World Video | Defence | Foreign Affairs | Natural Events | Trade | NZ in World News | NZ National News Video | NZ Regional News | Search


State Dept. Daily Press Briefing May 24, 2006

State Dept. Daily Press Briefing May 24, 2006

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
May 24, 2006


Rumors Surrounding Possible Departure of Deputy Secretary Zoellick
/ Full Schedule of Work at State Department

Building International Consensus / Possible Consequences /
Pressure of International Community / Interest in Possible
Bilateral Discussions / Building within P-5 and EU Framework /
Work in other Areas / Multilateral Approach / Exchange of
Information / Heeding Call of International Community / Need to
Change Behavior / Progress on "Package" as Result of Recent P-5+1
Meeting / More Work through Capitals / UN Security Council Track
Still Active / P5+1 Track / Country Tracks
Letter from Iranian President / Substance of Letter
Secretary Rice's Meeting with ElBaradei / IAEA

Assistant Secretary Welch Expected Trip to the Region / Talks with
Israelis and Palestinians / Possible Stops in the Gulf Region

Accident over the Aegean between Turkish and Greek Aircraft /
Working Diplomatically throughout Aegean Region

US Embassy Warden Message Regarding Threat against American
Facilities in Tokyo / Taking Steps Based on Threats


12:33 p.m. EDT

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. How's it going? Everybody okay?


MR. MCCORMACK: Doing all right? Good. All right. I don't have any statements, so I'm happy to get right into your questions.

QUESTION: Well, let's waste a question by asking you -- (laughter) -- if there's any change in Mr. Zoellick's status here?

MR. MCCORMACK: Barry, excuse me?

QUESTION: Bob Zoellick, is he staying on do you know?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Barry, there's a lot of rumors flying around in Washington and I'm not going to play into the rumor game. But what I can tell you is that I was with him in the morning meetings. He's has a long "to do" list. He's working on -- just got back from working on Abuja. He just got back from some meetings in the Middle East, so he's got a full schedule. He's working with the Secretary on that schedule.

QUESTION: How long is his "to do" list?

MR. MCCORMACK: What's that?

QUESTION: How long is his "to do" list?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, Deputy Secretary Zoellick. It is quite extensive.

QUESTION: Is it like three year's worth? (Laughter.)

But officially, just a reaction to the reports about that he's leaving?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I don't talk about personnel issues. He's hard at working here today and working on behalf of the President and the Secretary.

QUESTION: If a figure, such as Mr. Zoellick, were to depart would there be any danger in maintaining the ability to maintain the Sudan momentum and the China project?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's a clever way of getting into Barry and Peter's question and I'll give you the same answer.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: Nice, Barry. Okay, what else you got?

QUESTION: What was your answer?

MR. MCCORMACK: I referred him back to my previous answers to your question and Peter's question.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject, unless anybody wants to pursue this? Iran.


QUESTION: We had actually a briefing out of the White House, Tony Snow's briefing, and he was saying that the United States would not engage in direct talks with Iran as long as Iran did not suspend uranium enrichment. Now does this mean that if Iran does suspend uranium enrichment that you would engage in direct talks with Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right now you have Nick Burns who's in London meeting with the P-5+1 political directors. They're working on a comprehensive package. And this comprehensive package, it outlines incentives and disincentives for the Iranian regime. We hope -- we would hope that they make a choice once this package is presented to them. We would hope that they make the choice to choose the pathway of dialogue, to choose the pathway of coming back into the mainstream of international behavior with regard to their nuclear program. We would also like to see them actually make the hard decisions about coming back into the mainstream with respect to their treatment of their own population on human rights, as well as in terms of terrorism. They are central bankers of terrorism. But right now, we're dealing very specifically in the P-5+1 mechanism with the nuclear issue.

I would expect that coming out of these P-5+1 meetings that they'll make some progress, probably won't finish up all the work on the package, that they're going to be coming back to capitals to take a look at where they are, maybe have some follow-up meetings in the next week or two. But we'll wait to see what Under Secretary Burns and his colleagues accomplish.

Now, thus far, what the international community has demanded of Iran is that they come back into compliance with their NPT obligations and that they suspend their enrichment activities. That's what the IAEA has asked them to do. That's what the Security Council has asked them to do in the form of a presidential statement. And so this is what the world is asking Iran to do. So that's where we stand right now in terms of the question of whether or not they're going to suspend their enrichment activities. They haven't made that choice. They haven't made -- as a matter of fact, they've gone off in the other direction. They have continued their enrichment activities. They have continued working on the centrifuge cascades and that's something that the IAEA is watching very closely.

QUESTION: Just, again, to ask my question, was specifically what came out of the White House seemed to me at least unless I'm wrong, some sort of little new nuance, the idea being that if they do suspend uranium enrichment, then you would be willing to entertain the idea of direct talks with them which is not something that I've heard previously from this Administration. I mean, am I wrong or is it --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure I see the nuance in that. What the world has asked them to do is to suspend their uranium enrichment activities and that right now where we are is we are in support of the EU-3 and their process. We're in support of the P-5+1 process. We're participating in those things directly. But thus far, that's not the situation where we find ourselves, Peter. I think that where we find ourselves now is putting together this package. And once that package is presented to the Iranians, see if they make a choice. See if they make a choice to come back into the mainstream of international behavior.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I make one more try at it?


QUESTION: With your indulgence. If they do suspend uranium enrichment -- they have been asking for talks on a wide range of issues there. If they do suspend uranium enrichment, is the United States then willing to sit down and have direct talks with Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: Peter, this -- over the course of the years, this issue of bilateral talks with the Iranians has come up. I think and you know, Barry and George can correct me if I'm wrong, but if you go back over the years here, you could probably pick out several episodes where there have been these little spikes of interest in bilateral discussions between the U.S. and Iran on a variety of different topics.

Look, this is an issue that is between Iran and the rest of the world. I know that there are some that would like to make this an issue between Iran and the United States -- that might play into the hands of some of those unelected few who run Iran. But, frankly, it's an issue that is between Iran and the rest of the world.

What we are focused on is building that international consensus that, frankly, is probably a little uncomfortable for the Iranians right now. That might be one of the reasons why you see a little bit of these -- spike in some of the various channels around the world where the Iranians might be putting out, oh, well, they might be interested in bilateral discussions with the United States. But I think it is probably because what you see is that the Iranians are feeling some of the pressure. They're feeling some of the pressure of the international community coming together and saying, come back into the mainstream of international behavior, accepted international behavior. And if you don't, there are going to be consequences to that. And that's where we are right now, working with the international community.

QUESTION: So they're showing, even though it's happened before, you're verifying that they're showing -- you call it a "spike of interest" -- they're showing interest in discussions with the United States.

MR. MCCORMACK: What we've seen --

QUESTION: You have reasons --

MR. MCCORMACK: -- what we've seen, Barry, is we have -- I've seen the news reports about various, you know, various feelers out there with regard to bilateral talks with the United States. And I think, frankly, it's probably just an effort to change the subject because they're feeling the pressure in the international community.

QUESTION: Well, both can co-exist. I mean there can be an interest in discussion and there could be a motive in showing an interest in discussion.

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, Barry, you know, again our focus is on the international approach. Our focus is on building the international consensus.

QUESTION: We're trying to verify the notion that there's a new -- not brand new, it's happened before -- a new interest on the part of Iran to talk to the United States. And I think you're saying we know their motives, it's happened before, but I think you're saying there is a spike of interest.

MR. MCCORMACK: I think the way I would characterize it, Barry, is as I have, that over the course of the years, you have seen at various points in time the Iranians interested in bilateral discussions with the United States and I think that for each of those various times, there probably are a unique set of circumstances which cause those to arrive.

I think what you're seeing right now is that the Iranians are feeling the pressure of the international community. And sure, I think that there are plenty of news reports out there about the fact that the Iranians may be interested in bilateral discussions. But as I said, our approach here, Barry, is to work to build the international consensus, to work within the framework of the P-5+1, the EU-3 and also separately to work with individual states and likeminded states on various other measures, various other financial measures, various other measures that relate to counter-proliferation, that would address some of Iran's behavior on the nuclear front and that would make it more difficult for them to develop the know-how, to obtain the technologies that they can put into a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program.

QUESTION: In light of (inaudible), is it still the U.S. position that there's no need or cause or reason to negotiate with them -- for the U.S. to negotiate with then?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, Barry, you know, there are plenty of people who want to make this a U.S.-Iran bilateral issue. Our approach and we think it is the right approach as the approach supported by our partners in the international community is to make this an international multilateral approach.

QUESTION: You seem to suggest you're aware of Iran's interest only through news reports and The Post said that they are trying every which way to get Washington's attention on this, presumably through diplomatic channels. Are you aware of Iran's interest through diplomatic channels?

MR. MCCORMACK: There are a lot of ways for the United States and Iran to exchange information. We all know about those channels. I think from time to time, George, you also hear through ad hoc channels, interest in this kind of bilateral discussion. And sure, yeah, we have seen those over the recent period of time going back over the past year, absolutely.

QUESTION: Sean, on the letter that Ahmadi-Nejad --

QUESTION: Could you just follow-up on what you just said, please? You have seen signs from the Iranians in this most recent period through diplomatic channels. That's what you just said. Could you give --

MR. MCCORMACK: Through bilateral contact.

QUESTION: Right. Could you give us a little bit more detail on that?


QUESTION: Why not?

MR. MCCORMACK: Through diplomatic channels. We don't talk about our contacts with diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: Sure, sometimes you talk about diplomatic -- sure, you do.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll decide --

QUESTION: So could you -- you can confirm that you have seen recently Iran has specifically asked the U.S. for bilateral talk on Iran --

MR. MCCORMACK: No. There's -- no, I wouldn't put it that way. I think that what you can say is that there have been various individuals representing some interest on the part of bilateral discussions and again, our approach is a multilateral approach.

QUESTION: On the letter that was written on May 8th by the President of Iran, is there any thought being given -- I know the Secretary and the President dismissed it pretty quickly. But is there any thought being given to responding to that letter at all? I know some intelligence analysts in the paper this morning were quoted as saying maybe it makes sense to reply.

MR. MCCORMACK: The President has spoken to that. Look, we don't think that -- if you look through the letter, I didn't bring a copy of it with me today, but if you look through the letter, I don't think that there is much there to respond to. I remember, you know, I was reading through it and other people were reading through it, and you kept going through this -- I think it was 17 pages, as it was translated into English, and there were various harangues about 9/11, the behavior of the United States and how we're headed off in the wrong direction. And various other things, attacks on President Bush and you kept waiting for, well, where's the "and" or where's the "but," in terms of an offer or some sort of substantive offer. And you got to the end of the letter and you never got to it. So I don't think that there's -- the President's talked about this. The Secretary has talked about this. I don't think there's a lot there to which one might respond.

QUESTION: But the letter itself is an overture of some sort, obviously.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, it took them 26 years to write a letter and you would expect that if it took them that long there might be something else in it. It wasn't there.

QUESTION: When these individuals -- I just wanted to follow-up on my question. When you said there have been various individuals that have been sent to -- have conveyed the message, has the U.S. conveyed a message back?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: You have not answered Iran's request through these various means?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look, our response to Iran is to say come to back into the mainstream of international behavior, heed the call of the international community. It is, again, I keep repeating, this bears repeating, there are many who want to make this a U.S.-Iran issue. It's not a U.S.-Iran issue. It's the concerns of the international community, increasingly united international community, and Iran. So what Iran needs to do is Iran needs to come back, change their behavior, consider the pressure that they're under, and I think that you see a lot of these news reports being generated as a result of the fact that Iran now finds itself under considerable international pressure. And if it doesn't change its behavior, then it's going to find itself under more and more international pressure.

QUESTION: So your response is simply to repeat the public -- the public suggestions you've given Iran in the past, not to respond directly to these overtures.

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we are following -- our response is to follow the approach that we have been following, working with the EU-3 and working with the P-5+1.


QUESTION: About ten minutes ago, I think you said from the Nick Burns talks that you didn't expect them to finish their work and they'd have to go back to capitals. Can you give us a -- I assume you've had some kind of briefing or debriefing. Can you give us --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, nothing in depth. I just had a brief conversation with the Secretary who had talked to Nick, so it's indirect -- an indirect briefing. And I think that right now the discussions are still ongoing, but I would expect that there are still issues that they want to come back to capitals with; that there has been progress on pulling together the package -- not done, not done yet. And I would expect that there will probably be follow-up meetings to the London meeting.


QUESTION: Are you prepared to talk about your response to the package yet?

MR. MCCORMACK: Our -- the various elements of it?

QUESTION: Yeah, your initial impressions of the package as it was presented to you so far.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I think I'm going to leave that to the private conversations we're having among the P-5+1.

QUESTION: I understand that the Italians are also in London along with the Japanese and the Canadians as well. Can you give us a sense of were they involved with just bilateral talks with the U.S., was it with all of the EU-3, were they involved with the group talks on Wednesday, and who invited them?

MR. MCCORMACK: They were there in London. I don't know if they're still there or not. Under Secretary Burns met with his counterparts, his Japanese counterpart separately, met with his Canadian counterpart separately, and also very briefly his Italian counterpart. That was last night. He also yesterday had meetings with the EU-3. I suspect that the Japanese, Canadians and the Italians also had other bilateral meetings. You'll have to check with them to find out exactly what meetings they had.

I think Nick found it very useful to meet with them in London. I don't know who invited them. I suspect it was the UK, but I don't know that as a fact. Both Japan and Italy have very significant trading relationships with Iran. So again, talking about the other track approach in terms of financial measures, proliferation, counter-proliferation measures, those are very important and useful conversations to have, to have the Japanese think about what measures they might take, talk to the Italians about what measures they might take as well, and the Canadians have also expressed a strong interest in what is going on with Iran and their behavior on the nuclear issue. So Under Secretary Burns thought it was very useful to meet with his counterpart from Canada as well.

QUESTION: Have there been --

QUESTION: Nick didn't have any meetings with the Russians or the Chinese, the two delegations that are --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, that's part of the P-5+1.

QUESTION: I know, but that's separately, a separate meeting.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, that's right. He did not have bilateral meetings with them.

QUESTION: Have the Russians responded to these meetings with the Italians or anything like that? Have they said anything about it?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't checked with Nick, but I haven't heard -- I haven't seen anything in public and I haven't picked up anything.


QUESTION: Could I just follow up with something you said earlier? You said something about they're going to have to go back to capitals. Can you give us a sense of exactly what that means? Is there sort of a broad agreement on a package there that they have to check back with capitals, or should we say that there's really been no agreement at this meeting at all?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think there's been progress. And again, let's wait to see exactly where Nick and his counterparts come out. But what I have heard is that there has been great progress. I, at this point, don't think that there's been complete closure on the package, therefore necessitating going back to capitals to look at a couple of issues, and I expect that there would probably be follow-on meetings to London after people in capitals have a chance to look at the package and look at the various issues that are outstanding.

QUESTION: But there is a package that's sort of a complete package?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's coming into form. Yes, it is coming into form. I don't think you can say at this point that you have closure on every single issue, but it is coming into form both on the incentive side and the disincentive side.

QUESTION: Sean, can you preview a little bit her afternoon meeting with Director General ElBaradei?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, they're going to talk about Iran, certainly, and the IAEA currently has monitoring efforts inside Iran and the IAEA Board of Governors has been quite involved on the Iran issue. I would expect that they will talk about -- talk also about the India civil nuclear deal. This is something Director General ElBaradei has come out in support of. And also I suspect that they will talk about the President's Global Nuclear Energy initiative as well. It's, again, something that Director General ElBaradei has a great interest in. He has made some proposals on this topic on his own. So it's an issue that we regularly touch base with him on.

QUESTION: Does she expect, going back to the U.S.-Iran talks, does she expect to hear from Director General ElBaradei a request to talk to Iran directly?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. We'll see. Let's let the meeting take place.

Okay. Anything else on Iran?

QUESTION: You don't hear about the Security Council anymore as the locale for action against Iran. Is that just getting pushed further and further down the road?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think in terms of the nuclear issue, Barry, the way I would look at it is you've got three tracks, okay. You have the Security Council track which is still active. There are still discussions about what the Security Council -- Chapter 7 Resolution would take --look like. Now those discussions are taking place right now within the context of the second track. And that second track is the P-5+1 putting together this package. So the Security Council track remains open, viable and active. I think you're seeing most of the activity right now, however, among the P-5+1, putting together that package. And the third track is the other one we've talked about, about what steps individual countries as well as like-minded countries might take in other areas in terms of counter-proliferation, in terms of financial measures.

Now this has been a topic of discussion by Bob Joseph, Under Secretary Bob Joseph when he traveled to the Gulf. Assistant Secretary Hillen recently just got back from a trip to the Gulf. The Treasury Department has been quite active in talking to other countries around the world, including the Europeans and the Japanese on the financial issue, so those are the three tracks. They're all open. They're all active.

QUESTION: Could we -- are we still on this? Could we switch briefly maybe to the Middle East situation?


QUESTION: What is the U.S. going to do now, if you can tell us, to follow up its encouraging of the Israeli Prime Minister to have serious talks with President Abbas? Anybody going to region? He appealed in his speech to Congress for U.S. help, even if he has to go unilaterally, but what is the U.S. approach now, as specific as you can?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you heard the outlines of the U.S. approach from President Bush yesterday.


MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think I have anything to add to that at the moment.

QUESTION: Well, he wouldn't announce --

MR. MCCORMACK: But in terms of -- I know -- but in terms of specifics, what are we doing here at the State Department.


MR. MCCORMACK: Assistant Secretary Welch, I would expect is going to make a trip to the region. Now he is going to be visiting several states in the region which are part of his portfolio. But I would expect that as part of that trip, he will stop off, talk to the Israelis, also likely talk to the Palestinians. But I have to emphasize that that trip was scheduled for another purpose. I think that he might just add on some of these meetings. I would expect that after that at some point, Assistant Secretary Welch and maybe Elliott Abrams would go back out to the region, but that meeting has -- that trip has not yet been scheduled. So that's the level of activity that we're talking about right now, Barry.

QUESTION: But Abrams isn't with him on that first --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, because David was originally going out there for other purposes and decided that he was going to tack on some other meetings.

QUESTION: Could we say geographically? You're talking about the Mid-East and the Gulf?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, I think he's going to make a couple of stops in the Gulf and then also --


MR. MCCORMACK: No, that's not on -- he doesn't have any plane tickets for Tehran, George, no. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Oh, by Palestinians, of course, you mean the Abbas people. You're not talking --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes. Yes. Good catch.

QUESTION: Different subject.


QUESTION: Do you have any information on these raids in Britain that took in, I think nine people suspected of being Muslim extremists? And at least one of them is linked to the Libyan Islamic fighting group that's on the U.S. terror list.

MR. MCCORMACK: Don't have any info on that. Be happy to look into it for you, Teri, and see if we have anything.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. These gentlemen back here have been waiting passionately. Okay. Who wants to go first?

QUESTION: On the Aegean incident, have you contacted Athens and Ankara to ask them to cool off or maybe advise them to solve their differences of the Aegean, so we avoid such crashes in the future, since they are both --

MR. MCCORMACK: In general have we talked to them about Aegean issues or --

QUESTION: Both, or the last couple of days or in general, what's your -- I mean, should they solve the differences and avoid that or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, with issues specifically related to the plane crash, we would hope that they are in contact so (a) they can learn exactly what happened and (b) from that take any steps that might be required so that there is not a repeat of it.

As for larger issues in the Aegean, that's for Greece and Turkey to resolve. I'm not aware of any particular contact that we have had with them on those issues. It's a small place. There are a lot of disputes about sea lanes and territory and all those sorts of things. And those are things that we would hope that over time Greece and Turkey would be able to work through.

QUESTION: Greece proposed to take the dispute to the international court in The Hague. What is your position on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: On which question, the F-16 question or the --

QUESTION: The Aegean issue.

MR. MCCORMACK: The Aegean issue, I'll have to ask our experts on this issue exactly what fora or forum we think is most appropriate. But certainly whatever forum a resolution might take place in, a prerequisite for that is bilateral contact on the issue.


QUESTION: Do you have anything more on the threats on Americans in Tokyo? They put out a Warden Message on --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, they were --

QUESTION: -- over the weekend, I guess --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, our embassy in Tokyo issued a Warden Message and the Warden Message read that the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo has learned of a possible threat against American facilities in Japan. The credibility of which has yet to be determined. Given the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, we advise American citizens to exercise caution and report any suspicious activities to authorities.

I don't have any other details that I can offer you in public about these threats. Our Embassy, when they -- our Embassy or our State Department Diplomatic Security personnel, when they receive these kind of threats, they assess them. The leadership of the Embassy assesses the information. They take what steps they think are required based on the kind of threat it is. In this case, they decided that they needed to at least alert Americans in Japan, that there were these non-specific threats against American facilities. I understand that our Embassy was open for operations today and that we're in contact with Japanese officials on it. But beyond that, I don't have anything else that I can offer.


(The briefing was concluded at 1:00 p.m.)

DPB # 87

Released on May 24, 2006


© Scoop Media

World Headlines


Gordon Campbell: Is This Guy The World’s Most Dangerous Thirtysomething?

Saudi Arabia has long been regarded as a pillar of stability in the Middle East, and is the essential caterer to the West’s fossil fuel needs. It is also the country that gave us Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks... More>>


Non-Binding Postal Vote: Australia Says Yes To Same Sex Marriage

Binoy Kampmark: Out of 150 federal seats, 133 registered affirmative totals in returning their response to the question “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”. More>>


Bonn Climate Change Conference: Protecting Health In Small Island States

The vision is that, by 2030, all Small Island Developing States will have health systems that are resilient to climate change and countries around the world will be reducing their carbon emissions both to protect the most vulnerable from climate risks and deliver large health benefits in carbon-emitting countries. More>>


Camp Shut Down: Refugees Must Be Rescued From Manus

On 31st October 2017, the detention centre on Manus Island in which the Australian Government has been holding more than 700 refugees was closed, leaving those living there in a desperate situation. More>>



Rohingya Muslims Massacred: Restrictions On Aid Put 1000s At Risk

Amnesty: The Myanmar authorities’ restrictions on international aid in Rakhine state is putting tens of thousands of lives at risk in a region where mainly Rohingya people are already suffering horrific abuses from a disproportionate military campaign. More>>


  • Pacific.Scoop
  • Cafe Pacific
  • PMC