Middle East Digest: June 6, 2008Bureau of Public Affairs 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 June 6, 2008: QUESTION: Right. Okay. QUESTION: Do you have any announcement for us about the Secretary’s trip? MR. MCCORMACK: Oh. We should have that out today. We’ll get that out this afternoon. We’re leaving soon. We’re leaving next week, so there. QUESTION: Is that your only -- QUESTION: To where? QUESTION: You said you had a couple -- MR. MCCORMACK: No, that was it. QUESTION: Sean, can you say where you’re going? MR. MCCORMACK: That was it. QUESTION: Can you say where you’re going to yet? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the first stop is we’re going to go to Paris for the Afghan donors conference, and then we’re going to be heading off for stops in Israel and the West Bank. QUESTION: And what is your – why is she going to Israel and the West Bank? What do you think you can achieve this time around? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it’s really to take stock of where they are, to continue pushing the process forward. I know there’s a lot of political turmoil in Israel and that will work its course according to the dictates of Israeli politics. That is not out concern. We’re focused on the process. We’re focused on the substance of this process and trying to move it forward with both sides. In terms of Paris, there’s an Afghan donors conference. She is going to be participating in that. She’s going to also have some bilateral meetings with French officials. And I suspect because this is a large international gathering there will probably be a number of other bilaterals on the margins of the Afghan donors conference. And of course, the President is going to be traveling to Paris, I think, Friday, Saturday time frame. She’ll participate in the President’s program for that period of time, and then we’ll head off separately to the Middle East. QUESTION: Go back to the Middle East. Prime Minister Olmert said yesterday, just before leaving Washington, that a strong military action in Gaza was closer than ever – do you think it’s a good idea? Do you – MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we think that Israel has a right to defend itself. But also, in taking any actions to defend itself it needs to keep in mind and make part of its calculations the day after. The effect of any actions they may take, on what is the real solution to the issue, and that is a political settlement with those responsible parties that are ready to come to a political settlement. QUESTION: Do you think it will be better for the situation to be solved politically? For an example, with discussions between Abbas and the Hamas? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, but we think that the ultimate solution to any disagreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians is through a political process regardless of that. And certainly defending oneself against terrorist attacks is a central function of any government, and it’s going to – those governments are going – the Israeli Government in this case is going to have to act in the best interests of its people and keeping them safe. But ultimately, one has to keep in mind the larger context here is that there is an ongoing, active political dialogue with the Palestinians to try to resolve differences between the Israelis and Palestinians. And ultimately, it’s our belief that should the Israelis and Palestinians achieve an agreement that brings peace between the two peoples, that you – that will be put to the Palestinian people and that the vast majority of the Palestinian people will choose peace, one negotiated peace, and turn away from any support for terrorist rejectionist groups. QUESTION: So you mean that if there was a military operation against Gaza, it would be – it would affect the negotiations, the larger negotiations? MR. MCCORMACK: I’m not going to – you know, Sylvie, I’m not going to try to, you know, hypothesize here. QUESTION: No, I think I understand what you just said. MR. MCCORMACK: No, go back and take a look at what I said. Of course, Israel has a right to defend itself. But that is with respect to terrorist threat emanating from any point around the globe. But in acting to defend itself, to secure its borders, to protect its people, it needs to keep in mind the effects of the actions that it might take in defending Israel on the political process that is ongoing. I don’t – this isn’t really new language. QUESTION: Well, speaking of new language, can you refresh us on just what the U.S. Government policy is on Jerusalem, the status? I’m not trying to draw you into any politics here, but what is the – what is the U.S. position? MR. MCCORMACK: On Jerusalem? QUESTION: Yes. MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the – in terms of – in the context of the Israelis and the Palestinians, it’s one that needs to be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The resolution of the issue of Jerusalem there and scores of other issues like borders and refugees and a number of other associated issues, and those are things that all need to be negotiated -- QUESTION: Right. MR. MCCORMACK: -- between the Israelis and the Palestinians. QUESTION: But in terms of U.S. law, is it not U.S. law that Jerusalem is the un -- MR. MCCORMACK: -- is the capital. QUESTION: Undivided Jerusalem is the capital? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think we’ve said that is it the – it is the capital. (Inaudible) in U.S. law. I don’t have the reference, Matt, as to anything else. And I know that under the law, we are obligated to begin the process of moving our Embassy to Jerusalem. This is something that’s longstanding. I – we’ve had numerous correspondences with Capitol Hill and the Congress on that, and I think you can take a look at that record. QUESTION: Yeah. How is that process -- MR. MCCORMACK: As to – I think the process has begun. QUESTION: It has? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think that’s what we’ve attested to the Hill. QUESTION: How far has it gone? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there’s a long record of correspondence with Capitol Hill -- QUESTION: Is there someone working every day on this issue? MR. MCCORMACK: I’m sure it is something that has the attention of people in the U.S. Government. QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about the Fulbright students from Gaza? MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. QUESTION: I’ve got a series of questions here. What is the status of the students from Gaza? Only four of them were allowed to come. Why is that? MR. MCCORMACK: Israeli officials issued exit permits for four of the seven. We’re still working with the Israeli Government on exit permits for the other three so they can go to Jerusalem for their visa interviews. Four of them have gone through the visa interview process, and those applications are currently being considered. And once we have a decision on those, we’ll notify those four and, hopefully, the other three if that’s done. And you know, if the decision is in the affirmative on the visa applications, then those students will be studying in the United States as Fulbright scholars. QUESTION: Why did the breakdown in communications happen? MR. MCCORMACK: What breakdown of communications? QUESTION: I can’t really tell you. I’m just reading off these questions right here. MR. MCCORMACK: Ah, I see. Well, look, the issue of exit permits for those students who have been sponsored by foreign governments, in this case the United States Government and the Fulbright program, has been one that we’ve worked on with the Israeli Government and there have been some issues there – it’s not a new story here – where the Israeli Government take a look at their policies. And they are now going to look more favorably on reviewing a lot of these applications. So, as I said several days ago, the past is the past. Look, we have a new opportunity to hit the reset button on this issue working with the Israeli Government. And I think now you’re going to have other governments have the ability to do that as well. And we’re going to try to get some of these students studying in places like the United States and Western Europe. We think that’s very important not only in terms of educational exchanges, have Palestinians studying here, getting to know the United States and having U.S. citizens get to know Palestinians, but it also sends a strong message to the Palestinian people that we’re not going to forsake Gaza just because Hamas engaged in illegal actions and violence in staging a coup in Gaza. So it’s important. That’s why the Secretary, when this came to her attention, decided to act immediately and got the machinery of the bureaucracy into gear. Into high gear, I guess you could say. And we’re quite pleased that we’re moving forward at least right now on those four applicants and working on the other three. QUESTION: Don’t you mean going from -- into drive from reverse? MR. MCCORMACK: We put it in gear. I’d say it was probably stuck in neutral. QUESTION: One last question. Why didn’t the U.S. make sure that they were able to leave in the first place? MR. MCCORMACK: Why didn’t – well, that’s not under our control. As I said, we’ve had – we as well as others have had a history of working with the Israeli Government on this issue. It hasn’t been the best one in terms of end results that we’d like to see. But we got a fresh start, and that’s positive. QUESTION: Yeah. Senator Biden has written a letter to Secretaries Rice and Gates -- MR. MCCORMACK: Right. QUESTION: -- saying that the Administration has failed to live up to a commitment to consult closely with Congress throughout the entire process of negotiating these two agreements in Baghdad. Any reaction? Have you replied to him or -- MR. MCCORMACK: Not to my knowledge. I don’t think we have generated a reply. Of course, we will. I will point out we have done an extensive series of initial consultations with a number of interested committees up on the Hill and interested members up on the Hill. And we are committed to a transparent kind of cooperation with Capitol Hill to update them on where we are in these negotiations. Part of the issue really has been simple logistics and geography. Some of the people who are most intimately involved in these negotiations and therefore most authoritative in speaking about them and briefing members of the Hill have been in Iraq. They’re working on these issues. So we are committed to keeping the Congress abreast of these negotiations. We’re not backtracking from that commitment. And we’re going to look for ways that are mutually acceptable to fulfill that commitment. QUESTION: But, Sean, doesn't it seem to be a contradiction here? Here the most senior members of the committee, a bipartisan group, and they’re saying that it should be apparent that Congress requires much more detailed consultations. They’re pretty much saying that despite your words about transparency that they’re not getting anything like what they -- MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they’re two separate branches of government, and I’m sure that we are going to be able to come to some mutually acceptable solution in terms of briefing the Congress on this. QUESTION: Just to follow up -- QUESTION: (Inaudible.) QUESTION: There was a couple of Iraqi parliamentarian members that had a press conference just a little bit ago that indicated that the Iraq security deal violates Iraq’s sovereignty and the U.S. is actually there “bribing and threatening the Iraqi Government to sign the deal.” MR. MCCORMACK: Sounds like there’s a lot of politics going on in Baghdad. Look, we are committed to working with the Iraqi Government in coming up with an agreement that serves both our national interests. We are going to respect Iraqi sovereignty. This is going to be something that is a transparent agreement. There aren’t going to be any secret side deals. So once a deal is negotiated, it will be debated in Iraq and will be open to full view in the United States as well. So, I would expect that there are going to be people with a variety of opinions within the Iraqi political space. But it’s an indication really of how politics in Iraq is maturing that you do have these different points of view and they’re able to speak out freely, even if they contradict the policies – stated policies of the government. QUESTION: Just – if I might follow up? MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. QUESTION: Just two things. First, they ask the secretaries to appear personally before the committee to discuss this, and what might happen there? And then secondly, there seems to be a suggestion among some members of Congress that this wouldn’t be legal without congressional approval. And just to clarify, you say that congressional approval is not necessary for something like this? MR. MCCORMACK: That has been the position of the Administration. I don’t think there – you can point to a number of examples in the tens, if not more than a hundred, examples of SOFAs that are not ratified by the Congress or by the Senate. QUESTION: And what’s -- MR. MCCORMACK: And the same would hold for these agreements. QUESTION: And what would be lost there, just if – to put it before Congress? What would be the downside of that? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what’s the upside to it? QUESTION: And just the Secretary’s – the request for the Secretary’s appearance? MR. MCCORMACK: I’m sure that they will take that into consideration if they think that is the best way to deal with the issue. But, you know, again, we’re going to work with the Congress on some mutually agreeable solution here. QUESTION: The letter also says that the Iraqis have asked for some substantial changes to the two – to the agreements that you’re looking at, and also that the United States won’t get – have the same sort of authority as it does with the UN resolutions, you know, governing their presence there at the moment. I wonder if you had any comment on that and whether you could illuminate us a little bit on -- MR. MCCORMACK: Absolutely not. (Laughter.) You know, this is probably going to be an ongoing dialogue that we have. You know, we’re not going to get into the minute details, the sausage-making process, the negotiating process. There are going to be ups, there are going to be downs, there are going to be people who are happy, people who are unhappy at various moments of time – moments in time. What matters is what the final product is. And it’s going to be one, as I said, that respects the interests of both states, that respects the sovereignty of both states, and that is transparent. Like I said, there are no secret side deals, no secret minutes, no secret understandings. It will be there for everybody to see. QUESTION: But one thing that you’ll be seeking is to have the kind of authorities that you’ll need so that your troops are safe, right? MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, any agreement will be in our national interest. QUESTION: Okay. MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. QUESTION: The Washington Post reported this morning that the Iraqis are considering, or would like to have the UN Security Council authorization extended past 2008, contrary to what Ryan Crocker said yesterday. MR. MCCORMACK: Right. QUESTION: Has that been anything that’s been expressed to the United States? Is there anything to that report? MR. MCCORMACK: There has not been anything expressed in that regard to the United States, no.
|
 | |||
|
