*EPF210 06/24/2003
Transcript: U.S. Officials Brief on June 25 U.S.-EU Summit
(Background briefing June 23 at Foreign Press Center) (5510)

Three senior Bush administration officials gave a background briefing on the U.S.-European Union Summit set for June 25 in Washington and stressed that despite the differences over Iraq and other issues, "we are struck by a convergence of European and American thinking about the nature of security threats in the 21st century and the nature of a combined, transatlantic U.S.-European response."

"The conventional wisdom is that things are awful," one official noted to journalists at the State Department's Foreign Press Center. "But I would refer you to the documents coming out of the EU Summit" and to statements made by the EU's Javier Solana (EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy) and others that "indicate that there is a much stronger commonality of views between the United States and Europe than is commonly understood."

These issues are terrorism, proliferation, and "the underside of globalization" the official said, later explaining that "there is a recognition on both sides of the Atlantic that global underdevelopment, social and economic stresses produce the conditions for terrorism, and these must be tackled, both generally, but also specifically in the Middle East and the global Middle East."

"Specifically, the threats to the Euro-Atlantic community are being seen by Americans and Europeans, the EU, in increasingly similar terms," the official said.

On June 25, President Bush will convene the annual U.S.-EU Summit in Washington and will welcome to the White House Costas Simitis, president of the European Council, and Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission.

The administration official told journalists, "We'll be discussing counter terrorist cooperation; cooperation on nonproliferation, there will be discussions of security and the way that ESDP and NATO can be used working together. There will be a discussion of regional issues, first and foremost, Israel-Palestine; and there will be a large basket of trade and economic issues."

Following the summit at the White House, a ceremony will take place at the Justice Department where U.S. and EU officials will sign agreements on extradition and mutual legal assistance, which the official described as "part of the flowering of transatlantic cooperation on the counterterrorism and law enforcement side" that began after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Following is a transcript of the background briefing:

(begin transcript)

FOREIGN PRESS CENTER BACKGROUND BRIEFING BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS

TOPIC: U.S.-EUROPEAN UNION SUMMIT

The Washington Foreign Press Center, Washington, D.C.
3:00 p.m. EDT, Monday, June 23, 2003

MODERATOR: Good afternoon and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. On this Wednesday, President Bush will convene the annual U.S.-EU Summit in Washington and he will welcome to the White House, European Council President Costas Simitis and Europe[an] Commission President, Romano Prodi to discuss our transatlantic agenda with the EU.

We're going to have a background briefing today with a panel of three senior administration officials. I will remind you that this is a background briefing. Any attributions on this briefing should be to Senior Administration Official. A Senior Administration Official will open with a statement, and then we'll open it up for questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. A statement sounds more formal than what I had in mind, but let me open with a few remarks and then I and my colleagues can answer your questions.

We are, in fact, very pleased to host the EU Summit this year. It has been a very interesting six months, to put it mildly. We are looking forward both to the substantive discussions and also, at the same time, mindful of the subtext -- which is really everything you and your journalistic colleagues in Europe have been, and your American colleagues have been, writing about, the transatlantic relationship and the relationship between the United States and Europe over the recent months, especially as we got through the Iraq business.

In that context, we are, indeed, looking forward to very productive and useful discussions and I've got a couple of comments in that vein. Those of us close to the policy process are struck by a difference between the way commentators, Americans and Europeans, often write about the state of U.S.-European relations, which tends to be colored darkly and in dramatic terms. And what we see on the ground, which, notwithstanding the differences over Iraq and some differences which have, which have been constant over the past couple years, we are struck by a convergence of European and American thinking about the nature of security threats in the 21st century and the nature of a combined, transatlantic U.S.-European response.

Now, to say so sounds almost provocative -- to say that things are considerably better than they appear. And it sounds provocative because the conventional wisdom is that things are awful. But I would refer you to the documents coming out of the EU Summit and some of the documents prepared by Solana, Javier Solana [EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy], some of the statements that have been made which indicate that there is a much stronger commonality of views between the United States and Europe than is commonly understood. Specifically, the threats to the Euro-Atlantic community are being seen by Americans and Europeans, the EU, in increasingly similar terms.

I have in mind terrorism, in the first place; proliferation, in the second place; and the -- for want of a better phrase -- the underside of globalization, the global stresses, economic and social stresses, that have given rise to these problems. The American President, in his speech in Krakow, Poland earlier -- three weeks ago, talked about these threats and talked about the United States and Europe working together in the 21st century to counter the threats and make the most of the opportunities.

Although I don't believe the document has been fully published, the EU paper on security strategies is remarkable for the strong overlap. It was prepared by different people. It was prepared independently. And yet, its thematic focus is much the same. And although this isn't a briefing on NATO, NATO, also, is beginning to describe the threats to Europe's transatlantic security in the same terms.

In addition to dealing with the threats, threats of terrorists and terrorists armed with -- potentially with the weapons and technologies of mass destruction, there is a recognition on both sides of the Atlantic that global underdevelopment, social and economic stresses produce the conditions for terrorism, and these must be tackled, both generally, but also specifically in the Middle East and the global Middle East.

The United States and Europe are working together intensely in the future on the problem of an Israel -- of Israeli-Palestinian peace. That is something we are going to be looking forward to and something, which will be, doubtless, discussed at the summit. I mention this because this summit should be seen partly as a U.S.-European addressing of the major issues after Iraq, and on the basis of more commonality than is commonly understood.

Now, specifically, my colleagues will be able to answer questions, but there are a number of specific issues coming up. We'll be discussing counter terrorist cooperation; cooperation on nonproliferation, there will be discussions of security and the way that ESDP and NATO can be used working together. There will be a discussion of regional issues, first and foremost, Israel-Palestine; and there will be a large basket of trade and economic issues.

Mr. Zoellick -- Secretary Zoellick and Minister Lamy will be -- are flying back, I think, today or tomorrow from Europe. Tomorrow. And they have their handle on this as well.

The format of the summit will be the same as in recent years. It will start with a restricted session in the Oval Office. It will follow with a plenary session in the Cabinet Room, and then there will be a lunch. So there will be a large block of time devoted to this. And there will be also a press event at the White House for the President, President Prodi and the Greek Presidency, Prime Minister Simitis.

Now, that's an overview. I think I can safely turn it over to questions and to my colleagues about specific items, about general items, about whatever is on your mind.

MODERATOR: A reminder to wait for the mic[rophone] and identify yourselves by name and media organization. We'll start with Mr. Backfish.

QUESTION: Michael Backfish, German Business Daily Handelsblatt. In fall, the U.S. administration will review steel tariffs. As we know the Europeans were not very happy about that. Do you have any good news, any signals that there might be review more in this respect?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We expect that the steel issue was the centerpiece, in a sense, of one of the issues last year at the summit during the Spanish presidency. Since this is not at a point of decision, we don't expect much. It may be referred to in the course of the economic and trade discussion, but our focus on the economic and trade discussion will be on Doha and the Doha development agenda and the Cancun meeting, particularly on the trade side.

QUESTION: Hi, I'm Mahtap Farid, Radio Farda, Voice of America. You mentioned terrorism and proliferation. Do you think the current reports of IAEA and Iran and the close ties between Iran and the European Union -- what is the policy right now? Is the European Union going to change its policy since there is a disturbing report of IAEA? And has there been a discussion between the U.S. and the European Union on this?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We're in close contact with our European Union colleagues on all of these questions, and I have noticed both within individual European governments and within the EU a growing awareness of the reality of Iran's nuclear program and a growing seriousness -- a growing appreciation of the seriousness of the problem. Some of the EU statements that have been -- that have come out have been rather remarkable for the speed with which EU thinking seems to be -- seems to be evolving. The EU, like all large organizations, doesn't always turn around with lightning speed, but this is actually pretty fast, pretty rapid rethinking of a very serious problem, and it's pretty impressive, actually.

QUESTION: Have there been actual action on this?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, there is a great deal of discussion about the nature of the problem.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Can I add in?

SENIOR AMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure.

SENIOR AMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The EU has -- they began a process, two years ago I guess, of discussing three things in parallel with the Europeans -- with the Iranians: human rights, nonproliferation and a trade and cooperation agreement. The Iranians wanted a trade and cooperation agreement. The Europeans have linked the dialogue on nonproliferation and the dialogue on human rights with the trade and cooperation agreement.

At the last -- the last time a European Union delegation went to Tehran, which I believe -- June 1 and 2, the Iranians were quite taken aback by the strength of the European Union's resolve on the nonproliferation and the human rights side. I mean, of course, to all of us here it's perhaps natural. I mean, you have spreading demonstrations being repressed by the conservatives in Iran on the human rights side, and you have Mr. ElBaradei's discoveries of an enrichment plant, an enrichment facility that was undeclared to the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA].

The European Union team came back from that trip and they are now thinking of their next steps. But they -- we are in very close touch with them on Iran and we expect to talk about this on Wednesday.

MODERATOR: Way in the back.

QUESTION: Edward Alden from The Financial Times. You talk about cooperation on the issues of economic underdevelopment, particularly in the Middle East, but the big U.S. initiative that's out there right now, this Middle East free trade initiative, the Europeans, as I understand, are not part of that even though in some ways they're a more natural trading partner. Is there any effort to discuss with them sort of joint efforts on this whole economic program that the U.S. is trying to lay out for the region?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Do you know the answer to that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think, just the past couple of days when both Bob Zoellick and Pascal Lamy were in Jordan for the World Economic Forum, one of the focuses that they tried to bring to this is what we are individually and collectively doing to try to raise the -- raise the bottom, so to speak, in the Middle East on the economic issues.

Free trade agreements are a particular instrument for doing that and don't necessarily lend themselves to multilateralization. But they also don't necessarily exclude broader multilateral cooperation. And I know that they were talking about this for the past few days.

QUESTION: Dubravka Savic, Belgrade Daily Novosti. The 1st of July is approaching and European countries as friends for -- approaching EU are in a pretty hard position. On the one hand, EU is wanting them to sign agreement on excluding American citizens from the ICC [International Criminal Court]; on the other hand, European Union doesn't want them to sign that. So will this question be raised during the summit, and do you see any resolvement on this problem?

And secondly, if I may, will the question of Balkans, as general, be raised, and what sense?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I suspect the Balkans will come up, and happily, the general trends in the Balkans have been far better, including in Serbia and Montenegro, as we've watched the new government advance reforms and advance an agenda of democracy and anti-corruption in a way that shows a seriousness of purpose and a commitment which is impressive and laudable.

Secretary of State Powell was in Belgrade recently, and he and the team who went with him was impressed with the leadership of the country, so that is, there is some good news coming from the Balkans and there is hope for a perspective of European integration.

With respect to your question about the ICC, this is a tough issue. This is a tough issue. Our American views are well known. We're not a party to the ICC; and therefore, we believe that, as a non-party, we should not be subject to it, a fairly straightforward view.

The EU has a somewhat different view. And it is our view that the EU aspirants and other countries, who want to join -- who are joining the EU, and want -- and have made a decision to join the ICC, ought to be allowed to do so. And, at the same time, they ought to be allowed to give the United States the exemptions we believe we require under Article 98 of the Rome Treaty.

So we don't think these countries should be forced to choose. We think they should be allowed to do both, to work with the Americans and join -- and if they so choose, to adhere to the ICC.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Can I just add one thing?

We don't -- with respect to these agreements, we are not asking for impunity for our citizens. We, the United States of America, have an extremely good record of great concern about any crimes or misdemeanors that any American citizen has been associated with anywhere around the world. And we have made it clear to all of our, all of our partners, not only in Europe, but elsewhere in the world, that the signing of an agreement like this, which is anticipated in the Rome Statute of the ICC -- this is Article 98 of the ICC itself -- allows for a conclusion of "non-surrender agreements," they're called, is in order that we can undertake our responsibility of adjudicating whether American citizens have been involved in acts subject to the Statutes of the ICC.

QUESTION: Lambros Papantoniou, Eleftheros Typos Greek Daily, Athens. Do you know if in the agenda will be the Cyprus issue to the direction that a solution must be found on the basis of the Annan plan?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It is always dangerous to predict what particular issues will come up. Certainly, we -- United States government -- has been very actively involved in all aspects of the Cyprus issue. We thought we came close in December to a solution. I'm sorry that didn't happen. We strongly believe that a solution on reuniting the island needs to be found.

The Annan plan is the plan on the table. It's a good plan. Both sides -- we hope that both sides will be able to work seriously through their remaining differences. And we hope that that plan will succeed.

QUESTION: We know that, but will the issue will be in the agenda? That's my question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, it's going to be -- as I said, I wouldn't -- you know, one of the items that will be discussed are regional issues. But I can't predict whether -- it's dangerous to predict whether individual issues will come up, but we certainly are prepared for it.

MODERATOR: You had a question.

QUESTION: Edith Grunwald, Austria Press Agency. Regarding the question of GMOs, especially GMO crops, GMO food, do you expect this to come up?

I just heard the speech of President Bush at the Biotech Convention, and he was quite tough with the Europeans. So will this worsen at the summit, or do you think it will be -- this is now -- this was it now for the week?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Do you want me to take that?

It can -- it may well come up. As you know, we began a case in a WTO dispute settlement pointing out that the European practices, the so-called moratorium on new GM approvals, new biotech approvals, is contrary to the sanitary and biosanitary standards, part of the Uruguay Round Concluding Agreements.

And we only recently, at the beginning of last week, I believe, had our first consultations with the European Union pursuant to that case. The case will, next month, go -- there will be a formation of a panel, and there will be presentation of briefs, and so forth. It is not reasonable to expect that the leaders will actually get into the legality of the case.

The President's views on the safety and value of biotech crops are well known. And all of us here in the United States of America, probably, including all of you, are proof positive that these food commodities are very safe indeed.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And on the question of biotech, it never struck me as obvious why a genetically -- eating a genetically modified food, which would provide for, say, greater resistance to disease was bad for you, when -- and then eating a food sprayed with masses of chemicals to prevent disease was less harmful. It didn't seem to me to be terribly logical.

Farmers have been creating new varieties of fruit and vegetables for centuries. And if you have ever eaten a boysenberry, you've eaten a genetically modified, artificially created fruit. And if you've lived, you've demonstrated that eating a boysenberry, a creation of man, is not harmful.

But that's an aside. Our views are pretty well known. And if it comes up, it'll come up, I think, in a -- I don't expect a long, angry discussion.

MODERATOR: Way in the back, and then we'll come up here.

QUESTION: Guy Dinmore of The Financial Times. You spoke about those with rather dramatic terms, in which newspapermen write about the relationship. But I think that was colored, in a large part, by statements from U.S. officials. You spoke about old Europe, new Europe, lumping Germany together with Libya and Cuba, and other such categories.

Recently, the Pentagon downgraded the U.S. representation at the Paris Air Show. Can you elaborate on how you think -- and also, Secretary Powell spoke about the consequences that France would meet, as a result of its position on the Iraq war -- can you a bit more about what do you think these consequences might be?

Also, I was struck by when you were introducing your agenda for the talks on Wednesday, you didn't actually mention Iraq, and I am wondering how you see the European Union's role in the future reconstruction. Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There have been a lot of words said in the past several months. I would refer you to the words of President Bush in Krakow, where he spoke of the United States and Europe working together to solve the problems of the world. And he spoke of it, both an obligation of the United States and Europe to work together, and an opportunity

He pointed out that when the United States and Europe work together to solve problems, the odds increase very substantially that those problems can be solved. That was an important speech and I think it was one which helped -- which was intended, and I think did help create the basis for a common agenda.

The dramatic language, as I said, is shared back and forth across the Atlantic by pundits and writers all the time. I think the important -- the important thing now is to concentrate on what the United States and Europe can and should do together. For the first time in a very long time, the United States and Europe do not have to focus on European security itself as a major problem in the world.

It used to be that that was the problem of security. For 50 -- for 45 years, the Cold War was principally about a divided Europe and European security. Now, a Europe whole, free and at peace is not a slogan, it is an emerging reality. It is a great achievement. The European Union, given the history of Europe, is a great achievement.

The United States and Europe, together, have an obligation to look beyond themselves to the world. That is where the threats to freedom are, the threats to security could come from, and where the opportunities are for joint action.

In Iraq, there is a tremendous job ahead for the international community in terms of the reconstruction of the country, the development of a stable, emerging democratic political system and a market economy, which will serve the needs of the Iraqi people. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done and I think that there is a basis for cooperation there, too.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You might want to mention the meeting tomorrow. There's a pre-donors' -- on Iraq, specifically, there is a pre-donors' meeting tomorrow in New York hosted by the UN, at which both European and American and a number of other countries will come together and talk about immediate challenges.

The World Bank will give a preliminary assessment and the IMF will start talking about what the needs are. We do expect this to come up at the summit.

QUESTION: Hi. This is Tulin Daloglu from Turkey's Star TV. I will, again, reemphasize this terrorism cooperation. You started your remarks saying that it has been a very interesting six months in the relations between the U.S. and EU. And you also, I mean, keep emphasizing that the most common cooperation that you see between the U.S. and the EU is the cooperation to fight against terrorism.

But, I mean, if this six months was very interesting, it was interesting because the United States decided to go into war to fight against terrorism in Iraq, and the EU decided just on the opposite way. So can you tell me, looking into the future, if you departed from that close cooperation six months ago, looking into the future, what it is that you see more promising and what is the most common thing that you see fighting against terrorism at this time if it is not Iraq?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. What I find promising is that the EU, the series of EU statements which suggest that the EU does see threats to freedom in terms compatible with the way the United States sees these threats, and again, I just was reading over the weekend, the document that Solana and his people put together and was adopted by the EU Summit, and that is a document which does describe the threats as being from terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

And then by extending that, the conditions around the world that can produce this. Now that -- what is interesting to me is that the conclusions that the EU is beginning to draw from the experience of the past six months and the debate and the differences are conclusions which are more similar to the conclusions we've drawn than one might have expected, and that is both interesting and hopeful for future cooperation.

With respect to Turkey, I can say that the meetings, the recent trip by Minister Ziyal was extremely important. Clearly Turkey has in mind building a strong -- continuing to build a strong strategic partnership with the United States. It was a very good set of meetings, so here, too, I am hopeful that we're past the debate of the winter and on to better ground.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Can I make just a couple other points? The -- on the way that the debate has developed, you will recall that at Evian there was a very strong statement on nonproliferation issues adopted by the G-8 that included the European Union, along with four other European Union countries.

The EU Council meeting last Friday, also adopted some very forthright language on the importance of dealing with the proliferation threat. This is run through Javier Solana's paper that [my colleague] was talking about, was endorsed by the leaders.

We expect to talk about proliferation on Wednesday in our summit and to do much more on this agenda in the future. We do agree -- we agree, not only on the general problem, we agree in the particular cases of Iran and North Korea being very urgent and requiring international community attention now.

The second thing on the counterterrorism dossier -- I don't know whether we have said so specifically -- but we will be signing a very important series of agreements on Wednesday at the Justice Department following this summit. There will be a U.S.-EU agreement on extradition, and a second U.S.-EU agreement on mutual legal assistance. These are part of the flowering of transatlantic cooperation on the counterterrorism and law enforcement side that began after September 11th.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, the European Union adopted legislation allowing the 15 to freeze the assets of terrorist groups and to proscribe their activities. We have worked together in transport security and container security, and also in getting a better handle on passengers traveling on airlines across the Atlantic.

And, now, with this -- these pair of agreements, we have a juridical basis to bring forward cases against these cells. One of the things -- you talked about the "dark side" of globalization -- there is no darker side of globalization than the sort of transnational terrorist networks.

QUESTION: Hello, Kazuo Nagata, Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan. Here a quote what the President said in Krakow, "New theories of rivalry should not be permitted to undermine the greater principles and obligations that we share."

So the question is: What process is his concern here? Who is he accusing for possibly being divisive?

And second question, if I may: I heard so much statement, so many statements about enlargement aspect of the European integration, whole and free. And how do you characterize the U.S. attitude toward deepening aspect of the European integration? Also towards the EU constitution that they are now trying to adopt and the development of common foreign security policy?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: EU enlargement is both an idealistic and noble enterprise, on one hand, and an immensely difficult one on the other, but it is something, which we certainly support. Likewise, the United States supports a deepening of EU integration. We are the ones who, decades ago, helped foster, almost midwived, the notion of a European -- of a European community.

We have favored this, and we've watched the convention process with a great deal of interest. It is fascinating to have to sit back and calculate various formulas of weighted voting and percentages and numbers of countries. That's important stuff. That means that this is a real process to pay attention to.

It is a little early for us to comment about the specific aspects of deepening because the European countries are expressing different views about this, and it's up to Europe to decide what kind of constitutional arrangements it wants.

With respect to the President's speech, there are theories floating around that the United States and Europe ought to be competitors, or there ought to be a balance of power. Some of these theories are around. They have been around for a while. And the President was pointing out that the United States and Europe need to be working together on a common agenda, rather than looking over their shoulder at the other one.

There are tasks in the world that will require American and European energies in combination. And it is -- to have the United States and Europe fail to work together when they can, would be to give up the best chance to solve these problems that we are likely to have. And that's what that speech pointed out.

MODERATOR: We have time for one more question in the back, here.

QUESTION: Jyri Raivio, newspaper, Helsingen Sanomat, Finland. Just a small detail. Have these summits been moved to this rainy side of the Atlantic on a permanent basis?

(Laughter.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: To which side?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The rainy side?

(Laughter.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The rainy side? (Laughter.) Well, I certainly hope not. But I do notice that we are having an actual summer day today. And I think we are all grateful.

No, they are not moved. The summits will be -- the summits will be going back and forth. The President's schedule, this time, and various trips to Europe caused us to schedule it here and we did. But they will be moving back and forth. The President has been to Europe -- one, two -- three times this year. He went to Europe twice last year, and no doubt he'll be going to Europe again this year. And we are all looking forward to it.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I was just going to say, factually, this is the third summit of the -- third U.S.-EU Summit of this administration. The first one was in Sweden at Goteburg in June of 2001; the second one was in Washington in May of 2002; and this is the third one.

MODERATOR: Since that was an easy, quick question, we'll do one more.

QUESTION: Maybe it's not that easy. Again, Michael Backfish, from German Business Daily, Handelsblatt. You were alluding to the remarkable rapprochement of the Europeans to the American agenda of fighting terrorism.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I didn't quite put it that way. I talked about a converging agenda, not someone's agenda moving closer.

QUESTION: Right. I said it's not that easy than the previous question.

Does that mean that the European Union is of greater value for the Americans right now?

And, secondly, if I may, the EU is drafting a paper on how to finance -- or stop finance of Hamas. What do the Americans hope out of that? And how could a combined effort on this subject look like?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The EU is of tremendous importance, always has been. The importance of the relationship will grow, somewhat subject to our ability to work together to deal with these problems.

With respect to Hamas, I have noticed increasing strength in the European public statements with respect to Hamas, a terrorist organization, and we hope that our positions -- that the European position will continue to move. Hamas has declared itself to be an enemy of the peace process. It has declared itself inalterably opposed to the roadmap.

A leader of Hamas said publicly, I believe, that the Hamas objective was to kill every Jew in Palestine, a statement which has the benefit of being forthright and very clear. Its meaning cannot be mistaken. Hamas is not a legitimate partner. Hamas is a terrorist organization, as are all of its works.

I know that the EU is having to go through internal processes, including complicated technical processes, to draw conclusions about Hamas. That's something that governments have -- and organizations like the EU have to do, and we understand that, and we hope that process moves ahead.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay. Thanks a lot.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents