Military

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. Let me just go through a little bit of the Secretary's activities. As you know, she is on her way to Paris at the moment. Nicholas, I'm surprised to see you here. You're missing Paris.

She is on her way to Paris. She'll be getting into Paris 9 o'clock or so tonight local time. Tomorrow she will have the -- attend the Lebanon donors conference that is being hosted by the French Government. She will also have a meeting with Prime Minister Siniora and some American CEOs. And I wanted to bring this to your attention because this is actually a really very interesting part of our support for Lebanon and the Lebanese people, and that is that you have direct governmental assistance, and Secretary Rice is going to talk about the substantial pledge that we are going to be making at this conference, but there is also another important element to what the United States is doing to support the Lebanese people. And that is the private sector commitment to investment in Lebanon and that's what these CEOs are going to be talking about. Dina Powell is one of our assistant secretaries over here, as well as Randy Tobias went to Lebanon several months ago with the CEOs to talk about this important program. And it's important in a number of different respects.

But I would underscore this. That is, long after direct U.S. Government assistance has gone through the pipeline and been delivered, investment by foreign companies and U.S. companies is going to continue to create jobs and opportunity in Lebanon and those places where U.S. -- the U.S. companies have made a commitment to support, countries that are trying to get back up on their feet. Another example is Pakistan in those earthquake zones. I think you all remember that trip.

So I wanted to highlight that for you. She will then -- she'll probably have a couple of bilateral meetings while she's there and the folks on the ground can keep you updated on those. Then on Friday she's going to be traveling to Brussels for a NATO ministerial meeting. Afghanistan is going to be at the top of the agenda there. The Secretary is again going to talk about our commitment to Afghanistan. She's going to talk a little bit about what kind of support we are going to provide the Afghan people in terms of our assistance to them, our commitment to the Afghan people.

She is also going to be discussing with other NATO ministers there some of the issues that NATO is working through right now. As you know, NATO has a big commitment in Afghanistan. They have taken on the security task in southern Afghanistan and they're doing a great job at it. But there are some issues within the alliance that we're going to be talking about. One of them is going to be caveats. I expect also that we'll probably talk about Kosovo and maybe a couple of other issues that might pop up on the agenda. Again, folks on the ground with the Secretary will be able to keep you updated on that. But I just wanted to quickly run through her schedule and let you know what she's up to.

QUESTION: Can I ask one about the trip?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Do you expect any of the CEOs to make any announcements about a particular investment, particular jobs they might be creating working with Lebanese companies, or are they there just sort of for moral support?

MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me, I'm sorry, Nicholas. I just had somebody handing me a note so I got a little distracted. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any announcements about investment or other jobs or anything that the CEOs who are with the Secretary might be announcing tomorrow in Paris?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think they'll have something to say about their commitment to the Lebanese people, but I'm not going to try to steal their thunder. You can tune in tomorrow.

QUESTION: Okay. So I mean, it's not a sort of general --

MR. MCCORMACK: It's not just talk. They're actually -- they're acting.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: And I think that's a really -- that's really a great part about this effort is that, as I underscored, long after U.S. Government assistance and other direct government assistance has been pledged and delivered and had its effect, those kinds of foreign investments on the ground are going to have continuing effects and you're going to get a multiplier effect through job creation and building up industries in places like Lebanon. So it's a terribly important part, component of the overall effort of the United States, not just the United States Government but the United States and the commitment to helping these countries that are really fighting against the forces of violent extremism around the world.

QUESTION: Is it -- I know that you don't want to talk numbers today, but is it fair to say that the Secretary will make a commitment in the hundreds of thousands of dollars? Is that a --

MR. MCCORMACK: Hundreds of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? We can do better than that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Hundreds of millions. I'm sorry.

MR. MCCORMACK: It's going to be substantial. It'll be substantial. I don't want to get into it. She'll talk about it. She'll talk about it.

QUESTION: A prestigious Lebanese daily quoting State Department officials that the Secretary will make a commitment up to $700 million. Can you deny that? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm going to let the Secretary make the announcements on that. It's a pretty big number though, isn't it?

Yes.

QUESTION: On North Korea.

QUESTION: Can we stay on Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, Lebanon.

QUESTION: You talked about Dina Powell's and Randy Tobias's trip. Why was she going? She's the Assistant Secretary for Education and Cultural Affairs.

MR. MCCORMACK: Exchanges. This is something that the -- our group of people here, Karen Hughes' shop and Dina have been deeply involved in, in terms of public-private partnerships. It is something that -- you know, from the very beginning, the Secretary was interested in promoting. We talked about this, actually, during the transition period and she looked to Karen and Dina, really, to follow through on that and they've done a great job in that regard, in terms of engaging U.S. industry in issues that are of interest to them as well as interests -- issues of interest to us.

They recently had a public-private partnership summit regarding public diplomacy and the interest of -- you know, these American corporations in doing -- seeing what they can do to assist in those efforts. That was just, I think, a week or two ago. So that's -- there are a few examples. You can kind of go down the list and see it, but that's -- the reason why is -- you know, the Secretary saw this, really, as something that fell within the realm of public diplomacy. They, of course, work closely with -- you know, Dan Sullivan and our Under Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs on these things as well.

QUESTION: Just one last one on Lebanon, sorry if I'm monopolizing, but there were reports from the region that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia and Mr. Larijani of Iran are negotiating a sort of unity government in Lebanon. Do you know anything about these talks that have been going on and do you support a government different from the current government of Prime Minister Siniora?

MR. MCCORMACK: A couple things. One, I've seen all the press reports about Mr. Larijani visiting Saudi Arabia. I'll let the Saudis and the Iranians talk about what they talked about. I don't think anybody wants -- anybody supports -- I don't think the Saudis would support this, as well, anybody negotiating over the heads of the Lebanese people or the Siniora government.

Now Amr Mussa has had an effort working with the various political factions within Lebanon about ways that they might -- ways to -- ways out of the current political impasse that they find themselves in. But this isn't negotiating over the heads of the Siniora government or anybody else. This is -- we're trying to work with them to see what they can do, lend their good offices to that effort. Secretary Rice has talked to Amr Mussa about this. She talked to him about it in Washington as well as in Cairo when she was -- or Luxor, excuse me, when she was there.

So these are -- those are efforts, certainly, that we're well aware of. I don't think anybody -- we certainly wouldn't support any effort to try to negotiate something over and above the heads of the Siniora government.

QUESTION: Well, it's very difficult to imagine that the Iranians who are part of this would be willing to -- or would be interested in preserving this government, given that the Hezbollah doesn't agree to this government staying in office. So what is your understanding of what exactly they're negotiating?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nicholas, I can tell you, you talk to them and -- you know, I'm not in any way going to confirm the substance of this particular report because I can't. I don't have any information on it. As for your point about whether or not Iran would support the Siniora government, I think that that -- that the reality of it is they probably wouldn't because their proxies, Hezbollah, are doing everything they can to undermine the Siniora government out in the streets of Beirut and otherwise.

And their motivations really lie in doing what they can at the behest of the Iranians and the Syrian Government to try to stop any forward progress on this -- on the Hariri tribunal as well as stop any progress to Lebanon fully getting on its feet and really putting the past of Syrian domination behind them.

Yeah, Sylvie.

QUESTION: But to follow up on that, would the U.S. Government be ready to work with a national unity government in Lebanon, including Hezbollah?

MR. MCCORMACK: We don't meet with Hezbollah ministers. There are Hezbollah ministers in the current government. We don't meet with them.

QUESTION: So it's not a problem if they are more --

MR. MCCORMACK: We're not going to change that -- again, we're not going to change that policy. We support the elected government of Lebanon led by Prime Minister Siniora. As for any political arrangements or accommodations that Prime Minister Siniora might come to with the various factions in Lebanon, those are going to be decisions for him to make. But we won't work with individual ministers from Hezbollah and we won't meet with them.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Lebanese army role played yesterday during the demonstrations?

MR. MCCORMACK: In what regard?

QUESTION: The Lebanese army -- what did he do yesterday during the demonstrations? He left demonstrators, cut the roads, put blocks on the road and something like that.

MR. MCCORMACK: Michel, I'd have to look into it for you. I'm happy to work with you afterwards and look into it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: On Iran, please.

QUESTION: Actually, I'd like to stay on this one real quick. Sorry.

MR. MCCORMACK: Lebanon?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: I'm just wondering, the Secretary didn't stop in Beirut on her last trip and with this building over the past few months -- well, since the summer, I'm just wondering why she didn't go.

MR. MCCORMACK: She stops in places where she thinks that regarding the timing and the contents of the visit, she can do some good work. She's been in good, constant contact with Prime Minister Siniora. I think her support for this government and those forces for freedom and democracy in Lebanon is quite clear. I'm sure she's going to go back to Beirut. She's been there a couple of times already during her tenure as Secretary of State and I expect she'll go back.

QUESTION: So you don't think that a stop last time would have been able to prevent the upheaval we're seeing right now?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, because look, these -- what you're seeing manifested in the streets of Beirut is an effort to sidetrack Lebanon from the direction in which it's headed right now. And that direction is a more stable, democratic, prosperous Lebanon. They are trying to distract the world's attention from the fact that those forces started a war with another country in that region that cost the Lebanese people dearly. They made a lot of promises about reconstruction and getting international assistance to ironically help rebuild those things that were destroyed by the war that they started. They haven't come through on those promises.

So as a result this is -- what you're seeing is actions designed to distract the Lebanese people from those facts and they're also designed to try to undermine the efforts of this government, Prime Minister Siniora's government, to move forward on the Hariri tribunal so that the Lebanese people can know who murdered their former Prime Minister. I think they have a real interest in that. But there are people in Lebanon and outside of Lebanon who don't want to see that go forward. And so again that's another reason why you see these demonstrations in the streets. So what we think we can do is we can rally the forces of the international system to support this government and the good work that it's doing on behalf of the Lebanese people.

Yeah, Elise.

QUESTION: What do you make of the argument that the donors conference and all this international support is competing with a country like Iran that's pumping a lot of cash into Hezbollah for reconstruction of that country and it's really a battle for hearts and minds in Lebanon between the West and the moderates and Iran who's furthering this kind of extremism?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think it's no secret that there are -- if you look around the Middle East, including in Lebanon, that there is a ideological struggle that is ongoing in the Middle East. You can see it in places like Lebanon. You can see the forces of violent extremism at work in Lebanon and they are -- in 2006 they punch back. The forces of freedom and democracy in Lebanon had a good year in 2005, but the forces of violent extremism punched back in 2006. And our job as an international system and our job as a country that has an interest in seeing greater freedom and democracy in the Middle East and an interest in supporting the Lebanese people in their struggle for a more stable prosperous state is to stand with them and make it clear to the Lebanese people and make it clear to those forces of violent extremism that we are going to stand in their way. We're going to stand in their way in their efforts to bring about a Middle East that is more that is more oppressive, that is less prosperous and is going in the opposite direction from the rest of the world.

QUESTION: But just to follow up very quickly -- but can you fight this battle, like in the pocketbook? I mean --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's -- I made this point the other day that you shouldn't just look at the Lebanon donor's conference as people making pledges and signing checks. That's important. It's important in a couple of ways. One, it actually can help the Lebanese people rebuild some of that infrastructure and build their country, so there are real physical effects on the ground. But there's also an important political and diplomatic statement that that makes. Just the fact that you have this conference and you have these countries gathering together at a very high level, President Chirac convened this conference, there are going to be a number of countries represented at senior ministerial levels that demonstrates the support of the international system for what Prime Minister Siniora and his government is trying to do on behalf of the Lebanese people. So it is as much a statement of political and diplomatic support as anything else.

QUESTION: On Iran.

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: Do you want to go first?

QUESTION: Okay, Iran is still resisting the pressure of these UN sanctions. On the day the resolution was passed Ambassador Wolff said that it was only a first step. Can you -- if this is the case, what's the next step?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you're seeing the next steps all around the world. The EU recently voted that it was going to fully implement Resolution 1737. You have seen actions where various banks have been designated by various countries as involved in trafficking and terrorism as well as the -- helping to finance Iran's weapons of mass destruction program. So there are a lot of different steps that are ongoing beyond the Security Council route. That is a route that's still open. And I would -- there's a review period after, I think, coming up in about 30 days or so as to whether or not Iran has complied with what the Security Council has asked them to do.

Thus far, they've done nothing. As a matter of fact, they've actually gone in the opposite direction. They've denied entry to 38 inspectors the other day and it looks like they're inspector shopping. There are certain inspectors that they don't want to see back there because the Iranians might perceive them as being a little bit too tough. And that certainly doesn't give one confidence that they are -- that they intend to cooperate with the international community. So there is the Security Council route but there are also follow-on effects from the Security Council resolution, and states around the world, including in Europe, are taking a good, hard look at how their financial systems are being exploited by the Iranian Government entities involved in nuclear weapons program development. And I expect that you'll probably see more and more of that.

QUESTION: If I can just ask you about the diplomatic process thus far itself. In an interview with Fox News, John Bolton claims there was, and I'm quoting him, "a fundamental disjunction between the objective and the diplomacy we've been pursuing." He says the resolution was weak. He says that the U.S. compromised too much in terms of what the Russians and the Europeans wanted. How can we make -- what's he talking about?

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn't see all of John's comments. Look, John was deeply involved in this process and I think that he and his team should take great pride in the fact that they shepherded through the Security Council a 15-0 resolution, Chapter 7 resolution, against Iran. That means something. That has great meaning in the international community.

And look, does the resolution look like we would have written it ourselves? No, it doesn't. We've said that up front. But that's part of international diplomacy. You know, you make compromises but you don't compromise on the basic principles. And what we said going in is that Iran needs to hear a clear, strong message that their behavior is unacceptable and that there are costs to that behavior. And they got that signal. They got a 15-0 resolution, a Chapter 7 resolution, which puts them in a very small club in which they didn't want to find themselves.

And it's very interesting in Iran now. You're seeing a lot of public debate that people suspected previously was going on behind closed doors about whether or not the Ahmadi-Nejad regime is following the proper course. That's very interesting. And I don't think that that -- you would have seen that debate pop up into the public view absent this kind of unified international front. So this resolution has really had some important effects.

QUESTION: What Bolton is fundamentally saying is that his hands were tied, that he had this very strong objective that he was given by the President, but when it came to the actual negotiation level with the P-5, the Europeans (inaudible) gave the U.S. no compromise in direction.

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, you're not going to get everything you want in a resolution. And the fact of the matter is this is the President's policy and at the end of the day that's what matters. And you can have -- look, in the Administration of course you're going to have people bring views to the table, they're going to make their strongest arguments. Those arguments are all going to get a fair hearing. Certainly with Secretary Rice I know that and certainly with President Bush. But at the end of the day you have to make decisions about what is in the best interest of the policy at that moment and there was a considered decision that this resolution was -- met the conditions that we had laid out before we even started talking about the specific provisions of the resolution.

So like I said, is it everything that we would have wanted in the resolution? No. But is it a good, strong resolution? Yes. And is it having real effects on Iran and their ability to develop nuclear weapons? I would argue yes to right now and I think probably even more down the road if they continue down their current line of behavior.

QUESTION: A couple more on this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: First of all, a recent poll that just came out by worldpublicopinion.org said that a majority of Iranians would want their government to enrich uranium but only for a peaceful nuclear program. And a congruent poll in the United States said most Americans would agree for Iran to enrich a small amount of uranium if it was governed by IAEA regulators. I mean, you mentioned the Iranian public opinion and how Ahmadi-Nejad is not, you know, kind of in line with the international community. But if both the Iranian public and the United States and presumably other countries would see that there's some common ground, I mean, is there any common ground to having Iran have a strictly nuclear -- civil nuclear program with uranium if it was strictly monitored?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have said that we have no quibble with the idea that Iran can have peaceful nuclear energy.

QUESTION: But enriching -- with enriching uranium --

MR. MCCORMACK: The problem is that because of Iranian behavior over a long period of time, the international community simply doesn't trust this regime. It doesn't trust this regime on this particular issue. And that's solely because of the behavior of the Iranian regime. It's -- you know, as a hypothetical matter in the future of whether or not you can have a peaceful nuclear energy program based on uranium, I mean, that's -- that would be acceptable to the international community, certainly if Iran changes its behavior I suppose it would be a matter for discussion and debate. But you're simply not at that point right now. You have to deal with the facts as they are before you. And the facts as they are before you is the international system doesn't trust this regime in that they are saying one thing, saying that they have only a peaceful nuclear program, yet all the indications are that they're actually trying to develop a nuclear weapon under cover of that peaceful nuclear energy program.

As for the public opinion polls in Iran, I would just posit to you that their government isn't being forthright with them in terms of what has been offered the Iranian regime. They have been offered an opportunity to discuss all matter of topics that are of interest to the Iranian Government. All they have to do is suspend their highly enriched uranium reprocessing and enrichment program. Then they can get into negotiations and they can talk about their desire for peaceful nuclear energy. But they refuse to do that. So I think this regime is not being square with the Iranian people in terms of the opportunity costs of their behavior, and they're real now. They're starting to see what those opportunity costs are. So we'll see down the line if the Iranian regime continues to take the Iranian people down a pathway of isolation, exactly what those attitudes are.

QUESTION: One more on this. There's a report out from the Telegraph in London. Isn't necessarily the most reliable paper.

MR. MCCORMACK: Goodness.

QUESTION: It said that North Korea is helping Iran with potential nuclear testing and that they're providing enough technology to help Iran accelerate the uranium enrichment process so that perhaps it could conduct a nuclear test by the end of the year. Now, based on everything that kind of officials have said publicly and privately, it doesn't seem that Iran is that far along. Is that your understanding? And do you have any evidence of North Korea helping?

MR. MCCORMACK: On the matter of where Iran stands in the state of development of a nuclear weapons program, the intelligence community puts out regular assessments of that that are publicly available. I don't have the current one in front of me, but they're easily accessible on -- with their website.

Certainly, the Iranians would -- could benefit from outside assistance. I think the very fact that they were dealing with A.Q. Khan is evidence of the fact that they would like to have outside assistance. I couldn't comment on whether or not North Korea is involved in helping out Iran on their nuclear weapons program. I would assume that would get into intelligence information and I couldn't -- that's not something that I could discuss. But standing here, I don't have anything that I can offer on that particular aspect of the report.

We do know that North Korea and Iran have had in the past cooperation on missile programs. For example, the Iranian Shahab medium-range ballistic missile is based on a North Korean ballistic missile. So there are patterns of cooperation there. Whether that cooperation has extended into other areas, I don't have any information for you.

I would note one thing though, that both of these countries are under a Chapter 7 resolution. And very specifically under 1718, which applies to North Korea, all countries are mandated not to cooperate or participate in trade related to missile technology or weapon -- or nuclear weapons with North Korea. So if -- I emphasize if Iran were, in any way, involved in those kinds of exchanges with North Korea, they would be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution.

QUESTION: You noticed that the Russians delivered advanced air defense missile systems to Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, saw that and we've -- you know, we've made our views clear on that. We raised with the Russians whether or not it was really the right moment, given the circumstances, to go through with that sale to Iran. We've raised the issue with them. They decided to go through with the sale. There are certainly laws and regulations that have to -- that would trigger a review of that sale and whether or not there are any actions that we are required to take in reaction to that. But at this point, I couldn't tell you, I couldn't give you an assessment of what the findings of that -- those reviews might be.

QUESTION: Whose laws are you talking about?

MR. MCCORMACK: What's that?

QUESTION: U.S. laws?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, yeah, our --

QUESTION: What kind of review?

MR. MCCORMACK: Reviews in -- I can't tell you the specific laws, George. I can get you a citation. But it has to do with trading in military equipment with Iran.

QUESTION: Isn't this -- can I just finish? Isn't this another indication, though, that the diplomatic process, particularly with Russia, if you -- if it goes to the UN again, if there's another resolution, doesn't this require some review? Because it's clear that Russia continues this kind of relationship. And again, I'm going to quote Bolton. He says, "The Russians did an outstanding job from the Iranian point of view of weakening resolutions, so Iran at this point would proceed."

MR. MCCORMACK: They also voted for the resolution at the end of the day and that's going to have a real effect on the Iranians' ability to develop their nuclear weapons program and also develop their missile technology programs. It's not a perfect resolution. I will grant you that right up front. But it does have a very real effect and at the end of the day, the Russians did vote for it and I think that surprised the Iranians. I think that they might have been counting on some cover from other countries in the international system and they didn't get it. They didn't get it because of their behavior. And I think that that was a real shock to the system for them.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) this resolution, as it stands, will encourage them to stop enriching uranium at this point?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see. It's up to the -- at this point, it's up to the Iranians. I can't tell you that at this point that they're going to change their cost-benefit calculation. But the point of our diplomacy is to get them to change that cost-benefit calculation and to see that the pathway of engagement and diplomacy is the way to go, as opposed to the pathway of defiance that they're currently on.

Zane.

QUESTION: The L.A. Times has a story that essentially questions the evidence available at the extent to which Iran is meddling in Iraq and it goes on to report that there's been little sign of modern or advanced weaponry crossing the border and no Iranian agents have been found at all -- very, very few weapons been found in sweeps by U.S. troops. Can you comment on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. I asked some folks about that and they told me that's just flat wrong, that assessment. There is solid evidence that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and that they are being sent there by the Iranian Government. And I would expect that, you know, in the near future we are going to try to talk a little bit more in public to the extent that we can, because again you're dealing with intelligence information, about what we know of Iranian support for these networks.

You've had individuals that have been captured that we have suspected of being involved in these networks and it's not just us. The British earlier last year talked about the threat that they faced from these networks and the threat that it posed to their troops, as a matter of fact, they lost some troops to these kind of devices. So it's the considered judgment of the British Government as well as our intelligence community that there is Iranian support for these networks, that the threat is very real. And as President Bush pointed out, we are going to confront those networks, those individuals that are trying to do harm to our troops.

QUESTION: The British have also said, though, that they haven't found Iranian-made weapons in the areas that they patrol. That's according to this report in the LA Times. And what evidence can you provide at least to some extent the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I don't have the full contents of exactly what the individual was quoted as saying in that report. But I would just point you back to the news reports which are - and there are plenty of them early last year about the Brits talking about the threats from these networks. You don't necessarily have to construct something in Iran in order for it to be, you know, a threat to the U.S. or British troops from the Iranian regime. There are a lot of different ways you can do that. You can bring the know-how, you can train other people in Iraq to do that. So there are a lot of different ways, a lot of different ways to do it. I would suspect that they were probably trying to hide their tracks somewhat, so you're not going to have a "made in Iran" stamp on all of these items. But certainly the technology and the know-how originates in Iran.

Yeah.

QUESTION: What about the five people arrested in Arbil? Do you have any news about them?

MR. MCCORMACK: Still in custody of multinational forces.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: Do you have any confirmation or details about this apparent second attack in Somalia?

QUESTION: Well, I just have one more on Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, still on Iran.

QUESTION: Amr Moussa, the Arab League Secretary General, said today that he believed there was a 50-50 percent chance that the U.S. would attack Iran and he fears that any such strike would lead to greater sectarian violence across the region. I wondered if you had any response to those comments.

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, you've heard from the President on this. We are going to confront those networks that are trying to do harm to our troops in Iraq. We are going to work with the international system to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. And by the way, Iran's neighbors in the region, more than anybody else, don't want to see that happen.

We are working in a cooperative fashion with our friends and allies in the Gulf, witness the deployment of a carrier group into the Gulf as well as deployment of Patriot 3 systems to that region. This is all in the way of cooperation and certainly as a defensive measure. It's also intended to send a signal to the Iranian regime that the U.S. is going to stand with those reasonable forces in the region who will stand against violent extremism. The President has always said you never take any option off the table, but we --- I think we are being quite transparent in the ways that we're seeking to deal with the various threats posed by Iran, really to the region.

QUESTION: And one more thing, if you could just expand a little bit on your "inspector shopping" comment. Who do you think they're looking for then and what is the makeup of the 38 inspectors within that group? How many Americans are included in --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think it's necessarily Americans. I can't tell you the exact composition of the group. But it's a well known fact, I think if you check around in the diplomatic circles that there are certain inspectors the Iranians don't want to see walking through the door because they perceive them as being a little bit too tough. And these are people just trying to do their job. So I point that out only to illustrate the fact that this is not a regime that is cooperating at all with the international community, in fact, quite the opposite.

QUESTION: One more on the --

QUESTION: Because --

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: Sorry. Some members of diplomatic circles are saying that in fact the reason why Iran doesn't want some of these inspectors in is because they fear that they're going to collect information as happened prior to the Iraq war then use that information.

MR. MCCORMACK: That's just a smokescreen. I'm sorry.

Yeah.

QUESTION: One more on the detainees. I'm sorry if you've gone over this in the past. The Iranian -- the ones that were arrested and being held by (inaudible). What is their characterization? Are they considered detainees, prisoners of war? Have they been afforded consular access? Are you affording them --

MR. MCCORMACK: Check with MNFI. Yeah. The only thing we can tell you is they're not diplomats.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you have any information about that strike, the second apparent strike on Monday in Somalia?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing I can offer you, Kirit. You can check with Department of Defense. One thing I -- a couple things I can say is that we are going to work with others in the region including the TFG in going after those individuals who pose a continuing threat to the United States and to our friends and allies. You're well aware of all our efforts in the Horn of Africa. And we -- in that cooperation we do respect the sovereignty of all the -- all of our partners in this. I would just highlight for you the fact that we are -- there are many aspects to our assistance to the TFG, you know, humanitarian assistance, diplomatic support, political support for these individuals. And so there's a wide spectrum of our cooperation in the region to try and help out Somalia. Certainly al-Qaida elements pose a threat not only to the United States, but they pose a threat to the stability of Somalia as well.

QUESTION: Could you on this sovereignty issue, could you say whether the U.S. had been granted or had an agreement with the Somalis to conduct such attacks in a (inaudible) --

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me just leave it at that we work closely and cooperatively with all the governments in the region, including the TFG in fighting terror.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any information on the meeting between the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya and Sheikh Sharif Ahmed? They apparently met in a Nairobi hotel today.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, he is in Kenya and I think that he is under the protection of Kenyan authorities. I'm going to be a little sensitive with -- to the views of the Kenyan authorities. This is somebody that's under their protection. But what we do want to do is try to encourage a dialogue and actual cooperation between the TFG and those elements who are interested in building a more stable, peaceful Somalia. And as we've pointed out I think on a regular basis, the Islamic Courts or what was known as the Islamic Courts, were not a monolithic entity and there were a variety of individuals within the Islamic Courts who were forces for moderation. And I think this individual is somebody who would probably count in that camp. So we're going to try to reach out to those individuals and encourage them to work with the TFG.

QUESTION: Can you provide any details of the meeting? Did you reach out to Ahmed or did he reach out to you? And what is your ultimate goal here? Is it to pull him into the political process and to send him back to Somalia or what are you hoping for?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, I think I outlined what our desires are here and that is to get the individuals who have an interest in a different kind of Somalia working together with the internationally recognized government of Somalia. And you know, we obviously can't force those kinds of connections or force any sort of cooperation. But we can encourage them to come together and that's what we're going to try to do.

QUESTION: Do you have any more details of the meeting --

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: -- what was discussed, what was on the agenda?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: On Africa. There's some reports that the Secretary is going to be traveling to Ethiopia at the tail end of her trip to join the AU Summit in Ethiopia. Is there any legitimacy to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: First I've heard of it. We'll obviously keep you up to date on her travel schedule.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Let's move around a little bit.

Yes.

QUESTION: On the UN, on al-Qaida designations at the UN's 1267 Committee, no names were -- South Africa has apparently put a hold on the U.S. request. Can you respond to South Africa's hold on the request to name a couple of people to the terrorist list?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think we've talked a little bit about this the other day. I don't have any updates for you. This is a process that because of the kind of information involved, as well as the political -- diplomatic deliberations that are ongoing in that kind of process, any of the cases, you know, we don't get into it. It essentially happens behind closed doors and once there's a designation, that is something that becomes public. But I'm not going to get into the diplomatic sausage making process.

QUESTION: And on that sausage making process --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Zuma has called for discussions and bilaterals. Is Washington open to doing it that way?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, we have an ongoing dialogue with South Africa on a variety of topics. Secretary Rice, just a couple of weeks ago, had dinner with Foreign Minister Zuma, so -- look, if there's something that the Foreign Minister wants to bring up or the African Foreign -- South African Foreign Minister wants to bring up with us, of course we'll be happy to engage them on whatever topic they want to talk about.

QUESTION: Okay. But are you currently in discussion with the South Africans on this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I'm not going to -- you know, again, that gets back to -- we're not going to talk about any sort of designations until and unless they happen.

Yes.

QUESTION: Sean, well, I'm ready to -- (laughter).

MR. MCCORMACK: Turn around, man.

QUESTION: Well, I'll take a little question.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: Is there any news in the note you were handed?

MR. MCCORMACK: Huh? No.

QUESTION: No?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. Just don't --

QUESTION: Maybe it was a bulletin?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. It's a process-related note.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Zane.

QUESTION: The FBI has just confirmed that two people on the most wanted terrorist list have been killed. There are two Abu Sayyaf members that were apparently killed in a fire fight with Philippine security officials last week. Has the State Department issued a reward for information leading to their killing under the Rewards for Justice Program?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check into it for you, check into it.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: On North Korea, Secretary Rice had a telephone call with her Chinese -- the Chinese and South Korean foreign ministers. Do you have a readout of those telephone conferences?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, they talked a little bit about the consultations that are ongoing right now, some of the consultations that were in Berlin as well as the other ones that Chris Hill had with his Japanese, Chinese, and South Korean counterparts. I think that the general tone and tenor among most of the members of the six-party talks now is that we are hopeful that a new round could be convened in the not-too-distant future.

We believe that these have been a good set of consultations in the run-up to what we hope is a new round and that the proof will be in the pudding in terms of negotiating in the six-party format. You can lay the groundwork, you can have good atmospherics, but until you actually produce a negotiated agreement, that's all it is. It's just hope for a new round, but we hope to put that to the test in the near future. It would be up to the Chinese Government to announce a new round of talks, but certainly, we are -- if a new round of talks is announced, we'll be ready to show up and negotiate.

QUESTION: What about North Korea --

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: North Korea representative Kim Gye Gwan mentioned North Korea has made very successful talks with the United States at Berlin. Could you tell us, what is the content of their successful talk, if any?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nope.

QUESTION: Was there any pre-condition or tested by --

MR. MCCORMACK: The -- I expect that there were -- the North Koreans have had consultations with other members of the six-party talks in addition to the United States. This is just one in a series of consultations that really started in the wake of the last round.

I think what you're seeing from the North Korean side is a response to some of the ideas -- not a formal response, but an idea of how they would respond to some of the ideas that were put forward during the last round of the six-party talks. At that point, the -- I don't think the North Korean delegation had their full set of instructions in terms of how to respond to some of the ideas that were on the table. Right now they've had some time to contemplate what it is that they heard last time in Beijing and we started to -- we as well as others are starting to hear back some of their thoughts. But again, the real test is what happens in a set of negotiations. We hope to put that prospect to the test.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you still hope the next round on the six-party talk will -- the resuming will be announced before the end of the week?

MR. MCCORMACK: Before the -- look, we're ready --

QUESTION: That's what Chris Hill said to --

MR. MCCORMACK: We're -- you know, we are certainly ready for an announcement whenever the Chinese are ready to make it.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. reconfigured its position on the financial sanctions to make it more acceptable to the North Koreans?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we've -- what we're -- we have pledged to them is that we're going to try to address the issue in this channel that we have established between the Treasury Department and the North Korean delegation. You know, I'm going to let those discussions take place at their own pace. I don't think the Treasury Department has announced the date and the venue for the next meeting, but I would expect that that will be coming in the not-too-distant future.

QUESTION: So it did not come up in any in-depth way in Berlin?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have a full read from Chris. I'm sure that the topic was raised. The North Koreans raise it on a regular basis, whether that's in the six-party talks or through these consultations that we're having.

Kirit.

QUESTION: Could you say whether the Secretary was given any assurances by the Chinese over the phone regarding the missile test the other day?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have brought this up at senior levels with the Chinese Government and I think we're still -- what we're still looking for is a little better indication as to their policies, how this -- the test that was conducted squares with their stated policy of not wanting to militarize space, what their plans are for any future tests, some of the specifics of the tests that they did conduct, and I think we're still waiting to hear back from the Chinese on that.

QUESTION: Did they give any indication when they'll get back to you on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think we have an indication. I think we have encouraged them to do it.

QUESTION: It didn't come up with the Secretary at all in --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we've raised this at pretty senior levels. I'm not going to get into all the details of her conversations.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Also on North Korea, apparently, the U.S. has objected to the way that the United Nations is -- the UN Development Program specifically is delivering aid to North Korea, complaining that the UNDP has hired local staff recruited by the North Korean Government and, in fact, that money is being funneled into the government and apparently, the U.S. has objected to that. Could you discuss that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has ordered an independent look into the oversight of UN aid programs worldwide. I think the UNDP program in North Korea would be included in that. We as well as others are -- want to make sure that in the administration of any of these programs, that you have proper oversight and that you have -- that the monies are spent in the way that they were intended and that the recipients actually are the beneficiaries of any funds that are expended.

Beyond that, I don't want to get into it too much because, as I said, the Secretary General has already said that the UN is going to look into the matter and launch their own outside independent investigation. So I don't want to muddy the waters too much and let that investigation proceed.

QUESTION: Well, apparently, he launched that investigation in part due to U.S. criticism on the matter. And in fact, I guess the UN envoy for UN Financial Management, Mark Wallace, has written the UNDP on behalf of the U.S., accusing the U.S. of violating rules by hiring North Korean government officials and paying salaries to workers recruited by the government. So could you at least talk about what the U.S. concerns are?

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, generally -- I'll talk about them generally in the fact that we want to ensure that there are proper safeguards, management and oversight and that the beneficiaries -- the intended beneficiaries of any money that is spent are, in fact, the people who receive it, not others. And beyond that, I'm going to let the investigation proceed. The Secretary General is somebody who's committed to making sure that UN funds that are received from member states are spent in the most effective way and according to all the rules and regulations.

Sue.

QUESTION: Are you satisfied that Sudan is -- that the Sudanese Government is cooperating in terms of allowing phase one to go ahead of the plan? And secondly, the UN appears to be having problems getting enough troops even for phase two of the plan. I just wondered whether you thought that the UN was pulling its weight and whether you were putting out appeals for countries to come forward with troops.

MR. MCCORMACK: On the last, certainly, we are encouraging countries to make whatever contributions they can to make sure that phase one and phase two proceed. There is, of course, a much larger phase three program that is out there on the horizon, but the Sudanese have yet to agree to it and we would urge them to agree to that. President Bashir sent a letter several weeks ago indicating that the Sudanese would cooperate on phase one and phase two.

QUESTION: So is this the letter to Kofi Annan?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. And we are going to take that at face value; that the Sudanese Government is going to cooperate on phase one and phase two. And there are some indications that they are, in fact, cooperating on phase one. Now you can check with the UN as to exactly where they are in the deployment and the logistical support for the first phase as well as the second phase.

So where it stands now, the Sudanese have agreed to phase one and phase two. The UN -- it is important now for the UN system to come together and actually fill in behind that pledge to cooperate with phases one and two and come up with the resources and the logistical support. It's incumbent upon them to do it. I'll let them speak for themselves in terms of where they are in that. But let's not let any of that cloud the fact there is still yet a commitment that is needed from the Sudanese Government on phase three and that's critical, especially given some of the uptick in violence that we've seen over the past several months and some of the real concerns about treatment of humanitarian workers, NGO workers, and others who are there trying to help out the people of Darfur.

QUESTION: Do you take Sudan -- the Sudanese Government, though, at its word that it's going to follow through? I mean, there have been attacks on humanitarian workers. There are questions over who is responsible for those attacks, but do you think, given their past record, that they're going to pull through?

MR. MCCORMACK: They have made a commitment and we expect them to abide by those commitments. I think that what is required of the international community is constant, consistent pressure, diplomatic pressure, as well as constant review of whether or not the Sudanese are living up to the commitments that they said that they were going to perform on.

QUESTION: Are you reaching out very actively to other countries to ask them to contribute troops? I know that you're not interested in -- the U.S. isn't interested in contributing, but have you received any pledges of late from any countries that they're prepared to put forward --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, let me check for you, Sue. Of course, we encourage other countries to contribute. The -- you know, the real pivot point here is the UN system and the peacekeeping operation folks as well as the AU itself. So let me check and see how I would characterize how we're trying to leverage our support to get people to contribute.

Sylvie.

QUESTION: Do you have any details on the situation in Haiti today because there was apparently a vast UN peacekeeper operation in one of the shantytowns, Cite Soleil? And I wanted to know if the U.S. was informed or was part of this operation?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any details on it. MINUSTAH is doing good work down there. You know, the Brazilians -- I believe the Brazilians are in the lead and there's a Brazilian general who is in the lead. They're doing good work in terms of trying to bring some semblance of law and order to Haiti. They've made a lot of progress working with the Haitians. There's still a lot left to do in terms of building up respect for rule of law, building up the police forces. So a lot of progress, a lot more to do. But in terms of the specific operation, I don't have any info for you.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Joel.

QUESTION: Sean, apparently the new passport regulations took effect and that requires Americans to -- when they leave the United States, Canada, Mexico and such to follow regular passport rules. However, I have a question about the old standardized system. Are you asking other governments, some which might be dubious, to have a tamper-proof passport for their citizens and also are you doing anything with regard to the third party stopovers, in other words in transit to the United States by citizens?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I can only answer you in the most general terms, Joel. There's a law that was passed mandating certain requirements for passports for people from countries traveling into the United States. So there's a certain floor that has been established in terms of tamper proofing and that sort of thing. I think the folks at DHS and if you're really interested we could get some people from Consular Affairs to talk to you a little bit more about it.

Sue.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, just one more on the South Africans.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: Apparently the South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad said today that the United States has informed his government officially that these two South African guys will be put on the U.S. list irrespective of whether they get onto the UN list, have you given and have you officially told the South Africans that you are going to put them on your own list?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, two things. One, any sort of diplomatic communications we might have had with the South African Government are going to remain in diplomatic channels. As for anybody who gets designated, those are things that come out in public and there is usually some sort of notice in the Federal Register or some sort of press release that gets issued. I'm not aware of any one at this point that's been issued.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:05 p.m.)

DPB#13