3:15 P.M. EST

Real Audio of Briefng

MS. NISBET: Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome the President's National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. It's a pleasure having you here at the Foreign Press Center today.

After Dr. Rice's remarks, we're going to go to Washington for two questions. We'll come back to New York. If you could please state your name and affiliation and please wait for the mike before asking your question.

Thank you.

DR. RICE: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be with you here in New York today. I've had the honor of visiting the Foreign Press Center in Washington on a number of occasions, and those conversations have always been fruitful and I look forward to our conversations here. I have just a few opening remarks, and then I am happy to take your questions.

Nearly six months after the liberation of the Iraqi people, freedom and democracy is being built in Iraq day-by-day, brick by brick. Along with our international partners and the Iraqi people, we are accelerating the process by which Iraqis will assume full responsibility for the future of their country.

It is still a difficult task, and the number of Iraqis now risking their lives to defend their nation is over 85,000 and growing. During the last couple of weeks, the Iraqi people have experienced both trials and victories. Unanimous passage of Resolution 1511 in the United Nations Security Council demonstrated the world's resolve that liberty and stability will prevail in Iraq.

Last week in Madrid, 73 countries and 20 international organizations pledged more than $33 billion toward Iraq's future. Nonetheless, terrorists -- some of them Iraqi Baathists, some of them foreign fighters -- continue their bloody work of opposing progress in Iraq. Their most recent target -- aid workers, the International Red Cross and others -- reveal the depravity of these murderers. Most of their victims have been innocent Iraqis.

President Bush has made clear the danger of allowing these difficulties to undo the tremendous progress that has been made so far, and we remain committed to the three fundamental objectives the President laid out some time ago: first of all, to improve security by aggressively hunting down the terrorists and individuals who are attempting to undermine progress for the Iraqi people; [second,] to work with the international community and the Iraqi people to rebuild Iraq and restore basic services, jumpstart the Iraqi economy; and third, to accelerate the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people.

The terrorists' goal is to sow fear and chaos. They hope that we will leave before the job is done. But the United States and our allies and friends in Iraq and around the world will not. The world has the responsibility and a historic opportunity to help the Iraqi people build a just and decent and modern and democratic state in the heart of the Middle East. We are determined to meet our responsibilities and to seize that opportunity.

I am now ready to take your questions.

MODERATOR: And now, Washington, we're now ready for your first question.

QUESTION: Samir Nader, [Radio Sawa], in Washington. Can you hear?

MODERATOR: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay, The Palestinian Prime Minister, Mr. Ahmed Qureia, announced yesterday a new strategy of two parts to achieve a ceasefire. He said that part one is negotiate a truce with the Hamas and (inaudible), and second he will ask Israel to match it. Do you consider this encouraging to revive the efforts on the roadmap?

And, second, is there any intention to invite Mr. Qureia to Washington, like you invited Mr. Abu Mazen in the past?

DR. RICE: Thank you very much. As I understand it, the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian leadership are still in a process of determining the form and membership of government. It is our great hope that when that process is finished -- should Prime Minister Qureia decide to remain in the post -- that he will do so with the authority as Prime Minister to do what is needed to consolidate security forces so that the security situation in the West Bank and the Gaza can improve and so that we can be on a firm track toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

We believe that the institutional questions here are very important -- the consolidation of these security forces -- so that there is, as Prime Minister Abu Mazen used to say, "one law, one authority and one gun," for the Palestinian people, really an important element of a Palestinian state, leading to a Palestinian state, that that will be accomplished in the deliberations that are going on in the Palestinian leadership.

Unfortunately, the last time around, that was not accomplished. We believe that the old guard in the Palestinian Authority refused to allow it to be accomplished. This time, it needs to be accomplished on behalf of the Palestinian people.

We are also more than aware that the Israelis have important responsibilities to create conditions in which a Palestinian state can emerge, a peaceful and democratic Palestinian state. For instance, we believe that it is exceedingly important that the Israelis improve the lives of the Palestinian people; that they open checkpoints as possible, in accordance with security needs, [so] that humanitarian assistance be able to move freely in the Palestinian territories.

We are very concerned and have made it known to the Israelis, that we are concerned about the fence. And while the President of the United States doesn't really believe there's a need for a fence, if the Israelis want to talk about a security fence, they should do it in a way that it does not infringe upon the lives of the Palestinian people or try in some way to prejudge the outcomes of a final status agreement.

And, of course, the President has said on a number of occasions that the settlement activity needs to stop and illegal outposts need to be dismantled. So Israel has responsibilities, the Palestinians have responsibilities. The Arab states in the region have responsibilities. And if everybody will just pay attention to that, then I think we will be able to get back on track on the roadmap.

And, of course, the President is always very pleased to meet with Palestinian leaders. He has done so in the past. And under the right conditions, it would make sense to do so in the future. But we need to make sure that we're focusing on the right things. And what we need to focus on right now is what becomes of the institutional arrangements in the Palestinian political leadership and particularly the consolidation of the Palestinian security services.

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Dr. Rice. My name is Said Arikat from Al Quds newspaper. Just to follow up, there was an article yesterday in the USA Today that said Bush Administration already had abandoned the roadmap and that you, yourself, said it did not quite have the (inaudible) objections of all.

Is that the case? And if that is not the case, how far is the Administration prepared to pressure Israeli Government and Prime Minister Sharon in that regard?

Thank you.

DR. RICE: Thank you. The roadmap is a fact of political life. It is there and it is our view that it is the most reliable guide to getting to the President's vision of June 24th, which is of two states living side by side in peace.

And so in every circumstance we remain committed to the roadmap, committed to its tenets, committed to the structure that it gives to the parties for making progress. And we would like to move it forward. We do -- there are certain fundamentals that have to be in place for the roadmap to work. And most importantly we need a security situation in which terrorism is being fought, in which terrorist infrastructure is being dismantled, in which the Palestinian leadership is capable of doing so, so that it has control of its security forces.

We also need the cooperation of the Israeli Government to carry out its responsibilities, and indeed, we have been concerned about the security fence. We have continued to talk to the Israelis about that fence. They've made some adjustments that have been good adjustments, and we think that they should be ever mindful of the fact that what is done today can have very big repercussions in the future, and so that's the conversation that we've having with the parties.

But let me just say one other thing. Israel and the Palestinians and the United States have responsibilities, but so do Arab states have responsibilities, as well, to improve the atmosphere, to end incitement that, on the one hand, says we want a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and ,on the other hand, puts out statements and television shows that really do demonize a party, the Israelis as a party to this agreement. That just can't continue.

And so there are responsibilities on all sides. People need to exercise those responsibilities but the roadmap is the most reliable guide to getting to a vision that the President cares a great deal about and that is two states living side-by-side where Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and where the Palestinian people will finally realize their ambition for a free and independent Palestinian state.

QUESTION: Kahraman Haliscelik from Show TV and Skyturk TV of Turkey. It seems that to many and to us as well, that Turkey's troop deployment to Iraq is tied to Kurdish sensibilities, mainly. In that sense, is American-Kurdish relations are becoming more important than American-Turkish relations? And also, following up, what is the latest about Turkey's troop deployment to Iraq? Thank you.

DR. RICE: Well, on the first matter, we have a close ally in Turkey. Turkey is a member of NATO. We have a longstanding strategic relationship with Turkey. It is one of our most important allies and remains one of our most important allies. We are together in parts of the world -- NATO is expanding, the United States has been supportive of Turkey's accession to the European Union under the right circumstances. We have economic and financial relations that are deep. So I think there is no doubt but that U.S.-Turkish relations are as strong as ever, and perhaps in the face of the global war on terrorism, they have even gotten stronger over the last couple of years.

As to the matter of Turkish peacekeepers, we appreciated what the Turkish Government has signaled its willingness to do, and believe that this is a matter in which the parties need to continue to discuss to see what the best way forward is. It's obviously a delicate situation, and everybody knows that it's delicate. It's not a matter of surprise to anyone. And so it's not surprising that there needs to be further discussion and consultation about it.

But Turkey is a very, very good friend, has been for 50 years, has been a member of NATO -- and I should say, is also extremely important to the future of Europe and to the future of the Middle East, because as a country that embodies both the principles of democracy and an Islamic-Muslim population, and shows that those two can live in the same body, same political body, it is an extremely important example to the rest of the world that those who think that Islam and democracy are somehow incompatible are just wrong.

QUESTION: Thank you. Rahim Fukara from Al-Jazeera television. Dr. Rice, how important is it for the Bush Administration to be seen as being in sync with the policies of Prime Minister Sharon? Would the Bush Administration, for example, endorse what's been known as the Geneva Accord? That's number one.

Number two, there's a widespread sentiment in the Middle East that the only thing coming between the U.S. and its purported intention to go after Syria and Iran is the current situation in Iraq. Could address that for us?

DR. RICE: On the latter point, the President has always made very clear that different circumstances require different tools, that a military solution is not appropriate in all cases. And, in fact, he has been very clear that there are some circumstances in which the international community coming together can make very big changes without the use of military force.

And I would give you the example now of what is beginning to happen with the Iranian nuclear program and with the International Atomic Energy Agency. What the President has done is to put the issue front and center on the agenda to make clear our views of what Iran is doing.

The IAEA has been concerned about the Iranian program. The Europeans have gone to the Iranians and tried to get agreement from the Iranians to live up to their international obligations. They have made some progress, and now we will see if the Iranians live up to those obligations. But that's an approach that the President is using in dealing with that very serious problem in Iran.

And with Syria, we've told the Syrians what they need to do. They need to deal with their border. They need to stop supporting terrorism, as do by the way, the Iranians need to stop supporting terrorism. And both of them, as neighbors of Iraq, should be supporting a stable and free Iraq.

But President Bush is very clear on the need to approach different problems differently. Iraq was a pretty special circumstance. Here you had an international outlaw in Saddam Hussein, who, for more than 12 years, just deceived the international community, ignored the international community, defied resolution after resolution, remembering that these were obligations that he had undertaken in order to stop a war of aggression that he began. And he was the one who was an international outlaw.

So this is not something that suddenly came up between the United States and Iraq. We had gone to war as the international community in 1991. We were continuing to fly no-fly zones with the British to try to keep his forces under control and to try to protect his -- the people of the north.

And so it's not as if the Iraqi situation really is analogous to many others, and the President is quite aware that while he always keeps different options on the table, you have to have different circumstances and different tools. And in many cases, in most cases, a concerted diplomatic effort can work. I think we really believe that if you had a really concerted diplomatic effort against Saddam Hussein for some period of time, it might have been possible to get some resolution of that, short of the use of force.

As to the U.S. policies in the Middle East, U.S. policies are U.S. policies, and nobody else's. The President is committed to a Middle East in which there is the spreading of freedom, the spreading of prosperity, and as a part of that Middle East, an Israeli-Palestinian outcome that is a two state solution, and he is committed to that. And he has laid out responsibilities that everybody must carry out, in order to get to that solution, whether it is Israel or the Palestinians or the Arabs, or, in fact, the international community or the United States.

There is a lot of discussion going on in many quarters about how to get there. But the President is committed to the roadmap and to the course that has been laid out. And if we can just get people to focus on their responsibilities -- I very often say to the parties when I have them in my office, I'll say, "All right, you want to tell me what you'd like the other guy to do. Why don't we talk about what you can do, and then I'll talk to the others about what they can do." And I think if there is more of an attitude of "I will do" -- for the parties -- "I will do what I can do and what it is my responsibility to do," then we will get back on track.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

DR. RICE: We have to deal with the governments here that have the ability to negotiate. And I understand the desire that is burning in all people -- in Israelis, in Palestinians, in many of the Arabs -- to see a resolution finally of this tragic conflict. And I think that's the expression that you're getting in this effort that is under way. But ultimately, empowered governments will have to resolve this conflict. But I certainly understand the desire to try and resolve what has been a tragic conflict for a long, long time.

QUESTION: My name is (Inaudible) Television, Arab Emirates. Secretary General Kofi Annan has announced today that, it's been announced in the, you know, United Nations, they are pulling out their remaining international staff from Baghdad, such as the Red Cross, International Red Cross. Doctors Without Borders did the same. Can you comment on that? How is this, you know, concerns you in the time while you're trying to attract international help to Iraq? And how do you view now the Administration, the role of the United Nations? Is it -- internally -- I mean, at one stage, you, you know, people accused you of ignoring the United Nations. How vital is it to your Administration policy like in the 1511 resolution? And on the Iraqi stabilization group, who has the financial oversight of that group? Thank you so much.

DR. RICE: Thank you very much. The last question, the Iraqi stabilization group has no financial authority, responsibility for anything. What we do is coordinate the government to make certain that back here, we are giving as much support as possible to what is going on in the field and what is going on with the lead agency, which [is] the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense is a statutory agency of the U.S. Government. It has a confirmed Secretary. It can spend funds. What we try to do is to -- as the President said the other day -- "’un-stick’ problems." We try to make sure that the government is moving as quickly back here as we need to move in the field.

And so the decisions that the UN and others are taking, we certainly understand the security concerns and security considerations. It is unfortunate in the extreme that the terrorists decided to go after innocent aid workers and people who were just trying to help the Iraqi people. This is -- it may not be completely unprecedented, but it's pretty unusual that a target would be the United Nations or the Red Cross. I mean, it may be the first major attack on the Red Cross, and it just shows the nature of the people we're dealing with. Why attack people who are trying to deliver basic goods and services to the Iraqi people? Well, it's because they have no regard for innocent life. None. And they ought to be called for exactly what they are: brutal killers, many of them who have suppressed and maimed and raped and tortured Iraqi citizens under Saddam Hussein and who want the opportunity to continue doing it and to do it again if the coalition does not stay.

And that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to return to a day when Iraqis worried about being rounded up for mass graves, when Iraqis worried about torture and prisons and having their tongues cut out for speaking against the regime. That's what these people want. And we have to just call it what it is.

Now we are hopeful that the international organizations can continue to do their essential work in some form and we will work with them on that, and we certainly hope that they will be able to return in full strength -- I think they are not leaving totally in some parts of the country, but that they will be able to return in full strength in the very near future and we will work with them to try and achieve that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

DR. RICE: Oh, yes. No, he asked at the beginning. Oh, yeah, he asked at the beginning. I just forgot, and yes. The United Nations, we believe, has an important and vital role. In fact, 1511 was, in a series of UN resolutions, extremely important, because what it says to the Iraqi people is, "The international community is behind you. We know what it has been like to live for all of these years under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. We know what it has been like to live for all of these years under a regime that used international sanctions to find a way to enrich itself, to build palaces and buy weapons, and yet to create conditions in which there was only 55 percent of the electrical generating power needed for the country or 80 percent of the country without proper sanitation."

And what the UN and the international community say through Resolution 1511 or through the Madrid donors conference is, "We understand that you need the help of the international system to now build a modern state." And this is a place, Iraq, that can be really important to the whole region because it is a place with a great culture, a great history, intelligent people who deserve a chance. And that's the vital role of the international community. We are working with the UN on what role it plays, and it has already played an important role, and of course, lost one of its really great public servants in Sergio de Mello in the attack on the UN headquarters this summer, who had done a marvelous job for the international community and for the Iraqi people.

QUESTION: (Inaudible). Good afternoon, Dr. Rice. On October the 15, the U.S. House of Representatives voted a bill to approve the Syria Accountability Act and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. How do you foresee the ratification on Lebanon?

DR. RICE: Well, the United States does not -- the United States Government, the Bush Administration, does not object to the Syrian Accountability Act because we believe that Syrians basically have been unaccountable and need to be accountable. We have made clear to Syria the things that it needs to do. And, obviously, Lebanon needs at a near point in its future to be free, and to have an opportunity to build a society that is Lebanon for the Lebanese.

We are very anxious to make sure that everybody understands that the region, as a whole, is changing; and that means that those who are opposed to change, or those who have been impediments to change, or those who have supported terrorists sitting in Lebanon, or sitting in -- sitting mostly in Lebanon -- Hezbollah, for instance -- should stop doing that.

It goes to the point that I made earlier when I was talking to the question to the gentleman from al-Jazeera, which is that if we want peace in the Middle East, if we want peace between Palestinians and Israelis, then supporting those, who, as the cornerstone of their policies, say that there can be no Israeli, or who just try to destroy innocent people, is not the way to support peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

We all need to reject the rejectionists. And if there are states that are continuing to support these rejectionist elements, the world needs to stand up to them and say, "Stop supporting elements that are determined to destroy the peace." Many of these organizations have said that they will do anything to keep the roadmap from being achieved. And so, they have to be held accountable for that.

QUESTION: Thank you. I'm from (inaudible) News Service. The Defense Minister from China is now visiting D.C., and the Chinese Premier is going to visit U.S. in
December. So what's your prospect for the visit, both for the Defense Minister and the Premier Minister? And what's your evaluation for Sino-U.S. relations?

Thank you.

DR. RICE: Thank you very much. U.S.-China relations are actually in good shape. The President had a good meeting with President Hu. They have met now on a couple of occasions and it is always a set of meetings that is substantive, in which they go into detail on a number of issues.

We have, I think, with China, been able to establish good relations on the war on terror. We, with China, have been able to do something really quite remarkable, which is to establish a forum, the six-party talks, in which we may be able to get a handle on the North Korean problem because everybody in the region, whether it is Japan or South Korea or Russia or, most certainly, China, recognizes that a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula is essential to peace and security, not just on the Korean Peninsula, but in northeast Asia and in the world.

And so, it is not at all -- it's, I think, quite surprising to people that we took the time to develop this multilateral framework for dealing with the North Korea issue. China has been, not just the host of the three-, and then six-party talks, but really an essential ingredient in the six-party talks. And so, being able to come together around the common security issue like that is extremely important.

It is not that we don't have difficult issues, we do. We certainly have concerns about proliferation. We certainly have concerns about the progress in China toward human rights and religion freedom. It is something that the President brings up freely with Chinese leaders. We certainly have concerns that China be faithful to the WTO obligations that it undertook and that it began to move toward a more market basis for all aspects of its economy.

So, it's not that we don't have difficult issues, but we have established a relationship of strategic dialogue that I think has been quite fruitful for both countries; that has been quite fruitful for the region; and that I believe will be very fruitful for world peace because China is a great and growing influence in the region and in the world. And it's extremely important that we have a good relationship.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, the Center for Public Integrity, I'm Raghida Derghanmra of LBC- Al Hayat. How are you?

The Center for Public Integrity issued a report today, in which it said the companies were awarded about $8 billion in contracts, so that both Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and that executives have had important political and military connections according to this study.

Do you think this undermines the credibility and of the arguments of the Administration, as to why we're doing Iraq?

And, secondly, it's a follow up actually. You are so right about what the Arabs need to do. But even Israel's chief of staff denounced the policies by Mr. Ariel Sharon, while the Administration seems to say, "We urge you to do this. We told you to do that." It's not enough. People are -- in the region are quite upset about what they see is even -- not even even-handedness, but heavy-handedness on the Palestinians really absolving the Israelis.

Are you not afraid that this is going to cause a serious backlash?

DR. RICE: Well, on the second point, I think the President has been very clear that he believes responsibilities exist on all sides. And that's what he's tried to -- he's tried to lay out those responsibilities. We actually had a very hopeful period in the period after Aqaba and Sharm el-Sheikh. And it was because you had, in both cases, I think, leaders, who, at Aqaba, said some very important things about what had to be accomplished.

It was extraordinary in some ways for the Israeli Prime Minister to talk about the painful sacrifices that Israel would have to make to allow the emergence of a Palestinian state, which would be then in Israel's interest to have a Palestinians state, and a territorially contiguous viable Palestinian state.

It was extremely important that Prime Minister Abbas was willing to say that the political struggle could not include violence, that, really, that had not led to a good outcome for the Palestinian people. And then they began to act on those statements -- not as quickly, on either side, as we would have liked -- but people began to act.

What ultimately undermined that was that we weren't -- that there was not the ability to get the kind of consolidation in the Palestinian territories -- the Palestinian leadership -- of security forces that was needed, so that they could carry out what I think was the good will of the Abbas Government to try and deal with the security situation.

But we have to remember, Gaza had been turned over to the Palestinians; Bethlehem had been turned over. There was talk of turnovers for more cities. We have to get back there, and all the President is concentrating on is trying to get the parties, both parties, back to that point. And that includes the Israelis, too.

The President has been very clear with the Israelis that their policies towards the Palestinians which lead to daily humiliations for the Palestinian people and dangers for innocent Palestinians are not right, and that they are not going to lead to circumstances in which you will have the emergence of a Palestinian state.

As to the issue about contracts, we're interested in one thing. Can the job be done? And the fact is that there are only very few companies, a handful -- you can count them on less than one hand -- that have the kind of capability to do complex tasks with multiple subcontractors of a kind that has been required in Iraq. But I can assure you that the President wants, from any companies that are capable of doing the job, that they do the job, and that the American taxpayer is getting a good value for the dollar, and that the Iraqi people are getting good value and actually getting their needs served.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

DR. RICE: The criteria is can they do the job. That's the criteria.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice. Here. Right here.

DR. RICE: To my right?

QUESTION: Right here.

DR. RICE: I'm sorry, I -- oh, yes. Sorry. Thank you.

QUESTION: Suis Isarmiento from RCN Television. There's increasing rumors about the connections between al-Qaida, and for example, the government in Venezuela. Also between al-Qaida and maybe, you know, Mexican outlaws to use the borders to infiltrate the U.S. You think maybe the U.S. concentrating too much attention on the Middle East, and maybe, you know, forgetting about what historically has been known as the backyard? Can you comment a little bit about security policy on Latin America?

DR. RICE: Yes. Thank you very much. It's really an excellent question, and in fact, we do know that the security frontier begins at home, and Tom Ridge, the Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security and my counterpart, John Gordon, who is the President's Assistant for Homeland Security, have been very actively engaged in conversations, discussions, agreements with their counterparts in Canada and Mexico, and in fact, the fact that Canada and Mexico have worked together so closely on something like NAFTA, for instance, has given us certain instruments and certain institutions to use that we now are using to achieve better harmonization of, say, border security.

With Mexico, you are right, you know, it's -- these are both, Mexico and Canada, extremely long borders, and what we are trying to do through initiatives like the Smart Border Initiative that we have is to make certain that we continue to allow the essential commerce that takes place across the borders to continue because the economic development of all the countries involved is extremely important and we don't want to get in the way of normal commerce.

But on the other hand, to make sure that we are doing what we can to control the borders for the dangers that we learned in a very dramatic way on September 11th, I think it's been a very successful program. Tom Ridge meets really quite frequently with his Mexican and Canadian counterparts. And I think they were somewhat relieved to have us finally have a Homeland Security Secretary, something the United States had never had, because it unified within the United States borders and customs and all of those things, where they once, at one time had to go to several different government agencies, there's now a central focal point. I think that has helped us, too.

As to Latin America, more broadly, we do have very good discussions with the countries of Latin America about counterterrorism, about the important connections that you have mentioned between drugs, crime and terrorism; many times terrorism being financed by drugs and crime. We've had particularly, of course, intense discussions and activities with the Colombian Government as they try to deal with the terrorist organizations that have been operating in Colombia for far too many years, threatening and killing Colombian and other citizens. And we have said to the Venezuelans that it is important that Venezuela not be involved in supporting any kind of activity of the kind that we've just described.

There is an important nexus between corruption, crime, drugs and arms and terrorism. And much of what Latin America, I think, is trying to do is to try to break those connections with good intelligence, good law enforcement, and there's actually very good cooperation in the region.

QUESTION: Maya Mirchandani from New Delhi Television, right here in the back. You mentioned just now the infrastructure of terrorism, international terrorism. To what extent does the U.S. Government believe that Pakistan has made an effort to dismantle the infrastructure within its territory that operates both in Afghanistan and Kashmir? And what role do you see for the United States in the middle- to long-term settlement of a final resolution to the Kashmir dispute?

DR. RICE: Yes, well, first of all, let me start by saying we have excellent relations with India, I think, relations that have gotten stronger over recent years and have in fact been made stronger by our common concerns about terrorism. We also have excellent relations with Pakistan and we do not see them as zero sum game. It is possible to have very good relations with both. And we think the fact that we have good relations with both helps us in dealing with the issues of regional stability in South Asia.

Pakistan has been a very good partner in the war on terrorism. It is a -- there has been an important reorientation of Pakistani foreign policy since 9/11, which President Musharraf undertook. He has been active. Many, many of the captures of terrorists that we have made have made have been thanks to the efforts of the Pakistani police and intelligence.

And, indeed, we are actively working more and more with Pakistan to understand better parts of the Pakistan-Afghanistan borders that, frankly, have not been governed for years, and so these areas are difficult. They're difficult for everybody to manage, but we're working with Pakistan to better control those, and with Afghanistan, on the other side of the border, to do the same.

Not everything is going to happen in one or two years. These problems took a long time to get embedded in some of these places and they're going to take some time to root out, but we have very good cooperation.

When it comes to Kashmir, the reason that I started with saying that we have very good bilateral relations with both -- both Pakistan and India -- is that their bilateral relations also seem to be improving some. They've returned high commissioners. They've opened links between them. There are people-to-people exchanges that are beginning. And that can only help improve the environment.

But it is absolutely the case that the infrastructure of terrorism has to be dismantled. It is absolutely the case that everybody needs to do more, and Pakistan needs to do more to make sure that there cannot be terrorist acts taken in -- from Pakistan or from Kashmir against targets there, and we frequently talk to the Pakistanis about that.

It is also important that India provide a horizon, which I think Prime Minister Vajpayee is beginning to try to do, that says that when we are working together on a whole variety of issues, then we'll have a better atmosphere for this. But the Pakistanis have really done an awful lot. And I think it's just important to acknowledge that.

QUESTION: And the role of the United States?

DR. RICE: Well, the parties, ultimately, really have to play the important role here. But the United States stands by to do whatever we can to help. And I think that the way we're helping now, right now, is that we maintain open lines of communication with Pakistan and with India, we talk a great deal about what can be done to deal with the terrorist situation. And, in fact, I think we've some progress.

We'll take a couple more.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, Eitan Amit of the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonot.

In view of the huge mistrust between the both parties and the lack of confidence, was the option of an enforced settlement ever considered in the Administration? A second question, as we speak, the Russian Federation is proposing a Security Council resolution of adopting the roadmap. What's your take on that?

DR. RICE: Well, we are working with the Russians. It's generally been our view that we don't really need a Security Council resolution to deal with the fact that the roadmap is there. We all ought to be on it. But we're working with the Russians. They're a member of the Quartet. I think they're just trying to give a kind of impetus to the roadmap. So we're working with them to see what might be possible.

As to distrust between the parties, no agreement is ever going to last unless the parties are committed to it. And the roadmap allows the parties, step by step, to commit to the peace. And we believe that that is the way to proceed. The United States has responsibilities. We understand that. But we cannot achieve this without the parties.

And Israel is a democracy. It has an internal set of processes that have to be taken into account because democracies, of course, don't very much like the imposition from the outside of solutions. The Palestinians have processes internally that have to be taken into account.

But I, and the President, firmly believe we will get there if we can get people focused on what it really takes here. And what it really takes is a commitment to a peaceful resolution. And that means that terrorism and terrorists and rejectionists have to be pushed aside. They cannot be tolerated. They cannot be negotiated with. Their infrastructure has to be dismantled. Because their desire is to destroy the peace, not create the peace.

At the same time, Israel needs to be certain that it is doing what it can to improve the circumstances in which a peaceful Palestinian state will emerge and not to do anything that precludes the development of that state.

QUESTION: Hi, Benoit Christal for the French TV. Since France and Germany make their aid to Iraq conditional along a quick transfer of power to the Iraqis, what do you think about this position, about Mr. de Villepin's position? And secondly, what do you think you could do to make France, Germany and other countries more generous about the Iraqi reconstruction?

DR. RICE: Well, on the latter point, I just hope that people will be generous because the Iraqi people have had enough. How long do people want to hold the Iraqi people's future hostage to differences that we may have had? It's the Iraqi people that will be helped by international contributions.

The United States, with all due respect, doesn't need financial assistance. The Iraqi people need financial assistance. And the United States has just been very generous with $20 billion in grants to the Iraqi people. The Japanese Government has just been very generous in a major grant to the Iraqi people. Other governments, Britain and Spain and others, have been very generous to the Iraqi people, some states in the Gulf. The Iraqi people deserve that. The war and how we got there and disagreements that we may have had, we should put aside, and we should recognize that this is now a time to unite behind the Iraqi people.

Now, we are doing everything that we can in an orderly fashion to transfer responsibilities to the Iraqi people. We want Iraqis to run Iraq. The United States doesn't have any desire to run Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority with Britain and Poland and others doesn't have any desire to run the Iraqi government. We want Iraqis to do that.

But we recognize that after a long history of complete and total totalitarian oppression that it takes a little time for political processes, political institutions, political conversations to reemerge, and that if you do something premature, that you could make the circumstances worse.

The Iraqi people are going to write a constitution, and I'm sure they're going to write a fine constitution. They have difficult decisions to make about how to protect minority rights, the role of religion in their society, the nature of federalism in their society. They have a lot of hard issues to work on.

And so, this is not somehow the coalition's hanging [on] to authority and power because we want to hang on to authority. This is a matter of simply trying to do this in a way that it will work. And when the time comes that you can have the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, no one will be happier and have a greater celebration of that day than the countries that liberated Iraq. And I think that needs to be understood by those who are holding back.

I'm told that I have to go. But I promised this lady right here because she thought I called on her before, so go right ahead.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. Elizabeth Mora-Mass, El Tiempo. Could you tell us between the ties or between the Colombian FARC and Hezbollah dealing with drugs in the Middle East?

DR. RICE: Yes. Thank you. Well, the FARC, of course, has carried out a terrorist campaign against the Colombian people now for decades. And while it is important not to try and get into too much depth about what specific ties may be there, let me say, the one thing we're learning is these terrorist organizations are connected. They connect through financing -- terrorist organizations, in general, connect through financing; they feed off of the same lawlessness that exists. They feed off the same sources of narcotrafficking and of gunrunning and of corruption. And so, when we talk about connections, it's important to remember they're all born of the same womb in that sense.

And what we need to do is that we need to recognize that wherever terrorists are killing innocent people and are using fear and intimidation as a political weapon in the way that they do, that they need to be stopped. They need to be stopped. The international community has to provide political processes to deal with the legitimate aspirations of people who have been disenfranchised.

The international community must do that in any number of circumstances, and governments need to deal with people who have been disenfranchised. But terrorists don't kill to get to a political solution. Terrorists kill to stop the political conversation and to win it on their own terms, which is fear and intimidation. And until we understand that about terrorism, in general, and respond to it in that way, it's going to be very difficult to resolve some of the many circumstances that we have around the world.

Thank you very much.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Can you comment on the (inaudible) North Korea nuclear (inaudible)?

DR. RICE: Since I didn't get a North Korea question, yes. The -- I think there are some promising signs. As I said, we believe the six-party talks are the best forum in which to convince the North Koreans that they will never enter the international community while they have a nuclear program and seeks nuclear weapons because no one is going to -- no one finds a nuclear Korean Peninsula acceptable.

And they're hearing that in a concerted way in the six-party talks. And it may take a while, but the very fortunate thing is that there is unity now about this proposition that North Korea must disarm. The President has said that he is prepared to think about how to deal with security concerns that the North Koreans might have, and I think it's a very positive set of developments.

Thank you.
[End]