*EPF101 06/07/2004
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, June 7
(Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt/Israel/Palestinian, North Korea, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Burma, Pakistan/India) (6940)

Deputy State Department Spokesman Adam Ereli briefed reporters June 7.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Monday, June 7, 2004
12:55 p.m. EDT

BRIEFER: Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman

IRAQ
-- Disarmament of Militias/Moqtada al-Sadr/Military Operations
-- Letters/Agreement on Iraqi Sovereignty
-- UN Resolution/Ambassador Brahimi/Technical Adjustments
-- Kurdish Letter

SAUDI ARABIA
-- New al-Qaida Threat Against Western Airlines/Warnings

EYGPT/ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN
-- Border Agreement with Israel
-- Gaza Settlements
-- Sharon Plan
-- Palestinian Authority
-- Proposals

NORTH KOREA
-- Assistant Secretary Kelly's Meeting with Chinese Special Envoy Ning Fukui
-- New Agendas

SOUTH KOREA
-- Withdrawal of Forces

SUDAN
-- Situation in Darfur/Humanitarian Assistance
-- UN Resolution
-- Ceasefire
-- Humanitarian Workers Detained
-- "Genocide"
-- Khartoum Government
-- Naivasha Protocols

SYRIA
-- Foreign Minister Shara/Open Talks

BURMA
-- Aung San Suu Kyi/Release of Political Prisoners

PAKISTAN/INDIA
-- Fighting Terrorism/Sustained Engagement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

12:55 p.m. EDT

MR. ERELI: Welcome to our briefing today, pleasure to have you. I don't have any announcements, so we can go straight to your questions.

QUESTION: Are you pleased about the disarmament news from Iraq?

MR. ERELI: Of the militias?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, we -- this is a very important and welcome announcement, one that we think argues well for the future of Iraq. As the questioner indicated, the Prime Minister has announced an agreement with the nine political parties to integrate their militias into the armed forces, security forces of Iraq, and as a result of that, the Coalition Provisional Authority will be issuing an order, pursuant to the administration law, outlawing independent militias.

And I would refer you to the Prime Minister's very eloquent words on how this is a important step forward in both national reconciliation, but as well as strengthening the capacity of Iraq to provide for its own security, which is a goal that, I think, is foremost in all of our minds, as Iraq moves forward to assume sovereignty and then exercise that sovereignty as fully and effectively as possible over its territory.

QUESTION: Within the thing with Iraq, if we can go to the resolution for a second?

MR. ERELI: Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: What about Moqtada al-Sadr's militia not being entered in what is the presumed announcement of outlawing independent militia is going to do with that?

MR. ERELI: It is clear that Moqtada al-Sadr, in a number of ways, is operating outside the law. There are, I think, there have been discussions between Moqtada al-Sadr and (inaudible) or Shiite notables in Iraq, in effort to remove his militia from government offices, have them lay down their arms and have those elements of the -- of Sadr's militia who have been accused and indicted of crimes answer for their crimes.

That is a process that is ongoing, that has, I think, produced some important and welcome developments. But, obviously, there is a legal regime that applies to these militias, that outlaws these militias, that proscribes their activities and I think it is fair to say that we and the Iraqi government would expect these militias to adhere to the law.

Yes, Said.

QUESTION: Adam, would you concur that, at least for the time being until the transfer occurs, there is no intention by American forces to move militarily against the Sadr militia, perhaps, waiting for the interim government to do so?

MR. ERELI: I'm not going to speak to military operations. We've made it clear that we are going to respect Islamic holy sites. I think that's in sharp contrast to the actions of the outlaw groups who continue to use mosques and other holy sites as ammunition storage places, firing on troops from those areas. We are going to continue to respect those sites and to work with our Iraqi friends and local authorities to bring about a peaceful application of justice.

Yes, Nadia.

QUESTION: Can you just remind us of the US position regarding, Moqtada al-Sadr, himself? Do we still want to arrest him or kill him?

And, secondly, the date for that was reset for this dismantling of the militias was set as 2005. What do you think of the date? Is this too late for incorporating 100,000 people into the Iraqi army?

MR. ERELI: Our position on Moqtada al-Sadr hasn't changed. And it is our view that Moqtada al-Sadr -- and is a subject of Iraqi law and should be -- should -- that law should be applied to him as well as to any other Iraqi citizen who has been accused of violating the law. As far as the date for integration of the militias, this is something that has been worked out between and among the Iraqis themselves. It is an agreement that we endorse that we think argues well for the future of Iraq and that's my comment.

QUESTION: Sir, I just want to clarify is what do you mean by "is a subject of Iraqi law?" What does -- does that mean that the U.S. military does not have -- if they arrest him -- or can they arrest him or kill him, or does that mean that the Iraqi only can arrest him and detain him?

MR. ERELI: Iraqi -- the Iraqi judge has issued a warrant for Moqtada al-Sadr's arrest. Moqtada al-Sadr is, like any other Iraqi citizen, is expected to be held accountable to Iraqi law and Iraqi institutions. And we will support the application of Iraqi justice.

Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: It appears that this particular cleric, al-Sadr, is trying to gain political influence. Do you expect that the new interim government and governments beyond would completely exclude him for any political type function in the country?

MR. ERELI: I can't speak for decisions that Iraqis may or may not make when they are sovereign. I think that it's been clearly demonstrated by the actions and words and decisions of Iraq's notables that Moqtada al-Sadr is a renegade.

QUESTION: Can we switch to the resolution? Do you want to --

QUESTION: Please.

QUESTION: -- start?

QUESTION: Thank you.

Just going back to the exchange of letters from the weekend, in the Secretary's letter, there is a line, "We will work in the fora described by Prime Minister Allawi in his June 5th letter to reach agreement on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations, and will ensure full partnership between MNF and Iraqi forces through close coordination and consultation."

As I read that, "we will work" is in no sense a guarantee that you will reach agreement or a commitment to reach agreement or a commitment to act in accordance with the wishes of the sovereign Iraqi government. It's just working to try to reach an agreement. Are you open to, either in amended letters or language in the resolution, that would make explicit that you will not act, particularly in sensitive political situations, without the agreement of the Iraqi authorities?

MR. ERELI: The important point here is that these letters represent two significant developments: number one, agreement that Iraq's sovereignty will be restored fully and completely; and, number two, that there are arrangements that are mutually agreeable between Iraq and the multinational force on how the multinational force will operate.

I think the best answer to your question, Arshad, is that this is the language that both sides are comfortable with. They think it covers the contingencies and eventualities that need to be covered. It provides a good framework for interoperability and consultation, and that, frankly, this is the way that we see as best to move forward together.

There is certainly no discussion that I'm aware of about amending the letters or changing the letters. They are satisfactory to both sides. They are to be entered as annexes to the resolution in detailing how the multinational forces and the Iraqi government will coordinate. And, you know, I think the important point here is that it's satisfactory to the Iraqis and, to that extent, we think should be satisfactory to others.

QUESTION: There is some discussion, however, of amending the resolution to give the Iraqis a sort of virtual veto on the actions of the multinational forces. Are you open to that at all?

MR. ERELI: We view the whole issue of veto as some -- as really just beside the point. The fact is that, as these letters indicate, there are mechanisms for consultation and coordination that will result in actions in Iraq by Iraqi forces and by multinational forces that are mutually agreeable, and therefore the issue of having to veto really isn't something that, in a practical way, is -- we need to deal with.

QUESTION: Well, on the mutual -- if I can just follow up one thing.

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: On the mutually agreeable, I mean, you're not saying that all actions by the multinational force will be mutually agreeable; you're saying, "We will work to reach agreement." There's a big difference. So you're not promising mutually agreeable, you're just promising to work on an agreement. But if there isn't an agreement, you're not promising anything.

MR. ERELI: What I can tell you, Arshad, is that the Iraqis are comfortable with this, the multinational force is comfortable with this, and we think that should be satisfactory.

QUESTION: But there's no change, is there, in what the Secretary has said repeatedly, which is everything you've said, and then with the caveat there could be situations where, for the protection of U.S. troops or for other reasons, we may not be in total agreement and we would have to do what we think is right by our troops?

MR. ERELI: I think you're putting words --

QUESTION: That's at least --

MR. ERELI: I think you're elaborating a little bit more. What we have said is that we always retain the right to act in self-defense.

QUESTION: But you've also said "accomplish our mission."

MR. ERELI: And accomplish our mission. And I think that --

QUESTION: You've also made the point --

MR. ERELI: Again, I think you're -- I think, if I may, that those who want to go down the veto road are reading more into, sort of, contingency theorizing than there really is.

QUESTION: He used the word "veto," but he also said --

MR. ERELI: I think if you look at how we've handled Fallujah, how we've handed Najaf, you will have a good model to go on in terms of looking ahead to possible sensitive operations, where we take into -- we consult with the local authorities, we take into account their views and we work together to find approaches to situations that satisfy all the parties.

QUESTION: He used the word "veto." He said this isn't -- just like you, he said, this isn't really a matter of someone having a veto. He spoke of it in very hypothetical, that there would be a disagreement, but he did leave room for U.S. commanders to make their own decisions in areas where there might not be agreement with the Iraqi authorities. And I don't -- unless you tell me that that has been wiped out by these letters, you know, I assume it's still the view.

MR. ERELI: Right, right. Nothing has changed with respect to American forces reporting to the national command authority and taking actions to defend themselves.

QUESTION: Well, what I wanted to ask you --

QUESTION: And to accomplish their mission.

MR. ERELI: And to accomplish the mission.

QUESTION: You made some reference, so it should be clear to the others, too. Is it -- do you feel you can tell us why other governments still, apparently, are not totally satisfied? You could say go ask them. But if it's all -- if it's agreeable to the Iraqis, shouldn't the others say, "Well, it seems to be an agreeable arrangement, and get out of the way and let the resolution finally get through"?

MR. ERELI: Well, we're not going to say, "Get out of the way." I think --

QUESTION: Well, okay.

MR. ERELI: In New York, we have reached agreement on the major issues, and that is a significant accomplishment.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. ERELI: We are now really discussing suggestions for refinement and technical adjustments. We would expect to resolve these issues soon. I think that we are close to a consensus. We are going to -- we held informal consultations yesterday. We will hear -- we look forward to hearing from Ambassador Brahimi this afternoon on his report on his work to help create or help facilitate the creation of the Iraqi interim government, and then following that the council will resume consultations.

QUESTION: But you may want to say in response to what I am about to ask you, "Let's wait until tomorrow or the next day." But could you tell us what the triggers -- what this would trigger?

One thing comes to mind is Mr. Armitage in one of his interviews -- I think this was with an Arab outfit, so it's a message to the Middle East is my point -- said something about he would resume, you know, his deliberations in Brussels and he was hoping NATO would send some sort of -- you know, NATO countries are there, but send some sort of a NATO, you know, headquarters or something into Iraq. Is that what comes next? Does he -- or what else might come next to try to beef up that force?

MR. ERELI: After this resolution?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. ERELI: I believe the focus is going to be, frankly, rather than beefing up the multinational force --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. ERELI: -- there may be some additions here and there. Obviously, the resolution mentioned -- or the letters mentioned a brigade to protect the UN.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. ERELI: But I think the real focus is going to be, again, as the letter suggests, on beefing up Iraq's own security capabilities --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. ERELI: -- training and fitting out and putting Iraqi boots on the ground, as opposed to multinational. And that's where we're going to focus a lot of our efforts, both as the multinational force, but also as the international community.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) a new draft later today. Can you describe some of the refinements and technical investments that you think will be in that?

MR. ERELI: In a very sketchy way, since it is still being worked on. I think what we will be looking for is making it clear in the text that with the restoration of sovereignty, the Iraqi government will assume full authority and responsibility over financial and natural sources. We will also be looking at, as I said earlier, some technical adjustments in the text to reflect the receipt of the letters. And I think that's where the major changes or most of the changes will be.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) with regard to the letters?

MR. ERELI: I wouldn't rule anything out, but it's not -- you know, the letters, frankly, I think the point to make here on the letters is that they are an annex to the resolution and are, therefore, considered part of the resolution. So they are, for all intents and purposes, in the resolution.

QUESTION: I asked you if there would be substantive changes with regard to the letters. They keep --

MR. ERELI: Oh, to the letter, the text of the letters themselves?

QUESTION: Not the letters themselves, but substantive changes to the resolution, insofar as they concern the letters or the issues raised in the letters, which is to say, the MNF and controlled security forces. And I want to know-- you said, "I wouldn't rule anything out." Do you expect any substantive changes on the issues of security forces and MNF?

MR. ERELI: I'll put it this way, our view is that the issue of operational control and coordination is addressed in the letters which is part of the resolution.

QUESTION: At that time will it be further addressed in the resolution?

MR. ERELI: I'd say -- I have stated our view not -- but, you know, this is a subject of discussion, so I won't get ahead of that discussion.

QUESTION: Could other people have some questions now?

MR. ERELI: Teri?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Teri.

QUESTION: What are you doing here?

QUESTION: Well, I don't know. I'm listening.

Following up though on that, some delegations are still saying, some that have veto power, are still saying they want more of the letter, the specific language of the letters included in the resolution, even if the letters are being included as an annex. So, is your repetition that they're included, therefore, they are part of the resolution? Does that mean you're opposed to fitting some -- to including some of the language in the text of the resolution itself?

MR. ERELI: I'll say it again. We see the issue as adequately dealt with by including the letters as an annex and, therefore, part of the resolution. We will be having discussions on this. We will continue having discussions, and I will leave it for our consultations in the afternoon to handle that issue, but I'm not going to prejudge those discussions.

QUESTION: But there are people who can veto your resolution who do not see it as adequate, so don't you have to consider that?

MR. ERELI: Well, we consider everybody's views. I think what you will -- the point to take away from this discussion is that we are now entering our fourth draft. We will soon be presenting a -- or introducing a fourth draft. That is, I think, a very strong, and frankly, welcomed indication that we have been listening. We have been taking on board people's views that we want to produce the best resolution possible that makes it indisputably clear that Iraq has full sovereignty, and that it has authority to exercise that sovereignty. And that's the spirit in which we will be going into, I would say, the closing rounds of these consultations.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) has question, but in their absence, I'll ask you. There is a letter apparently that was sent by the two Kurdish leaders, Barzani and Talabani to the President protesting the fact that the Prime Minister and the President job in Iraq was given to a Sunni Arab and a Shiite Arab. and they threatened them, basically, unless something is added in the language in the Security Council now, that they will boycott the election. Do you know anything about this?

MR. ERELI: I have not heard that letter, a thing about that letter. There is obviously a vice president, who is Kurdish, and several significant ministers and a deputy prime minister, who are also Kurdish. So, and I think one of the hallmarks of the process that led to the formation of this government shepherded by Ambassador Brahimi is the right consultations and the very delicate balancing act that he and the Iraqis performed to produce something that is representative and acceptable to everybody.

So that was really, I think, what was behind the appointments, and I think that they reflect a strong consensus and one that has gotten the endorsement of Iraqis and of the international community.

Yes, Teri.

QUESTION: On Saudi Arabia, there is a new supposed al-Qaida threat coming out on the internet, one we've heard before, but they're saying again they're going to target Western airliners, U.S. airliners. It's the same website that showed the execution of Nicholas Berg. So I'm wondering if you've looked into this, if you have any comments on the veracity of the website.

MR. ERELI: I've seen the press reports. Obviously, we take all threat information very seriously and we'll be analyzing this latest information carefully. We are -- we will be working closely with the Saudis and our other partners in the global war on terrorism in this effort.

I don't have any information for you assessing the information, but I would remind you that we have existing Travel Warnings and a Worldwide Caution that already note possible threats to commercial aviation and warn Americans to take that into consideration when making their travel plans.

QUESTION: Do you have any plans to revise them or do you feel like those are pretty much good enough, given they cite aviation targeting?

MR. ERELI: Those announcements are under constant review, bearing in mind developments and new information as it comes to light. So I think that it's safe to say that we are always looking at the timeliness of our announcements, of our warnings, given what's happening, and would tell you that they can change very quickly based on what's happening.

Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: Change of subject, please. It appears that the Egyptian Government, working with the Israelis, and have come to a very close agreement, not quite there yet, about putting in extra border police between Egypt and Gaza, and it appears that Chairman Arafat has accepted the reform demands for security in Gaza, as well as, I assume, the West Bank, and also the Israeli Government has approved the Gaza pullout. Do you have any comments regarding those issues?

MR. ERELI: Let me take the two issues separately, the withdrawal plan and the security cooperation.

On the Israeli cabinet vote last -- yesterday, I would refer you to a statement issued by the White House yesterday, in which we welcomed the cabinet decisions, or the Government of Israel's decision to approve Prime Minister Sharon's disengagement plan. We view that plan to withdraw all settlements in Gaza and certain settlements in the West Bank as an opportunity for peace and we urge that all efforts be made to implement the plan as rapidly as possible.

On the security --

QUESTION: Before you go on, can I follow up on that?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But the cabinet decision calls for implementation not to begin until much later than the President thought when he endorsed it here some weeks ago, a month ago.

MR. ERELI: I think I would not -- what I would say to that is that, you know, what the Israeli cabinet endorsed and what President Bush endorsed is withdrawal from all the settlements in Gaza and certain settlements in the West Bank by a definite date. That's what we signed up to or that's the plan that we gave our support to in April, and, in our view, that continues to be the plan that the Israelis are working on.

Now, the details of how that plan is implemented is something that the Israelis are debating. But, in our view, their commitment to that plan was endorsed and remains, and that's where our -- that's what we're dealing with.

QUESTION: So are you satisfied that the cabinet is actually voting on is exactly what you endorsed?

MR. ERELI: We're satisfied that what the Israelis are working towards and what the Israelis are committed to is what we discussed with Prime Minister Sharon in April, which is withdrawal from all settlements in Gaza and certain settlements in the West Bank, and giving the Palestinian Authority control and responsibility for those areas.

QUESTION: Could I have a follow-up on that?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Secretary of State Powell went on CNN yesterday and he emphasized that a Palestinian state has to be viable, contiguous, will not accept (inaudible). He said that it's unacceptable, but that really is contradicting the Sharon plan. So could you explain to us, in the case that the Sharon plan continues or, you know, Sharon insists on implementing his own version of the plan, how will that -- how will you react?

MR. ERELI: Well, I don't -- I wouldn't accept the premise that a viable and contiguous Palestinian state is something that is in contradiction to anything that's under discussion right now.

Yes, Nadia.

QUESTION: Don't you think that Sharon has (inaudible) previous ministers who opposed the plan, and then he reshaped it, remodeled it, and passed it by 7 to 14? I mean, doesn't that give it a shaky start, considering that he's not going to implement it for 2005? Isn't that -- doesn't that worry you that the fact that it might collapse even before it goes further?

MR. ERELI: We are focusing on doing what we can with the Israelis and the Palestinians and others, including the Egyptians, to move forward on the plan. The important point here is that Prime Minister Sharon has stated very clearly that he is committed to moving forward on this plan. The Palestinian Authority, in our discussions with them, now recognize that they have an opportunity before them and are, I think, acting on that basis.

As the questioner earlier indicated, Egypt has taken a very active and positive role in working with the Israelis and the Palestinians and the United States to help prepare the ground for withdrawal and for the effective exercise of controlling security of the territory by the Palestinian Authority. There have been, I think, a good series of meetings between Egyptian authorities and Palestinian authorities, and Egyptian authorities and Israeli authorities, in trying to move that -- move that ball forward.

So if you look at what's happened since April, frankly, and you look at the engagement, sustained engagement, with the Palestinians by the United States and Egypt, by the sustained actions of the Government of Israel to transform this plan into reality, I think that in a few short week -- a few short months, there's been a lot of progress.

QUESTION: The chief Palestinian negotiator was in town last week, on Friday and Thursday. He met with members of Congress. He met with Assistant Secretary Burns, with Elliot Abrams at the Security Council. He's proposing an election: presidential, municipal and legislative. Would you support such a proposal?

MR. ERELI: Said, I haven't seen the proposals. I think what we're really focusing on now, frankly, is the Gaza withdrawal plan, the immediate and practical necessities of enabling the public -- the Palestinian Authority to assume and exercise its responsibilities. That's where our focus is. Future political arrangements, while interesting, are not the immediate matter at hand for us.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can you tell -- I'm not sure you had time to check on the meeting that Secretary Kelly met with China's official, Mr. Ning Fukui.

MR. ERELI: Talks with -- between Chinese Special Envoy for North Korea Ning Fukui and State Department officials began this morning at 9:30 and will conclude early this afternoon. Mr. Ning Fukui is meeting with Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly, the U.S. Special Envoy for North Korea Joe DeTrani, and other U.S. officials. They'll be discussing, as you might expect, diplomatic efforts to achieve the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear programs, and issues related to the next round of six-party talks.

QUESTION: You don't have a readout on it, do you?

MR. ERELI: Nothing different from what I said on Friday.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: And would Mr. Jenkins a topic among the discussion -- is he -- if he's going to meet his family in China?

MR. ERELI: I don't think that that will be a primary issue of discussion, as this is between the Chinese Special Envoy and our officials.

David.

QUESTION: Adam, I know you're not in the habit of --

MR. ERELI: Still on --

QUESTION: I'm sorry.

MR. ERELI: -- North Korea? Still on North -- okay.

QUESTION: I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Do you have any new agendas in these talks? How is this different from last time when Mr. Ning came to D.C., not too long ago?

MR. ERELI: Well, I think that Mr. Ning came before the last working group, if I am not mistaken, so: (a) there have been developments since then; and (b) the situation now is very different from before, I mean, where we are close to convening a second working group meeting and a third plenary and those are all new and important issues to discuss.

QUESTION: Are there expectations that the third plenary meeting would be -- would have some breakthroughs? Can you predict those?

MR. ERELI: I cannot predict breakthroughs.

Yes?

QUESTION: Did you see the announcement on the projected withdrawal of something like a third of the US forces in South Korea? Doesn't that weaken the U.S. ability to defend the south at this moment of tension, continuing tension?

MR. ERELI: Some would speculate that. I would not endorse such speculation. Obviously, as you know, and as we have discussed Friday in a different context, we are undergoing a global force posture review. As part of that force posture review, we have been having, I think, good consultations and good discussions with our friends and allies across the world. We have made a couple of things very, very clear, that we are realigning our force posture to respond more effectively to the threats of the 21St century.

This in no way suggests a lessening of our treaty or security commitments. And without speculating on what decision we will make with respect to troops in South Korea because no decisions that I am aware of have been made, it is safe to say that our commitment to an ability to fulfill those commitments -- I'm sorry -- our commitment to our treaty obligations and our ability to fulfill those commitments will remain unchanged.

QUESTION: Go to Syria?

MR. ERELI: Follow-up.

QUESTION: A number of troops have withdrawn -- that will be withdrawn from Korea, that's 12,500, that's --

MR. ERELI: I don't -- sir, I am not suggesting or endorsing or confirming any number. First of all, that's not to be done here, it's to be done at the Defense Department; and, second of all, as far as I understand, no firm decisions have been made.

QUESTION: A Korean official officially said that the U.S. suggested that 12,500 --

MR. ERELI: That's the Korean official. I am not making statements of numbers or suggestions.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR. ERELI: I'm sorry. Dave, move back to Dave.

QUESTION: I was going to ask a question about Darfur, on Sudan. The Post editorializes this morning in The Washington Post that the Administration has shrunk from pressuring the central government on Darfur because of the interest in getting a north-south deal, and that, essentially, in a best-case scenario now there could be hundreds of thousands of death because of the lack of access.

MR. ERELI: I guess there's just no -- you know, you can write that, you can write something like that, if you ignore everything we've done on this issue. I mean, we've got -- it was because of our pressure, I think, that humanitarian workers have been allowed into Darfur. Look at the briefing Andrew Natsios gave, where he said, quite frankly, we're doing this briefing to raise the pressure on the Sudanese Government because they're keeping people out of Darfur, and then, lo and behold, people got into Darfur.

Who led the charge or who led the effort to get a ceasefire in Darfur? Who brought the issue to the UN? Who marshaled an international effort in Geneva and with the EU in Chad to bring attention to this issue? Who has contributed more in terms of humanitarian assistance to Darfur than any other country?

So you can say we're -- you can suggest that somehow we're backing off from taking a strong stand or exercising every diplomatic tool at our disposal on behalf of the crisis in Darfur, but I think you'd have to ignore all the actions we've taken that suggest the contrary.

QUESTION: What about --

QUESTION: Any reaction --

QUESTION: I'm sorry. What about the idea of a full-scale UN resolution? We've had a briefing and a president's statement.

MR. ERELI: You know, there have been -- there have been those suggestions, but they -- until now, I think they've been in the realm of the general and the theoretical, as opposed to the specific.

The focus really now is on getting -- doing the assessments and getting the aid to the people who need it. I think, in that regard, I would say that the ceasefire, the AU cease -- the African Union Ceasefire Commission is setting up operations in Darfur's largest city today. They are working with the Government of Sudan to make it ready for a monitoring team to come into place, and we expect the monitoring team to begin its mission shortly.

QUESTION: Adam, any reaction to reports that some UN humanitarian aid workers were kidnapped over the weekend by rebel groups out of Darfur?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. I would note that on Friday, the Sudan Liberation Army detained 16 United Nations and nongovernmental organization workers. These were workers conducting an assessment mission. They were released on Sunday, and all of them were healthy and not harmed.

I think that it did not, I think, affect in any significant way the United Nations relief operations there. They were temporarily halted, but have now almost resumed full activities.

QUESTION: So you're saying all's well that ends well is fine?

MR. ERELI: Well, I don't have a lot of, frankly, facts about the circumstances of the detention, and I would hesitate to call it -- I'm not sure I would call it kidnapping, but I can't speak to the details of the detention. All I can tell you is that they have been released, they are well, and activities are resuming.

QUESTION: The fact that they were detained, the fact that there was a detention, isn't that already a problem if they're hindering humanitarian aid workers? And are you looking into it? Is the United States taking any kind of stand on this?

MR. ERELI: I think that we are working with the United Nations. We have people there. Our aim is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and that involves, I think, constant coordination among the different actors there -- NGOs, UN, American, as well as the Government of Sudan, as well as the rebels, as well as the Jingaweits. It's a complicated situation. Everybody's got different -- not everybody, but there are several different agendas at work here. And I think that we are consistently and constantly increasing the level of activity and the margin for maneuver that we have, and that those are positive developments.

That said, it remains a unsettled and dangerous place, and that's why it's all the more important that monitors be deployed there in number quickly so that we can have greater clarity on what's going on and steps can be taken to ensure the smooth flow of aid.

Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: Change of subject. This --

QUESTION: Sorry, can I follow up on Darfur? You just outlined U.S. policy in Darfur as if it was a little crisis. I mean, people are not shy to call what's happening there as a genocide. And this is what you have given us as a response. I mean, do you -- just imagine if a million people were made homeless, hundreds of thousands were killed in Europe, that the U.S. will have this kind of reaction? I mean, why can't it just propose something to the UN to stop the killing in the first place?

MR. ERELI: First of all, I would take issue with the word "genocide." We have made it clear and I think the international community has made it clear that this is a situation of ethnic cleansing. We have also made it clear that we believe that it is a humanitarian crisis. And we have also, I think, been at the forefront of international efforts to address this crisis.

So I take strong issue with your suggestion that somehow there is a double standard and if it were anywhere else we would be doing more. I think we are doing a lot. We have been consistently outspoken about this issue. We are active diplomatically and, in terms of humanitarian assistance, in addressing it. It is a conflict that is -- that has gone on for far too long and that is creating significant human suffering. And it is something that we have said we are committed to working with our international partners to end, but it is not something that you can just walk in and solve overnight.

QUESTION: Would you agree that some people criticize the U.S. position that you could not be taking a harder position with the Khartoum government because you were worried that that might jeopardize the peace-signing process in Naivasha?

MR. ERELI: I just answered that question. I just answered that question. And one thing I didn't say is we have made it very clear, to those who would suggest that we are somehow coddling the Government of Sudan in order to get a Naivasha deal, the Secretary has been very outspoken. And he has said the United States cannot have normal relations with Sudan as long as the situation in Darfur persists. So irrespective of the Naivasha accords, this -- we have made it clear that this is -- this is a problem that needs to be resolved and needs to be acted on in order for us to be able to have normal relations with Sudan.

Syria.

QUESTION: Yesterday, the Syrian Foreign Minister, Farouk Shara, issued a statement appealing to the United States for open talks at his level to resolve what are misunderstanding. Have you received anything formally or can you tell us anything about that?

MR. ERELI: Well, this gets to the whole question about dialogue. And I think that, you know, we have an Ambassador there. We have made clear through our Ambassador what our position is on the outstanding issues between our government and the Government of Syria. Secretary Powell made those positions clear in May of last year. Assistant Secretary Burns has been to Syria a number of times.

So I guess the point here is that the issue doesn't seem to be so much one of dialogue as so much -- as more -- as, rather, one of, "Is anybody listening?"

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. ERELI: I'm sorry, we still have more questions.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Do you have anything that you could tell us about the Summit of the 8, if you don't mind?

MR. ERELI: I'll leave it to the party in Sea Island and the very thorough briefing by National Security Advisor Rice this morning to address those issues.

QUESTION: Just a quick one on Myanmar. Myanmar is reported to have released nine supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi today. They were kept -- they were retained for a week for passing out human rights literature. Separately, a woman who engaged in some kind of a protest calling for Aung San Suu Kyi to be released from house arrest is reported to have been sent to a psychiatric hospital.

Do you have any comment on the detention of the nine and on the fate of the woman?

MR. ERELI: I had not heard, frankly, about the issue regarding the woman. Regarding the detention of the nine individuals, it is our understanding that the Burmese junta arrested nine young people who were handing out copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on May 30th, which was the anniversary of the government-orchestrated attack on National League for Democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

This is an act, I think, which should be -- which should be condemned. People agitating for human rights is natural and should be allowed, and we don't believe that anybody should be arrested for the peaceful expression of their views, especially when those views are consistent with universal norms of human rights.

Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: This morning, the chief of Sindh Province -- that's the area around Karachi -- has resigned. He said it's for personal reasons because of the recent bombings and arrests. And later in the month, June 27th and '8th, India is coming to peace talks with Pakistan, and advocacy groups are saying that this is not necessarily a democratic type move, he was pressured out, and also the police chief was fired.

What is your stance about terrorism there, and are these peace talks between India and Pakistan warming relations between the two countries?

MR. ERELI: I have no comment on the circumstances for personnel decisions in Pakistani provinces.

On the subject of terrorism and peace, I think President Musharraf has been very, very clear about his commitment to fight terrorism, and he has matched that, those words, with action. And as I've said last week, we are encouraged by and supportive of ongoing and sustained engagement between India and Pakistan in a variety of fora on a host of issues. So those are all sort of positive developments.

Thank you.

- - - - -

MR. ERELI: Let me put something else on the record on this thing, and that is that negotiations continue in New York on the joint U.S.-UK resolution welcoming the signing of the Naivasha Protocols. That resolution also includes references to the situation in Darfur and the presidential statement issued by the Council on May 25th. Some Council members are opposed to mentioning Darfur in a resolution, but we are pushing back strongly that not mentioning Darfur would be unconscionable.

QUESTION: So do you think the fact that Danforth now will be the new UN security, that will help in the Sudan case?

MR. ERELI: I think that our commitment to Sudan is strong and -- our commitment to the Darfur issue is strong and would be active whether or not Danforth is the representative.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:50 p.m.)

(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