For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 9, 2004
Briefing on Meeting with Prime Minister Blair
Background Briefing by a Senior Administration Official on the President's Meeting with United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair
Media Center
Sea Island, Georgia
9:04 A.M. EDT
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good morning. The President and
Prime Minister Blair just had a bilateral meeting, over breakfast. It
ran from about 8:10 a.m. to 8:50 a.m. I think the two of them would
have been happy to keep going, but it was time for them to break, as
the morning sessions of the G8 summit are about to start.
The meeting was colored, and the background of the meeting was
influenced by yesterday's vote at the U.N. That 15-0 vote was a great
achievement for the people of Iraq and an important signal that the
international community is coming back together behind a common vision
of Iraq's future, a vision of Iraq at peace with itself, at peace with
its neighbors, and Iraq taking responsibility for its own future,
taking increasing responsibility for its own security, but supported by
the multinational force, supported by the U.N. on the political side.
The two leaders discussed Iraq and the way forward. They also
discussed the broader Middle East initiative. Yesterday's success on
Iraq sets the stage for movement and adoption of the broader Middle
East initiative by the G8 leaders. I believe the documents are to be
issued later today, and today's events also include an outreach session
from leaders of the region and also the Prime Minister of Turkey who is
here.
The President and Prime Minister discussed the broader Middle East
initiative. They also discussed Israel-Palestine issues, and discussed
ways in which progress could be made. They grappled with some of the
problems, talked about possible ways forward.
They talked about the upcoming NATO Summit briefly, but they did
discuss it. They discussed the fact that NATO is in Iraq right now,
and NATO should play a role in the future in Iraq. They both
understand that there are constraints on NATO's role, both in terms of
number of troops and constraints in the form of the continuing French
and German hesitation about supplying additional troops. But
nevertheless, NATO is in Iraq. It is supporting the Polish-led
multinational division, and there may be things that NATO can do in
addition to its current supportive role.
This was a good meeting. Obviously, they're very pleased with the
developments of the past week in general, and the past 24 hours in
particular. They're looking forward to today's meetings. And I would
say they are both in excellent spirits, as one could imagine.
Now, with that short statement, I'll be happy to take all
questions.
Q Can you elaborate a little bit on the discussions between
the two leaders on the Arab-Israeli situation -- I'm sorry, the
Israeli-Palestinian situation?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The President has said many times
that Arafat has become an obstacle to progress, and that's an obstacle
we have to deal with for the time-being. On the other hand, the
prospect and possibility of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza opens the
door to significant progress and unblocking the peace process and
getting the peace process not just back on track, but to get it moving
in the direction outlined by the road map.
If the Israeli withdrawal takes place, the immediate challenge will
be establishment of a competent Palestinian political structure in Gaza
to take responsibility for the territory, to take responsibility for
actual governance. It's important that the Palestinians, if this take
place, be helped with security -- their security responsibilities. And
it's important that the international community get behind this effort,
as it gets going. Prime Minister Sharon is obviously pushing this
forward as best he can. The President and the Prime Minister discussed
next steps on how the Quartet, how the international community can
advance this process.
Q Were there any discussions either about the search for
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or about Iran's nuclear program?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This did not -- neither topic came
up during this breakfast, although the two leaders have discussed both
issues in the past.
Q Was there any discussion of President Bush's wish to write
off Iraq's debts to the international community?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This is also in the category of
issues the two leaders have discussed before, but it did not come up
during this breakfast.
Q Were there any discussions about whether or not there's the
possibility of contributions, financial contributions, or military
contributions, or even the argument that can be made to Russia, France,
and some of the others who have not made those type of commitments? Is
there a strategy that they talked about in trying to win some of those
concessions?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the two leaders talked both
about political support for the new Iraqi government, and they talked
about a possible NATO role, and these are two different things. The
French and the Germans have spoken about their support for the Iraqi --
have spoken of their support for the new Iraqi government. The Germans
have said they're prepared to do more. This came up yesterday in the
President's discussion with -- came up yesterday in the President's
discussion with Schroeder.
The security issue is somewhat different. The French and the
Germans have always expressed strong reluctance about any of their
troops going to Iraq. They have not been quite as categorical about
NATO's role in Iraq. And NATO, of course, already is playing a role in
Iraq. So the two, the President and the Prime Minister discussed this
in general terms and really discussed the need to move ahead so that
the decisions coming up at NATO in the end of this month will allow for
a greater role and more international support.
Q Can you be a little more specific about the kind of role
for NATO that the two leaders have in mind? Will there be more
training Iraqi troops, or involvement in Iraq's military operations?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we had not tried to be too
specific within NATO councils about what precisely NATO could do
because we wanted to wait for a Security Council resolution. Any
discussion of an expanded NATO role in Iraq prior to a Security Council
resolution would have been pointless, because, clearly, I think, for
almost all NATO members, a Security Council resolution was an important
first step. The other step is some expression of interest on the part
of the Iraqi government. The new Iraqi government has expressed strong
support for the international community and the multinational force
remaining in Iraq.
So the two leaders did not discuss specific plans. They discussed
their overall -- in having NATO do more. They discussed their overall
intention to explore this issue in the two, two-and-a-half weeks
remaining before the NATO Summit at Istanbul, and agreed to work on
this. But that's really all they discussed.
Q I wonder if you saw Afghanistan, in a sense, as a model for
what could now happen in Iraq where there's an independent military
force still under U.S. command, and then a NATO peacekeeping force, and
whether there's any possibility that the European Union could
substitute for NATO in that sort of role in Iraq?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I don't think anyone has
seriously considered the possibility of the ESDP taking over a military
role in Iraq. The European Union is going to take over the Bosnia
mission, which NATO is going to close out successfully, and that's
going to be quite enough, I think, for the ESDP to handle for the
moment. So I don't think anybody has contemplated this.
Afghanistan is a model only in that it shows that all kinds of
arrangements are possible and that we shouldn't be wedded to some kind
of cookie cutter formula. All situations are different, all solutions
tend to be different, and I think that NATO governments will be -- I
suspect NATO governments will be creative in coming up with options for
NATO. But I don't want to get too far ahead of where we are.
Q Three things, one is, did they discuss Saudi Arabia? The
second is, as you know, the reports that have emerged this week out of
the Pentagon and the DOJ covering efforts to ensure that U.S. officials
would not be prosecuted on the torture of detainees, did that come up
between the two men? And thirdly, listening to your description, it
seems as though they ticked all the boxes this morning, but I can't
quite see what the business was that they got done. Can you just
clarify for us, if you walk away from this meeting, what did they get
done? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, they did go into some
greater detail on Israeli-Palestinian issues, and they were discussing
options for the way forward. They did go into Iraqi issues. But this
was a meeting where they were laying out -- they were really laying out
the choices and options that they're going to face over the next couple
of weeks, rather than making definite decisions about course A or
course B. They were mapping out the agenda, as we proceed from Sea
Island and on the basis of the U.N. Security Council resolution.
The issue of those press reports that you mentioned did come up in
the beginning of their meeting. And I suspect that other briefers from
the U.S. side may have more to say on that, so I won't get into that --
to that subset of issues. But it was covered very briefly.
This meeting was basically the two leaders getting together and
charting out the way ahead, looking forward over the next couple weeks,
and trying to define for themselves, what kind of issues they're going
to have to deal with in the weeks ahead, and what kind of choices
they're going to have to face. And that was a very useful discussion.
It did not produce a list of decisions, it produced a checklist of
issues on which the staffs will be working in the immediate period
ahead. That's a characterization, but it's my effort to answer your
question as best I can.
Q -- on Saudi Arabia?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, didn't come up.
Q When you mentioned the Middle East, what details they have
discussed, what plans for the future?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The discussion covered the problem
of how to move ahead, which both the President and the Prime Minister
very much want to do, when you have the problem of Yasser Arafat, which
has been discussed by my government and President Bush many time, but
you also have a very promising plan for Prime Minister Sharon to pull
out of the Gaza and part of the West Bank. This is promising. On the
other side you have problems, and how one fits together the promise and
the problems without it getting gummed up is what they discussed.
And they were coming at the problem in different ways, and looking
at different ways in which to move forward, which they very much want
to do. It's a tough problem. If it were easy, it would have been
done. But you have a very promising prospect of an Israeli pullout,
which, of course, would be -- if it occurs, would be the first time
that Israel has pulled out of territory that everyone considers to be
territory that will form part of a future Palestinian state. This is
hugely significant. All the more the pity that Sharon's announcement
was greeted with such skepticism on the part of many people who are now
realizing what an opportunity it is. The two leaders were discussing
how to make progress, given those two conditions that I outlined.
Q The resolution yesterday, aside from the multinational
force, sets out for a separate force that would be there to protect
United Nations operations. Was that discussed this morning between the
two leaders? Are they confident that they're going to get enough
people to help out on that force?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, that wasn't discussed
specifically, but we certainly would be pleased if countries were
willing to contribute to this force. Look, the absence of a U.N.
resolution and the absence of a united international position was cited
by many people as one of the reasons that they were reluctant to
provide forces. It's not easy to send troops to Iraq; it's a dangerous
situation. Soldiers get hurt, soldiers get killed. Nevertheless, the
Security Council resolution demonstrates that the international
community, having been divided last year, has put that behind them,
without prejudice to any government's position, and now is facing the
Iraq problem in the same way. You have rapidly converging positions,
not on what should have happened last year, but what should happen this
year from this moment forward. And we certainly hope that the Security
Council resolution will provide enough political impetus for
governments who have been hesitating or on the fence to do more. And
we'll see.
Q Can you give some substance, at least more details, about
what was discussed about putting Iraq back on a sound economic track?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The two leaders did not go into
the details of Iraqi economic reforms. They talked about the overall
prospects for the international community to get more involved. They
expressed satisfaction that we had come so far; after almost two months
of very rough news, we had finally had a series of significant moves
forward on the political side. This set the stage to start tackling
some of the next problems. And it really is a moment of satisfaction,
I think, for both leaders, to see that within Iraq and within the
international community, people are governments are coming together.
And that's the best way I can characterize it.
Thank you.
END 9:24 A.M. EDT
|