Military

MR. CASEY: I don't have anything to start you guys off with. Happy to be here with you, happy Friday, so Barry --

QUESTION: Well, no, just a bookkeeping thing sort of. Does it still look like Monday is the day to announce the Secretary's travels or might something come out around 7:30 tonight when everybody's home?

MR. CASEY: I don't think you should look for any announcements on travel until Monday.

QUESTION: Okay, just wondered about that. I guess that's --

MR. CASEY: Go ahead, Paul. That's after you.

QUESTION: -- of substance, yeah.

QUESTION: At the gaggle this morning we strangely overlooked North Korea.

MR. CASEY: Yes, you did and I was deeply disappointed in all of you. No, go ahead, Paul.

QUESTION: To the extent do you want to have anything to add to what Chris Hill said. Do you consider this a setback not having that timetable or is there plenty of scope to work that out going forward?

MR. CASEY: Well, I don't think so. I think, as Chris said in his comments before he departed, this was a very good and productive session of the six-party talks. They've clearly identified a basic outline of how to move forward here. And it's understandable that we want to have the working groups meet because a number of the steps involved in disablement are fairly technical issues. And as Chris said, rather than having the generalist diplomats try and do a "finger to the wind" guess of when they can do it, it's important to have the working groups meet to work out some detailed plans and then be able to from there establish a formal timeline for carrying out those activities.

So I do think we made some progress here. I think it was a good session. I think it indicates that we're regaining some momentum in this process and we look forward to the working groups convening next month. In terms of the overall, you know, when can this next phase be done, I think as Chris said he's still hopeful that this can be done by the end of the calendar year here. But again, as he also said, whether it's November or February isn't as important as the fact that it get done and get done in a reasonable timely fashion in accordance with what the realities are and what the physical limitations are on carrying some of these things out.

Yeah. Same subject?

QUESTION: No, it's --

MR. CASEY: Okay, wait. Let's do -- anybody else on North Korea? Okay.

QUESTION: Just on the working group between the U.S. and North Korea.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: There was -- the first part of the talks were held in New York some time back and what's the next issue that you're allowing to confront?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think what we have to do in the working groups as well as in the six-party process is work on, you know, the next steps and implementing what's already been agreed to. I'll leave it to the group itself to talk about its agenda and we certainly expect that group to meet in August. But at this point obviously we don't have a schedule for it.

You know, each of these groups as Chris has said is going to move forward and make progress in its own timeframe. The important thing is each group will have its own activities and then that all needs to be coordinated and brought together in the formal six-party envoy-level discussions, so we'll see how far they go. What's on the agenda is clearly what's written in both the '05 September agreement as well as the February 13th accord, and that includes the variety of issues that you're already well familiar with.

QUESTION: In terms of -- to be more specific in terms of normalization of relations between the two countries?

MR. CASEY: Well, as Chris has said, you know, this is going to be a process where good-faith actions are met with good-faith actions. In terms of the sequencing of those actions, that's something that people will still need to negotiate further on. Again though, with denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which is the fundamental reason for having the six-party talks in the first place, everything is possible. Without progress on denuclearization though it's hard to see how any of these things change, but the issues before us are the same ones that were on the table when the working group first met. It includes discussions about how you eventually do things like moving forward with a process of reviewing North Korea's standing on the list of state sponsors of terror, for example. It also includes looking at issues related to the Trading with the Enemy Act. These are things that are outlined in there. But what I don't want to try and do is preempt the work of the working group and try and signal to you which specific issues they're going to take up in which order.

QUESTION: Just one last question.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: On the U.S. -- on the North Korea-Japan Working Group, were there any assurances from North Korea that they will continue talking about the abductee issue, because the last time these talks were held North Korea just walked out?

MR. CASEY: Well, there were certainly a number of contentious issues involved in that first session of the North Korea-Japan Working Group and they've been gone over. But look, the important thing to remember, again, we have the working groups to deal with some of the very specific basket of issues from denuclearization to energy and economic concerns, to broader regional security questions, as well as the North Korea-U.S. and North Korea-Japan ones. But regardless of what happens in any one of these groups, this is a process that has to move together and move together organically. So certainly the North Koreans, and if you look at the Chairman’s statement, it was clear that all the parties recommitted themselves to the goals and objectives both of the September 5 statement as well as the February 13th agreement. And all parties agreed to hold additional rounds of working group discussions. Certainly, I'll leave it to the Japanese to talk about the working -- the bilateral working group with North Korea. But I think it's stating the obvious that one of the key questions for the Japanese in terms of that working group is dealing with the abductee issue and it's one where as we've said we strongly support Japan's desire and need to have a resolution of this that's acceptable to all parties.

QUESTION: So working groups can involve two, three, four countries, they’re not six sided though?

MR. CASEY: The working groups, it depends on the individual one, Barry. Obviously, the Japan-North Korea working group, as well as the U.S.-North Korea working groups, are bilateral ones because of the unique questions involved in those. The other working groups on denuclearization, on energy and other issues are basically, as I understand it, with participation of all -- representatives of all six parties. But these are more technical-level discussions. These are the guys that make some of the more specific determinations on, you know, defining the exact nature of disablement in some of the very detailed specific steps, which you need expert-level people to do.

QUESTION: Has the word spread, China seems to have a special role. Everything is checked out with China. You don't cough without seeing if it's all right with Beijing or send somebody there to say is it all right if we keep going. Will that be the situation for working groups or can they make headway as best they can and then --

MR. CASEY: No. Well, again, Barry, the way this process is structured, the working groups are operating independent of one another and they will make progress as best they can and as they see fit. What they will then do, based on what they've come up with is make their recommendations, talk about their progress with the full six-party envoy level. Again, I think Chris talked about and the statement talked about them reconvening again in September to hear from the working groups about progress made, and then based on that work, coming up with a formal timetable for how to move forward and, also in appropriate cases, selecting which among options they might have come up with would be the best way to proceed.

Yeah, Libby.

QUESTION: May I switch topics?

MR. CASEY: It's okay with me.

QUESTION: I don’t know if we talked about the House vote on the passports this week, enabling the State Department to rehire former State Department personnel to help out on the passport crunch? Did you have any particular --

MR. CASEY: We haven't -- I know that's happened. I don’t have anything particular to say about that, except for the fact that we certainly welcome having the opportunity to bring more people and use the resources available for more people who have the necessary skills, to be able to deal with what's been a very serious concern of ours and obviously something that's affected a lot of U.S. citizens. And what we want to be able to do is make sure that in those instances where there are individuals with the requisite skills available, that we have the option of, in these cases, bringing them back -- retirees who might be available to work full-time on this question. And we're dedicated to making sure that we meet the commitment that Assistant Secretary Harty articulated to the Congress, which is to have our waiting time back down to that 8- to 10-week timeframe by the end of September and again to get back to what has been our traditional service standard of four to six weeks by the end of the year.

QUESTION: Does this increase in personnel -- do you think that'll have any effect on these -- on the amount of time it takes? I know that they're taking PMFs from here and --

MR. CASEY: Yeah, well --

QUESTION: -- I was just wondering if that's going to speed things up at all.

MR. CASEY: Well, again, we're going to do everything we can to make sure that we deal with this issue and we get ourselves back to a normal level of service. If, eventually, all the legislation goes through, certainly having additional resources available is only going to help matters. But we're going to make sure that using the resources we've got and that are available to us that we do everything we can to resolve this problem as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MR. CASEY: David.

QUESTION: Tom, the U.S.-India nuclear talks, what's the situation with that? And if they don't end today with an agreement, shouldn't it be seen as a -- kind of a failure since this -- there was a set-up that this would be the last round?

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, basically, the facts right now are we're into extra innings again. These talks were scheduled to go for a couple of days. They were extended out yesterday and they're, in fact, doing an additional round today that I believe is still ongoing.

And I think what you can take from that is the fact that both sides are very committed to reaching an agreement here. We believe that concluding a 123 Agreement is something that is vital to being able to fully implement the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Accord and is something that is important for both countries as well as for reinforcing the nonproliferation regime through an advancing dialogue between the United States and India, as well as India's dialogue with the IAEA in terms of bringing some of their facilities under inspection and under the nonproliferation regime.

In terms of what we'll get from today, well, we'll see where we are, but certainly, I wouldn't read a lack of an announcement of an agreement today as anything indicating that we won't ultimately be able to have a deal and be able to move forward on this. There's -- it's clear that both countries have the goodwill necessary to do this, are willing to work with one another to achieve an agreement, and we're certainly hopeful that we'll get one in the very near future.

QUESTION: What would be the next step now? Would the -- would anything they reached today go to the heads of government and the -- obviating the need for another round or --

MR. CASEY: Well, again, let's see where we are when we come out on it. I think that would depend on exactly where the talks wound up. Obviously, any agreement that the negotiators here would reach, I would assume would have to be reviewed by some more senior levels, but that's just conjecture on my part. And again, let's see where we are at the end of the day.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The Chief Justice in Pakistan has been restored and it ended the five-month long battle between the government and the judiciary. We saw some bloody clashes between the pro-government and the anti-government groups as well. How does the United States view this restoration?

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, we have seen the judgment that's been issued by the Supreme Court reinstating the Chief Justice. Certainly, we've also seen the statements made by the Prime Minister saying that the government, as it had promised, has accepted this decision. And so I would expect then, as the Chief Justice has said, that he'll be resuming his duties on the court in the near future. I think for us, what this says is that the Pakistani people are able to resolve even very difficult political questions of this kind in a peaceful way and more importantly, through their institutions and in accordance with the rule of law. And I think it speaks positively to the political situation in Pakistan that these kinds of issues can be resolved through the established institutions, through the rule of law, and that they will, in fact, be accepted and honored by all the various participants.

QUESTION: The U.S. sees it as a positive development?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think anything that strengthens and enhances the rule of law is a positive.

QUESTION: Tom.

MR. CASEY: Yeah, Nina.

QUESTION: To follow up on this, I mean, you're characterizing these demonstrations and protests as peaceful. But you know, there's been some violence in these pro-Chaudhry movements and we've seen a lot of conflict in the last few weeks. I'm citing the Red Mosque, I know it's a separate issue, but things are very volatile in Pakistan right now. What do you think of Musharraf's grip on power at the moment? Is the U.S. concerned?

MR. CASEY: Look, again, we've talked about this before. President Musharraf is a strong ally in the war on terror. He is committed to a process of democratic change in Pakistan, including, most importantly to us, the conducting of free and fair and transparent elections in Pakistan, which is something that is in the interest of everyone.

I think it's clear that Pakistan does face a threat from extremists, whether that's al-Qaida, Taliban or its own domestic extremist groups, such as those present in the Red Mosque. But I also think it's clear that the government, with the support of most of the population, is moving forward to address those concerns and is taking necessary actions, whether that's dealing with the militants in the Red Mosque, or whether that's moving forward with plans to advance military operations in the FATA to coincide and be part of its overall plan for development in that area.

Look, these are tough issues and I think people need to understand that the Government of Pakistan is facing difficult challenges. But the important thing for us to do is to be able to work with President Musharraf, with other political leaders, with those who want to see and share President Musharraf's vision and our vision of Pakistan as a modern, moderate Islamic state and one that is fully engaged with the rest of the world, and a full partner with the international community in confronting extremism. And that's where our objective is.

QUESTION: But we're seeing the spectacle of thousands of lawyers in the street, chanting, "Go, Musharraf, go!" And some would argue that this Chaudhry movement is almost like a political campaign. Is it not time for the U.S. to look for a broader relationship with Pakistan?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think we do have a broad relationship with Pakistan. And I think that if you look at what our Embassy does, in terms of who they have contacts with, if you look at who Richard Boucher or Deputy Secretary Negroponte met with on their recent trip there, it's not like we only talk to President Musharraf. We talk to the government. We talk to civil society. We talk to members of legitimate political parties. And that's what we do in our relations with any country.

But to get to the point of this case, there has been a lot of political disputes involved here. This is a very prominent one. It's one that has sparked a great deal of emotion, and it's one that has, at times, sparked violence. But the point I was making about the resolution of it here is I think it shows the strength, both of the Pakistani people, as well as some of Pakistan's institutions; that the ultimate resolution of this is that you had a decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the country in accordance with laws and procedures. It was a decision that -- not insignificantly -- was not the position that the president had taken, but that nonetheless the president and his government showed respect for that institution and for the rule of law by saying they accepted it. So I think that is a positive -- and it's something that we view as a positive resolution of the situation.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one more thing?

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Has Boucher or has Negroponte spoken with any opposition leaders since they visited the country?

MR. CASEY: Since then, I'm not aware of what contacts Richard or the Deputy may have had specifically. Certainly, our Embassy -- our new Ambassador, Anne Patterson, as well as other officials in the embassy, talked to a wide variety of people, including those in political opposition.

Anybody else?

QUESTION: Can I just go back to India?

MR. CASEY: We can always go back to India, sure.

QUESTION: Okay. No, just curious. Why is the U.S. not prepared to discuss the issues that are at stake in the accord? I mean, you will be accountable to Congress and you have to answer to the lawmakers eventually.

MR. CASEY: Sure. We sure will, and just like any other diplomatic negotiation, when that agreement is concluded, that'll be a public document. It will have full review I'm sure by appropriate committees and members of Congress, as well as by you guys and other interested members of the public. But we aren't generally in the habit of doing play-by-play commentary on negotiations that are ongoing.

Certainly, there are issues involved here that, for us, require us to make sure that we're in compliance with U.S. law, and I can assure you Nick Burns and the other folks negotiating this are going to make sure that whatever agreement is ultimately reached is in full compliance with our legal obligations. That's part of what we do.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: Can you help us confirm or deny reports that there is a deal to release the Iranian Americans held in Tehran?

MR. CASEY: Well, we talked about this a little bit this morning. Certainly, I have no information that would indicate that the Iranians are about to, or thinking about, or prepared to release these individuals that have been held. But again, as I said this morning, it's unfortunate that they chose to hold them in the first place. And our concern is to see that they do get released as soon as possible; that these people, who were innocently visiting family members and engaged in basic kinds of human interactions, have the opportunity to go back home to be reunited with their families, because that's the right thing to do.

I certainly -- I think all of us would like to believe that the Iranian Government will do the right thing and release these people, but I can't confirm for you that we have any information that indicates the situation is any different today than it was yesterday or several days ago.

QUESTION: Can I ask you --

MR. CASEY: Yeah. Sure, Barry.

QUESTION: -- Tony Blair is his effervescent self again and eager to do what he can in the Middle East. Is it a given that he will be confined to economic issues, because economic issues related to other issues anyhow. But is he just -- simply, is he -- it's a bad way to put it -- but is he Wolfensohn-redux or is Tony Blair who has some huge experience in world affairs, going to become more of a working envoy between Israel and the Arabs?

MR. CASEY: Well, Barry, the mandate that the Quartet has given Mr. Blair is pretty clear. It isn't just economics, too. It's looking at broader institution building with the Palestinian Authority. Certainly part of that includes efforts at economic development, at stimulating investment and ensuring things like products in the territories have an opportunity and a way of getting out. I certainly expect that just as Mr. Wolfensohn did, there will be conversations between Mr. Blair and Israeli officials, just as there certainly will be between him and a variety of officials under President Abbas and in Prime Minister Fayyad's government.

The real question is, is that mandate going to change. The mandate's pretty clear to me. Certainly, Prime Minister Blair is someone who has tremendous respect in the international community, is someone that we have clearly worked well with for quite a long time and over several administrations. And I'm sure that Secretary Rice and other members of the Quartet will listen very carefully to any ideas and advice he has.

But I think what you can take from the meetings in Portugal yesterday and the statements made there is that very much what the Prime Minister -- former Prime Minister Blair will be doing and what the Secretary will be doing are kind of two things that fit hand-in-glove with one another. They're very complementary because we need progress in Palestinian institution building and we need progress on the aspects that Prime Minister Blair is specifically assigned to work on, really to be able to help move the political process forward. So they're very supportive relations, even though they are somewhat different roles.

Samir.

QUESTION: Why was no announcement for the date about the meeting between the U.S. and Iran?

MR. CASEY: Because we don’t have one as of yet. Certainly, we're basically where we left this one yesterday or the day before, whenever the last time was that we spoke about it. Expect that that meeting will happen. That meeting specifically being a follow-up discussion between Ambassador Crocker and his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad to talk about what we want to see Iran do to live up to its verbal commitments, to be a good neighbor to Iraq, to help increase stability and help increase security in that country, rather than what we've seen it do in the past, which is support militia groups, provide EFP networks that are responsible for killing U.S. troops and do other kinds of actions that frankly are contrary to anybody's notion of what their responsibilities ought to be, much less to the Iranians own stated commitments about what kind of relationship they want to have with Iraq.

Again, Samir, go ahead.

QUESTION: Tom, did you have a chance to review the statements made by the president of Iran during his visit to Syria?

MR. CASEY: I didn't, Samir. Sorry about that. I'll try and get you something on it later.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you sense there's something more afoot involving Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah because they're converged -- they have converged in Damascus, haven't they?

MR. CASEY: Well, there are a number --

QUESTION: Damascus?

QUESTION: No, in Hamas right now.

QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry, in Hamas.

MR. CASEY: Hamas, yeah. I'll -- you know --

QUESTION: I think it was Hezbollah.

MR. CASEY: I think as Sean said yesterday about Ahmadi -- or a couple days ago about Ahmadi-Nejad's visit to Syria, you know, I guess you take your friends where you can find them. But no, Barry, I don't have any reason to draw any particular new conclusions from this, sorry.

Kirit.

QUESTION: King Abdallah of Jordan is going to be visiting Washington next Tuesday. Do you have any preview of what you guys expect on that?

MR. CASEY: He will be and the White House has announced that trip and I'd refer you over to Tony and our friends over there for specifics on what they expect the visit to bring with the President.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Okay. Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:03 p.m.)

DPB # 129