• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

State Department Briefing, August 15

15 August 2005

Greece/Cyprus, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel/Palestinians, United Arab Emirates, Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan, Japan, Iran, Mexico, China/Russia, Venezuela, non-proliferation

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack briefed the press August 15.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Monday, August 15, 2005
1:10 p.m. EDT

Briefer:  Sean McCormack, Spokesman

GREECE/CYPRUS
-- Condolences to Families of Victims of Crash of Helios Air Flight 522

INDONESIA
-- Aceh Peace Accord

IRAQ
-- Status of Drafting Process of Constitution
-- Deadline for Drafting Constitution
-- U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad's Assistance
-- Future of Democracy in Iraq
-- Arming of Insurgency in Iraq/Securing of Iraq's Borders
-- Allegations of Torture by Iraqi Officials
-- Women's Rights in Draft Constitution

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Status of Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza
-- Palestinian Authority's Obligation to Dismantle Terrorist Networks
-- Gaza Withdrawal and Housing Issue
-- Allocation of U.S. Funds
-- Economic Viability of Gaza

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
-- Secretary Rice's Meeting with UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamdan

SRI LANKA
-- Secretary Rice's Statement on Assassination of Foreign Minister

INDIA/PAKISTAN
-- Relations Between India and Pakistan

JAPAN
-- Report of Letter from Japanese Foreign Minister to Secretary Rice Regarding Military Transformation

IRAN
-- U.S. Support of EU-3 Efforts Regarding Iran's Nuclear Program
-- U.S. Welcomes IAEA Board of Governors Resolution on Iran
-- Iranian Cabinet Appointments

MEXICO
-- New Mexico Governor's Action Regarding Mexico Border Violence

CHINA/RUSSIA
-- China and Russia Joint Exercise

VENEZUELA
-- U.S.-Venezuela Bilateral Relations
-- Reported Venezuela Withdrawal of Diplomatic Immunity for DEA Agents

NON-PROLIFERATION
-- U.S. Non-Proliferation Efforts

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2005
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

1:10 p.m. EDT

MR. MCCORMACK:  Good afternoon.  I have two brief opening statements, then I'd be pleased to take your questions.

The first one concerns the recent and tragic airline crash on the island of Cyprus (Helios Air Flight 522 crashed in Greece).  The United States is shocked and saddened by the deaths of 121 people in the crash of Helios Air Flight 522.  Our condolences and our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims, and the United States stands ready to offer any assistance that Greece or Cyprus may seek in the spirit of friendship and sympathy.

And second, I have a statement regarding the Indonesia-Aceh Peace Accord.  The United States congratulates the Government of Indonesia and the leadership of the Free Aceh Movement on today's signing in Helsinki of a formal Memorandum of Understanding to end the long conflict in the province of Aceh.  We commend both parties for their vision and courage to seek a lasting peace for the people of Aceh.  Successful implementation of the agreement will require a steadfast commitment to peace by all parties.  The United States commends the European Union and five member-countries of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations for their willingness to participate in the monitoring of the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding.  We look forward to supporting the implementation of the peace agreement in the coming months.

And with that, I am pleased to take your questions.

QUESTION:  Just on that last one, Sean?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes.

QUESTION:  They have in the past reached a similar type of agreement and then the truce tends to -- well, has in the past fallen apart.  Is there anything to suggest that this time it's going to work out better?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think that the agreement talks about a couple of different things.  It touches on the issue of disengagement.  It talks about provisions for economic concessions and it commits the Government of Indonesia to work on certain political and legal frameworks.  So again, this is the ultimate success of this MOU and this MOU as part of moving forward to ultimately resolve these issues will depend on the two parties, but the two parties also have the support of the international community, including the United States, as I mentioned, as well as some of our European partners and partners in Southeast Asia in this regard.  So I think that, again, the success of this MOU will depend on the parties.  There's a lot of international support but I think also this MOU contains provisions covering a variety of different issue areas that are of mutual interest to both sides.

QUESTION:  A follow-up to that?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Some leaders of GAM are already complaining there that the agreement leaves in place an overly large contingent of Indonesian troops in Aceh beyond what it needed.  Do you have comments on that, please?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, again, I haven't seen specifically their comments so I can't address them in detail.  But I will say it does provide for some disengagement, but I have to point out that, again, this is a step along the way in the process; this is not the end of the process; this is a step along the way.  But successful implementation in good faith of this MOU can further the process, but the focus needs to be on implementation of this MOU.

QUESTION:  Still on this, can I just have a quick one?

QUESTION:  A little unusual question, but obviously, Indonesia needs a lot of money, not only for the recovery from the tsunami but for many other purposes.  And I wonder if you have an opinion about two groups of Indonesians going all the way to Helsinki to reach this agreement or to sign this agreement when they obviously could have done it much closer to the country, but sounds to me like a ridiculous expenditure of money that could have been probably used for other purposes.  Do you have -- do you even think about these things when you hear about agreements like that?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think the focus that is on the fact that they did sign an agreement.  Whether that's in Helsinki or someplace else, that should be the focus of people's attention in this regard, not who paid for the plane tickets.

Yes.

QUESTION:  The process isn't over, but I wondered if you had any reflections on the constitution writing in Iraq.  It should be done in a few hours, I guess, although the time keeps changing.  Everybody getting their fair share?  The Sunnis getting the equity that the State Department has wanted for all three major communities?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, this is -- as you point out, Barry, this is an Iraqi process.  It's ongoing.  These negotiations are going on minute by minute, hour by hour, and we and others are certainly there to help the Iraqis in coming to grips with some of the tough issues that any state writing a constitution faces.  A lot of them have been out there in the news, whether it's the role of religion or the issue of federalism or other similar type of issues.

But these are issues that the Iraqis themselves are working on and I'm not going to get out ahead of where they are in the process right now.  They will make an announcement about the constitution, the draft constitution they've come up with, you know, on their own time schedule.  I know they're working very intensively on it.  The discussions are ongoing so I'm not going to have any comment at this point about what may or may not be in there and how they have decided to deal with various issues.

QUESTION:  Well, if you're going (inaudible) just one, the process -- there's the process and there's the result, then there seems to be great pressure to get the job done.  Is the U.S. State Department confident that justice will be done or is it possible there'll be a little trimming just to get the job done as quickly as possible?  I'm talking again about representation and the way that the various -- the Sunnis are being treated.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.  Again, these are, you know, political agreements and accommodations that the Iraqis themselves are going to come to.  It has -- they all -- the people involved in the drafting of the constitution certainly understand that there is a process after this that has been laid out for them -- again, by Iraqis -- whereby the National Assembly will have to take a look at this draft constitution and ultimately the Iraqi people will have to vote on this constitution.

So they -- again, I think every indication that we've seen from the Iraqis is that they are writing a constitution for Iraq and for all Iraqis that deals with a lot of tough issues.  But we saw this process before when the Iraqis were drafting the TAL, the Transitional Administrative Law.  Again, they had to deal with similar tough issues.  But ultimately, they came to an agreement on a draft constitution that ultimately, for this period of time, has served all Iraqi people.  Now we have elected representatives of elected Iraqis who are drafting what could be their permanent constitution, again, pending the completion of the constitution as well as a final vote by the Iraqi people.

Yeah, let's move down the line.

QUESTION:  How important is it to the United States that the deadline is met?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, this is -- the deadline has been set out by the Iraqis themselves and they themselves have said that they intend to meet that deadline.  I think that they are working intensively to meet that deadline, so we certainly support them in that effort.

We think, as President Bush mentioned I think just last week, we think it's -- we certainly encourage them to meet those deadlines.  We think it's important for them to adhere to the process that has been laid out, that they themselves have laid out for this group drafting the constitution.  So, you know, we're supportive of their efforts and their efforts to meet their own deadline.

QUESTION:  But would you be very disappointed if it's not met and it hangs on for another two weeks?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think, again, this is -- you're talking about an event that hasn't occurred yet, so we're going to deal with where we are now in the process, and that is that they are working intensively in a variety of different meetings ongoing in Baghdad to resolve the remaining issues they have before them so that they can produce a draft constitution.

Yes.

QUESTION:  Can you confirm that the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq handed the draft constitution to the Iraqis last week (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think that he addressed this himself when he was on some of the Sunday shows I show, and he addressed this himself.  Certainly he -- at the request of the people involved in the drafting of the constitution, certainly he is ready to provide whatever assistance they may request from the United States and that is happening with the United States as well as others.  For instance, the UN Special -- Secretary General's Special Representative is in Baghdad as well and providing advice and assistance to the Iraqis.

But you have to be clear here that this is a product of, by and for Iraqi people.  This is -- this will be a draft Iraqi constitution that ultimately will be voted on by Iraqis.

Yes, Tammy.

QUESTION:  Given the realities on the ground in Iraq, is the U.S. having to lower its expectations as opposed -- or based on what you've seen happening on the ground as opposed to what you envisioned in 2003 when the U.S. first went in?  And is the U.S. willing to accept that it may not be the democracy that was first envisioned for Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I guess I would -- in considering that question, I would look at, you know, not only our experience with democracy but the experience of many other countries around the world with democracy.  We have a Constitution that we drafted that our Founding Fathers drafted and, you know, amendments to it throughout the years, over the course of 200 years, you know, including addressing one of the most difficult issues that the Founding Fathers weren't able to resolve, the issue of slavery.

So again, democracy is not a single point in time and, you know, and these documents aren't immutable.  They, of course, change over the course of time, whether -- you know, how the Iraqi democracy develops and progresses is going to be for the Iraqi people to decide.  But to bring it back, what you have now are representatives of the Iraqi people, you know, grappling with issues of democracy.  These are choices that they couldn't have even conceived of under the rule of Saddam Hussein.  They are dealing with issues of federalism, the relationship to and the rights of the provinces to the central government.  They're dealing with issues of freedom of religion and freedom of worship.  These are choices that the Iraqi people never had under Saddam Hussein.

So again, democracy is a process.  I expect that it will be a process in Iraq, just as it is in the United States and Eastern Europe and South America and other places around the world.

QUESTION:  Right, but I guess the question is:  Has the process unfolded differently than the United States envisioned and are there expectations that haven't been met, frankly?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, again, it's the expectations of the Iraqi people for how their future is going to unfold.  I think they're -- we (inaudible) quite a bit.  The Secretary and the President have talked a lot about the decision to go to war in Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's refusal to abide by his international agreements.  There's plenty of verbiage on that issue for you.

But what's important at this point is what do the Iraqi people want, and what we're seeing is an opportunity for them to decide their -- as well as their elected representatives, to decide what their future will be.  Based on what we have seen in the past two years and the experience in writing this constitution, it will be a future of freedom and democracy, not one of tyranny and oppression.

Yes.

QUESTION:  Any new development for the peoples meet in Iran and has been used by insurgent inside Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Excuse me?  I'm sorry.

QUESTION:  Any new development of the peoples that meet in Iran and has been used by the insurgent in Iraq, inside the Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I don't have anything new to offer.  I know Ambassador Khalilzad talked a little bit about this over the weekend.  Certainly, we expect and we would hope and urge Iraq's neighbors to engage with the Iraqi Government in an open and transparent manner, to be good neighbors, to play a positive role in Iraq's development.  This is a time of transition for the Iraqi people and we would hope that Iraq's neighbors would decide to play a positive role rather than a negative role.

We have in the past expressed some concerns about transit over the Iranian border, but I think that Iraqi officials -- greater concerns, as well as the greater concerns of the commanders in the multinational force, have been the transit of materiel and people over the Syrian border.  And we, of course, have called on all of Iraq's neighbors to secure the borders with Iraq and again to play a positive role in their development.

QUESTION:  Aren't you assuming they want to be free, the Shiites want to be free of -- I mean aren't you making huge assumptions here about what the Iraqis Shiites want regarding their Iranian neighbors?

MR. MCCORMACK:  No, I think they -- what we're saying --

QUESTION:  I know you'd like it.  The U.S. would like it.  You can't control them if they want a relationship with insurgents and weapons moving across the border.  I mean --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think, you know, in any -- well, a couple things.  One, the Iraqi people -- Shia, Sunni, Kurd -- they're a different -- as well as different ethnic groups in Iraq have made it very clear that they want an Iraqi identity, separate and apart from their neighbors. 

In terms of the, you know, the issues of -- that you brought up of militia and arms, in any democracy it needs to be the government that has control over arms.  There can't be groups, armed groups, outside the rule of law operating in a democracy.  You know, we've seen it around the world.  It just doesn't work.  How they deal with those particular issues and the command and control relationships and the relationships between the provinces as well as the central government are issues that are going to have to be worked out by the Iraqi people.

Saul.

QUESTION:  Democracy, obviously, isn't just a piece of paper and under Saddam there was a constitution as well which had fine words in it.  As you look to support democracy in Iraq, what are you doing about what's becoming a key issue in Iraq, and that's torture?  There were major allegations over the weekend by the deputy provincial governor of Diyala and very visual.  What are you doing to encourage the right investigation and prosecution of such allegations?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, in any democracy, whether it's one that is more developed or one that is just starting out, respect for minority rights, respect for individual rights, is paramount, and that any contravention of those rights needs to be investigated in an open and transparent manner and that any contravention of those rights needs -- those responsible need to be held to account.

As for the specific incidents that you refer to, I would have to get back to you and see if we had had -- if we have had any engagement with Iraqi authorities in following up on this.

QUESTION:  Just generally, obviously, the way you state it is that, in a general way, these sorts of allegations need to be investigated.  And the State Department's own Human Rights Report did cite problems of torture of detainees by Iraqis in Iraq.  And yet, in response to the weekend's allegations, the government was saying there's no credible evidence that torture is going on.  Does that kind of stonewalling disappoint the U.S. Government?

MR. MCCORMACK:  As for the -- again, as for the specific allegations, I'm going to have to look into the details for you and we can get you an answer.

Yeah.  Let's move it around a little bit.  Do we have any more on Iraq?  Okay.  Peter, we'll come back to that.

QUESTION:  Just for one second to come back on Barry's question there.  You've said very often and the United States has said very often that this is an Iraqi process there.  But there have been suggestions within Iraq there that, if push comes to shove, the majority Shiites and the Kurds could actually come to a deal between themselves and actually push it through because they have the numbers -- sort of excluding the Sunnis from this process.  If that happens by the numbers, by the process, what would the United States do?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Again, that's dealing with sort of "what-ifs" and in a situation with which we are not faced at this point.  I think that, again, at every turn, all the various groups in Iraq, whether they're Shia or Sunni or Kurds, have shown a willingness to come together and to define an Iraqi identity for themselves.  But also, what else is happening is within that Iraqi identity they are discussing how different regions of the may country may relate to the center.  And they're going to have to work out -- they are working out these issues.  This is really, as we've seen in the news reporting, at the heart of what they're talking about right now.

So I think history -- the kind of brief history that we have with a free Iraq has shown that the Iraqis have come together to work out these differences.  And you know, again, if we look back to the experience of writing the TAL, there have been ups and downs in this process and there have been various threats, various insinuations.  But at the end of the day, they came together to write a law that has -- that they have they have used to govern themselves for the past two years.  And we -- I think that they have given every indication now that they are doing the same thing. 

Anything else on Iraq?

QUESTION:  Yes.  (inaudible)  that the Secretary has strongly encouraged Sunni participation and has seen that as crucial?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think -- yeah, we -- yeah, absolutely.  We have encouraged Sunni participation in the -- not only in the vote for the Transitional Assembly but also in this constitution writing process. 

QUESTION:  So it would be -- if Sunnis were ultimately excluded, it --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Again, let's deal with the facts as they are before us right now.  Those aren't the facts as they are before us.

Yes.  On Iraq.  Okay.

QUESTION:  There's been a great deal of concern about women's rights in the new constitution.  Is the United States taking a position?  Is that something that the United States is communicating to the drafters that they want to see equal protections?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think that we have spoken out quite clearly in public about the importance of protecting women's rights and the importance not only of women's -- of enshrining women's rights in the law as well as the constitution, but their participation in the process as well.  And I think we have seen -- we saw that in the TAL as well in the process of writing this constitution.  So we think it's very important that Iraq be for all Iraqis and Iraqi democracy be for all Iraqis, men and women as well as, you know, different ethnic groups, different religious groups, and they need to take -- they should take that into account in the drafting of their constitution.

On Iraq.  You've already had one.  Anything else?  John.  No.

QUESTION:  Not on Iraq.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Okay.  In the back here.

QUESTION:  You compared the Iraqi constitutional process to our own, including the resolution of the issue of slavery, which was done by civil war.  Is there any possibility that there might be separate states set up in Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, what I was trying to do was just use a historical example, which is always dangerous -- not drawing a direct comparison between the two but just demonstrating that in the process of writing a constitution and the process -- and that democracy is, in fact, a process, is that you don't always get it right the first time around, and that right now the Iraqis are coming to a process where they are going to make certain political bargains in the writing of the constitution.  But ultimately, whatever bargains the people writing the constitution make have to be acceptable to the Iraqi people.

Okay.  Joel.

QUESTION:  Change of subject.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Okay.

QUESTION:  Sean, amid the animosities, religious convictions and political upheaval, the Gaza withdrawal continues.  And it's either a day for democracy, as Shimon Peres says, or it's an act against God, as the extremists are saying and praying.  And Hamas say they won't give up and the elections in Gaza as well as West Bank are postponed till January 21st, 2006.

How is the Secretary working along with both Palestinian Authority and Israelis with regard to this political polarization and religious enmity?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, as you point out, the withdrawal process has begun today.  The Israeli military has begun to take some actions.  This process is going to last several weeks.  And what is crucial is that the Israelis and the Palestinians work together to make the withdrawal a success, to make sure that the withdrawal takes place in an atmosphere of calm.  And that cooperation can lead to a building of trust between the two sides.  And if you do have a successful withdrawal, then that trust will help both sides move forward and re-energize progress along the roadmap.

The Secretary has been involved in this process intensively.  She's made just recently two trips to the region.  Assistant Secretary Welch is now in the region.  He continues his work with both sides on a variety of different issues.  General Ward remains working the security issues with both sides as well.  Mr. Wolfensohn continues his efforts.

So there are a lot of -- there's a lot of support to make this withdrawal a success.  But the key to it is the Israelis and the Palestinians working together over this next several weeks so that we do have a successful withdrawal, so that the two sides can make progress and re-energize the roadmap, and so that ultimately you have a better life for the Palestinian people as well as the Israeli people.

QUESTION:  How do you think it's going so far?  We have seen video of masked men marching in the streets, carrying rockets.  How would you describe it?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, as I've said, this process is going to play out over the course of several weeks.  And I think it's -- you know, we believe that the step Prime Minister Sharon has decided to take in terms of a decision to withdraw from Gaza as well as four settlements on the West Bank is a potentially historic one.  And what needs to happen now is that the two sides work together.  I think planning for the withdrawal has taken place over a long period of time.

And for the Palestinians, they have certain responsibilities in this withdrawal to make sure that there is an atmosphere of calm not only for the settlers leaving Gaza but also for the Palestinian people.  And President Abbas is working with other members of the Palestinian Authority to see that the Palestinian people in Gaza, once the withdrawal is over, have a better life.  And we've been working with them on various issues with regard to, you know, greenhouses, with regard to some of the housing and removal of the rubble from the settler housing sites.

So we're focused on a peaceful political horizon with the Palestinians, as well as making the immediate issue of the withdrawal a success.

QUESTION:  But what happened to the Palestinian obligation to dismantle Hamas, which evidently will not only stay in business but get a large role in whatever form of government takes over? 

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think --

QUESTION:  Is that sort of a lost goal by the Bush Administration?

MR. MCCORMACK:  The President talked a little bit about this in an interview he had this past Friday with Israeli Channel One.  And the Palestinian Authority and President Abbas understand that they have an obligation to dismantle terrorist networks and, in the immediate term, to ensure that this withdrawal takes place in an atmosphere of calm.  Our view of Hamas is well known.  It's something that, you know, I have talked about and the Secretary has talked about and the President has talked about.  And the President talked about how in a democracy you can't have armed groups operating outside the rule of law. 

QUESTION:  On another thing, on the other side of the fence, didn't the -- when we'd left this subject, the last I have heard about housing was that the Israelis were going to leave their homes and other facilities as is.  The Administration thought that was good, a goodwill gesture.  And what we're seeing, of course, is destruction -- not total, but a lot of destruction of homes.  Is that something that disappoints the Administration?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, when the Secretary -- the Secretary a couple months ago was in Jerusalem and she talked about this very issue and the two sides came to an agreement with regard to the housing, the destruction of this housing.  And right now there are a few remaining issues that they are working out between them -- the Israelis and the Palestinians -- regarding the rubble from this housing.

The Secretary, you know -- again, they're going to have to come to an agreement on this issue.  Secretary Welch is working the issue with them as well.  But again, the ultimate success for this withdrawal and, you know, ultimately for re-energizing and making progress on the roadmap is it's going to be the two parties.  We all have a role to play.  We have a role to play, the European Union has a role to play, the Arab counties have a role to play.  But in order to make this happen, it's the Palestinians -- the Palestinian Authority and the Israelis.  And we're doing everything we can to make sure that this withdrawal is a success, and that's part of it.

QUESTION:  On the many things on his plate, would it be fair to say that Mr. Welch is trying to discourage Israeli settlers from dismantling houses and other facilities? 

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think that his focus is on helping the Israelis and the Palestinians work this issue.

Yes.  Teri.

QUESTION:  Did the U.S. decide what projects or requests by the Israelis it would be willing to help fund with regard to the cost of disengagement?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I don't have any announcements for you at this point.  With regard to additional money, as we've talked about, money that we have allocated for the Palestinian Authority as well as for the Israeli side as well.  But at this point, I don't have any updates for you.

QUESTION:  Are there still talks going on on this?  Israelis made a presentation some weeks ago.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, this is on the question of the development in the Negev and Galilee.  And this is -- it's an issue the President has expressed support for directly to Prime Minister Sharon.  And Secretary Rice talked about it a bit with Prime Minister Sharon when she was there the last time.  I think at this point, what we're doing is we're sending some teams.  We're going to be sending some teams to Israel to assess what might be possible, but there are no commitments at this point.

Yes.  Jonathan.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Anything else on --

QUESTION:  Just one more --

MR. MCCORMACK:  (Inaudible) and then we'll go back.

QUESTION:  You're hoping that a successful withdrawal leads to reenergizing the roadmap.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  Are you actually making any plans for how to do that after the withdrawal or do you have to wait and see whether or not the withdrawal is a success?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think the way this has been structured is that the withdrawal would take place, we would hope, within the context of a potentially reenergized roadmap.  Our focus right now is on the successful withdrawal, but we have also talked to the Israelis as well as the Palestinians about various issues regarding border crossing, with regard to transit between the West Bank and Gaza.  So these, again, are issues that will bear more directly on a potentially reenergized roadmap.

So our focus primarily is now on making the withdrawal a success, but certainly with an eye to the fact that there should be a further political horizon to this process.

Yes.

QUESTION:  The Bush Administration has talked a lot about making Gaza economically viable and the idea being that they need to start businesses and they need to become more prosperous.  Is the Bush Administration encouraging Israel to open up the borders or come up with a plan for how the borders could be more open, how Palestinians could have access or some control over their borders?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, that is one of the issues that Secretary Rice did speak with the Israelis and the Palestinians about when she was there on her last trip, you know, easing the logistical difficulties at border crossing points, allowing for a quicker yet secure transit of goods across these transit points.  So again, it's an issue that we're working on not only from an economic standpoint but as well as, you know, easing the burden on the Palestinian people in their daily lives.

QUESTION:  But the border would still be controlled entirely by Israel under -- but the people in Gaza would still not have control over the border.  It would be Israelis easing goods and people, but still Israel -- the model would still be Israelis having total control over the border?  I guess I'm trying to see an update on how --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, right now, what we've talked about are crossing points, and beyond that I don't have anything else for you.

Yes.  Okay, Samir.

QUESTION:  Yes.  Can you tell us anything about the Secretary's meeting this morning with the United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Secretary Rice met this morning with Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed.  He's the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates.  They talked about a broad range of bilateral and multilateral issues.  The Secretary discussed our efforts to support the constitution drafting process in Iraq, the plan for disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, counterterrorism efforts and the international community's efforts to enlist Iran's compliance with its commitments on nuclear development.

The Secretary also spoke in positive terms about the UAE's efforts to promote economic and political reform in the UAE and the Secretary also noted our ongoing concerns for the problem of trafficking in persons within the UAE and across the region.  I think that they had a good discussion and that they both talked about the importance of staying in close contact.

Samir.

QUESTION:  Did she ask the UAE to contribute more aid to Darfur?

MR. MCCORMACK:  This is all I have for you.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes, Goyal.

QUESTION:  Sean, before I go a couple of questions on South Asia, how does Dr. Rice feel being the most influential woman on the globe?

MR. MCCORMACK:  The most -- how does she feel -- feel about that?

QUESTION:  Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I'm not sure she'd agree with your characterization, but she's very -- she's pleased to be serving as Secretary of State for this President and to be working on the important issues that we have before us.

QUESTION:  I'll start with South Asia as for as starting with India and Pakistan.  India and Pakistan decided they would (inaudible) this week, or either yesterday or today.  But also on their mind is arms race, nuclear race and arms and missile race, and also terrorism is still on the region.  So and then going back to -- then to Nepal.  The situation is getting really bad in Nepal.  And then as far as Sri Lanka is concerned, foreign minister was murdered and there also turmoil.  What I'm asking is that where do we stand as far as the region is concerned now and if they have asked any U.S. help as far as Sri Lanka and Nepal is concerned.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, with respect to Sri Lanka, the Secretary put out a statement regarding the assassination of the Foreign Minister.  In terms of the region with India, I think that our relationship is the best that it's been in the history of the two countries.  We have a program for moving forward on that relationship.  With Pakistan, we're working very closely with President Musharraf on a variety of issues -- fighting terrorism, supporting his efforts at economic and political reform in the region.

So I think that if you look back to where we have been, where we were five years ago in our relationships, I think that you can see a dramatic improvement.  That doesn't mean that the relationships are not without issues or that the region is without challenges.  Certainly, they are there.  But I think that we're working very closely with Pakistan, we're working very closely with India and as well as other countries in the region to address those issues.

QUESTION:  But, Sean, as far as relations between India and Pakistan are concerned and talks going on and the U.S. is trying that they should solve and resolve their problems of Kashmir and others as far as arms and nuclear race is concerned.  So where this will go as far as their relations are concerned if the arms race continues?

MR. MCCORMACK:  The answer to any differences between any countries in the region, or for that matter around the world, the first answer is not a resort to arms; it's a resort to political dialogue.  And I think that that's what we have seen a commitment from both sides, from India, from Pakistan, to discuss their differences.  And we certainly encourage continuation of that dialogue as well as progress in resolving any differences that may exist between India and Pakistan. 

Yes, sir.

QUESTION:  I'd like to ask about military transformation of the United States troops in Japan.  Japanese people say that the Foreign Minister Machimura has sent a letter to Secretary Rice.  It said that the management in Japan would be delayed because of the election in Japan.  So how did Secretary Rice react about that or how far that discussion of this transformation go along?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I know it's a topic that the Secretary discussed with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister in her last visit to Tokyo.  I haven't seen this letter, and so let me check on the letter and see if we have anything that we can offer you in public on that issue.

QUESTION:  Do you know on the discussion -- how far is discussion of transformation is going on now, until now?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I can tell you what I know, and that is that the Secretary discussed it when she was in the region last with the Prime Minister as well as the Foreign Minister.

As for the question of this letter that you bring up, I will have to check on the letter and see what it is that we can offer in response.

Yes.  Jonathan.

QUESTION:  On Iran.  How helpful does the U.S. see Chancellor Schroeder's comments that the military option should not be on the table, should be taken off the table?  Where does it leave U.S. backing for the EU-3?  And separately, just the selection of apparent hardliners in the Iranian cabinet, what sort of outlook does that give a successful conclusion to the talks?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, as for the first of the issues, there's, you know, nothing new with respect to what the President said.  He talked about the fact that we are actively supporting the EU-3's efforts to negotiate with Iran regarding their development, their nuclear program, that we are pursuing the diplomatic option.  The President restated what any U.S. President would say, and that is that, you know, he doesn't take any option off the table.  That's a statement of policy.  And I think if you look back, it's consistent across, you know, Presidents.  It's also -- he, I think, talked about that at the end of last year and beginning -- the end of last year and beginning of this year.  I know it was an issue when Secretary Rice made her first trip to Europe.

And, you know, we made very clear that we are supporting a diplomatic way forward, the diplomatic pathway.  We are supporting the EU-3 in their efforts.  We welcomed the resolution from the IAEA Board of Governors meeting with regard to Iran.  I think that what you saw with that resolution, that statement, was that the international community is united in that Iran must suspend its uranium conversion activities and comply with all previous IAEA board resolutions and requests; that Iran must fully cooperate with the IAEA to resolve unanswered questions concerning its nuclear program; and that if Iran does not take steps, described in the resolution, that we expect the next step would be to report them to the Security Council.

QUESTION:  The question is to your reaction to what Gerhardt Schroeder said.  I'm -- I wasn't saying -- questioning whether the President had changed his language.  It's the Germans who seemed to have stuck out here and made opposition to what the President has said.  What's your reaction to that?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I don't know if I would characterize quite that way.  I think that we're working very closely with the German Government on the issue of Iran.  We're working well on the diplomatic approach.  I think that what the President said it is simply a restatement of U.S. policy.  But in the same interview, he made it very clear that we are working on the diplomatic front.

QUESTION:  May I follow on Iran, Sean?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Let's move it around a little bit, Goyal.

QUESTION:  On Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Let's just move it around.

QUESTION:  Sean, just go on to -- to follow up on Jonathan's question.  Well, you know that there is an effect on diplomacy when you make statements like that, the one that the President made and the one that the Chancellor made.  So saying that the military option is off the table clearly affects the negotiations.  Saying that the military option is not on -- off the table, but it's still on the table also affects the diplomacy and the negotiations.

So I'm surprised that you seem not to have to any opinion of what Schroeder said because clearly it's not what you are saying, it's different, a difference of policy between the two countries, at least until Schroeder is in office, until September or beyond September or whatever it is.  (Laughter).  So -- 18 September, right?  And actually, the opposition in Germany has already come out disagreeing with that statement that the Chancellor made.  So are you saying that there's no difference in how you approach the negotiations?

MR. MCCORMACK:  The only thing I can do is I can speak to what the U.S. approach to this issue is.  And the U.S. approach to this issue is to work very closely and in a supportive manner with the EU-3 countries, which includes Germany, to resolve issues regarding Iran's nuclear program and to get Iran to abide by its international commitments, including to the commitment it made in the Paris Accord.

If the IAEA does not find that Iran has lived up to its commitments, then we expect the next step would be to go to the Security Council.  So that very clearly is a diplomatic route for it.  That's the route that we're working on.

QUESTION:  So you don't think that the different statements from the Chancellor and the President speak of a disunited front?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Again, we're working very closely with Germany on this issue.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION:  Another issue.  Last week, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson declared a state of emergency in four counties along the border with Mexico.  The decision was not well received by the Mexican Government because they say that this type of action doesn't contribute to the spirit of cooperation between both countries when they have to face common issues along the border, and especially because they feel like the decision in some way means that the Mexican Government is not doing enough to cracking the drug trafficker gangs operating along the border.

The question is:  Do you agree with Governor Richardson's assessment that the violence across the border by drug traffickers is posing a serious threat right now?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, we have -- not with respect to New Mexico, but with respect to violence along some of the border regions, we have put out some statements in the past.  There have been statements coming out of our Embassy in Mexico City.  Regarding the issue of New Mexico and what steps Governor Richardson may have taken, I'll have to get back to you.  I don't have anything for you.

QUESTION:  Well, I mean, given the fact that a couple of weeks ago Ambassador Garza decided to close the Consulate in Nuevo Laredo due to the violence in that city, I mean, what is your take on that?  Did you agree in these assessments that the violence along the U.S.-Mexico border now is a serious threat for both countries?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, we have a statement that is still standing.  It was put out in the past several weeks.  That statement is still in effect.  I'd refer you to that as where we stand on advising people regarding the violence along the U.S.-Mexico border.  And as for Ambassador Garza, any ambassador around the world is -- his or her foremost responsibility is the safety of the people working on behalf of the American people in that country.  And so he or she is going to take the steps that they see fit in order to carry out that responsibility.

Yes.

QUESTION:  Russia and China are set to start their first-ever joint war games on Thursday.  You see that as a challenge to U.S. influence in the region?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think that, you know, we've been advised about these exercises by both the Chinese Government and the Russian Government.  We are following the exercise.  We expect that they will be conducted in a manner that supports the mutual goal of regional stability shared by the United States, China and Russia.  We will not have observers at these exercises.  But again, we expect that whatever activities take place would be ones that would further what we believe is everybody's shared goal of stability and peace in the region.

QUESTION:  Is there concern about this, though, given Russia's prior arm sales to China?

MR. MCCORMACK:  You know, again, I think that these are two countries that have decided to conduct a joint exercise.  We won't be observing it. But you know, we would hope that anything that they do is not something that would be disruptive to the current atmosphere in the region.

Yes.

QUESTION:   On Venezuela.  On Friday, Vice President Rangel announced that they are withdrawing diplomatic immunity from DEA agents in Venezuela.  Then yesterday, President Chavez said Venezuela is the fourth supplier of oil to the U.S., said that the U.S. market is not indispensable to Venezuela.  And he said that it is not in their plans to break diplomatic relations with the U.S., but they talk about continuous aggressions and said that if those aggressions continue, the diplomatic relations could be at risk.  Are they at risk?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Again, with respect to these particular comments, I haven't seen them so we'll have to get back to you on that.

Tammy.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) Venezuela?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Again, we have -- you know, we are working with the Venezuelan Government on a variety of issues.  Our Embassy in Caracas is actively engaged.  We have a -- with respect to Venezuela in general, certainly there are differences.  We've talked about those differences in the past.  But you know, again, our focus is for expanding freedom and greater trade throughout the region.  It's a positive agenda for the region and inasmuch as Venezuela and the Venezuelan Government, you know, wants to participate in that positive agenda for the hemisphere, certainly we are willing to work with them and to work through whatever differences we may have with them.

QUESTION:  Has the State Department been notified on the withdrawal of this diplomatic immunity to DEA agents?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I'll have to check with you on that.

Yeah, Tammy.

QUESTION:  Return to Iran.  There are some suggestions that the individual who's been nominated to become the next Iranian defense minister could be tied to the bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 in Beirut.  He was apparently a senior Revolutionary Guard commander in Lebanon at the time, Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander in Lebanon at the time.  Do you have anything on this? 

MR. MCCORMACK:  I haven't seen those reports.  I'll look into them.

QUESTION:  On Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Anything else?

QUESTION:  On Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes, Goyal.

QUESTION:  Just quickly.  Sean, Iran is challenging the global community on their nuclear program despite all those efforts that were made by the global community to stop.  But also my question is that Iran, of course, will be punished for what it's doing but also those who provided or give nuclear technology to Iran, they're forgiven or they have not been punished.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, we're working very hard on our efforts to stop the traffic in WMD -- weapons of mass destruction technology and know-how and materials.  The Proliferation Security Initiative is one such effort.  We're working within -- with the IAEA in ways to strengthen their capabilities.  The President laid out an agenda in a speech at the National Defense University in 2004 for our efforts to fight the spread of WMD technology and know-how around the globe.  It's an effort that requires not only U.S. participation but global participation.  We're working with a number of countries around the globe on that issue.  PSI has 60-plus, I think, countries that are participating.  So again, it's an important issue that we're working hard.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)