Military

MR. MCCORMACK: Hey, everybody. No opening statements. We can get right into your questions.

QUESTION: Do you have any clarity on the meeting between the ambassadors in -- the Iranian and the U.S. Ambassadors in Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there -- as I said this morning, there is no meeting at this point that is yet scheduled. We've always said that there is a possibility of another meeting. If there is another meeting, I suspect that we would convey to the Iranians that they say they would like strategic stability in Iraq and if that is, in fact, the case, they're certainly going about it in an odd way -- going about it in the wrong way.

So if we -- if there were such a meeting, I would expect that it would focus on issues related solely to Iraq and that -- I would emphasize that this is not -- it would not be a negotiation. It would be similar to what we had seen before when Ryan met with an Iranian delegation a couple months ago, I don't know exactly when it was.

QUESTION: But did you approach them for a meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: As I said, we don't have any meeting scheduled at this point. We'll let you know when and if --

QUESTION: But have you asked them?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll let you know when and if there is a meeting.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Well -- but you and the Secretary and others seem to have sort of been throwing cold water on the idea that there would be anything soon, saying they hadn't come up with any changes in behavior, and, you know, there really didn't seem to be a lot of point in doing this so relatively quickly. What's changed?

MR. MCCORMACK: There's nothing that's changed and frankly, the Iranian behavior in Iraq has not changed. But as I said, again, this morning, if there were to be such a meeting, then it would be an opportunity to directly convey to the Iranian Government that their behavior in Iraq is not consistent with their stated public objectives for Iraq. There --

QUESTION: But the last meeting was that opportunity as well.

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we -- again, if such a meeting were to take place, then we think it would be useful to convey those points once again.

Yeah, Robin.

QUESTION: Sean, are you actually -- is the United States resisting a meeting in part because the Iranians have not delivered on what they promised? Are you -- I mean, is there a message in that you expected something after the first meeting, they haven't delivered, and therefore you're not --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't put it that way at all. We have always said that we would be open to another meeting. We would want that meeting to be productive and certainly, we had hoped to see some change in Iranian behavior, and we don’t want to have meetings just for meetings' sake.

That said, if there is an opportunity in the future, then it is possible that we would take that opportunity to convey directly to them that once again, there's a gap between their stated objectives, in which they say they want a stable, secure, peaceful Iraq, and what it is that they're doing in terms of supporting sectarian militias, that we all know are causing more and more strife in Iraq, and supporting those networks that are building and placing and setting off the EFPs which pose a real threat to our troops.

QUESTION: Can I follow --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I just follow-on? How do you reconcile that with what the Iraqi Foreign Minister said this morning and the fact that the Iranians, for the last couple of weeks, have been indicating in unusual ways that they're ready for this next meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, let me put it this way: that in the history of scheduling these meetings, some of which haven't happened, going all the way back to the time when Ambassador Khalilzad was in Baghdad, that you have to discuss timing, you have to discuss logistics, and all the small details that are seemingly insignificant to outsiders, and have those agreed upon. So I would just provide that to you by way of context.

In terms of an actual meeting right now, we don't have anything scheduled, as I said. We'll try to keep you up-to-date if and when there is a meeting scheduled.

QUESTION: (Inaudible). One more?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Since the last meeting in May, have you seen an increase in Iranian activity in Iraq? In what ways, in terms of arms -- Al Quds personnel in any other area?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I'm not going to try to take a stab at giving you a detailed answer to that question, because probably the folks in Baghdad are better positioned to do that, folks at MNFI -- you know, the military on the ground can probably give you a better read of all of those things, sort of the forensics of the various indirect fire attacks that we're seeing against our personnel as well as what they're seeing with regard to EFPs and supplying the militias. Generally speaking, let me put it this way, I don't think we've seen any diminishment in the level of Iranian support for the militias or these other groups.

QUESTION: Can I follow up --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- on your answer to -- I don't understand why you're being so coy when you mention details of timing and we all --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- know those things.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: I mean, can you say you are in discussions to have another meeting? I don't understand why you're being so coy.

MR. MCCORMACK: Charlie, I'm just going to -- I'm going to leave the answer where I left it in term -- when and if there is a meeting, we'll let you know about it. Look, we don't typically get into the details of scheduling these kinds of meetings and that --

QUESTION: Well, I'm not asking if it's Tuesday or Thursday.

MR. MCCORMACK: I know, nevermind the scheduling of any other meeting that any of our officials around the world have.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Suffice it to say, if there is a meeting, then it will have been mutually agreed that (a) it was useful to have that meeting, (b) the logistics and date and venue and all those sorts of things have been worked out.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on -- you said that you would be open to another meeting, but you've also said that the last meeting didn't result in any change --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- in Iranian behavior.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Why do you feel that another meeting would be justified at this point?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again --

QUESTION: Do you expect them to change after a second meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we --

QUESTION: And would you come up with a different approach during this other meeting with --

MR. MCCORMACK: We will see if there is another meeting and I've given you a general sense, if there were to be such a meeting, what the general message would be. Now if and when such a meeting takes place, I'll be happy to provide you as many details as I can about what the exchange might have been. Before that time, I'm not going to get into anything more than just very general remarks about it. Again, I underline that there is no meeting scheduled as of this point.

QUESTION: Knowing that there is none scheduled at this point --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- as you say, but you say that one would be helpful. Given that you have not seen --

MR. MCCORMACK: Could be.

QUESTION: -- anything, the first could be helpful. Why do you have reason to believe that another one would be any more successful than the first one if you haven't seen any change yet?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll see. That depends on the Iranians. That's going to be up to them. As I said, it could be helpful. It could be useful to be able to have that direct exchange and to convey a message, once again, directly to them. But we'll see. This is entirely dependent upon the Iranians and what they decide to do vis-à-vis Iraq. We would hope that they want to play a positive role in Iraq. They stated that they want to play a positive role in Iraq and they've demonstrated in other areas, such as Afghanistan, that they can, should they wish to play a positive role.

There have been some questions about Iranian activity in Afghanistan in the recent past, but the history of Iranian involvement in Afghanistan over the past several years has overall been a relatively positive one, the caveat being some of their more recent activities.

Yeah.

QUESTION: If there is another meeting, it would be at the Crocker level, though, right? Or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, it would -- yes, that's the channel, our ambassador.

QUESTION: There's no thought of either reducing that level or raising it?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. If there were to be such a meeting, it would be at the Ryan level -- Ryan Crocker level.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't speak to that.

QUESTION: Would the agenda -- is there a possibility, if and when there's a meeting, that the agenda may be expanded to not just be on Iraq, but maybe Iranian-American issues?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Is it --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, it would be --

QUESTION: So it would still specifically be only Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: As in past instances when we've discussed this, a couple things apply. One, it applies solely to Iraq. Two, it's not a negotiating channel.

Yeah, Samir.

QUESTION: There is a report in the Los Angeles Times today saying that the majority of the suicide bombers going to Iraq are coming from Saudi Arabia, not the other neighboring countries.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, as I understand that -- I don't have the statistics in front of me right now. The flow of foreign fighters from the region, the origin of these individuals is from several different countries throughout the region, so it's a region-wide problem. It's a region-wide issue. It's something that we as well as the Iraqis have spoken to Iraq's neighbors about and they understand that it's a problem. And as for Saudi Arabia, this is a country that is engaged in its own fight against violent extremism, against terrorism. And certainly, since 2004, we have worked very well with the Saudi Government in shutting down terrorist finances, trying to stop the flow of people that fuels these violent extremist movements.

Now there's a lot more to be done. There's a lot more to be done throughout the region to stop this flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. The President today -- just today issued an executive order that we believe is going to help in that regard, trying to shut off support, money, any other sort of encouragement to people who want to flow into Iraq in order to cause death and destruction for the Iraqi people and could possibly pose a threat to our troops.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Anything -- hold on. I know you're not going to ask about Iran or Iraq, so anything else on --

QUESTION: Iraq.

MR. MCCORMACK: Iraq?

QUESTION: Yes. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: All right. Okay. I'm going to hold you to it, Lambros.

QUESTION: Yes. Any comment on the deadly explosion yesterday in Kirkuk, killing 82 people and wounded 108?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's a terrible tragedy. And certainly, any time there's a loss of innocent life in Iraq, we mourn that loss. These are lives that are not going to be replaced. We mourn with the friends and families who have lost loved ones. But it also underscores the kind of fight that we're in. We're in a fight against people who would indiscriminately take innocent life in a marketplace, people standing in lines, people just out trying to live normal daily lives. So that's the kind of fight we're in and I think the only thing that I could -- the only lesson that we can take from this is the importance of fighting against those who would set off these kinds of explosions and kill the large numbers of innocent people.

QUESTION: One related question and that's it. Anything to say about the pipeline agreement signed between Turkey and Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Do you have any -- a readout of the Secretary's meeting with Secretary Ban? And secondly, if you could just give us a preview of what you hope to achieve at the Quartet and whether you looked at what --

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure --

QUESTION: -- could be discussed at the Quartet during the meeting with Ban?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. First of all, Lambros, I talked about that issue before, so you can look back at the transcripts. And I didn't talk to the Secretary after her meeting with Ban Ki-moon. It was really a set-up meeting for the Secretary General's meeting with the President. Going into the meeting, we all expect that they would cover some of the issues that are really front and center at the Security Council: Kosovo, Iran, Sudan. I know those things are very much on Secretary Rice's mind. We're -- on Kosovo and Sudan, we are really deeply involved in discussions and negotiations up in New York to try to move forward action within the Security Council.

On Iran, I expect that in the coming weeks, there's going to be more discussion in New York about a possible sanctions resolution. Nick Burns was just in London yesterday, meeting with P-5 political directors, talking about the elements of a future Security Council resolution.

In terms of the Quartet meeting, it's going to be an opportunity for Secretary Rice to sit down with her Quartet counterparts and I would expect former Prime Minister Blair, the new Quartet envoy, to talk about a few things; to talk about President Bush's speech about a -- his decision to energize efforts along a political track; talk about his plans for and his personal commitment to trying to move that political track forward, as well as the international meeting that he talked about. It's also going to be an opportunity to talk about Prime Minister Blair's role and what some of his plans are -- to help the Palestinians build up Palestinian institutions that would form the foundation for a future Palestinian state.

So that's essentially it. That's sort of the long and short of it. I'm not sure that this is going to be a meeting with any new announcements, but there's a lot that has happened over the past couple weeks and it's a good opportunity for them to get together, take stock of what has happened over the past couple weeks, as well as to look ahead and chart a course out for the next several months.

QUESTION: Are you hoping that the Quartet will officially endorse the President's speech and plans for a conference? And you said you're not expecting any major announcements, but are you going to be at least fishing around for more funds for the Palestinians and particularly for Abbas?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think a precondition for -- at least for us -- talking about more money for the Palestinians is really getting a sense of what kind of progress Prime Minister Blair, former Prime Minister Blair, can make in building those institutions. So we've already stepped up to the plate with some significant funding. And for our purposes, I think we're going to want to see what Prime Minister Blair is able to do and what other support he is able -- going to be able to generate within the international system for the Palestinians.

There was another part to the question?

QUESTION: The endorsement of the President's sort of speech and also at the conference.

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see if they put together something formally in their Quartet statement. I expect they might -- that they might address it. But we've already seen positive statements, for example, out of Javier Solana. I think Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will speak for himself. But I think privately we have heard from a number of different parties very positive responses to the President's remarks yesterday.

QUESTION: Just one more thing. There's still quite a lot of division within the Quartet as to how to handle Hamas. Are you anticipating that Russia will once again raise its opposition to your policies, and do you think that there might be any changes in that regard?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't anticipate it. I don't know if the Russians will bring it up. You can talk to them whether or not they'll bring it up. But from our perspective the answer is the same. And I'm not sure that there's a change in sentiment within the Quartet on that matter.

QUESTION: Just to follow-up on that real quick.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Have you heard any positive responses from any of the Arab governments that the Secretary or the President has spoken to regarding the Arab summit or the regional summit this fall?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I don't want to become a spokesman for various Arab governments, but privately we've had conversations with them and I think that there's been a generally positive reaction. I think the only negative reactions that we've seen out of the region thus far have been from Hamas and Syria. Everything else in our private conversations has indicated a positive response to what the President said yesterday.

QUESTION: Can I follow on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: My understanding is that while people are interested in hearing what you have to say, that no country has yet -- except those who are already relations with Israel -- have been willing to sign on to this, have some doubts about it, have a different approach to Hamas because they basically believe that you need to strengthen Abu Mazen so that down the road, he is in a better position to deal with Hamas.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Not isolated indefinitely.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: How do you plan to reconcile with a very different outlook?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And second of all, what is the Secretary going to be doing in the next few weeks to follow up on what the President did yesterday and get people onboard?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think David Welch talked about this a little bit yesterday and we have some diplomatic work to do. There -- you're going to have a -- from the -- out of the starting gate, you're going to have a variety of different responses because you have a variety of different Arab state orientations towards Israel. You have some openly who have made peace with Israel; Egypt and Jordan. You have some who meet with the Israelis and publicly acknowledge it, but they don't highlight it. You have some who meet with the Israelis and don't at all acknowledge it, but they do it anyway, and there are some who don't meet with the Israelis in any way, shape or form.

So you have a variety of different starting points here and we're going to try to generate as much positive public response and participation in the meeting. We haven't set the venue or the timing or anything else at this point. It's going to be in the fall. Secretary Rice is going to host it here in the United States, but we still haven't decided exactly where --

QUESTION: Did you -- sorry, did you say Secretary Rice is hosting the conference in the U.S.?

MR. MCCORMACK: I would expect -- yeah, I think that's what the President said.

QUESTION: Because yesterday you thought it would not be in the U.S.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I didn't say that. She's going to be -- she'll be hosting it.

QUESTION: Here?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, she's host. I would expect that she would host it here. We haven't set exactly -- we haven't decided on a venue. I suppose all that can -- all of that can change.

QUESTION: Camp David, maybe?

MR. MCCORMACK: I really don't think so. Again, all of that to be determined; the who, what, when and where. So we have work to do. And I think, in answer to your question, what is she going to be doing in order to generate support for moving the political track forward, moving forward on the institution-building and then also moving forward with this international meeting, which is a mechanism, but we believe a useful mechanism, the first thing she's going to do is she's going to get on the road at the end of the month.

Part of that trip is going to be with Secretary -- Defense Secretary Gates. They're going to be talking about Iraq and, sort of, the wider -- the broader regional context for the struggle against violent extremism with partners in the region. The other part of that trip is she's also going to be working on the Israeli-Palestinian track.

So, also during that period of time when we have various leaders from the Arab world together with Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates, she's going to use that opportunity as well to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian track.

QUESTION: The Egyptians this morning had talked about that she will visit Sharm el-Sheikh and meet with Arab foreign ministers. Can you tell us anything more about that?

MR. MCCORMACK: That's a possibility that we're -- that everybody will gather up there. There are a couple --

QUESTION: So it's not a done deal?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're still working out the scheduling details. I think at this point, Sharm el-Sheikh certainly could be an attractive place for everybody to gather, but it's one possibility and I won't exclude that there -- the fact that there would be more than one stop with Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates in the region.

QUESTION: But is the idea to get all the Arab foreign ministers together in one place?

MR. MCCORMACK: I wouldn't say -- I would say it would probably be a subset of the entire universe of Arab foreign ministers, but certainly, those most concerned and most directly involved in Iraq. I don't expect, though, that this is going to be Sharm el-Sheikh II, in terms of the neighbors -- the Iraq neighbors group meeting. It would probably be some subset of that grouping.

Yeah, in the back.

QUESTION: There are some Indian officials here to talk on nuclear issues. Do you -- can you comment at all on the expectations for this talk?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're going to take stock of where we are in the -- negotiating the so-called 123 agreement. This is a serious high-level delegation. They're going to be having meetings here at the State Department starting this afternoon. I don't know if they've started quite yet. I think it's soon -- they'll be starting soon this afternoon. I think they might also have some other meetings around town, and it's really to try to make a push to get this agreement over the finish line. There are a couple tough issues that we have left to resolve. We believe that we can get a deal, we can get an agreement.

I think it really comes down to a matter of timing: When is that going to get done? This meeting will provide us a good indicator as to the answer to that question: When can we get that deal done?

Yeah.

QUESTION: On this still.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: But a different topic. Last month there were nine students --

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll do it, yeah.

Go ahead, Zain, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: -- in Delhi. They were arrested by Indian authorities for applying for student visas. They did it fraudulently. They obtained certificates. The U.S. Consulate confirmed that in India. There have been various arrests also of these middle men. Could you tell us what you know about that, about getting fraudulent H-1B visas and why they've been able to be so successful at --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I'll -- Zain, I have to admit -- I'll look into that for you.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have the details here. But suffice to say our consular officers working with Diplomatic Security worldwide are on the look out for visa fraud, whether that's inside the U.S. Government or working with people outside the U.S. Government. It's important to maintain the integrity of that system so that the American people have confidence that we are doing our job on the front lines of America; welcoming people in but also trying to keep the American people safe.

QUESTION: One of the issues that -- with that kind of confidence is why the Indian authorities were able to uncover that this has been going on for a while and not the U.S. authorities.

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't speak to the specific case. But very often we do work with host country partners in uncovering this because it's not good for them, not good for us. So very often there are cooperative efforts in uncovering those rings.

QUESTION: Will you be able to get more information on this --

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll try to post it up for you if we could get some --

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- more for you and get it out this afternoon.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Back to the nuclear deal and the longstanding differences on the atomic test and the processing of nuclear fuel within India, how do you expect to resolve this? I mean, it has been there for a long time, but is there any other indications from the Indians or from the Americans in terms of coming to a --

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see. We'll see in the coming hours and over the next couple days. The meetings are scheduled for today as well as tomorrow, so we'll see if we're able to bridge the differences. There is certainly -- there is a willingness on our part to work in a constructive manner to get a deal done and I suspect that you would hear the same thing from our Indian partners. But you can ask them where they stand.

Yeah, Nina.

QUESTION: Sean, can you tell me what the prospects are for a new round of financial sanctions against the IRGC?

MR. MCCORMACK: The same answer as I gave you yesterday on this. I'm not going to speak prospectively about what we may or may not do in terms of Iranian entities or any other entities around the world. It's important that this be done in such a manner that any groups that may be targeted by the Department of Treasury not have an opportunity to move funds and to get them out of the reach of either American or other authorities. So I don't, as a rule, talk about those things in advance.

QUESTION: Do you think it would be a wise move? Do you think it would have a real impact on them?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I'm not going to speak to a specific case or a specific entity. I can refer you back to the history of what we have done, and quite clearly that has had an effect; notably, the fact that in the -- within the international financial system, you have a number of businesses that have decided either to reduce their exposure to Iran or to not -- to cut off business dealings with Iran altogether.

And the reason for that is they start looking around and they start to wonder exactly with whom they are dealing. Is this an entity that is somehow engaged or attached to illicit enterprise, whether that's in support for terrorism or the production of weapons of mass destruction or any other kind of illicit activity? And so they're very -- they guard their reputations very closely in the international financial system and they're going to take actions that they deem to be appropriate on their own.

Certainly, the fact that the United States, as well as other governments and the UN Security Council has found enough evidence in order to sanction certain Iranian entities, is a clear red flag for a lot of these businesses to say, "Look twice at what you're doing," and some of them have done that and said that, "We're not going to do business with Iran anymore."

QUESTION: Okay. And may I ask one more question in the same vein? There are also reports that the Quds Force are going to be soon designated as a terrorist organization. Can you comment on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Designated as a terrorist -- as a foreign terrorist organization?

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware of any such move at this point.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, can you help me translate into English the executive order the President just put out blocking property of certain persons who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: I may look like a lawyer, but I'm not one.

QUESTION: But do you know what it is or what's the --

MR. MCCORMACK: I know what it is and the Department of Treasury can explain all of that to you. It is -- I referred to this --

QUESTION: I'm sorry if I wasn't --

MR. MCCORMACK: -- in answer to Samir's question, which -- it's an action that the President decided to take and that essentially is a tool to try to prevent the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq to -- so that they can try to destabilize that country. And it's just one more tool at our disposal to try to prevent or stop that flow.

QUESTION: But it's blocking property of people in the United States, it says, or U.S. nationals.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Talk to the Department of Treasury.

QUESTION: Treasury?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

Nicholas.

QUESTION: Sean, this is something I didn't have a chance to ask Richard earlier on Pakistan, but he essentially said that the agreement that was reached between the government and the militants down in the tribal areas last fall has not worked and that some military action will be necessary. There were reports yesterday out of Pakistan that the government is actually trying to send out tribal leaders to salvage that agreement with the militants, so there seems to be a discrepancy between what the Pakistanis are doing and what your ideas might be. So do you think that agreement is now unworkable and it's -- that it's failed or do you think that there is still a chance that it might be salvaged?

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn't see what Richard said. I wasn't down here. But I suspect he said something along the lines of, it hasn't worked out the way that we had hoped; it hasn't worked out the way that President Musharraf had hoped.

Now I understand that they're engaged in discussions with tribal leaders to see if there is a way to amend the agreement in such a way that it would be effective and that it would meet the Pakistani Government's needs and objectives. I can't tell you the state of those discussions. You can talk to the Pakistanis or the tribal leaders if you can get in touch with them. But President -- the bottom line here is that President Musharraf is serious about fighting violent extremism and terror. He is as much threatened by terror and violence as we are. He no more wants to see the tribal areas turn into a sanctuary and safe haven for the Taliban or al-Qaida or other violent extremists than we do.

So we're going to continue to support him in his efforts where there are -- where we think course corrections are needed, required, advisable. And of course, we're going to talk to him about that, but we're going to do it through diplomatic channels. We're not going to necessarily advertise it in public. But we have said in the past that this is -- the agreement as it was originally structured was not -- hasn't worked out. It hasn't worked out the way that we had hoped and he has said that it hasn't worked out the way that he had hoped.

Yep.

QUESTION: There have been reports from Tripoli that the families of Libyan children infected with the AIDS virus have dropped demands for the death penalty in the case of six foreign medics on death row in the case. And a document to that effect has been sent to the judicial council which is set to meet later today.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Any reaction to this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's an -- there's an ongoing appeal process. As you mentioned, the judicial council which is I think chaired by the Minister of Justice, has said that they were going to look at the verdict that was handed down by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court validated the previous sentences. Our view remains unchanged. You know, what it is. We believe that these nurses and medics should be allowed to return to their own home country immediately.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: We got a couple back here.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Just on picking up North Korea. Has North Korea given any kind of indication that they would agree to a disablement within the year as Chris Hill seems very optimistic going into the meetings tomorrow?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, he said -- what I saw him say is that he hopes to get the process back on track, so that we can complete all of the February 13th agreement, both the first phase, as well as the second phase, by the end of the year. We want to move this forward as quickly as possible. We lost some time, while we resolved the BDA issue, as you might remember. And we'll get a sense I think out of these meetings, both the bilateral consultations, as well as the six-party plenary talks about what are the obstacles in the way of moving this process forward quickly and even getting full implementation of both those phases by the end of the year.

Gollust.

QUESTION: Sean, what do you make of the Iranians putting a couple of your American prisoners on TV? And is there any hope that this might even be the start of some mechanism to let them go eventually?

MR. MCCORMACK: Dave -- you know, it's a mystery to me why they decided to prevent these people from leaving in the first place and it's a further mystery as to why they would put them on TV. I can't tell you. That requires some view into the motivations and decision-making apparatus of the Iranian regime that that's not something we (inaudible) or that we have in great quantity.

The bottom line here is that these people should be allowed to return and be reunited with their families immediately. There is no reason to detain -- in any way further harass these people.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:05 p.m.)

DPB # 126