02 April 2004
State Department Noon Briefing, April 1, 2004
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cyprus, Iraq, Israel/Palestinians, countries with major non-NATO ally designation, Powell/phone calls, Powell/April 2 NATO meeting, North Korea, China/Taiwan, Mexico, terrorism
Deputy State Department Spokesman Adam Ereli briefed reporters at the noon briefing April 1.
Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Thursday, April 1, 2004
12:50 p.m. EST
BRIEFER: Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman
BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA
-- Attempt to Capture War Crimes Fugitive Radovan Karadzic
-- Obligations to Render Fugitives to the International Criminal Tribunal
CYPRUS
-- U.N. Secretary General Annan's Settlement Plan / April 24 Referendum / U.S. View on Settlement Plan / U.S. Role
IRAQ
-- Discussions Regarding a New U.N. Referendum
-- U.S. Discussions with Iraq Regarding a Status of Forces Agreement
-- American Citizens Killed in Fallujah / Coalition Provisional Authority
-- Administrator Bremer's Comments
-- Public Opinion and Improvements in Fallujah / Involvement of Iraqis in Security / Empowerment of Iraqis / Citizen Participation
-- Comparison of Battle in Mogadishu, Somalia
-- Information Available for American Citizens Traveling to Iraq
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Travel to Region by Assistant Secretary Burns, Deputy National Security Advisor Hadley, and Senior Director Abrams / Meetings & Discussions
-- U.S. Reaction to Remarks by Palestinian Prime Minister
DEPARMENT
-- Major Non-NATO Ally Designation / Status of Kuwait & Pakistan / List of Countries with Major Non-NATO Ally Designation
-- Telephone Calls on Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries Issues
-- Secretary Powell's April 2 North Atlantic Treaty Organization Meeting in Brussels / Discussions on Next Summit and Role in Middle East
NORTH KOREA
-- April 7-8 Informal Trilateral Consultations in San Francisco
-- March Visit to Beijing by Special Envoy Joseph Detrani
CHINA/TAIWAN
-- Sale of Radar Equipment to Taiwan by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency / Formal Communication with China / U.S. Commitment to Taiwan Relations Act
-- U.S. View on Cross-Strait Dialogue
MEXICO
-- U.S. Discussions with Mexico
TERRORISM
-- Secretary Powell's Testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States / Terrorism Briefings and Priorities During Transition the Period
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
12:50 p.m. EST
MR. ERELI: I don't have any announcements. Would you like to have the first question?
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the attempt to capture Radovan Karadzic this morning?
MR. ERELI: SFOR conducted an operation last night to attempt to arrest the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia fugitive Radovan Karadzic. I think it was an SFOR-conceived and led operation so, for the details, obviously I'd refer you to SFOR.
Our information is that two civilians were injured in the raid. We understand they are being treated at a medical facility in Tuzla. For our part, we certainly regret the injury of civilians, but would note that our NATO allies in SFOR were put in the position of having to use force to try to attempt to try to apprehend Karadzic because Karadzic himself has not surrendered to the Tribunal, and the Republika Srpska has failed to take any concrete steps to fulfill its Dayton and UN obligations to bring him and other fugitive persons indicated for war crimes to justice.
For our part, we are determined to see that Mr. Karadzic and other fugitive war crimes indictees are brought to justice and we'll continuing working with our international partners to see that that happens.
QUESTION: You obviously knew where he was, then. Did you provide any information to the Republika -- the government of Srpska to help you in this endeavor and they -- and were rebuffed? Or was this just completely done on your own?
MR. ERELI: As I said, this was an SFOR operation, and the information leading, I think, to the planning and the execution of this was within SFOR circles. So I'd refer you to them for those kinds of operational details.
QUESTION: They didn't find him, though.
QUESTION: Oh, I know.
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: Adam, as sort of a follow-on to yesterday's news, does Serbia itself have any influence in the Serb Republic in Bosnia? Can they do more?
MR. ERELI: I think that the Republika Srpska itself hasn't done enough, and we look to, you know, all those subject to the IC -- to the International Criminal Tribunal and all of those with international obligations to render people before that Tribunal to take those obligations seriously and to work together with the international community to help us see that fugitives are brought to justice. And to the extent that the Republika Srpska's neighbors can do that, they should.
QUESTION: Is there a certification process that applies to Bosnia?
MR. ERELI: Not that I'm aware of, no. But I can -- let me check to make sure.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Different subject, on Cyprus?
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Now that the -- both sides have the final text in their hands for the referendum on the 24th of April, what can we expect from the U.S. side, to secure a yes vote? What would -- from now on, what would your policy be?
MR. ERELI: Well, I think it's important to point out, first and foremost, that it's really up to the voters in Cyprus to decide on their future. The plan is going to be presented -- submitted to a referenda on April 24th, and the people of Cyprus will have a historic opportunity to determine what their future is.
Secretary Powell said yesterday that we know that they will make that decision with the future of all Cypriots in mind. We believe that the Secretary General's final settlement plan is a fair compromise, one that meets the core interest of all Cypriots and provides them a secure framework for a common future.
It's important, I think, that the Cypriot voters know that the United States is committed to supporting the full implementation of the Secretary General's settlement plan. Specifically, we will participate in and make substantial contributions to the pre-donors conference, which is being organized by the European Commission. And we will certainly be helpful in other respects as well.
QUESTION: And so how do you evaluate the approach by the Greek Cypriots? Because it seems, you know, they were not ready to sign it, whereas the Turkish side said we are ready to sign it yesterday?
MR. ERELI: This -- the parties have agreed to accept the plan. And that -- so that is what we're dealing with. That is what they have to decide on. And the --
QUESTION: Excuse me, Adam. I don't think they've agreed to accept the plan.
MR. ERELI: No, the parties to this process have agreed to accept this plan --
QUESTION: The process.
MR. ERELI: -- to accept this plan for referenda, for the people of Cyprus. And that is what the people of Cyprus are going to vote on --
QUESTION: Can we call it a plan now?
MR. ERELI: -- on April 24th?
QUESTION: It's a final text now, right?
MR. ERELI: Yes. This is what's going to be --
QUESTION: It's not a plan.
MR. ERELI: This is what's going to be submitted for referenda on the 24th. And it's for the people of Cyprus to decide.
QUESTION: Adam, if they've both -- Denktash said this morning he rejected it.
MR. ERELI: No, what I'm saying is that --
QUESTION: What you're saying is that a week ago, or however long ago, the two sides agreed to meet with Kofi Annan, and that if they couldn't reach agreement themselves, they would give it to -- they would let the UN put it to a referendum. I don't -- I don't know how you get --
MR. ERELI: And they have agreed -- they have agreed --
QUESTION: They've agreed to the process. They haven't agreed to this plan, unless I'm missing something.
MR. ERELI: They have agreed -- excuse me. They have agreed to accept Annan's plan as the plan to be submitted for referenda and they have agreed to let the people of Cyprus decide whether to accept the plan, and that's what's going to happen on May -- on April 24th.
So what our position is, let the people of Cyprus decide, and that it is a historic opportunity and it is, as the Secretary General said, something that provides them real security.
QUESTION: Do you think that both governments are committed to implementing the plan if the people vote for it in the referendum?
MR. ERELI: That's what they've agreed to do.
QUESTION: In light of the rejection this morning from Mr. Denktash and the name-calling that's kind of -- that instantly cropped up since the Secretary General's announcement last night, are you at all worried that the two sides are not going to present this to their people, their two communities, in a favorable light?
MR. ERELI: I think what's important to underscore here is that this is a good settlement and one that obviously involves compromise but gets -- that offers the best deal for both sides and is something that should be supported, and it offers a solution to a problem that has bedeviled the international community for decades.
We will be working with the Secretary General and others to encourage support for this plan, but obviously it's up to the people of Cyprus.
QUESTION: Right. But both the Secretary General and Secretary Powell yesterday, in their comments, urged or appealed to both sides, the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots, the leaders, to present this referendum to their respective communities as a good thing, as the best chance to end this; and instantly, within less than 12 hours after that, the exact opposite is happening.
Are you at all worried by that?
MR. ERELI: We will continue to make it clear to the leaders of the Greek and Cypriot -- the Greek and Turkish community of Cyprus our firm belief that this plan is in their best interests.
QUESTION: But you have been doing this for a long time. Now we reached a point where Kofi Annan has finalized the plan. And why do you think, you know, it was not signed yesterday or an agreement was not reached by the both sides?
MR. ERELI: You'd have to ask the sides. I wasn't there. I don't know.
QUESTION: What I'm asking is what you would be doing from now on. How will you --
MR. ERELI: I really can't give you a concrete list of items that we are going to start doing between now and April 24th to see that this is passed. This is a referendum that the people are going to decide. We're going to continue our efforts with the parties, through Ambassador Weston, through the Secretary. The President has called the Turkish President and the Greek leader today.
We'll continue our active diplomacy in support of a unified Cyprus, which can enter the European Union as a single entity on May 1st. That effort will continue.
As I said at the beginning, ultimately, it's up to the Cypriot people to decide what they want and how their future is going to look like -- say what their future is going to look like. We can reiterate our view that a united Cyprus based on the Secretary General's plan is a more peaceful, more prosperous, more secure vision of the future than the divisiveness and conflict and rancor of the past. And that's what we'll do.
QUESTION: Sir, did you say the President called Turkish and Greek leaders today?
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can we go on to --
QUESTION: Are you not at all disappointed by the fact that the two sides didn't reach agreement last night?
MR. ERELI: I think what's -- they reached --
QUESTION: Well, no, don't even try it. If they had reached an agreement, the Secretary's statement would have said --
MR. ERELI: Let me put it this way. Let me put it this way.
QUESTION: -- I congratulate the two sides for reaching agreement.
MR. ERELI: Let me put it this way. I think our views on this subject were fully and eloquently expressed by the statement we put out yesterday, and I'll just leave it at that.
QUESTION: So it doesn't bother you at all that they weren't able to --
MR. ERELI: I will -- if you want to know what our position is on the agreement that was reached yesterday, look at the statement.
QUESTION: Adam, I'm sorry, but I don't see any agreement that was reached yesterday. And I think you're the only -- I mean, by continuing -- you're hurting your credibility a bit here by continuing to insist that they agreed when they didn't. In fact, they're coming out -- it's not just me saying this -- they're coming out and saying it publicly.
MR. ERELI: I think our view -- our view is that the choice -- that this is a choice between what the Secretary General's settlement plan and no plan at all, and that we believe that the choice is clear and we support the Secretary General's plan.
QUESTION: Wouldn't you have preferred it if the two leaders, if the two sides, had come to an agreement on it last night instead of --
MR. ERELI: We think that what the Secretary General has put forward and how that has come about is, all things considered, the best that could have been achieved.
QUESTION: Well, one last thing here. I know you won't answer it. (Laughter.) Why did the President call the two leaders?
MR. ERELI: Ask the White House.
QUESTION: The Secretary, in an interview with ZDF today, said that he thinks that there will be a new UN resolution before July 1. Has there, in fact, been a decision to do this? When was the decision made? Can you talk about this?
MR. ERELI: I think based on the discussions that we've had at a variety of levels over a period of time, we've come to the conclusion that a -- that there will be a new resolution as we move closer to the 1st of July, and as the date for -- as the transfer of sovereignty becomes -- comes closer.
I think we've -- there are obviously a lot of issues that are involved here, and -- both in terms of substance and timing. And those issues will continue to be a matter of discussion between us and our partners on the Security Council, as well as the UN and the Iraqis.
I would note that, you know, the Secretary met with Lakhdar Brahimi in Berlin, that the UN is returning to Iraq. There will be discussions there. There are a number of discussions going on in -- that happened both in Berlin and in Brussels. So this is going to be an ongoing process. But, as the Secretary said, it looks like there will be a resolution.
QUESTION: A follow-up?
QUESTION: So then is there a conclusion that 1511 doesn't provide the adequate authorities, as everybody's been saying?
MR. ERELI: I don't think that's an accurate conclusion. 1511, in our view, clearly provides authorities. And the resolution, I think, is not solely about a multinational force or authority for a multinational force. That may be one of the issues. There are a number of other issues related to recognizing sovereignty and, you know, others that, frankly, I'm just not in a position to get into.
But to the -- having a resolution, in our view, does not necessarily negate or call into question either the validity of 1511 or the authority under which the multinational force is operating in Iraq at the present time.
QUESTION: Adam, what would that do to the commitment made last November that a Status of Forces -- or status, whatever you call it, Status of Forces Agreement will be reached with Iraq? What will that do to it? Is that --
MR. ERELI: Distinct issues. A Status of Forces Agreement is something between the United States and the authority in Iraq --
QUESTION: Is it now putting it on the back burner?
MR. ERELI: -- so, and it governs -- and it just -- excuse me. And it just governs -- it governs just U.S. forces. And so that is something that we're going to have, with or without a resolution, and the process on that moves independently of a U.S. -- a UN resolution.
QUESTION: Are you discussing a possible UN resolution or a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqis right now?
MR. ERELI: Yes. The subject of a resolution is a subject of discussion. The subject of the Status of U.S. Forces is a subject of discussion. And they are distinct discussions.
Yes.
QUESTION: Change the subject?
MR. ERELI: I think same subject.
QUESTION: Can I stay on Iraq? The four civilian Americans who were killed yesterday, do you know if they belonged to a company called Blackwater or whether they were executives of the company or employed from outside?
And also, can you comment on the Paul Bremer saying this morning that this incident is not going to go without punishment?
And from what we understand, that attack happened by insurgents, maybe, but afterwards what -- the mutilation happened by a crowd, a mob in the actual town. What does that mean? That they're going to round up the people in the town or who were in the fighting, or what does the threat imply?
MR. ERELI: On the subject of the identities of the killed civilians, the murdered civilians, I don't have anything to share with you from the podium on behalf of the U.S. Government. That's number one.
Number two, as far as what Ambassador Bremer said in Iraq today, I think his words speak for themselves and they were pretty clear. He said our -- there will be response and it will be an appropriate response.
I also think that both Ambassador Bremer and our spokespersons in Iraq have made it clear that this is not a question of a fight between the United States and the people of Iraq. To the contrary. The people who perpetrated this are a small, fanatic group of Baathist dead-enders who want to turn the clock back on Iraq. And the great majority of Iraqis, I think, were horrified by what happened, do not -- what happened does not reflect their feelings, and is as much an offense to their sensibilities as it is to our sensibilities.
So we will -- this was a horrific, inhuman act, and I think it's reasonable to say that those who were responsible for it will be punished.
QUESTION: Adam, does it not say that -- does it not suggest to you, the fact that these men were so appallingly treated by what appears to have been a spontaneous crowd, not suggest to you that your problem in Iraq is not just with a small group of dead-ender Baathists, but rather with a broader section of the population that is very angry at any symbol of the U.S. presence there?
MR. ERELI: I think that it's important to remember that we're dealing with a very restricted area, Fallujah, west of Baghdad, that has been a hotbed of anti-coalition feeling from the beginning, that is not a function of -- that is more a function of their sympathies with the old regime than what the coalition is doing, and that if you look around the country, you'll see things in a very different light. You'll see infrastructure improving to what it was -- to better than it was before the war, services improving, opportunity improving, economy improving, and that it's important to look at this as an isolated anomaly.
QUESTION: But at the same time, at the same time, if the animosity is towards -- is sympathy with the old regime, when a new Iraqi government takes over and you hand over sovereignty, won't that animosity be even stronger, and aren't you worried that there will be even more problems when the new government takes over?
MR. ERELI: It's -- a number of -- I guess there are a number of ways to answer that. Number one, clearly security is going to continue to be a problem, or an issue, I would say. And that's why we've been working so hard to develop indigenous Iraqi security capabilities. There are close to 200,000 Iraqis now involved in providing security for their own country. There is a new security council being set up that will combine both intelligence and law enforcement and defense in an integrated way.
So that is clearly a focus of both us and the Iraqis looking ahead towards the transfer of sovereignty. And at the same time, we've been focusing intently on the whole issue of empowerment and citizen participation in public life in order to give them a stake, in order to provide them a stake in their own welfare, so that, you know, if they're a part of things, they're much less -- they're much more committed to resisting those who would try to set the clock back.
And that's why you have town meetings all over the country, why you have discussion of -- wide and informed discussion of the interim constitution, and why, I think, the greatest participation and the widest participation is in the interests of everybody. So, I mean, it's clearly something that people are thinking about, but they're also taking very active measures to ensure future stability.
QUESTION: But you're taking active measures all around the country, but in Fallujah, in particular, and other Baathist strongholds, I mean, those weren't -- it wasn't one or two people doing that. I mean, those crowds were pretty large. So how do you kind of break the -- you've already been offering them all these things and it doesn't seem to be kind of swaying public opinion in those areas, so how do you get beyond that? I mean, what are you going to do about these type of people?
MR. ERELI: No, this is -- two points. One is, this is -- there are obviously -- there are always going to be a small number of people who prefer to look backwards rather than look forward, number one. Number two, as Iraqis become more and more responsible for their affairs, more and more involved in the running of the country, this is a phenomenon that will, I think, subside.
QUESTION: In the last 24 hours, there have been a lot of parallels drawn with Mogadishu. I mean, people are saying it's like Mogadishu, it's like Mogadishu. Are you worried or concerned that it actually may follow the Mogadishu precedent that people will lose, sort of, the support or the stomach for staying in Iraq?
MR. ERELI: The Mogadishu precedent was that, following attacks, we left. And that's not going to be -- that's not going to happen here, I can tell you right now, number one.
Number two, I think the parallel to Mogadishu is a little bit -- is erroneous for the major reason that we are working in Iraq, the coalition is working in Iraq, with the partnership of the Iraqi people, and the great majority of those people, I think, are -- see themselves as better off today than they did before, number one; and, number two, are very much looking forward to taking responsibility for their own affairs, and have, I think, a vision of a brighter future that perhaps didn't exist in Somalia.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: I haven't seen any suggestion that say that Americans will withdraw from Iraq. But would you advise civilians, for example, to stay away from hostile towns and villages?
MR. ERELI: We have, I think, a fairly active program of consultations with and information-sharing with Americans going to Iraq. It includes registering with our consular officer in Baghdad. It includes information available at the Iraq travel -- information available on our website regarding the Travel Warning and Consular Information Sheet. We also have an Overseas Security Advisory Council that is a cooperative effort between State Department and private industry to share information and work together.
So there is, I think, an active program underway to provide information and serve the private American community on matters relating to security.
QUESTION: So it's up to them to decide the danger, whether it's --
MR. ERELI: Well, we provide them the -- the best information that we have, and obviously they're going to make their own decisions.
New subject?
QUESTION: Middle East?
QUESTION: I would like to ask you if you have any comment about the operation and -- the anti-terrorism operation in Europe, and if you can give me some information about the kind of cooperation between the Turks and the Italians who took part in it --
MR. ERELI: I can't.
QUESTION: -- to organize --
MR. ERELI: No, I'm not going -- I'm not going to talk about the issues that don't -- that involve the Turks and Italians but not the United States.
QUESTION: And anything about the organization of the people who were arrested belong to?
MR. ERELI: I don't know -- I don't know what you're referring to. Sorry.
Yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday, the Palestinian Prime Minister gave a speech at the Legislative Council, where he called on Palestinians not to commit violent acts in Israel and so on. And he said that actually this was counterproductive for the Palestinians. And today, he is -- or the -- that team will meet with Palestinian and Israelis. And so what is your reaction to Qureia's statement and --s
MR. ERELI: I don't know if I've seen those specific remarks. We have seen some remarks by Abu Alaa concerning recent meetings, concerning recent actions.
What I would -- let's take a step back and really start from the beginning, and mention that, as part of their travels to the region, Assistant Secretary Burns and Deputy National Security Advisor Hadley and Senior Director Abrams were in Jerusalem. While in Israel and the -- and areas on the Palestinian -- while in Israel, they visited with Prime Minister Sharon, Dov Weissglass, Abu Alaa, Saeb Erekat and Finance Minister Salam Fayyad.
In their visits, in these meetings, as well as in their previous meetings in Sharm el-Sheikh with President Mubarak and Foreign Minister Muasher, and in Jordan with King Abdullah -- I'm sorry -- in Sharm el-Sheikh with President Mubarak and Foreign Minister Maher, and in Jordan with King Abdallah and Foreign Minister Muasher, they've talked about the recent Israeli proposals regarding withdrawal from Gaza, practical steps to reengage the parties, ways to move forward on the President's vision of two states in the region, as well as efforts to promote political, economic and educational reform.
Abu Alaa's comments, I think, are noteworthy. It's important to publicly renounce terrorism and say that terrorism, in addition to being wrong and horrific, undermines the aspirations of the Palestinian people. So that's certainly welcome. But what's also necessary are concrete actions, taking concrete actions against terror. And that's something that we've been calling for the Palestinian Authority to do, and it remains a top priority.
Nadia.
QUESTION: This morning, Deputy Secretary Armitage was at the Pentagon to declare Kuwait as a major ally outside NATO. I understand what a NATO ally is. But what does "outside NATO" mean? Is this that -- is this an honorary position for Kuwait?
MR. ERELI: Under the Section 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President has the authority to designate countries as major non-NATO allies. Kuwait was officially designated a major non-NATO ally on January 15th. Today's ceremony is a formal recognition of that designation.
There are a number of benefits to being a major non-NATO ally, including having U.S.-owned war reserve stockpiles on its territory outside of U.S. installations, entering certain cooperative training agreements with the U.S., and eligibility for expedited processing of export licenses of commercial satellites.
They are also exempt from suspension of military assistance under the American Service members' Protection Act. There are a number of others, in addition to Kuwait, major non-NATO ally countries. We can get you the list later.
Elise.
QUESTION: Yeah, could you get -- if you could send out a list.
MR. ERELI: Well, I'll tell you right now, save you the trouble. Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand. And I would note that the Secretary recommended to the President that Pakistan be designated as a major non-NATO ally earlier last month.
QUESTION: What is it -- he recommended to the President?
MR. ERELI: Yes, the President has to designate it.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, he said that we will be notifying Congress --
QUESTION: We will be notifying Congress that we had -- that we are going to? That's what --
QUESTION: So that notification hasn't transpired yet?
MR. ERELI: I will --
QUESTION: Is that -- are you suggesting that Pakistan may not now be named a non --
MR. ERELI: No, I'm not suggesting that. I will get you the exact legal language. We expect that Pakistan will be designated.
QUESTION: Could you note any other European countries, NATO countries, that declare other countries as major allies except the U.S.?
MR. ERELI: I couldn't speak to that, couldn't speak to that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. ERELI: Matt.
QUESTION: Well, I was going to ask you about what you thought about Senator Lugar's plan for the Middle East, but I decided not to. (Laughter.)
Can I change the subject?
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: Yeah. Your non-TCOG/TCOG meeting is going ahead in San Francisco next week, I understand?
MR. ERELI: Yeah. Assistant Secretary Kelly will meet with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts in San Francisco on April 7th and 8th for informal trilateral consultations on North Korea. The focus will be coordinating positions on the first session of the six-party working group, which has not yet been scheduled.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) for that working group?
MR. ERELI: Not a specific agenda yet. No.
QUESTION: Is this the working group that Detrani is talking about in Beijing now, according to Xinhua?
MR. ERELI: Yeah. Special Envoy Joseph Detrani visited Beijing March 30th and 31st for consultations with Chinese officials. I would characterize that visit as part of our ongoing diplomatic efforts to implement the agreements that were reached at the six-party -- the last round of six-party talks in February.
Those agreements were basically to hold a third plenary before the end of June, and to establish a working group to meet in the interim. So those -- that was the focus of Detrani's discussions in Beijing.
QUESTION: And how is that any different, other than the fact that he was talking with the Chinese and not the South Koreans and the Japanese? How is that any different from what Kelly is going to be doing next week?
MR. ERELI: I think it's all a part of the same effort, which is to follow up on the third round, work to convene a working group, as part of preparatory to the next plenary before the end of June. It's part of a, sort of, all pieces of the same puzzle.
Yes, Mr. Ota.
QUESTION: Same subject.
MR. ERELI: Same subject.
QUESTION: Mr. Detrani, does he have any plan go to South Korea or Japan after the trip in Beijing?
MR. ERELI: I don't have anything specific on where he is going next. My understanding was he is coming back here. But I'll -- if there is something that I can share with you on his travel plans, I'll look into it and get back to you.
QUESTION: And also, who meet -- who Mr. Detrani met there in Beijing? Can you give me any name of the Chinese official?
MR. ERELI: I'll get it for you.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Adam, I know we checked on this yesterday, but have there been any calls made since then on OPEC issues?
MR. ERELI: No.
QUESTION: Not at -- this building is not handling that at all?
(No response.)
MR. ERELI: Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Chinese officials coming to the U.S. before the informal TCOG meeting?
MR. ERELI: Before? You mean before April 7th and 8th, Chinese officials coming to the United States? I'm not aware of it. I can look into it, but I don't have anything for you now.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: The Pentagon announced also its plan to Taiwan yesterday, and China's Foreign Minister expressed concern and urged the U.S. to cancel the proposed plans. And have you heard any complaint from the Chinese diplomats?
MR. ERELI: We have not been -- we have not received any formal demarche from the Chinese on the matter of the sale of radar equipment to Taiwan.
What I would tell you about that sale is that on the 30th of March, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a sale to Taiwan of two long-range early-warning radar.
We would note that this early-warning radar is inherently defensive and that it's sole purpose is to provide Taiwan with the ability to detect and react to missile attacks. We believe it will improve the overall security and defensive capability of Taiwan and that this sale does not affect the basic military balance in the region and is consistent with United States law and policies.
We also remain firmly committed to fulfilling the security and arms sales provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act and we will continue to assistant Taiwan in meeting its legitimate self-defense needs in accordance with our obligations under the Act.
QUESTION: Adam, did that -- that notification, did it not say that the sale was possible and, in fact, was mainly just a notification to Congress that the Taiwanese had asked to buy the --
MR. ERELI: My understanding is that --
QUESTION: Or has it gone beyond that now and you've agreed to sell it?
MR. ERELI: My understanding -- and I would refer you to Defense for actually the specifics of the announcement. But my understanding is that the system has been approved for sale to Taiwan, that that decision was made some time ago, and that this notification and announcement were part of the normal foreign military sales and Defense Department review process.
QUESTION: Yeah, on NATO foreign minister meetings tomorrow in Brussels, Secretary Powell will be discussing the agenda for the next summit in Istanbul in June?
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And also, I wonder in which context you want NATO to get involved in the Greater Middle East Initiative as far as the common security concerns.
MR. ERELI: This is a subject that we have been talking about with our NATO allies for some time, working together to see if we can't take some of the lessons learned from Partnership for Peace and other programs that have worked very successfully in NATO, see if they can't be applied to the Middle Eastern region. I think there are some very creative ideas out there and some receptivity to the suggestion. I expect that it will continue to be a subject of dialogue, but I wouldn't want to predict what's going to happen.
Yes.
QUESTION: Following up on Taiwan. Chinese officials recently rejected Chen's offer to hold cross-strait talks. And Chen, in the interview with Asian Wall Street Journal urged the U.S. to play the vital or more active role to make the cross-strait talks happen.
Is there something the U.S. may be interested doing?
MR. ERELI: I think we've made it clear that, you know, our strong support for cross-strait dialogue and our view that cross-strait dialogue is the only way to resolve this issue.
So this will be, I think, a fairly firm tenet of our foreign policy and our approach to this issue and it's something that we'll be reiterating in our dealings with both sides.
As far as specific actions that are planned or underway, I don't have anything for you.
George.
QUESTION: Have you heard from the Uzbeks with respect to your offer of assistance?
MR. ERELI: Nothing I have for you today on that.
QUESTION: Have you talked to the Mexicans?
MR. ERELI: No.
QUESTION: 9/11 Commission?
MR. ERELI: 9/11?
QUESTION: The Washington Post is publishing a story that says the National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was set to say that missile defense was the new cornerstone of U.S. security policy on September -- to be delivered on September 11th, 2001, hardly mentioning terrorism.
Also, Associated Press currently is republishing the hearing that Secretary Powell -- Secretary Powell's hearing before the Senate confirmation committee. And it says he listed 20 top priorities and none of them mentioned terrorism or extremists groups and so on.
Could you comment on that?
MR. ERELI: I would refer you to Secretary Powell's testimony before the 9/11 Commission where he, I think, laid it out fairly clearly what his priorities were when he came in as Secretary of State. He made it clear that the first briefing he had on transition, or among the first briefings he had on the transition, was on the subject of terrorism.
So it, by both word and deed, was very much at the forefront of the Secretary's concerns and the Department's priorities, number one. Number two, for comment on prepared speeches not delivered by the National Security Advisor, I'd refer you to the Office of the National Security Advisor.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. ERELI: One more question. Yes.
QUESTION: The parliament of Russia appears to be heading toward banning, to a large degree, public demonstrations. And I wonder if you had any reflection on that before it happens.
MR. ERELI: I'm not going to comment on a bill that's under debate that hasn't been passed and the final ramifications of which are impossible to know at this point. This is a bill that's being debated in the Russian Duma. It hasn't passed.
QUESTION: You guys came out against the French ban on head scarves before that was passed.
QUESTION: No, they didn't. They said they weren't going to make a comment.
QUESTION: No, in fact, that's not true. Your Religious Freedom Coordinator John Hanford said it was bad.
MR. ERELI: All right. We'll leave it to the archivists.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:32 p.m.)
(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 |
|
|
|
