Military

2:15 p.m. EDT

MR. MCCORMACK:Good afternoon, everybody. I don't have any opening statements, so we can get right into your questions. Who wants to start?

Nobody? Good, we're done. See you.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Charlie, you've got to be a little quicker on the trigger than that.

All right. Go ahead, Sylvie.

QUESTION: Can we have a readout of the discussions of the Secretary with Mexican and Canadian (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. They had a good discussion about a whole variety of different issues. There are regional issues, there are bilateral issues between each of the -- among the various countries: Mexico, the United States and Canada.

Talked about some of the environmental issues between the U.S. and Canada, they talked about the importance of promoting democracy, good governance, and free trade throughout the hemisphere. They talked about some of the challenges to good governance and promotion of democracy in the hemisphere, talked a little bit about the upcoming summit in Quebec, at which the presidents and the Prime Minister of Canada will meet, talked about the importance of pushing forward on encouraging growth of trade among the three countries.

So it was a good discussion among close neighbors, a lot of local issues to discuss as well as regional issues.

QUESTION: Did they speak about immigration and what was --

MR. MCCORMACK: They didn't talk so much about that because Secretary Rice had previously spoken with the Foreign Minister of Mexico about the issue and the immediate aftermath of the failure of the Senate to pass an immigration bill. So that's something that had already been covered prior to this meeting.

QUESTION: What about the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?

MR. MCCORMACK: They --

QUESTION: A requirement for --

MR. MCCORMACK: They touched briefly on it, but again, this is a topic that they have touched base on before in individual phone calls.

QUESTION: Okay. So what's changed?

QUESTION: That was my question.

QUESTION: What's different now than when we were freezing ice to death in Ottawa in February?

MR. MCCORMACK: As in diplomacy, Matt, there are oftentimes -- sometimes the movement may not be readily apparent for each given meeting, but as you look over the arc of these efforts, you see advancements in resolving various disputes. We've seen that in the past with the U.S. and Mexico on the Boundary Commission with respect to water. You've seen it with the United States and Canada on softwood lumber and on various issues dealing with predatory fish and that type of thing.

QUESTION: Predatory fish?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, there is an issue in -- with Devils Lake and predatory fish.

QUESTION: So --

MR. MCCORMACK: So these things, it's --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) glacial?

QUESTION: Glacially (inaudible), but the -- in other words, this was not a meeting that was called to discuss a certain specific thing?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, it wasn't. No, this is part of this trilateral combination at which they talk a whole -- about a whole variety of different issues.

QUESTION: Can we go back to the issue of trade? Was Security and Prosperity Partnership --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: -- part of that discussion?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, that's the formal title for this gathering. And it covers the whole waterfront of issues; like I said, trade, security, border security, movement of peoples back and forth across borders. They also -- these are three countries that share similar values, common values, and they talked about the importance of that particular grouping in working with other countries in the hemisphere to promote those values.

QUESTION: But is there any concern that there has been such criticism that moving ahead with this would undermine the sovereignty of the United States? Some Administration critics claimed.

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't heard that criticism. I mean, there are people who still think NAFTA's a bad idea. You know, but you are going to get that for any given policy. There's always going to be somebody who doesn't like it and thinks that they have a better idea. We happen to think, while maintaining standards of border protection and security, and also within the confines of ensuring that there is a fair and level playing field for American workers, that this kind of openness among these three states, again, within the confines of those caveats, is a positive thing.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: We can stay on the predatory fish. (Laughter.) Go ahead.

QUESTION: Be my guest. (Laughter)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Yesterday, one of our colleagues raised the case of the Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: I -- there are, in fact, reports that he went missing from his home in Beijing.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Where he had been held under house arrest. Did you check with the Chinese Government? Did they -- do you know whether he's in custody?

MR. MCCORMACK: We don't.

QUESTION: Do you know where he is?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, we don't at this point. We don't know. We're trying to follow up with the government.

QUESTION: Have you spoken to the Chinese Government? Have you raised this case?

MR. MCCORMACK: I believe we have talked to them about it. We do not yet have an answer.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have a Middle East trip announcement planned?

MR. MCCORMACK: We hope in the near future to have a trip announcement for you regarding the Secretary's upcoming travel.

QUESTION: No region noted, sorry. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Anything on the Quartet meeting in Egypt on July 16th?

MR. MCCORMACK: Still no date set for the Quartet meeting. I can't tell you exactly when it will be. One possibility is the middle of July. But again, the ministers are going to take a look at when is the best time for them to get together in order to effectively move forward the agenda. Part of what David Welch will talk about with his colleagues at the envoy level this coming Tuesday, on July 10th, is going to be just this -- when is the right time for the Quartet at the ministerial level once again to get together.

As of right now, no date has been set.

QUESTION: Did you ever get an answer to our question about the status of the passport backlog?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm glad you brought that up. I think you probably are surprised by the fact that I said I'm glad you brought that up. (Laughter.) No, actually we -- I did get some figures for you and we can run through them here.

Right now -- well, as of the end of June, and part of this has to do with the fact that the reports are generated on -- in 34-day increments. Don't ask me why 34 days. I have no idea. At the end of June, we estimated that we had about a little over 500,000 applications that had been on file for ten weeks or more. Now, that is over -- that figure, by the way, is overdue. Our target turnaround time is six weeks. That's what we have pledged to Congress so that at the end of the calendar year we're going to get the turnaround time down to six weeks; meaning, you apply for a passport -- the passport within six weeks you get it.

We have also told Congress that by September we are going to get that -- this backlog figure down to eight weeks. So you can see what the schedule is here. We're right now looking at between 10 and 12 weeks if you apply for a passport today. So what we're trying to do is to get a straight line graph down to six weeks by the end of the year.

One other figure for you: At the moment, we have about 2.9 million passport applications in the system. So of that number, a little more than 500,000 have been in the system ten weeks or more.

One other figure -- I told you how many person hours we have applied to trying to work through this backlog -- between March, mid-March, I don't have an exact date for you, and July 5th, we have employees volunteered about 31,000 person hours to work on adjudication and task forces. So that is actually adjudicating passports, working on task forces, providing information to the public. So -- and I don't have an update for you in terms of numbers of people that are going to be sent to either New Hampshire or New Orleans. We'll try to -- when that happens, when we get a larger number than the approximately 200 we'll let you know.

So as you can see this is an all-hands-on-deck operation here at the State Department. We understand that this shouldn't have happened. And the question now is how do you fix it? The Secretary and Deputy Secretary have told Pat Kennedy, who on the management side is running this operation, he said, "Do whatever you need to do." And it's quite clear, I think, from the numbers that I've given you here in terms of the person hours that we put against the task as well as the recent news about directing people to assignments to work on this that we're committed to working on behalf of the American people to provide them the kind of service that they should expect, getting a -- being able to get a passport and making sure that that adjudication process is one that we can all have confidence in.

QUESTION: Did the backlog actually increase from early June to the end of June?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, not to my knowledge. No.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that. There was -- with the several hundred people that are going to be leaving, the PMFs and the Career Entry Program, Pat Kennedy has said that they're not going to be replaced, that their colleagues will be asked to step in and pick up the slack. How is that not going to hamper the State Department's efforts throughout the entire Department?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're just going to -- like I said, we're all going to have to make do. I'm going to lose people temporarily from my bureau and people are just going to have to make sure that they cover their colleagues' task. I think most of the mangers here in the State Department would expect that when you're faced with this kind of task and when you are in extremis from a managerial standpoint, that you expect people to help out, to be team players, and to help cover some of the tasks of their colleagues when they be elsewhere trying to help work through this backlog.

QUESTION: But do you expect that the Department is still going to be able to function?

MR. MCCORMACK: I fully expect so, yeah, I fully expect so. Look, you know, I'm not going to tell you that there haven't been some people here and there that have -- who have grumbled about the fact that they have to go to New Hampshire and New Orleans. I think everybody understands that; that you're told one day, you're going to be directed to go to one of those places.

But I think for the most part, at least the reaction that I have gotten from people, is that absolutely, tell me what we need to do, we understand that this is important to the American people. They are out there, they're helping their fellow citizens, and they're doing a task that is part of the core function of the Department. This is something that the Department of State is tasked with by the Congress, by the American people. And we're going to make sure that we step up to the plate.

QUESTION: But do you know why no one is being sent to Arkansas?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you. It -- I'll hazard a guess that the Arkansas facility is staffed up to their full capacity and maybe they don't have any room to grow. Perhaps in New Hampshire or New Orleans, they have some expand -- capacity to expand their operations, but I can't tell you for sure.

Okay. Anything else on this? Joel.

QUESTION: Sean, one of the aspects of this whole controversy with the passports is that a lot of people through the years have taken driver's licenses which have customarily been used --

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- this is for domestic use and associated with Mexico and Caribbean and Canada --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- and easily changed the documentation. Now in the interim, you've had all types of new internet use. It is possible, rather than giving someone a physical document to hold in their hand, to do this electronically so that they can perhaps go to a regional bank or to a motor vehicle service, be connected directly here to the State Department and have it done electronically?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Joel, I can assure you that all possible options have been explored so that we can and the U.S. Government, the Executive Branch, can comply with the law that the Congress has laid out. And they gave -- there were some restrictions in terms of what they laid out, what was needed as a travel document. They specified they do need a travel document. So those are the confines in which we have to work.

Yeah, Nina.

QUESTION: Can I move on to Iran, please? There's a very strongly worded op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today -- I don't know if you've seen it -- by Lieberman that -- you know, outright accusing Iran of having declared a kind of -- well, actually, an undeclared war against the U.S. using these proxies across the region. Is it not time for swifter action in the Security Council? Is it not time for something beyond -- measures beyond sanctions now? Can you tell me where we are in the process with all this?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of -- and I don't want to mix apples and oranges. The Security Council action right now is focused on Iran and trying to stop them from developing their nuclear program. I can't tell you whether in the course of that discussion that other members aren't going to perhaps want to take into account other aspects of Iran's behavior that is clearly outside the accepted international norms. We'll see in the course of this debate.

Certainly, none of the headlines in the news reports concerning Iran's action in Iraq and throughout the region and around the globe for that matter does Iran's reputation any good. Very clearly, this is a government that has a cloud over it, and that cloud is only getting darker. It is only growing. Not because of any actions that we or the Security Council or anybody else has taken, but through their own actions.

And that's going to have costs. That is going to have costs in the international financial system. That is going to have costs in the business community. Without governments even acting, businesses are going to ask questions of themselves: Do we really want to do business with this government if our reputations are somehow going to be sullied by interacting with this government or some of these government entities? So that's one aspect to this.

We're right now talking to the Security Council partners about some of the building blocks, the elements of a potential Security Council resolution. And I would expect that over the coming weeks that that activity is going to pick up steam, it's going to become more focused on drafting language for a resolution. I can't -- I'm not going to try to predict for you right now what sort of timeline. I never predict what timeline the Security Council is going to act on.

We also are working on a bilateral basis with various other countries. As I said, concerning Iran's interaction with the international financial institution, this is a process that was begun by the Treasury Department, Secretary Treasury Paulson, Under Secretary Stuart Levy. And so we're going to continue that -- traveling -- working with European banks, financial institutions, as well as some of the Asian banks, Japanese banks as well.

And then lastly, we're going to make sure that, as President Bush said, that our forces protect themselves and they are going to act against any individuals who are seeking to do them harm. And if that means rolling up some of these EFP networks, that's what they're going to do. And we've seen evidence that our military forces in Iraq are going to take steps to protect themselves. We've seen various people arrested, various people detained. And I would expect that if Iran continues in supporting these networks, then we're going to continue to go after them.

QUESTION: Yeah, as you said, we're seeing, you know, more and more evidence every day. We've got satellite pictures now of this Imam Ali base, the training camps. Lieberman's calling for a unified message, a bipartisan message when Congress reconvenes next week to provide some kind of stronger deterrent stronger than sanctions. I know sanctions are specific in the nuclear issue, but there seems to be this mounting consensus that Iran really needs to be put on notice. What's your reaction to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think they have been put on notice. I don't think there's any mistaking the message that we are sending to the Iranian regime.

And it's not just us. The Iraqi Government doesn't want to see Iran taking any measures to destabilize the situation there and countries around the world -- I think you're -- you know, other than some outliers like Venezuela and a few others that you can count on one hand, there's a clear message being sent to Iran. I think Iran has been shocked by the fact that countries like Russia and China have voted against them in the Security Council, voted against them in the IAEA Board of Governors.

So Iran, I think, finds itself isolated and it's only going to find itself more isolated if it continues with the kind of behavior patterns that we've seen over the past months and years.

QUESTION: Are you anticipating another meeting shortly similar to the Crocker meeting you had a few weeks ago, the ambassador-level meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing planned at this point.

QUESTION: No?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, we would like to -- we would like to see a change in Iranian behavior. That was the message that Ambassador Crocker sent when he met with the Iranian representative last time. Thus far, I don't think we've seen, at least as far as I know, much evidence of a change in Iranian behavior.

QUESTION: Are the Iraqis pushing for another meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: They would like to see a meeting. I don't think there's been a formal request, but it's no secret. In public, they have talked about their interest of -- in having a meeting. We understand that. It's only natural, where Iraq has Iran as its neighbor; that's not going to change.

QUESTION: Is this something the United States would be open to, another meeting to thrash this out, this mountain of -- sharing this evidence?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we -- you know, again, we -- if the opportunity presents itself and we think it's the right moment to seize that opportunity, we will. At this point, I don't think we would make that assessment, but it's something that we hold open. We still have not yet seen any change in Iranian behavior, though.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to North Korea?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Chris Hill had said a couple of week ago that he expected a six-way meeting sometime in the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th of July period. Do you still hold out any hope for such a meeting or is that sliding?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, once -- we'll see. I think what we would expect to see is an envoys level meeting in the coming weeks and that is supposing that everybody has met their -- or is on the way to meeting their obligations under the February agreement. North Korea; we took note of the fact that North Korea has said that it intends to shut down and seal Yongbyon in the near future. They have tied it to the delivery of this first small tranche of heavy fuel oil, which South Korea has said that they expect would be in port, I think, the 14th or thereabouts.

So we'll see. We'll see. I'm not going to make any particular linkage for a envoys level meeting of the six party talks, but we think it's important that that next meeting be used to try to build some momentum, more momentum in this process. We're seeing small steps. We'd like to see that meeting become a marker and seeing how we can springboard off of that and potentially make more progress on what are going to be some of the more critical issues. And that is getting to the disablement of the Yongbyon facility and -- you know, I don't expect that that's necessarily going to be easy in terms of negotiations, but that's the next important step.

QUESTION: Would it be fair to say that you'd rather not have an envoys level meeting unless and until the North Koreans have started to shut down Yongbyon?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I'm not going to tie our hands necessarily at this point making a specific linkage, but I think it's -- it would be important to have that -- have a envoys level meeting be used to, impart further momentum to the process.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Another topic (inaudible) --

QUESTION: Just one.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Sorry. Over the past couple days, there's been a significant shift from North Korea. A couple days ago, they were saying that they weren't going to shut down Yongbyon until all the oil was delivered and now, they're saying that once the ship is in dock, that they will consider shutting down Yongbyon. Is that -- has there been any direct or private discussion between the United States and North Korea to encourage that or is this just because of their naturally good behavior that they're doing this? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I can't tell you. You know, for example, the New York Journal on any given day, there is some exchange there. I can't tell you whether or not there has been. Chris Hill, when he went to Pyongyang, made it clear that it was important for North Korea to meet its obligations under the February 13th agreement as quickly as possible. I don't know -- I can't necessarily draw a causal linkage between Chris's message or the Chinese officials' message to the North Koreans and their behavior. I don't know. Their decision-making loop is somewhat opaque to us.

What matters is that in fairly short order, we see North Korea meet its obligations. We fully intend as the other five parties to meet our obligations. So we'll see in the coming week or two, where we stand. And at that point, we can make an assessment, but even at that, I think it would be hard to get into trying to do the forensics on the North Korean decision-making process.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you regard this recent statement as a positive step?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll see what they do. I mean, the -- certainly, the words are positive, saying that they intend to shut down and seal Yongbyon. We'll see what actions follow those words.

Yeah. You had another topic.

QUESTION: Can we just go to Pakistan, a new unrest. There are reports of a new attack against Musharraf. How concerned are you about the stability of the Musharraf government and his safety?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'll leave it to the Pakistani officials to talk about what did or did not happen, regarding President Musharraf. I think that that's a courtesy we would expect extended to us as well. Look, it's -- President Musharraf faces threats from extremists within his own country. That's not new. His prescription for dealing with this threat is to put Pakistan on a different course for -- with greater political reform, economic reform, social reform.

He started that process. I think it's important that he continue. And we have confidence that President Musharraf is committed to that course and that he will deal within the confines of Pakistani law and the Pakistani constitution any problems that may arise. But make no mistake, any solutions to any of these problems are going to have to be Pakistani and certainly they're not going to come from the United States. We're a good friend; we're a good partner; we stand with them. But the solutions to whatever challenges may face the government are going to have to come from within Pakistan itself.

QUESTION: Yes. But you didn't answer the question: Are you concerned about his --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think I answered it.

QUESTION: You are or you're not?

QUESTION: Yeah, are you worrying or -- worried about this --

MR. MCCORMACK: Not every -- not every -- the answer to every question isn’t yes or no. I think I gave a pretty decent explanation of how we see things.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:41 p.m.)

DPB # 119