ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS SEAN MCCORMACK HOLDS STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR NEWS BRIEFING
Congressional Quarterly
CQ Congressional Testimony
March 15, 2007 Thursday
SPEAKER:
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS SEAN MCCORMACK
LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.
STATE DEPARTMENT REGULAR NEWS BRIEFING
MARCH 15, 2007
SPEAKER: ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS
SEAN MCCORMACK
MCCORMACK: Hello, everybody. Good afternoon.
Who wants to start off? We don’t have any opening statements.
QUESTION: Do you have anything, any comment on the new Palestinian
government? They have actually released parts of their platform.
MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: And Israel is saying that, you know, based on this early
information, it’s not someone with whom they can deal with and that
the aid embargo should continue.
MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: I wondered if you’d had a chance to look at this platform.
MCCORMACK: Well, a few things.
One, the government hasn’t been officially seated; it has to get
approved by the Palestinian legislature. It has, at this point,
just been proposed to President Abbas. And while there are perhaps
pieces of their platform that may be floating around out in the
electronic ether, we’re going to withhold any final judgment about
the government, its platform and its actions until we have a sense
of exactly who finally is going to be sitting in this government,
what exactly they are going to base their governing decisions on —
what’s their platform — and then what actions they take.
So we’re going to take a look at those things, and then we’ll have
a judgment. Until that time, we’re just going to reserve comment.
QUESTION: If you’re going to be waiting for actions — so, I mean,
that’s several steps along. I mean how long will it take you? I mean,
actions, that could take months to see exactly what they’re going to
be doing.
MCCORMACK: Or it could take the day after it’s officially seated and
their platform is announced.
At the time when we feel as though we have the fact set that we
need to make a determination about this government, its composition,
its platform and its actions — or what, based on those things, our
extrapolation of what we expect that they will do, and whether or
not it meets those foundational principles for peace that have been
outlined by the quartet — we’ll make a judgment.
But, until that time, we’re going to withhold any further comment.
QUESTION: Have you spoken to President Abbas today at all about the
new government?
MCCORMACK: Secretary Rice has not. The secretary…
QUESTION: Right.
MCCORMACK: I’m making sure you hear that. Secretary Rice hasn’t. I
don’t know if anybody else has talked to him, whether from the
consulate or anybody else.
QUESTION: Is David Welch there at the moment? Do you know?
MCCORMACK: He is not — I have to get an update on his travel. He is,
I do not believe, in the Palestinian territories at the moment.
QUESTION: North Korea. Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought that,
in the run-up to the decision yesterday, Chris Hill and you were
giving the impression that you were hoping this would resolve the
outstanding issues on the BDA and that it would help the six-party
talks and the deal that was signed on February 13th.
Is that still your position? Are you hoping that now this should have
solved all the issues that the North Koreans had on BDA?
MCCORMACK: Well, there are a couple steps here. One, the United States
has quote/unquote resolved, come to a conclusion with respect to the
BDA accounts. Treasury issued its rule yesterday. There’s a next step
to this.
MCCORMACK: And that is the actual implementation of it, which is
going to be up to the Macanese authorities.
And what, I understand, the Department of Treasury is doing is sending
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Treasury Danny Glaser, who’s been the
point man working with the Macanese on this issue, to consult with
the Macanese authorities, provide them the information — all the
information that we have managed to accumulate; our analysis of the
accounts — so that they can make a fully informed decision as to
the final disposition of the funds that are in those accounts.
And remember, it’s the Macanese authorities who are the ones holding
those actual funds. The United States has acted in good faith and in
accords with the February 13th agreement.
So the process is moving along. Chris Hill referenced some further
consultations, which I think he was referring to Danny Glaser’s trip
out there.
So it will now soon be in the hands of the Macanese authority, once
they have all of this information that they can possibly have.
QUESTION: And the next part of it, which was: Do you think they should
remove any obstacles to the nuclear negotiations or the implementations
of the deal?
Because the North Koreans didn’t come back to the six-party talks
for a year because they had a problem with it. So, now are you…
MCCORMACK: Well, the actual implementation of the February 13 agreement
is proceeding. And the fact that you have the Department of Treasury
issuing this rule is one indication of that.
Another indication is that Chris Hill is in Beijing. He’s attending
the working group meetings. I believe that all the other — four of
the other parties; I don’t know if the North Koreans are there or
not. I know Kim Gye-gwan isn’t expected to arrive in Beijing until
Saturday, either tomorrow or Saturday.
So it is being implemented. We are moving forward with what we need
to do. And I understand that the other parties are doing so as well.
The North Koreans have met with Director General ElBaradei, which
is another piece of the agreement that needs to be set in place so
that you can move beyond the 30-day agreement and into the 60-day
time frame.
QUESTION: I ask because I’m just so (inaudible) — because the Chinese
said today they don’t think that this would actually resolve the
North Korean objection to this.
QUESTION: So…
MCCORMACK: Well, again, you know, the U.S. has taken the steps that
it needs to in terms of resolving the issue by making public this rule.
We don’t actually have the assets under our control. They’re not
controlled by the United States government. They’re actually frozen
by the Macanese authorities.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: As a result of your — as a result of the United States
going to the Macanese authorities, actually alerting them…
MCCORMACK: Correct.
QUESTION: … to the activities of the bank, right?
MCCORMACK: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: So now you’ve lifted those objections and they can do
whatever they decide to do. Is that right?
MCCORMACK: Well, what they, as well as we think is important, that they
have access to all the information that we have managed to accumulate
through our forensics, as well as our analysis of the situation so
they can make a judgment about the money in all of the accounts and
what the disposition of those funds will be.
So at that point it will — once they have all the information, it
will be up to the Macanese authorities to decide on how those funds
are distributed and to whom.
QUESTION: So has the U.S. told the North Korean government that they
can expect to get some of the money that had previously been frozen,
they can get it back? I mean, is that an understanding between the
U.S. and North Korea?
MCCORMACK: Again, the way that this works is the U.S. has issued this
rule, the treasury has issued this rule, and then it’s going to be
up to the Macanese authorities to decide on what monies…
QUESTION: But you must have some understanding…
(CROSSTALK)
MCCORMACK: … what funds and to whom those are disbursed. And I’m
not going to get involved, dig any deeper into that process.
QUESTION: Is it fair to assume that Chris Hill outlined to the North
Koreans what was going to be in this decision yesterday and exactly
how that was going to work, talked them through it before it was…
MCCORMACK: He obviously consulted with the North Koreans on this. It
was part of the February 13th agreement. Beyond that, I’m not going
to get into any of the diplomatic conversations that we may have had.
It is accurate to say that we committed to resolving the issue. We
believe that this is on a pathway to being resolved. The United States
has issued the rule that it needed to issue in order to allow the
Macanese authorities to take the steps that they deem appropriate
in terms of a final disposition of the funds that were in those
BDA accounts.
QUESTION: But had he gotten any indications from the North Koreans
that this kind of an approach by the U.S. would satisfy their demands?
MCCORMACK: Everybody’s goal is to resolve the issue, and we believe
that it will be resolved.
MCCORMACK: We just need, I guess, a couple of more steps in terms of
the consultations. We want to provide the information to the Macanese
authorities, and then they are going to take the steps that they
deem appropriate.
QUESTION: China has a very different view about all of this. And
they say that far from resolving this dispute, it actually, kind of,
muddies the water further and raises questions about Macau’s, sort of,
financial reputation and puts their financial stability into question.
(CROSSTALK)
MCCORMACK: Understandably, they have (inaudible) concerns about,
well, how does this rule affect the perceptions of Macau’s financial
institutions, as well as China’s by extension? And we understand that.
The BDA rule is limited to BDA. I think Treasury can get into any
other description of the rule, but this is focused on BDA.
We are in the process of providing the information that we think we
need to. And as I said, the issue is on its way to being resolved. We
believe that we have done our part in that regard through the issuance
of this rule.
QUESTION: Two weeks ago, Mr. Hill said how important each one of these
deadlines is, and that to miss one could create this broken window
theory. It seems that there are still some steps left to resolve
this. So given anyone’s talk about what 30 days is, today would have
to be the outside deadline. So has the U.S. broken the deadline?
MCCORMACK: Again, we have done our part of this. The next step of
this — the actual implementation and execution of the decision —
is going to be up to the Macanese authorities.
Let me assure everybody that we, as well as the other members of
the six-party talks, are acting in good faith, in accordance with
the agreement that was signed on February 13. And we would hope that
everybody views it in that light as well.
QUESTION: But since the Macanese are not party to the six-party talks,
it’s feasible that the North Koreans may not think that, you know,
them deciding all this stuff is good faith on the part of the U.S.
MCCORMACK: Well, it’s a practical matter. The United States — it is
not within the power of the United States to release funds that we
don’t control. So just as a practical matter of executing the steps
necessary to resolve the issue, the Macanese need to be involved in
some regard. I think everybody understands that.
And again, we hope to provide any information that they might need
to take those final steps to resolve the issue.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) when you expect them to release the funds?
MCCORMACK: It’s going to be — that is going to be their decision.
QUESTION: I got the impression, you keep talking about the Macanese
authorities and the bankers, as two separate entities that have
nothing in common, but in fact the financial authority of Macau,
which is part of the government, manages the bank, right?
So their treasurer said yesterday that they got good cooperation,
and then a few hours later, the Macanese government releases this
statement that says it deeply regrets the U.S. action.
How does that, in effect, you know, cooperate with exactly the U.S.
decision to do this? I mean, it seems to me that you are praising
them for cooperating with them, and they’re criticizing you for your
decision. How does that square? I don’t get it.
MCCORMACK: They’re not — those things aren’t mutually exclusive.
QUESTION: On Pakistan, do you have any comment on the arrest of the
chief justice of the supreme court? There is — opponents of President
Musharraf say that his move is unconstitutional and it’s created a
rather difficult situation.
MCCORMACK: Right. Now, understood, we have — it’s a situation,
actually, that we have been monitoring very closely for some time.
And I think this occurred several days ago. And we are watching it
closely. It is a matter of — it is a matter of deep concern.
And we believe that the resolution of this matter should take place
in a way that is completely transparent and strictly in accordance
with Pakistan’s laws.
It’s essential for any developing democracy to adhere to the rule of
law and conduct any investigations, any proceedings, that may follow
on from those investigations in a clear, above-board, transparent
manner that strictly accords with Pakistan’s laws.
QUESTION: And has it been conducted in a transparent manner thus far?
MCCORMACK: Again, we’re early on in this, and we’re going to be
watching it very closely.
QUESTION: And have you sent a formal complaint to the Pakistani
government asking…
MCCORMACK: It’s not a matter of our complaining about it. It’s an
internal Pakistani matter.
But clearly it’s something that, in terms of Pakistan’s functioning
as a democratic state, that we would watch very closely and that we
would have initially deep concerns about what has taken place.
QUESTION: But your ambassador has not approached the Pakistani
authorities for more information…
MCCORMACK: We have talked to them about it. I can’t tell you at what
level we have, but we have talked to them about it.
I wouldn’t use the word "complaint," because I don’t think it’s
appropriate in this particular case, but we have talked to them
about it.
QUESTION: So would it be appropriate then to say that you’ve just
approached them for more information or…
MCCORMACK: We want to understand better the action that was taken.
QUESTION: On Greece, Mr. McCormack, the Greek prime minister, Costas
Karamanlis, and the presidents of Bulgaria and Russia, Purvanov and
Putin, signed the agreement of the well-known pipeline Bourgas-
Alexandroupolis. Do you have anything to say either in favor or
against this agreement, a huge energy project of Southeast Europe?
MCCORMACK: I think that very basically we have no problem with
agreements that do a couple of things: further the cause of
diversifying supplies of energy for Europe and diversifying the
means of transport of those supplies of energy. So this certainly
contributes to it.
There are a number of other pipeline proposals that are on deck, and it
is important that the states of Europe, as well as the energy suppliers
— Russia as well as those of the Caucasus — work in a cooperative
manner, that they act based on market principles. And part of those —
part of that set of principles is diversifying the supplies, as well
as diversifying the means of transport of those energy supplies.
QUESTION: One more, Mr. McCormack.
May we have a readout about DAS Matt Bryza trip to Istanbul, Athens
and Thessaloniki? And do you know if Mr. Bryza discussed also in
Greece energy issues into which…
(CROSSTALK)
MCCORMACK: We’ll have to get something for you on that…
QUESTION: On the pipeline, you have been criticizing the policy —
the Russian policy of using energy for politician reason. Do you
think there is a risk it would happen again with this pipeline?
MCCORMACK: I certainly don’t want to foreshadow or try to predict
such events occurring.
There have been events in the past with respect to Ukraine and Georgia
as well as others in the immediate border area of Russia that have
caused concern. I’m not going to try to predict that that may happen
in this case, but we do think that it’s important to diversify supplies
as well as the pipelines that deliver those energy supplies.
QUESTION: On Iran, President Ahmadinejad has said that the Iran
resolution is nothing more than just a torn piece of paper and it’s
going to have no impact at all. I wondered if you had any comment
on that.
And then also, I know this is a broad question, but how much of
an impact do you think these sanctions will have on the Iranian
government? And why do you think that these are going to be so
effective this time?
MCCORMACK: Well, the initial sanctions have actually had an effect
on the Iranian government. They haven’t succeeded in changing their
behavior to this point, but you’ve noticed that there are once
again on the eve or coming up on passage of a new Security Council
resolution all of a sudden some — the Iranians trying to lay out the
perception of flexibility, when, in fact, they’re really not offering
anything new.
In terms of his referring to this just as a torn piece of paper,
I think that more than anything it would cause distress among the
members of the Iranian regime and among the population of Iran.
It’s not just a piece of paper. This has the force of international
law. It’s a Chapter 7 resolution. Serious business.
And it has had an effect on the ability of the Iranian government to
participate and use the international financial system for ends that
we, as well as other members of the international system, have said
are at the very least suspicious and at worst wrong.
And so we are taking action, together with other members of the
international system, to see that they aren’t able to exploit the
global financial system to build a nuclear weapon or to be able to
further develop their missile technology that could be used to deliver
a nuclear warhead potentially.
So it does have a real effect. It’s not just a torn piece of paper.
We take this very seriously. And I suspect that the other members
of the Security Council take passage of this kind of resolution very
seriously. And I expect that they would be dismayed by that kind of
reaction from President Ahmadinejad.
Sadly, it’s the kind of reaction that we’ve come to expect from him,
flouting the will of the international community.
MCCORMACK: And if the Iranian government continues down that
pathway, you’re going to see further such actions. And that’s rather
unfortunate, because that’s not what we want for Iran.
There still is a pathway to negotiation that is available to them.
There’s an attractive offer that is on the table. They haven’t taken
us up on it yet.
One can only say that the pathway that President Ahmadinejad is
pursuing on behalf of the Iranian people is misguided and unfortunate.
But it’s important that the Iranian people know that they have a way
out. And that way out is via the negotiating table and having this
regime take up the P-5-plus-1 on its offer of negotiation.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Madam Secretary sent a letter to Congress on
the Armenian resolution.
MCCORMACK: I’ll have to check and see if anything’s actually gone
up today.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) secretary’s agenda for the meeting with the
Vietnamese foreign minister, especially whether she intends to raise
reported backsliding by Vietnam in the human rights area?
MCCORMACK: She is going to meet with Deputy Prime Minister Kiem,
and they are going to touch on, really, the whole spectrum of U.S.-
Vietnam relations. They’re going to touch on trade, human rights,
Vietnam’s role in the broader Southeast Asian region.
They’re also going to discuss preparation for a possible visit by
Vietnamese President Triet to the United States later this year.
So that’s all that is on the agenda.
Human rights will be at the top of our agenda. It continues to be.
The Vietnamese have made some advances in that regard. They’ve made
some advances with respect to religious freedoms in Vietnam.
There have, however, been some detentions that have been of real
concern to the United States, and we have raised those issues with
the Vietnamese officials. Secretary Rice has done that in the past,
and I would expect that certainly a general discussions about human
rights, if not a specific one about these cases, will take place
during the meeting.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on President Mugabe’s comments
today, saying that Western governments should, you know, basically
go hang themselves because of their criticism of his handling of
protests and…
MCCORMACK: It’s a real sad state of affairs in Zimbabwe. It’s a
real tragedy, what’s occurring there, in terms of the systematic
dismantling of democratic rights, the abuses of human rights that we
have seen recently, and just the terrible economic destruction that
the Mugabe regime has wreaked on the Zimbabwean economy. This is now
an economy that is suffering from hyper-inflation.
And it’s sad, because it’s the people that suffer. Certainly they
suffer as a result of the lack of political rights or the lack of
human rights, but they’re also suffering the very real effects of an
economy that is going down the drain. And it’s a sad thing to watch.
So it’s — you know, while Mr. Mugabe may want to paint this as
an issue of his defying the rest of the world trying to dictate to
him what should be happening in Zimbabwe, it’s really a case of the
international system expressing real concern for a tragedy that is
unfolding in that country.
QUESTION: The U.N. and E.U. have suggested that imposing new sanctions
on Zimbabwe will make the situation even more difficult for people
who’ve already faced inflation of, like, 1,700 percent or something.
I know that the U.S. is considering new sanctions against Zimbabwe.
How are you looking at those new sanctions, and how will you be able to
impose without causing even more grief to people on the ground there?
MCCORMACK: It’s a tough issue. It’s always a hard issue when you try
to balance the possible effect of diplomatic tools you might have at
your disposal — for instance, sanctions — and the effect it will have
on the regime versus the effect that they may have on the population,
which is already suffering.
So we’ll take a close look at what we might do to try to bring about
a change in behavior — in the behavior of this regime, and that we
are working very closely with the E.U., as well as others on this
we’re consulting closely.
MCCORMACK: I can’t tell you that we’ve come to any final conclusions
in that regard.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) a joint effort, in terms of sanctions, or are
you going to go unilaterally?
MCCORMACK: We’ll take a look at what we think is the right thing to do.
QUESTION: Are you looking at some U.N. action? Is this going to be
something circulating in the next few days, or?
MCCORMACK: Like I said, there are a number of options available to us,
so we’ll — we want to try to do what’s effective as well as what is
something that has as minimal effect as possible on the humanitarian
situation that’s unfolding in Zimbabwe.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Iraq, this conference (inaudible) the weekend.
Do you have any sense yet that progress is being made in terms of
these working groups? Have they been established? Are you confident
they’ll be able to report back to the ministerial level within the
next month? Do you get a sense of how the process is playing out?
MCCORMACK: You know what, honestly, I have to check on that one. I
have to check with David Satterfield and see — get his assessment
of where we stand with these things.
I know that people are already talking in terms of travel dates and
locations for a ministerial-level conference, so there is a degree of
optimism that we are going to get to that point. But I have to check
for you exactly on the working groups and exactly what’s happening
there.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) what the make-up is of them, and are they
completely international and just basically what is happening between
now and then would be good.
MCCORMACK: What’s the process? Yes. We will get you an answer.
QUESTION: And do you think this is — this is, again, a rather broad
question, but do you think this has put extra pressure on the Iraqi
government to step up themselves, I mean in terms of — I’ll give one
specific here, something like de-Baathification, you know, certain
benchmarks that they’re expected to be reaching, do you think this
is giving them more momentum? Are they held more to account now…
MCCORMACK: Well, they have their own motivations for getting things
done in terms of de-Baathification or the hydrocarbons law or their
budget or amendments to the constitution. So they have self- generated
interests in getting those things done and moving forward.
The international support that manifested itself by attendance at
the conference and expressions of support for the Iraqi government
certainly helped.
MCCORMACK: And that helps reinforce the work of those in Iraq who
want to push forward on all of these political issues because they’re
really important.
And in terms of the budget, there has been progress. They actually
passed a budget, voted on it, and they’re now working on disbursing
about $10 billion, so that’s positive.
The hydrocarbons law is going to be up for debate in the Council of
Representatives coming up here soon in the coming weeks. I expect that
to be a healthy debate because it gets to the really fundamental issues
of the division of the patrimony of Iraq, its oil wealth, how that is
used and how that is controlled. And that gets, again, to core issues
of Sunnis, Kurds and other working together for a common good in Iraq.
De-Baathification there’s been less progress on. And that’s
something that we have urged the Maliki government and the Council
of Representatives to move forward on.
So there has been progress.
The Iraqis themselves set up some benchmarks that they — notional
benchmarks that they had hoped they could meet. They’re a little
behind on that. We understand that. Not to draw a direct comparison,
but our own legislative process doesn’t always move at the pace that
they would have wish.
But the bottom-line story here is that the political process is moving
forward. It is functioning. It is functioning within an atmosphere
of extreme violence, which makes the process more difficult.
But to get back to your original point, the international support that
is manifested by these meetings and these conferences is important. It
helps reinforce the idea for the Iraqis that they do need to move
forward, and that there are benefits in moving forward.
Just, I think, tomorrow, the members of the International Compact for
Iraq, which is a separate yet related effort, are actually going to
work to try to try to finalize the terms of the deal on both sides:
both what the Iraqis are going to do, and what might get done by the
international system.
So those are all positive, reinforcing moves for the Iraqis, and the
benefits for the neighbors and for others in the international system
are that Iraq starts to take its place in the region.
QUESTION: Can we really expect — in real terms from the compact
group tomorrow, is there going to be some, kind of, a list of, like,
a manifesto or how they’re going to move forward or…
(CROSSTALK)
MCCORMACK: Well, it’s essentially a contract in simple terms everybody
understands. On one side, the Iraqis commit to take certain steps
on the economic reform front, and that, in return, the international
system will take certain steps.
MCCORMACK: Those are going to differ for each individual state.
But it’s essentially a deal: If you commit to doing X, we will commit
to doing Y. We, being the collective international system.
QUESTION: Did you have any date on the new resolution on Sudan that
you would like to be discussed at U.N.?
MCCORMACK: I don’t. Let me see where we are on that.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: Andrew Natsios: Did you ever check whether he was traveling
to Khartoum again?
MCCORMACK: Did we? Did we check to see if he’s traveling to Khartoum
again?
QUESTION: Gee, thanks.
MCCORMACK: We didn’t. We didn’t.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: OK. That’s OK.
MCCORMACK: We will get you an answer.
QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, on Kosovo, because somebody criticizes you
as a troublemaker, but I consider you as a troubleshooter.
MCCORMACK: Some people call me a troublemaker?
QUESTION: Yes, but I consider you as a…
MCCORMACK: Who’s calling me a troublemaker?
QUESTION: Let me say the question.
The well-known publication "(inaudible) Life in New York City"
criticizes your recent statement that Kosovo is a unique situation and
not a precedent, (inaudible), wrote, quote, "But what is so unique"
— in quotation, the "unique" — "about Kosovo? Apparently, Kosovo
is unique because the Department of State says so. If the U.S.
will support or oppose self-determination on a case-by-case basis on
the supposed, quote/unquote, ‘uniqueness’ of a situation, but not
on the principle of self-determination, are we to assume that by
(inaudible) of divine right the U.S. is the Earth’s court of last
resort?" unquote.
MCCORMACK: Is there an end here?
QUESTION: How do you respond?
(LAUGHTER)
MCCORMACK: Just comes with the territory here. Sometimes people like
what you say and sometimes people don’t.
I’m expressing the view of the president and the secretary of state
on this matter.
QUESTION: Thank you.