Military

QUESTION: I know you spoke this morning on Burma. But since you spoke, the Government has issued a stern warning to the Buddhists protesting there, stating that they're going to act, if restraint isn't shown. I was curious to see what your comments were on that and also what the U.S. can do or is trying to do to help.

MR. CASEY: Well, just to repeat a little bit of what I said this morning, first of all, the people of Burma deserve better than the regime they've got. This is, I believe, the seventh day that monks and other -- joined by other private citizens in Burma have been out in the streets. They have been asking, basically, for the kinds of rights that you would expect and hope any government would be able to afford them.

Certainly, they are trying to exercise their right to free speech, which should be guaranteed in any society. And I have seen the reports that basically threaten action on the part of the government unless these protests persist*. We certainly would call on the regime to exercise restraint in the face of these protests and also to release those that they've imprisoned for peacefully expressing their views over the course of the last few days.

We, of course, also would like to see the regime engage in a genuine dialogue with its own people and that would also include with the leaders of the pro-Democracy Movement in Burma, such as Aung San Suu Kyi and others, who have been imprisoned on and off or continuously for many years, simply for trying to help represent the people in that country. So we will continue to speak out on this issue. I expect that this will be the subject of discussion in some of the President's meetings, as well as the Secretary's. Certainly, as you know, we have made this an issue before the Security Council in the past. And I would think that we would also have an opportunity to address Burma and Burmese issues and particularly this latest crackdown in the context of UN General Assembly meeting this week.

QUESTION: But no specifics yet on what might happen this week?

MR. CASEY: I don't want to try and preclude some of the conversations that the Secretary or President might have, so I don't have any announcements for you to make. But rest assured, we will continue to be following this very closely and be looking to see what we can do to continue to press the regime to do the right thing, to engage with its people, and to certainly desist from any additional arrests or any harassment of these protestors or any other individuals in Burma who are simply seeking to express their views.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up.

MR. CASEY: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: As far as Burma is concerned, there was a largest-ever protest this time. But those protests have been going on for so many, many years and the leader is still in jail and democracy is still -- is not there under the military rule. U.S. and the international community have been speaking about this issue for many, many years, even at the UN. And recently the First Lady, Laura Bush, she made the issue and point as far as the problems and situations in Burma is concerned. So what is -- we meet at the UN and the international community year after year, including tomorrow -- starting tomorrow. Secretary and President will be there. But we're not reaching anywhere. I mean, those people are suffering and democracy -- and the freedom fighters, are suffering, but nowhere are they reaching. Why there is no result in a tiny country like Burma?

MR. CASEY: Well, this is a difficult situation, certainly. And yeah, you're correct in saying this has gone on for many years and it's gone on too long. The Burmese regime is very isolated and it continues to further isolate itself through these kinds of steps. As you know, the United States has imposed a number of bilateral sanctions on the regime to try and help force its -- change in its behavior. We have again made this an issue before the Security Council to raise international attention to it. We've also worked through regional organizations, like ASEAN, to try and encourage other countries in the region to push the Burmese regime, again, to do the right thing here. But it is slow going.

This is unfortunately one of those regimes that has been and continues to be extremely repressive and to deny its people the rights that one would expect any country to grant its citizens. So we're going to continue to work on this, Goyal, but you're right, it's something that's a situation that's gone on for far too long and we would certainly hope to see a change in the Burmese regime's behavior. I think some of their latest actions is certainly doing nothing to help further their own desires to engage more broadly with the international community. And I expect that you will see members of the international community respond accordingly to some of these steps.

QUESTION: You think this week in New York at the UN will be something different and something collectively as far as the situation in Burma has been going. Do we bring out something new against Burma or --

MR. CASEY: Well, I don't --

QUESTION: -- just talks?

MR. CASEY: At this point, I don't have any announcements to make for you in terms of any additional steps that might or might not be taken. Certainly, though, we will look to see what we can do to be able to continue to support democracy and democratic change in Burma. And again, part of that for us involves not only maintaining the existing sanctions that we have in place bilaterally, but trying to get other countries, particularly those of Burma's neighbors, focused on this and helping us to be able to move forward. It also means working with Mr. Gambari, the UN Special Adviser, and helping him in his mission to try and engage with the Burmese regime to have them make these kinds of changes we all want to see happen.

Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Mr. Casey, on Kosovo. Under Secretary Nicholas Burns stated specifically inter alia that Kosovo should become independent by December 10th. According to your expressed policy, the submission of Kosovo - (inaudible) unique. Apparently, Mr. Casey, Kosovo is unique because the State Department says so. If the U.S. will support or oppose self-determination on a case-by-case basis, and the supposed uniqueness of a situation and not through the principle of self-determination, are we to assume that by virtue or divine right the U.S. is the earth's court of last resort?

MR. CASEY: No, Mr. Lambros, but I would certainly hope that people would pay attention to the unique situation that Kosovo is in. And the basic mandate for the international community's involvement in Kosovo is, of course, UN Resolution 1244 and subsequent resolutions which both authorized the activities of the international community there and established that it would be the international community that would decide at a certain date what the future status of Kosovo would look like. And you've heard Secretary Burns and the Secretary and others state that we do view for that reason Kosovo as a unique circumstance, under a unique UN mandate, that isn't applicable to other parts of the world. And certainly I know that there are representatives of other countries out there that sometimes try and imply that independence for Kosovo might somehow have an impact on other conflicts throughout the region. To our mind that's simply not true.

And in the case of Kosovo it is a unique set of circumstances and, again, we are continuing with discussions through the contact group with both parties to try and come up with an equitable solution to this and one that's agreeable to all sides. But barring an agreement in the course of negotiations that are set forward, we have said correctly, as Under Secretary Burns and others have said, that we believe that the future for Kosovo then is independence, supervised at first, as called for and delineated along the outlines of the Ahtisaari plan.

QUESTION: A follow-up, Mr. Casey. As it was stated many, many times, Albania is supporting the independence of Kosovo only on the basis of geography not ethnicity. Since the Kosovars are Albanians, why the U.S. Government support in reality the creation of second Albania with different name in the heart of Europe, is there any specific reason?

MR. CASEY: Well, I would leave it to the Albanians to -- and the Kosovars to describe how they feel about their own identities.

But, Mr. Lambros, again, we all need to remember the history here of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia led to a number of terrible conflicts in the region, certainly in Bosnia as well as in Kosovo. What we want to see happen now is ultimately a settlement of that last aspect of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. And we think that's important not only for the Kosovars, but that's important for the citizens of Serbia and for the citizens of the wider region. All those countries in the region have stated that they wish to be full participants in a number of Euro-Atlantic institutions like the EU or NATO or others. We certainly would like to help them achieve those ambitions, but to do so there has to be a settlement and a lasting settlement to these conflicts that are left over from the 1990s. And I think for that reason we believe it's now time to move forward with these final status discussions and negotiations and ultimately to move forward with a settlement that basically operates under the basis of the Ahtisaari plan.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Charlie.

QUESTION: Can we talk about the grand series of events playing out in and around the United Nations. Is it a frustration for the United States that so many international leaders come to the United Nations and use their time in the spotlight to criticize directly U.S. policy?

MR. CASEY: Well, Charlie, I don't think that foreign officials, including foreign leaders, criticizing U.S. policy from the UN podium is anything new. And I think if you go back and look at the history of UN General Assemblies and speeches, you've certainly seen your share over the years of people both praising the United States for its actions as well as condemning it. But you know, this is part of our obligation as the host of the UN. We are welcoming to officials from foreign countries, including from countries that we don't have diplomatic relations with, like Iran.

And I think the one thing that's important, too, is to remind people that the United States is a place where people can freely express their views, even views that are something of an anathema to segments of our population or that are completely critical of U.S. government policy. That's a hallmark of free speech, it's a hallmark of democracy. It's a shame that for people like President Ahmadi-Nejad and a number of other leaders who will, we expect, be harshly critical of U.S. policy, that they are allowed to have rights in the United States that they deny their own people back home.

And I would hope that one of the lessons that people who are looking at the events in New York would take from this is that despite all the differences between our country and several others out there including Iran, that we still do permit people to speak their minds, that we do still allow for free speech, even for those whose views are extremely offensive to many Americans.

And again, it's a shame that the kind of thing that President Ahmadi-Nejad intends to do this afternoon at Columbia University is something that no Iranian could ever possibly do under his regime. The notion that an Iranian citizen would be able to go in a public forum with media present and harshly criticize his government and not expect to wind up in jail and not expect to bear consequences for it, is simply unheard of. So again, this is part of the tradition of the United Nations, it's part of our role as host and it's, more importantly, part of American values to allow people to be able to express their views even, again, when those views are certainly offensive to many.

QUESTION: Specifically, about Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad, there continue to be suspicions that he personally was involved in the '79 embassy takeover. Has the State Department established that and what is the resolution?

MR. CASEY: You know, I don't have anything more for you on that, Charlie, beyond what we've said in the past. I think certainly, though, we take very seriously the issue of those who not only participated in the '79 hostage crisis, but anyone who has engaged in those kinds of kidnapping or terrorist actions. And we will do everything that we can to bring those who have committed terrorist acts against the United States to justice.

The thing, I think, though, that is of equal concern for us with whatever past history President Ahmadi-Nejad or others might have is what they are currently doing. Now, unfortunately, I would hope that the world in listening to anything President Ahmadi-Nejad has to say either to private organizations or tomorrow at the UN General Assembly, would remember that this is an individual who is actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. This is an individual who actively supports terrorist groups, like Hezbollah; that actively supports Palestinian rejectionist groups like Hamas; that actively promotes the transition or at least permits the transfer of weapons that are attacking our troops and Iraqi troops and destabilizing the situation in Iraq. So this is the kind of individual that he is and these are the kinds of policies that his government is carrying out. And again, I'd certainly hope that whatever else he has to say, people will remember exactly what this Iranian regime stands for and exactly what kinds of policies it's pursuing.

QUESTION: I apologize. I'm unfamiliar with what you've said exactly about him in the past about his possible participation in the '79 embassy takeover.

MR. CASEY: Again, I'd refer you back to what we said at the time. I don't have the specific language of it. And I would like to just leave it where it is, since I -- and I know it was fairly carefully described at that particular moment.

QUESTION: Tom, on --

MR. CASEY: Yeah, Goyal. Sure.

QUESTION: -- UN and Iran, please, one? As far as Iranian President is concerned, Mr. Giuliani has said that U.S. should not wait any longer and has given so much time for him to build his nuclear weapons and the U.S. should go and attack his nuclear facilities once and for all. But (inaudible), as far as the UN is concerned, meetings in the UN this week. What do you think for the United States the most important agenda during this UN General Assembly meeting? So much is going on around the globe -- crisis and criticism of the U.S., even on U.S. soil at the United Nations in New York, many leaders. What do you think is the most important?

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, in terms of comments made by any of the many candidates, either Democratic or Republican running for office, I'll leave that to them. Certainly, as you know, President Bush has made clear that his policy is to deal with the challenges posed by Iran through diplomatic means. That includes working in the Security Council on another sanctions resolution. As you know, Under Secretary Burns hosted a meeting of the P-5+1 political directors on Friday to discuss elements of that resolution and those discussions will continue at the ministerial level later this week in New York. Certainly again, our forces in Iraq are taking actions against those networks inside Iraq that are feeding these deadly EFPs into the country and that are helping to destabilize the security situation there. But again, we are on a diplomatic track here, and certainly while the President will never take any options off the table, I think he's made clear that that is where our policy is for right now.

In terms of what -- you know, what other issues are on the agenda at the UN General Assembly, it's always pretty broad and wide, Goyal. Certainly for us, there are a number of important issues that are going there and you've seen some of them take place already. The UN high-level meeting that Secretary General Ban hosted over the weekend on Iraq that helped bring together members of the Compact and others to help support Prime Minister Maliki and his government as they develop forward, and also talked about issues in terms of how the UN intends to carry out its expanded mandate in Iraq. We've got an important meeting today on climate change that will be followed later this week on Thursday and Friday by a meeting of major economies here that Secretary Rice will host. That will be an opportunity for us to all look at what we can do to deal with the challenges of climate change and specifically what we can do in terms of thinking about a post-Kyoto framework agreement to make that agreement be one that involves not just the developed nations but the developing nations that are increasingly some of the major emitters of greenhouse gases.

We also, of course, have had the Quartet meeting and have looked at issues related to Middle Eastern peace and trying to use events at the General Assembly to further our objectives of having a meeting later this fall that will be a serious and substantive one and that will allow us, the United States, and broader members of the international community, the Arab neighbors of Israel and the Palestinian territories, to all work together to support a resolution of that conflict. So there are -- I've given you a very small sampling, but there's certainly a broad -- other set of items up there. And you will see both the Secretary and the President deal with most of them.

I certainly expect that they will also talk about dealing and confronting extremism, whether that's Usama bin Laden or others that follow him, as we move forward. This is certainly an issue that's not only important to us but to other members of the international community.

Let's go back here. I'll come back to you, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: The Iranian mission to the UN in New York came out with this statement saying that they're okay with the spouse of Bob Levinson going to look for him on Kish Island. Does the State Department think this is a good idea for her to go or --

MR. CASEY: Well, as you know, first of all, we continue to be very concerned about the case of Mr. Levinson. We do not have any solid information that would help us understand his welfare and whereabouts at this point. We are regularly in contact with his family members on this issue and we want to do everything we can to be able to help them. This is certainly a difficult time for them and they deserve answers and we think the Iranian Government ought to be in a position to help give them some.

In terms of her potential travel to Iran, we can't -- if you take a look at our Travel Warning -- really recommend to any American citizen that they travel there at this time. But certainly we're aware that she has been -- she has made this request and we've consulted with her about that. And again, we'll do whatever we can to be supportive of her.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Japan's LDP elected a new leader, Mr. Fukuda, who's likely to be the next Prime Minister. Do you have any comments?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think we'll let the Japanese Diet actually formally vote into office a new prime minister before we start congratulating people. But I think the main point is that we fully expect to have a good and positive working relationship under the new government, just as we've had not only with now former Prime Minister Abe but with many Japanese prime ministers throughout the years. The relationship between the United States and Japan is a strong one. Japan is perhaps our most important ally in Asia and certainly we look forward to continuing cooperation on the full range of issues with the new government as soon as it's established.

QUESTION: How does all the political turmoil that's taking place in Japan affect the relationship that the U.S. has with Japan?

MR. CASEY: Oh, I think that, you know, these are the kinds of things that we see in any country as they move forward with their internal electoral or political process, so I certainly don't think this is going to have a major impact on our relations. Obviously, governments change in democracies; they do all the time. And again, we're continuing to work cooperatively with the Japanese Government in the interim period, and I fully expect that we'll continue without missing a beat once the new government is established.

Yeah, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: On Greece. Do you know if Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is going to meet the Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis in New York City?

MR. CASEY: I do not, Mr. Lambros. It's not on her schedule for today, but certainly there may be an opportunity for them to see one another. I expect that they probably will at some point. But I just don't have anything scheduled for you right now.

QUESTION: One more question. What is the purpose of today's meeting between Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis and Under Secretary Nicholas Burns?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think you can talk to our folks up in New York to get a broader readout on it. But certainly as you know, Under Secretary Burns has a special affection for Greece and the Greek people having served as our Ambassador there a number of years ago. I'm sure he'll have an opportunity to talk to the Foreign Minister, congratulate her again on her party's victory in recent elections. Certainly, we expect they'll talk about a number of bilateral and regional issues, including continued U.S. support for relief efforts associated with the wildfires this summer. But in terms of the details of that, I'll leave it to Nick and the folks up in New York to give you a readout afterwards.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Why hasn't the State Department complained about Blackwater given repeated allegations of problems?

MR. CASEY: Have we complained to who?

QUESTION: To Blackwater, to anyone.

MR. CASEY: Well, let's just get back to where we are in terms of the issues involving personal security detail contractors in Iraq and where we cap that and then I'll get a more direct answer to your question.

First of all, just to remind everyone, we've established a joint commission with the Government of Iraq to look at not only the incident that occurred on September 16th involving one of our convoys, but also to look at the broader question of the activities of personal security details in Iraq to try and make sure that we deal with any issues of safety and security involving our convoys. Everybody understands that we need to be able to provide protection for our diplomats there, and at the same time we need to do so in a way that does not cause any problems or create any conflict with the legitimate Iraqi Government. That commission is going to be chaired by our Deputy Chief of Mission Ambassador Pat Butenis, with support from MNFI and others, by the Defense Minister on the Iraqi side and I think we'll have a good opportunity to engage in a full conversation of any of these questions.

The Secretary announced on Friday as well that we're also conducting a review here in the State Department headed by Pat Kennedy, who is one of our most experienced and senior diplomats. And Ambassador Kennedy will probably have the opportunity to call on a number of outside experts to look again at the broader issue of how we are using personal security details in Iraq as a whole.

In terms of the relationship between the Department and Blackwater as a contractor, as an agency, let me assure you what we've said before. There are rules of engagement that apply to the activities of all these personal security detail contractors in Iraq. They are the same rules that our U.S. Government, Diplomatic Security, federal law enforcement agents have to follow in terms of their operations there.

In any instances where there are allegations of misconduct or wrongdoing, those allegations are investigated and where appropriate, if it is found that anyone has not only violated basic rules of procedures, but in fact has violated any laws, we would refer that individual for prosecution to the Justice Department. So we expect our contractors, whether they are personal security detail individuals, whether they're related to other kinds of security issues, or whether they're working on reconstruction contracts, to follow the rules, follow the laws, both U.S. and Iraqi, and we certainly ensure oversight of their activities to make sure that in instances where misconduct occurs or where there are any questions about it that there's accountability for it.

Yeah, Goyal.

QUESTION: May I --

MR. CASEY: Same thing, right?

QUESTION: Yeah, the same thing. The other part of the question is why wouldn't the Embassy fire Blackwater and hire a new company.

MR. CASEY: Well, I think before we decide what to do and -- after the incident of September 16th, or what to do about the general issue and concerns that have come up related to personal security details, it might be a good idea to actually have an investigation completed of the incident, which is of course ongoing. And certainly again, there are issues that this particular incident has raised about the broader question of operation of these security details in Iraq. And those are issues that need to be worked out jointly between the United States Government and the Iraqi Government.

Because again, the purpose here in forming this commission is not only to make sure we fully understand what happened in this incident and deal with the consequences of it, but to deal with those broader questions and make sure that whether it's the Iraqi Government or the U.S. Embassy or anyone else out there more broadly, that everybody understands the rules of the game here, everybody's able to operate in a clear and consistent manner and that we are assured that we have the kinds of operations and programs in place that minimize any potential problems and make sure that there are ways of dealing with problems that occur in a way that's agreeable and understandable to everybody.

I would, though, just again point out that I think it's not appropriate at this point to be trying to draw conclusions from the results of an investigation that hasn't finished up. And certainly we will look very carefully at what the -- our own investigators find, what the Iraqi investigators find, and what the Joint Commission reviews and comes up with, by way of recommendations related to this specific incident.

Yeah, Goyal.

QUESTION: Can I have one last question about -- a broad question on South Asia, please? Except India, entire South Asia is in turmoil: terrorism in Afghanistan; protesting in Bangladesh; and protesting in Nepal; and also bombings in Sri Lanka; and now a lot of protests going on in Pakistan, as far as before this October 6th, General Musharraf has announced a presidential election there and; Benazir Bhutto is coming tomorrow on the Hill and she's returning on the 18th of October.

My question is here: Where do you stand as you are dealing with South Asia, all these problems, especially with this now Pakistan situation, because this could really ignite the entire region. The next two months may be critical as far as Pakistan's situation is concerned?

MR. CASEY: Well, gee, that is a broad question.

QUESTION: I'm so sorry.

MR. CASEY: Let me try and give you a broad answer. Thank you. First of all, we are committed to working with all the countries of the region to try and help achieve a more peaceful, more democratic future for those countries and for their people. I think that while you're correct, there are certainly problems and issues in many of the countries, it is certainly better to have the current fight underway with a freely elected democratic government in Afghanistan against the forces of extremism represented by the Taliban and al-Qaida, than it is to have the Taliban in charge in Kabul.

And certainly while there are growing pains associated with the development of democracy in a number of the other countries, it is nonetheless part of the landscape, too, that there is a push for democratic change in these countries, there is a push for free and fair elections. There is a push to see there be legitimate leaders legitimately elected and to follow on to the good work that's been done by many of those currently in power. And change is never easy and it's certainly never something that happens without struggle or without conflict. But as much as there are struggles and conflicts in the region, there is also a lot of momentum for positive change and that's what we're going to be encouraging and trying to help move forward, whether that's in Pakistan or Nepal or Sri Lanka or Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. Just very quick.

MR. CASEY: Just a quick one.

QUESTION: Thank you. Many people are asking, which I'm bringing their message to you, mostly actually Pakistanis and this reason, that if Benazir Bhutto, who is coming here tomorrow, if she's carrying any kind of message or any kind of a warning or any kind of advice from the U.S. or from the Secretary or -- as far as returning to Pakistan or the situation there?

MR. CASEY: Well, look, Goyal, this is an issue that, you know, she will decide for herself. In terms of the issues before Pakistan's political system with that, again, these are internal matters. These are things that Pakistanis need to work out. Our understanding, at least my best understanding is that there's no legal bar to her to return to the country. Certainly, we would expect that if she returns, any issues that were related to that would be dealt with in accordance with the rule of law and Pakistan's constitution. And that's what we want to see happen.

Again, with the other issues internally in Pakistan's political system, there are issues that are currently before the Supreme Court about the election. There are concerns, including ones that had been raised this morning by our embassy about the arrest of a number of political figures. Again, what is important here is that there is a political process underway, but that that political process needs to be conducted and dealt with in accordance with Pakistan's laws and constitutions. That's certainly what we want to see happen and that's certainly our message to any of the players on the political scene there.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Is she meeting with -- just on Pakistan, is she meeting with anyone from the State Department during her visit, that you know of?

MR. CASEY: Not that I'm aware of. I'll let you know if there's anything scheduled.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Also on Turkey. Mr. Casey, it was reported today extensively, in the Turkish press, that U.S. weapons are reaching the hands of Kurdish organization PKK inside northern Iraq against Turkey. Any comment?

MR. CASEY: Well, Mr. Lambros, we've seen some of these stories and allegations --

QUESTION: Today, yes.

MR. CASEY: -- before. As I understand it, to the extent that some of these allegations say that weapons had been transferred, that at one point were part of U.S. military efforts or in the hands of U.S. military officials, I know that the Department of Defense as well as we take that very seriously. I know the Department of Defense has conducted investigations into this. Certainly, the State Department, as our Inspector General said in a statement he made the other day, has cooperated with the U.S. Attorney's office related to charges against individuals or allegations against individuals of weapons smuggling. So this is an issue we treat very seriously. It's an issue that the U.S. Justice Department treats very seriously, and certainly if -- to the extent that there is any truth to these allegations, the intention would be to find the individuals responsible and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:08 p.m.)

DPB # 167