3:00 P.M. EDT

Real Audio of Briefing

MR. DENIG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. We are pleased this afternoon to welcome back to our podium Adam Ereli, the Deputy Spokesman of the Department of State, for a briefing. We'll have no opening statement today, so we'll be able to move right into your questions.

Let me remind you to please use the microphone and identify yourself and your news organization.

Adam.

MR. ERELI: Thank you, Paul. Hello, everybody. It's great to be back. I think the first time I was here, I said I'd like to make it a regular occurrence, so I'm trying to keep to that. I guess since I was last here, there's been a lot going on. We've had the UNGA; we're getting ready for another trip to Asia. And there have been, obviously, a lot of noteworthy events throughout the world that we've been commenting on. So I don't really have anything particular to say on any particular subject to start off, so let's go straight to questions. I would just add that afterwards, I think there was some talk of doing a Directors Chat. So what I don't do on the record, we can maybe do after this.

QUESTION: Sonia Schott, Globovision, Venezuela. Do you have any update on Venezuela, on the current situation there?

MR. ERELI: Nothing particularly new, other than to say, obviously, you're referring, I suppose, to, what, the recall, or the Globovision or --

QUESTION: Globovision, the recall, remarks from President Chavez.

MR. ERELI: Right, right. I guess, to put it simply, we think that there is a process that is underway in Venezuela, and a process that consists of rulings by the courts, participation by the people, by all parties; a process that is transparent and consensual, and that is done with the involvement and support of Venezuela's neighbors, as well as the OAS, of which we are a part and whose participation we endorse; and that it's important that all the parties to this process of development work together in a cooperative way that serves the interests of the people.

Unless you want to get more specific, that is what I can say in a general way.

QUESTION: Can I ask you something to follow up?

MR. ERELI: Sure.

QUESTION: Two days ago, Ambassador (inaudible), the U.S. permanent representative to the OAS, said, here in Washington, that the Inter-American Democratic chart --

MR. ERELI: Charter?

QUESTION: -- charter could be the solution to Venezuelan problems. The Government of Venezuela reacted, saying that this was an intrusion of the U.S. Government. Do you have any comments on that? I’m Maria Matheus, El Universal, Venezuela.

MR. ERELI:Without having seen the representative's full remarks, and knowing the context in which they were made, I would basically rebut any charges of interference; perhaps, it would be best to sort of restate clearly what our policy on working with Venezuela and Venezuela's friends is. And that is that we and our partners in the OAS, and the Group of Friends of the OAS Secretary General, believe all the parties should focus on advancing fulfillment of the May 29th accord and moving forward in the recall election in that way. I think that there's a good consensus of views on this issue, on how both the people of Venezuela, the institutions of Venezuela and the friends of Venezuela can work together in the interest of the people of Venezuela.

I don't really have a lot more to say on specifics of the Inter-American Development Charter or Bank, or anything like that. I would say that, frankly, as a general rule, what we are doing is working with Venezuela, with the Venezuelans, with the Venezuelan institutions and with the OAS on a plan and a process that is consensual, is transparent, is based on the rule of law.

QUESTION: Dmitry Kirsanov, Russian News Agency, TASS. Do you have anything on the forthcoming APEC summit in Bangkok, and maybe a specific agenda or the members of the U.S. delegation?

MR. ERELI: Not really. The White House put out a statement on our travel two days ago, three days ago. Frankly, I don't have anything in particular for you on the agenda or our delegation, to tell you the truth.

Let's go in the back. Ma'am.

QUESTION: Hi, Nadia Tsao, with the Liberty Times. A few days ago, there was an interview in The Washington Post. It's an interview with President Chen Shui-bian in Taiwan.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: And in that interview, the reporter said that President Chen Shiu-bian told him he would not submit himself to the pressure from the U.S. regarding to his recent statement about the referendum, and one country on each side, and a new constitution.

But the official -- Taiwanese official in Taipei said the reporter misinterpreted President Chen's statement. And they made some explanation to people here in Washington. I wonder, do you have any comment about that?

And also, in the coming APEC meeting, will there be a meeting between President Bush and President Wen Jiabao from PRC?

Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Assistant Secretary Boucher dealt with the issue of President Chen's statements at length the other day. And one of the things he said, which I would sort of reiterate, is that, frankly, we don't want to use this podium, or official statements, to get into a back and forth about official statements. So if you're asking me to comment on what one leader said, and then what another person from my government said, and then what the other government said in response to what we said, that's a direction I'd prefer not to go in.

What I would say, and what I feel comfortable in saying, is to restate what our policy on the issue of China and Taiwan is. And that's a policy that's well known. It's a policy that is consistent, and it's the one China policy. And we continue to believe, and we believe very strongly, that the People's Republic of China and Taiwan should work together to achieve dialogue, and we believe that such efforts should continue, and we will endorse and welcome any steps that foster such dialogue, reduce tensions, and promote mutual understanding.

One follow-up.

QUESTION: In this report, it seems like all the concerns from Washington have been interpreted as kind of a pressure. So that's why the reporter interpreted, you know, President would not submit to the pressure from Washington.

Just wondering, can you describe, in general, what's the relationship now, you know, between Taiwan and the U.S.?

Is there any pressure from Washington about the, you know, recent statement that President Chen has raised?

Thank you.

MR. ERELI: I wouldn't characterize our position or our diplomacy as pressure. I would characterize it as open, frank, transparent communication on issues of regional concern. And making our views clear, trying to persuade others as to the validity of our views is what engagement is all about. I don't call that pressure.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we switch topics?

MR. ERELI: Oh, okay. Are we still on East Asia? Any other East Asia topics?

Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Yukio Kashiyama, Japanese newspaper, Sankei. On North Korea, last week, or two weeks ago, they had like a roundtable discussion in New York City region, five countries participated, including the United States and North Korea. In that occasion --

MR. ERELI: South Korea.

QUESTION: Then South Korea, and also North Korea.

MR. ERELI: In?

QUESTION: In New York.

MR. ERELI: In New York?

QUESTION: Yes, like a five-way discussion, something like that. And on that occasion --

MR. ERELI: I am not sure about that. I don't think that North Korea was participating in the talks in New York.

QUESTION: My question is about Deputy Assistant Secretary Don Keyser met with North Korean official, Ambassador Li Gun, and they talk 20 minutes, 30 minutes, a bilateral talk. What kind of conversation did they have?

MR. ERELI: The talks between Deputy Assistant Secretary Keyser and the North Korean official?

QUESTION: Yes, Ambassador Li Gun.

MR. ERELI: Okay. I don't have any readout of those talks. I'll tell you what. If you call me later in the day, maybe I can have something for you, but I don't have any particular on those talks.

QUESTION: Nothing relating to North Korea, still on Southeast Asia.

MR. ERELI: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Okay. My name is Ota, Japanese Kyodo News. Yesterday, we heard a comment by your boss, Mr. Boucher, on the Myanmar issue. On the ASEAN conference this week, they made a kind of chairman statement on the -- they played the attitude of the Myanmar junta.

They proposed a kind of roadmap. And he said, Mr. Boucher said yesterday, you know, he doesn't -- he didn't see -- it's a very -- you know, a chairman statement said it's a kind of positive progress.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: But Mr. Boucher said he didn't show that way yesterday.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: Can you elaborate more on his comment? And also, if you, United States, doesn't see it that way, how are you going to, you know, improve the situation with Myanmar?

Thanks.

MR. ERELI: I guess it's not up to us to improve the situation in Myanmar. It's up to the regime to improve the situation in Myanmar, that's the first point.

The second point is, what are we looking for in Myanmar? We're looking for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, and allowing her to participate as a free citizen in the political life of that country -- not only her, but all others. She's one of many who are detained for the peaceful expression of their political views. They should be released. That would be a positive development. We haven't seen that. And on the roadmap for democracy, how can you have a roadmap for democracy if you don't let the democratic opposition out of jail and you don't let them participate?

So, you know, it's one thing to talk in generalities. It's another thing to look in specifics. The specifics are, if you look at the specifics, where are the positive steps?

Is it up to us to make the change? I would answer that it's up to the Burmese Government. If you talk about a roadmap to democracy, you've got to start somewhere. And, you know, we're not even there yet. Because, you know, if you've got the effective leadership of any democratic parties or nongovernmental parties in jail, that's a roadmap to nowhere.

Now let's go to the Middle East.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: My name is Khaled Dawoud. I'm from Al Akhram newspaper. I have two questions, one concerning Iraq, and the other concerning Syria.

On Iraq, the question of reports in The New York Times about giving up a resolution on Iraq due to difficulties there.

And as far as Syria, I'd like to ask whether supporting the Syria Accountability Act marks a shift in the official policy toward Syria, and what's next in this respect?

Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Okay. Do you guys know this expression of Mark Twain? What was it, don't -- what is it -- that "Reports of my death are --

MR. DENIG: Premature.

MR. ERELI: -- premature."

So I would just say, look, the reports of the death on this resolution are premature. It's not dead. Everybody is saying is we're going to withdraw our resolution. Our position is clear. We believe we have a good resolution. We believe a resolution is useful and important, in order to further expand international support for Iraq, and we are working on gaining the maximum support possible for this resolution. That's number one.

Number two, on the Syrian Accountability Act, the Administration informed Congress, I guess this week, that we did not have any objections to the -- or that we did not object to the Syria Accountability Act.

I think this is a recognition of the fact, frankly, that, we were very clear with Syria about what we thought it needed to do to act effectively against terrorism. And Secretary Powell was very clear when he spoke to President Asad in May, that these were important steps to take, and they were steps that Syria needed to take if it wanted to improve its relationship with the United States, and that there would probably be consequences -- or how should I put it? If they didn't take these steps, it would have a negative impact on bilateral relations because there was a growing movement in Congress frustrated at Syria’s inaction against terrorism, to take action on its own. And that's what we're seeing.

So it's kind of like another expression we have in English, "The crows coming home to roost."

Follow-up on any of those questions?

QUESTION: My name is Said Arikat from Al Quds newspaper. To follow up on the Syria issue, did you have any consultations? Did the White House have any consultation with the Department of State on this issue?

Did you give them any advice, for instance? Do you see this heading towards a lowering of diplomatic status between the two countries to a Charge d'affaires level?

MR. ERELI: I think that's getting ahead of the issue. Right now, where we are is that the measure is being debated in Congress. And it's in the process, as I say, of being debated. I think the committee has voted it out of Committee. It is being discussed by the House Committee. It originated in the House International Relations Committee. It was voted and passed by the Committee yesterday.

The full House of Representatives, we anticipate a vote next week. Between now and then there could be changes to the language of the bill. And so, I think it would be premature to talk about what steps will be taken pursuant to the legislation, before the legislation has been actually enacted.

You mentioned downgrading of diplomatic relations. I think that's one of the sanctions or measures mentioned in the bill, but my understanding is that it leaves it to the discretion of the Executive Branch what specific -- it prescribes a number of steps that can be taken, but leaves it to the Executive Branch as to which specific steps to take, which specific measures to take. And we're not yet at the point where we're talking about which steps to take.

QUESTION: If they asked you for your recommendation, would you recommend that they do or they don't, or you're not going to delve into that?

MR. ERELI: Where it is now is with the House [of Representatives], where it is being debated. Let's let them debate it; and then, when it's appropriate, we'll make our views known.

Follow-up on Iraq, then Samir.

QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Mathias Rueb of German newspaper, FAZ. There has not much -- been not much progress have been reported from New York during the negotiations in the Security Council. So where is room for compromise in the Security Council negotiations?

And second question. Ambassador Negroponte was reiterating that it would be favorable for the donors conference to have a new Security Council resolution before the donors conference. So is it likely to have it before the conference, or rather to postpone the conference?

MR. ERELI: Assistant Secretary Boucher addressed the postponement issue today in his briefing. To reiterate it for your benefit, we are not aware of any discussion, or proposal, or suggestion on an official basis, to postpone the Madrid conference. So let's get that out there right away. Madrid is on schedule, October 23rd-24th.

As far as the resolution goes, we've also made it pretty clear that we think that getting a resolution before Madrid would be helpful.

As far as room for compromise on the resolution goes, well, I guess if we didn't think there was room for compromise we wouldn't be making such an effort. So, there have been a lot of different views expressed, some of them more convergent than others. And what we're trying to do is trying to build on those suggestions, on those views where there is convergence in an effort to maximize support. That process is ongoing, and stay tuned.

Samir.

QUESTION: Samir Nader, Radio SAWA. What's the status now on the diplomatic relations with Syria? Are you planning to appoint an ambassador to replace Ambassador Kattouf, or it's going to be frozen at the chargé level, as it is the case now in Washington for the Syrians and the -- for the U.S. in Damascus?

MR. ERELI: The Ambassador to Syria, the previous Ambassador to Syria, left at the conclusion of his three-year tour of duty this summer. There is currently -- no ambassador has been nominated. No individual has yet been officially nominated to replace Ambassador Kattouf. So, in the absence of an ambassador that has been nominated and approved by Congress, the Embassy is being run ably by a chargé who is fully empowered to do what needs to be done.

As to the question of when an ambassador will be nominated, that is a prerogative of -- the ambassador is nominated by the White House. You know, that's a process that has its own timeline, and it's not something that I could really speak to in terms of where we are in that timeline.

QUESTION: I just wanted to clarify one point. Does what you just said about Iraq and the resolution and donors conference in Madrid mean that the United States Administration will leave efforts, attempts to get this new resolution, after 23rd, 24th of October, or you're ready to?

MR. ERELI: I really don't want to be getting nailed down into what we're going to do and what we're not going to do. I will tell you what our preferred course is. Our preferred course is to have a resolution that has maximum international support, and that can be done before Madrid. Now, does that mean that will happen? Does that mean that other options aren't possible? No, it doesn't. But that's what we're working toward. And then if you go into, well, is this possible, is that possible, I suppose you could -- you know, it’s an art, it's not a science, [there are] a lot of possibilities.

On Iraq? In the back.

QUESTION: Giampiero Gramaglia, Italian News Agency ANSA. Today, Secretary Powell had conversations with Mr. Frattini and Secretary Annan. Did they discuss Iraq? And after those conversations, does Secretary Powell feel more confident that he has the support he needs for the resolution?

MR. ERELI: The Secretary did discuss Iraq with the Secretary General. I believe the subjects with Foreign Minister Frattini were the EU and Middle East peace process. I'm not sure about Iraq.

As to what the outcome of these talks were, as I said earlier, this is a process. This is something we're working on, in consultation with all the parties involved, the entire Security Council. I think what we're trying to do is to fashion as broad a consensus as possible.

Each of these conversations brings something to the table, advances or contributes in some way. That's really as much as I'd want to say about any one particular conversation. It's part of a series. It contributes to a rather complex tapestry of negotiations that, hopefully, will, in the end, produce a finished product.

QUESTION: Michael Backfisch, German Business Daily, Handelsblatt. There is a new public relations offensive regarding Iraq. The President is going to give a whole bunch of speeches, the Vice President will give some speeches, so does the National Security Advisor. Does that mean that the political selling of the progress in Iraq has been a failure so far?

MR. ERELI: No.

(Laughter.)

MR. ERELI: Next question -- just kidding.

An important point to understand is that this is a big country. And, you know, we're here in Washington, frankly, and we kind of eat, live, breathe politics and international affairs. The rest of the country is not necessarily as consumed by the intricacies of Iraq diplomacy.

And we think it's important to explain to people, in ways that are compelling and factual, what is at stake here, and why their elected officials are spending so much time and money on an issue of significant national interest. And that requires, frankly, a little bit of organization, (a) because it is such a big country; and (b) because there are so many multiple channels of communication, multiple voices out there, so that to really get your word out and get it out in a consistent and compelling and organized way, you've got to have a plan. And that's what this is about.

I would say, rather than failure, it's, frankly, an aggressive sales job of what we think is a great product.

QUESTION: Ron Baygents, Kuwait News Agency. I wanted to ask you about the perception in the Arab world about the roadmap and the process. Many there do not believe that the Palestinian Authority has the capability to stop all suicide bombers from acting; and, on the other hand, Israel certainly has the capability to not extend the fence and to not expand settlements, both of which were recently decided that they would do.

And my question is: I've noticed from your resume you have an extensive background in the Arab world, so you might be just the one to answer this. What can you say to the Arab world to assure them that the United States is being fair on this issue, and that it is actually able to influence the behavior of Israel because there's nothing, certainly recently, that we can see, that would indicate that we have any influence, or if we have it, we aren't exercising it? Could you please address that to the Arab world?

Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Let's go back to last June. No, let's do this. Let's go back further than that. Let's go to June 2002, and then we'll go to June 2003.

QUESTION: But you'll answer my question?

MR. ERELI: And what I would say to the Arab world is, let's go back. Let's look at actions. Let's look at what the President's done. Let's look at what this Administration has done; it has done what no other administration has done.

The President in June 2002 publicly put on the record, as his Administration's policy and his Administration's goal, and committed the United States Government to supporting this, a two-state solution, a Palestinian state and an Israeli state living side by side in secure borders. Okay? And that is putting on the table something concrete in black and white terms. I think we should get some credit for that.

In 2003, at Aqaba, for the first time, he brought together the head of a Palestinian Government, and the head of the Israeli Government, and other Arab leaders. Actually, other Arab leaders were in Sharm el-Sheikh, but in that weekend he brought together those two groups and produced a public commitment to fight terror, to seek a peaceful negotiated solution based on mutual respect, and to work and to commit themselves to bringing that about.

Those are very meaningful and very significant actions, and that were also the product of thousands and thousands of man-hours and woman-hours of work by officials throughout all levels of the U.S. Government. Now, I remember that when President Bush was elected, everybody said, "Oh, President Bush doesn't care about the Middle East. America's not involved enough in the Middle East. They're just letting the Middle East go because they don't care about foreign affairs," and all that.

Well, I can tell you that there are more officials spending more time at a senior level in this Administration on the Middle East than anybody would have given us credit for three years ago. So those are those points.

The other point I would make, simply, is that, when we talk about, "Why haven't the Palestinians done this, or why have the Israelis done this," and, "Oh, if the Americans would just make more pressure, they could force things to happen," these leaders are responsible for the fate and the welfare of the communities they lead.

The Palestinians -- as the Secretary said, people will argue till they're blue in the face about whether the Intifada is justified or not, whether terrorism bombing is a legitimate response to deprivation and humiliation and occupation.

I know what the United States thinks, and the United States thinks that's not true. But the point the Secretary made is, what has it gained the Palestinians, in three years of Intifada? How in the world has it advanced their cause, or made their case -- gotten people to come over to their side, or helped the millions of Palestinians who just want a peaceful and better life?

None. It's made it worse.

So I think the short answer to your question is, we have done a lot. We have, I think, in many ways, changed the political landscape by putting the United States out there in favor of something that has achieved a broad and strong consensus, and that the parties have committed themselves too.

And, on the other hand, there has to be some ownership by the parties themselves of the process and the fate and the consequences of their actions. And that's why we are so very, very firm in stating that without an end to terror, without an effective end to the deliberate and systematic targeting of innocents by groups who use violence as a means to advance their agenda, then it's difficult to see how things can move forward.

QUESTION: Yeah. But he was asking about the fence and about the wall.

MR. ERELI: About the fence and the wall, the --

QUESTION: And each party to take -- if each party has to consider the consequences, the war is continuing, the settlements are continuing, and we don't see anything from the U.S. side.

MR. ERELI: We have said very clearly, and we will continue to say very clearly, that we believe -- and we have told the Israeli Government this -- that settlements -- and we've done so in the Mitchell Report, in the Tenet Report, and in every subsequent assessment of the situation, that settlement activity must end -- clearly, it must end.

We've also said that the fence should not be constructed in such a way as to encroach on territory that is the subject of negotiations, and that prejudges the outcome of those negotiations.

We've also said that both sides have commitments to fulfill in the roadmap, that it is important that both sides honor those commitments -- and each side has them -- but it gets back to the point that I was making earlier. Each side is responsible for its actions and has to answer to, has to answer to its people and history for those actions.

MR. DENIG: I think we have time for one last question.

QUESTION: My name is Jenny Ilustre. I'm with the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and if you can go back to Southeast Asia. President Bush is going to the Philippines on October 18th. And I think last Monday he sent a memo to Secretary Powell making the Philippines a major non-NATO ally.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: And my question is: How important is the Philippines to the U.S. in dealing -- in the region, in dealing with like threats or actual crisis in the region, whether it's terrorism-related or not?

MR. ERELI: Sure. The Philippines, as you well know, is a close and valued friend of the United States. We have historic ties that go back decades. The Philippines has been a staunch ally in the war on terror. And it's not only in supporting the Operation Enduring Freedom, but in cooperation throughout the world on this scourge.

Our ties go, obviously, well beyond the war on terror; economic trade, cultural ties are strong. So I think what we are going to be seeing and what you do see in this, in the issue of major non-NATO ally status, is a recognition of the important role that the Philippines has played in not only enhancing a strong bilateral relationship, but in promoting regional peace, security and stability in a way that I think has earned them the commendation of not only the United States, but the region as a whole.

MR. DENIG: Thank you very much, Adam. And ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to invite any of you who wish to do so to join us for an informal, off-the-record continuation of the discussion in our conference room.

Thank you very much.
[End]