Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

February 4, 2010

1:21 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know, should we give the front row a chance to catch up, or this is the opportunity for the back row to take charge? (Laughter.)

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Department of State. Just a few announcements before taking your questions. This afternoon, Secretary Clinton will host a bilateral with His Excellency Kanat Saudabayev, Secretary of State and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE. And of course, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, our friend and colleague, Ian Kelly, will have a chance to interact significantly with Minister Saudabayev in the coming months.

Welcome.

QUESTION: Thank you. Short notice.

QUESTION: There are more coming, though. (Laughter.)

MR. CROWLEY: Did we sneak in here? I don’t think so. Maybe we fooled them and showed up, more or less, on time.

The United States today announces it is making a contribution of $40 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees in the Near East. Of this contribution, $30 million will support the UNRWA’s core services in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the West Bank and Gaza. An additional $10 million will support UN – the UNRWA’s emergency appeal for the West Bank and Gaza, including emergency food assistance and job creation programs. In 2009, the United States provided over $267 million to the UN Relief and Works Agency.

And finally, before taking your questions, we certainly wish a safe journey to Tai Shan as he departs the United States for China. He is a dual citizen, U.S. born of Chinese parents. He’ll always have a close link to the United States and to school children across our country. But he is a tangible and furry manifestation of cooperation between the United States and China.

QUESTION: Wow. So that’s what you’ve got going for you? You’re got a panda? (Laughter.) You can’t get them on Iran, you can’t get them on anything else --

MR. CROWLEY: I --

QUESTION: -- and you have to give back the panda.

MR. CROWLEY: I knew that was going to get Grumpy’s attention. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Can you talk about this deal with Romania that’s been done --

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- on missile defense?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: And are there other agreements in the works with other countries?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, yes, and yes. This is, I think, a first step in terms of the revised architecture that the United States – the President announced last September. And Romania has agreed to host a Standard Missile-3 interceptor as part of the Administration’s new missile defense plan – we call it the Phased Adaptive Approach – to protect U.S. forward-deployed troops and our NATO allies against current and emerging ballistic missile threats from Iran.

The decision by Romania to host the SM-3 is a reflection of our strategy to make sure that as this architecture develops and grows it will protect all of Europe. The choice of Romania extends the missile defense into southern Europe, and we expect this – in this phase, this will be online by 2015.

We will have – we are in further discussions with other countries as the architecture evolves. For example, Poland agreed last October, in principle, to host the northern land-based SM-3 missile site. And I think that development is still under consideration and discussion with Poland.

QUESTION: Are you getting any reactions from the Russians on this latest development? And then what about Iran? Is this a message to Iran?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it is precisely what we have always said, which is we’re going to protect our interests and those of our allies. We see this emerging threat coming. As we said, our revised approach is, in fact, tailored to address the emerging threat coming to the region from Iran. And regarding Russia, as we have made clear over and over again, this is not a capability that is directed at Russia.

David.

QUESTION: Is this system going to be based on American vessels in the Black Sea? Is that how it works?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the PAA, the Phased Adaptive Approach, includes land based and sea based. That’s the value of shifting to the upgraded Standard Missile because it can be based on both ships and land. So this particular announcement today involves a land-based component, but there will be sea-based components as well.

Yes.

QUESTION: On North Korea, U.S. decided to keep North Korea off the State Sponsors of Terrorism list because it does not meet the criteria to be designated again. But recent U.S. terrorist reports and other anti-terrorism reports insisting that North Korea has been continuously support terrorist group in Middle East like Hezbollah and Hamas by selling arms. So if that’s true, does that mean that North Korea satisfied the criteria to be designated as a sponsor of terrorism?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, without accepting the premise behind your question, let me say that the President has submitted a report to Congress examining if North Korea meets the statutory criteria for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, as required in the Defense Authorization Act of FY2010. And after careful review, the report states that the DPRK does not meet the statutory criteria to again be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. But obviously, this is something that we will continue to carefully evaluate going forward.

QUESTION: Didn’t that come out last night?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Haiti question?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Last – yesterday afternoon, the Secretary said that the U.S. Government was in talks with the Haitian Government about what she called the disposition of the case involving the detained Americans. Can you give us any more information about what sorts of contacts are underway and what sorts of alternate dispositions might be envisioned in this case?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I wouldn't read too much into that. Through our ambassador, we have been in touch with Haitian judicial officials just to help understand how they were going to act in this particular case. As far as I know, the judge continues to question these suspects. We have continued to provide consular services to the American citizens. I believe that they have hired local representation. So – but I would put this in the context of asking for clarifications about what their procedure would be, what the timeline and capacity to be able to pursue this case. I wouldn't read too much into it in terms of, first and foremost, this will be a judgment based by the Haitian Government on Haitian law. If Haiti decides to consult with the United States in terms of other legal avenues, obviously, there are legal procedures for us to do that.

QUESTION: Is it standard practice for the government to have this kind of communication with another government involving a criminal case?

MR. CROWLEY: I think it – I would put it in the category of given the unusual circumstance that we find ourselves in, Haiti trying to function as a government under such circumstances and amid great tragedy, I would put it in the category of just asking them and clarifying exactly how they were going to proceed in this particular case.

QUESTION: Just so we’re clear about this, P.J., when Cheryl – when Counselor Mills was asked about this on Tuesday, she said something to the effect that – and the words are in the transcript if I don’t have them here – but that the United States had discussed getting consular access to the detainees but, “We haven’t had any broader conversations about their prosecution or their case or something like that.” And the Secretary’s comment about the disposition of the case, in legal terms, I believe that phrase means the final settlement of a matter. So did something change between Tuesday and Wednesday or was “disposition of the case” perhaps not the – quite the right thing to say?

MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn't lend the same interpretation – the Secretary is a fine lawyer. By the same token, I wouldn't lend the same interpretation to her remarks. In other words, obviously, we consult with the Government of Haiti on a wide range of issues every day. We have been closely monitoring this case. We have been interacting with Haitian officials during the course of this case. But – and if the Haitian Government wants to pursue other legal avenues regarding this case, of course, we will be happy to have that kind of follow-up discussion. But right now, the matter rests within the Haitian judicial system. We respect that and we will continue to have discussions with the Haitian Government as this case proceeds. But there – I just would caution – you might infer that some things out of either the Secretary’s comments or Counselor Mills’s comments. I wouldn't read too much into it.

QUESTION: So just so we’re clear, you are not seeking to interfere in any way, shape, or form in how the Haitian Government may choose to investigate, prosecute, pursue, or drop this matter?

MR. CROWLEY: There are a number of options that are available to the Haitian Government as this case moves forward. But as to the precise matter of its evaluation of the facts in this case, this will rely on the judge to make that determination.

QUESTION: On the – Afghanistan, the U.S. gave support to President Karzai’s idea of trying to reintegrate some of the Taliban. He’s gone to Saudi Arabia, he talked with King Abdullah, he’s going to try and get King Abdullah to get on the case. And he seems also to be intent on making some political headway among the Pashtun in the south as a result of this. Now, some people are saying that he wants to not only integrate the people, having them go back to the village, but also bring them in politically, some of the people who renounce A.Q. who may be Taliban, may be Wahhabi, could also play a role in a government.

What would – what’s exactly the U.S. position? What is the nature of the support? Is it like a cautious watching? Or how far would we go with this reintegrating the Taliban or former Taliban into the Afghan structure?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think we support reintegration as an effective tool within our counterinsurgency strategy and that of Afghanistan. We do not think that many of the foot soldiers that are currently involved on the battlefield are necessarily ideologically driven.

And to the extent, through a combination of initiatives, that we can convince them to play a more constructive role in Afghanistan, and equip the Afghan Government to provide peaceful alternatives for these individuals, and should they choose to move in a different direction, help with protection from retribution from the Taliban, we think this is a wise strategy. It is an Afghan-led strategy, and, obviously, President Karzai is requesting assistance of the United States and others as he pursues this effort.

So we are completely supportive of – as we indicated last week, during the conference in London.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about the START treaty?

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Yesterday, the Russian side announced that the work on the treaty is almost done and it’s prepared for signing, presumably in Prague, in spring. Do you have any confirmation or reaction on the U.S. side about that?

MR. CROWLEY: I think we are optimistic that with the START negotiations having reconvened this week in Geneva, that it can be – the remaining issues can be resolved and negotiations completed rather quickly. With that said, I wouldn’t put a particular timeline on it. I think when it’s done and when – we can both reflect that this is a treaty that is in Russia’s interests and the United States interests, then we’ll try to figure out how to --

QUESTION: No time, no place?

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) I mean, I think it will be an opportunity to celebrate and to recognize the important achievement as advancing our mutual interest in arms control and nonproliferation. But let’s get across the finish line, and then we can figure out where we go from there.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Is it going too far to say that an agreement of principles has been reached?

MR. CROWLEY: I think the negotiations – negotiators are still at work.

QUESTION: On climate?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Administration has had a little time to take stock of Copenhagen. There are many people who are saying that it’s not the appropriate forum to reach international agreement. You had much --

MR. CROWLEY: What is not the appropriate forum?

QUESTION: The UNFCCC, and perhaps that there are other forums that are better – that are better for reaching an agreement for the large emitters like MEF. What are your thoughts on that and – yeah, what are your thoughts on that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I’m hoping to get Todd Stern to pay a visit here in the briefing room in the coming days to be able to talk a little further about Copenhagen. Obviously, we’ve passed the deadline of January 31. A large number of countries, including the United States, have committed to the Copenhagen accord. We obviously supported and worked very hard with the Secretary, with the President in Copenhagen in late December to reach this agreement.

Clearly, there’s still work to be done. There’s work to be done domestically in terms of our own legislation that enshrines the 17 percent pledge that the United States has made. And there’s work to be done coming out of Copenhagen to make sure that there is an accounting process and oversight as countries continue to pursue their respective pledges. So I think we are supportive of this process, as we did last week. We committed to this process. We’re moving forward and – but there’s going to be – it’s one of the more urgent matters that we face globally. And I’m sure that this will be a cornerstone of that effort, but certainly, to the extent that we can continue to pursue reductions in greenhouse gases through a variety of means, we will do so.

QUESTION: And that is the appropriate place to have those discussions?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ve heard of no discussions inside the United States on a different venue.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Western Sahara, Western Sahara informal talks will be held next week in the suburbs of New York. What is the reaction of the State Department regarding these talks?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll take the question. We have a position; I just don’t have it in my book.

QUESTION: The ICC prosecutor Ocampo is in town. I wanted to check if he was consulting with the Department on the possible investigation and a move by him on – based on the Goldstone report that the ICC would take on the issue of the Gaza war and the allegations of war crimes. Would the United States support the ICC, and if it stakes – takes into its hand?

MR. CROWLEY: All right. The last part again?

QUESTION: Would the United States support a move by the ICC to take things – to take the case and prosecute it?

MR. CROWLEY: Which case?

QUESTION: Of the ICC, of the Gaza war and allegations of war crimes?

MR. CROWLEY: We have made our position clear that we think the Human Rights Council is the appropriate forum to resolve issues regarding the Goldstone report. And we do not support – you’re referring – that particular – the Goldstone report to the ICC.

As to his particular schedule and who he’s consulting with, I’ll see if he’s visiting here at the State Department.

QUESTION: Can I go back to North Korea? As I asked earlier, there have been reports that – insisting that U.S. – North Korea has been continuously supporting Middle East terrorist group (inaudible), terrorist group in South Asia, and there were actual cases that some ships intercepted with North Korean arms which bound to Iran. So U.S. decided not – still keep nuclear away from this state sponsors of terrorism list. So does that mean that U.S. reached to the decision that those allegations or speculations are untrue, or is not able to confirm?

MR. CROWLEY: All I can do is repeat what I just said. We looked at this question hard in the last couple of years. We took North Korea off of the state sponsor of terrorism list. We were asked to reevaluate. We looked hard at this issue, but it did not meet the statutory requirements to relist North Korea.

That said, we obviously have considerable concern about activities involving North Korea, its proliferation of dangerous technologies within the region and around the world. And we continue to work aggressively to restrict those activities under UN Security Council Resolution 1874. But as we said, we will continue to look at the evidence surrounding North Korea’s activities. And if it eventually meets the criteria under the law, then we’ll consider a different judgment. But we’ve evaluated what we think they’re doing and we don’t think it meets the statute.

QUESTION: Can I ask you one more on Six-Party Talks?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Tension between U.S. and China has been rising because of U.S. Government decision to sell arms to Taiwan. And there are concerns that this tension can impact negative influence to the current Six-Party Talk progress. And what is your comment on (inaudible)?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think the evidence supports that. In our relationship with China, we have many areas of mutual interest. North Korea is significant among them. And China is, in fact, the chair of the Six-Party process and will continue to play a significant leadership role in this. And in fact, we see eye to eye with China with respect to our concerns about North Korea. And even as we cooperate fully on the Six-Party process, we will obviously have tensions in other aspects of our relationship and we’ll work through them.

QUESTION: Are you satisfied with China’s current effort to persuade North Korea, and make (inaudible) --

MR. CROWLEY: Yes. I think we have significant unanimity within the Six-Party process about what North Korea should do. And our officials have consulted closely, and our officials have had conversations with North Korea. So have Chinese officials, so have others, and our message is the same.

QUESTION: Is Iran and the further sanctions on Iran one of those areas of tensions?

MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t call it an area of tension as much as an area of discussion. I think we have a similar view about the potential impact of an arms race in the Middle East. We have a difference of opinion as to the steps to take at the present time to put pressure on Iran. And we will continue our consultation with China within the P-5+1 process.

QUESTION: P.J., though, last week in Paris, the Secretary said – made it clear that you – that she didn’t think that you did have a similar position on the impact of an arms race in the Middle East, and she said that the Chinese should, you know, wake up and realize the long-term consequences of it.

MR. CROWLEY: And there are long-term consequences.

QUESTION: Do you think the Chinese really see – have similar views than you – that you – than you?

MR. CROWLEY: I think that the Secretary is right. As she communicated to Foreign Minister Yang last week, China has a great stake in what happens with respect to Iran. China is tied to the global economy; it’s tied to global energy markets. And an arms race in the Middle East has the potential to disrupt oil markets and have a decided impact on China just as the major economies like the United States. So we think we have the same stake in the outcome. And we are talking with China about the appropriate steps to take now and we are continuing to discuss potential sanctions and we’ll continue these discussions of – in the coming weeks.

QUESTION: Were you dismayed by Foreign Minister Yang’s comments yesterday that – his emphasis on negotiations, we understand that we need to press on with negotiations, we need to try to find a solution as quickly as possible through negotiations – didn’t sound like there’s much enthusiasm there for the discussion about sanctions.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, China has supported the current dual-track approach that we take. They’ve signed on to every communiqué that has been issued in recent months describing the fact that we would prefer a negotiated settlement, but we are prepared as well to take steps to put pressure on Iran to help them recognize that they will pay a cost for their continued pursuit of their nuclear program and while ignoring the valid concerns of the international community.

So we do recognize that at the present time we may not have the same balance in terms of the next step, but we’ll continue to talk to them about it.

QUESTION: To Iraq?

QUESTION: P.J., now that the Administration has effectively zeroed out a manned lunar program, has any thought been given here about what effect that will have on the collaborative efforts that we have in terms of relations with Russia and Europe and maybe envisioned with China on the space effort? Is that going to affect it in any way?

MR. CROWLEY: Other than shelving our planned consulate on the moon, I don’t know that there’s any impact here. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Would we be willing to piggy-back on a Shenzhou 8 or 9 if we want to get to the moon at anytime soon?

MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn't put an international frame on this.

QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq?

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Are you concerned that the Iraqi Government, Prime Minister Maliki, is going to try and get around this reinstatement of the 500 Sunni candidates? Are the Iraqis following their own constitutional procedures on this?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, certainly, the Iraqi court has made an important ruling and we think it’s a very useful step in moving ahead towards the March 7 election and it will open the way for an open and diverse field of candidates. This is an Iraqi decision. It’s an Iraqi process. We have supported making sure that this is a transparent, inclusive election that the Iraqi people can see as legitimate and credible.

Our efforts now are to help the Iraqi Government with out-of-country voting, working to make sure there are international observers present, and assisting with voter education initiatives. So as to what the government might do, we think they should make sure that this is – continues to be an open and diverse process.

QUESTION: Do you have any concerns that right now it’s not being so open and diverse, that they are trying to block this and that the consequences would go against your aims, which is to have a balanced --

MR. CROWLEY: I think – again, these – they’re decisions for Iraq to make. But we’ve made our position clear that we support the widest possible field of candidates coming from each of the communities within Iraq so that the end result is an election that produces a government that can govern effectively and can attract the support of the Iraqi people. We would discourage any steps that we think will hamper the emergence of an effective, popular, and legitimate Iraqi government.

QUESTION: Did Vice President Hashimi express his concerns about what was going on among the – his Shiite colleagues and did he ask for any support?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we will continue to support Iraq as it moves ahead towards March 7^th and if there’s particular support that we can provide to Iraq, we will do so. Obviously, we have – one of the reasons why we’ve kept a significant number of international – U.S. and international forces in Iraq to make sure that we have the security we think the Iraqi people need when they go to vote on March 7^th.

QUESTION: P.J., the Indians have offered to renew security talks with Pakistan. Do you have any view on this? I presume that you think it’s a good idea.

MR. CROWLEY: I think we – I’m – we are supportive of dialogue among India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan as a key component of moving ahead and achieving a stable region. So to the extent that – I’m not familiar with that particular report, so I – but we certainly have been encouraging steps that both Pakistan and India could take to address mutual concerns and to take appropriate steps so that tensions can be reduced, cooperation can be increased, and as a result, you have a more stable region that is focused on threats – both interests that they share and threats that they share.

QUESTION: Thank you.

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

Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:07 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: Lou, thank you very much. Continuing on with the – some broader issues, in addition to hosting the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Secretary Clinton this afternoon will host a bilateral meeting with Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa.

And the Secretary and the Bahraini foreign minister will have the opportunity to talk about regional security issues as well as the state of the Middle East peace process and our joint pursuit on a comprehensive peace in the region.

Today, the Federal Council in Switzerland decided on humanitarian grounds to resettle two Uighur detainees currently held in Guantanamo Bay. Just last month, Switzerland resettled one Uzbek detainee from Guantanamo as well. The United States is grateful to the Government of Switzerland and the Canton of Jura for this latest humanitarian gesture and for its consistent support of our efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Nine countries have already accepted detainees for resettlement, and this number is growing. Yesterday, Latvia announced that it will resettle a Guantanamo detainee, and we are grateful for this decision by the Latvian Government. We are also encouraged by the assistance of the international community, which continues to support the Administration’s efforts to close Guantanamo.

Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell continues his trip in the region. He had a meeting today with Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials, including Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Yong-joon. They talked about Copenhagen, the situation in Haiti, Afghanistan, and other issues. And he will have other meetings in Seoul tomorrow before returning to the United States.

And as Ambassador Richard Holbrooke mentioned earlier today, obviously we are offering the condolences for those who were killed today in Pakistan, including three American soldiers and a number of Pakistani citizens, including children, as they were gathering outside of a girls school in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province. We’re obviously continuing to gather information on that.

And lastly, the United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince reopened today for immigrant visa services, so we’ll be able to help Haitian citizens who are awaiting the opportunity to come to the United States as legal immigrants to join family members here in the U.S.

With that --

QUESTION: What’s the --

QUESTION: How may (inaudible) already approved today?

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: Have you approved any visas (inaudible)?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know. I think we just reopened today for business.

QUESTION: What’s your understanding of the import, if any, of President Ahmadinejad’s comments last night on television?

QUESTION: Can we stay on Haiti for a second?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure. Sure.

QUESTION: Since the previous briefers didn’t want to touch the case of the 12, how would you like to get your hands dirty and tell us what’s going on with them --

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) Lou is being a good lawyer, I think.

QUESTION: -- and bring us up to date on the case?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think today, the judge in Haiti continues to question the 10 American citizens, to ascertain the facts behind the movement of children, and we at the Embassy continue to provide them the same kind of consular support that we would any American citizen in a similar circumstance.

QUESTION: Are there any conversations beyond consular contacts between the U.S. and Haitian Governments on the case?

MR. CROWLEY: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Do they have lawyers or --

MR. CROWLEY: I believe so. I mean, I believe so. They’ve had access to – put it this way: From our standpoint, we’ve given them advice on how to procure a lawyer. I simply don’t know if, in the – they haven’t been charged with anything yet, so it may well be that there’s just informal questioning going on. But I’ll defer – obviously, the 10 American citizens have made themselves available to the press; they can answer that question best.

QUESTION: Is it too early to talk about the suggestion from the prime minister, Mr. Bellerive, about possibly transferring these Americans to the U.S. for any prosecution? Are we still too early in that process?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think that, first and foremost, is a judgment for the Haitian judge and whether he refers this case for further investigation. This is right now a matter in the Haitian judicial system.

QUESTION: Would you like to see that happen?

MR. CROWLEY: I think we want to make sure that there’s just a fair and transparent legal process. And I think, as far as we know right now, we’re satisfied with what’s happening.

QUESTION: Iran?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Iran.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, it’s unclear what the president was referring to yesterday. I think from our standpoint, we will look for actions as opposed to just words. To the extent that the president is offering a new perspective on the Tehran research reactor arrangement that was offered to Iran last fall in Geneva, we will look forward to hearing about the Iranian position through the IAEA. So – but it’s – I think we’re just seeking clarification through the IAEA as to whether Tehran has changed its current position.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. view Ahmadinejad’s comments last night as perhaps another form of stalling?

MR. CROWLEY: Unclear. I mean, obviously if, as he suggested, Tehran is willing to move forward to accept the arrangement that has been offered so that – this would be of benefit to the Iranian people, and it would clearly be welcome news from the international community. The real question is whether this represents a yes and whether Tehran is willing to communicate that to the IAEA.

QUESTION: Is it fair to say that the only acceptable answer is the one that comes to the response to the IAEA proposal?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the IAEA is the agency that is directly responsible for pursuing this, should Tehran say yes. So that is the appropriate forum for which Iran should give its answer.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on --

QUESTION: Has the IAEA told you that they’ve heard anything new from the Iranians?

MR. CROWLEY: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: On his comments about the three hikers and about all the other Americans that are in Iran, your guidance yesterday didn’t say whether you would entertain such a swap. Could you answer that directly, please?

MR. CROWLEY: It’s – there are no negotiations taking place between the United States and Iran regarding a prisoner swap. I think from our standpoint, we have repeatedly called on Iran to release our citizens. They include Sarah Shourd, Joshua Fatal, Shane Bauer, Reza Taghavi, and Kian Tajbakhsh. We all remain concerned about the whereabouts of Robert Levinson and have communicated that through our protecting power in Tehran repeatedly.

So again, if this is a suggestion that Iran is willing to move forward and resolve the issues surrounding U.S. citizens in Iranian custody, we would obviously welcome that opportunity. As we said yesterday, this is a step that, in our view, is long overdue for Iran to meet its international obligations.

We also have clearly stated publicly that, to the extent that Iran has questions about Iranian citizens in U.S. custody, we would remain willing to entertain those questions and facilitate consular access if that’s what Iran desires.

QUESTION: And that’s – specifically, would you rule out a swap? That’s the suggestion from the president.

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, there’s not really an equivalence, if you will, between, say, an Iranian citizen who has been indicted and/or convicted of arms trafficking in violation of international law, and three hikers who wandered across an unmarked border. So I think we’re not interested in a swap, per se. We are interested in resolving the cases of our citizens who we think should be released immediately.

QUESTION: Could you --

QUESTION: Oh, go ahead.

QUESTION: Could you – can you confirm how many Iranians are being held in the United States?

MR. CROWLEY: I cannot. I’ll refer to the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: Richard Haas has written in Newsweek this week that perhaps it’s time for the U.S. to seriously consider encouraging some sort of regime change in Iran.

MR. CROWLEY: That is ultimately a matter for the Iranian people. There is a government in Iran. As we have said clearly for the past year, we are prepared to engage this government in – out of mutual interest and mutual respect to resolve the nuclear concerns that we have and the international community shares, as well as engage in a broad-based dialogue on a range of issues, concerns that we have, concerns that Iran has.

For a variety of reasons, Iran has been unable, unwilling to constructively engage in this dialogue. But what you’re seeing in Iran is questions that the Iranian people have about its government stemming from the election in June, the results of which were not credible.

So it is up to Iran to answer the questions that its people has. If there’s a question of legitimacy, that question rests in the eyes of the Iranian people. That’s not a matter for the United States to judge.

QUESTION: Do you have anything more on P-5+1 consultations?

MR. CROWLEY: I would expect that there will be a P-5+1 consultation. I’m still not exactly sure of the form it will take, but I would expect that to happen in the next few days.

QUESTION: And today, the Bahraini foreign minister and Secretary Clinton are holding a meeting. You indicated too that they’re going to be talking about peace in the Middle East. And the same day, we hear the rising sounds of drums of war in the area coming out of Israel. Defense Minister Barak and his top officials are talking about a possible coming war with Syria and Lebanon. War games have been conducted in the last few days that – with the scenario of attacking Syria.

The Syrian president today has – had in his meeting – or after his meeting with the foreign minister of Spain, has announced that Israel is going after – trying to reach a war in the Middle East, or all happenings are indicating to that conclusion right now. His foreign minister, Mr. Mouallem, is saying that the coming war, if Israel decides to attack either Syria or Lebanon, is going to have to be a comprehensive war in the area rather than peace. That’s going to also touch the Israeli cities as much as the Arab cities.

Now, with the new ambassador – American ambassador being probably close to going to Syria, what is the United States efforts at this time? What is it trying to do in order to refrain Israel from more war – you know, conducting new wars against Syria and Lebanon, especially that Israel is receiving billions of dollars from the United States, military and economic aids, and that Israel is a strategic ally of the United States? I would like to hear from you sir, what kind of conduct, of policies that the United States is doing right now to preempt any kind of new war in the area?

QUESTION: I think that’s a record.

(Laughter)

MR. CROWLEY: That qualifies in my definition as a loaded question. Look, our efforts have been very clear, very transparent. It is why we have engaged strenuously over the past year to try to push all parties in the Middle East towards a comprehensive peace agreement – Israel and Palestine, Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria. I’m not in a position to make any pronouncements on when we will have a formal nominee to be the U.S. ambassador in Damascus. As we have said clearly, we look forward to restoring our ambassador to Damascus because we think Syria plays a vital role and our bilateral relationship should progress, but also Syria plays a vital role in terms of the aspirations that everyone has for comprehensive peace in the region. That announcement will come from the White House.

I would respectfully suggest that Israel has a right to self-defense, and to the extent that it pursues training and war games, as you would call them, in advancing their self-defense, that is their right. And the United States is committed to help Israel maintain the capabilities that are important to Israel’s defense. The Israeli Government – this Israeli Government has indicated publicly that it is committed to pursue peace on all of these tracks, and that is the focus of our engagement. It’s why George Mitchell was in the region not long ago, stopped in Damascus to talk to President Assad and other Syrian officials to see what – where Syria is in this process and how it can contribute.

As we do, in fact, at some point this year, return our ambassador to Damascus, we will engage on a regular basis with Syria in pursuit of our interests and our mutual interests. So we will continue to engage Syria to play a more constructive role in the region. We have questions for Syria in terms of its support, even current support of extremist groups in the region. And – but we are committed to advance our relationship and we’re committed to work with Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinians, in pursuit of Middle East peace.

QUESTION: But could you speak to this --

QUESTION: A follow-up on that?

QUESTION: -- in the same way to the right of the people of the area to have peace, to a just peace, that Israel is not only that – the only country that you always indicate that has right to defend itself.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure. And --

QUESTION: But the people of the area have a right to live in peace --

MR. CROWLEY: The people of the area absolutely --

QUESTION: -- and raise their children.

MR. CROWLEY: They absolutely have a right to live in peace. That is why in the Secretary’s discussion with the Bahraini foreign minister we will continue to see how we can push all of the parties in the Middle East towards formal negotiations so that – rather than trying to resolve these issues through further conflict, we will resolve these issues through negotiation and a comprehensive peace agreement that everyone in the region can support.

QUESTION: Do you have any confirmation of the Syrian foreign minister’s comments that has received the agrément about Robert Ford to be the next ambassador to Syria?

MR. CROWLEY: We have passed a name to the Syrian Government and we are awaiting its response --

QUESTION: Can you say when that --

MR. CROWLEY: -- or request for agrément.

QUESTION: When was that passed on? By who?

MR. CROWLEY: Sometime in the recent – very recently.

QUESTION: So if you passed the name, why is it such a secret? Well, it’s not really a secret anymore, but I mean, why are you – why are you unwilling to talk about what the name is?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I will reserve that prerogative for the President of the United States.

QUESTION: Well, shouldn’t what you just said have been reserved for the President of the United States as well?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we – I mean, as a --

QUESTION: If you have selected – if the President of the United States has selected --

MR. CROWLEY: As a matter of diplomatic practice, the question was: Has the United States of America passed a name to the Government of Syria under a request for agrément. We have. That is a matter of diplomatic practice. Now, as to – and since we have publicly said we hope to restore an ambassador to Damascus as soon as possible, I can tell you that we are pursuing that. As to who that individual is and whether that individual will be the formal nominee of the President of the United States to the Congress for its advice and consent, that prerogative I’ll reserve for the President of the United States.

QUESTION: Have you heard back from the Syrians yet?

MR. CROWLEY: Not yet.

QUESTION: Can we talk a little more about the attack in Pakistan?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: The ambassador indicated this morning that all five were members of the U.S. military. The Taliban has already claimed that those who were killed were working for Blackwater. Is there, as far as this company which is now known as Xe is concerned, is there now some kind of PR problem that the U.S. Government has when it comes to contractors working particularly in Southwest Asia? And if there is a PR problem, how is the U.S. Government dealing with it?

MR. CROWLEY: Let’s divide those two. If your question is about the attack today, we can tell you, as we have, that three American soldiers were killed in this attack and that two American soldiers were wounded in this attack. And we can also tell you that a large number of Pakistanis were killed and injured, including children. The question here for those who would either conduct or condone violence is: What precisely is the Taliban trying to build on behalf of the people of Pakistan? This was an occasion where it is the opening of a school to expand educational opportunities for all citizens of Pakistan, and in particular for girls in Pakistan, as part of building up a brighter future for all Pakistani citizens. What is the Taliban trying to build by attacking U.S. officials who are trying to support this effort, attacking Pakistani officials who are trying to support this effort, and killing the children who are Pakistan’s future? So I would turn – respectfully turn the question around: What is the vision for the Taliban for Pakistan except for further violence and violence against Americans but primarily violence against other Muslims? As far as I know, this is un-Islamic. So the real question is what – the challenge is what is the Taliban helping – hoping to achieve. And the answer is nothing that is good for Pakistan in the immediate or long term.

Now, as to your question regarding contractors in Pakistan, our Embassy in Pakistan has been asked this question repeatedly, it has answered it repeatedly, and this issue has nothing to do with what transpired today. This is, as Richard Holbrooke said earlier, just propaganda and disinformation being put out by the Taliban. Let’s not confuse the facts here that somebody put a bomb in a car and through the process of doing that killed the children of Pakistan. That’s the only issue about what happened today.

QUESTION: On Sudan, the ICC will consider charging the Sudanese President Bashir with genocide in Darfur. How do you view this development?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the United States strongly supports international efforts to bring those responsible for genocide and war crimes in Darfur to justice and believes firmly that there cannot be a lasting peace in Darfur without accountability and justice. And we will continue to encourage the Government of Sudan and all parties to the conflict to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court and its prosecutor, as required by UN Security Council 1593, passed in 2005.

QUESTION: I --

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: I just want to go back to Pakistan for a second. Yesterday, there was a TQ that you put out about the five Americans detained there. It was particularly unenlightening. When was the last time you had consular access to these five?

MR. CROWLEY: Did we – I just didn’t see it, so --

***MR. TONER: I think we just noted several times. We can try to find the last date.

MR. CROWLEY: That’s a fair question. We should have answered it the first time.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, you don’t have the answer?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t. I’ll find out.

QUESTION: The TQ made it seem as though you weren’t going to say anything about it due to privacy concerns. This is a particularly – this whole --

MR. CROWLEY: We should --

QUESTION: -- privacy issue is a bit of a bugbear for me, and so I don’t --

MR. CROWLEY: And for me.

QUESTION: -- I don’t understand why the visit, if there are no details about it, why that’s --

MR. CROWLEY: I – it’s a fair question.

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) by privacy issues.

MR. CROWLEY: It’s a fair question. It is a fair question. I mean, the Privacy Act is nothing – it is the law and people do have rights, but we should be able to answer that question.

MR. TONER: I think it said regular access. We’ll try to get it for you.

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, but we should be able to tell you how recently it was.

QUESTION: On the Uighurs, have they arrived in Switzerland and who transported them? Was it a U.S. airplane*?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t – I’ll take that – my presumption is that they have not moved yet. I think the decision was just made to accept them today.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Sudan? I just want a point of clarification. Is it that U.S. policy now feels that the ICC is the best place for Bashir, et al, to come to justice over Darfur?

MR. CROWLEY: Without going through the history of the ICC, I believe that the ICC can focus on questions that involve crimes against humanity and genocide. But as always, there’s a national prerogative that if the national government of a particular country pursues a case, then the ICC will cede jurisdiction nationally. But in the absence of significant action by Sudan itself to investigate and prosecute those responsible for genocide in Darfur, this is an acceptable and – under the ICC, this is the kind – just the kind of case and circumstance that it was formed for.

QUESTION: And does Sudan’s failure to move its own justice system toward this conclusion have any bearing on U.S. policy as far as whether or not they’re meeting our goals for the carrot-and-stick approach that was outlined last year?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are pursuing our policies with respect to Sudan not only to help resolve the violence in Darfur, but also to promote full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. That is in the interest of the United States. It’s in the interest of the region. At the same time, while pursuing that and pressing the Government of Sudan to do more, we obviously recognize that there has to be accountability and justice with respect to what did happen in Darfur. And as our emissary Scott Gration has said repeatedly and publicly, at some point, Bashir has to get a good lawyer.

QUESTION: Well, wait – are you endorsing – is the U.S. Government endorsing the prosecution of Bashir by the ICC?

MR. CROWLEY: The United States of America is endorsing the pursuit of justice and accountability with respect to the violence that occurred in Darfur.

QUESTION: Well, that’s not exactly what I asked. Are you endorsing Bashir’s prosecution by the International Criminal Court?

MR. CROWLEY: We are supportive of the effort to pursue justice in this case.

QUESTION: But P.J. --

MR. CROWLEY: I’m sure – Matt, I --

QUESTION: -- surely you understand why I’m asking you the question the way I’m asking you.

MR. CROWLEY: And I’ve given you my answer.

QUESTION: Do you have – well, do you have any feelings on actually what Michel’s question was, which was the tacking on or the agreeing to consider tacking on genocide to the existing charges?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m done.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Haiti real quick? Do you know if through all these proceedings with these 10 Americans if there have been in every single one of them a U.S. Embassy presence in the proceedings?

MR. CROWLEY: I can’t say that. I don’t know.

QUESTION: Okay. And then do you have an update on the numbers on orphans, fatalities, and evacs?

MR. CROWLEY: Let’s see. No change in the number of confirmed American fatalities. As of this morning, roughly 14,665 Americans and family members have departed Haiti.

QUESTION: Fourteen thousand and how many?

MR. CROWLEY: 14,665.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CROWLEY: Twenty-nine orphan parole cases were processed yesterday, bringing the total to about 700. And yesterday, 45 orphans flew to Miami, and the total number of orphans who have departed is roughly 625.

QUESTION: Okay. And then can you take the question, please, on the number of visas issued today since the Embassy has been open again?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:34 p.m.)

DPB #18

Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

2:17 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: Thanks, guys. Just to continue, a couple of announcements before taking your questions. This morning, we had Alternate Foreign Minister Dimitrios Droutsas here to see both Secretary Clinton and Deputy Secretary Steinberg. They covered a range of issues of mutual concern between the United States and Greece, including developments in the Balkans, Cyprus, and other regional issues. And this afternoon, Secretary Clinton will meet Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi. He’s the latest senior Iraqi official to visit Washington, part of our ongoing regular contacts with Iraqi leaders.

We’re going to invite you to get up a little early tomorrow. We have a number of briefings tomorrow. The first one will occur here at 9:45 with a return engagement with Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Special Representative Richard Holbrooke. I think when they were here prior to their respective trips to Afghanistan, they said they would come back and kind of report on what they saw. And so we’ll have them back.

And likewise, tomorrow, Ambassador-at-Large Luis CdeBaca, Director of the Office of Monitoring and Combating Trafficking In Persons, will provide a preview of the Administration’s interagency anti-trafficking meeting that will happen here at the State Department tomorrow afternoon.

QUESTION: What time?

MR. CROWLEY: I think we’re saying that it will be about 12:30. I think the meeting that the Secretary will chair will happen at 2 o’clock.

QUESTION: Can we start with a small thing that you addressed the other – that came up yesterday? Apparently, European Union members are considering cancelling their U.S.-EU summit because President Obama does not want to – does not plan to attend, and I guess there’s not much point in having a summit if you can’t have the top official there. Is the Administration giving any consideration to – or taking any complaints from – is the Administration giving any consideration to reversing the decision, and are you taking complaints from your European partners about this?

MR. CROWLEY: We are in contact with the EU and others on this issue. Obviously, we value the close cooperation that we have with the EU and the United States on a range of issues from Afghanistan to the global economy and climate change. And leaders at all levels do get together on a regular basis to talk through these issues. Regarding the – when the next U.S.-EU summit will occur, I think that is still a matter of discussion between the United States and the EU. But as to involving the President, we are still working through the President’s travel schedule.

QUESTION: When you say it’s still a matter of discussion, I mean – so it’s not going to be in Madrid in May?

MR. CROWLEY: I think there are no plans for the President to travel to Spain this spring.

QUESTION: P.J., when you said that you’re in contact with the EU and others on this issue, what others? And who else has been --

MR. CROWLEY: Again, just to recall, we’re – in light of the Lisbon treaty, we’re going through – Europe is going through some adjustments in terms of the processes through which U.S.-EU summits occur. Up until recently, they would occur on six-month intervals, as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the rotating EU presidency; you’ve got an EU Council president, you’ve got a European Commission president. So Europe itself is reassessing how these meetings are going to be – when these meetings are going to be held.

QUESTION: Well, who are the others? I’m sorry.

MR. CROWLEY: And – well, you have EU Council --

QUESTION: Are you consulting the Turks about this?

MR. CROWLEY: -- President Herman Van Rompuy, you’ve got European Commissioner --

QUESTION: But they’re all Europeans, though.

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, I understand that, but there is a question – it’s primarily a question for Europe.

QUESTION: You seem to be suggesting that Europe has gone back to the way it was back in the ‘70s when there was – so you don’t know who to deal with now.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I’m saying that we are working through this just as Europeans themselves are working through this when you have a future EU-U.S. summit meeting – who will host it and where will it be held. And so this is something that Europe is working through. We’re working with them. Obviously, there will be summit meetings in the future, but as to when that occurs, we’re still working those details.

QUESTION: Well, has the relationship taken a turn for the complex?

MR. CROWLEY: I think we value our close and effective working relationship not only in Brussels, but in other capitals, and when we will – we have some things to announce, we’ll tell you.

QUESTION: Well, right. Well, that’s fair enough, but I mean, are you struggling to figure out what this new hierarchy is and how you’re going to --

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think we’re struggling at all. We’re at a juncture where the structure has changed, and so the meeting structure is not only at the leader level, but at the ministerial level. All of this is kind of being reassessed in light of architectural changes in Europe.

QUESTION: So is it problematic?

MR. CROWLEY: Not at all.

QUESTION: Is it not worth meeting them at the presidential level? I mean, it seems to be that’s what the President is saying.

MR. CROWLEY: It is, and we will. But as to when that meeting will occur and where it’ll occur, those are issues that we’re currently discussing with our European partners.

QUESTION: And to go back to my original question, you said you were in touch with the EU. Are they complaining about the President’s decision?

MR. CROWLEY: We read the papers. Obviously, there’s been some disappointment expressed by the Government of Spain, and we understand that and we’ll be working with them on that.

QUESTION: And they’re conveying that to you all directly too, though, right? They’re not just communicating through the newspapers?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m sure --

QUESTION: They’re not calling up, saying, “I’m overjoyed that the President will not bother to come to Madrid in May,” right?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, they – we are in touch with them directly.

QUESTION: Just to go back to the orphan thing real quick, do you have the latest number for today of how many have actually gone? It was 578 yesterday.

MR. CROWLEY: No. I think actually – I think 578 – I think there were 44 that --

QUESTION: Forty-four --

MR. CROWLEY: -- processed and awaiting transportation.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CROWLEY: As I recall, when --

QUESTION: That’s in addition, 44 in addition.

MR. CROWLEY: So 578 have actually been transported. Another 44 have been processed and are awaiting transportation.

QUESTION: And then how many --

MR. CROWLEY: As I recall, it is a – it’s a – as I recall, when we first – when the earthquake first occurred, we estimated there were perhaps 800, give or take – a soft number that were in the pipeline at the time of the earthquake. So I think that gives you kind of a sense of the ongoing population.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you have a sort of casualty update or does that remain the same?

MR. CROWLEY: The number of confirmed American fatalities has risen to 79 – 75 private citizens, four U.S. Government official that we’ve talked about before.

QUESTION: And do you have an unconfirmed number?

MR. CROWLEY: Still looking in the range of 20.

QUESTION: China has apparently said that if President Obama meets with the Dalai Lama, this will be a big blow to relations. Is – are folks worried?

MR. CROWLEY: I think the White House has indicated that the President plans to meet with the Dalai Lama, as American presidents have over the years. And I will defer to my colleagues at the White House as to when that meeting will take place.

QUESTION: Can you describe for us what steps, if any, the Administration is taking to try to ensure that the multiple recent irritants – irritants is actually a weak word – in the relationship, notably Google, Taiwan arms sales, and the upcoming meeting for the President with the Dalai Lama, does not – Iran, there’s another one; thank you, Matt – does not derail the broader relationship. Can you give us any tangible evidence of efforts that you’re making to prevent these from hurting the wider relationship?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, first of all, for the most part, these are issues that we have engaged with China steadily through a number of years. The Chinese have made clear their views regarding meetings with the Dalai Lama, regarding arms sales to Taiwan, and I think what we’re clearly indicating is that we will continue to follow our national interest just as we would expect China to follow its national interest.

We continue to have a broad and deep relationship with China. If you look at the strategic and economic dialogue, it has become a key platform through which we engage at high levels across the respective governments on a range of issues – political, economic, and security related. So we will continue to do that. I would expect that just as the Secretary hosted her Chinese counterparts, along with Treasury Secretary Geithner and others last summer, we look forward to that same level of engagement sometime later this year.

But on a range of issues, we interact and cooperate with China, from counterterrorism and law enforcement, scientific and technical cooperation, health, people-to-people exchanges, and so forth. Now, through that, do we have issues that crop up from time to time? Absolutely. You have two of the most powerful nations on earth, and our interests coincide in many areas and our interests collide occasionally in a handful of those. And we work through them and will continue to work through them, through the kind of ongoing dialogue that has characterized our interaction with China since the Obama Administration came to office.

QUESTION: Just so we’re clear, I mean, my question was whether you could point to any tangible things that you are trying to do now to make sure that those areas where your interests collide do not interfere with the rest of the relationship.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. And --

QUESTION: And what I’m trying to understand is whether you are actually reaching out or doing anything special now, or perhaps not and it really is just business as usual and --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, and we do what we always do. If you look back on each of these issues, we’ve had very recent conversations with Chinese officials here in Washington, in Beijing, and in other locations. So we are engaged directly with China on issues from North Korea and Iran. We’ve had multiple sessions with Chinese officials, most recently last week in London with the Secretary’s meeting with Foreign Minister Yang, going over a range of issues, including our concerns about cyber issues. The Chinese have obviously communicated to us their concerns about issues such as Taiwan and the Dalai Lama. So we will continue this dialogue and we expect that we’ll work through these issues, as we have in the past.

QUESTION: Does Washington consider the apparent threat of economic sanctions or boycotting of products by certain U.S. companies as some sort of escalating annoyance on Beijing’s part?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, as we said when we heard that from our Chinese friends, we regret that they have announced that step. We will be in discussion with them about how they plan to follow through on that, if they do. And our economic relationship is vitally important. It is broad and deep. And we would hate to see steps taken that would interfere with commerce that obviously benefits our people and the Chinese people and much of the region.

QUESTION: Forgive my ignorance. Has this kind of threat come before from Beijing?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think it – if I recall, there was a – similar steps taken in 2008. They might not have been as public as they were in this case.

QUESTION: P.J.

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: You just used the phrase that Assistant Secretary Campbell is very fond of using over and over and over, which is “Chinese friends.” How friendly are they, actually, right now?

MR. CROWLEY: He also is very fond of the word “colleagues,” and “interlocutors.”

QUESTION: He uses that with the Japanese, not with the Chinese. So what exactly is going on here? This is – I mean, I – do you really consider them to be friends?

MR. CROWLEY: I would just say that what is going on here is the same kind of thing that’s been going on at various times. You have a global power – two global powers. And this is a reflection of the fact that our – we have – we share many interests. We do not look at all issues in the same way. But a lot depends on your perspective. Are there a lot of balls in the air today that perhaps might not have been there four to six months ago? Fair enough.

On the other hand, if you step back 20 years or so, our relationship is remarkably stable. It has broadened significantly during the course of the 1990s and this past decade as well. So a lot of this might be in the eye of the beholder, but I think that you’re talking about arguably the most important bilateral relationship in the world and --

QUESTION: How close – how close are you to getting them onboard with the Iran sanctions?

MR. CROWLEY: We continue to talk directly with China and our other interlocutors on the P-5+1. I think we have communicated very forcefully to China that this is an issue that is not as important to them just as much as it’s important to us and to others in the region. And we do not have the same view of the urgency of the situation. We probably do not, at this point, have the same view regarding the steps that we think are necessary at this particular time, but that’s why we’re having this ongoing engagement as we did in New York recently, as we will in the upcoming days when our P-5+1 political directors have a chance to consult again.

QUESTION: And how close are --

QUESTION: P.J. can --

QUESTION: How close are you to getting them – is this about China?

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Yeah?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Oh, thank you. Speaking of that, it appears that there’s kind of a new tone coming out from the Secretary on the Iran sanctions. She was much more overt the other day in suggesting, lecturing to the Chinese about what they should do and how they should see it more long term. What explains that change of tone?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think that – what explains that tone is precisely where we think we are in this process. We spent much of 2009 signaling to Iran that we were prepared to engage on the nuclear issue, but on a broader range of issues. For a variety of reasons, Iran has not been able to respond appropriately – or constructively to our approach. And together with our international partners, given our shared concern about the trajectory of Iran’s nuclear program, we’re at that stage, as the Secretary said last week in London, where, regrettably, we have to look at – more significantly at the pressure track because the engagement track has not yielded the results that we had hoped for.

QUESTION: So is she frustrated with the Chinese?

MR. CROWLEY: I think she’s frustrated with the Iranians’ response and its – their unwillingness or inability to engage us seriously on the nuclear issue and on other regional issues. So we are in discussion with the P-5+1 members, all of them, as well as with other countries as we look to possible pressure points that we can add to make clear to Iran that its unwillingness to come forward and address our nuclear concerns will have a cost.

QUESTION: Are you satisfied that the Russians are fully involved with you now?

MR. CROWLEY: The Russians are fully involved. They have always been fully involved. But I --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I mean, the sanctions --

MR. CROWLEY: No. We – as, again as you saw not only in London last week with Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Lavrov, but in the multiple meetings that have occurred between President Obama and President Medvedev, you’ve seen a significant shift in the Russian position. And I think we have a shared understanding of where we are in the process and we have significant engagement going on with Russia, just as we have with the other members of the P-5+1, beginning the process now of sharing ideas on where we need to go. We’re not – but this is a process that’s going to take some time.

QUESTION: Can I change the topic to Iraq?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: P.J., there’s been reports of U.S. interference in Iraq’s decision to bar about 450 candidates from the upcoming March elections, and I believe Ambassador Chris Hill has made some statements yesterday. Officially, what is the U.S. position about disqualifying Baath candidates?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we – this is an Iraqi process. We are not in any way, shape, or form, interfering in the Iraqi political process. We’ve been steadfastly supporting the Iraqi political process. Obviously, as Ambassador Hill said yesterday, this has to be seen by the Iraqi people as an inclusive process and one that allows Iraq to continue its remarkable political progress. There’s a lot at stake in Iraq on March 7. We’ve expressed our concerns that a process that appears to the Iraqi people or to a segment of Iraqi society to exclude viable candidates from running for office and participating in the Iraqi political process has – creates the risk that the result of the election will not be seen as valid, as credible, and that can have potential ramifications for Iraq long term.

So we are saying the same thing to Iraq today that we have in past years: Have an effective political process, an inclusive political process, one that gives all segments of Iraqi society an opportunity to contribute to Iraq’s future. And that’s the message that we will continue to – and I’m sure that’s the message that the Secretary will deliver when she meets with the Iraqi vice president this afternoon.

QUESTION: Some politicians, some Iraqi politicians, have distinguished between “Baathists” – quote, unquote – proper and Saddamists or those who are loyal to the party of Saddam Hussein during his regime and were instrumental in carrying out his policies. Does the U.S. share that same distinction?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, this is the Iraqi-led process. It was an Iraqi commission that made these judgments. There is an appeals process that is underway for these various candidates. It’s not for the United States to dictate any of this to Iraq; we’re not going to do it. But what we are simply saying is that at the result of this process for those candidates who do stand for election on March 7^th, that they have to be part of an inclusive political process that the Iraqi people can believe in and they can support the government that comes out of this political election.

QUESTION: Finally, if I could just add one last question.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: It’s just that some are saying that because of this restriction, which is almost exclusively targeting Sunnis, it’s done in favor to – it favors Shia candidates. Do you think this is true?

MR. CROWLEY: It’s not for – it’s not what we think. It’s ultimately what the Iraqi people think. Our concern is simply not to go through a list and decide that this person falls on this side, this person falls on that side. It is really about making sure that you have an inclusive process, and to the extent that there is an adjudication of which candidates are judged to be viable in this process, it should be transparent so that ultimately, those candidates who do stand for election in early March, that everyone in Iraq can point to and say that they have equal opportunity of running, winning, and then together, form a government that will serve the interests of all Iraqi citizens.

QUESTION: Pakistan?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: I know that from the military standpoint, you can’t talk about reports of apparent Predator drone attacks in North Waziristan today. But has the U.S. heard from Islamabad, given its distaste for alleged U.S. Predator drone attacks in North Waziristan in the past?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure I understand the question.

QUESTION: There are reports that there have been at least 10 Predator drone attacks in North Waziristan, perhaps dozens have been injured, at least 10 insurgents have been killed. Has Washington heard from Islamabad in terms of this is violating Pakistani sovereignty or anything of that sort?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let me --

QUESTION: I tried to frame it away from the DOD question.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let me just simply say that we have very close collaboration with Pakistan on our shared struggle in combating extremism that exists in the tribal areas and through other parts of Pakistan. And we have senior officials who meet with their Pakistani counterparts on a regular basis on the military side and the civilian side. And from the Secretary’s visit there last fall, I think there is a shared understanding of not only the struggle that we face together, but the appropriate efforts on each side to diminish this threat to Pakistan and to the region and to other countries, including the United States.

So we talk to Pakistan every day at one level or another, either at the level of our ambassador or here in Washington, about this shared responsibility.

QUESTION: Does that – would it be too much to say that that’s an implied tacit acceptance on Islamabad’s part that Washington will do what it judges necessary in dealing with Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida?

MR. CROWLEY: I would challenge – I would – first of all, this is not what Washington is doing alone. This is what Washington is doing to help support the Government of Pakistan in its struggle. And I would simply say there is a shared understanding of the steps that need to be taken to ultimately help secure Pakistan and the region.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Greek Visa Waiver Program? (Inaudible) told us that the U.S. Government is in the final stages of the decision process and you hope to conclude the process soon. Do you have any idea when the process is going to be concluded? And also, can you tell us why it takes so long?

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm, okay. Let me take those – there is no particular timeline, but we are committed to getting Greece into the Visa Waiver Program. There are a number of eligibility requirements that the program sets forth, and we acknowledge the hard work that the governments of Greece and the United States have done together. And we are – hard to characterize where we are in the process, but we are committed to getting Greece into the program as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Any readout on the – today’s meeting between the Secretary and --

MR. CROWLEY: At the start of the meeting, I basically said there were meetings with the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary Steinberg on a full range of bilateral and regional issues, including the Balkans, Cyprus, and other issues.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

QUESTION: And Visa Waiver?

MR. CROWLEY: And Visa Waiver.

QUESTION: Did the issue of the Greek Government’s fiscal problems and financial problems come up in either of those meetings?

MR. CROWLEY: Good question. Don’t know. I’ll find out.

QUESTION: Can you – could you take that?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Could I ask you another one on Pakistan? The five Virginia men who were picked up by the Pakistani Government are making allegations that they were tortured by Pakistani law enforcement and they – we have video of them screaming in English, “We’ve been tortured by the Pakistanis,” in the last 24 hours. Do you have anything more on that?

MR. CROWLEY: I do not. We have had regular consular access to these five individuals, but beyond that, I’m not aware of that allegation.

QUESTION: Are they all American citizens? We had a question about whether they were all --

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And when was the time you had consular access?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll take that question. I don’t know.

QUESTION: Because – well, the last time you did, were they in good condition?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, and I’ll get you a date.

QUESTION: And the other thing is if you could check on whether they made allegations to you during the consular access about alleged torture.

MR. CROWLEY: There are Privacy Act considerations here. But to the extent that we can comment on that, we will.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:44 p.m.)

DPB # 17

# # #

Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

3:08 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: I thought we would have exhausted you from the budget briefing. But obviously, here at the Department of State, we’ve put forward to the Congress a significant budget totaling $52.8 billion for FY2011 that will, in our minds, secure frontline states such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, meet global challenges from health to hunger to climate change and humanitarian assistance strengthen partnerships through foreign military assistance, peacekeeping operations, narcotics control, law enforcement, military education and training, nonproliferation and antiterrorism programs, while also investing in increased personnel and stronger infrastructure for the Department of State in critical parts of the world.

But with that, if there are other subjects we can address, the floor is open.

QUESTION: What’s the situation in Haiti with these people – people --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Yeah, people being held for allegedly trying to traffic in children?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have been given unlimited consular access to 10 American citizens who were apprehended over the weekend. And we expect that they will appear before a Haitian judge as early as this afternoon.

QUESTION: Sorry, you said unlimited?

MR. CROWLEY: We have been given unlimited consular access, yes.

QUESTION: What does that mean?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, that means, for example, I think at least one of the American citizens has health issues, and we’ve been able to help her. But we expect they – I think they’re standing by as we speak in Port-au-Prince to go before a Haitian judge and continue the investigation.

QUESTION: The Haitian Government said they might be tried in the United States. Do you have anything on that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think it’s – first of all, it’s up to the Haitian Government. It’s their country. Their police apprehended these individuals. Obviously, Haiti wants to determine the motives behind the movement of children between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and we are assisting every way possible. And once we know all the facts, then we’ll determine what the appropriate course is. But that – but the judgment is really up to the Haitian Government.

QUESTION: Can I ask – in the Embassy statement yesterday, they talked about having contacts with the Haitian Government about the case. Can you talk about the nature and level of those conversations, what the U.S. message is when they do talk to them? And then also, whether the Embassy plans to have anybody in the trial, in the courtroom or whatever, during the proceedings? Is that --

MR. CROWLEY: As we would with any diplomatic post, we would expect to have personnel from the Embassy monitor the proceedings, and I would expect that to be the case here. I think there were Embassy personnel who monitored the hearing that occurred on Saturday.

QUESTION: And then about the conversations between the U.S. and the Haitian Government about the case, can you describe the nature of those and the level of those conversations?

MR. CROWLEY: I think right now, the Haitian Government has a judicial system. It is up and running. And I’m not aware that we’ve had any specific conversation with the Haitian Government at this point on this case. I think – I mean, both the Haitian Government and ourselves are trying to figure exactly what has transpired here and perhaps more facts will reveal themselves this afternoon in court.

QUESTION: But the Embassy statement clearly said that there had been some talks between – about the case between the Haitian Government and the U.S. Embassy.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, obviously, we do, in the course of our consular activity, you’ve – they’re in the custody of the police. We want to ascertain the nature of the charges against them. We want to have access to them. So there is an interaction. But as to other conversations we may or may not have had with the Haitian Government, let’s let the legal proceeding work its course.

QUESTION: And then, what is your understanding of the charges against them, if that’s something they’ve communicated to you, then?

MR. CROWLEY: I think the Haitian Government has set forward some specific charges. They are a matter, I believe, of record. It’s hard for me to characterize it from here.

QUESTION: What is your understanding of what they are if they’re of record? I mean, we haven’t heard of them.

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: At this point, does – based on the meetings that the U.S. has had with these 10 missionaries or Americans, whatever they really are, is there any belief that they had any malice involved in their actions?

MR. CROWLEY: I understand the question. I think this is what the investigation and the legal proceeding, when it does occur, will try to ascertain.

QUESTION: Because the --

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- the Justice Department at this point – I mean, they could bring these people to the U.S. and try them if it was a case where they believe they specifically went to another country to engage in sexual acts with a minor and then – but not necessarily for bringing them over the border into another country. So that --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, look. Let’s – I just – there is – are far better questions than there are answers at this point. And I think this is why we are working to try to ascertain precisely what happened, what the motivation behind these people. Clearly, there are questions about procedure in terms of whether they had appropriate paperwork to move the children. All of these are very good questions. This is what, I’m sure, Haitian authorities are trying to determine, what American authorities are trying to determine. But we should let the investigation take its course and then we’ll be in a better position to evaluate what should be done.

QUESTION: And do you just have an update on Haitian children who’ve been brought out?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, any other --

QUESTION: Well, just to follow on that, what are the – what are American authorities actually trying to determine in a legal way at this point? And who are those American authorities?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we would provide the same kind of consular services as we would in any other post, to make sure that the – I mean, these are private citizens, they’re in a foreign country, they’re before a Haitian judge, that they have appropriate legal representation. We want to make sure that they are being well cared for; we think they are. And to evaluate that, in our judgment, this has been a fair and transparent legal process, and obviously, that process is ongoing.

QUESTION: Well, but my question – you mentioned what Haitian authorities and American authorities are trying to determine in terms of the legalities --

MR. CROWLEY: Right. And obviously, I’m not in a position to characterize. To the extent we’ve had conversations with these individuals, I’m not at liberty to go into details as to what they told us. We’ve been doing our own evaluation of the background of these individuals and the organizations that they’ve suggested that they’re working for, and this is all part of a process that’s ongoing.

Yeah.

QUESTION: South Korea President Lee Myung-bak said last week that he had planned to have – meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-il over the North Korea nuclear issues. Do you have some information about process making of summit? And then what is your position on summit at this point?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have had our own discussions with North Korean officials. We understand our partners in the Six-Party process, likewise, have had conversations. And we encourage dialogue and we would assume that should such a meeting take place, the message from South Korea would be the same message as the message from the United States and others within the Six-Party process about what North Korea should do to return to the Six-Party process and to begin to take steps towards denuclearization. But as to specific arrangements, I’d defer to the South Korean Government to describe what they’re prepared to do.

QUESTION: And there are reports that President Obama doesn’t plan to attend the next EU-U.S. summit in the spring. Can you comment on that?

MR. CROWLEY: I think I’ll defer to the White House in terms of what the President’s travel schedule is. I know they are going through it here – we’re still relatively early in the year – what his travel plans are for the rest of the year. He’s made several trips to Europe during the course of the previous year, but I understand that there were no specific plans for the President to travel to Spain for a summit this year. But we also have to recognize that with the Lisbon treaty, Europe has gone through a fundamental structural change, and as to – we will continue to have U.S.-EU meetings at a high level.

But because of the changes involving the establishment of a EU council president and a European commission president on top of the rotating EU presidency, I think it’s taking some time to work through exactly how various high-level meetings will happen. But we look forward to ongoing dialogue. The Secretary has had a couple of recent meetings with her counterpart, Catherine Ashton, and we continue to work on a range of issues. But as to specific plans by the President, I’ll defer to the White House.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Any update on these two Americans in North Korea?

MR. CROWLEY: No change. We’re still seeking consular access through our protecting power and it’s not occurred yet.

David.

QUESTION: Are you surprised by the seeming ferocity of the Chinese reaction to the Taiwan arms sale deal?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure I would characterize it quite that way. Obviously, they have indicated their displeasure for this round of sales just as they have in previous rounds. We understand that. At the same time, we’ve taken this action consistent with our one China policy and Taiwan Relations Act, three joint communiqués as well. We think that these defensive arms will contribute to security and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We regret that the Chinese have announced that they’ll halt bilateral military exchange programs and other security-related programs. Obviously, we’ll see further information as to specific impact on meetings that were anticipated. Likewise, we regret the fact that they have suggested that they will impose sanctions on U.S. companies involved in the sale of these defensive articles.

But we think that our interaction with China is in our interest, in China’s interest, and we will continue our discussions with China on this and other subjects.

QUESTION: P.J., there’s a story in The New York Times today quoting unnamed U.S. officials as suggesting that the Administration was deliberating trying to adopt a slightly more pugnacious stance toward China. Is that true?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we will continue to assert our national interests. We have a significant interest in stability in the region. We have longstanding commitments to provide for Taiwan’s defensive needs. And we will, as always, pursue our interests. But we will do it in a way that we think allows for positive and cooperative relations with China.

QUESTION: Have you had any positive or cooperative dealings with China in the last couple of weeks, post-Google and post-arming Taiwan?

MR. CROWLEY: Look, we have a wide-ranging relationship with China. It’s one of the most important relation – bilateral relationships in the world. And within our strategic and economic dialogue, we touch on a wide range of subjects. We are going to have areas of agreement. We’re going to have areas of disagreement. And when we have disagreements, we will work through them in a consistent but candid way.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any progress in the last few weeks on any of the issues between the United States and China that are particularly important to the United States, by which I would include specifically North Korea, Iran, internet freedom? Is the boat going in the right direction on any of those?

MR. CROWLEY: Of course. We see eye to eye with respect to North Korea. Our messages – our respective messages to the North Korean leadership have been very similar. We’ve had important discussions with the Chinese on Iran. I think we have the same interest in not seeing a nuclear-capable Iran from emerging. We obviously do have differences in terms of the current approach, and we continue in discussion with China on that issue. I’m sure our counterparts in other agencies of government continue their important dialogue with China on a range of issues from the economic to – and until this past weekend, on the defense issues as well.

So, I mean, we’re going to continue to engage China. We’ve had a number of conversations both before and since the Taiwan announcement and we will continue those discussions.

QUESTION: P.J., on Thursday, when the Secretary met with the Chinese foreign minister in London, do you know if she raised – if she hinted to him or told him that the arms sale is coming the next day?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know. I don’t think so.

QUESTION: She – so she didn’t raise it at all?

MR. CROWLEY: As we – I think there were some – there was a background briefing on Friday where we indicated that we had informed the Chinese on Friday morning through our contacts here at the Embassy in Washington, and that was --

QUESTION: But surely, she knew that it was coming down the next day, right?

MR. CROWLEY: Well --

QUESTION: I mean, is it really worth blindsiding the Chinese like that when you had a high-level meeting between the two foreign ministers a day earlier?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, we will pursue our national interest. We did not consult with the Chinese beforehand. We informed the Chinese once we began the process of informing our Congress.

QUESTION: Well, don’t you think that the Chinese reaction may have been more vitriolic because the – because --

MR. CROWLEY: We’re doing nothing different today than we did in 2008, than we’ve previously done, where, on a regular basis, based on our evaluation of Taiwan’s needs, we do provide them articles that we think contribute to Taiwan’s defense. What happened here was, I don’t think, a mystery to China. They have not – they have objected in the past to what we’ve done and they objected this time, and we anticipated that. We informed them of it. And we will continue to work through this issue as we go forward.

QUESTION: Also on China, is there any update on talks with China over the Google issue, any more meetings here in Washington or in Beijing?

MR. CROWLEY: The Secretary, as she said last week, raised this issue with Foreign Minister Yang in London and indicated that we will continue to have conversation with China on this subject.

QUESTION: Just back to Haiti, do you have a number for us, update on U.S. fatalities by any chance?

MR. CROWLEY: No change --

QUESTION: No change.

MR. CROWLEY: -- from last week.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And how about children, Haitian children brought to the U.S.?

MR. CROWLEY: I think there was a flight over the weekend with a significant number – I’ve heard various numbers, but somewhere between 66 and 80 children left over the weekend. So I think in terms of processing of paroles for orphans, I think we’re now over 600.

MR. DUGUID: 578.

MR. CROWLEY: 578, close to 600.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Oh, I should welcome back Gordon Duguid from Port-au-Prince, did yeoman’s work over the past --

QUESTION: Here, here.

MR. CROWLEY: -- couple of weeks on behalf of the United States Government and our media colleagues who were deployed as well.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:26 p.m.)

DPB # 16

# # #

Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary of State
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

January 29, 2010

1:03 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: Almost on time. Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. Secretary Clinton, I believe – let’s see – is, as we speak, in a bilateral meeting with French Foreign Minister Kouchner, where we would expect that issues ranging from Haiti, the situation in Guinea, and Somalia will be discussed. She will be meeting with the press here shortly and then having a dinner with Foreign Minister Kouchner before returning to the United States.

Earlier today, she met with French President Sarkozy. They talked about the successful Afghanistan conference yesterday, talked about the current situation with respect to international concerns about Iran. Obviously, given France’s ties to Haiti as well, they talked about the current situation there. And she also met with French diplomatic advisor Levitte.

And obviously, you all heard her speech today on European security where she advanced a number of principles, including dedication to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, a recognition that security in Europe must be indivisible, reinforced our unwavering devotion to the collective defense and security of NATO allies, and our commitment to practicing transparency in our dealings with Europe, our belief that people everywhere have a right to live free from the fear of nuclear destruction and the recognition that true security entails not only peaceful relations among states, but opportunities and rights for the individuals who live within them.

An issue that you talked about yesterday: We have been informed by the North Korean Government that is holding an American citizen who allegedly entered North Korea from China on January 25^th. And we are working through the Swedish Embassy, our protecting power in Pyongyang, to seek consular access to this citizen. And there’s no higher priority than the welfare of our citizens anywhere in the world.

QUESTION: Do you know who the citizen is?

MR. CROWLEY: We do not know.

QUESTION: Have they given you a name?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Informed by the North Korean in what manner?

MR. CROWLEY: We were informed through the New York channel.

QUESTION: Through the New York channel.

QUESTION: Today?

MR. CROWLEY: Yesterday.

QUESTION: And did they give you any information about the circumstances of what --

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: -- the location of where it happened or --

MR. CROWLEY: We are seeking, obviously, access to this individual where he can actually explain and find out exactly what has taken place.

A couple of things: Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell is scheduled to be in Tokyo next week on February 1-2, and in Seoul on 3 – on February 3^rd and 4^th where he will have discussions with senior Japanese officials and senior Korean officials on a range of issues. We have clear skies in Peru today, so we’ve had more – successful evacuation flights, and we are actually hopeful that by the end of the day, all American citizens will be off the mountain and in safe hands, given that situation. But we have evacuated more than 200 American citizens thus far.

And with that, I’ll take your questions. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: P.J., is it correct that United States has prepared the draft of the sanctions towards Iran and is ready to distribute it to the United Nations?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think that’s correct. Obviously, this week, we had a number of very productive conversations in Europe with various countries that share our concerns about the situation in Iran. We are working to develop our ideas on how to proceed on this pressure track and – but this is a process I think that will take some time to develop.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on the North Koreans?

QUESTION: Can we just stick with Iran a second?

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Any reaction to the Senate vote on Iran sanctions, please?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, Congress understands our objectives and we look forward to continuing to work with them. As this legislation goes through conference, I think we note that the unanimous consent on Senate Bill 2799 reflects a shared frustration with Iran’s lack of engagement. Our goals remain to change Iran’s decision making on its nuclear program, to keep our international coalition together so that Iran sees clearly the unity it faces, and to maintain the President’s flexibility going forward. So we hope to work with Congress to ensure that measures eventually adopted do not penalize countries that are working with us to advance these shared goals.

QUESTION: And earlier, the State Department – am I not correct – had urged the Senate to hold back? Are you now urging them to pause before they move forward with the conference?

MR. CROWLEY: No. I mean, I think obviously, in both the House and Senate, you’ve had very strong statements of concern about Iran. We share those concerns. And we expect to work constructively with conferees as they work on the final version of this legislation.

QUESTION: I have a question for you on the UN deciding to remove five Taliban members from its official sanctions list, and I’m wondering – I – what is the U.S. view on that? And is there any concern that the American public would be skeptical of this sort of legitimization of Taliban, given the close association they’ve had with the 9/11 attacks all these years?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think the Secretary has spoken to this in the last couple of days. We actually support and discussed yesterday during the Afghanistan conference the concept of reintegration, and we are very gratified that there has been a fund put together. And I think Japan, for example, has made a significant contribution to that. So this is fully consistent with our strategy of trying to build up capacity within the Afghan Government and provide it resources so that we can begin to peel away the foot soldiers who we think we are not ideologically committed to this. It may well be something simple, like the Taliban for the moment is paying better than the Afghan Government.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. CROWLEY: I understand that. And we’ll do this process, and we think over time, we can put additional pressure on the leadership of the Taliban. It is a – the Taliban is a – kind of a mixed grouping of disparate elements, and we think that there can be an opportunity through a political process, one that is Afghan led, to try to see who among these leaders are willing to make a fundamental change in their approach, and we will – we’ll support this.

President Karzai’s announcement of a grand peace jirga as a traditional Afghan mechanism for reconciling competing views – we think that’s important. But in this process, we have some concerns that we’ve put forward. And we think that as this moves forward, it should be based on the concepts that anyone who wants to reconcile and play a more constructive role in Afghanistan’s future must accept the constitution, renounce violence, and publicly break with extremist groups such as al-Qaida.

QUESTION: Who initiated this at the UN, and who decides actually what, U.S. or --

MR. CROWLEY: Who – Goyul, who decides?

QUESTION: To takes the actions at the UN?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, there is a process by which, as we gain more information, as we see adjustments on the ground, adjustments can be made to the list of those who we have concerns about, who have been associated with terrorism and extremist elements in the past. So there is a process in the UN that can make adjustments as appropriate.

But we think that, certainly as part of our counterinsurgency strategy and consistent with what the Afghan Government is trying to do, that ultimately, we need to have a political process along – that has been – works in parallel with the military action that we’re taking with our allies and with the Afghan Government to try to ultimately defeat this insurgency.

QUESTION: I mean, who initiated? Which country put the package before the UN, or at the UN?

MR. CROWLEY: I – that’s a good question. I don’t know.

QUESTION: My initial question had to do also with the idea of the American public accepting this sort of reconciliation with people who were associated with 9/11.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I – that – you’re inferring that the people that we – that are likely to reconcile would include those who played direct or indirect roles in 9/11. I think that’s a challengeable assumption. The Taliban is made up of a mix of groups, a mix of tribal elements that have different motivations. Some of them feel in their own minds that they are fighting for the future of Afghanistan. Obviously, there are those like Mullah Omar, who were in power during the 1990s, chose to associate themselves and to give safe haven to al-Qaida and bin Ladin and those who were directly responsible for 9/11.

As Secretary Clinton made clear in various interviews today, we don’t see Mullah Omar as being among those who can be reconciled. But there are various elements, and in Afghan tradition, there are shifting alliances, depending on what is happening on the ground. Many of these want to be associated with the ultimate winner in the struggle, and that is expressly why we continue to work with the Afghan Government, build up its capacity to vie for its own security, build up its capacity to deliver services to the Afghan people. In doing so, we think that’s – confidence in and support for the Afghan Government will rise and that will, over time, turn the tide against the insurgency.

Kirit.

QUESTION: Haiti – can we go?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have a numbers update for us? And I have another question.

MR. CROWLEY: The numbers, they haven’t really changed significantly. As of 7:00 a.m. this morning, we have moved 13,427 Americans out of Haiti. The number of confirmed and suspected fatalities has not changed. We processed 31 –

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. We processed 31 orphans for parole yesterday, and actually we hope that there’ll be a fairly significant movement of orphans out of Haiti in the next 24 hours.

QUESTION: So they’re processed and then not moved, and then the movement from whatever’s been building up all week is going to happen when, you said? Today?

MR. CROWLEY: We hope that’ll actually happen, today or tomorrow.

QUESTION: Where are they going? It’s all in one –

MR. CROWLEY: Those are good questions to ask our colleagues down south.

QUESTION: Okay. And then to follow up on that, yesterday you talked about some of the concerns that the State Department has about trafficking and you didn’t really have many specifics on examples. Do you have any clarity today on any case that might involve trafficking to the U.S., to other countries, and what specifically you were talking about?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Well, we do not have any confirmed cases of child trafficking within Haiti or outside of the country that we’re aware of since the earthquake.

But if you look back at our Trafficking in Persons report back in June of last year, we estimated that there were between 90,000 and 300,000 restaveks exploited within Haiti, as well as an additional 3,000 restaveks. These are children that go – that are, in essence, supported by wealthier families, but we have concerns that they end up finding themselves in situations of domestic servitude. An estimated 3,000 restaveks trafficked to the Dominican Republic. So mindful of the concerns that we had in Haiti, based on our experience before the earthquake, that’s the reason why we have put in place these additional measures in light of the earthquake, in light of the impact that the earthquake has had on Haitian society.

QUESTION: Okay. So that’s not the same as yesterday, which was kind of concerns that there’d be – that there are active attempts – that you said you’re aware of active attempts to take people out.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. I mean, we – but we are also aware that in the attempts to identify and move children to safety, we are also concerned, and we have seen a couple of cases where we have concerns about pedophiles who are representing themselves as in a position to adopt children.

QUESTION: Do you have any specifics on those instances that you could --

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Can we stick with that? Another question about orphans, please.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Can we just look forward and I’m wondering whether you could say, as a general policy, whether the United States will seek or allow more Haitian orphans into the United States in coming months.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have a process that is underway and we think is working quite well. It’s working in concert with the Haitian Government to identify those children who are eligible for adoption and making sure that there are no family members that are in a position to care for these children. And then as they work through the process – it’s a process where we identify them for adoption, clearly working with agencies and faith-based organizations, identify adoptive parents who are ready to take them, and then work with the Haitian Government to clear them through the process so that they can be granted parole and transported to the United States.

So tragically, will we see more of these cases in the future? I expect that we will. But obviously, that is up to the process that is already established.

QUESTION: And based on your statements and those by Secretary Clinton and representatives of the Department and Homeland Security and HHS, et cetera, what would you tell Americans about pushing forward with seeking adoption of Haitian children?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, these are private judgments that are made by individual American families. There was a process that was existed – that existed before the earthquake. And we – through our Embassy in Port-au-Prince, we’re working diligently to help identify children for adoption and to help unite them with loving families here in the United States. That process is going to continue. But we want to be sure that it’s one that’s effective, that is focused on the safety and security of the children, and it will be as rapid as it can be, but we want to make sure that ultimately – our paramount importance is making sure that the children are properly cared for and that the process works to put them in the right homes and – so they can enjoy a brighter future.

QUESTION: And just one more, please.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: But would you encourage more Americans, considering the need, to move forward and possibly seek to adopt --

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, it’s not up to us to encourage that. It is a reality that there are wonderful people here in the United States who have been focused on Haiti, who have been focused on trying to bring children who are orphans here to the United States. We, the United States government, have long supported this. But we have to be respectful of the process. We have to be respectful of the Government of Haiti, because these are their children. These are the children of Haiti.

So we know that the tragedy in Haiti with the earthquake will create more orphans. And if that’s the case, and if there are American families who step forward, we will support them after the earthquake just as we supported them before the earthquake.

QUESTION: Can we just go back to North Korea for a minute?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: From what was communicated, is it clear that this is a second person, one separate from Mr. Park?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: And does the United States actually know the – I’m not saying to release it, but the United States actually know the identity of the person?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: So they didn’t tell you?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Is that the way they normally do it?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, again – (laughter) --

QUESTION: That’s the second time. I was having a moment.

MR. CROWLEY: -- you continue to try to get me to explain what’s happening in North Korea, and I can’t. We do not know the identity of the citizen, but that is obviously why we have already taken steps, working through our protecting power, the Swedes, to seek access so that we can determine who it is and the circumstances under which he came to be in North Korea.

QUESTION: Do you know sort of bare bones stuff, like what gender and what age, things like that?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Can I change the topic?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Have you notified Congress yet of the Taiwan arms sales?

MR. CROWLEY: The Department of Defense, under the Foreign Military Sales program, notified Congress today of the Administration’s intent to sell various defensive systems to Taiwan. And you can find the details on the Defense Security Cooperation Agency website. But the notification includes UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters, Patriot Advance Capability Missiles, technical support for Taiwan’s command and control communications computers intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance system – the C4ISR – two Osprey-Class mine-hunting ships, and Harpoon telemetry missiles.

This is a clear demonstration of the commitment that this Administration has to provide Taiwan the defensive weapons it needs and as provided for in the Taiwan Relations Act. And we think that this action is consistent with the U.S. “one-China” policy based on the three joint communiqués in the Taiwan Relations Act and contributes to maintaining security and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

QUESTION: China --

QUESTION: You didn’t mention F-16s.

MR. CROWLEY: I did not.

QUESTION: China opposes any consultation with the Chinese Government?

MR. CROWLEY: The Chinese Government has long opposed U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.

QUESTION: Were there consultations with the Chinese out of the --

MR. CROWLEY: No. We did not consult with China before taking this action. We did notify the PRC before this action, just as we notified Taiwan before the notification was sent forward.

QUESTION: And the decision not to go ahead with the F-16s, was that based on concerns about the Chinese reaction?

MR. CROWLEY: No. This was based on our evaluation of the defensive needs of Taiwan.

QUESTION: A dollar figure on that package?

MR. CROWLEY: I do not have a dollar figure on this package.

QUESTION: A question on Afghanistan, please?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: In connection with the London conference, one – World Bank and IMF, they have announced that $1.6 billion will be debt relief for Afghanistan, and also EastWest Institute has put out a report that without Gulf states, you cannot have peace and stability in Afghanistan. So are you concerned with those Gulf states and now in connection with this London conference and beyond?

MR. CROWLEY: Not at all. There were a number of regional states at the Afghanistan conference because states like Saudi Arabia, states like the United Arab Emirates have had a long history of relations with and interest in Afghanistan. We welcome their participation. We welcome their support. And we had very, very extensive dealings with them as they, like we, identify Afghanistan’s future needs and look for ways to support the Karzai Government, help it do what it needs to do on behalf of its people.

Samir.

QUESTION: Speaking of the Gulf states, the Saudi foreign minister spoke in a press conference in London yesterday, confirming in a strong way that Iran was behind the Houthi rebels in Yemen to attack Saudi territories. And in response to U.S. saying that you don’t have evidence that Iran is involved with the rebels, they’re saying there are evidence and photos about the presence of Iranians with these rebels in north Yemen.

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, it’s hard to know specifically who was behind the conflict. I think, we – as we indicated, we welcome the announcement of a ceasefire. We obviously are working closely with the Government of Yemen to deal with multiple conflicts within its border. We think that if this can be resolved, it allows the Government of Yemen to focus increased attention on the threat from al-Qaida that we think threatens Yemen, the region, and others including the United States. So – and I know that Saudi Arabia, among other countries, has a significant stake in stability and peace in Yemen, and we’ll work constructively with that government going forward.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Iran for a moment?

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Iran’s foreign minister told Reuters in an interview in Davos that the Geneva proposal on sending its low-enriched uranium abroad for processing and then use in the Tehran research reactor was still possible, that it – quote – “still can be on the table.” From the Administration’s point of view, is that deal now dead?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Is it – or is it – so it’s still on the table?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it’s still on the table. I mean, go back to the fall when we first advanced this as a confidence-building measure to work cooperatively with Iran, with the international community, to provide Iran with the fuel that it needed for the research reactor. The first response from Iran was a positive one. The second response from Iran, regrettably, was negative. But we still think that is a fair opportunity for Iran. We think it’s good for Iran and it would help begin to address some of our concerns about certain elements of its nuclear program. And as far as I know, the offer is still on the table if Iran – and the offer is there for Iran to say yes.

QUESTION: And just to be clear, so that nobody’s expectations get raised about this, to your knowledge, is there any active discussion with the Iranians by the United States or any of its P-5+1 partners about that offer?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, there have been some discussions on mechanism through which that deal could be implemented. But as far as I know, it is Tehran that has said no, or Tehran that has tried to renegotiate the offer. And as Secretary Clinton and others have said, we have no plans to amend it.

QUESTION: And – but to your knowledge, there haven’t been any discussions about this lately, correct?

MR. CROWLEY: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: And then, last thing, have you seen any indications from the Iranians that they have any interest in actually returning to the deal as it was originally agreed?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, to the extent that the Iranian foreign minister leaves open the possibility for further discussions on this, he knows the address of the IAEA, and it is the appropriate forum under – through which further discussions could be – could move forward.

QUESTION: P.J., Kurdistan’s Regional Government president was here. He met with President Obama, Vice President, also the Secretary. PKK is still a problem there, and Turkey – Turkey’s also concerned. So was there any discussion as far as concern from Turkey on PKK and terrorism?

MR. CROWLEY: The discussion was really focused on developments inside Iraq. On – Secretary Clinton encouraged President Barzani to continue to work constructively with the central government, looking ahead to the elections that’ll occur in Iraq in early March, encouraged him to continue to find – to resolve tensions over issues between the Kurdistan Regional Government and Iraq, encouraged Iraq to move forward to resolve – open questions such as responsibilities of the regional government, the borders of the regional government, the hydrocarbon law. So it was largely focused on the future of Iraq, not other issues.

QUESTION: One more, quickly? On Dalai Lama’s now – between China and Dalai Lama and Tibet, what’s going on, because his representatives were in China again this week? And are we expecting now Dalai Lama’s visit to the U.S. finally after last --

MR. CROWLEY: On that, Goyal, I’ll defer to the White House to make that announcement.

QUESTION: On a different note, there was a statement purported to be from Usama bin Ladin that was a bit nontraditional, addressing issues such as climate change, talking about the – his view on the dollar. I guess he was quite bearish on it. (Laughter.)

MR. CROWLEY: There go the markets.

QUESTION: What do you think? I mean, is he trying to be a statesman in addition to his usual role?

MR. CROWLEY: So we’ve gone from being the Great Satan to the Great Emitter. You know, he’s working hard to stay relevant. That’s all I can say.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:33 p.m.)

DPB # 15

# # #

Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

January 28, 2010

1:44 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: Sorry for the delay. Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. Let me just mention a few things before taking your questions. The Secretary, as you just heard, finished the Afghanistan conference and had a number of meetings during the course of the day on the sidelines of the Afghanistan conference. The conference itself focused on the issues of security, development, and governance, civil society, and then a regional framework and the international architecture for supporting that.

And obviously, during the course of the day, we were pleased with the announcements of the appointment of Staffan de Mistura as the new UN representative for Afghanistan, as well as the appointment of Ambassador Sedwill as the NATO special representative to help with the international coordination of our efforts in Afghanistan. But the Secretary had a number of bilaterals, including a meeting with NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, the prime minister – or the foreign minister of Armenia, as well as you heard her talk about her meeting with Foreign Minister Chang of China.

QUESTION: Yang?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah, I’m sorry. Yang, sorry. The Secretary also issued a statement along with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton regarding the current situation in Nigeria, our concern about recent violence and the tragic loss of lives, Nigeria’s ongoing efforts towards ensuring stability and democracy within the country, our concerns about the current uncertainty regarding the illness of President Yar’Adua, but also the imperative to – for Nigeria to move forward with gubernatorial elections on February 6^th.

Our efforts continue along with the Peruvian Government to assist with stranded American citizens around Machu Picchu. We were able to evacuate 60 American citizens yesterday. That’s on top of the 50 that were evacuated the day before. We think that perhaps as many as 125 Americans are still in Aguas Calientes and a helicopter – we’ve added two more helicopters to the effort, U.S. helicopters, to bring that total to six. And the weather is acceptable for flying, so there are ongoing operations there today.

QUESTION: Do you think they’ll get them all out today?

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: Do you think they’ll get them all out today?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know if we’ll get all them out because, obviously, it’s the movement of American citizens and other nationalities. But we have six helicopters, the Peruvians have a number, and so we’ll just continue to move people off the mountain as quickly as we can.

And then in terms of Haiti, as of 10 o’clock this morning, we have evacuated 13,126 Americans and family members from Haiti. There are 76 confirmed American fatalities – that’s an increase of one from yesterday: 72 private citizens, the four U.S. Government official citizens. We processed 21 additional orphans for parole yesterday. Obviously, everyone was thrilled by the additional rescue of a 17-year-old girl yesterday. That brings the number to 135 that have been rescued from the various urban search-and-rescue teams since – over the past two weeks. And our – we’re also pleased that the contributions to our texting program, Haiti to 90999, has now crossed $30 million.

And one of the things that we’re focused on right now is, as we continue to work with the Haitian Government, with the UN in terms of the movement of children out of harm’s way, we are also concerned about the potential for trafficking in persons, particularly children, in the aftermath of the earthquake. Clearly, a number of people, including many, many children, have been displaced, separated from their families. They – this poses great risk and, particularly for children, a higher vulnerability to human trafficking. So we are working very closely with UNICEF, with the Haitian Government, to try to – and to alert nongovernmental organizations that are working in Haiti to be on the look for those who might want to try to take advantage of the situation.

QUESTION: Do you have any evidence that that’s taking place?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Could you give us any examples?

MR. CROWLEY: I should just add to – before going into that, the Secretary also met today with Saudi Foreign Minister al-Faysal and the UAE Foreign Minister Abdallah bin Zayid. They were talking about issues ranging from Yemen and Iran to Afghanistan, but also the Middle East peace process.

I don’t know that I have a lot of particulars, Kirit, on that. But this is something that – the Haitian police have had child protection brigades in place for some time. Obviously, we’re working with them, but also to try to supplement the capability on the ground. Haiti has a tradition of placing children from rural families with wealthier host families, but it also presents the challenge of bringing children into involuntary domestic servitude, something that the Haitians refer to as restaveks.

But we have seen some indications that – in people who have come down to help, we have concerns about traffickers, we have concerns about pedophiles. We’ve seen a couple of cases of those in recent days. So this is just something that we’re working collectively with those organizations that are actively trying to help children and the people on the ground to be alert for this kind of danger.

QUESTION: Do you have any numbers of people who have been caught? Can you give us a sense of --

MR. CROWLEY: I’ve given you what I’ve got.

QUESTION: Do you believe – just one other one on this. You may not know, but do you believe any Haitian children have been trafficked to the United States?

MR. CROWLEY: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Anywhere else? Is there any --

MR. CROWLEY: And again, this is something that we’re just affirmatively putting people in place because we recognize in the dynamic that’s going on now, there is always this risk.

QUESTION: New subject? North Korea?

QUESTION: Actually, I just have sort of one real quick one.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have a number of possible American deaths? You’ve been giving that figure in the past.

MR. CROWLEY: That number actually – we’re still –

QUESTION: It hasn’t changed for a number of days.

MR. CROWLEY: It hasn’t changed. I think we just moved one from the “possible” to the “actual.”

QUESTION: Is it “possible” or those were not identified?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we’ve acknowledged there were some fatalities, but what – just determining whether – confirming that they were American citizens.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I ask about North Korea --

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- and this report from the Korean Central News Agency that an American was detained on Monday crossing from the Chinese border?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we’ve asked our protecting power, Sweden, to inquire of the DPRK about this report. It’s obviously something we take seriously. At this point, we haven’t got any specific information to confirm that, but it is entirely possible.

QUESTION: Is it also possible that it’s a reference to the previous case of --

MR. CROWLEY: Our current thinking is probably not, but --

QUESTION: Based on what?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we think – I mean, there’s been a report of a recent indication that perhaps an American citizen has crossed into North Korea and has been detained, and we are looking into it. We’ve asked the Swedes to – and they’ve sent a note into the North Korean Government seeking additional information.

QUESTION: Was that indication from – sorry. Is the indication – you’re basing it just on the Korean news report, or you have other indicators?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think at this point we take the report very seriously. We have looked into it. Have we got confirmation yet? No. But --

QUESTION: But you seem to suggest that you had some indication, based other than on the Korean report. Is that --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think right now we’re operating on the assumption that it’s entirely possible that we have a second American citizen detained in North Korea, in addition to Robert Park. On Mr. Park, we continue to seek consular access to him through our protecting power in Pyongyang. And like we say, if this report is verified, we would seek the same access to a second American citizen, should that be the case.

QUESTION: I understand you probably won’t want to get into the person’s identity, but do you actually have a sense of who this person might be yet?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Do you have anything you want to say?

MR. CROWLEY: No, I mean, it always – we do not have specific confirmation. We’re taking this seriously. And should we be able to verify that a second American citizen is being detained in North Korea, we would seek consular access urgently and immediately so that we can determine who it is and verify his condition.

QUESTION: Is your message not getting out to Americans who may be contemplating crossing over the border?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know. I mean, obviously, we don’t know the circumstances of this particular report, but we do take it very seriously.

QUESTION: On North Korea again, as you know, North Korean coastal artillery has fired continued toward the South Korean territorial coast. And in the meantime, North Korea has proposed United Nations command to resume search for U.S. soldiers’ remains. Can you tell us what North Koreans’ true intentions would be?

MR. CROWLEY: As to what North Korea’s intentions may be at any particular time, who knows? We’ve seen provocative actions in the past. We always have concerns about this. As to why they enter into provocative actions at one point, a so-called charm offensive at another point, we don’t know. We don’t know what they’re thinking. We do know what they should be doing, which is to return to the Six-Party process. And through the Six-Party process, there’s the potential to address and resolve any number of issues. First and foremost among them is for North Korea to take affirmative steps towards denuclearization.

But as to issues regarding concerns that North Korea may have, obviously we have longstanding issues and have sought cooperation from North Korea over decades to determine the fate of American soldiers from the Korean War. But there’s a great deal of potential here, but North Korea has to take the first step. It has to commit to this process, commit to its prior obligations. With that, lots of other things become possible. But we continue to consult closely with our counterparts in South Korea on the current situation. We remain concerned that – about any provocative actions that North Korea’s been taking and – but we remain adamant that, at this point in time, what North Korea needs to do is commit to come back to the Six-Party process and to meet its obligations.

QUESTION: That’s maybe – this is speculation for the true hidden intentions of North Korea is to get a peace treaty with the United States.

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, North Korea has a history, when confronted with a straightforward but difficult decision, of taking any number of actions to try to hide the ball. The ball is in their court. What North Korea needs to do is clear. We’ve communicated that directly. Our counterparts in the Six-Party process have sent the same message to North Korea. The fundamental issue remains – what is North Korea prepared to do?

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on (inaudible) part of her question?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: I didn’t quite follow your answer when it – regarding her question on the North Koreans’ interest in resuming U.S. participation in the search for remains from the war. Is that something you – I mean, the U.S. unilaterally cut that off a couple of years ago. Are you interested in resuming it, or is it part of the Six-Party --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think, as we’ve made clear, our foremost interest right now is to get North Korea back into the Six-Party process to address the obligations that they have previously committed to regarding denuclearization. We know there are a large number of issues regarding – in the bilateral context. We think there’s an opportunity to address those inside the Six-Party process once it resumes. From our standpoint, we do have an interest in resolving outstanding MIA cases. In the case of North Korea, it has expressed an interest in pursuing a peace agreement.

All of these things are possible. But first and foremost, we need to see North Korea back in the Six-Party process. We think that’s the right framework for any number of issues to be addressed.

QUESTION: So it seems like you’re not really interested, at least for the moment, in pursuing the search for MIA remains, that coming back to the Six-Party Talks has to happen first.

MR. CROWLEY: We have a lot of bilateral issues. We’re willing to address those bilateral issues. But first and foremost, our concerns are to get North Korea back in the Six-Party process.

QUESTION: The previous position was that this was a humanitarian issue and should be separate from the nuclear issue.

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, it is.

QUESTION: And not --

MR. CROWLEY: But right now, our focus is on getting North Korea to roll back its nuclear program. That’s where our emphasis is. We would entertain having a bilateral dialogue on issues of concern to us, issues of concern to them. But at the present time, what we want to see North Korea do is make a commitment back to the Six-Party process.

QUESTION: On another area?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: On Cuba, the restarting of immigration talks. I think it’s an agreement has been reached.

MR. CROWLEY: I have nothing to announce.

QUESTION: No? And about this person who’s been detained in Cuba, I think there has been some talk about with the Cuban Government.

MR. CROWLEY: I – that’s a – I don’t know where we stand on that particular issue, whether we’ve had consular access recently or not. I’m not aware that we have.

QUESTION: Do you have details of the Secretary’s meeting with the Chinese foreign minister and was Google issue – it came up in the talks?

MR. CROWLEY: The Secretary addressed that in her press event afterwards. She did bring up the Google incident. She characterized it as being a detailed and positive discussion and something that we will continue to discuss with China within the context of our broader relationship.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: President Obama talked about stronger sanctions on North Korea last night. Do you have any specific plans for that?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Clearly, the fact the President included North Korea in the foreign policy portion of his State of the Union speech, as he did in the context of Iran and our efforts on arms control and nonproliferation, it emphasizes the importance that we attach to this issue. We’ve made engagement with North Korea something – a priority during the course of the past year. We’ve reached out to North Korea. We’ve given them what we think is a compelling rationale for why heeding the will of the international community and understanding the unity with which all of the parties in the Six-Party process attach to this issue.

This is in North Korea’s interest. It is in their interest and they have the opportunity – they control their own destiny. They have the opportunity to end their isolation. They have the opportunity to have international cooperation, international support that would result in improved standards of living for their people. All they have to do is to understand that by giving up nuclear weapons, by ending their isolation, that this would be very good for North Korea in the long run. But as to why they continue to hold out, that’s always the $64,000 question and something of a mystery.

Samir.

QUESTION: How come the President didn’t mention the Middle East peace process in the speech or the Middle East?

MR. CROWLEY: I would say that he – it is a priority. It’s a commitment that we’ve made from the outset. I think he did talk last night about the importance that we’ve attached to engagement on a wide range of issues. So whether it was explicit or not, I think it was implicit in his words that we are working aggressively with our partners around the world on a range of issues. The Middle East peace process is one and the meetings that the Secretary had on the margins of the Afghanistan conference today reinforces the importance that we attach to Middle East peace.

But this is one of a number of issues, whether its climate change, which he mentioned, whether it’s Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he mentioned, the fact that the Secretary is there, committed to working with international partners on progress in Yemen, on our strategy with respect to Afghanistan. We are committed to resolving the sources of conflict that impede the world from moving forward in a peaceful and prosperous way.

So there were a number of issues that he talked about directly. It was a 71-minute speech. So in any State of the Union address, you address many priorities; you don’t necessarily present a comprehensive list.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: A question on Burma. ISIS has come out with a report today about Burma’s nuclear ambition and it also reports some construction activities going on near Mandalay, which could be a possible nuclear reactor site. Are you – do you have any statement about --

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not familiar with that particular report. We – in our discussions with Burma, we do have concerns about certain activity and the potential – that risks to the global nonproliferation agenda. I’ll be happy to – why don’t you ask me again and we’ll see what we can find out about the report.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: The – I know the White House addressed this just momentarily, just a few moments ago, but on Iran, there’s some executions of people involved in the recent political demonstrations. How does the State Department feel about this in terms of moving forward? The President, of course, has reached out to Iran on the nuclear issue. How would this affect U.S. diplomacy moving forward?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we pursue engagement with Iran and diplomacy because it is in our national interest to do so. We have an outstretched hand to Iran because we want to see Iran play a constructive role in the region. We want to see Iran have a different kind of relationship with its own people. So we are going to continue our efforts with respect to Iran, both to be willing to engage, but also be willing to apply pressure to Iran because of – we recognize the seriousness of the nuclear issue, for example, and we recognize that Iran’s isolation is not in the region’s long-term interest.

At the same time, we will continue to speak out on Iran regarding their relation with their people and what we see as serious human rights concerns and abuses. From what we can tell, it’s unclear that these individuals had anything to do with the turmoil surrounding the elections last year. We’re – and this – we think this is another sign of the increasingly ruthless repression and attempts at intimidation that we see the Iranian Government trying to send signals to its people. We think they’re the wrong signals because Iranian citizens have the same right that all citizens have to demonstrate peacefully, to participate in the political process. And this remains a concern and this – we believe that Iran should change course and respect the rights of its own citizens.

QUESTION: On a somewhat related note, on the note of executions, there were a few death sentences handed out in the past week in China in the Xinjiang region regarding the ethnic violence last year. Is there anything that the State Department has to say about that in terms of --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we – it’s unfortunate that in the course of the judicial processes on these cases, we had requested permission to observe the trials; that was not granted. It’s hard to comment on the specific merits of the case without having been in the courtroom to observe firsthand. But we continue to urge China to handle their detention and judicial processes in a more transparent manner.

QUESTION: On Sri Lanka, do you have any further update on the elections there and on the conflict between the opposition leader and President-elect Rajapaksa?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we note that the election commissioner has certified the election results. I think there’s been a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Colombo congratulating President Rajapaksa on his victory. We are watching carefully and we have been in touch with General Fonseka regarding the security around him. But we think that President Rajapaksa now has an opportunity to continue to move forward with the political reconciliation process that he has started, the devolution of responsibility to the provinces, and to continue to work on full accountability of the – of what happened at the – as the conflict with the Tamil Tigers was finalized.

QUESTION: What do you expect from him during the political reconciliation process that you are pushing for?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, he has taken some steps, and we welcome those steps. But obviously, now the election itself was a step forward. This is the first national election that Sri Lanka has been able to hold in, I think, 20 years. The turnout was very significant, although we recognize not necessarily as large in certain parts of the country. So with this election comes an opportunity to continue to work to heal the breach that exists within Sri Lankan society. So with his election comes increased responsibility and we’ll continue to work with him on that.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, you mentioned that the U.S. has been in contact with General Fonseka. What are the nature of those contacts? Are there concerns about his safety in Sri Lanka?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, he had expressed public concerns and I think the Embassy reached out to him and just remain – we’ll remain in contact with him to clarify what his future intentions are and to be helpful if that’s appropriate.

QUESTION: He has U.S. residency, doesn’t he?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, he does.

QUESTION: Sorry, very quickly on climate change, the U.S. Government is supposed to inform the IPCC about their emission target reductions by the end of the month. Has that happened yet? Is it happening tomorrow? Or will that be --

MR. CROWLEY: That’s a very good question. Let me find out what we can. We obviously support this process, and Todd Stern is working hard on national steps that follow up. I think the Secretary had the opportunity to talk about climate change with Foreign Minister Yang earlier today in London, but we think that it’s now time for individual countries to demonstrate their commitment to the Copenhagen accord.

And obviously, we will continue to work not only to clarify the nature of our commitment; we obviously want to see it. And the President mentioned last night our ongoing commitment to domestic legislation regarding climate change. But I’ll take the question as to if the United States has to take a specific step and we haven’t done that yet.

QUESTION: On Iran, P.J., is there going to be a P-5+1 conference call on next steps toward Iran, notably sanctions, this week?

MR. CROWLEY: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Have you checked? Is it that you just don’t know or you’ve checked and --

MR. CROWLEY: I have checked.

QUESTION: And you have no reason to believe that there is one, or you --

MR. CROWLEY: Correct. Well, I mean, as to next steps, as the Secretary outlined today, we will continue our consultations on the track that we’re on. We regret that in light of the – Iran’s inability to respond to our offer of dialogue and specific proposals that we’ve made, that we are looking at what should be done on the pressure of the sanctions track. We will continue to work with our partners and put forward ideas in the coming weeks. But as to a particular next step this week, I think that report is not correct.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can you give us any more details on what the United States is doing to cooperate with Haiti to protect children at risk? I didn’t quite understand when you said we’re affirmatively putting people in place. Does that mean more U.S. officials are going to --

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure – I don’t think I said quite that. I mean, we have people who are working here in Washington. We do have people who are working already on the ground. We have an office here in Washington to – that is focused on Haiti. But we’re – UNICEF is in the lead, but we will work to supplement their efforts to combat child trafficking. Part of this will be simply informing those who are – NGOs in particular who are deeply – faith-based groups who are deeply engaged in the recovery effort in China – I mean, in Haiti to be on the lookout for signs that there may be trafficking going on.

In this kind of situation with many, many children, additional children, orphaned, separated from their families, there is this danger. And we’ve seen some small signs of these dangers emerging, and that’s why we’re committing people here, working with people there to try to strengthen Haiti’s ability to combat trafficking of children and others.

QUESTION: P.J., I should have – before I asked you on this topic whether you were aware of any children having been trafficked to the United States and you said that no, you were not aware of any – and I should have asked you, are you aware – and you just said small signs, but are you aware of any Haitian children since the earthquake being trafficked anywhere either outside the country or within the country?

MR. CROWLEY: I am not aware. I mean, part of – there has – if you go back in Haiti pre-earthquake, we had already been working closely with Haitian officials, working with a special unit within their national police, because there is – there has always – there has been – there have been cases in Haiti, the so-called restaveks --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. CROWLEY: -- where children are moved into domestic situations with wealthier families and they’re supposed to be able to go to school, but in essence --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. CROWLEY: -- it becomes involuntary servitude. So I think we – knowing that we have some experience in Haiti, this is another area where we are trying to make sure that working with the Haitian Government, working with UNICEF, working with our nongovernmental partners, we want to make sure that we are attuned to any signs that this would become a growing problem.

But I think we’re worried about the potential and – I mean, I’ll – if you’re interested in this, I’ll put you in touch with our – with Ambassador de Baca and we’ll get some more substance for you.

QUESTION: Can I ask just a different one?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: We asked if there were any cases of anybody actually bringing a Haitian child, trafficking them to the U.S. Have there been attempted cases of bringing them to the U.S.?

MR. CROWLEY: Let me take the question just to see if we have any early indications of specific cases so far.

QUESTION: And please, just to clarify, when you were giving us the latest numbers from Haiti, you said that 21 additional orphans had been processed for parole. Is that how you phrased that?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. And --

QUESTION: So the total number was what?

MR. CROWLEY: We’re still in the range of 500.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:17 p.m.)

Daily Appointments Schedule for January 28, 2010

Washington, DC

January 28, 2010

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON

ON FOREIGN TRAVEL


THERE WILL BE A DAILY PRESS BRIEFING AT APPROXIMATELY 1:00 PM WITH ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS P.J. CROWLEY

Briefing by Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs

Washington, DC

January 27, 2010

MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon and happy State of the Union day. The Secretary, I think, as we speak, is probably doing a press availability following the Yemen meeting before she heads to St. James Palace for a reception in honor of the Afghanistan conference, I believe hosted by Prince Charles. But after she arrived this morning in London, she’s had bilaterals with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, Indonesian Foreign Minister Natalegawa and Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu, prior to the Yemen meeting. And later on this evening after joining a dinner hosted by Foreign Secretary Miliband, she will have an extended meeting with Afghan President Karzai.

QUESTION: Wasn’t she supposed to see – do some bilats with some Arab foreign ministers?

MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t rule out that there might be some additional activity tomorrow, but that’s what she’s done today. And in these meetings, she probably had a number of informal conversations with the various participants in the Yemen meeting.

Regarding the current situation in Peru, I can report that right now, as of late morning, there are no air operations ongoing due to bad weather. Our latest information is that there are still about 200 American citizens around Aguas Calientes.

MR. TONER: That’s right, yeah.

MR. CROWLEY: And – but we continue to have U.S. helicopters in the area as well as Peruvian helicopters, and the rail link is down due to the conditions that we will continue to work at the first opportunity to continue to bring U.S. and other citizens down from the mountain.

On Haiti, not a lot to report today, but our confirmed number of U.S. fatalities has risen to 75.

QUESTION: Can you give the kind of a breakdown that you gave yesterday, P.J.?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Let me come back to it.

And just – last thing just to point out before we go to your questions. Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson has left for a trip to the region. He is in Madrid today joining EU representatives to discuss African matters, and then will move on to – will be in Addis Ababa for the --

QUESTION: African Union.

MR. CROWLEY: -- African Union summit, and then he’ll stop in four countries in West Africa in days after that, including Accra; Lome, Togo; Cotonou, Benin; and Lagos and Abuja, Nigeria before coming back to Washington in about 10 days’ time.

Okay, back to Haiti.

QUESTION: Can you just give us a rundown? Yesterday, you’d given confirmed American fatalities, and then you had additionally given – yesterday was 60, the 56 private citizens and the four officials --

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and then 37 that were presumed to be American, but not yet confirmed.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. We have 71 private citizen fatalities, four U.S. Government official, which includes family member fatalities. So – and some from the suspected – obviously, we’ve confirmed in the last 24 hours, so the overall number has not changed, actually.

QUESTION: So and --

QUESTION: What is it?

MR. CROWLEY: So still talking 97.

QUESTION: Okay, got it. So another 22 are suspected but not confirmed?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah, right.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CROWLEY: And we’ve evacuated 12,636 Americans and family members. I think the --

QUESTION: So if an American had – has children who are not American, they came with – is that the idea?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, yes. Yeah. Or – say that again?

QUESTION: Well, you said – you said they weren’t all Americans.

MR. CROWLEY: Right.

QUESTION: And so they – if you are an American citizen but you have children in Haiti who are not citizens --

MR. CROWLEY: And I was – right. And then the opposite is true. If you are a U.S. child who is an American citizen, you can have somebody --

QUESTION: A parent can come.

MR. CROWLEY: A parent can come escort – or a relative, whether an American citizen or – in some cases, who may not be American citizens.

QUESTION: Can I change the topic or --

QUESTION: Can I ask about the orphans?

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Has that number changed at all from the 500 yesterday?

MR. CROWLEY: It’s still about – no, it’s still about 500. Six hundred and sixty-one Haitians have been given humanitarian or medical paroles. That’s a little bit higher than yesterday.

QUESTION: Those aren’t kids?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Have they – 661 are here?

MR. CROWLEY: 661 that’s likely, yeah, to be here. If they aren’t here, they’re coming here.

QUESTION: And the 500 kids, how many of those are going to stay in the United States? You said several hundred yesterday.

MR. CROWLEY: I think the majority – the vast majority will stay in the United States, I think. In one of the early missions, there were some that we were bringing back who were actually going to be transiting to other countries.

QUESTION: And just to follow on that, do you think the agreement that you made with the Haitian Government whereby they have to prove every child might slow down the progress on processing these adoptees?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, in many cases the – let me clarify. There is a process where we’re working with the Haitian Government as part of, say, an adoption process. The Haitian Government has to agree that this child is eligible to be adopted. What the Haitian Government wants to continue to track is that as we are working children through the process as quickly and as transparently as possible, they simply want to know, in fact, when these movements are taking place. So – but the – it’s not like a senior official is (inaudible). There is a – there’s a process. We’re working very collaboratively with the Haitian Government.

I think – I mean, it is – we respect the sovereignty of Haiti, and it is their right to control the departure of Haitian children. So we think the system is – that has been established is working effectively. And we – I know there’s a perception out there that – cut through the red tape. But there are very good reasons why we want to make sure that this process works well. We want to be sure that when a child is identified that due diligence has been done to make sure that this is truly an orphan child and not a child that actually has family. So sometimes if you push too hard, too fast, there can be unintended consequences on the other side of this.

So we’re being very, very careful. We’re working closely with the Haitian Government. And we think it’s a system that is working to everyone’s advantage.

QUESTION: On a different topic, the election in Sri Lanka.

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Just in terms of how the U.S. perceives it, there’s some allegations about the opposition candidate (inaudible) about the legitimacy of it. Just in terms of what the U.S. sees and how it sees going forward with Sri Lanka?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I think it’s important to recognize that this was the first nationwide election in decades. I think, as we talked about yesterday, participation was high, the process was generally peaceful. Obviously, there were incidents of violence that we are very aware of. I think it is – it’s remarkable when you consider what Sri Lanka has come through recently. And there is a process for resolving electoral disputes. We’re obviously aware that there have been claims of victory and counterclaims.

As far as we know, the Independent Election Commissioner has not ruled yet. So we will wait to see what – and have further comment when the election results are finalized.

QUESTION: On North Korea, do you have any comment on the artillery exchange between the two Koreas (inaudible)?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I think – we’re aware of it. And the declaration by North Korea of a “no sail zone” and the live firing of artillery are provocative actions and, as such, are not helpful.

QUESTION: Can we go to --

QUESTION: Do you think it’s posturing before the next round of talks or is there any --

MR. CROWLEY: Who knows?

QUESTION: Do you think the change of gunfire is aimed at showing their resolution to seek a peace treaty?

MR. CROWLEY: I have no idea.

QUESTION: Just one more on North Korea. This week, Japanese newspaper Yomiuri reported that State Department is going to issue a visa for Ambassador Kim Kye Gwan and Philharmonic – North Korean philharmonic. Additional information?

MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t rule out further meetings at some point, but I’ve got nothing to announce.

QUESTION: Why would you – you know, when the New York Philharmonic went to Pyongyang, I don’t think Chris Hill went with it.

MR. CROWLEY: Then maybe I misunderstood the question.

QUESTION: The question was that you were – that there’s a Japanese newspaper report that the United States plans to give visas to Kim Kye Gwan, North Korea’s main nuclear negotiator, and the North Korean philharmonic.

MR. CROWLEY: I do not know. I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: Okay. Can we go to Afghanistan?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you shed some light on what is the Administration’s position, not merely on trying to peel away the Taliban foot soldiers, but also on trying to perhaps bring about some kind of a political reconciliation with more senior Taliban officials?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we support the efforts at reintegration. They’re aimed at stabilizing local areas and they’re focused on low- and mid-level insurgent fighters and commanders who are not committed to an extremist ideology and who are prepared to cease their support for insurgent activity. This is an Afghan-led process and it will require strong political and financial support from the international community. And we’re aware that small-scale reintegration efforts are now underway. Reconciliation is a different animal, and it refers to potential Afghan political arrangements with senior Taliban leaders.

We support Afghan Government’s interest in reaching out to any insurgent group that accepts the Afghan constitution, renounces violence, and publicly breaks with extremist groups like al-Qaida. We’re – while we’re willing to assist in such efforts, the United States is not currently in any discussion. This, again, would be an Afghan-led initiative. I think the conference tomorrow will, I think, focus primarily on reintegration. I think it’s premature to talk about reconciliation, among other reasons because I don’t think there’s any indication on the ground that senior Taliban or other leaders affiliated with al-Qaida have changed their views at this point.

QUESTION: But to go to that point of changing their views, I mean, your stated policy about reconciliation suggests that if Mullah Omar changed his spots, that that would be – you know, and decided that he would distance himself from extremists and so on, notwithstanding the fact that I think he has a price on his head from the U.S. Government, but that that would be acceptable to you, that bringing somebody like that back in is fine as long as they change their previously held views and associations.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think we’re going to talk to Afghanistan about this. I think we recognize that success in the long term in Afghanistan will require military steps and political steps and economic steps. So those are all fundamental tenets of a successful counterinsurgency strategy.

We – in any kind of discussion on these issues, there will be – the conditions that I mentioned a minute ago do matter. What precisely are these senior officials willing to do? Are they going to be public and demonstrative in their suggestion that they and their potential followers should renounce violence? If they are willing to join into the political process, what do they bring into the process? If they bring the kind of divisive views that split Afghanistan in the ‘90s and set about to specifically exclude full rights for women or other ethnic groups in Afghanistan, then perhaps that will be something that has to be evaluated as part of this process. So a lot will depend on the particulars as we go through this.

But in general terms, reconciling with those who are part of the insurgency can work. It did work in Iraq. It can work in Afghanistan. But it will depend – but the details will matter.

QUESTION: But you --

MR. CROWLEY: I just want to note that for those that want to listen to the Secretary, her press avail is happening now.

QUESTION: Even with people whom the U.S. Government has held responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens? I mean, you well recall President Bush’s --

MR. CROWLEY: Again --

QUESTION: -- either you’re with us or you’re against us.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Those who harbor al-Qaida, you know, we shall oppose.

MR. CROWLEY: I think – I mean, there’s – I think there’s broad agreement that reconciliation is a potential tool and a valuable one in bringing an end to the ongoing conflict. But our support for that concept is not unconditional, and it will have to be applied in particular ways. And in doing – in any kind of negotiation, what is the level of the commitment and what are the ramifications, not only for Afghanistan but for the global fight against political extremism? So --

QUESTION: Just one for me on this. I mean, there is a perception abroad, I think, that you’re looking at this strategy because you’ve concluded that you can’t win this militarily and because you want to get out starting next summer, begin to draw down, as the President said. Can you address that belief?

MR. CROWLEY: That’s nonsense. I mean, anyone who has studied the history of insurgencies and counterinsurgencies will see that ultimately, while military action is important and can be decisive, by itself, it is generally not sufficient to end an insurgency. General McChrystal has said that, other military leaders have said that. So we are following a – our strategy which is – which we think offers the greatest potential to help Afghanistan overcome the conflict that is – it is – afflicting it. And recognizing that that – that this doesn’t require – this requires action inside Afghanistan. It also requires corresponding action next door in Pakistan. So I think it’s not a valid criticism. We are committed to Afghanistan for the long term. We are not getting out of Afghanistan. As the President has laid out, we will – a strategy will evolve over time to increase its reliance on the civilian side of the strategy as we continue to build up the capabilities of the Afghan national security forces.

But we’re – the United States is not going anywhere. We have troops there now. In future years, as outlined by the President, we will progressively have fewer troops and more civilians. That’s also precisely what’s happening in Iraq as we enter into 2010 and, following the election in Iraq, we will begin a determined shift from a strategy based largely on military action to a strategy based on more civilian actions. So we are following precisely the strategy that the President outlined last March and then last month, and this involves multiple tenets – military action, political action, and development to overcome the insurgency in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Why shouldn’t Americans see reconciliation with senior elements of the Taliban as dealing with the devil?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, again, the Taliban is a multi-headed organization. We are concentrating on trying to erode the support that they have in certain places – certain parts of Afghanistan and in certain parts of the tribal areas. If we can diminish their military capabilities, so to speak, then we – and with the additional military resources we are bringing into Afghanistan, we hope to turn the tide so that the leaders of the insurgency feel some pressure.

If you look at the history of Afghanistan, there are plenty of examples where different factions have changed sides multiple times during the history of the Afghanistan conflict going back more than 20 years. So this is precisely having a political way out for certain leaders that we think are prepared and can play a constructive role in Afghanistan’s future. Certainly not everyone will be on that list. And certainly, by every indication, not everyone wants to be on that list. There’s no indication that certain leaders are prepared to give up the fight. And if they’re not willing to give up the fight through a political process, then we are bringing into the country more significant military forces that will address their – that challenge a different way.

QUESTION: Can I ask – a different topic?

QUESTION: Afghanistan -- Afghanistan, sir? Last year, (inaudible) tripartite meetings between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and U.S. There were two meetings last year. Last one was in June and July, I believe, but there has been no meeting so far. So you have given up that part or --

MR. CROWLEY: I think we will have the similar kinds of meetings this year. I think we’re still working through our scheduling and with our partners, so I’ve got nothing particular to announce at this point. But we will continue to have that dialogue. It’s very important, very – and very productive.

QUESTION: And how do you view Turkey taking the lead in organizing meetings between Afghan and Pakistan leaders and other regional powers this week? This -- ?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. I mean, Turkey as a key member of NATO and the – and ISAF play a unique and important role. And the Secretary, in her – she had a relatively brief meeting with Prime Minister – or Foreign Minister Davutoglu today. It was primarily on the situation in Turkey and Armenia, but it also touched on Afghanistan and Iran.

QUESTION: Different topic. Can we go back to Peru? Who are those people? Do we have any details about the Americans? And yesterday it was 400 and today, it’s 200. Is that just a refinement?

MR. CROWLEY: I think it might be 400 who are in the region, but 200 that we think are in this particular part where the evacuations are taking place.

QUESTION: And do they have enough – do they have shelter and food and water?

MR. CROWLEY: I think for the moment, I don’t think they are at any particular risk. But obviously, we want – as the – when the weather clears, we want to get them down as rapidly as possible.

QUESTION: So have some actually been taken out?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, about 50.

QUESTION: On helicopters?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, who are they? They’ve been – for the most part, as we understand it, they’ve been tourists who have been hiking on the Inca Trail.

QUESTION: Or taking the train?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: And are there U.S. Embassy officials on the ground with them to –

MR. CROWLEY: We have roughly 15 Embassy officials that are in the Cusco region who are trying to help out and working with Peruvian officials who are coordinating the relief effort.

QUESTION: But none at the foot of Machu Picchu, where the --

MR. CROWLEY: Again, sitting here, I can’t describe where they are.

QUESTION: May I ask another question (inaudible)? Any update from where you sit on closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo? In Brussels today, there was some conversation that the deadline for the Administration has been extended to the end of President Obama’s first term, so – at the end of this past year --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, I will defer to the White House on that particular item. I mean, the President remains determined to close Guantanamo. We think it is a – it sends precisely the wrong signal. It’s not rooted in our values. That said, here at the State Department, under the leadership of Ambassador Dan Fried, we continue our efforts to repatriate and resettle those detainees that we think can be moved, and we continue to be grateful to a variety of countries who have agreed to take detainees – I think most recently, Slovakia and Switzerland.

QUESTION: Have you given up on finding repatriation for the final 50? Apparently, there was some conversation about that today.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, there’s an interagency task force that continues to work through these issues in terms of who will be subject to trial, and whether they’ll come before civilian – into civilian courts before military tribunals. Again, I’ll defer to the Justice Department on that. Obviously, there’s a significant bloc of detainees from Yemen that will – is a key impediment to closing Guantanamo, and we continue to work through their cases on a case-by-case basis. But for the moment, their movement has been suspended.

QUESTION: How many have agreed to – how many have they agreed to take? At one point Switzerland agreed to take one.

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll defer to the Government of Switzerland. I mean, I think – I don’t have stuff in front of me on that. If you want to ask me that tomorrow, I’d be happy to answer it.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: If I’m not mistaken, I think for these 50, I thought that a conclusion had been reached that they could not be tried in civilian courts but were too dangerous to --

MR. CROWLEY: Again, these are – we are working as part of the interagency task force on this, working closely with our counterparts from the Justice Department. But in terms of exactly what will happen with these – this group, I’ll defer to Justice.

QUESTION: Just one question on that: How would it be consonant with American values to indefinitely detain people – even if it’s not at Guantanamo Bay; it’s someplace in Illinois – without trial?

MR. CROWLEY: Okay. I’ll defer to Justice.

QUESTION: P.J., you said – the State Department said yesterday that Senator Mitchell is going back to the Middle East soon. Is he going to relaunch the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis on the lower level?

MR. CROWLEY: Michel, as you know, in order to relaunch negotiations, you have to have “yes” from the Palestinians and the Israelis, and that’s what we continue to seek.

QUESTION: You didn’t get any answer from them after his trip?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we’re – we are still in discussions that we hope will eventually lead to negotiations, but we’re – we still have work to do.

QUESTION: Do you know when he’s going back? This weekend or --

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think it’s that quickly.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on the China/Google case, the China and Google internet freedom?

MR. CROWLEY: No change.

QUESTION: Do you have any plan to allow an exchange visit by North Korean orchestra?

MR. CROWLEY: I think I took that question already to find out if there are any details on this. I just don’t know.

QUESTION: One other thing.

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: In that part of – is it North Korea? Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Not North Korea, actually. On Taiwan’s arms sale, with the government note – make a notification to Congress, is your government going to announce that?

MR. CROWLEY: When we finish the notification process, then if we have something to announce, we’ll do so.

QUESTION: Is this Department going to do that, or –

MR. CROWLEY: I’m sure we’ll have something to say at the appropriate time.

QUESTION: Do you – on – yesterday, we had asked you for a readout of the Secretary’s meeting with Senator Webb, particularly whether it had any bearing on Burma.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. And since the meeting was one-on-one, we’re still trying to sort that out. I believe – I’m fairly confident that Burma was the primary issue of discussion. Actually, I have my colleagues in London who, at the appropriate time, will ask the Secretary exactly what they talked about.

QUESTION: Any plans for the next round of talks on Burma?

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: Any plans for the next round of talks on Burma? You have only one so far.

MR. CROWLEY: We have had multiple conversations with Burma. I assume we’ll continue the conversation, but I just don’t know in what form at this point.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on Robert Park in North Korea?

MR. CROWLEY: No update. We still seek to have consular access through our protective power.

QUESTION: Any update on Tibet, the China-Tibet talks?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you. Enjoy the State of the Union.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the State of the Union?

MR. CROWLEY: Huh?

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on it, on the State of the Union?

MR. CROWLEY: I think the –

QUESTION: A sound bite?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think the President will reflect on the progress that we’ve achieved in the first year, and we think it has been considerable. We’ve begun the hard work, under his leadership, of restoring America’s standing and leadership in the world. I think he’ll reflect on our current efforts in Afghanistan while bolstering our relationship with Pakistan, at the same time beginning the responsible drawdown of American combat troops in Iraq.

Again, I can’t – in terms of a history lesson, we were asking our historians to try to figure out when’s the last time a Secretary of State missed a State of the Union. It’s been a while; can’t put a particular year on it. But just to recap that, when the conflict came up between the Yemen and Afghanistan meetings in London, the Secretary immediately addressed this with the President and he made clear that given the importance of these issues, that her place tonight was in London rather than here in Washington.

And I think her presence in London reflects the fact that we have done a great deal over the past year to rebuild frayed alliances and recreate common cause in terms of fighting or solving crucial global issues, whether it, in this case, is the challenge of violent extremism which is manifested in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in other places, but also when you look back to issues of climate, energy, the global financial situation, hunger, and public health. So I think he’ll reflect on these challenges, but also the fundamental change that we think that has taken place in the past 12 months.

QUESTION: Will Deputy Secretary Steinberg take her place?

MR. CROWLEY: That’s a good question. I meant to ask that question this morning, and I don’t --

QUESTION: Can you do so?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. I’ll try to let you know.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Are we on the record again?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you foresee Secretary Clinton having any contact with her Chinese counterpart during her London trip?

MR. CROWLEY: Tell you what – if she does, I’ll let you know. Contact – I would be sure that there will be contact, but I don’t know whether it’ll be just a “Hi, how are you” or something more substantive.

QUESTION: But no bilateral (inaudible) with the Indian foreign minister?

MR. CROWLEY: Not to my knowledge, no.

QUESTION: Do you have any readout on the bilats that she had already today, notably the one with Foreign Minister Lavrov?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Great.

QUESTION: Are we still on the record?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure. I didn’t think we went off the record.

Yeah. It was about a 45-minute discussion with Foreign Minister Lavrov. They talked about Afghanistan and cooperation on overflight rights, equipment for the Afghan national security forces, ongoing cooperation on counternarcotics, which is a crucial issue to both countries. They did talk about START and reviewed the current state of negotiations which, as we said yesterday, will resume on Monday in Geneva.

They talked about Iran. I think there is a very strong convergence of views between the United States and Russia on the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The Secretary thanked Foreign Minister Lavrov for their donation of medical equipment, aircraft, and cash to the response in Haiti. And I think Foreign Minister Lavrov updated Secretary Clinton on the recent discussions that President Medvedev had with President Abbas.

QUESTION: How about – can you give us a readout on Turkey?

MR. CROWLEY: On Turkey, I think the primary topic was Turkey and Armenia. They did touch on Iran and Afghanistan. And you – actually, one of the more interesting discussions today, in the conversation with the foreign minister of Indonesia, the Secretary suggested that we try to put together experts from Indonesia that have obviously gone through a very significant and arduous recovery process following the tsunami and to see if there were lessons learned coming out of that experience that could be of value to Haiti going forward. So – thought that it would be useful to try to connect relevant Haitian and Indonesian officials in the – once the situation in Haiti stabilized.

QUESTION: And in the conversation on Iran with Foreign Minister Lavrov, did they discuss the details of possible sanctions, or did they not get into that level of granularity?

MR. CROWLEY: I wasn’t in the meeting, so I would suspect they did not get into that level of granularity. I think that’ll be worked at an expert level.

QUESTION: Do you think --

MR. CROWLEY: But I think clearly we are – in light of the current situation, we are moving down the pressure track, and at this point, I think we have little choice but to try to find – identify ways to apply additional pressure on Iran to reconsider its rejection of diplomatic efforts and to engage on the nuclear program.

QUESTION: President Obama is discussing North Korea tonight?

MR. CROWLEY: Let’s listen to the speech and then we’ll – but I’m sure, for example, in broader terms, the President will review the crucial initiatives that we’ve started in this first year. And paramount among them is the importance that we attach to arms control and nonproliferation. And so when you see the vision that he laid out in Prague, of a world without nuclear weapons, that obviously informs the urgency that we attach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and it’s why we continue to work aggressively with our partners in the Six-Party process to try to convince North Korea that its future – its best future lies with a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
So whether he mentions North Korea specifically, certainly – I expect he will have some thoughts in terms of the – what we’ve done in this – as part of this agenda in the first year, obviously demonstrating our willingness to engage Iran directly, putting forward what we thought was a fair proposal in terms of low-enriched uranium stocks that Iran both has and needs, our efforts on the Six-Party process, our ongoing negotiations with Russia on a future START treaty.

And, of course, this, in turn, will create momentum as we look towards the nuclear summit next month here in Washington, the NPT review conference that will follow in New York in May. So this is obviously a significant priority for the Obama Administration and I’m sure the President will mention this tonight.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you.

Daily Appointments Schedule for January 27, 2010

Washington, DC

January 27, 2010

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON

ON FOREIGN TRAVEL

THERE WILL NOT BE A DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary of State
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:48 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: I silenced the room – were that it were so. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Department of State. Just a few things to touch on before taking your questions.

The Secretary this afternoon will meet with Iraq Kurdistan Regional Government President Masoud Barzani, where she will reaffirm the strong U.S. support for and engagement with a secure, prosperous, and autonomous Kurdistan region with a united federal Iraq and laud the contribution of the Kurdistan Regional Government to Iraq’s development. Obviously, President Barzani had the opportunity to meet with President Obama yesterday.

Then the Secretary will depart early this evening for London and also Paris. Obviously, the first matter of business will be the meeting on Yemen to assist Yemen with its political and economic reform efforts. Then on to the conference on Afghanistan to review an agenda outlined by President Karzai in his November 19 inauguration speech and implementation of our strategy and support of Afghanistan’s security, governance, and development.

And then finally, the Secretary will move to Paris where she’ll have meetings with President Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Kouchner where they’ll talk about Haiti, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and she will also deliver a speech on European security.

Obviously, coming off the trip last week by National Security Advisor General Jones and Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, along with an interagency delegation that included Under Secretary Ellen Tauscher and Assistant Secretary Rose Gottemoeller, the negotiations on START will resume on Monday in Geneva. And negotiating teams for both the U.S. and the Russian side will convene and hopefully will arrive at a quality agreement that meets the needs and interests of both sides.

There is an Ethiopian investigation team currently on the ground in Lebanon, and they will be joined by an aviation investigator by the National Transportation Safety Board to assist the Government of Lebanon with the investigation of yesterday’s tragic airline crash. I think the USS Rampage is still in the vicinity trying to help out with the rescue-and-recovery effort.

This morning, a delegation from Washington, including Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela, his Principal Deputy Craig Kelly, and Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs Jose Fernandez departed Washington for Tegucigalpa where they will observe the inauguration of a new president in Honduras tomorrow.

And we are very grateful for the efforts of the Government of Peru in trying to help with the evacuation of American citizens near Machu Picchu, Peru. Actually, the Embassy has also dispatched four helicopters to Ollantaytambo, or Sacred Valley, to continue to try with the evacuation efforts. We have about an estimated 400 U.S. citizens there.

And with that, I’ll answer your questions.

QUESTION: All right. Can I just ask about the Peru thing? Who dispatched four helicopters?

MR. CROWLEY: The United States Embassy.

QUESTION: Why does the U.S. Embassy – is this for INL helicopters?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Right.

QUESTION: Can I ask about START?

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I think a couple days ago, you had mentioned that there had been some progress in the interim since the talks had stopped. Can you give us an update on how far along the talks have moved since the formal discussions ended in December?

MR. CROWLEY: We’ve had some informal follow-up discussions. Obviously, the delegation led by General Jones is part of that. I think we’ve had a productive interlude since the teams broke late last year. There’s still work to be done. Hard to make any predictions in terms of what a timeline is. But I think we’re reasonably optimistic that the finish line is within sight.

QUESTION: On a different – I understand that the Secretary – on her schedule, she was set to meet with Senator Webb today.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah, late this morning.

QUESTION: Sure. Just in terms of what was discussed, but the senator, of course, has been quite active on Burma. There have been noises coming out of Burma about a possible release of Aung San Suu Kyi, but potentially after this year’s election. Is that something the U.S. has been hearing? And if so, what would be the position on that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have had multiple conversations with Burma. We’ve made clear that from a U.S. policy standpoint, we’d like to see Burma open up its political process. They’ve got important elections occurring later this year. It’s important for the Government of Burma to reach out not only to those who wish to be politically active, but also to the various ethnic communities within Burma. And I think, as Kurt Campbell said here when he was with you last week, there is still work that Burma needs to do. I can’t really characterize what the meeting with Senator Webb was about, but I assume this was one of the issues discussed.

QUESTION: But is it remotely acceptable to the U.S. Government? I mean, if these reports are true and they quote, I think, the Burmese interior minister as having told several hundred people that Aung San Suu Kyi would be released when her sentence or term ends in November, is it remotely acceptable to you or the United States?

I mean, I guess you could see it as a step in the right direction that maybe she’s ultimately going to get released. On the other hand, presumably it would be after the elections and therefore, she would be denied her political rights. Is that suggestion remotely acceptable to the U.S. Government?

MR. CROWLEY: We have long demanded the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. We think that that should still be done and as quickly as possible. So I think the idea that her release will conveniently come after the election is unfortunate, but we will continue to press the Burmese Government for her release.

QUESTION: P.J., there’s a --

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can you hear me? There’s a lot of speculation across the pond that the Secretary is going to get involved more heavily in the Northern Ireland situation. I understand she’s made some calls. Can you tell us about those calls? And also, does she have any plans while she’s over there to deal with this issue at all?

MR. CROWLEY: It’s always possible.

QUESTION: What’s always possible?

MR. CROWLEY: She will be spending time with Prime Minister Brown. And she has discussed the current situation in – with the prime minister. The UK and Irish governments are facilitating talks between the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein, in addition to the other parties in Northern Ireland. We are closely following those discussions. We remain strongly supportive of Northern Ireland’s efforts to develop a strong, lasting, and prosperous peace, and believe that the full devolution of government authority to locally elected officials, including policing and justice powers, is an important aspect of this.

So she has been focused on these issues, even today, and I don’t know that they’ll come up during the course of the trip, but in the course of discussions that she’ll have with the British leaders, this might – could easily be discussed as one among many issues. But clearly, there’s been some progress made lately and we think it’s a vitally important opportunity for the leaders in Northern Ireland to complete this process.

QUESTION: Were there calls?

MR. CROWLEY: I believe she has talked to Prime Minister Brown today on this issue.

QUESTION: Can we just go back to Peru for a second? What are the circumstances of those 400 Americans? And are the Embassy choppers going in to take them out in small groups?

MR. CROWLEY: Clearly, I think these are difficult conditions. We’ve moved some Embassy personnel from Lima to the area as well to try to provide assistance to the Peruvian police and military authorities. There’s been some continuing bad weather and obviously, a limited number of helicopters. So we are obviously – we’re grateful for the efforts of the Peruvian authorities and we’re doing everything we can to help. And this is going to be – I have not been there, but I’m told on the one hand, it’s beautiful, and the other hand, it can be difficult terrain in this kind of weather. So we will get these people back to safety as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: And are the Americans still on the train? Where are they?

MR. CROWLEY: Hard for me to describe the current situation from here.

QUESTION: Are they in danger?

MR. CROWLEY: I think that we are – well, they’re in difficult circumstances, but I have nothing that leads me to believe that this can’t be successfully completed. It’s just going to take some time.

QUESTION: And do you know how many have been evacuated --

MR. CROWLEY: I do not.

QUESTION: -- Americans been evacuated so far?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: P.J., the Secretary had some very harsh words this morning about foreign criticism of the Haiti relief efforts. And minutes after she spoke, the Italian prime minister released a statement distancing himself from the remarks of his own safety chief two days ago. I wonder whether Italy was the country that the Secretary was talking about. And if not, which country was it? What media was she talking about when she was --

MR. CROWLEY: Start again?

QUESTION: -- when she said she’s resenting --

MR. CROWLEY: I didn’t catch the first part of your --

QUESTION: Oh, wondering whether Italy was the country that she meant when she said she resents the foreign criticism about the Haiti effort.

MR. CROWLEY: As you know, there have been a number of entities that have expressed their concern. All that we can say is that the effort over the last two weeks has been nothing short of extraordinary – very difficult conditions, very limited infrastructure in Haiti. We still have a lot of work to go. There’s still much greater requirement than there are assets on the ground, but every day, we keep on getting closer to the point where we can support and sustain the population of Haiti.

I think that those who would criticize may take for granted the infrastructure that we have in the West relative to the difficult infrastructure that exists in Haiti – and the fact is that not only are USAID personnel supported by other agencies of government and also the military and the international response. We’ve been working to find ways over the past two weeks to compensate, both in terms of exploiting the airport, repairing the ports, finding ways to bring additional equipment and material to help the people of Haiti, at the same time supporting and rescuing our own citizens.

So I’ll let the Secretary’s words stand on their own, but clearly, I would say there have been a number of figures that have pointed fingers and occasionally at our country as well.

QUESTION: Just to – can I just follow quickly just on a broader question? There was a lot of excitement around the world when the President was elected in 2008, particularly in Europe. And as we can see, there are still officials, senior officials in allied countries in Europe, who continue to criticize the United States, whether fairly or not. I wonder what that – you think that might say about the Administration’s relations with some allies.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, this has not been unique to this past year.

QUESTION: Right. I’m saying that it – that’s right. So I’m saying that it – one could argue that the trend of the eight years before the President was in office perhaps hasn’t discontinued.

MR. CROWLEY: Look, I think the engagement that we have undertaken over the past year has paid dividends. I think the – broadly speaking, many or most people around the world recognize the vital importance of U.S. leadership to solve issues – to resolve issues that are sometimes local or regional in nature and sometimes more global in nature. It is not to say that the election of President Obama by itself solved these challenges. The President himself has talked about the difficulty in dealing with all of these confounding issues – whether it’s climate change on the one hand, Middle East peace on the other hand – but we have shown our seriousness of purpose and our commitment to these issues. At any particular moment, you could take a snapshot and someone will say this is not right, that’s not right. We accept that, given our leadership position around the world.

But I think, on balance, we’re satisfied that we’ve improved significantly the standing of the United States in the world. We’re engaging a much broader range of countries than we have in the past. We’re seeking input from countries to work more cooperatively. You’ve heard the Secretary talk over and over again about the importance of partnerships among governments, among nongovernmental organizations, and partnerships between the American people and the people of the world.

So I think our efforts here are to try to establish a common purpose, and what she’ll do in London this week is obviously continue to collaborate closely on this issue, as we have on other issues, so that we move forward, try to solve these problems together rather than trying to suggest we can do it alone.

QUESTION: P.J. two brief things on that?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: One, you said those who would criticize may take for granted the infrastructure that we have here in the West. Do you see – notice a problem with that statement?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, you – for example, in our country, you had General Honore --

QUESTION: P.J., Haiti is in the west. That --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, in --

QUESTION: And a lot of people would say that the problem --

MR. CROWLEY: in the First World. As --

QUESTION: In the First World?

MR. CROWLEY: Let us say that.

QUESTION: All right.

MR. CROWLEY: What I meant was, for example, you have criticisms coming from Italy, occasionally from France. We’ve had General Honore in our own country, who has tried to draw an equivalence between our experience in New Orleans and the experience in Haiti, and the fact is you cannot compare the two. You can compare the experience in Italy and what was a very effective response to an earthquake in Italy last year.

The fact is that in countries like the United States, you have infrastructure, you have resources, you have the ability to respond rapidly and effectively. In the case of Katrina, you had a devastating storm, but that affected a relatively small part of the country. If you look at Haiti, a country that had limited infrastructure and capacity before the earthquake, you’re talking about a much more devastating punch that Haiti has taken. And we have responded effectively. We have responded rapidly. We are making progress. And we think that criticism is unfounded.

QUESTION: Okay. Now you’ve mentioned three – you’ve mentioned Italy, France, and General Honore. The Secretary talked about the international media criticism. Can you be more specific about that?

MR. CROWLEY: I cannot.

QUESTION: Can we --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, put it this way. I mean --

QUESTION: I’m talking about reporting. When a senior Italian official or a senior French official says something critical, it should be reported.

MR. CROWLEY: When you’re talking about international reporting, we have had – I’ve had direct conversations with our friends at Al Jazeera, for example. And we have spent some time critiquing what we felt was unfair, unbalanced coverage of operations in Haiti. So we will have those conversations where we think that coverage is unfair. Occasionally, we’ve had those conversations with CNN.

QUESTION: Have – that’s interesting to know. Does it extend beyond television?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m sure it does. I haven’t had those conversations yet.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. CROWLEY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Still on Haiti, can you update us on the numbers of Americans evacuated, Americans dead, Americans still not accounted for, orphans leaving for the United States, please?

MR. CROWLEY: I can. We’ve had a slight uptick in – tragically, in the casualty rate. At this moment, as of this morning, we have 60 confirmed American fatalities: 56 private, four U.S. Government. And we have another 37 fatalities that we have not yet confirmed their identities. So that brings you close to 100.

We have still roughly 4,000 or so files that we are pursuing where we have not yet been able to account – fully account for Americans there, but we’re approaching about 20,000 in terms of the number of Americans that we have been able to account for, either because we’ve had contact with them or because they’ve been evacuated or we’ve since had calls in so --

QUESTION: And that was about 20,000?

MR. CROWLEY: About 20,000.

QUESTION: Evacuations?

MR. CROWLEY: Evacuations, it’s been more than 12,000 -- 12,083, to be exact, as of 5 a.m. this morning.

QUESTION: Do you have the orphan numbers and –

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: The orphan numbers and the DHS status?

MR. CROWLEY: Orphan numbers were at 497 that have been evacuated to date. Another 629 Haitians have been paroled for a variety of reasons – medical, humanitarian, or other factors.

QUESTION: On the orphans, do you have the breakdown on how many of those received immigration visas and how many of those received humanitarian paroles?

MR. CROWLEY: No. No.

QUESTION: To go back to your complaints about the coverage for a second, is it --

MR. CROWLEY: I think on balance the coverage has been extraordinary.

QUESTION: Specifically, what was your problem with the coverage – that these outlets were reporting the criticism from foreign officials or that they were editorializing?

MR. CROWLEY: No, we – in one particular case, we thought that the reporting on the ground in Haiti was inflammatory.

QUESTION: How so?

MR. CROWLEY: It suggested there was a militarization of the effort. It compared military activities at the airport to a little Green Zone, as I will recall, in one particular instance. We thought that was inappropriate.

QUESTION: And that was CNN?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Would you say who that was with?

MR. CROWLEY: It was a conversation I had with officials at Al Jazeera, English channel. Back in the back.

QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait. Charlie – are you going to answer Charlie’s question?

QUESTION: What was your – what is your criticism of CNN coverage? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Let me --

QUESTION: Wait. It’s a serious question. (Laughter.)

MR. CROWLEY: I’m done on this subject.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. This is on London conference. I came late so I’m not aware if this was asked or not. What do you expect from the next two days, 28^th and 29^th, in London, where 63 countries are coming there and meeting on Afghanistan? And how is it different from the previous conferences?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, obviously, following up on developments late last year, we’ve refined our strategy in line of – in line with the President’s announcement and resource decisions last month and conversations that we’ve had with our international partners since then. So this conference is about further understanding what President Karzai plans to do as he continues to form his government. And it will be about reviewing various milestones and metrics that we are going to put in place so that we can, in fact, help the Afghan Government move forward with its ability to deliver services to its people.

I think there’ll be efforts in terms of how we are going to be better coordinated, particularly on the civilian side of this. We’ll have discussions and announcements regarding – of how we will more effectively work together from a UN standpoint, from a NATO standpoint, from a national standpoint. So it is about how can – what kinds of activities are we going to be looking at and how can we best support the Afghan Government. But at the same time, what are the mechanisms through which we’ll be able to evaluate this going forward and make sure that we can continue to see the Afghan Government meet its objectives, which significantly includes battling corruption and improving the capacity of their various ministries to deliver services, and then at the same time, how we will expand this effort not only across the national government but at the regional and local level as well.

QUESTION: Karzai has come out --

QUESTION: P.J., can I follow up?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: In terms of how President Karzai goes about this, he’s talked about bringing in some of the former Taliban, some people who might – how – can you talk about that and the so-called Taliban blacklist of people he might bring in? And what does the Administration have to say about those ideas?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think issues of reintegration will be discussed here, efforts to find – to work with those who might have been involved in the Taliban, not because they’re hardcore, fervent believers, but probably because at some stage, perhaps the Taliban paid more for those kinds of services. So we will be looking at how to set up a special fund to be able to support those who are committed to giving up violence. And I think that there will be discussions about a reconciliation strategy.

But as the Secretary said earlier this week, on the one hand, in any kind of counterinsurgency operation, you’ll have military solutions and political solutions. Working a political process will be an important part of this. But obviously, we have interests that we will be looking at once we hear ideas, and this will clearly have to be an Afghan-led process. But obviously, if you were to bring – to reconcile groups, you’ll want to know what is the impact that that has on the broader political process.

We would welcome a return by anyone who has committed to nonviolence to participate in the political process, but also those that espouse democratic principles that include the ability of all citizens, male and female, to be important contributors to society. We would not have – would not advocate the return of a group into a political process that is – that has as an agenda denying basic rights or healthcare to half of the population. So we will be talking through these kinds of strategies as part of this conference.

QUESTION: AP reported today that Obama officials --

MR. CROWLEY: And I’m sure if it was AP reporting, it’s brilliant reporting by the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: Exactly. (Laughter.) Well, they reported that the Obama Administration has notified Congress to go ahead on the Taiwan arms sales. Can you confirm these reports?

MR. CROWLEY: All I will say on that subject is the – is that we – the government will not – we will not comment on possible foreign military sales until formal congressional notification has taken place.

QUESTION: So does that imply that formal congressional notification has not taken place?

MR. CROWLEY: That implies that there’s no pot of golden words at the end of this rainbow until congressional notification has taken place.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s an account from some Belgians that they had knowledge or crossed paths with the American hikers in the prison in Iran and said that they feared for the welfare of the American hikers. What reaction do you have to this?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: And any update on your contacts?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we obviously – it’s one of the reasons why we have been concerned about the welfare of the hikers since they crossed into Iran. It’s why we have demanded consular access repeatedly of the Iranian Government. And unfortunately, we have not had consular access through our protecting power in three months.

What that tells us is that our three American citizens are potentially in deplorable conditions. It is outrageous that Iran refuses to abide by international standards and international agreements in terms of treatment of those who are in their care. And we continue – we will continue to press the Iranian Government so that we can see for ourselves what the conditions of our citizens are.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that --

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- Iran recently asked about whether there would be a reciprocal access to an Iranian who was in an American jail, and that TQ came out saying that the Iranians had, in fact, requested access. Do you know if access has since been granted?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll take that question. I think there was access requested in one particular instance. I just don’t know the status.

David.

QUESTION: So on Iran, there’s a report out today that the Iranians have asked the Swiss to, in turn, ask the United States to extradite members of a group – I think the group is called Tondar, T-o-n-d-a-r – and which is being blamed for the death of this Iranian scientist. What do you say?

MR. CROWLEY: I think allegations that a group in the United States is somehow responsible for an assassination in Iran is outrageous.

QUESTION: What? Really? There’s a bit of history here.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah, I think --

QUESTION: I mean, let’s go back to the ‘50s.

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: On North Korea?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: North Korea has yesterday declared no-sail zone to maritime area near the inter-Korean maritime border in the Yellow Sea. After that, South Korea military placed on high alerts. What do you think about North Korea intention?

MR. CROWLEY: We’ve heard that notice. I think we’re looking into it just to determine precisely what might be behind it. But obviously, in any kind of declaration like that, we would encourage restraint on both sides.

QUESTION: On the extradition request, I think you took a question yesterday about whether or when the Secretary has or might sign the extradition papers for Mr. Noriega to go to France. Anything on that?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. It is the case that the decision by the Supreme Court has been – the challenge to Mr. Noriega’s extradition has been resolved and the matter will go to the Secretary of State or her designee for a final decision as to whether or not to issue a surrender warrant. And she has not yet made a decision.

QUESTION: Am I correct that the law gives a 90 – excuse me, a 60-day period to make that evaluation?

MR. CROWLEY: That sounds right.

QUESTION: Sri Lanka had its first presidential elections yesterday after the defeat of LTTE. Do you have any readout on it? Do you think this was free and fair?

MR. CROWLEY: I think the – well, no – well, I think the polls have closed.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. CROWLEY: And I think we commend the people of Sri Lanka for a 72 percent turnout. That is something that is truly remarkable. And we will – I think we’ll have more to say after the election results are completed – are announced, I think, tomorrow.

QUESTION: They did get a better turnout in North Korea. (Laughter.) And they used to in Iraq.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s a – it’s been reported that --

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure it’s turnout. I think the results are --

QUESTION: Slanted?

QUESTION: Well, on Sri Lanka, there have been indications that the government might be trying to question the legitimacy of the opposition contender General Fonseka. Is there any concern about that?

MR. CROWLEY: I think, by all indications, it was a spirited election and we look forward for the results. There’s nothing that I have – I understand right now that would call into question the results, but let’s wait and see what they are.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Hold on. One more.

QUESTION: Have you heard a date on the talks between the special envoy of Dalai Lama in Tibet --

MR. CROWLEY: I think we released a statement on that last night. I have nothing to add to that.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:20 p.m.)

DPB # 13

# # #

Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:41 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: And just to continue on, I’ve got several announcements before taking your questions.

The Government of Canada is hosting a preparatory conference in Montreal on January 25^th. The meeting is not itself a donors conference regarding Haiti, but rather a preparatory meeting for an eventual donors conference. There’s not yet a date for the donors conference, but Secretary Clinton committed to her counterpart in Canada over the weekend that she plans to attend this meeting.

Special Envoy George Mitchell arrived in Beirut today. He will meet today with the foreign minister and have dinner with Prime Minister Hariri. Tomorrow, he meets with President Suleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri, and UN Special Representative for Lebanon Michael Williams. Later tomorrow, he travels to Damascus for meetings with President Asad and Foreign Minister Mualem. And then later tomorrow night, he travels to Israel where he will have meetings later in the week with Israelis and Palestinians, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. Obviously, his trip is part of our ongoing efforts to encourage both sides to return to negotiations as soon as possible to secure a lasting, comprehensive peace in the region.

Over the weekend, there were a couple of important elections around the world. We congratulate the Ukrainian people on the conduct of their January 17 presidential elections which the OSCE deemed to have been high quality, showing significant progress over previous elections. This is another significant demonstration of the development of democracy in Ukraine. The U.S. looks forward to free and fair runoff elections on February 7 and working with whomever the Ukrainians choose as their next president.

We also congratulate President-elect Sebastian Pinera on his election and we congratulate the Chilean people for another exemplary election process which illustrated, again, Chile’s enormous respect for democracy. And we look forward to continuing our strong bipartisan – I’m sorry, our strong bilateral partnership which will continue under President-elect Pinera’s government.

I’m sure you’ve got a number of questions on Haiti. The – our broad priorities for today are to continue to bolster security for in-country transportation and the distribution of emergency supplies. And we can see with each passing day that we are expanding the distribution network in and around Port-au-Prince. We continue to flow medical equipment and supplies into the country, along with food and water and material for shelter and eventual settlement support of affected populations. We continue to look at – very closely at the supplies of fuel and the condition in terms of sanitation and hygiene within the country. At the same time, the significant U.S. and international search-and-rescue teams continue to conduct activities throughout Port-au-Prince. We’re very gratified that to date, there have been 72 individuals that have been rescued, including 40 by the U.S. teams.

And as a testament of the generosity or ongoing generosity of the American people, in terms of the fundraising effort that we helped launch on behalf of the American Red Cross, that effort where people text “Haiti” to 90999, we now have more than 2 million contributors and have raised so far $23 million.

QUESTION: On Mitchell – I’m sorry I didn’t catch everything you said about Mitchell travel. That was from earlier. Could you just repeat that?

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm. He is in Beirut today.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. CROWLEY: He’ll be in Damascus tomorrow.

QUESTION: And who did you say he was meeting in Damascus?

MR. CROWLEY: President Asad --

QUESTION: That’s what I thought you said, okay.

MR. CROWLEY: -- and Foreign Minister Mualem and then continues on to Israel, where he’ll meet later in the week with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: On this, P.J, can I ask – obviously, his portfolio is the Middle East peace process and any negotiations that might start between the Palestinians and the Israelis, but do you expect him to stick to that general issue with the Syrians? Or do you think he might broach other subjects like perhaps terrorism, perhaps Iraq?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think we obviously have as a goal comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and Syria is – would be vital to achieving that objective. At the same time, whenever you have a high-level U.S. official in Damascus, it would be the opportunity to reflect on the current state of the U.S.-Syrian relationship. So it is primarily to continue our discussions on how we might make progress on the other tracks of the peace process in addition to the Israeli-Palestinian track, but I suspect that there will be other subjects discussed.

QUESTION: Can you give us numbers on the number of dead and missing Americans so far?

MR. CROWLEY: Missing Americans is much more difficult, but in terms of the current number, we still have roughly 27 confirmed U.S. fatalities.

QUESTION: Roughly 27?

MR. CROWLEY: (Inaudible) we have 27. I mean, there are some that – we have an additional number that are presumed dead, but we have – we’re still looking for specific confirmations.

QUESTION: Around 27?

MR. CROWLEY: Twenty-seven confirmed.

QUESTION: And how many are you looking – we heard 24 yesterday unconfirmed. Is that --

MR. CROWLEY: Something along those lines. I’m just – let me – I’ll see if I have this number here. I don’t see it in my book.

QUESTION: And P.J., that includes the --

QUESTION: And how --

QUESTION: Sorry, that includes the one official – U.S. fatality?

MR. CROWLEY: Actually, thank you, Arshad. We have the one U.S. Government official fatality and 27 private, and so a total of 28 so far.

QUESTION: And missing?

QUESTION: And missing?

MR. CROWLEY: Missing – I mean, we have – we still continue our efforts to try to determine the status of the roughly 45,000 American citizens. Most of them are dual citizens of the United States and Haiti. I think it’s safe to say that we have several thousand instances where people have provided information to us, and we’ve worked through a number of these cases that we were able to resolve. We have been able to evacuate 4,500 American citizens so far, so – but there are still substantial numbers of people for whom – either they have not contacted the Embassy, but we don’t have any information on their status at the present time.

QUESTION: And to follow up on adoptions, how are you doing in – serving in that? There have been large outcries from Americans who just don’t know where their child is. And what --

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, this has been one of our higher priorities since the earthquake occurred. We have a task force within Consular Affairs that is working specifically on the issue of adoptions, and obviously, tragically, we now have a number of people – a number of children who may well have lost their parents and other loved ones. Through the course of the past few days, we have been able to process and provide visas to 24 children who have moved back to the United States. Overnight, there was an additional movement of 53 or 54. I’ve heard both numbers. Now, in the plane that came back, it landed, I think, this morning in Pittsburgh, there are a number of those children who will stay in the United States, and there are some children on the plane who will continue on to other countries.

So in terms of – but that gives you an idea. But we’re working very closely with the Haitian Government. Obviously, as the earthquake hit, there were a number of children that were in the process of being adopted. Some of these cases were virtually completed and that represents those whom – for whom we have completed the process, received permission from the Haitian Government, and been able to bring to the United States. There are a number of cases that are pretty close to complete and we’re working with the Haitian Government and want to see those children moved to safety as rapidly as possible.

And obviously, we are working on a daily basis, on a continual basis with the orphanages and the Haitian Government, and this is something that is very important to try to move as many of these children as possible to --

QUESTION: Will there be anything considered like a Pedro Pan like they did in Cuba in the ‘60s? Because a lot of these children are in medical need, desperate medical need.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Is there any consideration of doing something like that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, and you heard from the Department of Homeland Security an announcement – in the last 24 hours, we’re granting humanitarian paroles so that children – and there already has been a movement of children to the United States, those that in particular are in need of medical care. So we are bending over backwards to try to protect and to – as many children as possible in Haiti and move those that we can to get medical attention or on to their adoptive parents.

QUESTION: On a related issue --

QUESTION: P.J., you said that there is --

MR. CROWLEY: Sure, all right.

QUESTION: You said that they’re – the – you said that they’re expanding distribution in Port-au-Prince. But there are continuing reports from the ground that the distribution of aid simply isn’t getting out, that there – it may be getting on the ground, but it’s not getting to people in Port-au-Prince and other areas. What is holding it up?

MR. CROWLEY: I actually don’t think that your characterization is true. If the – the issue remains the limited infrastructure that is inhibiting us from bringing more and more food, water, shelter into the country. But the assistance that is getting to the airport is flowing out to the people of Haiti. The challenge is that we are not yet at the level where we can sustain a population of 3 million people.

But we – every day, we’re making progress. Obviously, over the last 24 hours, you’ve had the arrival of the Marine amphibious group. That provides you several capabilities: one, another platform from which we can have helicopter flights into Port-au-Prince. With the Marines come manpower and vehicles, humvees so that now we can extend our reach into more sections of the city and the outlying areas. The helicopter lift is vitally important to that because we know that the population in Haiti is moving. And so we want to try to stay up with that flow. We’re looking and have been experimenting over the last couple of days at finding ways to be able to airdrop more supplies, particularly to the outlying areas, to help feed and provide water to as many people as possible.

So this is just an ongoing effort. As the Secretary said when she was in Haiti on Saturday, our objective is to make today better than yesterday and tomorrow better than today. And we are making that progress, but obviously we’re not at a point yet where we think we are at a sustainment level.

We are also bringing in lots of various kinds of water, collection and production and distribution capability, so that not only – we’re not relying solely on bottled water; we’re relying on ways in which we can provide substantial quantities of water to more of the population.

QUESTION: And just to be precise --

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- who exactly makes the determination for where this aid goes? Is that USAID or is it the UN overall? Who’s doing --

MR. CROWLEY: And the Government of Haiti, working collaboratively. As the Secretary talked to President Preval on Saturday, there was a joint communiqué that was released on Sunday, but it outlined – and we have put together additional mechanisms so that there is a coordination center in – at the airport so that collectively, we can identify, early in the day, where do we think the highest priorities are; the greatest need, where they might exist.

We have established – we being the UN, the United States, the Government of Haiti – four hubs around Haiti, and then from that, a couple hundred distribution points so that you’re just trying to expand this network every day so that more and more people are receiving assistance. We’re doing it not only in terms of direct deliveries; we’re turning it – we’re doing it in terms of working through NGOs and we’re finding other ways to – such as the air drops being done on a measured scale because there are – there is a risk that comes with air drops if the area is not secure.

I think another development today is the Coast Guard and the Navy continue to work on how we might be able to utilize port facilities. We are bringing in ships that can offload supplies without benefit of a pier. So once we have that, that will significantly expand the flow of material into Haiti. We also have established an operation in the Dominican Republic, in Santo Domingo, and are bringing more and more supplies overland from the DR to Haiti.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Yeah. Can we go back – you mentioned children and working to get injured children to the U.S. What about adults who are injured severely and who need transport to the U.S.? One, do they require visas? Is there any consideration being given to waiving that requirement if it is such? And we – there have been reports that severely injured adults have been refused or denied transfer to the U.S. for further medical help. Is that the case as you understand it?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, first of all, we are trying as best we can to bring more and more medical capability directly to Haiti – not only helping Haiti repair the existing hospitals – there are a number of field hospitals that we’ve established not only in the United States, but the international community as well. So we are trying to increase the medical infrastructure in Haiti so we can provide, in some cases, lifesaving and important medical assistance where these people are.

On a case-by-case basis, where people have urgent medical needs that cannot be met within country, we’re looking at these on a case-by-case basis. I can’t really give you any numbers as to how many times we’ve done that, but this is something that we will continue to work as aggressively as we can.

QUESTION: And as you work on a case-by-case basis, do they require a visa? Does a Haitian severely injured require a visa to evacuate them to the US?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, obviously, it would require some sort of permission from the United States to travel, whether it was a visa, whether it would be a humanitarian parole. And working closely with DHS, we’re identifying these cases and trying, where we can, to move them as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: P.J. --

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Bob.

QUESTION: -- piggybacking your point about the air drops --

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- the Secretary herself had said the other day that she wondered why, from the very beginning, they weren’t doing air drops. And she said the reason she was given was similar to the one you cited about security risks. What’s changed that makes it a more acceptable risk now that we --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, now that she – I mean, you have the MEU there with 2,000 Marines. You’ve got components of the 82^nd Airborne that are still – they might be, for the most part, off shore but still available to us. As you increase your manpower and your mobility, you’re able to go out and secure the drop zone so that as you’re able to bring in this food, water, shelter, you’ve got a mechanism in place on the ground where it can be securely delivered to people.

So, I mean, your networks and your colleagues on the ground have shown those examples where food has been dropped and there’s been a crush of people, understandably so, to be able to race to get to this material. We want to make sure that we’re delivering material in a way that doesn’t cause – create further injury. And so as we’re able to increase our manpower and expand the size of the network, then more and more, this becomes a viable option.

The other aspect, though, is – the value of air drops is because in some of those outlying areas where we still might not have all the roads cleared, it allows you to be able to provide some assistance in the outlying areas where people may be gravitating towards. So it also is something that we are looking at every day as we look at what’s the current situation on the ground, what’s the current need in different parts of the city and the outlying areas, and adapting our approach as we go along.

QUESTION: Are you saying this is being done only in areas that – where it has been secured in advance?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I’d probably be best to defer. You’re having a series of briefings and most of the operational information now is moving from here, and rightfully so, right down to Port-au-Prince. So in terms of specifically how it’s being done, I’ll defer to my colleagues on the ground in Port-au-Prince. But that remains something that we are looking at, and we continue to develop those operations as we think they make sense.

QUESTION: What did the State Department have to do to get those Haitian orphans on the flight last night – the Governor Rendell flight? Did they have all the paperwork they needed before they left Haiti?

MR. CROWLEY: In some cases, these were cases that were virtually complete. In other cases, working with the governor and his staff and the task force, not only here but on the ground in Port-au-Prince, we were able to process additional paperwork last night to be able to make that – the size of the group ending up at 53 or 54.

QUESTION: But they all had – did they have the visas and passports or just visas? What did they have to get?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, it might depend, because on that flight last night, you had people whose ultimate destination, children whose ultimate destiny was the United States, and you had others who came to the United States this morning but now are moving on to other countries. So the paperwork would vary depending on whether they’re an adoptive child, whether they’re an orphan, or whether they continuing on to a third country. But in all cases, we obviously need to be able to provide them the appropriate documents so that they are able to enter the United States.

QUESTION: And they had all that before leaving Haiti?

MR. CROWLEY: They had all that before leaving, but they did not – but that – thanks to our good work of the task force, we were able – in some cases, some of these children were ready to go, and in many cases they weren’t, but we worked that through the day yesterday so that we could put as many children on that flight last night as possible.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. CROWLEY: Okay.

QUESTION: P.J., you’ll remember the Secretary being very frustrated a while back that there wasn’t a USAID administrator in place. And the USAID Administrator was sworn in literally days before this tragedy struck. Is there any way that that lack of an administrator, or coming in at a very – at the last moment before this had any effect on the way that this operation is being carried out?

MR. CROWLEY: I think it’s been a tremendously positive effect. She is thrilled that Dr. Raj Shah is on board. Thankfully, he was on board when this tragedy took place. And it is – he has energized USAID. He has led them ably over the past week as the senior U.S. official designated by President Obama. He has a familiarity with Haiti. But every day, Raj has been pushing to try to do as much as possible for the benefit of our citizens and Haitian citizens. So we’re – I think the Secretary is enormously grateful that we were able to have Raj in place before this started.

QUESTION: Could I ask you just one more?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: We’re getting a lot of comments from --

MR. CROWLEY: But, I mean, let me – but to your point, I mean, the significant limiting factor in terms of our ability to move forward is, in reality, the infrastructure in Haiti. And we are working on these things every day to try to expand the channels of assistance. And once we’re able to build our ability to operate the ports, you’re going to see an enormous increase in the flow. But to the credit of the United States military, we started the operation with maybe 20 or so flights a day; they’re now up well over a hundred. And so the use of the airport has expanded significantly in recent days.

So – but it is the collaboration, the military working closely with USAID, and USAID drawing from the strengths of other agencies of government, from HHS on the health side, FEMA to provide additional search-and-rescue capability. This has been, I think, quite an effective operation. There are those who are suggesting that it should have been entirely a military organization; it should have been entirely civilian organization. The fact is working closely with the Haitian Government, working effectively as a whole-of-government team, the military, civilians working side by side. I think this has been an extraordinary effort over the past week led by Dr. Shah.

QUESTION: Just one last question, because we get so many comments from people in the field about how things are working on the ground, but a little bit broader. Is there any way that when the United States makes decisions about what it wants to on the ground, it has to consult, of course, it’s getting with the government, with the Haitian Government, with the UN, et cetera. But is there any way that in waiting or doing things at the behest of that government that the U.S. didn’t move quickly enough? In other words, the government really wasn’t up and functioning very well. Is there a possibility that the U.S. waited for the Haitian Government to say what it wanted and valuable time was lost?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think actually it was the opposite. I don’t think you can question the speed through which we have done what we’ve done. It’s been nothing short of remarkable, giving – given the inherent limiting factors that we were confronting in trying to help the poorest country in our hemisphere recover from this.

So I don’t think speed is really the issue. The issue here, as you pointed out, Jill, in one of your earlier questions, is how fast can we get to a level of sustainment where we can stabilize this population? That remains a significant challenge. Every day we increase the amount of aid being delivered to more people. But we are not, quite honestly, at the 3 million mark yet. We’re getting there, but we’re not there yet. But within a couple of hours of the earthquake, we were in touch with the Haitian ambassador the United States. And on behalf of his country, he gave us a very simple message: We welcome your support, and provide us everything you can possibly provide us.

And we’ve taken that charge. We’ve moved forward. But one of the purposes of the Secretary’s trip to Port-au-Prince on Saturday was to make sure that we were fully coordinated and to make sure that we had common understanding between the United States and Haiti and the international community on what was expected of us and mechanisms so that together we could advance as effectively as possible, and we have done that. And so, I don’t think – but I don’t think that anyone can question the speed, and I don’t think anyone can question the fact that we’ve put on the ground enormous capabilities that work – they’re very mindful. There are some things that can repeat themselves from one disaster to another, but a disaster in Haiti is remarkably different than a disaster in Indonesia, which is remarkably different from a disaster in New Orleans.

QUESTION: Well --

MR. CROWLEY: And we have tried to adapt our operations based on the realities that exist on the ground in Haiti today, and based on a common understanding from the Haitian Government, the United States Government, the UN, and the international community, what can we do most effectively today to serve the needs of the Haitian people.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) P.J. I mean, you talked a lot about this whole-of-government approach, and that every agency from the U.S. Government is working on this particular crisis. And so what some disaster experts say is that agencies of the United States don’t necessarily – the way they work and the way they think for a U.S. disaster or a U.S. emergency isn’t the same as a kind of international disaster where some of the things that need to be focused on are not being focused on. For instance, the search and rescue – obviously, that’s a priority of the Haitian Government, but the amount of --

MR. CROWLEY: It was also a priority of the United States Government.

QUESTION: Well, I’m not saying that it’s not, but what some disaster experts are saying, while search and rescue is important, it’s more important to stave off a second wave where you can actually lose more lives if you don’t prevent the second wave of disaster, of disease, of starvation, of lack of clean water and sanitation, than you could by saving in the search and rescue. And so do you think that this whole-of-government, of U.S. approach, is equipped to deal with an international emergency?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, several things. First of all, in any disaster, the first priority is urban search and rescue and to try and save as many lives as possible in that critical period of time in the first 72 hours or so. And we know we’re past that 72-hour period and the teams are still there on the ground and still have active search-and-rescue operations underway.

We did – so we did this based on the reality of what we understood about Haiti, because we do know Haiti exceedingly well. And I’m not sure in getting from 20 flights a day to where we hope to get to 200 flights a day – I’m not sure where a first wave and a second wave work into this. From the very outset, we were – while we were focusing on getting the airport up and running and getting search-and-rescue teams here, we were also flowing medical disaster teams, also flowing food and water. So we didn’t wait and do just one thing; we were doing several things simultaneously. But we recognize, given the inherent limitation of the infrastructure that there, it’s not so much waves, it’s really capacity.

And what we have done, but it’s taken a while, is over seven days been able to expand the capacity, the flow, and the networks so that more and more assistance is coming into Haiti. It’s one of the reasons why the carrier is important, because it brought with it significant supplies, but it brought with it helicopters which allowed us a second channel of assistance.

Now with the (inaudible) there, that gives us a third channel of assistance. Now we have the ports that we are gradually starting to bring up a very limited flow of containers through the ports, and that gives us a fourth channel of assistance. And then working very closely with the Dominican Republic that has wanted to be very helpful, we have the flow of material on land from the base at San Isidro, that gives us a fifth channel of assistance. And we are now working to where, even though we are still focused on rescue, we’re looking at what do we have to do to sustain this population, and it’s not too early to think of what do we have to do to start to rebuild Haiti going forward.

All of these things are working simultaneously. But those that want to suggest that there’s a better way have to recognize that we have to deal with – we have been dealing for a week with the reality that exists in Haiti and trying to work through figurative and literal obstacles – clearing roads, expanding the network, looking at a variety of ways in which we can deliver assistance to the Haitian people.

QUESTION: Who is running the Office of Foreign Assistance? Is it the USAID? Is it the director of FEMA at this point?

MR. CROWLEY: The – FEMA is supporting DART, part of the USAID. So, FEMA’s not – FEMA is in a support role providing a different capacity.

QUESTION: Well, isn’t the direct --

MR. CROWLEY: For example, the Miami-Dade search-and-rescue team was provided to USAID by FEMA.

QUESTION: Well, but isn’t the director of FEMA or someone in a high position in FEMA actually running right now the USAID Office of Foreign Assistance?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know.

QUESTION: Can you take the question?

MR. CROWLEY: You might ask that question of DHS as well, since they own FEMA. But I mean -- I’ll --

QUESTION: Well, it’s a USAID, is it State --

MR. CROWLEY: For example, who’s running this operation? It’s Dr. Raj Shah who’s in charge of USAID. It’s Dr. Raj Shah. Now, you have, again, under whole-of-government that you somehow questioned a minute ago, are we bringing experts in from other parts of government to contribute their expertise to this? We are. Are there FEMA people that – I mean, there are DHS people that have been seconded to USAID to supplement our capacity in various places as we’ve moved many of our assets down range. I mean, obviously, for the Secretary, one of her long-range objectives for USAID, is actually to grow the capacity that exists inside USAID. It is a shell of what it used to be. And she wants to expand the – those who are working directly under Administrator Shah as we go forward.

So to the extent that we are bringing in expertise from across government, bringing in expertise that might exist within the private sector or the nongovernmental sector, sure we’re doing that. So is it logical that that might be the case where you’ve got a FEMA person integrated into USAID because they have relevant expertise that exists within the U.S. Government, I think that’s an effective use of the talent that exists within the United States Government.

QUESTION: But FEMA is a federal emergency management agency, and is --

MR. CROWLEY: With extraordinary experience --

QUESTION: I’m not saying that.

MR. CROWLEY: -- when it comes to disasters.

QUESTION: Okay, but that’s – I’m not saying that they don’t have experience on disasters. But – these are – this is an international disaster with specific needs for the population that – a federal emergency, we don’t have those type of issues.

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Elise, you can – I don’t get your point. In other words, if you’ve got somebody who’s an expert in water or hygiene or food delivery, whether they previously delivered that during a hurricane in Florida and now are delivering similar assistance to the people of Haiti --

QUESTION: You don’t think there’re different considerations for Haiti than there are for assistance in Florida?

MR. CROWLEY: Are there differing considerations?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. CROWLEY: But at the end of this – I mean, what – I mean, we’re doing the other – you’re taking military logisticians who are used to providing supplies to troops in Afghanistan and Haiti – or Afghanistan and Iraq, and now they’re delivering valuable resources to the people of Haiti. I mean, you have a core expertise, and we are, in fact, drawing people who have expertise from across government. As we go forward, I’m sure that we’ll be drawing on our experts in agriculture from the Department of Agriculture to kind of resurrect the agricultural sector in Haiti.

So, I mean, we are using the same fundamental approach in this case as we are doing in other instances such as Afghanistan, which is we have experts within government. And I know, for example, there are some, such as General Honore’, who thinks that that you seem to channel assistance through one mechanism, and his preferred mechanism is the United States military. We’re not doing it that way. We have significant expertise across the government, not just in the State Department, not just in USAID, not just in the Department of Defense. We’re drawing from valuable resources from the Department of Homeland Security, from HHS. Going forward, we’ll need Treasury experts to help us with how to rebuild the Haitian economy, how to get the banks reopened again. Why do we think that, somehow, there is one set formula and we’re only going to draw by that formula? It doesn’t make any sense.

Yes.

QUESTION: P.J, can you comment on the security (inaudible) just so Pentagon announced there will be another runway open. Is that – can we see that as a response to --

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know that that’s --

QUESTION: -- True?

MR. CROWLEY: There’s one runway at the airport.

QUESTION: Yeah. They say there will be another – which, I just saw it on my Blackberry.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, to the extent that you can improve the capacity of that airport, that has been, as we’ve talked about today, a limiting factor. But, I mean, our – humanitarian operations is a core mission of the military. It’s something that we have done many times in the past. Most people remember, whether it’s earthquake assistance in Pakistan or tsunami assistance in Indonesia, they have a proud history of doing this. So the real thing they have to focus on is what are we doing and why are we doing this? We’re not doing this to take over Haiti. We are doing this because you have three million people in dire need of assistance, and that’s what American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marine, and civilians, have done for many, many decades.

Yes. Go ahead. Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment the weekend terrorist strike by the Taliban inside Kabul, where 12 people were killed there?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the Taliban have obviously claimed responsibility for this latest attack and we condemn these in the strongest possible terms. I think it only will increase our determination to work with the Afghan Government and with our NATO allies and others to try to help Afghanistan in every way possible mitigate and ultimately defeat this insurgent adversary.

QUESTION: Do you see indeed the strikes and ability increasing, ability, capability of Taliban to strike, such strikes?

MR. CROWLEY: I – we – obviously, this was an attack perpetrated by a relatively small number of individuals. I think we look at – the Afghan security forces performed very admirably in responding to and ultimately dealing with the perpetrators of this. So I think you have to look – I mean, there are going to be attacks. We understand that we are facing a determined insurgency. The timing of the attack was probably not a coincidence in terms of the early stages of the Karzai administration. But it’s why we are there, it is why we are working very closely with the Afghan Government. It’s why we are going to continue to build the capacity of the Afghan Government, build the capability of the Afghan security forces so they can do what they did yesterday and ultimately extend the security of the nation.

QUESTION: It is one year that the Administration, this Administration’s one year tomorrow. How do you view the situation there in Afghanistan and Pakistan? You have two reviews over there.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are – as the President --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) right direction? Or it’s – there have been more strikes --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it is – it’s a challenging situation. By the same token, you’ve seen progress. You’ve – the Karzai government is putting its – gradually putting its government in place. President Karzai is having to work with his parliament, just like President Obama works with his Congress. We are committed to expand the capacity of the government at the national level and also work to improve the delivery of services at the local level. So we’re – we think we are on the right path, we have the right strategy, we’re adding resources to the fight. And we are confident that this is the right strategy.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Iran?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Haiti, actually?

MR. CROWLEY: Let’s go to Iran first.

QUESTION: Turns out that the Iranians had submitted some days ago their formal response to the LEU proposal in which they described a sort of counterproposal. What is the Department’s comment on that Iranian --

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not sure that they’ve delivered a formal response, but it is clearly an inadequate response. And --

QUESTION: What do you mean it wasn’t a formal response?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not – I asked the question; I’m not sure that whatever they’ve done, perhaps today, is any different than what they’ve done previously. We don’t think it’s an adequate response. We believe that we’ve put on the table a fair, reasoned, approach. And Iran has not addressed the concerns of the international community on its – answered the questions that have been raised about its nuclear program. We had a very useful meeting in New York on Saturday within the P-5+1 process, and we will continue to discuss with our partners and a range of countries appropriate next steps and options that might exist going forward. So we do not view Iran’s gestures as being adequate.

QUESTION: Why do you say it was a useful meeting?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. CROWLEY: It was a useful meeting.

QUESTION: But we don’t see any signs of usefulness from our perspective.

MR. CROWLEY: How so?

QUESTION: Well, you had a lower-level Chinese official --

MR. CROWLEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And --

MR. CROWLEY: We had (inaudible) --

QUESTION: -- you’ve been talking a lot about --

MR. CROWLEY: We had --

QUESTION: -- moving towards sanctions, and I don’t see any --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think there – we have a shared view. There was a statement put out on Saturday that recommits the P-5+1 that we continue to have concerns. We continue to see the Iranian response as inadequate. We continue our conversations in terms of options that are available to us, both in terms of the Security Council going forward but also steps that can be taken in a coordinated way, on a national basis. We’re developing options on the pressure track. At the same time, the door is open for further dialogue with Iran, but so far, they haven’t been willing to engage us seriously. So we thought it was a constructive meeting and we’ll continue this process.

QUESTION: China needs more persuading?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think that we bridged different views that the United States and others and China have about the issue of sanctions. These are longstanding concerns and we’ll continue to talk to China about them.

QUESTION: Can you just give us a little more detail on what exact steps you talked about in a coordinated way on a national basis on this pressure track?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we – there are existing sanctions --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. CROWLEY: -- and there are other options that countries individually can take.

QUESTION: So what specifically did you – was discussed on Saturday?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are developing a list – a set of options and we’re not going to discuss them here.

QUESTION: Well, wait a minute. Is – one more follow-up on that. I mean, if you’re now – you guys have talked for some time about – including the Secretary – about working with likeminded states. But if that’s what you’re talking about at the P-5+1, it suggests to me that you don’t have high hopes for another UN Security Council resolution that would provide the imprimatur of the international community for sanctions.

MR. CROWLEY: I think – we are moving on both tracks. We believe we are making progress. And when we have – when the process has gone down the road a bit further, I think you’ll see some actions emerge. But we are considering what to do next. We’re consulting closely.

QUESTION: Can I --

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, you’re describing – let’s see, I’ll do a baseball metaphor – you’re describing the final out – you’re projecting final outcome when we’re only in the middle innings.

QUESTION: Just to change the subject, one small one, to go back to the Middle East?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: The Palestinian news agency Wafa today, I believe, quotes President Abbas as saying that – okay, well, if Israel isn’t going to engage in a complete and total freeze on settlements, then the United States ought to lay out the parameters for the endgame so that we can perhaps get back into talks. Sounds like he’s moving off the dime a little bit in terms of a willingness to consider returning to talks with the Israelis absent a complete and total freeze. Are you heartened by those? Have you seen them and are you heartened by those comments?

MR. CROWLEY: I think we look forward to having a direct conversation with President Abbas later this week.

QUESTION: Had you seen the comments?

MR. CROWLEY: I personally have not, no.

QUESTION: I have two questions – last questions on Haiti. First of all, could you talk a little bit about the radio messages from VOA and others that were delivered to --

MR. CROWLEY: Nice shout-out, David.

QUESTION: -- that David Gollust was broadcasting into – (laughter) – into Haiti? Just about why you thought that they were – about Haitians should stay in Haiti and not take the risks to come to the United States? If you could talk a little bit about why you thought that was necessary, and are you also broadcasting to Haitians about where to get aid?

And then secondly, can you talk a little bit about the priorities of what types of planes are getting in? Because as you – I’m sure you’ve seen the statement from Doctors Without Borders last night that said that a lot of the medical supplies are not getting in that they need. And we’ve also heard from some other doctors that they’re not – that there are plenty of doctors on the ground ready to help, but there’s a real shortage of medical supplies getting out to the people.

So can you talk about – a little bit about the priority of getting food and water versus medical supplies out?

MR. CROWLEY: All of those are priorities, as I listed at the top of the briefing. Getting – distributing medical supplies is among our highest priorities. We are trying to work on a system where any aircraft has to apply in advance before taking off. They’re slotted in. There have been a small number of diversions. I think if you look at the overall scope of the operation, it’s been remarkable that the diversions have been a relatively small number.

But these can happen for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is you have an airplane that lands and is projected to be able to offload its cargo and be on its way in a certain timeframe, and for some reason, the airplane takes longer to offload, the airplane breaks. But because you have a limited capacity or limited ramp space at the airport, then all of a sudden, it has a cascading effect. And in that case, if there’s a delay, in some cases, airplanes are orbiting and they have sufficient fuel. In some cases, they are diverted and then they have to get back in line again.

I know it’s frustrating for particular organizations, but I think if you look at this at the 20,000-foot level, it’s been remarkable how we’ve been able to get as much assistance into a very limited airport as we have. And we will continue to work these issues and to make the operation as efficient as possible. But on a daily basis, it’s likely that a handful of flights are going to be diverted not because we’re trying to prevent any particular type of assistance from getting in, but just because we’re having to work through very challenging logistical and transportation conditions.

QUESTION: How was the decision made to let Governor Rendell’s plane come in versus a plane that had medical equipment that could have saved lives and that was diverted? I mean, how do you make that call?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll defer to the operation down south only because obviously, to land, you have to have permission. And to have permission, you have to apply, and that airplane was permitted to land.

QUESTION: Okay. Could you talk about the messages, the radio messages?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are trying to find a variety of ways to communicate to the Haitian people, and in some cases, we’re looking to see if the Haitian media are coming back up and running. We’ve been doing aggressive outreach to the diaspora here in the United States because they have the ability to communicate back to Haiti as well. We’ve been looking at ways in which we can use tools that exist with the United States Government to communicate with the people of Haiti.

Here at the State Department, and maybe we’ll have someone come down and brief you, we’ve started working with the wireless providers in Haiti. They’re gradually bringing their capability back up again. And we’re working to be able to have a texting program. We’ve got a lot of volunteers who are manning a network so that people can text from Haiti and say “I’m here and I need water,” “I’m here and I need medical care,” “I’m here and I’m wondering where do I go to get – where’s the nearest distribution point so I can get food, water or whatever I need.” You had some instances where people have been texting “I’m pinned under the rubble here at this particular location,” so mindful of that – there’s cell phone technology in Haiti, we’re looking at ways in which we can exploit that cell phone technology to make sure that we are providing important information to the people of Haiti.

QUESTION: But P.J., these are messages that the ambassador – apparently the Haitian ambassador recorded, telling people, “Don’t even think about trying to come to the United States because you’ll be turned back.” Now, what I guess we’d like to hear from you is an explanation for that because that could be perceived as pretty cruel under certain circumstances to tell people, “Don’t even think about fleeing your villages to come to the United States.”

MR. CROWLEY: Well, and when the – when we made the decision --

QUESTION: Now, why is it necessary?

MR. CROWLEY: -- regarding extending temporary protective status to Haitians who are here, we have made clear and we are communicating to the Haitian people, you’re – we will bring assistance to you. And we are doing that, for – given these conditions, for them to attempt a perilous journey across the water to try to get to the United States or to try to get to one of the surrounding countries, we think is a substantial risk. Every time you’ve had this kind of movement from Haiti in the past, there’s been significant loss of life at sea.

So we are trying to communicate and make sure that they understand – we understand you’re in a dire situation; we are bringing assistance to you – food, water, medical care. We’re going to expand our ability to help provide shelter. We’re going to look for everything we possibly can in the next days and weeks to stabilize the population in Haiti. And then we will begin the process of rebuilding.

And I know when Secretary Clinton talked to President Preval and Prime Minister Bellerive on Saturday, Haiti is going to need all of its energy, all of its drive, all of its ingenuity to help rebuild from this tragedy. So rather than seeing yet another brain drain from Haiti, we’re also encouraging them – stay even though the conditions are horrible, and we’ll get the situation stabilized as quickly as possible, but then we will rely on you, the people of Haiti, to rise from this tragedy and to help the country rebuild.

QUESTION: P.J., on Google, has that demarche been issued and can you tell us what it says?

MR. CROWLEY: Kurt made clear that he had – he said what he said. I’m not going to go further.

QUESTION: No, but I mean, you told us on Friday it was going to be issued.

MR. CROWLEY: I’m – yes.

QUESTION: A different subject?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on Robert Park, the U.S. citizen detained in North Korea?

MR. CROWLEY: No, no update.

QUESTION: And then can I ask one more question about it? I mean, first, I want to – could you tell us about – are there efforts has been made from U.S. State Department to acquire information about him? And second, last time when two U.S. reporters were detained in North Korea, North Korea Government allowed consular access after two weeks of their detention, but this time, you are still seeking consular access after almost a month, so --

MR. CROWLEY: That’s right.

QUESTION: -- is North Korea trying to connect this case to the political situation?

MR. CROWLEY: That’s a fine question to ask the Government of North Korea. As we would do of any citizen, we want to have consular access to him through our protective power in Pyongyang, and we continue to encourage the Government of North Korea to allow us that access.

Yes.

QUESTION: I have a question on Guinea. Recently, Johnnie Carson visited Morocco where he met with his – along with his French counterpart Pierre Parent, with the interim president in Morocco. And in the aftermath of this visit, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding (inaudible) in Burkina Faso. How satisfactory for the United States is this agreement? And what’s your appreciation of the role played by Morocco in facilitating negotiation between the parties?

MR. CROWLEY: Actually, we are encouraged. I believe very soon, if not today, you’re going to have – I think Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia is bringing back the deputy head of the junta to formally begin the transition process towards an election in the coming months. We are – so we are encouraged that there are now steps being taken that follow through on the agreement that was reached. We’re very grateful to the Government of Morocco and to the Government of Burkina Faso for their efforts. And we will continue to be directly engaged with officials in Conakry as they work to implement the agreement and to restore civilian government to that country.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:34 p.m.)

DPB # 9

Philip J. Crowley

Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

12:28 p.m. EST

MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. Just a couple of things before taking your questions. As you saw, the Secretary provided a statement on the fifth anniversary of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement within Sudan and talked about the challenges that the parties in Sudan face and encouraged them to rise to the challenge, to show the political will and vision necessary to move Sudan through towards a lasting peace. An important element of that is, of course, credible elections beginning in April within Sudan, and then leading to the kinds of processes and systems that would lead to an effective referendum vote next January.

But at the same time, we will work with the parties in Sudan. As Special Envoy Scott Gration indicated, he’ll be going out into the region in the coming weeks. We will work with the parties to implement the various laws and agreements, the CPA and other facets, and we will hold all of the parties accountable for that implementation.

The Secretary has also – has had one and will have another important meeting relating to peace in the Middle East. This morning, she hosted Nasser Judeh, the foreign minister of Jordan. And this afternoon, will have a working lunch with the foreign minister of Egypt Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit, as well as Omar Mahmoud Soliman, the director of the General Intelligence Service here at the – in the Government of Egypt.

You’ll see after the briefing a statement regarding the case involving Blackwater contractors. The United States does not tolerate attacks on innocent Iraqi civilians. When the Department of Justice indicted the security contractors deemed responsible for the September 16, 2007 shooting at Nisour Square in Baghdad, it announced that at least 34 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, were killed or injured without justification or provocation. The Department of Justice also stated our goal that, quote, “for those who engage in unprovoked, illegal attacks on civilians, whether during times of conflict or times of peace, will be held accountable.” And this remains our objective.

The State Department fully supported the Department of Justice in its investigation and prosecution of these individuals. We respect the independence of the judiciary. The decision of the judge does not exonerate the defendants or necessarily terminate the proceedings. The Department of Justice, in consultation with the State Department, will carefully review the judge’s decision and assess all available legal options. Whatever the case’s ultimate outcome, we deeply regret the suffering and loss of life caused by the Nisour Square shootings and we are fully committed to holding accountable persons who commit such crimes, whether at home or abroad. And additionally, we have taken significant steps to improve the oversight and accountability of our security contractors worldwide to prevent the recurrence of tragedies such as this.

And finally, Ambassador Robert King, special envoy for North Korean humanitarian rights issues, will visit South Korea from January 11 through 14 and Japan on January 15. This will be Ambassador King’s first visit to the region since being confirmed by the Senate in November. Ambassador King will meet with South Korean and Japanese Government officials as well as North Korean defectors, family members of abductees, and nongovernmental organizations.

And with that, I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: Yeah. Can I ask you about the Blackwater statement?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: What took so long?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we are – quite simply, we are --

QUESTION: The judge’s decision was last year.

MR. CROWLEY: It was several days ago.

QUESTION: Last year.

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: It was last year.

MR. CROWLEY: Several days ago.

QUESTION: It was more than a week ago.

MR. CROWLEY: Fair enough.

QUESTION: Last year. And you didn’t feel the need to put some – to say something before then – before now?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it was the holiday season. We obviously --

QUESTION: It wasn’t a holiday season in Iraq, and they were quite upset about this decision.

MR. CROWLEY: Matt, I understand that. We have the statement. It remains something that we continue to consult closely within the government, particularly with the Department of Justice. As it says, we are assessing our options, but as we assess our options, we felt it was important to communicate our feelings to the Iraqi people.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, is there something new? Is there a development today or yesterday that makes it – that makes it – that would make it appropriate to put this statement out today?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we communicate with various countries in various regions all the time. Understanding that the judge’s reaction has had a significant effect within the – within Iraq, we felt it was important to help them understand that the process, in our view, is not finished. There’s action that we believe – we will continue on the – on both the criminal front and the civil front. There are cases here in the United States that are proceeding in terms of civil suits. So – but we remain committed to try to do everything in our power to see justice done in this case.

QUESTION: P.J., a follow-up on that. The ruling walked through pretty conclusively that despite the State Department’s best efforts to try to hold these five defendants accountable that there seemed to be a willful intent to disregard the Garrity ruling, which basically tells people we can’t use your words against you if there’s a criminal case. How concerned are you that if you try to revisit this case that it’s going to be really difficult, one, to work with Justice Department attorneys, and how concerned are you beyond that that there’s not going to be another District Court judge who’s not going to be suspicious of this case when it finally is brought back?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think in terms of – as we say in the statement, we are still evaluating the ruling and assessing future steps that the Department of Justice will take. I’m not a lawyer, so I will defer to my colleagues at the Department of Justice to characterize the judge’s ruling and the implications. We obviously respect the rule of law, we promote the rule of law around the world, but obviously, there are potential options available to the Department of Justice moving forward. Our lawyers here at the Department of State will continue to work closely with them.

QUESTION: In general about the presence of contractors for the U.S. in Iraq, in the summer I think the DOD numbers were that there were 120,000 military contractors in Iraq, and 130,000 – 132,000 troops. With that number, according to the DOD, expected to increase, what does that say about Iraq’s sovereignty with such a large number of both foreign troops and military contractors in their country?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t have – I can’t verify those numbers. I think there have been some GAO numbers more recently, I think, that puts your numbers well below. I mean, contractors play an important role in any significant operation anywhere in the world, whether it’s a military operation, whether it’s a humanitarian operation. And it is something that we are going to see in the future. The real issue is – is what are they doing, how are they doing it, how are they integrating. In the case of Iraq, how well are the operations of the contractors integrated within military operations. In other cases, how well are they integrated within the institutions within specific countries.

Obviously, as you heard here yesterday, Richard Holbrooke, in a different context, in Afghanistan, was talking about how we hope to change the delivery of vital services and use our support, the involvement of governmental officials, nongovernmental officials, in certain cases contractors, but do it in a way that it increases the capacity of the host nation to ultimately take on these challenges directly.

There are some very specific instances in Iraq, for example, where you have police training, building up a vitally important institution that will be critical to stabilize the situation there, helping the Iraqi Government move forward in the future.

So it’s not to say that you make blanket statements. A lot of this is situational dependent. A lot of it is based on timing. If you have to move somewhere rapidly, chances are contractors may well play a significant role over time. But we are looking here at the State Department at the role of contractors. You’ve heard the Secretary talk about this issue on a regular basis – she did so in her speech two days ago – so that we understand fully and make sure that, first of all, we have the capabilities resident within the United States Government to do what we need to do. She talked yesterday about a commitment to rebuild internally the capabilities of USAID so we do not have to rely in all cases on contractors.

But nonetheless, I think it’s safe to say that in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in other places, contractors will have a role to play and a valuable role to play. But we are looking to make sure that not only their role is appropriate but that where they are there, they have effective oversight, they’re fulfilling the terms of their contract, and they’re held accountable when things go wrong.

QUESTION: Do you see the role in Iraq, for example, of contractors – do you see the role as extending beyond the role of troops? In a sense, I’m trying to ask as the U.S. tries to withdraw personnel, armed forces, from Iraq, will contractors be following them home or will they be staying in Iraq?

MR. CROWLEY: It could be a little bit of both. I mean, you have a transition here where, in fact, once we get through the election in early March in Iraq, we will – working closely with the Government of Iraq and following the strategic agreement that we have with Iraq, we’ll begin to transform our relationship. Military forces will withdraw over time. That will have some impact on contractors who are there to primarily support our military presence in Iraq. More of the effort will shift from the military component to the civilian component. We may well have contractors at the State Department, for example, who will continue to function in Iraq to help Iraq itself build institutions of government. But over time, more of this activity will shift from being a U.S. responsibility to being an Iraqi responsibility.

Jill.

QUESTION: P.J., just one more on that, and I may not have seen this during the holiday season. But have there been any official communications, demarches, criticism coming from the Iraqi Government, specifically to the State Department, criticizing this judge’s decision? Have you had any direct conversations with them explaining this is the American justice system?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not aware, Jill, of any specific demarches here in Washington. I have confidence that our Embassy in Baghdad has been communicating with the Government of Iraq through our able Ambassador Chris Hill to make sure that they understand what this case means, where it is in the legal process.

QUESTION: Philip, today you have both, as you said earlier, Jordanian and Egyptian leaders and ministers here. Now, we’re coming up on the first anniversary of the Israeli Gaza-Hamas confrontation. Yet in other areas, such as in the West Bank, there’s a new entrepreneurial center, who have both Israelis and Palestinians actively, daily working together to build a science center and other economic pursuits, yet this isn’t occurring with Gaza. And it appears that both Hamas and Fatah are just both philosophically as well as politically at odds. What new attempts will the Egyptians and Jordanians, as well as Secretary Clinton, bring to the table to lessen those animosities?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let me take half of that question. And certainly, you heard some passionate statements a little while ago from Secretary Clinton, from Foreign Minister Judeh, about the critical importance of the – of Middle East peace, the urgency that we all feel, the need to make progress as soon as possible. We will be meeting with the Egyptians this afternoon. The Egyptians have been working over several months on the reconciliation process. We certainly support the formation of a unity government in Palestine, one that, of course, adheres to the Quartet principles.

So we look forward to the discussion this afternoon, but clearly, the situation in Gaza is difficult. It is – it’s dire for the people of Gaza. We continue to work with the Egyptians, with the Israelis to see what kind of humanitarian assistance can be provided there. But we’re also looking to see how we can create a new dynamic not only to meet the respective interests of Israel, the Palestinians, also the region, but certainly a reconciliation is part of this process, but it’s very difficult.

Late last year, the Palestinians were forced to postpone their election plans simply because the current conditions do not lend themselves to an electoral process that would hopefully try to divide – to resolve the current divide that they’re experiencing. We – this is one of the reasons why we’ve been committed to this over the past year, and why we continue to see the sense of urgency to try to do everything in our power to move forward.

As the Secretary said a short time ago, a critical step in that is getting the parties into formal negotiations where we can address all of the critical issues that we face – final status issues, but also improving the situation on the ground. It’s one of the reasons why we continue working with countries in the region to support the efforts of Prime Minister Fayyad as he builds the institutions of government within the West Bank so that – and you’re seeing that divergence. You’re absolutely right that there is growth, measurable growth that is being achieved in the West Bank. And we would like to see the situation expand so that more of the people of the Palestinian territories can enjoy these opportunities.

Jill.

QUESTION: P.J., on another subject, this terror report, I just want to make sure – we did get some information yesterday, but just to make sure we all get it, is it correct that after that spelling mistake was corrected within a couple of days, that basically no one went back to check on whether he had a visa? And if that is correct – until, of course, they found out on December 25^th – and if that is correct, at what level did that happen? We don’t need names, but – I mean, who – where did that happen in the process?

MR. CROWLEY: It is something that we’re still trying to reconstruct. And just to put this in perspective, obviously, as the President said yesterday, as Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan said yesterday, mistakes were made. This was a system failure. We are part of that system, and as the report details, there were human errors that were made on our part.

The misspelling in the initial VISAS VIPER report was corrected by – within the NCTC within a couple of days. The TIDE entry that was opened up on this particular individual had his correct spelling. As to whether or not any individual through this process checked from that point forward to see if there was an active visa, we’re still trying to sort that out. I can’t say that we know that anybody did, in fact, from the point that the TIDE database was opened on him, whether that was a factor.

So this is, in fact, something that we – this is a critical lesson learned. The steps that we’ve put in the process beginning immediately after December 25 will, in fact, make sure that future reports do have visa information in them, so that this is more – this is inserted into the process right from the outset. So it’s one thing to say that the databases that we have that have visa information in it, all of those databases are available to all of the relevant agencies that are involved in this process. But we obviously have recognized that it is important to put this issue front and center as part of this process moving forward.

We’re also taking steps so that in the future, some adjustments within the databases can be made to account for variations in the name, whether – in this particular case, it was because of a misspelling, but also in the – particularly in this part of the world, you have a lot of different variations in terms of spelling. We want to make sure that the system can properly account for that. And then finally, we’re also focused on making sure that any kind of visa action, whether it’s an initial action to grant a visa, it’s an action to revoke a visa, we are looking to make sure that whatever reporting goes out from the State Department to the relevant agencies is done as rapidly as possible.

So we’re looking at the system from start to finish. We’ll be – we have already given some revised guidance to posts around the world in terms of – to make sure that seeing some of the errors of commission and omission – that we improve the system in line with the President’s direction.

QUESTION: But under the regulations at that point – let’s say, you know, before December 25^th, was somebody supposed to – after the father, let’s say, had given that information and you’re writing up the VISAS VIPER cable, was somebody supposed to, under those rules and regulations, check on visa status?

MR. CROWLEY: It was not required. The way the process has worked up to this point, there is an assessment of risk, and then based on that assessment of risk, specific actions are available to the agencies that, in our case, adjudicate visas; in the case of other agencies, manage who gets on an airplane, who gets across a border. As we have described before, this is in the context of combating terrorism, an integrated process.

As I would describe it here, we had the father come to see the Embassy in Nigeria, reported his concerns to all of the relevant agencies. And from that point forward, what we were basically saying to the interagency was we have this information; is it of consequence to you, what other information might you have that we can marry up with this information so we make a proper assessment as to the risk that this individual poses to the United States and to our interests around the world. And then from that, there are recommendations that flow in terms of the appropriate action that not only the State Department could take, but other agencies of government could take.

In this particular case, we don’t think that the misspelling by itself influenced the risk assessment process. That was stipulated in the report that the White House released yesterday. But we certainly understand in light of – that this system failure – as the President clearly stated, that there are things that we can do better, do more affirmatively, push the visa information into the process more assertively so that it is evaluated as – along with other relative information so that not only is there a proper risk assessment of individuals that we think are linked in some way to terrorism but there’s a stronger process of making sure that, from that risk assessment, appropriate action is taken.

QUESTION: That was the longest answer to a short question I think I’ve ever heard. Can I ask you one thing?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: You – this misspelling –

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll try to make it shorter.

QUESTION: This misspelling, did it affect – I mean, presumably if the guy’s name was misspelled, it didn’t matter what database you put his name into; it wasn’t going to come up with anything. Is there any concern that the misspelling might have prevented the intel people from realizing that this was a guy who should have been put on one of the lists, or was it only the visa?

MR. CROWLEY: The misspelling was our fault, based on our initial report, but within a couple of days our report was combined with other information that was within the intelligence community. The TIDE database that was opened up on this individual had his correct spelling. So it probably did affect the recognition within the system that there was a valid visa, that this individual had a valid visa. It does not appear, as the White House reports said yesterday, that this affected the risk assessment itself.

QUESTION: Right. And then the other thing you said was that – you mentioned something about variations in names in this part of the world, right?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. I mean, for example –

QUESTION: He’s Nigerian. They speak English.

MR. CROWLEY: No, no, no, no, no.

QUESTION: And write with a Roman alphabet.

MR. CROWLEY: But, no – no, but I’m –

QUESTION: It’s not Arabic.

MR. CROWLEY: – looking at this more broadly. There are people who spell al-Qaida one way, another way, another way, so this – to the extent that, in a different case, you might have had an appropriate spelling, but it might have not necessarily represented what was on a document or a piece of information. So we are trying to make sure that – in this particular case, quite honestly, the NCTC corrected the initial error that was in the State Department VISAS VIPER report. So we don’t think in this particular case it had a specific impact on judgments that were made after the error was discovered. That said, we recognize that this could happen at any time, not based on a mistake but certainly based on just variations in spelling that people have.

So we’re trying to make sure that we have a system that is nimble, that is adaptive, and can account for when you do a data search of a particular individual, it will bring all of the relevant information that we think might be resident in the system, whether it’s based on al-Qaida with an a-e or al-Qaida with an a-i or any –

QUESTION: Are you suggesting that before December 25^th, the system was so rigid that if something that he was a threat?

MR. CROWLEY: No – I’m not suggesting that at all.

QUESTION: – came up and said Mister X is a member of al-Qaida and spelled it with a-i, it wasn’t going to show up –
MR. CROWLEY: I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is to the extent that people are focused on the issue of a misspelling, in this particular case we believe that was corrected fairly promptly and it didn’t have a broader impact on judgments made. But it does bring up an issue that I think is very relevant, and we are going back and making sure that as we – in terms of how we do data searches to make sure that, in line with what the President has said, when we’re focused on an individual who might be associated with terrorism, we want to make sure that the system, if it queries various databases to find – to bring all of the relevant information together so a proper risk assessment can be made –

QUESTION: Yeah, but –

MR. CROWLEY: – that we’re taking into account that there might be variations of – there might be variations in terms of spelling of names whether that’s because of human error or that’s just because of different ways that different individuals –

QUESTION: But it just seems to me if you’re starting with the wrong name in the first place, there’s no way to – I mean, whoever types up the report needs to be a little bit more careful, no? I mean, if you’re starting with the wrong name, with the wrong data input from the beginning, you’re never going to get success.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, actually, in this particular case, that – we started with a misspelling and the system corrected it within a very short period of time.

QUESTION: But just to be precise, I thought yesterday we were told that the person who did this checked on a relatively limited database which did not have the ability to query variant spellings of names, that actually you do have the system, unless it’s not correct, that can – other databases that can actually ping around and –

MR. CROWLEY: Correct.

QUESTION: – get different – is that –

MR. CROWLEY: Correct. And that – all of that is true. So – which is why I mentioned what I mentioned, which is we want to be sure that as we strengthen this system, we strengthen the ability of the system to be able to successfully pull in relevant information and take into account variations in spellings. So – but your basic point is right, that the initial search to determine if there was a visa did not – one did not show, expressly because of this misspelling.

QUESTION: Can I go back to –

MR. CROWLEY: Michel.

QUESTION: There was a clash before yesterday between Muslims and the Christians in Egypt and seven Coptics Christians got killed. Do you have any reaction to that, and would Secretary Clinton discuss this issue with Mr. Aboul Gheit?
MR. CROWLEY: Let’s have the meeting with the – which is happening in about 20 minutes. Let’s have that meeting and then we’ll let you know if this issue came up.

QUESTION: And no reaction on the clash?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll take the question. I don’t have anything in my book.

QUESTION: Do you have any plans to send Ambassador King to North Korea?

MR. CROWLEY: Ambassador King?

QUESTION: Robert King.

MR. CROWLEY: He doesn’t have – has no plans to go to North Korea.

QUESTION: Also, do you think Ambassador King will attend the future Six-Party Talks?

MR. CROWLEY: We have – Ambassador King is our ambassador-at-large for human rights in North Korea. He has a particular set of duties. Now, obviously, he collaborates very closely with Ambassador Steve Bosworth and Ambassador Sung Kim, where they have very complementary roles. They are in the region on a regular basis consulting with our partners, but his role is different than the Six-Party process.

QUESTION: When Ambassador King visit to South Korea next week, will Ambassador King discuss with the South Korean Government about the North Korean human right issues?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay, and also he will have interview with the North Korean defectors in South Korea?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction on the overnight second Israeli airstrike on – in Gaza? And secondly, are you concerned that this strike and the recent announcement of the construction of new neighborhood in East Jerusalem will somehow limit your effort to re-launch negotiations?

MR. CROWLEY: As the Secretary talked about in her media avail a short time ago, we obviously are always concerned about the dynamic on the ground in the region and the impact that that can have at any particular time on our efforts to get a negotiation started and move aggressively towards peace in the Middle East. So yes, absolutely, any violence in the region has the potential, as it has in the past, to derail the process. That’s why George Mitchell is going out first to consult in Europe but then in the region, and why we have the kinds of meetings here at the State Department we have today to try to assess where the parties are, refine our ideas, evaluate steps that we can take and others can take to move the parties towards a formal negotiation. That remains our core objective.

QUESTION: Staying on the Middle East, first question: Is some sort of reunification between Fatah and Hamas necessary for the peace process to go forward?

MR. CROWLEY: I think we recognize the value of a unity government, but we want to see a negotiation begin as soon as possible. So is a unity government a prerequisite to the start of negotiations? It is not.

QUESTION: So does that imply that any talks, say if they were to start tomorrow, would be ostensibly with those who represent Fatah and not Hamas?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are focused on working with President Abbas and recognize his leadership, his historic interest in pursuing Middle East peace, his acceptance of the fundamental principles which includes Israel’s right to exist, its right to security, as well as the rights of the Palestinians to have a state of their own. As we have always said, anyone who commits to these basic principles can play a role in these negotiations. But that is a fundamental element, and President Abbas has accepted those principles and Hamas has not.

QUESTION: The foreign minister also used the word, when he talked about the creation of a separate Palestinian state, one that is contiguous. I noticed the Secretary did not use that word. Where is the – what is the U.S.’s position on contiguous in terms of somehow uniting the West Bank and Gaza?

MR. CROWLEY: This is a – this is the fundamental challenge of a negotiation, which is to determine the borders of a state. We recognize that any state that would be formed for the Palestinians has to be viable and it has to be based on agreed upon borders. So the foreign minister at his formulation, the Secretary at her formulation – what we really want to do is get the parties back into a negotiation where you can actually put these questions before them.

The United States will continue to play a role. At various times, we may offer our own insights as to how to resolve these very kinds of questions. But let’s get to that negotiation. That’s why we’re continuing to push as hard as we can to get this started as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:03 p.m.)