Middle East Digest: July 14, 2008Bureau of Public Affairs The Middle East Digest provides text and audio from the Daily Press Briefing. For the full briefings, please visit daily press briefings. From the Daily Press Briefing of July 14, 2008: MR. MCCORMACK: Kirit.QUESTION: Can you say whether the Administration still hopes to conclude a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq by the end of the Administration? MR. MCCORMACK: What we’re working on, Kirit, is an agreement with – you know, an agreement with the Iraqis, whether that comprises one or two documents, we’ll see – regarding the continuing U.S.-Iraqi relationship across a variety of different aspects, whether that’s the cultural exchanges or economic or diplomatic, political and security. And very specifically, what we want to do is work on some agreement between the United States and Iraq that will allow our forces to do their job, provide protections to our forces that they need to do their job, working with the Iraqis to provide a security environment. Of course, we all share the same goals here, the Iraqis and the United States, in terms of providing a security environment, fighting al-Qaida, fighting against those elements within Iraq. We want to try to turn back the clock on Iraq. So that’s generally what we’re working for. And we’re optimistic that we’re going to be able to get there. QUESTION: And the kind of agreement that you’re trying to look for now, is that, as Ryan Crocker had told us in the past, was a longer term Status of Forces Agreement? Or is it, as has been reported recently, more of a bridge agreement that would take you through the two electoral cycles, the one here in the U.S. and the one in Iraq this coming fall? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the focus – you know, again, in terms of the exact nature of the agreement, what is on the top line, the title of it, or the bumper sticker description of it, that’s not, you know, the most important thing that’s going on here. What’s important is that we both work together on a way that will allow our forces to work with Iraqi forces to operate, to offer them certain protections, fight against al-Qaida, help provide a better security environment, you know, after you have the Security Council resolution expires, which is, again, the basis for our forces being there right now. So you want to conclude something that will allow them to continue operating. QUESTION: And what’s the timeline on that? I mean, how long would you like to see that agreement cover? MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, Kirit, these are all things that are going to be worked out during a negotiation. I’m not going to get into the details of our position or the Iraqis’ position or where we stand right now on those negotiations. QUESTION: And when do you expect to be able to– do you still expect to be able to complete something by the end of the month? MR. MCCORMACK: We’re pushing hard on it. We’re pushing hard on it. Again, I don’t like to give specific dates. I’ll leave that to others to do. But we’re dedicating quite a bit of effort to it, as are the Iraqis. You know, this is an important agreement for them as well. It’s an important agreement for their future. And you’re starting to see a dynamic here, like – a little bit like you saw in Basra, where you’re more and more starting to have Iraqi-led operations, Iraqi-conceived operations, Iraqi-executed operations, where we are playing a role, whether that’s a support role or a more central role. So that is representative of the kind of relationship that’s changing between the United States forces and Iraqi forces. Sorry, we’re getting a little feedback here. QUESTION: Sean – MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, feedback. (Laughter.) QUESTION: Sean, maybe – can you talk a little bit about what the sticking points are, though? I mean, you mention a whole series of things and – you know, are you hung up on the educational and cultural exchanges? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Matt – QUESTION: What exactly is the (inaudible)? Do they want to go to bigger universities and you’re prepared to allow them to or – MR. MCCORMACK: Let’s wait to get the sound fixed here. Are we all set on the sound? STAFF: Yes. MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, good. Matt, look, obviously, a lot of the issues – QUESTION: Or is it the traditional dance thing that’s got you hung up? MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, come on. Look – QUESTION: Well – MR. MCCORMACK: No, obviously, the security issues are – focus on some of the most sensitive issues for both sides here, for both sides. You know, I mentioned the full range of relations between the U.S. and Iraq because that is part of this. And let’s not let that – lose sight of that fact, that we’re intending to work with the Iraqis to try to negotiate an agreed-upon framework for a relationship between a new Iraq and the United States going forward. Of course, this will provide a framework or an outline or a foundation for that relationship. But that’s important, too. In terms of the negotiations, I’m not going to specify exactly what are the issues at hand and what our position is, what the Iraqis’ position is. I’m not going to negotiate from the podium. But obviously, security issues are a big part of this. And the role – what is important for us, and I think it’s a shared sense with the Iraqis, is that our forces continue to be able to do their jobs with the protections that allow them to do their jobs. QUESTION: So – okay, so that’s what you would describe, in general, as the main issue of concern right now is the security – MR. MCCORMACK: No, I am not going to – QUESTION: – security issues and the – MR. MCCORMACK: I am not going to narrow it down. I am not going to be more specific about where we are in the negotiations. Yeah, Samir. QUESTION: Can you give us a readout of the meeting with the Jordanian Foreign Minister? MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, they talked about several issues – U.S.-Jordanian bilateral issues. Not surprisingly, talked a great deal about where the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations stand. The Secretary shared with him how she saw things and he was able to provide her some information as well. They talked about regional issues, various threats as we both see them in the region. It was a good discussion. Yeah, Charles. QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the situation in Afghanistan in the last couple days? Not the specifics of the military side, but from the State Department’s point of view? MR. MCCORMACK: Not – no specifics to offer, Charlie. I know that we did lose nine brave Americans yesterday in a firefight in Kunar province. I’ll leave it to DOD to describe the specific circumstances of that. But I would urge you to consider that this may have been a case of the U.S. and international forces and Afghan forces taking a fight – taking the fight to the enemy rather than the other way around. QUESTION: Well, has the Secretary been engaged on this issue since the last – since this particular incident? I mean, has she talked to Secretary Gates? Has she done anything we should know – would like to know about? MR. MCCORMACK: I think she has lunch with Secretary Gates today in a pre-scheduled lunch. Look, they – the – and she has a call every single morning, or virtually every single morning with Secretary Gates and National Security Advisor Hadley, so they are in constant, constant communication. Yeah. QUESTION: Over at the Pentagon, they’ve been saying that one of the reasons for the – this increase in violence in Afghanistan is because Pakistan is not doing enough. In your discussion with the Pakistani – or with the Secretary’s discussion with him on Friday, did you discuss any specific new ideas that you could curb the number of fighters crossing over? What was the outcome of that meeting in terms of concrete suggestions? MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm. Well, I’ll leave it to the military folks to describe the situation on the ground, where they see the threats coming from. But generally speaking, there is a deep concern about cross-border infiltration from Pakistan into Afghanistan, and then back over the border into Pakistan once again. And as you might imagine, it’s a complicated issue, but it’s fundamental to the security of both of those countries, because you have people operating out of Pakistan that pose a threat to Afghanistan. But ultimately, too, let’s remember that those kinds of groups, those kinds of individuals aren’t necessarily content to direct their energies outwardly, and they pose a real threat to Pakistan and the Pakistani people as well. So – and Pakistan, I believe, understands this. They understand the importance of engaging in the counterterrorism fight. We talked to them about that. I don’t want to get into specifics. I’ll leave that for closed-door diplomacy. But it is a real concern for us. Yes, sir, in the back. QUESTION: Yes, sir. Jamal from ARY TV from Pakistan. A quick follow-up for Afghanistan and Pakistan. There was a report yesterday published from Associated Press saying that last month about 300 fighters from jihadis group came together for a secret gathering. And yesterday attack that took about nine U.S. soldiers’ life. And there is some official, Western Pakistani official, blaming that these militants were behind that attack. Do you have anything? MR. MCCORMACK: I have no information that would suggest an answer to that one way or the other. Yes, sir. QUESTION: These people that – reports say it was that these fighters were from the Kashmiri groups. MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Again, I don’t have any knowledge on – about the matter, and I don’t know any connection between the firefight yesterday and that report. Okay. QUESTION: There was also a report over the weekend that the Pakistani Government had decided not to investigate the allegations that A.Q. Khan made that the Pakistani military was involved in shipping nuclear components to North Korea. Is that something that the United States raises with Pakistan? I mean, I assume it’s a pretty big concern. MR. MCCORMACK: What, A.Q. Khan? QUESTION: Well, what they – specifically his allegation that the Pakistani military was involved in shipping some of the nuclear components to North Korea. MR. MCCORMACK: I’m not going to get into any specific allegations. But certainly, learning more about the work of A.Q. Khan and his network certainly is something we are interested in. It’s a matter of continuing interest for us. We’ve learned a lot. The network’s broken up. It’s out of business. But we’re – I think we as well as others are still plumbing the extent of all of A.Q. Khan – all of the A.Q. Khan’s – the A.Q. Khan network’s activities. QUESTION: But not directly? I mean, the Pakistani Government’s never given the U.S. access to A.Q. Khan? MR. MCCORMACK: That’s – to my knowledge, that’s correct. QUESTION: Is there any ongoing pressure to allow that? MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t know what the most recent discussions were about it. But it’s a matter – I know it’s a matter of continuing interest for us. The – again, determining exactly the full extent of that network’s activities with A.Q. Khan being at the center of it. QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: Thank you. MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. |
 | |||
|
