• 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

Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman
Washington, DC
April 13, 2007

INDEX:

12:42 p.m. EST

MR. CASEY: Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. TGIF. I don't have any announcements to start you off with. I do just -- as a citizen of New Jersey, wanted to just wish my home state governor John Corzine best wishes for a speedy recovery in light of his accident yesterday.

So let's go to something international. Or not. Sue?

QUESTION: Do you have anything new on the missing former FBI agent in Iran? Anything new on his whereabouts, any new contacts with the Iranian Government and any comment on reports that he's being held by Iranian Government agency or officials?

MR. CASEY: Well, we talked about this a little bit this morning. We are presently where we have been. There's been no additional contacts from the Iranian Government on this subject and we still don't have any credible information about his whereabouts. We certainly are continuing to use what efforts we can through the Swiss and through the requests we've made to the Iranian Government to try and determine his exact welfare and whereabouts and status, and certainly want to see a resolution to this as soon as possible. But no, we don't have any credible information on his whereabouts and certainly that includes any possibilities of him being in Iranian detention.

QUESTION: And the last contact that you had with the Iranians via the Swiss was when they requested further information which you have provided. Where are you now in terms of dealing with the Iranians? Have you been -- you've been back to the Swiss, given then the information which has -- have they come back and asked you for more information or --

MR. CASEY: No, there have been no additional requests from the Iranian Government. They did, as you note, in response to our initial request that they look into this matter, ask us for additional information to help them do that. We've provided that information. There's been no formal communications back to us via the Swiss on that subject. We certainly hope and expect that the Iranian Government will look and do what they can to try and help us locate him and return him to his family.

David.

QUESTION: Do you have any new -- anything new since this morning on the North Korean situation on how this is likely to play out over the weekend?

MR. CASEY: No, I don't. Just to sort of recap where we are, Chris Hill is in Beijing today. He has been meeting with Chinese officials there. My expectation based on what he said to some of your colleagues out there is that he'll be there as well through tomorrow, in part so that he will be able to meet with Wu Dawei who has been traveling with other Chinese officials to Japan and, as I understood it, wasn't going to be making it back to Beijing until fairly late in the day or late this evening Beijing time or perhaps early tomorrow morning. And he said he thought he'd be leaving from there on Sunday.

In terms of where we are in this, well, again, we are on day 59 and counting. The deadline is tomorrow. As I think some of you have heard Chris say, we want to see all the parties and particularly want to see the North Koreans take steps to meet their commitments that have been outlined in the February 13th agreement. And while the statement that they put forward this morning is positive in that it reiterates that commitment to the agreement, what we need -- really need to see now is some concrete steps taken. And I believe Chris said one of those might be a call to the IAEA to invite them to come to North Korea.

QUESTION: That's kind of a low bar that all you're looking for is some steps toward meeting their commitments. It sounds like you've just given up on the possibility that they will actually meet their commitments.

MR. CASEY: Look, Arshad, again, there's a day to go. I'm not going to try and evaluate where we'll be tomorrow, and I'll leave that to Chris and the other senior policy makers who are going to be going through that process over a couple of days. But I think it's pretty clear that, again, there are commitments that are outlined in this agreement that statements are fine but those commitments need to be met. And the North Koreans should, in the time remaining, do what is possible to meet those goals and meet those requirements.

QUESTION: Has the United States given up now hope that they will actually meet the -- can you say that that there's no way that they can meet the deadline tomorrow?

MR. CASEY: I think most experts would tell you, Matt, that it is fairly hard to completely shut down and seal for purposes of abandonment, which is what it says if I recall -- the language of the February 13th agreement -- a nuclear reactor in 24 hours. But again, they need to -- there are things that they can in the next 24 hours and they need to do it.

QUESTION: Okay. So getting back to the question I asked you this morning, though, at this point in time, given what you just said that it would be pretty difficult and you don't think that they can meet it. At this point, though, you are not prepared -- you're not at the point where you think the agreement, the February agreement, has collapsed. And if this is going to go on peacefully that there'll have to be some kind of new arrangement put in place.

MR. CASEY: No, Matt, I mean, look, everybody is still working under the September 19th, '05, framework. The North Koreans, again as of this morning, have reiterated their adherence to the February 13th statement. In terms of where we go after tomorrow, again, that's something that we need to let play out. We need to see where we are tomorrow. We need to give Chris and others an opportunity to look at this issue for a couple of days. Certainly, the Chinese and the South Koreans and the other members of the six-party talks will as well. Certainly, there'll be some consultations over the weekend and then I expect people will be in a position to talk a little more about where we go from here. But I'm not prepared to speculate on what that is.

QUESTION: Right, but you are coming now from a point -- or you're looking at this from a point of view that the absolute -- that the requirements in the February 13th agreement will not be met by the deadline?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, you know, in 24 hours we'll see where we are. I think most people would probably tell you that, at least in terms of the North Korean commitment on Yongbyon, it's pretty hard to see how they could do that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: There's been very little criticism about the North Koreans' lack of action within the 60-day period. And is that just because you're very patient and understanding of how complicated the BDA issue was or is there a sense of disappointment from the Administration?

MR. CASEY: Well, look, this is a process that all six parties are involved in -- all six parties have commitments. As Chris said this morning, our time in Beijing, the important thing is that the North Koreans not just talk about their commitment to this but that they actually take actions and take steps, and that's what we want to see. But in terms of evaluating where we are in this and where we're going to be tomorrow, again, I'm going to let the policymakers have an opportunity to do that before we starting offering out or handing out grades to anybody.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Just one question about the North Korea statement. Ambassador Hill was, I think, more critical and he said that he didn't really understand what the statement was saying. But you said it was a positive step. Is there a disconnect?

MR. CASEY: Well, as I said, it's a positive statement in that it reaffirms the North Koreans' commitment to the February 13th agreement. It indicates that they are going to try and move forward on the financial matters. As Chris did say though, that statement is fine but what we really need to see at this point are actions.

Joel.

QUESTION: Are the North Koreans aware of further sanctions? In other words, do they know the ramifications of stalling beyond the date of tomorrow to shut down their reactor? And also, are they also aware of the terrorism links to other locations such as Iran, Pakistan with the A.Q Khan network and what was in place there?

MR. CASEY: Joel, look, I think the agreement that has been reached -- more importantly, the broader September 19th '05 agreement that we're trying to implement now deals with the concerns that everyone has about the need for a complete dismantlement and abandonment of North Korea's nuclear program. The goal here is full denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. And ultimately, whatever the ups and downs as we go through this process are, as you've heard from Chris and from the Secretary and from others, the way you ultimately will be able to judge the success or failure of this process is whether we achieve the goal of fully implementing that agreement. Because partial steps ultimately aren't going to solve the security problems that are represented by North Korea's nuclear program and they ultimately aren't going to provide for any of the players in the region, including the North Koreans, the security they want and the other kinds of relations that all countries want to have with one another.

Yes, Samir.

QUESTION: What is your reaction to Syrian American peace advocate who made an extraordinary visit to the Israeli parliament on Thursday, assuring them that Assad is serious about making peace with Israel and he could reach an agreement within six months? Do you --

MR. CASEY: I absolutely haven't seen the story, Samir, and I don't know anything about it. What I can tell you, of course, is that the pathway for Syria to have a better relationship with all of its neighbors and with the United States is pretty clear. There's some pretty clear actions that the Syrians can take to deal with the concerns that everyone has about their actions, and I think they pretty much know what they are. Nice words from the Syrians or from Syrian apologists is one thing; taking some concrete steps would be another.

Let's go back. Neil.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you something kind of on the margins of the whole World Bank Shaha Riza matter, and that is that, as you remember, Secretary Rice announced the formation or at least the launch of this Foundation for the Future in, I think, November of 2005. And at least as far as -- well, it's very hard to find this foundation. You go to their website. They have a website but there's no phone numbers, there's no address. They appear to have not given out any grants. They haven't set up office, that at least one can find. And considering it was launched with some fanfare at the time, I'm just curious if you could bring us up to speed a little bit as to what this foundation consists of and where you -- where it seems to be going. I don't even -- it's hard to see how much money it is that the U.S. has put into this, for one.

MR. CASEY: Neil, I actually haven't, unfortunately, briefed myself on the latest activities from the Foundation. Look, as you know, this was something that has emerged out of the Forum for the Future process. It has an international board of directors representing -- with representatives from most of the participating regional countries there as well as an executive directorate. In terms of the amount of money involved at this point and some of the specific grant programs, I'll have to look into it for you. I just don't have that at my fingertips. Sorry.

QUESTION: Are you taking the question?

MR. CASEY: Yes, I'm taking the question.

QUESTION: But is Ms. Shaha a consultant or a fulltime employee of the board? What is her status?

MR. CASEY: My understanding is she is an individual seconded by the World Bank as an advisor to the board of directors of the Foundation for the Future.

QUESTION: But she's not on the board?

MR. CASEY: No.

QUESTION: So her official title is advisor or consultant?

MR. CASEY: My best understanding is advisor to the board, yeah.

QUESTION: So what does she do as the advisor? I mean, does she help advise on grants, or do you know what her job is?

MR. CASEY: I do not have a job description for her, no. Again, I think that's a question you could ask some of the board members.

QUESTION: Do you know where the office is?

MR. CASEY: No, but I don't know where the office is for a number of parts of the State Department offhand, Matt. So I will get you -- I will get you guys more information.

QUESTION: Isn't there an agreement for the office to be based in Beirut?

MR. CASEY: I'd have to check. I honestly don't know the details on the specifics of the foundation.

In the back.

QUESTION: Just to try again on North Korea. This morning --

MR. CASEY: You're always welcome to try again.

QUESTION: Thank you. Well, you said that you wouldn't be passing out grades, but also this morning you said it would have been better if a lot of these commitments had already been met at this stage.

MR. CASEY: Look, deadlines do matter. Deadlines are important. We set them for a reason. It's to provide benchmarks for all of us to both understand what our obligations are, to measure the progress that's been made. But again, what we need to have happen at this point is see where we are at the end of the full 60-day period, see what steps have been taken and what steps haven't been taken, and then be able to make an analysis of where we go from here.

But that is something that I think people are going to want to take a good look at and take a couple of days to think about seriously, both for individual countries to look at internally as well as for all of us to consult with one another on. So all I'm trying to do is not offer you a assessment right now of where we will be going because I think that's something that's still an open question.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sorry, just to go back to Ms. Shaha.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is it usual for people to be transferred at such high levels from the World Bank to the State Department and would it be usual for a person who was seconded to earn more than the Secretary of State?

MR. CASEY: I'm not sure what the World Bank hiring practices, secondment practices or payment practices are. Those are questions you could all talk to them about.

QUESTION: But is it common? I mean, do you know of many people who were transferred from the World Bank?

MR. CASEY: I know that there are secondments from different international organizations, including the World Bank, to here. How frequently they happen or, you know, how often or how many, I really don't know. I don't think anyone here is keeping track of that per se. I think again that's a question you'd best address to the World Bank. I'm sure they could tell you how many people they've got on seconded where.

QUESTION: But one more on this. What exactly was she doing when she was here when she was working at the State Department? She was --

MR. CASEY: My understanding --

QUESTION: -- setting up the foundation?

MR. CASEY: My understanding was that she was working on issues related to the BEMNA process on the Forum for the Future and helped in the establishment of the foundation.

QUESTION: Was she directly working with Liz Cheney? Was that the person to whom she was assigned?

MR. CASEY: Ms. Cheney at that point, as I recall, was a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near -- and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. And as far as I know she was not assigned to directly work for her, although I think she was probably in the MEPI office somewhere, but I'm not sure at what level or what the reporting arrangements were.

QUESTION: So Liz Cheney wasn't the -- her supervisor -- she didn't report to --

MR. CASEY: Not as far as I know.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But Liz Cheney at that stage was in charge of BEMNA. Wasn't she in charge of those programs? Isn't that her main portfolio?

MR. CASEY: Well, as the principal deputy she had a pretty wide range of issues that she focused on. Certainly she was actively engaged in that effort as was the rest of NEA. I'm including Secretary Welch and others in the Broader Middle East Initiative and in the Forum for the Future. As you know, the Secretary attended the meetings of that as did a number of other senior officials from foreign governments. So this is an important -- it's an important initiative. It was something that has a lot of high-level support, attention, and something that we think it remains a important part of our efforts to help promote positive change and democratic change in the Middle East.

QUESTION: And what exactly is the connection, if there is one, now between -- other than to the money --

MR. CASEY: It's basically an independent foundation. It receives support from us. Again, I'll try and find out for you in terms of how much specifically --

QUESTION: But as far as you know, there's isn't any other link --

MR. CASEY: No, there is not. It is not a State Department entity. It is not a U.S. Government entity. In fact, the foundation was established very deliberately not to be a government institution, but to be in essence an independent NGO that receives support from a variety of different actors.

Yeah.

QUESTION: I believe the World Bank board of directors are meeting on this issue. Was the State Department asked to submit anything on her position to the World Bank?

MR. CASEY: Not that I'm aware of. And again, she was not an employee of the State Department while she was here. She was someone detailed or seconded from the World Bank, and so any records about the terms and conditions of her employment would be held by the World Bank themselves.

Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 12:55 p.m.)

DPB # 65