QUESTION: Yesterday, the Syrian Foreign Minister, Farouk Shara, issued a statement appealing to the United States for open talks at his level to resolve what are misunderstanding. Have you received anything formally or can you tell us anything about that?

MR. ERELI: Well, this gets to the whole question about dialogue. And I think that, you know, we have an Ambassador there. We have made clear through our Ambassador what our position is on the outstanding issues between our government and the Government of Syria. Secretary Powell made those positions clear in May of last year. Assistant Secretary Burns has been to Syria a number of times.

So I guess the point here is that the issue doesn’t seem to be so much one of dialogue as so much -- as more -- as, rather, one of, "Is anybody listening?"

--2003 CASH SHORTFALL--
EXPRESSED IN ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS
Planned budget - $321
Actual budget - $310
Planned Emergency Fund - $196
Actual Emergency Fund - $93

QUESTION: What about Moqtada al-Sadr’s militia not being entered in what is the presumed announcement of outlawing independent militia is going to do with that?

MR. ERELI: It is clear that Moqtada al-Sadr, in a number of ways, is operating outside the law. There are, I think, there have been discussions between Moqtada al-Sadr and (inaudible) or Shiite notables in Iraq, in effort to remove his militia from government offices, have them lay down their arms and have those elements of the -- of Sadr’s militia who have been accused and indicted of crimes answer for their crimes.

That is a process that is ongoing, that has, I think, produced some important and welcome developments. But, obviously, there is a legal regime that applies to these militias, that outlaws these militias, that proscribes their activities and I think it is fair to say that we and the Iraqi government would expect these militias to adhere to the law.

Yes, Said.

QUESTION: Adam, would you concur that, at least for the time being until the transfer occurs, there is no intention by American forces to move militarily against the Sadr militia, perhaps, waiting for the interim government to do so?

MR. ERELI: I’m not going to speak to military operations. We’ve made it clear that we are going to respect Islamic holy sites. I think that’s in sharp contrast to the actions of the outlaw groups who continue to use mosques and other holy sites as ammunition storage places, firing on troops from those areas. We are going to continue to respect those sites and to work with our Iraqi friends and local authorities to bring about a peaceful application of justice.

Yes, Nadia.

QUESTION: Can you just remind us of the US position regarding, Moqtada al-Sadr, himself? Do we still want to arrest him or kill him?

And, secondly, the date for that was reset for this dismantling of the militias was set as 2005. What do you think of the date? Is this too late for incorporating 100,000 people into the Iraqi army?

MR. ERELI: Our position on Moqtada al-Sadr hasn’t changed. And it is our view that Moqtada al-Sadr -- and is a subject of Iraqi law and should be -- should -- that law should be applied to him as well as to any other Iraqi citizen who has been accused of violating the law. As far as the date for integration of the militias, this is something that has been worked out between and among the Iraqis themselves. It is an agreement that we endorse that we think argues well for the future of Iraq and that’s my comment.

QUESTION: Sir, I just want to clarify is what do you mean by "is a subject of Iraqi law?" What does -- does that mean that the U.S. military does not have -- if they arrest him -- or can they arrest him or kill him, or does that mean that the Iraqi only can arrest him and detain him?

MR. ERELI: Iraqi -- the Iraqi judge has issued a warrant for Moqtada al-Sadr’s arrest. Moqtada al-Sadr is, like any other Iraqi citizen, is expected to be held accountable to Iraqi law and Iraqi institutions. And we will support the application of Iraqi justice.

Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: It appears that this particular cleric, al-Sadr, is trying to gain political influence. Do you expect that the new interim government and governments beyond would completely exclude him for any political type function in the country?

MR. ERELI: I can’t speak for decisions that Iraqis may or may not make when they are sovereign. I think that it’s been clearly demonstrated by the actions and words and decisions of Iraq’s notables that Moqtada al-Sadr is a renegade.

QUESTION: I was going to ask a question about Darfur, on Sudan. The Post editorializes this morning in The Washington Post that the Administration has shrunk from pressuring the central government on Darfur because of the interest in getting a north-south deal, and that, essentially, in a best-case scenario now there could be hundreds of thousands of death because of the lack of access.

MR. ERELI: I guess there’s just no -- you know, you can write that, you can write something like that, if you ignore everything we’ve done on this issue. I mean, we’ve got -- it was because of our pressure, I think, that humanitarian workers have been allowed into Darfur. Look at the briefing Andrew Natsios gave, where he said, quite frankly, we’re doing this briefing to raise the pressure on the Sudanese Government because they’re keeping people out of Darfur, and then, lo and behold, people got into Darfur.

Who led the charge or who led the effort to get a ceasefire in Darfur? Who brought the issue to the UN? Who marshaled an international effort in Geneva and with the EU in Chad to bring attention to this issue? Who has contributed more in terms of humanitarian assistance to Darfur than any other country?

So you can say we’re -- you can suggest that somehow we’re backing off from taking a strong stand or exercising every diplomatic tool at our disposal on behalf of the crisis in Darfur, but I think you’d have to ignore all the actions we’ve taken that suggest the contrary.

QUESTION: What about --

QUESTION: Any reaction --

QUESTION: I’m sorry. What about the idea of a full-scale UN resolution? We’ve had a briefing and a president’s statement.

MR. ERELI: You know, there have been -- there have been those suggestions, but they -- until now, I think they’ve been in the realm of the general and the theoretical, as opposed to the specific.

The focus really now is on getting -- doing the assessments and getting the aid to the people who need it. I think, in that regard, I would say that the ceasefire, the AU cease -- the African Union Ceasefire Commission is setting up operations in Darfur’s largest city today. They are working with the Government of Sudan to make it ready for a monitoring team to come into place, and we expect the monitoring team to begin its mission shortly.

QUESTION: Adam, any reaction to reports that some UN humanitarian aid workers were kidnapped over the weekend by rebel groups out of Darfur?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. I would note that on Friday, the Sudan Liberation Army detained 16 United Nations and nongovernmental organization workers. These were workers conducting an assessment mission. They were released on Sunday, and all of them were healthy and not harmed.

I think that it did not, I think, affect in any significant way the United Nations relief operations there. They were temporarily halted, but have now almost resumed full activities.

QUESTION: So you’re saying all’s well that ends well is fine?

MR. ERELI: Well, I don’t have a lot of, frankly, facts about the circumstances of the detention, and I would hesitate to call it -- I’m not sure I would call it kidnapping, but I can’t speak to the details of the detention. All I can tell you is that they have been released, they are well, and activities are resuming.

QUESTION: The fact that they were detained, the fact that there was a detention, isn’t that already a problem if they’re hindering humanitarian aid workers? And are you looking into it? Is the United States taking any kind of stand on this?

MR. ERELI: I think that we are working with the United Nations. We have people there. Our aim is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance, and that involves, I think, constant coordination among the different actors there -- NGOs, UN, American, as well as the Government of Sudan, as well as the rebels, as well as the Jingaweits. It’s a complicated situation. Everybody’s got different -- not everybody, but there are several different agendas at work here. And I think that we are consistently and constantly increasing the level of activity and the margin for maneuver that we have, and that those are positive developments.

That said, it remains a unsettled and dangerous place, and that’s why it’s all the more important that monitors be deployed there in number quickly so that we can have greater clarity on what’s going on and steps can be taken to ensure the smooth flow of aid.

Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: Change of subject. This --

QUESTION: Sorry, can I follow up on Darfur? You just outlined U.S. policy in Darfur as if it was a little crisis. I mean, people are not shy to call what’s happening there as a genocide. And this is what you have given us as a response. I mean, do you -- just imagine if a million people were made homeless, hundreds of thousands were killed in Europe, that the U.S. will have this kind of reaction? I mean, why can’t it just propose something to the UN to stop the killing in the first place?

MR. ERELI: First of all, I would take issue with the word "genocide." We have made it clear and I think the international community has made it clear that this is a situation of ethnic cleansing. We have also made it clear that we believe that it is a humanitarian crisis. And we have also, I think, been at the forefront of international efforts to address this crisis.

So I take strong issue with your suggestion that somehow there is a double standard and if it were anywhere else we would be doing more. I think we are doing a lot. We have been consistently outspoken about this issue. We are active diplomatically and, in terms of humanitarian assistance, in addressing it. It is a conflict that is -- that has gone on for far too long and that is creating significant human suffering. And it is something that we have said we are committed to working with our international partners to end, but it is not something that you can just walk in and solve overnight.

QUESTION: Would you agree that some people criticize the U.S. position that you could not be taking a harder position with the Khartoum government because you were worried that that might jeopardize the peace-signing process in Naivasha?

MR. ERELI: I just answered that question. I just answered that question. And one thing I didn’t say is we have made it very clear, to those who would suggest that we are somehow coddling the Government of Sudan in order to get a Naivasha deal, the Secretary has been very outspoken. And he has said the United States cannot have normal relations with Sudan as long as the situation in Darfur persists. So irrespective of the Naivasha accords, this -- we have made it clear that this is -- this is a problem that needs to be resolved and needs to be acted on in order for us to be able to have normal relations with Sudan.