State Department Briefing, February 9
09 February 2006
Turkey, Department, Palestinians/Russia, Cyprus, Bolivia, Iran/Syria/Europe, Colombia, Yemen, Venezuela, Iraq, Sudan
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack briefed reporters February 9.
Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Thursday, February 9, 2006
1:39 p.m. EST
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
TURKEY
-- Statement: U.S. Condemns Terrorist Bombing at Istanbul Internet Café
DEPARTMENT
-- Statement: Bureau of South Asian Affairs Now Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
-- Confirmation of New Assistant Secretary Expected in March
PALESTINIANS/RUSSIA
-- Hamas Must Recognize Israel, Renounce Terror, Live up To International Obligations
-- U.S. Has Sought Clarification About Intent of Russian Meetings with Hamas
-- Quartet Remains Important Mechanism in Region
-- Statement is Strong and Unified
-- Russia's G8 Presidency Comes with Responsibilities
-- Must Represent Best Aspects of Democratic Society and Market-Oriented Economy
-- Aspirations of Palestinian People Attainable through Peace, Negotiations, not Violence
-- Interaction with Palestinians Must Be Guided By Principles Outlined in Quartet Statement
-- Palestinians Must Build Democratic Institutions, Provide Security For People
-- Both Israel and Palestinians have Responsibilities as Outlined in Roadmap
CYPRUS
-- U.S. Supports UN Secretary General Annan's efforts for Peace, Understanding
BOLIVIA
-- Substantial Aid provided over past years
-- Current Aid Levels, Budget Plans pre-date Elections, Not Political Commentary
IRAN/SYRIA/EUROPE
-- Violent Protesters Had At Minimum Tacit Approval, at Most Support From Government
-- Role of Public Diplomacy in Response to Muslim Cartoon
-- U.S. Response to Cartoons, Violence has Been Consistent
COLOMBIA
-- U.S. Hostages Not Forgotten / U.S. Condemns Kidnappings, Calls for Their Release
YEMIN
-- Warden Message Issued February 5
-- No Information on Specific Threat to U.S. Embassy
-- Circumstances of Prison Escape Still Being Investigated
-- U.S. Working with Yemeni Government to Secure Escapees' Capture
VENEZUELA
-- U.S. Open to Positive Relationship Regardless of Political Leaning if Democracy Respected
-- U.S. Concerned by How Chavez Government has Governed
IRAQ
-- Rules of Engagement Clear For US Personnel
SUDAN
-- U.S. Working Closely with the UN on Darfur
-- U.S. Support Transition from AU Mission to UN Mission
-- Role of NATO, Canadian Forces
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2006
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
1:39 p.m. EST
MR. MCCORMACK: Hey, everybody. Good afternoon. Wow. This sort of has a Friday afternoon kind of feel to it. I have an opening statement -- two opening statements for you.
The first concerns the terrorist bombing today in Istanbul, Turkey. The United States strongly condemns the terrorist attack today in Istanbul, Turkey in which 14 people were injured, including one young child. We understand that the bombing took place at an internet café, next door to a police station and that six of the casualties were policemen. Our sympathies go out to the victims and their families and the United States stands with our partner, Turkey, in the war -- fighting the war against terrorism.
And the second, one media note for you. The Bureau of South Asian Affairs has officially assumed responsibility for the diplomatic portfolios of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, in addition to the countries for which it previously had responsibility. And as a result, this new bureau will be renamed the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.
And with that --
QUESTION: And when would you expect the confirmation of your new Assistant Secretary?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I know that he is -- I think he's on the schedule for the hearing, isn't he, in March?
QUESTION: Any day.
MR. ERELI: I think it's early March.
MR. MCCORMACK: I think early March. He's a fine candidate. He served with distinction in many previous posts, so we certainly urge his speedy confirmation.
And with that, I'd be happy to take your questions.
QUESTION: Putin invitation to Hamas -- is the Quartet unity falling apart and has the Secretary or have any other U.S. officials inquired as to what's going on here and what's behind it or offered any opinions that maybe a Hamas invitation isn't a good idea?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have seen the news reports and certainly, we would urge any government that might have contact with Hamas to deliver the very clear message that was in the Quartet statement and that is that Hamas has some decisions to make. They must recognize the state of Israel, renounce terror and live up to the international obligations that the Palestinian Authority has signed up to. As a member of the Quartet, we would certainly expect that Russia would deliver that same message. They did so as a member of the Quartet, in public, to Hamas. And if there are any future meetings between Russian officials and Hamas officials, that we would expect that they would deliver that same clear, strong message. As for having been in touch with the Russians, I believe our Ambassador in Moscow has contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ask about what Russians plans were. But beyond that, I don't have anything. The Secretary hasn't made any phone calls.
QUESTION: But you have no objection then to a meeting, as long as the message at that meeting is "You guys have to clean up your act?"
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, at this point, we are -- we have sought some clarification from the Russians as to what exactly their intentions are, what their plans are. But if there are meetings that take place, we would expect that that message would be strong and clear to Hamas. Certainly, we are not going to have any contact with a terrorist organization. But as for each state, they're going to have to make that sovereign decision. We urge all states to send that clear, strong message to Hamas. I know that there are some states in the region that have met with Hamas officials and they have delivered that strong, clear message.
Yes, Elise.
QUESTION: So you're just saying that this kind of took you by surprise in your discussions with the Quartet over the last month or so. And in the meeting in London, the Russian Foreign Minister never kind of brought this up -- let us talk to Hamas and see if we can make that message personally a little stronger.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you saw the statement that Russia did sign up to and they agreed in the writing of that statement during the Quartet session that was held in London. And certainly, we would expect that they would continue to send those clear messages to Hamas that are contained in that Quartet statement.
QUESTION: But what I'm asking is, did Russia ever make any kind of overtures within the community of the Quartet to say we'd like to take a bigger role in this in talking with Hamas or is this kind of completely out of left field to you?
MR. MCCORMACK: I would say only that the Russians, along with all the members of the Quartet, were in full agreement with the Quartet statement as it emerged in London.
QUESTION: But since that day, the Russians have also come out and said that they don't consider Hamas a terrorist organization and we talked about that at the briefing and you said that, you know, Foreign Minister Lavrov certainly signed up to the statement, as you're saying today. Did you have no sign, or have you had no signs in these intensive meetings with the Russians over language from the Quartet that they did not completely sign on with the EU and U.S. perception of Hamas?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think that you -- very clearly from the statement, you see that all the members of the Quartet: the U.S., the EU, Russia and the UN signed up to that Quartet statement. I think it was very clear. And like I said before, we would expect that all members of the Quartet, and we would urge other members of the international community to be unified in sending that message to the Hamas, that they have decisions to make. They have a decision to make about fulfilling the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Those aspirations are for transparency, good governance, a government that responds to the needs of the Palestinian people, but also responds to their aspirations for peace and stability. And that the road to peace and stability goes through the roadmap.
QUESTION: But does Russia also have some decisions to make about being in line with the international community when it signs a statement like the Quartet statement?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, as I said, we have contacted the Russian Government about what their intentions are. And certainly the Quartet statement still stands as the strong, unified voice of the international community on this issue.
QUESTION: And does it look strong and unified when then Russia's inviting Hamas with welcome to Moscow?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, we'll see what the Russians' plans are.
QUESTION: Can I just pick up on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.
QUESTION: I mean, if you've got a Quartet which issues a statement and then some members will not meet with Hamas and others do, the position of that Quartet is weakened, isn't it?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I would say that there have been other countries in the region that have met with Hamas, for example, Egyptian officials have met with Hamas officials. But in doing so, they have made it very clear to Hamas that they have the decision to make and that they need to abide by what the Quartet has said. There are a number of different ways to deliver that message: you can do it in public, you can do it in private. Certainly, because we view Hamas as a terrorist organization, we will do so in public; we're not going to meet with Hamas. And that -- if there are any contacts between the Russian Government and Hamas, that we would expect that they would send that very clear message, both in public and private, that is contained in the Quartet statement.
QUESTION: So it is okay if members of the Quartet then decide to meet Hamas, even if Hamas haven't agreed in --
MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see what the Russians have in mind.
QUESTION: Sean, since you don't seem to be inclined to answer three or four of the questions directly about whether we knew about it in advance or were warned about it in or signaled in any way, would you disagree with the notion that -- at least I would draw -- that you were not told in advance?
MR. MCCORMACK: Charlie, I would never, never presume --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. MCCORMACK: -- to try to write a story for you and put words in your mouth. (Laughter.)
Charlie, I described it how I would.
QUESTION: You won't say whether you had any signal at all from the Russians?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I would just repeat --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: -- that -- well, okay. Forget it then. I won't repeat it.
QUESTION: Is there any extra pressure on Russia as it now takes over the G-8 presidency?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, as Secretary Rice has talked about before, assuming the presidency of the G-8, which is a gathering of market-oriented democracies, comes certain responsibilities. Certainly, we would expect the Russian Government to act in such a way to represent the best aspects of a democratic society and the best aspects of a market-oriented economy. So there are going to be a lot of issues on the table at the G-8. Certainly they're going to talk about energy security. That's one issue that the Russians have put on the table and we look forward to talking to them about it.
QUESTION: And would hosting terrorist groups fall under that certain responsibilities, in your view?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I've said what I have to say on the matter.
Yes. Anything else on this?
Anne Gearan.
QUESTION: Does this have any implications for the future of the Quartet as a viable sort of commentator, and to a degree overseer, of the whole process? I mean, if Hamas takes over and all or most of the Quartet won't talk to them and pieces and parts of the Quartet peel off on certain issues, does it still exist?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think the Quartet remains an important mechanism for discussing issues related to a possible peace between the Israeli and the Palestinian people. It has been an important mechanism and I expect that it will be. And that expectation is based on our shared hope that there will be an interlocutor for the rest of the world, including the Israeli Government, on the Palestinian side that recognizes Israel's right to exist, that has renounced terror and that will abide by its previous obligations. That is -- that has been our hope and that remains our hope. We'll see what government emerges on the Palestinian side. We have -- the international community has laid out a series of very clear requirements for that new government and we'll see what decisions they make. But make no mistake, the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a peaceful, secure, more prosperous future lay through the pathway of peace -- peace and negotiation across the negotiating table, not through the use of terror and not at the point of a gun.
QUESTION: Excuse me, maybe I didn't understand very well, but I don't remember that the Quartet statement forbid to have any contact with Hamas before the formation of the government.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you can go back and look at it. I'll invite you to read it for yourself. But it did talk about future assistance and certainly we would expect that any future contacts with Hamas would be guided by the principles of the Quartet. Now, each sovereign state is going to have to make its own decisions about how it might choose to interact with a future Palestinian government. I think that just stands to reason. We would strongly urge, however, that any such interaction be guided by the principles outlined in the Quartet. Secretary Rice made a very clear statement about this yesterday about our continued and forthright support for the principles that were outlined in the Quartet. So we would urge the members of the Quartet, as well as other members of the international community, to, in considering whatever actions they may take, to consider those actions in light of the principles that have been outlined in the Quartet statement.
QUESTION: You just mentioned aspirations of the Palestinian people more than once for a peaceful future. But the Palestinian people, when they elected Hamas, they know that Hamas has a military wing and has a political wing and they know what Hamas does and what it stands for, and yet they elected Hamas. I don't know, I mean, can you clarify how do you know what the aspirations of the Palestinian people are?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, a couple things. A couple of indicators. You know, I don't have polling data for you, but let's just go on a couple of indicators that we all have access to.
First of all, you have the election of President Abbas a little over a year ago. What was the platform that he ran on? He ran on a platform of peace. He ran on a platform of achieving Palestinian statehood via the roadmap, through negotiations, through peaceful means. So that's one indicator.
The second indicator: Let's take a look at what the platform of Hamas was during this recent election. The platform for this election wasn't, "Mothers, we're going to outfit your children with suicide vests and try to send them in to Israel." No. You know what it was? It was, "We are going to clean up the Palestinian Authority. We are going to give you good governance, transparent governance and non-corrupt governance. We are going to deliver the services that you have asked for."
Now, we all know that President Abbas and his administration made great efforts to essentially dig out of the hole that they found themselves in as a result of years and years of the corrupt rule of Yasser Arafat. They made a lot of progress. The Ministry of Finance put into place procedures where people weren't being paid out of brown envelopes anymore stuffed with money. They put in strict regulations that were overseen by the international community that met international standards. Clearly they made progress, but even more clearly there was a lot more that remains to be done.
So when I talk about the aspirations of the Palestinian people, I think it is very clear, just through those two indicators, what it is that they want. They want a government that will be responsive to their needs and they also want peace. The Palestinian people want what everybody else wants in this world. They want to be able to send their kids to school. They want to be able to go down to the beach without fear and threat of violence. They want to realize a better future for themselves, for their children as well as for their people.
QUESTION: If I may add a few other factors to the ones that you already mentioned. You attributed the victory of Hamas to the fact that the Palestinians were looking for an end for the corruption of their government, but what we listen to the Palestinians through the media every day, we spend hours listening to them, and a big part of what they state that the reason why it selected Hamas was that they are -- the big thing of it -- their frustration with Sharon, the Israeli Government's policy of building additional settlements or continuing the wall of separation, building -- dividing the villages and little cities of the Palestinians, the killing of their leaders on daily almost basis by the Israelis. Are you willing to recognize those other part of the reason why they selected Hamas?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, President Bush has spoken very clearly over the years about what is required of both sides. Clearly, if peace is to be achieved in which you have a two-state solution, Palestine and Israel living side by side in peace and security, both sides have responsibilities. Those have been outlined very clearly in the roadmap. Everybody knows what the responsibilities are for each side.
What we have done is we have encouraged both sides, including the Palestinian side, to concentrate a lot less on what the other side may or may not be doing and concentrate a lot more on what it is that they need to be doing and what the Palestinian Authority needs to do -- the current interim authority. They need to focus on building up democratic institutions that function on behalf of the people. They need to focus on their obligations to provide a safe and secure environment for the Palestinian people. And that means not having armed militias operating outside the authority of the central Palestinian Authority. That means having a robust security force that can act to prevent terror and provide security for the Palestinian people.
QUESTION: But part of the safe and secure environment that you are talking about -- that is, you know, to walk around Gaza, let's say, neighborhoods without fearing that a rocket might fall on their head when they target a Hamas leader or I don't know. I mean, during the past week more than eight or nine people were killed through targeted killings in Gaza alone. That's not a safe environment. I mean, how do you expect them to focus less on what the other side does, while it's the main cause for their unstable, safe environment?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, this is one of those issues you can go round and round on. We've made very clear what our views are on these issues. You've heard it from President Bush, you've heard it from Secretary Rice, I've tried to do a brief summary of it. So our focus right now is on supporting this interim Palestinian Authority. And as for what interactions might arise with a future Palestinian government, those will be dictated by, in large part, by the choices made by that future Palestinian government concerning its composition and what its platform is.
Lambros.
QUESTION: Cyprus. The British Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, stated yesterday, according to Reuters news agency, "The Greek Cypriot administration is seeking to marginalize the Turkish Cypriot community" for which statement the Cyprus Government already protested to the former colonial power today. Do you agree with this? His remarks say you are cooperating with London to find a solution to the problem.
MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen these specific remarks. But again, our views on this are clear, we believe -- we support Secretary General Annan's efforts to find a solution. I think what is required is less acrimony, an exchange of acrimonious remarks and more understanding and working towards -- serious work towards a possible solution.
QUESTION: A follow-up, because it's a decision. The Cyprus Government made it clear yesterday and today that since Mr. Straw identifies freely with the Turkish position, Britain cannot be an objective mediator because it's neither neutral or objective. How this decision is --affects your cooperation with (inaudible) on the Cyprus issue?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I'm not sure I would agree with that interpretation.
QUESTION: And the last one --
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.
QUESTION: In response to my pending question regarding Russia and Turkey joint naval force in the Black Sea --
MR. MCCORMACK: Mr. Casey looked into this issue personally. And he was not able to detect any evidence of said agreement, so we continue to remain -- shall I say, puzzled.
MR. CASEY: Puzzled.
MR. MCCORMACK: Let me say puzzled about this --
QUESTION: But once again, during a press conference in Athens, February 6th, the Foreign Minister of (inaudible) has been asked about the reporter and he confirmed that Russia signed an agreement with Turkey. So you have no reaction?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we will -- again, I just gave you our reaction. I don't know if you're going to question the hard work of Mr. Casey in this regard.
(Laughter.)
MR. MCCORMACK: I certainly won't. But he will remain attentive to the matter and work with them personally on it.
QUESTION: A Greek citizen claimed today that American agents kidnapped him in Bulgaria. Do you have anything on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me?
QUESTION: A Greek citizen, his name is (inaudible) claimed today that American agents kidnapped him in Bulgaria and interrogated him. Do you have anything to tell us on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have information for you on that --
QUESTION: Will you take that question, please?
MR. MCCORMACK: He -- just let me get this straight, he claims to have been kidnapped and interrogated? Has he been released since he's making these statements?
QUESTION: Yes he has.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. All right. Good. Don't have information for you on that.
QUESTION: The published budget for military aid this week seems to result in a fairly dramatic cut to IMET and other military U.S. -- IMET to Bolivia -- an issue that was written up about by the New York Times specifically as a sharp cut of like 96 percent. My question is, is there a deliberate of targeting of Bolivia because of, you know, disagreements in policy or is there more across the board, rejigging of budgetary -- military aid for countries in Latin America?
MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, I'll check into the specifics of this for you. But I know that there was quite a bit of aid that has been provided to Bolivia over the past years. But I believe the decisions about current aid levels, existing aid levels, predate any announcement of elections in Bolivia. So I'll check into it for you, but I'm not sure that there's any political connection or commentary on this matter. But we'll get you a posted answer for that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Libby.
QUESTION: On the cartoons, yesterday the Secretary said that Iran and Syria were -- she had no doubt that they were involved in inciting some of the violence. But Kofi Annan today said that there was no evidence of that. How could there be such a discrepancy there between these two leaders if it's such clear evidence?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think I went through it yesterday, exactly what she is referring to and what the evidence is. Mobs don't burn down two embassies in Syria, in Damascus, without, at the very least, the tacit approval or support of the Syrian Government or, at the most, the active support. I can't tell you where it might fall in that spectrum, but things like burning down embassies don't happen by accident in Damascus. It is an authoritarian regime that exercises a great deal of control over its territory. I would refer you back to just a little bit of history that might help illustrate that fact. When, several months ago when they wanted to -- the Syrian regime -- they closed down their border with Lebanon completely. Shut it within a matter of two hours. So that's just an example of the kind of control that this regime can exercise when it so chooses.
As for Iran, again, similar situation. Embassies don't get attacked in Tehran with firebombs without, again, at the very least, the tacit approval of the government there. And I would also point out the fact, again, that the newspaper in Tehran which said it was going to sponsor a so-called cartoon contest of its own was owned by the municipality of Tehran, a government entity. And I would remind you that the former mayor of Tehran is President Ahmadi-Nejad. So I think that in these comments from this newspaper you can certainly hear the echoes of President Ahmadi-Nejad's current comments concerning the Holocaust.
Again, the Secretary was making the point that these two regimes are deliberately trying to incite individuals to violence through their actions.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up on public diplomacy, actually. We've talked about --
QUESTION: Can I just quickly ask, has the Secretary talked to the Secretary General in the last few days about this issue? Are you aware of that?
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't believe so.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: On public diplomacy, I'm wondering, you know, we've talked about it a little bit this week, but what is the U.S. strategy in terms of -- I mean, is this something that is considered one of the things Karen Hughes talked about, rapid response, something that needs to -- you know, U.S. message needs to get out there as soon as it hits? And how are we specifically getting our message out? If you could point to some examples, that would be great.
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. In a lot of different ways. First of all, Karen has been involved from the very beginning in not only the substance of our response but how that happens. It's part of what Secretary Rice has asked her to do, and that is really be at the crossroads of policy and communications, and that's what she has been focused on.
From the early days of our first response, which goes back to last week, she was deeply involved in how we respond and also the mechanisms that are used to respond to this. We do so in public from this podium. We also do so through our embassies in the region and all over the world -- Europe, the Middle East. They have been sent all the information that we have concerning this issue and how it is that we are responding to it. So, those are the basic outlines of what she has been doing and how we've been responding to it.
In addition to that, you've also, on the policy side, seen the President call the Danish Prime Minister. Secretary Rice has been in touch with the Danish Foreign Minister as well as the Norwegian Foreign Minister on this. We have instructed our embassies overseas to, where they can and as possible, offer any assistance that might be needed to Danish representatives in their particular country, working with host governments or offering them any assistance where Danish representation might have some security or other kinds of concerns.
QUESTION: A follow-up on the cartoons, please. You just said that attacks on embassies in Syria, in Damascus, and Tehran don't happen as, you know, accidents.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: I mean, U.S. embassies were attacked in Kenya and Tanzania.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: And no one could stop those horrible attacks on that embassy.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: So, I mean, are you suggesting that governments in Kenya and Tanzania had something to do with it since they could not stop those attacks on the embassy?
MR. MCCORMACK: No. What I would do is I would differentiate between the nature of the governments in Kenya and Tanzania and the nature of the regimes in Syria and Iran.
QUESTION: But the accidents -- the attacks happened here and there. I mean --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Again, I think that if you look at the evidence of -- not only the nature of the regime but the specific acts, I think that it is pretty clear that what the Secretary said stands up. I would also point out that -- and I would also contrast the behavior post facto of the Syrian and Iranian regimes with the Government of Lebanon. The Government of Lebanon, in the aftermath of an attack on the Danish Embassy in Beirut, apologized to the government for the attack. They took immediate security measures to see that it didn't happen and the Minister of Interior resigned. So that, to me, is an indication of the proper response to what happened.
In addition, there have been numerous credible reports that part of the crowd in Beirut that were arrested were non-Lebanese. So there are some indications that there were outsiders trying to stir up trouble in Beirut.
QUESTION: One more?
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, one more follow-up. Some reports this morning suggested that the U.S. is sort of changing its strategy in handling the cartoons now, saying, you know, condemning the violence more than calling the cartoons offensive. What would you say to that? Do you agree with that?
MR. MCCORMACK: I guess I would say that there is, as of Saturday, there was a qualitative change in this story. As of Saturday, people started burning down embassies. And if you look at the White House statements and our statements, after those attacks our statements focused on the fact of violence and the use of violence against these foreign missions. As of Friday, I laid out very clearly what the U.S. position is, and I think if you look at what I laid -- if people would look at the transcript of what I said on Friday -- the entire transcript of what I said on Friday -- they will see that the elements of the response that I gave on Friday have been consistent throughout but for the fact that on Saturday there was an added dimension to this and of course we had to -- we felt it appropriate that we respond very clearly to those acts of violence.
QUESTION: Is there any reason why the Secretary didn't say yesterday at the news conference that the cartoons were offensive?
MR. MCCORMACK: No. I said it on Friday and it still stands.
QUESTION: But isn't it a rather significant rebuff if Kofi Annan doesn't condemn Syria and Iran for its actions, because the Secretary yesterday when she was asked about this did say that the international community should call - the phrase is call on the regimes of Syria and Iran. And clearly that's not happening, is it, because Kofi Annan hasn't done that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, individual leaders will make their own assessments based on the facts that are before them. I think to us, the facts that are before him, I think. To us the facts are very clear and the Secretary expressed quite clearly what our view is -- views are.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: New topic.
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. Have we exhausted this one?
Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On Colombia, about coming up on the third anniversary of a plane going down and three Americans being taken hostage. Do you know what's happened to them? Are they still alive? Have they kind of become the forgotten hostages since so much -- so many hostages in Iraq get so much attention?
MR. MCCORMACK: They're certainly not forgotten. The anniversary of their having been taken hostage is coming up on us on February 13th. We still remember and continue to work -- do everything that we can to secure the release of Marc Gonsalvez, Thomas Howe and Keith Stansell. We also honor the memory of Thomas Janis and Louis Alcides who were killed by the FARC. We continue to hold the FARC responsible for these kidnappings, as well as for the health and safety of these individuals. We call for their immediate release and we condemn all form of kidnapping as well.
Teri.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.
QUESTION: On Yemen, in the aftermath of the jailbreak. I know that the Embassy there put out a Warden Message on the 5th. But there were reports out of Yemen that these 23 guys had plans -- have plans to attack the U.S. Embassy. Has anything -- has the Embassy upgraded its security or have you given any other warnings to Americans in light of these reports?
MR. MCCORMACK: We don't have any other public warnings. We, of course, always evaluate the threat situation around the world at our embassies and in the wake of this particular escape, we're certainly taking a look and constantly evaluating our security posture at Embassy Sanaa.
At this point I've heard about these reports. I don't have anything particular to offer you on the embassy being a particular target of these individuals. They're very dangerous. We have some members of al-Qaida. Clearly, they would, de facto, represent any threat to American citizens and American interests. But as for any specific targeting information, I don't have that for you. We'll certainly try to keep you up to date on where we stand on our security posture in the embassy. But our guys on the ground, our security officers, are always looking at what they need to do based on the information that they have and what the threat situation is.
QUESTION: So as it stands now, you've restricted official travel, right? And the Warden Message says that there have been cancellations of trips to Yemen. Does that include officials, I mean, State Department officials or what kind of cancellations were you talking about?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check to see, Teri, if there's -- if there is any official U.S. Government travel that's been affected by the Warden Message.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
MR. MCCORMACK: Elise.
QUESTION: On Yemen, to follow up Teri, are you considering any kind of voluntary departure or authorized departure or anything like that for U.S. personnel?
MR. MCCORMACK: Those are decisions that are -- in times when there are perceived -- there are real threats against American interests, American embassies, the embassy always takes a look at those issues, cycling back to the Department here. Those are things that are constantly evaluated. At this point, I don't have any news for you that there's a suggestion that they take those steps.
QUESTION: Also, there have been some speculation that perhaps this was an inside job in which the escapees had some support from either prison guards or members of the security service. Do you believe that to be true?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think we're still trying to determine the specific circumstances of this particular escape. The fact that they're out is a source of real concern. We're working closely with the Yemeni government to see that all the individuals are brought back so that they can't pose any potential threat, not only to Yemenis but also to American interests or any other -- the interest of any other government. So we're working closely with the Yemenis and we'll be ready to offer whatever assistance may be required to see that these individuals are captured and returned to jail.
QUESTION: Can you update us on what they have accepted? Are there any ships --
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check, Teri.
QUESTION: -- American -- that are --
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there's a lot of -- in the Horn of Africa, for several years, there's been a quite active U.S. Naval presence there, so there's constant military operations ongoing in that area. You can check with DOD if there's any particular shift of assets in that area, any change in the routine that they've established.
Nicholas.
QUESTION: Still on this. As part of your discussions with the Yemeni Government, are you at all talking about possibly if these people are recaptured extraditing them to the United States since they are responsible for the attack on the USS Cole? Is that at all a possibility? Would they stand trial in this country rather than in Yemen?
MR. MCCORMACK: You can check with DOJ to see if there are any inquiries --
QUESTION: But you have exchange with the government in Yemen, so --
MR. MCCORMACK: We're a pass-through on that. The decisions about seeking extradition for trial in the United States are made by the lawyers at the Department of Justice. We certainly are, you know, we're an interlocutor in that regard. You're right, there is -- at least one individual that was involved -- deeply involved in the planning and the attack on the Cole. So the fact that he's out and about is a source of real concern and we're going to do everything that we can to see that he, as well as the others, are returned to custody. And as for any future potential legal action, check with the Department of Justice.
QUESTION: I have two questions actually. The Ambassador of Venezuela today called U.S. to have a mature and rational relations with Venezuela. And apparently he didn't meet with anybody in this building for months, although there were a lot of issues to discuss. Is it true that he didn't meet with anybody in this building?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check. I'll check with Tom Shannon. I don't know. Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to that issue.
QUESTION: Okay. And what about this call to have mature and rational relations with you?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we've made very clear, we're open to a good relationship with Venezuela. We recently re-signed an anti-narcotics agreement with them. We look forward to good cooperation between our Drug Enforcement Agency and their counterparts in Venezuela. Our issues with the Government of Venezuela have not centered on the political orientation of the Venezuelan Government.
As I have said many, many times before, we are prepared to work with a left of center government, a right of center government, however you want to describe it, across the political spectrum. Our concerns are whether or not those governments are elected democratically and then subsequently do they govern in a democratic manner. Democracy is more than just about elections. Democracy is about how you govern. And our concerns -- our publicly stated concerns with the Government of Venezuela has centered around how the Chavez government has governed.
But we are certainly open to a positive relationship with Venezuela. We would hope for a positive relationship with Venezuela, as we would hope for with any democratically elected government in the Hemisphere.
QUESTION: A second question? It's about --
MR. MCCORMACK: I thought that was the second question.
QUESTION: No, no.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.
QUESTION: It's a French question.
QUESTION: Actually, can I just add to that question on --
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: -- when and if --
MR. MCCORMACK: We'll come back to your third question.
QUESTION: If you are going to check on the Venezuelan Ambassador's requests for meetings in the building and could you also check if he has been refused meetings in the building, was it in response to the American Ambassador in Caracas having been refused meetings at -- you know, in Caracas, just trying to -- because I know that the embassy in Caracas has been having a hard time getting meetings and (inaudible) officials.
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check with you. But let's -- before we get the facts, let's not presume that he has been refused a meeting. We don't -- we have to establish whether or not he's asked for a meeting. So a small point, but important.
QUESTION: Sean.
MR. MCCORMACK: We'll come back to you. We promise to come over here.
QUESTION: Jose Bové was a French prominent opponent to genetically modified food and to globalization -- is very famous in France -- was denied entry to U.S. last night and apparently about technical -- it was a technical -- officially a technical reason. But back in France, he said it was for political reasons. Do you have any reaction to that? Do you have any information on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware of the facts concerning this specific incident. We, of course, endeavor to make America a welcoming place. We encourage visitors to the United States. As for control of the borders, that falls within the purview of the Department of Homeland Security. I think they might be in a better position to provide the immediate facts of what may have happened. If there's anything that I can add to that, we'll certainly look into it for you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: The Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler had a meeting in the Department today. Who did he meet with and what was the agenda? Do you have any comment about that?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check for you. Off the top of my head, I don't know.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: Really quick on the trigger. You have colleagues back here who want to ask questions. Anne Gearan.
Joel.
QUESTION: With respect to the Central Caribbean area, there was an energy meeting at a Mexican hotel and the Mexicans denied entry and forced out the Cuban delegation.
MR. MCCORMACK: I talked about this the other day, Joel. So, you have to go back to the transcript on that one.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: Elise.
QUESTION: Can you say anything about how U.S. contractors in Iraq had shot and killed a few Iraqi civilians recently? I think the Embassy --
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check for you, Elise. I don't have any details on that.
QUESTION: Okay. You didn't -- that was my question to you. You haven't heard about these two civilians?
MR. MCCORMACK: I've seen news reports about this. I don't have any details for you. If we have anything to offer on it, then I'll check it out. There are very clear rules of engagement for civilian contractors in Iraq. I would leave it to the Embassy to describe exactly what those rules of engagement may be. Certainly, if there is any -- if there's been any contravention of those rules of engagement, officials will look into it. We take very seriously not only security, but also respect for the Iraqi people.
QUESTION: One other quick question. Oh, is it -- change of subject. Are we on that still?
QUESTION: I just wanted to actually go back quickly to the Mexico question, because there were reports last night on the wires that the authorities in Mexico City said they're actually going to close down the hotel entirely. They found some irregularities or breaking of rules and things like that. I'm just wondering if you're aware of that and if you are talking to the Mexican Government --
MR. MCCORMACK: I have not seen those reports, Nicholas.
QUESTION: And I'm asking because that hotel, as you know, is right next to the U.S. Embassy and is being used constantly by U.S. officials who stay there all the time.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right.
QUESTION: So, you must be concerned if they're going to close down the hotel because of that meeting, right?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, if there's any diplomatic aspect to this, we'll certainly offer some comment.
QUESTION: I have a question on Darfur. Kofi Annan -- back to Kofi, he's saying now that the U.S. should provide troops and -- I think troops and equipment for this new UN force. We've talked about that a little bit in this building. Do you have any reaction to that, ahead of his meetings here next week?
MR. MCCORMACK: We are working very closely with the UN. We support a transition from a purely AU mission to a UN mission. It's not intended to supplant the great efforts of the AU mission. It's designed to augment what the AU has been able to do. If it is a UN mission, then it has access to some more infrastructure, more planning, and also being able to draw resources from other places that the AU mission alone has not been able to do.
There has been an international aspect to it beyond the AU. NATO has played a role in it. We have provided assistance. The Canadian Government has provided assistance. As for any interim forces or the future UN forces, that is going to be a matter for discussion.
Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:24 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 |
|
|
|
