• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 27, 2006

INDEX:

12:05 p.m. EDT

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody, or shall I say, the few of you who are here. I don't have any opening statements, so we can get right into your questions.

QUESTION: Well, this just in, but perhaps you know enough about the substance of the Secretary's conversation with the Japanese -- newly renamed Japanese Foreign Minister.

MR. MCCORMACK: Foreign Minister Aso.

QUESTION: Yeah. There's a little foreign ministry statement saying Japan said it would help to counter terrorism -- I thought it was doing that already -- and they agreed to deal with North Korea's nuclear weapons problems, which I thought they were doing anyhow. Do you have any news to impart about just how (inaudible) this?

MR. MCCORMACK: It did, Barry. I can confirm for you that it did happen. It didn't -- don't recall that. It was a congratulatory phone call mostly, Barry, because he was recently just yesterday, I believe, reappointed the foreign minister. So the Secretary wanted to congratulate him on his reappointment, tell him that she looked forward to working with him on the whole array of issues that are before us, from the six-party talks, to economic issues, to regional issues and to global issues, like dealing with Iran. So we have a -- she has a good professional working relationship with Foreign Minister Aso and obviously ties between the U.S. and Japan are quite strong. So that was really the essence of it.

QUESTION: Yeah, I'd say take it this wasn't the kind of conversation to review the strategy and the tactics.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, it was not. It was a brief conversation.

QUESTION: Okay. While we're at it, if you know, the White House will be asked as well. Do you have any idea when these new and newly renamed folks will be coming to Washington?

MR. MCCORMACK: Which meeting?

QUESTION: Well, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister evidently. They're going to, I think --

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, I got you -- when is the new representatives of the new Japanese Government?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing for you on that, Barry. So they will, I'm sure, see each other in the near future. I don't have a date for you, though.

QUESTION: And by "they" you mean the new Japanese?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can only speak on the -- behalf of the --

QUESTION: But you mean the foreign ministers and the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Our foreign minister visit here. In terms of a Prime Minister visit, that would obviously be the White House. You can talk to my friend Tony Snow about that.

QUESTION: And I've been talking over what you were saying so, of course, I've lost what you said. You say the Japanese Foreign Minister would be here in the near future or they will meet in the near future?

MR. MCCORMACK: The Secretary looks forward to meeting with him in the near future. And I'm sure that at some point, he will be here and they can have a meeting and she looks forward to traveling to the region at some point, so that she can visit him in his office.

QUESTION: Could we talk about Iraq for a second?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: As you know, there are reports that the Iranians -- that Larijani and Solana are to meet today.

MR. MCCORMACK: That's right. The Secretary spoke with Mr. Solana this morning. And it was just prior to this meeting. It's supposed to be its scheduled to start. I can't tell you at what time it started, who showed up or the status of the conversation right now. But she did speak to him beforehand. I expect that after the meeting, she'll probably talk to him as well.

QUESTION: Did he give her any indication as to whether, as was reported yesterday, the Iranians are closer to a temporary suspension?

MR. MCCORMACK: It was a relatively brief conversation. Again, we're not going to know that. We're not going to know that until Mr. Larijani either gives Mr. Solana an answer or doesn't. Will that require this meeting and maybe one or two others? That's entirely possible. I think we should probably all be prepared for that eventuality, given that the Iranians to this point haven't been -- their disposition has not been to give clear answers. So I would expect that that tactic will continue, we hope, out of all this. We sincerely hope that they do choose the pathway of negotiation, that they do come through and meet the terms and conditions laid out by the international community. And certainly, Mr. Solana goes into that meeting with the thought in mind that we do fully support his efforts and we do sincerely hope that the Iranians do come through with a positive answer.

QUESTION: Did he -- did Mr. Solana raise the possibility of there being additional meetings after this one?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it just stands to reason this has been how the Iranians have operated in the past that they like to try to extend things out and play for as much time as they possibly can. But as Secretary Rice has said, time is finite here. There is not an inexhaustible supply of time or patience frankly on the part of our group, the P-5, because at a certain point, you run up -- you bump up against the credibility of the Security Council as saying if you don't meet the deadlines, there are going to be consequences for not meeting those deadlines.

QUESTION: What I was trying to get at was whether you are suggesting the possibility of additional meetings with something that came up in their conversation or if you were just suggesting that based on?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll let Mr. Solana speak for himself in terms of his views of how this process might unfold.

QUESTION: Don't you agree they're doing pretty well playing for time? We keep moving the sanctions issue down the road and down the road, no fault of the U.S. -- I'm not suggesting that. They're doing pretty well with the Europeans, aren't they, in playing for time?

MR. MCCORMACK: We are fully lashed up with the Europeans on this, Barry. Look, the view of the United States was that, you know, okay, the August 31st deadline came and went. The Iranians did not provide a positive answer. During the UN General Assembly, I think everybody understood that it was unlikely that the international community was going to want to wrestle in public during the General Assembly with this issue with a Security Council resolution and debate. We understand that. That's a fact. Would we have liked to have perhaps seen this move forward? Of course.

But when Mr. Solana said, look, there may be an opportunity here, there may be a bit of an opening if we just give the Iranians a little time and space, perhaps they'll come through with a positive answer. And so our response was absolutely, if it's a matter of a few days or a few weeks here to see if there is a possibility of keeping open a negotiated diplomatic solution, absolutely we want to give that every opportunity to succeed because we are committed to this track 100 percent. We want to give it a 100 percent chance of working.

But as I said, you do at a certain point reach a state where the credibility of the international community and the Security Council and the members of that Security Council are at stake, and we are approaching that point. But before we get to that point, we want to give Mr. Solana every opportunity to try to make this work. The ball though is in the Iranians' court. It is in their court to provide a positive answer.

QUESTION: You must have some reason for hope. Mr. Joseph said not too long ago that he expected the push for sanctions would be this week -- this month, by the end of September, and that he also said that sanctions are part of a diplomatic effort.

MR. MCCORMACK: It is. What I said earlier --

QUESTION: But you haven't done it.

MR. MCCORMACK: What I said was a negotiated settlement through this track, Barry. And discussions on sanctions are ongoing. Nick Burns, at the under secretary/ political director level, has been having ongoing conversations, so that track has not been static. There has been progress on it. They have worked to refine what sanctions might be in the Security Council resolution. So if we do get to the point, an unfortunate point from our point of view, that the Iranians don't provide a positive answer and meet the conditions, we will be ready with our P-5+1 colleagues and our Security Council colleagues to start in public and in earnest that serious discussion about what sanctions will be in the resolution. And we are confident that if we do get to that point then there will be a resolution under Article 7 -- Chapter 7, Article 41, which talks about economic sanctions.

And we expect that those sanctions will send a substantial message to the Iranian regime that the world means business. If we get to that point, will those sanctions look like the list that the U.S. might have been able to draw up by itself? Probably not. But that's the nature of multilateral diplomacy. But those sanctions will -- again, if we do get to that point, we'll have to send a substantial message to the regime.

QUESTION: Sean, is it the Secretary's expectation that at this meeting taking place today between Solana and Larijani, this new timeline that Nick Burns spoke of but refused to divulge publicly will be communicated to them, or has it already been communicated to them?

MR. MCCORMACK: What we said about that previously, and I'll say it again now, is that that's going to be up to Mr. Solana when he talks to them about that timeline that he has the full latitude of the P-5+1, including us, when to talk to the Iranians about that and in what manner to talk to them about it.

But I think they do understand quite clearly through our public statements -- they read these -- that time is not inexhaustible, that we are coming up on the time when the international community is going to have to make an assessment: Is the credibility of the international community, the Security Council, at stake, and is it time to go for those sanctions? And we are coming up on that time.

QUESTION: Can I follow up? It was reported in Der Spiegel, which we now have a European diplomat confirming, that the EU-3 would be willing to begin preliminary talks with Iran even if it had not suspended first. And I know Solana is talking to the Iranians. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a more sustained EU-3-Iranian dialogue, presumably including incentives, as has been laid out. Is that acceptable to -- I know the Bush Administration won't sit down unless and until they verifiably suspend.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Do you find it acceptable that the EU-3 might do this? Doesn't -- if they were to that, doesn't that just sort of fracture your coalition and give the Iranians more time to talk about actually suspending?

MR. MCCORMACK: A couple things. In terms of what may be being discussed between Solana and Larijani, I'm not going to get into that. I think that would be -- nobody would want that. These are obviously sensitive discussions that are ongoing. I'm not going to try to jump into those in public. So I'll let that take place. I'm not going to comment on any specific proposals that one side may be making to another to try to find a way to get into -- to get to these negotiations.

That's what we all want without walking away from the principles that we have outlined. Everybody is firm on that. Everybody is rock solid on the principles, what the Iranians need to do in order to realize those full negotiations about the package that was laid out before them. And from our perspective, we're not going to join any negotiations that aren't first -- that aren't preceded by the suspension. So that again is laying out, reaffirming the principles that everybody has agreed to and where we stand.

As for these discussions that are ongoing now with Mr. Solana, we're fully lashed up with him. We have a good understanding from him as to his thinking going into the meeting, what his particular goals are, a little sense of what he is hearing from the Iranians, sort of the atmospherics as well as some of the specifics. And he is acting on behalf of the group so this is not an effort of just Mr. Solana or just the EU-3. So he is acting on behalf of the group. So there is good coordination there and I think a full understanding of what Mr. Solana is doing and also where we stand on things as well.

QUESTION: But I still don't understand. I wasn't actually asking you specifically about these conversations. The fact that you responded that way makes me think, well, maybe that's precisely what they're talking about. But I was asking whether you would object to the EU-3 holding such broader discussions with Iran absent suspension, as demanded.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the reason why I mentioned it is it's out in the press. There are a lot of press reports, a lot of press reports about this. At this point, I will speak for myself or speak for the Administration and that is that we're not going to join any talks without the suspension.

QUESTION: But isn't this kind of academic? I mean, these conversations between Solana and Larijani are negotiations, no? Aren't the Europeans negotiating with Iran? You didn't want to participate. Well, you didn't for a long time. The Europeans took the lead --

MR. MCCORMACK: What they're trying to --

QUESTION: -- and they came up with air and then you got tough with sanctions and now they're back to negotiating with Iran. What's so complicated? I mean he's not just talking to them, he's negotiating with them.

MR. MCCORMACK: Barry, he's trying to find a way to get these negotiations started and to get the Iranians to meet the conditions. That's what this is about. And look, if they can come up with some formula that meets the principles, that strictly adheres to the principles that have been laid out by the P-5+1, then you can actually get into negotiations, which everybody wants, Barry, but not negotiations at any price. The principles and the requirements are very clearly laid out. Nobody's going to be crossing those lines. Those are the lines that everybody's agreed upon. And if you can get into negotiations and still be true to those principles and to those requirements, then I think that is certainly a positive thing.

QUESTION: So you would dispute any suggestion that they're into the negotiations now and, of course, they're into it without Iran stopping enrichment?

MR. MCCORMACK: We are -- they are not into the negotiations as proposed by the P-5+1 back in Paris and back in Vienna.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: On Iraq, I'm sure you saw in The Washington Post today some polls suggesting that a strong majority of Iraqis want all foreign forces to pull out of the country immediately or within a year's time. Your response?

MR. MCCORMACK: The United States does from time to time polling in Iraq on a variety of different subjects. In Iraq, this polling certainly is an inexact science. And exactly what numbers mean from a particular poll, I'll let experts try to talk to you about that, people who are expert in polling and -- expert in polling in places where the conditions are shall we say quite difficult and also a society -- in places where the society is truly in a transition from a totalitarian authoritarian regime into one in which there are different kinds of challenges and people are trying to make their way. You've got different public attitudes and how they respond to a public question about their attitudes.

Look, I can only -- I can't speak to a particular poll. What I can tell you is the anecdotal evidence, anecdotal evidence that we have from our meetings with government officials, their public statements tell you that the elected representatives of the Iraqi people welcome the presence of the multinational forces, welcome the presence of the United States, honor the sacrifices that those forces have made, and understand that at this point in time they are not capable of taking over full responsibility for the security in their country. That is why those forces are there. The Security Council mandate has -- for these forces has been rolled over several times at the request of the Iraqi Government.

So -- I've seen -- I saw the poll numbers. I don't have any particular comment on specific numbers for you. But what I can tell you what we hear from government representatives and other anecdotal evidence that you hear from Iraqis that is collected by embassy personnel and military personnel is that Iraqis do appreciate our presence there. They do understand the reason for it. They do understand that we don't want to or we don't intend to be there indefinitely. We are only there trying to help the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people get on their feet so they can take responsibility for all aspects of their daily lives from security to the economy to the government.

QUESTION: Does the United States conduct its own internal polling of Iraqi populace at large?

MR. MCCORMACK: That's what this story is about, James.

QUESTION: Okay. And would you be likely to regard internal polling as more accurate and reliable than polls conducted by outside groups that are outside the U.S. Government?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't make those judgments, James. I was just pointing out that during opinion surveys in this kind of environment, not only in an environment where there are clearly security challenges, but also in an environment where a society as a whole is really emerging from one and very constrictive authoritarian environment where if you expressed anything other than 100 percent support for your President if asked in public by somebody, you were libel to be shot. This is a society that is in transition. And also dealing with well, how do you express these opinions in public and how comfortable they feel doing that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- are the numbers -- the State Department poll numbers cited in the Post story accurate?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't looked through all the poll numbers.

QUESTION: Is the top line number right?

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn't look through -- I didn't -- I've seen the report. It was sitting on my desk; I haven't looked through it.

QUESTION: The State Department will not release the report or a summary of the report?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's not -- that has not been our practice in the past with these kinds of reports.

QUESTION: Yeah, but in this case given that it purports to be the results of the poll have been given to one newspaper, so that's out there.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the NIU has also given to one newspaper --

QUESTION: And your description --

MR. MCCORMACK: I mean --

QUESTION: And your description that the Iraqis feel (inaudible) --

MR. MCCORMACK: (Inaudible.) And there were also -- and there have also been -- I mean we can go down the road of leaks of classified and -- information to media reports and whether or not (inaudible) --

QUESTION: We're just asking if you'd consider releasing the poll just so we can know if the numbers themselves are accurate as reported.

MR. MCCORMACK: It's not -- I asked this question, and it has not been the practice of the State Department, and I don't think that we're going to change that practice. Now, I assume that these are the kinds of things you could FOIA as well, and that is certainly a well known practice.

QUESTION: I'd say especially since your description of Iraqi sentiments is totally in conflict with what the poll --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, -- no, I was not trying to compare apples and apples, Barry. What I was trying to indicate to you is that the -- one, the hazards of polling in that kind of environment.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR. MCCORMACK: And also not trying to offer a judgment about what to read in particular poll numbers. I directed you to experts who did that on a daily basis.

What I can report to you from firsthand experience as well has hearing from others is exactly the kind of reaction you get from Iraqi elected leaders when talking about it, when talking about this issue. That I can offer you. That I can -- I've been in the room, I've heard it. I've talked to Iraqis about that. So that's a firsthand account. As for the other, again, I don't have any particular comment on numbers, only to talk in general about trying to do these kinds of efforts in an environment that we find ourselves in in Iraq.

QUESTION: With what frequency have such polls been conducted? You say you do that in --

MR. MCCORMACK: I couldn't tell you. They do it on a regular basis.

QUESTION: Who is they? Who conducts the poll for the State Department? Is it outsourced or --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. I don't know, James. I'll be happy to ask that question.

QUESTION: And as a bottom line statement, whatever your sources, whether it's anecdotal or polling data or what have you, the U.S. Government proceeds with its mission in Iraq based on a belief, am I correct, that it has the support of the Iraqi people at large?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we -- you know, again, we don't have perfect information here, James. To do that, you would have to actually sit down and ask every single Iraqi what they thought in an environment that they thought was secure. No, but what we can rely on -- but what we can rely on is the views of the elected representatives of the Iraqi people, which is traditionally how you do things when two democracies relate to one another. What are the views of the government? What are the wishes of the government? One presumes that that reflects the best interest of that country's people.

In this case you have -- just -- I'll just -- I'll point you in just one point of data point, you have the Iraqi Government supporting and requesting rollover of the Security Council resolutions that ask for international forces in Iraq. So, again, that is one data point, one fact that the Iraqis, the Iraqis' elected representatives want international forces there, understand why they are there, and also understand that this is not a presence that we want to continue out beyond the point where the Iraqis are able to take full responsibility for their own security.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Most of the international leaders at the United Nations have affirmed that in order to fight terrorism and to find a solution to the Middle East problems you have to deal with the root of it which is the Israel occupation of Arab lands, solving the Palestinian problems. And Israel and its friends have been trying so hard to disguise this fact and eradicate it from international politics. Now you have the Prime Minister of Israel yesterday telling his cabinet that those who don't agree with him about not evacuating the Golan Heights that belongs to Syria or other things that they could leave his cabinet. Well, how do you feel about this -- the continuous negativeness of the Israeli stance that goes against the wish of most of the international people -- leaders?

MR. MCCORMACK: There's a lot in that. You had a lot in that question. Let me start with where you started and you started talking about the debate, the discussion in the Security Council last week. And that was a very positive discussion. And in that discussion you then hear accusations hurled across from one side to another, Arab at Palestinian or at Israeli or Israeli at Arab. That was not the tenor of the conversation. It was actually a very positive discussion. And what you saw and heard there, what you saw -- a tangible commitment to try to move the process forward together, not hurling accusations at one another. It was not a negative atmosphere. That was a gathering and a group of people who wanted to find a negotiated solution, who wanted to work out whatever differences and disputes they may have and certainly those are well known. They wanted to work those out across the negotiating table.

And that differentiates them from another group of people in the Middle East, another point of view -- the extremists. Those supported by -- those terrorist groups supported by Iran, those terrorist groups supported by Syria in those two countries. So in fact the dividing line that you saw emerge out of that meeting was not Arab versus Israeli, but what you saw was a dividing line between moderates, moderation. And I will grant you there's sort of -- there's a spectrum there and certainly not in full agreement. But a group of people who wanted to find a negotiated solution to the problems that are between them.

And on the other line -- other side of that line you had groups -- people who are extremists, who are committed to the use of terror, committed to the use of violence to seek some form of political aim. So I would actually reframe the debate different than you have framed it. You have framed it in a traditional Arab-Israeli manner where they are hurling accusations across the aisle at one another. And I would pause it. In fact, what you have seen over the past several months is a change in the nature of this debate. And you have seen somewhat of a realignment of views in the Middle East, at least among the governments about what can be accomplished and how to accomplish that.

You also made the point about the Palestinian-Israeli dispute being at the heart of all disputes in the Middle East. Again, you know, I know some people subscribe to this view. Certainly I don't think that that is at the heart of the divide that I just described -- that divide between moderates and extremists. You can look at the literature that goes back some time in terms of the -- those who are at the root of the modern Islamic extremist's movement and they use all variety of different causes as a way to whip up sentiment against the West, against Israel, all types of group. Certainly one of them is the Arab-Israel conflict.

But if you look at some of these extremist groups in the Middle East, they will use all variety of causes to try to rally people to their cause. They use those causes to try to whip up anti-American sentiment, anti-Israeli sentiment, all sorts of different causes. So I guess I would just look at the issue a little bitter differently than you have.

QUESTION: Follow up please.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: I mean, you said to me that it was me and some other people who have laid the two causes -- matters together. But it is a fact if you look at these speeches from the National Assembly of the United Nations, you see most of the United States' friends are affirming the fact, even President Musharraf yesterday, your ally -- one of your best allies -- is affirming and repeating the fact that dealing with the Palestinian problems is a fact that unless you solve it, unless you end the grievances of the Arabs that are caused by Israel for 50-60 years now, unless you deal seriously with this and separate it actually. Now not -- what I'm saying now is not what he said -- separating that fact from your friendship and strong commitment to Israel. I mean, you can still be a strong ally of Israel but yet be showing more fairness and evenhandedness in dealing with the Palestinian problems, with ending occupation of Israel to the Arab lands and you will see that it is a fact that you will have different result in the international scene and in the Middle East.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, again I think that the United States has been and will continue to be fair in trying to bring about a resolution to this dispute. I don't think there's been another country that has invested more time, energy, effort and political capital in trying to bring about a resolution to this dispute going back decades. And that is certainly the view of this Administration. We are committed to trying to help the two parties find a solution. And this point, now we also have a focused, committed interest on the part of regional actors as well. It's an important component to try to bring about a solution.

And what President Bush asked Secretary Rice to do is to consult with moderates in the region, consult with the Israeli Government, consult with President Abbas from the Palestinian Authority, to see if there are some possibilities to move this process forward, and that is what she did at the UN General Assembly and I would expect coming down the road here. So we are committed, absolutely, to finding a solution, to help the two parties find a solution. We can't want it more than the two parties and you have to have two partners for peace in order to actually have peace negotiations.

We are also committed to helping the Palestinian people with humanitarian aid and in every other way. But they also have to make the hard decisions about peace. Who is going to represent them? What is going to be the platform of the elected representatives of the Palestinian people? And certainly if there is that expression and that is manifested itself in tangible ways, in tangible expressions, in favor of peace, absolutely the United States is ready to work and bring together -- work with and bring together partners for peace.

But that is not the situation that we have right now. We would like to get to that point and we are going to see what we can do together with other members of the international community as well as importantly members -- leaders in the region to see if we can get to that point.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. Is there anybody else on this?

QUESTION: Yeah, just one quick one. You talked about the core issue being between moderates and extremists in the region. Then where would you put Israel in that sort of dispute or confrontation? If this is the main confrontation that you see in the Middle East right now, where does Israel go? Where is the -- I mean, it obviously has issues with not only the extreme Arabs but the moderate ones, too.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Israel is a stable democracy and so I would call it a force of moderation certainly in the region. I'm not sure how you could -- while I suppose there are others who might view it differently, but certainly we would view it as a force for moderation and stability in the region.

QUESTION: Sean, on a change of subject, if I might.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: It's been three weeks since the Pakistani authorities announced this deal with tribal elders for the Waziristan Province. What is the U.S. view so far as to how that's playing out?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know that it has played out that much, James. It was a fairly recent announcement so I'm not sure the extent to which the gears have been put in motion to implement this plan. So I can't offer you an assessment at this point. President Bush obviously talked to President Musharraf about it. You heard his views. He's going to be meeting tonight together with President Musharraf and President Karzai of Afghanistan. I'm sure this is going to be one of the issues because it's trying to get at the root cause of how do you root out extremism and those who want to use violence for their so-called political ends in that border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Clearly those two countries have an interest in it. People who are hiding out in those places have tried to kill President Musharraf, they've tried to kill President Karzai and they are also responsible for attack -- terrorist attacks on the United States. So we all have an interest in that. We'll see how the plan is implemented. We take President Musharraf at his word in terms of what the goals of the plan are and we'll have to see how effective it is. I think it's a little early at this point to make an assessment, however.

QUESTION: Have you seen published reports today that there were some vigilante groups who are not a party to this original formal agreement that are now, in the words of Reuters today, setting up a parallel authority in breach of the terms of the treaty?

MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't seen that, James, no.

QUESTION: While we're in the region --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, sir. Well, let's keep it on this topic and then we can venture out into the region. Did you have something?

QUESTION: I have something else.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, we'll come back.

QUESTION: I have something on Pakistan, if that helps.

QUESTION: Go ahead, and then I'll --

QUESTION: It's not about the border region. It's about Musharraf's memoirs, which a report links Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered a mastermind of the September 11 attacks, with Danny Pearl's murder. Do you have anything to that effect?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we -- I can't say a lot about this, Barry. We do have -- what's the best way to put this? We do have evidence related to that particular assertion, but at this point we believe that it would be better and more appropriate to offer such evidence in the context of a military tribunal. And we hope as the U.S. Government that once we do get legislation that governs those military tribunals that we can be in a position to offer up evidence related to that assertion.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me go to Elise and we'll come back here.

QUESTION: On Afghanistan and Pakistan, looking towards the dinner tonight, I know that you consider Afghanistan and Pakistan both allies in the war on terrorism. But have you given any thought to how political -- domestic political concerns in both of their countries might affect their ability to cooperate in the war on terrorism? And can you be assured of their full cooperation given their own kind of domestic political issues?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, this is a case -- and I can't speak to domestic public opinion in either of those countries -- I don't have a handle on it to the extent that I could get into a long discussion here about it -- but this is the kind of issue where it is a fundamental issue, fundamental security issue, for both of these countries: Afghanistan, which is a fledgling democracy really that is trying to emerge from decades and decades of strife within Afghanistan; and Pakistan, which is making its own transition and following its own democratic pathway.

But it is really up to the leaders at this point to explain to their publics about why this is important, why cooperation is important, and how their success in rooting out terror and rooting out extremism is in the interest of both countries and in a sense their ability to do that is -- their futures are linked in some small regard in that way, and that their success in being able to do this, if they are successful, it would be a success for both countries. It would be certainly in our interest. I think everybody understands the reasons for that.

So this is a case -- whatever the discussions -- whatever discussions may be happening internally in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, it is such a critical and important issue that this is a time when leaders -- when you need strong leaders to step up and lead their countries and map out a vision for them. And we believe in both President Karzai and in President Musharraf you see those kind of strong leaders.

QUESTION: On the same subject, same topic, I believe --

MR. MCCORMACK: We will come back eventually.

QUESTION: Just one follow-up. Just as the U.S. is in the middle of these discussions with the dinner tonight, how would you describe the trust between the two countries? You know, Secretary Rice was there this summer and, you know, how would you characterize it from the U.S. point of view?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll let them describe the nature of their relationship. You did have President Musharraf travel to Kabul to have discussions with President Karzai. There's a long history. There's a long history here. People in what is now Afghanistan and what is now Pakistan have been living in that same region for quite some time together so there's a long history there. And sometimes what you need to do is to try to put that -- put the past behind, look forward and look for a brighter future for both countries, for both peoples. And everybody is aware of, you know, there may have been disputes in the past, differences, frictions in the past, but it is time to put whatever differences that may have existed in the rearview mirror and to look forward to a brighter future for each country individually, as well as a brighter future for that whole region.

Secretary Rice has talked with leaders in that region, not only Central Asia but that South Asia region, about the importance of developing those positive ties among the countries of Central Asia and South Asia. So you essentially start to form -- turn what has been turned an arc of instability into arc of stability and you do that in a lot of different ways. It probably times a lot of time. You work on the economic links, you work on energy issues, you work on trade issues, building up the infrastructure which doesn't exist in a fully robust modern sense among those various countries. So that's the vision that we are talking to those leaders of those countries about, specifically Afghanistan and Pakistan but also others as well.

QUESTION: A small one on Russia. Last week I asked and the State Department ultimately had comment about reports of Russian bullying -- perhaps that's not the right word, but of some major foreign oil companies. Today Foreign Minister Lavrov is quoted as saying that there is no basis to reports that Russia is looking to squeeze major foreign oil companies out of their energy sector and that the fact that it is investigating licenses on Sakhalin II does not by any means mean that -- or the fact that it's looking into the environment aspects of Sakhalin II does not by any means mean that the licenses are going to be pulled. I wonder do you have any comment on this in particular. Are you reassured at all given the concerns you expressed last week?

MR. MCCORMACK: I would have to look into his exact remarks. I have to tell you, I have not. But just as a general statement, certainly that is a positive reassuring statement. We all know, and Russian is well aware of this as well, that adherence to the rule of law and a set of known, public business practices that meet international standards are incredibly important to a functioning trading relationship and incredibly important to the development of a modern functioning, fully integrated into the international system economy, and Russia certainly wants to be part of that international economy and very much so in the energy sector. So there are accepted international practices. Rule of law is important and transparent effective enforcement of the rule of law is also important in that regard. But I'll be happy to look into the specific comments and maybe provide you a more precise answer.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: We have a couple of more here. Yes.

QUESTION: On North Korea. Yesterday a North Korean high-ranking officer said and that he strongly mentioned about they will not be attending the Six-Party Talks in the future anymore. Does the United States have any other option to press or convince them to get North Korea to come back to the Six-Party table?

MR. MCCORMACK: We all certainly hope that that is not the final word from North Korea. We encourage them to get back to the table and to engage in a constructive manner. We are going to be talking to the other members of the Six-Party Talks about what we can to move the process forward. What can we do to convince North Korea to get back to the table? And certainly we have had conversations with the South Korean side about that. We are also having conversations with other partners in the Six-Party Talks. I would expect at some point Secretary Rice will probably travel out to the region to try to make a push in that regard. I don't have any plans at this point that I can share with you, but those conversations are ongoing. But we would, again, encourage North Korea to get back to the Six-Party Talks, engage in a constructive manner. It is in their interest and it is in the interest of the region and the North Korean people

QUESTION: Two things. One, the South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told us last Friday at UNGA that the United States was working -- South Korea was working with the United States on some kind of way to entice the North Koreans to come back to the table, and he talked about looking for creative solutions. Can you give us any kind of a sense of what those creative ideas or inducements might be?

MR. MCCORMACK: At this point I have nothing I can share with you. We're talking with the South Koreans as well as others about how to accomplish this. But fundamentally, it comes down to the North Koreans making a strategic choice and trying to appeal to their interests in making that choice and to talk about how to encourage them to make that choice while remaining in -- within the context of and the principles of the Six-Party Talks.

QUESTION: The other thing was the Secretary said in her interview I think with The Wall Street Journal on Monday that she expected -- she suspected that she'd make a trip in the next month to six weeks to make one last push.

MR. MCCORMACK: One final push.

QUESTION: I mean does that suggest that you are losing patience with the Six-Party process? And if she makes that trip and six weeks later her one final push doesn't work that you're going to look for some other kind of forum or some other way to deal with this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're not making -- she's not making final pronouncements at this point, but I think it is a reflection of the reality that it will have been over a year now since the Six Parties met, and that you see this consistent North Korean intransigence in being unwilling to meet. So there are -- we're looking at ways to try to get this process going again. There was a hopeful moment when you did -- when we did negotiate -- we as a group negotiated that framework agreement. And we think that that's the place to start again. That is the jumping off point for a new round of talks.

There is also interest among other countries in the region. We had a little bit different configuration of countries at the UN General Assembly talking about this issue. It's not meant to supplant or be a substitute for the Six-Party Talks, but there are also other countries that have an interest in this, in the Asia-Pacific region. So there are a variety of different fora where you can discuss this matter, but our focus still is on the Six-Party Talks and getting that mechanism to work.

Joel.

QUESTION: Yes. Sean, this morning the Secretary spoke with -- just spoke to the Africa Society. The topic was Sudan. Now when will Ambassador Andrew Natsios begin as an envoy over Darfur and --

MR. MCCORMACK: He's on the job now.

QUESTION: Okay, good. And secondly, when are you going to -- since President Bashir refuses to allow UN blue-hatting, is there any plan to strengthen the AU forces in the interim? They do have what, a two-month mandate still?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, certainly it's in everybody's interest to try to make them more robust, and we hope with an eye towards the fact that they would form a court of an international force. So at this point it's important to sustain the current effort and then do what we can to add to it.

Let's see, you had one. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. Has General Ralston especially Darfur (inaudible) the PKK, there was a report after confrontations in Turkey and Iraq, what kind of forward steps dealing with PKK are there in his report? As you know, next Monday Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan will have a meeting with President Bush at the White House. Did Secretary Rice talk about his trip -- this trip with Foreign Minister Gul? What's his agenda?

MR. MCCORMACK: She did. She met with Foreign Minister Gul up in New York. I think everybody knows it was a public meeting. They did talk a little bit about General Ralston's efforts, both -- nearly both sides expressed some optimism that the fact that Turkey and the United States are working well together and that Gen. Ralston is also working well with the Iraqis.

You saw a statement, I think, from President Talabani about closing down PKK offices. Certainly we're not going to negotiate with the PKK. Our views on them are clear. They're a terrorist organization. They need to lay down their arms unconditionally. So it is a positive step that we now have this mechanism and that this mechanism has Turkish, American and Iraqi faces to it that are concerned with it. Haven't solved the problem yet, but we are working on it and I think the appointment of somebody like Gen. Ralston is an indication of how seriously we take the issue. And I think the Turkish Government understands that as well.

QUESTION: Do you have any agenda?

MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me?

QUESTION: What is the agenda for the Prime Minister's visit?

MR. MCCORMACK: You're going to have to check with my friends at the White House on that. That's a White House meeting, so I'm going to defer any comment. All right. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 12:56 p.m.)

DPB # 156