U.S. Department of State

Remarks With Kenyan Foreign Minister Moses Wetangula

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Kenyatta International Conference Centre

Nairobi, Kenya

August 5, 2009

FOREIGN MINISTER WETANGULA: Good afternoon, gentlemen and ladies from the media. I’m happy to be here this afternoon with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who jetted in last evening to attend the AGOA Forum. After the opening of the forum, where you all were, she’s had very in-depth bilateral discussions with President Mwai Kibaki, who was accompanied by the Right Honorable Prime Minister Raila Odinga, the Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka, and a number of Kenyan ministers.

Several issues were discussed, including but not limited to the bilateral relations between Kenya and America. The two sides agreed that we are satisfied with the level of engagement between our two countries, and we shall strive to make it even better.

The Secretary of State raised issues about our engagement in Somalia to make the Horn of Africa safer. We also discussed the issue of internal reforms within Kenya, the need to have a new constitution, which the president had mentioned in his speech, the reform of the police force and other security organs, the issue of dealing with the post-election violence arising from the elections of last year but one.

We also discussed the issues of travel bans or other travel advisories between America and Kenya, where they’re renewed every other time. We raised the issue of piracy and the need for America to partner with other countries involved in the war against piracy to make the Indian Ocean shipping route safer.

President Kibaki and his team assured the Secretary of State that reforms are on course, that the war against impunity in the country is on, that the war against corruption is on, and all sanctuaries of corruption will be destroyed to make Kenya a cleaner and safer place to do business, that Kenya is committed to its role in the region as a leader, to bring normalcy to Somalia, to continue assisting the Sudan, and all other neighbors that require our assistance. And above all, President Kibaki conveyed his gratitude to the American Government led by President Obama, and the continued positive support to the country, and confirmed that Kenya will do everything possible to play its role within the community of nations.

Kenya also did raise – and the Secretary of State has assured the President and his team that she’ll look at it – the question of our benefitting from the Millennium Challenge Account, which you know Kenya is at the threshold level. We wanted it to be looked at and see if it can be raised to the comeback level. And finally, we have agreed that our relationship is historical, it’s strong, it must be made stronger, we must be open to each other, we must continue talking to each other candidly, and whenever criticism comes our way, we must take it as a positive step towards improving our relations and not as a reverse to this relationship. And we have left the meeting all happy and satisfied that that is the direction to go.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. It is a pleasure to be here with the foreign minister. I thank him for the work he has done in preparation for my meetings, and I’m very grateful for the hospitality that your country has shown me and my delegation.

The United States and Kenya share a long and deep history of friendship and cooperation. We consider Kenya a key strategic partner, a regional leader, and a nation of almost boundless potential. I have just come from a candid and wide-ranging conversation with the president, the prime minister, the vice president, and other ministers of the government where we discussed, in depth, the steps that are needed to realize that potential and to seize the opportunities that I discussed in my speech earlier.

The United States worked hard last year with Kofi Annan and the team of African Eminent Persons to support the Kenyan people to resolve the crisis that afflicted this country. Unfortunately, resolving that crisis has not yet translated into the kind of political progress that the Kenyan people deserve. Instead, the absence of strong and effective democratic institutions has permitted ongoing corruption, impunity, politically motivated violence, human rights abuses, and a lack of respect for the rule of law.

These conditions helped fuel the post-election violence, and they are continuing to hold Kenya back. The reform agenda agreed to by the coalition government and discussed in the speech that President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga gave this morning must be fully implemented not just to avoid a repeat of the previous crisis or worse, but more importantly, to set the stage for a better future, a future worthy of the dynamic people of this country, a future of economic growth, democratic development, social justice, and the opportunity for every Kenyan child to live up to his or her God-given potential. I wanted the leaders to know that we respect greatly the way that the Kenyan people pulled their country back from the brink of disaster once, and the ongoing connection between the private sector, civil society, and the government that is the key to resolving these issues.

I also want the government and the people of Kenya to know that President Obama feels a personal connection and commitment to the future of Kenya. It is, of course, a result of his own personal connection, his father’s life. But it is also because, as he said in the video this morning, he has such a great deal of affection and admiration for Kenya. He has come to this country, the first time in the late 1980s, and of course, shortly before he began running for president. We want you to know that we will stand with you. We know that democracy does not come easily. It hasn’t come easily to the United States or any country. We have our own challenges. But we have worked for more than 230 years to perfect our union, and we know we have more work to do. The election of President Obama demonstrates that progress is possible. And I can personally attest that political rivals can become productive partners in the service of the country and the people they love.

We also know that a lot of that hard work is underway. And we commend the Waki Commission’s efforts to identify steps to improve the performance and accountability of state security agencies.

But finally, we know that just as President Obama said in his speech in Ghana that the future of Africa is up to the African people, the future of Kenya is up to the Kenyan people. The United States stands ready and willing and eager to be of assistance to build on the more than 50 years of partnership and friendship we have between us. And despite the setbacks of the recent past and the difficult road ahead, President Obama and I are convinced that the leaders of this nation have the capacity to reclaim the dream of one Kenya. Now is the time to find and exercise the will, and we will be there with you as you take these steps toward that better future of one Kenya.

Thank you very much.

FOREIGN MINISTER WETANGULA: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, my name is Jeff Koinange. I work for a TV station called K24. This question is directed at you. As soon as you landed last night, there was a statement from the U.S. Government criticizing Kenya’s latest move to appoint a TJRC, Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission, in other words, opting to go their own way and not opting to go for a special local tribunal to try the perpetrators of the post-election violence.

Well, basically, the TRC has no powers to try anybody. What more pressure can your government keep applying to the Kenyan Government to make sure that those perpetrators are eventually arrested, detained, whatever, so that, as you mentioned, we don’t limp towards 2012, knowing that those folks are still out there and nothing has been done? What more can be done?

And I have a follow-up.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Do you want to ask your follow-up, and I’ll answer both.

QUESTION: Sure, okay. I’m sorry, yeah. The follow-up is a country right next door, Sudan, there’s a warmonger who has been indicted by the ICC. Nobody seems to be doing anything about it in terms of putting pressure for him to either face justice or whatever. Is it because their country has natural resources like oil, or because they’re dealing with the Chinese it’s a very sensitive situation? In other words, is it sort of a double standard? A lot of pressure being applied on the Kenya Government, no pressure being applied on Sudan, and yet very little is being done both ways.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Let me take your second question first, because I think that it is very significant that a criminal indictment was returned by the International Criminal Court against President Bashir. And that was a very significant step by the international community. The actions by the ICC sent a clear message that the behavior of Bashir and his government were outside the bounds of accepted standards and that there would no longer be impunity.

Now, just as in a criminal process, the indictment has been laid down. The United States and others have continued to support the need to eventually bring President Bashir to justice, but he’s found a lot of protectors, and mostly in this continent, where people have allowed him to travel and have not used the forces of their own judicial and law enforcement institutions to arrest him, to turn him over the ICC.

We know this sometimes takes time. If you look at some of the international tribunals, there are periods of time during which the investigation takes place, if it does get started – in this case, it did – then if an indictment is returned, there is often time before the person indicted is brought to justice.

So I actually think that what has happened in Sudan sends a very strong message. And of course, one of the reasons why the United States and other friends of Kenya are encouraging Kenya to handle this internally is so that it is not sent to the ICC. The ICC won’t act if a country is dealing with internal problems on its own.

And with respect to your first question, the ministers explained to me that there is a constitutional impediment to creating a local tribunal outside the ordinary judicial system, and that there is required to be a constitutional amendment in order to create a local tribunal, which has not passed the Kenyan parliament. I think that is regrettable because, obviously, the government has come up with this constitutional amendment, and there are reasons why it is preferable to the Truth and Justice and Reconciliation Commission because it would have the ability to actually prosecute perpetrators.

We have made our views known. As you referenced, a statement from our ambassador summarized those views. I know this is not easy. I understand how complicated this is. It’s complicated, in part, because politically how do you go about prosecuting the perpetrators without engendering more violence from those who are supportive of the positions or the affiliations of the perpetrators. So it does take a lot of political will and leadership.

And we continue to believe that a special local tribunal is in the best interest of Kenya, so as to avoid having outsiders determine the outcome here. But as you know, Kofi Annan and the people working with him have handed a sealed envelope of ten names to the ICC, which has a lot on its plate. It’s not acting immediately, of course, because I think there is still the hope that Kenya will resolve this matter on its own, and that is certainly the American hope as well.

MODERATOR: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Thank you, Madame Secretary. If you don’t mind going a little bit outside Africa for a moment. On North Korea, the two journalists were released. From your conversations with your husband, with former President Clinton, what’s the signal that he gets and what’s the impression he gets from Kim Jong-il? Is North Korea ready to go back into the denuclearization talks? And could you also confirm, the North Koreans say that there was an apology on behalf of former President Clinton?

SECRETARY CLINTON: The last question is that’s not true, that did not occur. But let me just take a step back here and say that we have been working hard on the release of the two journalists. We have always considered that a totally separate issue from our efforts to reengage the North Koreans and have them return to the Six-Party Talks and work toward a commitment for the full, verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

I was very pleased to get the news that my husband’s plane had taken off from Pyongyang with the two young women onboard. They are on their way to California, where they will be reunited with their families.

I had a very brief conversation with my husband. We did not go into the details of some of the questions that you’re asking. There’ll be time to talk about that later. This was mostly just to communicate directly how relieved and pleased he was, and we are, with the successful completion of this mission.

As I said in a long set of remarks in Thailand about two weeks ago, the future of our relationships with the North Koreans are really up to them. They have a choice. They can continue to follow a path that is filled with provocative actions which further isolates them from the international community, which resulted in the imposition of sanctions by the Security Council and the full cooperation of the international community, including and led by China for the implementation of those sanctions under the resolution. Or they can decide to renew their discussions with the partners in the Six-Party Talks. We have always said that there would be a chance to discuss bilateral matters with the North Koreans within that regional context, and that is still the offer today. So it is up to them.

I mean, we have successfully completed a humanitarian mission that was a private mission that was undertaken by my husband, and we’re very relieved about that. But now we have to go back to the ongoing efforts to try to enlist the North Koreans in discussions that the world wants to see them participate in.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from NTV in Kenya. Secretary Clinton, I’ve got a couple of questions for you. Firstly, you said that in your discussion about the TRJC and the local tribunal, the government did indicate to you that they are unable to pass it through parliament. Is this not, in fact, hypocrisy on the part of the Kenyan Government, because in the past year they’ve been able to pass other constitutional bills through parliament? And when it comes to local tribunals, it’s proving to be harder. Is it not, in fact, (inaudible) vested interests in government that are doing that?

Number two, are you, as the U.S. Government, considering visa bans or other sanctions against those suspected to have masterminded the post-election violence?

And finally, critics say that President Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga have become cozy, relaxed, and slackened the pace of reforms, reforms you talked about with them today. What is your government actually doing to ensure that they keep their eye on the ball and that these reforms, including the constitutional reforms of the judicial and the security forces and whatever else you talked about, do actually come to pass for the benefit of Kenya?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I can only report to you what the president, the prime minister, the vice president, and the other ministers told us: that they are committed to the reform agenda that they agreed to when they entered into a coalition government; that they believe they are getting close to a constitutional draft that would answer some of the difficult questions that Kenyans are looking for, like land reform and the like; that they are proceeding with police and judicial reform despite some setbacks which they recounted to me.

We very much want to support them in moving this agenda forward, and I made that abundantly clear. I delivered a very frank statement from President Obama that he also would like to do everything we can to see this reform agenda delivered on. And I think the Kenyan Government knows that if we can be of any help, we stand ready to do so. We’ve made that offer.

I think that it’s difficult for someone who’s not in the Kenyan political process to comment on the actions of the Kenyan parliament. We have enough trouble with our own Congress in Washington, where we have a very big Democratic majority, but the President doesn’t always get what he wants to have done the first time out.

But I wanted publicly to say that to members of parliament trying to resolve this issue internally is far preferable to losing control of it and seeing it go to the International Criminal Court or out of the hands of Kenyans themselves. As hard as it is to resolve this in Kenya, I think it is better for Kenyans. So certainly, if parliamentarians are watching your news programs, it would be in the best interest of the future of Kenya for that to be taken care of within the parliament.

And finally, with respect to any actions that our government might take, those are always available and open to us. We hope that that doesn’t come to pass. We very much want to see the coalition government succeed. We want to see the reforms passed.

And finally, on the question about whether the president and the prime minister are getting along, I think that’s a good sign. I know when I accepted President Obama’s request to take this position, many people said, oh, it will never work, that there’ll be all these problems. And in fact, we are working very closely and personally together. That doesn’t mean, in this context with the president and the prime minister, that they still don’t have issues that they have to work on.

But you won’t get anything done if people don’t cooperate and if people don’t have a personal relationship. I mean, politics around the world depends upon relationships. You can’t get things done if people don’t have a level of trust between themselves in order to take some very tough decisions. And so I’m hoping that the kind of interaction that I had today with the president and the prime minister, which was very positive, very frank, very open, is indicative of continuing progress on behalf of this important agenda.

MODERATOR: Okay. The final question --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Wait, how about the foreign minister? Would you like to add anything, sir?

FOREIGN MINISTER WETANGULA: Yes. I think I should. (Inaudible) and all my Kenyan colleagues here know the level of reforms that we are undertaking. And I want to assure you that in a democracy, even if you have the majority in parliament, it is very dangerous and risky to marshal parliament to do what you want. You must let them vote with their conscience, and our parliamentarians have indicated to you and the whole country that this is their preference.

What we must do, and I think it’s important that Kenya must do, is not to lose sight of the reform of the constitution – create strong institutions that will make it difficult for the events of last year to occur again in this country. I think that, as a long-term measure, is very critical.

Secondly, on the question of persons that bear the greatest responsibility for the problems of last year, the route to The Hague has never been closed. It is always there. The envelope is there, and we don’t need to give any concern for the ICC to act. But I’ve always said, and I think the Secretary of State has reiterated, that it’s neater, it’s better, it’s in the interest of this country for us to resolve most of our issues locally than to seek international support. And I do think that the avenue for prosecution, even through the current criminal system – criminal justice system, is not closed. If adequate reforms are made that meet the confidence of the public, I think people can still be prosecuted locally.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And I would just add it would be a very welcome sign to see prosecution through the regular court system. That would be an appropriate response.

FOREIGN MINISTER WETANGULA: Absolutely.

MODERATOR: The final question, Washington Post, Mary Beth Sheridan.

QUESTION: Thank you. This is a question for Secretary Clinton. What do you make of the fact that nobody accused in this violence has been punished in a year and a half – Kenya has a very long culture of never punishing any top officials – and that the very ministers who are suspected of instigating the violence are the ones that killed the possibility of the independent tribunal? How can you have any faith in them on this issue? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think we’ve made it very clear that we are waiting, we are disappointed that action hasn’t taken place yet. Our Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson, who served as an ambassador here and has a great deal of regard for Kenya, has spoken out. Our ambassador has spoken out. I mean, we’ve been very clear in our disappointment that action has not been taken. And of course, it is far preferable that it be done in the regular course of business that prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officials step up to their responsibilities and remove the question of impunity.

We in the United States sometimes go to having special tribunals, special prosecutors for certain politically connected wrongdoing, and so we know that trying to create another entity may be appropriate. But if it can’t get created, then you’ve got to go back to the system you have. And a truth and justice and reconciliation commission without any ability to bring people to justice is not going to satisfy many of the deepest concerns that are expressed by the Kenyan people.

And I’m not understating, or I don’t mean to underestimate, the difficulty of doing this, of creating some kind of pathway for holding people accountable. But in today’s world, where information is communicated instantaneously, people are no longer going to put up with that. You can find information out so easily by people Twittering and otherwise communicating that governments have to be more transparent and governments have to be more accountable. And I used that phrase that I very much like in my speech that sunlight is the best disinfectant; bring it out and try to resolve it. Now does that mean everybody has to be prosecuted right away? Well, there probably has to be some process put in place, but there needs to be a beginning. And I think that’s what we are looking for, and that’s what we’re hoping to see from the current government.

FOREIGN MINISTER WETANGULA: Thank you. Finally, let me say something about the issue Jeff Koinage raised on the Sudan. First of all, I don’t think it is true that America is harsher to Kenya than it is to Sudan. But on the issue of the indictment of President Bashir, the African Union took a position, and the position is very clear and we have articulated it many times. One, the AU does not and has not and will not say that President Bashir is innocent, because we have no capacity to say that. He has been investigated, he has been indicted.

What the AU asked the Security Council to do was that within the context of Article 16 of the Statute of Rome, the Security Council could suspend the warrant for a year because there was visible progress in Sudan, that there was internal discussions, there were talks going on in Qatar, and we wanted to see whether that texture can bring relative calm and peace in the country, because we do know that peace, security, stability and all these factors must be looked at within the same context. And nobody will stand in the way of President Bashir being arrested and prosecuted, but for now, the AU’s position is that let’s see what internal mechanisms can be done. I don’t think the AU is asking for too much.

Thank you.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Somalia? Well, we had a very long discussion about Somalia.

FOREIGN MINISTER WETANGULA: Yes, it took the centerpiece of the discussions.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. And we very much appreciate Kenya’s efforts working on its own and with the international community. We recognize the border problems that Kenya has with its long border with Somalia. We certainly offered whatever help and assistance we could provide to Kenya to deal with the border, the refugee flow, which Kenya is trying to absorb 6,000 refugees and --

FOREIGN MINISTER WETANGULA: Ten thousand a month.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Ten thousand a month. So Kenya’s bearing a big burden for the instability and violence within Somalia. The United States is supporting the Transitional Federal Government. I’ll be meeting with Sheikh Sharif tomorrow to discuss what else the international community can do to try to support his efforts to stabilize Somalia, to create a functioning government. But we know we’re facing a very difficult conflict, and we also know that the presence of al-Shabaab and terrorist elements within Somalia poses a threat. It poses a threat to Kenya, poses a threat to the stability of Africa and beyond. So this is an area where we’re going to work even more closely together.

And on another area, piracy, I would just say that Kenya, again, is absorbing a lot of the burden from the international community. Kenya offered to receive the pirates, to hold the pirates. They need more help in doing that. The United States is leading an international contact group on piracy. We want to provide more assistance to Kenya, which is offering this very important service.

So we talked a lot about the work that Kenya is doing within the regional and global security context, which is absolutely invaluable.

FOREIGN MINISTER WETANGULA: Thank you very much, Secretary of State, and have a good afternoon.

# # #

Remarks at Launch of the Bilateral Investment Treaty with Mauritius

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Intercontinental Hotel

Nairobi, Kenya

August 5, 2009

Thank you so much, Secretary Carson. (Applause.)

Well, I’m very happy to be here for this occasion. I think the remarks that have already been put forth, particularly by the minister, illustrate the commitment that Mauritius has had over a number of years, going back to the 1980s, to the ingredients that build a good business climate and attract investments. And we are here to embark on the next step in that relationship.

I’m very grateful to be here with Assistant Secretary Carson and Ambassador Kirk to announce the start of formal negotiations toward a bilateral investment treaty between Mauritius and the United States, often known as a BIT. First time I heard that, I thought it had something to do with horses – (laughter) – but it has to do with increasing business and investment opportunities.

When President Obama addressed the Ghanaian parliament, he said that the United States can do more to promote trade and investment in Africa. Negotiations like this one are a very important step in that direction. We seek to invest for the benefit of African nations as well as for our own. A better investment climate helps create jobs, sparks new industries, and drives broad-based, inclusive growth. Especially during this global economic crisis, as countries on every continent strive to recover, we know that there are certain steps that can be taken even during a recession that will better position a country for the future: diversification, which we spoke about at the opening session of AGOA; seeking and earning foreign investment, is a critical source of capital; looking for the partnerships that will create new opportunities for technology to blossom, for entrepreneurs and their ideas find markets.

Mauritius has taken steps in recent years to attract investment by enacting reforms that protect investors and promote business. They’ve made it easier to launch start-ups, to access credit, and to register property. They’ve demonstrated a commitment to transparency, accountability, and good governance. Now, the people of Mauritius have been the primary beneficiaries of these reforms; it does help to unlock human potential and to create conditions where people feel that their hard work will actually be rewarded. And so investment in Mauritius has already increased. And in fact, as I think Ambassador Kirk said, Mauritius has attracted more investment in the last three years than it did in the preceding twenty years.

President Obama and I share a belief that investment and trade should not be ends in themselves but tools to actually spread development and opportunity deep within societies. As I just said at the AGOA Forum, we seek to integrate our strategy for development with our trade and investment policies. It is something that we think makes good sense. It is not possible to separate them one from the other. Done right, negotiations like this will enhance the investment climate.

There are many ways that the Obama Administration intends to demonstrate its commitment to Africa, and we will do that in large ways and small. But this investment treaty is a real example that we would like others to look at and see what steps need to be taken to move along this path with us. We have with other partners in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Mozambique and Rwanda. And we hope to collaborate with other AGOA partners, such as Ghana, to deepen trade and investment ties – including work that could lead to bilateral investment treaties.

Now, Mauritius may be a small country, but it has the potential to make a big impact, both by contributing to Africa’s overall prosperity and by showing the way, providing an example of how other nations can stimulate growth by setting clear and fair rules for the benefit of those who wish to do business in Mauritius.

I think that the Mauritian Government deserves a real vote of congratulations from us, because it wasn’t easy getting here. This is not something that you wake up and say, well, I think we’ll try to create the climate for bilateral investment treaties. And there were, I think, circumstances along the way that seemed somewhat daunting. But the perseverance and persistence that has been demonstrated by the Mauritian Government over the years has paid off. There are no easy or quick fixes. AGOA provides a framework that is not yet fully utilized and which we are urging every country that is a partner with us to be creative, to look for ways to enhance business and investment opportunities. And then to move on to the bilateral investment treaty prospect provide even more opportunities.

So I congratulate the Mauritian Government on this step today. I look forward to additional collaboration. But I also welcome and invite other countries as well. A long, hard journey starts with a first step. The AGOA countries have taken that step, but now we want to work with you, and Ambassador Kirk and Assistant Secretary Carson and I view our presence here today not as a stopover, but as an ongoing commitment. We are ready to work with countries and businesses to help you take greater advantage of AGOA, and we are ready to work with any country that wants to take the same path that Mauritius has taken to this day as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Acting Assistant Secretary Feltman Briefs on Meetings With Syrian Officials

Jeffrey D. Feltman

Acting Assistant Secretary

Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs

Via Teleconference

Damascus, Syria

March 7, 2009

OPERATOR: Good morning and thank you for standing by. At this time, I would like to remind all parties your lines have been placed on a listen-only mode until the question-and-answer session. Also, today’s conference call is being recorded. If anyone has any objections, you may disconnect at this time.

I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Gordon Duguid. Sir, you may begin.

MR. DUGUID: Thank you and good day, everyone. We have with us Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Asian Affairs Jeffrey Feltman from Damascus. We are on the record this morning, and we have, after the Assistant Secretary’s remarks, about 20 minutes for questions. So please try and limit your follow-ons so we can get as many people in as possible.

We can go to you, sir. Ambassador Feltman.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Hi, hi, good day, Gordon, and hi – hello to everybody.

Dan Shapiro from the NSC and I, of course, came to Damascus today to build on the February 26^th meeting that I had back in Washington with the Syrian ambassador. Of course, this is consistent with the message from President Obama and Secretary Clinton. They have stated their desire to use engagement, you know, with all countries in the region in order to address, you know, issues of mutual concern. And so my visit today with Dan Shapiro is sort of a concrete example of that commitment to use, you know, the sustained and principled dialogue that the President referred to in his Camp Lejeune remarks.

I would characterize the discussions we had today as constructive. We met – along with our Chargé in Damascus, Maura Connelly, we met with the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mu’allim, with the presidential advisor on political and media affairs, Bouthaina Shaaban, and with the Deputy Foreign Minister Dr. Faisal Mekdad. We met together for about three and a half hours, and I had some private time with the foreign minister at the end of that meeting. And, you know, we discussed a broad range of issues – regional issues, international issues, as well as bilateral issues – and how we could move forward in a variety of ways.

You know, it’s our view that we would be using engagement like this consistent with the President and Secretary’s desires to meet key objectives bilaterally, regionally, internationally. And it’s our view that, you know, Syria can play an important, constructive role in the region. And so Dan Shapiro’s and my visit here today was an opportunity to basically start achieving objectives by using diplomacy and dialogue as one of our tools.

With that, I think I would prefer to go to questions.

MR. DUGUID: Okay. Thank you very much. Operator, can we go to our first questioner, please?

OPERATOR: Thank you. To ask a question, please press *1. To accommodate as many questions as possible, please limit your number of questions. Again, *1 to ask a question. One moment.

Thank you. Arshad Mohammed, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Good morning, Ambassador Feltman. Can you point to any concrete achievement that resulted from these meetings, either in the bilateral relationship or regionally or internationally? Is the U.S. Government any closer now, or has it decided to restore or return a U.S. ambassador to Damascus? And is the U.S. Government any more interested now in supporting the indirect Syrian-Israeli peace talks that the Bush Administration seemed to have relatively little interest in? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Thank you. You know, the President, when he asked Dan and me to travel to Damascus, when the Secretary talked to us about this trip when we were together with her in Sharm el-Sheikh and in Israel and Ramallah, you know, they talked about engagement as a means to achieve goals, as a way to achieve objectives.

But – so we came out here with the idea that yes, we should be addressing with the Syrians areas of mutual concern. We have areas where our interests overlap. We have areas where our interests differ. So we do want to achieve goals. But this is also a process. I met with the Syrian ambassador in Washington on February 26^th. We had good discussions. We had our meetings today with the foreign minister. We – I said these were constructive.

I don’t want to comment today on what we’ve achieved or not achieved. The goal is certainly to achieve diplomatic objectives through engagement, but this is part of – this is, you know, part of a process and we’ll see how it develops. The Syrians have concerns with us as well. I’m sure the Syrians will be looking at choices we will be making in the future, just as we’ll be looking at choices that Syria is making.

In terms of the Israeli-Syrian track, I think the President’s been clear, the Secretary’s been clear, the United States wants a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. And I consciously did not use the word “process” but simply the word “peace.” They want to achieve peace. Comprehensive peace includes peace between Israel and all of its neighbors. That means that there will be a Syrian-Israel track at some point. At this point, though, we need to be a bit patient, let the government formation exercise in Israel play itself out.

But Senator Mitchell’s mandate from the President and the Secretary is definitely a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Right now, he’s been focusing primarily on the Israeli-Palestinian part of this, working toward a two-state solution, but his mandate does include comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. So we do want to see forward momentum on the Syrian-Israeli track at the time when the parties are ready for this.

MR. DUGUID: Thank you. Next questioner.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Zayad Hadar, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Yes. Mr. Feltman, I need to know, does the Obama Administration have a strategy to work on with Syria and Iran? Or is it just improvising on the concept of really having dialogue and then seeing how far it can go?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: As I – as I’ve said, the President and the Secretary have a goal-oriented strategy. You know, you want to achieve things. You’ve heard the – you heard the President talk about the stable and secure Iraq that he wants to see as part of the responsible drawdown that the President announced at Camp Lejeune. And so dialogue, engagement, diplomacy, these are things you use along with other tools in order to meet certain objectives.

I don’t want to go into a lot of detail in what was discussed in diplomatic channels today or elsewhere, but you know, you’ve heard the Syrians say that they want a stable, secure Iraq. We (inaudible) Iraq. Both sides say they want a unified Iraq. There are areas like this where our interests coincide (inaudible) the Syrians say their interests are. And these are areas that we can explore. The (inaudible) – these are the sorts of subjects (inaudible) can address.

You know, let’s see where our interests overlap, where we can together promote goals in the region, and let’s see where our interests don’t intersect, if we can try to bridge some of the differences and address each other’s concerns.

MR. DUGUID: Thank you. We have some cross-chatter. Please could we have the next question?

OPERATOR: Thank you. Toshia Umahara, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Hello? Hello?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Hello?

MR. DUGUID: Please ask your question.

QUESTION: Yeah, could you (inaudible) talk about whether or not did you address the issue of nonproliferation with (inaudible) about the alleged cooperation about nuclear with North Korea?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: You know, again, I would characterize the discussions today as both constructive and comprehensive, but I’m not going to get into details about what we discussed. We all – we both agreed, the foreign minister and I both agreed, that it’s – that we want to try to see what we can achieve through private talks right now, and so I’m not going to get into a lot of detail.

I think you know our positions on nuclear nonproliferation and things like that, because we’ve been fairly clear. We are – you know, we’re looking to the IAEA for their examination of various concerns, but I really don’t want to get into details of our topics today, except to say that they were constructive and comprehensive.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Sam Ghattas, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Mr. Feltman, do you have any plans to meet the president of Syria? And is there any significance for not meeting him on this trip? Is – do you see a Syrian message to the United States that they would like to see their ambassador back in Damascus before having such a meeting? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Sam, we have a really – now I hear cross-talk, I’m sorry.

MR. DUGUID: Jeff, (inaudible).

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Sam, we have a very talented chargé in Damascus and we have a very hardworking Embassy staff, so there’s already people on the ground here in Damascus who can engage with the Syrians on a variety of subjects in addition to having visits like the one that Dan Shapiro and I are on today.

The – what was the first part of your question again? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Do you have any plans to meet with the Syrian president and is there any --

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Oh, that’s right, that’s right. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: -- significance for not meeting him?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: I’m sorry. What we – Sam, what we did – you know, when the President and the Secretary ask us to use engagement, again, to try to achieve certain goals, to explore the bilateral relationship, to compare notes on regional and international developments, we asked for meetings with Syrian officials. We did not specify which Syrian officials. We wanted to leave that up to the Syrians to decide who was most appropriate for us to meet with today. And as I say, we met with the foreign minister, with Minister Shaaban, with Dr. Mekdad, and I’d say that, you know, this was a, you know, appropriate, comprehensive, constructive meeting, as I said before and, I can add, a lengthy meeting at three and a half hours plus a private conversation at the end.

So we stated that we want to come to Damascus, we wanted to come and talk to officials, but we didn’t, you know, try to dictate to the Syrians who our interlocutors would be. You know, we chose – the President and the Secretary chose to send us, and the Syrians chose who would receive us. And I think that’s fine.

MR. DUGUID: Thank you. Next questioner, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from James Rosen. You may ask your question.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

First, just a housekeeping matter: Jeff, we’re very grateful to you for arranging for this conference call and ditto to the State Department. But in announcing it, the State Department Press Office specified that the sound of your voice, the actual recordings that are being made of your – of your answers may not be used for broadcast purposes. And I wonder if you might reconsider that for those of us in the broadcast realm, TV and radio, who want to give appropriate attention to the very important trip you’ve made and want to be able to cover it, if you would consider allowing us to use the sound of your voice and not just the text of the words.

The second question is, without asking you to delve into any of the details of your conversations today: first, if you could give us a sense of your itinerary going forward; and secondly, we must bear in mind that these are discussions you’re having with representatives of a country that is still on the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and I wonder if you could, again, without delving into the areas that you specifically discussed, give us a sense of how actively you believe the Syrian Government is still engaged in terrorist activities in and out of the region. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: In terms of the rules of this interview, you know, I’m not the rule keeper, I’m not the rule enforcer, and so I’m going to leave that to Gordon and his colleagues to work out. I --

QUESTION: But you have no (inaudible).

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: I will leave this all to Gordon and people to work out. I’m not even going to comment on this. I’m not the professional media meister here.

In terms of my itinerary, I’ll answer the last part first. We will – Dan Shapiro and I will be going back to Beirut tomorrow. We’ll continue the consultations that we started yesterday with the Lebanese. You know, with upcoming Lebanese elections, with the establishment of the special tribunal that came into being last Sunday, there’s a lot to talk about with the Lebanese. So we will be having more consultations with the Lebanese tomorrow.

I then am stopping in Europe for some consultations with French counterparts, and I’ll be back in the office early in the week. So that’s the itinerary.

In terms of Syria, FTO, et cetera, as I said, we’ve got concerns with Syria, I’m sure Syria has concerns with us. Today was an opportunity to start to raise some of these concerns with each other directly, in addition to the dialogue that takes place already between our embassies and officials in capitals. You know, the reason why Syria is on that list is because Syria is playing host to some organizations like Hamas, you know, and we believe that Syria is supporting groups like Hezbollah. I think everyone knows why Syria is on that list.

But you know, my job today was not finger pointing per se. My job today was to discuss a whole variety of bilateral, regional, and international issues where we do have differences. In some cases, we do have overlapping interests. But you know, you use engagement not to confirm where you agree, but you use engagement to try to start bridging differences where you don’t agree.

MR. DUGUID: Thank you. Next questioner, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Lukman Ahmed, you may ask your question.

QUESTION: Yes, if I may just follow up about the – Syria’s support to Hezbollah as it generate a problem between the United States and Syria. And have you sensed any cooperation or understanding that this issue might be (inaudible) through your contacts there in Syria, Mr. Feltman?

And the second question: What kind of level of the next meeting would be, if there will be any?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: You know, let’s keep our expectations somewhat in check here. We – I had a very good meeting with the Syrian ambassador on February 26^th. Dan Shapiro, the chargé of our Embassy here, Maura Connelly, and I had a very good meeting today, a very long meeting today, with the Syrian foreign minister and a couple of other officials.

But the differences between our two countries will require more work than simply two conversations like this in order to address. We found a lot of common ground today. We were able to talk about a lot of issues. We were able to – you know, there were no subjects that were taboo. We tabled a lot of various issues. But in terms of do we expect this result or that result out of this particular meeting, I think that’s simply unrealistic at this point.

We will be looking – you know, we will be looking at the choices Syria makes, and Syria will be looking at the choices we make in the days to come. We will be, you know, looking at what opportunities for engagement there might be in coming weeks based on what we see as an aftermath of these meetings. But we have not had sustained and principled engagement like the President has called for with Syria for quite some time, so a lot of these concerns that the Syrians have with us, the concerns that we have with the Syrians, you know, are going to take some time for that sustained and principled engagement to achieve results. We want to achieve results. I’m sure that the Syrians want to achieve results. But let’s not expect that things are going to change dramatically from today until tomorrow.

In terms of Hezbollah, which you asked the question about Hezbollah, you know, I would refer to Syria’s public statements that Syria fully backs UN Security Council Resolution 1701, because certainly that’s been a principle of the United States as well. The United States fully backs Security Council Resolution 1701. This is the Security Council resolution that led to the cessation of hostilities after the July-August 2006 war. And so I think if we use as a principle Security Council Resolution 1701 as our objective, right there, for example, is a way for us to address some areas where we might not agree.

MR. DUGUID: Thank you. I think we have time for one more question, one final question, please.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Our final question comes from Hisham Melham.

QUESTION: Hi, Ambassador.

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: Hi, Hisham.

QUESTION: What would you expect the Syrians to do as a prelude for higher-level meetings and a return of the American ambassador to Damascus?

AMBASSADOR FELTMAN: You know, Hisham, this was not a meeting where the Syrians set up benchmarks for us or we set up benchmarks for the Syrians. This was a meeting consistent with the Secretary and the President’s request that we try to use engagement to achieve goals. You know, so I don’t really want to try to give you a list of things that we’re looking for and the Syrians – or a list that the Syrians might be looking for with us. We had, as I’ve said – I will repeat it – we had constructive, comprehensive talks today. I would expect that the Syrians will be thinking about what we had to say, just as we will be thinking about what the Syrians had to say. And each of us can look to see if there are ways to address the differences that were raised.

But in terms of, you know, a laundry list or benchmarks, that was not the atmosphere of the discussions today. That was not the purpose in coming out. The purpose was, you know, yes, to register concerns, certainly, and to give the Syrians an opportunity to explain to us their concerns about us, to give the Syrians an opportunity to tell us their vision for the bilateral relationship, just as we were able to give the Syrians our view of what a constructive bilateral relationship would be. But you know, I think each of us have a lot to think about after today’s meeting, and each of us have things that we can look at in the days moving forward. But no, no benchmarks.

MR. DUGUID: Thank you very much, Ambassador. Ladies and gentlemen in the press, thank you very much for calling in today. That is all the time we have, and we will sign off at this point.

OPERATOR: Thank you. That concludes today’s conference call. You may disconnect at this time.