webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: Adiam Berhane (adiam7@mac.com)
Date: Sun Feb 20 2011 - 22:43:43 EST
Look at this on the record briefing, this is beyond two-faced
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "USUN, PRESS " <USUNPRESS@state.gov>
> Date: February 18, 2011 9:00:13 PM EST
> Subject: FW: ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING: United Nations Permanent Representative Ambassador Susan E. Rice and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes On the United Nations Security Council Vote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
>
>
>
> From: State Department Press Office [mailto:Press@state.gov]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:54 PM
> To: State Department Press Office
> Subject: ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING: United Nations Permanent Representative
> Ambassador Susan E. Rice and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes
> On the United Nations Security Council Vote
>
>
>
> U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
>
> Office of the Spokesman
>
> For Immediate Release
> February 18, 2011
>
> 2011/242
>
>
>
> On-The-Record Briefing
>
>
>
> United Nations Permanent Representative Ambassador Susan E. Rice and
>
> Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes
>
> On the United Nations Security Council Vote
>
>
>
> February 18, 2011
>
> Via Teleconference
>
>
>
> OPERATOR: Welcome, and thank you for standing by. At this time, all
> participants are in a listen-only mode. During the question-and-answer
> session, please press *1 on your touch-tone phone. Today's conference
> is being recorded. If you have any objections, you may disconnect at
> this time. And now, I'd like to turn the meeting over to Assistant
> Secretary P.J. Crowley. Thank you.
>
>
>
> MR. CROWLEY: Hey, good evening, everyone. Sorry for the delay. And
> I'm just going to just simply welcome and introduce our Ambassador to
> the United Nations Susan Rice. She's joined by National Security -
> Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. I think Susan's going to
> make some very quick opening remarks, and I know she's got a flight to
> catch so we'll have a handful of questions, but at this point, I'll turn
> it over to Susan.
>
>
>
> AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you, P.J. Good evening, everyone. As I said
> today on behalf of the United States in the Security Council, and as the
> United States has said on many, many occasions for many years, we reject
> in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement
> activity. We view Israeli settlement activity in territories that were
> occupied in 1967 as undermining Israel's security, its democracy, and
> hopes for peace and stability in the region.
>
>
>
> The U.S. and other Council members are in full agreement on that, but
> also in full agreement about the urgent need to resolve the conflict
> between Israel and the Palestinians, more urgent than ever, given recent
> developments in the region. And that resolution needs to be based on a
> two-state solution and an agreement between the two parties that
> establishes the viable, independent, and contiguous state of Palestine,
> once and for all.
>
>
>
> No outside country has invested more effort and energy and resources in
> pursuit of that peace than the United States has, and we will continue
> to do so. But the only way that that goal can be reached, the common
> goal of a two-state solution, is, as a practical matter, through direct
> negotiations between the parties. There's no short cut to that end.
> And every potential action, including action in the Security Council,
> has to be measured against one test, and that's whether it will move the
> parties closer to negotiations and agreement or take them further apart.
> And our judgment was that this resolution would not have advanced the
> goal of getting the parties closer to negotiations and agreement. On
> the contrary, it would have hardened the positions of one or both sides.
>
>
>
> Instead of the outcome we had today, the United States has been working
> very hard, and we put forward with the support of other members of the
> Security Council a constructive path that would have garnered the
> unanimous support of the Council and advanced the goal of peace. And we
> regret very much that this effort was not accepted and is no longer
> viable. The great impetus for democracy and reform in the region makes
> it more urgent to settle this. And we're going to continue to do our
> utmost, along with all who share the crucial goal of a peace between a
> secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine.
>
>
>
> And I'm happy to now take your questions.
>
>
>
> MR. CROWLEY: Operator, we'll go to questions now and Ben Rhodes can
> chime in during the Q&A session.
>
>
>
> OPERATOR: Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer
> session. If you'd like to ask a question, please press *1. Please
> un-mute your phone and record your name clearly when prompted. Your
> name is required to introduce your question. To withdraw your request,
> you may press *2. It'll be one moment for the first question, please.
>
>
>
> Our first question comes from Matt Lee with the Associated Press. Sir,
> your line is open.
>
>
>
> QUESTION: Sure, thanks a lot. Ambassador Rice, I wanted to ask you
> whether - there were some countries that dropped off sponsoring the
> resolution, among them Honduras, Panama, Trinidad, Kyrgyzstan. What was
> the U.S.'s diplomacy on working on sponsors? And what's your position
> now on this trip to the Middle East that was proposed by Russia? Are
> you still - are you back to opposing it or do you think that there's
> some possibility it could have a positive outcome?
>
>
>
> AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, Matt, we were not in the business of lobbying
> for or against co-sponsors for this resolution. Our aim was to not be
> with the outcome that we had today of the Council not being able to
> speak with one voice. Our aim was to advance this process through a
> three-part constructive proposal that had the support of many members of
> the Security Council and we think would have been unanimously embraced.
> And that included the proposal that the Russians had put forward for a
> trip to the region, which would be the first such trip in 30 years -
> over 30 years by the Security Council, not only to Israel and the
> Palestinian territories but other states in the region; a very strong
> presidential statement from the Security Council, which would have gone
> further than we have gone of late on the issue of settlements and other
> important issues that would have been agreed by the Council; and we had
> also been willing to use the upcoming Quartet statement as a vehicle for
> making some new and important statements on core issues, including
> territory, as well as settlements.
>
>
>
> That's - it is - in our view, very unfortunate that this proposal, which
> would have gotten the unanimous support of the Council, was not accepted
> because it would have taken the process forward rather than lead to the
> outcome that we had today.
>
>
>
> But the proposal of the trip to the region seems even more complicated
> today than it was yesterday. And I think its viability is quite
> questionable at this point.
>
>
>
> QUESTION: But you mean - what has changed in terms of the trip being a
> good idea?
>
>
>
> AMBASSADOR RICE: The Council is not in agreement. This came to a vote,
> which was unfortunate. The proposal we made would have had three
> elements that, taken together, would have moved the process forward.
> The parties didn't choose to accept that, which indicates that they
> perhaps didn't place sufficient value on the utility of a trip and the
> other elements.
>
>
>
> MR. CROWLEY: We'll go to the next question.
>
>
>
> OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Saie Arikat with Al Quds daily
> newspaper. Your line is open, sir.
>
>
>
> QUESTION: Yes, Ambassador Rice, you say that you reject the continued
> building of settlements on the West Bank as being illegitimate. Yet you
> vote that no on a resolution that calls it illegal. Why is that,
> considering that the State Department, as far back as 1978, considered
> settlement activities illegal?
>
>
>
> AMBASSADOR RICE: The United States has not characterized settlement
> activity as illegal since, I believe, 1980. And - but what we do
> believe firmly and have reiterated forcefully, including today, is that
> continued settlement activity is not legitimate. It's corrosive to the
> peace process. It poses obstacles to achieving the goal that we think
> is vitally important of a two-state solution. And we were very clear
> that we have - we are in unity with the rest of the Security Council on
> the issue of the illegitimacy of settlements. The difficulty from our
> point of view is that a resolution on that issue at this time, which was
> unbalanced and one-sided, was most likely to harden positions and leave
> the two parties more entrenched and less willing to return promptly and
> constructively to the only vehicle that can achieve the goal of a
> two-state solution, and that's direct negotiations.
>
>
>
> QUESTION: Ambassador, why does that conflict? Why both of them are
> mutually exclusive, one another, in the peace process and voting for a
> settlement - declaring settlement activities as illegal?
>
>
>
> AMBASSADOR RICE: Because any time you have a one-sided resolution that
> is aimed at trying to adjudicate core issues that need to be resolved
> and can only be resolved between the two parties, you are, at worst,
> setting back and complicating the efforts to achieve peace. And it is
> counterproductive to do so. Our aim had been, rather than end up with
> something that would have set the process back, was to put forward
> something that would have been a win-win and move the process forward in
> very concrete ways, increasing the effort and the attention of the
> Security Council, speaking with one voice on core issues in the manner
> that we hadn't before. And unfortunately, that was not possible.
>
>
>
> But the reality is that the goal of a two-state solution can only be
> achieved through direct negotiations between the parties, and we will
> continue our efforts to achieve that goal with great intensity.
>
>
>
> Ben, is there anything you want to add?
>
>
>
> MR. RHODES: Yeah. Yeah, I'd just add to that that with regard to
> settlements, I think from the very beginning of this Administration, the
> Presidents made it very clear and the Administrations made it very clear
> that we don't accept the legitimacy of settlements. It's a statement
> he's made in Cairo, it's a statement he's made twice before the UN
> General Assembly, and it informs our approach to these issues. It takes
> place within the broader context of our efforts, and our dogged efforts,
> on behalf of a two-state solution and a comprehensive and lasting peace
> between a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine. And right now, what
> we're focused on is not simply one particular issue but the broader
> context that is necessary to move the parties toward peace. And our
> judgment is that we are going to use our efforts and our influence,
> again, to service that final goal.
>
>
>
> And so that in that context, we put forward this package and we'll go
> back again to roll up our sleeves and continue our persistent pursuit of
> peace going forward, because again, to us the issue is not, again,
> fixating on one particular issue, but rather looking at what we can do
> as the United States and as an international community to support a
> process that leads to two states living side by side in peace and
> security. So that's the focus of U.S. policy, and within that context,
> we continue to see settlements as illegitimate and as corrosive to the
> process. And what we want to do is be creative and be dogged in working
> with the international community and working with Israelis and
> Palestinians to move in pursuit of what is our shared goal and a vision
> that the parties have mutually agreed to, which is a common pursuit
> through direct negotiations of two states living side by side in peace
> and security.
>
>
>
> MR. CROWLEY: Next question, operator.
>
>
>
> OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Elise Labott with CNN. Your
> line is open.
>
>
>
> QUESTION: Thank you. I have two quick ones. And maybe, Ben, you can
> chime in as well.
>
>
>
> Ambassador, are you worried that this vote, given everything that's
> going on in the region right now, and your - and the desire of the
> Administration to be kind of on the right side of history and the right
> side of the Arab street, are you worried that the demonstrations that
> haven't really had an anti-American sentiment to them might anger the
> street and turn those demonstrations a little bit more against America?
>
>
>
> And then, just on some of these incentives you said you were willing to
> offer the Palestinians, such as a trip and an affirmation of American
> positions on borders, if you think that's the right thing to do, why
> don't you just do those things? And why do you need to hold that out as
> a carrot to the Palestinians? If you think that those two items could
> advance the process further, why does it have to be - I mean, certainly,
> Israel is not held to the same standards in terms of the kind of
> incentives you're willing to offer them. I mean, Israel seems to get
> some of those guarantees that you were offering during the whole
> discussions in September. They're getting those things anyway, whether
> they had a settlement freeze or not. Thank you.
>
>
>
> AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, let me begin with your first question. We fully
> understand the sensitive and even emotional nature of the conflict for
> people in the region as well as the issue of settlements. But we are
> going to remain focused on the goal that is shared throughout the region
> and is a core objective of the United States, which is achieving an
> independent sovereign state of Palestine living side by side in peace
> and security with Israel.
>
>
>
> And the actions that we will continue to take and have taken to achieve
> that goal are significant, and we're going to remain very much focused
> on what is necessary to get there. And we think that will ultimately be
> the most powerful determinant of sentiment toward the goal of an
> independent Palestinian state and U.S. policy.
>
>
>
> With respect to the items you describe in the package, one, as I said
> earlier, first of all, we view these as a very important proposal and
> offer that would have taken the process forward. It had the unanimous
> support of the Security Council. And the fact that they were not
> accepted is unfortunate and was a choice that was not made by the United
> States. So the viability of the package and its individual components
> needs to be reassessed not only by us, but by members of the Council and
> the parties themselves in light of its lack of traction to date.
>
>
>
> MR. RHODES: I'd just add to what Susan said, particularly on the first
> point. I think that what's very clear is that the vision that the
> United States has for the region is very much in line with the
> aspirations of the people of the region. The United States has
> continually spoken out for and supported a set of principles with regard
> to the recent political unrest in the region - that is that we oppose
> violent, that we support the universal rights of the people of the
> region, and that we'd like to see a process of political change that
> leads to greater democracy, a greater respect for universal rights and
> governments that reflect the aspirations of the people of the region.
> Similarly, the United States is strongly in support of a peace process
> that results in an independent and sovereign and viable Palestinian
> state as well.
>
>
>
> So when you speak about the currents of history that are currently at
> work in the region, I think what the United States can say very clearly
> is that we share a common vision and we share common aspirations for a
> region in which you're moving to democratic governance, in which
> people's rights are respected, and which you have a secure Israel living
> side by side with a sovereign Palestine. And that provides a foundation
> for us to move forward. That again, the goal that we are seeking is
> very much in line with the aspirations of the peoples of the region.
> These are complicated issues. There's not a straight line for the
> realization of all of this promise.
>
>
>
> But what the United States is going to do consistently throughout this
> period of time is work toward that shared vision. And so we are very
> confident that because of our interest and because of our values, we are
> going to be able to be a partner with the people of the region and the
> governments of the region in pursuit of the future that we believe will
> lead to a more peaceful, democratic and secure Middle East.
>
>
>
> MR. CROWLEY: Operator, we probably have time for one more question.
>
>
>
> OPERATOR: Thank you. Our last question comes from Natasha Mozgovaya
> with Haaretz. Thank you, your line is open.
>
>
>
> QUESTION: Thank you, Ambassador. I want to talk - following this
> lonely vote at the Security Council, are you concerned that it will have
> some negative impact on the U.S. planning at the United Nations? And
> secondly, do you expect Israel - Israeli Government to follow with some
> offers of some concrete steps after basically U.S. vouched for it?
>
>
>
> AMBASSADOR RICE: Well, with respect to the United Nations, I think all
> of our colleagues on the Security Council with whom we worked closely
> over the last days and weeks, and indeed many of our partners with a
> stake in the peace process in the region beyond the Security Council,
> understand that the United States made an unprecedented and energetic
> good-faith effort to put forward an approach that would have advanced
> the process, taken us closer to the goal of a two-state solution, and
> would not have been the outcome that we saw today. And I think many of
> our colleagues have expressed appreciation and admiration for the
> efforts that we made toward that end and they, in fact, were very active
> in supporting that proposal.
>
>
>
> MR. RHODES: I'd just say on the other point that I think that
> throughout this process the United States has made it clear that we are
> going again to be persistent in our pursuit of a two-state solution that
> we believe is very much in the interest of the United States, but also
> in the interest of Israelis and Palestinians. What we've also said is
> that no solution can be imposed from the outside. Similarly, those who
> support peace, again, are not going to be able to want it more than the
> parties. And that, therefore, going forward, that there is a
> responsibility on behalf of Israelis and Palestinians to take the steps
> that are necessary to build confidence, to build trust, and to advance a
> process of direct negotiations to a two-state solution.
>
>
>
> We have made it clear today, again, that we believe that direct
> negotiations between the parties is the venue to resolve this conflict,
> not a UN Security Council resolution. But along with that support for
> direct negotiations comes a responsibility of the parties involved to
> take steps that builds that trust, that builds confidence and that gets
> this process moving in the direction that the leaders embraced last
> September, which was the pursuit of two states living side by side in
> peace and security. So that's, again, what we're going to be - again,
> returning our efforts to in the days and weeks to come, and that's what
> we're going to be talking about in our conversations with the Israelis
> and Palestinians and other members of the international community who
> very much support the same goal that we all share.
>
>
>
> MR. CROWLEY: Everybody, thanks very much for joining us and have a
> good, long weekend.
>
>
>
> AMBASSADOR RICE: Thank you, P.J.
>
>
>
> # # #
>
>
>
Adiam
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----