12:23 P.M. EDT
The two leaders agreed to continue their
discussions on the North Korean situation and other topics when they meet in Washington on May 14th, as
previously announced.
Following that call, the President also
spoke with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan, had a
conversation about the same topics. They
also agreed and exchanged views on last week's talks in Beijing, and agreed to
continue pressing for the irreversible and verifiable elimination of their
weapons program. The President
reiterated his intention to resolve this issue peacefully, and the two leaders
agreed that they will continue their discussions and consultations as we work
very closely with our good friends and allies in the region on this
matter.
Following that, the President had an
intelligence briefing and an FBI briefing, convened a meeting of the Homeland
Security Council. And later this
afternoon in the East Room, the President will hold an event to call on the Congress
to pass his HIV-AIDS initiative, so that the nations that have been ravaged by
AIDS in Africa, as well as nations affected in the Caribbean can receive the
relief they need to fight this disease.
And that is it for the President's public
schedule. One announcement, and then
I'll be happy to take your questions.
Literally just a few moments ago, the United Nations voted to reelect Cuba to the Human
Rights Commission. This is a setback for
the cause of human rights. Cuba does not deserve
a seat on the Human Rights Commission. Cuba deserves to be
investigated by the Human Rights Commission.
The action taken in the United Nations --
the Human Rights Commission at the United Nations comes upon,
immediately upon Cuba's actions of
rounding up 78 independent journalists, librarians and opposition leaders and
sentencing them to 28 years in prison.
Having Cuba serve again on
the Human Rights Commission is like putting Al Capone in charge of bank
security. It was an inappropriate action
that does not serve the cause of human rights in Cuba or at the United
Nations.
And with that, I'm happy to take your
questions. Tom.
Q In terms of the road map, it calls for
a negotiation for a final status on Palestinian borders, final settlement
between Israel and the
Palestinians. In terms of how far you
let that process go, are you laying down any parameters within which to work,
in terms of negotiation? Are you
prepared to tolerate endless negotiation, as has been the case in the Middle East all these years?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, here's what will happen next: The road map will soon be released to the
parties, the formal release of the road map so they will have it formally for
the first time. At that point, we
anticipate that they will review it, and we will welcome contributions to the
road map from the various parties.
This is something we will continue to work
directly with the Israelis on, and work with the Palestinians on. We want to hear what they have to say. And I think this will begin a process, a
process which the United States will play a
role, and an important role and a helpful role.
Fundamentally, it still is a matter for the Israelis and the
Palestinians to work together on, to resolve matters for themselves. There are many important players, but there
are no more important players than the Israelis and the Palestinians. We will be at their sides to help them.
Q So
will you set any kind of ground rules at the onset to say, listen, we're not
going to tolerate endless negotiation; we have a schedule that we would like to
keep to, and so, we want to work with both of you to try to reach that, but
this can't go on forever?
MR. FLEISCHER: The parameters were set in the President's
June 24th Rose Garden speech about what it is the United States supports, and as
well, those parameters are clear from the read of the road map. And those parameters can basically be
described as creating now through the road map a process whereby the security
situation is enhanced as the political process is advanced, as well, all toward
the point of a state of Palestine by 2005 that can
live side-by-side in peace and security with Israel. And we will be there to make certain of the
security.
Q Again,
are you saying to the parties going into this, this process can't go on
forever, you can't keep negotiating
-- back and forth, you've got to
come to a point where you've got to step up to the table here and sign this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the process is just beginning. And they have not even yet received formally
the road map yet. So I'm not going to put
any type of timetable on a process that has not even gotten the formal kickoff
of being delivered the road map. The
President wants progress to move quickly.
The dates that the President outlined are the dates that he seeks and
believes in and will work toward. Those
dates are not to change. So the amount
of time they take up takes up the amount of time left between now and that
date. And so we will continue to work
the process.
Q One
housekeeping thing. Do you know if
Elizabeth Smart will be at the White House tomorrow?
MR. FLEISCHER: There will be many families coming to the
White House tomorrow as the President signs the National Amber Alert
System. And many of these families who
join the President have all been touched, one way or another, as a result of
missing children. The Smart family has
asked the White House not to make any statements about whether their daughter
will or will not attend.
Q How
long will that last? Will we find out by
either seeing her or not seeing her? Or
will we know sometime before that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that certainly is one way. (Laughter.)
Q I'm
not trying to be flip.
I'm actually just asking whether you're going to --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm limited at the request of the
family. In respect to the family, I
can't say anything more.
Q On North Korea, is the President prepared to rule out any
concessions to North Korea in exchange for
a complete dismantlement of their nuclear program, whether financially, whether
it's food, anything like that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason that we are --
the world is in the spot it is in is because North Korea entered into an
agreement and then did not keep up their terms of the agreement. They received aid in return for promising not
to develop nuclear weapons. They took
the aid, they ran with the aid, and then they developed a nuclear weapons
program anyway.
So what the President has said is that we
will not reward North Korea for bad
behavior; that what we seek is North Korea's irrevocable
and verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear weapon's program, and we will not
provide them inducements for doing what they always
said they were going to do anyway.
Q So
how does this happen? Because you say
you're on a diplomatic track; they're opening gambit was to put something on
the table that you, it seems, dismiss out of hand, which is concessions for
that dismantlement of weapons. But
everybody's still talking. So, in the
end, what does the President believe is actually going to force their hand to
do what he wants them to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think one of the most notable,
positive elements of the talks that just emerged is the fact that the approach
that the President always believed was the right approach was the diplomatic
approach, whose diplomacy will be enhanced because it's multilateral, has indeed
been enhanced because, as he discussed with Japan and South Korea today, we see
it the same way, and China sees it very much the same way, as well.
So the President's hope is as a result of
the multilateral path that we are pursuing, that North Korea will reassess
whether or not it wants to engage with the world, whether or not it wants to
economically advance. And then North Korea will come to a
reasoned conclusion about the best way to economically advance and help its
people, and that begins with their verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear
weapons program.
Q All
right, but, I mean, there hasn't really been much of
an advance here. I mean, the diplomatic
approach so far has resulted in North Korea asking for the
same thing it got out of the Clinton
administration. So it's terrific that Japan and China are involved,
but what evidence is there
-- or what will be
different, say, than 1994?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, and this is the diplomatic process -- and the diplomatic process is a lengthy one. And the President's prepared to pursue it at
that length. And so if it takes time, it
will take time. But what will not happen
is North Korea will not be
rewarded for developing nuclear weapons.
Q Ari, on Cuba, what good is a human
rights organization that within days of a government arresting all these
dissidents and poets and jailing them, elects that
government to the Human Rights Commission?
What does the President see as the usefulness, and what worth does he
see in the expenditure of American tax dollars to go to such an organization?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Human Rights Commission undermines its
own credibility at the United Nations when they allowed Cuba to get
reelected. The Human Rights Commission
not only hurts the people of Cuba, but they hurt
the very cause in which nations should sign up to serve on the Human Rights
Commission. The Human Rights Commission
wanted to send investigators into Cuba, and Cuba said, no. And yet today, Cuba gets reelected
to the Human Rights Commission. It raises
troubling issues, and that's why the United States is speaking out
about it. We hope others will speak out.
Q Right
now, though, speaking out is all the President intends to do, that he intends
to continue to contribute and other ways that the United States does to this
organization?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there is no change in our overall
position toward the United Nations. The
United Nations continues to pursue other areas that do good
around the world. But in this case, the
Human Rights Commission voted to reelect a nation that would --
deserves to be the object of an investigation, not a duly elected member
of the Human Rights Commission.
Q And then on the global HIV/AIDS
initiative, what is the White House response to conservative social critics of
this legislation that say it won't be effective because it fails to promote
abstinence efficiently, and it opens the door for what they believe is an
ineffective way of stopping the spread of this disease, which is the
distribution of condoms?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President looks forward to working with
all parties to make progress on this important legislation so it can, indeed,
be signed into law, and done soon. The President
think it is a top priority and moral calling for the United States to aid
African nations, to aid Caribbean nations, in the fight against AIDS.
There is a very successful role model in
place, and that is the Ugandan model.
And the President would like to call attention, wherever there are
critics, whether they're on the left or the right, to success that works. And the Ugandan model is a great role
model. It provides a focus on
abstinence. It puts an emphasis on
abstinence. Then it recognizes that,
alone, is not the only answer. But it is
an effective model of fighting AIDS in Africa. And that's where the President is focusing
his attention, is how to deliver that relief, while be cognizant of some of
these other important issues such as abstinence, because it does play an
important role. But he wants to make
certain that the program is funded, that it can do its job, and do so based on
successful existing models.
Q But
there are some in the conservative camp, as well, who believe that this bill
would represent a departure from the so-called Mexico City policy that
President Reagan adopted, that President Bush has re-adopted.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the program the President supports to
provide aid for Africa --
the AIDS initiative to fight AIDS in Africa --
will apply the same standards for all family planning, grants using
foreign assistance funds, but we are not expanding the Mexico City policy to cover
this HIV-AIDS program. Any organization
that wants to participate in the treatment, care, and prevention of HIV-AIDS
under the President's emergency relief plan will be eligible, provided they do
not use the funds to promote or perform abortions.
Q Are
you considering any policy changes, or any increased sanctions against Cuba for their
crackdown, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this action just took place at the
United Nations, literally in the minutes leading up to this briefing. So I'm going to limit my comments to what
just took place.
Q The
dissidents were arrested last week.
MR.
FLEISCHER: And we have vociferously
condemned it. Obviously, for those who are proposing to remove some of the
trade restrictions that exist on Cuba,
we remind them that Cuba
remains a very repressive regime, as proven by its actions in the arrest of
these leaders, who simply want to speak out, journalists who want to write the
truth. And this is a reminder to these
groups that want to liberalize or open up trade with Cuba,
that this repressive regime will use that money to further their dictatorship,
not to help the people.
Q Ari, after about 20 years out in the
field, one of the major commandantes or commanders of the armed revolutionary
force in Colombia, FARC, has
turned himself in, and is asking other commanders to do the same. The President is meeting tomorrow with
President Uribe. What is the importance
the White House attaches to this meeting?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President very much looks forward
to tomorrow's meeting with President Uribe.
Colombia has been working
closely with the United States in the fight
against narco-terrorism, and we are their ally.
We want to help Columbia. Columbia is a democracy,
and we want them to succeed. The
President will meet tomorrow, and one of the topics they've talked about
repeatedly is how to protect the Colombian people from the terrorist FARC, and
that will be a topic on the agenda tomorrow.
Q Ari,
usually the White House has had special events on Cinco de Mayo, a special
celebration. I think last year and the
year before, if I'm not mistaken. Is the
White House planning anything, which is a week from today, Cinco de Mayo?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not looked ahead to next week's
schedule yet, so let me do that and see if we have anything planned for that
day. I just don't know off the top of my
head.
Q Ari,
going back to what Terry was talking about, or the response you had to Terry,
how is the White House or the federal government going to determine if these
funds will be used for abortions, or not?
What is the mechanism that's in place?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's a series of mechanisms in place, and that
deals with the transparency of these organizations, the bookkeeping of these
organizations. They will not be able to
do business with the government unless we were satisfied they had transparency
in place to know about their use of funds.
We obviously don't put money into organizations where we have no
accountability for these organizations on how the funding is spent. So that is exactly how the program would be
implemented.
Q And
also, an abstinence issue. Just looking here, teenage pregnancy rates
may have fallen a bit, but they're still large.
Some are saying that you're throwing money away, just throwing it to the
winds, talking about abstinence and dealing with issues of abstinence, when
smacking you in the face that people are going to follow a human need.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is why I pointed out the
successful Ugandan role model here. Uganda stands strong in
Africa as having a program that they implemented years and
years ago to fight AIDS, and it's called ABC --
it's the ABC approach, which is abstain; if you can't abstain, be
faithful; if you can't be faithful, use condoms. But abstinence in an essential part of the
prevention program of the Ugandan model.
That is the Ugandan experience in Africa, a successful
one, and it does put an emphasis where emphasis belongs, which is on
abstinence. It's not the only area of
emphasis, but it is where they put emphasis.
Q But
is that a realistic emphasis in today's day and time?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you could ask the Ugandan Ambassador
when the Ugandan Ambassador is here, and she will tell you emphatically,
yes.
Q Ari, Senator Grassley, the Chairman of
the Finance Committee, is warning Republicans not, when pushing other
Republicans, the moderate Republicans on the tax cut, not to push too hard, or
else what happened with Jim Jeffords two years ago might happen again. Is the White House taking heed to that? Is the White House trying not to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you can also see in some of the
subsequent interviews he's done, that's now quite what he has said. He's explained it a little bit beyond
that. I think he was asked, are you
aware of anybody who is looking to do that, and he said, no. So the President is going to stand on
principle, and he's going to stand on the principle that we need to help
Americans find jobs. And of course, he
will fight for that. That's what the
President believes in. And we ask all to
engage in this debate in the spirit of open-mindedness and fairness. And that's how the debate will be engaged,
and we expect that's how the debate will be received.
Q To
follow up, separate from Senator Grassley, his comments, people like Senator
Snowe, Senator Voinovich, if they don't in the end, end up going along with the
White House, are you going to be careful not to have any kind of overt or
covert retribution, much like --
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, of course.
Q -- Senator Jeffords
said that he saw after he didn't go along with the White House initially?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, we disputed that notion then and there's
nothing to that. Of course, the
President recognizes different people will vote different ways, and we will work -- the President will work very hard to build a
majority to support jobs for the American people.
Q Ari, beyond the road map, to what
extent is the President prepared to put his personal weight behind this peace
process?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is going to work very hard and
try to help the parties come together to achieve a two-state solution to the
violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is a priority for the President, and he
is committed to it.
Q What
does that mean, work very hard?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, he's going to put a lot of time into
it, a lot of attention into it, put whatever it takes into it so that we can
help the parties to get it done, while always understanding it still
fundamentally is a matter that the Israelis and the Palestinians have to want
to do themselves.
If there is a lack of desire from either one of those parties, there is
nobody on the outside, including the United States, who can do it
for them. They must have that will to
get it done themselves.
But if you take a look at some of the more
recent events in the Middle East, this is an optimistic
moment for events in the Middle East. The fact of the matter is that the
Palestinian Authority now has a prime minister who is dedicated to moving the
Palestinian people in a different direction, a direction way from violence. In large part, that is a result of the fact
that the President, on June 24th, said that Yasser Arafat cannot be a party to
peace because he does not support peace.
And as a result of the President's tough message, we have a greater
prospect for peace now in the Middle East than we've had
in years -- which you'll ultimately see that the
President is committed to and will work hard to make it happen.
Q On the tax cut, what is the
administration's position on the idea of offsets, either revenue raisers or
spending cuts, in order to get up the total of the potential tax cut,
especially on the Senate side?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's budget that was
submitted to the Congress earlier this year contained, for example, $11 billion
of offsets over a 10-year period. And so
the question of offsets is, indeed, a question that belongs on the table. As with any policy, it's a matter of exactly
what specific program are people talking about.
And each program or each proposal will be analyzed on its own merits to
make certain that it is a legitimate loophole-closer or offset.
Q Eleven
billion dollars wouldn't do much to boost the size of the tax cut as its currently envisioned in the Senate. There are those who are talking about a far
larger list of offsets. Does the
administration have any position on that?
Does it intend to express its preference to members of Congress today,
for instance?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it depends on they are. That's why I've said each one of these will
get examined on its merits. I can tell
you that in the late 1990s, the Republican Congress enacted many offsets into
law at that time. The more that you enact, the fewer are left that are legitimate offsets. But it depends. Each one will be analyzed on the merits. And as members of Congress step forward with
their ideas of an offset, we look forward to hearing their explanations.
Q At the U.N., where do you stand in
preparations for a resolution to lift sanctions? And will you include a lot of other issues in
one resolution, such as endorsing any potential Iraqi Interim Authority and
that sort of thing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, the timing is a little early
still. The oil-for-food program has been
extended to June 3rd, and so the timing of any action that we would offer a
resolution still remains some time into the future. Right now the process is a consultative
one. We're talking to allies,
we're talking to people at the United Nations about timing, about
language. And the fundamental goal
remains the total lifting of sanctions.
Q There
are those who think that time is running short, because this is likely to be as
big a wrangle as the debate over 1441.
MR. FLEISCHER: Hard to imagine anything will be that
size. But the date is until June 3rd,
and we'll see exactly what the timing allows.
Q Just to follow on Jim's question. What's the good of offsets that raise
revenues or taxes to be used in order to lower taxes?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because it's not just the aggregate number
that counts, it's the merits of each proposal.
And if there is a provision on the books that is worthy of being applied
as an offset, it's because the law needs to be changed. As a benefit of changing that law, revenue
comes in that can allow the tax cut to grow to an even higher number to create
jobs for the American people.
Q I want to make sure I understand what
you mean when you say that you're not going to expand the Mexico City to the Global
AIDS initiative. As I remember it, the
key issue in the Mexico City debate was over
fungibility, the idea that even if money provided to an organization wasn't
going to be used directly for abortion, other funds could be used for that
purpose. Are you saying that you won't
apply that fungibility test to governments or organizations that receive aid
under the global AIDS initiative?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're not expanding the Mexico City policy to cover
this initiative. But we do expect -- what we do expect is that any funds not be
used to perform or promote abortions.
Q That's
direct in this case. The policy is
limited to the actual money
--
MR. FLEISCHER: Exactly as I described it.
Q Ari,
with the war winding down and attention being focused --
media attention being focused back on the Democratic presidential
candidates, is the President paying attention to what these presidential
candidates are saying about his management of the economy, specifically? And two, is the President making any plans
to start putting his campaign together?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's fair to say that when the
President picks up the papers he reads the serious news first. And it's still a little early for the
President to pay any attention to the campaign.
He's in the middle of governing.
There still is serious international situations
that are underway. We still have our
troops in danger in Iraq. And so the President is focused on doing his
job governing. There will come a time,
of course, for more politics. It just
has not yet come.
Q Ari,
you've spoken about the prevention --
the Ugandan ABC prevention component.
Is there a research component to this initiative that the President
breaks out today, as well?
MR. FLEISCHER: A research component to it?
Q In
other words, expanding any kind of research into trying to find --
MR. FLEISCHER: The program was a $15-billion initiative that
focused on retroviral drugs. I'll take a
look at some of the more specific language, and maybe we can get that for you
here in the announcement about a research component. I remember the top-line numbers on it.
Q What
is the President's policy, or the White House policy on AIDS research in terms
of goals?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration strongly is support of
AIDS research. That's one of the -- when the President talked about this
initiative and he talked about some of the breakthroughs in research that allow
an initiative like this to help extend people's lives, as you know, the
President has also talked about some of the testing procedures, and he's
changed the testing procedures so that we can deliver more help as a
compassionate nation to people who suffer from AIDS within our own borders.
Q Ari, back to Cuba for a moment. There have been any number
of delegations going to Cuba for trade
purposes in the past year or so. Would
the President --
given what happened at the U.N. today, would the President be inclined to
tighten restrictions or put a clamp on increased trade --
albeit small, but it has been increasing
-- would he be inclined to do
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has been vociferous in saying
that we should not lift the sanctions, change the sanctions aimed at Cuba. In fact, if you recall, the President went to
Florida and made a
speech about the Cuba policy, and he
actually offered Cuba an opportunity
to change its relationship if they would welcome in democracy and make changes
in their human rights situation. The
President offered to take new steps, and Cuba, unfortunately,
went in the exact opposite direction and increased its repression of its
people.
Q What
do you make of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: We make of it that Fidel Castro is an
outright, absolute dictator who has no interest in the lives or the suffering
of his own people. He only has interest
in keeping himself in power at the expense of those people.
Q Ari, can I ask you about Iraq? Why
have coalition commanders in Iraq signed a
cease-fire with an anti-Iran guerrilla group that is on America's list of
terrorist groups? Was that cleared
here? And does this not undermine America's case in the
war on terror?
MR. FLEISCHER: In this instance, during the operations that
took place in Iraq --
and the group that you refer to is called the MEK, Mujahedeen
e-Khalk -- U.S. Forces engaged formations of the MEK,
which were integrated into Saddam Hussein's defensive forces. Following the fall of the regime, our forces
have now been working to promote security throughout Iraq. As part of that process, the MEK agreed to
stop fighting and to confine its forces to designated areas. We expect the MEK to remain in these
designated areas and refrain from any military or security operations. So this is part of the ongoing, immediate
post-combat effort to enhance security on the ground. This is not necessarily the final word, but this
is the word in the immediate, post-combat security environment.
Q
Does this not undermine the case that we make, that terrorist organizations -- we don't ask who they're attacking, but if
they're on our list --
MR. FLEISCHER: Our goal remains an Iraq that is free,
and that is also free of all terrorist organizations. We're reviewing what the next steps will be,
so you're watching a story unfold. There
may be more to this. But for now, it's
focused on the immediate security on the ground. They are a terrorist organization, they
deserve that label, and we are reviewing what the next steps will be.
Q Okay,
just real quickly, was that approved here ahead of time, or is that something
that the commanders on the ground can do without having to come to the White
House first?
MR. FLEISCHER: This instance, Mark, I don't know. I couldn't tell you whether this was done
operationally on the ground. It very
well may have been.
Q With four weeks to go in this particular
session with Congress, is that enough time for the tax cut, and is the
President going to set some sort of deadline like he did with the budget, for
April 11th? And secondly, to follow up
on Dana's question, you said that Grassley had said that he hadn't --
wasn't aware of any Republicans who are now going to change their
mind. But as you know, no one was aware
of Senator Jeffords, either. So is he
worried at all about this possibility?
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
With all due respect, I think you're fishing off a dock that doesn't
exist. (Laughter.) I think if you're aware of something, you'll
bring it to me, but until that point, I really think this is -- I
enjoy fishing, but I think it's akin to that.
Q What
about the deadline?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the deadline, if you take a look at what
Congress has done, actually, they're moving rather early on the process. They passed the budget resolution early. Typically the Congress never even gets to it
by this time of year. And so the four
weeks that are between now and the Memorial Day recess the Congress takes are a
perfect opportunity for Congress to come together on the tax and growth plan.
Q If
it's not done by then, is it too late, though?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants it done as soon as possible,
because if you're unemployed, you want it done now. And that's who the President is focused on,
is the needs of the unemployed.
Q This is a two-part question. It's becoming apparent that France may have been
aiding Saddam's regime up until the war broke out. When might the President phone President
Chirac about this? Second part of the
question: If members of the Iraqi regime
turn up in France, what agreements
do we have in place to ensure that they'll be turned over to the U.S.?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on your second question, I remind you
that President Chirac agreed with President Bush when the focus was on whether Syria was indeed
receiving anybody who had fled from Iraq, and President
Chirac spoke to the Syrians and stressed to them that they should not
harbor. And we expect that's a
principled stand that France takes that would
apply everywhere.
On the first question, I have nothing to
report on that topic.
Q Ari,
I have two questions. What's happening
to those millions of U.S. dollars in hundred dollar bills found at presidential
palaces and residences in Baghdad? And has the Secret Service determined the
money is real?
MR. FLEISCHER: The last update I had was that it did appear
that the money is real. It will be saved
and used for the people of Iraq. It is their resource, and that is -- it will be saved for them.
Q I
have another question. Is it true that
when the President goes to the G8 meeting in France next month, he
is going to sleep across the border in Switzerland?
MR. FLEISCHER: It is not.
(Laughter.)
It is not true.
Q Ari, on the AIDS initiative, have you
seen any sign from the other African countries, with the exception of Uganda and the Caribbean countries, that they are making changes to alleviate the
AIDS crisis? And has there been any
cooperation from Tahabo and Mbeki in South Africa?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, keep in mind, this initiative is
specific to the countries that were named as part of the initiative. It's not every country in Africa. It is the countries with whom we have a
working relationship, where we have confidence that the money will go toward
important AIDS programs that work. And
so, there is a screen to protect America's taxpayer
money.
And if you take a look at some of the
absolute horror stories coming out of Africa, there are
countries in which 40 percent of the population of these
countries have AIDS. There's an
absolute moral calling, in the President's judgment, to the people of the United States to help those in
need in Africa and the Caribbean that have been
ravaged by this. And of course, we will
work through these systems in place to make certain that the money and the aid
go to the people who need it, not to the governments who might siphon it off. Those countries --
and there are countries that have troublesome records -- are
not part of this.
Q So
South Africa is not a part
now?
MR. FLEISCHER: You have to take a look at the specific list
of names.
Q Can
we get that list, by the way?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I think that's public. We provided that when we announced the
initiative.
Q Ari, to follow on some earlier questions,
what benefit does the United States see to remaining
a member of a Human Rights Commission that has Libya as a chair, and
reelects Cuba despite what
it's doing to its citizens?
MR. FLEISCHER: It is troublesome. But we believe by being a part of the Human
Rights Commission we can work from the inside, as well as from the outside, to
effect positive change. But it certainly
does raise eyebrows and raise questions about the United Nations Human Rights
Commission's commitment to human rights.
It does raise those questions.
You cannot get around it. The
United Nations Human Rights Commission cannot expect to have Libya be its chair,
to reelect Cuba, and not have people wonder if they really do stand for human
rights, or not.
Q A
couple minutes ago, you cited the fact that there are still Americans and
troops in Iraq as one of the
reasons that the President is not in campaign mode. Do you think that there will still be
American troops in harm's way when he is ready to go political?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the question is, at what level
are the dangers? Clearly, the combat
phase has wound down, and is winding all the way down. But any time Americans are anywhere --
whether it's Afghanistan, or whether it's
in Iraq --
there are dangers. We are still a
nation that has elections in times of danger, and that means the President will
make his determination about when he wants to engage in that process. But it's still way, way too early for the
President.