State Dept. Daily Press Briefing January 29, 2007

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
January 29, 2007

INDEX:

BELARUS
U.S. Condemns Eviction of Helsinki Committee NGO From its Offices
/ Eviction Underscores Deterioration of Human Rights in Belarus

IRAN
Possible Reconstruction Aid in Iraq / U.S. Hopes for Positive
Relationship Between Iran and its Neighbors / Iran not Currently
Making Positive Contribution
Legality of Private Company's Oil Investment in Iran
Iranian Involvement in Death Squad Networks, IED production
Chapter 7 Security Council Resolution, Sanctions / Requirements
for Lifting Sanctions

ISRAEL / LEBANON
Use of Cluster Bombs During Lebanon Conflict
Licensing Process Requires End Use Agreements / Investigations
Triggered by Preliminary Assessment of Use / Rules of Engagement
Classified / Assessment to go to Congress
U.S., International Aid for De-mining and Reconstruction

IRAQ
U.S. Engaged in Generating International Support for Iraq
Weekend Bombings in Najaf / Soldiers of Heaven Cult
Presence of Foreign Fighters Seeking to Destabilize Iraq
Resettlement of Iraqi Refugees / U.S. Quota Not Set / Special
Program for Iraqi Interpreters, Employees of U.S.
Increase in Internally Displaced Persons Due to Sectarian Violence

NORTH KOREA
Resumption of Six Party Talks / U.S. Prepared to Continue
Negotiations

JAPAN
Comments by Japanese Foreign Minister / Affect on 2+2 Talks

TRANSCRIPT:

12:10 p.m. EST

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. How are you? I have one brief opening statement, then we can get right into your questions. This one concerns Belarus.

The United States condemns the Government of Belarus's decision to evict the Belarussian Helsinki Committee from its offices, a move which forces the closure of the country's most significant human rights NGO. This latest attack by the Belarussian authorities on independent civil society underscores the steady deterioration of the human rights situation in the country. The United States urges the Belarussian authorities to immediately reverse this decision against the Belarussian Helsinki Committee and to honor its international commitments, including the 1975 Helsinki Accords to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

With that, I can take your questions, whoever wants to start.

QUESTION: Do you want to say something about Iran's plans to increase economic and military ties with Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have said from the very beginning that we encourage good, neighborly, transparent, productive, positive relations between Iran and Iraq. We fully expect that. They are neighbors after all. And there's -- after a long period of quite a bit of tension between Iran and Iraq, I think it's only natural that both governments, Iranian and Iraqi, explore how they might improve relations.

Now, that's what everybody including the Iraqis would like to see. Is it the case at the moment that the Iranians are playing a positive role in Iraq? I think there are many, many indications that the Iranian regime is not contributing to the security situation in Iraq. They are not contributing to the stabilization of Iraq and I can't, on the basis of facts, really speak to whether or not they're making any contributions on the reconstruction front. Now, if the Iraqi Government is -- welcomes in the Iranian Government's assistance with reconstruction, then I think that that certainly is their decision to make. But thus far, George, they have not made a positive contribution. All that they have done is contribute to more instability and more death in Iraq.

Yeah, Sue.

QUESTION: This is a separate issue, but still Iran. Royal Dutch Shell has signed a preliminary deal along with Spain's Repsol, another company, to develop a major gas field in Iran. Is this something that you would oppose? Non-U.S. companies starting up oil deals in Iran, do you think this goes against UN sanctions and that doesn't affect the oil industry yet, but do you think it breaks the spirit of that agreement?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, in terms -- well, in terms of private commercial entities making business decisions that those decisions are for them to make and in consultation with the boards and their shareholders. Now the U.S. has on the books various laws with respect to investment in the Iranian oil and gas sector, the people who deal with those laws on a daily basis and their application I'm sure will take a look at this particular deal. It's triggered by the size of the deal and did it mention how large this deal is? I imagine it's in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. If so, then there's a -- I think the amount is $30 million or right around there. If there is an investment greater than a certain amount, as specified under U.S. law, then our folks, our lawyers take a look at it and the policymakers take a look at it and see if there's any further steps that we as a government take.

QUESTION: I think it's in the billions of dollars, actually.

MR. MCCORMACK: Then it's likely that it would probably be triggered.

QUESTION: And so what would happen then?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to speculate, Sue. I mean, there's -- you can take a look at the laws on the books and there are various provisions in there if various deals are found to contravene U.S. laws and regulations.

QUESTION: I mean, Shell has operations within the United States, so because Shell is working in the U.S., would that affect how you viewed them?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not even going to begin to try to speculate in terms of the application of the law.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Just go back to your first answer. I'm not sure I fully understand. If Iran is going to contribute to Iraqi reconstruction, would you regard that as a step in the right direction or is it that you think that everything they do is so dodgy and so destabilizing that you don't want them to contribute --

MR. MCCORMACK: It depends on the specifics. Certainly those are -- that would be -- that's a positive sentiment to want to try to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq. Now, there are -- a lot of times people express positive sentiments but the actual application of that sentiment on the ground isn't so positive, and that certainly is the case with respect to Iran and the security situation. You have the Iranian regime involved in these various networks that are -- that pose a real threat to our troops. You have the Iranians involved, working with various individuals involved in death squads. Again, none of that contributes to the overall security situation in Iraq. It doesn't contribute to Iraq's stabilization.

Now in terms of the reconstruction, we'll see. We would -- I would imagine that a first and minimal step, that any sort of assistance of reconstruction would have to be accepted and welcomed by the Iraqi Government.

Elise.

QUESTION: This is on a related story on Iran on oil.

QUESTION: Can I stay on that?

QUESTION: Yeah, sure.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: The Iranian Ambassador -- the article in The New York Times says that he was ridiculing some of the evidence that he thinks the U.S. has about Iranian activities inside Iraq. And also I think there's another report that said that the U.S. military would be presenting evidence this week about activities on --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think there's any particular timeline associated with that.

QUESTION: Okay. But you do plan to respond to -- you know, if he's ridiculing the evidence --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't feel any particular need to respond to the Iranian Ambassador in Iraq. But with respect to talking more about what we know of Iranian activities with these IED networks, as well as the various other activities in which they may be involved in Iraq, at some point we will talk in greater depth about it.

Again, I went through it last week, it was a question of combing through all the mountain of classified information that we've managed to accumulate on the topic and all the time we're accumulating more. And looking through that with an eye towards, yes, we want to be able to better inform publics about this: the Iraqi public, our public as well as other publics. At the same time in talking about that, you don't want to harm your ability to conduct -- collect more information on these topics from the same kinds of sources and methods. So you always have that balance. It is our intention to talk about these things in greater detail in public. I can't give you a particular timeline on it. I wouldn't point you to a particular date at this point.

Yeah, Sue.

QUESTION: Do you fear though that the U.S. suffers a little bit of a credibility problem? Because in the build up to the Iraq war you presented intelligence relating to weapons of mass destruction, nothing was ever found. Why should people believe you this time on Iran, especially in the climate of escalating tensions with Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: The two are completely different topics, Sue. Here you have a case, and it's been publicly talked about by the British Government long before we ever mentioned this, the fact that the Iranian regime was engaged in these kind of networks that were -- just so everybody's clear -- it's their IEDs improved -- improvised explosive devices, sadly it's a term that we've all become far too familiar with.

What these -- what the Iranian networks do, or the Iranian-sponsored or these networks in which they participate, is they build these devices which are much more lethal. Very simply, as it's been described in the press, they're shaped in such a way that they are able to, with much greater effectiveness, penetrate armor and therefore, are much more lethal to multinational forces, British forces, our forces -- you know, other international forces that may be in Iraq.

So long before we ever talked about this, this is something that the British Government expressed a great deal of concern about. We obviously supported them in their concern. That was, I think, a year ago or so. And again, as we are able to collect information and to make it available to the publics, we will do so. But we're going to do it in such a way that we don't endanger our ability to collect more of that kind of information, because the bottom line here is that we want to take steps to protect our troops.

Regardless of the state of public presentation of the information, we're going to take steps to make sure that our troops are protected as best they can be protected. And one of the threats that they face are these particular devices which are built by these networks, so we're going to confront them. We're going to confront them in Iraq. And as the President said, we are quite determined to do that.

QUESTION: So do you anticipate the Secretary might go to the UN, for example, and present this or would it be --

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

Elise.

QUESTION: The Saudi oil minister, in recent days, has said publicly that Saudi Arabia wants to maintain "moderate oil prices."

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And one of the discussions has been that this could have a negative effect on Iran, who is using the oil market to further its negative agenda in the region. Is this move to keep oil prices down something that the U.S. supports? The U.S. has been very supportive of Saudi oil policy in the past.

MR. MCCORMACK: You can talk to the Saudis about how they view the oil markets and the markets. The markets are the ones who set the prices. I'm not going to jump into commenting on commodity markets, thank you very much, Elise.

QUESTION: But just one more. I mean, certainly, Iran has used high oil prices to its own advantage. And do you think a lower oil price could put the squeeze on the Iranian economy that you're seeking to do through other types of measures such as financial measures, banks and so forth?

MR. MCCORMACK: You'll have to talk to the Iranian Ministry of Finance about what sort of squeeze lower oil prices will put on their spending. Everybody knows that they derive the great bulk of their international income from oil and gas related sales. But beyond that, you can talk to the Iranians about what sort of effect the price of oil and gas has on their economy.

QUESTION: Sean, what is your understanding of the proposal from Mohamed ElBaradei to Iran concerning --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think we've talked much to him about it. I know he gave a speech, gave some remarks at Davos about it. I'm sure we'll be in touch with him or his staff to get a better idea of exactly what it is that he's outlined. As I understand it, he has talked about the Iranians' meeting what the IAEA and the UN Security Council have asked them to do, and that is to suspend their enrichment and reprocessing related activities, and then that there would be some coincident or some related suspension of action in the Security Council.

Now, previously, prior to the passage of a Security Council resolution with sanctions on it, there was some idea that we were going to give the Iranians some opportunity, some window in which if they suspended their enrichment and reprocessing related activities then there would be a suspension of activity within the Security Council to seek another resolution. At that point we were between resolutions; one had already been passed calling on them to take certain steps, and then at that point there was contemplation and discussion of the resolution that we have right now that we've already passed.

We have shifted into a qualitatively different situation now where you have in place a Chapter 7 resolution which is binding upon all member-states that calls upon them to impose certain types of sanctions on the Iranian regime. Now, only one of the requirements in that Security Council resolution is for Iran to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing related activities. You can go through -- I don't have it in front of me, but you can go through it and there are several other requirements that are -- that the Iranian regime needs to meet in order for the Security Council to consider lifting any of the sanctions involved in there.

So while we have not had an opportunity to discuss what it is that Mr. ElBaradei had in mind with him or his staff, I would just make as a preliminary comment that you are in a different kind of -- a qualitatively different situation than when this idea had previously arisen back -- I think it was back in the Fall time, back in September.

QUESTION: Do you know if legally there'd be a way to -- because his wording was not "lift the sanctions," it would be "suspend the sanctions." Now, is there some difference? Is there some decision that could be made which is less involved and --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I couldn't even at this point begin to comment on that, David. You know, again, you have a resolution in place, Chapter 7 binding on all states. I couldn't even begin to tell you the ins and outs of the requirements short of the Iranians meeting the requirements, the requirements that you have to meet or the Security Council would have to take a look at in order to change that finding, change that resolution.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. Anything else on Iran?

QUESTION: Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll get back to you.

QUESTION: The State Department report to Congress about use of cluster bombs by Israel and Lebanon, could you tell us -- you were quoted this morning saying on the wires there likely were violations.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, let me -- we'll back up, give you the long form explanation here. We can answer questions about it. Don't believe everything you read in the wires. (Laughter.) Just kidding. Just kidding, guys. Wanted to make sure you guys were still awake up front here.

Under the Arms Export Control Act there's language in there that says that if a country has -- likely has violated the terms of its agreements with the United States, then you -- then that triggers a report to the Congress. Now, the question then becomes what kind of agreements are you talking about. Well, anytime throughout the licensing process of selling armaments and weapons to foreign countries, the United States typically will negotiate along with the licenses various end use agreements and in some cases agreements that specify under what kinds of conditions those armaments and munitions can be used.

In the case of cluster munitions with Israel, we have in place one of those such agreements. And so the question then arises, which the Israelis themselves are investigating right now, as to in what way the munitions were employed and in the manner of their use, did that in some way contravene the agreement between the United States and Israel. So after looking into the matter in the wake of the Hezbollah-Israel war, we work cooperatively with the Israeli Government, take a look at the facts, take a look at the agreement that was in place and then take a look at the legal requirements as specified in the law. And it was the determination based on the facts that we in a preliminary finding -- I have to emphasize preliminary, it's not a final judgment -- that there may likely could have been some violations of that agreement. So under the law, we are required to report that to the Congress and that is the step that we are taking today. I think it's either already happened or this afternoon. We are forwarding that preliminary assessment to Congress.

QUESTION: What were the conditions of the agreement? Should it be used --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. This is the area in which we bump up against the fact that these agreements for a variety of different reasons is -- very oftentimes it gets into rules of engagement for specific countries and those themselves are usually classified or tightly held by the foreign national government. The agreements, those parts of the agreements that we negotiate with the foreign government are classified, so we do not speak about them in public.

QUESTION: Just -- can you suffice it to say that Israel isn't supposed to use these type of weapons in civilian areas?

MR. MCCORMACK: I am not going to try to get into that at all. Let me just add one other note to the conversation we had this morning as well. We of course will follow the facts scrupulously with respect to the law. And we are forthright and scrupulous in forwarding to the Congress the information that is required by the law. And we will continue to do so, regardless of the case.

Now, as a very practical matter there were a number of munitions that were expended, some of which did not explode in southern Lebanon. And as a matter of humanitarian concern, the international community has expended very significant funds for de-mining operations and dealing with some of those unexploded ordnance and we have been part of that.

Since the period from the end of the conflict this summer -- I don't have the exact date and I think it was in August -- to present we have expended about $9 million in terms of contributing to international humanitarian de-mining efforts which gets at making safe some of these unexploded ordnance items. And as part of her pledge at the Paris conference, included in that number that we talked about the $700-plus million was an additional 5 million -- a little over $5 million for more de-mining assistance. So I just wanted to make clear that we are part of those efforts as well as part of the international efforts to help the Lebanese people reconstruct much of what was lost in southern Lebanon.

QUESTION: Just come back --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: It might help us if you could talk about these agreement in general terms. Because it would be hard to imagine, would it not, an agreement which the United States made with a foreign government which allowed them to use cluster bombs against civilians?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's just an area I can't venture in. You know, I pretty --

QUESTION: In the most general terms --

MR. MCCORMACK: I appreciate the effort and I appreciate the question. It's a fair question. But you're just getting into an area where I can't talk about -- just the nature of these agreements.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) you refuse to comment on whether it would be hard to imagine if the United States Government would be -- would allow an agreement with anybody to allow cluster bombs against civilians.

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, obviously the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel was one between Hezbollah and Hezbollah fighters which engaged in an act of aggression against Israel. They crossed an international border. They started a war. So clearly the conflict was between those two parties.

Now, you and your editors will decide exactly how it is you describe my comments. I can't write your copy for you. Sometimes I wish I could. It's just an area that I can't get into. It gets into the realm of classified information. We are trying to be as forthright and open as we possibly can with regard to this matter. I know it's of interest to you, but there are certain lines that I can't cross.

Yeah, Sue.

QUESTION: But as a policy, does the United States agree with Israel that it has the right to use cluster bombs in terms -- as a way of defending themselves against Hezbollah or any other threat?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sue, you can talk to the Israel Government about their rules of engagement, their policies with respect to the use of cluster munitions. They're in their inventory. We have them in our inventory, so clearly they are designed for a certain type of use.

I'll refer you over to my friends at the Pentagon so that they can describe -- should they choose to -- how and under what conditions cluster munitions might be used. Now, a lot of this again gets into rules of engagement. And for a lot of reasons, and a lot of good reasons, military often doesn't talk about the specific rules of engagement.

QUESTION: Now the UN has called for a freeze on the use of cluster bombs. Is the U.S. position still that you keep them -- you're keeping them in your inventory in case you need them or are you looking in to whether there should be a freeze on cluster bombs?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't believe that -- to my knowledge, there is -- and I'm happy to look into whether or not anything has changed recently, but to my knowledge there's no change in our policies.

Yeah, David.

QUESTION: Can you talk about -- generically speaking, what kinds of sanctions would be envisioned under the Arms Export Control Act?

MR. MCCORMACK: The way it works now is that there is this preliminary report to Congress, and that if Congress requests further action on the part of the Administration then, of course, we'll do so. Whether that's in the form of further reports or other kinds of actions, we would consider what their requests were.

In terms of our work, we will continue our preliminary -- our work in terms of investigation. The Israeli Government has said that they are -- have launched a formal investigation into the use of these particular munitions and how that comported with their rules of engagement and their use policy. I'm not going to speculate what -- if anything -- might be the outcome of these continuing investigations.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) of the investigation itself?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I don't have it in front of me. I can't tell you. I can't tell you.

QUESTION: Sue, go ahead.

QUESTION: So just from a procedural perspective, does the report recommend action or does the action have to come from Congress? Could that be included in your report or is the onus on Congress to identify the action?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. This is a factual report.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: It's a factual report.

QUESTION: Just on Sue's point. Is the onus on Congress or you could -- I know you don't want to discuss what could be -- what action could be taken, but do you have the license to take action against a government even if Congress doesn't recommend --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to -- again, we're getting beyond ourselves. I'm trying to tell you where we are in this process right now. I'm not going to try to speculate about what may or may not occur down the road.

QUESTION: Did the United States suspend sales of cluster bombs to Israel pending the outcome of the investigation?

MR. MCCORMACK: Check with DOD. I'll check with our guys. I don't believe so, but I don't know if there were any sales that were ongoing at this point.

QUESTION: Do you have any idea of how long the investigation -- how much more time it needs and when to expect it to be done?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't. I think that people will take as long as they think they need to in order to get an objective picture of what they think are the facts.

QUESTION: Is it just a matter of getting more information from the Israelis?

MR. MCCORMACK: They collected information from a number of different sources not just the Israeli Government on this.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Who in Congress received the report or the assessment?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think by statute there's -- and it's different in different cases, I think this goes to the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Don't ask me to explain why that particular divide but that's just the requirement under this kind of a law.

QUESTION: And the White House also received a copy of this assessment?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell for sure, but I'm sure that they have -- they have a copy of it. Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, is this considered really a moot point, because back in that war in mid summer, weren't we saying in many instances Hezbollah were putting munitions and armaments into civilian areas in southern Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's a fact that they used human shields, that they hid themselves among the civilian populations. It was one of the aspects of this particular conflict that was -- that made it very, very difficult I think for the international system to watch but also for the Israelis as well. It's -- no military commander wants to be -- have to be put in the position of acting in self-defense and going after those people who have committed aggressions against your country but are then hiding among civilian populations. And we made very clear in public to the Israelis and the Israeli Government, and they made clear as well in their orders, that the Israeli military would take every possible precaution to avoid casualties to innocent civilian populations.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: It's on Iraq. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Friday that the Bush Administration hasn't really done enough to convince the international community to engage in Iraq. I'm just wondering if you have any reaction to that. And he also called for an international conference with the UN and getting the EU more on board. What's your reaction to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I guess I don't know exactly to what Mr. Hoyer is referring. Certainly we had been quite engaged with the international community in generating support, trying to generate support, whether that's economic or political or diplomatic or other kinds of assistance, to the Iraqi people and for the Iraqi Government. I can remember back in 2005 -- I can't give you the exact date -- we had a very large conference in Brussels designed to help support the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people.

In this past September, we had the International Compact for Iraq meet under the auspices of the UN. UN Secretary General -- at the time -- Kofi Annan was co-chair of the conference along with the Iraqis. Those efforts continue. And essentially, very simply, that is the Iraqis will agree to take a number of different steps in terms of political and economic reform, and in return the international community, various member states, will make certain pledges of certain types of contributions. It's basically the kind of deal that was struck between the international system and the Afghan Government that was hosted by Prime Minister Tony Blair in the UK about a year, a year and a half ago.

So there is a lot of activity being -- there's a lot of activity and energy that's being expended by the Administration and by the Iraqis themselves to generate international support for Iraq, the Iraqi people and Iraq's future. I've gone through some of the more formal, larger forum conferences, but there are a number of other efforts that are underway. Secretary Rice on her most recent trip talked a lot with leaders in the region about support for Iraq and the Iraqi people and as well as for supporting the new U.S. strategy in Iraq.

QUESTION: So the current process is working? There's no need for any new sort of initiative to get the international community more engaged in Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: We -- you know, always open to new ideas and good ideas. If there's anything that is qualitatively new and different beyond what it is that I have described, then certainly we're open to those ideas and certainly welcome the efforts of all who want to put their shoulder to the wheel. And in that effort we are engaged in it, we're already there, always willing to welcome more people in to help out.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about Iraq, the bombings over the weekend in Najaf? Were you aware of these "Soldiers of Heaven" cults previously or is this a new thing? Can you give me a readout?

MR. MCCORMACK: It was new to me, but that doesn't mean that it was new to our guys in the field. I suspect it was not, but you'd have to ask them.

Yeah.

QUESTION: And what about reports that it's being armed by foreign entities? Any -- can you just give me a bit more on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have a lot of the ground truth. I've seen a lot of the news reports that there were foreign fighters there. It's no surprise that there may have been. I don't know it as a fact because we -- there's a significant presence of foreign fighters in Iraq that are seeking to destabilize the progress that they are making. But on this particular case, I don't have much to offer you.

QUESTION: This was an effort by the Iraqi forces themselves. Would you see this as a positive thing, a good example of how --

MR. MCCORMACK: Absolutely. Absolutely. You see the Iraqi forces there, they're in the fight. We are there obviously to support them. It's going to vary case by case exactly whether or not we're shoulder-to-shoulder with them or in blocking positions or providing indirect support or indirect fire, but we are there to support them. It is certainly very positive when you see the Iraqis on the point. That is what they want. That is certainly what we are looking for as well.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: Sean, if I could just ask you about Iraq refugees again, and this is something that Assistant Secretary Sauerbrey touched on in her testimony on the Hill a couple of weeks ago. You know, there are stories of several interpreters and translators who have worked for the U.S. Government, several of whom have been severely injured and are seeking medical treatment in Jordan and so on. I'm just wondering if there's been any steps the U.S. has taken to help the system get perhaps refugee status here in the United States.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you have to break this out in a number of different ways. You have the issue of refugees, many of whom are now resident in -- not -- resident is not the right word -- present in Jordan and Syria. And the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has the lead not only in working with the host government to provide humanitarian assistance to them, but also to assess these individuals for whether or not they have a -- a real fear of continuing persecution. I'll get that out eventually. And if they do have that finding then they're classified as refugees and they go around to various member-states to see if they could possibly be resettled into those countries.

Now, we as a country are prepared to possibly take in a fairly significant number of our overall quota of refugees from the region. But those numbers haven't been fully set yet, but there's a little bit of give in the system to allow us to take some in.

Now, you have the issue of people who have worked for the U.S. Government and there are very specific programs that allow us to bring people in from some of these places, including in Iraq, who want to emigrate to the United States after a period of service to the U.S. Government. Now, the military has in place a very specific program. We ourselves are taking a look at what the State Department -- what the U.S. Government might do for those people who have met some term of service to us to see if they would meet the requirements for that same -- for a similar kind of program that the military has. But we don't yet -- we're not there yet. We're taking a look at it.

Certainly we want to do everything we can to encourage those Iraqis who are going to be critical to help rebuilding their country stay in Iraq and invest in their future. At the same time, you also want to honor the service of those individuals who in many cases have risked their lives to help us out.

QUESTION: There's a concern from many, including some that actually testified on the same panel as Assistant Secretary Sauerbrey, that the program that's in place that allows them to get refugee status from the military is restrictive in the sense that it's hard for them to get that recommendation. So I was wondering if you could respond to that.

And also, some are saying that, you know, for their service the U.S. owes it to the Iraqis to give them the status.

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we're trying to balance those competing demands that I just talked about there. You want Iraqis to -- those most talented Iraqis, some of whom work for us, those who might form the professional classes or middle classes in Iraq, to invest in Iraq, not in terms of dollar terms but invest in Iraq's future. They have done so, I would argue, already in working with us to help build a better country, but we would encourage that continued investment.

At the same time, you also want to honor those who have taken great risks and oftentimes made great sacrifices to help us out in that effort. But again, we're taking a look at it. I can't tell you we have come to any final conclusions at this point. But those are the two, I guess, competing demands that we're trying to balance.

Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: On that subject, do you have a number, a working number or even a range -- it wouldn't be an exact number. Do you have a range of people who fall into this category? They've worked for the government, they and their families, who might want to leave?

MR. MCCORMACK: Don't. We don't at this point, Charlie. It's something we're trying to get a better handle on.

QUESTION: Aside from the problem of people seeking refugee status, there's also a growing problem, aid groups are saying, of internally displaced people with more than a million people been pushed out of Baghdad. And there's a new study coming out this week by an aid group saying that within the next few months there will probably be more than a million people pushed out of Baghdad if the sectarian conflict and violence stays at the same level. What's the U.S. doing to try and ease this situation? Aid groups say it's really hard to get aid to these people and they've become targets themselves. So I just wondered if this is something you all are particular concerned about.

MR. MCCORMACK: It's something we have our eye on, obviously. Well, the best thing that we can do is help the Iraqis stabilize the security situation in Baghdad. You properly note that a big part of the problem emanate -- really is centered on Baghdad and the -- some of the sectarian conflicts that are ongoing in Baghdad.

So you heard from President Bush in his speech one of the big things we're trying to do is help the Iraqis get a handle on the security situation, a large component of which needs to be dealing with the sectarian conflicts and going after these militias or death squads that operate outside -- that are operating outside -- clearly outside the law.

That in large part, we believe, is responsible for those people who want to flee Baghdad, leave their neighborhoods, leave their homes, and in some cases leave Baghdad. People need to feel as though the security situation is getting better and that they will be more secure if they want to stay there or if people are to return. So I think that's probably the best thing that we can do. We obviously work with aid groups throughout Iraq to help deliver so that they can do the work that they are set up to do. I can't offer you any specifics on that, Sue, but as a general rule that's what we are -- we do work with aid groups in Iraq.

QUESTION: Do you have any figures yourself, any estimates on how many displaced people there are?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't -- at the tip of my fingers, I don't, no.

QUESTION: Okay. Could you look into that? Is that possible?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, we'll what we can get you.

Okay, we've got to move on here. I've got to go soon. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, about the date of the six-party talks, when do you expect the announcement by Chinese Government?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we -- they'll do that on their own particular time schedule. I can't confirm anything for you, but I know the dates in early February have been thrown out there and Assistant Secretary Chris Hill will be ready if that is, in fact, the date. He'll have his bags packed and he'll be ready to work.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Last week, Japanese Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I think there was a negative response from the U.S., but then he went on to criticize the U.S. role in negotiations over Okinawa bases. Do these comments -- the new comments on Okinawa as well as the ones on Iraq -- do you have any statement on those? And do these comments in any way jeopardize the 2+2 agreement or 2+2 talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, we're -- I think on the 2+2 talks it's just a matter of triangulating the schedules of foreign ministers. That's sometimes a little bit hard to do.

In terms of the minister's comments, look, on Iraq, I think his ministry mentioned something about the fact that he was expressing his personal views. On the basing agreement, we think that after some really, really tough negotiations, that we came up with a good compromise. We think we have a good deal and we're ready to follow through on our end of the bargain. I expect the Japanese are as well.

QUESTION: James Zumwalt over at the Japanese Affairs desk implied that they would jeopardize the 2+2 talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you. I don't know.

Thanks. (The briefing was concluded at 12:52 p.m.)

DPB #16

Released on January 29, 2007

ENDS

© Scoop Media