State Department Briefing, October 26
26 October 2005
India, Iran/Israel, Syria, United Nations, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, United Kingdom, Mexico, Japan, Department of State Advisories on Avian Flu
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack briefed the press October 26.
Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Wednesday, October 26 2005
2:04 p.m. EDT
Briefer: Sean McCormack, Spokesman
INDIA
-- Nuclear Agreement with U.S./Congressman Hyde's Comments
IRAN/ISRAEL
-- Iranian President's Remarks on Israel
-- Israeli President Peres' Comments about Iranian Membership in the UN
SYRIA
-- Draft Resolution Co-Sponsored by U.S., France, U.K.
-- Sanctions on Individuals/U.S. Prepared to Talk About State Sanctions
-- Need for Syrian Cooperation with the Mehlis Investigation
-- On-Going Diplomacy at the U.N.
-- Larsen Report
-- Reports that Arms Continue to Flow Between Syria and Lebanon/1559
UNITED NATIONS
-- Possible UNSC Ministerial Meeting
IRAQ
-- U.S. Troop Levels
-- Passage of the Referendum/U.S. Looks Forward to Elections
-- Increasingly Capable Iraqi Security Presence
ISRAEL
-- U.S. Condemnation of Bombing in Hadera
-- Need for the Palestinian Authority to do More to Prevent Attacks
-- General Ward in the Region
-- U.S. Working with the Palestinian Authority to Improve Security Forces
-- Terrorist Groups Participating in the Political Process
PAKISTAN
-- Geneva Donors Conference on Kashmir
-- U.S. Response to Earthquake/Aid/Reconstruction/Needs Assessment
-- Method by which U.S. Appropriates Aid
UNITED KINGDOM
-- Status of MRE's
MEXICO
-- Update on Evacuation Flights
JAPAN
-- Agreement on Base Realignment/Futenma Marine Air Base
-- Status of Agreement/Potential Finalization
DEPARTMENT
-- Department of State Advisories on Avian Flu
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
2:04 p.m. EDT
MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon. I don't have any opening statements, so I'd be pleased to jump into whatever questions you may have.
Mr. Gedda.
QUESTION: On Iran,1 have you seen the remarks of Congressman Hyde who doesn't like the agreement with India and is also complaining about the lack of consultation by the Administration with the Congress and said it's strange and unusual that Indian officials know more about the proposal than U.S. lawmakers?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think Under Secretary Burns and Under Secretary Joseph haven't actually started the consultation process with the Hill on the potential agreement. If any agreement does, in fact, go forward, it would require action by the Congress. But before we actually present any agreement to the Congress, India needs to take several steps, including the separation of their civilian and military nuclear programs, so these are preconditions for us actually presenting this agreement to the Congress.
We are convinced that this is a good agreement for the United States, a good agreement for India and the world if India does take certain steps. So I would expect that there is going to be a period of intensive consultations in the coming months. And Under Secretary Burns made it very clear in his discussions with the Indian Government as well as in his public comments that we have begun some initial consultations, but we are not at the point of presenting an agreement to Congress for them to make decisions about. That step would require first some actions from the Indian Government. We are going to be working with the Indian Government on this matter, but it will first require some action on their part.
Yes, Teri.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. MCCORMACK: Um-hmm.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the Iranian President's remarks on Israel?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think that his remarks, which I have seen -- I've seen the press reports of them -- I think you should take a look at those remarks and you combine them with his remarks up at the United Nations, I think that, again, it reconfirms what we have been saying about this particular regime in Iran. I think you are starting to see through some of these remarks some of the true views and intentions of -- true views of this regime. And I think that it only serves to underscore our concern as well as the international community's concern about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.
QUESTION: The Russian remarks concerning imposing sanction on Syria. There was talk about the resolution and the Russians said they will do everything possible to -- not to pass the resolution in imposing economic sanction on Syria. Your reaction to that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, just to back up so everybody's operating off the same basis of information. We have a draft resolution co-sponsored by the French, the British and the United States which is now circulating within the Security Council for comment.
There's going to be -- Ambassador Bolton will be sitting in the Security Council, I think, at five o'clock meeting this afternoon in which there's going to be an initial more formal discussion about the draft resolution. He has already had meetings this afternoon, I think, among the P-3. He has had some consultations with the Algerian Representative. Secretary Rice has made a series of phone calls over the past several days in which she's spoken with the French Foreign Minister several times, she's spoken with the Russian Foreign Minister, the Algerian President, President Bouteflika, and Ambassador Bolton will continue his consultations as well.
So that's where we are in terms of the process of a draft resolution. We have circulated the draft. It's now at the point of, I guess you could say, some intensive diplomacy within the Security Council as well as between capitals.
In that draft resolution, what is called for are specific sanctions applied to individuals who might be identified through the investigation of Mr. Mehlis as being complicit in either the planning or the execution of the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri. So what it refers to is sanctions on individuals.
I think you're referring to some remarks, I think, that came out of Moscow, in which they talked about sanctions against the state.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of -- they would oppose sanctions on the state of Syria. What we're talking about in the draft resolution, the sanctions on individuals, so two different things. And Secretary Rice talked about a little bit yesterday up in Canada when the question of state sanctions came up. Certainly, we are prepared to talk to other members of the Security Council about any potential phasing of sanctions. If, in fact, we do get to the point of sanctions, the objectives of -- the immediate objectives of this resolution are -- they're twofold -- and Secretary Rice spoke to this yesterday afternoon up in Ottawa.
One, to compel Syrian cooperation with the Mehlis investigation. To date, in his interim report, he has catalogued not only Syrian non-cooperation with the investigation but he has also catalogued incidences where they have actively sought to thwart the investigation, even to the point of providing false information. So very clearly the international community is concerned by this. We must see the Syrian Government cooperate with this investigation so that Mr. Mehlis can establish the facts of what happened.
That's important for the Lebanese people. It's important for the international community, because let's remember what happened here. If you look at his interim report, what happened here was a prime minister of a country was encouraged to accept the reappointment of a president of his country by another country, which that prime minister thought was not in the best interest of his country. In protest he resigned and as a result of that, he was assassinated. And Mr. Mehlis is -- you can read in the report yourself -- come to the point where he believes that this could not have been done without the active planning and active participation of the Lebanese and the Syrian Government -- parts of the Lebanese and Syrian Governments.
So that's why this is important and that's why we are now at the point of considering this resolution to compel Syrian cooperation. So this is a quite serious matter and I would suspect that we're going to have continuing consultations over the coming days on this.
QUESTION: I mean, can you put sanctions on individuals? I thought sanctions go on states. Why would you use the word "sanctions" if you talk about individuals, what does that mean? I mean, I presume that you mean freezing of assets or travel ban. What else --
MR. MCCORMACK: It does involve certain restrictions on -- potential restrictions on travel, as well as targeting of assets. Yes.
QUESTION: So why would you use "sanctions"? I don't understand that.
MR. MCCORMACK: I think you can apply the word "sanctions" to individuals as well. I'm not aware of any restrictions on that terminology.
QUESTION: And just to clarify one point. So at the moment you're not considering sanctions on the state itself. You're just talking about individuals who have been implicated.
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, what is before the members of the Security Council right now is a draft resolution that talks about individual sanctions. And as Secretary Rice talked about yesterday, when she was asked this question about individual versus state sanctions, she said that we would were certainly open to discussion, if we do get to the point of the sanctions, talking about a phased approach.
QUESTION: If you talk about a phased approach, would the beginning of that phase be with just targeted sanctions in terms of travel sanctions and then what would be the other end of the spectrum if you're talking about phasing in? Would that be a much broader sanction and what would the other end of the spectrum if you're talking about phasing in? Would that be much broader sanctions and what would the other end of the spectrum --
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I don't want to presuppose a particular outcome at this point.
QUESTION: Well, you're talking about phasing so --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. But she was --
QUESTION: -- (inaudible) phasing, there's a beginning and an end.
MR. MCCORMACK: Exactly and she was asked in general about the question of state sanctions so I'm not going to be any more specific than that at this point.
The question that's before us is a question of, in this resolution, potential individual sanctions. So that's where we are in the diplomacy. And in terms of the question of phasing and other potential actions, I'm just going to -- I don't have anything to add to what the Secretary spoke to just yesterday.
Yes.
QUESTION: Could you speak about reports about a letter sent by President Asad to members of the Security Council and even a stronger one sent to the British, French and the U.S. about what he's willing to do to cooperate with the investigation?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think just as a general comment, what we need to see is Syria's action. What we need to see is Syria and individuals in the Syrian Government cooperating -- cooperating, as defined by Mr. Mehlis, in this investigation. To date, that has not happened. So words are, at this point, is not what's needed. What is needed is actual cooperation and action. And that's what I think the world is waiting to see from Syria.
QUESTION: Well, could you confirm the existence of a letter?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. Yeah. There were letters, I believe, that were delivered to all the members of the Security Council.
QUESTION: And so how are you responding to this kind of overture by the President -- is it, by this podium --
MR. MCCORMACK: I think I just did.
QUESTION: No, no, I'm asking -- is it by this podium in public statements or are there contacts through the Syrian mission at the UN, at the Embassy here, I mean.
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure that we have had a formal response conveyed to the Syrians, but I think the message is very clear. Just through the -- if you just look at the discussions that are ongoing now up in New York, where you're considering passage of a Security Council resolution that would compel Syria's cooperation with this investigation. I think that speaks very clearly to what is required of Syria and what is expected of Syria at this point. Words -- we're beyond words. What we need now, we need Syria to act and to cooperate.
Yes.
QUESTION: Have you had a chance to look at the Larsen report yet and, if so, do you have a reaction? And also how will that -- you said last week, it would lead -- they may lead together in terms of UN talks. Can you talk about where that may fit in?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think, at this point, we are -- have either just received or soon to receive a copy of the report, so we haven't had a chance to, I think, read it through thoroughly and to analyze it so I'm going to withhold any public comment on it right now until we have a public discussion of it. And I think the public discussion right now is -- we're looking at within the Security Council maybe something next week.
In terms of any potential overlap between the discussion of the Mehlis report as well and the Larsen report, we'll see. You know, I can't say at this point. So I don't think they've had -- they've scheduled a time for the Security Council to actually take up what's in the Larsen report so we're going to be looking at it, we're going to analyze it and we'll try to get you a reaction at the earliest possible point.
Yes.
QUESTION: Do you still think that there'll be a ministerial meeting on October the 31st? You had indicated that that's what you were shooting for.
MR. MCCORMACK: That's what we're still working towards. I don't think that there's a final announcement yet from the Security Council, but we're still working towards a ministerial level meeting on the 31st.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
QUESTION: No.
MR. MCCORMACK: Joel.
QUESTION: Sean, this morning the Lebanese Foreign Minister has notified the UN that arms are still flowing from Syria into Lebanon. Do you have any comment?
MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't seen those reports, Joel. But certainly, any attempt --
QUESTION: So nothing out of the Larsen report?
MR. MCCORMACK: We haven't had a chance to look through this carefully, so I can't comment on any specifics.
In general, as we have said before, the world would be very concerned about any continuing attempts on the part of Syria to try to influence the situation in Lebanon -- the political situation, the security situation or otherwise. That's very clear in Resolution 1559. So just as a general comment about Syrian attempts to influence or to act in Lebanon, that's certainly a source of great concern. But with respect to Larsen, we'll take a look at his report.
Okay. Anything else on this? Okay, Peter.
QUESTION: Okay. On Iraq, Ambassador Khalilzad was at the White House and he was telling reporters there that he thinks that the political progress and progress in training up Iraqis might permit at least the beginnings of a drawdown of U.S. troops next year.
Last week, the Secretary went to fairly extraordinary lengths not to set any timetable or hint at any timetable there. Do you subscribe to what Ambassador Khalilzad said today and do you think that there is now -- the condition's ripe for a possible drawdown the beginning next year?
MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen the full text of his remarks. We were upstairs meeting with the Mexican Foreign Minister, so I haven't had a chance to see the full text of his remarks.
You know, we have made very clear and the President has made very clear that he will make decisions about, you know, our troop levels based on the recommendations of our commanders. Those decisions will be based upon the conditions in Iraq, the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces to provide a safe and secure environment, so that any insurgency or any of those who might subscribe to violence can't, in a strategic way, affect the political situation or knock the political process off base. Because I think that everybody agrees that an important component of defeating an insurgency is not only the military element but the political element as well, and I think that the passage of the referendum which was announced just yesterday is an important step forward in that.
What we're looking forward to right now are elections, I believe scheduled for December 15th, which the Iraqis will have an opportunity to elect a permanent new assembly which would then lead to a new permanent government. That permanent government, certainly working with multinational forces as well as our Embassy in Baghdad, will try to provide the best possible situation to build a foundation for Iraqi democracy. So the short answer to your question is, you know, decisions about troop levels will be made by the President and his -- based on the recommendations from his commanders on the field. Again, with input as to what the situation on the ground is, the political situation, the security situation, the economic situation.
QUESTION: If I can just follow up for a second. Again, given what Ambassador Khalilzad just said, do you think now that there is any hope, prospect on the horizon, given the political process, given the training of Iraqi forces that might permit you to think that, yes, maybe we can stop this next year?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, those are questions that are going to be answered by the President and his military commanders. They're going to be the ones that make decisions about force levels, rotations of troops through Iraq and the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces to take over responsibility for the security environment there.
What we have seen is an increasingly capable Iraqi security presence. You now have, I think 90-plus battalions that are able to operate in Iraq at varying levels of capability. The highest level of capability being the ability to operate without any support, meaning they can operate independent of logistics change as well as indirect fire support and those kinds of things. So you are seeing great advances, I think in terms of the capability of the Iraqi security forces.
That said, you know, our forces, as the President has said, are going to be there to help the Iraqis make sure that there is a secure environment in Iraq. And as for when the decisions about troop levels are made, those are decisions for the President to make.
QUESTION: Just one last thing. Can you help us clarify at some point, maybe later, just what Ambassador Khalilzad was referring to -- not being very specific?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. I'll take a look at his remarks. If we have anything else to offer, I'll be happy to post it.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have reaction to the bombing in Israel today? How do you think this is going to affect the peace process and your efforts to work with the Palestinians?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think, first of all, we condemn the bombing in Hadera. It is a heinous act of terrorism. I think that, thus far, we have reports of four people who've died in that terrorist attack. Our deepest condolences go out to the families of the victims of the attack.
I think that our general comment about this is the Palestinian Authority needs to do more to prevent these attacks. They need to act against terrorism. They need to prevent -- act to prevent terrorist attacks and they need also to dismantle those terrorist networks, which are responsible for these attacks. Those are their obligations, they're well known and we expect the Palestinian Authority to fulfill those obligations. Now this is something that Prime Minister Abbas himself has spoken about, the fact that it's important for the Palestinians to provide a secure environment for their own people as well as to prevent terrorist attacks.
General Ward has returned to the region. He is back in the region. He returned this past weekend and he is going to intensify his efforts to work with the Palestinians to build up more robust capabilities so that we will see an end to these terrorist attacks and a dismantlement of these terrorist networks.
QUESTION: Just a follow up. All this is a given. You haven't had a terrorist attack in Israel in two months. It did seem as if most of the groups were adhering to the ceasefire that was negotiated by the Palestinians. This comes in response to Israel killing two members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. They said this is directly in response to that. Do you think that something like this, while not condoning it in any way, could almost be foreseen that it's like a -- in some ways a provocation for more attacks and the cycle of violence will just continue?
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I don't think anybody should expect or condone or justify the use of terror. What we need to do, and you have seen Prime Minister -- President Abbas do this -- is speak out about the fact that the use of terror is unacceptable. There's no political cause that justifies the use of terrorism. I think that that's what the Palestinian people on the whole want. President Abbas was elected on a platform of providing peace and security for the Palestinian people. It's what everybody wants. I think, you know, our assumption is that every parent wants a better life for their children, a more peaceful environment where they can go to school, and all the things that all the rest of us enjoy here in the United States. We expect that the Palestinians want those same things.
So that's why we speak out so strongly against terrorist attacks. There's no cause that justifies this.
QUESTION: No, but in the same sense, not to -- look, I said not to condone and terror is not acceptable, but you've also spoken out against -- about a policy of no targeted assassinations and --
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, our --
QUESTION: Well, if I could finish.
MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Do you think that this is -- and you've talked to the Israelis about this before. Do you think that these kind of attacks are almost playing into -- and you also said that there are going to be people all the time, no matter what efforts are taken, no matter what peace process is going on, that are going to want to disrupt the peace process. Are those kind of acts, targeted assassinations, playing into the hands of those that are against the peace process?
MR. MCCORMACK: Our policy on that matter is unchanged and well known.
Yes.
QUESTION: So you oppose --
QUESTION: Sean, what are you hearing and seeing in today's Geneva conference --
QUESTION: Can we stay on the same subject?
QUESTION: Oh, sorry.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, sure.
QUESTION: Can you say specifically whether the PIJ killings fall under your policy of opposing targeted assassinations?
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know the details of this incident that Elise is referring to.
QUESTION: Oh.
QUESTION: But won't you call on the Israelis -- if they're able to assassinate them, they can also arrest them and instead of escalating the violence?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, our policy on this matter is unchanged.
QUESTION: Well, but your policy on Palestinian -- on the need for the Palestinians to crack down and take more steps is also unchanged. That's a very stable and long -- policy that you've long adhered to, yet you feel justified to continue to say it over and over again. I mean, what is your thought on targeted assassinations and whether this is playing into the hands of Palestinian groups?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, our policy is unchanged on this matter. I don't have anything to add to that.
QUESTION: Would you repeat it again for us?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I don't have anything to add to this. It's longstanding. It's well known.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) and they don't know the policy?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, they can go back -- they can go back and look. It's a matter of public record. I don't have anything to add to the -- at this point.
QUESTION: You said that the Palestinian Authority needs to end -- to prevent terrorist attacks. They do need to, but can they do that, really? There's no army. I mean, we see terrorist attacks every day in Iraq with more than 140,000 U.S. soldiers, best trained and equipped in the world, and terrorist attacks are still occurring in Iraq every day, if they're not intensifying.
How do you think the Palestinian Authority has the ability to end such terrorist attacks with no army and, you know, basically nothing that they can do?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, I don't buy into the parallel between the two situations. But second, the Palestinian security forces, they actually do have assets. They have personnel assets. They have materiel assets. And what is happening right now is that they are -- those assets are being organized so that they become an effective force.
They also do need additional materiel and we're working with the Palestinian Authority to help them get more of what they need. But make no mistake, they do have capabilities and they do have assets, so let's not pretend that they don't.
General Ward is working very closely with the Palestinian Authority. He's also working with other governments to see that the Palestinians do, in fact, get some additional capabilities that they need to become the most effective force that they can be.
But you know, and again, this is in support of exactly what President Abbas wants to do. President Abbas has said that it should be one rule and one gun, and that authority should reside with the Palestinian Authority, the people who have been elected to provide security for the Palestinian people, not only provide security for the Palestinian people but also to work to meet the obligations that they signed up to. And those obligations under the roadmap are to work to prevent terrorist attacks as well as to dismantle those terrorist networks.
Now, in order to help them meet those obligations, we're there -- we as well as the international community are there to help them.
QUESTION: President Abbas has made it clear that he prefers dialogue with Palestinian groups, such as Hamas and so on. Do you still think that this is the best approach that he has or do you -- did you have any suggestions for him to dismantle the terrorist groups? Do you still think that dialogue with Palestinian groups is the best approach for the Palestinian President to have?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, our views with respect to Hamas and these other terrorist groups are well known. They're terrorist groups. President Abbas and the Palestinian people need to resolve a fundamental contradiction. That fundamental contradiction is that you cannot have groups that, on one hand, want to reserve the right to act in violence, to commit acts of terror; yet on the other hand say they want to participate in the political process. That's just -- that is a fundamental contradiction that in any democracy, they can't co-exist in the same body.
Now, how the Palestinians choose to resolve that fundamental contradiction is up to them. We've said that very clearly. And I think that President Abbas's statement about one rule and one gun speaks to that point. I think that he would be -- I don't -- certainly, don't want to speak for him but I think that he would be in agreement with the idea that you can't have armed groups operating outside the rule of law in a democracy. We saw a tragic example of why that is important when just, I think, about a month ago, there were some Hamas members, which mishandled some explosives in the Gaza area. The result was that many people, many innocent people died.
So as for the how and the when of resolving this fundamental contradiction, that's a decision for the Palestinian people to make and we've been very clear about that. Secretary Rice has said that, as well as other senior members of the Administration, but the fact remains they do need to resolve that fundamental contradiction. How they do it and what timeline is their decision.
QUESTION: Sean, can I just follow up on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Um-hmm.
QUESTION: Scott was briefing was on that very point also at the White House and he was saying there that Hamas can have "no role in politics as long as it carries out these attacks and targets Israel." But as you said and as the Secretary said last month, I think, at UNGA, said that it's a Palestinian process there and we have to give Palestinians some room for the evolution of the Palestinian process.
Now, does that mean, to help us clarify there, that the United States is at least resigned to the idea that if the Palestinian Authority wants Hamas to participate in these upcoming elections, they will participate?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, Peter, I think that those, you know, those statements are, you know, perfectly consistent. The decisions about their political process and how their political process unfolds are for the Palestinian people to decide. You know, we and they have made clear that they do need to resolve this question of terrorist groups like Hamas who, on one hand, want to take an option on violence and on the other hand say they want to participate in the political process.
How to resolve that is up to them. But from our point of view, you know, Hamas and these groups they are terrorist groups. We do not deal with -- you know, we do not deal with terrorist groups. That is -- you know, that's our policy and it's unchanged. How to resolve the, you know, contradiction that the Palestinians now have before them is a question for them to resolve.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, just to follow up on that, to come back to a point that was not made at the last summit between President Abbas and President Bush, would you frown on any Israeli action to disrupt elections if the Palestinians, as you said of their own decision, allowed Hamas to participate?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think that what I just said applies to that. Decisions about the Palestinian political process, how that process evolves, how it unfolds are decisions for the Palestinians to make. But they need to resolve that fundamental contradiction that we have just been talking about.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.
QUESTION: Is U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority in any way linked to the decision to allow Hamas to run in elections or not?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll have to look into the question of what aid we're providing to the Palestinians, what aid and what conditions we've put upon that aid. Of course we don't provide aid to terrorist groups.
Yes.
QUESTION: Sean, change of subject. The Geneva Donors Conference on Kashmir is occurring today. What are you seeing from that conference, to what degree are you taking part? And Jan Egeland of the United Nations says this is now affecting some 3.3 million people and it's far worse than it was originally thought.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's a tragedy of historic proportions. I think that we can all see that. The Pakistani Government has talked about upwards of 50,000 people who have died from this, millions of people left homeless as a result of the tragedy because very early on we saw the potential scope of this tragedy, the United States acted immediately. We had a modest initial pledge based on input from the action by the Ambassador on the ground and very quickly we followed up with a $50 million pledge. We have also provided helicopter assets which have, I daresay, saved many, many lives by airlifting people out of the affected areas to places where they could get treatment. We saw that -- I saw that -- on the ground when we went to Pakistan with Secretary Rice. You saw people coming in who were severely injured from these affected regions.
You also had those helicopter flights deliver tons of aid. I think that we have had -- the most recent statistic I saw, we had over 600 helicopter flights, which have delivered 2 million pounds of aid to affected areas.
As for the Geneva conference, we're represented there by AID Administrator Natsios and he outlined what our current assistance package is. It's the $50 million I talked about. Right now, I think 55 or 56 million in in-kind military assistance -- that's the cost of the price tag applied to the military assistance that we've provided so far, as well as a new -- an additional $50 million in assistance to the Pakistani people. So that's to help with the immediate situation of people left homeless and who are facing very difficult conditions as the winter approaches.
As for reconstruction assistance, I think that that is going to be another question that we take up -- the international community takes up in the future.
QUESTION: One more on this?
QUESTION: A follow-up?
QUESTION: Congressman Lantos put out a statement saying that while, you know, it's great that the Administration is giving more aid, that much more needs to be done, and if the United States wants to -- you know, is a global leader, it needs to act like one and put up more money. Do you anticipate any more aid?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there's -- right now, I think we're doing a needs assessment. As far as Pakistan's long-term reconstruction needs are concerned, I know that this is something President Musharraf was very much focused on during his meetings with Secretary Rice when we were there. And we're keenly aware and want very much to be able to help the Pakistani people as they deal with the long-term consequences of this earthquake. I think the needs assessment is going to be done sometime in November so we'll take a look at exactly what's in that assessment and how we might be able to help out with that.
QUESTION: Has there been any thought to -- I mean, there have been a lot of natural disasters both in this country and obviously abroad. Is there any thought to kind of restructuring U.S. aid to take into account contingencies for these kind of things? Because some of the natural disasters we've seen lately haven't -- you know, the kind of emergency money that you put aside doesn't really seem to even, you know, begin to cover what you need. So is there any thought to, you know, countries where there are vulnerabilities to take that into account going forward?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there are a couple different issues there. There is the issue of delivering aid to areas that are affected by natural disasters, you know, natural disasters -- political -- political collapse, and that's something that we have an office that plans for and deals with those issues. AID plays a role in that as well as other parts of the government, as necessary. In this case, we saw DOD. So there's the immediate disaster assistance, whether it's political or natural, then you have sort of the long-term assistance. And the U.S. Government, the way that we're organized right now, there are different pots of assistance, if you will, different sources of funding and different mechanisms to deliver that funding.
This is an issue in which the Secretary has a keen interest, to make sure that we are delivering our overseas development assistance in the most effective way -- are we spending our money in the right ways. So it's something that she looks at, you know, looks at very closely and watches very closely to make sure that we spend our money in those places where it can really do the most and that we spend our money in an effective way.
Charlie.
QUESTION: As a follow up. The initial 50-million pledge, has any or all of that been obligated -- spent, out there already?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think we have spent about $24.5 million of that for commodities and support relief. It's basically emergency assistance.
Anything else on this?
QUESTION: Well, it's slightly related. Have those MREs, that were -- offer -- has been taken up yet? Any countries come forward?
MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't checked on that in the past few days. We'll try to find something for you on that.
Yes. Louis.
QUESTION: Cancun?
MR. MCCORMACK: Cancun. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Has there been any success in getting additional flights or getting additional airline flights into Cancun airport or Merida?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. As a matter of fact, there have. I think, over the past couple of days, we had -- on the 23rd -- over the 23rd and 24th, we've had about 1,200 people leave and just recently, via the flights coming into Merida. You also have, I think, right now, updated about 4,000 people that have left -- an additional 4,000 people. This is something that the Secretary was talking about with Foreign Minister Derbez upstairs.
What happened was that the sort of -- the egress points from the affected areas were cleared out so you had people that were able to start flowing out of places like Cozumel and Cancun to Merida and we were able to get some flights going through there. So we have several thousand people who have been able to be able to leave. We have over 50 members of either the Consulate down there or from our Embassy helping out American citizens so they can leave the affected areas and get home if that's where they want to go.
QUESTION: Can we ask specifically what Mr. Derbez said about the offer of assistance in getting these Americans out?
MR. MCCORMACK: He described the situation in which -- where our people on the ground were working very closely and very well with the Mexican Government to make sure that those who wanted to get out of the affected area or needed to get out of the affected area were able to do that. And I think we're pleased that the roads out, the ways out have started to be cleared over the past several days and several thousand people that were stuck in the affected areas are now able to leave.
QUESTION: New topic?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, let's spread it around here a little bit.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: I will ask about the base realignment in Japan. And today in Japan, U.S. and Japan have reached the agreement about relocation of Futenma Marine Air Base in Okinawa. And so I will ask -- my question is how do you evaluate this agreement from the viewpoint of State Department?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think that right now this is -- here's where the situation stands. We have an agreement between the negotiators. They have brought the text of that agreement back to capitals. We're going to take a look at it here at capitals. There's an interagency process to look at what it is that the negotiators have agreed to. So there's a final approval step that has yet to be completed at this point. But I think it is safe to say the negotiators have been in close contact with capitals throughout this process. So our hope is that the process for final approval of this agreement can be done on an expedited basis and we would hope to have a formal announcement about a finally agreed agreement in the coming days, but we're not there yet.
QUESTION: But now this negotiation is long time -- has long time discussion.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Right.
QUESTION: How do you think that this long time discussion, your impression on?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think we're very pleased that we have been able to come to the point in the negotiations that we've reached. And that point is what I just described to you. We have an agreement between the negotiators. There are still steps -- a final step to go through in capitals here where it goes through an interagency approval process. But we hope that that process can be completed in an expedited manner.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: There are still details that need to be worked out between the Japanese Government and the regional government. What is expected from the Japanese Government in order to ensure the realization of this agreement?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I expect that the Japanese Government is going through the same process in Tokyo that we are going through here in Washington. And as for whatever arrangements they -- domestic arrangements they decide on, those are for the Japanese Government to decide. Obviously, if we do have a final text that everybody agrees to, we would hope that it is implemented faithfully and according to the common understanding.
Yes.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on this?
QUESTION: No.
MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on this? Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, you had a question on this, okay.
QUESTION: The Japanese Foreign Minister and the Defense Minister are flying to Washington to have a meeting with their counterparts on Saturday. Is it going to be the time to finalize the agreement?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I think that certainly we -- like I said, we hope to finalize approval of the agreement on an expedited basis and certainly we would look forward to marking that occasion in an appropriate way, whether that's meeting at the ministerial level in the coming days, we'll see. I don't think that there are any agreed upon dates for a meeting at this point.
QUESTION: Is Secretary Rice scheduled to meet with Machimura, Foreign Minister of Japan?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, at this point, there are no final agreement on any meeting times or dates.
Let's move around back and we'll come up front again.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Sean, do you have anything on North Korean defector (inaudible)? He wanted the authority in the United States --
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any information on that. We -- as a matter of policy, do not comment on news reports of asylum seekers.
QUESTION: But what kind of legal process does the United States --
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we don't -- as a matter of course and policy we do not comment on asylum cases.
Yes.
QUESTION: North Korea's Deputy Chief of Mission to the United Nations. He's arriving in Washington later today. Do you know of any meetings between him and U.S. officials?
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't, no.
Elise and then Peter.
QUESTION: This is on the avian flu. There've been a lot of outbreaks in various countries continuing. Are you thinking of putting out any -- I know that this came up early in the week, but have you decided to put any advisories for Americans traveling abroad, you know, how to proceed?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check, Elise, to see if we put out any advisories. I'm not aware of any advisories that we've put out specifically on this, and I will have to check to see if embedded in any other Consular Information Sheets or Travel Advisories we've mentioned something about avian flu. You know, we've tried to provide you, as well as through you the American public, the most up-to-date information on what we at the State Department and more broadly what the U.S. Government is doing to address the issue of avian flu, not only a potential, you know, outbreak but as well as a human -- a potential human pandemic. I think Secretary Leavitt talked a little bit about that last week.
QUESTION: Right. Well, I know you have a lot of efforts going on in terms of how to stop, you know, a pandemic. But you know, what about Americans? How can they avoid -- you know what I mean? How -- in terms of like what Americans can do to, you know, help you in your efforts in terms of their travel abroad? I guess you'll take the question.
MR. MCCORMACK: We'll take the question.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: If there's anything in particular that we could offer, we'll certainly provide it to you. The Department of Health and Human Services might be another source of information on that.
Peter.
QUESTION: Yeah, Sean, aside from the Okinawa question on the basing, can you confirm that there's a "2+2" on Saturday and tell us a bit what it's going to be about?
MR. MCCORMACK: I cannot confirm --
QUESTION: You cannot confirm --
MR. MCCORMACK: -- a "2+2" on Saturday. Like I said, there's no final agreement on any potential meetings. I wouldn't look for a meeting on Saturday. You know, and again, if we do get to the point of final approval of this agreement at the level of capitals, we'll look for some appropriate way to mark that agreement.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: I have one more.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.
QUESTION: I don't know if you know about this yet, but -- this is back to the Iranian President's comments on Israel at this conference today. Israel apparently -- Shimon Peres called for Iran to be expelled from the UN after the comments. What is your response to that?
MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen those comments from Mr. Peres.
Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:50 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 |
|
|
|
