2:00 P.M. (EDT)

Real Audio of Briefing

QUESTION: Yes, hi. Good afternoon, sir. I have a couple of questions, actually. You talked about the role that -- my name is Abderrahim Foukara from Al-Jazeera, by the way. You talked about the role that the new -- that the draft resolution basically defines to the UN. I was wondering if you could say a couple of things about the role of the U.S. and UK forces will be in this period (inaudible) the draft resolution clearly describes them as occupying powers. That's number one.

Number two, with regard to weapons of mass destruction, how fair of an assessment would it be to say that the U.S. is now in a difficult position in the sense that if you say that weapons of mass destruction have been found, then the Russians will say, well, we should not proceed with lifting the sanctions until we are 100 percent sure that there are no weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq. If you say they have not been found and we need to round them up, then the Europeans will be saying, well, the premise upon which you launched the war was false.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: On the question of what the coalition responsibilities will be in the interim period, in this transition period, clearly the primary responsibility is to provide security and stability so the humanitarian aid and relief can be delivered, so the reconstruction process can begin, and also so the political process of creating an Iraqi interim authority that will be -- hopefully, if this resolution passes -- assisted by a United Nations Special Coordinator and will be supported by the international community that can help create a future representative government of the Iraqi people themselves. So security and stability is the primary responsibility of the coalition inside Iraq.

As for the question that you asked about the connection between sanctions and proving the disarmament of Iraq, I would only say, again, that I don't think that too many people -- and certainly I have not heard this from many of my consultations over the last few days -believe that any weapons of mass destruction that may remain inside Iraq, if they were to fall in the hands of the coalition, pose a threat to international peace and security in the same way they would have if they were in the hands of Saddam Hussein.

So I think that there is, of course, the legal matter on what would happen to the future of UNMOVIC and the international inspection regime. This is certainly a question that will be discussed in New York. But the connection between the need to certify the disarmament of Iraq and the lifting of sanctions is, it seems to me, is based upon the assumption that somehow the existence of the coalition forces inside Iraq and the possibility of any WMD that may be in there will somehow pose the same kind of threat that would have existed prior to the intervention in Iraq, and I just do not believe that to be the case.

QUESTION: Thank you. I guess I will continue with the same question because -- this is Tulin Dalogou from Turkey's Star Tv.

You are just seen as saying that, of course, I mean I -- if there were to be weapons of mass destructions and if they were to be under the hands of the coalition government it wouldn't be a threat to the world, but yet going to the world the premise why there is a war in Iraq was that Iraqi regime holds these weapons of mass destruction, and yet they are not found and they are not under control. And the opposition in the Security Council insists that unless the time comes that they are under control, we are not willing to go ahead with this resolution.

So how would you legitimize this, you know, time frame to lift the sanctions?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: I could only repeat what I've said a couple of times already, and that is that it's imperative to lift the burden of sanctions on the Iraqi people. And it seems to me that to argue in favor of continuing that burden after so many years that the Iraqi people have suffered under Saddam Hussein, in return for the legal point that somehow there needs to be a certification of these WMD, seems to me to be rather unfortunate for the Iraqi people.

And we are trying to lift the burden on the Iraqi people by lifting the sanctions. And it goes back to the point I originally made about the underlying assumption, that somehow the continuation of these WMD -- we are still searching for them -- would pose the same kind of threat as before. So I just don't believe that that is the case.

QUESTION: The weapons of mass destruction in the post-Saddam era is irrelevant to anything that holds the UN resolution?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: No, I am not saying it's irrelevant. I am just saying that we are now taking upon ourselves the obligation of finding and destroying these weapons and disarming Iraq, and that is a responsibility that we have assumed. And we, at the same time, are trying to lift the sanctions burden on the Iraqi people. That's what I'm saying.

QUESTION: Are you assuming to have a better and more detailed cooperation with the United Nations, or is it going to be only the role of the United States to find and control these weapons of mass destruction?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: We would like to create a transparency situation where, if and when we find these weapons of mass destruction, the international community will be confident that we have found them, and they will be confident of the process that we used to find them and destroy them.

QUESTION: My name is Khaled Dawoud from Egypt's Al Ahram Newspaper. I was wondering that -- whether the debate is not over lifting the sanctions as much as it is giving the United States a free hand in doing what it wants in Iraq. You know, nobody wants sanctions to remain, but its, you know, the willingness of the United States to share with the rest of the world, you know, running Iraq's affairs.

So I wonder how flexible you are to changes in the resolution? And also, I'd like to know what's the position, your view of France's position towards that resolution?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, you will have to characterize your understanding of France's position before I can answer that. But I think that it is very clear that we do see a role for the United Nations, and I have already outlined what that role is. And we would see it important for the Special Coordinator to provide assistance and support for the coalition or for the authority inside Iraq, as it helps create an Iraqi interim authority, and as that process continues, eventually, a sovereign Iraqi government. This is a position that we think is best for the security and stability of Iraq, and it's the best for the future development of a representative government in Iraq.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, I am not negotiating this. This is being negotiated in New York, and so I really don't want to get into any technical questions.

MR. DENIG: Let's go to Radio Sawa here.

QUESTION: Samir Nader, Radio Sawa. You said you felt the position of the Russians will be pragmatic in dealing with the resolution. How do you characterize the French attitude?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, I have not spoken in the last few days with anyone from France, but the general impression I have from all of the countries on the Council is they want to be pragmatic, and in the sense that they want to solve the problems of sanctions. There are discussions of all of the issues that are being raised here that have to be seriously dealt with, and these are important questions. They need to be answered. They need to be discussed, and that will be done in New York.

But so far I have the impression -- from all of the members of the Security Council -- that we want to put the disagreements of the past behind us. We want to move on. And we want to move on because it's imperative for the benefit of the Iraqi people that we do this, and that we don't get hung up for some technical reason in disagreements in a way that continues to punish the Iraqi people with sanctions.

MR. DENIG: The gentleman up front here.

QUESTION: Hasan Hazar, Turkiye Daily. If there is now (inaudible) in power in (inaudible), it should be real easy to lift the sanctions, but it is not easy. So what and why are difficulties to new resolution in the UN?

Secondly, what kind of differences are there between the United States and the international community?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: I'm sorry. The second one -- the differences were?

QUESTION: What kind of differences are there between the United States and the international community to lift the sanctions?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, first of all, I don't want to overestimate the difficulties. I mean, there are questions and we are candidly trying to answer these questions. So I would not want to exaggerate the fact that there are somehow difficulties here. Any time you have a Security Council resolution of this importance dealing with an issue that has gone through the history that this issue has gone through over the last 12 years, you're going to have any number of debates and questions that have to be answered. So this is really normal.

But what I would emphasize is not the difficulties but the fact that there seems to be a common understanding that we need to move forward, that we need to find a way to lift the sanctions burden on the Iraqi people as quickly as possible.

Yes, there are questions about the Oil-for-Food program. Yes, there are questions about the nature of disarmament and the future of UNMOVIC. And, yes, there are questions about the particular role of the UN Special Coordinator.

These are the three areas that are being discussed the most, and we have heard some questions here already about that. This is to be expected. We should not be alarmed by this. And my impression, as someone who went through the last debate on the second resolution on Iraq, that this seems to be a new day; a new era seems to be underway.

I think everyone seems to realize that there is a lot at stake here. It's not just the future of Iraq, but also the future of the Security Council. It's very important that we bring the unity of the Council back together again after the debates and divisions that we just endured only a few months past. This is important for the integrity and future of the Security Council. It's important for the future of the United Nations to be able to demonstrate that it can deal with an issue that is as difficult as this issue has been.

MR. DENIG: Let's go to ANSA back there.

QUESTION: Giampiero Gramaglia, the Italian new agency, ANSA. You told us that the coalition forces, the occupying forces, will not stay in Iraq one day longer than needed. Who will decide when this day come -- the international community, the Iraqi people or yourself?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, it's at the end of the day, when the Iraqi people has a representative Iraqi government that can stand on its own, I think it will be obvious to us, to the Iraqi people, to the Iraqi government and the rest of the world that this has occurred. And, of course, since the United Nations Special Coordinator would be involved in this process, that Coordinator would also be part of the process that would determine this time.

It would be virtually impossible for me to give you a complete black and white timeframe or a specific condition, list of sort of preconditions when this will be known. It's simply too early for us to get into those kinds of specifics. But, at the end of the day, what really matters the most is that we have an Iraqi government created that is representative of the will of all of the Iraqi people, and that this government can stand on its own. And when that time comes, then our responsibilities will end -- at least the current responsibilities that we have and the authority will end.

QUESTION: Thank you. Again, Hoda Tawfik, Egypt, Al Ahram newspaper. You keep talking about an Iraqi government. When do you expect to have an Iraqi government? Until then, will the United States and the coalition have a free hand, now that you want to remove sanctions?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: We have proposed in this resolution that we create an Iraqi interim authority that would exist alongside the coalition authority during this transition period. And this Iraqi interim authority we would like to see over time take on more and more responsibility for the day-to-day civil administration of Iraq. And as it gains more authority and more confidence in itself, then the coalition authority would recede; and also, with the help of the Iraqi interim authority, create the mechanisms and the processes by which a new Iraqi government and a new constitution could be created. How much time this will take, it's hard to say. I would not want to give a time frame that might be misleading or might change because this is very early in the process.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: I am not sure what you mean by free hand.

QUESTION: Removing the sanctions, and that is important decision to be taking concerning export of oil, concerning trade, a lot of important matters.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Yes, but we are proposing this resolution to the Security Council, and we are asking and debating this in the Security Council. And, hopefully, if we get passage of this resolution, this will be a situation that has been supported by the Security Council. So the idea of a free hand is not, it would seem to me, to be an accurate description of the situation.

MR. DENIG: Gentleman in the way back.

QUESTION: Mohamed El-Settouhi, Nile News Channel, Egyptian Television. What role do you envision for the UN role and the Iraqi transitional government when it comes to the Iraqi oil?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: The UN what, I'm sorry?

QUESTION: The board, it looks like you are going to have a board from the United Nations to supervise the Iraqi oil --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: I see.

QUESTION: -- and the Iraqi transitional government, as well. But it looks like it will be only an advisory role.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Yes, we envision that the Iraqi Assistance Fund would have an international advisory board that would consist of representatives of the World Bank, IMF, and also the United Nations. It would have an auditing and monitoring role. The fund would be audited according to standard international auditing procedures, and it would report back. There would be regular reports that would allow the international community to be able to see what kind of transparency we have on the various processes and the various transactions that the Assistance Fund is undertaking. It is in that case, in that sense, a monitoring and auditing function over the fund.

QUESTION: So you will have no authority at all to decide what to do with the Iraqi oil?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Not in the sense of deciding on transactions, no.

QUESTION: Hi, my name is Tammam Al-Barazi from Al Watan/Alarabi Magazine.

Sir, we saw on TV that Ayatollah Hakim is back after 23 years in exile in Tehran and he is rejecting any transitional government or anything to do or coming from what he called the occupiers. So do you see that as alternative? I mean, he will build his own, apparently, theocracy or what? Will you accept that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, I am here to talk about mainly the United Nations Security Council resolution. That question's just a little bit out of my lane. But I can say that we will do everything we can to try to listen to all of the various political forces that are inside Iraq so long as they do not insist on explicit authority on their own; in other words, so long as they are respectful of democratic processes.

QUESTION: Reha Zepnep from Turkish Public Television. When winding down this program, Oil-for-Food program, what will be the procedure be, because there are so many existing contracts? Who will be honoring and what will be the procedure be, because we hear in the media that there will be some preferences and so forth?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, there are roughly 7,000 contracts in the Oil-for-Food program that now amount to about $10 billion worth of obligated UN funds; that is, UN funds in the UN escrow have been obligated to pay for those contracts.

This resolution calls for honoring those contracts that are in the pipeline for a four-month period, and what happens after that will have to be addressed at that time. But the point is that for the obligated contracts that have already been signed and had UN money assigned to them, they are to be processed and executed during that four-month period.

QUESTION: Camille Tawil from Al Hayat Newspaper. How confident are you of having the resolution passed in the Security Council before the -- before June, June the 3rd? And what is your option if you can't have -- you know, having the resolution passed in the Security Council?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, this is only the first day that the resolution is being discussed in New York, so it is a bit early for me to be making predictions about timelines. But from what I know at this point, I am cautiously optimistic and I am confident that as time goes on and as the issues are more aired and there's a fuller discussion of what we're trying to achieve, that we will be able to bring the Council together, hopefully, in support of this resolution.

QUESTION: What is Plan B?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Plan B?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: I don't speculate on Plan B. Plan A is getting this resolution passed.

QUESTION: Thanks. Julie Ziegler from Bloomberg News. I want to go back to your comment about the future of the Security Council is at stake. I wonder if you would elaborate on that. And it does seem, at least from some points of view, that the future of -- the relevance of the Security Council, or that the Security Council is relevant as long as it votes the way the U.S. wants it to.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: That's a comment or a question?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) so I wondered if you could elaborate on why (inaudible).

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, the Security Council has, in the Resolution 1441, unanimously came out in favor of renewed inspections in Iraq, and there have been previous resolutions on Iraq where there had been Council unity. And when the Council is together and is unified, it's a lot more effective than when it's divided. I think that's really the operative fact and so we're hoping that -- and so far, the signs seem to be good -- that we can bring the Council unity back together again in order to deal with the issue of sanctions.

QUESTION: John Zang with CTI TV of Taiwan. Dr. Holmes, we haven't heard much from China on the lifting of sanctions, probably because it's too busy battling SARS. What is the status of your exchanges, conversations with China as to where China stands on this issue?

I also have a Taiwan question afterwards.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, the answer is actually very short. At this point, it's a bit too early for me to be able to judge where China is on this issue.

QUESTION: But you have been having dialogue?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Sure, we're having dialogue today in the Security Council. We'll hopefully get a better, clearer picture at the end of the day where things stand.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, both the Senate and the House have unanimously adopted resolutions urging the State Department to support Taiwan to join the WHO as an observer. As the top official at the State responsible for international organization affairs, how would the State Department support Taiwan in the upcoming WHO conference?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, this is something that we are discussing at this very moment. As a matter of fact, I was discussing it in the car on the way over. So we are seized of the matter. We are trying to be as helpful as we can. But at this point, I probably should withhold any speculations about that because it's under consideration.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. Given the worsening SARS situation in Taiwan, would it be fair to say that the United States will provide stronger support for Taiwan's participation in WHO? Thank you very much.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, I mean, we all have been very much alarmed by the SARS epidemic and I think that we are doing everything we can in a variety of venues in order to ensure the health and safety of the American people, as well as to support the World Health Organization and all the good work that it's doing as well. So we will continue doing that. We think it's very important that we continue doing that.

But as for what we do specifically on Taiwan, hopefully we'll have a clearer idea where we're going on that in the next couple days.

QUESTION: Aziz Fahmy, MBC. In the context of the Future of Iraq, which is sponsored by the State Department, Iraqi expatriate expressed the desire to privatize the Iraqi oil industry in the future, which a goal that the Bush administration shares. The question I have is that whether this decision will be made before there is Iraqi government with full legitimacy; other words, would this decision could be made within the next two years before there is an Iraqi government in place?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, it would seem to me that any decision like that should be a decision made by the Iraqi people themselves and by the Iraqi government, but you're getting a little ahead of what we're discussing here in the Security Council resolution and you're getting into questions that we may be facing in the future.

So I think it's important to stay focused on what we need to do in the near term. But I think as a general rule, we want to be able to leave to the Iraqi people, themselves, the most fundamental decisions about how their society and how their government and how their economy should be organized. I think that's a general principle that we will adhere to.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Well, it's -- you're getting me down the road there a little bit too far about the specifics of it, but I think the general principle that I just said should suffice.

MR. DENIG: Is there a last question on the resolution?

(No response.)

MR. DENIG: Okay. In that case, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Thank you. Well, there's one right there.

QUESTION: This might be obvious question, but the President is leaving for Europe shortly, before the June 3rd deadline. Would you rather have the resolution before President’s departure, or anytime?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: I think before would be better.

QUESTION: The sooner, the better?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLMES: Sure. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[End]