Military

MR. ERELI: Good afternoon. We'll be putting out a statement after the briefing welcoming the transfer of former Liberian President Charles Taylor from Freetown to The Hague. This is an important step for justice for Liberia and for the victims of the horrific violence there. As you know, the United States and our international partners in Africa and the Security Council have been working tirelessly over the last several years to bring Charles Taylor to justice. Today's transfer to The Hague is an important step in that effort.

We are grateful and appreciative to the efforts of Nigeria, Liberia, the British, the Dutch and the Security Council in making possible this move. And we have said from the very beginning that we will not rest until those accused of crimes are held accountable, and yesterday's transfer was an important step towards that goal and we will remain and continue to be committed for the -- in the interest of stability in West Africa.

We'll put that statement out later this afternoon and I'm happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: On Iran, I guess. Iran and North Korea are the issues of the day. The Iranians will respond, they say, mid-August, a little slowly. Have you -- has the U.S. been getting any indications from intermediaries or others as to what the Iranian thinking is? The Italian Minister is supposed to meet, for instance, with the Iranian Foreign Minister. Are you getting any -- you know, anything being whispered in your ear that may be relevant to Iran's ultimate statement?

MR. ERELI: With respect to the reports from Iran about comments by the Iranian President, I would point you to what President Bush said earlier today in Vienna that it shouldn't really take the Iranians that long to analyze what is a reasonable offer. I would also note that the P-5+1 political directors have had a conference call. They discussed this latest development. They all agreed that the P-5+Germany has made a very good offer to Iran and we all urge Iran to accept that proposal. They reiterated the common view that we said on June 1st: We expect a response within weeks, not months. And that was reaffirmed today in the call.

And with regard to what we're hearing from Iran and what we're picking up from Iran, I would simply note that the conference call also reaffirmed the common position that our proposal was conveyed to the Iranians by Javier Solana, specifically to Mr. Larijani, and that we would expect their response to come through the same channel.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: What prompted the call?

MR. ERELI: The statement by the Iranian President wanting to coordinate and remain on the same page as part of really a common effort to get a positive response to a very good proposal.

QUESTION: Well, there had been some indications that the Iranians knew an exact date as to when to respond, so is this sort of saying mid-August going in the face of that?

MR. ERELI: I'm not going to interpret Iranian statements. What I can tell you is what the commonly held view and common position of the P-5+1 is, and that is that this is that we've got a good proposal, that there's a positive way forward, that our common position is Iran should provide a positive response within weeks not months, and that's where we continue to be.

Yes.

QUESTION: Was Mr. Solana on the call this morning and have you heard from Mr. Solana's office whether he has been given an indication one way or another when they will respond formally?

MR. ERELI: The call was with political directors and I believe the Secretary did meet with Mr. Solana yesterday. I don't have a readout of that, so I think it's safe to say that we continue to work closely at all levels to advance what is a good proposal.

QUESTION: It's only a minor point but it helps to phrase -- in phrasing things. Who initiated this conference call?

MR. ERELI: I'll have to check. I'll have to check.

QUESTION: Adam, you said it shouldn't take the Iranians that long. Does --

MR. ERELI: Actually, the President said that.

QUESTION: Okay. When you repeat the Administration position that it shouldn't take the Iranians that long, is State --

MR. ERELI: And he actually, said, I believe, "It seems like an awful long time for a reasonable answer."

QUESTION: Okay, I don't need you to repeat all that, but --

MR. ERELI: To be accurate.

QUESTION: Going back to the phrase "shouldn't take the Iranians that long," does that mean that you're rejecting outright their response that it would take them until mid-August? You're saying no, you cannot take that long?

MR. ERELI: Our view is that, again, that this should be a matter of weeks not months.

QUESTION: Are you rejecting the date of mid-August?

MR. ERELI: I would say we believe it should be a matter of weeks not months.

QUESTION: But weeks from now could be mid-August. It depends on how --

MR. ERELI: Well, we said that on June 1st.

QUESTION: Right. And in the phone call --

MR. ERELI: And that continues to be our position.

QUESTION: In the phone call you just went over all the things they already -- we already know. They agreed we made a good offer, we reaffirm our common position, blah, blah, blah. Why would they have a conference call if they're all just going to go, "We made a good offer," yeah, yeah, yeah? Did they do anything new?

MR. ERELI: Diplomacy is not static. It's dynamic. And when there are events and developments, it's important to consult, to share information and to maintain a united front. And that was the purpose of the call.

QUESTION: But you didn't tell us anything new that came out of that phone call.

MR. ERELI: I think the fact that -- I think it's noteworthy and newsworthy that our coordinated, consensual diplomacy remains firm and strong and that where we are -- the common approach that we have taken is still the basis for the diplomacy and there's no change in that. And that, when you've got new developments happening, is, I think, an important sign post for those who are following the issue.

QUESTION: This offer was formulated by the foreign ministers in Vienna. The next meeting of the same foreign ministers will be in Moscow the 29th of June. What do you plan to do if you don't have an answer by then, by there?

MR. ERELI: I certainly don't want to get ahead of the foreign ministers, so I'll say that this is an issue that, as you can see with today's call, that we are actively working. And our goal is a positive response from the Iranians and we will continue to do everything we can to bring about that result, and that's what will inform the deliberations of the foreign ministers when they meet in Moscow.

Yes.

QUESTION: If it took the Iranians until mid-August, if your goal is a positive response and they said we need until mid-August to come back to you, if that would help you get a positive response, you've said in the past, oh, we think a couple more weeks is a good investment. If the Iranians say that's what they need to come to a decision, why would you now not be able to say that would be a good investment?

MR. ERELI: I will refrain from conducting that kind of diplomacy from the podium and simply reiterate what I said earlier, which is that the proposal was presented by Solana to Larijani. We look forward to hearing back from Larijani through -- to Solana in weeks not months about the response. We haven't -- that hasn't happened. That's what we're looking for.

QUESTION: So is your complaint more that it didn't go through the right channel or that it would be --

MR. ERELI: We haven't gotten those but -- we haven't gotten the response that was agreed -- in the channel that was agreed upon and that's where our diplomacy is being conducted and we've made that clear since the proposal was presented.

QUESTION: Adam, it isn't clear though why you're so -- the U.S. is so troubled by not getting a response for what, six, seven weeks, instead of three, four weeks.

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Considering what's at stake, I mean, do you feel that in that period Iran's program may take some important steps forward? What is -- I mean, obviously you'd like to know their answer.

MR. ERELI: Well, I think --

QUESTION: But apart from impatience and curiosity, this is big, big stuff. So why does a couple of weeks make a difference?

MR. ERELI: (a) We've been talking about this for a while. I mean, the EU-3 -- this is -- the basis of these negotiations, the basis of this deal has been around for a while, number one. Number two, this shouldn't take that long. It's not that difficult an issue to address. Number three, I think that as the President has said, the moment is right now. Now is the time for Iran to accept this offer. It's not our patience isn't unlimited. I think there needs to be a -- we need to be clear about where we want to see things going and how long we think it should take, and that's what's behind the common position of the P-5+1.

QUESTION: But you're not suggesting, in any way, that the next few weeks are critical in Iran's enrichment program and other aspects of its weapons program? You're giving reasons why, you know, you'd like to get an answer and like to get it promptly. It ain't that complicated and you think it's a great offer and blah, blah, blah. But could it be that they're dragging their feet for some military purpose, for some development purpose?

MR. ERELI: Iran continues to engage in enrichment activity. That enrichment activity is of great concern to the international community. That concern has been expressed in numerous IAEA Board of Governors resolutions. It has been the subject of discussion and debate and statements in the Security Council. So I think that our -- what Iran is doing has been noted, the concerns have been noted, and on that basis there is a serious and attractive and effective proposal on the table to deal with it. It's time for Iran to respond to that proposal and we have made that position clear. I'm making it clear today. I made it clear on June 1st. Nothing has changed in that position.

Yes.

QUESTION: You say that your patience is not unlimited. Is it possible that this offer could be taken off the table and was this discussed at the political directors' meeting?

MR. ERELI: I think we've been very clear that there are two pathways and it's up to Iran to choose which one it wants to take: The pathway of positive engagement through negotiations or the pathway of confrontation and further isolation. That was made clear when the proposal was presented. It has been made clear in all of our subsequent discussions on the matter. I don't really have anything new to add to that.

QUESTION: Is there any plan -- after the call today, is there any plan for a member of the P-5+1 or Solana to go back to the Iranians and say --

MR. ERELI: I don't believe so, no. That was -- to my knowledge not discussed in the call.

QUESTION: Is there another step for the P -- that you're aware of for the P-5+1? A tour maybe of capitals and meeting in person?

MR. ERELI: I had not heard that. I mean, I think that obviously, as I said before, our diplomacy is dynamic. It's not static. We will continue to work with members of the P-5+1. As you know, John Bolton has been having discussions, as we said yesterday, in New York. I'm sure there'll continue to be discussions between Under Secretary Burns and his colleagues and the Secretary and her counterparts as we move forward in dealing with this significant problem for the international community.

QUESTION: And you say you believe Rice saw Solana --

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: -- yesterday.

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: She got there in time.

MR. ERELI: Yeah. It was yesterday or today. It was while they were in Vienna.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: So Adam, given what the North Koreans are indicating, is it safe to say that the P-5+1 phone call also moved ahead into --

MR. ERELI: The Iranians?

QUESTION: What did I say?

MR. ERELI: You said North Korea.

QUESTION: Oh, the North Koreans. Oh, sorry. What the Iranians are saying -- I wasn't trying to change topics. Is it safe to say that the P-5+1 phone call also moved ahead into discussing the next steps that were already, to some degree, laid out in the first -- in the offer?

MR. ERELI: I didn't get that -- I didn't hear that in the readout I got. I'll see if there's anything more I have to say on that.

QUESTION: But --

QUESTION: But for the U.S. it was Mr. Burns, right?

MR. ERELI: Yes, it was Mr. Burns.

QUESTION: And there will be no -- following up on Libby's question -- there will be no answer to the Iranians that this is not acceptable, except through public fora like this?

MR. ERELI: I don't know if there's going to be any specific response to the Iranians. I think, as I said before, the channel that we're using is Solana and Larijani. That's where the discussions are taking place and, you know, that's where our focus in terms of moving this proposal forward lies.

QUESTION: Would it be useful, in your view, to have Mr. Solana go back and speak to Mr. Larijani again?

MR. ERELI: Like I said, I'll leave the next steps in the diplomacy to those who are responsible for conducting them. I don't have anything new to report to you on next moves.

QUESTION: Do you have any indication through others that Iran wants some explanation, some elaboration? I mean, you know, what seems to be impalpable is that it's a straightforward proposal.

MR. ERELI: Right. Well, that's why I keep coming back to --

QUESTION: Maybe they need more --

MR. ERELI: Frankly, that's why I keep coming back to Mr. Larijani.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. ERELI: There's a channel for dealing with this issue.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MR. ERELI: It's between Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani. If there are concerns or issues or whatever, then let's hear them from Mr. Larijani. That's who the proposal was given to. That's who we're looking to hear from.

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MR. ERELI: Same subject?

QUESTION: North Korea.

MR. ERELI: Well, we had Iraq --

QUESTION: I thought he started it.

QUESTION: The Hamdania situation has taken a turn for the worse today with eight U.S. military charged with murder and other charges. This is a hearts-and-minds question. We've got the brother of the Iraqi civilian who was killed telling us that he was old, he was disabled and he was tortured and killed. How do you deal with that over there to keep the Iraqi population, at best, friends with the U.S. in these neighborhoods?

MR. ERELI: For the specifics of the Hamdania case, I'd refer you to the Defense Department and actions that have or expect to be taken.

With regard to public attitudes, we've made clear since the first reports of acts that do not reflect the values and are against the laws of the United States, we've made clear that these acts are aberrant, that they are to be condemned, that they do not represent us, that we have a system in place for finding out what happened and holding those responsible accountable and that we are -- we do everything in our power to prevent them from taking place and to take corrective action when they do take place.

Unfortunately, in any conflict, in any situation, there are going to be crimes committed. Our charge as a government is to ensure that we have just laws and that we comport ourselves according to those laws, enforce them and that people know that there are consequences for their actions. That is what has guided us in cases of U.S. personnel who commit crimes or are accused of committing crimes. It will certainly be the case in this latest incident.

QUESTION: But the last time we had Abu Ghraib. At what point do we lose the term "aberrant" and it becomes a real loss of equity in people believing you?

MR. ERELI: I think we have a very firm and clear moral and legal compass and I would reject suggestions that the lines of that compass have become blurred.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On North Korea, if that is --

MR. ERELI: Iraq? Still Iraq? North Korea? Iraq?

QUESTION: Iraq. I guess it was just this morning a third member of Saddam Hussein's legal counsel has been killed. At what point do we say that this -- you know, does this indicate to us that his trial has become illegitimate or anything like that, you know, a few days before his -- the closing arguments were set to be delivered?

MR. ERELI: The trial of Saddam Hussein is an important event and process in Iraq's development as a democratic, law-abiding society and for closing or at least healing many of the wounds of the past. That trial, I think, is something that the Iraq -- is: (a) an Iraqi-led process and something that the Iraqi Government and Iraqi people have devoted enormous care, attention and legitimacy toward and that had the support of the United States and the international community. So it remains a viable, legitimate, credible and important process.

There are obviously those who want to undermine it for the same reason that they seek to attack various aspects of the Iraqi state and the Iraqi people: Because they want to attack and undermine the rule of law and the values of a democratic pluralistic society. So they go after lawyers, they go after judges, they go after prosecutors, they go after witnesses. And those who support the process and who support the trials have tried to institute protections for the process and for the individuals involved in that process, whether they'd be on the side of the prosecution or on the side of the defense.

In this latest case, obviously any attack that kills a participant in the judicial process is to be condemned and we condemn this murder. We are committed to helping the Iraqi Government bring those responsible to justice. We express our condolences to the families -- to the family of the victim of this attack.

I would note that the Iraqi Government and the international community offer every form of protection and assistance to those involved in the trial. Again, that includes the prosecution as well as defense attorneys. We offer -- the Iraqi Government offers protective services, they offer other logistical and administration services to ensure that the families of those involved in the trial are safe. And unfortunately in this case and this individual, he refused those protections and refused those offers. But I would say that there is a strong commitment both materially, politically and, in terms of security, to ensure the integrity and security of those involved in this process because there's a recognition of its importance, its value and its legacy for Iraq.

QUESTION: So is Saddam still getting a fair trial?

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: Still on Iraq. Do you have any reaction to this mass abduction reported this morning just north of Baghdad of --

MR. ERELI: I hadn't seen it.

QUESTION: -- something like 85 industrial workers whose buses were just --

MR. ERELI: I had not seen it.

QUESTION: -- taken.

MR. ERELI: Don't have a reaction for you.

Yes, Sue.

QUESTION: On North Korea. The State Department's former head of the Office of Korean Affairs, David Straub, was very critical last night on the Bush Administration's approach towards North Korea and he said it had been extremely unhelpful and raised tensions in the Peninsula. He also said that the phrase, you know, saying that all options are on the table, have made it a lot worse. I just wonder do you have any comment on his views of the Bush Administration's current policy.

MR. ERELI: Well, I didn't see the program and before responding to his -- general to what his views are I'd like to know what they are. I didn't see it so I really don't want to volunteer some response to something I don't know anything about.

If you're asking me about whether I think that -- whether we think that our approach to North Korea is effective or on the right track, I'd say, obviously, yeah. And I would disagree with those who criticize it or contend otherwise. Why? Because, you know, we tried, as the agreed framework shows, we tried agreements that got North Korea to rollback its nuclear program and those agreements, unfortunately, were violated by North Korea.

So we've got to go into this with I think a certain degree of realism based on past experience. I think the six-party process and the framework for addressing the North Korean problem is an effective one. Why? Because it establishes a common goal; it establishes a common approach. It provides a framework for achieving jointly held goals, jointly held objectives. And as we were saying yesterday, the September 19th joint agreement lays out where we think things should go, gets North Korea, since they signed it, on the same page. And for all those reasons I think I would take issue with those who say we've somehow missed the boat on dealing with North Korea.

Yeah.

QUESTION: North Korea today suggests direct bilateral talks with U.S.

MR. ERELI: Right. That's not in the cards. And the reason it's not in the cards is because we have a, as I said before, a multilateral approach to dealing with North Korea. The issue of North Korea's nuclear program is not a U.S.-North Korea issue. It is an issue that concerns the entire region and the entire region has made clear its concerns. And therefore an effective response or an effective way to deal with North Korea's nuclear program is not an exclusively bilateral approach. It's a multilateral approach which provides for within it bilateral engagement. And so that's what we're doing. That's what the basis of the six-party process is and if North Korea wants to talk to the United States about its missile-launch programs or its nuclear program or about security and stability on the Peninsula, in general, then we should do it through the six-party process and in that context.

QUESTION: Did Ambassador Bolton today say that because they're threatening to light this missile off that definitely precludes conversation directly?

MR. ERELI: I have not seen a text of Ambassador Bolton's remarks. I think Ambassador Bolton was responding to questions, like I just received, about bilateral talks and he was making the same points that I just made. That bilateral talks are not the way we deal with North Korea and North Korea's security -- the concerns about North Korea's nuclear program or proliferation activities. It's through the six-party talks.

QUESTION: I remember yesterday you were talking about diplomatic contacts on North Korea. The Secretary talked to the South Korean Foreign Minister.

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: Mr. Bolton, I think talked to the French and the British.

MR. ERELI: And Japanese.

QUESTION: And the Japanese. I didn't know that. Anything to add to that list?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: Any description of --

MR. ERELI: No, nothing to add to that.

QUESTION: Some building consensus?

MR. ERELI: Uh-uh.

QUESTION: The South Korean leader's just cancelled his trip to North Korea. Had you heard that?

MR. ERELI: I have not.

QUESTION: Is that something --

MR. ERELI: I have not.

QUESTION: Yeah. He's decided apparently because of the tension. Is that something you think is useful that he's not going? Do you think he should go?

MR. ERELI: South Korea has a policy of engagement with North Korea that I think we believe is broadly supportive of what we're all trying to achieve, which is a more stable, secure Peninsula and a North Korea which I think comes into compliance with international norms and behavior.

QUESTION: Aren't there reports that they intend to use food as a weapon? That's not --

MR. ERELI: Who?

QUESTION: South Korea.

MR. ERELI: I had not seen those reports. I can't speak to them.

QUESTION: Cut off assistance if they don't --

QUESTION: Do you have -- sorry -- do you have any news about the missile?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: No?

MR. ERELI: It's still on the launch pad as far as I could tell.

QUESTION: Can you confirm, at least, that this offer for talks came through the New York channel this morning?

MR. ERELI: I don't know that. The only thing I've seen is the public press statements. I'm not aware if there's any New York channel communications. But I think our position, regardless of what channel it comes through, is pretty clear.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Mr. Ereli, Greek opposition leader George Papandreou, once upon the time Foreign Minister of Greece, asked your government with a statement the other day in Athens to shut down the U.S. base at Guantanamo. Could you please comment before you refer this question to my favorite Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld?

MR. ERELI: Well, I don't want to respond on behalf of Secretary Defense Rumsfeld. He's -- he can -- more than capable of doing that for himself.

What I'll tell you is what President Bush has said and what every American official has said, which is that we'd love to close Guantanamo down. We'd love to remove the danger posed by the people in Guantanamo. We have done a lot to transfer people in Guantanamo, either by releases or transfers to the country of citizenship. We are moving to do more of that. But we've got to face a very tangible reality, which is that there are those in Guantanamo who want to do ill to the United States as well as peace-loving people around the world. And protecting innocent citizens, whether they be American or Greek or any other nationality, is our foremost responsibility and we take that responsibility very seriously.

QUESTION: According to reports, the Turkish, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul will be visiting the United States July 3rd. On July 5th he's going to meet Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Do you have anything to say about this visit?

MR. ERELI: I don't even know that it's been formally announced yet, so let me check and see what the reality is.

QUESTION: Another one, Qubad Talabani, U.S. representative of the PUK, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, son of Jalal Talabani, during the speech in U.S. CSIS the other day asked for amnesty of PKK and deployment of U.S. forces in northern Iraq in order to prevent any invasion of (inaudible) area by Turkey. How do you respond to his proposal?

MR. ERELI: I haven't seen his comments. I know Qubad very well. He's an honorable gentleman and a good representative of Iraq. I think you know what our policy on the PKK and preventing Iraqi territory from being used for terrorist actions against Turkey. We, the Iraqis, and Turkey all worked very closely and I think effectively towards that end.

QUESTION: And the last one. How do you respond to the Turkish Prime Minister Rejep Tayyip Erdogan's statement, now is the time for the U.S. Government to provide a special status for Kirkuk in Iraq, home of ethnic Turkomen, Kurds and Arabs?

MR. ERELI: The status of Kirkuk is for the Iraqis to decide.

QUESTION: Is that it?

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Somalia. Apparently the representatives from the ICU and the interim government are going to be meeting in Sudan to discuss how to go forward and govern the country. Do you have any response to these meetings?

MR. ERELI: It's a good -- actions that promote reconciliation, effective central government and strengthening of national institutions is a good thing.

QUESTION: Will there be any U.S. representation of --

MR. ERELI: I'll check and see.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Sudan, President Bashir again today refused an international presence in Sudan in Darfur after meeting with President Mbeke of South Africa. So I wanted to know what is your next move on Sudan.

MR. ERELI: I think our diplomacy is going to be consistent. It's based on a strong and unified international consensus, frankly, that the current peacekeeping mission in Darfur must be transitioned to a UN force. That's something that the African Union, the UN Security Council, the European Union and the United States have all been very clear and consistent about. We think that there's ample precedent for this. There is already -- as I said yesterday, there's already a UN peacekeeping force deployed in Southern Sudan and there was a -- and we all believe a UN peacekeeping mission is necessary for Darfur.

I would note that when you talk about next steps and where we're going on this, there is currently a UN assessment mission in Sudan. They've been there for about three weeks. The UN Security Council recently visited Sudan and met with President Bashir to discuss the transition to -- from the AMIS to a UN force in Darfur.

The UN assessment team that is there now is working to finalize the requirements for this mission. They have been going to Darfur. They've been going elsewhere. They've been meeting with AU forces there. They've been meeting with the government there. So preparations proceed and we look forward to hearing the report of this assessment mission and working with our partners -- the UN, the EU, the AU and others -- to take the next steps.

We think that it is strongly in Sudan's interest to strengthen Darfur -- strengthen security in Darfur through a UN peacekeeping mission, noting that the African Union forces should form its core. And the reason for this is that as long as violence continues in Darfur, the Sudanese Government is going to beheld responsible regardless of the circumstances. So the Sudanese Government has a strong interest in a more effective security force in Darfur as well not only to be on the right side of the issue and to be seen as doing the right thing, but also to provide for better security for its own citizens.

So we will continue to work in concert with our international partners. The ones that have -- that sort of -- the group that has brought us to this current state of affairs, which has been very effective -- the UN, the EU and the United States -- to press the government of Sudan to recognize the reality that a UN peacekeeping mission is necessary in Darfur.

QUESTION: Do you consider asking for a Security Council meeting on Sudan?

MR. ERELI: Well, there have been plenty of Security Council meetings in the past. This is an issue that, as I said before, the Security Council went to Darfur. This is an issue that is obviously before the Security Council that will continue to be working on it and obviously as we come -- as we move forward in preparing for a UN mission, it will obviously be something that the UN Security Council discusses and comes to agreement on.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The Save Darfur Coalition and more than 50 or 60 Nobel laureates have called for a special envoy on Sudan. Is this something that you're looking at and something that you're considering, particularly since Robert Zoellick has announced his departure and he was sort of the point person?

MR. ERELI: Right. Well, we spoke to this yesterday. And as I said yesterday, we've -- Deputy Secretary Zoellick has been very effective in addressing the Darfur issue and furthering the implementation of the CPA and, I think, marshaling -- as I said earlier, marshaling an international consensus and an effective international diplomatic response and humanitarian response to the crisis in Darfur. And that as a result of his efforts, we really have a framework, a diplomatic framework, for dealing with Darfur and that we'll continue to use that with our effective team that we have: Assistant Secretary Frazer, Cameron Hume and our partners -- our partners in the international community.

The idea of a special envoy has been around for a while. I don't, you know, have
any sort of updates for you on that. As I said, we've got -- Deputy Secretary Zoellick has achieved a lot and we think we're in good stead to continue his work with the team that we have. And as far as other steps that may be taken in the future, that's something that our leadership will decide if and when they see the need.

QUESTION: But is the discussion within the Department to have a special envoy?

MR. ERELI: Nothing in particular that I would report to you, no.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: On that, did anyone from this building follow up on the reported comments from President Bashir yesterday?

MR. ERELI: I think that --

QUESTION: Making the points that you just made to us?

MR. ERELI: I think that we engage with the Sudanese regularly. I'm not sure if there was any particular diplomatic initiative undertaken. But I think that the points: (a) what President Bashir said yesterday wasn't that new, it's been said before; (b) I think that we all -- the Sudanese are very clear about what our position is. It's been articulated by our diplomats, as well as by other representatives of the international community. So -- and it will -- you know, obviously we're going to be continuing to be working this issue. And so we'll be making those points again.

QUESTION: Do you think it's really a big threat to Khartoum that they would be held responsible as long as these killings go on? I mean, has that scared them so far?

MR. ERELI: I think that Sudan has an -- the Government of Sudan has an interest in being seen to be on the right side of this issue, both for its international prestige, its international stature, as well as in order to pursue successfully other interests it might have.

QUESTION: So you do think that's an effective stick?

MR. ERELI: We think -- not necessarily a stick; it's a question of what we believe is in its interest to do.

QUESTION: What is the level of contact between the Bush Administration and Bashir to discuss his comments yesterday. Has the Secretary called or has Jendayi Frazer called him?

MR. ERELI: No, I'm not aware that -- of any such calls. I'll check and see. If there have been, I'll let you know. Not from the Secretary. Again, I'll see if there's anything lower down. But if there is, I'll let you know.

QUESTION: Adam.

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: Have you had any contacts with the Israelis? They continue to have these military operations in Gaza that are causing, reportedly, civilian casualties. Any contacts with them?

MR. ERELI: I'm not aware of recent contacts specific to these -- to the most recent activity. Obviously, the Israeli Government, I think, knows our position. We've been very clear about it. There are ongoing communications, ongoing contacts between U.S. officials in a variety of capacities in Tel -- U.S. and Israeli officials in Tel Aviv, but I'm not aware that there have been any with regard to the latest activity. But then again, I don't think there's anything really new to say.

QUESTION: I have one more. Are you aware of a report about a blanket suspension of the issuance of visas to people in Honduras who are applying?

MR. ERELI: Yeah, let me -- that was sort of an issue over the last couple of days. I'm just looking for dates here.

What happened was I think over the weekend or late last week the Embassy -- I think it was on Friday -- the Embassy temporarily stopped making new appointments for visa applicant interviews. That was on Friday, I believe. And the reason they did that is because we've seen increasing use of fraudulent Honduran documents in the visa application process and we wanted to take a good look at our internal controls in response to this problem. So it was decided that we would temporarily stop making appointments, new appointments for visa applicant interviews, but we did continue to interview those applicants with previously scheduled visa appointments. We're doing all of this, obviously, in coordination with the Honduran Government and I expect that we'll be resuming visa interview appointment scheduling as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. ERELI: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:20 p.m.)

DPB # 103