12:23 P.M. EDT
The two leaders agreed to continue their discussions on the North
Korean situation and other topics when they meet in Washington on
May 14th, as previously announced.
Following that call, the President also spoke with Prime Minister
Koizumi of Japan, had a conversation about the same topics. They
also agreed and exchanged views on last week's talks in Beijing, and
agreed to continue pressing for the irreversible and verifiable
elimination of their weapons program. The President reiterated his
intention to resolve this issue peacefully, and the two leaders
agreed that they will continue their discussions and consultations
as we work very closely with our good friends and allies in the
region on this matter.
Following that, the President had an intelligence briefing and an
FBI briefing, convened a meeting of the Homeland Security Council.
And later this afternoon in the East Room, the President will hold
an event to call on the Congress to pass his HIV-AIDS initiative, so
that the nations that have been ravaged by AIDS in Africa, as well
as nations affected in the Caribbean can receive the relief they
need to fight this disease.
And that is it for the President's public schedule. One
announcement, and then I'll be happy to take your questions.
Literally just a few moments ago, the United Nations voted to
reelect Cuba to the Human Rights Commission. This is a setback for
the cause of human rights. Cuba does not deserve a seat on the Human
Rights Commission. Cuba deserves to be investigated by the Human
Rights Commission. The action taken in the United Nations -- the
Human Rights Commission at the United Nations comes upon,
immediately upon Cuba's actions of rounding up 78 independent
journalists, librarians and opposition leaders and sentencing them
to 28 years in prison. Having Cuba serve again on the Human Rights
Commission is like putting Al Capone in charge of bank security. It
was an inappropriate action that does not serve the cause of human
rights in Cuba or at the United Nations.
And with that, I'm happy to take your questions. Tom.
Q In terms of the road
map, it calls for a negotiation for a final status on
Palestinian borders, final settlement between Israel and the
Palestinians. In terms of how far you let that process go, are you
laying down any parameters within which to work, in terms of
negotiation? Are you prepared to tolerate endless negotiation, as
has been the case in the Middle East all these years?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, here's what will happen next: The road map
will soon be released to the parties, the formal release of the road
map so they will have it formally for the first time. At that point,
we anticipate that they will review it, and we will welcome
contributions to the road map from the various parties.
This is something we will continue to work directly with the
Israelis on, and work with the Palestinians on. We want to hear what
they have to say. And I think this will begin a process, a process
which the United States will play a role, and an important role and
a helpful role. Fundamentally, it still is a matter for the Israelis
and the Palestinians to work together on, to resolve matters for
themselves. There are many important players, but there are no more
important players than the Israelis and the Palestinians. We will be
at their sides to help them.
Q So will you set any kind of ground rules at the onset to say,
listen, we're not going to tolerate endless negotiation; we have a
schedule that we would like to keep to, and so, we want to work with
both of you to try to reach that, but this can't go on forever?
MR. FLEISCHER: The parameters were set in the President's June
24th Rose Garden speech about what it is the United States supports,
and as well, those parameters are clear from the read of the road
map. And those parameters can basically be described as creating now
through the road map a process whereby the security situation is
enhanced as the political process is advanced, as well, all toward
the point of a state of Palestine by 2005 that can live side-by-side
in peace and security with Israel. And we will be there to make
certain of the security.
Q Again, are you saying to the parties going into this, this
process can't go on forever, you can't keep negotiating -- back and
forth, you've got to come to a point where you've got to step up to
the table here and sign this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the process is just beginning. And they have
not even yet received formally the road map yet. So I'm not going to
put any type of timetable on a process that has not even gotten the
formal kickoff of being delivered the road map. The President wants
progress to move quickly. The dates that the President outlined are
the dates that he seeks and believes in and will work toward. Those
dates are not to change. So the amount of time they take up takes up
the amount of time left between now and that date. And so we will
continue to work the process.
Q One housekeeping thing. Do you know if Elizabeth Smart will be
at the White House tomorrow?
MR. FLEISCHER: There will be many families coming to the White
House tomorrow as the President signs the National Amber Alert
System. And many of these families who join the President have all
been touched, one way or another, as a result of missing children.
The Smart family has asked the White House not to make any
statements about whether their daughter will or will not attend.
Q How long will that last? Will we find out by either seeing her
or not seeing her? Or will we know sometime before that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that certainly is one way. (Laughter.)
Q I'm not trying to be flip. I'm actually just asking whether
you're going to --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm limited at the request of the family. In
respect to the family, I can't say anything more.
Q On North
Korea, is the
President prepared to rule out any concessions to North Korea in
exchange for a complete dismantlement of their nuclear program,
whether financially, whether it's food, anything like that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason that we are -- the world is in the spot
it is in is because North Korea entered into an agreement and then
did not keep up their terms of the agreement. They received aid in
return for promising not to develop nuclear weapons. They took the
aid, they ran with the aid, and then they developed a nuclear
weapons program anyway.
So what the President has said is that we will not reward North
Korea for bad behavior; that what we seek is North Korea's
irrevocable and verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear weapon's
program, and we will not provide them inducements for doing what
they always said they were going to do anyway.
Q So how does this happen? Because you say you're on a diplomatic
track; they're opening gambit was to put something on the table that
you, it seems, dismiss out of hand, which is concessions for that
dismantlement of weapons. But everybody's still talking. So, in the
end, what does the President believe is actually going to force
their hand to do what he wants them to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think one of the most notable, positive
elements of the talks that just emerged is the fact that the
approach that the President always believed was the right approach
was the diplomatic approach, whose diplomacy will be enhanced
because it's multilateral, has indeed been enhanced because, as he
discussed with Japan and South Korea today, we see it the same way,
and China sees it very much the same way, as well.
So the President's hope is as a result of the multilateral path
that we are pursuing, that North Korea will reassess whether or not
it wants to engage with the world, whether or not it wants to
economically advance. And then North Korea will come to a reasoned
conclusion about the best way to economically advance and help its
people, and that begins with their verifiable dismantlement of its
nuclear weapons program.
Q All right, but, I mean, there hasn't really been much of an
advance here. I mean, the diplomatic approach so far has resulted in
North Korea asking for the same thing it got out of the Clinton
administration. So it's terrific that Japan and China are involved,
but what evidence is there -- or what will be different, say, than
1994?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, and this is the diplomatic process -- and
the diplomatic process is a lengthy one. And the President's
prepared to pursue it at that length. And so if it takes time, it
will take time. But what will not happen is North Korea will not be
rewarded for developing nuclear weapons.
Q Ari, on
Cuba, what
good is a human rights organization that within days of a
government arresting all these dissidents and poets and jailing
them, elects that government to the Human Rights Commission? What
does the President see as the usefulness, and what worth does he see
in the expenditure of American tax dollars to go to such an
organization?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Human Rights Commission undermines its own
credibility at the United Nations when they allowed Cuba to get
reelected. The Human Rights Commission not only hurts the people of
Cuba, but they hurt the very cause in which nations should sign up
to serve on the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission
wanted to send investigators into Cuba, and Cuba said, no. And yet
today, Cuba gets reelected to the Human Rights Commission. It raises
troubling issues, and that's why the United States is speaking out
about it. We hope others will speak out.
Q Right now, though, speaking out is all the President intends to
do, that he intends to continue to contribute and other ways that
the United States does to this organization?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there is no change in our overall position
toward the United Nations. The United Nations continues to pursue
other areas that do good around the world. But in this case, the
Human Rights Commission voted to reelect a nation that would --
deserves to be the object of an investigation, not a duly elected
member of the Human Rights Commission.
Q And then on the global
HIV/AIDS initiative, what is the White House response to
conservative social critics of this legislation that say it won't be
effective because it fails to promote abstinence efficiently, and it
opens the door for what they believe is an ineffective way of
stopping the spread of this disease, which is the distribution of
condoms?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President looks forward to working with all
parties to make progress on this important legislation so it can,
indeed, be signed into law, and done soon. The President think it is
a top priority and moral calling for the United States to aid
African nations, to aid Caribbean nations, in the fight against
AIDS.
There is a very successful role model in place, and that is the
Ugandan model. And the President would like to call attention,
wherever there are critics, whether they're on the left or the
right, to success that works. And the Ugandan model is a great role
model. It provides a focus on abstinence. It puts an emphasis on
abstinence. Then it recognizes that, alone, is not the only answer.
But it is an effective model of fighting AIDS in Africa. And that's
where the President is focusing his attention, is how to deliver
that relief, while be cognizant of some of these other important
issues such as abstinence, because it does play an important role.
But he wants to make certain that the program is funded, that it can
do its job, and do so based on successful existing models.
Q But there are some in the conservative camp, as well, who
believe that this bill would represent a departure from the
so-called Mexico City policy that President Reagan adopted, that
President Bush has re-adopted.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the program the President supports to
provide aid for Africa -- the AIDS initiative to fight AIDS in
Africa -- will apply the same standards for all family planning,
grants using foreign assistance funds, but we are not expanding the
Mexico City policy to cover this HIV-AIDS program. Any organization
that wants to participate in the treatment, care, and prevention of
HIV-AIDS under the President's emergency relief plan will be
eligible, provided they do not use the funds to promote or perform
abortions.
Q Are you considering any policy changes, or any increased
sanctions against Cuba for their crackdown, Ari?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this action just took place at the United
Nations, literally in the minutes leading up to this briefing. So
I'm going to limit my comments to what just took place.
Q The dissidents were arrested last week.
MR. FLEISCHER: And we have vociferously condemned it. Obviously,
for those who are proposing to remove some of the trade restrictions
that exist on Cuba, we remind them that Cuba remains a very
repressive regime, as proven by its actions in the arrest of these
leaders, who simply want to speak out, journalists who want to write
the truth. And this is a reminder to these groups that want to
liberalize or open up trade with Cuba, that this repressive regime
will use that money to further their dictatorship, not to help the
people.
Q Ari, after about 20
years out in the field, one of the major commandantes or
commanders of the armed revolutionary force in Colombia, FARC, has
turned himself in, and is asking other commanders to do the same.
The President is meeting tomorrow with President Uribe. What is the
importance the White House attaches to this meeting?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President very much looks forward to
tomorrow's meeting with President Uribe. Colombia has been working
closely with the United States in the fight against narco-terrorism,
and we are their ally. We want to help Columbia. Columbia is a
democracy, and we want them to succeed. The President will meet
tomorrow, and one of the topics they've talked about repeatedly is
how to protect the Colombian people from the terrorist FARC, and
that will be a topic on the agenda tomorrow.
Q Ari, usually the White House has had special events on Cinco de
Mayo, a special celebration. I think last year and the year before,
if I'm not mistaken. Is the White House planning anything, which is
a week from today, Cinco de Mayo?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not looked ahead to next week's schedule
yet, so let me do that and see if we have anything planned for that
day. I just don't know off the top of my head.
Q Ari, going back to what Terry was talking about, or the
response you had to Terry, how is the White House or the federal
government going to determine if these funds will be used for
abortions, or not? What is the mechanism that's in place?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's a series of mechanisms in place, and that
deals with the transparency of these organizations, the bookkeeping
of these organizations. They will not be able to do business with
the government unless we were satisfied they had transparency in
place to know about their use of funds. We obviously don't put money
into organizations where we have no accountability for these
organizations on how the funding is spent. So that is exactly how
the program would be implemented.
Q And also, an abstinence issue. Just looking here, teenage
pregnancy rates may have fallen a bit, but they're still large. Some
are saying that you're throwing money away, just throwing it to the
winds, talking about abstinence and dealing with issues of
abstinence, when smacking you in the face that people are going to
follow a human need.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is why I pointed out the successful
Ugandan role model here. Uganda stands strong in Africa as having a
program that they implemented years and years ago to fight AIDS, and
it's called ABC -- it's the ABC approach, which is abstain; if you
can't abstain, be faithful; if you can't be faithful, use condoms.
But abstinence in an essential part of the prevention program of the
Ugandan model. That is the Ugandan experience in Africa, a
successful one, and it does put an emphasis where emphasis belongs,
which is on abstinence. It's not the only area of emphasis, but it
is where they put emphasis.
Q But is that a realistic emphasis in today's day and time?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think you could ask the Ugandan Ambassador when
the Ugandan Ambassador is here, and she will tell you emphatically,
yes.
Q Ari, Senator
Grassley, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, is warning
Republicans not, when pushing other Republicans, the moderate
Republicans on the tax cut, not to push too hard, or else what
happened with Jim Jeffords two years ago might happen again. Is the
White House taking heed to that? Is the White House trying not to --
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you can also see in some of the
subsequent interviews he's done, that's now quite what he has said.
He's explained it a little bit beyond that. I think he was asked,
are you aware of anybody who is looking to do that, and he said, no.
So the President is going to stand on principle, and he's going to
stand on the principle that we need to help Americans find jobs. And
of course, he will fight for that. That's what the President
believes in. And we ask all to engage in this debate in the spirit
of open-mindedness and fairness. And that's how the debate will be
engaged, and we expect that's how the debate will be received.
Q To follow up, separate from Senator Grassley, his comments,
people like Senator Snowe, Senator Voinovich, if they don't in the
end, end up going along with the White House, are you going to be
careful not to have any kind of overt or covert retribution, much
like --
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, of course.
Q -- Senator Jeffords said that he saw after he didn't go along
with the White House initially?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, we disputed that notion then and there's
nothing to that. Of course, the President recognizes different
people will vote different ways, and we will work -- the President
will work very hard to build a majority to support jobs for the
American people.
Q Ari, beyond the road
map, to what extent is the President prepared to put his
personal weight behind this peace process?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is going to work very hard and try
to help the parties come together to achieve a two-state solution to
the violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is a
priority for the President, and he is committed to it.
Q What does that mean, work very hard?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, he's going to put a lot of time into it, a
lot of attention into it, put whatever it takes into it so that we
can help the parties to get it done, while always understanding it
still fundamentally is a matter that the Israelis and the
Palestinians have to want to do themselves. If there is a lack of
desire from either one of those parties, there is nobody on the
outside, including the United States, who can do it for them. They
must have that will to get it done themselves.
But if you take a look at some of the more recent events in the
Middle East, this is an optimistic moment for events in the Middle
East. The fact of the matter is that the Palestinian Authority now
has a prime minister who is dedicated to moving the Palestinian
people in a different direction, a direction way from violence. In
large part, that is a result of the fact that the President, on June
24th, said that Yasser Arafat cannot be a party to peace because he
does not support peace. And as a result of the President's tough
message, we have a greater prospect for peace now in the Middle East
than we've had in years -- which you'll ultimately see that the
President is committed to and will work hard to make it happen.
Q On the tax cut, what
is the administration's position on the idea of offsets, either
revenue raisers or spending cuts, in order to get up the total of
the potential tax cut, especially on the Senate side?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's budget that was submitted to
the Congress earlier this year contained, for example, $11 billion
of offsets over a 10-year period. And so the question of offsets is,
indeed, a question that belongs on the table. As with any policy,
it's a matter of exactly what specific program are people talking
about. And each program or each proposal will be analyzed on its own
merits to make certain that it is a legitimate loophole-closer or
offset.
Q Eleven billion dollars wouldn't do much to boost the size of
the tax cut as its currently envisioned in the Senate. There are
those who are talking about a far larger list of offsets. Does the
administration have any position on that? Does it intend to express
its preference to members of Congress today, for instance?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it depends on they are. That's why I've said
each one of these will get examined on its merits. I can tell you
that in the late 1990s, the Republican Congress enacted many offsets
into law at that time. The more that you enact, the fewer are left
that are legitimate offsets. But it depends. Each one will be
analyzed on the merits. And as members of Congress step forward with
their ideas of an offset, we look forward to hearing their
explanations.
Q At the U.N., where
do you stand in preparations for a resolution to lift sanctions? And
will you include a lot of other issues in one resolution, such as
endorsing any potential Iraqi Interim Authority and that sort of
thing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, the timing is a little early still. The
oil-for-food program has been extended to June 3rd, and so the
timing of any action that we would offer a resolution still remains
some time into the future. Right now the process is a consultative
one. We're talking to allies, we're talking to people at the United
Nations about timing, about language. And the fundamental goal
remains the total lifting of sanctions.
Q There are those who think that time is running short, because
this is likely to be as big a wrangle as the debate over 1441.
MR. FLEISCHER: Hard to imagine anything will be that size. But
the date is until June 3rd, and we'll see exactly what the timing
allows.
Q Just to follow on Jim's question. What's the good of offsets
that raise revenues or taxes to be used in order to lower taxes?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because it's not just the aggregate number that
counts, it's the merits of each proposal. And if there is a
provision on the books that is worthy of being applied as an offset,
it's because the law needs to be changed. As a benefit of changing
that law, revenue comes in that can allow the tax cut to grow to an
even higher number to create jobs for the American people.
Q I want to make sure I
understand what you mean when you say that you're not going to
expand the Mexico City to the Global AIDS initiative. As I remember
it, the key issue in the Mexico City debate was over fungibility,
the idea that even if money provided to an organization wasn't going
to be used directly for abortion, other funds could be used for that
purpose. Are you saying that you won't apply that fungibility test
to governments or organizations that receive aid under the global
AIDS initiative?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're not expanding the Mexico City policy to
cover this initiative. But we do expect -- what we do expect is that
any funds not be used to perform or promote abortions.
Q That's direct in this case. The policy is limited to the actual
money --
MR. FLEISCHER: Exactly as I described it.
Q Ari, with the war winding down and attention being focused --
media attention being focused back on the Democratic presidential
candidates, is the President paying attention to what these
presidential candidates are saying about his management of the
economy, specifically? And two, is the President making any plans to
start putting his campaign together?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's fair to say that when the
President picks up the papers he reads the serious news first. And
it's still a little early for the President to pay any attention to
the campaign. He's in the middle of governing. There still is
serious international situations that are underway. We still have
our troops in danger in Iraq. And so the President is focused on
doing his job governing. There will come a time, of course, for more
politics. It just has not yet come.
Q Ari, you've spoken about the prevention -- the Ugandan ABC
prevention component. Is there a research component to this
initiative that the President breaks out today, as well?
MR. FLEISCHER: A research component to it?
Q In other words, expanding any kind of research into trying to
find --
MR. FLEISCHER: The program was a $15-billion initiative that
focused on retroviral drugs. I'll take a look at some of the more
specific language, and maybe we can get that for you here in the
announcement about a research component. I remember the top-line
numbers on it.
Q What is the President's policy, or the White House policy on
AIDS research in terms of goals?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration strongly is support of AIDS
research. That's one of the -- when the President talked about this
initiative and he talked about some of the breakthroughs in research
that allow an initiative like this to help extend people's lives, as
you know, the President has also talked about some of the testing
procedures, and he's changed the testing procedures so that we can
deliver more help as a compassionate nation to people who suffer
from AIDS within our own borders.
Q Ari, back to Cuba for a moment. There have
been any number of delegations going to Cuba for trade purposes in
the past year or so. Would the President -- given what happened at
the U.N. today, would the President be inclined to tighten
restrictions or put a clamp on increased trade -- albeit small, but
it has been increasing -- would he be inclined to do that?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has been vociferous in saying that
we should not lift the sanctions, change the sanctions aimed at
Cuba. In fact, if you recall, the President went to Florida and made
a speech about the Cuba policy, and he actually offered Cuba an
opportunity to change its relationship if they would welcome in
democracy and make changes in their human rights situation. The
President offered to take new steps, and Cuba, unfortunately, went
in the exact opposite direction and increased its repression of its
people.
Q What do you make of that?
MR. FLEISCHER: We make of it that Fidel Castro is an outright,
absolute dictator who has no interest in the lives or the suffering
of his own people. He only has interest in keeping himself in power
at the expense of those people.
Q Ari, can I ask you
about Iraq?
Why have coalition commanders in Iraq signed a cease-fire with an
anti-Iran guerrilla group that is on America's list of terrorist
groups? Was that cleared here? And does this not undermine America's
case in the war on terror?
MR. FLEISCHER: In this instance, during the operations that took
place in Iraq -- and the group that you refer to is called the MEK,
Mujahedeen e-Khalk -- U.S. Forces engaged formations of the MEK,
which were integrated into Saddam Hussein's defensive forces.
Following the fall of the regime, our forces have now been working
to promote security throughout Iraq. As part of that process, the
MEK agreed to stop fighting and to confine its forces to designated
areas. We expect the MEK to remain in these designated areas and
refrain from any military or security operations. So this is part of
the ongoing, immediate post-combat effort to enhance security on the
ground. This is not necessarily the final word, but this is the word
in the immediate, post-combat security environment.
Q Does this not undermine the case that we make, that terrorist
organizations -- we don't ask who they're attacking, but if they're
on our list --
MR. FLEISCHER: Our goal remains an Iraq that is free, and that is
also free of all terrorist organizations. We're reviewing what the
next steps will be, so you're watching a story unfold. There may be
more to this. But for now, it's focused on the immediate security on
the ground. They are a terrorist organization, they deserve that
label, and we are reviewing what the next steps will be.
Q Okay, just real quickly, was that approved here ahead of time,
or is that something that the commanders on the ground can do
without having to come to the White House first?
MR. FLEISCHER: This instance, Mark, I don't know. I couldn't tell
you whether this was done operationally on the ground. It very well
may have been.
Q With four weeks to go
in this particular session with Congress, is that enough time
for the tax cut, and is the President going to set some sort of
deadline like he did with the budget, for April 11th? And secondly,
to follow up on Dana's question, you said that Grassley had said
that he hadn't -- wasn't aware of any Republicans who are now going
to change their mind. But as you know, no one was aware of Senator
Jeffords, either. So is he worried at all about this possibility?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. With all due respect, I think you're fishing
off a dock that doesn't exist. (Laughter.) I think if you're aware
of something, you'll bring it to me, but until that point, I really
think this is -- I enjoy fishing, but I think it's akin to that.
Q What about the deadline?
MR. FLEISCHER: On the deadline, if you take a look at what
Congress has done, actually, they're moving rather early on the
process. They passed the budget resolution early. Typically the
Congress never even gets to it by this time of year. And so the four
weeks that are between now and the Memorial Day recess the Congress
takes are a perfect opportunity for Congress to come together on the
tax and growth plan.
Q If it's not done by then, is it too late, though?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants it done as soon as possible,
because if you're unemployed, you want it done now. And that's who
the President is focused on, is the needs of the unemployed.
Q This is a two-part
question. It's becoming apparent that France may have been
aiding Saddam's regime up until the war broke out. When might the
President phone President Chirac about this? Second part of the
question: If members of the Iraqi regime turn up in France, what
agreements do we have in place to ensure that they'll be turned over
to the U.S.?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, on your second question, I remind you that
President Chirac agreed with President Bush when the focus was on
whether Syria was indeed receiving anybody who had fled from Iraq,
and President Chirac spoke to the Syrians and stressed to them that
they should not harbor. And we expect that's a principled stand that
France takes that would apply everywhere.
On the first question, I have nothing to report on that topic.
Q Ari, I have two questions. What's happening to those millions
of U.S. dollars in hundred dollar bills found at presidential
palaces and residences in Baghdad? And has the Secret Service
determined the money is real?
MR. FLEISCHER: The last update I had was that it did appear that
the money is real. It will be saved and used for the people of Iraq.
It is their resource, and that is -- it will be saved for them.
Q I have another question. Is it true that when the President
goes to the G8 meeting in France next month, he is going to sleep
across the border in Switzerland?
MR. FLEISCHER: It is not. (Laughter.) It is not true.
Q Ari, on the AIDS
initiative, have you seen any sign from the other African
countries, with the exception of Uganda and the Caribbean countries,
that they are making changes to alleviate the AIDS crisis? And has
there been any cooperation from Tahabo and Mbeki in South
Africa?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, keep in mind, this initiative is specific to
the countries that were named as part of the initiative. It's not
every country in Africa. It is the countries with whom we have a
working relationship, where we have confidence that the money will
go toward important AIDS programs that work. And so, there is a
screen to protect America's taxpayer money.
And if you take a look at some of the absolute horror stories
coming out of Africa, there are countries in which 40 percent of the
population of these countries have AIDS. There's an absolute moral
calling, in the President's judgment, to the people of the United
States to help those in need in Africa and the Caribbean that have
been ravaged by this. And of course, we will work through these
systems in place to make certain that the money and the aid go to
the people who need it, not to the governments who might siphon it
off. Those countries -- and there are countries that have
troublesome records -- are not part of this.
Q So South Africa is not a part now?
MR. FLEISCHER: You have to take a look at the specific list of
names.
Q Can we get that list, by the way?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I think that's public. We provided that when
we announced the initiative.
Q Ari, to follow on some
earlier questions, what benefit does the United States see to
remaining a member of a Human Rights Commission that has Libya as a
chair, and reelects Cuba despite what it's doing to its
citizens?
MR. FLEISCHER: It is troublesome. But we believe by being a part
of the Human Rights Commission we can work from the inside, as well
as from the outside, to effect positive change. But it certainly
does raise eyebrows and raise questions about the United Nations
Human Rights Commission's commitment to human rights. It does raise
those questions. You cannot get around it. The United Nations Human
Rights Commission cannot expect to have Libya be its chair, to
reelect Cuba, and not have people wonder if they really do stand for
human rights, or not.
Q A couple minutes ago, you cited the fact that there are still
Americans and troops in Iraq as one of the reasons that the
President is not in campaign mode. Do you think that there will
still be American troops in harm's way when he is ready to go
political?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the question is, at what level are
the dangers? Clearly, the combat phase has wound down, and is
winding all the way down. But any time Americans are anywhere --
whether it's Afghanistan, or whether it's in Iraq -- there are
dangers. We are still a nation that has elections in times of
danger, and that means the President will make his determination
about when he wants to engage in that process. But it's still way,
way too early for the President.