Middle East Digest: May 15, 2008

Bureau of Public Affairs
May 15, 2008

The Middle East Digest provides text and audio from the Daily Press Briefing. For the full briefings, please visit http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/.

From the Daily Press Briefing of May 15, 2008:

View Video

QUESTION: How about we go to Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: The Arab League, according to our reports, has brokered a deal to end the internal strife following the Siniora government’s decision to back down and rescind some of the things to which Hezbollah objected. One, do you think it was a good idea for Siniora’s government to have given in to Hezbollah’s demands? And two, what do you think about the possibility or the reports that the Arab League has gotten a deal?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I’ll leave it to those directly involved in such discussions to comment about the details of any deal that has been agreed to. And by definition, a deal means that all sides have agreed to it and we’re not going to second-guess anything the Lebanese Government has – has done in this matter with Hezbollah.

Look, the fact of the matter is Hezbollah continues to pose a challenge to the future of the Lebanese people in terms of realizing a broad-based, deep democracy that benefits all of the Lebanese people. You – we have seen over the past several days that Hezbollah is willing to kill Lebanese in the interest of their political agenda, which seems to have really no basis other than to try to expand their political power. It operates outside the political system in – in Lebanon.

And our view is, along with others, not only in the region, but around the world, is that we are going to continue to do what we can to strengthen this Lebanese Government that is democratically elected, that seeks only to govern on behalf of all the Lebanese people, to expand – extend its sovereignty over all of Lebanon, and to broaden and deepen Lebanese democracy, and to fiercely guard Lebanon’s sovereignty. It’s in – we believe in the Lebanese people’s interest, we believe it is in Lebanon’s interest. That is going to be a continuing challenge as long as you have groups like Hezbollah that are, at the very least, largely influenced, at the other end of the spectrum, controlled by parties outside of Lebanon: Iran and Syria.

So that is going to be a continuing – that is going to be a continuing challenge for the Lebanese people. It’s going to be a continuing challenge for those in the international system who have an interest in a more peaceful, prosperous, and democratic Lebanon. So it remains our view that we are going to stand with those democratically elected leaders who continue to fight on behalf of Lebanese democracy.

QUESTION: Why isn’t this appeasement?

MR. MCCORMACK: What’s that?

QUESTION: Why isn’t this appeasement?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, as I said, this is – it is a – Hezbollah is not a creation of the past week. It’s not a creation of the past two weeks or month or six months. It’s a longstanding problem. It was created by Iran. And it is going to be a continuing issue for Lebanese democrats to deal with over the course of time. You’re not going to resolve – Lebanon is not going to resolve its myriad difficulties and idiosyncrasies of its political system in the course of a week or in one set of discussions.

So it is our task, as a friend of Lebanese people and a friend of democracy in Lebanon and a friend of this government, to do what we can to try to reinforce the – the actions of this democratic government and those with a commitment to Lebanese democracy. That doesn’t include, very clearly, groups like Hezbollah who continue to operate outside the political system, all the while saying that they want to participate in it. You can’t have it both ways.

QUESTION: Sean?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: But you – why wouldn’t you, to use your phase, second-guess anything the Lebanese Government may have done? You can still support the idea of a democratically elected government in Lebanon and object to what would be a deal with a group you consider to be terrorists and militants. I mean, President Bush said today, you know, that some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they’ve been wrong all along. I mean, who is he talking about, if not Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you’re mixing apples and oranges and the --

QUESTION: Well? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, you are. He is – he is not, to my knowledge, talking about internal Lebanese politics. We all know about the idiosyncrasy of Lebanese politics, where you have a group that we consider a terrorist group, Hezbollah, as part of the political system. Ultimately, as we have said before, that is going to have to be a question resolved by the Lebanese people. We’ve resolved it for ourselves. We stand on the side of democrats and those who want to have a unified central government that has – is able to exercise sovereignty and that means exercise security prerogatives throughout all of Lebanon and not have a group like Hezbollah being able to try to have one foot in politics and one foot in – in terror. But ultimately, those are going to have to be questions that the Lebanese people resolve for themselves. We can’t do it for them.

What we can do, through our words and through our actions, is to support those in Lebanon who are fighting for Lebanese democracy, who are fighting for the principle that there is only one state in Lebanon that will govern on behalf of all the Lebanese people. Dealing with Hezbollah is going to be a continuing challenge on how to resolve – how to resolve that central and fundamental contradiction in Lebanese politics not only today, but in – out -- as it extends out in the future, it’s going to have to be one for the Lebanese people and the Lebanese Government to resolve.

Yeah.

QUESTION: How far have you got, in discussions for some strong UN action with Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: Ongoing discussions up in New York, consultations among Security Council colleagues. As always, I will not put a timeline on action by the Security Council.

QUESTION: Can you characterize the discussions, how well they’re going, and what might emerge?

MR. MCCORMACK: They’re good discussions. I’m not going to try to prefigure exactly what will be the outcome of the discussions or when we will see an outcome of the discussions. But there is a – I think there is a determination, certainly among the interlocutors that we’re working with, to do something within the Security Council on Lebanon.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you – I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you think that there’s going to be a President’s statement for a resolution, maybe possibly a Chapter 7 or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, – we’ll see. I’m not going to try to – I’m not going to try to, from here at this point, talk about exactly what the discussions will yield in terms of action.

QUESTION: The Arab mediators, just before this briefing, announced an agreement with the Hezbollah and said that the negotiations between the government and Hezbollah are going to continue in Qatar.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Are you – aren’t you at all concerned that it’s – you won’t have any control on that and that Qatar is considered as more pro-Hezbollah, as many other Arab countries?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the Arab – the Arab League comprises a number of very strong, committed friends of Lebanon, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. And Qatar is merely acting on behalf of the larger group. So we have every confidence that those Arab League members with whom we are in direct contact and who were on the phone call the Secretary participated in just the other day, are going to be strong advocates on behalf of this Lebanese Government which is one that stands for the Lebanese people.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, I still don’t understand why you would not construe the Lebanese Government backing down to Hezbollah’s demands as appeasement. They have given in to a group which, as you pointed out, has not hesitated to resort to force to try to get its way. And you yourself said that it is a group backed by Iran, which was clearly the primary object of the President’s comments in Israel today. So why – explain to me why you wouldn’t view this as appeasement, as giving in to a terrorist group that uses force to achieve its --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, because – because, you know, Arshad, sitting back here in Washington id sort of the comforts of our own democracy, secure in our rights and freedoms, I don’t think it’s appropriate to start second-guessing those people who are making decisions that, literally, will determine the future of democracy in Lebanon, whether it survives to fight another day, another week, another month, and another year or not.

So I – I will focus my comments on supporting those – those people who are fighting for Lebanese democracy, fighting for Lebanese sovereignty against people and groups that will stop at nothing to try to turn back the clock, who will use whatever brutal tactics are at their disposal, killing their own fellow citizens. So for me to try to second-guess the actions of this government are tantamount to, you know, calling – calling into question whether or not they’re acting in the best interests of the Lebanese people. I’m not going to do that.

QUESTION: Can I ask one thing that’s related to this? The U.S. Government has provided military assistance to the Lebanese military or army to try to strengthen it, not least of all, versus Hezbollah. As you talk about reinforcing, strengthening your – you know, the parties that you support in Lebanon, are you giving any consideration to putting forward additional military assistance, either vehicles or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- you know, ammunition, whatever to the Lebanese army?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right -- right now, I know what is -- what we have committed to is speeding up what we had already agreed to in terms of assistance. You know, again, I'm not going -- I'll leave it to the Department of Defense to more specifically outline what that means. In the past, some examples of the kinds of things that we have given have been body armor and ammunition and those kinds of things. We've also done some training as well.

So General Dempsey was in -- was in Beirut, I believe, yesterday and he talked to the Lebanese Government about some of what they might need, what it is that we can provide. I know that we have committed at this point to speeding up delivery of those things that we had already committed to. I'm not going to foreclose the possibility of anything additional at this point, but I don't have any announcements in that regard.

QUESTION: Could you check on that for us?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. I don't expect that you'll hear anything -- anything additional at this point in time. You know, like I said, I'm not going to foreclose the option.

QUESTION: A senior official said on Friday that, you know, you would probably -- you would positively take a request for more assistance.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Have the Lebanese, or yesterday in his meetings, was Dempsey requested by the Lebanese to provide more assistance?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to get into the details of our conversation. But again, I've said we're going to speed up what we've already committed to. And like I said, if there's anything more -- more to it beyond that, then we'll certainly keep you informed along the way.

QUESTION: Since mid-2006, you've given about $400 million in military assistance to Lebanon according to your own figures.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: How much are you set to give between now and the end of the year? Do you happen to have those figures?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can look it up for you.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: We'll see if we can generate those numbers.

Samir.

QUESTION: Yes. It seems this is a war by proxy launched by Iran and Syria against the U.S. and Iraq and Lebanon and Hamas. Are you considering any new pressures on Syria and Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're always -- we're always reviewing what it is that we might do to combat those states that -- to combat violent extremists and to address those states that support those violent extremists.

I would, you know, just -- correct me, I would take a little different tack in terms of your question. These are efforts I wouldn't say specifically directed at the United States; mainly, they're directed against the people of the region. That is -- one should not lose sight of that fact here. And that is that these efforts by Iran, you know, indirectly by Iran and Syria, are killing their brothers, their sisters, their neighbors. And I hope that is not lost in all of this discussion when we start talking about the U.S. and Iran, the U.S. and Syria, and other countries in the region.

QUESTION: Can we --

QUESTION: About Iran. Robert Gates yesterday said that U.S. should engage with Iran. Do you think he's playing on your field or does it help you?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I -- look, I didn't see the full transcript of what he said. But I -- just reading the comments I saw in the newspaper, I don't think you heard anything different from him than you would have heard -- then you have heard from Secretary Rice. That was a striking -- one -- one particular passage when he talked about engaging and engaging from a point -- from a position of leverage, I think you've heard Secretary Rice talk about the fact that diplomacy without leverage is just talking. And we're not going to engage just for the sake of talking.

And part of what we are doing vis-à-vis Iran in the region, you know, in addition to defending our interests and the interests of our friends and allies in the region, is trying to create points of leverage as well. And as Secretary -- Secretary Rice has said, we're fully prepared to engage with Iran. They are not, at this point, prepared to engage with us.

QUESTION: But he's acting a little bit as -- more as the Secretary of State than the Secretary of State. Does that you?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that that is just a silly -- silly idea to suggest. I think -- you know, he has a day job and I know -- (laughter) -- he is fully occupied with that. Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates have a great relationship. They talk all the time and they -- I think certainly on these issues related to Iran, are of similar, if not one, mind.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On a vaguely related issue.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Have you had a chance to look at Iran's offer yet, which was received in Brussels?

MR. MCCORMACK: We, the P-5+1, I think -- yeah, I know that they got it. I think the idea here is that we just received it; we, the P-5+1 just received it. So we're going to take a few days to review it and analyze it, and probably have more to -- more to say in the coming days.

QUESTION: And are you going to give them a response when you -- when the other members of the P-5+1 present proposals to Motaki*?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I don't know if the two are tied exactly. I think it depends on the timing of when the P-5+1 proposal is presented to the Iranians, so, you know, I'm not going to preclude any public comment on the Iranian proposal prior to the delivery of the P-5+1. We'll keep you informed.

QUESTION: Okay. Any idea --

MR. MCCORMACK: They maintain some tactical, diplomatic flexibility, I guess.

QUESTION: But any timetable yet on when those meetings will take place with Motaki*?

MR. MCCORMACK: There -- nothing to report right now.

QUESTION: Is that because you haven't been able to fix a time yet with Motaki because he's rather busy? Or is it just because --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think we're, you know, working through details.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Hi. Could we get back to the President's comments about appeasement --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- your general reaction to those? And isn't there a risk of the United States sending out mixed signals on its approach to Iran and other regimes?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. What do you want me to comment specifically on?

QUESTION: Well, when he said --

MR. MCCORMACK: My reaction to it? I think it's pretty clear, you know, look at the words, listen to them. I don't know that I have much more to offer in terms of analysis.

QUESTION: Well, who is he referring to as people who want to do this negotiation and who are the militants and terrorists of whom he's referring?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you can talk to the folks at the White House. Typically, they are the ones who will offer any further elaboration on the President's comments or not. In terms of violent extremists, you know, the groups are well known -- Hamas, Hezbollah. You know, you can go down the list and see the groups that are listed there as terrorist organizations; Al-Qaida, of course. In terms of the -- you know, in terms of the states, there* are state sponsors of terror. But you should check with the folks at the White House if they want to offer any further elaboration on the President's speech.

QUESTION: But in terms of the United States and Iran, here there’s new incentives being offered, there’s a package from Iran being considered, but at the same time, the President, the Commander-In-Chief, is --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- saying it’s a discredited policy to talk to enemies of the United States.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think, you know, the – in terms of – in terms of the President’s speech, he makes it very clear that there is, in terms of those who are friends of peace, friends of democracy in the Middle East, there’s a very clear line between those people and those on the other side -- Iran, Syria, various groups, violent extremists who – who will use terror and violence to try to achieve some political goals. And it is worth talking about, very clearly, how there are – there are bright lines and – and highlighting those bright lines between, you know, one – one side of the divide in the Middle East and the other.

In terms of, you know, Iran, we have made it very clear that if they meet – we, meaning the international system, has made it very clear – if they meet certain conditions, then we are prepared to talk to them about any number of issues. But they have not done so thus far and absent – certainly, absent that, we are going to continue to defend our interest in the region and to work with our friends and allies in the region to defend theirs.

QUESTION: Any comment -- I know there has been none recently about the Pakistan missile strike? Has the United States received any formal protest about that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think -- I've seen the news reports and probably refer you to Pakistani authorities for any information about that.