*EPF302 06/30/2004
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, June 30
(Iraq, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Sudan, North Korea, visa/requirements, Afghanistan, Turkey, France, Qatar/Russia, Israel/Palestinians, Israel/Lebanon) (5480)

State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli briefed reporters June 30.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
12:25 p.m. EDT

BRIEFER: Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman

IRAQ
-- Location of Saddam Hussein/Legal Status/Criminal Charges
-- Operational Status of U.S. Embassy
-- Credentialing of Iraqi Diplomats
-- Provision of Police Training by North Atlantic Treaty Organization

BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA
-- U.S. Support for Actions Against Officials in the Republika Srpska & Serbian
-- Democratic Party by UN High Representative Ashdown
-- Removal of Officials/Security & Law Enforcement Initiatives
-- U.S. Freezing of Assets/Commitment to Bring Karadzic to Justice

SUDAN
-- Description of U.S. Draft Resolution in Circulation at UN Security Council/Preliminary Discussions
-- Diplomatic Efforts for Peaceful Resolution to Situation in Darfur

NORTH KOREA
-- Query Regarding a Possible Bilateral Meeting Between Secretary Powell and the Foreign Minister
-- U.S.-Japan Cooperation & Convergence of Views on North Korea's Nuclear Program

DEPARTMENT
-- Visa Requirements/Balancing Secure Borders and Open Doors/Security of Visa Process/Facilitation of Legitimate Travelers to Obtain Visas/Length of Training for Consular Officers
-- Consistent Application of Visa Laws and Regulations

AFGHANISTAN
-- NATO Endorsement of International Security Assistance Force to Provide
-- Security for Elections

TURKEY
-- U.S. Support for Turkey's Candidacy for European Union Membership

FRANCE
-- U.S.-France Bilateral Relationship/Areas of Cooperation & Agreement

QATAR/RUSSIA
-- Query Regarding Sentencing of Russian Intelligence Officers in Qatar

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Query Regarding Possible Visit to U.S. by Israeli Foreign Minister Shalom
-- U.S. Commitment to a Peaceful Solution and Settlement of Differences
-- Importance of Broad Engagement by All Parties to Facilitate Sharon Plan
-- Importance of Egypt's Role

ISRAEL/LEBANON
-- Query Regarding Israeli Military Posts Along Israel-Lebanon Border

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

12:25 p.m. EDT

MR. ERELI: Hello, everybody. Welcome to our briefing today, Wednesday. No announcements for you so I'll go to your questions. Let me just start with the first row. Yes.

QUESTION: Where exactly is Saddam at this moment? We know he's legally -- legally in Iraqi hands, but where is he physically?

MR. ERELI: Further to an agreement represented by a Memorandum of Understanding between the multinational force and the interim Iraqi government, Saddam is physically in the custody of the multinational force at an undisclosed location. His legal custody has been transferred to the Interim Iraqi Government and his case will now be handled by the Iraqi justice system. So, and once the Iraqis can stand up a corrections facility and capability, he will eventually be transferred to their physical custody as well.

QUESTION: Any timetable for that?

MR. ERELI: No.

Yes, sir. A follow-up?

QUESTION: A follow-up. Now, as of the day before yesterday, he ceased to be a prisoner of war because he was designated as such although he's still in U.S. military hands.

MR. ERELI: My understanding is, and I would refer you to the Iraqis, he is now no longer an enemy prisoner of war; he is a prisoner of the Iraqi justice system.

QUESTION: That he will be charged with criminal charges or do you know anything about that?

MR. ERELI: My understanding is that he -- that a warrant has been issued, and that a number of high-level detainees will be informed of the charges against them.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can you tell us a little bit more about the actions the U.S. is taking in support of Paddy Ashdown vis-��-vis Bosnia, particularly these -- elaborate on the sanctions that are being imposed against some prominent Bosnian Serb entities.

MR. ERELI: I would, first of all, refer you to a statement that the State Department put out today welcoming and supporting the action by United Nations High Representative Paddy Ashdown against officials in the Republika Srpska and the Serbian Democratic Party. High Representative Ashdown announced these measures against the officials and the political party for actions they have done to prevent Bosnia and Herzegovina from fulfilling its Dayton and UN obligations to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

For its part, the United States -- for its part, and in support of the High Representative's actions, the United States is freezing the assets of a Republika Srpska-owned firm and three Republika Srpska officials who have provided financial, logistical and security assistance to Radovan Karadzic.

Let me see if I have more on that. We have -- Let me go into a little bit more detail of what Ashdown has done and then follow what we have done. In addition to the removals of 60 officials from the Republika Srpska Government and announcing law enforcement measures, the package of measures unveiled today by High Representative Ashdown, includes a fine of ����00,000 against the Serbian Democratic Party, freezes all known existing party bank accounts until a single account is established, announces the audit and reorganization of a Republika Srpska-controlled company and freezes the assets of three individuals that have provided financial, logistical and security support to Radovan Karadzic.

For our part, the Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control has taken parallel action under the President's Western Balkans Order.

QUESTION: My understanding was that there was -- that the possibility was very strong today that Karadzic would be taken into custody. Do you have any idea why that didn't happen?

MR. ERELI: I can't speak to actions either taking place or yet to take place in the Republika Srpska or in Bosnia-Herzegovina. What is clear to us is that -- and what is reflected in these announcements, is that officials in the Republika Srpska are not doing enough to go after Radovan Karadzic to bring him to justice, as they're obligated to do, and that our commitment, both on the part of the United States, on the part of the United Nations and on the part of NATO and the EU is to see that these provisions are enforced. And we will continue to do everything in our power to see that they are.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Were all 60 of these officials aiding and abetting Karadzic? I mean, I know that only three people's assets were frozen, but --

MR. ERELI: I would put it this way. These officials have worked to prevent the fulfillment of the Dayton accords and UN obligations to fully cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal. I really can't go into the specifics of what actions they did or didn't do, but suffice it to say that their efforts have frustrated the fulfillment of UN obligations.

Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have the names of these persons --

MR. ERELI: I'd refer you to the High Representative for the names. I don't have the names.

Yes.

QUESTION: Change of subject. Can we go to Sudan and a UN resolution that's been brought up by the U.S. there at the United Nations about already imposing an arms embargo and other sanctions on the Jingaweit, and are these specifically only those same seven names that we got from you or is it now wider?

MR. ERELI: We have begun to circulate a text of a draft resolution with our Council colleagues in New York. It's important to remember that -- and I think to underscore the words of the Secretary, who said yesterday that unless we see movement soon from the Government of Sudan, it may be necessary for the international community to consider other actions, including a Security Council resolution.

To that end, we have drafted something. We are sharing it with our colleagues on the Security Council. It's important that all members of the international community move now and move quickly to address the human rights and humanitarian catastrophe that is underway in Darfur.

It is our view that, and it is the spirit of this resolution, that the Security Council needs to make clear to the Government of Sudan that the government has to back up its recent public commitments with concrete action, specifically to neutralize and disarm the government-supported militia to protect civilians and to cooperate fully with humanitarian relief organizations. Our text calls on the Sudanese Government to immediately fulfill these commitments and notes that if it does so we're prepared to respond positively.

Other elements of the draft include endorsing the African Union-led monitoring mission, calling for generous contributions of assistance, inviting the Secretary General to send human rights monitors to the region. It also imposes UN sanctions on the government-supported militia, particularly the travel restrictions and arms embargoes. I don't know if it specifies names. I don't think it does. It just -- it establishes a sanctions committee. Rather than specifying names, it establishes a sanctions committee to make determinations on which individuals should be sanctioned and to make recommendations within 30 days on to whom and what sanctions to apply.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is this then in direct relation to what Secretary Powell perhaps did not hear on the ground then there? Did he call back and say, look, they're not -- they're not even making good promises anymore, we need to go ahead with the resolution?

MR. ERELI: This is a -- this is part of a broad campaign that has a variety of aspects to it, both bilateral and international, to bring about a peaceful resolution of the situation in Darfur. It is something that has been under discussion for some time. It is not -- I wouldn't look at it as a direct outgrowth of the Secretary's meetings that he's been having today and yesterday in Darfur. I would look at it as a companion piece to that, as part of a tapestry, if you would, of diplomatic action taken by the United States and by others in the international community who are concerned about this situation, who want to do everything they can to bring about the fulfillment of the Government of Sudan's commitments. We believe that this action in the Security Council is a useful part of that effort and so we're putting it forth now.

QUESTION: I don't understand why you continue to sanction the members of the Jingaweit with a travel ban. They're probably not big tourists anyway. When is it going to -- I mean, really, how hard it that? Wow, you don't get to come to the U.S.

Does this resolution envision that sanctions could finally extend to members of the Sudanese Government as well? Your words clearly point out that you're blaming the government for arming these militias.

MR. ERELI: As I said, the resolution does establish a sanctions committee. The sanctions committee will look at the actions of individuals associated with the government-supported militia. It will make recommendations on whether to apply sanctions on those individuals or on any other groups or individuals associated with the atrocities in Darfur.

QUESTION: Including the government? You don't know.

MR. ERELI: I'll leave it at that.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that. The request or the promise to disband the government-supported militias, was there a timetable or a timeframe for that, or was their recommendation that they be integrated in the Sudanese army?

MR. ERELI: I'll leave it to the party to go over the details of the Secretary's discussions with the Sudanese.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Officials in this building, as recently as a week or so ago, were saying that getting a resolution through the Council was going to -- was a no-go because certain members of the Council -- I think China was one of them -- were looking after Sudan's interests. Do we detect a change in the Council? I mean, does this introduction of a resolution suggest that the climate is changing in the Council?

MR. ERELI: First of all, we're at a very preliminary stage in our discussions with the Council, so I wouldn't want to characterize reactions one way or the other, other than to note, with those who we've talked, we've gotten, I think, a constructive response.

The sense that we've gotten, having seen what's going on in Darfur, having had extensive conversations with the government, having had extensive consultations with the African Union, with the EU, with the Secretary General, who is very much involved in this, is that there is a humanitarian crisis of tragic proportions, that time is of the essence and that it is incumbent upon all of us who want to bring relief to the people of Sudan to act, and it is in that spirit that we are putting forward this resolution.

QUESTION: Given that time is of the essence, when do you intend to pursue this further? I mean, bring it to a vote?

MR. ERELI: We'll need to continue to have discussions for at least a few days. I would note that on Friday, Administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development Andrew Natsios will brief Security Council members on his trip to Darfur, in order to help inform their discussions and evaluations of the resolution. And I would note that next week, officials from the United Nations will be briefing on their trip to Sudan as well.

So the -- we're aware that the clock is ticking, and I would say momentum is growing. I wouldn't want to give you a timetable.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Change subject. Is there any chance that Secretary Powell holds a bilateral meeting with the North Korean Foreign Minister in the area?

MR. ERELI: We don't have anything new on that for you from what we've said previously, which is that final schedules on bilaterals have not been worked out, or if they have, they've been done by the party and I'm not aware of them. So I think they're in the best position to answer that question. But I'm not aware of a decision on that at this point.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. trying to have a bilateral meeting with the Foreign Minister of North Korea?

MR. ERELI: I would say that schedules are still being worked out. I wouldn't want to characterize it further than that.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Related to North Korea.

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi told reporters that he wants to normalize its relations with North Korea within two years. As one of the closest consulting members, do you have any comment on the decision made by Japan, the timeframe? And how confident are you that the North Korean nuclear issue will be solved within two years or maybe even earlier?

MR. ERELI: I haven't seen the Prime Minister's comments, so I really don't have any -- don't have any basis to respond to them. Obviously, Japan and North Korea have their own bilateral relationship and it is -- I don't have reason to comment on it, one way or the other.

What I would say is that we are working very closely with Japan through the six-party talks and through our informal trilateral consultations, as well as our -- as the other four in which we meet, including the strategic dialogue that you are aware of took place this week; that we share a strong convergence of views on the danger posed by North Korea's nuclear program and we are working together well and closely as partners in dealing with that threat. So we have no concerns on that score.

QUESTION: Back to Iraq?

MR. ERELI: One more?

QUESTION: Yeah, just a quick one. Do you have any plan to hold another trilateral meeting?

MR. ERELI: Nothing to share with you at this point.

QUESTION: Iraq.

MR. ERELI: Iraq?

QUESTION: Yes, sir. Quick question. Is the U.S. Embassy now fully operational with all of the staff in place?

MR. ERELI: The U.S. Embassy is fully operational. There are probably more people coming. I couldn't tell you what percentage of the full complement is there, but it's significant and it is certainly more than enough to get the job done.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up. When do you expect that a fully creden -- or the Iraqi ambassador to be fully credentialed here in Washington?

MR. ERELI: I don't have anything for you on that. I'd refer you to the Iraqi government for their plans.

QUESTION: A question about visas. Senator John Kyl wrote an op-ed in today's Washington Post that was quite critical of visa reform efforts so far in the wake of 9/11. He says it's still far too easy for a terrorist to get a visa to enter the United States. I'm wondering what your reaction to that is.

MR. ERELI: There were two editorials, actually, in The Washington Post today: one by Senator Kyl that said it's too easy to get a visa; and another by an educator who said it was too hard to get a visa and it was hurting our national interests by keeping students and scientists out of the country.

And I think the juxtaposition of these opinion pieces points to an issue that we've been trying to manage since September 11th, and that issue is, as Secretary Powell has described it, striking the right balance between secure borders and open doors.

What I would say to the pieces is that the Department of State has been working diligently and very seriously to, on the one hand, tighten the visa -- tighten the security of the visa process so that the wrong people don't get through, and at the same time, to address the needs of academic, scientific and business communities regarding the ability and facility for legitimate travelers to obtain visas and to come to the United States.

I think if you look at all that we've accomplished since September 11th, you'll see that we've made enormous strides in tightening up the system, as well as -- tightening up the system for those who pose a threat, as well as adapting our procedures to facilitate those who bring something to the United States and bring something to our economy.

Let me just give you a couple of examples. On -- in terms of tightening up the system and on the security side, we've, since September 11th, we've doubled the number of records that is in the Consular Lookout and Support Systems, or CLASS, we added 8 million records from the FBI, and we added almost 50,000 through the TIPOFF system. So, as a result, we've got a state-of-the-art, expanded, integrated database against which to check the names of these applicants.

We have significantly, I think, increased the need for personal interviews, and that was one of the big criticisms in the article. We have -- so that personal appearances for nonimmigrant visas is now much more standard practice. Limits, or waivers, for personal appearances has been greatly reduced. We've established written standards for interviews to achieve consistency. And, importantly, we've implemented mandatory interagency security review requirements for certain applicants.

Another thing that was criticized was the lack of training. We've expanded training. We've increased -- we've got -- we used to have a 26-day course for consular officers before going out to the field. Now we've got a -- we've added five days to that course, to include advanced interviewing techniques. We've also created new courses in advanced name-checking techniques for already experienced consular officers.

Finally, in the area of security, and something we, I think, take great pride in and I think shows the scope and impact of what we're doing, the majority of our posts overseas are ready, and by October, 2004, all of them will have -- will be able to collect digital finger scans from visa applicants. And the collection of this information, or what's called the biometric visa program, will allow us to check visa applicants against the Department of Homeland Security's database. It will provide Homeland Security officers at ports of entry means to verify whether the person traveling is indeed the person who issued the visa.

So, on the security side, we've done a lot. And I think a lot of what is in that -- in one of the editorials is rebutted by the facts of what we've done. On the other side of the coin, we've done a lot to try to make it -- try to make it, I think -- try to provide a more welcome, a welcoming environment and welcoming procedure for those people who come here.

We've tried to improve our technology, our communications and our process to make visa screening thorough and efficient. To go to some of the points raised in the article, for those people who have to get interagency reviews, 80 percent of them take less than 30 days. And in last fiscal year, only 2.2 percent of the applicants, or 212,000 people, had to go through an interagency security review.

Also, in terms of overall numbers, in the first five calendar months of 2004, visa applications increased by 12.6 percent, issuances increased by 16.1 percent, compared to the same period, and interestingly, we've also seen an increase in student visas.

So -- long answer, but only because -- (laughter) -- but only because it's a serious issue, and one that, frankly, we think is a very emotional one for people on both sides of the issue, those that want to protect America, but those that want to make the best of America open to others. And we share that -- we share that -- those feelings and we devote a lot of energy to trying to strike the balance.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? Senator Kyl said that in -- (laughter) --

MR. ERELI: Sure.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: The Senator -- you mentioned 26 days of training. Senator Kyl, in his commentary, said that he put the figure at less than two days for many consular officers, as far as screening applicants. Can you explain what this --

MR. ERELI: For screening -- well, there is -- any person in the U.S. Foreign Service who is to have a consular commission, which provides them the authority to perform consular duties, has to go through the 26-day course. Now that course is, I think, 30 days, 31 days, with this added stuff. So there is -- I couldn't tell you how much of that course deals with visa interviewing techniques. Maybe it's two days, maybe not.

But the point I wanted to make, and I made earlier, was that we have expanded the part of the course that deals with interviewing techniques, because we recognize that this is a critical part of the system, or a critical link or stage in the system, and that we want to make sure that our consular officers know what questions to ask and are able to detect evasion or, you know, other efforts on the part of the interviewee that would set off alarm bells. It's a subtle art. It's not something that, you know, you can have an objective questionnaire and come out with the right answer all the time, so that -- we want to make sure that our consular officers are aware of the importance of the issue, deal with it seriously and have the skills necessary to produce the right results.

Teri.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: Same subject.

MR. ERELI: Sure.

QUESTION: Did you have any answer for the Eastern European countries, and especially those who joined the NATO recently, that they not getting a favorable, also, treatment when it comes to issuing visa for their citizens?

MR. ERELI: I wouldn't say -- it's not a question of favorable treatment or unfavorable treatment. It's a question of applying the law and acting consistent with the legislation passed by Congress. And we apply the law and we apply the regulations fairly and equally and equitably across the board. Doesn't matter where you're from; the law's the law.

QUESTION: There was an article also about the Polish Prime Minister, that he made a complaint to President Bush about this subject, concerning the visas for the Polish citizens. So is there any answer to that article, that just addressed the problem of the Polish people but did not give an answer, actually, that they got from President Bush about it?

MR. ERELI: I'm not familiar with the article. What I would tell you is that we take our obligations under the law seriously, we follow the requirements of the law meticulously, and we are both sensitive to and understanding of concerns of our partners, that we do everything possible to make their ability to travel to the United States and visit in the United States easy and safe. And that's what guides our actions.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: [Inaudible] change subject? It looks like the U.S. is having trouble with France again, doesn't want to send the response force into Afghanistan. I believe 25 members think it's a good idea and one doesn't. They don't -- they are not happy with arrangements to train Iraqi police. They are complaining about the U.S. policy and Arafat again, and they told President Bush to mind his own business and not get involved with Turkey.

Do you care to address any and all of those?

MR. ERELI: Let me address -- I want to address the Turkey issue. I think our policy on Turkey is well known. It was, I think, expressed eloquently by the President, no real need to elaborate on that.

On the question of --

QUESTION: What about France? France's position on that is my question, not your position on Turkey.

MR. ERELI: Well, I'll leave the French to talk about the French position.

On the question of NATO in Afghanistan, I would note that all 26 leaders of NATO at the -- in their Istanbul communiqué earlier this week endorsed alliance plans for the International Security Assistance Force to help the Afghan Government with election security. NATO military planners are now working on the details of this mission, including specific numbers of troops and timing of deployment.

For our part, we certainly encourage all NATO allies and International Security Assistance Force partners to offer contributions to election security. We would expect allies to contribute to the plan for the election security support and we hope that all of our allies, including France, will support NATO and ISAF contributing as much as possible in support of these vital elections.

QUESTION: So you're completely brushing over any disagreement you may be having with the Government of France. Right now, you're saying there aren't any disagreements with France? He's been --

MR. ERELI: Well, I would note --

QUESTION: Chirac has been very vocal. I don't see how you could miss the comments.

MR. ERELI: I would note that the -- all of the NATO leaders endorse the Istanbul communiqué, Istanbul summit communiqué, calling for ISAF to help with election security, and that statement, I think, speaks for itself.

QUESTION: Well, does it bother you that he would tell President Bush to mind his own business on Turkey? It's not very friendly.

MR. ERELI: I don't have any characterization of those remarks. As I said, we -- it has long been our position that we are supportive of Turkey's candidacy to be a member of the European Union, and that's well known.

QUESTION: One more. Have you worked out any -- I don't know -- misinterpretations or disagreements over how the Iraqi police would be trained by NATO?

MR. ERELI: That is -- the details of that, it was agreed at the summit, would be worked out again by NATO planners. So I think that it's not yet been decided where -- where exactly the training would take place. I think we should have something on that in the near future. But it was agreed that NATO will provide police training. Where and when and how and who is being figured out by the experts.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Given that all 26 endorsed the ISAF plan, how do you explain President Chirac's comments? Or is he just grandstanding?

MR. ERELI: I'm not going to try.

QUESTION: Do you think there -- do you think -- do you see any fissure in U.S.-French relations?

MR. ERELI: Well, I think we had -- as I said yesterday, in response to this general line of questioning, we've come off of a series of three very high-profile, very intensive and very expansive summits which dealt with a broad range of issues that were very substantive and produced some, I think, historic initiatives, starting at Sea Isle, where you had the announcement of the Broader Middle East Initiative, you had announcement of development support for Africa, agreement on nonproliferation, as well as other issues, then going into the EU summit in Ireland, and followed by the NATO summit in Istanbul.

And before all of these, there was a lot of doubt and speculation about the ability of the allies to come together on a common purpose and a common agenda. And I think that all of those doubts were -- I wouldn't say all of these doubts, but I think that the results of these meetings should serve to dispel those doubts because what you have is broad and substantive agreement on meaningful initiatives that could not happen if there were serious differences between the allies.

We have put the differences of the past behind us and we are moving on and we are looking at, and engaging in, new and important ways to cooperate.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the sentencing of two Russian intelligence officers in Qatar to life in prison for assassinating a Chechen rebel leader?

MR. ERELI: I don't. I think we've spoken to this issue in the past. This is a subject that the Russian Government and the Qatari Government are engaged on and we leave it to them to determine how best to resolve it.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Middle East?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have any information about an upcoming visit by the Israeli Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, to Washington?

MR. ERELI: No, don't have anything on it.

QUESTION: Okay. Just a quick follow-up. With the deepened involvement of the Egyptians, almost replacing the U.S. involvement, are we likely to see more disengagement by the U.S. in this regard over the next few months, at least till after the election?

MR. ERELI: There always seems to be, especially as they draw closer, an attempt to connect what we're doing with regard to Israeli-Palestinian peace and the elections. Again, let me disabuse you of the notion that this is an electorally driven policy. This is a policy that's driven by our national interests and what we see as the interests of the region and our desire for peace between two long-hostile parties.

We are committed, election or no election, to do everything we can to help the parties settle their differences and arrive at a peaceful solution, based on the President's vision of two states living side by side. That remains our goal and that remains what we're committed to working on for as long as we're in the -- as the American Government.

As far as the Egyptians are concerned, again, I would not look at this as a zero-sum game. It's not as if, if you have one party or one group doing more, you have to have another group or another party doing less.

To the contrary, it is our view that in order to help all parties take advantage of the opportunities presented by the Sharon plan, there needs to be broad engagement by Israel, by the Palestinians and by their neighbors to help develop the capabilities, to help facilitate the implementation of that plan.

The role that the Egyptians have been playing has been important, has been constructive, has been positive. We expect it to continue. And it is very complementary, as opposed to a substitute for, what the rest of the parties, including the United States, are doing.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. ERELI: One more question.

QUESTION: Yes, please. The United Nations observers on the Golan Heights were -- their mission was renewed yesterday. And Secretary General Kofi Annan described the situation along the borders in that area, the Syrian-Lebanese borders, as very tense, because the Israelis also were supposedly -- they were starting to build two very large military posts along the borders between Lebanon and Israel, and that was not instigating any conflict within Lebanon.

MR. ERELI: The question.

QUESTION: Is the United States trying to monitor the situation and doing anything at this time to --

MR. ERELI: Let me get back to you. We'll take the question.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:10 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