UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

State Department Briefing, January 11

11 January 2006

Bahrain, Israel/Palestinians, Iran, North Korea, Turkey, Syria/Lebanon, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan/Afghanistan, India, Sudan

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack briefed the press January 11.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
1:20 p.m. EST

Sean McCormack, Spokesman

BAHRAIN
-- President's Signing of Legislation on U.S. - Bahrain Free Trade Agreement

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Secretary Rice's Statement on Security and the Palestinian Elections
-- Issue to Resolve Fundamental Contradiction by Palestinians
-- Palestinian Security/Border Crossings/Movement and Access Agreement
-- Need for Palestinians to Renounce Terror and Violence

IRAN
-- Call for Iran to Change Behavior in Support of Terror
-- Secretary Rice's Contact with EU-3 and Members of IAEA Board of Governors
-- Concern at IAEA for Iran to Return to Negotiations/Status of Diplomatic Next-Steps
-- Goal of Diplomatic Activities/Iran's Non-Compliance with NPT
-- Possible Referral to Security Council

NORTH KOREA
-- Update on Travel of Ambassador Hill
-- Six-Party Talks/Discussions on a Variety of Issues
-- Query on Opportunity to Encounter Kim Jong II

TURKEY
-- U.S. Working with Turkish Government on Avian Flu Issue

SYRIA/LEBANON
-- Statement on Syria/Security Council Resolutions 1636 and 1559
-- Compliance with International Obligations
-- Issue of Assassinations/Atmosphere of Fear and Violence

INDONESIA
-- Homeland Security Warning Issued to American Airports on Bali Airport
-- U.S. - Indonesian Relations
-- TSA Assessments/Safe Air Travel

IRAQ
-- Status on Efforts to Secure Release of Jill Carroll

LIBYA
-- Ongoing Judicial Process on Issue of Bulgarian Nurses in HIV Virus Case

PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN
-- Cross-border Terrorism
-- Pakistani Forces Active in Pursuit of Terrorists

INDIA
-- Discussions on U.S. - India Agreement
-- Separation of Civilian and Military Nuclear Programs

SUDAN
-- Alleged Reports of Support to Ugandan Rebels
-- Deputy Secretary Zoellick's Meeting with Chadian Foreign Minister

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2006
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

1:20 p.m. EST

MR. MCCORMACK:  Good afternoon.  I have one brief opening -- not so brief -- one opening statement for you and then we can get right into questions.  And you also have a couple statements from the Secretary that we distributed to you prior to the briefing.  We can talk about those.

The statement I have to open up is about the Bahrain FTA implementing legislation agreement.  Today, I want to call your attention to some very positive news.  The President today signed the implementing legislation for the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement.  The Congress overwhelmingly approved this agreement late last year, and today's action moves this agreement further along in the process of bringing the agreement into force.

U.S. Trade Representative's Office can provide further details on that process.  But in general, I want to stress that the President's vision for promoting positive change in the Middle East has a strong and active economic diplomacy component.  Since the President's Middle East Free Trade Area, MEFTA, initiative was launched in May of 2003, the United States has been actively engaged working on a country-by-country basis with those who are interested in further economic integration, openness and development.

The United States has a very successful Free Trade Agreement with Jordan and has completed Free Trade Agreements with Morocco, Bahrain, Oman and we're in negotiations with the United Arab Emirates.  We also played a role in the accession of Saudi Arabia into the World Trade Organization.  As the 9/11 Commission urged, the United States is working to expand trade with the Middle East and highlighted the Bahrain Free Trade Agreement as well as Morocco as examples of positive steps in this direction.

Deputy Secretary Zoellick, while he was U.S. Trade Representative, launched, negotiated and completed the Bahrain FTA, so we're very pleased with today's action.  It's good for the U.S., it's good for Bahrain, and it's another example of how the Administration is working day in and day out to implement the President's positive agenda for the region.

With that, I'd be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION:  Strictly on that, I don't have anything to (inaudible).

QUESTION:  I have something on the Middle East statement.

QUESTION:  So do I, but go ahead.

MR. MCCORMACK:  There you go.  Okay.

QUESTION:  Sean, in the statements the Secretary just issued on the Middle East, it says that --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Which one? On --

QUESTION:  I'm sorry.  On the Middle East and the Palestinian elections.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Okay.

QUESTION:  The Secretary says that the political process is no place for groups unless they renounce terrorism or renounce violence and stuff like that.  Does this mean if a group like Hamas were actually to renounce the use of violence that they would be welcome in the political process?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, they haven't done that.

QUESTION:  Right.

MR. MCCORMACK:  What -- the only thing that I can say is, reiterate what she says in the statement and what we have said very clearly many, many times before, and that is that in a democratic political process groups have to make a choice.  In this case, the Palestinian people need to make a choice to resolve a fundamental contradiction.  You can't say, on one hand, that you're going to reserve the right to use terror and violence and killing of innocent civilians to achieve your aims; and then, on the other hand, say you want to participate in a peaceful, democratic political process.  You need to resolve those fundamental contradictions.

The Palestinian people have this issue before them.  The people of Lebanon have this issue before them with respect to Hezbollah.  It's a question in various places around the world, but the principle, the same principle, applies wherever you may be, and that is that you can't have armed groups operating outside the rule of law in a democratic society.  The government needs to be the sole source of providing safety, security in a society.

And with respect to the Palestinians, that choice boils down to what kind of pathway that the Palestinian people want to pursue.  It's a question with respect to Hamas as well as some of the other terrorist -- Palestinian terrorist organizations.

QUESTION:  Against that backdrop, it makes my question even more relevant.  You have been asking and stressing -- I mean the U.S. has been asking and stressing the same three or four major points, and one is security for Israel and another is a better life, let's call it, for the Palestinians.  Okay?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  In light of the security situation, as you've just touched on, do you think it is still appropriate for Israel to restore the crossings, all the -- of easing, you know, removing the barriers to Palestinian workers?  Is that a safe gamble, a safe gambit, you would suggest the Israelis go ahead with even while the security situation is uncertain?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, again, Barry, there have been improvements in the capabilities of the Palestinian security forces, but there's a lot more to do.  We've seen that and we know that.  General Dayton is on the ground working with the Palestinians on those questions.  As you pointed out, many of these questions -- and you mentioned specifically border crossings, it's a good example -- Israel has legitimate security needs and concerns and the Palestinian people have legitimate desires for a better kind of life.  Part of that means just the ability to travel more freely, the ability to send agricultural produce to the market so that they can develop their economy and realize a better way of life.  It's a matter of balancing those concerns, what sort of balance do you achieve in these agreements.  Those are questions that ultimately, only the Palestinians and the Israelis can answer for themselves, both their societies as well as their governments.  What's the acceptable balance there?

Our role in this, as well as the role of the quartet, is to help the parties move that process along.  In terms of the Movement and Access Agreement, Assistant Secretary Welch and Elliott Abrams are currently in the region.  They're meeting with the Israelis.  They're meeting with the Palestinians; not only on that issue, but issues of security as well as elections.  So, a lot of these questions boil down to, what is that proper balance.

So, those are things that we are helping both parties deal with and to try to resolve in a way that they can both agree that they can put down on paper.  You saw that in the Gaza Access Agreement.  Still, though, there are steps that need to be taken in implementing that agreement.  They're continuing to talk at the working level on some of the crossing issues, like the convoy -- the convoy issues.  So, they're continuing to talk.  The agreement remains in place.  They have missed some of their deadlines.

We would have hoped that the deadlines could have been met.  What we would say now is, it is  important that the parties continue to focus on implementing the agreements that they have before them.  The Gaza Movement and Access Agreement is one of those agreements, so we're going to try to work with them to achieve the best possible results in as timely a manner as possible.

QUESTION:  To revive the agreement, but --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I didn't say revive.  See, you --

QUESTION:  No, you didn't use the word, revive.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right, okay.

QUESTION:  So I mean, there is --

MR. MCCORMACK:  It's still active.  The Rafah crossing is still working, the Karni crossing is still open -- is open.  Are there improvements in efficiencies and coordination that both sides can do with the help of the EU monitors?  Of course.  They're working on those things, but the agreement remains in place.  It remains active.  There are other elements of the agreement that need to be implemented.  We talked about the convoy agreement.  So, as part of our efforts to help the two parties and to continue to play a role in implementing this agreement, David Welch and Elliott Abrams are on the ground there.  I would expect that those efforts continue.

QUESTION:  Just to follow up on the part that I was talking about before, about the militant groups there.  You have said on several occasions there that it is a fundamental contradiction for these militant groups to want to participate both in the political process and in armed activity.  What I have not, unless I'm mistaken, heard you say, is -- or anybody and I interviewed Secretary Rice on this a couple of months ago -- is whether or not if they will renounce violence, whether or not you would then welcome them in the political process.  The formulation of your communiqué today indicates that may be some sort of opening there.  Is that the case?  If they do renounce violence would you welcome them in the political process?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Again, Peter, they haven't taken that step.  And as the statement says, President Abbas has talked about the fact that democratic elections, and I'm quoting from the Secretary's statement, "can be a prelude to laws and policies embracing peace, excluding the advocates of terror and violence and implementing roadmap obligations that dismantle the infrastructure of terror."  So these are things that President Abbas has himself has talked about as important.  How the Palestinian political process develops is ultimately a question for the Palestinians to decide.  They have to make these decisions for themselves.

The United States, the Quartet, the EU, no other entity can make those decisions for them in a way that are meaningful and in a way that they are able to be implemented so that Israel and others can have -- can be assured that they have a partner in peace.  So ultimately we can encourage, we can state very clearly what our policies are.  The European Union can state very clearly what their policies are.  The Israeli Government can state very clearly what their policies are.

But ultimately, the question -- the answer to the question that you asked lay with the Palestinian people.  They are the only ones that can make those decisions.

Yes, Joel.

QUESTION:  Sean, there's one thing you have not mentioned, that's perhaps a religious component to all this, both on the Islamic or Muslim side as well as the far-right Israeli religious settlers.  Is there anyone specifically, Welch and/or Dayton, working to ease those concerns as well?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Those are domestic political concerns in Israel and those are questions for the Israeli people to answer.

QUESTION:  On Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes.  Any other questions on this topic?

QUESTION:  Yeah, on Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Okay, new topic.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  As far as Middle East peace is concerned, Sean -- first of all, Happy New Year to my colleagues and Secretary of State and to you all.  As far as Middle East peace is concerned, Iran's new President is now saying that he will make sure that this initiative doesn't go through and he is making some hurdles in the peace process and also he's wishing that Prime Minister Sharon no longer comes back or should die.

MR. MCCORMACK:  I've commented on that before.  Clearly --

QUESTION:  The question is:  Where do we stand as far as the madman in Iran?  We have a new President and Middle East peace.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I'd refer you back to the statement that the Secretary just issued.  She talks about how, "We will not tolerate terror from anywhere, including from its sponsors in Syria and Iran."  We've talked many, many times about how Iran is 180 degrees off in its policies from where the rest of the region is heading in terms of its nuclear program, which have been in the headlines recently; treatment of its own people; and very importantly, as probably the most significant state sponsor of terror anywhere in the world.  So we have called repeatedly upon the Iranian regime to change its behavior in supporting terror.  That must cease.  There are UN resolutions concerning support for terror.  It is something that the entire world abhors.  So we have spoken out very clearly on the need for the Iranian regime to cease its support of terror and cease its destabilizing activities.

QUESTION:  Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Charlie.

QUESTION:  On Iran, can you bring us up to date on the diplomacy?  Has Secretary Rice spoken to any of her European counterparts or others?  Have there been any contacts between the U.S. and Iran, as unlikely as that might be?  And where do we stand with the Europeans in a decision to go to refer to the Security Council?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Okay.  Starting at the top, the Secretary has -- she's been in contact with her staff, most significantly Nick Burns and Bob Joseph who are actively working this issue there and they're in real-time contact with the EU-3 as well as others and members of the IAEA Board of Governors on the issue.  She herself has spoken, I think, a couple of times today to Foreign Secretary Straw.  I believe she has spoken with the IAEA Director General ElBaradei.  I don't have a readout on this phone call.  So she's working the phones on the issue.

In terms of contacts with the Iranians, I'm not aware of any contacts that we have had with the Iranians this week on this issue.

QUESTION:  This week?

MR. MCCORMACK:  This week, yeah.

QUESTION:  Last week?

MR. MCCORMACK:  What's that?

QUESTION:  What is -- does that mean you're saying last week we did have?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, we have conveyed our concerns at the IAEA last week concerning their failure -- their failure to cooperate with the IAEA, to get back to the -- and to get back to the negotiating table.

QUESTION:  Were they at the table to hear it?

MR. MCCORMACK:  No.  It was -- I

QUESTION:  So there's been no direct contact?

MR. MCCORMACK:  No.  I think it was a piece of paper that was sent over to the mission.

QUESTION:  Sean, do you see --

MR. MCCORMACK:  No direct contact.

QUESTION:  But a piece of paper made its way to them you know?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yeah, mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  Sean, do you see China and -- between China and Iran as their nuclear --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Wait.  We're not done with Charlie's question.  I think there was a last part to -- last part to that.  Where do we stand right now in the --

QUESTION:  Yeah.  Where do we stand now?  What do we expect the Europeans to do?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I'll let the Europeans speak for themselves.  You have statements from Tony -- Prime Minister Blair, also from the Italians concerning the state of diplomatic play.  I would echo those statements and say that it is more likely than ever that we are headed to the Security Council on this question.  The international community is facing, I think, coming up very soon on the decision point on what the diplomatic next steps are concerning Iran.  They have time after time defied the will of the international community, defied -- have answered the requests for information from the international community, the IAEA, and others.  They have replied with silence or obfuscation or deception on those issues.  So I think we are fast approaching a decision point on what diplomatic next steps, the international community is going to be taking.  We are in close contact with the EU-3, as well as others on this issue.  And I would only add that it is more likely than ever that we are headed to -- that Iran is headed to the Security Council concerning their failure to live up to their international obligations.

QUESTION:  Do the others include China and Russia?

MR. MCCORMACK:  We're -- you know, we have been in contact with a wide variety of members of the Board of Governors.  Yesterday, Secretary Rice spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov in terms of contacts with the Chinese Government.  I don't have anything in particular to report.

QUESTION:  Is there going to be an emergency IAEA meeting to refer them to the Council?

MR. MCCORMACK:  That is certainly an option that is under discussion, Saul.  I would only point out at this point that we are -- we, as members of the international community, are quickly coming up on a decision point about what next steps to take.

QUESTION:  When you say more likely than ever, that suggests that you now have more support from certain quarters than you had in the past.  Is it that Russia and China have said they will support you in referring them to the Security Council?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, we've always said that we have -- we believe we have the votes in the -- at the Board of Governors for a referral to the Security Council.

QUESTION:  You said more likely, so have you got more votes?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think it is more likely than ever that that is, in fact, where we are headed.  We have always said that we think -- we had believed that this was going to end up in the Security Council, given Iran's past and current behavior.  We also always said that we would choose to work with our partners in the international community to see that happen at the time of our choosing.  I would only point out now that it is more likely than ever that that is what the -- what will happen at this point.

QUESTION:  You're saying the votes, do you really mean the votes -- more likely than ever that you would not be blocked from such a --

MR. MCCORMACK:  No, we -- Barry --

QUESTION:  You don't need a vote to get it through -- you don't need China's vote (inaudible) to get it through.  You need them to not veto --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, how individual countries may --

QUESTION:  That's what you mean by voting, right?

MR. MCCORMACK:  That's right, yeah.  There are two issues here.  There is the IAEA -- when we talk about what votes -- the vote -- we have the votes for referral to the Security Council, we're talking about votes in the IAEA Board of Governors.

QUESTION:  Excuse me, I'm sorry.  I thought you meant at the council.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.  Sorry if there was any misunderstanding about that.

QUESTION:  So you're saying it's more likely than ever that that's the route, the Security Council will --

MR. MCCORMACK:  That we'll end up in the Security Council.

QUESTION:  Does that mean the EU-3 talks are over, there's no where they can go?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think that I'll leave any discussion about the state of play of the diplomacy that the EU-3 has been engaging in with Iran to the EU-3, but you've heard some very straightforward statements coming out of Germany and coming out of Britain, coming out of France as well.

Saul, did you have anything else?

QUESTION:  Still on Iran.  Yeah, just a small thing on what you said about last week's conveying a message to the Iranians, a piece of paper.  Was that the -- are you referring to the demarche that each of the P-5 delivered or did you, over and above that, deliver something separate that said more?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I would -- in terms of what activities other states may or may not have taken, I would refer you to them.  But we have been in close contact with a variety of members of the IAEA Board of Governors, including China, Russia, France and the UK on this issue.

QUESTION:  Sean, the China angle --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Hold on.  Hold on, Goyal.  We're going to move around here.  We've got a lot of other hands up.  Okay?  Anything else on Iran?

QUESTION:  Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Okay, all right.  Elise, and then we'll move around here.

QUESTION:  When you say this is likely to go to the Security Council, what is the goal of --

MR. MCCORMACK:  More likely than ever.

QUESTION:  More likely than ever.  What is the goal of sending it to the UN Security Council?  Is it an effort to institute some punitive measures against Iran?  Is it an effort to increase pressure on Iran to get it back to the negotiating table?  I mean, what is the aim of actually moving it to the Council?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Thanks for your question.  As we have talked about, the goal of these diplomatic activities is to address Iran's failure to live up to its international obligations.  Under -- countries sign treaties and under those treaties they say that they have certain rights.  Well, along with those rights come certain obligations, to live up to the -- what you have signed up to in the treaty.  In this case, it's the Nonproliferation Treaty.

The IAEA Board of Governors has found that Iran is in noncompliance with its treaty obligations.  The goal of this diplomatic exercise is to bring Iran into compliance with its treaty obligations.

Now, what they say is that they want to be able to develop a peaceful nuclear program to provide energy for the Iranian people.  Now, put aside the fact that they have some of the world's largest hydrocarbon reserves, and I think it's a legitimate question to ask why they need nuclear energy when they have all these energy reserves.  Put that aside.

So what the international community has done, the Russian Government in particular, they have laid out for the Iranian regime a proposal that addresses their desire to have peaceful nuclear -- to develop peaceful nuclear power while giving objective guarantees to the international community that they will not use the activities -- their peaceful nuclear power activities to develop a nuclear weapon.  That is what the international community suspects that they are doing right now, that for the past 15-plus years, they have, under the cover of a peaceful nuclear program, sought to develop, systematically, a nuclear weapons program.

Now, finally, these activities have come to light.  The IAEA has a long list of questions concerning these activities.  The EU-3 has grave concerns about Iran's activities.  Russia has serious concerns about Iran's activities.  We have gotten to the point now where the world understands that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.  That would be a destabilizing event.

So, over the past year, the international community has come together.  They have come together to try to send a clear, strong message to the Iranian regime to negotiate in a serious manner, to get Iran back in compliance with its NPT obligations.  And the EU-3, as well as the Russian Government, have laid out serious, fair proposals to achieve that.  Thus far, the Iranian Government has chosen not to take them up on those offers, so we now find ourselves in the position where, because of Iran's actions, it is more likely than ever they will find themselves before the Security Council on this issue.

QUESTION:  But to what end?  I mean, I know you said you --

MR. MCCORMACK:  I think I just went through a long --

QUESTION:  No, no, no, but -- I mean, are you trying to change Iranian behavior or are you just trying to cite them for noncompliance?  I mean, you can do that --

MR. MCCORMACK:  That's what this is --

QUESTION:  -- at the IAEA.

MR. MCCORMACK:  That's what this has been about, changing their behavior.

QUESTION:  So -- but through negotiations or through punitive measures?

MR. MCCORMACK:  We have sought diplomatic -- to achieve a change in behavior and still seek to change Iranian's -- Iran's behavior through diplomatic channels.

QUESTION:  So you still think there's a chance?  (inaudible) made a rather strong speech about a month ago to a university in Virginia, I forget which, and -- you know, he was quite -- it was a quite ominous speech, that they have one more redline to cross.  There are reports now that they got 5,000 centrifuges to go.  There's already platforms built for them and --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, this is --

QUESTION:  And a nuclear weapons center.

MR. MCCORMACK:  This is --

QUESTION:  Do you really think there's still a way to keep them from developing nuclear weapons?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, that's why we're working so hard on this, Barry.

QUESTION:  I know.

MR. MCCORMACK:  That's why the President and the Secretary and a lot of other people in this government are spending so much time on this issue, because it is so important.  It's serious business and that is, I think, the shared realization and the shared view of the -- many European countries and a number of other countries on the IAEA Board of Governors.  That's why we're working so hard at this, Barry.

QUESTION:  How does getting Iran into the Security Council further your goal of bringing them into compliance?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, it is a diplomatic next step, Saul.  They've already been found in noncompliance and the hope is that once they have now found themselves before the Security Council, that that would be an incentive for them to engage in serious negotiations on this issue.  There have already -- as we talked about at length yesterday, there have already been consequences for Iran, in the fact that they find themselves almost completely isolated from the rest of the world on this -- most of the world on this issue.

You want to account for the fact that perhaps they have miscalculated in the steps that they have taken, their failure to engage in serious negotiations.  So, the thought, again, as it always has been with the possibility of referral to the Security Council, is to send an even stronger diplomatic signal to the Iranian regime that they need to comply with their international treaty obligations.  And the world will not stand aside as they drive towards building a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION:  But Sean, they did everything they possibly could to push it to the UN Security Council, because you said that if they don't come back to the negotiations, that's exactly where it's going.  And they did exactly what they said they were going to do, knowing that you were going to refer them to the Security Council.  So, what makes you think moving it to the Security Council is going to change their behavior when they knew all along it was going this --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, again, we have not gotten to that point, but if, in fact, Iran does end up at the Security Council -- the very fact that you are there, that they have crossed those lines that have caused the international community to put that issue before the Security Council, perhaps that is a signal that is strong enough to the Iranian regime that would get them to the negotiating table, in a serious way, to address these concerns.

Let's move around here.  All right, go ahead.

QUESTION:  Iran -- is China helping Iran with their nuclear program --

MR. MCCORMACK:  I have no information on that, Goyal.

Saul, do you have anything on --

QUESTION:  Still on Iran.  So, if I'm interpreting you correctly, the short-term goal is, get them referred to the UN Security Council so that they realize they've miscalculated -- so that they realize the international community really is serious about this and the consequence of that is, they go back to the negotiating table.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, our hope has always been, Saul, to resolve this through diplomatic means through negotiation, so that -- and our hope is that Iran will change its behavior.  That's why we go through these diplomatic processes.  The process is not an end in and of itself.  It's a means to an end.  The end -- the desired end is to change Iranian behavior.

QUESTION:  Can we try something else?

MR. MCCORMACK:  More than happy to, Barry.

QUESTION:  Our Ambassador Hill has turned up in South Korea, there're stories from there, and we have no input in the story, so I invite you to tell us about Mr. Hill's travels.

MR. MCCORMACK:  He is traveling extensively through the region.  He is making stops in Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul, in Malaysia, in Vietnam and Cambodia.  He's talking about a wide variety of issues as he is -- as he likes to say, he is not the Assistant Secretary of State for North Korean affairs or the six-party talks, so he covers a pretty important part of the world with a lot of countries in it, so he's visiting those countries to address a number of different issues.

I expect, all that said, that in Japan, China and South Korea, that he is going to talk about the six-party talks and ways that we can move forward, start up a new round.  We're ready to start up a new round in the six-party talks and talk about ways to get North Korea back to the table, as they have said they would at the end of the last round of talks.

In Vietnam, I'm sure he's going to talk about economic issues, talk about issues related to avian influenza.  In Cambodia, we have some very serious human rights concerns.  So those -- that's not a complete list of what he's going there to talk about, but a partial list.

QUESTION:  If I understand correct, this is not the type of trip preliminary to the re-opening of negotiations or hope they re-open?

MR. MCCORMACK:  You know, we would hope that the negotiations resume in a timely manner.  But there are other components to the trip as well, other subject areas that he's going to talk about.

QUESTION:  Oh, how about -- as I say (inaudible) Kim Il Sung -- he's this mysterious North Korean leader whose presence in China, after 24 hours of speculation still hasn't been substantiated?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I've seen the news report.

QUESTION:  Does the U.S. happen to know where he is?  Nobody else seems to know.

MR. MCCORMACK:  I've seen the news -

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

QUESTION:  Kim Jong Il elections.  (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.  Right.  I've seen the news reports, Barry.  I can't confirm or deny them.

QUESTION:  He's not headed here is he?

MR. MCCORMACK:  That'd be a real surprise.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK:  (Laughter.)  Well, you might check with the North Korean spokesman at his daily briefing.

QUESTION:  Right.  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Last question on South Asia?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yeah.  Mr. Gedda.

QUESTION:  Does Mr. Hill have instructions on what to do or say, should there be an opportunity for an encounter with Kim Jong Il?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I'm not aware that that's planned.  I don't know that he has any instructions in that regard, George.  I don't anticipate that that's going to happen.

QUESTION:  The speculation is that he's in Shanghai.  Is Ambassador Hill going to Beijing?

MR. MCCORMACK:  The -- I'll check on his itinerary.  I think he's in Beijing.  I'll check.  George, if we have anything on that, we'll let you know.

Yeah, let's go to the back.  Lambros.

QUESTION:  Yes.  On Turkey.  Any cooperation or communication with the Turkish Government of Recep Erdogan to fight the avian flu in Turkey, which is in a crucial stage since it has appeared in various parts of the country and it's approaching Greece, too?  It's already in the Balkans.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I know that our embassy is actively working with the Turkish Government on this issue.  The Turkish Government is taking this issue very, very seriously.  I know that the World Health Organization is also working with the Turkish Government to make sure that they have everything that they need.  If there's any assistance that we might provide the Turkish people in this regard, we're certainly going to take a look at that and see if there's anything that we can do to help them out.

QUESTION:  On Kosovo, according -- anything to say about the upcoming talks on Kosovo issue of January 25th with the participation also of U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary Rosemary DiCarlo?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Nothing for you on that today.

Teri.

QUESTION:  Change of subject?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Sure.

QUESTION:  Okay.  What caused you to put out this statement on Syria suddenly?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, it's -- there's been a lot of activity, a lot of discussion concerning Syria's failure to comply thus far with Security Council Resolution 1636.  We thought it was an important time to do so, to lay out very clearly that Syria needs to cooperate with the UN Independent International Investigation Commission.  It has also, we believe, continued to meddle in Lebanon's affairs.  That is in contravention of UN Security Resolution 1559, which calls on Syria to cease all activities in Lebanon's affairs.  So it was -- the Secretary believed it was a timely statement to make, given the fact that Syria has failed to comply with its international obligations at this point.

QUESTION:  I just don't understand what -- if there was some action that we're not aware of that might have sparked this and also caused you to embargo it to the beginning of the briefing.  I don't know, just kind of abrupt.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, in terms of putting -- the manner in which we gave it to you guys, I wanted you to be able to have some opportunity to take a look at it before the briefing and the briefing's an opportunity to talk about it and answer any other questions you might have about it.

QUESTION:  It isn't that you've seen Syrians going --

MR. MCCORMACK:  No, no, no.

QUESTION:  -- presence.

MR. MCCORMACK:  No.  But we continue -- in terms of Syrian troops --

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK:  In terms of Syrian troops going -- no, no.  That's not.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) intelligence agents.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Continue -- well, we have already -- we've said that we suspect that there is continuing presence there.

QUESTION:  Is there anything that's coming up in any of the Secretary's talks with -- on other subjects on Iran?  I mean, is she also bringing up Syria in these discussions with Jack Straw, for instance?

MR. MCCORMACK:  It's an issue, I think, that is being discussed actively at the working level, you know, the Assistant Secretary level or so.

Mm-hmm.  Samir.

QUESTION:  Did the U.S. start any contacts with the former Syrian Vice President Khaddam in Paris?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I'm not aware of any particular contacts, Samir, but I don't have perfect knowledge on everybody that the United States Government is talking to.

QUESTION:  Sean, (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yes.

QUESTION:  You say in the statement, that continuing assassinations of opposition of Syrian domination, including Gebran Tueni, create an atmosphere of fear that Syria uses to intimidate Lebanon.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Mm-hmm, uh-huh.

QUESTION:  It seems to put a pretty fine point on your belief that Syria was responsible for the murder of Gebran Tueni.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, that would be -- that's a matter that is currently under investigation of Lebanese authorities, and the UNIIC is, under the mandate of the Security Council, taking a look at whether or not it's going to expand its investigation into the assassination of Mr. Tueni and others.

Now, we at this point can't draw a direct link between Syria and those assassinations, but I think it's very clear that there are forces in Lebanon that may be sympathetic to Syria and Syrians' position and whose interests are linked to Syria that are trying to foment an atmosphere of instability and an atmosphere of fear through the use of threat, violence and assassination.  That has to end.

So while I can't stand here and tell you that I can draw the -- connect the dots for you between Syria and these assassination attempts, I think that there is certainly very clearly an attempt on the part of some to create this atmosphere of fear and violence in Lebanon.

QUESTION:  I understand, but in this statement you say that Syria is using this intimidation and Syria -- you seem to say that Syria is responsible for it.  So while you can't connect the dots, you seem to put out pretty clearly that you believe that not even forces sympathetic to Syria, but that Syria itself, is the one pulling the strings on this.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I think I would just let the statement speak for itself.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION:  Indonesia, Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  Just recently, Homeland Security issued a warning sticker in -- on American airports alerting that Indonesian Bali airport is not safe and travelers are to consider restricting themselves from traveling to that airport.  Now, earlier this week, Indonesian diplomats met with TSA officials as well as your officials here to discuss about this issue.  I'd like to know what you have to say about this during a period when Indonesian-U.S. bilateral relations are actually in the strongest terms ever?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, I'd agree with you in your characterization of U.S.-Indonesian relations, but these kinds of assessments that are done by TSA -- and I would point out they are done around the world, at airports around the world -- are done in accordance with a very strict set of criteria.  The regulations that govern the steps leading up to an issuance of a warning are very clear and the TSA works closely with the host government on these issues.

I know that it's a matter of concern for the Indonesian Government.  I understand that. But these are steps that are taken to promote security, to promote confidence in safe air travel, and I know that the TSA is continuing to work with the Indonesian Government and Indonesian airport authorities on the issue.  But I have to emphasize it's done to -- it's done according to a very strict set of objective criteria that inspectors use in going around the world to evaluate airports around the world with respect to their safety.

QUESTION:  Don't you think it's over-excessive?

MR. MCCORMACK:  This is -- again, this is -- I would leave -- TSA can better describe the process that they go through.  My glancing familiarity with it is that there are -- it's -- there are very strict steps that are followed, and that at each step along the line the TSA works very closely with the host government and the airport authorities so they're aware of where they are in the evaluation process.

QUESTION:  On South Asia.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Goyal, we're going to spread it around here.  Yes, Libby.

QUESTION:  Sean, can you give us any update on U.S. efforts to help secure the release of Jill Carroll?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I don't have any updates for you.  We, again, continue to hope that she's returned to her family safe and sound.  And we're going to do everything we can, working with Iraqi authorities and our partners in the coalition, to see that she is returned safely to her family.

QUESTION:  The family of Ronald Schulz is holding a memorial service this week because they say that the video in which the hostage -- the kidnappers purported that it was him, that they shot him, they believe that's evidence that he is indeed -- has indeed been murdered.  Do you have any confirmation that Ronald Schulz has indeed been killed or is that videotape the only thing you're going on?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Let me see if there's any further information I have for you, Elise.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Can I just confirm that so the Secretary hasn't contacted her Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Li?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Correct.  Correct.

QUESTION:  Does she plan to do that in the --

MR. MCCORMACK:  We'll let you know if she does.

QUESTION:  And the last follow-up.  When Assistant Secretary Hill meets with the Chinese, will he merely focus on the North Korea or he will include Iran to seek China's support?

MR. MCCORMACK:  I wouldn't be surprised if both of those topics came up, as well as others.

Saul.

QUESTION:  On the meeting with -- or contact with her Chinese counterpart.  Any plans to meet him on the sidelines of the Liberian inauguration?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Oh, I have to check on that.  Let me confirm that he's going to be there.  As far as -- based on our own information, I'll see if there is any contacts.  I don't think at this point there is, Saul, but I'll check for you.

Yes, Lambros.

QUESTION:  One more question, on HIV.  On December 25th, your government reached an agreement with the European Union and the UN for the release by the Libyan authorities of the Bulgarian nurses accused of infecting with HIV virus 426 Libyan children in a Libyan hospital, using pills for the first time in history of this deadly disease.  May we know the terms of this agreement and how you are going to impose that to the Libyan leader, Muammar Qadhafi?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, there's still -- my understanding is that there is still an ongoing judicial process there.  We have been actively involved on this issue.  I don't have any updates for you at this time.

Elise.

QUESTION:  The Swiss Government has launched an investigation into the leak of this Egyptian diplomatic fax saying that there are secret U.S. prisons in Ukraine, Kosovo, Macedonia and Bulgaria.  Do you have any opinion about the leak of this to Swiss magazines?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Nope.

QUESTION:  Sir --

QUESTION:  Sean, thanks.  Two questions on South Asia.

One, Pakistan is saying that they are in fight with the Islamic militants along the Afghan border and scores of their people have been or security forces have been killed.  Is that something to do with the last month's President of -- President from Afghanistan was calling that there is a cross-border terrorism into his country.  So where do we stand as far as U.S. position is concerned?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, this is -- you know, this is an activity that the Pakistani forces are engaged in under the direction of President Musharraf.  I understand that over the past couple of years Pakistani forces have been active in north and south Waziristan.  They have been tracking down and hunting terrorists.  I think that they are certainly to be commended for what is very tough duty and they are operating in areas that for a hundred years Pakistani officials didn't travel into.  These were virtually autonomous zones.

So the Pakistani forces are working hard in those areas, as I understand it, to track down and capture or to get off the streets terrorists that might do harm to Pakistani citizens as well as others.

QUESTION:  Second, on this thing, just follow last one, thanks.  Where do we stand now as far as U.S.-India nuclear agreement signed on July 18th between Prime Minister Singh and President Bush?  My question in connection with that, now Pakistan is also saying that they are changing their rules and regulations so that they can also fit in the same category to demand from the U.S. that Pakistan also should be given the same status of nuclear deal with them.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, in terms of the U.S.-India agreement, we are in discussions with the Indian Government on this.  They are currently formulating a plan, which would separate the civilian and military nuclear programs.  We're going to be in contact with them because that's an important component of this deal, so it's an issue that we're continuing to work with them on.

QUESTION:  And finally --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Yeah, let's move on, Goyal.  Okay.  Joel.

QUESTION:  Sean, there are reports that Sudan is actively supporting Ugandan rebels and they've recently had some meetings over the situation with Chad.  Is this just -- you view an enlargement of their unfortunate activities?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, in terms of -- in terms of the issue related to Chad and potential rebel forces in Chad and some of the instability in west Darfur, Deputy Secretary Zoellick had a meeting with the foreign minister from Chad.  We posted an answer last night -- on reading out his meeting, so in terms of Chad, I would refer you to that answer.  I don't have anything to add from last night.

In terms of Uganda, if there's anything we can add, Joel, I'll post an answer for you.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:06 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