UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

State Department Briefing, November 10

10 November 2005

Jordan, Syria/Lebanon, Iran, United Nations/India, China, Tunisia, Liberia, Yemen, Libya, India

State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli briefed the press November 10.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Thursday, November 10, 2005
1:00 p.m. EST

Briefer:  Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman

JORDAN
-- Suicide Bombings/American Citizen Casualties/Office of Overseas Citizens for American Citizen Inquires/Offer of U.S. Assistance
-- Claims that al-Zarqawi's Group is Responsible for Suicide Bombings

SYRIA/LEBANON
-- U.S. Reaction to Speech by President Bashar al-Asad/UN Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1565, and 1636
-- Syrian Conditions on Mehlis Investigation/Next Steps for Mehlis Investigation

IRAN
-- Diplomatic Process Concerning Iran's Nuclear Program/Reports of U.S.-EU-3 Proposal/Referral to UN Security Council/U.S. View of Modified Enrichment Program

UNITED NATIONS/INDIA
-- Oil-for-Food Scandal/Query on Reports of Possible Involvement by Natwar Singh and Congress Party

CHINA
-- Chinese Investigation into Threats on Hotels/Warden Messages Issued
-- Secretary Condoleezza Rice's Meeting with the Dalai Lama Yesterday

TUNISIA
-- Hunger Strike by Activists/Freedom of Expression and Association/Political Prisoners

LIBERIA
-- Allegations of Fraud in Run-Off Elections

YEMEN
-- Secretary Condoleezza Rice's Meeting with President Ali Abdullah Saleh

LIBYA
-- Reports of Plan to Trade Abdel Basset Ali al- Megrahi for Bulgarian Nurses

INDIA
-- Query on Possible Terrorist Threats in India

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2005
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

1:00 p.m. EST

MR. ERELI:  Hello, everybody.  Welcome to our briefing today.  We can start with your questions.

QUESTION:  Please give us the latest information you have on American casualties in Jordan.

MR. ERELI:  The latest information is that at this time there is one American citizen who was killed in the suicide bombings in Amman and two American citizens who were hospitalized because of their injuries.  We extend our deepest condolences to the families of those killed and wounded of all nationalities.  Our consular officials are in touch with the families of the American citizens and are providing all possible assistance.  Out of consideration for them and respect for their privacy, we are not providing additional information on those killed or injured and we will continue working with the Jordanian authorities to ensure we have a proper accounting of all members of the American citizen community in Amman.

I would note that for Americans who are concerned about family members that they believe might have been in the area of the attacks, they should call our Office of Overseas Citizens Services at 188-407-4747 or if you're calling from overseas dial 202-501-4444.

QUESTION:  The American who was killed is he a dual --or she -- I don't what it is -- is that a dual citizenship situation?

MR. ERELI:  I will have to check.

QUESTION:  And the Secretary is going to be in the region very soon, I guess.

MR. ERELI:  I would note that, Barry, for us, whether you are a dual citizen or not, you are still a citizen.  So there's not that -- really, in our mind, that distinction made, but --

QUESTION:  I wasn't suggesting otherwise, I was just wondering if this was a dual citizenship situation.  On the Secretary and the Middle East, will she go to Jordan at some point?

MR. ERELI:  I don't have any new information for you on the Secretary's itinerary.  I think those are matters to be referred to the traveling party.

QUESTION:  I'm sorry, it wasn't on her itinerary and you now you don't know --

MR. ERELI:  No, I'm sorry.  I don't have any information to share with you about the Secretary's itinerary. You have the schedule.  Anything more than that or about that I would refer you to the party.

QUESTION:  Because one would assume that the building would know where she's going, but I guess you don't want us to know for some reason.

MR. ERELI:  I would assume that those --

QUESTION:  I mean --

MR. ERELI:  -- in a position to talk about the Secretary's itinerary are with the Secretary.

QUESTION:  Yeah, but they can't file from the air and you're the spokesman. But that's fine; I'll move on and let someone else try something.

QUESTION:  Another subject.

MR. ERELI:  Let's go to our friend from France.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Do you have -- I would like to go to another subject.

MR. ERELI:  Yes.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Do you have any comment on the speech of President Asad and his answer to the accusations on the Hariri murder?

MR. ERELI:  Well, we saw the speech.  We think it is appalling.  Let's remember, first of all, that the international community has made it clear to Syria that it must, first, fully cooperate with the Mehlis investigation.  And second, cease all interference in Lebanese domestic affairs.  That's the clear and unmistakable message of three UN Security Council resolutions: 1559, 1565 and 1636.  Asad's remarks today can only be seen as a defiance of those resolutions.

As the Secretary said, it doesn't constitute cooperation by any stretch of the imagination.  And I think it is something that is just outrageous and appalling that he would threaten Lebanon like that, especially in light of the three Security Council resolutions and it shows that the regime of President al-Asad just doesn't get it and doesn't understand where the rest of the international community is on this very important issue.

Yes.

QUESTION:  What is it that you perceive or where is it that you perceive him threatening Lebanon?

MR. ERELI:  Well, I would refer you to the speech where he says that Lebanon is a platform and a factory for conspiracies, where he insults the Prime Minister of Lebanon.  These are not the remarks of a country and a neighbor that is respectful of Lebanon and Lebanon's sovereignty and Lebanon's independence.

QUESTION:  It's a pretty long way, isn't it, from not being respectful towards a country to actually threatening them?  I mean, a threat normally involves -- if you don't do this or -- and we're going to do that.  It's something along those lines rather than, wow, that's a really bad place with lots of conspiracies and we don't like the Prime Minister --

MR. ERELI:  Let me put it this way.  The remarks of President al-Asad are clearly inconsistent with the substance and import of three UN Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION:  Could I try something else if we're --

QUESTION:  Would you (inaudible) on the threat with (inaudible) --

MR. ERELI:  I've said what I'm going to say.

QUESTION:  No, well, hold on, so -- hold on.  Are you -- you can't stop me asking a question when I'm just trying to elaborate your own word.  I wonder if your second answer means you're now trying -- you know, you want to -- you could move away from that word or it is that you do perceive that he is saying, we will do something bad against Lebanon?

MR. ERELI:  I will say this.  The remarks that -- President Asad's speech  -- that he made in his speech, and its implied approval of interference in Lebanese affairs, is not consistent with three UN Security Council resolutions that have all demanded that Syria refrain from interfering in Lebanon's affairs and have ordered Syria to respect Lebanese sovereignty.  And that's not what we heard in the speech and that should be of concern to all of us.

QUESTION:  Could we go back to Jordan for one quick second?  Do you know if the FBI is sending a team in?  Is that something that Jordan has -- you've offered all assistance and I just wanted to know if they've taken you up on anything?

MR. ERELI:  We've, as you said, we've offered assistance.  I don't have anything definitive to report to you about what assistance has been accepted and is being provided at this time.  We're obviously in discussions with Jordan about what might be useful and what's available but I don't have anything specific to share with you on that.

QUESTION:  Is there an FBI team on the ready to go?

MR. ERELI:  I'd refer you to the FBI.

QUESTION:  Do you see Jordan as having the kind of capability needed to handle this without U.S. assistance?  Or do you think that it would be particularly useful?

MR. ERELI:  Jordan is a strong and steadfast partner in the war on terror.  They are committed to fighting terror and they've shown over the years a strong capacity for doing so in detecting and thwarting terrorist attacks.  So our offer of assistance is really a mark of friendship and support for a country that, if they need anything, we're there to provide it.  But it's offered -- and it's offered in that spirit.

QUESTION:  Can I try something else -

QUESTION:  (Inaudible).

MR. ERELI:  Sure.

QUESTION:  Or maybe two if (inaudible).

Syria seems to want to organize, negotiate some kind of memorandum of understanding for the Mehlis investigation.  I think I can predict what your answer is, but I'd like to hear it.  Does Syria have any right to condition a UN investigation?  Shouldn't they just cooperate, cooperate 100 percent and that's it, and not actually put any conditions on it?

MR. ERELI:  Well, I think you should look at what 1636 calls for.  It calls for Syria to make individuals requested by the commission fully available to the commission.  And it also gives the commission authority to determine the location and modalities for the interviews.  So it's up to the commission to decide what it wants and it's up to Syria to respond positively to the commission.  It's not up to Syria to negotiate terms.

So our view is that there shouldn't be anything that is placed above the mandate of the Mehlis Commission.  And if Mehlis wants something, he should get it, and he should get it without delay and without complication and without obfuscation.  And if Mehlis doesn't get it, the resolution provides for him to report to the Security Council, certainly no later than December 15th, but before that if he thinks it's necessary.

QUESTION:  So if it's necessary, what do you think is the next step?

MR. ERELI:  Well, it is up to Mr. Mehlis to determine whether the circumstances warrant a report to the Security Council or not.  I'm not going to prejudge that.

QUESTION:  Will you ask for sanctions?

MR. ERELI:  Let's see what the facts are first.

QUESTION:  Can I check with you on a report, a published report of the Secretary's meeting with ElBaradei?

MR. ERELI:  Sure.

QUESTION:  This report is that they agreed -- that there's agreement now on a joint approach to Iran containing such features as permitting Iran to develop a form of uranium enrichment that the U.S. at one point considered a violation of its promises.  There's more to it than that, of course, but -- I don't know how many questions you're prepared to take -- but we can start with is the U.S. and the UN now together on --

MR. ERELI:  U.S. and EU?

QUESTION:  EU, I mean.  Is the U.S. and the EU now together on an initiative to try to stop Iran's nuclear program?

MR. ERELI:  The first point to make is there is no U.S.-EU proposal to the Iranians and there won't be a U.S.-EU proposal to the Iranians.  There is a diplomatic effort underway, led by the EU-3, to have negotiations with Iran that would lead to ensuring that Iran is not in a position to develop nuclear weapons.  That is a diplomatic process that we support, that we discuss with the EU-3, that we share ideas and listen to their ideas about, along with others, but it is a process that the EU-3 is in the lead on and that we believe Iran should return to as soon as possible.  And I think our common goal is, as I said before, that we achieve a diplomatic solution that ensures that Iran does not have the capacity to break out and develop nuclear weapons, which is something I think that the international community has a real concern about.

QUESTION:  I don't want to get hung up on technicalities.  I know the goals, so that's redundant.  I know what the U.S. and the Europeans are trying to do.  I know that the Europeans actually sit down at the table.  I know the U.S. isn't part of the delegation.  I know the Europeans conduct the diplomacy.  But that has nothing to do with my questions.  I'm not asking about who technically is talking to the Iranians.  I know the U.S. isn't talking to the Iranians, the Europeans are.  The question is whether the Secretary of State, in conversations with ElBaradei or otherwise, has approved of a new approach or a different approach to Iran in these negotiations, an approach that includes some form of enrichment and that -- and frankly, that this has -- I would understand it -- that it would happen -- would cause some discord or disagreement with the --

MR. ERELI:  No.  No.  No.

QUESTION:  She has not -- she didn't when ElBaradei came in say, hey, let's -- it's important we stop --

MR. ERELI:  Well, first of all, let me be clear --

QUESTION:  So why don't we --

MR. ERELI:  Let me be clear.  I'm not going to detail for you the Secretary's conversations with Mohamed ElBaradei.  That is not -- that is not what we do.  That's number one.

Number two.  The Secretary and ElBaradei had a meeting this week.  We talked about that meeting.  They discussed a number of issues, including Iran.  Of importance to all of us is that Iran return to the negotiations and they do so in a -- with the aim of dealing comprehensively with the issue at hand, not piecemeal.

But it' is important to remember in all this that, as you pointed out in your question, we are not a party to these negotiations.  We are not participating in these negotiations.  This is a diplomatic process that the EU is conducting with the Iranians and we are ready to work with the Europeans and with ElBaradei and others to ensure that that process leads to an Iran that does not have the capability or the technology to use the fuel cycle process to develop nuclear weapons.

QUESTION:  I know what your goal is -- no, I'm sorry.  I'm going to have to pursue this because I don't think we've gotten to the heart of the story, whether it's true or not, in fact.  Did she suggest a two-week deadline for reaching --

MR. ERELI:  No, absolutely not.  As the Secretary pointed out very clearly in speaking with your colleagues a few hours ago, the Secretary does not conduct diplomacy by deadline.

QUESTION:  Where does the UN now stand and --

MR. ERELI:  Where does the EU?

QUESTION:  No, where does the U.S. now stand -- and if it is a changed position, please say so -- on taking Iran's infractions to the UN Security Council?

MR. ERELI:  Well, I think the IAEA Board of Governors has been very clear on that.  They found in their last Board of Governors resolution that Iran was in noncompliance with its NPT obligations, that a report would be made to the Security Council.  And our position is that that report will be made at a time of our choosing.

QUESTION:  Well, that's the question.

MR. ERELI:  And we'll be having a Board of Governors meeting in two weeks.

QUESTION:  That's right.

MR. ERELI:  We will, at that time, review developments since the last Board of Governors meeting and decide on what the appropriate course of action is.  We believe we've got the votes for a referral, if that's what we decide to do.

QUESTION:  So what -- if you can say -- what are the contingencies?  That's the wrong word.  What are the reasons that the U.S. doesn't know now what it wants to do?  It wants to see how the negotiations proceed?  It wants to see if it can rally enough support to get it approved at the Security Council?  Because you keep postponing an action that months ago you said was terribly important to get the message -- we've just been through Syria.  You've drummed resolutions through the Security Council on Syria's head for weeks and months now.  Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  Do you want the UN to look at it or not?

MR. ERELI:  Well, I think the Board of Governors resolution is clear.  It will be considered by the Security Council.  That's what the NPT regulations provide for.  That's what the Board of Governors decide is going to happen.  When and under what circumstances is a matter for discussion among the members of the Board.  It will be based on, first and foremost, Iranian actions or Iranian failure to take actions.  That's what's gotten us to where we are now.  It's the fact that we've got years of Board of Governors resolutions and questions and inquiries from the IAEA to Iran that have been unfulfilled, unanswered, avoided and deceived by Iran.

So the Europeans have now, with our support, engaged in a diplomatic process to try to resolve some of these issues.  There are others issues that the IAEA is trying to get to the bottom of based on how Iran responds to those initiatives, we'll see where we go.  But as a matter of principle, it's something that should be referred to the Security Council.  The timing of that will be a matter for us to decide, based on actions.

QUESTION:  One last question, does the United States now support a modified enrichment program in Iran?  Does the United States now think Iran should have license or leeway to convert gaseous material in a form of enriching uranium?

MR. ERELI:  The United States remains seriously concerned by Iranian actions in Iranian processes and Iranian intentions, which aim to use the nuclear fuel cycle to develop weapons, whether that be enrichment or reprocessing or other activity and that is why I think we are very intent on developing and supporting and strengthening an international response to this, which is a threat.

QUESTION:  So the report is wrong on that point, at least, right?

MR. ERELI:  I've said what I've got to say.

QUESTION:  Well, you haven't answered the question.

QUESTION:  You haven't answered the question, Adam.

QUESTION:  You haven't answered anything.

MR. ERELI:  The question is answered by this:  The process of negotiation is something that the Europeans are leading and that we are supporting and that should lead to an outcome whereby Iran is not in a position to break out and develop nuclear weapons.  Now, there are a lot of ideas out there.  A lot of ideas being discussed out there.  The Europeans and the Iranians will move forward and engage and produce, hopefully, the outcome that we all desire.  We are -- as I say again -- not a party to those negotiations and we will, I think, work with the Europeans and the IAEA to address effectively what is a threat to the international community.  Now don't ask me to say right from where we sit in this process to rule things in or rule things out.  I will tell you what the outcome that we're working toward is.

QUESTION:  But when the Europeans offered Iran this last -- when the United States kind of signed off on approving spare parts for aircrafts and not blocking Iran's membership to the WTO, it was again -- it an EU initiative that the United States kind of talked about with the Europeans and signed off on.  Now there seems to be a new proposal.

MR. ERELI:  I said there's no -- there is no U.S.-EU proposal.

QUESTION:  I didn't say it was U.S. -- I think you're getting stuck on semantics here.  Is there an initiative being launched by the EU and supported by the United States whereby Russia takes fuel from Iran and enriches it and then sends it back to Iran?

MR. ERELI:  There are ideas that the Europeans and others are looking at that are being discussed.  That's what I would say.

QUESTION:  And the U.S. is only interested in the outcome, basically, as long as Iran will be prevented from having the capacity to create a nuclear weapon on its territory, the U.S. is fine with a European initiative?

MR. ERELI:  The U.S. I think and the Europeans and the IAEA and the others that we are talking about this with -- Russians and others -- want two things.  They want, one, Iran to respond to the long list of outstanding questions and comply with the long list or come into compliance with the long list of outstanding violations that they have -- they have as part of their nuclear program, number one.  And number two, we all want to arrive at an outcome that provides security and assurances and confidence that Iran cannot use a nuclear program to develop nuclear weapons.

QUESTION:  And you would say, again, you're contending that that is not a change, that that is not a change in the U.S. position whatsoever?

MR. ERELI:  I'd say that that's been our goal from the very beginning.  I think we've been very clear about that.

QUESTION:  But in the past, you have also taken issue with other methods at coming to that outcome like Iran having various stages of production, as long as it cannot enrich.

MR. ERELI:  Enrichment, yeah.

QUESTION:  Yeah.

MR. ERELI:  Okay, so?

QUESTION:  Right.  But you -- I mean, you've even criticized Bushehr --

MR. ERELI:  Right.

QUESTION:  -- even though in that process -- the spent fuel --

MR. ERELI:  With Bushehr the problem was, again, you know --

QUESTION:  It's dual-use technology.

MR. ERELI:  -- this is an issue that we've spent a long time talking about.  The issue is, is using -- the misuse of nuclear activity and the diversion of fuel to produce nuclear weapons and that's why you've got the agreement -- why, with Bushehr, the agreement with the Russians is so important because it prevents Iran from taking the fuel for the Bushehr reactor and diverting it for purposes of reprocessing it.  That's, you know, that's number one.

Number two, and I think that this is not only with respect to Iran but with respect to our approach to the issue of nonproliferation in general, a key component of our policy, as articulated in the President's speech at NDU and a regular and ongoing issue of discussion with the IAEA, as I mentioned in my readout of the Secretary's meeting with ElBaradei earlier this week, where we talked about the Safety and Verification Committee and standing that up and making it effective, as well as talking about the issue of fuel assurances, as a recognition that around the world these are problems.

QUESTION:  Just a quick follow-up, Adam.  Adam, if these reports, press reports, are correct that the Secretary made a promise or a two-week deadline --

MR. ERELI:  I just told you they're not correct.

QUESTION:  Okay, if they are --

MR. ERELI:  So let's say --

QUESTION:  If they are --

MR. ERELI:  So you don't have a question because they're not correct.

QUESTION:  No, a question.  What message do you have for India if these reports are correct, because --

MR. ERELI:  I just said they're not correct.  I just said they're not correct, number one.  Number two, with India it has been made very clear that there's the obligation to fully separate the civilian and the military programs.  With Iran, they're one and the same, and that is a principal source of concern.  So with India --

QUESTION:  Sir, I'm not --

MR. ERELI:  I'm sorry.  With India, there's a very clear --

QUESTION:  My question is on Iran, not on India.  India will not be happy because India voted for the U.S. and the EU against Iran on a promise that Iran will not have nuclear weapons or any kind of promise (inaudible) -- or with the Russian agreement.  So that's what my question is that what message do you have now for India if these reports are correct?

MR. ERELI:  The reports aren't correct.

QUESTION:  That the Secretary made some kind of arrangement, two-week deadline or --

MR. ERELI:  As I said, the reports are not correct.  She did not make such a deadline.

QUESTION:  Can I go back to Jordan?

QUESTION:  Can I just have one on this?  What's the -- does ElBaradei have a role in this whereby when the EU-3 discusses ideas, sometimes that are shared with the United States, he can then go to the Iranians and discuss the ideas with them?

MR. ERELI:  I mean, ElBaradei is the Director General of the IAEA and he will act in that capacity as he sees appropriate.

QUESTION:  But I guess I'm asking, when you say we're working with him, do you rule in that role I've just described, rule it out?

MR. ERELI:  Neither.

(Laughter.)

MR. ERELI:  I'm not ruling things in or ruling things out.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. ERELI:  Because he is the Director General of the IAEA.  He'll act as he sees appropriate.

QUESTION:  Back on Jordan.  What do you make of the claim by al-Zarqawi's group in Iraq that they're responsible for the bombings in Amman?

MR. ERELI:  I'm not in a position to substantiate those claims.  I would make two points.

Whoever is responsible for these attacks is evil.  Point one.

Point two.  I think the Jordanians have shown the world how they feel about those who are responsible for those attacks.  They have come out into the streets in hundreds today.  They have said that those who committed these acts have nothing to do with Islam, that those who commit these acts are enemies of all peace-loving peoples, including the Jordanians.  And I think that's an eloquent testimony to the feelings of a people in a country with whom we share -- share much --common threat, common values and a common abhorrence of the methods and beliefs of those who would carry out such an attack.

QUESTION:  Another subject?

MR. ERELI:  Yes.

QUESTION:  Adam, as far as so much as been written about this Oil-for-Food corruption at the United Nations.  Now, Indian former Foreign Minister Natwar Singh last week and the ruling Congress Party was named as corrupted or took hundreds of thousands of -- close to a million dollars.  And the Prime Minister has said to his Foreign Minister Natwar Singh who's supposed to come here next month to meet with Dr. Rice.  So how does Dr. Rice feel that her counterpart in India is involved in the Oil-for-Food which has been going -- investigation has been going on at the UN and the U.S.?

MR. ERELI:  Well, frankly, I don't have any comment on the specific case of the gentleman in question.  This is an issue for the institutions of India to address.  The United States has made it clear that in dealing with the Oil-for-Food scandal, what we seek and what we believe in are a full presentation of the facts and understanding of the facts and accountability for those who were involved in wrongdoing.  That process of investigation and accountability are in the hands of others.  We will certainly do as a country what is incumbent upon us to do when it comes to our own nationalists.  As far as dealing with the Government of India goes, as I said before, we have close and excellent and outstanding relations with our partners in the Government of India and we expect that changes in personnel, notwithstanding, those relations are going to continue.

QUESTION:  Secretary did not talk to anybody in India or they call or she call on this matter at all?

MR. ERELI:  No.

QUESTION:  On this warning in China, can you talk about what happened with that?  It's been retracted, as I understand it, so the embassy --

MR. ERELI:  Well, I'd say there was a new Warden Message issued based on new information.  I mean, the simple way to look at this is the United States received information from the Chinese about a threat.  We had a responsibility, having that information, to share it with our citizens.

Second, subsequently, the Chinese provided information that the original information -- they've able to investigate the original information and found that it was not credible, so we issued a second announcement saying exactly that.  The Chinese have investigated it and found it not to be credible.  So you had two distinct actions that elicited from us two distinct responses.  Both, I think, very consistent with our responsibilities to keep Americans aware of the security situation as it affects their personal safety.

QUESTION:  I think you also (inaudible.)

MR. ERELI:  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.

QUESTION:  But you contend that you did receive -- the Chinese are saying basically that their police never did issue such a warning to hotels -- the original basis for this was not --

MR. ERELI:  No. We received a message on, I believe, November 5th.  We received information from the Chinese saying that there was a threat against -- as I said before the other day -- against four- and five-star hotels.  We also said at the time that we had no information to corroborate or substantiate that threat.  But based on the information from the Chinese, we had a responsibility to inform our citizens and that remains the case.

QUESTION:  Do you ever receive any of the --

MR. ERELI:  I'm sorry.  Let's -- we've done a lot on that.  Let's got to the next one.  Sorry, no.  Let's go to this.

QUESTION:  I have a question about Tunisia.  Actually, it's two questions.  First, there is a hunger strike in now eight activists, while on a hunger strike and apparently there were some clashes with police yesterday.  So I wanted to know if you have any comment on that?  And second, I wanted to know who is going to represent U.S. at the World Summit on Information Society?

MR. ERELI:  I'll have to get back to you on who's going to represent us at the World Summit of -- on Information Society.  I don't have that name.  On the subject of the hunger strikers in Tunisia, obviously, it's a situation that we're following closely.  Obviously, it's something of concern when you have prominent civil society activists who are forced or who believe it necessary to take such action.  We believe that Tunisia has made considerable progress in economic and social reform and we look to it to match that with actions in the area of political reform and respect for human rights.

On the one hand, you've got some positive moves such as unblocking of opposition websites and release of some 40 political prisoners.  On the other hand, you've got a number of ongoing concerns:  restrictions on the broadcast media, restrictions on the activities of NGO, treatment of journalists that is -- that constitutes harassment.

And it's our view that in the run-up to the World Summit on Information Society that Tunisia has an opportunity to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally and leaving no doubt in anybody's mind its commitment to freedom of the press, its commitment to freedom of expression, and that the problems raised by these hunger strikers are problems that they should take advantage of this opportunity to address.

QUESTION:  Do you know that (inaudible) before this summit, the teacher -- the union of teachers gathered a strike also to protest against the presence of Israel at the summit?  So the society is not really unified.

MR. ERELI:  Which society?

QUESTION:  The Tunisian society.

MR. ERELI:  I think that what our view would be is that whatever your view in Tunisia, you should have the freedom to express -- you should be free to express that view peacefully, nonviolently and with respect for the views of others.  And this is a fundamental human right.  It should be respected.  And restrictions on freedom of the press, restrictions on freedom of expression, restrictions on political activity are of concern to us and I think are something we follow carefully, particularly in Tunisia, and something that we won't hesitate to speak out about as part of our dialogue and in the context of close friendship and partnership with Tunisia over many years.

QUESTION:  Can I ask about Liberia?  George Weah, one of the candidates in the run-off, he alleges that there was fraud.  Does the United States -- have you perceived that?  Do you have anything to say on it?

MR. ERELI:  We are aware of these allegations.  We believe they should be investigated.  We also believe that during this period all sides need to remain calm and pursue grievances through established legal channels.

As a general observation, I would note that our observers -- U.S. Embassy and other international observers, reported an orderly, efficient electoral process with few irregularities.  I would note also that the National Election Commission is planning to hold a press conference announcing the results later today.  If there are allegations of wrongdoing, as I said, they should be investigated.

But on the whole, I think it was a -- as I said, an orderly and efficient process.

QUESTION:  Adam, yesterday His Holiness Dalai Lama was here at the State Department -- met with the Secretary and the Secretary of State is going to China and I understand that His Holiness had a strong and important message for the Secretary as far as his homeland and persecution of human rights and religious rights and the persecution of his people and freedom for his country, Tibet, is concerned.

What do you have to say -- what we really don't know inside what he told her and what she assured him of these -- that for the last 50-plus years his people are being persecuted and going through, I would say, hell.  That's what he described in her meeting with his people here.

MR. ERELI:  Well, I would note that the Secretary and the Dalai Lama had a good meeting yesterday.  Obviously he is a revered religious leader and we spoke with him in that spirit.

They talked about the status of dialogue with the Chinese Government.  They talked about refugee assistance.  We noted that we were encouraged by three visits by the Dalai Lama's special envoys to China in the last three years, as well as their most recent discussions in Bern.  We made the point that we hope to see this process lead to meaningful dialogue and resolution of longstanding areas of difference.  And that's how I would characterize the conversation.

QUESTION:  Just a follow-up.  Is the Secretary going to raise these questions and others in connection with Tibet and Dalai Lama's meeting in China when she's there with the Chinese leaders?

MR. ERELI:  Well, she'll be with the President.  I don't -- you know, I don't have anything to preview for you on those comments -- on those issues.

QUESTION:  In the Secretary's bilateral last night with -- her Yemeni bilateral -- did she discuss the issue of the Yemeni men who were detained in Yemen and accused, according to -- Amnesty International accuses or alleges, that they have been kept in secret --

MR. ERELI:  No, that issue didn't come up.

QUESTION:  Can you give us a readout on the result of the meeting?  What did they discuss?

MR. ERELI:  It was a good meeting.  I think a warm meeting.  They talked principally about three things, I guess.  Number one was obviously the cooperation in the war on terror, the central role that Yemen has to play in that, given its neighborhood, given its history and the strong cooperation that our two countries have in that effort.

They talked about the second -- two subjects they talked about a lot were political and economic reform, particularly in the area of transparency and good governance.  Yemen has made a number of, I think, important reforms that have qualified it for candidacy as an MCC country.  There are some areas where we think it needs more work, particularly with respect for freedom of the press and fighting corruption and I think we've made that point.  And I think we also expressed the close friendship and close partnership that we feel between the two countries.

QUESTION:  I have a follow-up on that.  Elections are coming up in Yemen and I think it's about after 14 years, the President is supposed to cede his term.  Are there any indications that he's prepared to do that?

MR. ERELI:  You know, I'm not familiar with the latest on that.  Let me see if I got

something for you on it.

QUESTION:  I have a follow-up on the Bulgarian nurses issue.    The Pan Am families have been repeatedly disturbed by reports that al-Megrahi would be released and now there's a new report that U.S. and British officials have actually been engaged in conversations that would trade him for the release of the nurses.

MR. ERELI:  Yeah.  That's crazy.  That's just crazy.  Look, Megrahi was sentenced under Scottish law and he's in a Scottish prison and he's going to serve out his -- as far as our understanding is, he's going to serve out his full term.  And there are no conversations or discussions or plans that I'm aware of that would lead me to doubt that.

QUESTION:  Have there been any meetings, otherwise unannounced meetings, with the U.S. and British and Libyan authorities on this?

MR. ERELI:  On Megrahi, no.

QUESTION:  Well, on -- no, on this specific idea that Megrahi would be -- that there's any sort of leeway whatsoever.

MR. ERELI:  Like I said, I -- there have been no such meetings on Megrahi and the idea of an early release for him for any reason that I'm aware of.

QUESTION:  Okay.

QUESTION:  I have a final on as far as terrorism is concerned.  A number of Indian cities are also alert if the U.S. Department of State have received any information from India?

MR. ERELI:  As is the case with China, as is the case with any place where we have an embassy, if we have information of a threat to Americans that we receive, we have a statutory obligation to share that with the American community.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MR. ERELI:  Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:41 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