Military

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon. How is everybody? It's Monday. The timing of this briefing is coincident with the half-time of the U.S.-Czech Republic World Cup Soccer match. Congratulations, Saul, on the glorious victory of England --

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- just the other day, this past weekend. I don't have any opening statements. I'll by happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Could you talk about the response by the official in Public Diplomacy calling the suicides at Guantanamo a -- basically a PR gambit?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I would say -- I would say, George, that we would have -- we have serious concern anytime anybody takes their own life. The -- what happened over the weekend at Guantanamo is being fully investigated by the Department of Defense. You've seen numerous statements about the incident from the Department of Defense. And we, ourselves, have reached out to Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the people in question were nationals of those countries. We've also done an extensive amount of outreach around the world to explain at least the facts as we know them right now. I don't want to go too much farther down the line, George, because there is going to be an ongoing investigation into the matter.

QUESTION: Do you agree with the --

MR. MCCORMACK: I would not characterize it as a PR stunt.

QUESTION: Would you agree with the statement, though, by I think it's Admiral Harris that it's asymmetrical warfare?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to try to discern what the motives of these individuals were. He's made that statement. I understand that there were some materials left behind. I don't have access to those, so I'm not going to try to -- I'm not going to try to discern what the motives might have been.

QUESTION: And are you concerned that statements such as these, that it's a good PR move, will be taken badly in the Arab world in particular and that you will be seen as sort of uncaring, unfeeling and not looking at the full context of Guantanamo?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, like I -- as I said, I certainly wouldn't characterize it that way. President Bush has said that he was -- that he had serious concern about what had happened, and I think that officials from the Department of Defense, and I just have as well, expressed serious concern anyone takes their own life.

So in terms of the situation surrounding this incident, that's going to be fully investigated.

QUESTION: And then finally, is the uses of quick reaction force in terms of getting the message out to the Arab world in full gear within the State Department, this media reactions -- I'm sorry, I forget what the name is.

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, the Rapid Reaction Unit?

QUESTION: The Rapid Reaction Unit.

MR. MCCORMACK: What the Rapid Reaction is -- it serves primarily a monitoring function. And it will call out to posts to find out -- to get some greater context of the story -- various stories that appear in foreign media, but this was really the regional bureaus that were involved in contacting countries around the world either here in Washington or out at capitals.

QUESTION: Has anyone spoken to Ms. Graffy about her comments and to indicate that this isn't the State Department's line?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't talked to her.

QUESTION: Do you have -- do you intend to speak to her to point out this is not how the State Department views it?

MR. MCCORMACK: I would just point out in public that we have not -- we would not say that it was a PR stunt.

Yeah?

QUESTION: How would you characterize your outreach, the outreach you said you've made to the Saudi and Yemeni Governments?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're working with them. There are some practical questions here regarding some logistics as well as the disposition of the remains. And so we are in contact with them working through some of those practical questions. I would point out that the Department of Defense is treating the remains with all respect and according to religious custom as well.

QUESTION: What were there concerns? Did they demarche you because of it or did it not reach that level of dissatisfaction?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm going to let them characterize their own reactions. What we're trying to do is we're trying to provide them the facts and work with him on some of the final logistical questions that need to be worked out.

QUESTION: You can say whether you've received demarches, can't you?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, to my knowledge, we have not received the demarche, but we certainly have been in contact with them.

QUESTION: Can I have another follow-up on one Sue's?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Why would somebody not have a word with this official about her comments? I mean, it causes you -- it causes great problems for you. Is that just allowed?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think I've characterized what our response is.

QUESTION: So she does not speak for you?

MR. MCCORMACK: I have characterized our response on this particular issue.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Anything else on this?

QUESTION: Any other governments come forward with statements of concern, for example, some of your allies, Germany, you know, France, Great Britain? Have they sent any notes of, you know, what happened here?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware of any demarches that have come in, Sue, although I'll have to tell you I don't have a full picture of the reactions coming in from around the world, if any, on this particular incident?

QUESTION: And then finally, there also seems to be a call from -- there seems to be a growing call for Guantanamo Bay to be closed; that it's an albatross around your neck. What's your view on that? Do you think it's time for Guantanamo Bay to be closed?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well --

QUESTION: Would these kind of incidents sort of push you closer to examining whether it's the right vehicle to keep security detainees?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the President has talked about this, Secretary Rice has talked about it, a number of different people in the administration have talked about. We have no desire to be the world's jailers. At some -- we would look forward to the day at some point when Guantanamo Bay would close down. But the fact of the matter is that it right now houses some very dangerous people who are a threat not only to American citizens but other people around the world.

And I would point out that we are -- we do have a process whereby we work with other governments to return their nationals to them. We have to work out certain things. We have to assure ourselves that these people will not be mistreated. And we also have to assure ourselves that they're not going to go in the front door of the jail and out the back because that would defeat the purpose. So we do have a very active program to send people back to their home countries, and I would say that we have done that with hundreds, I believe. I don't have the exact number for you. DOD has the precise numbers.

So we do have -- do have a program which, I think, demonstrates the fact that we don't have the desire to be the world's jailers on this. But the fact of the matter is that there are dangerous people there and that people who have been released in the past have turned up back on the battlefield, and we certainly don't want that to happen. We certainly don't want to have somebody leave Guantanamo and have them either turn up on the battlefield or engage in an act of terror in which innocent lives are lost.

QUESTION: There isn't an intermediate step between releasing everybody and maintaining this facility that is causing you so much grief in terms of international opinion? Is there any thinking being done about something in between?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there is a formal judicial process that is ongoing at Guantanamo now and the federal courts are involved in that process and the Supreme Court has a case before it now which will influence how and at what pace that process moves forward -- the military tribunals, military commissions. So there is a process whereby people, the individuals down there, do have a review. They are able to present evidence, essentially to make their case. But I would leave it to the Department of Defense to describe in greater detail that process and exactly where that stands.

Anything else on this? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: There was reports of harassment in Havana. The United States interests section, that finally they have cut the utilities or they are threatening to. Do you have anything on that?

QUESTION: What?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, there's a question --

QUESTION: The U.S. interests section --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, there's a question -- it was a question about the U.S. interests section in Havana and about the cutoff of utilities. And in fact, you are correct. On Monday, June 5th at approximately 3 a.m., electricity to the main building of the U.S. interests section in Havana was cut off. The U.S. interests section building is the only building in the neighborhood without electricity. I wonder how that happened.

American requests to the Cuban Government to restore power have gone unanswered. As of this morning, the power remains cut off and the U.S. interests section is operating on generator power. The same type of harassment that the Cuban -- this is the same type of harassment that the Cuban people have had to live with on a daily basis. Work at the interests section continues unabated, including interviews of refugees and direct outreach to the Cuban people.

I would just say that the bullying tactics of the Castro regime aren't going to work.

QUESTION: Any protest to the -- to the Cuban Government?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have worked with our protecting power as well as sent notes directly to the Cuban Government on this matter.

QUESTION: No answer?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the power's not on yet, is it? No.

QUESTION: Are you up to date on your bills?

MR. MCCORMACK: What's that?

QUESTION: Are you up to date on your electricity bills?

MR. MCCORMACK: I assume we are, Saul. I'll check for you.

QUESTION: I just wonder if that's the reason that they cut the electricity off. That's why they cut mine off.

MR. MCCORMACK: I suspect not. (Laughter.) I suspect it has more probably to do with some of the activities of the interests section in terms of trying to provide basic information and facts to the Cuban people. And that, of course, is not something that the Castro regime takes kindly to. Just to get to your point about the power bill, they do also have a habit of sort of turning down the spigot on the water supply as well in the interests section. This is a tactic that they have periodically employed. So I think it has less to do -- has probably everything to do with their displeasure over some of the activities.

QUESTION: So is there something else in the timing? Was there supposed to be a big meeting? Would you have used computers inside -- the internet -- inside the interests section? Do you think that -- you're obviously honing in on what you think their motivation is as some kind of harassment, but is it in response to something they were deliberately trying to sabotage inside the embassy on these --

MR. MCCORMACK: Not that I'm aware of, Saul.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have great visibility into the motivations of the regime.

QUESTION:   Do you have any details on the Somalia contact group meetings?

QUESTION:     One more?

MR. MCCORMACK: On Cuba? Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Is there a possibility of reciprocal action against the Cuban interests section in Washington?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. As long as they're up to date with PEPCO, I think they're probably okay. I don't have any information in that regard, George.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION:   Do you have any details on the Somalia contact group meetings? Are they taking place today or --

MR. MCCORMACK:   No, they're taking place on Thursday, on the 15th, and I do have some notes here for you. As I said last week on Friday, we're calling for this meeting. We're still working out some of the logistical details, one of those being exactly where it will take place. It'll be up in New York, I suspect, at one of the missions.

Right now, in terms of attendance, we will be there. We'll be represented by Assistant Secretary Jendayi Frazer. Also have Norway, Sweden, the UK, Italy and Tanzania that plan to attend and the UN will be there as well. We're still working out -- still trying to get an answer to the question of whether or not there will be participants or observers in this. There may be additional participants or observers and we'll keep you up to date on that, but that's the list that I have right now.

QUESTION: You said Tanzania. Is anyone coming from the AU? Did you say the AU?

MR. MCCORMACK: We may have others to add, Sue. Again, we're trying to nail down exactly -- nail down attendance and in what capacity they will be there, whether or not they'll be full participants or observers. So when we have more information on that, we'll let you know.

QUESTION: And has Eritrea been invited? And has Ethiopia been invited?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have them on the list of participants. I'll check to see if they've been invited or not.

QUESTION: Can you check on Kenya too?

MR. MCCORMACK: Kenya, okay. Any others? Okay, we'll check on those.

Saul.

QUESTION: Can you just say why it's in New York if it's a U.S. organized thing? Why not Washington? What was the -- is it because you need a specific UN angle to it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the UN will be there. I think for logistical reasons, it -- kind of ease of traveling. If countries want to be represented at the perm rep level, it allows for that kind of representation. So I think logistics I think in large part, Saul, as well as the fact that there will be a UN component to it.

QUESTION: Do you have an agenda yet for the meeting, what you plan to discuss and what you hope to get out of it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we're planning to discuss is exactly what I talked about last week, and that is really talking about how the international community and in particular these countries might coordinate their policies, might bring together their political, diplomatic and perhaps other resources to try to help support the transitional federal institutions in Somalia. That gets at the basic point of trying to help the Somali people build up these basic institutions of a state, which are virtually nonexistent or very weak in Somalia and have been for coming up on 20 years now.

QUESTION: And have you replied to the letter yet from the AU?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. No.

QUESTION: Or had any contact with them?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. No.

QUESTION: How long is it supposed to last?

MR. MCCORMACK: The meeting? I think it's probably just a day-long meeting.

QUESTION: A day?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes. Anything else on this topic?

Yes?

QUESTION: As you know, Ali Larijani, the top negotiator of Iranian regime, traveled yesterday to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, meet with the President of Egypt and some kind of campaign they started to do that regarding the package of P-5+1.

My question is: are you staying firm on your position regarding the full suspension of Iranian -- enrichment of Iranian or -- because they're talking about a partial enrichment?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. No. It's the position of the P-5+1, which was the agreed upon by the ministers, was full suspension of all enrichment and reprocessing related activities, and that is a necessary -- that is a prerequisite to beginning negotiations.

QUESTION: And then he mentioned that there is no word of sanction in the package. But President, Madame Secretary and all officials repeated many times that there will be a sanction in this Security Council. Why you didn't mention the word of sanction on the package?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we've talked about are two pathways, and we've talked about the incentive side. There is also a disincentive side. And that disincentive side would come about if Iran does not take up the P-5+1 on this offer that's offered for negotiations.

And should they choose not to take up on this offer, then the international community, the P-5+1 is prepared to go down the route of the UN. Now I'm not going to go into exactly what steps the UN would take, but suffice it to say there is agreement among the P-5+1 that should they choose to not take up this offer, then we go down the pathway of disincentives.

QUESTION: It seems that Javier Solana is hopeful, even expectant, that he will receive a reply this week from the Iranians. Do you -- have you received any messages of that kind from your allies? Do you have any reason to suspect the answer will come this week?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see. We'll know the answer when we receive it. It could be this week, it could be next week. We would hope that it's soon. And we would hope that it's a positive response and that Iran would take the steps necessary in order to realize these negotiations. But really the ball is in their court. It's really up to them now. This offer of negotiation has been made, and we'll see if they take up the world on that offer.

QUESTION: I know you don't want to tell us the deadline, but is it getting close? Is it ticking, ticking, ticking?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's closer than it was when they made the agreement.

QUESTION: Is there anything new regarding Ambassador Zal to start meeting with Iranian diplomats about --

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: -- in Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, nothing new.

QUESTION: The issue of reprocessing notwithstanding, the Iranians have talked about, oh, there's parts of this we like and we're going to come with a counteroffer. Is that something the P-5 is willing to entertain in general or was it a yes or a no on the package?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the prerequisite to have negotiations -- I think then that's when you get into offers and counteroffers -- is for them to meet the conditions. The conditions are laid out by the IAEA Board of Governors. These aren't U.S. conditions. These are the conditions of the P-5+1 and, I might add, the conditions of the IAEA Board of Governors. And it gets into living up to the standards of the additional protocol. But the central condition is that Iran would have to fully suspend and verifiably suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing-related activities.

QUESTION: So you're not prepared to get into a negotiating process with them at this stage about the package?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, it's pretty simple. The ball is in their court. The conditions are very clear. They couldn't be more clear. They were laid out by the P-5+1, laid out by the IAEA. We'll see if they take up the offer.

Yes. Anything else on Iran? (No response.) Okay, Lambros.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, you must have something.

MR. MCCORMACK: What? On --

QUESTION: Okay. My question is: Anything to say on the eight-point CBM agreement reached by the foreign minister of Greece and Turkey, Dora Bakoyianni and Abdullah Gul, in order to avoid tensions over the Aegean Sea?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I hadn't seen it. I'll look into it for you. But I think in principle that such an agreement would be a positive thing so that we can avoid any sort of incidents like we saw a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunate incidents.

QUESTION: And also, the fourth Greek-Turkish media conference hosted by Turkey in an effort to strengthen peace and rapprochement and to avoid provocation and prejudices, attended by the foreign minister of Greece and Turkey, Dora Bakoyianni and Abdullah Gul, and organizers saying that, "We must do something since neither mussaka and baklava nor even a rebbetiko will rescue us" as from another crisis. How do you asses this Greek-Turkish media initiative? As a club of course only for very selected reporters from both countries.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I don't -- I have to confess, I don't know the details of this initiative. But again, it seems as though initiatives that seek to break down whatever barriers may exist between peoples and therefore also between governments are positive things. Greater mutual understanding of individual points of view held by people in different countries, that's positive. So I would have to look at the details to offer you a more precise answer, but I think in general it sounds like a positive initiative and effort.

QUESTION: And the last thing. Do you have anything about the agreement reached a few hours ago over in Brussels?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen the details.

QUESTION: Between --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I haven't seen the details of it.

QUESTION: Not yet. Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Sylvie.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the report in the UN on Hariri murder, the report by Mr. Brammertz?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it's coming out this week. I don't have any details of it. Maybe our guys have seen it. I'll make sure.

QUESTION: It was handed on Saturday. It was handed to --

MR. MCCORMACK: They may have taken a look at it. I haven't talked to them yet about it.

QUESTION: Okay, okay. And more generally on Lebanon, do you have any comment on the story today which was in the Washington Post on how the differences between (inaudible), different (inaudible) between Sunni and Shia are spreading out all over the Middle East, especially in a country as secular as Lebanon? Do you think it's something U.S. was wishing when Iraq war was started?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I have to confess I didn't read the story. But the differences between Shia Islam and Sunni Islam I think predate even the state of Iraq, go back I don't know how long exactly, a thousand years if not more. So these divisions are not created by the United States or any actions that the United States took.

Look, these are differences that are going to have to be bridged, resolved, addressed by people of those faiths. It's not something that we can do, the United States, that a government can really do; that these are questions for people and leaders to try to address, leaders in those communities to try to address.

QUESTION: It's a very tense situation on the ground in Iraq between different communities is now seen in other countries of Middle East which was not the case two or three years ago.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I appreciate the effort to try make a linkage between what -- deposing a dictator in Iraq and freeing the people of Iraq and tensions that have existed for thousands -- hundreds or thousands of years in the Middle East. Sorry, I don't -- I'm just not going to take the bait on that one.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Anything about the massacre that happened in Gaza on the beach by the Israelis?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we put out a statement on Friday about this. Secretary Rice was in contact with President Abbas on Friday. She spoke with Foreign Minister Livni on Saturday. We certainly regret the loss of innocent life. I think anybody who has a family can certainly see the pain that this incident has caused. The Israeli Government has put out a statement of regret for this action. They have launched an investigation. They have also, I believe, said that they would suspend the use of artillery while that investigation is ongoing. I would have to point out that it is also the responsibility of the Palestinian Government to stop and prevent terrorist attacks, acts of violence that cross out of Gaza. And the message -- the very basic message that Secretary Rice had for both sides is to urge calm and to urge both sides to take steps that would lower tension levels between the two sides.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:26 p.m.)

DPB #98