this morning. When they came in this morning for that second round to see if someone would match ours, the new target was not 80 but now 63. So the short answer to your question is yes, because we got to 65.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: Do they give tote bags to anyone who pledges more than five?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: Mugs.
QUESTION: The figures don't seem to correspond.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: They are six months out.
QUESTION: We know that the U.S. is speaking of 2.2 billion for fiscal 2005.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: Correct. 2004. Our 2004 was 2.2.
QUESTION: Two-point-two for our 2004. Is that part of their successful 4.4?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: A very good question. This is what I was threatening.
QUESTION: Could you simply say of the 4.4 that 2.2 was U.S.?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: Not quite. Not quite. Because as you said at the outset, your first statement was also correct. Their fiscal years are six months out. So this is what I was threatening to do if you got into these numbers. If you are interested in this, I can do this for you.
All right, 2004: 2.2 billion, the Congress has appropriated that. Now, that is good for the first half of their fiscal year 1383. They are in fiscal year 1383, that's the year of the prophet, 1383. Are you with me?
So their fiscal year 1383 just began. It goes from March this month to March twelve months from now. So, the question is how much of our 2.2 is available in their 1383? And the answer is 1.7 -- 1.7 billion of our fiscal year 2004 money goes into their 4.4.
However there is one other point. Can I do this? We have asked the Congress for another 1.2 billion in 2005. The first half of our 2005 is the second half of their 1383. Still with me? So they could, if they wanted - and they do - put in another 600 million to that 1.7. So in the 4.4 there is 2.3 from us, with a footnote...an important footnote that the Congress hasn't appropriated the 1.2.
QUESTION: All right, so it's an anticipation? You say they met their total, they met their total based partly on an anticipation?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: Correct.
QUESTION: An anticipation that Congress will approve how much?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: At least 1.2 billion that we've asked for, of which 600 million would go into their 1383. Are you with me? All right! This is a good crowd.
QUESTION: How much of the money raised is actually from the U.S.?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: Yeah, 2.3 of the 4.4.
QUESTION: Can you tick off what some of the others countries have pledged?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: Can I? Let's see.
QUESTION: The U.S. and Japan make up most of it. It doesn't sound like...
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: The U.S., Japan and the Europeans. And another big piece, and I don't have the exact numbers but the numbers will be available. Another big piece will be concessional loans, low interest loans, from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank: the ADB.
QUESTION: That's not part of the 4.4?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: No, I think that is part of the 4.4.
QUESTION: Did any of the Gulf Arab states contribute money?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: No is the short answer.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: I think we will have all the details, probably tomorrow.
QUESTION: It's not their problem, right?
QUESTION: It's a Muslim country. Why don't the Saudis, why don't the Kuwaitis, why don't the UAE give?
QUESTION: Oil revenue has been so low.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: We asked the same question.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: The...I mean, the state of the world, the state of the economy, at most of these donors conference is that the U.S., the Europeans, Japan, and the banks give most of the money.
QUESTION: So, it seems like you would want to show support for from other...
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: We would want to have support from anybody who's willing to show support ...
QUESTION: The best way to put 4.4 is grants and loans.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: Yes, that's right, I would imagine...
QUESTION: Are money's not...
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: Our money's all grants.
QUESTION: No strings on ours?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: Except the one we talked about. Right.
QUESTION: Except the one we talked about.
QUESTION: Is it meaningful to talk about 390 million from Japan, for example?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: The 390 from Japan we'll get...exactly, that's multi-year. So what I've been talking about so far has been 1383 single-year. Now several countries actually made multi-year commitments. The Europeans did, the Japanese did, yeah. So you also see out there new pledges and those new pledges are...tend to be multi-year and they're also coincidentally in about the $4 billion range.
QUESTION: Now, is it fair to say that of that eight billion of the multi-year pledge that you're talking about, 2.9 billion U.S.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: Correct, that's exactly correct, with the same caveat. Now which is another important point - that eight billion that they raised of their target 12 does not include our 06 and part of '07, so they have that for zero. So they are probably...they clearly did better than the eight to 12.
QUESTION: Can you explain what the 2.9 billion is from the ...
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: Yes, right, right, you're with me on the 2.3?
QUESTION: Yes.
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: That only counted half of our request for our fiscal year 2005, so when you add another .6 into that you get from 2.3 to 2.9.
QUESTION: Oh, boy, and ...just the way this year's was bumped that could be bumped too?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #2: Could be.
QUESTION: Listening to Powell's language, the U.S. is not going to be cheap about this.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: Secretary Powell indicated that we're in this for the long term.
QUESTION: Ok, so maybe more.
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: I mean, my bottom line on this would be that we made the targets for the immediate year and got a long way towards the multi-year targets.
QUESTION: Can we go to your stuff a bit?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: Sure.
QUESTION: This will be the same old question, so, but I'll keep it brief. In fact let me put it negatively: he did not, with the Germans, did he, raise the issue of...and I know they're doing lots of stuff in Iraq...raise the issue of peace keeping troops in Iraq, did he? Even with the NATO, and a U.N. angle?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: Yes, no. He didn't raise the issue of German peace-keeping troops, he raised...he said as we look at the Istanbul Summit, as we look at the upcoming NATO meetings, including whatever discussions we'll have on Friday, one of the issues that we want to keep talking about is the issue of NATO in Iraq and what kind of role NATO would want to take up in Iraq. And that will be something we want to pursue.
QUESTION: And as our spokesman said the other day, I assume it's still true: it's not going to be a decisive day.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: No, we're not going to decide this on Friday.
JOURNALIST: Okay. Now the Russians, the other Ivanov, the Defense Minister, a week or so ago raised concern...it's not a State Department dream, it's a Pentagon dream...of nuclear weapons, new kinds of nuclear weapons, and said, not threateningly, said defensively, if NATO does this we'll have to, you know, arrange defenses for this. Did Lavrov bring up their stated concern about new U.S. nuclear weapons?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: No.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Would you say anything more about the eight billion and three-year figure, how much of that is loans?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: I should really get their tally sheet to give you that, I can't really say. Of the 4.4 I believe about a half a billion of that was loans from the two main banks: ADB and the World Bank. I don't know the three-year equivalent.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: These people, being hard-working, having late deadlines, can still get more information tonight, but is there a plan to put out a tally sheet tonight?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: There is. I can probably get a tally sheet tonight.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: If we get one, we get it to you, if we don't, we'll look for it tomorrow.
QUESTION: The issue of laggard people being slow on writing the checks, I've heard it two ways, okay? I've heard that there's a lot of delay and I've heard that there isn't a lot of delay. Whether there is or there isn't, did the Secretary do any quiet lobbying or gentle nudging of people to make good on pledges that they have made?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: No, none, that was not a subject that he was raising. How do you see the state of affairs now?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: In pretty good shape. I think [Senior State Department Official #1] mentioned earlier, the pledges made in Tokyo for about 4.5 billion...and those pledges were multi-year as well, so 4.5 was over several years...those have been expended or at least committed. All that money, nearly all that money is in, so that went quickly. And that suggests the same thing, as # 1 did here ...
QUESTION: You know Madrid with Iraq, you know, there was a lot of controversy over whether people are coming through and subsequently there were (inaudible) figures (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: The general sense of this donors conference part of it today was: "appreciate your moving forward on pledges, need more now."
QUESTION: ... the money is where the mouth is.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: Yes, need to stay with it. Everybody said they want (inaudible)
QUESTION: The Chinese Foreign Minister, in North Korea, when he came back from Pyongyang a couple of weeks ago, he was very positive and then the radio in Pyongyang issued that statement on the weekend, I think, of last week, which was fairly negative. What exactly did he say about North Korea in the next round of talks or working group level or anything at all?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: I think, first of all from the U.S. side and I'm sure and the Chinese side as well, the discussion was really about our wanting to forward, wanting to move forward on the complete verifiable and irreversible dismantlement issue. And the Secretary laid out the kinds of things that we would be considering as we move forward on that score, particularly talking about the security assurances as that became...as the talks moved in the direction of that complete verifiable and irreversible dismantlement. The, you know, in terms of what the Chinese heard from the North Koreans, I really don't think I can characterize it very well. He kind of briefed us on a lot of the questions he was asked and issues that came up, but, how exactly they stand I have to leave to them. I think that statement was actually issued on his arrival, or while he was in Pyongyang, so...
QUESTION: No, no, I think it was after he came back.
QUESTION: Yeah, he'd come back.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: I thought it was too, he said it was there when he got there. Maybe it came out in other languages first or something.
QUESTION: Did Detrani go out to talk to Beijing to get a briefing on this, or was this the first real briefing the U.S. has gotten?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: No, we've had briefings in Beijing on it.
QUESTION: Did Detrani go out and get briefed on that? Did they request it?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: Yes.
QUESTION: When you stated the U.S. was saying what it can do about security assurances, you've been saying over and over the information (inaudible) are you considering anything other than a verbal assurance?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: As the President said in Bangkok, I think we could give...we could do an assurance from the parties to the talks on North Korea's security, security assurances from the parties and that it could be in writing. We've always made clear that they could be in writing. And that as the talks proceeded along the lines of complete verifiable and irreversible dismantlement that we would be in a position to talk about that.
QUESTION: So, that being said, are we now in some kind of timetable or reciprocity?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: It is not, no, there is no formal particular timetable on it now. It says the talks proceed down the lines, down the road of complete verifiable and irreversible dismantlement, that we would also talk about the security assurances.
QUESTION: So you think you, that'll go as far as a formal treaty or non-aggression pact or does this?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: No, we're not. We said we're not, we don't think a treaty is appropriate or necessary.
QUESTION: This will be a what, unilateral declaration?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: No, it would be multilateral. The President made clear multilateral security assurances in the six party context.
QUESTION: (inaudible) four parties?
QUESTION: Can you say anything further of the modalities of the working group?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: Not at this point. No.
QUESTION: So that's nothing, there'd be no ...
DEPARTMENT OF STATE SENIOR OFFICIAL # 1: No that's what we're discussing. We're discussing how to, how to try to move this forward, how we and the Chinese and any other partners can try to move this forward. Also had a brief discussion with Foreign Minister Lavrov about the importance of six-party talks, the importance of moving this forward.
QUESTION: Why, would you, I know that the United States would like the working group to focus on CVID, did the Chinese feel that they should also be with the main topic of the working group or do you think other issues?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: That's not an easy question to answer, because first of all, I think all of the parties, perhaps except for North Korea, coming out of the last round in Beijing made clear that comprehensive verifiable and irreversible dismantlement was the goal of these discussions as far as we were concerned, and others as well. So that therefore, is a topic that is to be discussed in the working group. As that topic is discussed in a working group, as we proceed down that...down the road towards that...I think we have made clear the security assurances can be discussed, others have made clear that there other issues that they are prepared to take up.
QUESTION: Yeah, I think the North Koreans want to bring up compensation ...
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: They can bring up whatever they want.
QUESTION: On Afghanistan - did the Secretary bring up the possibility that NATO members should contribute more forces to Afghanistan and nudge countries?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: No, not in those terms - whether there are other NATO requirements would probably be something that might be discussed on Friday at NATO, but I think, generally NATO has done pretty well in meeting the requirements. As we know, we had a bit of a scramble last year to make sure that the helicopters were there, and we encouraged NATO and other governments to take on the Provincial Reconstruction Teams. But, in fact there are a number of countries that are taking on Provincial Reconstruction Teams. The Germans have Herat...
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: ...the Germans have Konduz.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: Konduz, sorry.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: The Brits have Mazar and actually at this point, the Dutch said they were strongly considering a PRT. The Italians, that they're strongly considering the PRT and the Brits came out and said that they are going to do a second PRT. So there's a ...
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: And there are even countries outside of NATO.
QUESTION: That would be in addition to the six that are already there? Or would that be...
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: There are 12 now, there are 12 PRTs around the country at this point, and so the ones that I just mentioned would be in addition to those, right.
QUESTION: Is there any discussion of a mandate for the PRTs, establish a mandate to go after warlords, disarming, any of these issues?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: There was a little bit today, I would anticipate more tomorrow when we talk about security.
QUESTION: What is the U.S. position on that?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: We are very pleased that the PRTs are able to deal with security just by being there, just by being in the field, in the region. We also are pleased that they have, the PRTs have been able to have a calming effect on some local issues. Herat is a good example, Mazar is another example where there were militias that were at each others forces and the PRTs in both of those two cases were able to have a calming effect. So, yeah, we think that's fine. We also think that there's limit to how much an 80-man PRT can do in terms of taking on military responsibilities. This is not their function, in terms...in military terms.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 1: There were, there will be more discussion about security tomorrow, in the meetings, bilats, between President Karzai, but also in the bigger meetings and sessions of the conference, I'd say there were...that all the various aspects of security came up, everybody emphasizing the importance that involves a number of factors: it involves Taliban, al-Qaeda, sort of remnant presences that we're trying to deal with, with coalition forces. It involves the question of warlords and the situation that evolved in Herat and where actually the Afghan National Army was an important part of stabilizing the situation there. So that means the continued training that's being done for the army, continued training for police in the country, things like that, a lot of people emphasizing their intention to continue that process. And then the issue of what we call warlords, and making sure that every part of the country is subject to the control of the central government. So those are probably all topics we'll hear more about tomorrow.
QUESTION: The Afghan Finance Minister beat you to the wire, on the record, ...
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: Ghani?
QUESTION: ... so you'll confirm, that as a senior state department official, there's a slight quibble here, he says 8.2, you said eight, unless I heard you wrong.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: I'm sure the Finance Minister is correct.
QUESTION: He's one the wire.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL # 2: Oh, good, congratulations.
QUESTION: Obviously the Secretary has spends much of his time as well talking on Cyprus. Is there any sense of frustration, is he looking for compromise, is he looking for flexibility? We really are at the 11th hour. Is there a sense that Annan is going to have to go ahead with his referendum without them and then bridge the gaps? And is the Secretary expected (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: Stay tuned. That's about all I can say on Cyprus at this point. Stay tuned. See what comes out of Switzerland before you write your story.
QUESTION: Will you answer what I write?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: At this precise moment I really can't go any more deeply into Cyprus and to try and answer your question and talk about things I am not in a position to talk about yet.
QUESTION: What is this concept of now? How long does this concept of now last?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: Right now.
QUESTION: Right now, he is not going to Switzerland. You think now will extend through Friday night?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: Yes.
QUESTION: All right, we are going to have the State Department confirming that the figures.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: Go ahead and use the Afghan minister's figures.
QUESTION: Has the Secretary called the new French Foreign Minister yet?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: Not yet. I think he will shortly. I am not sure if he will tonight but he is talking about doing it soon.
QUESTION: With Lavrov, did he express concerns about NATO expansion? How (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: No. It wasn't, "Oh, my God. NATO is expanding. It wasn't concerns about NATO expansion. He raised some of the issues involved in NATO expansion and how we can talk about them and address some of them in talks between NATO and Russia.
QUESTION: Like what?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL #1: Things like the question of Conventional Forces Treaty, where now we have some members of NATO who are not party to that treaty.
Okay, thank you all.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
