REMARKS WITH QATARI FOREIGN MINISTER, SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY

FROM:  STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks With Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid bin Muhammad al-Atiyah

Remarks

John Kerry
Secretary of State

Chief of Mission Residence

Paris, France

January 12, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good evening and welcome, and thank you very, very much for your patience in a long afternoon between the London 11 meeting that (inaudible) and now a long meeting here with the Follow-on Committee of the Arab Peace Initiative.

I am particularly grateful to Foreign Minister al-Atiyah for his leadership and for the work that he has been doing to try to keep this debate active and engaged in this important effort. And I also thank Secretary General Elaraby of the Arab League for his commitment and for the depth of the conversation that we had today. And I appreciate his willingness to convene people on short notice. But I think it’s fair to say that this is one of the more important meetings that we had, because we’re getting to a point where there’s more substance and a great deal more direction, and therefore more to talk about.

Before I touch on the vital efforts that we discussed here this afternoon, I want to commend the very critical and significant step today taken towards reaching a verifiable resolution that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This afternoon, this evening, we concluded negotiations constructively and positively so that on January 20^th, in just a few short days, we will begin implementation of the Joint Plan of Action that we and our partners agreed to with respect to Iran in Geneva. As of that day, January 20^th, for the first time in almost a decade, Iran’s nuclear program will not be able to advance – in fact, parts of it will be rolled back – while we start negotiating a comprehensive agreement to address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

As the United States has made clear many times, our absolute top priority in these negotiations is preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Translated: Making absolutely clear, beyond any doubt, that Iran’s program is a peaceful program. We have been clear all along. President Obama initiated this effort with the belief that diplomacy is our preferred path, because other options carry much greater costs and risks and are less likely to provide a lasting solution. As this agreement takes effect, we will be extraordinarily vigilant in our verification and monitoring of Iran’s actions. And that is an effort that will be led by the International Atomic Energy administration – Agency.

While implementation of this Joint Plan of Action is obviously an important step, we are very clear-eyed about the even greater challenges that we face in negotiating a comprehensive agreement. We understand it’s going to be a tough negotiation, and we are very clear about what will be required in order to be able to guarantee to the international community that this is a peaceful program. The negotiations will be very difficult, but they are the best chance that we have to be able to resolve this critical national security issue peacefully and durably. And we have an obligation to give our diplomats and our experts every opportunity to be able to succeed.

So, as you can see, the United States is engaged and leading on several fronts, and we are working with our partners for a region that is more secure and more prosperous. There is a lot of very difficult work ahead; there is no question about that. But on each of these critical issues, I can tell you unequivocally, the President and I are absolutely determined to lead and to succeed.

Our meeting here today was the fifth with the Arab Peace Initiative Follow-up Committee, and it is part of a regular process of the negotiation consultations on the final negotiation process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is a promise that I made to Secretary General Elaraby and to Chairman al-Atiyah when they requested to be kept apprised of what we were doing, because their stakes in this are significant. They have been enormously helpful and constructive in this effort, and I want to thank them for that. We’ve always known that peace is a very long and complicated, difficult road. But we remain committed to this process because we understand that the benefits of peace are dramatic and they are well worth fighting for.
The Arab Peace Initiative holds out the possibility – excuse me – the Arab Peace Initiative holds out the possibility of normalizing relations with Israel and strengthening security for all of the countries throughout the region. I’m very grateful to the Arab League for their willingness to help to build support for this effort. It’s very hard to overstate the importance of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, Bahrain – all of the countries that are taking part in this effort – in order to bring the Arab world to the table saying a simple thing: We are prepared to make peace now in 2014.

As I made clear in my discussions with the Arab foreign ministers today, we really are at a critical point, as Palestinians and Israeli leaders grapple with difficult and challenging decisions that lie ahead. Through the course of the last five months, President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu have both demonstrated courageous and determined leadership. They’ve made tough choices, and they are contemplating even tougher choices in the weeks ahead. The Arab foreign ministers made clear to me that they support Israeli and Palestinian leaders’ efforts to take the next bold, courageous steps of agreeing to a framework for permanent status negotiations.

The leaders here today understand what’s at stake, and they remain committed to peace, not just between Israel and Palestinians, but to the prospect of peace between Israel and 57 nations – 35 Muslim nations, and 22 Arab nations. That is the vision that summons us. That is the vision that guides us. And we will need the continued support and engagement of the Arab League in order to achieve it.

Let me also say a brief word about the London 11 ministerial today. We came together this morning, and we are planning for a Geneva II conference next week for a simple reason: because there is no military solution to the violence that has displaced millions and taken more than 130,000 lives. There is no other alternative to ending this violence and saving the state of Syria than to find a negotiated, peaceful outcome.

The conference on January 22^nd is the best opportunity to bring both the regime and the opposition to the table to begin a process of ending the Syrian conflict through a negotiated transition and a full implementation of the Geneva communique. Ultimately, it is the Syrians themselves who will have to come to agreement on a political path to end the bloodshed and to chart a future that can be shared, not by one group or another, not by one sector or another, but by all of the people in Syria. Our job and the job of the London 11 is to support efforts to help get them there.

My counterparts and I also discussed the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. There is an urgent need for the Syrian regime to implement its obligations under the UN Security Council Presidential Statement. There is an urgent need for the Assad regime to deliver on the humanitarian assistance that is necessary to the people of Syria. And that includes the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta, whose 160,000 citizens are effectively being held hostage by regime forces. Let me make clear that last year, the Deputy Foreign Minister Mekdad said in New York that Syria would allow any access, anywhere, at any time. Well, the citizens of Ghouta are still waiting. Almost a year now, they have been denied access to any of that humanitarian assistance, and that is absolutely unacceptable.

We believe that it is possible for the regime to put in place before Geneva a ceasefire – local ceasefires if necessary – a ceasefire with respect to Aleppo, and send the signal that they are prepared to set a different mood, a different climate, a different stage for the possibility of success in Geneva. They have the power to do that. And the opposition has pledged that if they will do that, the opposition will live by it.

In addition to that, they have said that they’re prepared to provide for the possibility of prisoner exchanges, and they are preparing for that possibility in the event that the regime would take the steps in order to engage in that kind of humanitarian gesture.

The disregard for the most basic human rights – whether through aerial bombing, barrel bombs, targeted against civilians, the starvation of Syrian men, women and children – is a barbaric act and it is just as barbaric as it is lethal. And it is unacceptable by any standard. The pictures and the dramatic demonstrations of what has happened to young children and to men and women, the practices that have been engaged in, are abhorrent. They’re a challenge to the conscience of every person on this planet. And it is important for all of us to begin to call greater attention to the level of violence that we are trying to prevent.

The international community has to be diligent in drawing much more attention to the horrible costs of this conflict, and we need to put the necessary pressure to bring an end to it. That’s why the foreign minister, Foreign Minister Atiyah, and I are here. That’s why our counterparts from the London 11 are here. And that’s why we will continue pressing for a diplomatic solution with all of our international partners. We’ll press forward with the Syrian coalition leadership, with the Joint Special Representative Brahimi, and with the Russians as we prepare to go to Montreux on January 22^nd.

Tomorrow, I will be meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov. I will meet again with President Jarba and the Syrian opposition, and I will meet with Special Envoy of the UN Lakhdar Brahimi as we engage in further discussions about how we can change this dynamic and begin the process of building for Geneva II.

None of us have an expectation. No one should write cynically about Geneva II somehow failing if it doesn’t come out on day one or day two or day three with a full agreement. We don’t expect that. What we do expect is to begin to get the parties at the table convened and negotiating and beginning a process of waging an even stronger effort to provide for this political solution. It’ll take a little bit of time, but I’m confident that it needs that forum; it needs all the players at the table; it needs the umbrella of the United Nations; it needs the good faith of people coming to that table in order to begin to focus the world on the way forward to prevent this catastrophe from growing even worse. And that’s what we are engaged in and that’s what we’re determined to try to achieve.

Mr. Minister, thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) (Inaudible) the nuclear – it’s nuclear program. We hope that this would be a first step to making the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction. Today, the ministerial committee for the Follow-up Committee of the Arab Peace Initiative has held its first – is meeting to discuss the Palestinian issue.

And I would like to thank my friend Kerry for his efforts with respect to the peace process and ending the conflict. He has – John responded to several – or addressed several of our concerns and questions on the part of the foreign ministers and members of the committee. I would also like to take the opportunity to also thank His Excellency President Abbas and President Haniyeh for their successes in achieving strides towards the implementation of the Doha Agreement and reaching reconciliation.

We have also renewed, in our – in this meeting, we have renewed our positions concerning the peace process, and also on addressing all the issues, foremost among which are the issue of the border, Jerusalem settlements, security, and the release of Palestinian prisoners. We have also asserted that the peace process is the shortest and most effective way to achieving stability in the region.

The – resolving the Palestinian question is the key to peace and security in the Middle East region and it cannot be implemented except with the full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state with full sovereignty, with Jerusalem as its capital.

We would also like to stress the Arab commitment to lasting peace. There is no doubt that there are difficulties and obstacles facing us. And the Israeli Government should therefore stop all settlement activities and should also give the peace efforts a chance to succeed so – in order to reach a lasting settlement. We also warn against the repercussions of continued Israeli practices that would hinder such progress.

The ultimate goal of everyone is to reach a comprehensive peace and a lasting peace that would achieve peace. This is the initiative that we have launched, and these are the Arab principles for ending this conflict.

And our friend John Kerry has exerted great effort over the last few days. He has visited the region 11 times, as I believe, or 10 times. And we appreciate the American role in these mediation efforts. Our friends are not parties that relay information between two parties; they are mediators in this process. And we hope that we can reach a settlement that would satisfy the Palestinian people and would be fair to them.
Thank you very much.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Lara Jakes of the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you. Secretary Kerry, in the meetings today with the London 11, did you receive any commitment or even any indication from President al-Jarba that he would be able to deliver the coalition to next week’s meetings? Also, if the coalition does not attend, what sort of consequences might it face from the United States in terms of credibility, support, or aid? And lastly, what assurances have you so far received from representatives of the regime that it will attend?

SECRETARY KERRY: The – I’m confident – personally, I am confident that the Syrian opposition will come to Geneva. We had some discussions today. He is working through certain issues that – President Jarba is – that he needs to work through and he needs to have the opportunity to have the space to do that.

But I’m meeting with him again tomorrow. He met yesterday with Foreign Minister Atiyah and others, with Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, among others. And they had a very constructive meeting, a very positive meeting. We had a very constructive meeting today. He’s had very constructive comments to make about it. And I am confident that he and others will be in Geneva in order to pursue this negotiation.

And with respect to the Assad regime, we have been told that from day one they allegedly are prepared to negotiate. And Foreign Minister Lavrov on several occasions has told me they’re prepared to be there. So I am counting on both parties, as well as the 30 or so plus other nations, to come together in an effort to try to end this violence, as I described earlier.
QUESTION: And could you speak to what consequences --

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to – we’ve had private conversations, and I think they understand the stakes. But I’m not going to get into consequences, other than to say that it’s a test of the credibility of everybody. And that’s why I’m confident that they’ll be there, because I think they understand that.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Randa Takieddine from Al-Hayat.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, you spoke about Iran. Are you willing to speak with Iran on – for changing their policies in Syria and Lebanon?

And second, for Mr. al-Atiyah, we were told today that ministers and the 11 asked you to pressure your friends in the Syrian opposition to be more cohesive with the (inaudible). Is – are you going to do these efforts to push for more unity in the coalition?
SECRETARY KERRY: Do you want to go first?

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: No. Please, go ahead.

SECRETARY KERRY: With respect to Iran and Hezbollah, let me make it clear: Hezbollah has been designated by the United States, by Europe and others as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They have engaged in extraterritorial assassinations, they have engaged in terrorist activities, and they are currently engaged across international lines in fighting in another country, overtly, in ways that challenge people’s sense of decency and propriety with respect to even war. So in the process of that, they have also engaged in activities in Lebanon that are further destabilizing Lebanon.

So nobody should have any illusions about how completely unacceptable the activities of Hezbollah are, how prohibited they are by international law and norms and standards. And we would call on Iran or anyone else supporting them in whatever way they may be – by refuge, by money, by supplies, by weapons – to cease it and to recognize the damaging impact that Hezbollah is having on the security and stability of the region.

We discussed today – and our communique address it very directly – the London 11 today directed comments specifically at Hezbollah and called on countries to engage in more significant efforts to deal with their finances and to deal with their international activities.
Now, we would engage anywhere with respect to any country that wants to have a constructive impact on that. And if Iran wants to exert its influence – which is enormous, significant, because it’s perhaps the larges patron of Hezbollah – Iran could have a profound impact on helping to change the dynamics of what is happening in Syria. If Iran would simply accept the Geneva I premise, Iran could obviously make a constructive contribution to the Geneva conference itself. And the acceptance of the Geneva I communique would be a very welcome step.

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) With respect to the coalition, the truth is it is recognized by the Friends of Syria, more than 120 countries. It also has a seat on the Arab League, based on a decision by Arab leaders. And therefore, it represents the – it’s the only representative of the Syrian people. There is no one friend in the coalition that is under the influence of one country or the other. All of us in Friends of Syria, we deal with the coalition as the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people. And therefore, we feel that we – it’s imperative on us to support the coalition. We have our own point of view as members of the Friends of Syria coalition, and we all support their decisions. And in the end, it’s a Syrian decision, a pure Syrian decision.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.

QUESTION: I have a question for the Foreign Minister and then for Secretary Kerry. For the Foreign Minister, we’ve been in a number of these Arab Peace Initiative sessions, and it’s not clear that there’s been any substantial progress in the Middle East peace process during that period. Indeed, the current focus is not so much on getting a comprehensive agreement in nine months, but on an agreed framework. How do you assess the status of these talks? Do you think they’re making progress in the peace process? And what are the advantages and disadvantages of seeking a framework at this juncture, instead of pushing all the way for a comprehensive peace agreement?

And then what I – a second one for you, sir. I’d just like your view, whether you think the United States and other western powers are doing enough to help the Syrian opposition, given that the regime is being armed by Russia and Iran.

And for Secretary Kerry, a question. The – at the last London 11 meeting we attended, in the communique that was issued then, one of the points was that the participants vowed to build up and increase their material support to the Syrian opposition group you’re backing. Instead, you’ve cut off the nonlethal aid to the Syrian opposition, reflecting concerns that some of it may be diverted into the wrong hands. Do you intend to restore this aid prior to Geneva II and provide more of a carrot or incentive for the opposition to go into this meeting?

And I’d like to – I think also think just – sir, on the previous question, do you think there would be value in trying to talk to Iran about any of these regional issues, instead of just issuing calls for them to do this or that? Have you, in any of your discussions, asked them to constrain their support to Syria? Would you plan to raise this in any of your negotiating sessions? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead.

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) With respect to the peace process and the vision – and the Palestinian vision and Arab position, they are constant. There are usurped rights, and they’re clear to us. And the Palestinians are demanding these rights. There is also Israeli intransigence in granting these rights, but we cannot say that the peace process is experiencing obstacles of any sort. We should give the American mediator, represented by Mr. John Kerry, an opportunity to end – to proceed in what they have started.

And I would like to also stress on the steps that John Kerry has described. There is progress, but the final vision has yet to be proposed. Therefore, the chance is still wide open and time has run out. And it’s premature for us to judge that negotiations have failed or succeeded.
With respect to Syria, the truth is it’s not the U.S. that should be blamed in not providing sufficient support to the Syrian people. I believe all the Friends of Syria, we have not moved enough to save the Syrian people until we reached a very advanced stage. We can summarize everything that’s happening in Syria as terrorism being exercised by the regime. This is, in fact, not true. We are not doing justice to the Syrian people or the rebels.

So if there’s any real shortcoming, it’s been done by all members of the Friends of Syria, and we cannot really pinpoint the blame, even though it’s being said that the United States is a superpower and therefore it should shoulder greater responsibilities than the rest. So I hope that I have responded to the question.

SECRETARY KERRY: Michael, even with the suspension of the nonlethal aid to the north, it’s fair to say that the United States is doing more to help the Syrian opposition than it has done at any point in time, and it is very significant. In addition to which, I am leaving, as you know, on Wednesday, attending a conference in Kuwait, a donors conference, where we will make a further commitment with respect to the humanitarian crisis.

The best solution to the humanitarian crises is to get a political solution and end the creation of more refugees. And there’s a certain endlessness to this notion that we’re going to keep upping our contribution to more millions of people who have been displaced. You’ve got about eight million people displaced, over two million refugees. It’s one of the largest refugee, displaced person catastrophes on the face of this planet today, and it needs to stop. And we are not looking for a policy of simply increased assistance to refugees; we’re looking for a policy that saves Syria and provides them an ability to go home and rebuild their lives. And that is our goal.

Now with respect to the cutoff you mentioned in the north, yes, our warehouse was raided by one of the extremist groups in the north, and we decided that it was a risk to be providing that assistance if it’s going to the extremists. And we have consistently said we are not going to supply extremists. We’re not going to see them be supported; they shouldn’t be.
That has paid off. Today, the most extremist group is on the run and being taken on by some others in the opposition. And we’re anxious to see how that turns out, obviously. But even before that happened, we have been considering the renewal of that assistance to the opposition. We know it’s important, we know they need it, and we’re beginning to believe we may be in a place where that can now resume, and we would obviously want to get back to where we were. That’s why we put it there in the first place.

With respect to trying to talk to Iran with respect to Syria, the answer is yes, I have raised the subject to Iran. But we’ve been so focused and so intent on the nuclear file that we really have not dug into it in any appreciably substantive way at this time, because we both realize the real priority for the moment was – when I say both, Foreign Minister Zarif and myself – that the real focus was to get the nuclear agreement in the place that it now is.

I have said many times, publicly and privately, I would welcome any initiative Iran wishes to take, if they do, to try to provide a resolution to the crisis of Syria. The first thing they can do is accept the Geneva communique, which was adopted even by Russia, who is supporting Assad, and try to help make this peaceful resolution move forward.

But next time I see him I certainly will re-raise the issue, as we have in the past. I don’t sit around and wait with bated breath or any high expectations that there is going to be a sudden shift of heart on that. But it is obviously arguably a basic fundamental tenet of diplomacy that you leave the door open for people to make a reasonable offer of one kind or another and make your judgments about it. And we will certainly leave the door open.

MS. PSAKI: The last question will be from Stacy Meichtry of The Wall Street Journal.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Atiyah, a moment ago Secretary Kerry said that if Iran accepted the Geneva I communique they would be in a position to make a contribution to the Geneva process and perhaps to the upcoming talks. Do you agree with that assessment, that Iran has a positive role to play in the negotiations?

And secondly, I was wondering if I could get your reaction to the announcement about the nuclear deal, the implementation of the interim accord. Do you feel that it goes far enough in preventing Tehran from building a nuclear bomb? Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) Thank you. In fact, Iran is able to do more, a lot, even before Geneva II. It’s able, or it can press Hezbollah and urge it to leave Syria. There are good-faith steps that would start with Hezbollah’s departure and some other militias from Syria. But inviting any party – it’s not up to me to decide who should be invited. It is up to Mr. el-Brahimi and also the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. They are the ones who decide who gets to attend Geneva and who doesn’t.

QUESTION: And on the nuclear accord?

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (In English) Can you repeat the question please?

QUESTION: Sure. The announcement today about the implementation of the interim nuclear accord – do you feel that it – that this is a positive step in preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) I welcomed at the beginning of my statement about the agreement that the United States reached with Iran concerning the nuclear file. What we hope is for the articles of this agreement to be implemented and to even take further steps to make the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. This is what we hope for.
Thank you.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY MAKES REMARKS WITH QATARI FOREIGN MINISTER KHALID AL-ATIYAH

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid al-Atiyah Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Chief of Mission Residence
Paris, France
October 21, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. I want to thank Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius for his gracious hospitality here in Paris, and I will be meeting with him tomorrow morning. I look forward to that meeting. And I want to express my deep appreciation to Secretary General Elaraby of the Arab League and to the members of the Arab League Follow-On Committee in the Mideast peace process for their commitment to peace and for their willingness to come to Paris today for yet another meeting and briefing which we have promised them with respect to the Mideast peace process, and we’ve promised to do it on a regular basis or as needed.

I especially want to recognize my friend, the Foreign Minister of Qatar, Khalid al-Atiyah. I am very appreciative to him. He’s been a good partner in this effort of keeping the committee moving and of keeping it engaged. And this is the fourth time now in six months that the United States and the Arab League have gathered as part of our regular consultations in order to make sure that the final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians are very much accountable to those who have a great stake in it. And as everybody knows, the Arab Peace Initiative, which I have many times mentioned, was a very significant step forward, is still a very important ingredient of the possibilities of peace.

Excuse me. The breadth and the depth of the participation that we had here today and in all of our meetings is really a clear demonstration of the continued support that President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority continue to receive from the Arab community as a whole, and I think it is significant. The Arab League understands precisely what is at stake here. I might comment that in the middle of our meeting today, His Highness Prince Saud al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia very eloquently stated, “You know, if you’re thinking about what the vision for peace of the Arab world, all you really have to do is look at the Arab Peace Initiative, which offers immediate peace to Israel when settling the Palestinian issue, a peace that will bring normal commerce, embassies, normal relations, connections between people and between countries, not with one or two nations, but with 57 nations all at one time – 35 Muslim nations, 22 Arab nations. That’s a vision, and it’s a vision worth fighting for.

From the very first visit with the Arab Peace Initiative Follow-up Committee in Washington earlier this year, to the key meeting that we had in Amman in July, the Arab League Follow-on Committee has shown a remarkable commitment to this effort, and we’re very grateful to them for that.

Their support for a final status agreement is essential to the agreement of a negotiated, two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis, and it is critical to creating the momentum and the seriousness of purpose that is essential in order to be able to be successful in these talks.

It’s no secret to anybody that this is and remains a difficult process, there is no shortage of passionate skeptics. But I want to underscore that the goal is clear and it is achievable, and those who are closest to it – the neighbors as well as the parties themselves – understand what is at stake: a just and a lasting peace that’s based on a two-state solution which is the only solution. Two states for a simple reason, because two proud peoples deserve the opportunity to realize their legitimate aspirations, their security, and their freedom, and their future.

The Israeli and the Palestinian people both have leaders who absolutely understand what is at stake, and they have taken risks in order to bring both parties to the table. They showed courage to begin the process and they have shown courage to continue it even in the face of criticism. The two parties have been engaged now in 13 meetings, serious meetings. They had three meetings in the last four days. The pace has intensified. All the core issues are on the table, and they have been meeting with increased intensity.

But for everybody to live up to the challenges of making peace, we have to support them, including living up to our obligations on the economic front. I want to stress that no economic track, no economic package or financial assistance will ever be a substitute for the political track. But with our partnership and with our support and our economic investment, we can all help in order to provide a difference to the lives of people living in the neighborhood. That is why I am especially pleased to announce tonight – and I’m very grateful to the Amir of Qatar, to the Qatari people, and to the Foreign Minister who has really helped bring this about – they have agreed to provide $150 million in urgently needed debt relief to the Palestinian Authority. And I am very grateful to Khalid al-Atiyah for helping to make that happen. I’m confident that other Arab governments are currently evaluating and making their decisions, and there will be others who will join in this initiative as we go forward.

So the support of donors has been critical to helping us get where we are today, and it is important ultimately for the parties themselves to make the key decisions and reasonable compromises necessary for a final status agreement. That includes taking all of the steps that are necessary to create a positive atmosphere for the negotiations, which incidentally was one of the key things agreed upon by both parties as they entered into these negotiations.

So my friends, I might comment that in his – in that vein, I was very pleased to see that Prime Minister Netanyahu made an Eid al-Adha statement, a message earlier this week, and he made it clear that Israel is committed to maintaining the status quo in the holy places, and he made it clear that the hand of Israel is extended to the Palestinian people in the hope of peace.

So my friends, there is an opportunity for peace over the horizon. But to seize that opportunity, we need the continued support of the Arab League, we need the engagement of the Arab League, and we need the rest of the international community also to continue to be supportive. I believe that with our work together, we can provide for the peaceful, prosperous, hopeful outcome that people in the region, and particularly Israelis and Palestinians, have hoped for for a long, long time.

Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: Thank you very much, and I’ll do it in Arabic if you’d like to put your headset, please.

(Via interpreter) In the beginning, as my friend John Kerry did, I would like to extend my thanks also to our common friend Laurent for allowing for this meeting to take place in France. Yes, indeed, we did meet today for a fourth time about the peace process. We discussed and confirmed some (inaudible) issues, which is the solution – a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital. We also addressed some very important issues.

I would like to be very brief because my friend John here covered most of the issues. But there are some issues that we addressed in this meeting. For example, we talked about the issue of Gaza and the futility of isolating Gaza because that wouldn’t help the peace process, and the closure of crossing points. There are millions of people living in Gaza, and they are in need of supply – food supplies and medicine. Therefore, there must be a way to open crossing points by all parties so that we could enable the people of Gaza to live, because they are an inseparable part of the Palestinian people.

As for the negotiations, we confirmed the need – affirmed the need for American participation, actual participation, in the negotiations. And I would like to thank my friend John for the serious effort that is expended, but we would like him to be fully engaged in this process. We are concerned concerning the environment surrounding the negotiations, and we did address this concern. For example, the most recent measures, we are seeing settlement expansion, not just destruction of homes but destruction of entire communities similar to what’s happening in the Jordan Valley. Also, raising the Israeli flag, we consider this to be a transgression that we cannot possibly accept, not in the Arab world or the Islamic world. Therefore, we urge that the conducive environment for the negotiations be created. Also, some statements made by Israeli officials harm the peace process.

We addressed – we talked about most – several issues – economics and economic openness, and we asserted that the initiative of the sovereignty of the holy places in 2002 was very clear, and it also included all the possibilities that could take place in the event of a comprehensive peace. I would like also to – I wanted to shed light on these issues because my friend John has gone into the specifics of the meeting, and thank you very much.

MODERATOR: The first question will be from Arshad Mohammed of Reuters.

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, when you took office as Secretary of State, you repeatedly said that it was necessary to change President Assad’s calculation. When you and Foreign Minister Lavrov announced your hopes to hold Geneva 2 in May, the circumstances seemed somewhat better for the possibility of a peace conference. The government seemed – the Syrian Government seemed to be losing ground at the time. Now, many months later, the Syrian Government seems to be in a stronger position. President Assad says – is talking about the possibility of running for re-election. And the opposition, as you well know, is fighting on two fronts, something that your – even your own aides say makes it harder to extract concessions from the Syrian Government. What makes you think that the Assad government has any reason, given the way events have moved in the last six months, to actually make concessions and give up power? And what makes you think that the opposition, which seems to grow more fractured and has seen defections even in the last few weeks, is in any position or shape to assume a transitional governing role?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Arshad, obviously a central question to all of this, and I’ll give you as complete and direct an answer as I can. You are correct to say that when Sergey Lavrov and I announced this in Moscow, I think back in May, that the situation on the ground was different than the way it is today. But the situation on the ground is irrelevant to the question of the implementation of Geneva 1. And maybe President Assad needs to go back and read Geneva 1 again, or for the first time, but Geneva 1 says you will have a transition government by mutual consent. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re up or whether you’re down on the battlefield; the objective of Geneva 2 remains the same, which is the implementation of Geneva 1, which means a transition government arrived at by mutual consent of the parties.

Now, I don’t know anybody who believes that the opposition will ever consent to Bashar al-Assad being part of that government. And if he thinks he’s going to solve problems by running for re-election, I can say to him, I think with certainty, this war will not end as long as that’s the case or he is there.

Now, the Geneva 2 process is a negotiated resolution of a war that is taking place because Bashar al-Assad decided to meet the demands of young people in his country for a participatory role in the future of Syria – he decided to meet them with bullets and bombs and artillery shells. And he has shelled universities and killed innocent students sitting at their desks. He shelled schools with napalm and burned innocent children who were there trying to learn. He has bombed and gassed people in his country so that more than 115,000 or so are dead. How can that man claim to rule under any legitimacy in the future?

So I believe that it’s very clear what the purpose of this negotiated settlement is. And those who support the implementation of Geneva 1 should come to Geneva and be part of the process of building a new future for the people of Syria. But I do not believe that it is dependent on whether you’re up or down.

Now secondly, there are plenty of qualified people within the opposition in Syria – not necessarily fighters, but people who are opposed to Assad who run a business or a hospital or who have a great distinguished career and have been part of building the fabric of a secular society of Syria. And there are people who are qualified to be able to help manage the future affairs of Syria. There is nothing ordained, nothing is written that suggests that it belongs to one family and one man, particularly after what has happened over the course of these past two and a half years.

Now, there’s a human catastrophe awaiting the world if you can’t have a negotiated solution, because there are more and more refugees, more and more displaced people, more and more destruction, and the potential of the absolute implosion of the state of Syria is what lies in front of everybody if there cannot be a negotiated solution. I would hope that ultimately, Assad himself, certainly his supporters like the Russians, the Iranians, would understand that if you want peace in the region, it’s not going to come by prolonging the war with the presence of Bashar al-Assad.

Now, finally, why has the situation on the ground changed? Not because of the Syrian military, but because of Iran and Hezbollah, and Hezbollah and Iran represent the two only outside organized forces in Syria fighting on behalf of a party, the only two. And they are the ones who have made that difference. So I think it’s time for the United Nations and for others to consider the appropriateness of their activity and the need to try to press towards the negotiated solution that is critical to the people of Syria and to its future.

MODERATOR: The next question will be from Randa Takieddine from Al-Hayat.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I have a question for you and a question for Minister Khalid al-Atiyah. In Arabic, if possible, to Mr. al-Atiyah, and English for you.

Mr. Secretary, the concerns of people came about the American policy change on Syria – they came out of the fact that you are insisting so much on the chemical disarmament of Syria, and that people thought that you want really to do with this regime – with Assad’s regime. So do you need, in fact, this coordination with this regime for the chemical disarmament? And when is Geneva 2, actually? Because we don’t – we still don’t have a date. Some people say 23rd, some others say no. And then, is Iran going to be part of this conference?

(Via interpreter.) Is Qatar – has Qatar changed its policy regarding Syria? Is there a rapprochement or letters with President – being exchanged with President Bashar al-Assad?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, just very quickly, on the date, I can’t tell you precisely when the date is. That’s up to the United Nations and up to the Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to announce. But I have heard people talking about sometime in later part of November. Foreign Minister Lavrov and I both urged that it be as soon as possible, and we both certainly would be in agreement, along with a lot of other ministers who believe that it ought to happen sooner, not later. So I hope it would be somewhere in that period of time. But it’s up to them to announce it.

With respect to the question of the weapons, is Assad necessary, the answer is no. Assad doesn’t go out into the field and control a particular depot where you have chemical weapons. Assad isn’t driving the trucks that back up to the depot and pick up the weapons and take them somewhere. There are lots of people in Syria within the military structure who have knowledge of where the weapons are and how they can be moved who actually have responsibilities for safeguarding them. So Assad himself is not critical to the containment and the identification and ultimate removal of those weapons, number one.

Number two, those weapons could be gathered and located and brought to a location over the course of these next few months, barring something surprising. I’m not sure this will be settled in that period of time, but he is not absolutely essential to the effort to remove the chemical weapons. They can be removed once identified and secured by the normal process of chemical weapons destruction.

With respect to the first part of your question, which was the policy change, no, there has been no policy change. President Obama made a decision with respect to military force, and I am absolutely 100 percent convinced that had he not made that decision, those weapons would not be being removed now under an agreement that we reached at the United Nations. It happened because of that decision. And you have to ask yourself: Is it better that all of the weapons are being secured and removed, rather than that you had a military strike that tried to deter him from using them again but left them in his possession? That’s the choice. I think it’s clear there’s a benefit.

Now, some were disappointed the strike didn’t take place because they thought it was a sign of other things. But the fact is that the same airplanes that were killing people before the chemical weapons and the same artillery that was killing people before the chemical weapons and the same bombs and Scud missiles are still doing it. And we remain as concerned about that today, if not more so, than we were before the chemical weapons agreement.

And that is why we are focused on assisting the moderate opposition. We are helping them. It’s a known fact. And we will continue, as are others of our friends continuing, to help them, because we believe you need to get to the negotiation because there is no ultimate military solution. But we’re not going to sit by while Assad slaughters his people with impunity and not help those who are struggling against him to have their ability to do so with some of the support from the international community.

QUESTION: On Iran?

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, Iran. Fourth question, okay.

On Iran, the answer is if Iran accepts – Iran has not accepted the implementation of Geneva 1, so it’s very hard to see how Iran can be constructive in the absence of their willingness to come for the purpose of the negotiation. So if they accept Geneva 1 and want to be constructive in helping to set up a transition government, that’s a different issue. But until that happens, it would be very difficult to see how it could be constructive.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) The question is: Did the Syrian regime stop its massacres against its people? Did the Syrian people attain its freedom that it deserves? And did it get the justice and freedom? If the answer is no, then the position of Qatar is the same. We are standing by the Syrians until they attain their freedom, and even though we’re pushing for a political solution that would help the Syrian people, but the Qatari decision has not changed. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Is that it?

MS. PSAKI: One more. The final question is from Patricia Allemoniere – I don’t know if I said it the right way – TF-1.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Mr. Secretary, I have one question, first question. The French this evening are deeply shocked by the revelations that were made by the newspaper Le Monde regarding the extent of the wiretaps conducted by an allied and friendly country to France. What answer can you give? Can the United States stop and does it want an end to these listenings?

And another question for Qatar. Qatar is oftentimes accused in the West of being at the origin of the rise of radical Islamic groups because Qatar helped them to obtain weapons. What do you have to say with respect to that comment or analysis?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much for the question. Look, France is one of our oldest allies in the world, and I have a very close working relationship with Laurent Fabius since the day I started this job on many issues, ranging from Syria to protecting the security of our citizens. And protecting the security of our citizens in today’s world is a very complicated, very challenging task, and it is an everyday, 24/7, 365 task, unfortunately, because there are lots of people out there seeking to do harm to other people. We see much more suicide bombs taking place in various parts of the world right now.

So Ambassador Rivkin met today with Alexandre Ziegler, the cabinet director to Foreign Minister Fabius, at the request of the Government of France. And our ongoing – we will have ongoing bilateral consultations, including with our French partners, that address this question of any reports by the United States Government gathering information from some of the agencies, and those consultations are going to continue.

Now, I’m not going to comment on the specifics. As a matter of policy, we don’t discuss intelligence matters. And lots of countries are engaged in the activity of trying to protect their citizens and the world. As the President – as President Obama said very clearly in a recent speech that he gave at the United Nations General Assembly just a few weeks ago, he said we in the United States are currently reviewing the way that we gather intelligence. And I think that’s appropriate. And our goal is always to try to find the right balance between protecting the security and the privacy of our citizens. And this work is going to continue, as well as our very consultations with our friends here in France.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) In the beginning, I would like to say that anyone who doesn’t know what’s happening in Syria would say that Qatar is supporting radical groups. But the truth is when someone is Christian or Jewish or even Muslim and is subjected to a catastrophe similar to what the Syrian people have experienced, then it will be very closer to God. So this is the situation in Syria.

We are working in Syria through the Friends of Syria group, and there’s also a group that all people have agreed to support the Syrian people, whether in terms of helping it defend itself or in terms of humanitarian aid. We are working through this group and the allies to support very known parties. Therefore, talking about us supporting radical groups or extremist groups, this cannot be true in any way when we’re working with allies closely.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS WITH QATARI FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid bin Muhammad al-Atiyah
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Chief of Mission Residence
Paris, France
September 8, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. I want to start by thanking the Secretary General of the Arab League, Nabil Elaraby. And I particularly want to thank my friend, the Foreign Minister of Qatar, Khalid al-Atiyah. And I want to thank all of the other Arab ministers who came to Paris and joined us today for the first follow-on discussions since the negotiations began of the formal follow-on committee for the peace initiative for the Arab League.

This is now our third meeting, actually, with respect to the peace process. And we had a meeting previously in the Middle East, we had a meeting not so long ago in Washington at which a very important statement was made by the Arab League with respect to the 1967 lines with swaps. And today, we had an opportunity to be able to dig further into the Middle East peace process.

I particularly want to thank the Government of France for hosting us here today and for making it possible for us to meet here in Paris. This, as I said, is the first meeting that we’ve been able to have since the peace negotiations began. I think there have been – I think, without getting into specific numbers, there have been a sequence of meetings that have taken place between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And this is my first opportunity today to update the Arab League committee on those negotiations.

As one member, one of the foreign ministers, said today, this meeting is almost as important as the negotiations themselves, because the Arab League and the Arab community’s support for a final status agreement is essential to the achievement of that agreement, and it is a critical component in creating momentum and energy and seriousness of purpose in these talks. Despite tough decisions that have to be made, and despite pressure that exists on both sides, where people act against the interests of the talks – because there are, obviously, those who are opposed – both the Palestinians and the Israelis have nevertheless remained steadfast and determined in their commitment to continue to talk. And they have remained steadfast in their commitment to the ultimate goal of two states for two peoples living side by side in peace and security. And throughout the process, both parties have continued to show that they believe that the formidable challenges that exist that everybody is familiar with are actually worth tackling.

I want to emphasize today – and I emphasized this to our friends – that both leaders, President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, showed a seriousness of purpose in coming to these talks. Both of them took political risks, personal political risks. Both of them stood up to forces in their own countries that were willing to say no, not enough has been given here, or not enough has been given there. They found a reason to come, despite those who were arguing that there were reasons not to.

And so this meeting today was convened to emphasize to both leaders – President Abbas, whom I will meet later today, and Prime Minister Netanyahu I will meet shortly, as our schedules permit it – that both of them decided that this was worth taking risks for. The Prime Minister of Israel wrote an open letter to all the people of Israel and took a decision regarding prisoners that was obviously unpopular with many parts of his country. Likewise, President Abbas, despite many people opposing the idea, stood up and said even though some of the things they wanted as preconditions had not been satisfied, that he was going to move forward because he thought it was important to do so.

This meeting today here in Paris was convened, as I have promised to the Arab League, that we will meet regularly in order to keep them abreast of these negotiations. One of the reasons that people attribute to a past failure of talks was the fact that many of the countries that are supportive of the Palestinians were not sufficiently kept abreast or sufficiently invested in what was being done. And I think it is critical, obviously, to try to make certain that they are part of it.

In addition, we also talked today about the economic track and the security tracks which are a very essential component of changing life for the Palestinians and beginning to build the institutional capacity and the trust necessary to be able to reach final status agreements. We all of us agree that a final status agreement is important in enhancing regional security and stability throughout the Middle East. And I think it is a very significant statement that even though there is unrest and volatility in parts of the Middle East, obviously, with transition taking place in Egypt, with the civil strife taking place in Syria, with the challenges of Iran’s nuclear program, notwithstanding all of these things and more, all of the parties, all of the support group and the principals themselves are deeply committed to proceeding in order to try to change the dynamics of the Middle East and, despite the turmoil, make peace, the concept of peace, the most important goal of all.

The United States and the Arab League have long agreed that with respect to Syria, which we did discuss today, the end of this civil war is going to require a political solution. We have repeated – and I repeat every time I stand up and talk about it – there is no military solution. And what the United States is seeking, together with others – not alone, but with others, an increasing number – what we are seeking is to enforce the standard with respect to the use of chemical weapons. We are not seeking to become engaged in or party to or take over Syria’s civil war. But as we discussed today, all of us agreed – not one dissenter – that Assad’s deplorable use of chemical weapons, which we know killed hundreds of innocent people, including at least 426 children on this occasion, this one occasion, this crosses an international global redline. And we agreed that the regime’s blatant disregard for the institutional norms that the global community has abided by for nearly a century, it is critical that those be upheld.

So today we discussed the possible and necessary measures that the international community can take to deter Assad from ever crossing that line again. And a number of countries immediately signed on to the G-20 agreement that was reached by now 12 countries on the side of the G-20 meeting, and they will make their own announcements in the next 24 hours about that.

So let me again thank the Arab League Secretary General Elaraby. I want to thank Dr. Attiya and the ministers and the representatives who came here today from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE. And I thank them for their continued and critical engagement on the Middle East peace process and other issues, and I look forward to meeting regularly. We will have our next meeting at some point in October, probably after the middle of October, the latter part. And we’ve agreed upon that date for a follow-on meeting.

After His Excellency speaks, we’d be happy to take a couple of questions.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: Thank you, John. I’ll do this in Arabic, if we may.

(Via interpreter) In the beginning, I would like to thank my friend, His Excellency John Kerry, and the American Government, and President Obama and the American Administration for the efforts it expends with regards to peace, or the peace process in the Middle East.

On a fair basis, we have discussed today in our meeting several issues, and we heard the different views of the parties to the negotiations, with the exception of the Israeli side. Of course we listened to the Palestinian side. And we – it’s no secret that we are concerned about some issues that we believe could be an obstacle to this process. However, they can be solved, and we are working with Mr. John Kerry and the Palestinian negotiator to make sure that we overcome these obstacles. But there are several obstacles to this process, including the continuous announcement by – and also – by Israel, and also the continued killings and the attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque. So we urge the Israeli side not to take unilateral actions if it truly has the intention to have peace.

Absence of this direction, we believe that there would be very serious obstacles. And even so, we support the efforts of our friend, Mr. John Kerry, who has moved the stagnant waters in the Middle East and – peace process, and he’s doing so in order to achieve results on a fair basis, as I mentioned, to resolve this problem.

This is what was reviewed today in the meeting. And of course, there is a statement that would be issued by the joint committee and the American side after the meeting.

With respect to Syria, we discussed the situation in Syria. Several parties believe that foreign intervention would take place today or tomorrow or anytime. The truth is war in Syria has started two and a half years ago. And foreign intervention in Syria is already present by several parties that support the Syrian regime. Therefore, we cannot really argue whether there’ll be foreign intervention or not. The Syrian people over more than three years has been demanding or asking the international community to intervene.

The killing has started more than two and a half years ago; it didn’t start on August 21st. But however, on August 21st, it developed into the use of weapons of mass destruction and the use of chemical weapons. Therefore, I don’t believe that the international community, if it really wanted to protect peace, international peace and security, can afford to stand still while an unarmed people is being attacked with these weapons. We in Qatar support the statement of the G-12 out of the G-20, and at the same time we call on all other countries to intervene to protect the Syrian people from what it’s being subjected to. This is our clear position concerning Syria. And once again, I reiterate that foreign intervention is already taking place in Egypt, and has been – in Syria, and has been for more than two and a half years. And if some friendly countries were to intervene, this would not be the beginning of such intervention.

MODERATOR: The Secretary and the Foreign Minister will take four questions. The first will be from Arshad Mohammed of Reuters.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, yesterday you – we understand that you urged the European Union foreign ministers to delay the implementation of their guidelines on Israel, particularly on aid to groups in the West Bank. Why is this such a big deal? My understanding is it’s not a lot of money. Why is this so important to the process? Do you think that it could actually derail the negotiations? Have the Israelis threatened to leave if this isn’t addressed?

And French President Hollande yesterday raised the possibility of going back to the Security Council to try to get authorization for action on or a strike on Syria. Do you have any openness to that possibility? In recent weeks you’ve been very clear about saying that you didn’t think anything was possible there.

And Mr. Foreign Minister, you talked about continued Israeli announcements. Did you mean announcements of additional Jewish settlements? Or perhaps I misunderstood. And what specifically is Qatar willing to do to support any U.S. or other strike on Syria? Qatar obviously took part in the Libya intervention with its own aircraft. Would you consider providing aircraft assets, bases, fuel, anything tangible and concrete to a U.S. or other action?

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) Yes. In truth, yes. We are talking about settlements. What we noticed, that each time a round of negotiations is supposed to start, it’s preceded by a declaration of continued settlements or the announcement of the establishment of new settlements. And this is a source of concern for us, and directly affects the negotiations.

As for Syria and what Qatar is willing to provide, Qatar is currently studying with its friends and the United Nations what it could provide in order to protect the Syrian people.

SECRETARY KERRY: Arshad, yes, I did ask the European community if they would consider the suspension. And the reason is not at all that, no, the Israelis won’t depart from or view that as a breach of any condition of the talks. But I think it’s important that the Israeli people and the government see that coming to the talks, taking the risk of moving towards peace, is worthwhile, and that if – that there – and that even more benefit awaits a final resolution of the issues. But also, it sort of underscores that if there’s a failure to achieve a peace, bigger problems await at the same time, because there is discussion now of boycott of Israeli goods and other kinds of measures being taken because of the position held in the European community of the illegality of the settlements.

Now, because Prime Minister Netanyahu took the risk of coming to the talks, because he has paid some political price for making his decision that this was worth doing and that he would release prisoners and take steps to advance the peace process, because of that, I think it’s important for Europe to say in return, “See what this gets? This gets a change in our relationship, a change for the better. And good things await the outcome of peace.”

It’s not asking them to change the policy; it’s asking them to suspend or delay its implementation while these talks are taking place to prove that there is value to being engaged in this initiative. And I think – and this is not a one-way street. We have also taken very significant steps to say to the Palestinians, “If you engage in these talks, there are benefits that are there.” And that’s why, right now, as a result of being engaged in the talks, a major set of economic proposals are being implemented for the Palestinians unilaterally by the Israelis.

Specifically in Gaza, communications equipment for the Wataniya project are being released and moved in. Cement and building materials are now going to be moving into Gaza. The Allenby Bridge is now going to be open 24 hours a day, five days a week, and will greatly facilitate movement back and forth. Water, 8,000 cubic meters of water, are moving per day into the West Bank. Fifty-four wells, additional new wells, are going to be proceeded and authorized in the West Bank. So these are just some of the things that are being done.

So both sides – we want to have both sides see the benefit of engaging in this, because we believe that if you can arrive at a final status agreement, there’s a massive amount of benefit to both that will flow from that. The failure to arrive at it obviously carries its consequences, too.

One of the foreign ministers mentioned today that he thought that Israel should be aware that if, in fact, the Arab peace initiative is implemented so that peace is made with these 19 Arab countries, that Israel and the Arab world would benefit economically as never before, and would become far more economically powerful and wealthy as a consequence of those actions.

So I would like to even ask – I think it would be important to have His Excellency, the Foreign Minister, say a word about this economic potential and the upside of peace, because I think it’s an important part of this. But let me just answer quickly on the Hollande – President Hollande’s comments with respect to the UN.

The President and all of us are listening carefully to all of our friends. No decision has been made by the President. We will obviously take this under advisement, and I’m sure – and the President will make his decision at the appropriate period of time. But I would like His Excellency to maybe say a word about the upside of peace and the way the Arab world views that potential of the economic benefit.

FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) Thank you, John. All Arab countries in reality, support the idea of developing the economy in Palestine, whether in the West Bank or Gaza. We in Qatar, for example, are currently supporting several development projects in Gaza, and we also have projects in the West Bank. And in spite of that, we are studying how to support economic packages in Palestine, to support the Palestinian brothers so that they can achieve sustainable development for their future projects. And I believe that if we manage to achieve fair solution to this problem, the sooner we will be able to move the economic conditions in Palestine.

MODERATOR: The next question will come from Elise Labott of CNN.

QUESTION: Thank you. This question is for the both of you. Do you – Secretary Kerry, you said that despite the turmoil in the region, the parties are committed, but do you think that the crisis in Egypt, the crisis in Syria can hurt efforts to make peace, distract the parties, or can it actually help? On that note, you met with the Egyptian Foreign Minister this morning. Did he give you any assurances that democracy would be restored, or is it inevitable there would be a cut in aid to Egypt?

And lastly, on Syria, you’ve been showing members of Congress these very disturbing videos about the situation on the ground after the chemical weapons attack. Now that’s on the Senate Intel Committee website. It doesn’t seem, though, that the issue is that people doubt that this took place, or even that the regime is responsible. There does seem to be a growing acceptance of that. It just seems that there’s a lack of will in the U.S. Congress. Certainly the American people are against it. It just seems that they don’t want to do anything, even though they know this happened. So what do you hope to achieve by these videos? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: I had a very good meeting with Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy, and of course we discussed the road ahead for Egypt. He assured me and demonstrated a specific schedule by which Egypt is moving towards its democracy. They have succeeded in the first step with respect to the constitutional process, and they are now moving on a schedule with a larger committee with a deadline somewhere towards the end of the fall – I think it’s around November, December – where that committee will fully embrace and report its democratic – its constitutional process. And then an election will be called and announced – the date is pretty firm – and within a month of the parliament being chosen, there will be a presidential election. That is the roadmap that he laid out to me. And they assure us that they are on track and are determined to live up to that roadmap.

In addition, the Foreign Minister indicated they remain totally and wholly committed to the Middle East peace process. They are committed to the Sinai security issues and the ceasefire with respect to Gaza, and want to be a constructive force in helping provide for that peace process. So we had a very – we discussed, obviously, all of the issues with respect to the Brotherhood, the politics, the inclusivity, the need to reach out and have a political process. They are discussing that now, and he assured me that he is making the argument for moving forward in that direction, and obviously, the next days will be measured and will be important to that.

With respect to the videos and the Congress, as a veteran of the congressional process, I’d just say to you that all of these early prognostications about how tough it is, or defeat here or whatever, I think are just that. They’re early and they’re not completely accurate. The vast majority of members of Congress, House and Senate, are undecided. And that’s why the videos are being shown and why the briefings are taking place. That’s why I will go back tomorrow and join in a briefing of the entire branch on one side, and then on the next day, we will brief the other side, and I assume the President will also be communicating with the Congress and with the American people.

And the reason for this is to make sure everybody understands what is at stake. Those videos make it clear that this is not something abstract. This is not something just reported in the news which you can discard and say it doesn’t matter what’s happening over there. Those videos make it clear to people that these are real human beings, real children, parents being affected in ways that are unacceptable to anybody anywhere by any standards, and that it is the United States of America that has always stood with others to say we will not allow this; this is not our values, this is not who we are. And that is why this is important for people to see the connect to this.

Those weapons were outlawed in 1925 after Europe learned firsthand, in the horrors of World War I, how horrendous and completely against all sense of decency – and I know it’s hard to draw lines. People say, well, what about artillery and isn’t somebody dying from an artillery blast the same as dying from this? Well, the answer is the world decided no, because an artillery blast is aimed, and while it may have collateral damage, it is supposed to be aimed at enemy combatants. Gas is indiscriminate. It goes wherever the wind takes it, and the death that comes with it is a death that many people decided was too horrendous to describe.

Those videos are for people to measure for themselves, whether we want to unleash these weapons to be used by a dictator with impunity against his own people, but even worse, to potentially fall into the hands of terrible actors to potentially become used weapons on a daily basis by anybody anywhere because we didn’t stand up and stand for what we arrived at nearly a hundred years ago. And that’s what’s at stake here.

So I don’t think this case has yet been made enough to enough people, and that’s exactly why the videos are posted, and I’m glad that they are.

MODERATOR: The next question will come from Hussein – I think you can hear me – Hussein Fayad from Al Arabiya.

QUESTION: (Inaudible), what are the other countries which are ready today to back a military action, the potential military action, of the U.S. in Syria? And what kind of support they can provide you with?

A last question about your meeting with Prince Saud al-Faisal today: What was the result of this meeting regarding the Saudi Arabia position regarding the strike in Syria? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Saud al-Faisal and Saudi Arabia have signed on to the G-20 side agreement – the now G-12, actually more than – well, G-12 – and they have supported the strike and they support taking action. They believe that it’s very important to do that. We had a very good meeting. We discussed, obviously, the Middle East peace initiative, their role in that, and we also discussed other issues in the region.

I am not going to name the other countries simply because we agreed in the meeting that they would go back and make their own announcements, which they will do within the next 24 hours. So we need to leave people the freedom to consult, and also, some of the other countries that weren’t certain whether they could but might have wanted to, wanted to go home and consult with their leaders in order to get decisions. But everybody understood that the decisions need to be made within the next 24 hours.

MODERATOR: The final question will be from Harold Hyman of BFM-TV.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Mr. Secretary, a question in French. Yesterday, you talked about Munich. You wouldn’t feel like Chamberlain (inaudible) did, because somebody could say, well, there would be no Munich.

This is one thing, one question. Now, concern, action on strikes against Syria – is there a difference between symbolic strikes and strategic strikes against Syria?

SECRETARY KERRY: What Munich represented was a moment of misinterpretation, at best, about what happens if you take people’s word for something and there isn’t an enforceability or a true prevention of actions that people believe will happen under certain circumstances. It is clear that if we don’t take action, the message to Hezbollah, Iran, Assad will be that nobody cares that you broke this hundred-year-old – nearly hundred-year-old standard, and you’re using weapons that have been banned by 189 nations. If the world turns its back on a threat that is clear, which is the linkage to a Munich or other examples, then the action that comes afterwards will hold everybody culpable for having walked away from that.

President Bill Clinton, in great candor, has written and said many times that his greatest regret of his eight years of presidency was that he didn’t go into Rwanda and stop what happened in Rwanda. And I think we all know that there are these moments where if people don’t make the right decision, terrible things can happen. I have cited on several occasions a ship filled with Jewish refugees who were trying to escape what was happening in Europe in World War II came to the shores of the United States and that ship was turned away and it went back because it had nowhere else to go. And the people who were on that ship lost their lives in the war.

That’s what we’re talking about here. This is not fantasyland. This is not some sort of conjecture. Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons at least 11 times or so, according to our best judgments, with clarity now in this evidence we have presented to the world on August 21st. He has one of the largest stocks of chemical weapons in the world. And at the moment, he has no intention of really negotiating. So it is certain that if he’s threatened, he will use them again. I, as a leader, President Obama as the President of the United States, and Senator – not Senator – Secretary Chuck Hagel and all of us involved in this, my friend the Foreign Minister from Qatar and others, are unwilling to live with the conscious decision of saying we’re going to turn our backs on that, we’re not going to stop that from happening, we’re not going to do what’s necessary to make it clear to this dictator that he will be held accountable and cannot use those weapons with impunity. And the risks of not acting are, in our judgment, much greater than the risks of acting. And that’s why I say this moment is important.