Military

MR. CASEY: All right, well, good afternoon, everybody. Welcome back, Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Nice to see you. Don't have anything to open you guys up with, so --

QUESTION: Can I ask you to elaborate a little bit on the rather limited comments you had this morning about the situation in Baghdad with the captured Iranians?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think this has been addressed on a number of different occasions in Baghdad itself. MNFI's put out a statement on this. Understand it was the subject of discussion at General Bergner's regular briefing today. Again, as I understand it, there were some individuals who were stopped at a checkpoint, some weapons were confiscated. There was eventually a search of the hotel rooms they were in. The individuals were detained for a period of time. They were then released into Iraqi custody, and I believe subsequently released by the Iraqis. So it was a tactical incident that was not anything that was particularly planned or organized, just part of routine military operations in Baghdad.

QUESTION: And apparently an aide to General Petraeus has said that this -- and the incident was regrettable. Would you share those -- that comment?

MR. CASEY: Again, I'd leave it up to the military commanders to talk to that issue. As far as I know the operation was conducted in conformity with standard military practices, but I'd leave it to them if they think there's some reason why that shouldn't have occurred.

QUESTION: And do you know if -- or have you been notified by the Swiss that they were asked -- that the Ambassador in Tehran was asked to come in?

MR. CASEY: Yeah, we -- I was able to check into that for you. And I do understand that the Swiss Embassy there believe the Ambassador may not be in country right now. But an official from the Swiss Embassy was asked to come to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to discuss this issue. We don't have a readout from the Swiss yet on that, so -- you know, I can't give you any details of what was said there, but certainly we'll look forward to hearing from them on this. But as far as I think we are concerned, this was something that happened in the routine course of military operations in Baghdad. The issue was handled and looked at. The individuals have subsequently been released, and I think that's pretty much case closed.

QUESTION: Okay. So this is not a -- from the U.S. point of view, or at least from the State Department's point of view, this is not a diplomatic incident of any kind?

MR. CASEY: Well, and again, I will let the military folks in Baghdad talk to the details of the incident. But my best understanding of this, Matt, is again, this was an operation done as a routine part of military activities there and certainly it's basically a closed incident. And I don't really see how it would have any broader impact either on U.S. relations such as they are with Iran or general relations with Iran.

QUESTION: Can I try --

MR. CASEY: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Isn't the point of this kind of talking with Iran about Iraq and setting up all these security committees an effort to try and have better coordination about the actions of both countries and Iraq? I mean, isn't there something you can do to have more regular -- you know, to take this kind of channel that you started and have more regular -- I mean, why do the Swiss have to -- why do the Iranians have to call in the Swiss? Why couldn't you just kind of talk to the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad?

MR. CASEY: Well, let's also remember what we have and what we don't have. Again, first of all, I will fully expect that regardless of any conversations that happen between any Iranian or American officials that coalition military forces in Baghdad are still going to run checkpoints. And when they find people in possession of illegal weapons, they're going to confiscate them and they're going to do the kinds of routine standard investigative practices that you would want them to do to make sure that security is provided to the best extent possible, not only in this particular area by this particular hotel, but anywhere where coalition forces are operating. And you certainly wouldn't expect anyone to think that part of a conversation between the United States and Iranian diplomats would involve -- by the way, we're going to be violating Iranian laws and violating security regulations in Baghdad. Is that okay with you?

So look, this is an individual incident. It was a tactical operational issue. People should not try and read anything more into it than that. Now, in terms of conversations between Ambassador Crocker and his counterpart, this isn't about coordinating actions or issues between the United States and Iran. This is a conversation to see whether Iran is willing to match its rhetoric by actions. And what do I mean by that? It means that the Iranians have said that they very much want to play a positive role in Iraq and to be supportive of the desires for security and to help the Iraqi Government establish that security there.

These conversations are, in part, an opportunity for us to be able to raise with them the things that they are doing contrary to those statements, which includes support for militias and support for some of these EFP networks. And as we've said, we will have these conversations, when appropriate, to be able to try and convey these messages and to see whether the Iranians are willing to change their behavior. But at the same time, U.S. and other coalition forces are going to do what they can, working with the Iraqis to maintain order and security in Baghdad and elsewhere and certainly nothing in our diplomatic conversations is going to change the need to help provide that security to the Iraqi people.

QUESTION: Well, this is getting a little bit off topic, but I mean, I thought the conversations between the U.S. and Iran were a kind of two-way dialogue about both of your concerns in Iraq. You make it seem as if it's an opportunity just for the United States to complain to Iran about its behavior. I mean, isn't the effort to have both countries working better together in the country? And on the -- a follow, what about the trilateral security committee that the three countries have set up to deal with Iraq? I mean, isn't that something that could be addressed by this committee?

MR. CASEY: Well, I guess, Elise, I'm -- maybe I'm just missing the point you're trying to make. The neighbors conference -- at the neighbors conference all the countries in the region agreed that they wanted to be supportive of the Iraqi Government's efforts. As part of that and as a follow-up to that, we agreed that with the Iraqis hosting, we'd meet with the Iranians to see what reasonably could be done by both those countries to address mutual concerns and again to support the Iraqis and support the Iraqi Government. I guess if someone would like to -- if the Iranians would like to raise this issue in a future meeting, I guess that's fine. But if what you're saying to me is somehow, this could have been prevented because the Iranians could have said to us, "By the way, we'll have some people here in this country and they'll be engaged in activities that are contrary to Iraqi law," I don't think that's going to fly.

Yeah, Sue.

QUESTION: Yes. If these Iranians were carrying unauthorized weapons, then have you looked into why the Iraqis released them so quickly? I mean --

MR. CASEY: Well, again --

QUESTION: It appears that they were unauthorized, then they were obviously --

MR. CASEY: Just so that everyone --

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) tactical operation or whatever you call it.

MR. CASEY: Just in fairness, let me give you a dramatic reading of the MNFI statement, which says that "Coalition forces detained a group of 15 individuals traveling together in four vehicles here," meaning Baghdad, "Tuesday. The group included seven Iraqis and eight Iranian nationals. Coalition forces searched the vehicles as the group attempted to enter a checkpoint on Abu Nuwas Street near the Sheraton Hotel. Coalition forces confiscated an AK-47 rifle and two nine-millimeter pistols in the possession of the Iraqis in the group. The Iraqis serving as the protected detail had identification, but no weapons permits. The individuals were allowed to proceed and went into the Sheraton Hotel. The forces followed shortly thereafter based on further instructions from headquarters elements and searched their rooms. While there, coalition forces confiscated a laptop computer, cell phones, and a briefcase full of Iranian and U.S. money. Contrary to published reports, there was no raid on the hotel. Following the brief room search, the group was taken to a coalition facility for questioning. The Iranian nationals had passports. It was later determined that two of the Iranian individuals were carrying diplomatic credentials. The Iranian nationals were released in consultation with the Government of Iraq to Iraqi officials."

So I think that's a pretty clear description of the incident and what happened. Again, I think you can check with MNFI as to -- you know, whether they see any broader implications from this. I -- again, based on this information and what else I have heard, again view this as coalition forces operating in a very normal way and responding appropriately to a circumstance that they encountered as part of those operations.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Tom, I realize this is something that, you know, you'd rather the MNFI deal with. But there are two things I just don't get.

MR. CASEY: You figured that part out. Okay.

QUESTION: Two things I just don't get. What did the Iranians do wrong, given that it was -- the weapons were in the possession of their Iraqi guards and not them? And two, why were their laptops, cell phones and the briefcase full of money seized? I mean, it's not clear to me what the Iranians did wrong here.

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I'd -- you know, at that level of detail, I think again General Bergner has apparently addressed this quite extensively today, and I'm sure there are plenty of people involved in this in Baghdad that can talk to you about it. You know, look, again, as I see it and as I think that statement they put out made clear, they encountered individuals, a group of individuals, traveling together, some of whom were in violation of laws and security practices, and they followed up appropriately on that. You know, as to who asked to do what, when, where, how and why, those kind of operational level of details, I really would just have to refer the folks out there on the ground, because you basically already exceeded, Arshad, the limits of my knowledge on this one.

QUESTION: Tom?

MR. CASEY: Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: This may also -- but in reference to Arshad's question, the other things taken from the rooms --

MR. CASEY: Yeah?

QUESTION: Were they returned?

MR. CASEY: No idea. You'd have to ask out there.

QUESTION: Tom, as a general rule, though, should Iranian nationals be expecting to be more scrutinized and under watch of coalition forces?

MR. CASEY: Well, look, again, I'll let the folks out there talk about their operational standards on that. But I don't think that Iranians or Iraqis or any other national in Iraq should expect treatment other than that in accordance with laws and standard practices in that country. Look, we've said all along and we continue to believe that we want Iraq to have good relations with Iran and good relations with all its neighbors. We certainly welcome economic development activities, investment activities on the part of any country, including Iran, in the Iraqi economy. No one is trying to make any kind of change to those circumstances.

On the other hand, I think Iranian nationals as well as Iraqi nationals as well as any country's nationals should also expect that coalition forces, without respect to their nationality, are going to enforce Iraqi laws to the extent that they are involved directly in that and that they are also going to continue in a very standard and regular fashion to do what they can and what is their mandate, which is to help provide security for the people of Baghdad and for the people of Iraq.

QUESTION: Tom?

MR. CASEY: Yeah, Matt.

QUESTION: On the statement, you promised us a dramatic reading of the statement, and then you read --

MR. CASEY: I'm sorry. I was a little flat, wasn't I?

QUESTION: Well, yeah, and then you went through it in kind of a monotone way, so I'm a little disappointed in that. But should we take it from your monotone reading that you really don't think that this is the -- the State Department does not think this is a big deal?

MR. CASEY: Look, Matt, I --

QUESTION: This is just something that --

MR. CASEY: I certainly don't want to tell you or try and interpret for you how the Iranian Government views this.

QUESTION: No, no, no, how you think; if you don't think that (inaudible) calling in a diplomat from the Swiss Embassy in Tehran -- that this is -- does not warrant any -- however many questions you've gotten about this -- this is not a big deal. It's kind of the course of things -- how things go in Baghdad, it could happen any day?

MR. CASEY: You know, based on my understanding, Matt, and, again, I defer to my colleagues there on the ground and particularly my military colleagues, this was an incident that took place in the context of normal operations. It's been, you know, dealt with and put to rest and I don't see any broader implications from it.

QUESTION: Tom, are you --

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the -- sorry --

MR. CASEY: Well, same subject, I'm assuming.

QUESTION: Yeah, the Iranians --

MR. CASEY: Not off the hook yet, huh?

QUESTION: The Iranians have consistently said that the U.S. doesn't treat their diplomats in Iraq and elsewhere with the respect that they deserve as diplomats. Is this an incident where you didn't recognize the diplomatic status early enough?

MR. CASEY: Again, I'd leave you to talk to the folks in MNFI for operational details on this. What I do think you can make clear and what you can certainly infer from the statement there is that, you know, when they became aware of the status of the individuals, they were responded to appropriately. All of us who live and serve and work overseas know that despite what some people may think, it's not like there's a diplomatic credential tattooed on your forehead when you're overseas. And if people encounter a situation where they believe security may be imperiled, certainly you would want any law enforcement officers, whether they're here in the United States or in Baghdad or any place else, to first and foremost do their job, defend the population against any potential threats, and certainly then look at people's credentials or other documentation and review the circumstances. But you certainly want people to be able to protect themselves and be able to do their jobs, which is defending basic security and protecting the people in country.

Yeah.

QUESTION: One popular question that has arisen is whether the two Iranians were handcuffed and blindfolded after it was established that they were diplomats.

MR. CASEY: You'd have to ask MNFI about that.

QUESTION: Move along if I may.

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- you can refer me to Baghdad for this -- but isn't it a little bit embarrassing for you, for the U.S., to have an incident like this?

MR. CASEY: Not as far as I'm aware. It's certainly -- again, I expect coalition forces will continue to do everything they can to provide security for the people of Iraq. And to the extent as I understand it that this incident occurred in that context then I wouldn't see any reason why it should be disquieting in any way.

QUESTION: But you stopped them, you detained them and then released them. You know, I mean, simply, many would argue is because they were Iranian and you were wrong.

MR. CASEY: Well, I would argue that there are many kinds of activities that take place every day in Baghdad that don't attract your attention and people are doing what they're supposed to do. They're trying to ensure security for the population. They take actions in accordance with standard procedures. And again, I'll let the military talk to that. But there is nothing that I can see that is wrong or inappropriate about coalition military forces trying to take weapons away from people whose intentions with them are uncertain.

QUESTION: Were you profiling Iranians specifically in Iraq?

MR. CASEY: I think everything that I've told you has said that that's not the case. That what we are doing is trying to provide security for all Iraqis and trying to do so in a way that ensures that they are safe, that our forces do what they need to do to protect themselves and that anyone, regardless of nationality, who represents a potential threat or who violates laws and procedures, will understandably come under the attention and the scrutiny of our forces and of Iraqi forces as well.

Yeah, Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah, I wanted to change the subject if I can.

MR. CASEY: Oh, we're not quite there yet.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: You said that the Iranian Foreign Ministry in Tehran had called in the Swiss diplomat.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Has the United States talked to the Swiss to explain your side of what happened here so that they can then explain that to the Iranians?

MR. CASEY: I'm not sure what conversations have been held. I simply confirmed that -- we had been told by the Swiss that they've been asked to come in, so I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to exchange information as appropriate on this.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sorry, just one more thing. Maybe I'm being a bit of a dim here, but what I don't understand is why were the Swiss brought in when you have all these security committees anyway? Why didn't you just go straight to the security committees and discuss it there?

MR. CASEY: You could ask the Iranians that question.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I just stay on Iraq, but a slightly different topic?

MR. CASEY: Matt, did you want to do something similar?

QUESTION: No, no, no.

MR. CASEY: Well, all right.

QUESTION: What's your reaction to al-Sadr's announcement of this freeze of operations of his Mahdi Army?

MR. CASEY: Well, I've seen the reports on that. Look, as I said this morning, we want to see the Iraqi security forces be the ones responsible for maintaining peace and order in Iraq. Coalition forces are there to help them do that. The Mahdi Army as well as other militia groups have been responsible for prompting sectarian violence, for a number of killings and other kinds of activities and certainly, the existence of these kinds of militia groups outside the security forces and structures of Iraq is something that needs to change. So to the extent that this announcement has any impact on either limiting that violence or getting that group one step closer to going out of business, it would be positive. But I think it's pretty hard to say at this point what impact it would or wouldn't have.

QUESTION: So you're not seeing this as a straight ceasefire in the short term at the moment?

MR. CASEY: What I'm seeing is some statements have been made by Muqtada al-Sadr. Statements have been by Muqtada al-Sadr in the past and sometimes we've seen an impact as a result of them. Sometimes, we haven't. So I think we'll just have to wait and see what occurs on the ground.

QUESTION: So you're not confident that this will have results on the ground?

MR. CASEY: I'm confident that coalition forces and Iraqi security forces are going to continue to do what they can to stand against sectarian violence and take actions against any of these militias that are trying to undermine security in Baghdad and elsewhere.

Matt, you want to switch over? Yeah.

QUESTION: Pakistan?

MR. CASEY: Okay.

QUESTION: The release of the South Koreans, do you have anything more to say than you did this morning?

MR. CASEY: You mean Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Sorry, Afghan -- not Pakistan.

MR. CASEY: Okay. That's okay. I want to make sure I heard you right. No -- again, I want to just stress --

QUESTION: Then I'll ask you about Pakistan.

MR. CASEY: Then you can ask me about Pakistan afterwards, okay. In terms of the South Korean hostages, though, we welcome the release of some of their number. We await the release of all of the remaining hostages and we want to see them returned home to their families as soon as possible.

This release is overdue and again, these are innocent people who never should have been taken hostage in the first place. It's, again, representative of the kind of enemy we're facing in Afghanistan, that the Taliban engages in kidnapping, and also, we shouldn't forget, in the murder of several of these hostages as well. I think beyond that, though, I will continue to defer any broader comment until we see that all these individuals have been released and are safely on their way home.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that real quick?

MR. CASEY: Yeah, sure, Kirit.

QUESTION: We asked you at the gaggle yesterday and you didn't really have anything because you hadn't seen the details of the deal that had been worked out, but it appears that the South Koreans made some sort of concession saying they will not allow religious missions to go to Afghanistan anymore. What do you think about the South Korean Government negotiating with the terrorists?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, U.S. policy in terms of making concessions to terrorists is very well known and nothing that has happened in the last few days changes that. At the same time, again, I think there will be a lot of opportunity to comment on this in the days ahead, but I'd like at this point to just make sure we see all these people released and safely on their way home before we try and do any broader analysis. And I don't think I really have one to offer you in terms of what the details of this arrangement might or might not have been.

QUESTION: But you would consider this a concession that was granted for the release?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I don't think we've gotten any kind of detailed readout from the South Koreans. Our main focus right now is seeing that these people get released and get home. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to talk about the issue with them in a little more detail.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Change of subject, Bolivia?

MR. CASEY: Okay.

QUESTION: There have been some senior Bolivian Government officials in recent days who have said that the U.S. is funneling aid to groups that are trying to overthrow the Bolivian Government. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. CASEY: I wasn't aware that there were any groups trying to overthrow the Bolivian Government in the first place, but -- no, look, I think the U.S. aid program in Bolivia is approximately $120 million. Those funds go to support some fairly basic humanitarian and development needs of the people there. There is absolutely no truth to any allegation that the U.S. is using its aid funds to try and influence the political process or in any way undermine the government there.

QUESTION: But there seem to be sort of deteriorating relations between the Bolivian Government and the U.S. with a lot of sort of charges flying from the Bolivians. And they've also said that it's, you know, threatened the Ambassador apparently and said that it's time for you to pack up and leave.

MR. CASEY: Well, I hadn't heard that. I think he's continuing to enjoy his tour in Bolivia. But look, the United States and Bolivia have had a long relationship and generally a long and cooperative one, including on things like counternarcotics and in a variety of other areas, especially efforts to help reduce poverty and provide economic development for the people there. It's certainly our intention to continue to work positively with the government and we believe it's important that our aid programs are allowed to continue to help the Bolivian Government and the Bolivian people achieve some of those goals. But certainly if the Bolivian Government has any concerns or questions about our activities, I'm sure our Ambassador, as well as our aid officials there will be happy to clarify any questions they might have.

QUESTION: But are you passing on aid to opposition groups in -- that they might gain strength?

MR. CASEY: No. There is no -- whether it's in Bolivia or any place else in the world, U.S. aid funds do not support partisan agendas or back individual candidates or parties. In the case of Bolivia, again, I believe almost all of our assistance is targeted at some pretty practical humanitarian and basic economic development activities. But anywhere in the world to the extent that we support nongovernmental organizations or other kinds of activities, they're designed to help promote the development of civil society, ensure things like help people do elections monitoring, help national electoral commissions establish voter registrations and roles and things like that. We don't use aid money for partisan purposes.

Yeah, Michel.

QUESTION: Germany extended $46 million in financial aid to Syria, marking an improvement in ties after two years of strain between the two countries. Do you have any reaction?

MR. CASEY: I'm sorry, Michel. I haven't seen those reports. We'll have to look into that for you and see what we can get.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Tom.

MR. CASEY: Yeah, Zain.

QUESTION: I would like to take you to Sri Lanka now where the Committee to Protect Journalists there has written to the U.S. Embassy essentially asking for help with a journalist there called Iqbal Athas. What's happened is that his -- the government has pulled the security detail after he wrote some unfavorable articles about them. Are you concerned about Athas and what, if anything, any kind of pressure is the U.S. putting --

MR. CASEY: Zain, I'm afraid I'm 0-for-2 now. I'm not familiar with that specific case. But certainly, I'm sure we'll treat seriously any questions that are raised about intimidation or threats made to journalists, whether it's in Sri Lanka or anyplace else. Certainly we want to make sure that people are not prosecuted or persecuted for expressing their beliefs in any country. And we certainly take very seriously any threats against free media or freedom of the press, certainly because you and your colleagues are part of how the broader public understands issues and part of how governments are held accountable. So I'm sure we'll look into it. I will look into this for you and see if we have any more specifics on this case.

Nina.

QUESTION: Tom, can we go to Pakistan, please? It seems that Musharraf --

MR. CASEY: Unless Matt wanted to move there first.

QUESTION: No, no.

MR. CASEY: Okay.

QUESTION: It seems that Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto are very close to some kind of deal. I wonder what you make of her conditions, which seem to be that he resigns his post as army chief, he casts aside the uniform and that there's some kind of parliamentary reform, which would mean that the Prime Minister, essentially Bhutto, if she cut this deal, would have more power than him.

MR. CASEY: Well, I'm going to sound like a broken record to you on this, because I know we've talked about this over the last couple of days and I think some of my colleagues talked about it last week, but the primary concern for the United States in Pakistan is that there be free, credible and transparent elections there and elections that allow the Pakistani people to have a real and full choice among all the legitimate political actors and parties in that country.

In terms of the conversations that are going on between representatives of President Musharraf and representatives of whether it's former Prime Minister Bhutto or others, I'll leave it to them to categorize those discussions and any agreements they've reached. There is not surprisingly a lot of politics going on in Pakistan and among Pakistani officials and Pakistani party representatives. What I think we want to see though is an end result of those conversations being a process that's credible, being elections that give the Pakistani people a real choice, and allow that choice to be heard through a free and fair ballot, and see a government formed that's going to have the support of the people and going to allow Pakistan to continue to be a force for positive change and a force to help work with us to fight against extremism.

QUESTION: Have officials from the State Department been in close contact with Ms. Bhutto and also with Nawaz Sharif? He seems to be making some kind of comeback now.

MR. CASEY: Well, we maintain contacts with representatives of all the major political parties and factions in Pakistan, just as we would in any other country. I'm sure that we've had discussions, at least with some of the folks in Pakistan, about their views on these discussions. But really this is a process for the Pakistanis to work through on their own. I expect we'll have an opportunity to hear from individuals from those parties over the coming days.

QUESTION: And can you just clarify for me, what's the current policy on Musharraf and his role as army chief?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I -- it's what I said earlier and what you heard from Richard, I believe, about a week ago, which is that President Musharraf has made certain commitments with regard to his status as army chief, and these are issues that we expect he and the others in the Pakistani political system will continue to deal with as we approach the election.

QUESTION: So do you want to see him step down?

MR. CASEY: Well, we want to see this worked out in a way that allows for a set of free and fair elections and one that's credible in the eyes of the Pakistani people. But the specific details of how many of these issues are going to be worked out are ones that for the moment I think we'll just leave to the Pakistanis to discuss.

QUESTION: Do you expect him to honor --

QUESTION: What is your --

QUESTION: Do you expect him to honor the commitments he's made?

MR. CASEY: I'd expect all world leaders to honor the promises they've made.

QUESTION: Tom --

QUESTION: What is your understanding of the commitments that President Musharraf has made?

MR. CASEY: Again, I'd have to go back and look at the specific language that he's used. He's spoken to this in the past, but I'd just refer you back to his comments on it.

QUESTION: For --

MR. CASEY: Yeah, Elise. Oh, sorry --

QUESTION: Can I -- sorry, I mean, this is --

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: It is not any secret that U.S. policy for several years has been that Pakistan, as all countries, should have civilian leadership. You have -- maybe not yourself, but people from this podium have, since, well, since Musharraf took power, been saying that he should step aside as -- choose one or the other, step aside -- to take off his uniform or step aside. Why is it that today you don't want to say that you're happy to see that there looks like -- it looks like there's some movement in that direction?

MR. CASEY: Well, Matt, first of all, again, there's a lot of discussions going on and there are a lot of statements being made about what the nature of those discussions are. These are issues that the Pakistani leadership is dealing with and I -- again, I think we'll let them actually reach agreements or come to conclusions before I try and step in the middle of it.

QUESTION: And so you're waiting for him to say this and not someone else?

MR. CASEY: Again, I think we're waiting -- we're looking closely at what is going on in the Pakistani political process, but I think we'd like to be observers rather direct participants at this point.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary been in contact over the recent days with either, you know, Benazir Bhutto or Musharraf or any other leading players?

MR. CASEY: Not -- she hasn't talked to President Musharraf or anyone from the Pakistani Government in -- at least in anything I've got on my list that I'm looking at here which goes back about a week.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And Tom --

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have a position on whether it would be a proper free and fair election if Musharraf were to stand for election as president with the current existing assemblies rather than with newly elected assemblies?

MR. CASEY: I'm not going to try and disaggregate it at this point, Arshad. I think we'll -- this is one of these issues where everyone, I think, will be able to take a pretty clear look at the electoral process and be able to make a determination that's pretty clear-cut as to what kind of process it was and how free and fair it was.

Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: As long as you've got the list there of people that she's talked to --

MR. CASEY: I knew I'd get myself in trouble by mentioning that.

QUESTION: Can you (inaudible) she made the calls to Olmert and Abbas and other Israelis and Palestinians, I think on Monday -- think about, yeah?

MR. CASEY: Okay, well I don't have a lot for you that I didn't already mention. I mentioned yesterday that she had spoken with Japanese -- new Japanese Foreign Minister Machimura to congratulate him on his appointment as foreign minister and to express her hope that they would be able to work well together in his newly reassigned appointment as foreign minister, as they had in the past. She also did make a farewell call to outgoing Foreign Minister Aso, again to thank him for his efforts to work with her in building and expanding U.S.-Japanese relations over time.

Today, the only call that I have that's occurred is one that she made to newly elected Turkish President Abdullah Gul to congratulate him again on his election and express her hope that we would be able to continue to have a good, positive relationship with him in his new capacity that she enjoyed with him while he was foreign minister.

QUESTION: May I ask you to follow up --

MR. CASEY: I somehow knew you'd want to.

QUESTION: Excuse me?

MR. CASEY: I somehow knew you'd want to follow up on that, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. CASEY: Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. Thanks for the statement, but the New York Times on the front page stated today saying that the new Turkish President Abdullah Gul has Islamic ties, breaking an 84-year grip on power by the secular establishment. Are you concerned, as the U.S. Government, that President Gul is a Muslim by religion? Do you have any problem with that?

MR. CASEY: Mr. Lambros, as our statement said yesterday, we congratulate him on his election. We believe that this election shows the strength of Turkish democracy and the Turkish constitution, and we look forward to continuing our positive and good relations with him as president and with the new Turkish Government once formed and I think that about says it all.

QUESTION: May I go to Greece for a moment?

MR. CASEY: You may go to Greece for a moment, unless, Elise wants to follow up on Turkey.

QUESTION: Mr. Casey.

MR. CASEY: No, okay.

QUESTION: Any coordination between the Department of State and the Greek American community in general regarding the fires over Greece?

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, Mr. Lambros, I just want to again express our sympathies for the Greek people and our support for them as they try and work through this difficult situation. I think as you know, in response to the Government of Greece request for international assistance, the Agency for International Development has provided an initial contribution of $100,000 to the Hellenic Red Cross that'll help provide purchasing of emergency firefighting equipment, as well as some of -- meeting some of the humanitarian needs of the people who have been displaced by the fires.

We're also in cooperation with AID working with the Forest Service and Department of Agriculture with the Government of Greece to see what other kinds of technical expertise and equipment we might be able to provide, including things like clothing for firefighters and some technical expertise in fire management and burn area rehabilitation, those kinds of concerns. And the Greek Government has expressed to us a concern not only for the management of the fires right now, but also would like to see us and others help them in terms of the recovery from this which, of course, will be an important part of the overall operation as well.

USAID's office of Public-Private Partnerships is also working with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and they're going to co-chair a meeting of U.S. companies to lay out a plan for helping Greece to recover from this disaster. And again, I think the recovery phase of this is going to be equally important in terms of ensuring that people are able to return to the kind of lives they had before these fires took place. And USAID is also working with members of the Greek American community as well, just as we have with other communities in the United States to be able to get civic organizations and faith-based groups and others involved in helping us to provide assistance to Greece as this recovery process moves forward.

QUESTION: One more question. No one knows who is in charge at the Department of State to coordinate all of the stuff that you mentioned?

MR. CASEY: Well, in terms of this, this is largely being handled or chaired through the U.S. Agency for International Development. I think you may have seen that Under Secretary of State Henrietta Fore was, also acting USAID Administrator, is actually in the region. I know she's spoken to some of your colleagues in Greece recently about this. So she will certainly be involved in this effort, as will Jim Kunder who is the acting administrator. And of course, Dan Fried, Matt Bryza and our friends in the Bureau of European Affairs will certainly be contributing their part in terms of the political coordination with the Greek Government.

QUESTION: And the last one, do you know, Mr. Casey, with whom the Department of State is cooperating out of the Government in order to help Greece?

MR. CASEY: I'll let the Greek officials talk about who's in the lead for them. That's really their place, not ours.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Elise.

QUESTION: Just a quick one on Burma. I don't know if you saw that the actor Jim Carrey has started this new campaign to raise awareness of Americans on the Burmese and Aung San Suu Kyi's situation. In May, you put out a statement calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. And I was wondering if there were any intense uptick in U.S. efforts to try and get the Burmese Government to release her?

MR. CASEY: Well, I hadn't seen reports about his efforts. But again, and whether the issue is trying to call attention to the suffering of the people in Darfur or whether it's trying to get people who perhaps aren't more aware of the serious problems that exist in Burma and try and rally efforts to support our and others' calls for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, that's something we'd certainly welcome and I wish him good luck with the efforts. We'll certainly be appreciative of his and anyone else's support on this.

In terms of our own efforts, there have been continuous discussions between us and the UN Special Envoy on this issue. I know he hasn't made a trip in a while, though I think he is planning on making one soon. We continue to raise the issue of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners as well as the general concerns that we have about Burma in a variety of places, including up in New York as well as with regional groups such as ASEAN.

QUESTION: But beyond -- and there have been a lot of U.S. officials and even First Lady Laura Bush that have tried to raise attention to the Aung San Suu Kyi issue and to call for her release. What beyond just kind of talking about it and calling for her release can the U.S. do? I mean, are you planning on doing anything at the UN, any more action or anything like that?

MR. CASEY: Well, I don't have anything that I can specifically talk to you about right now, but I can point out again that the President's renewed the national state of emergency with relation to Burma. That allows us to continue to maintain sanctions on those in the Burmese regime who are responsible for her continued detention.

We are going to make sure that we continue to keep up that kind of bilateral economic pressure on the Burmese regime, continue to work with the UN including, I expect, discussions in the Security Council as well as during the upcoming meetings of the General Assembly to try and encourage others to speak out on this and those who may have influence with the Burmese regime to get them to do the right thing here and to do what has been so long overdue, which is: release her, release the other political prisoners, and also, equally importantly, engage in a dialogue with all the legitimate political forces in the country to develop a new constitution and allow democracy to develop in that country.

David.

QUESTION: Tom, Human Rights report - excuse me, Human Rights Watch has a report out today saying that Hezbollah engaged in indiscriminate, deliberate attacks on Israeli civilian areas during the war last year. They were going to launch this with a news conference in Beirut tomorrow, but they cancelled it, they said, because Al Manar, their Hezbollah TV outlet, was accusing them of conspiring with the United States, with elements in Lebanon hostile to Hezbollah and -- you know, urging people to try to physically prevent this news conference. I just wonder if there's any part of that you'd like to take on.

MR. CASEY: Well, let's see. What could I start with, David? First of all, anyone that is arguing that somehow, a very independent organization like Human Rights Watch is somehow doing the United States' bidding need look no further than most of the reactions we've had to some of their other comments. They are an independent organization, they set their own agenda, and they operate on their own. And they and other human rights groups and other NGOs play an important part in our civil society and are definitely individual organizations that will make their own decisions about what to say and when to say it.

In terms of the actual findings of the report, I've only seen a brief summary of it, but I think it's pretty clear to most of us that the policies of Hezbollah show no regard for distinction between innocent civilians and innocent life and those who might otherwise be considered combatants. The indiscriminate firing of missiles into Israel during the conflict last summer caused numbers of deaths and injuries and certainly could not be described in any way, shape, or form as I understand it as following the laws of war.

As far as Hezbollah intimidation of Human Rights Watch or others, well, unfortunately, I guess there really isn't any news there because that's just par for the course. Hezbollah continues to be an organization that engages in terror, that supports the repression of activities in Lebanon that are designed to give everyone an opportunity to have their say and continues to take actions that are inherently against the interests of the Lebanese people.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:30 p.m.)

DPB # 153

# # #