State Department Briefing, April 20
20 April 2006
Secretary Rice Travel to Turkey, Greece, and Bulgaria, Israel/Palestinians, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, China, Brazil, Italy, Sudan, Nepal, Kyrgyzstan
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack briefed the press April 20.
Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Thursday, April 20, 2006
12:40 p.m. EDT
Briefer: Sean McCormack, Spokesman
DEPARTMENT
-- Secretary to Travel to Turkey, Greece, and Bulgaria
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Palestinian Appointment of Extremist/Nature of Hamas-led Government
-- Hamas' failure to condemn recent suicide bombing in Israel
-- Authorities of Abbas/Gaza Border Crossing Authority
LEBANON
-- Secretary's Conversation with Prime Minister Siniora
-- Sheba'a Farms Territorial Issue
-- UN Security Council Resolution 1559/Lebanese Control of its Territory
-- Terje Larsen's Report
-- President Lahoud's Tenure in Office
IRAQ
-- Discussions on Government Formation
-- U.S. Urges Iraqis to Make Rapid Progress
IRAN
-- Mr. Nahavandian's Reported Visit to US
-- Update on Diplomacy on Iran's Nuclear Program/IAEA Board of Governor's Meeting/UN Security Council Meeting
-- Potential Actions by Individual States
-- Discussions in Moscow/Next Steps
-- Meeting in Moscow of EU-3 with Iranian Delegation
CHINA
-- Investigation Into Allegations of Organ Harvesting
BRAZIL
-- Brazilian Nuclear Program
ITALY
-- Certification of Mr. Prodi's Electoral Victory
SUDAN
-- Update on Possible UN Resolution on Sudan/Travel Ban on Leaders
NEPAL
-- Imperative for the King to Restore Democracy/Call for Restraint
KYRGYZSTAN
-- Discussion on Base Operations
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 2006
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
12:40 p.m. EDT
MR. MCCORMACK: Hello, everybody. How are you? I have one announcement for you. Mr. Lambros, I hope you're listening. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Rice has canceled her trip to Greece?
MR. MCCORMACK: You're cruel, Barry. We'll put out the paper statement after the briefing.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will travel to Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria April 24th through the 28th, 2006. In addition to discussions with leaders of the three countries, she will take part in an informal meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization foreign ministers to discuss preparations for the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, this coming November. She will also take part in a transatlantic dinner involving the foreign ministers of all NATO and EU countries.
In Turkey and Greece, she will review our shared interests with these strategic partners, including advancing democracy and peace in the broader Middle East and beyond, combating terrorism, Cyprus and Turkey's EU accession, and Eurasian energy security.
In Bulgaria, Secretary Rice is expected to sign a defense cooperation agreement and discuss bilateral and regional issues.
QUESTION: In that sequence, Turkey, then Greece, yes?
MR. MCCORMACK: We'll keep you updated on the exact schedule, Barry.
QUESTION: We don't know which country is first, you mean?
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I have given you the batting order right now, Barry. If there are any changes to that, I'll let you know.
QUESTION: All right, I've got you.
QUESTION: Did you say Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria?
MR. MCCORMACK: I said Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, yes.
QUESTION: And when she will be in Greece?
MR. MCCORMACK: We will keep you up to date as we get closer to the trip -- we're leaving Monday -- on the exact dates where she will be. I knew this was coming.
QUESTION: So you don't have an exact date when she will be --
MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, we'll keep you updated.
QUESTION: Can we understand for real an answer that the first country is Turkey and it will be the 25th as a result?
MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, I've given you the batting order, the order here. And as for any further definition of the schedule, we will keep you up to date on that.
QUESTION: Sean, will she go with a GPS transmitter to let us know country by country where she is?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think, you know, if your colleagues are doing their jobs, that you will know where she is based on the reporting.
Okay, now that we have that over with. Yes, okay.
QUESTION: I don't know if you've had a chance or the building had a chance to absorb these appointments by the Palestinians, the Interior Minister appointing a fellow that's described, I guess euphemistically, as a militant. Do you -- I mean, we could all read all these names and all, but it looks like they are following through in putting certain guys with certain viewpoints in charge of things. Do you have any observations about it, reflections on it?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, Barry we hope -- as we've made clear, we hold this Hamas-led government for security in the Palestinian areas and that means that preventing acts of terrorism as well as dismantling terrorist groups.
Look, this is again, I think, a demonstration of the true nature and the true tactics of this particular Hamas-led government. We saw public expression of that just the other day when, given the opportunity to condemn an act of terrorism in which a teenager blew up innocents in Jerusalem, that they condoned it, they didn't condemn it. So again, this is just another window into the nature of this Hamas-led government and underscores the importance of the international community maintaining unity and sending a strong message to them to change.
We've -- I've heard various statements about -- statements from some of the leaders of this Hamas-led government saying that -- you know, trying to sort of whip up a spirit of nationalism among the Palestinians talking about dignity, not dollars. Well, again, this is distracting from the issue. What they are doing, what this Hamas-led government is doing, is standing in the way of progress towards what all Palestinians want, and that is a Palestinian state that is a stable state, that is a secure state in which the children of the Palestinian people today can realize a better future. What they're doing is standing in the way of that.
So again, we call upon the Hamas-led government to meet the conditions that have been laid out by the international community. You can see that in the most recent statement out of the Quartet.
QUESTION: I may be wrong, but I thought there was some hope offered at the State Department that Hamas would remain the authoritative figure in some areas. And maybe I'm wrong, but I thought security was one of your hopes.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there has been some talk about what exact authorities President Abbas will choose to exercise. He does retain some authorities as President of the Palestinian Authority. I think at this -- the best way I can describe it at this point, Barry, is that that situation is still evolving with respect to the Palestinian security services.
Teri.
QUESTION: Do you know -- do you have any idea what's going on with the border crossing at Rafah? I understand that Abbas doesn't want responsibility for that, but Hamas also doesn't want to take it on. Do you have any (inaudible) about that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Let me check into it for you, Teri. I know that there was some suggestion from President Abbas's office that they would actually take over responsibility for security at these crossings, these border crossings, but let me try to get you a more exact answer.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.
QUESTION: Change of topic?
MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on this?
QUESTION: Lebanon's Prime Minister today said that he had asked President Bush to put pressure on Israel to pull out of the Shebaa Farms area. Did this come up during the Secretary's conversation with him? And what's the U.S. position on this? Do you think that Israel should do this so that Lebanon can -- that it has control over its whole territory, which would include Shebaa Farms, or do you think that it's a dispute for Syria and Lebanon to resolve? It seems the UN says it's Syrian territory.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. To the first part of your question, whether or not this came up in the Secretary's discussion with Prime Minister Siniora in their meeting, Prime Minister Siniora alluded to this situation, this -- I guess you could call it dispute -- and the need to resolve it. It wasn't a point of discussion. It was just -- it was, I think, an allusion by Prime Minister Siniora, so it wasn't a point of discussion.
The issue of Shebaa Farms has a number of different interlocking components and it cuts across a number of different UN resolutions. The UN -- I'll start at the beginning. The UN has found that the Shebaa Farms area -- and we partake in this viewpoint as well -- the Shebaa Farms area is Israeli-occupied Syrian territory. And our view is that all occupied territories, disputes about occupied territories, ultimately need to be resolved through negotiation.
Now, there are other parts to this as well. Previously, the UN has in the wake of Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon demarcated a border. That border did not include the Shebaa Farms area. So there is a beginning of a demarcation process.
Now, the weight of public -- getting back to Shebaa Farms. The weight of the public statements about Shebaa Farms from both Syria and from Lebanon is that this is actually Lebanese territory. So in order to resolve the issue of Shebaa Farms, and Terje Larsen notes this in his report that he just put out about implementation of 1559 -- and we'll get back to 1559 in a second -- is that it needs to be a negotiated solution among all the parties. And the way you start a series of events that can lead to a resolution to all the issues surrounding Shebaa Farms is for Syria and Lebanon to negotiate.
Now, I would put out for you that Syria is all too happy to let the situation stand as it is and because in their view there is no percentage in beginning a negotiation with Lebanon on this. So I think it is a fair assessment to say that they are the key stumbling block to resolving these issues that could lead to a resolution in a number of different areas.
So we would call upon a negotiated solution among all of the parties under the auspices of the UN. And we would also call upon Syria and Lebanon to establish normal diplomatic relations. Now, I understand that Lebanon probably has an interest in that. I'm not so sure about Syria. Again, I think the process begins with Syria being willing to negotiate a resolution to this, which thus far they have not demonstrated any intention or willingness to do so.
Now again, the other piece to this is 1559, UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which, among other things, calls for the Lebanese Government to exercise control and security over all of its territory, including in the south. And this gets wrapped up into the issue of disbanding and disarming militias as well, so Lebanon has a piece of this.
If you are able to resolve the Shebaa Farms piece, and again that begins with Syria and Syria working with Lebanon under the auspices of the UN, then you can have, we believe, full implementation or the opportunity to fully implementation 1559 where Lebanon would take control over all of its territory, which if you look at the weight of all the public statements would include Shebaa Farms. But you need to have a negotiated settlement for that to happen.
So that's a long answer to your short question.
QUESTION: And Hezbollah is holding this up as well, no?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, that's part of -- the issue of Hezbollah is part of the 1559 and we have said again and again that how that issue gets resolved, the timing and the manner in which it gets resolved, is one for the Lebanese to decide. I know that Prime Minister Siniora and other members of his government have an interest in resolving that issue as it involves disbanding of all the militias, it involves the fundamental questions in a democracy where the state controls the security services. They have the responsibility for providing security in their whole territory. So that is an issue for the Lebanese people to resolve. I think Mr. Larsen's report underscores the importance of coming to some conclusion on that issue. We certainly support coming to a conclusion on that issue, as to other members of the Security Council.
QUESTION: But in other words, you would not be prepared to push for Israel to withdraw from the Shebaa Farms in the UN? I mean, that's what he's asking you to do.
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, as a matter of principle, what we call for is resolution of questions involving occupation of territory. Those need to be negotiated solutions. But I went through, I think, as full an explanation as I can provide about the interlocking pieces to this. The key that would set in motion a series -- a potential series -- of events that leads to an answer to your question begins with Syria, begins in Damascus, and a willingness to back up and formalize what has -- back up and formalize the -- what public statements indicate is, in fact, the situation; that is, that Lebanon and Syria think that Shebaa Farms is Lebanese territory.
Nicholas.
QUESTION: You mentioned Mr. Larsen. There is a new report that he produced about -- saying that Syria put pressure on members of the legislature in Lebanon to extend the president's term. I wonder if you have anything to say on that.
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm sorry. What was that, Nicholas? I'm sorry, I didn't hear.
QUESTION: That Syria put pressure on members of parliament in Lebanon in 2004 to extend -- to make it possible in the constitution to extend his term, and he still is, as you know, in office. I wonder if you saw that report and generally where do you stand -- is this report now a reason to publicly call for Mr. Lahud's stepping down?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think the fact that Syria put pressure on a number of different individuals in Lebanon to change the laws, to amend the constitution so it would allow an extension of President Lahud's term, that's not new. I think that's been widely reported. I think that we've even talked about that.
One of the very sad consequences of that series of events is that former Prime Minister Hariri was assassinated as part of that collection of events, hence you have Mr. Larsen issuing this report.
As for the question now of Mr. Lahud, the Lebanese, I know, are -- the Lebanese political leaders are grappling with this issue, how to deal with it, and there is a lot of debate right now in Lebanon about how exactly to address this issue. I know that there are many voices in the Lebanese political system that are calling for a change in the laws and subsequent amendment to the constitution that would have the net result of Mr. Lahud not continuing in office as president. It's still a topic of discussion in Beirut and those questions are questions that need to be answered by the Lebanese people and the Lebanese political leaders.
What we have expressed to Lebanese leaders and the Lebanese people is that we want to see a peaceful, legal constitutional process, however the situation is resolved, if there are any changes.
Joel. Yeah, wait a minute. Anything else on Lebanon, Syria?
QUESTION: On Iran?
MR. MCCORMACK: We'll get around here. Let's go to Joel and then we'll come back to Iran. I don't think that will -- that issue is going away, not during the course of this briefing.
QUESTION: Sean, yesterday Secretary Rice addressed the Council of Foreign Relations, the meeting in Chicago.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: Now, did she get her wish? Apparently, we may have another interim government in Iraq and what is her current view concerning that? I think in recent days you've mentioned a bit of that.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there are some -- there are apparently some political developments in Iraq where Prime Minister Jaafari has publicly expressed that he is willing to put up the question of his nomination as the next prime minister to a vote of the UIA parliamentary bloc. So that is just a public manifestation, I think, of a lot of the behind-the-scenes discussions among the various groups, among the Shia political parties and between the Shia political parties and the Kurds and the Sunnis. There's a lot of political ferment.
Ultimately, the decisions about who is going to lead the next Iraqi government as prime minister and who fills the seats in the cabinet are going to be ones for the Iraqis to decide. We have urged that whatever government is formed that it be a national unity government, that it be a strong government, that it be an effective government and that it begin to repay the trust put in the political parties and the political leaders by the Iraqi people when they voted for them back in January.
So we, as you have heard us before, we urge that this process move forward as quickly as possible. There are some indications that it is again moving towards a resolution and we look forward to working with that next Iraqi government. It is important for the region and is important for the world that that government succeed, that that government succeed in beginning to build those democratic institutions in which the people can have trust; that the people, the governed, have confidence that the government will respond to their needs for security, for a better economic environment, on a variety of different fronts. And the United States and the international community is committed to that task so that we can build a foundation for a better, secure, stable, more prosperous Iraq in the future.
QUESTION: But does it look like this -- does it look like this might be a way out from your vantage point for Jaafari to let the Shiites determine if he should be standing?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, these are questions for them, for them to resolve. I think that there -- like I said, there are a lot of political machinations. The Iraqis in a very short span of time over the past several years have really taken to democratic politics. There's a lot of debate out there. They have laid the foundations for whatever future government comes in terms of how the different parts of that government relate to one another and what the platform of that government will be. So I think certainly the indications are that the political process continues to move forward and we'll see what the coming days bring. I'm not going to try to make any predictions on that at this moment.
QUESTION: But could you at least say that it looks like this would help that process move forward? I mean, you can't behave as if the United States hasn't weighed in on this before. We all know that you have.
MR. MCCORMACK: No, what we weighed in with the Iraqis is urging them to move forward, to move the political process forward, and certainly we encourage that. Make no mistake about it. But most importantly, it is key for that process to move forward so that the Iraqi people continue to have faith and confidence in this democratic process, that the confidence that they placed in these leaders by putting those ballots in the ballot box will be repaid. It will be repaid by a strong and effective government. And if this particular action by Prime Minister Jafari leads towards that, all the better -- helps lead to that, all the better.
QUESTION: What sort of contact has the U.S. had in recent days with Jafari? Has the Ambassador met with him?
MR. MCCORMACK: I can't say whether or not Ambassador Khalilzad has met with Prime Minister Jaafari in the past couple days. I haven't kept track. It's kind of hard to keep track of all his meetings. He is very active with -- on a variety of fronts with many different political leaders in Iraq right now.
Sue.
QUESTION: Who has the Secretary spoken to in the past few days? I saw on the transcript of her discussions yesterday she said she'd been speaking to -- I think it was some Sunni leaders. Who else has she spoken to?
MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of Iraqi leaders, it was just those two. And the reason why she made those phone calls was that both Mr. Hashimi and Mr. Motlaq lost brothers, each lost a brother to assassins, and she wanted to call to express her personal condolences as well as the condolences of the United States to these brave men who, in the face of those who would seek to derail the progress of Iraq, they are standing firm. They are full participants in the political process and they have played an important role in bringing a Sunni voice to the formation of this government of national unity.
Nicholas.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, wait a minute. Janine, did you have a question?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.
QUESTION: Well, I just wonder whether you have anything today on Mr. Nahavandian, the Iranian official who is in this country.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. On all those questions, Nicholas, I'm going to refer you over to the Department of Homeland Security. I think that they'll be able to give you any updates that they may have.
QUESTION: Is there any way even if -- if -- well, apparently now he does have a green card then. That's why you're referring me to DHS. But when he came to this country for the first time, however many years ago that was, he came on a visa, so I wonder if there is a way to go back and see what kind of visa he was issued when he first came to this country in the early '90s or the late '80s. I know that records -- electronic records are kept only back to the mid '90s so it might be difficult, but, you know, maybe there is a paper trail.
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll see if there's anything we can share with you. Okay.
QUESTION: There's something --
MR. MCCORMACK: Wait a minute. Janine was next here. We'll come to you, Barry.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask a China question. Given the disturbance today at the White House, has the State Department made any progress in its inquiry of the reports that people are being executed and their organs harvested at camps in China?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think I talked about --
QUESTION: You dealt with this on the 14th.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, we talked about this a while back. Look, any questions with respect to President Hu's visit, and I would put this one in that particular category because it deals with China policy, I'll refer you over to the White House today. They're going to be having a briefing at 3:30, an on-the-record briefing with some of the experts who have been participating in these meetings, and I think they'll be able to answer it.
QUESTION: I take issue with your referral only because the statement that you put out on the 14th said the State Department and the embassies were investigating the matter, so I'm just wondering whether there's any progress.
MR. MCCORMACK: Don't have any update for you.
QUESTION: Brazil.
MR. MCCORMACK: Brazil.
QUESTION: Yeah, it doesn't come up every day. It seems to have an active nuclear program and I wonder if this is a cause of any anxiety for --
MR. MCCORMACK: My understanding is that they have an active peaceful nuclear program and that they are signatories of the NPT. They have signed the additional protocols. To my knowledge, they have not had any findings of noncompliance with respect to their nuclear program.
QUESTION: So there wouldn't be any parallel at all to what the Iranians are doing, is it?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think -- I can't even begin to think of a parallel between the behavior of a regime that is the central banker of terror in the Middle East, that is a fundamental -- one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world, that has violated its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations, and that has sought to undercut any moves towards democracy, and a peaceful, multi-ethnic, fully democratic state like Brazil.
QUESTION: That's a tricky way to get into Iran.
(Laughter.)
MR. MCCORMACK: You were very clever, Barry.
QUESTION: No, I wasn't even planning it, but since we're on Iran --
MR. MCCORMACK: Since I brought it up, right?
QUESTION: I'm sure you're aware of speculative stories, certainly Adam is aware of them, of what the United States might be thinking of doing next so far as talking to the IAEA and its board.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: Is there any change in the basic procedure, which is we're waiting for a report from ElBaradei, we get the report, talk at the UN about what to do about it?
MR. MCCORMACK: Here's the timeline as I understand it, Barry. We had the meetings in Moscow, G-7, G-8, P 5+1. There are going to be continuing discussions at the political director and other level in the run-up to April 28th. April 28th is the date on which the IAEA will deliver a report to the Board of Governors, as well as the Security Council at the same time, about Iran's nuclear activities since the last time the Board of Governors met.
I would expect shortly thereafter that the Security Council would meet to consider the report and also to meet to consider what diplomatic next steps to take. I am not aware of any move to call for, in that interregnum, a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors.
QUESTION: Are the Security Council --
MR. MCCORMACK: Teri.
QUESTION: Are Security Council -- I mean, no meetings are on the agenda between now and then, as far as you know, on Iran?
MR. MCCORMACK: I would -- you know, I can't preclude that at the Security Council, they're -- as part of their daily business they may -- they might not discuss Iran. It could -- it might just be part of the daily flow of business at the UN. But in terms of calling a Security Council meeting specifically to talk about the IAEA report and what diplomatic next steps, I expect that would be at the beginning of May, after the April 28th report.
QUESTION: Can we talk a little bit about Nick's meetings, wrapping up Nick's meetings? And he says that he thinks there's been progress because almost every country is now considering some sort of sanctions, but it doesn't seem that he came away with any greater hope that the Russians and Chinese have changed their position on it. Can you update us?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, I don't have much to what he said in public on the topic. I would expect that the discussions will continue over the next couple weeks on this topic. I think the -- certainly, the momentum is shifting in the direction of the international community taking strong diplomatic steps and that would mean sanctions. How do you accomplish that and under what aegis do you do that? One of the things I think certainly we'll be interested in talking about at the Security Council is a Chapter 7 resolution. And that would allow -- that would have the force of international law. It would call upon -- it might call upon Iran to heed the call of the international community as it laid out in the previous presidential statement, which again, doesn't have the force of international law, but it reflected a consensus of the Security Council.
So there are a lot of different options at the -- diplomatic options at the disposal of the international community. I think that you are seeing a clear move in the direction of sanctions, of increasing the pressure on the Iranian regime to get it to change its behavior.
QUESTION: Including the veto-wielding countries as well? Can you say specifically that you see a shift in the position of Russia and China towards sanctions?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm going to let them speak on their own behalf where they stand on that question. We are certainly focused on work in the Security Council. But as Nick's discussions in Moscow indicate, certainly other states can also act on their own. They can act as groups as well. That doesn't preclude working through the Security Council and certainly that remains a focus of our efforts as well as the focus of many others in the international community. But individual states also may act on their own.
Debbie.
QUESTION: On the Chapter 7 resolution question, is it true that Nick failed to get agreement from the P-5 to pursue a Chapter 7, regardless of what it includes?
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Again, I have to go back. I want to rewind the tape to before the Moscow meetings. These meetings were not intended as gatherings where you were going to come out with agreements. They were designed to really further discussion on and refine the discussion and bring into higher relief the various options that are at the disposal of the international community. So the idea going in was certainly not to come to agreement on all of these issues. These are tough issues and these are weighty matters, so it will take a little bit more discussion.
That said, we believe that it is time for the Security Council to act and we believe that that time to act will come shortly after the IAEA presents what I would expect would be a very straightforward report about Iran's nuclear activities and which would also include a discussion about their claims to have performed enrichment.
Dave.
QUESTION: In terms of a cup half empty and -- or half full, Iran appears to have come up with an idea for this technical pause in enrichment. Is that in any way in advance? It seemed in a way they're being responsive.
MR. MCCORMACK: A technical pause? I'm not sure I know what that means.
QUESTION: They offered to, at least for some period, halt their --
MR. MCCORMACK: It's clear what they need to do. It's laid out in the IAEA Board of Governors statement.
Teri.
QUESTION: What did you think of the last-minute arrival of an Iranian delegation in Moscow yesterday to hold talks with the EU-3 countries? And does the United States think that that option still has legs?
MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of the EU-3?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they themselves said that the negotiation had reached a dead end. As for the meeting, I think that was up to the EU-3. I don't think it yielded anything in terms of the Iranians coming forth in a serious way to meet the core demands of what the international community has asked of them. So as a matter of form, I think the EU-3 met with them. In terms of the substance, I have not heard any reports that would indicate there was any substantive change as a result of the meeting. You know, it was their decision to meet. We didn't -- you know, we certainly didn't meet with them.
Sue.
QUESTION: Is there any movement on the discussions between Zal Khalilzad and the Iranians on the issue of Iraq?
MR. MCCORMACK: No update for you on that.
QUESTION: Are they just off those discussions? Do you not want them anymore, because it seems to be taking a long time?
MR. MCCORMACK: Don't say that. I think -- and we talked about the fact that we -- should such a meeting take place, that it best take place after the formation of an Iraqi government.
Lambros.
QUESTION: Yes, on the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me?
QUESTION: I have a question on Turkey.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.
QUESTION: Now, Mr. McCormack, in response to my pending question of April 18th on the protection of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in Istanbul, Turkey, Terry Davidson, Division Chief, Press and Outreach, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, stated to me yesterday, "The U.S. Government supports the right of Turkey's non-Muslim communities to own property and according to the resolution of property dispute. The Turkish Government has made some reforms in this regard in the process of its EU accession drive. We welcome the recent announcement by the Turkish Government that it intends to adopt new legislation related to the property issue during the current parliamentary session." Do you have to add anything else on this statement?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sounds like a good statement to me.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have anything to add.
QUESTION: My question, however, was dealing specifically with the protection of the property rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and I'm wondering why you refrain even to mention that. And you've just released a general statement talking about minorities in Turkey. Are you afraid of the Turks?
MR. MCCORMACK: (Laughter.) I would refer you to the answer that you just read.
QUESTION: Why you did mention -- excuse me -- why you --
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have anything to add to the answer to that's been provided you on this question.
QUESTION: The last one. I raised the same question, the same question March 8th when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice released the Annual Report on Human Rights accompanied by a number of officials. And despite the fact, Mr. McCormack, the Ambassador in charge, Mr. Jeffrey, told me here in the briefing room and outside of the briefing room that he didn't know the specifics, I need to get an answer and I was wondering why.
MR. MCCORMACK: I think we have provided you the best answer that we can on this issue.
QUESTION: So you are sticking with the statement that I got from Mr. Davidson?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'm going to stick with that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Last week, you said that you had to wait the official results for a comment on the Italian election. Yesterday, the Italian equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court made the results official and final. Did you take note of that? Do you have a comment now? And did Dr. Rice have any contact with Minister Fini since the election?
MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of congratulating Mr. Prodi on -- Prodi on his victory, I am sure that there will be an official conveyance of that. We certainly look forward to working with his government on the important issue that are before us. This is a broad and deep relationship. It goes -- that extends not only to our governments, but between the Italian and the American people. So we look forward -- we look forward to working with Mr. Prodi's government and look forward to working with Mr. Prodi.
Teri.
QUESTION: On Sudan. Does the United States plan to put forward a resolution tomorrow on the proposed travel ban on these four Sudanese?
MR. MCCORMACK: Let me give an update where -- what's the -- on the state of play up in New York, Teri, on that particular question. I know it certainly -- it was an option if the Sanctions Committee didn't act on these four individuals, if we couldn't come to agreement on it. We are prepared to offer a resolution. Let me check for you exactly where we are on that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: Joel.
QUESTION: Sean, can you bring us up to date more thoroughly on your basic position with what's going on with King Gyanendra in Katmandu. The situation is worsening. There are food shortages now and the protests are getting out of hand.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we've issued a lot of very strong statements on this, Joel. We've done it in public. We've done it in private with the King. We have underlined the imperative of his acting to return democratic powers back to the government. Frankly, at this point, the decisions on the fate, the immediate fate of democracy in Nepal and certainly the immediate future course of Nepal rests squarely with the King. He is the one that can take these decisions. We have called upon him to take these decisions that will benefit him, that will benefit his government, it will benefit the Nepalese people.
In the meantime, we are calling upon all to exercise restraint. Violence will only beget violence and the security forces need to remember that they are the security forces for a democratic country and they need to draw upon those principles in taking the decisions before they act. It is also important on legitimate opposition to act in a way that is not provocative, that doesn't provoke violence. So it is important that all act in such a manner that does not lead to an escalation of violence.
Libby.
QUESTION: I have to ask this question. With Scott McClellan leaving the White House, wondering if there's any chance we will be seeing you over at Pennsylvania Avenue. (Laughter.)
MR. MCCORMACK: A couple things. First of all, let me just say Scott's a good friend and a great colleague and I think he deserves the thanks of all in the government that have served with him for a fine job. As for me, I have a full-time job here. I like it and I love working for the Secretary of State and look forward to doing so and serving her and the President here at the State Department.
QUESTION: Then no?
(Laughter.)
MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. McCormack, I'm from Shanghai Dragon TV. The Deputy Secretary Zoellick called for China to be a responsible stakeholder and this morning President Bush said in his welcoming speech that U.S. and China sharing strategic interests. Can we interpret it as a progress in terms of the U.S.-China relations?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think Janine up here asked a question related to U.S.-China relations and I'm going to give you the same answer: I refer you back over to the White House.
QUESTION: Did they talk about the U.S. call for China's help in terms of solving the Iranian nuclear, you know, crisis?
MR. MCCORMACK: Same answer. David.
QUESTION: Sean, a sort of point on Central Asia. One, the Kyrgyz Government appears to have sort of issued an ultimatum or something close to that vis-à-vis the base agreement we've been trying to negotiate with them for some time. I wonder if you had any response to that.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. We have been -- we're committed to a quick and equitable resolution to this discussion. This is a topic that was front and center when the Secretary visited Bishkek. We are prepared to send our negotiators back out there to come to a resolution on it. I think there are some important questions left to resolve, so we certainly are ready to act in good faith on the issue.
QUESTION: Secondly, Uzbekistan apparently -- even though the relationship that the U.S. has with Uzbekistan isn't very good, the U.S. was party to some sort of a nuclear materials evacuation operation this week. Do you have anything on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Don't have anything for you on that, Dave.
QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, one more try.
MR. MCCORMACK: Another try?
QUESTION: On the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It's very important. May I? One last --
MR. MCCORMACK: If it's the same question, I have to say --
QUESTION: No, it's not the same. It's a different question. It comes direct from your report. Is there any way to protect the 70 property sites for the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, with aggressive, however, involvement from the systematic tactics of the General Directorate for Foundation, GDF, of the Turkish Government from further foxy expropriations against in general the Greek minority in Turkey, in violation of human rights, religious freedom rights, for which the U.S. Government is very, very concerned globally?
MR. MCCORMACK: If we have anything to add to our answer to your previous question, I'll be happy to get back to you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:22 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 |
|
|
|
