State Department Briefing, March 20
20 March 2006
Fraudulent Presidential Elections in Belarus, US Welcomes Bosnian Constitutional Reform, Nowruz Message, Belarus, Colombia, Iran, Japan, Iraq, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Prospects for Secretary Rice to Seek NFL Commissioner Position, NATO/Sudan
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack briefed the press March 20.
Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department Of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Monday, March 20, 2006
1:00 p.m. EST
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
STATEMENTS
-- Fraudulent Presidential Elections in Belarus
-- US Welcomes Bosnian Constitutional Reform
-- Nowruz Message
BELARUS
-- Prospects for Additional Measures Against Individuals Responsible for Election Fraud
COLOMBIA
-- Counterterrorism Conference in Bogota
IRAN
-- P5+1 Meeting in New York on Iran Nuclear Issue
-- UN Security Council Efforts/Status of Presidential Statement
-- Reported Call by UK for New Round of Discussions with Iran
-- German Parliamentarian's Comments on Further Talks with Iran
-- Diplomatic Efforts on Iran
-- Possibility of Meeting with Iranians on Iraq
JAPAN
-- Secretary Rice's Meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister in Australia
IRAQ
-- Status of Formation of Government/Security Issues
BAHRAIN
-- Secretary Rice's Meeting with Bahraini Crown Prince
AFGHANISTAN
-- Abdul Rahman Case/Conversion Trial
DEPARTMENT
-- Prospects for Secretary Rice to Seek NFL Commissioner Position
NATO/SUDAN
-- Secretary Rice's Meeting with NATO Secretary General
-- Peacekeeping in Darfur/Violence in Darfur
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2006
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
1:00 p.m. EST
MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon. I would note that I don't see any of your colleagues here that were on the trip. Just for the record.
I have a couple of statements here that I'd like to read to you and we will put out after the briefing, then we can get right into questions.
The first one is on elections in Belarus. The United States cannot accept as legitimate the election results announced yesterday by the Belarusian Central Election Commission declaring Alexander Lukashenko the winner in a landslide. The OSCE preliminary report documents the election "failed to meet OSCE commitments for democratic elections" and was characterized by "a disregard for human rights of freedom of assembly, association, and expression" as well as by a "climate of intimidation and insecurity" and "highly problematic" vote count.
The United States congratulates the courageous Belarusian democrats who, against appalling electoral conditions and at great risk, have moved their country closer toward reclaiming its democratic rights. We support their call for a new election. We will stand with the people of Belarus and back their aspirations to take their rightful place among the world's democracies.
The United States is preparing to take serious appropriate measures against those officials responsible for election fraud and other human rights abuses and will be coordinating these steps with the European Union. We call on the regime in Belarus to release immediately those detained during the campaign. The international community will continue to scrutinize the actions of the Belarusian authorities and we caution them not to harm, threaten or detain those exercising their political rights in the coming days and beyond.
The second statement I have is --
QUESTION: Can I ask on this or should we wait until you --
MR. MCCORMACK: No, why don't I run through all the statements and then we can come back, come back to each of the statements individually if you have additional questions.
The United States welcomes the March 18th constitutional reform agreement reached among the leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina's major political parties. The agreement follows months of hard work by the parties, fulfilling the commitment to Secretary Rice made at events commemorating the Dayton Peace Accords on November 22, 2005.
The political leaders have agreed to streamline the presidency and to make a stronger, more effective national council of ministers and parliament. These are significant first steps toward modernizing the structures established by the Dayton Peace Accords and toward creating a more functional state ready to take its place in Euro-Atlantic institutions.
We look forward to a swift parliamentary approval of these reforms so that they will be in effect for the October 2006 general elections. These reforms are only first steps in a multi-phase process. We welcome the parties' commitment to pursue further constitutional reforms following the October elections.
And finally, we have a statement of Nowruz greetings. The United States would like to extend its warmest greetings to those in Iran and others around the world who celebrate Nowruz, the Persian New Year. Nowruz means "new day" and marks the beginning of spring. It is one of the oldest traditions in Iran, celebrating not only a renewal of nature but also a renewal of friendships and forging new ones.
In celebrating this new day, we should be reminded of Iran's ancient civilization which has a proud history of tolerance and respect for human rights. These values helped shape the nation that has been in the past at the forefront of the region's quest for democracy and freedom. Today, Iranians continue to struggle for democracy, freedom and other rights denied them by an autocratic and repressive government. We salute the efforts of the many in Iran -- women, students, journalists and others -- to secure their rights.
The people of the United States convey to all those who celebrate Nowruz our best wishes for a new year filled with peace, prosperity and understanding. And with that, I'd be pleased to take whatever questions you have.
QUESTION: Was that message sent to Tehran?
MR. MCCORMACK: What's that?
QUESTION: Did you send that message to Tehran?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, inasmuch as this briefing is being broadcast to Tehran, I guess it would go to Tehran. It is a public statement, Barry.
QUESTION: So on Belarus, when you say you're supporting calls for a new election, how are you going to put that support into practice or is it just rhetorical support? And when you talk about the serious, appropriate measures that you're going to take, can we have any details?
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. On the first of those questions, I think that again, Saul, you've had a number of statements from the international community expressing concern about how this election was carried out. And you've heard from the OSCE, you've heard from the opposition now in Belarus, talking about their call for new elections. We are supporting that call rhetorically. I'm not sure that at this point, there are any further steps with regard to new elections that we might take. If there are, we'll certainly keep you informed of them.
In terms of other appropriate actions that might be taken against those who might be responsible for election fraud or human rights abuses during the carrying out of these elections, we are going to target any specific actions that might be taken on those individuals as well as the regime. I would note that we already do have in place some sanctions on individuals as well as the regime that include travel restrictions against those responsible for human rights abuses, limits on direct financial assistance to the government and limits on high-level meetings. So I would expect that it would be in that vein, Saul, that we would take a look at any additional measures that might be put in place.
QUESTION: No limits to direct financial assistance? They can't get government --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right, government-to-government assistance. Right. So you have to think about this in terms of, you know, the regime as well as those individuals who might be responsible for individual acts of human rights abuses or electoral -- or furthering electoral fraud.
QUESTION: Follow up on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.
QUESTION: What about broader -- I mean, since you've had little success in actually modifying Mr. Lukashenko's behavior, what about broader measures that would have more of an impact, rather than just targeting individuals? Is there any consideration on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: At this point, Peter, I think I would limit my comments to talking about what individual actions might be taken, as well as those against the regime. I would note the fact that -- just the fact that you did have an opposition candidate as well as these individuals who are willing to speak out in a peaceful manner -- I think we've had two days of peaceful protest in Minsk -- marks a step forward down the road towards democracy. This would have been unheard of, I think, two years ago, if you look back the history of this regime and the kinds of practices that they have engaged in.
So we are going to continue to support those forces for democracy in Belarus. I would note that certainly the fact that you would have an opposition candidate as well as these peaceful protests as a step forward for democracy in Belarus. But clearly the actions of the regime during the run-up to this election run contrary to the practices of democracies.
QUESTION: In what way the United States is going to support Belarusian opposition?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, like I said, Saul asked this question at the very beginning. We support the Belarusian opposition through a variety of different means. Rhetorically, we have had meetings with the opposition. But let's be clear that the future of Belarus is one for the people of Belarus to decide. Clearly, there are those who are speaking out against anti-democratic actions taken by the regime. So we're going to continue to support those forces for democracy within Belarus.
Barry. Sure.
QUESTION: You were away when this was touched on, but there's a terrorism conference in Bogotá this week. I don't know if you have anything fresh to say on it. You've been away. But the question would be, you know, what might come out of it. You have a high representative going and all. Anything you want to add?
MR. MCCORMACK: As you note, I was traveling with the Secretary and haven't taken this question. If there's -- I don't have anything new for you today, Barry. If there's anything else, we'll keep you up to date on it.
Libby.
QUESTION: Do you have any update on the UN Security Council and Iran meetings today? And also the P-5 plus Germany, what the goal is there this afternoon when they meet?
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Nick Burns is going to be traveling up to New York for meetings this afternoon of the P-5 + 1, the Permanent Five Council members plus Germany. They're going to be talking about how to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue.
And just to update people, right now the stage at which we find ourselves in the UN Security Council is drafting a presidential statement. Progress is being made on drafting that presidential statement and we are going to continue to work on that. That is not going to be the focus of this particular meeting although I wouldn't be surprised if they touch on it, as it is part of our diplomatic efforts. In part, this meeting is one -- another in a series of this particular group. I think the last one -- the last meeting of this particular group was in London and Nick Burns represented us there as well. That was prior to the IAEA Board of Governors meeting. So it's going to be a continuation of that discussion that they're having, how to deal over the medium to long term with the, at this point, continued intransigence of the Iranian regime in seeking nuclear weapons in contravention of their Nonproliferation Treaty obligations.
QUESTION: There are reports that the British are going to call for a new round of talks with the Iranians?
MR. MCCORMACK: This -- I saw -- is this in response to -- there was a, I think, a story coming out of Vienna over -- what is it --
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yesterday or the day before yesterday?
QUESTION: I saw it today, but yeah, could have been yesterday.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. I'm not aware of any new round of discussions with the Iranians. I haven't been made aware of any proposals in that regard.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) helpful?
MR. MCCORMACK: We think that the burden is on Iran right now to meet the obligations of the IAEA as stated in the March 6th Board of Governors statement. We think that at this point the Iranian regime has worn down its trust relationship with the international community to basically zero on these issues, so what you need to see from the Iranian regime at this point are concrete actions that bring them back into the mainstream. Right now they are outside the mainstream of the nonproliferation regime with -- through their actions in defying the international community, lying consistently to the international community about what they're doing on their nuclear research. So it's really up to the Iranian regime to take concrete steps to come back into the mainstream.
QUESTION: There's not even a point to further talks? I ask because the head of the German parliament's foreign affairs committee -- it's called something else -- is here and some of us saw him this morning and he's seeing Zoellick or maybe he has already -- suggesting, for one thing, the U.S. get involved in talks, going slow at the UN, give the Russians more time. He speaks of four weeks, six weeks. Is it the U.S. view that you've just about run out of talk, that there's been a -- there's no great point in prolonging negotiations or trying to reopen them?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Barry, what the -- we're dealing with the German Government on this as well as the other members of the Security Council who are part of the EU-3. What we have done consistently over time, over the past year in working with the EU-3 as well as other members of the international community, has been twofold: to broaden the consensus regarding Iran's nuclear program, and that consensus now is that Iran is attempting to seek a nuclear weapon under cover of a civilian nuclear program; and the other tact we've been taking, Barry, is to steadily increase pressure on the Iranian regime to change its behavior.
Iran now finds itself before the Security Council. The international spotlight is shining on their actions. It's an uncomfortable place in which they find themselves. So I think that at this point what the international community is asking Iran to do is asking them to come back into the mainstream, come back into compliance with their international obligations, meet the just demands of the IAEA in demonstrating to the international community that they will, in fact, be willing to engage in good faith in a diplomatic effort to resolve the current situation. They, thus far, have not demonstrated good faith in all the attempts to resolve this through diplomacy. We are continuing along the diplomatic track. We now find ourselves in the Security Council and we are going to continue working with the EU-3, as well as the Security Council members, on efforts, diplomatic efforts to convince the Iranian regime that it is in their interest to meet the just demands of the international community.
QUESTION: Thank you, but I'm not sure if the diplomacy, in the U.S. view, should be confined at this point to the UN arena or --
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's where we find ourselves right now.
QUESTION: Yeah, I know.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Concerning the nuclear issue.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, I'm talking about the nuclear issue. I'm just saying --
MR. MCCORMACK: And just to point out, Barry, we have never been involved in direct talks with the Iranians on this issue.
QUESTION: I know that. I know that.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, I just -- you certainly know that, Barry, but I'm not sure that other people listening know that, so I wanted to make that clear.
QUESTION: He is, I think is as apprehensive as his government probably is about Iran's nuclear intentions but he is speaking in terms of a need, a virtue in having additional talks between Iran and Russia and having the U.S. talk to the Iranians presumably as part of a European Union negotiating forum. And I'm just wondering if there's any point in that from the U.S. view. It sounds like you think you've spent your diplomacy and it's time --
MR. MCCORMACK: No, that's not what I'm saying, Barry. I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said. We're engaged in an intensive diplomatic process at the UN Security Council --
QUESTION: Because I asked --
MR. MCCORMACK: -- I don't know if in your view that counts as diplomacy.
QUESTION: Sorry.
MR. MCCORMACK: No, sorry. I wanted to try to give an answer in response to the question, but you're interrupting. Go ahead.
QUESTION: No, no, I'm saying here's -- I ask you about the prominent parliamentarian saying let's slow down the rush at New York, let's take some more time for the Russians to talk to the Iranians. Hey, the U.S. ought to join talks in one way or another, most preferably with the European Union. So what I'm asking you is if you see any point to any of that, and when I did, you spoke in terms of what is going on at the UN. So I don't know --
MR. MCCORMACK: Because that's where we find ourselves, Barry.
QUESTION: I know you -- but is that the only arena you want to be with Iran in right now?
MR. MCCORMACK: That's where the nuclear issue finds itself right now, Barry. I don't think the -- I haven't heard of any proposal from the German Government for the United States to join the EU-3 discussions, which the EU-3 themselves have said have met a dead end. And in terms of the Russian discussions, we are supportive of the Russian proposal but, again, we have not been involved in those discussions and the Russians themselves have expressed some degree of exasperation with the Iranian behavior. So I'm not sure quite what you're getting at here.
Teri.
QUESTION: If, as you say, international consensus has been broadened, why are you having so much trouble coming up with a presidential statement in New York?
MR. MCCORMACK: Teri, you've seen -- this is multilateral diplomacy. It takes some time.
QUESTION: Right, but if the P-5 is on board --
MR. MCCORMACK: And I think that we've been working at this, I think, for maybe a little bit over a week, maybe two weeks or so. I've lost a little track of time.
Excuse me?
QUESTION: You haven't been working on the specific language but you've been working on this consensus for months and months and months, and it would seem that it would follow more easily that you would be able to work the language into a statement if, truly, there was a consensus of these allies.
MR. MCCORMACK: I think there actually -- there is a consensus. That's why we're at the Security Council. And in terms of giving the diplomacy some time, that's the way these things work. I know that there's, you know, a desire sort of to feed the 24-hour global news cycle, but you know, again, this has been patient diplomacy that you have seen demonstrated by the United States. This goes back more than a year working with our European colleagues to build this international consensus. And now you have the IAEA Board of Governors voting to refer this matter to the Security Council. The only countries, I think, that voted with Iran at this point were Cuba and Venezuela.
So again, you have a growing international consensus moving this issue to the Security Council. Now the issue is before the Security Council. There's been patient diplomacy ongoing and I think you see again a growing consensus within the Security Council on the specific language for a presidential statement. I would expect that over the coming days that you're going to see the members of the Security Council get closer and closer on language. But this takes time.
QUESTION: What are the hang-ups, then? Maybe that just answers the question --
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to do a negotiation from the podium. There's -- like I said, there's growing consensus on the language. The negotiators are coming together on the specific wording. This takes time. You know, we've only been in the Security Council, I think, for a couple of weeks now.
So again, the United States is patient, determined and focused in its diplomatic efforts and we were seeing likeminded seriousness from other members of the Security Council. These are serious issues. And I would expect that because they are such serious issues that other members of the Security Council are going to want to look very carefully at what this presidential statement says, and we respect that. But the fact of the matter is that diplomacy is moving forward. You are seeing growing consensus in terms of the specific language. So I would expect to see that continue over the next couple days.
QUESTION: So does that mean at the end of a couple days you think you'll have it?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not putting a specific timeline, but I know the process is moving forward. It is moving in the right direction.
Elise.
QUESTION: A new topic?
MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on this? Samir?
QUESTION: Does Ambassador Khalilzad -- the authorization he had from last November still work for this time to continue or the Administration needs to decide if you are going to respond positively to Larijani's announcement?
MR. MCCORMACK: This is Ambassador Khalilzad?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. MCCORMACK: We have talked about this numerous times from this podium. The Secretary has talked about it and this is, I want to make clear, an issue completely separate from the nuclear issue. Ambassador Khalilzad has for some time had authorization to engage his counterpart on issues of mutual concern regarding Iraq. We have used this kind of mechanism previously in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, it was Ambassador Khalilzad, while he was Ambassador to Afghanistan that he was able to use this mechanism and it proved useful. But it was limited to issues related to Afghanistan.
We have for some months now had this offer open to the Iranian government to use this kind of channel between our ambassadors in Baghdad to exchange information, to talk about issues of mutual concern. It's not a negotiating channel. It's a channel in which the ambassadors can exchange information.
I think Steve Hadley, the National Security Advisor, has noted that it's very interesting that now that Iran finds itself increasingly in the international spotlight in a negative way, that they are now sort of broadcasting on all signals about a willingness to engage on a variety of different issues. I don't have any updates for you regarding any specific meetings. We'll try to keep you updated on that. So again, it's a channel of communication on a very discrete issue that's available, and we'll see.
QUESTION: So they haven't met and --
MR. MCCORMACK: Not to my knowledge, Barry.
QUESTION: Not to your knowledge. And obviously, there's no decision to meet. You haven't internally --
MR. MCCORMACK: The channel is open. We have -- you know, again, we have not had -- you know, we have not -- there have not been any meetings to my knowledge and we'll try to keep you updated on that.
Elise.
QUESTION: I have a question on another topic.
MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on Iran or --
QUESTION: If I could take one on this. As you just said, you were the ones that proposed this in October to kind of talk to the Iranians, and at the time they didn't want -- why now that they're saying that they'll do it are you kind of souring the atmosphere, according to the Iranians, in terms of -- they said that they'll do it now? Why are you pooh-poohing it now? Why can you just have the talks?
MR. MCCORMACK: No, not in any way sort of trying to diminish the intent of this channel.
QUESTION: But, I mean --
MR. MCCORMACK: But it is rather curious timing.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, does it matter?
MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me?
QUESTION: If you want to have this talk with the Iranians, the Iraq issue is important and you want to move forward, you have things to discuss. But as soon as it came out, all the Administration officials on Friday and now today, you know, maybe not intentionally diminishing the importance of the talks, but you know, calling it a "stunt," calling it a "ruse". Do you want to have the talks with the Iranians or not?
MR. MCCORMACK: It's a channel of communication that is open. It was offered by us to the Iranians. I think it's pretty clear to anybody with a bit of common sense, the timing is rather curious now. But of course, if it is a -- it can be a useful channel of communication on the issue of Iraq. I don't think it -- but I would caution about anybody conflating issues here -- you know, nuclear issues or issues dealing with Iraq. Those are separate and being dealt with in separate fora.
QUESTION: But have they moved ahead at all? You can't say yes or --
MR. MCCORMACK: Not to my knowledge. To my knowledge, there has been no meeting. I don't think there has been. We'll try to keep you updated on that as best we can.
QUESTION: But is it -- is the ball in the U.S. court right now to be -- use a cliché? Is it up to the United States now to accept the talks or --
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're -- this -- again, this channel has been open. They said that they're interested in discussion.
QUESTION: Right. So what's the next move?
MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, if there's some meeting, these are things that work themselves out. I don't have particular description of who has talked to whom at this point. I guess I would -- we've talked about the fact that there is this channel. We've talked about the outlines of it and we'll try to keep you updated as best we can on whether or not there is a meeting or not and as best we can describe what happened in that meeting.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) just to be very specific?
MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, I'll keep you updated.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Last week in Australia, the Secretary Rice met and talked with the Japanese Foreign Minister Aso Taro. Did they talk about a U.S. military realignment in Japan?
MR. MCCORMACK: The Defense Position Realignment Initiative, the DPRI, they did touch on that. They reiterated the mutual goal of trying to conclude those discussions by the end of March. We'll see. It was just a -- it was a very general discussion.
QUESTION: A follow-up. Regarding an agreement of implementation plan about the realignment in Japan, last weekend some high ranking member of the ruling party, LDP, in Japan, he said he doesn't mind that that agreement will be delayed to April. But Japanese Government is saying they want to make an agreement in this month. What is the stance of United States?
MR. MCCORMACK: We'd like to -- again, the mutual goal here is to try to come to an agreement on this in the month of March. I know there are, in the near future, going to be another round of discussions on it at the working level. So our commitment restated in the meeting on our side, and we heard this back from the Japanese Government side, was to conclude the discussions by the end of March.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.
QUESTION: At other time, Japanese Government wants to hold a two-plus-two -- so-called two-plus-two meeting on National Security Council and but I hear the United States Government doesn't want to make a -- hold such a meeting.
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any information for you on that. It didn't come up in the meeting with the Secretary. They didn't discuss that topic.
QUESTION: Now you have a schedule to make a two-plus-two meeting, don't you?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, if there is such a meeting, we'll keep you updated on it.
Okay, Joel.
QUESTION: Change of topic.
MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on Japan? No? Okay. Joel.
QUESTION: On Iraq. It's the third year anniversary of the beginning of the war today. President Bush has just addressed in a speech in Cleveland, Ohio. We've had comments over the weekend by former Prime Minister Allawi saying that Iraq is in to a civil war and we've seen operations northwest of Baghdad over the last week going after a terrorist element. Now, in this climate, why is cleric al-Sadr having his own Mahdi army, his own police, his own courts, in Sadr City? Is that something we were looking forward to or is this planning a greater insurrection down the road much like Najaf and Fallujah?
MR. MCCORMACK: Joel, as you pointed out, the President has spoken to many of these issues quite a bit over the past few days. It is right now important that the Iraqi political parties, political institutions, come together to form a government of national unity, and in forming a government that they agree that this government has responsibility for providing security and basic services to the Iraqi people. That means you can't have elements operating outside of the government rule. The issue of militias is one that we've talked about quite a bit and the importance of the Iraqis themselves resolving issues of a central command-and-control chain, not only for the police but for the army.
And in terms of the first part of your question, General Casey has talked about that issue and that's where I get my information from.
Samir.
QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the meeting -- the Secretary's meeting with the Bahrain Crown Prince?
MR. MCCORMACK: That's -- it's ongoing right now.
QUESTION: It's going now?
MR. MCCORMACK: It's going on right now.
QUESTION: Anything in advance, like the purpose of the visit and the --
MR. MCCORMACK: They're going to talk about issues -- economic, political issues in the region. We'll try to get you a readout after the meeting. Okay? Great.
Elise.
QUESTION: On Afghanistan, there are some reports that an Afghan Muslim man who converted to Christianity is on trial and could be punished to death for betraying Islam. Are you worried that this is a problem with registration freedom in the country? Now that the Taliban is gone you thought that there would be more democracy and improved human rights.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's a case that we're following very closely and it's important, we believe, that the Afghan authorities conduct this trial and any proceedings that lead up to it in as transparent a manner as possible. Our view, certainly, as you know, and has been stated here as well as others places many, many times, is that tolerance, freedom of worship is an important element of any democracy and these are issues as Afghan democracy matures that they are going to have to deal with increasingly. I think that right now there's in Afghanistan some differing interpretations of the Afghan constitution. These issues rightfully should get resolved through the court system but they need to be resolved through -- resolved in a transparent manner and according to the rule of law. It is a case that we are going to following quite closely, though.
QUESTION: Can I have one more on another subject?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.
QUESTION: It looks like the Secretary's dream job has finally opened up. (Laughter.)
MR. MCCORMACK: I noticed that right before I came out here.
QUESTION: Are you worried that you might lose the Secretary of State to the NFL? (Laughter.)
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, at this point, certainly I've seen the news reports about Commissioner Tagliabue retiring. I haven't been able to confirm those reports. And at the moment, the Secretary is enjoying being the Secretary of State.
QUESTION: But you were nervous for a second, weren't you? (Laughter.)
I have another question on a more serious subject.
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. That's a pretty serious subject, Teri.
QUESTION: I know that's serious. Okay, let's presume she's staying awhile. Moving on, upstairs the NATO Secretary General and the Secretary were talking about possible AU UN re-hatting, et cetera, which hasn't moved along as far as I can tell from last week. And also this morning we see reports that some of us have been talking about are just horrific that some of these villages are expecting to have all of their inhabitants massacred by the Janjaweed. How do you feel when you hear that and you see that this is not moving, and what are they -- I mean, can you give us any readout from the Scheffer meeting of what NATO can do to --
MR. MCCORMACK: They did talk -- they did talk about this and you heard -- the tenor of the conversation was largely what you heard in public comments from the Secretary and the Secretary General here at the State Department and from the President and the Secretary General over at the White House. There are some disturbing actions that are taking place in Darfur and that is the reason why we have been pushing for this idea of re-hatting the AU mission force to a UN -- to make it a UN peacekeeping force. We believe the AU has already agreed to that re-hatting so it's a matter of moving that process forward. We're going to be doing everything that we can working with the UN as well as other international institutions -- the AU -- you heard from Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer about NATO's role. Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer said that he himself would play a leading role in this.
So again, we are working to -- we are working to address some of the very disturbing reports coming out of Darfur in terms of the violence and we're doing everything that we can working with the international community to stop that violence. We're also working very hard to try to address the humanitarian needs of the people in Darfur.
And at the same time as all of this is happening, we're trying to push the Abuja process forward because ultimately the way you're going to resolve the situation in Darfur and to -- over the medium and long term stop this kind of killing is through a political settlement. So, but in the meantime we need to do everything that we can to stop the violence. So we are working very hard on trying to move the political process in the international community forward in terms of getting a UN peacekeeping force into Darfur. Just the fact that you see the President personally engaged on this issue, I think is -- underlines the importance that we place on this.
QUESTION: And if the Government of Sudan still doesn't agree, what can you do?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, our view is that the AU has already agreed to re-hatting the mission. We're going to continue working on this issue.
QUESTION: Are you saying you don't need the government, that you don't need Khartoum's agreement?
MR. MCCORMACK: What we need is to move forward in terms of all the necessary planning that needs to be done on the UN side and to push the process forward. And I would just note that Sudan is part of the AU, and the AU as an organization has already agreed to the re-hatting.
QUESTION: Okay. When you read these reports that the lives of entire villages could be wiped out in the next day or two by the Janjaweed, is there anyone who gets on the phone? I mean, are you urgently making calls now to Khartoum and saying, "Look, we're hearing that the Janjaweed, which you are backing, are wiping out villages by the day." Is anybody making phone calls today when you see these reports?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, our people on the ground are working very hard on -- working very hard on this issue and again, just -- I'd just point out the fact that you have the President personally involved in this issue is a demonstration of our concern. And we speak out against violence. We have urged all parties in Darfur to desist from violence against innocent life. It's a tragedy. I don't think there is anybody who isn't moved by the plight of the people in Darfur. And we are working very hard on this issue and it is a concern to the Secretary as well as to the President.
Joel.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up to this. Sean, there have been reports that the Janjaweed have even attacked some of the settlements in the area of eastern Chad. Has that been of any concern and have you spoken to the Chad[ians] concerning this?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the reports of violence along the border between Sudan and Chad has been a real source of concern and that is something that we have tried to address.
Excuse me -- yes, I know, I know.
QUESTION: That's the villages I'm talking about.
MR. MCCORMACK: I know. I know. I don't have anything else to add, Joel.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:45 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 |
|
|
|
