Military

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. I don't have anything to start off with, so we can get right to your questions. Who wants to start?

QUESTION: Me.

QUESTION: Me, me.

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt Lee, go ahead. Yes, indeed. Sir.

QUESTION: Do you have anything more you can add to the limited amount of information you were able to tell us this morning about the Blackwater contract and what applicable laws and regulations they're operating under in Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: A couple of things. One, the personal protective services activities of Blackwater as well as the other companies, Triple Canopy and DynCorp, take place in Iraq under a Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract that has a multibillion ceiling to it.

I think what I would say, Matt, in terms of the amount of money we spend each year, both for Diplomatic Security personnel as well as contract personnel in Iraq to protect our people, it's tens of millions of dollars each year in Iraq.

And the other thing I would note is that in the context of this Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract that the three companies compete with one another for various task orders. That's how you would arrive at a company providing services in Iraq. So it's a competitive process within that contract and the contract itself is obviously a competitive bid contract.

QUESTION: So do you know -- is there any breakdown of what the three -- how much each of the three are paid for their work in Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm just going to keep it at tens of millions of dollars. I don't have a breakdown for you.

QUESTION: Sean, does Blackwater specifically guard the Ambassador or does it rotate between the three?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you whether or not there's any interchange there. It is a combination of our Diplomatic Security personnel as well as contract personnel, and I know that every time that we have been there, that we've traveled to Iraq personally, speaking personally, it's been Blackwater personnel that have protected our convoys.

QUESTION: Can you say which company has the biggest contract in Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know that as a fact. I don't know. I don't know which one does, to tell you the truth.

QUESTION: And on the rules and regulations --

MR. MCCORMACK: Rules and regulations. You mentioned CPA Order 17. I think it's -- this morning when we were talking -- it's fair to say that the layman's man-in-the-street answer that I was promising you yesterday but wanted to hold off before I talked to the lawyers, is the one that I will give you now but I checked with lawyers.

But basically it depends on the circumstances. You want to do an investigation. You want to establish the facts. Then you want to take a look at the laws and regulations and see if there's any contravention of the law, see if there was anybody who stepped over the line. To boil it down very simply, there are a lot of crosscutting jurisdictional as well as legal authorities here, and you would have to have a precise set of facts in order to be able to determine the various applicable legal authorities and whether or not there was any -- if there were any laws that were broken.

So at this point, at this stage, we're quite some ways away from that. We are at the stage, just the very beginning stages of an investigation. What we want to happen is to see that that investigation takes place in an objective way, in a sober-minded way, based just on the facts and based on the applicable laws, rules and regulations.

That bit of it will come at the very end. You have the assessment of, okay, here are the facts: what do we see as the applicable laws, rules and regulations? The lawyers will take a look at all of those things in making a determination about whether or not there were any laws or regulations that were broken. And we're going to do this with the Iraqis in a way, in that we are going to share with them at each stage along the way here the results of what we're finding so that this is done in a transparent way and so that they're comfortable, that they see that we have done an investigation that is objective and that we surface all of the relevant facts.

QUESTION: I guess my confusion about this is that it seems to be that if you take a situation in a -- a normal situation where you have an incident happen, you determine the facts and then see if you -- if those facts indicate that there has been some violation of the rules or laws.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But in this case -- and those facts are obviously a moving target.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But in this case, you have -- the laws are a moving target as well. You have --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think that the lawyers --

QUESTION: -- you can't judge -- you're telling us that you can't judge whether something is illegal or violated the laws based on the actions because you don't know what the actions are.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But you also don't know what the law is.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, the lawyers have a firm grasp on what are the possible applicable laws as well as the jurisdictional issues. What I'm saying is before you get to that point say, well, has one of these been violated, we have to go through an investigative process. And that's what's happening right now. And that the ultimate determination of whether or not any rules, regulations or laws have been broken is going to depend on the circumstances. It's going to depend on the facts. And that's the stage that we're at right now.

QUESTION: Which authorities decide which laws are applicable?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, of course, within the U.S. Government you have a number of different agencies that could be involved in something like that. MNF-I is supporting us in this investigation, but ultimately it's going to be the State Department and State Department lawyers that look at U.S. law and U.S. regulations. And if need be they will, of course, bring in other government agencies as necessary.

I'm sure the Iraqis will take a look at this as well. They have their own laws and their own set of laws. So they'll be taking a look at what are the applicable laws and regulations from their side. And the hope is here that because we intend to be transparent in this that this is going to be an open process between the Iraqis and the Americans. And we'll see at the end of the investigation, based on the set of facts, where this goes. It could be that there is a finding that a terrible incident took place in which there was an innocent loss of life as a result of an attack on our convoy but there was no culpability in the sense that there were any laws or regulations broken. That is a possible outcome. It's an outcome that were laws and regulations that were broken. I can't tell you what the outcome is going to be. But we're going to wait to see what that is based on the facts. And I'm sure there are a number of permutations of those two possible cases in between.

QUESTION: Sean, have the Iraqis told you that they wish to conduct their own investigation into this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they have said that they are conducting their investigation. I've seen those public comments.

QUESTION: And are you going to make available to them any American officials or American citizens whom they might wish to interview?

MR. MCCORMACK: Good question. I mean, you get into issues of diplomatic immunity here. I'm not sure that we have gotten to that point yet. I'm happy to take that question. It may come back to this answer of, well, it depends on the individual and their particular status.

QUESTION: The reason I ask is I realize Iraq is a particular case with large numbers of foreign troops operating there and so on. But if there were to be an analogous incident in another country - Country X - it's hard to imagine that Country X would not demand the right properly to investigate the incident entirely on its own and would not simply rely on an internal investigation conducted by the bureau that is, in fact, responsible for and contracts with the people who are under investigation to base its decisions.

And so it's a little perplexing to me that there isn't more of a, you know -- that you guys aren't just saying, you know, we'll cooperate with an Iraqi investigation, we'll give them whatever they want, we'll make available anybody they want to talk to, you know, subject to their legal rights, et cetera, et cetera. Why isn't this -- I mean, there's this sort of presumption that it should be DS that does this investigation, rather than a presumption that the legal authorities of the country where the incident took place should conduct the investigation?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't draw any analogous situations for you. I can't tell you if there is anything that's directly or even indirectly analogous --

QUESTION: (inaudible)

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I understand your point. Look, it makes sense that you have -- in which you have an incident involving a contractor and potentially employees of an agency that that agency investigates. That happens all the time. And on top of it all, Diplomatic Security agents are federal law enforcement officers as well. So these are people that participate in law enforcement investigations in this country as well around the globe, so they're experiencing it, they know the rules and regulations and I think everybody, from the Secretary on down, has confidence that they are going to take a look at this in an objective way.

We want to be as open and transparent and cooperative as we possibly can with the Iraqis. I think that this is going to be a process that unfolds over a period of time. I can't tell you how long, but we're going to try and move it as quickly as possible in the interest of getting to those essential facts so that the Iraqis know it, so that we know it. And if there are any questions that arise from the Iraqi side about what's going on, then we're going to try to address it. The Secretary wants this and Ambassador Crocker as well as the Charge -- Charge Butenis -- wants us to be as cooperative as we possibly can.

Look, innocent life was lost. Nobody wants that. Nobody wants to see that. It's also important to remember that this convoy was attacked and we'll see if the rules of engagement were followed. Contractors are subject to Department of State rules of engagement. These are defensive in nature and those contractors and our employees, when they're attacked, will respond with graduated use of force proportionate to the kind of fire and attack that they're coming under.

So that's sort of a general description of the rules of engagement. I know somebody was asking earlier this morning about rules of engagement. I can't really go any further than that. That's sort of a general description of the rules of engagement that they operate under.

QUESTION: Are the detailed rules of engagement classified because they would give potential --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- attackers -- okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yep.

QUESTION: Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Sorry. No, it's -- I just wanted to know, is Blackwater still operating full speed right now as far as you're concerned?

MR. MCCORMACK: They're still operating in Iraq. They're still operating under contract to the Department of State. I don't have the status of their operations for you.

QUESTION: But they haven't been banned as these reports -- I mean, they are operating --

MR. MCCORMACK: This gets to the question of the Iraqis and the licensing issue. We have not been informed that Blackwater's, quote, "license" has been lifted, suspended or terminated.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: I mean, is there a license?

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: Is there a license issue --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, good question. Let me see exactly what the specific terms are on that.

QUESTION: If I could ask -- just follow up, I mean, there are a number of conflicting reports as to what exactly happened. I know you can't answer an investigation, but you have made clear that these guys came under fire.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, they came under attack.

QUESTION: So could you -- can you just give us the bare bones of what you think, at the moment, happened?

MR. MCCORMACK: Jonathan, you know I'm just not going to get into that. There was -- the basic fact is that there was an attack on the convoy. There was a response. And the whole point of this investigation is to do this in an objective way based solely on the facts, based solely on the forensics that investigators are able to collect and then analyze.

I don't think it's useful for me to go and attest to a set of facts to an event that happened 5,000 miles away and a set of facts that may have passed through several hands. I'm not saying that when I come up here I don't get good facts, but I think you understand in this case that I'm not going to go ahead and lay out for you what I think a set of facts may be that in any way may lend itself to the perception that we're trying to color this investigation.

QUESTION: But there are reports out there saying that -- you know, it was the Blackwater staff who opened up fire first. And you're saying that's wrong?

MR. MCCORMACK: I understand that the convoy was attacked and that there was a response. That's sort of the minimal fact set that I understand from our people. And I have some confidence in conveying to you without lending itself to this idea that we are in any way prejudging the outcome of the investigation.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, forgive me if this has been touched upon already, but has it been disclosed whose convoy we're talking about?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, and that's not something that we talk about.

QUESTION: Can you tell me how many contractors are in Iraq under State Department employ or how many for Blackwater specifically?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I have checked and that's not a number that our security personnel want to have out there.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: And that just gets to the whole issue that they don't want people to be able to, from that, deduce what the various allocation of the protective assets is around the country.

QUESTION: One last one if I could. By saying that we are going to await the results of the various investigations before we arrive at any conclusions as to jurisdiction, which is how I understand what you've said so far today, it suggests that the United States Government, for which you speak, can envisage a situation in which these contractors could be tried under Iraqi law and by an Iraqi court.

MR. MCCORMACK: James, we -- look, if we ever got to the point where we find that laws or regulations were broken, we will, of course, deal with all those questions. I'm trying to walk everybody back. I know, we're trying to roll this back to the point where we’re at. This happened -- incident happened a couple days ago. We're at the very beginning stages of an investigation. I don't think it's fair to anybody to presume a particular outcome of this. And I don't think it serves anybody's purposes to start guessing about potential outcomes and what the implications of those outcomes might be.

QUESTION: I just ask it in the context of the Bush Administration's opposition, for example, to American soldiers being placed under jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I don't think it's useful to start speculating in that way. That is certainly not something that I would speculate -- the applicability of the International -- the ICJ. You know our stance with respect to the ICJ.

QUESTION: The beginning stages of the investigation --

MR. MCCORMACK: The ICC, International Criminal Court, sorry.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: You're talking about the beginning stages of the investigation.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: When you talk about how it is beginning, how many people are involved? Is it being done in Baghdad, in Washington, what other agencies -- are they playing a --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have numbers for you. It's happening in Baghdad, coordinating back here with Washington. MNF-I on the ground in Iraq is supporting the Diplomatic Security Office and Embassy Baghdad in conducting the investigation.

QUESTION: Are you working on a joint statement with the Iraqis that you're aware of about the incident?

MR. MCCORMACK: We've been -- we've talked to the Iraqis about the investigative procedures. We've had some initial conversations about that. Our commitment at this point to the Iraqis, and I think they appreciate this, is that we are going to do this in an open way and a transparent way. We are going to share what we know every step along the way with them. And I think at this point that's where we are.

QUESTION: Have they indicated to you that the license won't be lifted until the investigation is concluded?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll the Iraqi Government speak for itself on that issue.

QUESTION: And can -- do you have any other information about the Blackwater license? I know you said you'd look into it.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: But you don't know at this point whether they were operating under a licensing --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll have to look into it, Charlie, to see if there's a license requirement, what the license requirements are and what our various contractors have done to fulfill that. We would expect, of course, if there's a requirement that they would fulfill it. But let me look into the answers to all those questions.

Matt.

QUESTION: You keep going back to this open and transparent --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: And I'm sorry, but I just can't get my head around -- how can you promise an open and transparent investigation if the very standard by which what happened is being judged if you won't talk about what that standard is? I mean, it just seems to me that if you don't know which law or which regulation applies or you're unwilling to say what it is, how in the world can it be open and transparent?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, when you're investigating something you don't start off with the law under which you're going to try to judge somebody. You start with establishing the set of facts and that's what we're doing now. Then you get -- you eventually get to a point where you say, well, wait a minute, based on this fact set, let's talk to the experts, let's talk to the lawyers and find out, is there any contravention of rules, regulations or laws.

We're at the very beginnings of this, so I think it stands to reason that what you want to do is establish the facts first. That's not to say that lawyers can't start looking at what are the applicable -- possible applicable statutes, what are the possible applicable jurisdictional issues. I'm sure there are lawyers that could be looking at those things. But in terms of the investigation, what you want to do -- what is important are the facts, and that's what we are trying to establish now.

QUESTION: So you understand there to be at this point at least two investigations into this matter. One being conducted by the Diplomatic Service --

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- and another being conducted by the Iraqi authorities?

MR. MCCORMACK: They've said that they are conducting one, yeah.

QUESTION: Has the United States Government been asked to provide, in support of the Iraq investigation, either forensics or technical expertise or personnel, such as FBI or anything like that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware of such a request, James. I mean -- look, we're going to try to be as open as we can with them on this.

QUESTION: But in other words --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know if they'd ask for any of that stuff.

QUESTION: Our investigation is going to proceed totally independently of theirs? They're not a joint effort in any sense, correct?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, where we stand right now is that we have pledged to them in our investigation that we would be as open as we possibly could with them.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what's happened to the Blackwater staff who were in that convoy? Are they -- have you asked them not to carry out their duties while this investigation takes place or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, Jonathan, I'm not aware of their operational status.

QUESTION: Have they left the country? Have any left the country to your knowledge?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: Iraq, but not this.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have any position on the legislation, the amendment that was being introduced by Senator Kennedy with apparently some broad bipartisan support on --

MR. MCCORMACK: Refugees?

QUESTION: Refugees, and particularly those Iraqis who have worked for the United States?

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me look into it, Matt. I'm not aware of what in particular Senator Kennedy has introduced. I know that we've been working very closely with the Hill on the issue of refugees as well as -- or very particularly and specifically Iraqi refugees. He's been an important leader on the Hill on this issue, and we have been working closely with him as well as others on that. So let me take a look at exactly what he introduced and see if we have a position.

QUESTION: Okay. And then one more that tangentially relates to Iraq, but also gets back into the weeds of legality --

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- which is, are you aware of this letter that has been sent to the Inspector General by Congressman Waxman -- his committee – that opens an investigation into the conduct of the Inspector General and makes some rather serious accusations about the work that that office has done as it relates specifically to investigations of embassy construction in Iraq and Baghdad and also in Kabul?

MR. MCCORMACK: I heard a report about it, but I am not aware that we've received the letter. I think what we'd want to do is take a look at it and then perhaps provide Congressman Waxman a response. I'll see if there's anything concomitantly that we would want to say about it in public. I just don't have the details on it.

QUESTION: Are you aware that the Inspector General -- if the Inspector General is here?

MR. MCCORMACK: In Washington?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. I don't know. He does travel a fair bit, visiting posts, conducting a lot of the audits and inspections himself. But I don't know if he's here in Washington at the moment.

QUESTION: But you will cooperate with this --

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll, of course, provide an answer to Congressman Waxman. I can't provide any further answer, any more detailed answer than that, without our guys having had a chance to take a look at the letter. I'm not even sure that we've gotten the letter here at the State Department.

QUESTION: I'll just give you my copy.

MR. MCCORMACK: It sometimes happens, Matt. I know you will be shocked by this. Sit down, please. (Laughter.) But sometimes Congress sends -- releases letters to the media before they actually arrive here at the Executive Branch.

QUESTION: Yeah, except that in this case the committee says that they faxed a copy over and they have confirmed receipt of it.

MR. MCCORMACK: How unusual. Yes. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Do you have an answer to my question about how many potential Iraqi refugees have indeed been processed?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, we do. Well, a partial answer.

QUESTION: Great, okay. Any (inaudible) would help.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. And if you have any other questions, we'll try to track those down for you. And we'll post this for you. Let me summarize.

The UNHCR has referred about 10,000 cases to the United States, and we have, from the State Department side, prepared about 7,500 Iraqi refugee cases for interview by the Department of Homeland Security. Out of the 7,500 prepared cases DHS will have interviewed about 4,500 by the end of this month, September 30th. And in the first quarter of fiscal year '08, that is beginning October 1st, for the State Department's part, we will prepare the remaining 2,500 of the 10,000 Iraqi refugee referrals, plus additional referrals that we can expect to be made by the refugee admissions program. So then that additional 2,500, plus any additional, will then be referred over to the Department of Homeland Security for processing.

QUESTION: So is it your view -- and I'll go back and check the transcript, which I admit I have not yet done. But is it your view that you are therefore likely to fall short by about 3,000 that you had expected to have processed? My recollection is that it was fully processed, including the Homeland Security interviews, that those people would have been through the system and ready to --

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me go back and take a look, Arshad, at specifically what folks had thought they might accomplish.

QUESTION: Okay. Because either you beat it by 500 or you missed it by 2,500.

MR. MCCORMACK: We -- I think if memory serves, we had estimated that we would be able to get through about 7,000 -- about -- by the end of this fiscal year.

QUESTION: Yeah, but the question is whether that included the Homeland Security interviews or not.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Based on that, should the Department of Homeland Security offer up more people to conduct these interviews?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, they're -- what we want to see here is that the entire U.S. Government operation work effectively. And as I talked a little bit about yesterday, clearly it is not working as efficiently as it possibly could, and that is why the Secretary is going to, for the State Department's part, appoint somebody specifically tasked with making sure that this system works efficiently and doing everything that we possibly can to make sure that it works effectively. If there are bureaucratic roadblocks, how can we break through those or go around them? And she wants to make sure that this gets done right, gets done in the right way. She believes we have an obligation not only to these refugees but refugees worldwide, and she wants to make sure that we are doing our part as the U.S. Government to fulfill our obligations not only to refugees but also to protect the American people.

QUESTION: Yeah, no, just on that. Are you looking for someone that's high-profile that can do the bureaucratic infighting, or is this just going to be a mid-level staffer? What sort of level?

MR. MCCORMACK: It'll be a senior Foreign Service Officer.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Did you get the beginning of September partial actual admissions?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, we didn't. No, we didn't get that.

QUESTION: Does that statistic not exist? I mean, I know that they -- it wasn't the --

MR. MCCORMACK: They do. Yeah, I know.

QUESTION: But I mean, is it not -- do you just not even -- I mean, presumably, someone's got to know.

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, I'm -- believe me, I am happy to -- happy to check for you on this and see if we can extract it from the system.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the other thing which seems to be a bit of a problem in extracting from the system is the number, if any, of these people who would be covered by Senator Kennedy's legislation, people who have worked for the U.S. Government and who may be on expedited or in some other fashion --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, these are refugee numbers. So there may be -- you're right, there may be some subset of this number that includes people who work for the U.S. Embassy or work for the U.S. Government in Iraq. There would also perhaps be a separate number of people that were admitted under different programs as well. But I'll see -- we'll see if we can extract that one, too.

QUESTION: And then just so that -- on the larger set of refugees themselves -- the Syrians have been a problem, to say the least, in at least not allowing the DHS interviewers to come in to do that. When you talk of the -- when you say that DHS will have about 4,500 interviews done by -- cases done by the end of the month: first, does that apply to individual people or in some cases is it families; and second, how many of those, if any, are in Syria? I mean, where are these people? Are they mainly in Turkey, in Jordan?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Or how --

MR. MCCORMACK: Happy to ask -- happy to ask all these questions for you.

QUESTION: Can I add one more to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. Let's add on to it.

QUESTION: And getting the numbers -- you know, but the question would be, you know, "will have done" by the end of September. And I guess my question would be, well --

MR. MCCORMACK: Tell you what, guys. Let's do this. Let's do this. Let's get you guys a briefing --

QUESTION: There you go.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- with the people who do this for a living, which doesn't include me. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: You want to do it while you're out of town? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. While I am gone. So we will do that for you. How's that?

QUESTION: Sounds good. Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Good.

QUESTION: Ask them to come equipped with numbers, please.

MR. MCCORMACK: Indeed.

QUESTION: I have one last question on this Blackwater thing, which I know you guys have kicked to death for 30 minutes or so.

MR. MCCORMACK: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Can you tell us whether embassy and PRT movements in the red zone have been suspended in Iraq as a result of this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I will have to check on the status of our folks, whether or not they're moving around.

QUESTION: Or curtailed, even if not suspended.

QUESTION: Can I -- another topic?

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There was a comment by a Revolutionary Guard leader in Iran that American forces were within range of their new Shahab-3 rocket.

MR. MCCORMACK: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: I was wondering if you had any comment on that.

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, you know, our guys know how to protect themselves.

QUESTION: Also on Iran, can you tell us about the status of the effort to secure a new Security Council resolution? Has a draft resolution been circulated?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we're doing, James, is we're working on the elements of a resolution. I think we put down on paper some of those ideas and what a resolution might look like. And we're having ongoing discussions on that with the P5+1. Nick Burns is going to host a meeting of the P5+1 political directors here in Washington on Friday, and this is going to be Topic A. And we're going to talk about the elements of a resolution as well as the timing of a resolution, and Secretary Rice is going to have a meeting, I think, on September 28th up in New York with her P5+1 counterparts. We hope that these meetings and any intervening discussions will move the ball forward. The process hasn't moved as quickly as we would have liked. But that is par for the course with these Security Council resolutions. But at the end of the day, we believe that we will get a new Security Council resolution with new sanctions on Iran. And that is because Iran has failed to cooperate with the demands of the Security Council.

QUESTION: When you say put ideas onto paper, does that mean in draft resolution form or non-paper form, or what do you think?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, James, I'm not sure if they've written down a full-fledged resolution with preambular language and all the rest, but they've started to sketch it out and start to put in form some of the various paragraphs.

QUESTION: Is it the position of the U.S. Government that the results of the work plan that Iran and the IAEA have agreed to should be seen first before a resolution should be tabled?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, our view is that the Security Council action should move forward based on whether or not Iran has cooperated with the international community about what is going on in Iran right now today. Certainly, the IAEA agreement with Iran, if fulfilled -- and a big if -- gives the international community a bit of a look back at some of Iran's past activities. It doesn't deal at all with what's going on there today.

So while in part necessary to answer all the outstanding questions, it's hardly sufficient. So it's our view that that discussion about a Security Council resolution should move forward.

QUESTION: Now, from this very podium the other day, you said that the United States and Germany are on the exact same page about the process and how it should move. But in fact, it is the view of the German Government, as stated by their Foreign Ministry spokesman just a few days ago, and I've provided that transcript to you, that the results of that work plan should be seen before any Security Council action is advanced. So how then can you say that the two countries are on the same page?

MR. MCCORMACK: James, all I can do is convey to you the tone, tenor and substance of our private conversations with the German Government. And my comments reflect the tone, tenor and substance of those conversations.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: There's some reporting that the likelihood of a third sanctions resolution is not going to happen before the year is out?

MR. MCCORMACK: What's this?

QUESTION: No likelihood of a third sanctions resolution.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Look, I never -- ask Charlie -- I never, ever predict when we are going to pass a Security Council resolution. Invariably, it is later than we would have liked, but it does get done. And we think it's important that it gets done.

Matt.

QUESTION: Is everything on track for the meeting on Friday of the political directors, especially considering Nick is going to Turkey for the next two days?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. He's going to be --

QUESTION: Not jet-lagged, he'll be all set to go?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nick is an iron man. Nick is an iron man. He will be there and he will be in good form.

QUESTION: And everyone else, including the Germans, are going to be there?

MR. MCCORMACK: He'll be a force to be dealt with. Excuse me?

QUESTION: He'll be a force to be dealt with?

MR. MCCORMACK: He will be a force to be dealt with.

QUESTION: Well, I thought everyone on this committee agreed. Why does he need to be a force?

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, look, you know, it's no secret that we have had some tactical differences with, from time to time, with the Russians and the Chinese. And we are still working through some of those tactical differences with the Russians and Chinese. But look, overall, we have maintained the integrity of this process. The P5+1 sticking together in their demands that Iran comply with Security Council resolutions. And there is still agreement that a Security Council resolution with new sanctions is something that should be passed. Now, we're going to take a look at the timing of that. Some may want to move a little bit more slowly. We may want to move a bit more quickly, but we'll get there.

QUESTION: Would you describe the situation with the Germans as one of a tactical difference?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. No.

QUESTION: And everyone -- and just to make sure, everyone's going to be there on Friday.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: But there is an apparent different of view between the United States and Germany as to the timing by which this resolution should be --

MR. MCCORMACK: James, all I can do -- I can speak for us. I can speak based on my conversations with senior U.S. officials who are having conversations with their counterparts who assure them that we are on the same page.

QUESTION: Different subject.

MR. MCCORMACK: Dr. Rosen.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Have the Chinese provided a new date for the next plenary session of the six-party talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: We've talked to them about a notional date, perhaps as early as next week. They have to do the rounds with the other members of the six-party talks, but we'll be prepared to be there next week.

QUESTION: Did you get any further clarification as to why the first date was postponed?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: A quick one. I know you love talking about the internal affairs of Pakistan's politics, but President Musharraf's announcement to give up his uniform after the election --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: I mean, you know that you've been pressing -- or the Secretary of State has been pressing him to shed the uniform.

MR. MCCORMACK: Our view, that this is a matter for the Pakistanis to work out within the confines of their laws and constitution, that we expect that whatever the solution is it will comport with their laws and constitution.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you. This fellow here had one. Go ahead. You've been waiting patiently.

QUESTION: Will this decision help in transition to a democratic government? Will this decision help in democratic process in --

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I don't think we've heard anything from President Musharraf himself on this issue.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:13 p.m.)

DPB # 164