*EPF501 09/17/2004
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, September 17
(Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Iraq, Vienna, Iran, Sudan, Taiwan, Greece/Cyprus, Germany, Venezuela, U.S. efforts to control drug trade, India) (7270)

State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli briefed the press September 17.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Friday, September 17, 2004
1:30 p.m. EDT

Briefer: Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman

LIBYA
-- Assistant Secretary Burn's Meeting in London
-- Consultations on Expanding Bilateral Agenda with Libya
-- Lockerbie Settlement/Pan Am 103 Families
-- Case of Bulgarian Medics

PAKISTAN
-- President Musharraf's Decision on Military Future
-- U.S. Visit Agenda

RUSSIA
-- Secretary's Comments on Terrorism Beyond Borders

IRAQ
-- Acceleration of Attacks by Insurgents
-- Deputy Secretary Armitage's Remarks
-- Secretary General Annan's Comments on Iraq War
-- Secretary Powell/Secretary General Annan Phone Conversation
-- Issue of Alleged Violations of International Law
-- Ambassador Danforth's Comments
-- Status of American Hostages

VIENNA
-- Discussions on Resolution/Draft Text

IRAN
-- Status of Commitments to IAEA on Centrifuge/Enrichment Process
-- IAEA Board of Governors
-- Issue of Consensus on UN Security Council
-- Comments by ElBaradei
-- Russian Commercial Contracts

SUDAN
-- Nigerian Talks
-- Effects of U.S. Determination of Genocide on Talks
-- Attacks on Sudanese Official
-- Visit by Andrew Natsios

TAIWAN
-- Donald Keyser Case/Read-out of Talks with Foreign Minister

GREECE/CYPRUS
-- Paralympic Games
-- Isolation of Turkish Cypriots

GERMANY
-- Reports on Arrest of American Citizen

VENEZUELA
-- Bilateral Relations

DEPARTMENT
-- Foreign Policy on U.S. Efforts to Control Drug Trade

INDIA
-- Under Secretary Grossman's Meeting with Foreign Secretary Saran

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

1:30 p.m. EDT

MR. ERELI: Greetings, everyone. Welcome to our last briefing of the week. I don't have any announcements, would be pleased to take your questions.

QUESTION: Can you enlighten us, as to Assistant Secretary Burns' meetings in London with the Libyans?

MR. ERELI: Assistant Secretary Burns had three hours of useful and productive meetings in London with senior officials today. This was part of his regular consultations on the subject of expanding our bilateral agenda with Libya. I would note, the last meeting that Secretary Burns had with the Libyans was in Tripoli in June 28th. Assistant Secretary Burns welcomed the progress that Libya has made in fulfilling its December 19 commitments to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and Missile Technology Control Regime-class missile programs.

Assistant Secretary Burns reiterated our support for the Lockerbie settlement and encouraged the resolution of other outstanding legal claims. He also underscored our outstanding concerns on terrorism. This is an issue which the United States looks forward to discussing further. Secretary Burns welcomed Libya's cooperation against global terrorist groups and expressed our appreciation for its efforts to open a humanitarian assistance -- humanitarian corridor of assistance to Darfur.

We also reviewed steps taken by the United States to facilitate trade and investment, and we continued our dialogue on human rights, including the plight of Bulgarian medics. They -- I guess that's what I have.

QUESTION: Okay. And when you talked about the other Lockerbie settlement and other outstanding issues, you're talking about the La Belle case, or is there something else?

MR. ERELI: That's among others, yeah. I would note that the subject of the Pan Am 103 escrow deadline did come up, and I know that's a subject of interest. What I can tell you is that, as always, we continue to do everything we can to support the Pan Am 103 families, but I don't have anything --

QUESTION: No, but on the -- you said other outstanding, I mean, setting aside for a second that the Lockerbie case is not yet done, the compensation, when you talk about other, are you talking about the compensation for the La Belle?

MR. ERELI: I don't have more details for you than that. I don't know. I don't know.

QUESTION: So your under -- okay. Well, then, can you read that again, then? Because you said, "We reiterated our support for Lockerbie settlement," and?

MR. ERELI: And encourage the resolution of other outstanding legal claims.

QUESTION: And you don't -- does that not imply --

MR. ERELI: It implies, but I can't -- I just don't want to confirm it for you without being absolutely sure that that's the case.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary -- go ahead, George

QUESTION: Did the question of an extension beyond September 22nd come up?

MR. ERELI: I don't want to go into the substance of it other than to say, as I just did, that we continue to work in support of the families. But I don't want to get into the details.

QUESTION: What happens in the absence of an extension?

MR. ERELI: You'd have to ask the Libyans and the lawyers. I don't know.

QUESTION: You said the subject came up of that deadline. Did the Libyans give you any reason to believe that they will take steps that would allow for the payment of some of those funds by the -- September the 22nd?

MR. ERELI: I would just say we had good discussions, but I wouldn't want to characterize them further.

Yes, Elise.

QUESTION: What about -- did the discussions center on asking them to extend the deadline?

MR. ERELI: Again, I'll just say we, as we have regularly in the past, consistently in the past, are working with determination on behalf of the interests of the families. We had good discussion. We did discuss this issue. We had good discussions, but I don't want to go into more detail than that.

QUESTION: On the -- do you want to follow this?

QUESTION: No. I just want to -- on the other issue, is there any progress in the case of the Bulgarian medics from your end or is it still --

QUESTION: Bulgarian and Palestinian, right?

MR. ERELI: Nothing -- yeah, exactly -- nothing that I have to report. I think clearly it's an issue that the international community has pushed front and center on the agenda, but I don't have any new developments to report to you.

QUESTION: Okay. And two very logistical things, is he coming back directly? Does he have any other stops on this trip? And were there Brits in that or was it just the two sides of this?

MR. ERELI: My understanding is he was with senior Libyan officials and American officials. I'm not aware of any British involvement. I'll have to check on his travel plans. I'm not sure.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: The Pakistani President Musharraf now, himself, has said in an interview with The Washington Post that he might renege on his commitment of December the 24th, I think, last year, where he said he would step down at the end of -- that he would give up, excuse me, his military role at the end of this year. Do you think that's a good idea?

MR. ERELI: Right. I checked on that, Arshad, and frankly, I don't know if that's a new quote or an old quote. Our information is that there is nothing -- there has been no new development on this issue since yesterday when a government spokesman said -- retracted statements to the effect that President Musharraf had decided not to leave the uniform of -- the military uniform. Our understanding is that this -- President Musharraf's decision on his military future has not been taken, but that there is a clear direction that he and Pakistan are committed to moving in, and we do not see any significant deviation from that commitment or that direction.

QUESTION: But wait, I mean, he, I thought, publicly announced a decision to give up the role at the end of this year. So that decision presumably has been taken. The issue is whether he has reneged or said he's going to go back on that.

MR. ERELI: Right. Exactly.

QUESTION: And you're --

MR. ERELI: I'm saying that we have no cause to believe, based on what has been said and done in the last several days, that there is any deviation from that commitment.

QUESTION: Just to follow. It's not the statement from the spokesman, it's from President or General Musharraf, himself. He said that 97 percent of Pakistanis favor that he should stay with his military uniform and he might do that. But my question is, now, since he is coming in the U.S. and coming to Washington, also, on the 22nd, do you think during his visit in New York and Washington this issue will be discussed or will come up on the table either with the Secretary of State or --

MR. ERELI: I won't predict what will or won't come up. What I can say is that our position hasn't changed. And I think it's well known. And if the subject does come up, we will reiterate our views on the subject.

QUESTION: What is your position?

MR. ERELI: Let me refer to what was said earlier. I don't have it right in front of me.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. ERELI: And I don't want to say anything that's not exactly what we've said before, so that people will not presume that we have a change in policy.

QUESTION: I have a question on terrorism, please.

MR. ERELI: Sure.

QUESTION: Secretary of State yesterday, he said that Russia has rights, its right to go beyond its borders to attack terrorism or terrorists. Is that stands only for Russia, he was speaking, including other countries like Israel and India, because they have the same problems as far as terrorism is concerned?

MR. ERELI: You --

QUESTION: And this is the first time the Secretary spoke about some country going out of -- beyond its borders.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, I would imagine you're referring to the Russian Times?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

MR. ERELI: I'd refer you to those comments. I think they were fairly -- I think they were fairly clear, fairly specific. There has been, I think, questions raised by the press about America's support for Russia in the wake of the Beslan tragedy, the aircraft bombing tragedies, and the tragedy of the subway bombings. And Secretary Powell, I think, was taking the opportunity to reiterate America's pain at Russia's loss and our steadfast support for Russia as it confronts the threat of terrorism, a threat that we all share and a threat that we have to cooperate in combating.

QUESTION: But does it -- one of my clarifications, really, does he stand with President Putin, who said that Russia will attack terrorists anywhere on the globe? That's Secretary of State --

MR. ERELI: Yeah, I don't have any further clarification for you on those remarks.

Yes.

QUESTION: Adam, does Secretary Powell believe that the insurgents in Iraq are quite obviously stepping up their violent attacks in order to influence the elections here against President Bush?

MR. ERELI: I think what is clear is that -- and our assessment is and it's been, I think, we've expressed very clearly, is that following the transfer of sovereignty, it is the aim of the insurgents to accelerate their attacks, to intensify their attacks, to show that the United States, the multinational forces, and the government of Iraq are incapable of securing the country and of protecting the country. And it is our firm commitment to confront that threat, to defeat that threat, and to set Iraq off on the course that the people of Iraq are looking for. As far as tying it to electoral timetables, you know, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: Well, the Secretary, Deputy Secretary Armitage, as you know, did do that today in Poland in comments that were later deleted from a State Department transcript, and he said quite specifically that it was a direct attempt to influence the elections against President Bush in the United States. Is there any intelligence or any assessment that you're aware of that backs up that assertion?

MR. ERELI: I think what we've, what this Administration has said is that terrorists who seek to do harm to the United States, who seek to do ill to the United States, we have information, we have indications that they will step up their activity the closer we get to the election. I'm not in a position to tie it to you, to the specific events that are going on in Iraq right now, but as a general proposition, that is something I think we've been very clear and very up front about.

QUESTION: Will Secretary Armitage amend his statements or apologize --

MR. ERELI: I don't know that there's a need to amend those statements. I don't see an inconsistency between what Secretary Armitage was saying and what Administration officials have said before.

QUESTION: Did you delete those remarks from the record?

MR. ERELI: I, you know, I'm not aware of that so I'll have to check on it. I don't see any reason why we should because there's nothing worth deleting. So that --

QUESTION: Could you check on that and research that?

MR. ERELI: I'll look into that and if -- anyway, I don't know that that's true.

QUESTION: Well, there was -- no, no, there was a conscious decision taken by someone, probably the embassy, I think, to remove the remarks, those specific remarks. I think the rationale, stated rationale was that they were immediately after the formal press conference ended. But still, it does seem a bit odd, since he did say them and they were reported.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, right. And so that's why I don't want to, you know, walk back from them or anything like that. I think, like I said, I don't think there's an inconsistency or anything that, that is -- how should I put it -- breaking new ground here.

QUESTION: Adam, sir, do you have any --

QUESTION: I'm sorry. Could I just ask -- you'll restore the transcript if you find it has been --

MR. ERELI: Yeah, let me just look into it to see what, see what happened.

QUESTION: Adam, do you have, sir, any message from the Sec--

MR. ERELI: Sorry.

QUESTION: Adam, sorry. Could you just follow up on this? I mean I, you say that there's no inconsistency, but I do not recall, other than a comment by -- well, I don't recall other Administration officials explicitly stating, as Deputy Secretary Armitage did, that they think the insurgency is directly related to the U.S. presidential election and to an effort to defeat President Bush. I think that is new and different.

MR. ERELI: I don't -- I'd have to look at the remarks, specifically, but I don't know that he said, "The insurgency writ large is connected to the American elections." I don't believe he said that. If you make the point that, look, those who are enemies of the United States, those who are practicing terrorism, and those that are doing it in Iraq, have an interest from their own twisted logic in influencing the U.S. elections, that is not consistent -- or that is consistent with the general proposition that we've made earlier that terrorists are likely to step up activities the closer we get to the elections.

QUESTION: Can I ask, as far as Iraq is concerned, do you have message for the Secretary General of the United Nations who said that the war against Iraq was illegal, also?

MR. ERELI: Yeah, I would point out that we addressed it yesterday. The Secretary called the Secretary General today. They talked -- they did mention this subject, as well as the elections in Iraq and the Sudan resolution. You know, and the point simply is, look, we've got great respect for the Secretary General. We clearly believe that -- we, and our coalition allies, clearly believe there was a firm legal basis for the actions taken. The past is the past. Let's look to the future. We've got a number of challenges and a number of opportunities in Iraq that the United -- that the multinational force, that the international community and the UN are working together to seize, and that we've got a very important week coming ahead of us in the UN, and we will work together in a spirit of partnership and cooperation.

QUESTION: Do you think UN is being misled by the country, those who doesn't like the United States or who are not --

MR. ERELI: I don't have any reason to think that.

QUESTION: Adam, it is all very well and good for you to say the past is the past and let's let bygones be bygones and all that sort of thing, but, you know, there is a large majority of UN members who agree, apparently, or seem to agree with the Secretary General, and would say that, you know, if this is a -- if, in fact, the Secretary General is right and it was illegal, that this needs to be taken up, and it's not simply something that the U.S. can sweep under the rug. You just don't -- you don't have any --

MR. ERELI: I don't think it's a question of --

QUESTION: The U.S. has no --

MR. ERELI: I don't think it's a question of sweeping it under the rug, and I don't think it's a question of taking up. It's a discussion that occurred in the past. We are, I think, very confident in our position and are very open and assertive about expressing it, and that I'm not aware of any sort of effort or interest in having some kind of public -- further public discussion about it.

QUESTION: So you don't think that allegations of past violations of international law are something that should be discussed or something that should be raised?

MR. ERELI: No, not in this -- we do not see a useful, productive purpose in rehashing old debates on this issue. And I don't think that -- I certainly don't think the Secretary General's advocating that. If other countries are that I'm not aware of, it certainly -- you know, that's their prerogative. But it's not a debate that we see as something that we're going to productively engage in.

QUESTION: Well, Adam, do you think -- I mean, obviously there's still some resentment on the part of the UN that it occurred. Do you think that this is governing in any way UN actions by the Secretariat or other members of the Security Council on --

MR. ERELI: No, to the contrary.

QUESTION: -- policies in Iraq?

MR. ERELI: Yeah, to the contrary, I would say, you know, since the end of hostilities in Iraq, you've seen the United States -- the United Nations come together to pass, I think, four unanimous Security Council resolutions on the way forward on Iraq that point out and codify the vital UN role, the vital role that the UN has in helping Iraq achieve stability and prosperity. You've got UN election experts in Iraq helping the country to prepare for elections, so you know, again, there was a disagreement in the past. That disagreement is in the past. The UN, the international community, have come together and are productively engaged in support of Iraq's future, and that's where our focus is. If others want to look at the past, fine, but we just, again, don't think that that's a productive way to go about helping Iraq and securing the interests of the international community.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary tell that to Secretary General Annan today, that he didn't think it's productive for him to raise things like this?

MR. ERELI: I won't go into the details. He certainly didn't go to the length that I went into. I think we just made the point that we've got a lot of good and important work ahead of us, and that's where I think we all agree the focus should be, and we are going to work together to accomplish our mutual goals.

QUESTION: Well, are you afraid that these kind of comments are emboldening the insurgents in any way? I mean, Ambassador Danforth's comments yesterday were that he shouldn't be saying anything like this. If he does have this opinion and he is going to say anything, he shouldn't be saying it right now. Do you think these comments are in any way making the insurgents feel they have legitimacy?

MR. ERELI: I didn't read Ambassador Danforth's remarks as suggesting that, and if -- I mean, all I can say is that's a matter for speculation, but if anybody does come to that conclusion, it certainly is misplaced, given the very clear statements of the United States and the government of Iraq that the insurgency will be confronted and will be defeated.

QUESTION: But Adam, (inaudible) Secretary General Kofi Annan objected to those resolutions on Iraq during those years, during that time?

MR. ERELI: Again, I don't see it as useful or productive to go back and revisit old debates. It's important to point out Resolution 1441 was adopted unanimously, declared Iraq in material breach, said that if there were further -- if it were found in further material breach, serious consequences would follow. That was a unanimous resolution. We believe that, as well previous resolutions, provided a firm legal basis for taking the action that was taken.

Yes.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. ERELI: New subject?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. ERELI: Okay.

QUESTION: Can you explain what happened in Vienna, why last night people were saying that the resolution would be tabled and acted upon today, and now there's a delay. Can you enlighten us as to why that happened?

MR. ERELI: I would say what is happening in Vienna, because as you suggest, discussions are -- or the process of discussing the resolution is continuing. Last night, the United States, the EU-3 and Canada and Australia agreed on the text of a -- a draft text of a new resolution. The plan was to present it for consideration by other board members today. That was done. The board adjourned -- the board members did discuss the draft today. They have adjourned and will meet again tomorrow to continue their discussions. We think that the text that we've worked at, I think, very -- we've worked at very diligently with our partners, is a good text. It shows the spirit of compromise and it keeps the pressure on Iran and sets up the November board meeting for important decisions.

QUESTION: Are you under the impression that there is opposition to this? Is that why -- I mean, as far as I understand, it was not debated at all today. It was -- you presented it, but you had --

MR. ERELI: Presented it and discussed it with various members.

QUESTION: But you had expected it to be acted upon today, no?

MR. ERELI: I don't know that that's the case. I think, you know, we've been through this process enough to know that you don't -- not to get too far ahead of ourselves. We agreed on a text with our EU partners, Australia and --

QUESTION: Canada.

MR. ERELI: -- Canada. We presented that draft text to others to say that -- to presume when the whole Board is going to agree on it, I think, is, again, getting out ahead of ourselves.

QUESTION: Adam --

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- with respect to Iran, is -- they are either trying things both politically, and if that doesn't work they are possible using (inaudible). In London, Abu al-Masari, you would like him extradited here, but the British say that they want to possibly bring him to trial. Is the problems associated with both Iraq and Iran going through the religious clerical, I guess, hierarchy, remain a problem, and then --

MR. ERELI: I'm not familiar with this issue.

QUESTION: Well, both al-Sadr with his Najaf fighting and now up in Sadr City, if they -- if Iran can't cause havoc one way, they're doing it, obviously, another. That's what I'm getting at.

MR. ERELI: Yeah. No, I think I wouldn't -- I'd be careful about making connections that aren't necessarily there. I mean, there is the issue of Iran before the IAEA, which is distinct from the issue of Iraq and what's going on with al-Sadr. And I just, I would look at those as distinct issues.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: On Sudan --

QUESTION: Could we stick with Iran for one more?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Has Iran, to your knowledge, made any kind of a new effort to stop its centrifuge or --

MR. ERELI: We haven't -- frankly, we have not seen anything that would lead us to believe that Iran has met its commitments to the IAEA with respect to its centrifuge program or its enrichment process. And that's the crux of the issue. They say they're going to do something, they don't do it, they come up with, you know, temporary pledges to do it and then they even break those. So I think what you'll see coming out of the IAEA Board of Governors is a very clear statement that, you know, enough is enough. You need to come clean, you need to satisfy the IAEA Board of Governors, once and for all, that you are meeting the commitments that you made in your meeting, what international treaties call for.

QUESTION: So it's what they do and not what they say?

MR. ERELI: Exactly.

QUESTION: Follow-on? Follow-on?

MR. ERELI: Heard that somewhere before.

Yes.

QUESTION: I don't think the current resolution includes -- draft includes any mention of the Security Council. Again, is that something that we're -- we've been willing just now to take off the table at this point?

MR. ERELI: I don't think it's an issue we're taking off the table. I mean, we've been clear that we think, you know, things have reached the point where that's something that needs to be seriously considered, seriously debated, should be, you know, probably should be before the Security Council. The issue is working it in terms of a consensus so that everybody else sees it that way and takes the actions necessary to do it. That's what the resolution was designed to do, that's the direction it's moving in, but I don't want to go into detail about what it says at this point.

QUESTION: But there's no consensus on the Security Council issue yet, is that safe to say, still, at this point?

MR. ERELI: I would say that it's an issue that we continue to push, but I don't want to speak for the whole board.

QUESTION: Adam?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: With respect to Mr. ElBaradei's report, he says -- or it seems in the report, in the newswires, there are some new signs of additional nuke work. Are they -- is he at odds with you? And also, any help from the Russians, with respect to the commercial contracts they have with the Iranians?

MR. ERELI: On the subject of the contracts, the Russians have those -- we've -- we're confident that the Russians are acting consistent with previous pledges to suspend fuel shipments to suspect reactors. On the subject of ElBaradei's comments, I didn't see those. I would note that, you know, the Secretary, the Director General presented a report for this Board of Governors meeting. It was a report that we welcomed, that we noted had important conclusions, and that we think provides the firm basis, strong basis for taking further action on Iran.

Yes.

QUESTION: Go back to Sudan. The Government and the rebels now say their talks have actually broken down, not just taken a recess, as Richard termed it. And they're actually blaming the U.S., saying that the genocide declaration gave the rebels more confidence to basically sabotage the talks.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, my understanding is that the talks were going to conclude today -- or actually, recess today and reconvene in early October. I don't have any information that that plan has changed. The Nigerians, under the leadership of President Obasanjo, have done a very -- have made good progress in working out a humanitarian protocol for the parties and working towards a security protocol.

Obviously, any suggestion that somehow the United States' determination of genocide was detrimental or had a negative impact to the talks, we would reject outright. I think what's important to do is to call it as you see it. Those are the facts that we were able to determine, and that was the only conclusion you can come to on the basis of them. It's up to the parties and the international community to deal with that reality.

And clearly, long-term peace is possible, as we've always said, only through a political solution between the warring parties, or the parties to the conflict. That's what the purpose of these talks is, and that's what's needed to stop the genocide.

QUESTION: So you think they're still taking a break of a couple of weeks and coming back.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: You haven't even seen press reports --

MR. ERELI: Oh, I've seen press reports all week. This is like the fifth day I've seen press reports that the talks -- that the rebels -- that one or the other parties is leaving, that the talks have broken down, that they're not going to restart. So I will tell you today the same thing I said to the same reports yesterday or the same thing -- the same reports the day before, that, no, they haven't collapsed. There was always a recess planned, and it is a recess because they're going to come back.

QUESTION: Adam, can you tell us anything concerning Darfur? Apparently, there was a dust-up in the Mornie camp, a refugee camp, and that an official working with Andrew Natsios of USAID witnessed a beating of a Sudanese official from Khartoum. That official wanted to bring complaints to Andrew Natsios, and hence, this dust-up.

MR. ERELI: Yeah. What I can tell you is that our Administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development Andrew Natsios was visiting local Sheikhs at the Mornie settlement in Darfur. In the course of the discussions he was having with those Sheikhs, an official of the Government of Sudan's Humanitarian Aid Commission was attacked.

I don't have further details for you on that. We certainly condemn this act of violence. We think it's important that those who -- we think it's important that basically full access be given to those visiting the camps so that people can find out what's happening, and attempts to prevent that are to be condemned and stopped.

QUESTION: Who attacked him? Who attacked the Government of Sudan official?

MR. ERELI: I'm not quite clear about that. I'd have to get back to you on it. I will take the question.

QUESTION: Question on Fiji?

MR. ERELI: Let's -- do you have more?

QUESTION: Well, I mean, did Mr. Natsios do anything? Was he in a position to do anything?

MR. ERELI: I think -- no, I don't think Mr. Natsios was in a position to do anything.

QUESTION: Did he witness it?

MR. ERELI: Yes, he did witness it.

Yes, Farah.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: But he did not try to stop it?

MR. ERELI: I'm not sure that he was in a position to intervene.

Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I was hoping you could just give us a sense of whom from the State Department might be going up to the UN next week and what --

MR. ERELI: I'll tell you, we are -- we'll try to make somebody available for you to talk about that, okay?

QUESTION: Question on Fiji?

QUESTION: You don't want to say that the Secretary's going to the UN?

MR. ERELI: Well, there's one guy that's going, yes -- (laughter) -- obviously, the Secretary. But I mean, this -- we will have, at various times during the week, the full range of senior officials in New York, but I will -- we might have more we can tell you in more detail later on in the day.

QUESTION: Fiji?

MR. ERELI: Let's go to this lady.

QUESTION: We learned that the Secretary spoke to Chinese Foreign Minister yesterday. Can you provide us the readout of their discussions, especially, whether they discussed Mr. Keyser's case?

MR. ERELI: They did not discuss Mr. Keyser's case. They discussed the draft resolution on Sudan that's currently being discussed at the Security Council in the United Nations, and ways that the U.S. and China can work together in the context of this resolution to keep up the pressure on the Government of Sudan and stop the killing.

QUESTION: And have you heard anything from the Chinese, like Beijing or the (inaudible) here?

MR. ERELI: No, not that I have to report.

QUESTION: Did they discuss his trip, potential trip to China next month?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: Is he going, or --

MR. ERELI: Don't have anything to report for you on that.

QUESTION: The six-party talks, did they talk about that?

MR. ERELI: Nope, they talked about the Sudan resolution.

QUESTION: They didn't talk about six-party talks?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: Did they talk about the weather? (Laughter.) Did -- on the subject of the six-party talks, do you have any better understanding of where the North Koreans -- from the Chinese or from anyone else -- on what the North Korean position is?

MR. ERELI: No, I really --

QUESTION: No? Okay.

MR. ERELI: I don't have anything new on that.

Yes, sir, in the back.

QUESTION: Any comment on the Paralympic Games, which start today in Athens, after September 28th?

MR. ERELI: I would note that the Paralympic Games, the 12th Paralympic Games, which begin in Athens tonight, is the second biggest sporting event in the world after the Summer Olympics, and showcases the world's most elite athletes with physical challenges. It is our pleasure that Ambassador Tom Miller and his wife will be leading the official U.S. delegation to the opening ceremonies, and hundreds of U.S. athletes will be competing in more than 20 sporting events.

QUESTION: Mr. Ereli, according to reports from Athens, Ankara and Nicosia, Ambassador Tom Miller opened talks with the Greek Minister of Defense Spilios Spiliotopoulos, about the disarmament of 950 Greek soldiers in Cyprus, based on the fact that they are possessing illegally American weapons against the U.S. law. But the Greek Foreign Minister (inaudible) Minister Petros Molyviati, to his credit, was resistant to this effort. My question: Do you know if Mr. Miller started these talks on his own initiative, or under instructions from the Department of State? And number two, what about the 35,000 Turkish soldiers who invaded them in 1974 using illegal American weapons and still possessing them until today? Of course, it (inaudible) a real threat to the entire Republic of Cyprus.

MR. ERELI: I'm not aware of the talks that you raise. I will look into it and see if we have any -- if we have anything to share with you on it. As far as the issue of Turkish troops in northern Cyprus, I think that's an issue that we've spoken to. I don't have anything new to add.

QUESTION: Did you complete the review of your foreign policy in order to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots?

MR. ERELI: That is ongoing.

QUESTION: Excuse me?

MR. ERELI: That issue is ongoing. And I wouldn't look for a definitive end date. It is a continual process. I mean, it's not something -- you don't end the isolation completely one day, you just sort of -- you move along in that direction. So don't look for a final endpoint to that.

QUESTION: One more on Cyprus. In the U.S. House of Representatives, the Resolution H.R. 5071 of September 14th is pending on regarding American-owned property in the Turkish occupied Cyprus, claims which will enable U.S. citizens who own property there to seek financial remedies with either the current inhabitants or their land or the Turkish Government. What is the DOS position on that issue?

MR. ERELI: I'm not familiar with the law, so I really couldn't give you a position.

QUESTION: Can you take this question, because it's --

MR. ERELI: It's a congressional action, so I'd refer you to the Congress on it. It's not something that we necessarily have a position on.

QUESTION: But this affects your foreign policy vis-��-vis to Cyprus.

MR. ERELI: Well, that is certainly a prerogative of Congress.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can you tell us anything about an American, who was a translator, who has apparently been arrested in Germany for trying to sell military documents?

MR. ERELI: The limited thing that I can tell you is that we have seen reports that an American citizen was arrested in Germany for trying to sell NATO information. Our consulate in Frankfurt is looking into these reports.

QUESTION: Any -- can you say who -- what other country might have been involved?

MR. ERELI: I don't have more information than that.

QUESTION: He was arrested by the Germans, or?

MR. ERELI: I presume so, but I wouldn't -- all I have is that he was arrested in Germany.

QUESTION: Can you find out if the rearrested him or they --

MR. ERELI: I will, yeah, sure.

QUESTION: There were some reports that we have seen --

QUESTION: Your wire has it, Arshad.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, according to reports --

QUESTION: That means it's right.

MR. ERELI: I will check and see what we can say on this subject further.

QUESTION: Fiji.

MR. ERELI: Fiji?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

MR. ERELI: I don't have an answer, though, I don't think.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: This may be a message for this desk here at the State Department, desk on Fiji or the U.S. Embassy in Fiji, that the Government of Fiji has appointed ambassador, a Fijian Ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Rabuka. But there is a great opposition and protest in New York by the Indian-American groups because he was involved in hundreds of murders against the Indian Fijians in Fiji. So the group has written letters to the Secretary of State and also to the President -- the opposition, so what -- do you have any comments about --

MR. ERELI: I don't -- I'm not familiar with the issue, so I don't have anything to share with you at this time. I'll check and see if we do have anything, but I'm not sure that we would.

Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the American hostages in Iraq?

MR. ERELI: The update is that our consular bureau officials have been in contact with the family of the two Americans. We remain in contact with local authorities in Baghdad. We are doing everything possible to assist Iraqi investigators. We still do not have any claims of responsibility or demands that have been received.

QUESTION: Adam, one more on India, please.

MR. ERELI: I'm sorry. Let's go to somebody else.

Sir. I'll go to you, and then you.

QUESTION: Me?

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: After the Venezuelan recall referendum, various figures in the Venezuelan Government, beginning with Chavez, expressed the hope that they would now be able to have better relations with the U.S. However, the recent actions regarding the withdrawal of any support for funds for the traffic in women and human rights has provoked a outcry, including a rather unusual denunciation by the Venezuelan Ambassador here of President Bush's partiality, fairness. And now, the Venezuelan Ambassador to the OAS is demanding equal treatment. And there is a report going around that Chavez may show up for the September 23rd inauguration, or rather, taking over, by Miguel Angel Rodriguez of the Secretary Generalship. Do you have, can you tell me what Venezuela -- what U.S. policy towards Venezuela is following the referendum?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. The -- American relations with Venezuela will be determined by a joint, by joint -- what kind of -- or will be based on the fundamentals of commitment to democracy, to transparency, commitment to working -- commitment to being able to work together to promote free, open trade and development of energy resources, cooperation on security issues. Those will be the bases for U.S.-Venezuelan relations.

The issue that you raise of trafficking in persons certainly goes to the issue of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is an issue that we follow carefully around the world. We are mandated by Congress to report on activities related to the trafficking in persons, and to act against those states that are complicit in this crime or consistently fail to take any action to stop it. That is not targeted against any one country. It is an effort that we engage in worldwide, pursuant to an act of Congress.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. ERELI: I'm sorry. We have one lady in the back who's been waiting.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. ERELI: All right.

QUESTION: Would you have any information regarding the visit of President Chavez to Bush?

MR. ERELI: I do not. I do not.

QUESTION: Would he be a welcome guest?

MR. ERELI: I think you -- I'm not aware of any visit that he is planning to make here.

QUESTION: Could he come?

MR. ERELI: You know, that's a hypothetical. I just don't want to engage in hypotheticals. I'm not aware of any plans.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. The major list of drug-producing and drug-trafficking countries includes countries with which the U.S. has good relationship, including Mexico, Pakistan and Afghanistan. What, in fact, can the United States do to curtail the worldwide drug trade?

MR. ERELI: To what? Curtail?

QUESTION: The worldwide drug trade.

MR. ERELI: I think there's quite a bit we can do and we are doing in working in cooperation with our partners, including the countries that you mentioned, to control the trafficking of these narcotics, to control the production of these narcotics, to move against those responsible for them and to provide alternatives to the production of these narcotics. And this is a huge question and it's a huge part of our foreign policy to cooperate with countries that share our view that these -- that this, that the production and distribution of these drugs is a threat to all of our societies.

QUESTION: One more question on India. In recent weeks there have been many visit from India, like parliamentary groups and now Mr. Saran, Foreign Secretary is here. He was in the State Department. What's going on between the U.S. and India now and why are so many visits now?

MR. ERELI: Well, the United States -- as you know, the United States and India have a very close and strengthened relationship. I think the event that you referred to today is a good example of that. Under Secretary Grossman met with his Indian counterpart, Foreign Secretary Saran, in the -- to discuss the next steps in our strategic partnership. They reviewed progress made to date since the signing of that important agreement earlier this year, and they agreed to expand cooperation in three areas: Civilian nuclear activities, civilian space programs and high-technology trade. In addition, we agreed to expand our dialogue on missile defense. So I think what this shows is a growing relationship, both in terms of the number of issues we're dealing with, the importance of the issues, and the strength of the cooperation and the traffic that you see between New Delhi and Washington is a reflection of that.

QUESTION: Will it expand beyond what has already been expanded to earlier?

QUESTION: Or is this what you guys have announced before?

MR. ERELI: This is to look at these issues more closely and go further into them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:20 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