Military

12:53 p.m. EDT

MR. CASEY: Okay. Well, good afternoon, everybody. Happy Friday. I don't have anything to start you off with, so Matt.

QUESTION: Can you address the concerns of some people on the Hill that the State Department Passport Office is gouging the public with its $30 processing fee for passports?

MR. CASEY: Yeah, well, it's a bit of a complicated issue, Matt, but let me see if I can give you the simple answer I've gotten on it.

First of all, let me make clear that the State Department doesn't receive a penny of the execution fee. Most of that fee goes to the individual passport acceptance office where applications are received, so your local post office or local government offices getting the revenue from that. In the case of those applications that come in to one of our passport agencies, that money is transferred directly to the U.S. Treasury. So let me just make it clear, too, that anyone implying that the State Department is trying to seek some kind of advantage for itself in terms of these fees is just wrong on the facts.

I know that a lot of this is related to a GAO study that was done. And while that study does issue a number of criticisms, it does not, as I understand it, say that the Department was actually overcharging for these fees. What it did recommend is that we used a different and better methodology to substantiate the costs as we've determined them for this. And those costs are determined through a review by an outside contractor of what the actual cost is to us, the State Department, to be able to execute this. The GAO has recommended that future studies, including the one that is ongoing now, take account not only of our costs, the Department's costs, but also try and address the issue of what that cost is for some of these other outside organizations, the local post office and other facilities, just to make sure we have as accurate a depiction as possible of what the actual costs are.

Certainly, we always want to make sure that we are providing a good, high-quality service for the American people and that we're doing so in a cost-appropriate way. And again, in terms of the fees associated with a passport application, under the law, we have to and are required to charge what the costs are to us and to the U.S. Government as a whole of producing the document, adjudicating the case and moving forward on it. But we are comfortable that the fees that we are charging for this represent our best understanding of the actual cost of this.

QUESTION: Well, I don't think the allegation was that the State Department was somehow trying to profit from this itself, just that it was over -- that the amount being charged for this processing fee or -- what is it?

MR. CASEY: It's the -- the official word is the execution fee.

QUESTION: That the amount being charged for this execution fee is more than double the actual execution cost.

MR. CASEY: Well, again, Matt, the determination of that is done through a review by an outside contractor that looks at the actual costs to us. And again, if there are concerns that the cost to agencies that receive this that are not part of the State Department may be lower or different, then that's certainly something we'll take a look at. And again, there's a review ongoing.

But the execution fee as determined is represented based on an outside review of what our actual costs are, and so we're comfortable that that represents our actual cost.

QUESTION: Even though these investigators seem to have found that $13 -- I think it's 13 and $11 and some change on each -- is the actual execution cost.

MR. CASEY: Well, I don't think they found that that's what it costs a U.S. Passport Agency to receive it. And again, our analysis of this is based on what it costs State Department passport agencies to provide this service. And again, I understand that there are some contentions that some of the local government organizations, post offices and others that receive them, have lower or different costs for that. And that's certainly something we'll take a look at. And we agree with the GAO's recommendation that we use more rigorous methodology in making this determination.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CASEY: But again, I think we are comfortable that we've done a good analysis of our costs on this and that's reflected in the fees. And again, that's in compliance with the law.

QUESTION: So the very short answer to the question is no, you are not gouging the American public?

MR. CASEY: (Laughter.) The very short answer is no, we are not trying to gouge the American public, Matt. Thank you.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CASEY: It's always important to get clarity. This is what wire writers are there for. Sorry, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Param.

QUESTION: Any indication of how the meeting in London went with the P-5+1?

MR. CASEY: Funny you should ask that. And I apologize for being a little late getting down here with you, but I did actually get a chance right before I came down here to talk to Under Secretary Nick Burns, who has just concluded several hours of meetings in London with his P-5+1 counterparts.

And they did have a good discussion on the subject of a next resolution. There was a discussion of what elements should go in that, but there was no resolution to it. There was no resolution of the resolution question. There was no decision reached on text of a new resolution. They’ve agreed to meet again, probably in about two weeks, again, in Europe. We'll let you know the location and timing for that as soon as possible.

I think what Nick has told me, he stressed in the meeting as our main points, is that we want to see things move more quickly. We think that the diplomacy on this issue needs to be made stronger and more effective. And we frankly think that unless there is a very definitive and very positive result in the reports that we get from Mr. Solana and Mr. ElBaradei, then we really need to move forward expeditiously with a new resolution.

Nick did note to me that he told a couple of your colleagues in London that he was disappointed in China and in Russia as well and that we are looking for them in the coming weeks to make more effort to be able to allow us all to move forward with what we have agreed to. Now, that doesn't mean that there is a change in the basic consensus among the P-5+1. Everyone has agreed that we need to stay together and that we need to follow the terms that were agreed to by ministers some time ago and that have set us on the course for producing the several resolutions that have already occurred on this subject.

But again, we think that, at this point, we really need to be making more progress towards that resolution and that we need to make this diplomacy much more rigorous. And we're hoping to see a -- more effort taken on the part of particularly the Chinese and the Russians as well.

QUESTION: Does Nick's disappointment on Russia and China, did it stem from any initial objections they made at the meeting?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think, again, we've been in these discussions for some time. And while the Russians and Chinese remain firm in their agreement with the rest of the P-5+1 about the basic outlines of our policy and on the specifics of our policy, that we're following a two-track approach, that in the absence of Iranian cooperation we need to move forward with an additional sanctions resolution, they do not seem to have, as I understand it, quite the sense of urgency that we and the other members do about moving forward. And we believe it's appropriate at this point for us to really again strengthen the diplomatic efforts and to really begin to work in a little bit more earnestness on producing a resolution.

QUESTION: Tom, a last one?

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: When you say that they don't seem to have a -- quite a sense of urgency, it was agreed in New York that they wait for the November report and then come up with some kind of agreement.

MR. CASEY: Yeah, and certainly we understand that. I'm not trying to say that they are -- they have broken with the agreements; quite the contrary. But I do think that there's a lot of work that can be done, so that when you have those reports issued from Mr. ElBaradei, when we have a reaction as well from Mr. Solana as a result of his conversations, that you're in a position to move forward in an expeditious manner.

And we certainly want to make sure that all the preparations are made so that that can happen because I don't think anyone right now is out there anticipating that Iraq is -- Iraq, excuse me -- that Iran is going to become in compliance with all its international obligations, including, of course, the fundamental one that's included in the Security Council resolutions to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

QUESTION: Is there any date set for the next meeting between Mr. Solana and the new Iranian chief nuclear negotiator?

MR. CASEY: You know, I don't know if there's been a date set for that. Obviously, he had a meeting with him as well as with his predecessor, since that transition had just occurred. I know there were discussions about additional conversations, but I don't actually know, Arshad, whether they've agreed yet on a date for those conversations to take place.

QUESTION: I asked partly because I wondered if you have any concerns that that may slide. The Iranians sometimes agree to show up and then don't show up.

MR. CASEY: Well, you know, look, I think we'll have to see how that goes. I think we have confidence that Mr. Solana can determine for himself whether there are legitimate reasons why a meeting might not be able to move forward or whether it's simply some kind of delaying tactic.

Let me also just note, too, as long we are on that subject, people had asked me yesterday about Nick's meetings in Vienna with Director General ElBaradei as well as with the OSCE. And if you'll indulge me, let me just give you a quick readout on those so that my colleagues in the Press Office won't have to do it for you later.

QUESTION: Cordial and -- (laughter).

MR. CASEY: Well, anyway. Cordial, cordial. Hmm, I'll have to think about that one.

Anyway, Nick did meet yesterday with IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and they did have a good discussion of particularly the Iranian issue. One of the things that I think was clear coming out of that is that both the Director General and Nick agreed that it was important that Iran comply with all the requirements put in front of it. That certainly includes the agreements that it's made with the IAEA to answer some of those important questions about their past activities. But it also includes very clearly to him as well as to Nick the obligations that Iran has under the Security Council resolutions to comply fully with those requirements, including the requirement that it suspend uranium enrichment and join in with the P-5+1 in negotiations on this subject.

And before I move back to that one, let me also note that while he was there he did have meetings at the OSCE. He met with Christian Strohal, the Chairman of the OSCE's election monitoring body, ODIHR. And he got a good --

QUESTION: What's that?

MR. CASEY: O-D-I-H-R, ODIHR. And did get a full brief from them on their activities. And specifically, they talked a bit about the efforts that the OSCE is undertaking in terms of election monitoring in Russia. And we -- Nick again expressed his support and our support for the OSCE's efforts and the organization's efforts in election monitoring generally, and specifically in the case of Russia, and noted again what you heard the Secretary and others say, our disappointment that Russia has taken steps to limit the ability of election monitors to do their valuable work in that country. And we certainly hope that they'll reconsider that position.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Going back to the London meeting just for a second.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did Under Secretary Burns get the sense from anyone, particularly the Russians or the Chinese, that the decision -- God, was it last week -- that the IRGC, the al-Qods Force designations by the United States had hurt the international effort?

MR. CASEY: No, not -- certainly not in anything that he conveyed to me. Again, the basic view, I think, that he came away with from this is that while everyone is still on the same page and very much intent on moving forward, the speed with which the Chinese and Russians wish to do so is not as fast as we'd like.

QUESTION: But as far as you know -- as far as you know, they didn't say, hey, what you guys did does not really --

MR. CASEY: No, and in terms of the readout I got, Matt, he didn't even tell me that the subject came up. I'm sure it probably did in the course of the three hours they met, but it certainly wasn't anything that, as I understand it, was objected to or represented any kind of obstacle to the conversation.

Yeah, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: On FYROM. Mr. Casey, yesterday in New York City, the UN mediator Matthew Nimitz held a (inaudible) meeting with representative of Greece and Skopje. As expected, the Skopje participant showed his total disregard for the process and the effort, leaving (inaudible) Balkan issue unresolved.

In light of this event, Mr. Casey, since you agreed that it was a mistake by the U.S. Government to pretty much recognize Skopje on November 4th, 2004, with the so-called name, "Republic of Macedonia," and in so doing alienate an ally, namely Greece, who fought on U.S. side in every major war.

MR. CASEY: Well, Mr. Lambros, first of all, I think when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell came down here and talked to you and your colleagues about the decision to recognize Macedonia by its constitutional name, we laid out our reasoning behind it. Certainly, we stand by that position and we continue to do so.

Of course, at the same time, we believe it's very important for Greece and Macedonia to resolve the outstanding issue between them of the naming of the country. We understand that this is an issue that raises some emotions on both sides. And certainly, we want to encourage both parties to continue to work through the UN to come up with a mutually acceptable agreement on that.

QUESTION: And there is a movement in Skopje for maximum autonomy by its Albanian population living in its western part. Has the U.S. formulated a position on that issue yet?

MR. CASEY: Mr. Lambros, as you know, the United States is part of NATO as well as the European Union and others. We're instrumental in working out the arrangements and political agreements that became known as the Lake Ohrid Accords. We continue to support full implementation of those agreements and the resolution of political differences within the country according to those terms.

QUESTION: And the last one is --

MR. CASEY: The last one.

QUESTION: Anything to say about the today's meeting here at the State Department between DAS Matthew Bryza and the Ambassador of FYROM Nikola Dimitrov, who's a representative of the talks in the UN on the name issue?

MR. CASEY: I'm sure you could talk to some of Matt or some of his colleagues in the European bureau to get a readout on it. It's not a meeting I was aware of, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Tom, I have a follow-up -- (inaudible) Fox News -- on the Iraq having to get the diplomats over there. And I was wondering, Duncan Hunter, Congressman Duncan Hunter, put out a proposal yesterday or today saying that if these diplomats don't want to go over there, we should send wounded veterans from Iraq. And I'm wondering what your reaction is to that. Have you heard about this and would the State Department consider it?

MR. CASEY: Well, I've heard about it because one of your colleagues raised it with Sean yesterday. But just let me sort of repeat a little bit of what he said. First of all, let me just remind you that since 2003, we've had over 1,500 State Department employees serve in Iraq. We do have now an increased number of positions there, but we have well over 200 people that have volunteered for service again beginning this summer. And we've had since Friday, when our system for direct assigning people or potentially direct assigning people to Baghdad has come out, we've had 15 more people stand up and volunteer for those 48 remaining positions that are left to be filled.

So the Department has stood up in the past and it will continue to stand up in the future, fill these very important jobs. That's part of our vital mission to Iraq and part of our role in helping the Iraqi people achieve the kind of country that they want to have.

I think most of you now have seen too the cable that was sent out by the Secretary talking about this issue and reiterating her desire not only to see these positions filled but to do everything that the Department can to make sure that we take care of our people both before, during and after their assignments there. So I have absolute confidence that the Foreign Service will step up to this challenge, and we frankly hope that we will be in a position at the end of this where we won't actually have had to direct assign people because enough volunteers will come forward.

QUESTION: Well, I actually have one more question --

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- on the security issue. How will the brouhaha over Blackwater private security contractors affect, or is it affecting, the willingness and desire for these diplomats -- the Foreign Service officers to stand up and go there? I mean, you know, what we hear at the hearings up on the Hill is that Blackwater hasn't lost anyone in their protection since they've been over in Iraq, and I'm just wondering if the State Department has to cut ties or amend the relationship, or however you want to say. Does that -- you know, is that a concern that State Department officials, Foreign Service folks, are they having? Do you hear that at all?

MR. CASEY: I certainly haven't heard that from anyone, but just let me make clear that the Department, Ambassador Crocker, everyone associated with our Embassy and our diplomatic facilities in Iraq, is dedicated to ensuring the highest level of protection for our officials. And regardless of what happens with the investigation into the incident on September 16th, that's not going to change. And you know, every ambassador is tasked with ensuring the safety and security of everybody under his authority, and I can promise you that Ryan Crocker as well as the Secretary as well as everyone else associated with this is going to make sure that our people continue to have the protection they need and the highest level of protection possible to be able to carry out what we all acknowledge is a very difficult and often a dangerous mission in Iraq.

Let's go back here. Yep, let's go to you and then we'll move over.

QUESTION: Yesterday, former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar told al-Arabiya that, referring to 9/11, that if U.S. security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, we would have avoided what happened. I'm wondering if you have any comment on that.

MR. CASEY: Well, I've seen press reports about it. I'm not sure what he has actually said on it. But certainly, I think if you look at the work that's been done by the 9/11 Commission as well as any number of other bodies there, you have a pretty clear picture of what the situation was before 9/11 and what was done by the U.S. Government in terms of trying to understand the threat and deal with it under those circumstances.

I'd certainly hope -- I'm not sure what he's referring to -- but of course, I would hope that if Prince Bandar or anyone else who represented a friendly government to the United States had information that they thought would have prevented a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, that they would have certainly come forward and discussed that with us.

We have longstanding cooperation with Saudi Arabia on counterterrorism issues as well as on a variety of other matters as well. And certainly, I don't -- can't really give you an explanation for what his comments mean. I think though, again, if he has any information that hasn't come to light as a result of the 9/11 Commission or any of the other studies that have been done on this, that it would useful for him to explain it.

Charlie.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) at the same time, though, as King Abdullah telling the British Government that they could have worked together to prevent the 2005 attacks there. What do you think is going on with the Saudis taking this dual approach?

MR. CASEY: I don't know if it's -- I've seen reports, again, of the comments that the King made and I'll refer you to the Saudi and British Government on that. In terms of Prince Bandar's comments, again, I'm not sure what he's referring to. But you know, we certainly have had and hope to continue to have good cooperation with the Saudis on a wide range of issues, including counterterrorism, because it's not only an issue for the United States. It's obviously clearly a threat and a problem in Saudi Arabia. I think they have as much interest as we do in cooperation on it.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to Mexico? Mexico has offered help to you during times of natural disaster such as during Katrina and lately in California during the fires. I'm wondering if the U.S. has offered any assistance to Mexico now because of this heavy flooding in Tabasco in the Gulf of Mexico.

MR. CASEY: I never got anything from AID on that. Someone asked that this morning. We owe you an answer on that. I know there is assistance that's being offered. I don't have the latest on that, but we'll get something posted for you this afternoon.

QUESTION: I have another one.

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Several officials from this building have been, you know, stressing the importance of this new initiative with Mexico, the Merida initiative. However, during the first hearing in Congress, many lawmakers complained about the lack of consultation. So I'm wondering if there's any concern here in this building about that this lack of consultation might actually hamper the chances of this initiative to pass in Congress.

MR. CASEY: Well, certainly, obviously we want to make sure that we work well with Congress on this. And if there are questions that members have, we want to be able to address them. I do know that there was quite an extensive amount of consultation done with the relevant committees before this decision was reached and announced. And certainly, though, we'll make sure that we work with Congress to continue to do so, because we believe that this is an initiative that's in the best interest of both our countries and will help us deal with some of the common problems we share in the border region.

QUESTION: Can you give us any readout about the reaction in Congress of this meeting with Mr. Shannon with the persons there?

MR. CASEY: I haven't talked to Tom about it. So no, I really don't have anything for you beyond what you may have heard from the members themselves.

Yeah, Joel.

QUESTION: Tom, the Pakistanis have dropped the other shoe and have done an air strike up in northwestern Pakistan on the Taliban and al-Qaida locations. And of course, the militants there say they're more of a threat now than ever before, not just to Musharraf, but also to the entire Pakistani Government. The recent talks with Secretary Rice and with Secretary Gates possibly outline this attack. Is this your understanding and is this what you may have expected?

MR. CASEY: I'm not familiar with the reports you're referring to. Certainly, the subject of Pakistan, as far as I know, at least in terms of any operational issues, is not something I would expect either of the two secretaries to have discussed during their lunch.

In terms of the threat that militants or extremists pose to Pakistan, well, again, I think we've talked about this many times before. But Pakistan's confronted with a number of extremists -- some associated with the Taliban, some associated with al-Qaida -- who are intent on destabilizing the country and oppose the efforts that Pakistanis themselves are making to expand their own democratic system and to make the kind of positive changes that most Pakistanis want to see.

Certainly, it's no surprise to us, given the history of extremist action in Pakistan, that they would respond with violence to anything that they do not like or anything that they oppose. We are going to continue to work with the Government of Pakistan to help them respond to this challenge and to help us deal with the common threat that these groups pose.

Yeah, Mr. Lambros. You want to get one more in?

QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Casey, anything to say about Secretary Rice visiting Turkey and if the Cyprus issue was on her agenda?

MR. CASEY: Mr. Lambros, I'm not aware. I haven't gotten a readout on those discussions. But since the Secretary is in Turkey and she's given at least one press event there and the party's there, I'd refer you to them and to her comments on that.

QUESTION: And one more?

MR. CASEY: Okay.

QUESTION: It was reported that Turkey --

MR. CASEY: This is the fourth "one more," I think. Right?

QUESTION: One more. It was reported that Turkey has started to impose economic sanctions on Iraqi Kurdistan by stopping flights between Istanbul and the Kurdish capital, Irbil as of today. The Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani said that Turkey had closed its airspace "not only to Kurdistan but also to Baghdad." Any comment?

MR. CASEY: Mr. Lambros, I've seen some of those reports. I'm sure all those kinds of issues will be things that will be discussed not only in the bilateral meetings between the Secretary and her counterparts, but between Iraqi officials, Turkish officials and others at the neighbors meeting. And again, I'd leave it to them to comment on it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the tensions that -- the surge in tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea in recent news?

MR. CASEY: No, I don't, Matt. But I -- we can try and get you something.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:22 p.m.)

# # #