Military

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. I just want to start off with one update yesterday from -- on some -- one update to Somalia. We talked yesterday about the -- our announcement of $16 million in humanitarian aid for the Somali people. Today at the Somalia Contact Group meeting in Kenya, Jendayi Frazer announced that we would be providing an additional $24 million on top of the 16 million. The breakdown of the 24 will be 10 million for development assistance and that can include -- that can be applied to a wide range of different types of projects and $14 million to help fund the deployment of the IGASOM force in Somalia. And with that, happy to take your questions.

Okay. We're done.

QUESTION: On Somalia, is there any more detail on how this peacekeeping thing is going to come together what the next steps are?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't talked to -- haven't had an opportunity to talk to Jendayi about that -- exactly what went on in the Somalia Contact Group meeting. They do have a communiqué that they issued and we should be getting that around to all of you. I think sort of in the days and weeks ahead, we'll be able to talk more about that. But the first step is to get the IGASOM force deployed. Nobody wants to have a security vacuum on the ground there as eventually the Ethiopian forces withdrawal, as they should, from Mogadishu at some point.

You'd want to make sure that the Transitional Federal Government has an opportunity to get its legs under it and really start to become a more robust entity and start reaching out to the political parties. It makes it much, much easier and you really increase your chances of that effort succeeding if you can have a more secure environment in which that takes place. Part of that would be this IGASOM force the Ugandans have very generously decided to provide the troops for it. We welcome that. But you're going to need more. In a city of several million people, you're going to need more than 1,200 troops to help keep order.

So we're going to be, I expect in the days and weeks and months ahead, talking about that issue. The diplomatic mechanism that we are going to work through is the Somalia Contact Group. This must be an international effort. Certainly, we will play our part in that, as I've just talked about, in terms of funding and assistance and also diplomatic heft, but this does have to be an international effort.

Somalia's issues and problems are deep. They go back a couple of decades, so this is going to require a concerted and focused diplomatic effort overt the medium to long term to help the Somali people get back on a pathway where they can really realize a better future for themselves.

QUESTION: Can you give us the reason for imposing sanctions for the three Russian companies which are arms exporters, like Rosoboronexport, and there was also mentioned in the sanction list the individual named Alexi Safanov, if you can make clear who is that.

MR. MCCORMACK: Is this -- this was -- I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the issue, if you can clarify it for me. Was this an announcement that we or somebody else have made?

QUESTION: Yes, that was the article today in Washington Times saying that there is an -- U.S. Department of State put some sanctions on three Russian companies and also on one individual. But there's actually, a statement was dated by December 22nd.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm happy to look into it for you. We have periodically -- I mean, we have a variety of laws and regulations applying to specific individual sanctions either for companies, entities or individuals. They might relate to a variety of different topics, from nonproliferation to arms export to other kinds of violations. So let me look into it for you. Be happy to provide an answer for you guys. We can probably post something, I think, for you guys.

QUESTION: I have a question on Somalia.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: (Indaudible) this force will come from, the sort of extra troops, because, I mean --

MR. MCCORMACK: That's going to have to be part of the discussion. That is going to have to be part of the discussion. Clearly, there are a lot of -- there are many demands just in that corner of Africa for international forces when you start talking about Darfur and then you start talking about Somalia. So it's going to require discussion among members of the international community. Certainly, African forces would be a big part of that. But again, you're going to need more than 1,200 troops, 1,200 strong forces on the ground there if you have a hope of providing some semblance of a more secure environment for the Transitional Federal Institutions there.

QUESTION: Do you think you'll have to look beyond Africa to get the kind of troops you'll need?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't want to speculate. You know, I don't want to speculate about where those forces might come from. I don't expect that they are going to be U.S. forces. But clearly the international community is going to have to do a poll and see what forces are capable and what forces are willing and see what mechanism could be used to get those forces in place.

Yes, Joel.

QUESTION: Sean, with regard to the troop pullout by the Ethiopians. There's a report saying that they'll pull out within two weeks. Is that agreed upon in these talks or is there --

MR. MCCORMACK: Honestly, I haven't had a chance to check with Jendayi, Joel. But clearly there needs -- (a) they do need to withdraw at some point; that's very clear. I think everybody agrees on that and the Ethiopians agree on that. The second thing is you also don't -- at the same time, you don't want to create a security vacuum where you let back in either these radical forces or you let the warlords once again start to take root in Mogadishu and elsewhere. So it will have to be part of a discussion involving the Ethiopians as well as the international community.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Yeah, North Korea. North Korean General Ri Chan Bok told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer that the United States wants kneel down before them. We cannot agree with them. If this tension continues war cannot be avoided. Can you comment on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, we're seeking a diplomatic solution to this. We're committed to a diplomatic solution. You just heard that from Secretary Rice and I think our actions over the course of the past several years demonstrate that. We have made it clear we have no intent to invade or attack North Korea. We have enshrined those commitments in the September 2005 joint statement, so we very clearly are on a track of resolving this through diplomatic means.

Yes.

QUESTION: Following on North Korea. You mentioned this morning about resuming the six-party talks --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- maybe this month. Could you elaborate a little more that on what sort of indications that you have that this might be possible?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what I said is it is possible that they could resume as early as this month and you heard from Secretary Rice. You want to make sure that they're well prepared. If there is a will to make this round well prepared and productive, you could get back to a six-party talk round very soon, but we shall see. It's not a firm date. You have to have the conversations and assess among the members of the six-party talks that we're ready to sit down and reconvene. There was some good work that was done during the round at the end of December, but really we're going to need to move well beyond that to consider this next round of talks, I think, successful. What we really want to do is translate any will or desire on the part of the members of the six-party talks into concrete actions. How do you actually go about implementing that September 2005 statement; what are the commitments; what are the specific things that they're going to do to try to get to a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

Okay, Kirit.

QUESTION: The Secretary and the Foreign Minister both talked about the number of proposals that were given to the North Koreans during the last round of talks. Can you go into any sort of elaboration, what you're looking to hear from the North Koreans before you get back --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to go into the specific issue areas there. I think it suffices at this point that they understand what the proposals are and the fact that they can realize a different kind of relationship with the rest of the world and eventually, the other members of the six-party talks if they do certain things. But they have something to consider.

We would very much like to see some sort of early harvest out of these rounds of the six-party talks where you have a clear commitment from North Korea that it has made that strategic decision to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. They've committed to it in writing in the September 2005 statement. You want to start to see concrete commitments to actions that get you towards that goal and that's why we haven't seen them, but again, that's what these talks are about.

QUESTION: Have you received any sort of answer at all -- to those proposals at all yet?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware of any particular communications we've received back to -- back directly from them or via others.

QUESTION: What aspect of -- what of the equation would change with a second North Korean nuclear test or the task before you? I know it's a touch hypothetical, but --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, very clearly, it is going the opposite direction of where we would hope to go. Where we hope to go is clear commitments, clear indications, clear actions that they are -- they've made that strategic choice. They made that choice to go down the pathway of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. You know, obviously, conducting a second nuclear test sends the opposite signal and very clearly indicates that they have chosen to go down the pathway of deeper isolation for North Korea and the North Korean people.

That is going to -- that is -- which pathway they want to go, whether it involves any such actions like -- as tests, there's going to be -- have to be a calculation that the North Korean regime makes, which way that they want to go. It's very clear that there are these two pathways that are open to them. They, I think, have a healthy and good appreciation of what the possibilities are going down those two pathways and we'll see in the coming period of time what pathway they choose -- they're going to choose to go down.

Mr. Rosen.

QUESTION: Sean, the Foreign Minister alluded in his remarks this morning -- or this afternoon to the Treasury working group reconvening this month --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- with its counterparts. Is that further along, that reconvening, than the six-party talks itself? Or are they proceeding separately? Could it only happen on the margins of six-party talks, et cetera?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I think it -- we don't have a date or a specific location. We have proposed New York. We think that that would be appropriate and convenient, but in terms of linking the two things, you also heard from the Foreign Minister and we share the view that these six-party talks and the discussions about these financial matters are separate issues. Now, we agreed to a request from the North Koreans to start up this working group and it originated on the margins of the six-party talks. We felt as though that that was something that we could do. But you'll note that Chris Hill didn't participate in those discussions. Obviously, he consulted with his Treasury colleague who led our delegation, but he didn't participate in those discussions. And we believe it would be appropriate to have those discussions along a separate track and a clear indication of that separateness is having them in New York, for example. But we don't have a date set yet for those. We're ready in January, certainly.

QUESTION: So, but to use that evil, feared and loathed term "modalities," if they don't -- they're not dependent on modalities of the six-party talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not in our mind. Certainly not in our mind.

Oh, Charlie, you're --

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: No, please.

MR. MCCORMACK: Charlie was hoping to get out of here. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: The South Korean Foreign Minister also mentioned how another test by the North Koreans would not do anything to advance their security or solve their economic problems.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Would the U.S. agree that the points being made to the North Koreans that it might undo their security if they were to test again?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, again, I'm not going to speculate about the specific aftereffects of a hypothetical second North Korean test. But he was making the same point, I think, that the Secretary was making, is that they would find themselves very much isolated from -- much more isolated from the rest of the world, and in that isolation certainly they shouldn't find any comfort. It would involve, I think it's safe to say, greater hardship for the North Korean people. That's not what we want to see, but that decision lay in the hands of the North Korean leadership what pathway they want to go down -- isolation or a different kind of relationship with the rest of the world.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yes, you mentioned that Negroponte was -- well, his portfolio included the China-U.S. Strategic Dialogue?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it's -- I think the official term is Senior Dialogue.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary specifically designated him to act in the same capacity as Bob Zoellick?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, we're -- I don't want to get ahead of ourselves. He still has to go before the Senate and have hearings and be confirmed. Should he be confirmed, however, he would be -- he would act in that capacity as leading the Senior Dialogue.

Now, since the convening of that Senior Dialogue that was led by former Deputy Secretary Zoellick, Secretary Paulson has also started, I guess, an umbrella dialogue, high-level dialogue between the United States and China. That would continue. This track would also continue and it would be led by Ambassador Negroponte, should he be confirmed.

QUESTION: Certain blogs and financial markets up in New York were a bit abuzz with the report or rumor that the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had passed away. Do you have any --

MR. MCCORMACK: No information in that regard.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:54 p.m.)

DPB # 3