Military

MR. CASEY: Okay. Well, good afternoon, everyone. Happy Thursday. I don't have any opening statements or announcements, so I guess we'll get right to your questions.

QUESTION: Toby Harnden with London Daily Telegraph. Kendall Myers from your Bureau of Intelligence and Research gave a lecture on Wednesday when he described the "myth of the special relationship between the UK and the U.S." and suggested the British break with the U.S. and attach itself to Europe. The State Department's already disowned these comments, but he was -- he advertised himself as a State Department employee -- spoke of himself as a State Department employee.

Is his position as a State Department official tenable at this point?

MR. CASEY: Well, let me try and recap where we are on this and then I'll get to the specific point in your question, Toby. First of all, Mr. Myers is a foreign affairs research analyst with the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. However, I want to make clear he does not make policy, either on the U.K. or other issues, and certainly doesn't have a significant input into foreign policy formulation.

The views that he expressed in this SAIS forum in no way reflect the views of this Administration or the United States Government. They certainly don't reflect the views of the Secretary of State or this building. And certainly, we repudiate and disassociate ourselves from those comments. The comments frankly, I think, could be described as ill-informed and I think, from our perspective, just plain wrong.

In terms of our relationship with the U.K., it is a special relationship. It is a very unique one. And throughout much of history, certainly throughout the last century and beyond, the United States and the United Kingdom and our peoples have stood by each other and have worked together to successfully deal with some of the most difficult issues before the international community. We value that friendship. We value that relationship. And we certainly know that the world would be a worse place without our partnership.

I would point out that Mr. Myers made his comments in what he thought was a closed academic forum. He does have an adjunct faculty status at SAIS, so his presence there would not be that unusual. But he was not authorized to speak as a Department official or in the name of the Department and certainly wasn't doing so from our perspective.

Bureau officials, meaning the Bureau of Intelligence and Research where he works, are speaking with him about this issue and will get a full understanding of his perspective on this and make sure we have a full understanding of the facts. Once all the information's been gathered, then the Department will look at what actions might be appropriate.

QUESTION: Just to follow that up, then.

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Downing Street's official spokesman, Tom Kelly, has said in view of some of the comments coming out of the State Department with regard to Mr. Myers, that he believes he should be considering his position. When you say bureau officials are speaking with him, is that in order to allow him to consider his position?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I think we want to make sure that we have a full understanding of the facts. There are a lot of very complicated rules and procedures in terms of Civil Service personnel and I, frankly, don't want to try and prejudge that process, but --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) process?

MR. CASEY: Well, this is a process that we'll have to go through in terms of understanding exactly what happened and how these circumstances came about. We will then have to review that in light of Department policies and procedures and see what kinds of action might be appropriate.

QUESTION: So for now, it's not right to call this a disciplinary process. You're just trying to figure out what happened here, right?

MR. CASEY: Yeah. I think, at this point, you know, people in his bureau became aware of this issue this morning. They've spoken with him preliminarily. They'll continue to do so. Once they have an opportunity to evaluate, they'll then decide on what the next steps are.

QUESTION: And just to be clear, he's Civil Service, not Foreign Service?

MR. CASEY: That's my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: So just to -- a bit of housekeeping --

MR. CASEY: Sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: When you're saying that there are rules and procedures about what happens, that suggests it is a formal process that he is now in; correct?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I'm not an expert on human resource issues here. There are a large series of rules and regulations governing employment and governing behavior and conduct by Civil Service employees. I will leave it to both his immediate employers in the bureau as well as our Director General's office which handles our human resources issues to decide what is appropriate under these circumstances. I am not prepared to try and give you a specific outcome that's likely from this.

QUESTION: Tom, this is someone, as you said, in your Bureau of Intelligence and Research who's an analyst, who's been with the State Department for about 30 years. He's been a teacher for as far as I can tell, about 30 years. And obviously has a lot of knowledge not only about the U.S.-British relationship, but about U.S. foreign policy. And is this -- I know he wasn't speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government, but he was speaking as an analyst of a situation that he has been working on for 30 years and is this the type of opinions and insights that you seek from analysts in the bureau?

MR. CASEY: Look, I think everybody understands that there are a couple of different things here. First of all, let's be realistic about this. This would not be a news story if the individual in question were simply a professor at SAIS or simply a private American citizen. This has become an issue because the individual has an association with the Department. My job, as you know, is to specifically speak to you guys about U.S. foreign policy. But all of us are paid as U.S. Government officials to represent the U.S. Government and to represent our policies. And certainly we expect people to do that when they go out in public forum.

Now internally within this building and within the policymaking process, of course, we welcome all views. It is extremely important, as the Secretary has said, that all ideas and opinions are considered as we go about formulating policy. But I do want to make clear again that Mr. Myers is not someone who is involved in policy formulation with policies related to the United Kingdom, nor really with any other sort of major policy issues. He's an analyst with the bureau. He's a working level official. So I do want to make clear that his remarks should not be viewed as those of someone who has responsibility for formulating or being a major contributor to policy on this particular subject.

QUESTION: If I can just follow up.

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: But he is paid to analyze political situations in Europe. And is this the type of analysis that he has presented to the Department in the past?

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, I'm not aware that any particular individual analysis by him has been put forward. Certainly again I do not believe that there is anything in the views that he expressed at SAIS that in any way, shape or form, expresses the views or opinions of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, of the Department of State, of this Administration or I think generally the American people.
QUESTION: On Iraq. President Bush confirmed again that the U.S. would continue its support of Maliki's government. In your opinion what are the new ideas of support that you would give to Iraq in this phase?

MR. CASEY: You mean the press conference with the President and Prime Minister didn't answer all your questions?

QUESTION: Not this part.

MR. CASEY: Oh, well -- (laughter) -- gee, well, I do think the President and Prime Minister were both pretty clear about their ideas and views on this. And certainly I don't want to get ahead of the White House or get ahead of the folks out there and there's been a lot of people talking about it. But if you look at what the President and Prime Minister said today in their comments, they focused very clearly on what's a priority for both of us, which is making sure that Prime Minister Maliki and his government have the capacity to be able to work on security, to be able to handle the full responsibilities of government. It's a difficult time as the President said for Iraq and we want to do everything we can to help the Prime Minister succeed in his objectives. And a large of part of that, as they discussed today, will be about working on how we can give the Prime Minister those capabilities necessary to be able to handle fully and completely the security responsibilities that rest upon his shoulders as the head of government in Iraq.

A lot of that means hearing the ideas which they heard from the transition group today about how to speed up the process of training and of giving those capabilities to Iraqi security forces so that they are capable of taking over as we move forward from the coalition, because again, the whole goal here, as has always been the case, has been to give the Iraqis the capabilities for their security forces to be able to fully manage security themselves. And of course at that point when the coalition forces are no longer required to help them do it, the coalition forces can leave and that's what we're all working towards.

QUESTION: But when do you estimate that the Iraqis will be capable of handling responsibility?

MR. CASEY: I'd leave those kinds of calculations to the military officials on the ground. I know General Pace spoke at the Pentagon yesterday about a number of issues related to that. I know General Casey has as well. Again, this is not about setting timetables. What this is about is ensuring that the mission can be done. And the important for us, and the goal that both the Prime Minister and President Bush share, is doing everything we can and working with our officials on the ground there to be able to enhance Iraqi capabilities and to be able to do so as quickly as possible. Because again, we all want to see the day come sooner rather than later, as soon as possible as the President said, when Iraq is capable of doing this on their own and that it does not -- no longer need the support of coalition forces.

Let's go over here.

QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the Secretary's meetings with Abbas and Olmert and specifically the Israeli reaction to Rice's expressed desire to see an extension of the current Gaza ceasefire into a larger truce, that expectation?

MR. CASEY: Well, I really don't have a lot to tell you about their meetings. Obviously the party's out there and some of your colleagues are out there with them as well. She's spoken publicly after her meetings with President Abbas as well as with Israeli officials and I think they pretty much give you the public readout of it. Certainly we welcome, as the Secretary did, the steps that President Abbas has taken, both his efforts to try and form a national unity government, his efforts to achieve the ceasefire. We certainly want to see that ceasefire implemented. We've also welcomed the comments that Prime Minister Olmert has made and believe that, again, this offers an opportunity. This is, as the Secretary described it, holding out a hand to the Palestinian side. But we do believe that we need to do everything we can; that's part of why the Secretary is out there to try and help move this process forward, to get moving forward on the roadmap because the ultimate solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is to be able to achieve the President's vision of a two state solution.

David.

QUESTION: Tom, from reading accounts of the Chris Hill mission in Beijing, you don't get the impression that much was achieved. And I was just wondering whether that's an assessment you share and what is the next step for Hill?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think at least in one of his stop, and I can't remember which of the occasions it was, I think we should actually start paying Chris a commission from the Bureau of Public Affairs since he does manage to be very available to your colleagues wherever he travels. But I think Chris expressed general satisfaction with his meetings. As he said, we put forward to the North Koreans a number of ideas on how we can have this process move forward. We all want to see the next round of six-party talks take place as soon as possible. But again, as we've said, we want to see that round be successful and make real progress, so we've put forward some ideas.

As he said, the North Koreans listened intently, said they would go back to Pyongyang and consult with their government leaders. And hopefully, we will have a response from them as soon as possible. But again, we want to see this be a successful process. We think it was a good exchange of views.

Chris has said, I believe, at the conclusion of his last of his whirlwind stops at Tokyo that he still believes it's possible for the next round to take place in the month of December. And so we'll continue to work this and we'll see what the North Koreans have to say.

Yes.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, what remains as the main sticking points between North Korea and the U.S. as to the resumption of the talk?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I think Chris has spoken to this in as much detail as anyone has. What this session of discussions was was an opportunity to exchange ideas with one another about how we could move forward in the next round of talks. And we presented some ideas which weren't U.S. ideas. They represented the collective views and understanding of the other parties to the six-party talks.

Those were things that, as Chris said, the North Korean representatives listened to carefully, but were not in a position to immediately respond to. So we'll see what they say. Certainly, we'd like them to respond favorably and hopefully they will and hopefully that will allow us to have another round take place and to have that be successful and have us move forward in terms of implementing the September 19th agreement.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. Does the State Department have a view about the latest outbreak of polonium poisoning?

MR. CASEY: You're referring to the British Airways announcements?

QUESTION: And the -- and also the former Russian Prime Minister, I believe.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.) if you saw that report before you came out here.

MR. CASEY: Actually, I hadn't, Arshad. In terms of the British Airways flights, we do understand British Airways has made an announcement concerning three of their jets. At this point, in terms of United States citizens' interests, we've not received any specific inquiries about these flights through our Consular Services system, nor has the UK contacted us about any potential American citizen involvement in that. So I would leave it to British Airways and the British Government to talk about that. As you know, this is something that is being investigated very thoroughly by UK authorities. We certainly will leave it to them to speak about progress in that investigation.

QUESTION: The new report, I think, was that former Prime Minister Gaidar has been poisoned and the doctors have found that there is no natural explanation for his illness. So I guess the other question might be, does it concern the U.S. Government that Russian citizens seem to be getting poisoned inexplicably?

MR. CASEY: Well, look, Arshad, I think -- I hadn't seen that report, so I really can't comment specifically on it. In terms of any of these individual cases, obviously, I think any time you have an instance where someone has died unnaturally and certainly, any instance where there is involvement of radioactive elements or things, they are a general concern for us as well as for the broader international community.

I think the main thing for us, though, is we want to make sure that we understand what the results of the UK's investigation is before we can draw any particular conclusions from this.

QUESTION: So just to follow up, does it not rekindle some institutional memory in the State Department of, perhaps, how things were 20, 30 years ago?

MR. CASEY: I think I'll try and stay away from institutional memories. I have enough trouble with my own sometimes.

Yes, Arshad.

QUESTION: Sudan; there are reports that hundreds of people may have been killed in fighting between -- in North-South fighting in Sudan. Do you have anything on that?

MR. CASEY: Yes, I did look into this, Arshad. Certainly, we're very concerned about reports of fighting between the Southern Sudan Defense Force, which is an adjunct of the Sudanese Armed Forces, and elements of the SPLA. I understood this took place in the southern town of Malakal. What is positive is that the United Nations Mission in Sudan or UNMIS forces have stepped in to quell the violence. They've deployed armored personnel carriers and a number of other forces and this is having a quieting effect on the situation.

The UN force's commander did arrive in the city yesterday and he's working with parties to prevent any additional action. This is also I think an example, too, of why we believe it is imperative to see an expanded force in Darfur. The actions that UNMIS is taking to be able to ensure preservation of the ceasefire is something that is to be welcomed and I think is welcomed by the Sudanese Government, as well as by those in southern Sudan.

In terms of what broader implications this might have, our understanding at this point is that this was an isolated incident related to a number of localized issues and is being successfully dealt with, as I said, by UNMIS on the ground but certainly is something that we are going to keep a close eye on.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on the idea of an expanded mission for Darfur. Does -- can you give up an update on what Special Envoy Natsios plans to do in terms of trying to push that forward now?

MR. CASEY: I do believe that Mr. Natsios does intend to travel back to the region soon but I don't have any specifics on it for you right now. Obviously one of the things for us that is a priority is to continue to work with the broader international community to ensure that efforts are made to convince the Sudanese Government to accept the Addis Ababa agreement. This is something that we had said we wanted to and that the international community more broadly wanted to see a firm answer from the Sudanese on by the end of the month.

I know that the African Union's Security and Peacekeeping Council is meeting on the margins of the African Brazil summit today and they are going to be talking about the Darfur issue too. So people are continuing to discuss this, to work on this and to encourage and to try and push the Sudanese Government forward to accept that agreement. We do believe that that is a good plan. It's one that I think Secretary General Annan put a lot of effort into as did we, as did others, and I think offers a real way forward.

QUESTION: And you say he does plan to travel back to the region soon given that you want an answer by the end year is it -- can you say by the end of the year that's his plan?

MR. CASEY: I don't have specifics. I think he may be traveling sometime during the next month but I'll try and get you an update on his schedule.

QUESTION: Okay. Then the last thing would be in the region means to Sudan or anywhere else in the region?

MR. CASEY: Again, I would expect travel would likely include Sudan, but I just don't know what the specifics are at this point and we'll try and get you some dates and some specific details on it a little later.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Iraq?

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Thirty members of parliament and five cabinet ministers loyal to al-Sadr are still maintaining this boycott and they're threatening to pull out of the government completely. Can you tell me how concerned the U.S. is about this at this point?

MR. CASEY: Well, frankly, I'll leave it up to Prime Maliki to talk about the internal developments, political developments in Iraq. He's expressed his views I think pretty clearly in the press conference with the President about the need for everyone participating in his government to act responsibly, to follow the rule of law and to act on behalf of the Iraqi people. Certainly we agree that that's the way any responsible actors in the process should behave. But in terms of what individual parliamentary groups decide to do or how that relates back to the broader government, I think that's something for the Iraqis to address.

QUESTION: Well, some of these parliamentarians are forming a new bloc in parliament and are saying that they're the ones that the United States should be dealing with not only al-Maliki.

MR. CASEY: Well, I think that as with any country our principle relationship diplomatically is with the elected government of that country and that generally first and foremost means the elected prime minister and members of his cabinet. Certainly, we look to have conversations and dialogue. And I know our embassy certainly does with all kinds of individuals in the government and representatives of various political parties. But again, and I think as the President's made clear today, our focus is on working with the duly constituted government to be able to advance on a common agenda.

One more.

QUESTION: One more, please. The sticking points about the disbanding of the Mahdi army, is Maliki still reluctant to do this?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I think you heard from him and the President earlier today and I really don't have anything additional for you on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:07 p.m.)