Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

2:16 p.m. EST

MR. KELLY: Well, I'm going to actually make some statements at the top.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Europe and Asia November 8 to 19, 2009. In Berlin, she will represent the United States at the 20^th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall and meet with senior German officials. Secretary Clinton will continue on to Singapore for meetings of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. While there, she'll attend the APEC ministerial meetings and will hold bilateral meetings with her counterparts from the region. In Manila, the Secretary will hold consultations with senior Filipino officials, highlighting the U.S.-Philippines treaty alliance. Returning to Singapore, the Secretary will join President Obama for the APEC leaders meeting.

And then I'd like to read a statement on Honduras. Last week, Honduran negotiators came to an accord that spells out a step-by-step process for Honduras to reestablish democratic and constitutional order and move toward national elections with the support of the international community. In the wake of the Verification Commission visit November 3 and 4, the two sides made significant progress toward the formation of a unity government. For that reason, we were particularly disappointed by the unilateral statements made last night, which do not serve the spirit of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord.

We urge both sides to act in the best interests of the Honduran people and return to the table immediately to reach agreement on the formation of a unity government. The formation of a government of unity and national reconciliation will serve the Honduran people and will change the political dynamics in the country in a positive way. It is urgent that this government be created immediately.

The Honduran people have made clear that they want to move forward. They deserve leadership that looks to the future in the interests of all Honduran people. Complete and timely implementation of the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord is the path to that future, and the formation of a government of unity and national reconciliation is the next vital step forward.

One more.

The United States Government is disappointed by the decision of the Egyptian public prosecutor’s office to deny Ayman Nour permission to travel. We hope the Government of Egypt will review its decision in this case and allow Mr. Nour to travel to the United States, as planned.

Yes.

QUESTION: On Honduras, anything to add on what Congressman[1] Jim DeMint said that the U.S. is willing to recognize the electoral result in Honduras with or without Zelaya?

MR. KELLY: I’m sorry, repeat that one more time.

QUESTION: Anything to add on what Congressman[2] Jim DeMint says about the recognition of the electoral results in Honduras about you are going to recognize the electoral results with or without Mr. Zelaya?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think we have agreed to support the electoral process. We are providing technical assistance to the elections process in Honduras. And we – we’ve made this commitment to support this process because of the accord between the two parties. And as the parties respect and implement this agreement step by step, we will continue to support the process. So that’s our policy right now.

QUESTION: Senator DeMint says that you – that he was given specific assurances from the Department that – forgetting about supporting the election, but that you will recognize, that the Administration will recognize the election as legitimate even if Zelaya has not been reinstated. Is that correct? Can I get a yes or no answer on this?

MR. KELLY: I think what we have said, what the Secretary has said, and what I’ll say --

QUESTION: Can I just get --

MR. KELLY: -- is that we support this accord which calls, first of all, for a Verification Commission, then for – and that’s been done. The next step is the formation of a government of unity and reconciliation, then a Congress vote on the restoration, and then the elections. So far, only one step has been carried out.

QUESTION: Is Senator DeMint correct or incorrect when he puts out in a statement that he has been given assurances by the Administration that it will risk – it will, excuse me – that it will recognize the result – the legitimacy – this election as legitimate, whether Zelaya has been reinstated or not? Yes or no?

MR. KELLY: Again, our support for these elections is the product of this agreement.

QUESTION: Senator DeMint put out a statement last night, yesterday, or this morning saying that he had been given these assurances and that he was lifting his hold on Shannon and Valenzuela because of that assurance.

MR. KELLY: I’m sorry, Matt. I don’t have the statement right here, so I can’t – I mean, I know you’re reading me the statement. Let me take the question, we’ll look at the statement, and we’ll give you a response.

QUESTION: So – but right now, you’re saying that he is not? I mean, I am --

MR. KELLY: No, I’m --

QUESTION: I’m telling you what he said in the statement. He said that he has been assured that you will recognize the election with or without --

MR. KELLY: Okay.

QUESTION: -- Zelaya being reinstated and that’s why he --

MR. KELLY: I would not – I know that the Secretary spoke to Senator DeMint. I know Tom Shannon has spoken to Senator DeMint. I was not in those meetings. I was not – and I didn’t – wasn’t on the phone call. Let me get back and find out exactly what we can say about this.

QUESTION: Ian?

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What – going back to your statement, when you say that the U.S. Government is disappointed, disappointed of what? Disappointed – disappointment of Zelaya position? Yesterday, he said that he doesn’t follow any more of this agreement? Or disappointment with the government of Micheletti that they didn’t work with the congress to reinstate Zelaya? Or how – can you clarify that?

MR. KELLY: I think we’re disappointed with both sides. I think we’re disappointed that both sides are not following this very clear path which has been laid out in this accord. It has not formed a government of national unity for – I think what happened last night is that there was not an agreement on a government of national unity in reconciliation. It was a unilaterally decided government. And a unilaterally decided government is not a government of unity. So I think it’s fair to say we’re disappointed at both sides.

Yeah.

QUESTION: First, can you comment on the confirmation of Arturo Valenzuela as Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere? And second, what is the incentive to the de facto regime in Honduras once they have the assurance that Assistant Secretary Shannon made that the elections would be recognized regardless of what happens with Zelaya from here until the 29^th? So --

MR. KELLY: I think – yeah, first of all, I think what Assistant Secretary Shannon said is as this agreement is implemented, it gives us a way to move forward, and it gives us a way to support the elections. So that’s one. On the confirmation of Arturo Valenzuela, of course, we’re very pleased that he was confirmed by unanimous consent, and of course we’re also disappointed that Tom Shannon’s nomination did not go forward. We think Tom Shannon is one of our best diplomats, and we look forward to him being confirmed as well very quickly to be ambassador to Brazil.

QUESTION: Talking about Brazil, there is today an expression from Lula that is in all the newspapers saying that he thinks that Obama is not following with Latin America as he said that he was going to do in the conference of Trinidad and Tobago. And he said also an expression that instead of U.S. being afraid of Venezuela, Venezuela should be afraid of the U.S. What’s your --

MR. KELLY: Well, again, I’m not going to react to something I haven’t seen. I will say that this Administration has put a very high priority on Latin America. We’ve put a lot of time and effort into revitalizing the Inter-American process through the OAS. As I just said, we named one of our best diplomats to be Ambassador to Brazil. We’re looking forward to Arturo Valenzuela to be the next assistant secretary. We’ve put really extraordinary efforts into the – resolving the crisis in Honduras. So I think that we’ve really revitalized our relationships with Latin America.

QUESTION: Well, I just want to follow up on what you said that Tom Shannon said, that as the agreement is implemented, this will help you move forward to the elections. But I’m not really clear if you think that the agreement has been implemented.

MR. KELLY: No, it hasn’t been implemented.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: The first step has, the Verification Commission.

QUESTION: But I mean, to go ahead and declare, you know, yourself the head of the national unity government would not necessarily be implementing the agreement.

MR. KELLY: Well, it was done unilaterally, this – the --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. KELLY: The announcement was done unilaterally. And, I mean, we still think that this accord is a – the best way forward to resolve this crisis and is in the best interests of the Honduran people. We should always think --

QUESTION: But --

MR. KELLY: -- about supporting the Honduran people and move beyond the maximalist positions and the overheated rhetoric that we’re seeing.

QUESTION: But just to be clear, that the implementation of the agreement as it stands now, which you said is not necessarily implemented, you would not recognize the elections?

MR. KELLY: Well, no. I just think that it’s – I mean, our – we believe that we can support these elections as we go forward implementing this agreement. And we continue to support them. We financially are supporting the elections through technical assistance.

QUESTION: But I’m not clear about –

MR. KELLY: We’re going to support observation efforts.

QUESTION: Yeah, but the actions today as they stand, I mean, it doesn’t bring you any closer to being able to recognize the elections?

MR. KELLY: Well, we –

QUESTION: It sounds like you’re going to recognize them no matter what.

MR. KELLY: Well, we believe that this agreement can be implemented.

QUESTION: I know you do.

MR. KELLY: And – yeah. I mean, we --

QUESTION: But it’s not being --

MR. KELLY: It’s not that hard. And so we’re not going to – I mean, I’m not going to pronounce that the agreement isn’t going to be implemented; therefore we’re not going to recognize the elections. Let’s focus on implementing the agreement.

QUESTION: So the question would be would you recognize the elections depending on the compliance with the agreement, or will you recognize the elections with --

MR. KELLY: Well, let’s see what happens. I’m not going to prejudge what we’re going to do.

QUESTION: The problem with that is that it leads to really complete confusion. No one knows what the – what your policy is.

MR. KELLY: Our policy is to support the implementation of the agreement.

QUESTION: Yeah, but if you haven’t told – have you told –

MR. KELLY: But you’re asking me what we may or may not do on November 29.

QUESTION: Well, have you told the Honduras they if they don’t --

MR. KELLY: There’s a lot of time between now and then.

QUESTION: -- implement this agreement, you’re not going to recognize the validity of the election? And you’re hemming and hawing around it. You can’t answer the question about DeMint and the assurances, and you can’t – and no one has been able --

MR. KELLY: Look –

QUESTION: -- from Tom Shannon on down, no one has – will answer this question, even though I’m sure there is a clear-cut answer.

MR. KELLY: The bottom line is that we have a Honduran process in place where the two sides have sat down; they’ve signed on to the agreement; the agreement is specific in terms of the next steps to be taken. If the two sides can agree on a way forward – and the best way forward is this agreement; I mean, it’s very specific – then we support it. But I – what happens between now and November 29, I don’t know, but we’re supporting this Honduran process.

QUESTION: Even though it is not being implemented, you’re continuing to support it, even though you’re disappointed in what this --

MR. KELLY: We’re disappointed that this –

QUESTION: But you’re still going to support the process.

MR. KELLY: We’re supporting the process.

QUESTION: Well, then, I don’t understand. Then what you just said as the bottom line means nothing.

MR. KELLY: It means that they need to sit down and start talking again. They – it means --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. KELLY: -- they have to stop saying – maybe they need to stop making dire statements that the agreement is dead.

QUESTION: There must be someone in this building who can give a straight answer to this question.

MR. KELLY: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I don’t know who.

MR. KELLY: I’m giving you a straight answer.

QUESTION: Mr. Shannon did go on the record.

QUESTION: Ian, no, with all due respect –

MR. KELLY: You’re asking me to look ahead and predict --

QUESTION: No, we’re asking –

MR. KELLY: -- what we’re going to support or won’t support, and I don’t know what’s going to happen between now and November 29^th.

QUESTION: So you’re saying that like –

QUESTION: But the answer – but the question: Is have you given the assurances to either DeMint or to whoever, or have you told the Hondurans?

MR. KELLY: I’ll get you that answer.

QUESTION: Yeah, right. That – and this is the question, though. Have you told them, or anyone else, that no matter whether Zelaya is reinstated or not, you’re going to support – you’ll recognize the election? I’m not asking you to predict what is going to happen, if he comes back or not. But there’s got to be a bottom line here, or else the whole policy just kind of falls apart and the people don’t – Micheletti’s people think that they have your support, then Zelaya (inaudible) --

MR. KELLY: Okay. Well, you’re – then you’re back to that question that I took and I said we’ll get you the information on.

QUESTION: Right. And the other – just one other thing: Did the Secretary ever answer Zelaya’s letter asking for clarification?

MR. KELLY: I don’t believe that she has.

QUESTION: What incentive does the Micheletti government have to instate Zelaya if, what they do today, you say you’re going to continue to support the process?

MR. KELLY: The incentive is, is that it’s in the best interests of the Honduran people. They have – I mean, right now --

QUESTION: So at the (inaudible) for the last three months?

MR. KELLY: -- there is high tension, chaos. That is what – that’s what got the two sides to sit down and sign the agreement in the first place. I mean, that was the incentive, that this is – they need to move beyond the present state of chaos and uncertainty and resolve this in a peaceful negotiated way. And they agreed to a way forward and they just need to keep doing this step by step.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, they took a step, which was totally antithetical to the agreement that they signed.

MR. KELLY: Okay. They need to get back and sit down and --

QUESTION: We’ll check back with you on November 29^th.

MR. KELLY: – figure out how to do that step. They – I mean --

QUESTION: Why don’t we check back with you on November 29^th and see what he --

QUESTION: Well, Mr. Shannon did say on the record – we have the interview – that regardless of what happened from now until the 29^th, the U.S. would support the elections. That is on the record; we have it. So how is that different now?

MR. KELLY: I need to see that. I have not actually seen that.

QUESTION: Any chance that Mr. Shannon is – will go back to Honduras, try to bring the parts together again?

QUESTION: Or Mr. Valenzuela?

QUESTION: Or Mr. Valenzuela?

QUESTION: Or Mr. Valenzuela?

MR. KELLY: I’m not going to rule anything in or rule anything out. There’s no plans for that, though.

New subject?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. KELLY: New subject?

QUESTION: That’s all right.

QUESTION: This is kind of just a technical thing. Since Valenzuela has been confirmed and Tom Shannon hasn’t, does Tom Shannon have a job title right now?

MR. KELLY: He’s still assistant secretary. Arturo Valenzuela will need to be sworn in.

QUESTION: Which will be when?

MR. KELLY: I don’t know that anything’s scheduled right now. I’m sure it’ll be soon. He’s been confirmed.

QUESTION: And you know India is in a high alert because of there might be some terrorism beyond Mumbai, and two persons are arrested by the FBI in Chicago. One is American. And now al-Qaida, what they are saying, is now recruiting Americans to bring bad relations between the two countries, India and U.S. And what Indian authorities are saying that only David, who is being held by the FBI in Chicago, knows where and when one of the biggest ever beyond Mumbai attack may occur in India.

So do you have any idea if anybody in touch with you from India or what the FBI is telling you, because if anybody is asking him to tell everything he knows before any chaos happens in --

MR. KELLY: Goyal, I think all I can really tell you from our diplomatic angle is that I know that our Ambassador has briefed the Government of India on the case, and we continue to follow the case. I’m not at liberty to divulge the details of the interrogation. I mean, that’s – it’s an ongoing legal case, and it really is up to the Department of Justice to – I mean, that’s really in their purview. But I do know that we have briefed the Government of India on the broad parameters of the case.

QUESTION: And just to follow, special representative – or special assistant to Prime Minister Singh – or according to national security advisor, was in the U.S. on a secret mission. He met almost everybody, high-level officials, including national security advisor. And if he met anybody in this building or if you know --

MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t think it was a secret mission.

QUESTION: Well, nobody knew in India and nobody knew here as far as --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- press reports. Only after he left and after meeting the U.S. officials came to know in Indian press --

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I just would – I would not encourage you to use the word “secret mission.” I’m pretty sure he did have meetings here in this building, and we’ll see if we can get you the information on who he met with.

QUESTION: I mean, what I meant was that – anything to do with this arrest in Chicago or high alert in India?

MR. KELLY: I don’t know. We’ll see if we can get you more information.

Yes.

QUESTION: It was reported today that Bosworth made some statements yesterday at the Chamber of Commerce saying that he would be going to North Korea at the beginning – or at the end of this year, beginning of next year. Do you have anything to say about the statements?

MR. KELLY: All I know at this point is that we’re still considering the invitation. I think we’ll have something to announce, but we don’t have anything to announce yet.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, if he told a whole room of people that he’s going to North Korea, you can’t say anything about it?

MR. KELLY: No, I can’t, Elise --

QUESTION: Well, then you can’t stand by the words of your envoy?

MR. KELLY: -- because I think that that particular event was off the record, for one thing.

QUESTION: You can’t stand by the words of your envoy? I mean --

MR. KELLY: I will always stand by the words of our envoy --

QUESTION: So who’s speaking? Who --

MR. KELLY: -- but I may not be able to publicly announce something that was said in an off-the-record session.

QUESTION: Can you say in what capacity he was even there? Because when you called them, they weren’t even really aware he was at that event or --

MR. KELLY: I really – the only details I have of the event is that it was an off-the-record event. There seem to be quite a few details leaking out of off-the-record statements and events these days.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Do you have anything about Wi Sung-lac’s meeting here? Is he meeting again today?

MR. KELLY: Yes. Briefly – sorry. Yes, Wi Sung-lac is visiting Washington. He was here yesterday and he’s here today for consultations on North Korea. He is meeting with Deputy Secretary James Steinberg, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Joseph Donovan, Special Representative for North Korea Policy Ambassador Bosworth, and Special Envoy for the Six-Party Talks Ambassador Kim. They discussed the next steps in resuming the Six-Party process and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. These meetings are part of our regular ongoing periodic consultations with officials from the Republic of Korea and, of course, represent the very close cooperation we have with South Korea.

We remain committed to the resumption of the Six-Party Talks and the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1718 and 1874.

QUESTION: Speaking of the Security Council, the Goldstone report that was – I moved for another topic – that was approved yesterday in the United Nations, there is some speculation that said that the U.S. may veto this report if it goes to the Security Council. Do you have any point of this? This is in the press today. And they say that if it's vetoed it can go to the Netherlands Hague court.

MR. KELLY: Well, what happened yesterday was the – there was a resolution in the General Assembly. The U.S. and 17 other nations voted against it. We continue to strongly support the need for accountability, such as some of the events that are in the report, through credible domestic investigations. And we note that Israel is undertaking such investigations. Ultimately though, the best way to address the suffering in Gaza is by getting the two sides to sit down and talk and – towards the ultimate goal of two sides living side by side in peace and security.

We don't support raising this issue in the Security Council. The members of the Security Council themselves decide which matters the Council will consider. We believe that this issue is best raised in the Human Rights Council and not in the Security Council, so we would be very much against it being taken up by the Security Council.

QUESTION: Well, but don't you think that kind of supports the idea that the UN Security Council is totally out of touch with the majority of the world, which a lot of countries said in their address to the UN General Assembly? I mean, if 168 nations support it and 17 don't, don't you think that the majority of the world thinks that these issues should be investigated?

MR. KELLY: Well, we --

QUESTION: Isn't the UN Security Council – I'm sorry – isn't the UN Security Council supposed to kind of represent the world body in terms of national – in terms of international security?

MR. KELLY: What – we will – we don't think it's in our interest at this --

QUESTION: In your interests?

MR. KELLY: In our interest, the U.S. national interest, that it be taken up by the Security Council. We are committed to the resumption of talks between the two sides, and we do not want to take any steps that would, in any way, jeopardize the resumption of those talks. We also believe that these kinds of issues are best raised and best dealt with through domestic institutions. And we call on Israel to set up the kind of mechanisms to investigate these – some of these allegations. The allegations are very serious allegations and deserve to be investigated. But this is not something we believe should be taken up by the UN Security Council. We follow our national interests and that's what --

QUESTION: So the UN Security Council is only about 15 countries' international interests?

MR. KELLY: I'm not going to get into an argument about the UN Security Council and its role in the world right now. I'm just talking about what our interests are right now. Our interests are the resumption --

QUESTION: So when you – I'm just – I'm sorry. But when you take a vote at the UN Security Council, you're only voting on behalf of U.S. interests?

MR. KELLY: We – for the UN Security Council, we – yes, we make our decisions based on the – our national interests and the interest of our allies.

QUESTION: Yeah, that – the second part being key, I think, there.

QUESTION: Ian --

MR. KELLY: Okay. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: At least on this issue or issues related to the Middle East.

MR. KELLY: Yes, yes.

Yeah. Michele in the back.

QUESTION: Yeah. I wanted to ask about Abbas, his announcement yesterday. I know you spoke to it yesterday. But has anyone in this building been in touch with him since then, trying to convince him to stay on, trying to advantage of the last couple of months while he's there?

MR. KELLY: Regarding whether or not somebody's been in touch with him, I'm frankly not – I'm not sure. I know that our people on the ground, I'm sure, are in touch with him. I really – I don't have much to add beyond what the Secretary said yesterday, that we have tremendous respect for him and we think he's an important player in the process, a voice of moderation, and we look forward to continuing to work with him. But I don't have anything to add to what the Secretary said yesterday.

QUESTION: But do you think that there should be elections in January in the Palestinian territories, given the state of the kind of tensions between Hamas and Fatah, because the Palestinians certainly aren't united? You don't want a repeat of what happened in 2005.

MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Should there be elections?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think that any government should be representative of the will of the Palestinian people. We understand that there's an internal political dynamic now that is affecting our goal to – our goal of re-launching the negotiations, and that's something that's understandable. But the decision to hold elections is a – is really – that's a matter for the people themselves to decide.

QUESTION: Well, it wasn't a matter of like three or four years ago. You were completely insistent – the United States was completely insistent that the Palestinians did hold elections, which is why Hamas was elected. So is it – so you think the Palestinians should just decide amongst themselves what --

MR. KELLY: I think the --

QUESTION: You don't have an opinion? Do you have an opinion on that?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, of course, we have an opinion on it.

QUESTION: What's your opinion?

MR. KELLY: Well, our opinion is that we need to address the root causes --

QUESTION: No, about the elections.

MR. KELLY: -- of the lack of peace. And in order to do that, you need to have institutions and mechanisms in place to be able to guarantee a better future for your – for the people. And I – but I’m not going to say whether or not the Palestinian people should have elections in January. That’s really for them to decide.

QUESTION: Well, that’s a change in U.S. policy, then, because last time, you were fully insistent that they should have elections. But, I mean, President Abbas --

MR. KELLY: When was the last time? What are you – I’m not sure what you mean by the last time.

QUESTION: Well, I mean under the Bush Administration. But --

MR. KELLY: Well, this is a different administration.

QUESTION: Okay. Well --

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

QUESTION: (Laughter.) There’s a difference between saying the policy is unchanged and restating the policy.

QUESTION: But (inaudible).

QUESTION: Wait, no, no, no. But President Abbas said that he won’t run for reelection. But if the Palestinians don’t hold elections, he could be president indefinitely. Wouldn’t that --

MR. KELLY: It’s up for the Palestinian people to decide when they want to have elections, when they think it’s an appropriate moment.

QUESTION: Do you all have any problem with the Turks inviting President Bashir to the OIC conference?

MR. KELLY: I think that is – that’s – I mean, our position --

QUESTION: But please don’t tell me --

MR. KELLY: -- is clear.

QUESTION: -- that you’re not a member of the EU and you’re not a member of the ICC.

MR. KELLY: No, I wasn’t going to say that.

QUESTION: Just say, “I’m just not – ”

MR. KELLY: Well, actually, maybe I was going to say the latter, yeah. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Do you have a problem with them inviting a guy who’s been indicted for war crimes?

MR. KELLY: It really – it’s, first of all, we think that leaders should be held accountable for their actions. And we think that what happened in Sudan needs – there needs to be accountability for it. We would expect Turkey to raise these kinds of issues. If they were to have any sort of bilateral meeting with Mr. Bashir, we would expect them to raise these issues about the importance of accountability in addressing the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. But it’s really up to the Government of Turkey to decide if they want to --

QUESTION: Okay. So it doesn’t matter; you don’t really care as long as, if they do do it, they raise this issue with him?

MR. KELLY: We would expect them to be consistent with the – with our policy of raising our concerns of accountability.

Yeah. Go ahead, you haven’t had a question.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout on the Japan meetings?

MR. KELLY: Yes, I do. Assistant Secretary Campbell met with senior members of the Japanese Government, including Foreign Minister Okada and also his counterparts in the ministries of foreign affairs and defense on Thursday, on November 5^th. He reaffirmed the importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance and discussed with Japanese how we can best work together on a wide range of regional and global issues. He also discussed what we hope to accomplish during President Obama’s trip to Japan next week and discussed plans to commemorate the 50^th anniversary of our alliance next year, and other areas where our two countries can work together.

QUESTION: Same topic --

QUESTION: Any discussion of the basing agreement?

MR. KELLY: I don’t have any details on that. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did discuss it, though.

QUESTION: Is Secretary meeting with the Japanese foreign minister in Singapore?

MR. KELLY: I don’t know. I don’t have a list of her bilateral meetings there.

QUESTION: A quick one on a different subject, please. The future of the freedom of the press in Pakistan may be in trouble according to Freedom House, because the National Assembly of Pakistan is now considering a bill which will be anti-press freedom. Do you have any idea on what you have to say?

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I’d have to see the details of the bill, but we’ll see if we can get you more information.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:50 p.m.)

DPB # 191

# # #

---

[1] Senator

[2] Senator

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:32 p.m. EST

MR. KELLY: Deputy Secretary Steinberg hosted an EU ministerial meeting this morning. He was joined by Swedish Foreign Minister Bildt, EU High Rep Solana, and the EU Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, and Ambassador Jonas Hafstrom to discuss a wide range of strategic issues, including developments in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the Middle East.

The Deputy Secretary was then joined by Energy Secretary Chu to launch the inaugural meeting of the U.S.-EU Energy Council. The Deputy Secretary and Energy Secretary Chu were also joined by Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Olofsson, Swedish Foreign Minister Bildt, EU High Representative Solana, EU Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, EU Commissioner Piebalgs, EU Commissioner Potocnik – two more – State Secretary for Energy Pedro Marin Joao Vale de Almeida and State Secretary Altera to discuss energy security, markets, and policy and research cooperation.

Also, I'd like to read a short statement. The United States deplores the decision by Fiji's de facto government to expel New Zealand's acting head of mission, as well as Australia's high commissioner. This latter act is unprecedented in that Australia now holds the chairmanship of the Pacific Islands Forum. These actions have undermined any opportunity for progress toward reengagement and constructive dialogue with its neighbors. The United States calls for the restoration of Fiji's independent judiciary and the rights to free speech and assembly that are essential to the country's return to democracy.

QUESTION: Exactly what's the U.S. connection there? The Government of Fiji expels diplomats from Australia and New Zealand, and you care because --

MR. KELLY: We care because we care about the restoration of democracy in Fiji. Last April, they – the President abolished the constitution --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: -- and dismissed all judges and constitutional appointees and imposed emergency rule.

QUESTION: Yeah, that happened. But the operative word being there last when? Operative words? Last --

MR. KELLY: April.

QUESTION: April, okay. And so --

MR. KELLY: I mean, we have an interest in democracy returning to Fiji.

QUESTION: Well, I understand. But what does the expulsion of the diplomats from Australia and New Zealand have to do with the restoration of democracy?

MR. KELLY: It was – we consider it be an unjust act to expel them out of the country.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any comment on the CIA rendition case in Italy, the verdicts coming down?

MR. KELLY: We are disappointed by the verdicts against the Americans and Italians charged in Milan for their alleged involvement in the case involving Egyptian cleric Abu Omar. The judge has not yet issued a written opinion, so we're not in a position to comment further on the decision. And because the case is ongoing and will probably be appealed, I can't comment on the specifics of the case.

QUESTION: How is it – just in terms of kind of their status now, if indeed they're considered international fugitives, how does that work in terms of you dealing with other countries to ensure that – if they're overseas somewhere that they're not extradited to Italy?

MR. KELLY: Well, first of all, I mean, the verdict was just handed down today. We do anticipate that it will be appealed. We consider that this is ongoing litigation, so I don't think you can characterize them in one way or another in terms of their status, their international status as fugitives or otherwise. As I said, we – the U.S. is disappointed by this, and we expect that the case will be – it will continue to be in litigation.

QUESTION: Can you talk – can you tell us about what the State Department's role is or was? I presume you had someone there, maybe even someone that we know, sitting in the courtroom.

MR. KELLY: I don't know the answer to that, Matt. Whether or not we had somebody in the courtroom, you mean?

QUESTION: Sure.

MR. KELLY: I don't know. I don't know if we did or not.

QUESTION: And what about the question of diplomatic immunity? Several – three of the American defendants were acquitted based on the fact that someone had claimed diplomatic immunity for them. Was that the U.S.?

MR. KELLY: I don't know these details, Matt. I'm sorry. In terms of diplomatic immunity, I think that we'd have to see the details of the decision to see what our options are. But again, it is – we consider it to be ongoing litigation. And I don't think we've had a chance to see the judge's written opinion either.

QUESTION: Well, could you take the question, though, that the U.S. invoked diplomatic immunity for these three individuals?

MR. KELLY: Did we invoke diplomatic immunity for – which individuals do we mean?

QUESTION: The ones that now --

QUESTION: The three --

MR. KELLY: The three who were acquitted, you mean?

QUESTION: The three who were acquitted. And as you probably know, one of the defendants, who was convicted, who you didn't claim diplomatic immunity for, sued the State Department to try to get them – you – to invoke diplomatic immunity. What's the status of that?

MR. KELLY: I'm not sure. The – so this would be a good taken question then. We'll see whether or not we did invoke diplomatic immunity for the three who were acquitted, and we'll check into the status of this – of the woman that you mentioned who's raised a court case.

QUESTION: Can you just spell out why the U.S. is disappointed?

MR. KELLY: Well, I don't want to get too much into the specifics of the case. There's a number of legal issues involved here. There are issues regarding bilateral treaties that we have with Italy. And I – Lach, I'm sorry, I'm just – I can't get into the details of the specifics of the case.

Yes.

QUESTION: A Pentagon document presented to Congress in May of 2009 reveals that one of the reasons for the military agreement between U.S. and Colombia was to provide a full spectrum operation center – and I'm quoting – where the U.S. security and stability is under threat by anti-U.S. governments. It also talks about the possibility of a full-scale military operation if needed.

This basically contradicts everything U.S. officials and Colombian officials have been saying about this agreement. So how do you respond to this? Who are these anti-U.S. governments in Latin America?

MR. KELLY: Well, I don't know what document you're referring to.

QUESTION: It is the military construction program fiscal year 2010 budget estimates --

MR. KELLY: That sounds like --

QUESTION: -- by the Air Force.

MR. KELLY: That sounds like something you'd have to refer to the Defense Department about. I know that we have an agreement with Colombia. It doesn't provide us with any kind of bases in Colombia. It provides us with an opportunity to cooperate with Colombia in some issues related to counternarcotics and interoperability in that regard. But you're asking me about a Defense Department document that not only haven't I seen, but the State Department doesn't have any jurisdiction over.

QUESTION: But it's basically contradicting what the U.S. State Department has stated.

MR. KELLY: It may or it may not. But I – you really have to address that question to the Defense Department.

Yes.

QUESTION: On North Korea?

MR. KELLY: Yes.

QUESTION: North Korea is insisting they are coming to Six-Party Talks, but they do not give up nuclear program and also do not return to NPT. Under these circumstances, will the United States continue bilateral talks with North Korea?

MR. KELLY: Well, I don't know what statements that you're referring to. But I mean, you know what our policy is in this regard, that we are committed to the Six-Party process. We are willing to have bilateral talks with the North Koreans if these talks are conducted in the context of the Six-Party Talks and if they lead to the resumption of the Six-Party Talks. Regarding the – regarding nuclear weapons in North Korea, our policy is also clear there, that we believe that North Korea has to abide by the commitments that it made in 2005 to give up its nuclear weapons. And our policy just couldn’t be clearer in that regard.

QUESTION: But they like only talks, but don’t want to give up nuclear weapons. That’s a problem.

MR. KELLY: That is a problem.

Yes.

QUESTION: Ian, follow-up on that. Then is it possible that U.S. have bilateral meeting with North Korea before they agree to abide by its commitment previously made in 2005 and 2007, which includes the total complete abandonment of their weapons and program also? Is it possible?

MR. KELLY: Well, that’s our goal. And we have said that we’re willing to reengage, as well as our partners in the Six-Party process have said they’re willing to reengage, to get North Korea to abide by its commitments.

QUESTION: Yeah, but can --

MR. KELLY: So we are willing to engage and with the stated purpose of getting to that state of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

QUESTION: Yeah, but can you enter the bilateral meeting before you get the assurance from North Korea that they’ll abide by that commitment?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. You’re asking me to speculate. I can’t answer that question.

QUESTION: So just to kind of clarify what these reports are that the U.S. and North Korea agreed to talk, the U.S. and North Korea have agreed on the framework or the kind of logistics of how meetings would work, if and when the UN – U.S. decided that it’s ready to talk to North Korea, which it hasn’t officially decided.

MR. KELLY: I am not going to discuss the contents or substance of talks that we’ve had. We have had some talks with North Korea. Ambassador Kim has. And I’ll just reiterate that we are willing to sit down with North Korea, if it leads to the resumption of the Six-Party Talks. But –

QUESTION: So why don’t you?

MR. KELLY: Well, we haven’t made the decision to do it.

QUESTION: We – but you just said that you’ve decided that you would talk to North Korea if it would lead to the resumption of talks.

MR. KELLY: If –

QUESTION: So have you not got – is that what you haven’t gotten? You haven’t gotten the assurances –

MR. KELLY: We have not – well we –

QUESTION: You’re totally contradicting yourself.

MR. KELLY: (Laughter.) I don’t think I am.

QUESTION: I think you are.

MR. KELLY: I just said that we will have a bilateral discussion with them, if this discussion will lead to the resumption of the Six-Party Talks.

QUESTION: Well, how are you going to know until you sit down? Do you mean it has –

MR. KELLY: How will we know until we sit down? But we have sat down with them.

QUESTION: Well – but how are you going to know that when you say if it would lead to talks, that’s – I mean, if – how do you address the if so that you could sit down?

MR. KELLY: Well, we are – we’re having --

QUESTION: Do you need assurances before the meeting takes place?

MR. KELLY: – we’re having those deliberations right now. And when the time is right, we will make our decision.

QUESTION: So it sounds like you’re saying that basically you need certain assurances from North Korea before you would sit down – assurances that it would lead to Six-Party Talks?

MR. KELLY: Well, we certainly don’t want to have talks that don’t lead to any sort of significant discussions. So --

QUESTION: Well, you’re doing a good job on that in the Middle East. So -- (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question?

MR. KELLY: Other questions?

QUESTION: One more –

MR. KELLY: Lalit. Lalit’s had his hand up for awhile.

QUESTION: On Sri Lanka. There are reports in the Sri Lankan media about cautioning a Sri Lankan senior official here in the U.S. about war crimes allegations. Has any senior official been – Sri Lankan official been questioned here in this country about the war crime allegations there?

MR. KELLY: Not by the State Department.

QUESTION: By the Homeland? Any other department?

MR. KELLY: I think any questions related to the Department of Homeland Security has to be addressed to the Department of Homeland Security.

QUESTION: Okay. And on Afghanistan, can I ask you a question?

MR. KELLY: Yes.

QUESTION: Dr. Abdullah Abdullah has raised a question mark about the legality of Karzai winning the elections. What’s your view on it? Is it going to further deepen the situation – crisis over there?

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, our position on this is clear. We believe that there was an election that was carried out according to Afghan law. We recognize Hamid Karzai as the legitimately elected president of Afghanistan. We respect Dr. Abdullah very much. We hope that he stays engaged in the political process and plays a part in the dialogue and the political life of his country. But our position is is that Hamid Karzai is the legitimately elected president of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Can we stay in Asia?

MR. KELLY: Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Well, I –

MR. KELLY: Is there anything else on Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Yeah. His coming out against these elections, reflect a large section of this Afghan society’s not accepting Karzai as the legal president of the country.

MR. KELLY: Well, again, we greatly respect Dr. Abdullah, and we think that he conducted a very spirited campaign. We respect him for his ideas. But we believe that Hamid Karzai is the legitimately elected leader of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Well, how can you say that he was the legitimately elected leader, because the election commission or the complaints commission found enough fraud to say that he wasn’t legitimately elected?

MR. KELLY: They didn’t say that.

QUESTION: Yes, they – well, they said that there was enough fraud that he didn’t win the amount of votes that would make him the legitimately elected leader. And so there was going to be a runoff to decide whether he was, in fact, legitimately elected, and then there was no runoff. So is – if you – do you determine that, like an election that was riddled with fraud and corruption, produced a legitimately elected leader?

MR. KELLY: Well, look, every step along the way, the Afghan institutions who were running these elections followed the procedures as established by Afghan law. And Hamid Karzai won a plurality of the votes. He didn’t make the 50 percent mark because all of these votes that were considered to be suspect or outright fraudulent were thrown out. It was determined that they should have a runoff. And one of the candidates in the runoff withdrew. And the Independent Election Commission at that point saw no reason to continue with a one-man election, and declared Hamid Karzai the winner. I don’t think anybody is contesting the right of the Independent Elections Commission to so rule. There is a process.

QUESTION: But some would have said that they would have preferred that the Supreme Court or the Independent Election Complaints Commission were to also kind of endorse that ruling, which I don’t believe they did.

MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t think that’s required under Afghan law.

QUESTION: So basically, he won by default --

MR. KELLY: There is a process for –

QUESTION: -- because Abdullah withdrew. But I mean, he wasn’t legitimately elected in the first round, so how can you say it’s – I mean, if you want to call him the president of Afghanistan, that’s fine, but do you really believe he was legitimately elected?

MR. KELLY: Yes, I do believe he was legitimately elected.

QUESTION: But he wasn’t legitimately elected in the first --

MR. KELLY: According to Afghan law --

QUESTION: Well, according to Afghan –

MR. KELLY: -- the results are certified by the International Election Commission. And within – there is a right for individuals to contest those decisions, and within, I think, three days, but after those three days the results are considered legitimate. I mean, this was an election that, first of all, was led by Afghan institutions --

QUESTION: I’m not disputing that.

MR. KELLY: -- at Afghan law – at no point was Afghan law ever contravened.

QUESTION: Except when there was fraud.

QUESTION: It’s presumably against the law to stuff ballot boxes and commit other such --

QUESTION: It should be.

MR. KELLY: Well, that is against the law. You’re right. At no point were any of these elections – did they violate – that means election results violate the – the election – the Afghan election law was scrupulously followed. I mean, we can argue this for hours, if you want.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

QUESTION: Sure.

MR. KELLY: Matt.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about – for details of Assistant Secretary Campbell’s meetings in Burma today with Aung San Suu Kyi and the prime minister?

MR. KELLY: Yes. Assistant Secretary Campbell and his deputy, Scot Marciel, just concluded a two-day visit to Burma. They had extensive meetings with the government, democratic opposition, and with ethnic groups and others. This was an exploratory mission designed to explain to key stakeholders inside the country the result of the U.S. policy review toward Burma and the strategic goals that the review underscored: strong support for human rights; the release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi; and the pursuit of democratic reform.

QUESTION: So – is there more?

MR. KELLY: There’s more. They had meetings with representatives of a number of ethnic groups, as I said, and also a two-hour meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi at a hotel. They reaffirmed our support for dialogue between the government and the opposition. The goal of such dialogue would be a national reconciliation and a fully inclusive political process in Burma.

They had meetings with the government as well, including the prime minister, the minister of information, the minister of science and technology, and others. In those meetings, the assistant secretary again stated that the U.S. is prepared to take steps to improve the bilateral relationship, but it will be a step-by-step process and must be based on reciprocal and concrete efforts by the Burmese Government.

QUESTION: Did they ask for or demand Aung San Suu Kyi’s release?

MR. KELLY: We have consistently called for her release.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. From here. I just want to know if you – if they --

MR. KELLY: I – well, I --

QUESTION: -- reiterated that in person.

MR. KELLY: I feel confident in saying that they did reiterate that in person.

QUESTION: And what was the response?

MR. KELLY: I don’t have a readout of their response.

QUESTION: On Honduras --

MR. KELLY: Any more on Burma?

QUESTION: On Burma.

MR. KELLY: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. intend to mediate between the government and the democratic leaders to come --

MR. KELLY: We have no plans to mediate. As I say, this is a step-by-step process. We – this visit was primarily meant to underscore our call for the government to have a dialogue with the opposition. But we want to see the Burmese Government start taking some concrete steps towards such a dialogue.

QUESTION: The Burmese Government has been insisting on lifting of sanctions before they can take some steps towards dialogue and some other (inaudible).

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I think you know our policy about sanctions is that we need to see some specific steps before we’ll consider that.

QUESTION: On Honduras?

MR. KELLY: On Honduras. Yeah.

QUESTION: Mr. Zelaya sent Secretary Clinton a letter asking whether there’s been any change in the U.S. position regarding his restoration prior to elections at the end of November. Has there been a response and has there been a change in the policy? Mr. Lagos, the co-chairman of the verification commission said when he arrived in Tegucigalpa that he has to be restored. So the question is: Must that be a condition for the elections to go ahead and be recognized as legitimate?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think about the letter to Secretary Clinton, I understand that he did send a letter asking for the Secretary to clarify the U.S. position regarding the coup. And our position has been very clear from the very beginning that we did consider what happened in June in Honduras to be a coup. We’ve made our position on President Zelaya and his restitution clear. This is a – we believe he should be restored to power. This is now a Honduran process that was started by the agreement over the weekend.

Our focus now is on implementing this process and creating an environment wherein the Hondurans themselves can address the issue of restitution and resolve for themselves this Honduran problem. We are committed to the agreement. We’re committed to its implementation. We’ll continue to assist and support the implementation process, but it’s up to the Hondurans to actually carry through.

I think you’ve heard that U.S. officials have arrived in Tegucigalpa. It’s – we have a member on the verification commission. They arrived yesterday. Our representative is Labor Secretary Solis. They held a formal installation ceremony yesterday, and the commission has been meeting with leaders from various sectors of Honduras to discuss the implementation of the accord.

QUESTION: But my question is whether the U.S. interpretation of the agreement is that Mr. Zelaya must be restored to office prior to holding the elections.

MR. KELLY: I’m sorry. I’d just like to really emphasize this is – we’ve now – I mean, we were happy that we played a role in mediating this, mediating this dialogue between the two sides. This is now a Honduran process. We will continue to play a supportive and facilitative role, but it’s not for us to interpret the agreement. We want to help the process along, but this is going to be a Honduran process. The next step in it is for the congress to approve it, in consultation with the judiciary. And so we’re going to stay very interested in this and we’re going to support it, particularly Labor Secretary Solis. But this is a Honduran problem that will have a Honduran solution.

QUESTION: Once the agreement was announced, the U.S. dropped its freeze on visas for Honduran personalities. Didn’t that constitute some measure of pressure on --

MR. KELLY: I’m not sure I know what you’re referring to. We opened our – we reopened our visa section. Is that what you mean?

QUESTION: Right. Yeah.

MR. KELLY: I don’t think we’ve removed any of the restrictions, though.

QUESTION: Well, was that prompted by an – any understanding of how that – this agreement was to go forward?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think it was just a – it was a gesture to show that we support this Honduran process. We haven’t made any decisions about assistance and about some of the visa restrictions that we have. We want to see how this goes forward.

QUESTION: But the agreement seems to be a non-agreement because now the Honduran congress delayed the vote and the people are back in the streets. So how do you respond to that?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think what happened was the congressional leadership met yesterday and wanted to get opinions regarding the restoration from the supreme court, the attorney general, and the human rights ombudsman before they considered the issue. This is entirely consistent with the details of the accord. There’s a – I think it’s article five of the accord states that the congress shall consult with other relevant authorities, including the supreme court, in making its decision on restitution. So I mean, I don’t see that this is – in any way runs contrary to the agreement.

QUESTION: On the same topic. What Mr. Zelaya is arguing is that these are just tactics for delaying the implementation of the accord up until, you know, the day of the elections. And the question here is: Will the U.S. still support an election, recognize an election, without implementation of the accord?

MR. KELLY: Look, we’re focused on only one thing, and that’s the implementation of the accord. We’re talking – this is day two and it’s entirely within the rights of the congress to ask for the opinion of the judiciary. I mean, it’s in the accord. So I don’t see any reason for concern on the part of the United States right now.

QUESTION: So then there’s no guarantee --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: So then there’s no guarantee in the U.S. view that Mr. Zelaya needs to be restored as part of this agreement as long as the congress acts one way or the other?

MR. KELLY: Again, you’re asking me to speculate.

QUESTION: If the congress --

MR. KELLY: We support the accord. The accord is going forward.

QUESTION: If the congress votes not to restore him --

QUESTION: It’s not the same as --

QUESTION: -- does the United States still regard this as compliance with the accord?

MR. KELLY: You have to repeat that question. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: If the congress votes not to restore him or if the congress does nothing before November 27^th, does the United States regard that as a violation of the accord?

MR. KELLY: We’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Right now, nothing in – nobody’s voted against anything right now. Everything that’s happening now is laid out in the accord. So we’re going to let the process play out. We’re going to support the process. We’re going to encourage the people to stay focused on this and make sure that it’s implemented.

QUESTION: Another topic? Another topic, Southeast Europe?

QUESTION: Wait, wait. Hold on a second. You say that you’ve been very clear about your position. You say that you’ve been very clear about your position that it was a coup. But in fact, that legal determination was never made even though there were some steps taken. So that’s (a) not clear.

(b) You say you’ve been clear about Zelaya’s restitution. But it sounds like, and from what Tom Shannon and others have said, that as long as the Honduran – all – the Hondurans can agree, it doesn't really matter to you whether Zelaya gets back into office or not.

MR. KELLY: All right. Well, first of all, on the first point. We have said all along that it was a coup, but the determination was, was whether or not under U.S. law it could be determined as a military coup. And you’re right; we never made that determination, but we have said on multiple occasions from the President on down that we considered what happened in June to have been a coup d'état, the way that Zelaya was bundled up, put on a plane, and flown out of the country.

I'm sorry, what was the second part?

QUESTION: It appears as though, as long as the congress agrees on something, you're willing to accept it even it falls short of Zelaya being restored before the election.

MR. KELLY: I think what we're saying is that we want the two parties to agree.

QUESTION: Yeah, and if they agree on something that falls short --

MR. KELLY: We want a Honduran solution. If President Zelaya agrees, if the de facto regime agrees, if it's in accordance with Honduran law and democratic principles, then we support it.

QUESTION: Even if it falls short of his --

MR. KELLY: Well, again, you've got the "if" there. We haven't gotten to that point.

QUESTION: Even when it falls short?

MR. KELLY: Oh, you think it's going to fall short?

QUESTION: Well, it's already fallen short. Come on.

MR. KELLY: Like I said, patience, patience. Stay tuned.

QUESTION: The other thing I want to ask is you say it's now day two, but in fact, we're talking about something that's --

MR. KELLY: No, but the accord was only signed a couple days ago.

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

QUESTION: But you've been calling for his --

QUESTION: You've been calling for his return, or saying that you want him to return, since the day he was packed off to Costa Rica or wherever it was.

MR. KELLY: Well, I --

QUESTION: El Salvador.

MR. KELLY: Okay. Let's just see how it works out.

QUESTION: The verification commission is the arbiter of the agreement, how it's carried out. Does Secretary Solis have instructions from this government on how to interpret that agreement in terms of whether Zelaya needs to be in office before the elections?

MR. KELLY: I don't know if "instructions" is the right word.

QUESTION: Well, as the representative of the United States Government.

MR. KELLY: She, of course, is in very close consultation with the State Department. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Craig Kelly is down there with her. The Embassy is very much involved. But again, we are supporting a Honduran process here. This is – the U.S. is not a party necessarily to these discussions between Zelaya and the de facto regime. By saying that she has instructions, it implies that we are somehow involved in a bilateral negotiation with another party, and we're not.

QUESTION: Well, then --

MR. KELLY: We are simply supporting a Honduran process.

QUESTION: But the commission has to interpret whether the accord has been complied with.

MR. KELLY: That's true.

QUESTION: So Mr. Lagos seems to believe that Mr. Zelaya has to be restored before the congress – before the elections can be held, and therefore that's his interpretation.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I'm sorry. I haven't seen what Mr. Lagos has said, so it's difficult for me to comment on --

QUESTION: Can we move on?

QUESTION: Can you talk about other topic we are trying to ask something for --

QUESTION: Just a quick one. Will there be --

QUESTION: -- thirty minutes?

QUESTION: -- a reply to Zelaya's letter or not, a formal response to it?

MR. KELLY: A formal response? Well, Secretary Clinton is back in the office tomorrow. We'll see. I don't have an answer to that right now.

Yes.

QUESTION: On Southeast Europe.

MR. KELLY: Southeast Europe.

QUESTION: Yes. There is agreement today signed in Stockholm between Croatia and Slovenia, arbitration agreement that should bring to a solution of their border dispute that is 18 years old now. The United States were involved in diplomatic effort to facilitate this --

MR. KELLY: Yes, we were.

QUESTION: -- this agreement. Any comment on that?

MR. KELLY: Well, we welcome this agreement. We congratulate the prime ministers of Slovenia and Croatia on this agreement, which we consider to be an important agreement. And we congratulate them for their courageous leadership to resolve this longstanding dispute through arbitration, and we hope that ratification moves through quickly. And we believe that this outcome is in the best interests of both these two countries and the region.

QUESTION: Thank you. A follow-up.

MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There is a great deal of concern among Croatian public that Croatia was forced to accept this agreement and that will in the end result that Croatia will have to donate part of its territorial seat to Slovenia to fulfill the appetite of Slovenia for the territory. So would you consider this acceptable, or is there any guarantee from the United States in this kind of solution? Because one party in Croatia, part of the ruling coalition, said – has said that only reason to support this agreement was the guarantee from the United States. So are you familiar with any kind of guarantee?

MR. KELLY: Well, I know that we have a great deal of interest in this issue. We have an interest in the long-term stability of Southeast Europe, and I know that we have been very interested in these bilateral talks between Slovenia and Croatia. And the main thing is that they were able to come to an equitable, agreeable solution that was carried out through peaceful negotiation and arbitration.

QUESTION: So would you support the solution in which Croatia will have to give up part of its territorial seat to Slovenia?

MR. KELLY: This is something for Slovenia and Croatia to work up between themselves in a way that is agreeable to both sides. If that happens, and it seems to have happened, then of course we support it.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Just one more question, a follow-up. Excuse me. Some Croatian media reported that the text of that agreement actually was written here by State Department. Is that true?

MR. KELLY: I have no way of knowing that, I'm afraid.

Yeah.

QUESTION: New one. This is on H1N1. We've heard some things about the military receiving the vaccine – members that are overseas. And I was wondering what, if any, provisions you're making for State Department officers serving overseas (inaudible) vaccine?

MR. KELLY: That's a very good question. Well, we'll find out.

QUESTION: Can you take that? Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Question on the Middle East. The chief negotiator --

MR. KELLY: We'll get to you next.

QUESTION: On the --

MR. KELLY: Wait, wait a second. I'll get to you after. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Chief PLO negotiator, Dr. Erekat, today challenged Secretary Clinton's interpretation of the U.S.-Israeli understanding on the settlement freeze when she said it shows a positive movement toward final status issues. And he said that if this stalemate continues that it raises questions as to whether the Palestinian Authority really wants to pursue the two-state solution because there's nothing in this anymore if the settlements proceed even under this understanding, given the fact that there's continued construction, it doesn't apply to East Jerusalem, public buildings and infrastructure continue to be build in – on Jewish settlements in the West Bank. So my question is: Are you worried that the PLO is threatening to abandon the two-state solution?

MR. KELLY: We are committed to the two-state solution. We couldn't be more clear on that. We have never wavered from that. We think that's the best way forward, that's the best way to a lasting peace, and it's in the best interests of both these peoples, of both the Israelis and the Palestinians, and we remain committed to it.

QUESTION: Do you sense a change in tone on the part of the PLO as – in response to the Secretary's most recent pronouncement that this is a positive movement?

MR. KELLY: The important thing is that the U.S. is committed to this, and we will stay committed to it. We are going to doggedly pursue this and try and create the kind of conditions where the two sides can sit down. That's the only important thing here.

Yes.

QUESTION: On the Okinawa base agreement, does the Administration view the President's visit to Tokyo as a sort of deadline for the Japanese to work out their position on --

MR. KELLY: No.

QUESTION: -- relocation?

MR. KELLY: No, I don't think so. I mean, we have a --

QUESTION: Secretary Gates --

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: No, Secretary Gates had kind of indicated that they should try to be done with it by the time the President visited, so --

MR. KELLY: Well, I don't know what Secretary Gates has said, and I certainly don't want to contradict him, but I don't think that we've set any kind of deadline. We believe that the agreement that we have is the best way forward, but we look forward to continued dialogue with Japan.

QUESTION: So if the prime minister had taken till the end of the year to make a decision, it would be okay?

MR. KELLY: I'm not going to set any kind of deadline on it.

QUESTION: Who is Campbell going to be meeting with when he's in Japan?

MR. KELLY: I'm not sure. I imagine with the appropriate officials, the ministry of foreign affairs. But I think tomorrow I'll have more information for you.

QUESTION: You mentioned this morning the meeting between EU and Steinberg, and Balkans was one of the topics. Do you have anything more about that meeting and Balkan --

MR. KELLY: I don't have a readout for you yet. Again, maybe tomorrow we would have more information on what exactly was discussed. We also hope to have some kind of readout of the U.S.-EU Energy Council at some point this afternoon, and we'll let you know about that.

QUESTION: I know that Bosnia was one of the topics, but --

MR. KELLY: Yes, I'm sure it was, particularly since Deputy Secretary Steinberg has been so involved in those talks.

Matt.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Middle East for just a second?

MR. KELLY: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Have you figured out how you're going – or what you're going to do about the Goldstone report and the – at the UN?

MR. KELLY: That – those discussions are ongoing. I guess there was – the General Assembly took it up at 10 o'clock this morning. They are still debating the issue. As I understand it, there are some 50 countries that have signed up to speak, so this could last all day. It may even last into tomorrow. Since it's – the debate is continuing and negotiations on a text are ongoing, we can't really comment on something that hasn't been finalized.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. one of the countries that signed up to speak?

MR. KELLY: No. Well, as of a couple hours ago, we hadn't signed up to speak.

QUESTION: Okay. So there is still – are you still holding out hope that they might be able to come – that you might be able to negotiate a resolution that would be acceptable?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think, our --

QUESTION: I mean, I thought your bottom line was that you don't want it outside the Human Rights Council, so already this is a --

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: -- this is – you're opposed to what's going on --

MR. KELLY: Right. Well --

QUESTION: -- regardless of whether it gets sent to the Security Council.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. And you know why we're opposed to it. We think that the mandate was one-sided.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know, I know that. But I mean, you already lost your bid to keep it out of other fora than the Security Council, and this resolution that's being debated refers it directly to the Security Council. So I'm asking if you've figured out a strategy about how you're going to – I mean, have you decided that you're going to veto this?

MR. KELLY: I don't think we have.

QUESTION: In the Security – if it goes to the Security --

MR. KELLY: If it goes to the Security Council.

QUESTION: -- to prevent it from getting out of the Security Council and --

MR. KELLY: Well, our – yeah, I mean, our priority is that we – again, we remain committed to coming up with a way to address the root causes of the tragedy in Gaza last January, and that's what we think everybody should be focused on.

QUESTION: The root – just the root causes? Not the --

MR. KELLY: Well, the root cause is a lack of a comprehensive peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

QUESTION: Well, it sounds as though you're not quite sure what you're going to do and that there isn't a strategy yet, or maybe you're just not aware of it. But can someone take that question and find out if there is a – if you guys have a plan on how to deal with this?

MR. KELLY: Let's see what happens in the General Assembly. Let's see what the resolution comes out to --

QUESTION: Surely, you're --

MR. KELLY: -- and then we will give you an answer --

QUESTION: Surely, you are preparing for --

MR. KELLY: -- to our policy.

QUESTION: -- any eventuality?

MR. KELLY: Of course, we are.

QUESTION: Right. That's all I want to know.

MR. KELLY: Well, I'm sure a lot of people want to know, but it's not always in our best interests to reveal our strategy.

QUESTION: Right. So much for transparency.

MR. KELLY: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:15 p.m.)

DPB # 190

# # #

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:23 p.m. EST

MR. KELLY: Okay. Good afternoon. Just an update on the itinerary of the Secretary. She participated in the Forum for the Future today. She gave a speech this morning and reaffirmed the commitment of the United States to broad engagement with Muslim communities around the world and outlined concrete steps the U.S. is taking to follow up on the new beginning that the President laid out in Cairo.

She focused on partnerships to promote civil society, entrepreneurship, and economic development, educational opportunity, scientific and technological cooperation, women’s empowerment and interfaith cooperation. She’s now en route to Cairo. Tonight, she’s going to meet with General Suleiman, who's the minister of intelligence, and also with Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit. She’s going to be joined in Cairo by Special Envoy Mitchell. Special Envoy Mitchell met today in Amman with King Abdullah and also with President Abbas.

Tomorrow, of course, she has a meeting with President Mubarak. Obviously, we’ve had to juggle her schedule for tomorrow, and these commitments mean that unfortunately, she’s unable to meet with Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski. The Secretary looks forward to an early rescheduling of this meeting and a re-launch of our strategic dialogue with Poland. And with that, I will take your questions.

QUESTION: Can you – what is your read on the latest bombast out of North Korea?

MR. KELLY: I think what we’re focused on with North Korea is getting to the point where we can re-launch the Six-Party Talks which will get us to our ultimate goal, which is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. I’ll say, as a matter of principle, that reprocessing plutonium is contrary to North Korea’s own commitments that it committed to in the 2005 joint statement, and also would be a violation of various UN Security Council resolutions. And what we’re looking for is North Korea to take steps to achieve verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.

QUESTION: So if true, you’re saying – you’re condemning what they’re saying?

MR. KELLY: I didn’t say we were condemning it. I was saying that they should start taking steps toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and there is a way forward for that. And the way forward is to resume the Six-Party Talks and get back to all sides adhering to the commitments that they took in – undertook in 2005.

QUESTION: But at the same time, you said – I don’t remember if the Secretary said it or – it was so long ago – that you would be willing to talk to North Korea outside of the context of the – or within the context of the Six-Party Talks. You would be able – willing to talk to them bilaterally within that context to try and jumpstart the talks.

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: They’ve invited you, they’ve asked for numerous meetings, and you still haven’t answered them. So you could see from their point of view, perhaps, that you’re not interested in talking.

MR. KELLY: Well, I think from our point of view is we need to keep our eyes on the goal here, and that’s a comprehensive peaceful solution to the tension in Northeast Asia. And we want to make sure that we all move towards that goal. And it’s just – I think everybody should be careful and ratchet down the rhetoric and not take any actions that would contribute to tension in the region.

QUESTION: I’m talking just in terms of in the recent days. You know, their latest bombast, as Matt said, notwithstanding, in the last few days, they’ve said that they don’t think that you’re serious about talking. And they want to talk to you about returning to the talks, and you haven’t given them an answer. So how are you going to get to your goal of a complete and verifiable or whatever nuclear-free peninsula without getting back to the talks? And the North Koreans have said that they’re willing to start doing that.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I mean, you heard what I said yesterday. We did have a useful discussion. My colleague, Sung Kim, had a useful discussion with Ambassador Ri Gun in New York. And we took the opportunity in that meeting to reaffirm our commitment to a multilateral solution to the tension in the region and a resumption of the Six-Party Talks.

QUESTION: Right, but you said --

MR. KELLY: And we --

QUESTION: You said that you’ve been willing to talk to them bilaterally within that context. Are you saying you’re not willing to do that anymore?

MR. KELLY: No, I’m not saying that at all. We remain willing to talk to them bilaterally, within the context of the Six-Party Talks, which means with the support and in consultation with our partners in these talks. It’s just that we have – still have not – we have not decided on when and where we will have these bilateral talks.

QUESTION: What are you waiting for?

MR. KELLY: Well, Sung Kim has just come back and the Secretary is on travel. We will make a decision, but we’re just not at that point right now.

Lach.

QUESTION: Have you assessed their capacity for enriching plutonium and do you take their reports at face value? Do you have anything --

MR. KELLY: I don’t have anything really useful to say on that, I’m afraid. I just don’t have that information.

QUESTION: Well, you said that you want them to take steps to ease tension.

MR. KELLY: Yes.

QUESTION: Is an announcement like this something that eases tension?

MR. KELLY: Well, as I said, it certainly runs counter to the commitments that they made in 2005, and it violates UN Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: So it contributes, it adds to, rather than takes – even eases tension?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think that everybody should take steps to ease tensions and not use rhetoric to --

QUESTION: Well, the first step --

MR. KELLY: Well, I think not take steps that run counter to the UN Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: I guess what I'm trying to do is see if we can get you to say – put it in a complete sentence, a single sentence, that this --

MR. KELLY: This --

QUESTION: -- adds to rather than takes away – it adds to tensions rather than reduces them.

MR. KELLY: Well, I think --

QUESTION: Unless (inaudible).

MR. KELLY: No, I think I did put it in a complete sentence. I said that it runs counter to the commitments that they made in the 2005 statement, and it runs counter to UN Security Council violations.

QUESTION: And therefore, does it or does it not add to the tensions?

MR. KELLY: That’s a subjective --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: -- subjective qualification that I’m not willing to make right now.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I change the subject?

MR. KELLY: It’s okay. You have another Korean – okay.

QUESTION: Can we talk about the status of Tom Shannon’s nomination for the ambassadorship to Brazil and also the nomination of Arturo Valenzuela to be Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere?

MR. KELLY: Well, they both have had their confirmation hearings. They both were voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with – I don’t know the exact tally, but with – I think with a pretty good majority of votes. And we’re in close consultation with our friends up on the Hill and the Senate to see how we can move this forward. And the Secretary looks forward to having Arturo Valenzuela as her Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs.

And I think it’s – we think it’s important to have an ambassador, a full-time ambassador in Sao Paulo, too – in Brazil.

QUESTION: Well, these nominations seem to be held up because of --

QUESTION: Brasilia.

MR. KELLY: Did I say – Brasilia, yeah. Well --

QUESTION: I thought he said Brazil.

MR. KELLY: Wrong city, right country, yeah. Sorry.

QUESTION: These nominations seem to be held up for political reasons because of the situation in Honduras. Do you think that the recent agreement between the de facto government and the Zelaya government will contribute to, perhaps, these nomination – the holds being lifted?

MR. KELLY: I certainly hope so. As I say, I think it’s important that we have an Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs and have an ambassador in Brasilia. But I think that you really need to address that to the senators and congressmen.

QUESTION: Well, what specifically has Secretary Clinton or her senior staff done when you say that we’re in close contact with the Hill in terms of trying to move this forward? Has she made specific calls on their behalf to see if you can – I mean, it does seem to be held up because of a political issue?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, this Secretary, I think, has done a lot of consultations with the Hill. She spent an entire day up there a couple weeks ago. She’s made a real commitment of time to staying in close contact with her former colleagues on the Hill. And yes, this is an important priority for her. We’re trying to complete our team here at the State Department, and so yeah, she’s made a real priority in trying to get these confirmations completed.

QUESTION: So when she was specifically – when she was on the Hill a few weeks ago, did she specifically talk about the nominations of Tom Shannon and Arturo Valenzuela?

MR. KELLY: I’m sure she did, but I don’t – I’m not sure exactly what transpired, and I’m not even sure if I would be able to share it with you. But I’m sure she talked about this.

QUESTION: It seems that DeMint is the one that’s being – that’s holding up the nominations. Has she spoken specifically to him?

MR. KELLY: I’m not sure, Elise. Again, I have to refer you to the offices on --

QUESTION: Well, I’m referring specifically to – I mean, you say it’s a priority, but I’d like to know specifically what they’ve – what this Administration has done to get these nominations passed. I mean, the Administration has been in 10 months now. I don’t know exactly when these nominations were made, but I mean --

MR. KELLY: They were made a few months ago. Yeah, it’s – this is important to us and we’re working hard to see that they’re confirmed, but --

QUESTION: Do you think it’s fair that it’s being held up because of this Honduras issue?

MR. KELLY: No, I’m not going to – this is really a question for you to address to the senators themselves.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just trying to get a – you say it’s a priority, but I haven’t seen anything that indicates that it’s a priority.

MR. KELLY: Well, what do you need from me to indicate that it’s a priority?

QUESTION: I’d like to indicate what --

QUESTION: A sign. (Laughter.)

MR. KELLY: This is a priority. I mean, this is a – this is – we’re talking the Assistant Secretary for West Hemisphere Affairs and an ambassador in one of our most important embassies. And it’s important that we get them confirmed.

Yeah.

QUESTION: There’s a sense in Tokyo that the disagreement over the airbase on Okinawa could sour President Obama’s visit there later this month. What’s the U.S. position on relocating that airbase, and is there going to be – are there going to be any talks with the Japanese about it before the visit?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think our Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell is going to be in Tokyo Thursday, and he’ll have – he’ll continue the bilateral negotiations that we have.

Look, we have a new government in place in Tokyo. We’ve started an intense dialogue with them. Our position on the agreements that we have for basing hasn’t changed. We think that this is the best way forward in our security relationship with Japan. But we have a very, very broad and deep engagement with Japan, and this is indicated by all of the visits that we’ve had and all of the talks we’ve had with them. And this is an important relationship and it will continue to be an important relationship.

QUESTION: Is there any concern that the Japanese prime minister may not be able to back away from his campaign promise to move the base off land?

MR. KELLY: Well, that’s – it’s – that’s a decision for the Government of Japan to make. We are there in Japan because of our common interests, our – and a mutual security arrangement. Ultimately, it’s for the Government of Japan to decide what kind of relationship that they’re going to have with us, but again, this – what we have with Japan is designed to meet common challenges, common security challenges, and it’s done in complete transparency and in partnership with the Government of Japan. But it’s up to Japan to decide what kind of relationship they want to have.

QUESTION: Speaking of Kurt Campbell, he’s in Burma now?

MR. KELLY: He is in Burma.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what he’s doing, who he’s met with?

MR. KELLY: He and Deputy Assistant Secretary Scot Marciel had meetings in the Burmese capital --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. KELLY: -- today.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I should have written it down – in the Burmese capital today. They are there on basically a – I would characterize it as a fact-finding mission. It is the first step, or I guess I should say the second step in the beginning of a dialogue with Burma. Today, they met with ministers of the Burmese Government and with various individuals affiliated with the regime. Tomorrow, they plan to meet with some representatives from the opposition, with the prime minister, and also with Aung San Suu Kyi.

QUESTION: How are the meetings going so far? Can you give us a readout?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I was able to talk to Mr. Marciel, and what he said is they’re basically in kind of an information-gathering mode. They laid out the way we see this relationship going forward, how we should structure this dialogue, but they were mainly in a listening mode today.

QUESTION: Are they going to meet with Than Shwe, the junta leader? I mean, is that scrapped? I mean, he met with Senator Webb.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I’m not sure, Lach. We’ll find out.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I ask my question regarding Afghanistan?

MR. KELLY: Yes.

QUESTION: Nazira Karimi, correspondent for Ariana Television from Afghanistan. As we know, President Obama promised that he going to announce his decision about sending more troops, additional troops to Afghanistan. I think it’s the time to sending more troops in Afghanistan; experts and people in Afghanistan waiting for the final decisions for President Obama. Do you think that he will take his decision?

MR. KELLY: Oh, I know he will take the decision, but --

QUESTION: When?

MR. KELLY: Well, I can’t tell you when. I can refer you to what White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has said. He expects it to be over the next several weeks. He continues to have meetings. I think that we look forward to initiating a new chapter of our partnership with Afghanistan with the victory of President Karzai in the recent elections. I think that we’re going to look for President Karzai to move boldly and forcefully to initiate internal reforms, and we stand ready to assist him in that regard, to help him improve governance in Afghanistan, to provide security for the Afghan people and provide the kind of services that the people of Afghanistan deserve.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you talk specifically about what it is precisely you would like President Karzai to do boldly?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think we would --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. KELLY: We’ll have to initiate a dialogue with President Karzai, which, of course, we will do. I think that --

QUESTION: Well, don’t you already have one?

MR. KELLY: We do, but we want to see how the government is formed. We want to see who he’s going to have in his government. I think that, as I said before, one area that we will be looking to help him with is improving good governance, and that includes fighting corruption. I think we’re looking for the Afghan Government to speed up training of security forces, and so we’ll be looking to help them in that regard. I think our ultimate goal here is for the Afghan people – or the Afghan Government to be able to provide their own security for their own people.

QUESTION: President Karzai gave a speech today in which he said he was going to go after corruption, but he was flanked offstage by his two vice presidents, one of whom you guys have taken a very dim view of and believe is involved in major corruption. Do you think that it’s – is there – do you have any concern that he might not be serious?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think what we’re going to be looking for is – as I say, we’re looking for some strong and decisive action. We’re going to be looking for not just words, but deeds. And – but we’re not going to just stand off to the side and tell him what to do. I mean, we stand ready to support in tangible and concrete ways. But to do that, we need to do this in partnership with them and in consultation with his new government.

QUESTION: And also Dr. Abdullah’s supporter was – showed – they showed their negative reaction and they said they are waiting, you know, for a while. After that, they take action and they do something. And --

MR. KELLY: Dr. Abdullah will do something?

QUESTION: Dr. Abdullah supporter, yeah.

MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t know about that, but I --

QUESTION: They say President Karzai isn’t elected by the voters. That’s why they are --

MR. KELLY: Well, the fact is he was elected by the voters, and he – I mean, he was declared the victor in an election that was in accordance with Afghan law and run by Afghan institutions. As far as Dr. Abdullah is concerned, we have a lot of respect for him. We thought he ran an excellent campaign. And we hope that he continues to play a part in the political life of Afghanistan. We think he should continue to be a part of the dialogue regarding the future of Afghanistan.

Matt, go ahead.

QUESTION: Later today, if they haven’t already done so, the House is going to vote on this resolution which condemns the Goldstone report and calls on the Administration to oppose it and reject it. I think it pretty much basically echoes the Administration’s position on this already, but is there a statement of the Administration thinking on this resolution?

MR. KELLY: On the resolution itself? Well, I mean, you know what our feeling is about the report, the Goldstone report. I think it’s fair to say that we’ve been talking to the – some of our friends on the Hill about the resolution itself, but I – Matt, I don’t --

QUESTION: Well, do you support it? Do you have any position on it?

MR. KELLY: I don’t know how to answer that. I would imagine we do, but let me take the question, then.

QUESTION: All right. And then --

MR. KELLY: Because I actually haven’t seen the text of the resolution, so --

QUESTION: This is going to come up tomorrow at the UN. What are you going to do about it there? Not the resolution --

MR. KELLY: It’s the UN General Assembly, right? I think – well, there’s a lot of discussions going on in New York today. Let’s see where we come out. I --

QUESTION: Do you think that it might – there’s a chance that it might not come up?

MR. KELLY: Well, in this regard, our priority is that we don’t want to do anything that’s going to make it more difficult to resume talks, and we know how difficult it’s been to try and get the two sides to resume talks. I don’t know that we – if we have a position per se on whether or not this resolution should be discussed in the UN General Assembly. I would imagine that we probably would not be terribly supportive of reopening this case. But again, let me --

QUESTION: Well, is the U.S. delegation going to storm out of the assembly building or something if --

MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t know. I don’t know, Matt. I would imagine not. But again, let me see if we can get you a position on that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Iran seems to be questioning the U.S. Administration’s engagement policy. They say that the Administration has a superficial, conciliatory tone. And today, the supreme leader said that every time they have a smile on their face – and this is in quote – they are hiding a dagger behind their back. Any reaction?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. KELLY: That was from the peanut gallery here, not from the podium.

Look, we have – not just we, but the IAEA and Russia and France has on the table a very good proposal that will help Iran become better integrated in the international community, will be the first step towards ending its isolation. This is a very specific proposal that the Iranian delegation in Vienna already accepted in principle. I think it behooves us all to concentrate on this very concrete example of a way that we can move forward.

And this, as I say, is a way for them to end their isolation and begin to cooperate with the international community. And we would urge Iran to accept the proposal as it’s laid out by the director general of the IAEA, Dr. ElBaradei. And they’ve already agreed to this proposal in principle, so let’s – we think that we should focus on this first.

QUESTION: Where do things stand on the new round of talks?

MR. KELLY: The P-5+1, you mean? Well, that’s being worked out by Mr. Solana, and we – there’s been no agreement to have a P-5+1 meeting.

QUESTION: Well, actually, there was an agreement to have a meeting, but you just haven’t set the date? Or --

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: -- now you don’t know if you are even going to meet?

MR. KELLY: The – well, the – yes, that’s right, Elise. We have not --

QUESTION: Weren’t you supposed to have one by the end of the month?

MR. KELLY: We’ve not agreed to a date as – a date or an agenda.

QUESTION: Why not? Is it because you can’t agree on the agenda, or you can’t agree on the date?

MR. KELLY: It’s – this is really – it’s being worked out by Javier Solana, and I just would refer you to the EU.

QUESTION: Well, but I mean, you’re not an innocent bystander.

MR. KELLY: No, we’re not. I mean, Javier Solana is in close consultation with us and he’s in close consultations with the other members of the P-5+1.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just trying to determine whether – I mean, you said you were going to have a meeting by the end of the month.

MR. KELLY: Right. That didn’t happen.

QUESTION: And that didn’t happen.

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: So, I mean, is this that – have the parties kind of – has – Iran doesn’t want to meet anymore, or what --

MR. KELLY: Again, I --

QUESTION: What’s the holdup?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I really have to refer you to the EU. They’re the ones taking the lead on talking to Iran. They consult with us and keep us up to date on what they’re hearing from the Iranian side. But it’s – you really have to ask that of Javier Solana.

QUESTION: Is Solana actually making an attempt to --

MR. KELLY: Yes.

QUESTION: Or is he waiting on --

MR. KELLY: No, he’s quite engaged in this and talking to the Iranians on it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:51 p.m.)

DPB # 189

# # #

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:26 p.m. EST

MR. KELLY: Okay. Good afternoon. Let me just get you up to date on the Secretary’s schedule today. She had a working lunch with Moroccan Foreign Minister Fassi-Fihri, an audience with King Mohammed VI. Right now, she has a meeting with the foreign ministers from the GCC – it’s actually called the GCC+3. That will be followed by a press conference. And then she has the opening dinner of the Forum for the Future, which, as you know, is a joint civil society initiative of the countries of the broader Middle East and North Africa region and the G-8.

I have a short statement to read as well about the election in Afghanistan. The Independent Electoral Commission announced a formal end to Afghanistan’s presidential elections process in accordance with the Afghan constitution and electoral laws. Following Dr. Abdullah’s announcement to withdraw, the IEC decided that a second round is no longer required and has announced that Hamid Karzai will be the next president.

The Embassy in Kabul congratulated him on his victory a little earlier, and we echo those words of congratulation. We congratulate all the candidates who stood in Afghanistan’s second presidential election, in particular, Dr. Abdullah. The candidates drew attention to many of the issues that Afghans want addressed by the next president and government.

The first ever Afghan-led Afghan election was held in challenging circumstances. Fraud in the first round was detected and eliminated, leaving the two candidates with the most votes, President Karzai and Dr. Abdullah, in a runoff. In line with the Afghan constitution and electoral laws, the IEC declared President Karzai the winner after Dr. Abdullah withdrew, leaving the race uncontested.

This result was in line with Afghanistan laws and constitution. As we move beyond the election, the credibility and success of the new president and his Afghan Government will rest on their ability to deliver better security, governance, justice, and progress to the Afghan people. We stand ready to support the new government in this regard.

So with that, I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: So what does this all mean for your policy in Afghanistan?

MR. KELLY: Well, it – I don’t think – it doesn’t change our policy necessarily. I think we saw that an election was conducted under really extraordinarily difficult conditions. There were Afghan institutions that were set up to ensure that the process was run in accordance with Afghan laws. And we’re seeing this process play out, and it appears that we’ve seen the final step in that process today.

QUESTION: Well, do you think that this result leaves you with a credible partner?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think the important thing is, is that this whole process and the formation as – of the government as it goes forward is done in accordance with Afghan laws and institutions. These institutions represent the people of Afghanistan. Legitimacy – I think that’s what you’re suggesting here – legitimacy is derived from the government respecting the will of the Afghan people and obeying Afghanistan’s laws and institutions. And what we’re seeing so far is all of these laws and institutions being respected.

QUESTION: Well, but I – no, it’s actually not legitimacy that I was asking about. I was asking if it was – if you have a now – if this result leaves you with a – gives you a credible partner to work with in Afghanistan. Whether it’s legitimate or not, whether the rules were followed or not, do you think this result gives you a credible partner?

MR. KELLY: I think what we’ve seen is a process that was very difficult, that was conducted according to laws that were laid down by the government and legislature of Afghanistan. And these were the first-ever totally Afghan-run elections.

QUESTION: I understand all that, but do you – does this result leave you with a credible partner? Or are you not prepared to say --

MR. KELLY: We are there – we are in Afghanistan to support Afghanistan in its efforts to establish, for the first time in decades, security and institutions that will support the Afghan people. And this is what we’re going to do going forward. As I said, the important thing is that this has been done completely in accordance with the laws and institutions, and the institutions have worked.

QUESTION: No, I just want to – well, I just want to make sure that I understand. You are not prepared to say that you have – that this result gives you a credible partner in Afghanistan?

MR. KELLY: I’m – what I’ll say is I’m – we’re prepared to work with this partner who was elected according to Afghan laws in an election that was conducted by Afghan institutions. And we have a big stake in Afghanistan. The international community has a big stake in Afghanistan. And we stand ready to support them as they go forward.

Yeah, Lach.

QUESTION: When you’ve talked about credibility in the past, it’s been related to the allegations of corruption against many members of their government. Now this election – this decision doesn’t change that at all, so are you still pushing for an end to the corruption as a way to build its credibility?

MR. KELLY: Absolutely, absolutely.

QUESTION: So they haven’t – so they’re not credible as it stands right now?

MR. KELLY: No, I’m not saying that at all. I mean, let’s look at the facts. The facts were that the Electoral Complaints Commission identified significant fraud and took steps or made recommendations for the Independent Electoral Commission to take steps to address that fraud. The IEC made a recommendation that because the – a number of these ballots were thrown out, this brought the total of votes for Dr. Karzai [1] under 50 percent, and therefore, called for a runoff. Dr. Karzai accepted this – accepted the recommendations of the IEC, of the ECC, and then the ICC. So he accepted the findings of fraud and agreed to a second round. And I think that’s the important thing here.

QUESTION: What about the broader issue of corruption? You started to say something about that.

MR. KELLY: Well, I think that what we’re trying to help Afghanistan establish is a government that enjoys the support of the people and is able to provide security and able to provide services throughout the country. In order for it to enjoy support, it has to be accountable for accusations of fraud. We saw Dr. Karzai do that. We saw him accept the findings of the ECC. And we stand ready to help him, after he forms his government, to help address some of these problems, like corruption.

QUESTION: Is it not at all a concern that this is a president who got less than 50 percent, less than half of the popular vote, after the fraud was taken into account?

MR. KELLY: No, I don’t think it does. I mean, I think we’ve had a few presidents who’ve won with a plurality and not an outright majority.

Yeah. Also on Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Do you believe that Afghanistan – or that President Karzai needs to take certain specific steps in order to bolster his credibility and legitimacy there? I mean, I don’t think the constitution specifically addresses the issue of what happens if one candidate pulls out in the second round.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I think, the main thing here is that we – our main interest here is to see the findings of these Afghan-led institutions that are established by Afghan law – that they’re carried through. As I said before, we have a real stake in success of this government. And after it’s formed, we’ll stand ready to support them as they try and do what I was just suggesting a few minutes ago – try to be accountable to the people, to provide security, to provide services. And we have a lot of programs in place, as the international community has a lot of programs in place, to help them with that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on North Korea-U.S. meeting in New York?

QUESTION: Can I ask a question on Afghanistan?

MR. KELLY: One more on Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: But just on the issue of credibility, just one more question: How does the U.S., who has in the past made no secret of its adversarial relationship with the Karzai government, now work again with Mr. Karzai? And would you say that the U.S. efforts to bring democracy to Afghanistan have been battered in this election process?

MR. KELLY: Well, I’d like to kind of step back and look what they’ve accomplished here too. I mean, this was an extraordinarily difficult election. And they’re dealing in a country that has incredible challenges represented by the security situation, by the difficulty of the road system, of the geography. It is a very --

QUESTION: But it’s –

MR. KELLY: It is a challenging situation, and –

QUESTION: Well, what about the challenges for the U.S., though, the goals that the U.S. set out? Were those achieved? Or is –

MR. KELLY: The goals that we set out was to have an election that was conducted in an open way, and that was conducted in accordance with Afghan law and implemented by Afghan institutions with the support of the international community. And we’ve been able to achieve that.

Okay. North Korea.

QUESTION: Yeah. Do you have any update on the meeting?

MR. KELLY: On the – which?

QUESTION: The New York meeting with the U.S. and North Korea.

MR. KELLY: On the –

QUESTION: Sung – I mean –

MR. KELLY: Oh, Sung Kim.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Okay. Yeah, as you know, Sung Kim did meet with Ambassador Ri Gun from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I understand that Ambassador Kim had very useful discussions. These were discussions that were designed to move us closer to our goal, our immediate goal, which is the resumption of the Six-Party Talks. And so in that regard, it was a useful meeting.

QUESTION: I have – us there any precondition for the resumption of Six-Party Talks?

MR. KELLY: Any precondition?

QUESTION: Yes. The U.S. have any preconditions to have – to Six-Party Talks?

MR. KELLY: (Laughter.) I’m not aware of any preconditions for the resumption of the Six-Party Talks.

QUESTION: When was this meeting?

MR. KELLY: This was over a week ago.

QUESTION: Yeah. It wasn’t on –

MR. KELLY: No, no. I’m sorry. This – yeah, this was a week ago Saturday.

QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, this was the first one in New York, because we were told on Friday that he wasn’t going to New York --

MR. KELLY: He didn’t go to New York.

QUESTION: Yeah, he didn’t go to New York.

QUESTION: -- and that – and no officials were going to New York and there was no meeting.

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: So what day was this meeting that you’re talking about?

MR. KELLY: This was over a week ago. I know where you’re going with this, Matt.

QUESTION: What about the New York meeting?

MR. KELLY: I only had a chance really to sit down and talk to Ambassador Kim today.

QUESTION: No, where I’m going with this is I want to make sure that we weren’t told --

MR. KELLY: Oh, okay. All right.

QUESTION: -- erroneous information on Friday that –

MR. KELLY: Well, maybe I shouldn’t guide you in a certain direction. (Laughter.) No, this is the one that was a week ago Saturday, yeah.

QUESTION: You don’t have any meeting in New York?

MR. KELLY: There was never any – no, there was a meeting in New York. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah, there was.

MR. KELLY: October 24^th, there was a meeting in New York.

QUESTION: What – last Saturday, no?

MR. KELLY: That’s what I mean, October 24^th.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: North Korea was pushing again today for an answer on the talks. Do you have anything on that? Is that –

MR. KELLY: No. Just that, as I said before, Ambassador Kim did talk to Ambassador Ri about resuming the Six-Party Talks. We know that there is an invitation to Ambassador Bosworth to come to North Korea. We’re still considering that invitation. And once a decision has been made, of course, we’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Any reaction to the kind of statement that they issued today which seemed to indicate they were very willing to resume Six-Party Talks and multilateral talks?

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, that’s our goal. Our goal is to resume the Six-Party Talks which would lead us to our ultimate goal – of course, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But we haven’t made any decisions about Ambassador Bosworth.

Yeah, in the back. You’ve had your hand up awhile.

QUESTION: Actually, a follow-up on North Korea.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, I’m sorry. Mr. P.J. Crowley said two months ago that U.S. is willing to have bilateral meeting with North Korea if it’s helpful to resume channel of Six-Party Talks two months ago. And North Korea has been – openly mentioned that they are open to bilateral meeting, and it depends on the result of the meeting – they can come to back Six-Party Talks. And what (inaudible) U.S. from this bilateral meeting? I mean, what are you waiting for from North Korea –

MR. KELLY: Well, we – our policy has been pretty clear that we’re willing to sit down with North Korea in a bilateral context as long as it was understood that this meeting was being done in complete consultation with our partners, the – with the four party partners and if it was done in the context of the resumption of the Six-Party Talks, so I – we haven’t changed that policy at all.

QUESTION: So are you waiting from North Korea any formal commitment that they’re going to come back to Six-Party Talks after --

MR. KELLY: Well, I’m just – I’m not going to get into what the substance is. You heard what I said. The meeting was useful and – but we haven’t made a final decision on whether or not Ambassador Bosworth should go to North Korea.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: I was asking about the over the weekend stories regarding the Sri Lankan army chief being asked to come and give an interview to Homeland Security. Have you read the story that --

MR. KELLY: No, I haven’t seen that story.

QUESTION: Because, I mean, there was some stories saying that the Sri Lankan army chief, who happened to be in this country to see his daughters, has been asked to come to Homeland Security and made himself available for an interview regarding the possible human rights violations and war crimes inside Tamil areas. So I was just wondering, are those stories true? And if they are --

MR. KELLY: I’m not aware of the stories even, so I can’t comment on them. It sounds like this is probably a question you have to address to the Department of Homeland Security.

QUESTION: I did, and they said they needed --

MR. KELLY: They said call the State Department?

QUESTION: Yeah. They neither denied nor even confirmed.

MR. KELLY: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: But they said – well, I mean, State Department might be able to give an answer.

MR. KELLY: Well, I’ll have – I’ll just have to see if we have any information here at the State Department, because I’m not even aware of the press reports, I’m afraid.

QUESTION: You might want to take the question because the Foreign Minister Bogollagama has protested this, apparently.

MR. KELLY: I haven’t seen any of this, Lach. We’ll see if we can get more information on it.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any information about Secretary Clinton meeting with the Japanese Foreign Minister Okada?

MR. KELLY: Well, what I do know is that the Secretary has time on Friday to meet with him, but that I think I have to refer you to the Japanese foreign ministry about the plans of Foreign Minister Okada.

QUESTION: But you can talk about the plans of Hillary Clinton. So you’re saying it’s on their side, that scheduling is --

MR. KELLY: I’m just saying you would have to – you have to talk to them about his schedule. I only know the schedule of my Secretary.

QUESTION: Well, does she plan to meet him?

MR. KELLY: She’s ready to meet with him.

QUESTION: Is he going to meet with him?

MR. KELLY: That’s up to the Japanese foreign minister to – up to the foreign ministry to decide.

QUESTION: You’re suggesting that the Japanese foreign minister is snubbing the Secretary?

MR. KELLY: No, I’m not saying that at all.

QUESTION: What are you saying, then?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think one thing I’ll say is that when we put out a week ahead schedule, it is intended be for planning and not for publication.

Yes.

QUESTION: On the Dalai Lama, he’s – he was here recently, but President Obama turned down a meeting with him, and he’s now going to a region of India which is turning into a politicized battle between India and China. And I was wondering if the U.S. has a position on the Dalai Lama’s travels and meetings, since it’s apparently causing quite a stir over in the region.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I’m afraid that’s another issue that I’m not aware of. So again, if we can get more information on that, we’re happy to give it to you.

QUESTION: How about Uighurs and Palau? (Laughter.)

MR. KELLY: Uighurs and Palau – that I do have something on. I will find it. Or not.

**STAFF: Miscellaneous.

MR. KELLY: Oh, miscellaneous. Thank you.

QUESTION: Miscellaneous? (Laughter.)

MR. KELLY: Okay.

QUESTION: That’s kind of --

**STAFF: Cross-cutting issue.

MR. KELLY: Cross-cutting issue. It’s a global issue.

Six Uighurs were transferred from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to the custody of the Government of Palau on October 31st. That actually was November 1st, Palau time. And we would like to reiterate our gratitude to the Government of Palau for its generous offer to receive these Uighurs. This resettlement is a major step in implementing the President’s directive to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. And the continued assistance of our friends and allies is extremely important and much appreciated.

QUESTION: How are the compact negotiations going?

MR. KELLY: How are the compact negotiations going? I’ll see if I can find out about that. So that’s a third taken question.

Okay?

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. KELLY: Oh, one more. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. Why is it that this Administration has identified the importance of increasing aid to developing nations, but USAID is still without someone at the helm?

MR. KELLY: Ah, you saved the best for last. We do put a very high priority on assisting developing nations, and we’ve been trying very hard to identify, nominate and confirm an administrator for USAID. The fact that we’ve not done that yet in no way indicates any kind of diminishing of the priority that we put on helping people of the developing world to live a better life. We’ve – this Administration has put tremendous time and resources into trying to increase developmental aid.

QUESTION: But it’s been almost a year --

MR. KELLY: No, it has been a long time. We appreciate that.

QUESTION: Is there a timeline then of when someone might be in that position?

MR. KELLY: Well, it depends on a lot of factors. It depends on the White House, of course. It depends on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But we look forward to having somebody soon.

Okay, thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:48 p.m.)

DPB # 188

# # #

---

[1] Spokesman meant to say President Karzai

Robert Wood

Deputy Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

MR. WOOD: Happy Friday, everyone. Welcome to the briefing. I’m going to start off with a few items and then take your questions.

I first want to give you an update on Secretary Clinton’s visit in Pakistan. Today, October 30^th, the Secretary met with leaders from the Northwest Frontier Province in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. There, she underscored U.S. support for robust humanitarian assistance for people living in these areas of conflict.

In a televised town hall meeting with Pakistani women hosted by five of Pakistan’s top women journalists, the Secretary again addressed America’s desire to build more comprehensive relations with Pakistan based on mutual trust and respect. The Secretary met with the newly elected parliamentarians at the National Assembly, reassuring them of America’s strong support for their commitment to strengthen democracy. Later, she met with a wide range of officials, including General Kiyani and General Pasha, to discuss common concerns about security and counterterrorism matters.

At the Police Lines Headquarters in Rawalpindi, the Secretary paid tribute to Pakistani police officers who protect the public and also suffer the brunt of terrorist attacks. Before her departure, the Secretary attended an Embassy reception highlighting Pakistan’s rich artistic and cultural heritage.

The Secretary is now wheels up en route to Abu Dhabi, where she will have meetings with Palestinian President Abbas. And just to follow on that, Senator Mitchell met this morning with Prime Minister Netanyahu for about two hours. He also met last night with Defense Minister Barak. The discussions were good and set the stage for the Secretary’s upcoming meetings in the region. He will meet later – he will – I think he’s meeting later today with President Abbas as well.

One other item to mention – this is on Burma. Following a recent policy review, the United States held a senior-level dialogue with representatives of the Burmese leadership in New York on September 29. To continue this dialogue, Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell and Deputy Assistant Secretary Scot Marciel are scheduled to travel to Burma November 3 and 4. They expect to meet with senior government officials and with members of the opposition, including Aung San Suu Kyi as well as representatives of ethnic groups.

And with that, I will take your questions.

QUESTION: Can I – just logistically, where is the Secretary going after Abu Dhabi?

MR. WOOD: The schedule is still being worked out. Hopefully, we’ll be able to give you some more details of her travel, but I don’t have them at this point.

QUESTION: Okay. And Kurt Campbell and Marciel are going to where, Rangoon?

MR. WOOD: I assume Rangoon.

QUESTION: Or are they going to the capital?

MR. WOOD: I believe they’re going to Rangoon, but again, this is all the details I have at this point. We’ll update it as we can.

QUESTION: All right. And then the other logistical thing is, where is Sung Kim? Did he go to New York or not?

MR. WOOD: He did not go to New York, and as far as I know, no other Department officials are going to New York.

QUESTION: So no one’s attending the meeting?

MR. WOOD: To my knowledge, no, not from the U.S. side.

QUESTION: So there will be no meeting between Ambassador Sung Kim and Mr. Ri Gun?

MR. WOOD: I think I just said that.

QUESTION: Oh, sorry.

MR. WOOD: That’s okay. Any other questions? Dave.

QUESTION: Was the ability to meet Aung San Suu Kyi a condition for Campbell going out there?

MR. WOOD: Well, I think it was important that we were able to get a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi and some of the other opposition leaders. That was certainly an important element.

QUESTION: Is there anything new on Iran, in --

MR. WOOD: No, I don’t have anything new on Iran. The Secretary General – excuse me, the Director General of the IAEA is waiting for clarification from Iran. Again, we still believe this is an important agreement, and we look forward to a clarification from Iran. But no other update.

Yes.

QUESTION: Honduras.

MR. WOOD: We’ll go here and then we’ll go there, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Just on Honduras, has there been any talk from – on – yet on U.S. monitors going for the election?

MR. WOOD: I’m sorry, on what?

QUESTION: Has there been any – has there been any discussion yet, specific discussion, on U.S. – U.S. monitors going for the November 29^th election?

MR. WOOD: I’m sure there are discussions that have been going on with regard to that issue, but I don’t have anything for you on that at the moment. I mean, as soon as we do have some details about who may or may not be going, we’ll let you know.

Samir, you had a question?

QUESTION: Yes. The Iranians are saying today that they want to start negotiations with the U.S., Russia, and the IAEA about the plan, the agreement, that this is – that I’m not going to represent their final response to the agreement before they start new negotiations about it. Is this acceptable to the U.S.?

MR. WOOD: Well, this is the first I’ve heard of this. And as far as we’re concerned, what Iran needs to do is provide, as it said it would – or shall I say the Director General of the IAEA is seeking clarification from the Iranians with regard to the proposal on the Tehran Research Reactor.

I would just say, look, we’re waiting for that clarification so that we can go forward. As I said earlier, this is a good agreement. It’s a good confidence-building measure. And we’ll have to see where we go from here. But that’s what the Director General ElBaradei is doing now. He’s trying to get clarification from Iran on this issue.

QUESTION: And one more question.

MR. WOOD: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Do you know where Senator Mitchell met with Abbas today?

MR. WOOD: As I say, I’ll have to double check on it, but I think he is supposed to meet with him – I think it’s either later today or tomorrow.

QUESTION: I see.

MR. WOOD: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on South Korea’s announcement that it will send 300 troops to Afghanistan? Also, South Korea said the cyber attacks on the United States and South Korea in July were conducted by North Korea’s telecommunications ministry. What would you say?

MR. WOOD: Well, I don’t have – I’m not familiar with any details on that. I’d have to refer you back to the Government of Korea. With regard to what the government may decide to do with regard to a contribution, I’d have to leave that to the Koreans – the Korean Government to announce.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. WOOD: Anything else? Okay.

QUESTION: How about the second question, the cyber attacks?

MR. WOOD: I think I answered that first. I said I didn’t have any details on that.

Anything else? Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. WOOD: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:16 p.m.)

DPB # 187

 

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

October 29, 2009

MR. KELLY: Okay. Well, good afternoon. As you know the Secretary is in day two of her trip to Pakistan. Today, she went to Lahore and emphasized the desire of the U.S. Government to broadly expand and deepen U.S.-Pakistan official and people-to-people relations consistent with the democratic ideals of both nations. She met with a cross-section of Pakistani citizens, including students, civil society groups, women, and business leaders. She met with Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif and his brother and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, as well as Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer. She held both a meeting with civil society representatives and lawyers and a town hall meeting with undergraduate and graduate students at the Government College University of Lahore. She also visited cultural sites of significance in Pakistan, such as the Data Darbar Sufi Shrine, the Badshahi Mosque, and the Iqbal Memorial.

And with that, I will take your questions.

QUESTION: The Iranians have provided the IAEA with what the IAEA calls an initial response to the LEU offer.

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: What’s your reaction? What’s your take on the initial response?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think you’ve seen the press release out of ElBaradei’s office that this is an initial response --

QUESTION: This is an initial response --

MR. KELLY: -- and we’re waiting for a clarification. We – for our part, we remain united with our Russian and French partners in support of the IAEA draft agreement. We think it’s a good agreement, and it’s a very balanced agreement that represents a confidence-building step for all parties. It satisfies a legitimate humanitarian need from Iran and creates an opportunity for all of us for further progress.

QUESTION: So then it stands to reason that any change from that draft proposal that you just said you still supported would not be acceptable?

MR. KELLY: I didn’t say that. We think, and France and Russia also think, that this is a good proposal. And we support it.

QUESTION: I understand that. I’m asking if any changes to that would be acceptable.

MR. KELLY: Well, you’ve seen what Mr. – or Dr. ElBaradei said, and we are in very close consultation with him that we need further clarification. And I think it’s also fair to say that we need to have a formal response from Iran. At this point, we’ve been given some details of it, but we’re still talking to the Iranians about it.

QUESTION: What about the --

MR. KELLY: Kirit.

QUESTION: -- specifics of the changes they’re proposing, that this be done in stages? And (inaudible) what the other one is.

MR. KELLY: Well, Kirit, like I say, we’re going – we’re waiting to get this – an official formal response. There is complete unity among the three parties here – or the four parties – the U.S., France, Russia, and the IAEA, that this is a sound agreement. That it’s balanced and answers the needs and concerns of all parties. And so we’ll work with Dr. ElBarbadei and see what kind of clarifications we get from the Iranians.

QUESTION: Can I just follow? Ian, Turkish prime minister was in Iran to sign several agreements and calling that Iran also has a right to have a peaceful nuclear energy program. And there was several agreements signed between the two. He also is supposed to come to Washington, but the trip was postponed. Any reaction – if anything to do with this agreement with Iran between Turkey and Iran?

MR. KELLY: Well, Goyal, I don’t have the details of that agreement. I mean, I will say what we’ve said all along: We don’t dispute the right of Iran to a peaceful nuclear energy program. What Iran has to do, though, is respond to the very real and legitimate concerns about the international community about the nature of that program, and that we need to have more transparency and Iran needs to raise the level of confidence among the international community in the nature of their program. And this proposal from the IAEA is one good concrete way to address some of those concerns.

I don’t have any information about the visit of Prime Minister Erdogan, however. I think – I just don’t have any details on that right now.

QUESTION: So basically, finally, you support Iranian and Turkey’s agreements?

MR. KELLY: This is a – it’s a bilateral issue between the two countries. Our position and the position of the Iranian – position of the international community is clear that Iran has to do more to make their program more transparent.

QUESTION: Ian --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- going back to the agreement, the Russians are supposed to be doing the reprocessing of the 3.5 percent uranium to 20 percent, and then the French are supposed to be doing the fuel rod fabrication. What is the role of the United States in this project?

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, clearly, the United States has a lot of interests in Iran doing what we have been calling on Iran to do, which is make their nuclear energy program more transparent. And of course, we have played a role in the P-5+1 process. We stand ready to support this effort, this proposal of the IAEA to have this shipment – to have this LEU shipped out of Iran to be reprocessed.

QUESTION: So, basically, the U.S. won’t be doing any technical – is not involved in any technical aspect of implementation of the whole fuel reprocessing?

MR. KELLY: Why don’t I – yeah, well, that’s a very technical question, and I think the answer to that is no, but let me see if we can get you a technical answer to a technical question.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Yes.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: On North Korea. Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun reported that Ambassador Sung Kim and Mr. Ri Gun basically agreed on Ambassador Bosworth’s trip to Pyongyang next month. Can you confirm that?

MR. KELLY: No. I talked to Ambassador Kim this morning. There was no agreement for a specific bilateral meeting, no agreement to make any announcement of that sort either.

QUESTION: Are they meeting again in New York later this week – I mean tomorrow?

MR. KELLY: Well, you know they had a meeting in New York on Saturday, and they had two days of participation in the conference in La Jolla. Sung said no decision had been made yet today whether or not he was going to go back up to New York. If we have something to tell you, we’ll tell you later on today.

QUESTION: Ian, you said there’s no agreement for a specific bilateral meeting between Bosworth and the North Koreans?

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: Is that what you were talking about?

MR. KELLY: That’s what we’re talking about.

QUESTION: Can you say that in a sentence?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: Can you say that – because you stopped after – you didn’t – you weren’t clear about bilateral meeting between who.

MR. KELLY: Oh, I’m sorry. There has been no decision for – the U.S. has made no decision for Ambassador Bosworth to accept the invitation of North Korea to have bilateral talks. Sorry.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Goyal, again. Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on India, on the Secretary’s visit to Pakistan. You know, one thing if you can clarify, whenever officials visit to Pakistan or Pakistani officials visit to Washington, there are always some kind of bombings or some kind of terrorist activities there – over there. Can you – what can you make out of this? And I know Secretary had a very clear message. So did President as far as dealing with the global war on terrorism is concerned and that Pakistan should be tough on dealing with the terrorists now.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, this is a remarkably difficult time for Pakistan. They’re dealing with brutal terrorists and indigenous insurgents. We’ve seen over the last couple of weeks in the run-up to and during the operation in North and South Waziristan an increase in brutal bombings and targeted assassinations. We recognize that this is a very difficult time for Pakistan and – but we also recognize that the fight that they’re involved in right now is very much a common fight, this fight against retrograde extremists who want to bring their country back into the dark ages.

And Secretary Clinton went to Pakistan to show that we stand with those in Pakistan who are fighting this fight. This is a fight that we’re also fighting. I would not draw too much out of the fact that there was a bomb on the day that she arrived, however. There have been bombs, unfortunately, going off pretty consistently. It’s just an indication of the seriousness of this common challenge we have.

Dave.

QUESTION: Do you have anything more on the modalities of the Middle East talks that P.J. announced in Lahore – where, when, how?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. We’re still working out the where in particular, the where and the when. We don’t have – not all the arrangements are nailed down. I think you saw what P.J. said out there that we see this as a continuation of the kind of intensive efforts that we’ve been conducting over the last six months, really, and more. And the Secretary told the President last week when she gave him a status report on these efforts that there was a lot of work that needed to be done. And I would see this decision to have these meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas in this context. I would also see it in the context of her trip. She’s going from Pakistan to Marrakesh. And it just was a good opportunity for her to sit down with the two primary players in this process, with the Israeli prime minister and the Palestinian Authority president, to sit down and talk before she went to Marrakesh to participate in the Forum for the Future, where she anticipates meeting with many of the foreign ministers of the Middle East. And this is one more piece in that puzzle – puts it all together.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: The White House has confirmed that Chancellor Merkel would be there next week. Are there any meetings planned between Secretary Clinton and her new German counterpart Guido Westerwelle?

MR. KELLY: I understand that Secretary Clinton is very much looking forward to meeting with her new colleague. But at this point, there’s – nothing has been set, but I’m sure she will see him in the very near future.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I just go back to the Middle East? There’s been a notion that Special Envoy Mitchell’s trips and his mission has not been a great success, and leading many to believe that’s yet another reason why the Secretary is choosing to go there right now. How would you address that notion that Senator Mitchell’s trips and mission has not been that successful in terms of U.S.’s engagement in the Middle East peace process?

MR. KELLY: Well, we’ve been engaged in trying to get a comprehensive peace for decades. And we knew going in that this was going to be challenging and would require a real deep commitment to intensive negotiations. And that’s exactly what we’re involved in right now. And the Secretary and Senator Mitchell thought this was an appropriate time, since she’s in the region, traveling from South Asia to Marrakesh, where she’ll have a meeting with Middle East foreign ministers for her to sit down and talk to the principals. But it’s absolutely no reflection on Senator Mitchell and the amount of efforts that he’s put into this. He’s done an outstanding job with his tireless efforts to try and bring the two sides together.

QUESTION: Are you seeing the type of results that you hope to see from Senator Mitchell’s --

MR. KELLY: Well, our goal is for them to sit down and start talking directly. And we’re – we continue to exert extraordinary efforts towards that goal.

QUESTION: But if you can’t – even get them to sit down directly, based on your conversations with them, and you’re more of the more adjusted party to each one than each other. What makes you think, once they finally sit down to talk to each other that they’re going to get anywhere?

MR. KELLY: It’s – this --

QUESTION: They had a whole year of negotiations between each other and –

MR. KELLY: -- this is so important, this reaching this –

QUESTION: It was important last year.

MR. KELLY: It’s important. It’s always important. And it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t exert these kind of efforts. And so that’s what we’re doing. We’re committed to it, the President is committed to it, the Secretary is committed to it. They’re very personally involved. And this is a reflection of that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: One more. Last question.

QUESTION: Back on North Korea. There was a comment from the State Department yesterday that progress had not been made during the bilateral meetings. After Ambassador Kim’s report today, is that still the case?

MR. KELLY: Well, yeah, I think what you’re referring to is the fact that we’re not prepared to characterize the meetings. But I would not – that doesn’t mean that there’s no progress being made. I’ll say that on the record.

Goyal. Yeah, Goyal. I’ve already said last question, but Goyal, you have the honor.

QUESTION: Thanks very much. And I just wanted to go my question back to Turkey and Iran, if you can clarify please. I understand that you have been talking about sanctions against Iran or Iranian companies are dealing or doing business with them as far as helping Iranians. But now between these two countries, Iran – Iranian gas will flow through Turkey for billions of dollars. Do you support that?

MR. KELLY: Well, Goyal, you know what our approach is – a two-track approach. On the one hand, we’re – we indicated a willingness to engage with Iran, to talk to Iran, try and come up with an approach that will meet the needs of the international community and will meet Iran’s needs, humanitarian needs. And at the same time, we are also looking at what we call the pressure track, and that there are a number of options of what we have available to us under this pressure track. I think that we’re pursuing the engagement track, but we are just keeping our options open, and I’m just not going to get into the details of what those options are.

Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:46 p.m.)

#DPB # 186

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:22 p.m. EDT

MR. KELLY: Okay. Good afternoon. I’d like to, first of all, give you kind of a rundown of the Secretary’s schedule today in Islamabad. She had a meeting and also lunch with Foreign Minister Qureshi at the foreign ministry. She met with Prime Minister Gillani at his residence. And she also attended a program designed to help Pakistan’s poorest women and their families, and also had a meeting with and attended a dinner hosted by President Zardari at the presidential residence.

She – throughout, she underscored America’s broad partnership with Pakistan’s democratically elected government. This is a partnership that covers all dimensions of our bilateral and people-to-people relations. She announced the first phase of a signature energy program by the United States to support Pakistan’s energy development, helping to improve the quality of life for all Pakistanis and support their economic development.

At her meeting with the prime minister, she pledged $55 million that will assist Pakistan and UN agencies to provide humanitarian relief to families displaced from North and South Waziristan and the North-West Frontier Province. She also pledged 103.5 million in U.S. support for the Government of Pakistan’s priority law enforcement and border security programs.

Finally, the Secretary participated in an event promoting the Government of Pakistan’s Benazir Income Support Program with Prime Minister Gillani and President Zardari to express our – and also make contributions, or announce the contribution, to the income support program, which is a monthly cash subsidy program designed to help some of Pakistan’s poorest women and their families. At that event, Secretary Clinton announced that the United States will contribute $85 million to this program.

And staying on Pakistan for a moment, the United States extends our deepest sympathy to the victims of today’s brutal attack in Peshawar and to the families and friends of those who lost their lives. We continue to stand with the Pakistani people who have seen firsthand the effects of violent extremism. We also honor the brave Pakistani military, police, and security personnel who are now engaged in rescue efforts, as well as those who are fighting to combat extremism and create a safe, stable, and secure Pakistan.

Pakistan is in the midst of an ongoing struggle against brutal extremist groups who kill innocent people and terrorize communities. These attacks show the lengths extremist elements are willing to go as they attempt to force their agenda onto a people who only wish to go about their daily lives in peace.

And finally, we have no indications that any Americans were injured or killed in this attack. And I think you also probably saw the Secretary’s statement condemning the attack against the guesthouse in Kabul where UN personnel and Afghan security personnel lost their lives.

QUESTION: Including Americans, right?

MR. KELLY: There was one American who was working for the UN who was killed.

QUESTION: The name of that person?

MR. KELLY: We’re not releasing the name at this time.

QUESTION: So what was the total of the amount that she went around Islamabad dispensing to various sundry people? What was the total?

MR. KELLY: Well, let’s run through it again. It’s 55 million --

QUESTION: No, no, just the total, right? In other words, it hasn’t been totaled up?

MR. KELLY: We’ll do it right now.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: Fifty-five for humanitarian relief, 103.5 for law enforcement and border security. That’s 158.5 plus 85 for the support to women and their families. So are you doing the arithmetic now?

QUESTION: Wasn’t there another one in there, too?

MR. KELLY: I think it was three.

QUESTION: At the lottery event, no?

MR. KELLY: No, I don’t think so.

QUESTION: All right.

MR. KELLY: But we’ll – sorry.

QUESTION: 243.5

MR. KELLY: 243.5.

QUESTION: $243.5 million?

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And all of this is outside of Kerry-Lugar and what has been previously pledged?

MR. KELLY: I believe so. We’re going to put out media notes on all three of these programs, so we should have more details than that. The humanitarian is definitely outside of the Kerry-Lugar.

Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: Yes. My name is Nazira Karimi, correspondent for Ariana Television from Afghanistan. And I’m from Afghanistan, too. This morning, tragedy was so sad in Afghanistan in Kabul. What do you think about this new attack by the Taliban (inaudible) Obama’s Administration considering about Afghanistan strategy? Do you think it’s going to be affected on it?

MR. KELLY: Well --

QUESTION: And the second round election also be very close.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I think – well, first of all, we’ve seen that the Taliban did claim responsibility for this savage attack on people who are in Afghanistan to help Afghanistan develop a better and more prosperous future. These were unarmed civilian workers who were targeted. And this is all part of an overall campaign to intimidate the Afghan people to try and discourage them from exercising their democratic rights. It’s also a way to try and discourage their international supporters.

I think you’ve seen statements of outrage and – but also statements of support from leaders from all over the world. I mentioned Secretary Clinton’s statement. The UN Secretary General also issued a very strong statement reiterating the commitment of the UN and the international community to support the people of Afghanistan. And if that is their purpose here to try and discourage us or intimidate us, it’s not going to work. We are committed to this. We are committed to the Afghanistan people and we are committed to seeing this through.

QUESTION: Ian, quite apart from any report that may have appeared today or in the recent past, what does the Administration think about President Karzai’s brother?

MR. KELLY: What do we think about his brother? I don’t know that we necessarily have a view on his brother. I mean, we support the government of President Karzai, and our views are very well known on that.

QUESTION: Well, what do you think of the influence his brother might wield?

MR. KELLY: I don’t think I necessarily have that kind of information.

QUESTION: Okay. Perhaps then maybe you can the guidance you have for the question that you were expecting.

MR. KELLY: You’ve got to ask me the question before I read the guidance. I’m happy to read the guidance, if you’ll ask me the question.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: What about reports that President Karzai’s brother is being paid by the CIA for various activities?

MR. KELLY: We don’t comment on intelligence matters.

QUESTION: But you’re not denying it?

QUESTION: Was that so difficult?

MR. KELLY: I just needed to have --

QUESTION: You’re not denying it?

MR. KELLY: -- the question asked, and I was happy to say it. I’m just saying, we don’t comment.

QUESTION: You’re not denying it?

MR. KELLY: I mean, you know, in general, we don’t --

QUESTION: You don’t comment on people that you pay off?

MR. KELLY: We don’t comment on intelligence matters.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, just because it was paid for by the CIA, doesn’t – mean it was an intelligence matter. I mean, it sounds like you talk at great lengths about the war on drugs from this podium and combating drugs in Afghanistan and combating warlords in Afghanistan.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: So I’m not necessarily sure if it’s an intelligence matter or just because the CIA is involved.

MR. KELLY: If it’s an – if the CIA is involved, it’s an intelligence matter.

QUESTION: So you’re not denying that you’re paying him?

MR. KELLY: I’m just saying, we don’t comment on intelligence matters.

QUESTION: And you’re saying that you don’t have any opinion about the role that the president’s brother plays?

MR. KELLY: I just am not going to – I don’t, as the spokesman of the State Department --

QUESTION: I’m not talking --

MR. KELLY: -- have any particular view on the role of the --

QUESTION: Well, the State Department has an entire office led by a special envoy who deals with Afghanistan. And this guy is – whether or not anything that has been reported about him is true or not, he is obviously a player in that country. Surely, there must be some kind of opinion about him.

MR. KELLY: I’m sure there are opinions. It’s just that --

QUESTION: And contacts.

MR. KELLY: -- I do not have an opinion from this podium on --

QUESTION: I mean, outside of --

MR. KELLY: -- the president’s brother.

QUESTION: -- outside of any payments that he received from the CIA, you’re saying that this building – representative – Special Rep Holbrooke on that – the whole office that deals with Afghanistan has no dealings with --

MR. KELLY: I’m not saying that at all. I’m sure people have an opinion.

QUESTION: Well, could you take the question what the dealings are with him?

MR. KELLY: No, I’m not going to take that question. I mean --

QUESTION: Why not?

MR. KELLY: -- how is that germane necessarily to --

QUESTION: It is germane. There are questions about corruption, about --

MR. KELLY: Well, we have opinions on corruption.

QUESTION: Well, we’re asking specifically about corruption related to --

QUESTION: Do you think it’s a good thing? (Laughter.)

MR. KELLY: No, we don’t think it’s a good thing. (Laughter.) We think it’s a very bad thing --

QUESTION: We’re talking about corruption --

MR. KELLY: -- and we’ve made that clear to the Government of Afghanistan, that we are very concerned about corruption and its very negative influence on how the people of Afghanistan see their government. We made it quite clear that we are going to seek a new understanding with the Government of Afghanistan on this issue, once the elections are completed and we have a post-election administration in place, we’re going to discuss these issues with them.

QUESTION: Well, but there are a lot of concerns specifically about President Karzai’s brother and related to corruption. And if it’s true what Secretary Clinton has said on the record that she expects that President Karzai would win a run-off election, presumably this gentleman would also have a role in the next government.

MR. KELLY: Well, let’s see what the next government consists of. I mean, right now, we need to get through the second round. And our focus is on that, on providing support for the Afghans as they go through this process.

QUESTION: So it doesn’t matter if there’s corruption related to this brother until the run-off is over?

MR. KELLY: I’m not saying that at all. I mean, I’m just saying that we are very concerned about corruption. But I’m not going to comment on the relationship of President Karzai’s relation – relationship with President Karzai with his brother and how it may or may not influence policy?

QUESTION: But you say that you’re concerned corruption. And a lot of the reports coming from Afghanistan – this report this morning about payoff to him notwithstanding – many of the reports and the anger in Afghanistan right now is centered around President Karzai’s brother.

MR. KELLY: Like I say, we are concerned about corruption and the very --

QUESTION: Just not about his brother?

MR. KELLY: -- deleterious effect that it has the view of the Afghan people about their government. I mean, that – we’re very clear on that. But I don’t have any --

QUESTION: Including his brother?

MR. KELLY: I’m not going – like I say, I don’t have any views on his brother.

QUESTION: So you’re concerned about corruption -- you’re concerned about corruption, but you have no views on corruption related to President Karzai’s brother?

MR. KELLY: At this moment, no, I don’t.

Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: Yeah, do you have anything on a statement at the UN by Philip Alston about the U.S. might be breaking international law in summary executions by their drone attacks?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. We – I mean, we saw that statement, and this is a – it’s a legal issue. I mean, he raises some legal issues. And give us a chance to look at what he said. And this question I will take, and we will get back to you.

QUESTION: Speaking of the UN, the General Assembly had its annual vote today on the Cuba embargo. You got two people to join you, two countries. Can you remind – (a) remind of what those two countries are, and (b) tell us what you think of the vote?

MR. KELLY: I think one was Palau, Matt. Who was the other one?

QUESTION: I don’t know. I think it – it’s usually, generally, the Solomon Islands.

QUESTION: I thought it was Micronesia.

QUESTION: Or Micronesia.

QUESTION: Or was that about Israel?

MR. KELLY: All right. Well, let me give you the guidance on this. The United States believes it has the sovereign right to conduct economic – its economic relationship with Cuba as determined by U.S. national interests. Sanctions on Cuba are designed to permit humanitarian items to reach the Cuban people, while denying the Cuban Government resources that it could use to repress its citizens.

This yearly exercise at the UN obscures the fact that the United States is a leading source of food and humanitarian relief to Cuba. In 2008, the United States exported $717 million in agricultural products, medical devices, medicine, wood, and humanitarian items to Cuba.

QUESTION: Sorry. Wood?

MR. KELLY: Wood.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: Sanctions is one part of the United States policy approach to Cuba. In recent months, as you know, we’ve reached out to the Cuban people. We’ve taken steps to promote the free flow of information, we’ve lifted restrictions on family visits, and we’ve expanded the kinds and amounts of humanitarian items that the American people can donate to Cuba. We’ve also taken steps to establish a more constructive dialogue with Cuba. We’ve reestablished dialogues on migration, and we’ve initiated talks to reestablish direct mail service.

We remain focused on the need for improved human rights conditions and respect for fundamental freedoms in Cuba, and we would need to see improvements in those areas before we could normalize relations with Havana.

QUESTION: But, I mean, you have no opinion on the fact that the rest of the world thinks that this is a bad way to go?

MR. KELLY: Well --

QUESTION: That the whole world – I mean, Palau notwithstanding – excuse me.

MR. KELLY: This – it seems to me to be an annual exercise that --

QUESTION: It’s an annual exercise to tell you that the rest of the world thinks --

MR. KELLY: -- seems to be – kind of has inertia from the Cold War. The suggestion that we’re not assisting Cuba is just false. I mean, we are one of the major providers of humanitarian assistance to Cuba. But we don’t believe that we should – while there are repressive measures in place in Cuba, that we should reward the Government of Cuba by lifting the economic sanctions that could assist the Government of Cuba in its repression of its own citizens.

QUESTION: Well, it seems that the rest of the world thinks that, in fact, if you were to lift the embargo, that could help the repression – lift it.

MR. KELLY: Well, we don’t think it’s time to lift that embargo. The – we will consider that when the Government of Cuba starts to make some positive steps towards loosening up its repression of its own people.

QUESTION: Ian, without getting into a philosophical and – especially a lengthy or philosophical debate about this, you said that this, as an annual exercise, is a Cold War remnant.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, there a lot of people who would argue that the embargo is a Cold War remnant. I mean, this is the first year that this vote has happened, where you’ve been in this tiny minority that you are – that the U.S. is the only country in this hemisphere not to have diplomatic relations with Cuba.

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, we – our policy in Cuba is designed to try and move Cuba to doing the right thing towards its own people. And they have not taken the kind of steps to show us that they’re willing to open up their society and open up their economy. And until they do these things, we’re not willing to change our policy. Having said that, we also want to have --

QUESTION: Having said that --

MR. KELLY: -- a productive dialogue.

QUESTION: -- how long has the embargo been in place now?

MR. KELLY: I think it’s been in place almost 50 years.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.

MR. KELLY: Well, that’s a long time to have a repressive system.

QUESTION: Well, it’s also a long time to have a policy that has produced absolutely no results.

MR. KELLY: Well, we’re – we are looking to try and put our relationship – with Cuba on a more productive path.

Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: Any updates for (inaudible) bilateral meeting between Ambassador Sung Kim and Lieberman?

MR. KELLY: Ambassador Kim is returning to Washington tonight, and we expect to have a readout from him when he comes back – a readout sometime tomorrow. But I don’t have any other announcements regarding the bilateral talks with North Korea.

QUESTION: Nothing in New York?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: Nothing in New York?

MR. KELLY: No. No decisions on participation in the New York conference.

QUESTION: So he’s not working here?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: So he isn’t working here?

MR. KELLY: We – no decisions have been made about Sung Kim going to New York.

Samir, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. There are reports in the Israeli press that Secretary Clinton will arrive Sunday to Israel, and Senator Mitchell Thursday. Can you confirm these reports?

MR. KELLY: I don’t have any announcements at this time. I think if there are any changes to the Secretary’s schedule, they’ll come from the traveling party. But right now, I don’t have any announcements.

QUESTION: Just back to the –

MR. KELLY: Matt, do you have a question?

QUESTION: Yeah, just back to the Western Hemisphere. Is there anything new on the – did the delegation leave for Honduras?

MR. KELLY: Yeah, they’re there now.

QUESTION: They’re there?

MR. KELLY: Yeah, they’ve just arrived.

QUESTION: Have they got – have they actually be able to do anything yet, or did they literally just get off the plane?

MR. KELLY: I think they’re starting the program right around now. As you say, they’re – Tom Shannon, Craig Kelly, Dan Restrepo are in Honduras today. They’re meeting from – they’re meeting with representatives from both sides to discuss strategies to move this whole process forward. They’re urging both sides to show flexibility and redouble their efforts to bring this crisis to an end. They see their role as to promote a Honduran solution to this crisis. Secretary Clinton believes that the United States could play a constructive role now to encourage all sides to return to the negotiating table. And so they have meetings all this afternoon. They’ll have meetings tomorrow morning. We expect that they’ll have a press conference at the end of their program tomorrow.

QUESTION: So they’re leaving tomorrow night?

MR. KELLY: We anticipate they’ll be leaving tomorrow afternoon. But they’re willing to stay on, if they could be useful by staying on.

QUESTION: Who do they plan to meet? Will they meet – will they try and meet Zelaya, Micheletti?

MR. KELLY: Well, they’re going to meet with representatives from both sides. Whether they’re going to meet with the – with Micheletti and Zelaya themselves, I’m not sure, but we’ll have more information tomorrow.

Dave?

QUESTION: Another subject. There’s a resolution moving rapidly through Congress. The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which would seem to encourage the Administration to put sanctions on Iran’s refined petroleum imports, which I guess are a vulnerability, is this legislation something that you support, encourage this --

MR. KELLY: Well, I – yeah, I know that we’re talking to the sponsors. I know that senior officials here are talking to the appropriate members of Congress on this issue. I think Assistant Secretary Feltman in fact is testifying this afternoon. Our focus now is on the IAEA. We’re still expecting a response from Iran to the Director General’s proposal to Iran to send out their low-enriched uranium to be enriched outside Iran, and we still don’t have a response. We’ve seen press reports that the response may come tomorrow, but there’s been no official response yet in Vienna.

QUESTION: So could you expand on the general helpfulness, or lack thereof, of this particular piece of legislation? Does this help your diplomatic efforts or not so much?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think all along, we’ve pursued a dual track. Right now, I think most of our energies are focused on the engagement side of it, to follow up on the P-5+1 meeting in Geneva, and waiting for a response from Iran. But all along, we – there’s also the other track, the track of pressure. And we believe that that track has to be at least planned for while we pursue the engagement track.

QUESTION: All right. But as of – up until now, you’ve specifically avoided sanctions on refined petroleum, because you thought that it would hurt the Iranian people and therefore hurt your efforts to engage Iran. So, helpful or not so helpful?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think as we look at the two sides of this – the engagement side and then the pressure side – what we prefer to do is to do this multilateral, to do this in consultation with the members of the P-5+1. We, of course, welcome the advice of Congress and are working with them as they go through their own deliberations on how to go forward in our relations with Iran. We all share the same goal, and that’s getting Iran to be more transparent about its nuclear energy program, and there’s a lot of discussions on how best to get to that end state. But like I say, I mean, right now, we’re focused on Iran providing a response to Mr. ElBaradei’s.

QUESTION: So it sounds like you don’t – if you prefer to do it multilaterally, then it sounds like you don’t think it’s a good idea.

MR. KELLY: Right now, we’re looking at – on the engagement side, again, on a response to ElBaradei’s proposal, and then we welcome Congress and their advice on how to pursue the other track, the pressure track. But like I say, we’d prefer this be done in a multilateral fashion. These kinds of methods of pressure, of course, are a lot more effective if they’re done in a multilateral fashion.

QUESTION: Ian, let me try to get some clarity here, because I don’t – it’s not very clear if you have a position at all. This legislation and similar – this bill and a similar legislation in the Senate only – it just gives the President the authority to impose these sanctions. It doesn’t actually impose them themselves. And as you said, you think that while engagement is pursued, you have to plan for the second track --

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: – the punitive track. So what’s wrong with this? What’s wrong with getting the authority to do this, even if you – I mean, you might never use it.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: But it gives you an additional tool now.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I – well, I think that the priority has to be on getting an answer from Iran.

QUESTION: So you don’t – so the Administration opposes this?

MR. KELLY: No, I’m not saying that we’re opposing it. I mean, there’s nothing --

QUESTION: Are you neutral?

MR. KELLY: There’s nothing for us to oppose at this point. There’s no – there’s no bill, there’s nothing specific.

QUESTION: It just came out of the – it just came back – just cleared Committee.

MR. KELLY: Well, it hasn’t – yeah, but it hasn’t been enacted.

QUESTION: So there won’t be any statement – formal statement of Administration policy on this?

MR. KELLY: I’m not saying there will or there won’t be. But there – right now, our focus is on Vienna.

QUESTION: Well, that’s not true.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: You just said that Jeff Feltman is up there on the Hill testifying this afternoon.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, the Hill --

MR. KELLY: Laying out our Iran policy.

QUESTION: The Hill – the only Vienna the Hill is close to is Vienna, Virginia. So I mean, what’s he doing up there?

MR. KELLY: He’s up there laying out our Middle East policy, including our policy toward Iran.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:45 p.m.)

DPB # 185

# # #

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:19 p.m. EDT

MR. KELLY: Good afternoon. Just a few remarks at the top on – related to Honduras.

The United States was saddened to learn of the death of Mr. Micheletti’s nephew and we extend our condolences to his family for their tragic loss. As of now, we have no information about the motive of this violent act.

I also would like to announce that Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Craig Kelly, and White House Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs Dan Restrepo will travel to Honduras later this week. The delegation plans to meet with representatives from both sides to discuss strategies to move the Guaymuras process forward. They will urge both sides to show flexibility and redouble their efforts to bring the crisis to an end.

And I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: On that subject, Ian.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, Dave.

QUESTION: And is it – is the – are the talks down there at an impasse? I understand that Zelaya isn’t engaging anymore on that subject.

MR. KELLY: Well, it’s, as we say, a rapidly developing situation. There have been some developments both last night and this morning. The two sides are still talking, and the U.S. remains actively engaged with both sides. We’re talking to them on the phone, and our Embassy on the ground is talking to them. There are also representatives of the OAS who are helping facilitate this dialogue. And we’re just taking every opportunity to try and press on both sides the urgency of the situation and to try and get them to resolve this as soon as possible. The Secretary spoke with both sides as well, spoke to Mr. Micheletti and to President Zelaya. So we are --

QUESTION: When was that?

MR. KELLY: -- very actively engaged. Saturday, I believe. It was over the weekend, anyway.

QUESTION: Ian?

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: You say that the U.S. remains actively engaged with both sides. But in fact, you – I think “remains actively engaged” is a bit of a misstatement, is it not? Because you had not been actively engaged with both sides for very long.

MR. KELLY: Well, yeah.

QUESTION: I mean --

MR. KELLY: Fair enough. I mean, we’ve been saying consistently that we’re working through the OAS, that we were trying to play a helpful and active role through the OAS mechanism. The Secretary yesterday decided that the time was right to send this senior delegation down to get more directly involved in the process. We continue to support the OAS involvement in this. But the Secretary thought it was time for Assistant Secretary Shannon and NSC Senior Director Restrepo, as well as Craig Kelly, to get involved in this.

QUESTION: Prior to this, the only time that you would have sent people from Washington to deal directly with Micheletti’s side was as part of the OAS delegation, correct?

MR. KELLY: That’s right. Well, Ambassador Llorens has been involved, of course, on the ground. But as far as participation --

QUESTION: No, no --

MR. KELLY: -- from Washington --

QUESTION: -- but from here.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, you’re right. It was only as part of an OAS --

QUESTION: So – right.

MR. KELLY: -- delegation.

QUESTION: Okay. So why did she make the decision that it was now time for you to become directly --

MR. KELLY: Well– yeah. I just – I think it’s getting quite urgent. What we want is we want to see an election, which is coming in about exactly a month, to enjoy the kind of international legitimacy that the people of Honduras deserve for their government. And we have said all along that we’ve made this a priority and we wanted to be as helpful as we could to try and bring this to a successful resolution. And I think things – talks on Friday seemed to break down, and it was at that point that the Secretary decided to get involved directly and called both Mr. Micheletti and President Zelaya.

QUESTION: Okay. And when are they going?

MR. KELLY: I believe they’re going tomorrow and will stay, I think, for a couple days.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Nick Spicer, Al Jazeera. Could I ask a question about the now rather public resignation of Matthew Hoh, who is --

MR. KELLY: Is there anything else on Honduras? Did you have something on --

QUESTION: Yeah, I do. Do you still think a legitimate election is possible given that it is only a month away?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think the clock is ticking. I think, in order for it to be seen as legitimate and for the authorities down there to conduct a completely open and transparent electoral process, that there needs to be some time, and this is precisely why we see some urgency in this.

So – yes.

QUESTION: Can I just – now pick up the question about – the resignation of Matthew Hoh, who was working for the State Department in Afghanistan and has made public a somewhat depressing three-page letter about the reasons for his resignation, and he talks about his loss of understanding and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States presence there.

Is this – how does the State Department view this? Is this an embarrassment of sorts, the fact that it’s become so public? It’s on the front page of the Post today.

MR. KELLY: Well, first of all, we admire Mr. Hoh. We respect the sacrifice that he’s made for his country, both in Iraq and signing up to join our effort in Afghanistan. We take his opinions very seriously. Senior officials on the ground in Afghanistan and here in Washington have talked to him, have heard him out. We respect his right to dissent. This is an old and respected tradition in the Foreign Service, that Foreign Service personnel have the right to express their dissent.

Just to give you a little more background on his affiliation with the State Department, he signed on for a limited appointment. It is a non-career appointment. He signed on March 29^th of this year and his employment lasted up until September 28. He submitted his letter of resignation a few weeks before that. He was signed on as a political officer in a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan in Zabul. And his role as a PRT political officer was to monitor and report on political and economic developments in his province.

As I say, we take his point of view very seriously. But we continue to believe that we are on track to achieving the goal that the President has set before us, and that’s – you heard Deputy Secretary Lew lay out some of those objectives: improving Afghan governance; providing security, infrastructure, jobs, basically giving the Afghan people an alternative to the very negative vision of the Taliban and al-Qaida. And this is the strategy, and as I say, we believe we're on track reaching the goals. Kirit.

QUESTION: Just a couple of things from the article about his meeting with Eikenberry and with Holbrooke. Could you tell us a little more about this, and what happened in those meetings?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think he was upfront with his own chain of command, and had the opportunity to discuss with his immediate boss who is the supervisor of the PRTs. And he also talked to the Deputy Chief of Mission out there, Mr. Frank Ricciardone. And it was very much an open and transparent process. As I say, we value his service, we value his background and his skills. This is why we appointed him to this limited non-career appointment to be a political officer, to be our eyes and ears on the ground in Zabul. In the end, he made his own decision, that he decided to resign, and we respect that.

QUESTION: Do you wish he hadn’t gone public with it?

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Do you wish he had not gone public with that?

MR. KELLY: It’s really his decision. I mean, we don’t – it was a – obviously, a very personal decision, and I think he even told the post that it was a very painful decision. I’m sure it was, but we respect his right to act on his views.

QUESTION: So his tour – his job would have ended on March 29^th of 2010?

MR. KELLY: It was a one-year appointment, yeah.

QUESTION: That would have ended on March 29, 2010?

MR. KELLY: It was supposed to end next March, yeah.

QUESTION: And then what would have happened?

MR. KELLY: At that point, he would have – his employment would have been over with the State Department. These appointments can be extended as well. I – there have been some appointments that have been extended up to 18 months, I know.

QUESTION: And the – okay, but then that’s it?

MR. KELLY: And that’s it. Yeah, that’s it.

QUESTION: So there –

MR. KELLY: He signs an agreement that he’ll – that he agrees to stay for a year and then his employment ends.

QUESTION: So that you can’t re-up it at that point.

MR. KELLY: Oh, I said we can extend him, but he has no – it’s a non-career appointment. So he doesn’t have any re-employment rights, per se. Of course, he can compete for other jobs.

QUESTION: Then I’m not – I’m unclear as to how he actually fits into the Foreign Service.

MR. KELLY: It’s – there is a provision of the Foreign Service Act that gives the Secretary the right to designate certain positions as limited with a time certain end date in order to fill positions that have not been filled through the normal Foreign Service process. And so this was one of them. We have, I think a total in the world, about 16 of these type appointments. It’s not – it’s fairly rare.

QUESTION: Is that the same thing as the 3161 or is that different?

MR. KELLY: No, that’s different.

QUESTION: It’s different, right?

MR. KELLY: I don’t know all the ins and outs of 3161. I think that’s more of a Civil – I think that’s for Civil Service appointments.

QUESTION: So this is under Foreign Service, but he is not considered --

MR. KELLY: This is under Foreign Service.

QUESTION: -- a Foreign Service officer, he’s not commissioned as a Foreign Service officer?

MR. KELLY: He’s not commissioned as a Foreign Service officer, yeah.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

QUESTION: Afghanistan? Can we just stay --

MR. KELLY: With Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Yeah, Afghanistan.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Go ahead, and we’ll get to you, Lali, in a second. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, on the same topic, publicly, some of the reports stated that Ambassador Holbrooke had actually agreed with some of Hoh’s analysis – not his conclusion, but some of his analysis. I wanted your reaction on what it is that Ambassador Holbrooke agreed with him on.

MR. KELLY: I’m not – just to be very frank, I’m not sure exactly what Ambassador Holbrooke – what specifically in the letter he agreed with. I’ve read the letter.

QUESTION: The date?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: The date?

MR. KELLY: The date? I’m not sure I understand.

QUESTION: It’s a joke. Don’t worry.

MR. KELLY: Oh, okay. I’m a little slow on the uptake. I’ve read the letter. It’s a – it is a very – it’s a well-written letter. It draws on, obviously, a deep knowledge of history. But again, I also do not agree with his conclusions. I very much respect his opinions, because he’s obviously very well read into the subject, has a lot of knowledge about the nature of insurgencies. You know he served as a Marine in Iraq. But I don’t know what in particular Ambassador Holbrooke was referring to in terms of the letter. And there are parts of the letter I agree with, too. I mean, this is a – it’s a very, very difficult job that we have out there and a very complicated situation, but it’s definitely worth the effort.

QUESTION: You’re --

QUESTION: Pardon me, last question about how we bill this story. It – I mean, it’s – is it – it’s not really comparable to, say, the career diplomats who left the service over Bosnia or, you know, other big disagreements.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I mean, I actually – I have a few friends who --

QUESTION: Or is it?

MR. KELLY: -- who resigned over Bosnia and Iraq. And these were people who had career appointments, who had a number of years into the Foreign Service, a real investment in the Foreign Service. And because they could not accept the policy, they made a principled decision to resign.

I mean, I would draw – I mean, without minimizing the obvious passion and depth of feeling of Mr. Hoh in terms of his perception of the mission in Afghanistan, I would draw a distinction between his situation and somebody who had been in the Foreign Service and had a stake in the Foreign Service for 20 years or more.

QUESTION: So to your knowledge, there haven’t been any career Foreign Service officers who have resigned over Afghanistan?

MR. KELLY: To my knowledge, nobody has resigned over Afghanistan. No career officers, yeah.

Lali, yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: In Afghanistan, there – for the past couple of days, some protests are going on against the alleged desecration of Holy Qu’ran by some U.S. soldiers. Have you tried to get into the facts and investigate what the real issue was? Or it’s just a propaganda by the Taliban?

MR. KELLY: No, I think that allegation has been very firmly denied by the Pentagon that there was desecration of the Qu’ran. And beyond that, I’m not certain of the facts.

Yeah, Michel.

QUESTION: On Iran, an Iranian official has said today that Iran will agree to the general framework of the IAEA plan with a request for important changes. And the Iranian – the Press TV, an Iranian television, has said that Tehran is opposed to sending the entire shipment abroad at once, suggesting it wants to do it in stages. Do you have any reaction?

MR. KELLY: No, I don’t, and for the very simple reason that we are waiting to get an official reaction to the IAEA proposal to use Iran’s own low-enriched uranium and send it out to be enriched to fuel their research reactor. And what we’re waiting for is a response to the IAEA. And they have not received an official response. We’re expecting that shortly, as we understand it, but until then, we’re not going to respond to other press reports and other voices out of Iran.

QUESTION: Well, is the response like the one Michel outlined acceptable?

MR. KELLY: We are going to wait to see what the official response is before we give any kind of possible --

QUESTION: Well, is a response like the one outlined in his question acceptable?

MR. KELLY: This is something that has to be worked out --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, let’s look at it this way.

MR. KELLY: -- among the six capitals, the P-5+1 partners. We’re doing this as a group. We’re not going to respond individually to these proposals.

QUESTION: Is it correct that an Iranian rejection of the offer would be unacceptable?

MR. KELLY: I think it would be very unfortunate, but you’re asking me to respond to something that hasn’t been actually tabled to us.

QUESTION: Well, would an Iranian rejection of the entire offer as presented be unacceptable?

MR. KELLY: Well, Matt, we – we’re focused on --

QUESTION: You’re focused on --

MR. KELLY: -- on trying to get --

QUESTION: -- ignoring all the signs coming out of Tehran and waiting until they deliver some piece of paper to Solana.

MR. KELLY: We’re – not to Solana, to the IAEA.

QUESTION: Or to the IAEA.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I’m just going to refrain from comment till we get an official response.

QUESTION: Are you ready to make some changes to the plan or --

MR. KELLY: Again, let’s just wait – I mean, we understand it’s supposed to come the middle of this week. And so I assume in the next couple of days, we’ll get a response.

QUESTION: Ian, on that.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: When ElBaradei accepted Iran’s suggestion that it needs some more days to think about it, did – was that an individual decision or did ElBaradei consult with the U.S., France, and Russia, as well? Because just today, again, the French foreign minister says even one more day of delay is too late.

MR. KELLY: I think it’s fair to say that our mission to the UN in Vienna, our mission to the IAEA, has been in very close consultation with Mr. ElBaradei, and that he has kept everybody informed. And I think it’s fair to say we’ve been in close consultation with him.

QUESTION: So the extension did include the opinions of the three countries?

MR. KELLY: I’m not sure I know which –

QUESTION: The extension that last week was given to Iran beyond Friday. Did the U.S., Russia –

MR. KELLY: He consulted with us. And ultimately, it’s his decision on – in terms of setting deadlines, but he does it in consultation with us.

QUESTION: Is there any movement on the P-5+1?

MR. KELLY: No, nothing to announce. Mr. Solana is still working with the Iranians on --

QUESTION: And that has absolutely nothing to do with the response – the Iranian response that you’re waiting for?

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, clearly, they’re related. This agreement in principle came out of the meeting of the P-5+1 with Iran. And one of the agreements was for a follow-up meeting. And – but this is still being worked out, in terms of the way the meeting will take place and what the agenda will be.

QUESTION: Ian.

MR. KELLY: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any fresh information on Sung Kim and Ri Gun’s meeting?

MR. KELLY: You mean the one that took place over the weekend?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. KELLY: No. This – I mean, I gave you our perspective on this – was that it was – the meeting was very much focused on how we get back to the Six-Party Talks and get to our ultimate goal of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

QUESTION: You don’t have any updates on Sung Kim’s meeting with Ri Gun in San Diego?

MR. KELLY: Again, there has been no formal bilateral meeting set up. When I say a formal bilateral meeting, I mean a meeting that has a particular agenda, where the two sides sit down. They both are participating in this Track II forum. And I assume that they’ve had plenty of opportunities to talk on the margins of it, but there has been no formal talks or anything set up.

QUESTION: Do you have any informal talks about any detail about it?

MR. KELLY: Like I say, they’re in the same conference. And the purpose of the conference is to talk and discuss issues, and so I assume that they’re doing just that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: And Chinese General Xu Caihou is here and he met with Secretary Gates this morning. How does State Department evaluate the two very high-level military leaders talk between the U.S. and China?

MR. KELLY: Well, I know that General Xu is going to be – has a meeting here in the State Department with Deputy Secretary Jim Steinberg. I think that’s going to happen this afternoon. And we hope that this visit will help contribute to our– both our countries’ commitment to a mutual and cooperative U.S.-China relationship.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the agreement by the Chinese to search for this – the victims of this bomber crash in 1950?

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I’ve seen those reports. It’s – we’re – we are extremely appreciative of the assistance of the Chinese Government in helping resolve the cases of U.S. servicemen missing in action. I understand that the Government of China helps – plans to help us search for remains of any – the remains of any of the airmen who were in this Air Force bomber crash. But in terms of the specifics of the search, of course, that would be a DOD matter.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: No, wait, wait. One more.

MR. KELLY: One more? Okay.

QUESTION: I don’t think you have an answer, but maybe you could look for one. The reaction to the verdict in the Scientology fraud trial in France – they were convicted.

MR. KELLY: Boy, I think we’ll need more details on that. I’m not sure I know what that is.

QUESTION: You’re not aware of the Church of Scientology?

MR. KELLY: I am, but I’m not aware of this case.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: We’ll see what we can get you.

QUESTION: Actually, I have one more for you.

MR. KELLY: Kirit, okay.

QUESTION: The one I emailed you about, the D.C. lobbyist indicted for acting as an agent of Sudan and --

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I’ve asked for more information on that one, too.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: Okay. Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:44 p.m.)

DPB # 184

# # #

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:23 p.m. EDT

MR. KELLY: Okay. Good afternoon. Let me start off by reading a statement from U.S. Embassy Kabul.

Today, the U.S. Embassy mourns the loss of three civilian members of our Embassy community and seven members of the U.S. military who were killed in a helicopter crash in western Afghanistan. The helicopter carrying Afghan security forces, U.S. military, and U.S. civilians crashed for unknown reasons. Fourteen Afghan security personnel, 11 U.S. military personnel, and one American civilian were also injured in this crash. We wish for a speedy recovery of those injured today, and send our thoughts and sympathies to those families who lost loved ones.

In about an hour, a little less than an hour, Secretary Clinton will come down here and deliver her opening remarks on the release of our annual report on International Religious Freedom. The report outlines abuses of religious freedom and progress towards greater religious freedom in 198 countries and territories around the world. Our Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor will speak following the Secretary and will also respond to reporters’ questions.

And speaking of that, I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: Ian, what do you guys make out of the inspection over the weekend of the Qom facility?

MR. KELLY: I think we’ve seen the reports on it. This is, of course, an IAEA-led investigation, and so we’re deferring to them for any kind of information on the inspection.

QUESTION: Have you – but you were – presumably, you were briefed on it, right?

MR. KELLY: Well, I’m not sure that we have been briefed on it. I mean, this just happened yesterday.

QUESTION: No? Okay. Then is there any update on the P-5+1, when or whether they will meet again with the Iranians?

MR. KELLY: I know that there was a telephone conversation today with the political directors from the six countries. Of course, Under Secretary William Burns participated from our end. They discussed the need for unity of the P-5+1 in our approach to the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. They also discussed the way forward on arranging a follow-on meeting to the Geneva meeting, but that’s very much now still in the works. It’s a matter of discussion between Mr. Solana and the Iranian authorities, but nothing’s been set in terms of follow-on --

QUESTION: Is the U.S. position that if the Iranians don’t accept in full what was presented to them on the LEU deal, that there shouldn’t be another meeting?

MR. KELLY: I am not sure that there is any linkage, per se on that – of course, the agreement that was reached in Geneva – to have a proposal go to the Iranians from the IAEA. This was a very important outcome from that meeting of a few weeks ago. But I’m not sure that I would draw any direct linkage between the two.

QUESTION: But doesn’t that mean --

MR. KELLY: Yes, Jill.

QUESTION: -- that they are not fulfilling what they were supposed to fulfill?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think you saw what Mr. El Baradei said on Friday, that they asked for a little more time to review the proposal. And he indicated that we expected an answer by mid-week. So we’ll hold off to see what comes out of that.

QUESTION: Can I ask about Iraq?

MR. KELLY: Sure.

QUESTION: After the bombings yesterday, the – Iraq has renewed a request to the UN to look into whether foreign countries are assisting in these attacks. What – how does the United States feel about this, and do they support such an inquiry? Would they – would the U.S. support it?

MR. KELLY: I think we would support it. I think that Secretary Clinton is on the record as saying that we would support the idea of the UN appointing a senior official to go into Iraq and look into these very serious allegations. This – she expressed her support of this a few weeks ago, even before the horrific events of yesterday. So we’re on record as supporting that.

QUESTION: And does the U.S. think there could be some sort of foreign involvement in this?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think what happened --

QUESTION: Especially Syria?

MR. KELLY: -- was, as I say, so utterly horrific that this – the circumstances surrounding it need to be looked into. I don’t think that we have any information to indicate that there was any kind of involvement outside of Iraq and the bombings themselves, however.

Lal, do you have --

QUESTION: Yeah. On Afghanistan, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah yesterday at the press conference demanded removal of a Independent Electoral Commission chief and also some of the cabinet ministers of the Karzai government, saying that if they are not removed, there might not be free and fair elections in the country.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What’s your response to that?

MR. KELLY: I’m not aware of Dr. Abdullah himself calling for the removal of certain officials. We’ve seen some of the reports of some of the officials around him suggesting that this should be done. I mean, we don’t really have a position on this. We’re not trying to encourage or discourage anybody from running or not running. That’s the choice of the candidate himself.

What we’re focused on is making sure that the process is – that everyone abides by the various procedures and processes that are laid out in Afghan law. But we’re not going to take a position one way or another about whether or not a candidate should run or not run. And again, I would discourage you from saying that Dr. Abdullah has said he won’t run unless these officials are removed, because I don’t think he has said that.

QUESTION: No, he has set some conditions – some few conditions or set of conditions before the Independent Electoral Commission and asked for the removal of the chief.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I haven’t seen that he himself has actually said that, that he’s put conditions before he would – before he would arrive.

QUESTION: And secondly, at the 10:30 briefing here, there was a passing reference of establishing of two U.S. consulates in Afghanistan, one in Mazar-e-Sharif, and another I don’t remember. Do you know what the status is and when they are going to open?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Let me see if I can get you – I don’t have that information right now, but let me see if we can get you more information on that.

QUESTION: Yes, another question, Sri Lanka, if I can?

MR. KELLY: Sri Lanka?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The Sri Lankan Government today has announced that they will set up an investigation commission to look into the allegations that the State Department report says about war crimes. Do you have any comment on it? Have you received information from --

MR. KELLY: Well, yeah. I think as we – as we said on Friday, this is exactly what we would expect Sri Lanka would do would be to look into these very serious allegations of human rights abuses. So I think that we would welcome these reports that they’re planning to set up this kind of investigative commission.

QUESTION: And finally, is Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell going to India this week?

MR. KELLY: Kurt Campbell?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Not to India.

QUESTION: Not to India?

MR. KELLY: Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: Where is he going?

MR. KELLY: I’m sorry, I – let me see if we can get you some information.

QUESTION: He said he was going to be going to Burma soon. Is that --

MR. KELLY: That is – no, there have been no decisions on that.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can you give us a readout of the meeting between Ambassador Sung Kim and Mr. Gun on Saturday in New York? Did they discuss about the Ambassador Bosworth’s visit to Pyongyang? Did that come up in the meeting?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think you – I’m sorry, I’ve been distracted by my staff. (Laughter.) I hear sounds of crickets, I think. That’s no indication as to the amount of interest you all are paying to this briefing. (Laughter.)

I think you saw the short statement that we put out over the weekend that Ambassador Sung Kim did take advantage of Ambassador Ri Gun’s presence in New York. They did meet, and Ambassador Kim took the opportunity to once again lay out what our position is on the way forward with the ultimate goal of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and that we believe that the best way forward on that is through the resumption of the Six-Party Talks.

And then you know that Ambassador Kim is now in La Jolla for this track two conference which is sponsored by the University of California. This is an annual conference. And there are no plans for further bilateral meetings at this conference, but I don’t exclude that there won’t be some side meetings with Mr. Ri Gun.

Yes.

QUESTION: So there’s no plans for any meetings, but you’re not excluding the possibility of side meetings?

MR. KELLY: Sure. Yeah. I mean, they’re going to be together in this conference.

QUESTION: So they could talk during the conference, but not --

MR. KELLY: They could talk during the conference. There’s nothing set up though, nothing formally set up.

QUESTION: I still have a question about the Saturday meeting. Can you comment any about the – anything about the tone of the meeting? Like was it a cordial meeting, good meeting?

MR. KELLY: No, I’m afraid I wasn’t able to talk to Ambassador Kim, so I can’t give you a characterization in that way.

QUESTION: A follow-up question?

MR. KELLY: Uh-huh, yes.

QUESTION: North Korea. Did North Korea present any different suggestions or any proposals on Saturday? Because there has been some report that North Koreans might have presented some proposal which was a little bit going forward, mentioning about the Kang Suk-ju meeting Bosworth when he’s going, if he’s going to visit Pyongyang. So could you elaborate on some of the --

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Well, what I have is what we presented in the meeting, and I just described it to you, that we want to do all we can to get the Six-Party Talks back on track. But I don’t – I normally wouldn't talk about what the other country in a bilateral meeting had presented.

QUESTION: Will you have -- will there be additional meeting in New York later this --

MR. KELLY: There’s nothing planned for New York.

QUESTION: But you will not exclude it also?

MR. KELLY: But also, I don’t exclude that. Yes.

Yes. Also on North Korea?

QUESTION: Also on North Korea. Former deputy head of the North Korean mission to the United Nations Song Ryol Han has applied for a visa to contact his previous post. Do you have any comment on the reports?

MR. KELLY: No, we wouldn't comment on – this is somebody who is – went – take up a diplomatic assignment in New York, you mean?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Someone who’d already been there before?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: No, I – we wouldn't have any comment on that.

Yes, Sami.

QUESTION: Why would you not have any comment on that?

MR. KELLY: Because visa records are confidential.

QUESTION: Well, you went all of your way to tell us that Ri Gun got a visa.

MR. KELLY: We don’t have any comment at this time. But --

QUESTION: I don’t understand --

MR. KELLY: No, we would not comment on a visa application on somebody, whether or not he was going to get one or not get one. After the fact, after he’s got one, sure we would acknowledge the fact of it.

Yeah, Sami.

QUESTION: What is your reaction to the elections in Tunisia with the President Zine El Abidine winning the 90 percent of the votes?

MR. KELLY: If you could wait just a moment. We were concerned about the recent elections. The Government of Tunisia did not allow international election monitoring. We were not – we are not aware that permission was granted to any credible independent observers. We are also committed to working with the president of Tunisia and his government to advance the partnership between Tunisia and the United States. We’ll continue to pursue bilateral cooperation in areas of mutual interest, and we’ll continue to press for political reform and respect for human rights.

Yes.

QUESTION: Ian, prior to your press conference on Friday, there were clashes against in East Jerusalem. Now, you keep talking – or both the Bush Administration and your Obama Administration have been talking about a two-state solution with Senator Mitchell as envoy. And yet, you talk about an urgency to the situation. Now, you saw what’s happened with the Iranians with the buildup of their nuclear program. And are the Iranians egging on this situation to where it could go ballistic? You saw the clashes in Gaza after the withdrawal, and it’s just a repeat. And is this media propaganda on all sides to inflame the situation? How do you view all that?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think on that latter point, of course, we call on all sides to lower the rhetoric. What we’re trying to do is we’re trying to establish the kind of conditions where the two sides can sit down and actually start working towards the goal that everyone shares, and that’s a comprehensive peace based on a solution of two sides living side by side.

I think that our energies and our focus right now are on just that, that we’re going to vigorously pursue this goal using all kinds of opportunities to do so, in the form of bilateral meetings. I think you saw that UN Ambassador Rice was in the region. She met with Prime Minister Fayyad and she met with Israeli leaders as well. The Secretary will be in Marrakesh in – I guess it’s next week, and she plans to consult with foreign ministers from the region at that time. And also, Special Envoy Mitchell will go back to the region.

So we do call on everyone to lower the rhetoric, to avoid situations that inflame the situation, and everybody should keep their eyes on the goal here of a comprehensive peace. And to get there, we’ve got to get the two sides to the point where they can sit down and have meaningful negotiations.

QUESTION: And when is Mitchell going?

MR. KELLY: We don’t have exact dates, but in the near future.

Yes.

QUESTION: Just on Guantanamo Bay and the detainees there, any recent movements in efforts to relocate them, any success stories that you can --

MR. KELLY: Well, there are a lot of efforts ongoing, and Special Envoy Fried is very active in trying to find places for the detainees to be settled, but we don’t have any news to announce at this time.

QUESTION: And then as a follow-up, last week, the Supreme Court granted cert on the first of two petitions by a detainee by the name of Kiyemba, who is a follow-up to last year’s Boumediene decision to see if he can’t be released into the United States. Does the fact that the Court granted cert to that case which now holds it up for many months in any way delay efforts on your part in dealing with other countries?

MR. KELLY: Well, I would hope. I mean, we – the President has decided that Guantanamo should be closed and that the detainees there should be resettled. And I would certainly hope that these efforts wouldn’t be obstructed. Not to pass any judgment on the Court’s decision, but we are trying very hard to meet the President’s deadline.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:41 p.m.)

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:34 p.m. EDT

MR. KELLY: Good afternoon. I’d like to, first of all, make a few remarks at the top about Honduras, to give you an update. As you know, we’ve been working very hard with our partners in the hemisphere to reach our goal of restoring democratic and constitutional order in Honduras, and we continue to believe that the best solution to this is the San Jose Accord. As you know, President Zelaya is in Washington this week. He has meetings at the Organization of American States today. I’d refer you to them for further details on that. And on Thursday, Secretary Clinton plans to meet with him to discuss the best way forward on the situation in Honduras.

And with that, I’ll turn it over to you.

QUESTION: Does she expect to make the determination at that point?

MR. KELLY: Well, we still haven’t made the determination. I think you know the issues that are being considered here, but I can’t give you an exact time when that determination will be --

QUESTION: I understand the issues that are being considered.

QUESTION: It’s been more than two months now --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- since the events transpired --

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: -- so one would – would think that one would have had enough time to judge whether it was a military coup.

MR. KELLY: Right. Well, we have taken the actions that we would be required to take if that determination is made, and that is that we have suspended assistance that goes directly to support the Government of Honduras. And you know what the issue at hand is a – it’s a provision of the Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2009.

QUESTION: Before you launch into the whole explanation of what exact – we already know what it --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- exactly it is. What is the holdup?

MR. KELLY: We – as I said – as I’ve said many times, we have – there are a number of diplomatic activities going on. We are – we have done what we have to do under the law, and that is not to provide assistance to the Government of Honduras if the Secretary decides to make this determination. But she hasn’t made the determination yet.

QUESTION: Can you follow up on that? I mean, one big exception to that, as I understand it, is the grant money from the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which would also be – could be implicated in such a decision.

QUESTION: And it’s my understanding that the MCC has so-called notwithstanding authority, so their aid is not automatically cut off? Their board has to make --

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: -- an affirmative decision to do so.

MR. KELLY: I think that’s right, Arshad.

QUESTION: And that’s more than a hundred – I think it’s something like 111 – well, it’s more. But it’s more than $100 million that would have to be scrutinized and that’s much bigger than the 18 – about 18.4, I think, that’s already been suspended. So in a way, there’s a big, big chunk of money out there that’s going to have to be – on which decisions are going to have to be made.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. You’re right. I mean, in the case of the Millennium money and the Challenge Corporation, it is something that will have to be decided by the board. Of course, Secretary Clinton is a member of that board, and so we’ll see about what exactly we have to do with both the USAID – with the USAID programs, military programs, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation programs.

QUESTION: One other thing on this. I mean when, in response to Matt’s question, you said that there are a number of diplomatic activities that are underway, are we to understand it is the case that it is solely a question of the diplomacy, that – in other words, the hope that you can find a diplomatic solution, that is holding off the determination? Or are there other factors, perhaps within the U.S. Government, that are holding it up?

MR. KELLY: As I’ve already suggested, of course, it is a – it’s not just a decision that affects the Department of State and the Agency for International Development. There’s a number of other – another – a number of other avenues that we have to go down, including briefing Congress. We need to – we have to coordinate with the Department of Defense. All along, in this whole conflict that we’ve had around Honduras, we’ve had to, as well, coordinate with the Organization of American States and with our partners in the region. So there is quite a bit of coordination that has to go on.

QUESTION: And regarding the DOD, would this affect Soto Cano Air Base – Soto Cano Air Base, excuse me – would such a cutoff have any effect on that air base and U.S. use of it?

MR. KELLY: Well, obviously, the Department of Defense is best positioned to answer that question. As I understand it, it will – I mean, the military – I shouldn’t say that the determination will affect programs. The suspension has already affected a number of programs that the U.S. military runs. Soto Cano is a – it’s not our base. It’s a Honduran base. Again, you really should – you should get the nitty-gritty details on this from the Department of Defense, but I think that they have suspended their programs except for the kind of activities that you would need to support a base – guarding the perimeter and provisions and activities like that. But please do try and get those kinds of details from DOD.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through what this meeting on Thursday will look like, what kind of access we’ll have to it, what kind of readout there will be?

MR. KELLY: Well, we haven’t determined the arrangements yet for the press. I am – I feel confident that there will be some kind of – that there will be – it will be closed to the press. I mean, there will be some – you will have some kind of engagement with the two principals, but --

QUESTION: But will we be able to --

MR. KELLY: -- it hasn’t been determined. In terms of readout, of course we’ll be happy to give you a readout.

QUESTION: Will we be able to actually ask them questions?

MR. KELLY: That hasn’t been determined yet, so I can’t give you an answer to that yet.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about a report by the Project of Government Oversight about the Embassy in Kabul that lists, among other things, incredible understaffing, long hours, extreme long hours of guards, improper training, a language barrier between the guards and the staff at the Embassy, and also hazing of new recruits of guards, which has been – some of which has been listed in letters from the State Department to the contractor complaining about some of this behavior over the last two years?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, Elise, we have received a long letter from the Project On Government Oversight with quite a few documents attached. You make reference to some of them. Let me just say that these are very serious allegations, and we are treating them that way. As soon as we received the documents, they were turned over immediately to our Office of the Inspector General. Secretary Clinton has been apprised of the allegations in these documents and has directed the Department and the Office of the Inspector General to take appropriate action.

And let me just say that the Secretary and the Department have made it clear that we will have zero tolerance for the type of conduct that is alleged in these documents.

QUESTION: If I might, I’d like to quote from a letter from the State Department to the contractor in June of 2007. So this was two years ago that you recognized that some of these deficiencies exist and you said these deficiencies endanger the performance of the contract to such a degree that the security of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul is in jeopardy, and that you threatened to terminate the contract.

Yet over the last two years, there are about 11 letters that have been released not just by the project, but by Senator McCaskill’s office, who is in charge of the Subcommittee on Government Oversight, that you continued to warn the contractor about these deficiencies and that you said that the security of the Embassy is in jeopardy, yet why did you continue to extend the contract?

MR. KELLY: Well, as I say, these are serious allegations. What you just read me, I would – I think they’re very serious too.

QUESTION: These aren’t allegations. These are your own words. These are your own words.

MR. KELLY: Well, I – let’s --

QUESTION: I mean, if this report came out today, yes.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: But over the last two years, you’ve been continuing to warn this contractor about its performance. So does it take an independent nongovernment organization to cast light on what you’ve been kind of overlooking for the last two years?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I mean, look, as I understand it, we have – we’ve been investigating this organization for some time now. We understand that we have made some – we have pointed out to them some of the deficiencies. And I can’t answer right now from this podium exactly what they have done in response to this letter.

QUESTION: Well, in your letters, it says that they’ve continued to let them go unaddressed.

MR. KELLY: Well, let me see if I can get you more information. But I just don’t have the information right now. And the matter is also under investigation.

QUESTION: Can I follow up with that, though?

MR. KELLY: Sure.

QUESTION: In June when Senator McCaskill held hearings, the Assistant Secretary of – Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Management William Moser told the hearing that these problems have been looked at, and that since January, they had been addressed. So on what basis did he give that testimony when, according to the POGO report, this behavior, this whole pattern that Elise just sketched out, this --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- whole pattern has continued up to the present day, up to August?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I’ll have to ask Mr. Moser. I’m not exactly sure what he was basing his determination on when he did tell Congress that these issues have been addressed.

QUESTION: Can you tell us if, up till now, the State Department has been satisfied with the performance of ArmorGroup in providing security for the Embassy in Kabul?

MR. KELLY: I’m just not prepared to say that right now. I mean, let me just see what we can say about this congressional testimony that you --

QUESTION: The letter says Secretary Clinton says that the contract – it says the management of the contract to protect the U.S. Embassy Kabul is grossly deficient, posing a significant threat to the security of the Embassy and its personnel.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And this is a now question. Is this the case? Are you worried about how well your staff is protected?

MR. KELLY: Well, we always worry about our staff and how well they’re protected. There is no higher priority for us than the safety and well-being of our people, especially our people who are serving in a dangerous environment, like Kabul.

QUESTION: And the question of language was raised, which is that many of the staff on this security contract don’t speak English, and indeed, the State Department was made aware of that. If there are lots of security staff, something like two-thirds, who don’t speak proper English, how can you make that assurance?

MR. KELLY: Well, you’re asking a lot of good questions. But I just – I can’t comment on them. One, I don’t have the answers to them right now at this moment from this podium. And two, the matter is under investigation. I can’t comment on it.

QUESTION: Well, why is this matter under investigation, Ian? It looks like it’s been under investigation for the past two years.

MR. KELLY: I’m sorry, Elise. I can’t answer it. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Can you answer one other matter raised in the letter, which is that POGO is saying essentially the State Department has a pattern of ineffectual oversight, and that Congress or somebody ought to give the oversight of embassy security, when you’re in a war zone to the military? Now what’s the State Department’s position on that?

MR. KELLY: Well, again, these are very serious allegations. This is – these particular recommendations are from this particular organization. We’re happy to consider them. But these are extremely serious questions that you’re asking. And I want to make sure that you get a good answer to it, because as I say, the security of our colleagues serving overseas is an extremely serious matter.

QUESTION: When did this stuff, this material, get turned over to the IG?

MR. KELLY: I don’t have an exact time, but it was – as I said when I was first asked this question, they were turned over as soon as we got them.

QUESTION: Well, which was when?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think we got the material in the last week or so. But I don’t have any --

QUESTION: Well, if you got it in the last week or so – they’re talking about letters that go back two years.

MR. KELLY: Oh – well, I mean, it’s a matter --

QUESTION: You’re saying that the IG – the IG has not been looking in --

MR. KELLY: -- a lot of this is a matter of public record --

QUESTION: -- the IG has not been looking --

MR. KELLY: -- because we testified in June.

QUESTION: -- the IG has not been looking into this since 2007? Is that --

MR. KELLY: Matt, I don’t --

QUESTION: And it’s only since you got this stuff from POGO that you’ve looked into this?

MR. KELLY: I think that we’ve been looking into – separate from some of these very serious allegations of a more recent nature in the POGO documents, I mean, we have been – as I say, we have been communicating with Congress. I know that Congress does have concerns. And we’ve also been talking to the contractors too asking them to redress some of these deficiencies.

QUESTION: Well, has the IG been looking into it since 2007, since the --

MR. KELLY: That I don’t know.

QUESTION: Well, because if they have, and it’s been two years and nothing has been done, that would suggest that you have a problem.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I just don’t know the answer to the question of when they actually started investigating.

QUESTION: That’s –

QUESTION: Well, you know, can I just make – this is unwarranted advice, but you know, you have all this stuff, you know it’s coming out, the briefing gets delayed by an hour.

MR. KELLY: Right. Well --

QUESTION: One would think that someone in the IG’s office or in a legal office or somewhere that come up – you had to anticipate these questions coming.

MR. KELLY: I – Matt, I have told you what I know. And I’ve talked to the IG Office, I’ve talked to the Office of Diplomatic Security. I understand that they have been looking into certain deficiencies in their performance. And then as soon as we got these documents relating to – the documents that you see in the POGO report, those were turned over as well.

QUESTION: They’ve been on a congressman – they’ve been on Senator McCaskill’s website for months, since June.

MR. KELLY: All of these documents?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Sorry, I wasn’t aware of that.

QUESTION: No, I mean, not the photos of these – of this lewd – not the photos of the lewd behavior. But I mean, all of these complaints that are in the report, you’ve been --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- making to the contractor yourself over the past two years.

MR. KELLY: All right, all right. I really – I’ve told you really all that I know, and then – and I can’t really address a lot of these issue because they’re under investigation.

QUESTION: Just back to the issue of contract – of oversight of contractors, I mean, obviously, there was a huge issue of oversight over Blackwater.

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: And there were major revisions to the procedures and all of that stuff. Didn’t at that time, considering this was going on concurrently, I mean, isn’t there a need to kind of reevaluate all of contractor oversight of the State Department, not just in particular instances where there’s a – where there’s a case of abuse?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I – I don’t know if you recall, but the Secretary herself, and I think in one of her town halls, has said that it is her view that we have to lessen our reliance on contractors for security of our embassies. And so she’s asked for a review of the whole system. Whether or not we can move to banning them, I mean, I would highly, highly doubt that. There are contracts involved, and there’s also the whole issue, as I said before, of the importance of protecting our people. And this is not something that we can do overnight.

QUESTION: Could you explain – just a factual matter – what part of the security ArmorGroup is responsible for, where their responsibility ends and DS begins?

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Whether the U.S. military has any role in protecting that compound.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: And of course, there are also Afghan military forces --

MR. KELLY: Right, right.

QUESTION: -- on the perimeter as well.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah. I can only address that in a very general way from my own experience as a Foreign Service officer serving overseas, and I haven’t served in Kabul. But I know that the – it’s the Regional Security Office which is in charge of security basically of our perimeter, and that is usually local guards that provide that. There’s also, of course, the Marine security guard program, and they – they’re more responsible for protection of classified information and also protection of the chancery. There’s also, of course, protection of Americans themselves. A number of embassies, including at least one I served at, had a residential security program as well, where you had local guards at our residences.

So that’s just kind of a general overview. But obviously, in a place like Kabul, it has its own challenges, to put it mildly. And there’s also coordination with the military as well.

QUESTION: Could you take that question and give us an outline of what they do there, their area of --

QUESTION: Specifically what their area --

MR. KELLY: Can you repeat the exact question that I’m taking?

QUESTION: Well, the exact question is exactly what is ArmorGroup responsible for?

MR. KELLY: Okay.

QUESTION: We were told it’s what they call static security and they don’t do the so-called close protection --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- of moving around with the ambassador.

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: But that they are fairly – that they are in charge of, except for the most outer entry point, but really all the entry points, checking cars and all that.

MR. KELLY: Okay.

QUESTION: But if you could just describe that and what is DS’s role.

MR. KELLY: Sure. I mean, DS’s role, I think, is mainly to over – the oversight of the guard program. But that’s a good question, and we’ll get you the info on it.

QUESTION: And what is the oversight of this particular contractor? Does DS have an oversight of that contractor? Because in the whole Blackwater situation there was a lot of complaints that DS didn’t have enough oversight over the contractors. So who specifically --

MR. KELLY: Well, I do have a specific answer to that question.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: The contracting officer is assigned here in Washington, D.C., and that person has overall responsibility for oversight of the contract and participates in weekly meetings between the program office and AGNA, or the ArmorGroup. And this person is also the one who has interactions on a more frequent basis --

QUESTION: From here?

MR. KELLY: From here in Washington.

QUESTION: So there’s no adult supervision of this contractor on the ground?

MR. KELLY: I’m getting to that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: In Kabul, there are two assistant Regional Security Officers designated as the contracting officer’s representative and assistant contracting officer representative, respectively. There is also always a duty RSO who deals with the routine guard force matters such as access requests and on-compound events.

So that’s – I guess that goes some way to answer your question. Right? It does appear that they do have the guard force responsibility.

QUESTION: Meaning the Armour Guard force?

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, it’s an embassy guard force, and Armour has the contract for it.

Can we --

QUESTION: To guard the perimeter of the embassy? Is that what they do?

MR. KELLY: Well, let’s find out exactly.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: New subject?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. KELLY: Okay.

QUESTION: In Pakistan, the nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan said he has been set free from the court. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. KELLY: Just a moment. Our concern over the potential for proliferation activities by Mr. Khan are well known to the Pakistani Government. We believe that he remains a proliferation risk. We’re following this closely, and of course, the Pakistani Government, as I say, is well aware of our concerns about Mr. Khan.

QUESTION: So why do you think he still remains a proliferation risk? Has been something come to your notice about this?

MR. KELLY: I’m sorry, say that one more time.

QUESTION: Why do you think so he still remains a risk to the international community?

MR. KELLY: Well, I just – his activities, I think, are well known. And we have concerns about them, and we’ve made those concerns known to the Pakistani Government.

QUESTION: When was the last time that you raised this with the Pakistanis?

MR. KELLY: I’m not sure of the answer to that.

QUESTION: Well, has it – I mean, this popped up last week or --

MR. KELLY: I think it popped up on Friday.

QUESTION: Friday. Exactly.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I just – I don’t have an exact answer to that question. I’m sure we’ve had frequent contact with the government through our Embassy in Islamabad.

QUESTION: Related?

QUESTION: Do you believe that he’s just under house arrest and that he is still now in a position where he is not a proliferation risk given the measures that have been taken about his movement and his access to information?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Arshad, I just don’t have the information to be able to answer that question.

QUESTION: Related?

MR. KELLY: Related? Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah. The Bureau of Atomic Scientists confirms that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is increasing 60 to somewhere to 70 to 90, and yesterday in Geneva, they refused to discuss disarmament, saying their national security is not being respected. Do you have a response to that?

MR. KELLY: I’m not aware of that report, so I don’t have a response to it. Yeah.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. KELLY: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Pakistan?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Have you ever discussed with – State Department ever discussed with the Justice Department attempts to prosecute him? Isn’t there enough evidence in some countries, even in the U.S., to have him prosecuted for violation of various laws?

MR. KELLY: I’m not aware of that either. I’m afraid I don’t have an answer to that question.

QUESTION: One more on –

QUESTION: On Iran?

MR. KELLY: Iran?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: No. One more on –

MR. KELLY: One more on A.Q. Khan?

QUESTION: There are some reports also in Pakistan that recently Pakistan has upgraded its missiles, and maybe A.Q. Khan has a hand, which was sold by the U.S. And is there any reaction from India to the State Department?

MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t – yeah, I think you’ll have to talk to the Government of India if they’ve had any reaction to these press reports. I mean, we’re – we’ve seen these reports in The New York Times. We take the possibility of any potential violations of obligations entered into pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act – we take these allegations very seriously. We have engaged the Government of Pakistan at the highest levels. We recently negotiated an agreement in principle to establish mutually agreed inspections to address possible modifications to any arms that we’ve transferred, and we’ve notified Congress of potential violations of obligations entered in pursuant to the Arms Control Export Control Act to ensure that key leaders are provided information on U.S. efforts to address them.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. Before the press – I mean, in the press in The New York Times, did Ambassador Holbrooke during his trip to Pakistan raise these questions with the Pakistani authorities?

MR. KELLY: Well, first of all, I’m not – I’m just – I’m talking in very general terms. I’m not addressing these – this particular allegation. And I’m not aware of any representations by Ambassador Holbrooke.

QUESTION: On Iran?

MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Iran says that it has prepared a counter-offer to your offer. I’m wondering if you’ve heard – if anyone in the P-5+1 has heard from the Iranians. Will this offer be discussed tomorrow at the political directors meeting, and will there be an Iranian representative there?

MR. KELLY: Well --

QUESTION: Were you expecting one?

MR. KELLY: First of all, we’re not expecting any Iranian representative tomorrow in Frankfurt. There is a – as you know, this is a meeting of the six political directors from the P-5+1 countries. And of course, the main item on the agenda is Iran’s nuclear program.

We’ve seen these press reports that they’re developing a new proposal. We have not received any proposal. We would review any proposal that they give us seriously, and in the spirit of mutual respect we would welcome the Iranian Government’s constructive response to the P-5+1 to their April 2009 invitation to meet face-to-face.

Moving forward with these discussions could begin to bring Iran into compliance with its international obligations and create confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programs.

QUESTION: But just to be clear, you haven’t seen an offer or --

MR. KELLY: No, we have not.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And none of the other members of the P-5+1 --

MR. KELLY: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about al-Megrahi’s return to Libya?

MR. KELLY: Any other on Iran?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What is your sense about – from their – what they’ve said? Are they willing to meet, or it’s just that they’re saying that they have a package to offer? Because --

MR. KELLY: We don’t have any understanding of that. I mean, all we’ve seen is what you’ve seen, is that there is one Iranian press report that purported to quote their Iranian – the Iranian nuclear negotiator that there was a new proposal. But we haven’t seen any new proposal and we haven’t received any answer to our proposals, the P-5+1 – the issues outlined in their declaration of April and our proposal to engage with them and talk about these issues, the nuclear issues.

QUESTION: When Jalili made his announcement, he blamed --

MR. KELLY: I don’t think he – did he make an announcement, though? I --

QUESTION: To the press in Iran.

MR. KELLY: Okay. Okay.

QUESTION: He blamed the West for the talks when they stopped last year, saying that the West did not want to go further because of what was going on in the world, the financial crisis, the Georgian war, and so on and so forth. So they basically put the blame on the suspension of the talks on the West.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Would you agree with that?

MR. KELLY: No. Look, I mean, we’re prepared to respond to some kind of meaningful response. We’re not going to respond to something that’s made through the media. The offer of the P-5+1 remains on the table, and we’re – we can respond to that when they respond officially. In the meantime, as we saw in the most recent IAEA report, they are not complying with their obligations to the international community and their behavior remains a matter of deep concern to us. And I’ll just say what I’ve said before, that we provided a path whereby they can become a full and respected member of the international community, and it’s up to them as to whether or not they want to choose that path.

QUESTION: One last one --

QUESTION: This is Iran-related. Have you – are you going to be on the nuclear issue?

QUESTION: Yeah. Still on the nuclear stuff, yeah.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Look, Ian, why shouldn’t one regard these reports of a new proposal that just happened to surface on the eve of a P-5+1 meeting and about three weeks in advance of the UN General Assembly when this is going to be a major subject of --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- topic of conversation, why shouldn’t one regard this as something other than an effort by the Iranians to blunt the U.S. push to consider additional sanctions?

MR. KELLY: It may well be, but it’s just nothing that we can respond to because it’s not done – they still haven’t officially responded to our various initiatives.

QUESTION: And they haven’t given you anything, just not – not just they haven’t responded officially?

MR. KELLY: Well, to the best of my knowledge --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: -- we have not received a response.

QUESTION: What would you consider a meaningful response?

MR. KELLY: A response that said we understand that we have certain obligations that we have to adhere to, and that they welcome a reengagement with us in the P-5+1 context to try and address some of these concerns that we have.

QUESTION: Have you heard anything from the Russians and the Chinese yet about what they --

MR. KELLY: Regarding the most recent press reports, you mean?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: I’m not aware that we have received anything from the Russians (inaudible).

QUESTION: Because, related to Arshad’s question, it seems that, you know, oftentimes in the past on the cusp of big meetings or events, the Iranians have come out with statements like this talking about proposals which appear to be designed entirely to isolate the Russians and the China – or to keep the Chinese and the Russians from getting – from getting on board with the rest of the group on sanctions.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: You don’t see that this --

MR. KELLY: You’re asking me to speculate on what their motives might be for this one statement being made to the media. It may well be, but it would be just speculation on my part.

QUESTION: Why do you keep – why do you keep referring to this as, you know, made to the media or press reports or some kind of --

MR. KELLY: Because we’re still waiting for an official response. They’re not talking to us. They’re talking to the media.

QUESTION: Well, you don’t think when Jalili gets up there as the chief negotiator and makes it – like what you’re doing right now, what you’re – you’ve given us the official --

MR. KELLY: I’m not a negotiator.

QUESTION: You gave the official U.S. – you gave the official State Department response to us about these allegations of the Afghan Embassy.

MR. KELLY: That’s my job.

QUESTION: Why isn’t Jalili?

MR. KELLY: Well, Mr. Jalili is their representative?

QUESTION: He’s a representative of the Iranian Government.

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: He’s a spokesman for the government.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, but I’m a spokesman. This is what I do. I talk to you guys. We’re waiting for him to respond officially to our --

QUESTION: Fair enough. Well, fair enough. But you get Bill Burns down here and tell us something, we’re going to report it as you said this, and the Iranians aren’t going to say, “Well, that’s just a press report.” They’ll take it as coming from – it’s coming from the government.

QUESTION: You said – you said from this podium – or not you, but previous spokesmen have said from the podium that we’ve present – we’re getting ready to present an offer to the Iranians. I mean, how do we know?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. We have made an offer to the Iranians and we made them --

QUESTION: I know, but – but before you did it, you told – you announced that you were doing it.

MR. KELLY: All right, look. This is very simple. They – all they need to do is respond to our proposal in some serious and official way.

QUESTION: Through what channel would you expect that to come through?

MR. KELLY: The – we don’t have an embassy in Tehran, but our partners in the P-5+1 have embassies.

QUESTION: Another one on Iran, if --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Iranian president has apparently decided to come to the UNGA, participate there. Has he applied for a visa? And if so, is it anywhere close?

MR. KELLY: Actually, I’m not aware that he has. I understand that he does plan to come. He’s come in years past. I mean, I would have every expectation that he would receive a visa under our obligations, under our agreement with the UN.

QUESTION: On Iran again.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Anything new on the three Americans held there?

MR. KELLY: No, I’m afraid I don’t. I’m sorry to say I don’t have any --

QUESTION: This was – nothing from the --

MR. KELLY: -- further information on consular access or information on their welfare or whereabouts, which is, of course, very distressing to their families and of great concern to us.

QUESTION: Can we go back to powerful world leaders who plan to come to the UN? (Laughter.) Is there any movement on Qadhafi yet?

MR. KELLY: Not that I’m aware of, Matt.

QUESTION: All right. And then the segue into that is what do you make of these – the release of these letters in Britain about al-Megrahi --

MR. KELLY: Well, this is – as I said --

QUESTION: -- release?

MR. KELLY: As I said yesterday, this is a – this has been a matter for the UK Government and the Scottish authorities to make. They consulted with us with respect to the release of certain documents relating to the U.S. view. And our views, of course, are well known. I mean, the – those views are that we strongly oppose any outcome that would result in the transfer of Mr. Megrahi to Libya.

QUESTION: Did the U.S. Government believe that the – they had – it had a commitment from the British Government that Megrahi would not be released?

MR. KELLY: I think we’ve said all along that we understood that this was a matter for the Scottish executive to decide. The – our interlocutors in London made it clear that this was a matter for their justice officials to --

QUESTION: Did you seek such a commitment?

MR. KELLY: Well, we’ve told you that we – on many different occasions --

QUESTION: Well, you said you didn’t want him released.

MR. KELLY: -- on many different occasions at very high levels have made our views known to the Scottish authorities, including Secretary Clinton.

QUESTION: We understand that there was, if not a written, then at least a reasonably solemn, informal agreement between the then-Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and the then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder that he would not be released.

MR. KELLY: That I’m not sure about. I’m not sure of any kind of agreement in the past between our Department of Justice and the British authorities.

QUESTION: We understand that there was such an agreement. If we can accept that there is no written document --

MR. KELLY: I think there was an understanding that he would serve out his sentence in Scotland. But --

QUESTION: Is the Department --

MR. KELLY: -- I don’t know if I would characterize that as an agreement. If you’re talking about some specific agreement relating to a previous attorney general, I think you have to ask the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: A previous deputy attorney general who is now the attorney general, by coincidence. But is the Department comfortable with the fact that even if a – there is no written agreement that has been broken, nonetheless, a significant agreement between two close allies has been broken?

MR. KELLY: Well, we’ve said many times that we disagreed strenuously with the decision of the Scottish authorities to release him and allow him to return to Libya. And it won’t be the first disagreement we’ve had with a close ally and it won’t be the last. But this is – but whether or not it’s – I don’t know if I’d characterize it as an agreement. There was an understanding that we had that he would serve out his sentence. But the British Government has also let us know that because of their policy of devolution and allowing Scotland to be responsible for its own home affairs, that it was a decision for the Scottish Executive to make. So there’s been complete transparency throughout.

QUESTION: Well, it was their decision to make. I mean, yes it was a Scottish decision to make, but as we’ve seen from all these documents that are coming out, that the British intervene to the Scots to --

MR. KELLY: I have to refer you to the British authorities.

QUESTION: You don’t feel like the Brits sold you out?

MR. KELLY: No, I don’t feel like the Brits sold me out.

QUESTION: Even though it’s (inaudible) that under the terms of the devolution that foreign policy remains a matter for the UK Government as opposed to the Scottish authorities?

MR. KELLY: I just have to refer you to the Government of Britain for issues like that.

QUESTION: Of course, it’s up to them in the end how they play this. But how does the Department feel?

MR. KELLY: Well, it’s been very clear how we feel. We – this was a – we just think it was the wrong decision. I mean, that – nobody’s trying to hide that.

Yeah, go ahead, Michel.

QUESTION: Different subject. Do you have any time and date for Senator Mitchell’s meeting with the Israeli delegation?

MR. KELLY: Yes, I do. Just a moment. All right. I know what – I know what the answer is. It’s not in here. But the answer is that they’re going to meet tomorrow in New York. The Israeli side will be represented by the deputy chief – is it the deputy chief?

STAFF: Defense ministry chief of staff.

MR. KELLY: Defense ministry chief of staff, Michael Herzog. And we hope to have further details on the meeting and whatever media arrangements there are, I hope, later today.

QUESTION: Is Molcho, Zitzhas Molcho, who is Prime Minister Netanyahu – one of his key aides, coming as well?

MR. KELLY: That I don’t know, Arshad. You’ll have to ask --

QUESTION: You don’t have the time and place?

MR. KELLY: The place is – well, the place is in New York. But the exact --

QUESTION: It’s a big state, Ian.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I know it is. New York City.

QUESTION: That’s a big city – (laughter) – I hear.

MR. KELLY: It’s a great city, too.

QUESTION: Near the UN?

MR. KELLY: Not as good as Chicago, but it’s a great city.

QUESTION: Is it going to be at USUN?

MR. KELLY: That I don’t know. But we’ll find out. You know in the past that they have had a camera spray and statements afterwards, so I would expect that – that model to be followed.

QUESTION: You expect they will have statements afterwards?

MR. KELLY: I do expect that.

QUESTION: You expect that to be coming from here or coming from them up there?

MR. KELLY: Both.

QUESTION: You mean a written statement?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Maybe I should stop right there and say that we’ll get you further information.

QUESTION: That leaves me – I’m a little concerned about that, because from what I understand, this meeting is not going to be on the early side; it’s going to be on the late side. And that means --

MR. KELLY: That’s probably right.

QUESTION: Yeah. And that means that – are we going to be waiting around until 2 o’clock in the morning for it?

MR. KELLY: No, you won’t, Matt.

QUESTION: And is it --

MR. KELLY: I will call you personally when I have --

QUESTION: Before 2 o’clock?

QUESTION: If you would --

MR. KELLY: I’m not staying up that late.

QUESTION: You can call me and I’ll call Matt. (Laughter.) I promise. But --

MR. KELLY: That’s one of the better lines I’ve heard. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’m not sure you’re on camera here. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Listen, what do – when you said statements, you meant a written statement. You don’t expect anybody to come out and talk in front of a camera?

MR. KELLY: No, I don’t. I --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: And again, these are my personal expectations. I don’t know this for a fact. But we’ll get you --

QUESTION: Okay. And this meeting’s in preparation for another Mitchell trip to Jerusalem and a meeting with Ehud Barak. Is that right?

MR. KELLY: We’ll have more information about regional travel very soon.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you have any more information as a follow-up to the story last night on CBS about the Afghan ministry of defense being in contact with one of the Afghans arrested in an incident earlier this week in which a U.S. soldier was killed and a journalist injured?

MR. KELLY: No. I really – I don’t have any information on that. I’ll take one more question.

QUESTION: Bosworth?

QUESTION: Quick one.

MR. KELLY: Bosworth. I don’t have any information on, but we will have information about his travel soon as well.

QUESTION: A quick one --

QUESTION: One on Syria/Iraq. How do you view the escalation in tension between the two countries after August 19^th bombs in Baghdad?

MR. KELLY: You’re asking about Syria?

QUESTION: Syria and Iraq, yeah.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, okay. And this will be the last one, okay, and then we can talk – we can talk afterwards.

QUESTION: Can I have one more, please?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: Can I have one more, please?

MR. KELLY: I am such a softie.

QUESTION: There’s a lot going on.

MR. KELLY: I know there’s a lot going on. Uh-oh. Yeah, I’m afraid I don’t have that information on Syria.

Okay, go ahead. We’ll get you the information. I know I have it. It’s just not --

QUESTION: Japanese new government, DPJ, says they will reexamine the role of U.S. military bases and U.S. military forces. And what is U.S. current position on that?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I have really nothing to add from what I said yesterday. Our relationship with Japan is a – one of the cornerstones of peace and security in Asia. It’s one of the most important relationships that we have. We’re going to welcome the opportunity to work with the new government and we’ve – with the view to building on our past successes and developing very productive relations for the future. But beyond that --

QUESTION: How about Futenma issues?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: Futenma issues.

MR. KELLY: Oh, as I say, I don’t have anything to add to what I said yesterday.

QUESTION: Well, wait a minute.

MR. KELLY: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can you give us a little bit of an idea of what your involvement was in the agreement between Armenia and Turkey to start talks to establish diplomatic relations?

MR. KELLY: That was, I think, mostly worked out bilaterally between the two governments through the facilitation of the Swiss. Of course, we took a great interest in the talks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:18 p.m.)

DPB # 148

# # #