UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

State Department Briefing, August 18

18 August 2005

Morocco/Algeria/Polisario, Venezuela, Israel/Palestinians, UK/Ireland/Comombia, Saudi Arabia, Russia/Iraq, Department/documents on Iraq, Department/investigation, Pakistan, Mexico, North Korea

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack briefed the press August 18.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Thursday, August 18, 2005
12:49 p.m. EDT

Briefer:  Sean McCormack, Spokesman

MOROCCO/ALGERIA/POLISARIO
-- Presidential Mission of Senator Lugar to Algeria and Morocco

VENEZUELA
-- U.S. Assessment of Venezuela Counter-Narcotics Cooperation
-- Negative Trend on Counter-Narcotics Cooperation and Certification
-- U.S.-Venezuela Relations

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- U.S. Assessment on Gaza Withdrawal Process
-- U.S. Support for Roadmap
-- UNDP's Financial Support for Communications to Public and Media in Gaza
-- Role of Hamas in Gaza

UK/IRELAND/COLOMBIA
-- Return to Ireland of the IRA "Colombia Three"

SAUDI ARABIA
-- Saudi Security Forces' Operations Against Terrorists

RUSSIA/IRAQ
-- President Putin's Comments Calling for an International Conference on Iraq

DEPARTMENT
-- State Department Documents on Planning for Post-Conflict Iraq
-- Ongoing Investigation into Information Shared with AIPAC

PAKISTAN
-- Curriculum and Textbooks for Pakistan's Public Schools

MEXICO
-- U.S. Ambassador on Suspending Operations at US Consulate Nuevo Laredo

NORTH KOREA
-- Six-Party Talks
-- New York Channel Contact

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 2005
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

12:49 p.m. EDT

MR. MCCORMACK:  Good afternoon.  I have one opening statement, then I'd be happy to take your questions.  This statement is with respect to the presidential mission of Senator Lugar to Algeria and Morocco.  On August 17th and 18th, Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee undertook on behalf of President Bush a presidential mission to Algeria and Morocco for the humanitarian purpose of overseeing the release of the remaining 404 Moroccan prisoners held by the Polisario Front in the tindouf camps in Algeria.  The United States welcomes the success of Senator Lugar's mission and the release by the Polisario Front of these prisoners, as called for in numerous UN Security Council resolutions. 

We extend our deep appreciation to Senator Lugar, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Governments of Algeria and Morocco for facilitating this important humanitarian effort.  The success of this mission offers an opportunity to advance the cause of Magreb unity and stability.  We call on all parties to seize this positive development as an occasion for Morocco and Algeria to reengage with each other in order to improve their bilateral relations and create a regional climate conducive to work together in the context of the UN and with the UN Secretary General's Personal Envoy, Peter van Walsum. 

With that, happy to take your questions. 

QUESTION:  Can you go into your current appraisal of Venezuela's efforts or lack of efforts to control narcotics? 

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I'd say that there have been certainly in our cooperation with Venezuela in countering drug trafficking, that there have been some issues as of late.  I think that we have in the month of August, we saw that President Chavez announced that Venezuela would suspend cooperation with the DEA.  In March, the Venezuelan Government unilaterally ended a successful, longstanding counternarcotics cooperation program.  They have refused to sign an agreement with the United States for the use of Cooperating Nation Information Exchange System to track trafficking movements of suspect aircraft.  And senior Venezuelan Government officials repeatedly have made baseless and outrageous accusations against DEA officials.  So there have been some issues as of late. 

We have expressed our concerns to the Government of Venezuela on multiple occasions.  Most recently with the visit of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Jonathan Farrar, with the Venezuelan Ambassador just a couple of days ago in August to discuss ways to improve counternarcotics cooperation between the United States and Venezuela.  So certainly we are interested in looking at ways to maybe reverse some of the negative trends that we have seen over the past couple of months and we'll continue to do so. 

QUESTION:  Is there a bottom line?  I mean, rocky as things are, have you come to any certification decisions? 

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, as you point out, Barry, there is a certification decision coming up in September, in mid-September, so there haven't been any conclusions drawn at this point and we'll be pleased to share with you those conclusions once we've made them.

QUESTION:  Well, you've described a very negative situation.  Is it possible to get it turned around by mid-September or are you dubious?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think we'll wait until September until we have a comment on it.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes.

QUESTION:  On Venezuela?

MR. MCCORMACK:  On Venezuela, sure.

QUESTION:  Do you see this is as a larger effort by President Chavez to kind of distance itself from the United States?   He's been talking a lot about cutting or threatening to cut oil exports to the United States and generally just been saying a lot of anti-American things in recent months.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think that you've -- the differences, some of the differences that we've had with Venezuela over this past time have been well documented.  As for what plan or motivation the Venezuelan Government may have in taking some of these actions, you'd have to talk to the Venezuelan Government.  We ourselves are, you know, maintain an active Embassy program in Caracas.  We meet with Venezuelan officials and as I just pointed out, we engage with them, even on issues where we have differences or there has been a negative trend. 

So I think that this is, this exemplifies our approach to the hemisphere where we have a positive agenda for trying to deal with every state in the region that has elections.  We certainly welcome Venezuela to participate in that positive agenda, both positive political and economic agenda and we would continue to encourage them to do so. 

Peter. 

QUESTION:  Change of subject?

QUESTION:  No --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Saul.

QUESTION:  On Venezuela.  On the drug issue, you cite these problems of cooperation with the United States.  Venezuela, obviously, says we are continuing to cooperate with the international community, with international organizations.  Have you noticed that the lower cooperation or reduced cooperation with the United States has actually impacted their work against drug trafficking?  Do you have any statistics to say whether or not the hauls of drugs that they've found have gone up or down because of the reduced cooperation with the United States?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I don't have any statistics available to me right now, Saul.

QUESTION:  And so your general assessment, minus the statistics, is their impact on drug trafficking going down?  Are they doing a worse job because of their lack of cooperation or not?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Again, I don't have the statistics available to me to answer that specific question.  But I would note what I was talking about here is -- I guess you could say the political side of the ledger.  And on that side of the ledger we have seen some negative trends.  We are reaching out to the Venezuelans to try to see what we can do to address some of -- what in our view, are some negative actions and we continue to be hopeful.

But I think it stands to reason over time that in order to affect the statistics that you're talking about in a positive way, you need to have cooperation.  I think that that really only stands to reason.  As for whether or not this has had a direct effect on statistics and, you know, when people take measurements of such things, I don't know.

QUESTION:  Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK:  So on that matter, I can't offer you a specific answer, but I think in general it stands to reason that in order to effectively combat the flow and production of drugs, you need cooperation throughout the hemisphere and that's what we're trying to do.

QUESTION:  So you do need cooperation with the United States.  No one can sort of opt out of cooperating with the United States and still be effective against drugs.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think it's a hemispheric problem.  I think we've seen that it's not only hemispheric; it's a global problem.  So this isn't just a problem for the United States; it's a problem for Europe and other countries around the world.  So I think, as with any global problem, you need to have effective multilateral cooperation in order to be effective.

QUESTION:  And just one more.  When you were answering Elise and you're talking about the general policy and the attitude towards Venezuela, you said that the United States has a positive agenda.  How do the latest comments from Rumsfeld on his trip to Latin America fit in with that?  We went round the houses here a lot when a letter had been written to a congresswoman saying that Venezuela is being unhelpful in Bolivia, but as we all found the State Department and the United States Government is just not prepared to back that up with any kind of evidence.  And yet, Rumsfeld again, repeated the same accusation that Venezuela is unhelpful in Bolivia.  What's positive about this bandying around accusations that you're not prepared to back up?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think that I don't have anything to add to Secretary Rumsfeld's comments.  I think they speak for themselves.  I think that there's been a lot of discussion about Venezuela's role in the hemisphere, and not just from the United States but from other countries in the hemisphere as well.  And I think that given those comments, it certainly is an issue that bears discussion.

Peter.

QUESTION:  Change of subject?  Okay, on the Middle East, we've obviously all seen the very emotional images that are coming from Gaza.  I have two questions.  One, what is your overall assessment of how the Gaza withdrawal is going up until this point their?

And secondly, the Secretary had an interview with the New York Times in which she again reiterated that the U.S. desire to see fairly expeditious work on follow-up to make sure it's not Gaza last.  Given what you've seen today, given the statements we see coming from Israel, how quickly do you think we're going to be able to get to that follow-up? 

MR. MCCORMACK:  On the first of those issues, I think that, you know, we've all seen the images on television, on cable television, and clearly this is a very difficult and deeply emotional time for many Israelis, in particular, some of the people who are leaving their homes in Gaza and for some of them, these are the only homes that they've known.  So I think anybody who watches what's going -- what's happening in Gaza can only empathize with what is a very difficult moment for the people who are leaving these settlements, but also with the Israeli people. 

But as Secretary Rice has said and others have said, we believe that this is the -- Prime Minister Sharon's courageous and bold decision to withdraw from Gaza -- is the right decision for Israel to help improve stability and security for the Israeli people.  The withdrawal process is -- some of these images notwithstanding -- progressing and I think that our -- General Ward is continuing to work with Palestinian officials.  David Welch is now in Egypt for a meeting with officials from Egypt that focus on bilateral and regional issues.  I expect that he'll probably return back to work with General Ward as well as Israeli and Palestinian officials in the near future. 

And I think that what we have seen with some difficult circumstances, I think we talked a little bit yesterday about what happened with the deaths of some Palestinians, that both President Abbas and Prime Minister Sharon have shown really exemplary leadership in working through tough issues.  And I think that the cooperation between the Palestinian officials and the Israeli officials continues.  It continues to be good. I think the Palestinian officials and the officials of the Palestinian Authority need to be focused and ready to assume the responsibilities that will come with Israeli withdrawal from a lot of these areas and that will be coming up in the coming days and weeks.  So that's where their focus needs to be.

As for the second part of your question, Secretary Rice, in the interview with the New York Times -- and we'll have the transcript out for you at some point here -- what she was talking about was, what I've been talking about a bit, and that is in order to -- the process of Gaza withdrawal and the cooperation that is needed in order to make this successful is -- one of the potential positive results from this is the increase in the trust and confidence between Israeli and Palestinian officials. 

And, you know, I think our approach as well as the approach of Palestinian and Israeli officials is to build on the accomplishments of a successful Gaza withdrawal that we all hope will be successful and to use that increase in trust and confidence and that success, to work on other issues, such as the Sharm-el Sheikh understandings and that's what Secretary Rice was referring to.  And what she was talking about was building on these accomplishments.  She didn't talk about -- she didn't apply a particular timetable to that, but these are all obligations that are out there in terms of the roadmap and the Sharm-el Sheikh understandings. 

So she wasn't saying anything different than you've heard her say in the past, in terms of the horizon beyond the withdrawal and the fact that we, as well as the Israelis and the Palestinians, are also focused on that. 

That said, we -- Secretary Rice, as well as members of her team, are focused on making the Gaza withdrawal a success. 

QUESTION:  Sean, can I just follow up on this subject?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yeah, sure.

QUESTION:  Prime Minister Sharon has said repeatedly that after Gaza, they're going to need "a cooling off period" there.  Does the U.S. subscribe to that logic there because, obviously, the Palestinians wouldn't?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think that everybody subscribes to the roadmap and also everybody understands the Sharm-el Sheik understandings.  And we're going to be -- and we have already on Secretary Rice's last trip -- talked to the Israelis as well as the Palestinians about the fact that there is a horizon beyond the Gaza withdrawal and this involves the questions of addressing entry points and easing the plight of the Palestinian people through those entry points and check points, as well as transit between Gaza and the West Bank and also working on Gaza-specific issues as well. 

She also -- we have also continued the discussion about the importance of meeting Sharm-el Sheikh obligations, as well as using a successful Gaza withdrawal to re-energize progress down the roadmap.  And I think that those are going to be topics for continuing discussion as we move forward from what we all hope is the successful withdrawal from Gaza.

QUESTION:  The roadmap is a formula for negotiating.  I don't have the text of what the -- the Times isn't -- doesn't have quote marks around it.  The Times has Rice saying, Israel must, must withdraw from other Palestinian cities. 

MR. MCCORMACK:  Again, I don't --

QUESTION:  I mean, the fact that she -- I mean, I thought the two sides decide such things.  Is she decided that Israel must withdraw from Palestinian cities?  And could you tell us some of the cities she has in mind and does she have Jerusalem in mind, for instance?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well --

QUESTION:  Or is she being misinterpreted?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, first of all, I think you're kind of --

QUESTION:  I'm reading the newspaper. 

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.

QUESTION:  I have it in text, we didn't get the transcript --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right, and you're extrapolating from their --

QUESTION:  I'm not extrapolating anything.

MR. MCCORMACK:  -- from their -- from their --

QUESTION:  "Must withdraw from other Palestinian cities."  Period. 

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.  But then you added your own commentary on that.

QUESTION:  Well, not a commentary.  I'm asking what cities? 

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.  It's exactly what I said.

QUESTION:  What?

MR. MCCORMACK:  And that is that we -- there are existing obligations under the roadmap and the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings.  And we encourage both parties to build on what we hope is a successful withdrawal from Gaza, in order to continue discussions and continue actions along with respect to those obligations.  Everybody, under the Sharm el-Sheikh, understands.  It talks about freedom of movement under the roadmap.  It talks about various steps, which are not sequenced exactly.  They are designed to move in parallel.

And, as you know, the roadmap is a performance-based document.  It allows the parties to move as quickly as they are able to come to political decisions as well as have the capability to enforce those decisions.

QUESTION:  Well, also it talks about ways to get together and negotiate a settlement.  It doesn't prescribe the terms of the settlement.

MR. MCCORMACK:  And neither --

QUESTION:  I mean, we've been saying here for weeks --

MR. MCCORMACK:  And neither is Dr. Rice.

QUESTION:  She is.  She says Israel must withdraw from those cities.

MR. MCCORMACK:  I don't see any quote marks around what you just said.

QUESTION:  There are no quote marks around them. 

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.  Exactly. 

QUESTION:  That's why I'm checking with you.

MR. MCCORMACK:  All right.  Does anybody have another question?

QUESTION:  So I really want to know that.  I don't want to drop it. I want the State Department's, please, position.  Let's not -- we don't have to use this to revisit the New York Times' interview.  If we get an interview, we'll ask the same questions.

MR. MCCORMACK:  You have had an interview.

QUESTION:  But what is the State Department's position?  Forget whether she said it that way or said something like that.  Does the State -- has the State Department concluded that Israel must withdraw from additional Palestinian cities?

MR. MCCORMACK:  What the State Department has concluded, Barry, is that we support the roadmap as a political way forward so the two parties can achieve what they both want:  two states living side by side in peace and security.  What we also stand by are the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings as well.  Again, this is a matter for the two parties to work out.  Nobody can want peace more than the two parties want peace.  We stand ready to assist the two parties as do members of the Quartet and other countries in the region.  So what our focus is on is the roadmap and the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings and bring the two parties together to come to the difficult political decisions that are required by those documents.

Yes, Elise.

QUESTION:  Ambassador Bolton made some comments this morning in New York --

QUESTION:  Can I stay on this just for a second?

QUESTION:  Well, it's about Gaza, yes.  That the Palestinians were using money from the international community and possibly the United States for kind of Gaza withdrawal paraphernalia that said stuff like, you know, Gaza First, West Bank Next, things like that.  Do you have any knowledge that the Palestinians are using U.S. funding for that and do you think that's a responsible --

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think that was UND -- the question was -- it was UNDP funding.

QUESTION:  Well, but the implication was that it could have been U.S. money as well.

MR. MCCORMACK:  The United Nations Development Program provided financial support -- communications to the public and media in Gaza.  UNDP has indicated that the Palestinian Authority was responsible for the content of the campaign.  The United States takes very seriously the need for UNDP to maintain complete political neutrality.  In this case, UNDP provided assistance to a political campaign, which was, by its very nature, not neutral.  And as Ambassador Bolton said yesterday, funding this kind of activity is inappropriate and unacceptable.

We have followed up with the UNDP, and I think that if you talk to UNDP officials they will say that they have very serious concerns about the manner in which this money was used and that they have taken corrective actions.  I think we all understand that there are better uses for UN development funds than producing bumper stickers.

QUESTION:  Do you have any knowledge that the Palestinians have used U.S. funding for any of these activities?

MR. MCCORMACK:  No, I don't.

Saul.

QUESTION:  On the actual withdrawal, when you -- you described U.S. empathy with the situation and how emotional it was.  But is there any sense of relief that, in fact, it's going better than -- it's defying some of the predictions?  On a timetable it seems to be going quicker than the Israelis had predicted.  And also, at least today, the level of violence doesn't seem to be that high. 

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think, Saul, I would defer any comments and sort of final assessments about how things are going until the withdrawal is completed.  I think that what we have seen is good cooperation between the Israelis and Palestinians, and I think both sides can be proud of the way that it has unfolded to date.

We all know that there are certain to be difficult challenge and possibly perils as the withdrawal process continues.  We all know that there are groups and individuals who would like nothing better than to see this withdrawal process sullied by violence or terror.  And I think what needs to happen is that all parties need to maintain their perseverance and their vigilance and their good cooperation to make sure that those people who may want to see this withdrawal process derailed don't succeed.

Yes, Nicholas.

QUESTION:  Just to go back for a second on what Barry was saying.  I took that remark by the Secretary as -- even though it's not in a direct quote -- to mean --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, then it's not a remark by the Secretary.

QUESTION:  Right.  Well, I take it that she was talking about those four settlements in the West Bank.  They've been discussed for more than a year now.  Isn't that -- am I not right about this?

MR. MCCORMACK:  What she was talking about was the Sharm el-Sheikh understandings, if I read their paraphrase correctly.

Yeah, Teri.

QUESTION:  Change of subject?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I don't know.  Jonathan.

QUESTION:  I was going to change subjects.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Oh, you were going to change the subject, too.  Okay. 

QUESTION:  We see, and, you know, we would rather hear it ourselves from you than retype the New York Times.  Could you touch on the Hamas buildup?  She did directly and critically.  The Ambassador told us that there is a buildup.  It's a ticking bomb.  They're on a low flame right now, Hamas, but it could be explosive.  She seems to have -- she evidently has the same view.

Can you, as the spokesman, if even tersely, tell us what the U.S. perceives Hamas to be up to so far as a buildup in Gaza?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think there are certainly concerns about that and I think that, you know, and our views of Hamas have not changed as a terrorist organization.  At the same time, what needs to happen is that -- and this is something that we're working very closely with the Palestinians on and General Ward is working on -- is that the capabilities of the Palestinian security forces continue to increase and so that they have a robust security presence so that they can provide security for the Palestinian people.  That's what they want.

And so what does that mean?  That means working with them on equipment, things like you know, basic outfitting in terms of uniforms, communications gear, transportation gear, as well as command and control.  I think the process of consolidation of command under one authority is a process that is continuing and ongoing, and I think that throughout the run-up to the withdrawal process as well as during the withdrawal process we've seen an acceleration in progress but more will be need -- more needs to be done, and even post-withdrawal we'll continue working with them on that.

QUESTION:  Very briefly, there is a distinction between the Israeli view and what you've just said.  The Israelis say they have 70,000 -- 60,000 security people, at least ten times the size as Hamas, so they have already -- although obviously everybody would like to see an improvement in security except maybe Hamas wouldn't -- that they have the wherewithal to move against Hamas now.  Are you and -- is the State Department of that view or does the Palestinian Authority need some retooling and some chain-of-command improvements before they can really take on the job?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, our views with respect to Hamas and the need to dismantle terrorist networks is certainly a matter of policy and a matter of the obligations of the Palestinian Authority are well known.  Secretary Rice has talked about that.  I've talked about that.  You know, as I was touching on with the Palestinian Authority, yes, there needs to -- more work needs to be done and we are working with them on issues of command and control, chain of command, the effectiveness in terms of deploying the assets, and in part -- part of the answer to that is equipment, you know, for instance, transportation equipment, communications equipment.  So we're working to try to answer some of those questions with the Palestinians. 

And this is, you know, absolutely consistent with what President Abbas has called for.  He called for one authority and one gun.  So we are working with the Palestinians to assist them so that they can have the most effective security forces to provide security for the Palestinian people, to provide a peaceful and calm atmosphere for the Palestinian people.  And we have made clear our views on Hamas.  And as for how the Palestinian political space develops, as we have said, those are decisions for the Palestinian people to make.  But very clearly, our views on Hamas have not changed. 

Anything else on this?

QUESTION:  Yes. 

MR. MCCORMACK:  Joel.

QUESTION:  Sean, is it appropriate to send either a religious delegation or a special religious envoy to defuse this situation before it gets out of hand, as a result of the withdraw from Gaza?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think those are not decisions for the United States Government to make.

Yes.  Teri.

QUESTION:  Change of subject.  Back to the story of these three Irish guys; they're IRA linked, the guys who've been in Colombia.  They've now turned themselves in and are being questioned by police in Dublin.  The U.S. has commented on this case in the past -- has an interest in the case.  Can you update us on what you know?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think that the facts, as you've described them, are correct.  I share that understanding of them.  I think it's a case that we're going to watch closely and right now the Irish authorities are dealing with it.

QUESTION:  You know there are stories abounding in the UK about U.S. pressure on Ireland about extradition of these three men.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.  Yeah, I know.  I've seen those sort of rumors and I just put it down to that.

QUESTION:  But you do want them extradited back to Colombia, is that correct?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Again, I think that right now the Irish officials are dealing with the matter and we're watching it closely.

QUESTION:  Has the Secretary made any -- is this a high enough level thing for the Secretary to talk about?  I know that the Irish officials have been in to see the Ambassador.

MR. MCCORMACK:  No, she hasn't made any phone calls on it.  I haven't talked to her about it.  I can tell you she hasn't made any phone calls on it, but it's not an issue that I've raised with her, so I couldn't answer the question.  I don't know if she's aware of it or not.

QUESTION:  All right.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Jonathan.

QUESTION:  I had a question about the leader of al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia who was killed today.  How big a fish is this guy?  I mean, the Saudis have portrayed him as pretty much, at this point, the top person on their most-wanted list that they haven't gotten yet.  Do you have a sense for that?

MR. MCCORMACK:  A couple of things:  One, I think the Saudi officials would be in the best position to comment on exactly what the status of their operations would be, so I can't -- I've seen the news reports about this.  He certainly is somebody who has been one of the most wanted terrorist fugitives in Saudi Arabia for several years.  And for those who haven't seen the reports, the name is Salih Aloafi.  And I would just say that we are working closely with the Saudi Government on terrorism and law enforcement matters and that cooperation will continue.  You have seen that cooperation.

And I think that these continuing Saudi operations are examples of the Saudis' resolute pursuit of terrorists.  And that we've seen over recent months and over the past couple of years real successes in terms of their operations and that they have killed and apprehended a number of senior al-Qaida figures in the Kingdom and dismantled a number of terror cells and have lost more than 40 of their own law enforcement officers in the process.  So, in terms of any further updates, Jonathan, I'd refer you over to the Saudis.  But certainly if this were the case, then I'd defer comment and confirmation on the matter to the Saudi Government, but certainly this would be significant.

QUESTION:  Just a follow up on that.  The Saudis have their list of the initial 26 most wanted, that it put out in 2003.  Most of those have now been captured or killed.  They had another list, I think, of 36 that came out in June.  How much is a concern that, you know, you get some of these guys and they are almost instantly -- there's somebody there to replace them, either to step in those shoes?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, that's a lesson I think that all of us who are involved in the war against terrorism, that we need to be vigilant and continue pursuing these networks and these cells and break them up.  It is the case when you do -- oftentimes when you do get a leader of a cell or, I guess, middle manager, if you will, that somebody else will step up into place to take over those responsibilities.  But what happens in that is you are degrading, over time, the overall capability of that particular cell or organization because those people don't have the experience or maybe leadership capabilities that the person that they replaced had.

So what that says is that we need to remain vigilant, that we need to continue our pursuit of these terrorists because that's the way -- that is one way, at least on the law enforcement side, that you start to degrade these cells.  The other way is what we have talked about and the President has talked about in the second inaugural and Secretary Rice talked about it in Cairo, is really addressing the root causes of terrorism.  So we're working on a number of different tracks to try and address the issue of terrorism and what you saw today in Saudi Arabia is one of those tracks.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  Another subject?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Okay.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Iraq.  President Putin today called for an international conference on Iraq and he spoke more specifically about setting a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops in Iraq.  Do you have any comment on that?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think President Bush has spoken very clearly on our views on the issue of security assistance to the Iraqis.  As Iraqis stand up their capabilities, we and the multinational forces will be able to stand down.  We have a robust training program for Iraqi police and the security forces that's progressing under the leadership of General Petraeus, working very closely with the Iraqis.

As for the issue of an international conference, I haven't seen President Putin's comments, so I haven't had a chance to take a look at them and analyze what our thoughts on that might be.  We did, recently, have an international conference that was organized in Brussels, which we had great attendance from around the world, from around the region, from Europe.  There was a delegation from Russia there, I believe, as well, in which countries came together to express support for Iraq as they build a democracy on the foundation that we and other countries are providing them and that there are continuing efforts around the world to work on donations for Iraq, to assist them in funding some of the projects that they have for, you know, economic projects and infrastructure projects.

So as for President Putin's comments, we'll take a look at them and we'll get back to you.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  Can you take the question and --

MR. MCCORMACK:  We'll take a look at it and get back to you.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes.  Let's move around to others who haven't had any questions.  Yes.

QUESTION:  On Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK:  On Iraq.

QUESTION:  Could you respond to these newly released State Department documents that show officials in this building were ringing the alarm bells about the lack of post-war planning and the kind of reluctance of the military to pay attention to these issues?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.  I think this ground that has been well trod over the past two years in terms of the discussion about what planning took place within the United States Government for post-conflict Iraq.   But there was substantial planning -- substantial plans in place and in particular on the humanitarian front and I think that one of the great positive developments of post-conflict Iraq was, in fact, that there was not a humanitarian crisis of the type that many were predicting.  And in part, I think that that was a result of the planning that went on.

So as for the documents, I'm not going to get back into a discussion that has been had many, many times around this town and that will, I'm sure, if you had -- continued to be had around town and other places as historians look at these things.

QUESTION:  But specifically on the Future of Iraq Project that was funded by the State Department, there has been frustration by people that were involved with the project that it wasn't taken into enough consideration by the Pentagon, by military planners and it was a kind of a waste of people's time and money.  What is your response to that?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think, again, my response is that this is a ground that has been trod over many, many times and I don't have anything to add to it.

Yeah.

QUESTION:  The Los Angeles Times has a page-one story that's getting a lot of attention.  CBS ran it this morning, for instance, about Pakistani textbooks with long passages, anti-Christian anti-Jewish.  And of course, we all know how Pakistan is -- the Administration says Pakistan an ally in countering terrorism.

Has the U.S. Embassy picked up on this, made any study, come to any conclusions?  Is there anything you can say on the subject?

MR. MCCORMACK:  These types of reports are of serious concern to us.  We have engaged the Pakistani Government on this issue, specifically on the issue of textbooks and language that might -- that, upon reading it, was clearly, clearly unacceptable and inciteful or would cause people to perhaps lash out with violent actions and encourages people to do that.

So we do have ongoing discussions with Pakistan, the Pakistani Government, on this matter.  The Pakistani Education Minister was recently here in March.  We raised this issue with him.  And we understand that the Pakistani Government has set up a review process to look at these various issues and that President Musharraf has declared his opposition to extremism and he has taken actions against extremists.  This is a process in which President Musharraf and his cabinet are working to reform the educational system, the madrasas as well as the textbooks, and they do have a process for reviewing it.  But it's an issue of concern.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK:  On this?

QUESTION:  No, change of subject.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Okay, let's go back here.  You haven't had a question.

QUESTION:  Yes, on Mexico.  Yesterday, the Foreign Ministry, Mexican Foreign Ministry, publicly criticized Ambassador Garza's remarks about the closing of the U.S. Consulate in Nuevo Laredo was some sort of punishment against Mexico for its inability to reduce the violence on the border.  My question is twofold:  Was the State Department involved in the decision to close the Consulate or was this a personal decision by Mr. Garza; and secondly, since this is the last of a series of exchanges between the Ambassador and Mexican officials, is there any concern at the State Department that this kind of public remarks by the Ambassador is causing some frictions in the U.S.-Mexico relationship?

MR. MCCORMACK:  As for the internal discussions in the State Department with regard to security matters, those are things that I'm not going to get into.  But as I've said before, Ambassador Garza took the steps that he thought were necessary in order to protect people that were working for him.  That is, first and last, his concern.

And I note reports of some remarks that he made in a speech at the University of Denver, and I think that if you talk to our Embassy down in Mexico City he would probably tell you that he would use some different phrasing in terms of his remarks and he's said that and our Embassy down in Mexico has said that.  But at the root of his decision was a desire for him to fulfill his foremost responsibility, and that was to protect the people that were working for him in that Consulate.

I talked yesterday about U.S.-Mexican relations.  This is a broad and deep relationship.  Anytime you have this sort of close relationship with a close neighbor, there are going to be frictions.  It's natural.  It happens.  But the way to work through those frictions is an open way in the spirit of friendship, and I think that's what you see between the U.S. and Mexico and between Ambassador Garza as well as Mexican officials, and I suspect that will continue.

QUESTION:  So is Secretary Rice confident that he's handling the relationship in an appropriate manner?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Secretary Rice thinks that Ambassador Garza is a fine Ambassador and the right person for the job.

Yes.

QUESTION:  You said that apparently the Ambassador at the Embassy has said that he could have used different language.  Right.  Do you know if that happened -- if he said that -- that he could have used different language after, perhaps, some suggestions from this building that he could have used a different language?

MR. MCCORMACK:  No.  I think that, again, any further comment on his speech, I'd refer you down to the Embassy.  I think they could provide you a full text of what --

QUESTION:  No, I'm not asking about his speech.  I'm asking whether anyone in this building suggested to the Ambassador that, perhaps, he could have used different language in his speech in Denver.

MR. MCCORMACK:  I'm not aware of any such contact.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes, Peter.

QUESTION:  North Korea.

MR. MCCORMACK:  North Korea.

QUESTION:   Ambassador Hill said yesterday at the CSIS two things I'd like to ask about.  One is that he said that there was some contact through the New York channel.  I was wondering if you could illuminate us at all about the nature of that.  And the second thing is he said it yesterday and also the week before, he was talking about the possibility of getting an agreement in September or October at the latest, after they resume the talks in Beijing.  And I was wondering what gives rise to such optimism after you've had 13 pretty grueling days in Beijing already?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Maybe it was the fact that he did have 13 grueling days in Beijing, as opposed to two or three grueling and unsatisfying days.  Look, we're all committed to this -- the diplomatic process.  I think the fact that he spent nearly two weeks there -- all the six parties spent nearly two weeks there -- is an indication of a -- certainly a willingness to try to reach -- reach some sort of conclusion that would form the basis for allowing us to say, yeah, let's have another round of talks after this round here.

Ambassador Hill -- we posted a question the other day and it talked about whether or not Ambassador Hill had any contact.  What he was referring to was a New York channel contact in which we sent a message up through the New York channel to the North Koreans saying that we were ready to -- if they had any questions about where we stood or the status of our proposal, certainly we're ready to answer those questions.  So that was the contact that he was referring to.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Just a follow up on the October --

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK:  The New York channel contact -- I'll have to get you the exact day.  It's been within the past few days.  I'll get you the exact day.  It was this week.

QUESTION:  Does that have to be after you posted the taken question?

MR. MCCORMACK:  No.  Because the taken question was with respect to Ambassador Hill, Chris Hill -- had he had any contact.  He had not had any contact.  He doesn't -- he's not the New York channel.  That is officials that work for him.

QUESTION:  So was this DeTrani or was this --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yeah, it was DeTrani.  Yes, it was DeTrani.

QUESTION:  Telegram or a phone call?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I don't know.  I don't know --

QUESTION:  And doesn't (inaudible)?

QUESTION:  He wasn't having a meeting.  It means letting them know --

MR. MCCORMACK:  No, I'm not sure if it was a telephone or an email or what it was.

QUESTION:  Has there been any response?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Let me check to see if there has been a response.

QUESTION:  You've used this instruction before.  I just want to check, if I understand correctly.  What you're trying to decide is whether you have a basis for another round of talks?  You're not at the cusp of some agreement.  You're trying to find out if there's enough going on, right, to get back to the table. 

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.

QUESTION:  And if that's true, do you all sort of decided, among yourselves or individually or some combination, and then all grandly announce we're going to have another round -- is that what you're talking about?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, what we said going into this -- this current round is -- we're in, I think, the -- a recess now, when we will take our break -- the current round is still going on.  It is -- we wanted to make progress to the point where we thought another round was merited.

QUESTION:  Right.

MR. MCCORMACK:  In this case, we have gone to the point, as a result of 13 days of work in Beijing, we are working on a statement of principles and what we want to see is some agreement on that statement of principles.  And I think that that might, you know, whether or not we're able to reach agreement on those statement of principles would certainly be a major factor going into whether or not we thought another round of the six-party talks was merited.

So our focus is immediately on the statement of principles, along with everybody else in the six-party talks.

QUESTION:  Okay.  But then that might lead to -- this gets complicated --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yeah.  Well, first things first --

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK:  -- so that's where, that's where we are now.  Right.

QUESTION:  But a statement of principles, obviously, is not the end of discussion.

MR. MCCORMACK:  No.

QUESTION:  It opens the door to another round.

MR. MCCORMACK:  To another round of talks.  Right.  To build on the progress that we made.  Exactly.

QUESTION:  But Sean, which is why this is just all the more curious, I mean, he said it twice and he's specifically saying that agreements, September -- October the 8th.  It's been -- I couldn't figure out exactly why he was -- I mean, is he also possibly pointing to that as a deadline for those --

MR. MCCORMACK:  We haven't set any deadlines.

QUESTION:  Okay.  So what is the October?  Why is he mentioning October the 8th?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I'll have to talk to him about his comments.  I haven't seen exactly what he's said.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes.  Teri.

QUESTION:  Can you tell us anything about David Satterfield's involvement in the case of information being given to APEC in the investigation?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I've seen the news reports.  I had some comments in the story that appeared in the New York Times today and I would just have to repeat those comments in that it's an ongoing investigation.  It would be inappropriate for me to offer any comment about the status of the investigation or any of the details of the investigation.

I will say, though, that David Satterfield is an outstanding public servant.  He has -- he is a distinguished Foreign Service Officer and diplomat and that he has worked on behalf of the American people for a number of years.  And he continues that work under, I think, what all would agree are some difficult working conditions now in Baghdad.

QUESTION:  What --

QUESTION:  He's in Baghdad?

MR. MCCORMACK:  He is in Baghdad now.

QUESTION:  Is there any -- has this prompted any -- I mean, the report?  Are you in conversation with him about this in some way or other?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I'm not going to get into --

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right, right.  I'm not going to get into any conversations, back and forth, that we may have had, but Mr. Satterfield is focused on the job at hand in Baghdad and that is working with Iraqi officials to help them produce a constitution.  I think that Ambassador Khalilzad and all here would agree that he's the right man for the job.

QUESTION:  I have -- there is no motive intended to my questions.  You know I don't -- we've known over time, but if he were to come -- you would have to bring him home, do you to -- have a conversation with him?  Has any thought been given to that?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I'm not aware of any such discussions.

QUESTION:  Just to be clear, he's still in his current capacity --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes.

QUESTION:  There's been no change in his status or --

MR. MCCORMACK:  That's correct.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK:  That's correct.

QUESTION:  Has there been any interference in him doing his job because of interviews he may have had to attend on this as part of the investigation?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I'm not aware.  I'm not aware of that.

QUESTION:  Also, on the matter.  Is it true -- can you say that the senior officials in the building knew about this situation before he was assigned to Baghdad?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I would only say that he's there because people made a conscious decision to send him there as the number two person in our Embassy in Baghdad and we believe that he is the right man to be there at the right time.

QUESTION:  Well, but --

MR. MCCORMACK:  I'm not going to get into any other details about the investigation or what conversations may or may not have been had.

QUESTION:  About Liberia, there's concerns that Charles Taylor, who is over in Nigeria currently, is both meddling and there may be intimidation and influence in their forthcoming elections.  What is the Secretary's concerns concerning that?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Our views on the issue of Charles Taylor are unchanged and well known.

QUESTION:  Actually, a follow-up on that?  Nigeria -- the Nigerian senate has passed a resolution saying that they should cancel the agreement made with the United States about no extradition to the ICC.  Have you seen that?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Our views on that are unchanged and remain --

QUESTION:  But are you concerned that they would cancel this agreement?

MR. MCCORMACK:  We are in contact with Nigerians officials.  We are working this issue with them.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:40 p.m.)

(end transcript)

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



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list