A full review of U.S. aid - political and humanitarian - is still underway at the State Department, according to deputy spokesman Adam Ereli. While there likely will not be a grand announcement similar to the EU's move, it may be some time before decision are made. One thing is fairly clear... the acceptance by Hamas of $250 million in aid from "the world's leading sponsor of terrorism" (Iran) isn't sitting well with Condi & Co. It sends "a pretty clear signal."
Absent from discussion save one question at the very end of the briefing was the IAEA report on Iran. Most of the briefing - as it pertains to the Middle East - focused on Hamas. Breakdown of the session plus the full text below the fold.
STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR BRIEFING
BRIEFER: J. ADAM ERELI, DEPARTMENT DEPUTY SPOKESMAN
STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ROOM, WASHINGTON, D.C.
12:55 P.M. EST, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006
ON THE MOSCOW - HAMAS MEETING:
Q It's now been announced by Russia that Sergey Lavrov, the foreign minister, will be hosting -- the one welcoming Hamas to Moscow. Does this bother you? Does it give them a little bit more of a heralded reception than you'd prefer?
MR. ERELI: Well, as we've said from the beginning, the Quartet made its views clear, in its statement of January 31st, about what was expected of any reliable partner for peace. And in discussions with the Russians and others, it's been, I think -- we're all on the same page in terms of what the message to Hamas needs to be.
Q It doesn't bother you at all that Lavrov will be --
MR. ERELI: They're going to -- they're -- they -- they're going to make their sovereign decisions. We think it's important that if one does meet with Hamas officials, then one deliver a strong, firm message that the only way forward is to recognize Israel, to accept agreements entered into by the Palestinians, and to renounce violence.
ON THE REQUESTED $50 MILLION FROM THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY:
Q The 50 million --
MR. ERELI: Yes, the 50 million. We answered this -- asked this question yesterday; I don't have an update. We've asked for it back. We've been -- the Palestinian Authority has said that they are going to return it. The modalities for that are being worked out. We don't have it yet, but we expect to have it in due course.
ON U.S. AID TO THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY:
Q And the business of an announcement as to US aid to Palestinians -- humanitarian, presumably --
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm. Right.
Q -- is that in the offing soon?
MR. ERELI: I don't know if I'd say an announcement's in the offing. We have stated quite clearly our policy of supporting the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people.
We will execute that policy by looking at our assistance programs and determining how we can move forward to both be responsive to the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people while at the same time recognizing the limitations of what we can do with respect to a foreign terrorist organization that is in the government of the Palestinian Authority.
Q Initially when the review was announced, it was said that within a week or two the results of the review would be made public. Are you now saying that the way the world will find out what the U.S. has decided to do is by looking for people carrying U.S. checks or something?
MR. ERELI: No. I think that clearly what --
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. ERELI: -- clearly what we've done and what we're doing is trying to develop a set of criteria about what's humanitarian, what falls outside of the scope of that activity, and what are the facts on the ground that -- what are the facts on the ground and how do they relate to the criteria we've established.
If you look at that, it's very hard to foresee a situation where we're going to be making a big announcement one day that says, "Okay, now, everything that we're doing, it falls on this side of the line or that side of the line," because it is an iterative process, it's an evolutionary process, it's related to what are the facts on the ground, which are changing.
So the process of the review is well under way. There are meetings and discussions and work being done to assess what we're doing now, how that relates to criteria we're establishing, and what are the implications for future activity based on events that haven't yet taken place?
So that's why I would discourage you from expecting some big announcement at some point of time. We will be, obviously, making funding decisions and you will hear about funding decisions, I would expect, on different occasions as those occasions are being -- as those decisions are being made, but that's the way I would describe the process and that's what I would look for in the future, is discrete funding decisions announced publicly based on facts on the ground as they exist.
Q Program by program.
MR. ERELI: Yes.
Q All right. Well, we didn't start this. I mean, we're just bystanders. You guys announced a review. You said the results will be -- nobody expected an item-by-item, I don't think, announcement, expected a general statement of principle.
And the secretary has pretty much stated the principles already, which one newspaper, we discovered the other morning -- but I think what we expecting was -- and I guess we're wrong now, you've changed your mind --
MR. ERELI: No, I don't think --
Q -- is some general statement of -- I don't care. I have no stake in this. I just, you know, keep --
MR. ERELI: I think you're overinterpreting.
Q I'm interpreting --
MR. ERELI: I think you're -- I think you're overinterpreting.
Q Okay.
MR. ERELI: And what we've done -- we've done what we said we're going to do, and -- which is take a good look at what our programs are, what are criteria for assistance is, what the restrictions of U.S. law are, what our policy objectives are and to come to some conclusion about what's -- what kind of activity, what kind of programs are -- meet our benchmarks, are consistent with our policy and what activities are outside of that.
And as events on the ground evolve, we will be making decisions on that basis.
Q Fine.
MR. ERELI: And there's not one specific endpoint in that process. It is continuous. So where we were two and a half -- where we are now is significantly farther along than we were two and a half weeks ago. But don't look for a definitive announcement of a specific point in time, nor did we ever say there was going to be one.
Q I think you did, but I'd have to check the record.
Was it -- but don't expect -- either are you saying sort of a price tag, like the European Union just issued --
MR. ERELI: You know, Barry, at this point, I don't want to give you false expectations, which you seem to have.
Q You think I'm wrong, huh?
MR. ERELI: I think you're overinterpreting --
Q You don't think we were led to believe that a review is under way, and within a week or two, the results of the review will be discussed?
MR. ERELI: Well, I really don't want to argue the point. I think I've made --
Q Oh, no --
Q Adam, you said we have done what we said we were are going to do. Does that mean you've finished the review?
MR. ERELI: We -- no. We've said we're going to undertake a review. We have undertaken a review.
Q Okay.
MR. ERELI: That review continues, and there are different phases of the review. We have moved along in the phase where we're saying, "Okay, what is humanitarian? What is political?" Have we finished that? No. But we've moved along in that, and we will apply that criteria to projects and to assistance based on facts on the ground, which are still evolving.
Q Okay. So you haven't --
Q You say projects, so --
MR. ERELI: And assistance.
Q I know what assistance is and humanitarian is. So still under discussion, still being entertained is assistance to the Palestinian infrastructure? Or is that different from a project?
MR. ERELI: I would say there are projects that assist Palestinian infrastructure. Those projects are going to be assessed based on the criteria of humanitarian, political, above the bar, below the bar.
Q And this somehow will be different from what's been going on?
MR. ERELI: I would -- obviously, as we've made clear, we're not going to give money to a foreign terrorist organization.
And that injunction is going to apply to everything we do with the Palestinian Authority, and everything we do with the Palestinian Authority is going to be evaluated on that basis. That evaluation is continuing.
**
Well, wherever the money comes from, will you take it into -- will the U.S. take it into account so far as measuring its own contributions? Even if it comes from --
MR. ERELI: I don't understand the hypothetical.
Q Well, if it comes from despicable sources, sources you don't like, it's money, and presumably it will help the Palestinian government. Does that ease -- not that you like it, but does that ease the issue as far as the U.S.'s role in being of help is concerned?
MR. ERELI: I'm not following you.
Q He's saying like -- you're saying okay, good, the EU has given this much, Iran has given that much --
Q If I win the lottery, I won't ask for a pay raise tomorrow, okay? If Hamas wins the lottery of getting huge checks from countries you don't particularly like and would rather they didn't deal with -- didn't have anything -- any meddling role in the area --
MR. ERELI: Right. Right.
Q -- doesn't that count against -- doesn't it mean you have less to think about, so far as helping the Palestinians?
MR. ERELI: You know, I really can't --
Q Too far fetched?
MR. ERELI: I just -- it's too speculative a question.
I think the best way to understand this is, the United States, the Quartet are clear; assistance to the Palestinian Authority needs to be measured against that government's commitment to basic principles: renunciation of terrorism, recognition of Israel and acceptance of agreements that the Palestinians have entered into.
That's what we are -- that's what we're going to do. That's what we would look to the international community to do.
And the goal of all that is to -- should there be a Hamas-led government, the goal of all that is to move Hamas in a direction that is positive, as opposed to negative, positive meaning a -- take those steps that make it a reliable partner for peace, so that we can all go about -- get about -- move on to the real business at hand, which is negotiating a Palestinian state.
ON IRANIAN AID TO A HAMAS GOVERNMENT:
Q The political leader of Hamas announced that Iran is promising to contribute 250 million to make up for any cuts by the U.S. and the European Union.
MR. ERELI: And your question is?
Q What's your reaction?
MR. ERELI: What do I think about it?
Q What -- what --
MR. ERELI: Again, our position I think is pretty clear. Hamas has a choice to make, it is a choice to -- basically which foot it wants to lead with. Does it want to lead with the political foot or does it want to lead with the terrorism foot? If it wants to lead with -- if it wants to have its feet planted on the side of politics, then it needs to renounce terror, it needs to recognize Israel, and it needs to accept agreements entered into by the Palestinians. If it wants to put its feet in the camp of terror, fine. Take 250 million from the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. That would send a pretty clear signal.
Our view is, and our hope is, and I think our diplomacy is geared towards getting Hamas to make the right choice, to take its foot out of the camp of terror and put them both firmly in the camp of peace and negotiation and, I think, respectability in the international community.
**
Q Adam, how can you really blame them for turning -- or expect them to turn down $250 million when they don't have enough money to pay salaries now?
MR. ERELI: I would say that --
Q Even if there is a political will to change, to evolve, it's not going to happen overnight, and in the meantime they're broke.
MR. ERELI: Well, this is the conundrum of governing, is that one -- you know, it's one thing to be in the political opposition; it's another thing to be in elected office. And when you're in elected office, you are elected to govern responsibly. And you have to make decisions, and you have to be held accountable to your people.
Q And you have to pay salaries.
MR. ERELI: And the fact of the matter is, you've got responsibilities. Salaries in running a government is one of them. Well, also renouncing terror is one of them.
So the decisions you have on all these counts have consequences, and what we're saying is, we're not going to fund a terrorist organization. We want to help the Palestinian people. We're going to continue to find ways to help the Palestinian people, no matter what Hamas decides.
ON HAMAS:
MR. ERELI: If they decide -- if they don't change their policy on terror, we'll find ways to fund the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people without giving money to Hamas. If they -- we would hope they choose to renounce terror and to recognize Israel, and that would mean that they're -- they go down a different path.
But as we keep getting back to, the choice is Hamas.
Q Yeah, but I mean, just to follow up, I mean, as Teri said, it's going to take a long time, and they're not -- I mean --
MR. ERELI: They -- they're --
Q No, they want to be -- yes, a government has to be responsible international partner, but their accountability is to the Palestinian people, not to the United States. And so, you know, what does it matter where they get their money from if they're delivering the goods and services that they were democratically elected to provide for the people?
MR. ERELI: I don't know how to make it any more simple. They're -- Hamas is obviously accountable to the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people elected Hamas with certain expectations. It is our view that those expectations did not include waging a campaign of terror against Israel.
Hamas needs to clarify the situation: are they a terrorist organization, or are they a reliable peace partner? You can't be both. One or the other. And your decision, Hamas, is going to have consequences for you internationally, and for the Palestinian people as well.
So we look to them to make the right choice, and to make the choice based on, obviously, what the Palestinian people want. And what do the Palestinian people want? They don't want war with Israel. They don't want continued violence. They don't -- they want peace, and they want a state of their own.
Q So why can't --
MR. ERELI: And the way to do that -- the way to do that is to recognize Israel, renounce terror, and negotiate based on previous agreements. And if they do that, great, we've got a way forward. If they don't do that, the United States is not going to just roll over and accommodate a terrorist organization.
Q Okay, but why -- if you say that, if you say that the Palestinian people --
Q (Off mike.)
Q Let me -- let me follow up.
If you say the Palestinian people elected Hamas because they want peace, because they want certain things, why can't you trust the Palestinian people to not re-elect Hamas if they don't do those things? And --
MR. ERELI: And in the meantime, we will base our actions on what choices Hamas makes -- as an elected government.
ON THE SOLVENCY OF THE INTERIM PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT:
Q A very quick one. There are a lot of estimates floating along -- floating around how much longevity can be expected of the Palestinian Authority. Two weeks? Three weeks?
MR. ERELI: Please. Another -- another speculative question.
Q Well, Wolfensohn, you know, is having anxiety fits.
MR. ERELI: There are --
Q I wonder what the view is here, how long can they hang in there, do you think?
MR. ERELI: The choice is Hamas'.
Q No, no, no. This interim.
MR. ERELI: The interim government? As I said yesterday, we will continue working with the international community to ensure that the interim government of the Palestinian Authority has the resources it needs to continue functioning.
ON THE IAEA REPORT ON IRAN:
Q What about Iran?
Q Have you seen the report? Is that what you want? (Light laughter.) Ding-ding-ding!
Q You want to hit him again?
MR. ERELI: Well, let me just -- let me just say we have seen the report, the director-general's report to the board of governors on Iran. We think that that report makes -- confirms what we've been saying for a long time, that basically Iran is not cooperating with the international community, Iran continues to move forward with an enrichment program, and that there remain serious and significant unanswered questions about the relationship of that program to military activity.
So I think it clearly shows why the international community is concerned. On February 4th the international community asked the board of governors, asked Iran to take certain steps. It clearly has not done that. And it will form a useful basis for discussion in our meetings at the Security Council.
ON EXTRADITION OF A U.S. MARINE IN LEBANON:
Q Yeah. There was a publication -- a Lebanese publication reported recently that during her visit there, that Secretary Rice requested the extradition of several suspected terrorists and a Marine corporal who had deserted. Can you comment on that? And has there been a response from Lebanon on that?
MR. ERELI: Well, first of all, we don't have an extradition treaty with Lebanon. Second of all, you know, I saw that report about Corporal --
Q Hassoun.
MR. ERELI: -- Hassoun. I'd note that this is a question of military justice. I'd refer you to DOD for the facts on that case. I'd say that as a general proposition, it's the position of the United States that unlawful fugitives from justice should be returned to the United States -- should return to the United States to face their accusers.
Q But there has been -- has there been a formal request made, and has Lebanon responded to that request?
MR. ERELI: I don't have any -- I don't have anything on that for you.
Q Okay. And how -- how did -- how did Hassoun end up -- well, if he did up in this group of terrorists, why -- why him?
MR. ERELI: That's why I'd refer you to DOD. I mean, he's a military guy.
FULL TEXT:
MR. ERELI: Hello, everybody. I'd be happy to start with your questions. (Pause.) Peter.
Q Yeah. Adam, today the Taiwan authorities actually made official, I guess, their abolition of this body providing guidelines for reunification. The Chinese are being very bellicose about this. Does the United States really think that this is business as usual?
MR. ERELI: All of that's news to me. As far as we're -- where we were yesterday is where we are today, which is that the Taiwanese have made it clear that this body is not being abolished, that they are -- they have reaffirmed their commitment not to take unilateral steps to alter the status quo, and to honor the inaugural pledges. And so, as far as we're aware, there's no change to the situation as it was yesterday.
Q Are you at all concerned about what the Chinese seem to think, that there is a change in the situation? Are you worried about their rather aggressive statements about this?
MR. ERELI: The United States is -- it's concerned generally about the -- any actions that heighten tension across the straits. And that's why we continue to emphasize, number one, our consistent policy with regard to this issue based on the three communiques in the Taiwan Relations Act as well as the need for dialogue and call on both sides to take concrete steps in that direction.
Q Are there any plans for any contacts with the Taiwan authorities or with the Chinese or anybody on this issue?
MR. ERELI: We have regular and ongoing contacts with both countries.
(Lowers podium.) This is way too high.
Q That's cool!
Q Wow!
MR. ERELI: I couldn't see you! (Laughter.)
Q Now a level vision everywhere!
MR. ERELI: Oh, yes. Start over. It's like this.
Q Do you want to start the briefing over? (Laughter.)
Q You can go back out and try again!
MR. ERELI: We have regular and ongoing contacts with both sides on the issue urging them to, again, refrain from unilateral acts, reminding them of our position with regard to the importance of dialogue, and our preference for an approach that avoids provocative steps or avoids unilateral actions.
Q Just one last one, if I may. But just reading the transcript yesterday -- I'm sorry I wasn't here -- but there seemed to be confusion exactly what the Taiwan authorities have done with the Chinese words and the words that you were using. Is anybody actually reaching out to the Taiwan authorities to try to get clarity from them what their intentions are in this move?
MR. ERELI: I don't think there's -- I don't think there's confusion on our part. Again, our understanding is that President Chen did not abolish the National Unification Council.
Q Can I follow on that subject?
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm. Sure.
Q Even though Chinese President Hu said something yesterday, but, I mean, a lot of observers said that so far, China has reacted relatively calmly.
MR. ERELI: That's not what your colleague said.
Q Well, I mean -- anyway. I'm just wondering what's your interpretation of China's calmness? And also, the spokesperson of China's Foreign Ministry pointed out yesterday that the U.S. and China have been communicating on this subject. So my question is, has this incident actually increased the understanding between Beijing and the U.S. on this -- when it comes to Taiwan?
MR. ERELI: Well, the United States has a regular and good dialogue with China on a full range of issues, including the issue of Taiwan. So that's a -- I would say a regular feature of our bilateral dialogue.
And as far as Chinese reaction to these latest moves, I don't have any characterization of that, other than to restate for you what our position is, and which I think you know very well, and to reiterate for you that we think it's important that both sides take steps to enhance dialogue and certainly to refrain from unilateral actions.
Q Have you -- during your conversation with Beijing, have you reassured them the U.S. is (firm on ?) the one-China policy, things like that?
MR. ERELI: In our -- in our private discussions, we make the same points that I'm making publicly.
And I think we made clear again our policy that we do not support Taiwanese independence, and we oppose unilateral actions.
Yeah.
Q Change the subject? On Sudan, the AU has postponed its meeting until March the 10th to discuss the rehatting of a force incident?
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.
Q And this is apparently the Sudanese and others to get there in time. There were some logistical problems. Do you think that they're dragging their feet on getting a rehatting of the forces, that it'd be the sort of tactics to prevent a new force from taking over for a while, or how -- are you disappointed that there's a delay, or -- ?
MR. ERELI: The AU clearly has an important role to play in this -- in this effort. They've been a leader in bringing a degree of peace and stability to Darfur. Although obviously the situation is not satisfactory, that's not, frankly, through any fault of the AU, it's because there continues to be a political conflict that we need to get at -- get to the root of. So the question before us is how do we -- how do we prevent further escalation of violence, how do we create an environment in the -- in Darfur that allows humanitarian needs to be met, that rolls back the violence, and that provides a -- an environment that is conducive to a political settlement between the parties to the conflict.
As I said before, the AU has been instrumental in that effort to date, and they will continue to be an indispensable partner in the diplomacy and in the ultimate solution. To that end, it's important that the AU meet and discuss and, we would hope, endorse the rehatting. They've done that already as -- in terms of the AU peace -- the Peace and Security Council -- that's what it's called: the Peace and Security Council. We would -- it was expected that there'll be a further formal endorsement of that. We're still looking forward to that. The question of scheduling I'd leave it to the AU to comment on. Obviously, from our point of view, the sooner we can move forward on this the better because, as we keep reiterating, people are dying in Darfur, and the need for action is now.
Q And not only are people dying in Darfur, but in the -- in Chad, in that region there, things are really deteriorating.
MR. ERELI: Yes. And that's been a -- that's been, again, an area of concern for us for some time. The situation in Darfur as a whole is obviously -- is obviously bad.
It's particularly bad in western Darfur, and that is because there has been a -- over the last weeks and even months, there's been an upsurge in violence as a result of increased rebel activity by both Sudanese and Chadean rebels, increasing activities by both Sudanese and Chadean forces, and an increase in banditry and general lawlessness.
So you've got a special case in western Darfur, and frankly, there's plenty of blame to go around for everybody. But as is -- as we've seen in the past, the real victims of this are the innocent men, women and children who just want to go about leading their lives in peace, and get caught up in senseless and wanton violence. And that's why I think it's an awareness of that situation and the fragility of vulnerable populations that gives added urgency to our efforts.
Q But today is the last day that the U.S. can push to get the Security Council to take any -- or to get a resolution through. So?
MR. ERELI: The United States is going to push for this, whether it's the president of the Security Council or not. This is a priority for the president and it's a priority for the United States to bring peace to Darfur. We used the month of our presidency of the Security Council to move this ball forward as fast as we could and as far as we could. We've made some progress. We've had discussions with NATO. We've introduced elements of a resolution. We've built upon the presidential statement that was done in January. So I think we've made some progress.
Would we have liked to achieve more? Absolutely. We would have liked to see a peacekeeping operation stood up yesterday. But as we said before, there are a lot of moving parts to this. It's important to bring -- to bring as many people on board as fully as possible, and that's going to take time. Unfortunately, every day that goes by, there are more innocent people dying. So, as I said, we have a real sense of urgency, which is why we're pushing it with every ounce of resolve.
Q You started out by saying there was a degree of peace and stability in Darfur. (Off mike) -- degree, like one --
MR. ERELI: There is. I said -- I said the AU has brought a degree of peace and stability to Darfur that hadn't been there before they deployed. So that's welcome, and the AU is to be commended for their important contribution to ending the kind of large-scale, systematic violence that we saw in 2003 and 2004.
I also said that they brought a degree of peace and stability, but a degree that is insufficient because, as we all know, the violence continues, albeit at a different level and with a different character, but it continues. Vulnerable populations continue to be prey to both rebels and government-sponsored militia.
They remain in camps in an unacceptable condition. Humanitarian needs remain great. And the pressure on the international community to provide for those humanitarian needs, as well as the NGOs, remains great.
So we've got to move to the next stage of confronting this violence and of containing it and dealing with it so that we can have a political solution that will provide the only real satisfactory, long-term solution to this crisis.
Q Is this another repeat of the Rwanda situation, where the international community just dragged its feet and dragged its feet and dragged its feet --
MR. ERELI: Well --
Q -- and nothing happened, and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people died in an incredible genocide? I mean, is this yet another situation where hundreds of thousands of people are going to die with no action?
MR. ERELI: I think there's a -- I'm a little hesitant to make those kinds of direct comparisons because the facts are so different. But clearly, what we have in Sudan is, number one, documented genocide; number two, continuing scale of violence and death that is unacceptable. What we have in Darfur, fortunately, I think, and in large part due to the active diplomacy and leadership of the United States, is a recognition of, A, I think the scale of the problem; and secondly, an intervention, an international intervention in the Sudan to try to contain it and to try to address vulnerable populations, with the result that you see lots of money flowing in there; from our part -- for our part, you know, well over a hundred million dollars; from the international --
Q Yes, but --
MR. ERELI: I'm sorry. For the international community commitment of large amounts of humanitarian assistance; from the African Union a commitment of 7,000 forces -- that's significant intervention, it's a significant response, and diplomatic pressure on the government of Sudan.
So the comparison is valid in the sense that you've got large- scale human suffering. I don't think the comparison is valid in the sense that you -- the international community has been alerted to this because we rang the alarm bell, quite frankly; and the international community has been -- has been responding in terms of military support, security response, humanitarian response, diplomatic and political response.
Has it solved the problem? Absolutely not. And the facts on the ground, I think, demonstrate that more eloquently than anything we can say.
Have we determined, I think, a common approach to finally resolving it in a satisfactory way this crisis? I think so. But we've got to continue to exercise, I think, a lot of -- exercise a lot of effort and coordination and multilateral diplomacy to bring all the parties together to achieve that objective, which is a broader, international involvement to stem the violence; a sustained humanitarian response; and a political settlement between the rebels and the government that will end the fighting.
Finally, there's one element we haven't talked about which we need to speak of in terms of the crisis in Darfur, and you need to understand is relevant to this, which is the implementation of the North-South Peace Agreement and the involvement of -- and the degree to which the creation of a national unity government in Sudan and the power and wealth-sharing and autonomy provisions of the CPA and the demobilization and disarmament position of the CPA can serve as a model and springboard for a solution to the problem in Darfur, and how by pushing the CPA forward and implementation of the CPA forward, we are helping in the long run to bring about a solution to Darfur.
(Cross talk.)
Q Just a follow-up, Adam.
You said that there's documented genocide. My question is why is the United States the only one speaking about genocide, nobody else?
Secondly, as the secretary has said the genocide is continuing, why do we not see more pressure for sanctions?
MR. ERELI: Well, two points.
One, the U.N. has determined it's a crime against humanity. We determined it as genocide based on our interpretation and domestic policies.
As far as additional sanctions go, I think -- you know, we've made the point, and I'll continue to make the point that whatever you call it, we are doing everything within our power as a government, as a nation to stop the violence and to help the people of Darfur and to bring peace to this troubled land. And we've done that by supporting Security Council resolutions, we've done it by supporting peacekeeping operations, we've done it by the generosity of the American people to the people of Sudan and we will continue relentlessly until this problem is solved.
Yes?
Q There's finger-pointing, especially this week at the end of the month, with Ambassador Bolton at the U.N., and the finger-pointing is toward Russia and China.
MR. ERELI: About what?
Q About settling -- they're less than cooperative in settling out this issue and bringing it in a very stringent way to the Security Council. Is this --
MR. ERELI: Are you talking about Sudan?
Q Sudan and Darfur.
MR. ERELI: Well, the issue is not so much with China and Russia. In fact, the issue -- at this point there really -- I wouldn't say there's any specific finger-pointing. We are working to develop a support for an agreement around a resolution. We're still in the early stages of that. Frankly, we need some more inputs from the U.N. experts who are there in Sudan to do an assessment mission, and we look forward to that, but we're not at the stage yet where we're actually lining up country support for resolution or not. So I think you're a little off on the question.
Q This is what the news reports have been saying.
MR. ERELI: I haven't seen those.
Q Also, is it a question too of commercial contracts? Because there apparently are oil and there are other resources in that western section of Darfur, may not necessarily be water, and other countries are trying to get in there to either mine minerals and/or to export some of that oil.
MR. ERELI: This is first and foremost a humanitarian issue and a political issue, and that's what is motivating our diplomacy.
Q Have you gotten Khartoum to agree yet to allow in the rehatted force? Or is that still --
MR. ERELI: We've seen what -- we've seen what the -- some officials from Khartoum have said. As I mentioned earlier, we think there's a -- there's momentum under way that will -- that will inevitably lead to a resolution of this issue.
Yeah?
Q Can you explain that further?
MR. ERELI: No. I explained it pretty lengthily. The fact is this. There is -- there have been a number of steps taken towards rehatting.
Q By other --
MR. ERELI: We expect those steps to accelerate, and we -- obviously, Sudan will face a choice. We think that once faced with that choice, it will be clear to them that their interest lies in cooperating with the international community rather than confronting it.
Yes?
Q On North Korea. The United States and North Korea are to meet next month of March to discuss counterfeit issues by North Korea.
Does it mean the United States opened the door for direct talks with North Korea on all other issues?
MR. ERELI: No. It means that we offered North Korea a briefing on provisions of U.S. law dealing with illicit financial transactions, and explaining why we took steps against Banco Delta Asia. And North Korea has agreed to receive such a briefing. That's the scope of the -- that will be the scope of the meeting.
It's not a meeting to discuss denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, which is the purview of the six-party process. That is a process that we are eager to restart with a new round of talks. At the third round, all parties agreed to come back -- return soon to discuss implementation of the agreement of principles. We still are looking forward to and working to bring about a resumption of those talks. But it's not going to be the subject of discussion in the March briefing.
Q Do you have anything -- any information about last week CIA chief and Korean CIA chief meeting?
MR. ERELI: No. Hadn't heard that.
Sir?
Q North Korea's Foreign Ministry spokesman said that such illegal dealings as money laundering and counterfeiting have nothing in common with the policy of the DPRK and urged U.S. to lift financial sanctions. And also, North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun said also U.S. allegation were a sort of conspiracy designed to overthrow the regime in North Korea.
MR. ERELI: Yeah.
Q What's your response on that?
MR. ERELI: Well, the United States took the steps it took in order to apply U.S. law regarding illicit financial transactions. The provisions of that law are clear. This is not targeted against any one regime, it's targeted against illicit activity, when we have evidence of that activity. And our briefing next week will provide us an opportunity to present to the North Koreas why we did what we did and the basis for those actions.
Sir?
Q On Cyprus, Mr. Ereli, today the president of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, and the U.N. secretary-general, Kofi Annan, are meeting in Geneva for another try to find a solution to the Cyprus problem for the reunification of the island. Any comment?
MR. ERELI: The United States, as you know, supports the Annan plan as a basis for reunification. We regret that the referendum did not pass. We believe the Annan plan remains the best basis for reunification. And we urge all sides to engage seriously to discuss ways that they can achieve that goal on the basis of the Annan plan.
Q During the telephone conversation I had with a colleague of yours in the European Bureau, you mentioned yesterday, about the EU check of $165 million for the Turkish-Cypriots --
MR. ERELI: Yes.
Q -- I was told by the official that there are a lot of conditions attached on the check and it is under consideration. May we know which conditions you have under consideration --
MR. ERELI: No.
Q -- and under which capacity?
MR. ERELI: It's an EU check to -- it's an EU check, right?
Q Yes.
MR. ERELI: So ask the EU.
Q No, but because you have under consideration --
MR. ERELI: Well, I don't have anything more to add on that.
Q And a Greek Cypriot bishop from Cyprus is delivering a religious speech in the Library of Congress this coming Thursday. Did you request any meeting with him, since the church is playing a crucial role in Cyprus from the political and --
MR. ERELI: I'm not aware that we did.
Q And the last one: According to the Anatolian News Agency, the semi-official news agency of the Turkish government, Turkish security forces in the occupied area of Cyprus have arrested four Israeli citizens, who are going to appear before Turkish military court to face criminal charges. Do you have anything on that?
MR. ERELI: No, nothing about it.
Yes?
Q It's now been announced by Russia that Sergey Lavrov, the foreign minister, will be hosting -- the one welcoming Hamas to Moscow. Does this bother you? Does it give them a little bit more of a heralded reception than you'd prefer?
MR. ERELI: Well, as we've said from the beginning, the Quartet made its views clear, in its statement of January 31st, about what was expected of any reliable partner for peace. And in discussions with the Russians and others, it's been, I think -- we're all on the same page in terms of what the message to Hamas needs to be.
Q It doesn't bother you at all that Lavrov will be --
MR. ERELI: They're going to -- they're -- they -- they're going to make their sovereign decisions. We think it's important that if one does meet with Hamas officials, then one deliver a strong, firm message that the only way forward is to recognize Israel, to accept agreements entered into by the Palestinians, and to renounce violence.
Sir?
Q Yeah. There was a publication -- a Lebanese publication reported recently that during her visit there, that Secretary Rice requested the extradition of several suspected terrorists and a Marine corporal who had deserted. Can you comment on that? And has there been a response from Lebanon on that?
MR. ERELI: Well, first of all, we don't have an extradition treaty with Lebanon. Second of all, you know, I saw that report about Corporal --
Q Hassoun.
MR. ERELI: -- Hassoun. I'd note that this is a question of military justice. I'd refer you to DOD for the facts on that case. I'd say that as a general proposition, it's the position of the United States that unlawful fugitives from justice should be returned to the United States -- should return to the United States to face their accusers.
Q But there has been -- has there been a formal request made, and has Lebanon responded to that request?
MR. ERELI: I don't have any -- I don't have anything on that for you.
Q Okay. And how -- how did -- how did Hassoun end up -- well, if he did up in this group of terrorists, why -- why him?
MR. ERELI: That's why I'd refer you to DOD. I mean, he's a military guy.
Q All right.
MR. ERELI: Yeah.
Q Over the weekend The New York Times Magazine ran a piece on the former sort of spokesman abroad who used to make rounds at the State Department, too, I recall.
MR. ERELI: This is the Taliban spokesman.
Q And also -- yeah. Who did I say? Oh. Did I say Taliban? Yeah. The Taliban guy: Rahman Sula (sp). And I was just wondering if there were any -- were there any restrictions on his visa, or how does -- I mean, the Taliban, I don't think it was -- Afghanistan wasn't a country, but I think they must have been an FGO, right?
MR. ERELI: Right. Let me -- let me check on the sort of consular regulations and how they applied in this case and what we could say about them.
Q You -- you don't --
MR. ERELI: I don't know off the top of my head what -- you know, when he applied, what his status was when he applied, what the -- what the application was for, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, so there are -- there are, you know, classifications based on what position a person has, what the status of his -- what his status is in a country, where he's going, what he wants to do, et cetera. So, let me see what I can get for you in terms of all of that and --
Q Can you be an ex-member of the Taliban? I mean, I guess -- I guess you could, but most of them are down at Guantanamo, not --
MR. ERELI: I don't know. Again, we'll have to -- I'll have to see what I can get you and what I can tell you about his individual case, which -- a lot of these records are obviously confidential. But I'll see what I can tell you about what -- again, what -- what the decision was, what the basis of the decision was.
Q Two -- two long-standing questions. The 50 million: have you got it back? Are you getting it back from the Palestinians --
Q (Can I follow up ?) ?
MR. ERELI: Sure. Sure, go ahead.
Q Sorry, Barry.
Q No, that's okay.
Q I mean, did you -- there are a lot of Taliban members or officials that you put in Guantanamo. Others were considered a national security risk, not allowed to come to this country. Do you see all Taliban as part and parcel of the same threat? I mean --
MR. ERELI: I would say this. Every case is different. I don't know the facts in this case. Let me check the facts and get back to you.
Q The 50 million --
MR. ERELI: Yes, the 50 million. We answered this -- asked this question yesterday; I don't have an update. We've asked for it back. We've been -- the Palestinian Authority has said that they are going to return it. The modalities for that are being worked out. We don't have it yet, but we expect to have it in due course.
Q And the business of an announcement as to US aid to Palestinians -- humanitarian, presumably --
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm. Right.
Q -- is that in the offing soon?
MR. ERELI: I don't know if I'd say an announcement's in the offing. We have stated quite clearly our policy of supporting the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people.
We will execute that policy by looking at our assistance programs and determining how we can move forward to both be responsive to the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people while at the same time recognizing the limitations of what we can do with respect to a foreign terrorist organization that is in the government of the Palestinian Authority.
Q Initially when the review was announced, it was said that within a week or two the results of the review would be made public. Are you now saying that the way the world will find out what the U.S. has decided to do is by looking for people carrying U.S. checks or something?
MR. ERELI: No. I think that clearly what --
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. ERELI: -- clearly what we've done and what we're doing is trying to develop a set of criteria about what's humanitarian, what falls outside of the scope of that activity, and what are the facts on the ground that -- what are the facts on the ground and how do they relate to the criteria we've established.
If you look at that, it's very hard to foresee a situation where we're going to be making a big announcement one day that says, "Okay, now, everything that we're doing, it falls on this side of the line or that side of the line," because it is an iterative process, it's an evolutionary process, it's related to what are the facts on the ground, which are changing.
So the process of the review is well under way. There are meetings and discussions and work being done to assess what we're doing now, how that relates to criteria we're establishing, and what are the implications for future activity based on events that haven't yet taken place?
So that's why I would discourage you from expecting some big announcement at some point of time. We will be, obviously, making funding decisions and you will hear about funding decisions, I would expect, on different occasions as those occasions are being -- as those decisions are being made, but that's the way I would describe the process and that's what I would look for in the future, is discrete funding decisions announced publicly based on facts on the ground as they exist.
Q Program by program.
MR. ERELI: Yes.
Q All right. Well, we didn't start this. I mean, we're just bystanders. You guys announced a review. You said the results will be -- nobody expected an item-by-item, I don't think, announcement, expected a general statement of principle.
And the secretary has pretty much stated the principles already, which one newspaper, we discovered the other morning -- but I think what we expecting was -- and I guess we're wrong now, you've changed your mind --
MR. ERELI: No, I don't think --
Q -- is some general statement of -- I don't care. I have no stake in this. I just, you know, keep --
MR. ERELI: I think you're overinterpreting.
Q I'm interpreting --
MR. ERELI: I think you're -- I think you're overinterpreting.
Q Okay.
MR. ERELI: And what we've done -- we've done what we said we're going to do, and -- which is take a good look at what our programs are, what are criteria for assistance is, what the restrictions of U.S. law are, what our policy objectives are and to come to some conclusion about what's -- what kind of activity, what kind of programs are -- meet our benchmarks, are consistent with our policy and what activities are outside of that.
And as events on the ground evolve, we will be making decisions on that basis.
Q Fine.
MR. ERELI: And there's not one specific endpoint in that process. It is continuous. So where we were two and a half -- where we are now is significantly farther along than we were two and a half weeks ago. But don't look for a definitive announcement of a specific point in time, nor did we ever say there was going to be one.
Q I think you did, but I'd have to check the record.
Was it -- but don't expect -- either are you saying sort of a price tag, like the European Union just issued --
MR. ERELI: You know, Barry, at this point, I don't want to give you false expectations, which you seem to have.
Q You think I'm wrong, huh?
MR. ERELI: I think you're overinterpreting --
Q You don't think we were led to believe that a review is under way, and within a week or two, the results of the review will be discussed?
MR. ERELI: Well, I really don't want to argue the point. I think I've made --
Q Oh, no --
Q Adam, you said we have done what we said we were are going to do. Does that mean you've finished the review?
MR. ERELI: We -- no. We've said we're going to undertake a review. We have undertaken a review.
Q Okay.
MR. ERELI: That review continues, and there are different phases of the review. We have moved along in the phase where we're saying, "Okay, what is humanitarian? What is political?" Have we finished that? No. But we've moved along in that, and we will apply that criteria to projects and to assistance based on facts on the ground, which are still evolving.
Q Okay. So you haven't --
Q You say projects, so --
MR. ERELI: And assistance.
Q I know what assistance is and humanitarian is. So still under discussion, still being entertained is assistance to the Palestinian infrastructure? Or is that different from a project?
MR. ERELI: I would say there are projects that assist Palestinian infrastructure. Those projects are going to be assessed based on the criteria of humanitarian, political, above the bar, below the bar.
Q And this somehow will be different from what's been going on?
MR. ERELI: I would -- obviously, as we've made clear, we're not going to give money to a foreign terrorist organization.
And that injunction is going to apply to everything we do with the Palestinian Authority, and everything we do with the Palestinian Authority is going to be evaluated on that basis. That evaluation is continuing.
Yes?
Q The political leader of Hamas announced that Iran is promising to contribute 250 million to make up for any cuts by the U.S. and the European Union.
MR. ERELI: And your question is?
Q What's your reaction?
MR. ERELI: What do I think about it?
Q What -- what --
MR. ERELI: Again, our position I think is pretty clear. Hamas has a choice to make, it is a choice to -- basically which foot it wants to lead with. Does it want to lead with the political foot or does it want to lead with the terrorism foot? If it wants to lead with -- if it wants to have its feet planted on the side of politics, then it needs to renounce terror, it needs to recognize Israel, and it needs to accept agreements entered into by the Palestinians. If it wants to put its feet in the camp of terror, fine. Take 250 million from the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. That would send a pretty clear signal.
Our view is, and our hope is, and I think our diplomacy is geared towards getting Hamas to make the right choice, to take its foot out of the camp of terror and put them both firmly in the camp of peace and negotiation and, I think, respectability in the international community.
Q Well, wherever the money comes from, will you take it into -- will the U.S. take it into account so far as measuring its own contributions? Even if it comes from --
MR. ERELI: I don't understand the hypothetical.
Q Well, if it comes from despicable sources, sources you don't like, it's money, and presumably it will help the Palestinian government. Does that ease -- not that you like it, but does that ease the issue as far as the U.S.'s role in being of help is concerned?
MR. ERELI: I'm not following you.
Q He's saying like -- you're saying okay, good, the EU has given this much, Iran has given that much --
Q If I win the lottery, I won't ask for a pay raise tomorrow, okay? If Hamas wins the lottery of getting huge checks from countries you don't particularly like and would rather they didn't deal with -- didn't have anything -- any meddling role in the area --
MR. ERELI: Right. Right.
Q -- doesn't that count against -- doesn't it mean you have less to think about, so far as helping the Palestinians?
MR. ERELI: You know, I really can't --
Q Too far fetched?
MR. ERELI: I just -- it's too speculative a question.
I think the best way to understand this is, the United States, the Quartet are clear; assistance to the Palestinian Authority needs to be measured against that government's commitment to basic principles: renunciation of terrorism, recognition of Israel and acceptance of agreements that the Palestinians have entered into.
That's what we are -- that's what we're going to do. That's what we would look to the international community to do.
And the goal of all that is to -- should there be a Hamas-led government, the goal of all that is to move Hamas in a direction that is positive, as opposed to negative, positive meaning a -- take those steps that make it a reliable partner for peace, so that we can all go about -- get about -- move on to the real business at hand, which is negotiating a Palestinian state.
Q Adam, how can you really blame them for turning -- or expect them to turn down $250 million when they don't have enough money to pay salaries now?
MR. ERELI: I would say that --
Q Even if there is a political will to change, to evolve, it's not going to happen overnight, and in the meantime they're broke.
MR. ERELI: Well, this is the conundrum of governing, is that one -- you know, it's one thing to be in the political opposition; it's another thing to be in elected office. And when you're in elected office, you are elected to govern responsibly. And you have to make decisions, and you have to be held accountable to your people.
Q And you have to pay salaries.
MR. ERELI: And the fact of the matter is, you've got responsibilities. Salaries in running a government is one of them. Well, also renouncing terror is one of them.
So the decisions you have on all these counts have consequences, and what we're saying is, we're not going to fund a terrorist organization. We want to help the Palestinian people. We're going to continue to find ways to help the Palestinian people, no matter what Hamas decides.
Q But --
MR. ERELI: If they decide -- if they don't change their policy on terror, we'll find ways to fund the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people without giving money to Hamas. If they -- we would hope they choose to renounce terror and to recognize Israel, and that would mean that they're -- they go down a different path.
But as we keep getting back to, the choice is Hamas.
Q Yeah, but I mean, just to follow up, I mean, as Teri said, it's going to take a long time, and they're not -- I mean --
MR. ERELI: They -- they're --
Q No, they want to be -- yes, a government has to be responsible international partner, but their accountability is to the Palestinian people, not to the United States. And so, you know, what does it matter where they get their money from if they're delivering the goods and services that they were democratically elected to provide for the people?
MR. ERELI: I don't know how to make it any more simple. They're -- Hamas is obviously accountable to the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people elected Hamas with certain expectations. It is our view that those expectations did not include waging a campaign of terror against Israel.
Hamas needs to clarify the situation: are they a terrorist organization, or are they a reliable peace partner? You can't be both. One or the other. And your decision, Hamas, is going to have consequences for you internationally, and for the Palestinian people as well.
So we look to them to make the right choice, and to make the choice based on, obviously, what the Palestinian people want. And what do the Palestinian people want? They don't want war with Israel. They don't want continued violence. They don't -- they want peace, and they want a state of their own.
Q So why can't --
MR. ERELI: And the way to do that -- the way to do that is to recognize Israel, renounce terror, and negotiate based on previous agreements. And if they do that, great, we've got a way forward. If they don't do that, the United States is not going to just roll over and accommodate a terrorist organization.
Q Okay, but why -- if you say that, if you say that the Palestinian people --
Q (Off mike.)
Q Let me -- let me follow up.
If you say the Palestinian people elected Hamas because they want peace, because they want certain things, why can't you trust the Palestinian people to not re-elect Hamas if they don't do those things? And --
MR. ERELI: And in the meantime, we will base our actions on what choices Hamas makes -- as an elected government.
Q A very quick one. There are a lot of estimates floating along -- floating around how much longevity can be expected of the Palestinian Authority. Two weeks? Three weeks?
MR. ERELI: Please. Another -- another speculative question.
Q Well, Wolfensohn, you know, is having anxiety fits.
MR. ERELI: There are --
Q I wonder what the view is here, how long can they hang in there, do you think?
MR. ERELI: The choice is Hamas'.
Q No, no, no. This interim.
MR. ERELI: The interim government? As I said yesterday, we will continue working with the international community to ensure that the interim government of the Palestinian Authority has the resources it needs to continue functioning.
Q We have another briefing in a few minutes, and I'd love to give my colleagues in the wire services a chance to file --
Q Yes. Let's go. Bye-bye.
Q That's all right. We can file later.
Q You want to -- you want to keep going?
Q It can keep.
Q Yeah? Anybody got a question about --
MR. ERELI: Anybody want to ask about Iran?
Q What about Iran?
Q Have you seen the report? Is that what you want? (Light laughter.) Ding-ding-ding!
Q You want to hit him again?
MR. ERELI: Well, let me just -- let me just say we have seen the report, the director-general's report to the board of governors on Iran. We think that that report makes -- confirms what we've been saying for a long time, that basically Iran is not cooperating with the international community, Iran continues to move forward with an enrichment program, and that there remain serious and significant unanswered questions about the relationship of that program to military activity.
So I think it clearly shows why the international community is concerned. On February 4th the international community asked the board of governors, asked Iran to take certain steps. It clearly has not done that. And it will form a useful basis for discussion in our meetings at the Security Council.
Q Thank you.
Q On Cyprus?
MR. ERELI: I think we've done Cyprus. We'll -- that's it.
Q I'm sorry --
MR. ERELI: Yeah, one more.
Q I'm sorry, I got to turn to the lifestyle portion of our briefing. What has prompted the secretary of State to film a fitness video that's going to be aired this week?
MR. ERELI: It's not a fitness video, it's a -- she did a --
Q It's not? A workout video?
MR. ERELI: The news story wanted to do a -- a news outlet wanted to do a story on her exercise routine, and that's what we did.
Q But she's filmed working out, right? Pumping up -- pumping iron?
MR. ERELI: Yeah.
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. ERELI: She's an active secretary of State.
Q Does this signal more muscular diplomacy?
MR. ERELI: It --
(Moans, laughter from the press.)
MR. ERELI: Muscular and agile!
Q There you go.
MR. ERELI: Okay, thank you.
END.
Comments