On the subject of the compensation for the families and a deadline that was reported in the papers today, I would note that that is an agreement between Libya and the families. So it's, you know, for comment on that, I would direct you to them.

As far as the subject of lifting sanctions goes, our focus is on Libyan actions and Libyan performance, and we've made it clear that as Libya moves forward in fulfilling its commitments to divorce itself from any connection to terrorism and to abjure and dismantle its WMD programs, we would be willing to discuss bilateral relations. But it hasn't gotten beyond that at this point.

Arshad.

QUESTION: Could you clarify a point for me, Adam? The New York Times reports on an interview that they had with the Libyan Prime Minister today, in which they say he's pressing for the removal of U.S. sanctions within -- by May 12th. And I'm confused about the date of May 12th, because my understanding of the agreement that was structured between the Lockerbie families and the Libyan Government was that that agreement explicitly provided for additional payments to the family members, if U.S. sanctions were lifted within eight months of the date of the payment of the $2.7 billion into escrow, which would put the date some time in April, because they completed the payment in August, as was announced from the podium here.

If you don't know the answer, and I wouldn't be surprised if you don't, could you take the question because it would be nice to figure out exactly what is the date in question?

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: I think it's in April. They say it's in May.

MR. ERELI: I can't take the question, frankly, Arshad, and the reason is because this is not an agreement between the U.S. Government, or this is not an agreement in which -- to which the U.S. Government is a party. It is an agreement between the families and the Libyan Government. So those are the parties that would have to -- would be in a position to answer your question.

QUESTION: Clearly, it impinges on the diplomacy with regard to what Libya does with regard to its WMD, and what you might do in response if they meet your conditions. And so it may be easier for you to check it than for me, although I'm happy to check it. But every document I've ever seen said eight months within payment of the 2.7 billion into escrow, which would put it in April.

MR. ERELI: Right. I guess I would caution you to avoid making the connection between what the agreement calls for, and what the U.S. Government may or may not do. Our actions, or our policy, is based on Libyan actions and what steps Libya takes to follow through on its commitments. That's what we're looking at and that's what's going to dictate how we respond and how we move forward.

QUESTION: Yeah, but, Adam, surely you're aware of what the date is, at least I would hope you are being -- you would be -- and I would expect that the families of the victims would hope that you would be as well. So I don't see why you can't take the question.

MR. ERELI: Because it's not our position to comment on or to explain or to otherwise hold forth on an agreement to which we are not a party. There's an agreement between the families and the Government of Libya --

QUESTION: I'm sorry, yeah. And on that Friday back in --

MR. ERELI: And so I'm not saying that -- I'm not saying that the dates are right or not saying the dates are wrong. What I'm saying is that, you know, for comment on those dates, it's best to address yourselves to the people who came to the agreement on those dates.

QUESTION: Yeah. But, Adam, it's a bit disingenuous for you to say that you don't -- that you're not going to be even comment. You could tell us what your understanding of the date is.

MR. ERELI: Yeah. I'd rather not get into the details of an agreement between the families and the Government of Libya to which there are, you know, there's a lot of fine print.

QUESTION: Are you suggesting that you are unaware of the details of this agreement?

MR. ERELI: No, I'm suggesting it's not something that I care to go into.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I'm sure the families are very appreciative of that.

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: If the further payments don't go through, though, will the U.S. Government take a role in going back to Libya and talking about what their responsibilities are in terms of compensation? Because that is something that the government was involved in negotiating in the first place. So if that doesn't go through, would you guys be responsible for going back to Libya and talking about compensation again?

MR. ERELI: I'd say this. We will do what is necessary to defend the interests of the victims of this tragedy.

QUESTION: Adam, with respect to my original question, is Libya being a bit disingenuous because here a shipment of, perhaps, nuclear weapon parts which were seized, suddenly seized by the United States and Britain, taken to Italy, and it's basically possibly forced the Libyan Government to do something they normally wouldn't have done until that seizure.

MR. ERELI: We're talking about something that really was addressed on Wednesday, I believe, and that is getting into Libyan motivations. And that's something I can't do. I think what's clear is that the seizure of the parts was significant and showed the robustness and the efficacy of the Proliferation Security Initiative and underscores yet again why it's important that we continue to, if I could say it, trust but verify.

Yes, Matt.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. ERELI: New subject?

QUESTION: Yeah. Can you explain to us what the status or non-status is of this delegation that may or may not go to North Korea and may or not see, inspect, Yongbyon, the plant at Yongbyon?

QUESTION: And may or may not be two delegations?

(Laughter.)

MR. ERELI: You won't be surprised to learn that since it is not an official U.S. delegation, and since the U.S. Government is not involved in the travel, there's a limit to what I can say, simply because it's not our deal. Specifically, we have nothing to do with these groups’ or group -- this group or groups’ reported plans to visit North Korea. I think it should be clearly understood that the groups or individuals are not acting on behalf of the Administration. They are going to North Korea independent of the Administration.

Our focus remains on diplomatic efforts to get six-party talks underway as a means of reaching the goal of a denuclearized -- a dismantlement of the North Korean program and a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

As far as the composition of the trips go, who's going, when they're going, what they're going to see, I'd refer you to the organizers of the trips.

QUESTION: Do you regard these trips as in any way muddying the waters or making more difficult the diplomatic efforts to get a new round of six-way talks scheduled and to pursue the goal of denuclearizing the Peninsula?

MR. ERELI: Well, it's hard to say what impact the trip's going to have before it takes place. But it's -- I would say that certainly any efforts that complicate prospects for, or undertakings to, reconvene six-party talks and to achieve forward movement in dismantling North Korea's nuclear program aren't helpful.

Whether this trip fits the bill or not, I wouldn't, you know, I wouldn't be in a position to say.

QUESTION: But you don't object to the trip going ahead. I mean, the Administration made --

MR. ERELI: We neither facilitate nor oppose.

QUESTION: Were you asked for your position on it before they made the announcement?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: Can U.S. citizens travel to North Korea without (inaudible)?

MR. ERELI: Yes. Without --

QUESTION: Without permission?

MR. ERELI: U.S. citizens do not need U.S. Government permission to go to North Korea.

QUESTION: But they do need permission to spend money there. They need an OFAC license. I suppose you’re going to say, then, ask Treasury, right?

MR. ERELI: I would either say ask Treasury, or, you know, there -- I'll put it this way. There have been trips --

QUESTION: But the North Koreans --

MR. ERELI: There have been trips before that we have -- that have met the same criteria that we neither facilitated nor opposed. And, in fact, I would note that one of the groups that are being reported to -- one of the groups reported to be going to North Korea has already been there before, and so that this is something that is not new.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yes, but didn't you ban a similar trip by a Congressman last (inaudible)?

MR. ERELI: No, we did not.

QUESTION: Didn't ban it, but the White House made very clear to Representative Weldon that it did not wish him to go to North Korea at that time, and said so in public. Clearly -- well, I mean, you've already said you don't oppose it, you're letting them go, and it's not a problem for you.

MR. ERELI: Neither oppose nor facilitate.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. ERELI: New subject? Yes, sir.

Oh, I'm sorry. Teri, the same.

QUESTION: Could you say what you expect might come out of the trips? I know you said it's hard to say beforehand. But if they go and get access to some of these facilities, are you interested in hearing what they saw? Do you think it might be helpful?

MR. ERELI: At this point, it's speculative. What I would say is, the people that are thinking of -- that are being reported to be thinking about going to North Korea are people we talk to all the time. So, I mean, these are individuals and groups that we have an ongoing dialogue with. So it's not as if it's -- it's not as if they're strangers.

QUESTION: Right. But would it be helpful or not?

MR. ERELI: I don't think I -- as I said before, it's not my position to say it's helpful or not helpful. What we think is important from the U.S. Government point of view is to engage in diplomatic efforts to get six-party talks reconvened and to talk seriously about dismantling North Korea's program. That's where our focus is. That's where we're going to be putting our effort. That's where our partners are putting their efforts. And that's what we want to see happen.

QUESTION: Have they come up with what you think is a good idea? Do you think it's helpful for the North Koreans to open up some of their nuclear facilities to outsiders? Because there is very little information that the U.S. Government can glean about those facilities without actually having somebody go and look at them.

MR. ERELI: Let's see what happens.

QUESTION: Did you make it known to them that you were not concerned, as this would complicate the matters, that this would not be helpful? You said you have ongoing dialogue with this group that goes.

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you make it known to them that you did not feel this was going to be helpful?

MR. ERELI: I didn't say that. I said that -- I said without speaking to this particular trip, in general, what we think is important is focusing on six-party talks and that process, and that efforts that confuse that issue are not helpful. But I didn't say that this is such an effort. I said, in general, that's our position.

QUESTION: Is there anything new to report on the six-party talks?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: No date?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. ERELI: Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: From the holidays, are you getting any responses from various governments whether they are in support or condemning the clamp down of -- which have caused these both delays and detainments at both Dulles Airport involving British and French, and if not Mexican, airlines?

MR. ERELI: No, in fact, we've been cooperating very well with all the countries concerned and all the commercial entities concerned. I think there is a recognition by everyone that the terrorism threat is real, and that we have a common stake in taking the appropriate measures to protect our citizens in international travel and international commerce. So that this is a -- this has been a cooperative effort and something that we've been working well together on.

QUESTION: Also, was this your way of letting these various governments elsewhere, a way of forcing them, maybe, to implement greater security safeguards? And they've just shown on TV in the news an air pilot system which is under development, which would steer away from a place of concern, such as a nuclear power plant or a cargo port -- the plane just couldn't physically go there. Perhaps their plane would then land at a military airfield as opposed to a commercial airfield. Would you want to see those particular technologies implemented?

MR. ERELI: The important point to make is that, without getting into the specifics of counterterrorism measures, the important point to make is that there is a concerted and coordinated effort on the part of governments around the world, law enforcement agencies, and as well as private sector entities, to take action against terror. And I think that we're all safer as a result.

Yes, Matt.

QUESTION: Adam, can I just go back to Iran for a second? Forgive me if you answered this while I was out of the room, but I don't think we got quite a complete answer to Arshad's question, which was the -- about the "in abeyance" thing.

Did the Iranians say that they might be prepared to accept a visit like this in principle, or in general, but that now was just a bad time? Or did they just -- did they just come out and say, "We think you should off"?

MR. ERELI: Hold it in abeyance.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. But did the -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are opposed to the idea.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: So --

MR. ERELI: So it was not a -- it was hold it in abeyance. The time is not right. Would it be further in the future? Maybe. That's a matter of speculation, as I said while you were away --

QUESTION: No, no, no.

MR. ERELI: Or as I said while you were away, the motivation for this is to respond to -- to show compassion and to respond to -- a humanitarian crisis. As the situation on the ground evolves, the humanitarian nature of the situation changes. So what may or may not be appropriate in the future is at this point very, very speculative.

QUESTION: Okay. So once this situation in Bam is not a crisis, your offer or your proposal for a delegation may not necessarily be on the table anymore?

MR. ERELI: I would say that we're dealing with the present, and at the present, the situation is that circumstances on the ground make it preferable to hold this idea in abeyance.

QUESTION: Well, that's what the Iranians said.

MR. ERELI: Yeah. Right. And we respect their wishes.

QUESTION: And you agree -- and do you agree --

MR. ERELI: We respect their wishes.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Was there -- Adam, as you may or not be aware, the Iranian Foreign Ministry's spokesman was quoted on Meridian State Television as saying that such visits should be based on humanitarian considerations, not on political considerations. Did you get the sense from the Iranians that they saw this as sort of a political gesture or act or stunt?

MR. ERELI: I made it clear that our motivation was one of compassion and humanitarian concern, and we believe that that was the spirit in which it was received.

QUESTION: So they didn't -- as far as you know, they didn't see it as a political gesture on your part?

MR. ERELI: I'd ask them, but I certainly got no indication that it was received in anything but the spirit in which it was intended.

QUESTION: But the same broadcast called the American contribution "meager." Were you asked about this?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: Do you have a brief update on --

MR. ERELI: I gave it. I gave it.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: What are the -- how did the Iranians convey their views to you? Was it through the --

MR. ERELI: Through their Permanent Representative, to our Permanent Representative in the United Nations.

QUESTION: In New York?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: What can you tell us about plans, U.S. plans for a future embassy in Iraq?

MR. ERELI: In progress. In progress. Once -- according to the November 15th political agreement, Iran’s transitional government^* will take over on July 31st -- July 1st, I believe, and sovereignty will transfer to that government and we will be opening up an embassy to represent that United States before that government.

Between now and then, there's a lot of work to do, both in terms of figuring out, you know, where it is, what it's going to look like, how it's going to work, who's going to staff it, what is going to be the relationship with the embassy and how it's going to work with all the other U.S. Government and other entities in Iraq.

So short answer is, this is a work in progress. It will obviously be a significant post, given the task at hand and the number of people required to support it. But specific details about where it's going to be, how many people are going to be there, it's just a bit premature for that.

Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any response at all to the decision by Brazil to begin fingerprinting and photographing Americans arriving there, in response to your own similar measures?

MR. ERELI: Is that it for Iraq? Okay.

QUESTION: In Brazil.

QUESTION: Yesterday's story.

MR. ERELI: Pardon?

QUESTION: That's yesterday's story.

QUESTION: What was?

MR. ERELI: Well, for those writing for yesterday, I would note that a preliminary injunction issued by a Brazilian federal judge instructed that U.S. citizens admitted to Brazil be fingerprinted and photographed. U.S. citizens began being fingerprinted and photographed upon arrival in Sao Paulo yesterday.

Our Consulates General in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are monitoring developments on this issue closely. I would just note that countries have the sovereign right to determine the entry requirements for foreign nationals who apply for admission to their individual country.

QUESTION: So they're monitoring, but there hasn't been any kind of -- there hasn't been any communication of -- that you're aware of, between the two governments about this?

MR. ERELI: No, this is -- this is their sovereign right to do, if they want to do it.

QUESTION: I'm not suggesting that it's not their sovereign right, Adam.

MR. ERELI: But, no, there has been no --

QUESTION: In fact, I'm surprised that more countries haven't done it, considering your own measures. But I just wanted to know if there has been any discussion between this building or between the two governments about this issue.

MR. ERELI: Not that I'm aware of, no.

Sir, in the back.

QUESTION: Different issue?

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: On the Israeli settlements, on the Golan, the Syrian President Assad, Bashar Assad, has expressed his desire to go back to the negotiation, peace negotiations with Israel. With the three presidents, only last month, was King of Spain, President of Greece and with President of Brazil, and the answers we got was the -- an announcement by a Israeli minister that they were going to -- they're planning to build more Israeli settlements on the Golan Heights.

You talked, sir, on, I think, earlier this week about the objection of the United States for building any new Israeli settlements, and you talked about the possibility of seeking clarifications on the subject from the Israelis. I wonder if you were able to obtain any responses that would assure the United States that Israel is not going to continue putting any stumbling matters in the way of peace in the Middle East.

MR. ERELI: We addressed this issue on Wednesday. I don't have much to add, beyond saying that for what the Israeli Government intends to do in the Golan, I'd refer you to the Israeli Government. We've made it clear, and we continue to make clear, that we're opposed to new settlement activity. And, you know, we don't think it's helpful, and we don't think it's -- and we think it should stop.

QUESTION: Adam, you did say that you were seeking clarification on Wednesday.

MR. ERELI: Right. Don't have --

QUESTION: Did you get that clarification?

MR. ERELI: No, I did not. But I'll put it this way. I did not get clarification that makes it any clearer what the situation is.

QUESTION: Well, that would mean you didn't get any clarification.

MR. ERELI: Well, it could -- got response, but not clarifying response. It's not clear to us what the situation is, put it that way.

Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the American citizen found murdered in Oman?

MR. ERELI: I do. An American citizen was found dead in Oman, was found dead on December 31st, in Muscat. We extend our sympathies to the family and loved ones of the deceased. Our Embassy in Muscat has been in contact with the victim's family. In deference to the family, will not be releasing further information at this time. As far as -- we don't have details on the circumstances of the death, and we'd refer you to the Royal Oman Police, who are investigating it.

QUESTION: Is terrorism being totally disregarded as a --

MR. ERELI: I just don't have any -- I don't have any details to share with you. I'd refer you to the Omanis.

Sonia.

QUESTION: On Venezuela? On the -- yes?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Okay. Colombian press reports some incidents of violence along the Venezuelan-Colombian border, accusing members of the Venezuelan National Guard to kill some workers in Colombian territory. Venezuelan Government already denies this accusation by saying it was by paramilitary groups made these kills.

Did the U.S. Administration already take or fix some position on that issue, considering that the U.S. support on the Plan Colombia to bring peace and fight the terrorists in the region?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. You're making all kinds of connections that I just don't know are valid between -- first of all, we don't know what happened; second of all, we can't tell whether there is a connection to Plan Colombia. So this is an issue for which I don't have the details and am not really in a position to comment.

Yes, Matt.

QUESTION: Do you know anything about the cancellation of a Free Trade of the Americas meeting?

MR. ERELI: No, I don't.

QUESTION: And my last one.

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Did you get anything on my Cambodia question from the other day?

MR. ERELI: Not with -- not to share with you now. Let me check.

QUESTION: Did you do Libya?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. ERELI: Which Libya?

QUESTION: We got responses but they were not clarified.

QUESTION: Is there -- are there two?

QUESTION: Well, the inspect -- we didn't really do inspections. We did sanctions.

MR. ERELI: We didn't do inspections.

QUESTION: The question of sanctions and the compensation remains?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. ERELI: Yeah. Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: Question, there's a SARS patient in China, and the diagnosis isn't necessarily confirmed, and, apparently, in the news, the Chinese are possibly stumped. Have they asked us, our government labs or private health facilities, to help with that?

And also, the Chinese appear to be saying that with respect to police-type questions, that they're going to ease up and actually deliver press conferences. Up till now, they're just been stonewalling. Do you have any comments regarding that?

MR. ERELI: I haven't seen those. I mean, obviously, anything that contributes to transparency and rule of law is a positive step, but I don't have specifics on that. I haven't seen those reports.

QUESTION: Do you want to say anything about the Libyan inspections?

MR. ERELI: No, not really. I mean, nothing new, other than we're working with our international partners to help Libya fulfill its pledges to --

QUESTION: But you've gotten first -- your first reports back from ElBaradei now, right?

MR. ERELI: I wouldn't say we've gotten a full readout of his trip, but I'd expect that to happen soon.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: I think I've got one on in here.

MR. ERELI: Okay.

QUESTION: Georgians go to the polls on Sunday.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about that?

MR. ERELI: January 4th. No, other than the fact that, you know, we've been working, as you know, since the last elections, we've been working closely with Georgia and NGOs and international organizations to help ensure that these are free, fair and transparent. I think we've contributed significant aid and expertise to that enterprise, and we're looking forward to a clean and peaceful election that represents the will of the Georgian people.

Yes, ma'am, in the back. One question.

QUESTION: On New Year Day, there were 100,000 Hong Kong people who demonstrated for a protest. Do you have anything on that?

MR. ERELI: On Hong Kong. We believe that events over the past year, including the January 1st march, have shown the people of Hong Kong take seriously their role in the democratic process. The longstanding policy of the United States is that the Hong Kong Government should move toward electoral reform and universal suffrage, as provided for in the basic law, and we believe that continued democratization will contribute to the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. ERELI: One more.

QUESTION: The constitutional Loya Jirga in Afghanistan, for which the United States has had high hopes, appears to be stalemated or maybe even broken down. Any reflection on that?

MR. ERELI: That sounds like an overstatement to me. What has happened is that the constitutional Loya Jirga adjourned for the day yesterday, taking the Friday Sabbath off. It will reconvene tomorrow, January 3rd. Delegates are -- delegate groups are caucusing over some provisions of the draft constitution during this brief pause. And I think that, you know, it's important to note that they've been meeting for 19 straight days. They're -- about 80 percent of the provisions of the constitution are agreed upon, so that this, you know, this represents some outstanding issues, not surprising given what's at stake, but they are scheduled to be back at work tomorrow.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on Bolton's visit to London?

MR. ERELI: I do.

QUESTION: Is it anything more than just, he's going and having talks there?

MR. ERELI: No, he's there.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. Or that he went. And it's not correct that he was on one of these British Airways flights that got canceled, is it?

MR. ERELI: No, because I think he wasn't scheduled to come back today.

QUESTION: No, I mean the other day.

MR. ERELI: No, he's there. He is in London today. He is working closely with the United Kingdom, with our partners in the United Kingdom on what will be required to achieve the verifiable elimination of Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs and to maintain long-term assurances that they are not reconstituted.

I believe he's returning this weekend.

Yes.

QUESTION: Any phone calls that the Secretary might have made?

MR. ERELI: Not today that I have to report.

QUESTION: Any travel? Is Burns going out to the region, please?

MR. ERELI: Let me see. We don't have anything to share with you now.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:15 p.m.)

DPB #1