Military

12:40 p.m. EDT

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you, Lambros. Good afternoon to you. I don't have anything to open up with, so we can get right into your questions. Whoever wants to start. Charles.

QUESTION: Did you see the wire report that says Iran 's Foreign Minister said his government has accepted a U.S. request for ambassadorial talks in Iraq ?

MR. MCCORMACK: I saw that just before I came out here. Look, here's as far as I know where things stand, and if there are any updates to this that we can provide, we certainly will.

Ambassador Crocker has previously had a meeting with an Iranian counterpart in Baghdad to meet about issues related to Iraq and Iraq 's stability and what Iran could do to contribute to that stability, following up on -- following up with actions what it has said it wants. I would say that it is likely Ambassador Crocker will have another such meeting on similar topics. I am not at this point prepared to discuss a date for that, but when I do have a date that I can discuss with you, I'd be happy to let you know.

QUESTION: Would you be willing to discuss whether or not Ambassador Crocker has, as the Iranian Foreign Minister claims, asked for another meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure I'd put it quite that way. Let's just put it this way: If you have -- if you have a meeting, people agree to the date, the logistics, the modalities, and so forth. It takes two sides to make that agreement. So I wouldn't necessarily go along with the characterization that this was at the request of Ambassador Crocker.

QUESTION: Well, was it at the request of the Iranians?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to get into the who asked first. If there's a meeting, there's a meeting, and you can be assured that both sides agreed that having a meeting was the right thing to do and they agreed that that was the date on which to have it and the place in which they will --

QUESTION: At least you could say that the two sides are discussing about a possible meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, when I say -- when I say that it is likely Ambassador Crocker will have another meeting similar to the one that he had had previously and that I don't yet have a date, I think you can take from that that there is some thought to when that might -- meeting might take place.

Yeah. Same topic?

QUESTION: About Iran . Did you see the Iranian Americans aired on Iranian TV? Do you have a reaction to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, we put a statement out about that last night.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: From me. And simply, we're appalled by the fact that these innocent people were paraded on Iranian state television. Instead of parading them on television under circumstances I don't have insight to, but I'm not necessarily sure that these are voluntary television appearances -- as a matter of fact, I doubt they are -- the Iranian Government should focus on making sure that these people are reunited with their families as soon as possible. These are people who pose no threat to the Iranian regime. They pose no threat to the Iranian people. I can't explain to you the motivations of the Iranian Government in preventing these people from leaving, but it's far overdue that these people be allowed to return to the United States and be with their families.

QUESTION: Have the Swiss been able to (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: They have not. And we, back at the end of May, requested that the Swiss go in and request of the Iranian Government that the -- our representatives there, the Swiss Government, be able to meet with these people and talk with them, see what conditions -- the conditions under which they're being held. Thus far, the Iranian Government has refused the Swiss Government access to these people.

QUESTION: Well, what more can the American Government do besides going through the Swiss to perhaps speed up the release of these Americans?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, we're doing whatever we can. Obviously, we're -- our ability to influence the decision making of the Iranian Government has some limitations in this regard. We don't have a presence on the ground for reasons that everybody understands. Look, this shouldn't really be a matter for discussion. It shouldn't even be a matter where we're having a discussion about what leverage the United States could bring to bear on the Iranian Government so that these people can simply go home and be reunited with their family. This is a matter of respecting basic rights. These are people that, in two cases at least that I know of, went there to visit their sick, elderly mothers. And they themselves have families, children, grandchildren, back here in the United States . There's no reason on this earth why these people are being held and there's no reason on this earth why they shouldn't be allowed to return home immediately.

QUESTION: Would you consider in any upcoming meeting with Ryan Crocker and his counterpart, would you consider making an appeal for these individuals in such a meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: In the likelihood there is a meeting that Ryan has with Iranian counterparts, it's going to be focused exclusively on Iraq . I don't think we're going to start mixing in other issues to Iraq . As we've said before, been very consistent in this, this -- these meetings are focused exclusively on the situation in Iraq and -- you know, our basic message is what I have said, and that is Iran says that it wants to help achieve strategic stabilization in Iraq; well, match your actions with your words, because certainly, Iran's actions to date have not matched their words.

Yeah, Carol

QUESTION: How many times have you asked the Swiss or how many times have the Swiss asked the Iranians to see the Americans -- Iranian Americans?

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me check. It's -- I know that they have asked repeatedly. The way it's been described to me is it -- the Swiss regularly raise the cases of the detained American citizens on our behalf and most recently, they've done that on July 3rd. So between -- I can't tell you the exact number of times, but between May 30th and July 3rd, they've done so repeatedly.

QUESTION: Right, but when you say they raise the cases repeatedly, are they asking -- are they just raising the cases repeatedly or are they asking for consular access --

MR. MCCORMACK: It's part of -- it's both. It's both, raising the case as well as consular access.

QUESTION: And --

MR. MCCORMACK: And I -- Carol, I can't tell you that every single time, that the message has been exactly the same. But they have consistently asked for both things.

QUESTION: And what do the Iranians say when they deny it?

MR. MCCORMACK: There's -- I don't have a transcript for you, but the basic answer has been no. So I don't know how they express that, but I guess the real measure is the fact that they still haven't been granted consular access, so that says a big "N-O" to me.

QUESTION: Right. And if the --

QUESTION: Sean --

QUESTION: I'm sorry, if the last time was July 3rd, that's more than two weeks ago now --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: I'm just wondering why this would be sort of a wet drop? Why it would not be --

MR. MCCORMACK: I wouldn't say raising it on a consistent and regular basis between -- over the past two months, letting something drop. I'm sure that they are acting with due diligence in fulfilling their -- the responsibilities as our protecting power in Iran . Again, we have full confidence that the Swiss are being diligent in this and raising it with the proper amount of energy that we would wish them to put behind such a request.

QUESTION: And just one more. Have you determined that two -- at least two of the five Iranians who are being held are, in fact or were, in fact diplomats, not other things?

MR. MCCORMACK: Two of the five?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: What, in Erbil ?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, they're not diplomats.

QUESTION: You're sure? A number of --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, yeah. You can ask the Iraqi Government if you want a third party to verify that. I know; the Iranian Government keeps claiming that these were diplomats, that they're -- this building in Erbil was , in fact, a consulate. We have said and the Iraqi Government has confirmed that this was not a consulate. Now, I'll grant you that the Iranian Government did intend for this to be a consulate and therefore, have all the protections of a diplomatic post overseas and all the attended Vienna convention protections. But this is -- it was not the case -- it was not, in fact, the case.

And I would point out that there have been earlier incidents in which MNFI have picked up people whom we believed were involved in EFP networks, and this is prior to Erbil . And we determined, at least in one case, that there was an individual who was, in fact, an accredited diplomat of the Iranian Government to Iraq and he was let go. He was returned to the Iranians via the Iraqis.

Yes, anything else on this?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Libby.

QUESTION: I just -- this has been going on since May.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: You guys have no greater insight into what the Iranians are trying to accomplish here?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, Libby, this is -- it's an opaque -- an opaque decision-making process in this regime. They're not exactly a free and open regime. We don't have, for example, NBC News or any of the other media organizations represented in this room able to question the highest levels of leadership in a reasonable fair way in Iran , so it's very difficult to gain any insight as to what exactly their decision-making processes are. I just -- I can't tell you, Libby.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, do you have something on President Ahmadi-Nejad's visit to Damascus tomorrow?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, I wasn't aware that he was going there, but I guess you find your friends wherever you can. Look, these are two states that are clearly operating outside the norms of acceptable international behavior on a whole variety of fronts, whether that's their support for terrorism or the way they treat their own citizens. So does it surprise me that they have persisted in these linkages between Iran and Syria ; no, it doesn't surprise me. What it does do is accentuate what we have talked about this divide in the Middle East, in which on one side you have states that are committed to the use of terrorism and violent extremism and their proxies -- various terrorist groups; Hamas, Hezbollah as well as others -- and all the rest of the Middle East, which is searching for a way to bring greater -- more peace, in some cases, some peace, stability, greater prosperity and increased freedoms for the people of the region.

So there are two different views of the world; two different visions for the future of the Middle East and I can tell you which side we're on. And it's really going to be up to the people of the region to decide which pathway they want to go down.

Yeah, Sylvie.

QUESTION: You spoke a little bit this morning about the decision of the French President Sarkozy to send an envoy to Lebanon .

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Do you have any --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't really have any further comment beyond what I offered at the gaggle. You can talk to the French Government about their plans. But there's no doubt in our collective judgment that the French Government is committed to being forceful advocates for Lebanon's independence, Lebanon's sovereignty, Lebanon's continuing struggle along the pathway of greater economic and political reforms as well as committed to finding out who was responsible and bringing to justice those responsible for the murder of former Prime Minister Hariri. So there's doubt in our mind about that.

There have been past attempts, various attempts over the -- even the past year, year and a half --where various states have sent envoys to the Syrians to encourage them to change their behavior. And thus far it really has -- have not yielded any tangible results. Usually the Syrian Government will use it as a way to try to declare some PR victory, saying, "See, the rest of the world is talking to us. Everything's fine. Everything's normal. We're not outcasts."

I think the French Government is certainly aware of that, although I don't know what the instructions of their envoy may or may not be. I'm sure that it will be a very tough message, saying that Syria needs to change its behavior.

QUESTION: Well, the Foreign Minister Kouchner said this morning that it was a first step toward conciliation with Syria . Do you think time is right for conciliation with Syria ?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, again, I think the ball is frankly in the Syrian's court as to whether or not they are going to reconcile themselves to what are acceptable standards of behavior as judged by the international system, so we'll see. It requires some action on the part of the Syrians.

We all encourage in our own way the Syrian Government to choose a different, you know, a different pathway not only how it -- both at home and abroad how it treats its own citizens and how it acts abroad and whom it supports abroad. We haven't seen any change in behavior despite numerous attempts to try to get them to change their behavior, including Secretary Rice meeting with the Syrian Foreign Minister in the context of the Sharm el-Sheikh conference. And now that was limited to a very narrow topic, and that is having Syria -- asking Syria, telling Syria that they need to change their behavior with respect to allowing foreign fighters transiting their territory on the way to Iraq where these people kill large numbers of innocent civilians. Thus far, we haven't really seen any change in Syrian behavior in that regard. So we as well as others have made these attempts thus far, to no effect.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we move over to India (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. Is there anything else on Syria , Iraq , Iran , Middle East ? Okay, you have it.

QUESTION: Okay. So the Indian delegation is visiting.

MR. MCCORMACK: Correct.

QUESTION: And so -- and the Indian Prime Minister said it's the last leg in the deal, last leg of talks. So do you really think that we are ready to seal the deal?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we hope that's, in fact, the case. The United States has expressed its commitment and expressed its desire to reach an agreement, and we're sure that the Indian Government wants to reach an agreement. The question is a matter of when and the timing of it. Certainly, there's no time like the present to reach a deal. We had some preliminary discussions yesterday. Secretary Rice met with the Indian Foreign Minister this morning for about 15 to 20 minutes. And I know that the Indian National Security Advisor has a meeting with our National Security Advisor Steve Hadley this afternoon, and then there are going to be some more discussions with Nick Burns and Richard Boucher. So we'll see.

QUESTION: So --

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll have a better idea towards the end of the day as to where we are.

QUESTION: So are we any close to resolving the differences?

MR. MCCORMACK: This is -- as I said earlier in the day, this is not an issue in which I do play-by-play analysis. We'll see where we are at the end of the day. I'll try in some form or fashion to provide you our views as to where we think the discussions are.

QUESTION: Do you think you will issue a statement, something --

MR. MCCORMACK: In some way, we'll try to get the information out to you.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: What's that? Anything else on this?

QUESTION: Not on this. On something else.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Yes.

QUESTION: On Cuba . Have you anything about these complaints by the Cuban Government on the number of visas that the United States is not granting and it's supposed to grant?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I have a couple things here. What we would say on this is that in the past year, the Cuban Government's -- the Government of Cuba's repeated failure to meet its obligations under the Migration Accords and address U.S. concerns about building and operational safety at the United States Interests Section substantially impaired the section's ability to operate. As a result, we will not be able to meet the minimum 20,000 travel documents for Cubans this fiscal year.

Cuban officials continue to refuse to allow U.S. Interests Section to hire local staff to replace those who have resigned or retired. For over a year, the Government of Cuba has held at least 28 shipping containers at the port and the airport combined. These containers have essential supplies and materials necessary for the safe and timely operation of the U.S. Interests Section.

The Cuban Interests Section in Washington , D.C. , has failed to issue visas for temporary U.S. technical personnel needed for maintaining systems in the U.S. Interests Section. Some essential personnel needed for repairs have been waiting over a year for visas.

So that's a long way of saying that, of course, we want to meet our obligations under this accord, but frankly we've been prevented from meeting those obligations by the multiple roadblocks that I have listed here put in place by the Cuban Government that prevent us from meeting that number.

QUESTION: You said all this -- that it's one year. It's approximately the time since Fidel Castro has been sick. Do you think there's any relationship with it?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I can't tell you. Again, yet another opaque regime into which we have little insight as to how decisions get made or not made.

QUESTION: So this is -- the reason you're not able to grant the visas is because you're physically unable to process them?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, as --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) this as some kind of a tit-for-tat.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think, Matt, this is a -- this is a pretty lengthy explanation of the variety of reasons why we have not been able to meet this target.

QUESTION: It's not that you're -- that you're unable to meet them, not that this is some kind of punitive measure?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I think this is a pretty healthy explanation of why it is that we haven't been able to meet these targets.

QUESTION: Well, that doesn't answer my question.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sorry for that, but I think that this is a pretty good explanation as to why we haven't met the targets.

QUESTION: Well, no, actually. Is it a political decision or is it a logistical thing?

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, I don't have anything to add to what I just gave you.

Yeah, Sylvie.

QUESTION: Libya ?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: I have a question about the compensation funds the victims and the family of the victims received. Apparently, according to the Qadhafi fund, this money came from Europe, U.S. and Libya . I would like to know how much U.S. contributed and was it --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- for this AIDS compensation fund?

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me check for you, Sylvie. I know that we made -- in the process of setting up this foundation -- we made a small contribution on the order of, I think $50,000. Yeah, it was about $50,000 to help get the foundation set up. This was done through, I think, the Baylor Medical College . I'm happy to look into whether or not there's anything over and above that. I'm not aware that there is, but I'm happy to look into it for you. We can post an answer for you.

QUESTION: Because about -- every family got $1 million --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I'm aware of the level of compensation. I'm not aware of any U.S. contribution over and above what I just talked about.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But why was it done through Baylor?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'd be happy to get the details for you, Matt. I think that they had a preexisting relationship with --

QUESTION: So you guys gave Baylor the money and then they gave it to them?

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, I don't know. I'm happy to post an answer for you. I just know that there was some association with a small -- some small amount of money that was provided in helping set up the foundation.

QUESTION: Do you -- are you aware of any concerns that the actual release, when it happens, of the Bulgarians and the Palestinian that there could be, you know -- that the Libyans might try to create some problems, exit visas, that kind of thing? Do you know --

MR. MCCORMACK: I would hope not. I hope that -- you know, first of all, there have been some positive steps in terms of what we hope might be the eventual release and return of these individuals to Bulgaria . That hasn't happened yet. We continue to urge the Libyan Government to allow these people immediately to return home. That's not the case thus far, but we've seen a couple steps in that direction so there are a few final hurdles to get over here.

I would hope that some of what we have seen over the past couple of days indicates a strategic decision to allow these people to return home. We'll see. We'll see if, in fact, that is the case. And in fact, if that is the case, I would suspect that issues like visas and that sort of thing would be able to be done and issued in a timely, efficient manner.

QUESTION: You're aware, I assume, of the resistance by some on the Hill to -- the nomination of an ambassador to Libya .

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have any idea if a hearing has been set yet, if there's any move towards --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think it -- I don't think there has been. I saw the news stories and I heard that there were, I think, four senators who said that they were going to hold up nomination hearings for Gene Cretz, who's been nominated as our next ambassador to Libya . Look, we're -- you know, our position on the issues that they cited, talking about the Pan Am 103 compensation and the La Belle disco bombing compensation are well known. Of course, we want to see American citizens receive some compensation, although we are not directly involved in bringing about those settlements. Those are settlements that are going to take place between the Libyan Government and the families or the representatives of the families involved. These are decisions, political decisions that the Hill has to make. The Senate has a say in terms of the nomination and confirmation process, so that is their right in terms of personnel.

QUESTION: Do you know if this was a subject that the Secretary might have raised? I realize there were other, more pressing -- probably more pressing matters of Iraq , but this morning, especially with Senator Biden?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. I haven't talked to her since she had those meetings. She was up on the Hill, had meetings with Representative Boehner, Senator Biden, Senator Warner and Senator Gordon Smith, having lunch with him. I haven't had a chance to talk to her, Matt.

Yeah, Carol.

QUESTION: The Japanese warned -- have warned in the last couple of days that the relationship with the United States could suffer lasting and harmful effects if the House of Representatives passes this resolution demanding that Japan apologize officially for the comfort women policy.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And I'm wondering whether the Administration has tried to importune Congress not to do that, whether you thought that -- how serious you thought this was.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll take a look, Carol. It's -- I have to admit, it's not an issue that has been --

QUESTION: At the top of your calendar.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it just hasn't -- it hasn't come up recently. I know that President Bush, when he met with Prime Minister Abe, talked about -- you know, talked about this issue. And President Bush was reassured by his conversation with Prime Minister Abe specifically on this issue.

Now, as for whether or not the Administration has taken a position on this particular piece of legislation, I'll be happy to look into it for you.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can we stay on that area?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: To any news from afar café?

MR. MCCORMACK: Chris Hill, I know, has talked to your colleagues in the media several times on his way. I don't have any -- you know, anything beyond the transcripts in terms of information. I know that he's provided some thumbnail readouts to folks back here, but I don't have anything -- any particular insights into the discussions there.

QUESTION: Presumably, those readouts are exactly what he was telling our colleagues?

MR. MCCORMACK: Chris is a pretty transparent guy. Yeah, he's pretty forthright.

Yeah, Nina.

QUESTION: Sean, picking up on this, Hill was talking about -- he's saying that the -- he's ready to -- there should be a target date coming out of the talks on Thursday to, you know, have an overall schedule for the phase two. Are you confident that North Korea will disclose the full catalog of its nuclear activities? Are you confident that the complete Yongbyon shutdown will occur within this timeframe? Or do you think we're going to see a repeat of shifting deadlines again?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll see. We shall see. This is a process that is a step-by-step one where good faith actions are met in turn by good faith. North Korea has a lot to gain, on one hand, from fully implementing all of the so-called phase two elements of the February agreement. They have a lot to gain. They have a lot to lose. And we shall see whether or not they have made that fundamental strategic decision to give up their nuclear weapons programs.

And we'll have a much better sense of whether or not they have taken that decision at the end of phase two. And I can't tell you whether or not experience in implementing phase one will transfer into phase two, where you have these various hiccups and bumps in the road but you eventually get there. I don't know what it will look like.

But what we're pushing for is to have this phase completed by the end of the year. We've lost some time in implementing the first phase of it, so what we would do -- like to see is have that date be at the end of the year. And what that means is a full declaration of their nuclear program, including the uranium aspect of it, as well as a disablement of the reactor. And if we're able to achieve that, that will be significant because that -- we will have blazed some new trails with those actions. So we'll see. We'll see. But we have -- we have a healthy appreciation for the fact that this is going to be a step-by-step process.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) diplomatic process itself? Are you anticipating any kind of ministerial level meeting soon?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think there -- I think it's likely that there will be one, and that is -- that fact is triggered by the fact that you have completed the phase one or well on -- well -- we're well on our way to completing phase one requirements. And I don't have a date for you yet on that. I think Chris -- that's one of the topics that Chris is going to be talking about with the six-party counterparts. But I would expect that you will see a ministerial level meeting of the six parties August, September timeframe.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) would be on that level?

MR. MCCORMACK: It would be up to the North Koreans, but I would expect it would be the North Korean Foreign Minister. They have named a -- I think within the past five, six months, a a new Foreign Minister.

QUESTION: And just a broader question. Some critics would say, you know, you could have reached this agreement years ago if you talked to North Korea directly. What is it about the six-party framework that has yielded some success recently?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, simply, it's not just the U.S. and North Korea with the world standing on the sidelines shouting in words of encouragement to the United States to make concessions to the North Koreans so that they don't -- so that they behave better. Now you're in a situation in which when North Korea makes a pledge, they're making it to all the other members of the six-party talks, including China , South Korea , Japan , Russia and the United States . And I would put it to you that several of those other countries have a lot more leverage with North Korea than the United States .

So it's a fundamentally different framework, it's a fundamentally different discussion, and a fundamentally different kind of agreement when you have all the six parties involved as opposed to just the United States and North Korea. And it has taken us some time to get to this point, but it was -- it was a matter of (a) putting out the idea of a multilateral framework for this, and then getting all the parties to be active participants. And one of the mot important aspects of that has been the active participation of China in this process, as opposed to playing the role of go-between of the United States and North Korea . So it's -- we're just in a fundamentally different position. Now, that does not guarantee success, but I would argue that it gives you a better chance of success with this framework than you would have had previously in the old -- with the old paradigm.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) question. It's on Iran . It's kind of a sidebar question. It's rather bizarre. There've been some comments from a close advisor of the Supreme Leader that Iran is laying claim to Bahrain , saying it's part of its territory. Have you got any reaction to that? It's alarmed the GCC somewhat.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think it would alarm the citizens of Bahrain , would alarm everybody in the Gulf. Look, everybody understands that Iran has aspirations to be a power in the Gulf and a power in the region. Nobody wants to deny the Iranian people a rightful seat at the table. It's a great country. It's a great culture. Unfortunately, they have some leadership that is taking them in, shall I say, rather unfortunate directions.

This is just another one of -- another -- another in a series of outrageous statements out of Iranian leadership. You have President Ahmadi-Nejad multiple times talking about wiping Israel off the map. Now they've shifted their focus to Bahrain and they want to gobble up Bahrain . Well, I think it's another indication of how this is a regime that operates completely outside the accepted norms of international behavior.

And when you string together these comments from the leadership, when you string together all these actions: from preventing American citizens from leaving, to detaining British sailors and marines, to defying the will of the international community on the nuclear front, to continuing to support those forces in Iraq who want to destabilize that country. What you have is a picture of a country that is -- it is 180 degrees opposite in its policy orientation than where most of the rest of the world is. Now, they have a couple of friends, like the Syrians and the Venezuelans. But it's -- they are headed in a completely different direction from the rest of the world.

And the net effect of these statements and these actions is to cast a huge cloud over Iran , which is rather unfortunate for the Iranian people, but they need to understand that it's their leadership that is causing their country to be -- to find itself in a state of greater and greater isolation.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) put you down as saying the United States is opposed to the idea of a greater Persia ?

MR. MCCORMACK: (Laughter.) A greater Persia ? Look, Matt, you know, we believe in the territorial integrity of all of Iran 's neighbors as independent and sovereign states.

Yeah.

QUESTION: As far as the full disclosure of their nuclear program goes, I guess you talked about it as one of those good-faith actions.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But so does that mean we're just going to -- you know, when they do declare this, we're just going to take their word for it or how's that going to work?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I can tell you that there are a lot of people that have a lot of experience with these kinds of issues. We have a lot of collective experience left over from various types of arms control agreements and nonproliferation regimes here in the building and spread across the U.S. Government.

I think you can be assured that not only we but other members of the six-party talks are going to closely look at whatever declaration the North Koreans put forth to make sure it comports with what we know and what we suspect, so it will be closely scrutinized. And I'm confident that Chris will talk about ways in which all the other members of the six parties can assure themselves that it is, in fact, a full declaration.

Yeah, anything else on North Korea ? Okay, you haven't had a chance.

QUESTION: You just said that the ministerial meeting -- that the timeframe will possibly be in August, September.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And I know that the Secretary's traveling to the Middle East at the end of this month.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Are you able to tell us whether or not she's attending the ARF meetings?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll keep you up to date on her travel schedule. We haven't even yet announced that trip officially at the end of the month.

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros.

QUESTION: Yes, on Kosovo. Mr. McCormack, Russia has given before yesterday a definite no to a European-American draft resolution on Kosovo. It doesn't want a UN presence and put European representatives in charge of the Serbian province. Do you have any comment on that development?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Lambros, we're going to continue to work up in New York with our colleagues on the Security Council to chart a way forward. We're also going to be talking with our European colleagues about how to move forward.

President Bush laid out where we believe the end point to this process needs to be. He talked about that at the G-8 summit in Germany . So the question is: How do you get from where you are now to that end state? And it's going to be a topic of continuing discussion among our friends and allies in the Security Council and in Europe . And we are going to continue to keep open lines of communication with the Russian Government on the issue.

QUESTION: The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the meantime expressed his concern that Kosovo's leaders would declare unilateral independence from Serbia even if it is deprived one of European aid. He said specifically, Mr. McCormack, "I would hope that Kosovo will not take any unilateral action." Do you share his concern?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Lambros, what nobody wants to see is a reemergence of widespread violence in the region. And that's the risk here if we don't deal with the Kosovo issue in its most fundamental aspects and bring some closure to the issue. It's been one that's -- a question that's been out there for, you know, eight years or more for the international system. It's time to find the right answer. We believe that Mr. Ahtisaari in coming up with his proposal gave the world the basis for a solution. In the absence -- I know that some talked about the possible repercussions of implementing the Ahtisaari plan. Well, we firmly believe that in the absence of something that looks like the Ahtisaari plan, a solution that looks like the Ahtisaari plan, then you are going to see for certain an emergence of violence. So what we are aiming to do through our actions working with friends and allies, working with the Europeans, working with the Security Council, is to avoid another outbreak of such violence.

QUESTION: And the last one --

MR. MCCORMACK: That's it. That's it.

QUESTION: We had spoke earlier with Noriega's attorney, Frank Rubino.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And he basically was saying that it would be against the Geneva Convention to extradite Noriega to France . Back in 1992 a Miami federal judge considered him to be a POW, and that instead Rubino says that he must be repatriated to Panama .

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And along with these statements, Rubino says he believes that there is a conspiracy between the U.S. and Panama because Panama doesn't essentially want Noriega back, as they've claimed before. What are your comments?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'll leave it to the lawyers to make legal arguments, but we have -- my understanding is the Department of Justice has with a judge -- a federal judge, I think, in Florida -- submitted a extradition request on behalf of the French Government. We, as a government, serve as a pass-through for these things and the State Department serves as a pass-through for these sort of things. And it's going to be up to the judge to decide on the merits of that request, as I understand it. I don't want to tread too far into legal territory where I shouldn't be, but I understand that's where the -- that's where the issue stands right now, and probably DOJ is in a better position to comment on the matter further than I am.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:15 p.m.)

DPB # 127