Background Briefing by a Senior Adminstration Official En Route to Washington

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You got me. I’ll do this on background as a Senior Administration Official, to tell you a little bit about what we did and how it went. I think the first thing to say is that the main point was to attend the memorial service, funeral service. And the Secretary was glad that he came to do that, to show to the Spanish people, and really to the Europeans, that we’re with them, that we understand that their 3/11 is like our 9/11. So, the Secretary in his meetings with Prime Minister Aznar and Prime Minister…or President Aznar and President-designate Zapatero…conveyed that on behalf of the President and the American people: our sympathies and condolences, and our understanding of the kind of loss they’ve gone through. And then he attended the memorial service, which you may or may not have seen on TV.

He had a meeting of about half an hour with President Aznar.

(cross-talk)

He had about a half an hour with Prime Minister Aznar. They really talked about the war on terrorism, the commitment, the effort that Spain had made under the Aznar government to fight terrorism in Afghanistan…well, around the world, and in Afghanistan and to be with us in Iraq. They talked about the things that fundamentally bring the United States and Spain together and the hope on both our sides, both from the Secretary and Aznar, that that kind of cooperation would continue between the United States and Spain.

The meeting with Prime Minister-designate Zapatero was brief because of our flight schedules and the fact that the service at the cathedral went long, that we had to compress the meeting. So, I think he spent about 15 minutes with each other.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: A total of 15, 20 minutes. It was a positive discussion. We heard a desire to have a good strong relationship with the United States. He mentioned that we had had very good relations under previous Socialist Prime Ministers and he wished that tradition to continue.

QUESTION: Which one said that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Zapatero did. We heard of his…he told us of his commitment to fight terrorism, his support for the effort in Afghanistan and he told us frankly of his position against the war in Iraq. And why; he explained himself. His position on bringing Spanish troops home at the end of their term unless there was a UN mandate.

The Secretary also expressed a desire to cooperate, a desire to continue the dialogue, said that we would stay in touch with them as they prepare to take office in mid to late April. And that we would continue our discussions to keep them up to date on where we stood with the United Nations and Iraq. And we’ll just keep talking about it and see how it evolves. We also touched briefly on the situation in the Middle East, generally on things like the Greater Middle East Initiative, and the desire to cooperate together in Latin America. So, I think it was just a very basic meeting, establishing some fundamentals of the relationship, the desire to cooperate, the desire to work together wherever we can, and a willingness on both sides to continue a dialogue as we move forward.

QUESTION: Obviously it is not much of a surprise to hear him reiterate his position on Iraq, but face-to-face is a different thing. Are we still leaving this door open unless there is a UN mandate? Is there talk about any kind of specifics of what that mandate might be?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It was a short enough meeting that we did not get into those kinds of specifics. It was just an understanding that he did have that clause in his policy and that we, indeed, from our side were looking at what the UN might do. Whether that works out or not, we didn’t get into. We’ll just have to see. So, we’ll keep them posted as we look forward to what the UN might do. And we’ll just see how this evolves. I’m not trying to open any lights at the end of the tunnel here. We know his position, he stated it frankly, but also said that he wanted to keep the dialogue going, and we’ll keep talking about that as we talk about other things. It was a very, I think, strong commitment to the relationship and to the war on terrorism generally, and all the effort that Spain has made, which we recognize that Spain has for many years been fighting terrorism, has been a stalwart in that. So, I’d say overall it was a positive meeting. It was one to look forward, where both of us are going to try to work together wherever we can and continue a dialogue on areas where we have a difference with them.

QUESTION: The Secretary said he already believes that it has a UN mandate for…

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We didn’t get into any back and forth or any serious detail on it because of the length of the meeting.

QUESTION: Were there any discussions of what we were going to do at the UN or (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It’s basically: “We understand your position. As you know, we’re looking at the United Nations in the upcoming period and we’ll continue our dialogue on the subject.” That’s really as far as it went.

QUESTION: (inaudible) that he means to have the UN in charge of military forces. Do you understand him to mean a political mandate or for the military?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t think I can clarify his position any more than he has said it himself that way, just because we didn’t’ go into much detail today.

QUESTION: He didn’t try to clarify the position of the UN mandate?

SENIOR ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL: We heard his position, expressed more or less the way you guys are describing it. But we didn’t go into any detail today about what that might mean. We just said, “Understand what you’re saying and we’ll keep the discussion going.”

QUESTION: You said this was a relationship you want to kind of start cooperating on a lot of areas but the difference between Aznar and this guy in terms of…and I know you said a lot of things during the campaign…can you say anything about your initial thoughts as to the approach he is taking towards the U.S. versus how he is going to deal with Europe? Do you already sense that it is going to be a different relationship under this administration?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It’s way too early to start drawing conclusions about this new administration. We, as I said…we also recognize we’ve had good and strong relations with Spain throughout different governments. They’ve been fighting terrorism, we’ve been fighting terrorism with them, for many years. We heard a very strong commitment to trying to have a good relationship with the United States. We heard a strong commitment to the fight against terrorism and a strong desire to continue dialogue and look for areas of cooperation elsewhere, as well. So, how we can make that cooperation real, what are the areas where we find we can cooperate remains to be seen. The government still has to take off, still has to get going.

As far as, sort of, orientation towards Europe versus the U.S. We didn’t really have much of a discussion of general orientation. But I would point out, we have often said in the past that we don’t think countries face a choice: being European or being trans-Atlantic. All of us, especially in the NATO Alliance, are almost by definition both. And, that European nations don’t have to choose between good relations with Europe and good relations with the United States. The United States has always been a very strong supporter of European integration. We’re very strong supporters of European enlargement, even as we’re strong supporters of NATO enlargement.

QUESTION: On terrorism, did the Secretary say that he thought Spain could do more to stop the financing of militants?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We talked about…he talked generally about the fact that there was more to do in the fight against terrorism and that we were both committed to do that. One of the areas he mentioned was that we were talking and would continue to be working with the EU on the financing of terrorism and how the European Union and European nations were cutting of the funds to terrorist groups.

QUESTION: Was there any discussion, in either of the meetings, on the investigation of the Madrid bombing? Anything on other suspects who’ve been arrested? Details?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, there were no details of that.

QUESTION: Change of subject? There was, in Geneva today, the UN Human Rights Commission took a position condemning Israel’s killing of Yasin. The United States said, “Well, this is not good for this watchdog’s credibility, because it is politicizing the situation.” Don’t you feel that the United States is isolated on this one?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t know. I didn’t know the news, I haven’t followed it. Sorry.

QUESTION: You vetoed it.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Chances are, yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday you put out a flurry of travel warnings about Yasin, in the wake of the Yasin incident and today, as you know, the Embassy in UAE and the Consulate in Dubai closed. If you could talk...if you know anything about that, apparently there was a threat. But, in general….

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t think Dubai actually closed. They closed in UAE because of a local incident.

QUESTION: (inaudible).

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I can’t at this point. But, it was something that happened locally that they wanted to investigate. We’ve always made clear, and I think you’ve seen throughout this period, that Embassies will close from time to time as they feel necessary to review their security procedures, make changes or upgrades, or clarify something that might be happening. In the case of the UAE it was something local. I think our warnings of yesterday were put out because of all of the threats being made, the sense of turmoil, the possible retribution attacks or whatever that might be directed against us.

QUESTION: My question on that is that I know you said you were deeply troubled with what Israel did, but can you speak at all about what a difficult position this is putting the U.S. in now? Because now these threats, it’s not just retaliation against Israel….you know, these people are calling for threats against America based on an action that Israel did that you came out and said troubled you. So, what kind of position does this put the U.S. in now as it is trying to do things in the region?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think our general view is that terrorist groups are out to destroy. They are out to kill. They’ve been out to kill and destroy things American for much time. To have the al Qaeda organization use this as a reason to make threats against the United States is just more of the same. It is serious. It needs to be taken seriously and there are other organizations making threats. But I think our general view of terrorists is that many of them have always considered us a target and we prepare for that. There have been a variety of statements from Hamas, but frankly that doesn’t change our basic view of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The United States wants to see an end to the activities of terrorist organizations, period. So, I guess all I can say is we’re aware of the threats, we’re aware of the turmoil, we’re aware of the possibility of attacks and that’s why we put out the warnings and we take appropriate steps to ensure our security. But, I’m not sure that it…

QUESTION: You have enough problems, you don’t need this, too.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: For what the United States stands for in the world, sometimes for the positions we take, there are people who want to attack us. That’s unfortunately one of the facts of life in the current world and we’re going to try to end that through the war on terrorism.

QUESTION: Mr. Moratinos talked over the possibility of sending an international force to the Middle East. Was that mentioned at all today?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Again, we didn’t get into detail. Prime Minister-designate Zapatero said that he was very interested in the situation in the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian issues, and would want to do what he could to work on those. And the Secretary made clear it remained high on our agenda to try and make some progress. And we all noted that we had worked before with Mr. Moratinos when he was the EU Envoy and we look forward to working with him again on that.

QUESTION: Going back to the U.S. reaction to the Yasin killing. There’s more coming out about the White House and the State Department not being on the same page. Is it a fair characterization to say that the State Department prompted the White House to say deeply troubled and that without your prompting, that wouldn’t have happened?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I wouldn’t characterize it that way. There was a series of discussions within the Administration in the course of the morning as we fine-tuned, decided what the policy position was to take. I think as those discussions proceeded you saw that we were remarkably consistent and that we all were basically saying the same thing as it came together.

QUESTION: Following the timeline, let’s say it was about noon when you said “deeply troubled.” That hadn’t been said at an earlier briefing at the White House. Had your briefing been at 10:00, you presumably wouldn’t have (inaudible) said, “deeply troubled.” It took some time to get to that.

(cross-talk)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We work on this together with our colleagues in the Administration. We worked out the course during the course of the day. There’s no big-deal in it.

QUESTION: How hard is the message being delivered to the Israelis about not doing this anymore, that it is certainly only going to aggravate things. And I know you say they know your position, but all the tensions it’s creating, are you making the point extra clear this time?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would just say that in a variety of meetings we’ve made clear our concerns. We’ve made clear our view that the consequences of actions need to be very carefully considered. And, I’ll just leave it at that.

Okay, we’re getting far a field now.

QUESTION: You wouldn’t characterize this as any kind of negotiations, or I don’t know. They didn’t…

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I would not characterize this as a negotiation. This was an initial meeting, establishing a basis to go forward, seek areas of cooperation, and continue a dialogue on issues that may divide us. It was not a negotiating session. The new government has not taken office yet. There’s nothing…it’s not time to start negotiations on anything in particular. It’s just time to start comparing views and establish a way to work together. I think we did that successfully today.

QUESTION: Were there any other issues, when you say “issues that divide us?” Was Iraq the only issue, or really the main issue? Were there any other issues that you feel the positions are kind of a little bit…

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. We don’t expect to have identical positions with any government. Iraq is one where obviously we’ve taken different positions from the Prime Minister-designate. I don’t know if there will be others or not. There certainly is a common view of trying to keep the U.S.-Spain relationship strong, a common view of continuing the fight against terrorism, a common view of continuing efforts in Afghanistan. Prime Minister-designate Zapatero made clear that they did want to make sure they contribute to the effort in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Was it any kind of a quid pro quo: we’ll take them out of Iraq, but we’ll bolster things…

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That has been reported in some of the papers. It was not stated that way during the meeting.

QUESTION: (inaudible) success if you might want to bolster up the presence in Afghanistan?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He suggested he wanted to continue to make a contribution in Afghanistan.

Thank you.