EXCERPTS QUESTION: We've heard a lot about it over the last few weeks with a speech of President Bush in Israel, with a lot of the political campaign that's taking place in the U.S. at the moment, and also, we'll talk about the U.S. role and leverage in the Middle East. I mean, there are a lot of deals being made by U.S. allies with militants, whether it's in Pakistan or in Lebanon, where we saw the Lebanese Government make a deal with the militant group Hezbollah, which you've described as a positive step, a necessary step. You've said that an agreement is better than no agreement. But surely, it must be a blow to U.S. policy in the region and a blow to the U.S.-backed government in Beirut.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, the United States doesn't believe in a monopoly on diplomacy. We're very glad to see others involved in diplomacy. We backed the Arab League initiative that led to this outcome for Lebanon. This is a circumstance, of course, in which you have a duly elected government and an opposition. And Hezbollah and Amal and the other parties that were a part of that opposition were a part of this deal.
Now, I happen to believe that what this that the circumstances under which this emerged are actually not, in the long run, good circumstances for Hezbollah. Because Hezbollah, which had styled itself as the great resistance movement against Israel, is now the movement that turned its guns on its own people, and that isn't appropriate in a civilized state like Lebanon.
QUESTION: But it has given Hezbollah more political power. I mean, an agreement is better than no agreement, but an agreement at what cost? To undermine the Lebanese cabinet?
FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: Well, the agreement to deliver a president to Lebanon, which the Friends of Lebanon have been calling for, for a long time; yes, you're right, to give a greater step to the blocking minority. But I think that many of the issues that they might seek to block have actually already gone through. Condi Rice spoke to the Prime Minister of Lebanon after the agreement. I spoke to him before the agreement. There are important negotiations (inaudible) they need to take forward, including on redistricting, which are important for next year's elections in Lebanon.
And I think the sight of Hezbollah turning their guns on Lebanese people (inaudible) will have sent a chill down many spines in Lebanon and would reinforce the desire for a durable political settlement.
QUESTION: But again, talking to one's enemies, that brings us also to Syria, to Hamas. I mean, Israel is talking to Syria, is talking to Hamas, but the U.S. isn't.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, Israel is not in negotiations with Hamas, is not talking directly (inaudible).
QUESTION: Indirectly.
SECRETARY RICE: No. But the United States doesn't believe in negotiations with Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida. These are organizations that we view as terrorist organizations. When it comes to Syria, we have diplomatic relations. I, myself, met twice with the Syrian Foreign Minister. And so this notion that somehow the United States doesn't talk to countries with which it has difficulties is simply not right.
Now with Tehran, we have not had diplomatic relations since 1979. And I personally offered to break a 20 now, 8 year -- 29-year pattern and to meet my counterpart anyplace, anytime, anywhere if they will simply verifiably suspend their enrichment program, something that is demanded by three Security Council resolutions, by the entire international community, by the IAEA. And my question isn't why won't we talk to Tehran; my question is why won't Tehran talk to us?
QUESTION: But I mean, it still raises the question I mean, why is it appeasement if you know, Americans talk directly to some of those people, like Jimmy Carter going to talk to Hamas? And why is it not appeasement when a U.S. ally makes a deal with a group like Hamas, like Hezbollah, or with the militants in Pakistan?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, let's be clear. Hezbollah stood for election in Lebanon. It's a part of the political system. We understand that, and this will have to have a Lebanese answer. And we understand that the circumstances of some of our allies and the circumstances of the United States are not identical. So we wouldn't ask that every country behaves in exactly the same way that the United States does on these issues with Hezbollah. They are a part of the political structure.
Now, we believe that it is extremely important that the question of Hezbollah's arms and the unified state with all of the guns in the hands of the state, that is an important issue and I believe it's an issue that Lebanese are going to turn to. But the President was using an historical point, which is that it's fine to talk to people, and that's not the problem. As I said, we've offered to talk to Tehran. We do talk to Syria.
The question is: What's going to be the outcome of the talk? You don't do diplomacy just to talk. You try to have outcomes. And that means that you need to have leverage, you need to have prepared the ground. And when you have, as we are now doing through the six-party talks with North Korea, you can sometimes get good outcomes.
..........When it comes to places like Lebanon or the Palestinian territories, we believe that we're going to have give decent, moderate forces a the tools that they need to demonstrate to their people that there's another way in. That's why, in Lebanon, we will continue to back the professionalization of the army. That's why we'll continue to back the government. It's why, in the Palestinian territories, it's so important that the Palestinians have a state. And the President's desire and commitment to a state for a Palestinian people that have suffered too long, the state that they deserve, that they have a right to, we're going to do everything that we can to help Israelis and Palestinians end their conflict.
<< Home