DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:   Let me start Ambassador, this May 11 meeting organized by the Russians on the Middle East at the Ministerial level here at the Security Council.  Will you be representing the United States or will it be Secretary Clinton?

AMBASSADOR RICE:  Washington has not made a formal determination as to who will represent us, but either way we will be represented at the Ministerial level.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  Meaning, because you are a cabinet member, obviously?

AMBASSADOR RICE: Yes

 DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  Does that mean a Quartet meeting will not be held on the sidelines?  Are you qualified to be the Quartet partner?

AMBASSADOR RICE:  I don’t think our representation will determine whether we’re in the Quartet or not, I think that is a separate discussion we will have bilaterally with the Russians and others, and I’m not here to presage what will happen in that regard.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  So you don’t know if there will be a Quartet meeting?

AMBASSADOR RICE:  That is all I can say.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  What about the Presidential Statement that is being worked on?   What is the most important thing for the United States, the affirmation of a two state solution?  Or any other thing?

AMBASSADOR RICE:  Well Russia is working on the early stages of a draft presidential statement.  It’s still very much in preliminary form.  I think in fairness to the Russians they ought to have an opportunity to share it with other members of the Council, and I don’t want to pre-empt anything in that regard.  Obviously the United States, as the President, and Secretary Clinton and Special Envoy Mitchell have said on many many occasions, views a two state solution as really the only viable way forward; as being in the interests of Israel, the Palestinians, and indeed the United States and the rest of the region.  And that remains our focus, that’s where we are placing our energy, and obviously a Security Council presidential statement that reinforces the importance of that is constructive.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  Anything else that the United States would like to see at this point from a Council meeting at the ministerial level on the Middle East?

AMBASSADOR RICE:  I think, frankly, a simple, streamlined message that reinforces the importance of a two state solution, and the international community’s unity as represented in the Security Council, behind that, is what’s most important.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  Next week, Ban Ki Moon, the Secretary General will be giving the Security Council the recommendations and observations that he has received on Gaza.

AMBASSADOR RICE:  The board of Inquiry?

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  Yes the board of inquiry headed by Ian Martin.  He will be sharing that with the Security Council.  You are aware of accusations that the United States always shields Israel from accountability, and there is talk that you may want nothing done about it, is this correct that you want nothing done about it, and what do you say about the accusations, will the Obama administration dispel this charge that you always shield Israel from accountability?

AMBASSADOR RICE:  I think Israel has been clear in its own desire to investigate as necessary and we take them at their word that they will do that seriously and credibly.  With respect to the board of inquiry, my understanding is that the Secretary General plans to not share the entire text of the report, but to share the broad conclusions, at least that is what we were informed of yesterday at the discussion at the Council with the Secretary General.  We haven’t seen or even been briefed as yet on those contents, so anything more specific than that, I can’t frankly offer, but we hope and expect the membership will be given an appropriate insight into what was discovered by the board of inquiry.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  And then what?

AMBASSADOR RICE:  I don’t know, without knowing what is in it, it is very difficult to hypothesize about next steps.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  Do you believe that the position of the Israeli government presented by Netanyahu and Lieberman, that Iran should be resolved first, before we discuss the Palestinian issue, do you think—what is your reaction to that?

Ambassador Rice:  First of all, while I’ve seen press reports to that effect, I don’t know that to be the position of Prime Minister Netanyahu and to my knowledge it has not been conveyed to us as such, so I think we have to distinguish between what may be press speculation and what the President will hear when Netanyahu comes to Washington.  I think we need to wait for that to know the outcome of the Israeli policy.  But that said, the US views an Iran with nuclear weapons as a threat that not only to Israel but to the broader region, the Arab countries in the neighborhood and indeed to the United States and countries further afield.  And I’ve said repeatedly that that’s a grave threat that needs to be dealt with effectively.  Our strong preference and our aim would be to use all elements of American power to try to accomplish that – including direct diplomacy and engagement.  And that would be, as the President has said on numerous occasions, the way to approach it.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT: I want to get back to Iran, but I want to understand one thing in this equation of Iran, Palestine.  Do you think you are willing – the Administration…. I discuss with you because you are a member of the NSC group, and are you willing to postpone (inaudible)….track until Iran is dealt with first?

Ambassador Rice:  That’s a hypothetical.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  No, Lieberman has said that.

Ambassador Rice:  Let me underscore that I think that’s a hypothetical.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  Why do you think it’s a hypothetical when the foreign minister said it?

Ambassador Rice:  The foreign minister, who obviously plays a very important role in the formulation of Israel’s foreign policy, has not said that to President Obama.  And until they have their opportunity to have a discussion, I don’t think we should prejudge its context.  That’s why I say I say it’s a hypothetical.  That said, the President has been very clear – that we don’t see any logic in efforts to delay work to achieve a two-state solution.  It is, as he said following his meeting with King Abdullah, it is manifested in Israel’s interest as well as the interests of the Palestinian people – and indeed in America’s interest – that progress be made as rapidly as possible, in terms of an achievement of a two-state solution.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  Speaking of Kind of Abdullah of Jordan, what’s the significance of President Obama choosing Jordan to be the first stop in his Arab tour?  The first Arab country he goes to and the first official meeting he has at the White House happened to be with King Abdullah of Jordan.  First Arab leader at the White House…

Ambassador Rice:  Obviously Jordan is a very important partner and ally for the United States and has been for many years.  And I think President Obama values very much King Abdullah’s insights and perspectives and views his relationship with King Abdullah as a valuable and constructive one.  And so it’s certainly useful to hear the King’s perspectives as we plan the early stages of pursuing our approach to the challenges of the region.  That said, obviously we have other very important partners and allies in the region – in the Arab world - and all of them are ones in which we have valued interaction and engagement.  The President had the opportunity to meet with the Saudi King Abdallah in Europe on the margins of the G-20.  Secretary Clinton made a trip to Sharm-el- Sheikh in Egypt.  Special Envoy Mitchell has been traveling extensively throughout the region.  So, these are all very important relationships to the United States that we will work to strengthen and nurture in the early months of the Administration.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  Secretary Clinton, when she was in Beirut for her surprise visit.  She sent messages obviously emphasizing  the unity, independence and sovereignty of Lebanon. She also said something that left many to believe that the Obama Administration is willing to accept dealing with Hezbollah if they win the elections – that the Obama Administration is not going to make the mistake of the Bush Administration and not speak to the government – to the elected government – as they did towards Hamas when the elections took place. Is this the right reading?

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  When she took the questions she was asked what if the elections produced Hezbollah.  She didn’t make any statements such as: No we will not; that Hizbullah is a “terrorist” group according to the US. So in reading  her answers, some understood  the message that she was sending to be that the US is ready to live with it- with whatever the elections result is, you will accept it. Was this not the intention?

Ambassador Rice:   I know better than to try to interpret things that were not said, much less things that were said.  I think that’s just a risky proposition that I don’t want to try to engage in.

Rahgida:  So there is nothing in the positions of the Administration that would indicate a willingness to deal with Hezbollah at this point?

Ambassador Rice:  First of all, the broad picture is what is most important to the United States.  A Lebanon that is sovereign, independent free and upcoming elections yield the continuation, we certainly hope of a moderate, government that is free from outside interference and we will continue our efforts to be supportive of Lebanon’s people and Lebanon’s government in that context.  Certainly our investments in working to build the capacity to strengthen Lebanon’s Lebanese armed forces are reflective of that and I don’t think it’s helpful or wise to speculate on what, the, free elections hopefully, devoid of violence and intimidation will yield.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT: And that message will reassure us, the Lebanese, you want it resonate what message to Syria?

Ambassador Rice: First and foremost I think the Secretary was there to deliver the message to the people of Lebanon. The United States is a strong and reliable friend and partner and that we stand by Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence and want to see the upcoming election approved by the will of the people. That was the large message.  With respect to Syria, obviously we’ve exhibited an openness to explore the avenues for improving relations with Syria in the context of many issues that have clouded our bilateral relationship. But that in no way will diminish or prejudice our commitment to Lebanon and its people.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT: Ban ki-Moon in his report on resolution 1559, was rather strong in opposing Hezbollah role in Egypt. As you know he criticized Hezbollah in his report 1559. Yes, I actually have a quote for you.

Ambassador Rice:  In Egypt?

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  Yes. He said “I was concerned at the statements made by Hizbullah’s leaders during the recent conflict in Gaza, exhorting the Egyptian military to defy its political leadership in support of Hamas militants. Further, I am alarmed that Hizbullah publicly admitted to providing support to Gaza-based militants from Egyptian territory. Such activity indicates that Hizbullah operates outside Lebanese territory and beyond its stated national agenda. I condemn such unwarranted interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign Member State.”  That is what I am referring to; it was paragraph 42. Do you agree with that? What do you think should be done next?  Or is there anything to be done next? Once the Secretary General puts this in a report  ?

Ambassador Rice:  I think it is an accurate and fair assessment. And as we review all of the resolutions going forward, and I hope there will be an opportunity to reflect that sentiment in some of the resolutions.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  How worried is the Obama administration about attempts to destabilize Egypt?

Ambassador Rice:  By?

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT: Such cells as, you know, Hezbollah- whether it is by act of Iranian support or independently operating from Egyptian territories to the extent of Egyptians see that this is an infringement on their sovereignty.

Ambassador Rice:  Obviously Egypt is a very important partner of the United States and an anchor in the region, playing a variety of constructive roles and our interest is in seeing an Egypt that is stable and constructive but also moving ultimately in a direction of democracy and that includes respect for human rights.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT:  You know Ambassador some are saying that Iran is emboldened even to the extent of interfering everywhere- not only Iraq and Lebanon- but even in Egypt because it feels, the Iranian leadership, feels that the United States, under the Obama administration is ready to embrace us, so you know, there are no red lines, we can go ahead and take advantage of the situation right now. And we can impose a defacto situation after another. What do you think about that?

Ambassador Rice:  I am not sure, what are you saying?

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT: What I am saying is that, the Obama administration openness to Teheran is being interpreted as encouraging some in Teheran to go ahead, you know, and extend the arm of interference, not only through Hezbollah in Lebanon, not only Iraq, but even as far as Egypt.

Ambassador Rice:  Well, first of all it would be unwise for anyone to draw that conclusion from the Obama administration’s willingness to engage Iran on an appropriate basis on its nuclear program and a range of other issues of concern. The prior approach of excluding that possibility left only two outcomes. One would be effectively doing nothing to impede Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions, which obviously it’s conceivable with each passing day. The other alternative would be to have to resort to nothing but military means to halt it. By being willing to employ all elements of American power, including diplomacy, we are trying to explore a third avenue that doesn’t entail an immediate resort to a use of force.  And indeed our aim is to combine diplomacy, fully supported by the P5 + 1, to do it in a very clear and transparent fashion with our Arab partners in the region so that there’s no misunderstanding of our intentions and to communicate very clearly two different paths to Iran: a path that can lead away from its isolation from the international community; or a path that could increase it, should they choose not to take this opportunity.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT: What about the nuclear ambiguity? People are talking about nuclear ambiguity by which, to live with a nuclear Iran without declaring such acquiescence- exactly because the Obama Administration does not want to go the military route.

Ambassador Rice: Now wait a minute, I don’t know what you mean by “nuclear ambiguity.”  That’s not something the United States is discussing or contemplating.  The president’s been very clear: Iran with a nuclear weapons capability is not an outcome that is consistent with our interest or regional security.  So, “nuclear ambiguity” is somebody else’s term that I certainly don’t want to embrace.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT: Because I have not much time, I have to jump from one issue to another now.  The Tribunal on Lebanon is, as you know today they released the four generals.  The message that some are trying to give is that you know, this investigation is not going to go anywhere, the Tribunal is going to be diluted, now the generals are out.  Do you have trust in this tribunal; that it will conclude with justice and end with impunity?

Ambassador Rice: We’ve been very strong supporters of the tribunal, we think it’s essential that justice be served and that there be a full accounting of all that transpired in the run up to the Hariri assassination, we’ve been very generous supporters of the tribunal financially and we view what happened today as a consequence of adherence to the rule of law and we see it as in no way precluding the investigation running its course and those four as well as the other aspects of justice being served.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT: For my last question in this case will be about ending impunity and the issue of justice and I have to ask you about Darfur.  You have been personally, Madam Ambassador, tied up with this issue ..So what next?  What’s next realistically when the president of Sudan is basically saying. “I’m going to get away with it.”  You have positions such as by the current head of the African Unity who is saying that the ICC is something that we should dismiss and not talk about, almost calling it a terrorizing organization.  What are you going to do about it?  What’s being done behind the scenes? How adamant are you?

Ambassador Rice: There’s many different pieces to this, as you know, Raghida.  There’s justice and the ICC determination and our position has been and remains that the justice needs to be served and the findings of the ICC are legitimate.  But we’re dealing with multiple simultaneous imperatives with respect to Sudan.  Justice is one.  Stopping the killing, and the dying and the genocide in Darfur is vitally important.  And that, as you know, has two different pieces to it.  One is the consequence of the forced expulsion of the 13 international NGOs and the risk that that imposes on the civilians who have been served by them—that’s an urgent concern.  Vitally important also is the killing and dying that preceded the expulsion of the NGOs.

And, obviously very important, effective implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement, which is vital to the successful conclusion to another extremely deadly conflict where many of the same tactics were, in fact, employed.  We have an interest in accomplishing all of those things and we don’t have the luxury of sequencing them because they’re all time sensitive.  So what Gen. Gration, the president’s envoy, is doing now in his second trip to the region since being appointed is first and foremost trying to explore ways and means of dealing with the immediate humanitarian crisis in Darfur as a consequence of the expulsion of the NGOs.  And to the extent that working with the UN, the NGOs, the Government of Sudan and indeed in the south with the SPLM that we can find ways and means of mitigating that gap.  We feel that’s very important to try and do.  That’s part of what he’s trying to do.

With respect to Darfur, and the underlying killing and dying, there’s two challenges.  One is improving civilian protection so that those who are at greatest risk have a greater measure of protection and that’s why the need to strengthen and augment UNAMID and get it up to full strength and make it effective is a vitally important challenge.  The other is resolving the underlying conflict and contributing to the diplomacy that needs to accompany that.  And similarly, there’s diplomatic and other imperatives with respect to the North-South. Now,--

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT: ICC arrest warrant, that’s what I really want to know (crosstalk)

Ambassador Rice: But you can’t look—my message, Raghida, is we don’t have the luxury of looking at each of these in isolation.  You tell me what you think the obvious answer is on the arrest warrant.  We want to see justice served.  We think you can’t have lasting peace without justice.  But we want to see justice served for the people of Darfur, who are at immediate risk.  We want to see justice served for the people of the South.

DERGHAM/AL HAYAT: So you can live with the non- implementation of the ICC arrest warrant, then?

Ambassador Rice: No, I’m not saying that, I’m saying you can’t separate these things and accomplish the multiple simultaneous imperative that we are in fact dealing with..