MR. CASEY: Okay, good afternoon, everybody. Happy Tuesday. Glad to be here with you. I'm sure you're all glad to be here as well. I don't have anything to start you out with, so let's go to your questions. Sue.

QUESTION: Yeah. There are record oil prices today, and apparently that's partly due to the concern that Turkish troops are about to go into northern Iraq. Is the United States concerned that by going into northern Iraq this would disrupt oil pipeline shipments from northern Iraq through Turkey and then hence to the West?

MR. CASEY: Well, Sue, I think our main concern is that unilateral military action isn't the way to deal with the threat posed by the PKK. We've counseled our friends in Turkey to exercise restraint. We're very pleased that so far they have, in fact, done so. And of course, we have also encouraged them to continue discussions with the Iraqis and with us on this issue, because we believe very firmly that the way to resolve it and the way to really make progress in the fight against PKK terrorism is for there to be cooperative action.

I would note that there is an Iraqi emissary, Vice President Al-Hashimi, who is in Ankara today and who is discussing a number of these issues with the Turkish Government. And we think that's a good thing as well. Certainly, we want to see conversations between the Iraqi Government and Turkish officials continue.

But again, I think it's clear to everyone that unilateral action is not going to be a way to really address the problem that is at the heart of this, which is the threat posed to Turkey by the PKK.

QUESTION: But my question was actually about oil prices, not about them talking to each other. So are you concerned, though, that this might disrupt oil pipeline shipments?

MR. CASEY: Well, Sue, I think the biggest concern is for the strategic stability of Iraq and for the stability of Turkey. I, frankly, will leave it to those that actually follow the oil markets and the economy to make pronouncements on that. I am loathe to try and get into anything from here, particularly given the fact that these are issues that there are a lot of other people around town that follow more closely than we do.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CASEY: Yeah, Zain.

QUESTION: Has Secretary Rice had any other contact with senior level or top officials in the Turkish Government beyond what she already had?

MR. CASEY: No, not since the conversations over the weekend that we discussed. Of course, also noted that Assistant Secretary for European Affairs Dan Fried and Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman had just departed Turkey, I believe yesterday, in order to have consultations there with Turkish officials. So nothing new at senior levels. Of course, our Ambassador Ross Wilson and his team continue to engage with Turkish officials there. Again, I think we've put forward a very clear message to the Turkish Government about our regret about the passage of the resolution, about our continued opposition to it and our desire to work with members of Congress to make sure that it's ultimately defeated when it comes to the House floor.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR. CASEY: Sure, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: Mr. Casey, you have told us many, many times that the PKK issue is a matter between Turkey and Iraq. Why not with the U.S. too since you have thousand of forces in the Iraqi territory?

MR. CASEY: Look, Mr. Lambros, essentially, as we've said, Turkey and Iraq are neighbors. They're going to be neighbors for a long time and they need to work out a way of managing their relations to the benefit of both countries. I've certainly never said that the United States is not involved in this issue. We are. We are obviously concerned about the relations between those two countries. We consider the PKK a terrorist organization and we want to do everything we can, working with both the Turks and the Iraqis, to deal with this problem.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Tom, what is the main difficulty to arrest some terrorist PKK leaders for U.S. or Iraqi Government? Why isn't it done although many discussions and talks having done about this issue?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, if this were a problem that were easily solved or that we could simply resolve quickly, we would have done it by now. This is a difficult issue. You do have a terrorist organization that's operating along a border area. Certainly, we think that everyone can and should do more to be able to address this. That's part of the reason why we want to have close coordination with the Iraqis and the Turks on this. But obviously, this is an issue of great concern. It's an issue of great concern for all of us. And that's why we need to make sure that we move forward together because the only result of a unilateral action will probably be to allow the PKK to continue to operate, rather than putting them out of business, which is the goal that everyone shares.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Tom, during the conversations over the weekend, were you convinced that Turkey would not take any unilateral action?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think from senior levels of the Turkish Government we have been told that if the resolution passes this will have an impact on our bilateral relationship. I don't think that anyone has detailed in any specific degree what that might mean, but we do take from the Turks the understanding that they are seriously concerned about this and that if that resolution does pass there will be consequences for U.S.-Turkish relations. What form that will take, I think is something that the Turks have not articulated in a very specific way, but I think it's pretty clear given their public statements as well as their private conversations with us that there will be an impact.

Mr. Lambros, same issue?

QUESTION: On the same issue. The Ankara's complaint is why you are not using immediately -- why not you are not taking military action against the PKK, but -- and you are -- insist on negotiations.

MR. CASEY: Well, Mr. Lambros, again, I think this is something where everyone needs to work together on. And Iraq is a sovereign country and I think their government has spoken to the question of what they can and they are able to do in terms of police or military actions. I'd leave that to them, as well as to our commanders in the field. But certainly we want to see the PKK be kept from being able to operate. And again, it's a terrorist organization. It's recognized as such. And the only thing you want to see a terrorist organization do is go out of business.

QUESTION: Tom.

MR. CASEY: Yeah, Param.

QUESTION: I remember there was a trilateral mechanism, Turkey, Iraq, U.S.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What's the mechanism, the context of what's happening now?

MR. CASEY: Well, there continues to be discussions among the different parties. I'd have to check and see at what level we last met jointly together. But we do have coordination between and among the three sides. And in a sense, I would put that as similar to some of the things we've done with trilateral mechanisms in other places wherein you have a border area that has problems for both countries involved and they are, of course, principally the ones that need to be in discussions. But we are also a player and also supportive of it. So I know there've been conversations recently. I just am not sure at what particular level.

QUESTION: And do you -- is there a U.S. point person on that now?

MR. CASEY: Well, the U.S. point person on that includes Under Secretary Burns, it includes Ambassador Wilson and it includes Assistant Secretary Fried, it includes Under Secretary of Defense Edelman, all of whom have been actively engaged in discussing this issue with Turkish officials in the last week or so.

Sue.

QUESTION: Another issue on the Kurds. The Kurds have signed quite a few oil supply deals, which are outside of the Iraqi oil sector legislation. Does this set a bad precedent as far as you're concerned, signing contracts with the Kurds when the oil law still hasn't been drawn up? I know you've touched on this previously.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: But I wondered if you'd --

MR. CASEY: Well, no. I'm happy to repeat what I've said, which is that U.S. policy has been and remains to urge all parties to refrain from actions that would hinder progress towards the passage of a national oil law, a national revenue sharing law. And that means that we certainly are discouraging individuals and companies as well as the government of Kurdistan, the regional government of the Kurdish region to engage in these kinds of contracts. It's a little hard to understand how this will contribute to the development of that national oil law and that national revenue sharing law, all of which are an essential part of the broader issue of national reconciliation. So we've been quite clear, both with the KRG, the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq, as well as with private companies, including Hunt Oil, about what U.S. policy is on this. And certainly we don't think that these kinds of deals are helpful either for producing ultimately the oil law that's required or for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

QUESTION: So when you say that you've been quite clear with Hunt and there's another company, I think called Impulse Energy, what have you actually said to them? Have you said if you do this, we're what?

MR. CASEY: Well, Hunt Oil has been advised of U.S. policy, urging companies not to sign oil contracts with the Kurdistan Regional Government until a national oil law is passed, as well as the potential political and legal risks inherent in such a contract. Now, the company decided to sign a contract regardless of our advice, but that is their decision. They're not a U.S. Government entity and they're allowed to make those calls. But again, it's our best advice to anyone that asks us that they not take these actions.

QUESTION: And what did Hunt Oil say back to you? Did they say, well, we're just going to go ahead with this and tough luck?

MR. CASEY: Well, Hunt Oil went and signed a contract with the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq. So whatever they might or might not have said, when they heard our opinion, they clearly made their own choice on this matter. But it's certainly not one we support.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Tom, you said there are political and legal repercussions or consequences. Can you actually tell us what the legal ones might be, in terms of the U.S. Government?

MR. CASEY: Well, let me go get a law degree and I'll come back and tell you about it, Nicholas. No, seriously, I think that would be political. I think the answer is obvious there.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. CASEY: We don't think it's helpful in terms of seeing a national law, oil law get passed. It may be a complicating factor for that. There are inherent legal risks. Well, what are they? Well, a national Iraqi oil law would obviously supersede a Kurdish Regional Government law. Pretty hard to say until a national law has passed what conflict there might be with that. But people could find themselves having signed agreements that basically will have no legal standing, once a national oil law is passed or may get involved in some kind of very complicated legal wrangling between the regional and national government. So I think those are -- would be my layman's version of what the legal risks are here. But clearly, there is a situation where any national legislation will trump regional legislation. And if there's conflicts there, the national law would presumably be the one that would (inaudible) out and you know, that certainly presents a legal risk for anybody trying to do business under the terms of this limited regional government law.

QUESTION: In -- except for your public comments subject, are you aware of the company officials meeting with State Department people at all on this?

MR. CASEY: My understanding was there was at least one contact between company officials and I believe U.S. Government officials in the region itself. But the advice is the same, regardless of where it's being provided.

QUESTION: Do you know when that was, Tom?

MR. CASEY: No, I don't. Sorry. Before they made their decision would be the only timeframe I could offer you on it, Sue. Sorry about that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CASEY: Zain.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

MR. CASEY: Sure, unless Mr. Lambros is on the same subject.

QUESTION: No.

MR. CASEY: Okay. Let's go to Zain then.

QUESTION: To Putin in Iran where essentially one of the comments he made was that we should reject the whole idea of the use of force in the region. He's sort of implying Iran and don't even mention the idea of force as a possibility, sort of in a veiled, you know, reference to the U.S. How would you respond to that?

MR. CASEY: Well, you can ask him what he was referring to or who he was referring to, but --

QUESTION: But the idea that you support.

MR. CASEY: Well, but again, I think the President's made clear and U.S. policy's been consistent that we're pursuing a diplomatic path, with respect to Iran. We're working with our Security Council members in New York and elsewhere to try and come up with a text of a new resolution that will ratchet up sanctions on Iran. We have, of course, engaged in our own bilateral measures to deal with the threat posed there. The European Union and other individual members of that organization have taken some steps to, again, increase pressure on Iran.

And let's remember what the goal here is, too. The goal here is to change Iranian behavior, to have them come to the negotiating table and engage with the United States as well as with the other members of the P-5+1 to resolve this issue. And the Iranian Government and the Iranian people can achieve everything that President Ahmadi-Nejad has stated as his objectives for this program, which is a peaceful civilian nuclear energy program, one that allows the Iranian people to have nuclear power but that also provides all of us in the international community with the assurance that Iran is not using that civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop a nuclear weapon.

And I think it's pretty clear from the repeated unanimous votes of the Security Council that have included Russia that this is an issue that is of grave concern to people, and it's unfortunate that the Iranian Government has repeatedly chosen to deny the requirements of it under international law and to move forward with this path of defiance. We would very much like to have the opportunity to have Iran comply with these resolutions, halt their uranium enrichment programs, and then sit down with us and others and negotiate a reasonable resolution of this issue. It's surprising in many ways that if Iran really wanted to have a better relationship, if President Ahmadi-Nejad really wanted to have a better relationship with the international community, this is a tremendous opportunity that the P-5+1 has put on the table for him, and it's kind of hard to fathom if your goal really is simply to have a civilian peaceful nuclear program, why that offer has not been accepted to date.

QUESTION: If I --

MR. CASEY: Hold on a sec. Hold on a second, Mr. Lambros. Let Zain go.

QUESTION: If I could just follow up.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Vladimir Putin also in his press conference today just really called into question the concerns of the U.S., saying, you know, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program as well as other European countries, saying that he has not seen clear evidence of any Iranian intention to make nuclear weapons and that its program is actually peaceful. In spite of the fact that Russia has voted for sanctions at the Security Council, he is still coming out to say this.

MR. CASEY: Look, Zain, I --

QUESTION: What's your --

MR. CASEY: I've seen the press reports. I haven't seen any --

QUESTION: Do you find it disturbing?

MR. CASEY: -- you know, a detailed readout of his comments. Either way, the Russian Government position on this hasn't changed. I don't think the Russian Government has been in any way, shape or form trying to encourage Iran's nuclear developments. In fact, they've been very concerned about it. That's why they've joined with us in the past. That's why they've reiterated as recently as the last couple of weeks their commitment to the two-track approach that all of us have agreed to.

Certainly, I think we would agree with at least some of what I understand President Putin's comments to be, which is it would be far better to resolve this issue through negotiations. It would be far better if President Ahmadi-Nejad took the path that's been offered to him. But again, I don't think we have any concerns that the Russian Government is moving away from that consensus or does not share the basic concerns that we and other members of the international community share with respect to Iran.

QUESTION: Just one more, if I may.

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: The U.S. strategy has been essentially to isolate Iran, but by President Putin going to Iran he really sort of breaks the isolation and gives Iran, to some extent, some kind of importance and credibility. How do you see that?

MR. CASEY: Well, we don't have diplomatic relations with Iran and we haven't for a number of reasons that I think are well known to everyone. Many other countries do. We certainly think that it's appropriate to have an opportunity to convey the basic views of the international community to Iran. That's why we've always authorized and supported Mr. Solana being a direct channel to Mr. Larijani to discuss these issues with the Iranians. We also before that supported the efforts of the so-called EU-3, of France and Britain and Germany, to engage in these kinds of discussions with the Iranian Government.

So I don't think there's a problem here with anyone having contacts with the Iranian Government or in passing the kinds of concerns of the international community along to them. I don't think that there's anything in President Putin attending a regional leaders meeting on the Caspian Basin that calls into question the basic facts of Iran's increased estrangement from the international community.

I know at the recent EU meeting, several people reported that investment from Europe in Iran is down over a third in the past year. We know that many banks and other individual companies are making choices that are taking them away from doing business there. We know that the sanctions that have been imposed place Iran under some stress, and certainly it is not a position I think any country wants to be in to be under Chapter 7 mandatory sanctions by the UN Security Council. If it were, Iran wouldn't be working so hard to have those sanctions removed and to not have additional ones placed on it.

So again, I think we're all pretty clear on where things stand with Iran and where things stand on their nuclear program. We fully expect that we will have support from the Russian Government for our longstanding policy that has been crafted, not by the U.S. but by the members of the Security Council, starting with the P-5+1.

QUESTION: On Iran?

MR. CASEY: On Iran.

QUESTION: Yes. Mr. Casey, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that she has no plans to bring up a (inaudible) resolution asking the Bush Administration to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Do you agree with Nancy Pelosi since Secretary Rice said that Washington is considering actions against the Iraq -- Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which she is accusing of inciting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq?

MR. CASEY: Well, Mr. Lambros, the determination as to whether an organization is or isn't a Foreign Terrorist Organization is made by the Executive Branch and it's done in accordance with the relevant U.S. laws and legislation. I certainly don't have anything new for you to announce about any particular organization today. But we will look at these issues and make these determinations in accordance with existing U.S. law. Whether or not individual resolutions or Sense of House or Sense of Senate resolutions come to the floor and in what order and what nature, that's really -- is a matter for Congress to decide. They're an independent branch of government and they're free to legislate as they see appropriate.

QUESTION: May I go to Cyprus?

MR. CASEY: Well, let's see. I think Param had something else here.

QUESTION: Can we change topic?

MR. CASEY: Sure. He was going to, so why don't you.

QUESTION: I just wanted to find out whether the Indians have indicated to U.S. that they may not be able to get the nuclear safeguards talks with the IAEA by next month.

MR. CASEY: Well, I'd leave it to the Indian Government to describe their interaction with the IAEA. As we mentioned before when we talked about this this morning, the situation, as I understand it, is pretty clear. We do continue to believe that this is a very important agreement and it's in the interests of both countries, also in the interest of further cementing and strengthening international nonproliferation regimes. And the U.S. has worked hard to meet its commitments under this agreement and we're going to continue to do so.

It is also true, as you know, that there are some internal discussions on this in India. But in terms of the timing of those discussions and the outcomes of them, frankly, we don't want to interfere in this internal matter for the Indian Government and we'll leave it to them to comment on it. I will say that we would hope that, as I said this morning, India would be able to move forward with this agreement and that we would be able to complete it in 2008, which was in general keeping with the original timeframe we had outlined for it.

It is an issue that we have talked about with the Indians. As I mentioned this morning, in addition to the conversation that the President and the Prime Minister had that my friends at the White House have read out already, of course, Under Secretary Burns has spoken with his counterparts over the weekend and continue to do so today. We've also had conversations between Ambassador Mulford and some officials in India as well about this. So this is something I expect is going to continue to be the subject of discussion.

And I'd also point out, too, that this is part of a much broader shift in the relations between India and the United States. We are really developing a broader strategic partnership with India. And that's something that's unique and I think is very positive in the development of relations between the world's two largest democracies. I think it is really something that we are going to continue to work on and going to do so regardless of the timetable that gets followed for the implementation of this particular agreement.

QUESTION: Why do you say that it's regardless of the timetable? You still maintain that it can be completed by 2008, or you wish it could be completed by 2008?

MR. CASEY: Well, we believe it's still possible for that to happen. Obviously, a number of things would have to occur for that to be ultimately implemented. But it's a long time between now and the end of 2008 and we'll see where we are.

Yeah, Mr. Lambros. Back to Cyprus.

QUESTION: On Cyprus.

MR. CASEY: Okay.

QUESTION: Mr. Casey, anything to say about the meeting between Under Secretary Nicholas Burns and the Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat who is meeting today with the UN Security Council Ban Ki-moon in New York City?

MR. CASEY: Now, shame on you, Mr. Lambros. That's a trick question because yes, I do understand that the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr. Talat is in New York for meetings with various UN officials and I'm sure they can tell you about them. But at this point, there's no plans for him to meet with Under Secretary Burns or other State Department officials.

QUESTION: And also, do you still believe that the best solution for the Cyprus issue is the implementation of the agreement of July 8th between Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos and the Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat? And then also as (inaudible) by the agreement, as it was stated many, many times recently by Under Secretary Nick Burns?

MR. CASEY: Mr. Lambros, I fully associate myself with Nick's comments. U.S. Policy on this hasn't changed.

Okay, Zain. Then we'll go back down to you, Sue. Sorry.

QUESTION: Do you have any update for us on the status of the investigation of Patrick Kennedy and his team in Iraq? Anything new?

MR. CASEY: Not really beyond what we've said previously. The three pieces of this that we are working on -- first of all, the investigation into the specific incident which is now being led by the FBI in conjunction with Diplomatic Security is ongoing. We continue to meet, both at the working level and at more senior levels, with our joint U.S.-Iraqi Commission that is looking into the issue of what kinds of joint recommendations that they can make to both our governments to make sure that we implement any changes to policies and procedures in a way that's mutually acceptable to both sides.

And in terms of Pat Kennedy's group, I know as I said that the other members of his team arrived either Friday or Saturday -- I'm not sure which -- out in Baghdad. They are continuing their work. And certainly we look forward to them completing it. But I don't at this point have a timetable for when that might occur. I know Pat hopes to be able to do this as soon as possible. And again the Secretary wants this to be done in the shortest amount of time available because we want to make sure we've taken a good, hard look at the broader issues involved in providing protection for our people in Iraq and that, you know, as we look at that, see what kind of policy changes or recommendations might be necessary or appropriate beyond the initial steps, that Pat recommended and the Secretary authorized to be implemented last week.

QUESTION: So there's nothing to any reports that Patrick Kennedy may have left yesterday. There was some suggestion that he'd left Iraq and I just --

MR. CASEY: As far as I know, he's still there, Zain. I will happily check again for you just to make sure.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The opposition National Action Party leader Mr. Bahceli has stated in Turkish Parliament today. He said that, "The military action to Northern Iraq should be not just for PKK, but also should be done, Barzani's Pesh Mergas, because of supporting of PKK. Do you have comment on that?

MR. CASEY: Look, I'll leave it to the folks in the Turkish parliament and the Turkish Government to address their own internal debate on some of these issues. Again, I think our policy is clear on this. We believe that the appropriate course of action is for Turkey and the United States and Iraq to work together to address these issues and we don't think unilateral action would help resolve the problem.

Sue.

QUESTION: I just wondered if you have any comment on Libya. Libya today got one of the non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council. They were elected unopposed.

MR. CASEY: Oh, that's right. They were running unopposed, were they not?

QUESTION: Yes. The Pan Am families are unhappy about this and say that Libya's human rights record should have been examined more closely and that the U.S. should have done this. I just wondered if you had any comment on that?

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, I think it's important to us that we achieve a resolution of the outstanding claims that are out there and that is a very important priority in our bilateral relationship. And we continue to talk both publicly as well as in our private discussions with the Libyans to encourage them to resolve claims filed against them and respond to U.S. legal proceedings in an appropriate way.

In terms of their Security Council membership, we'll look forward to trying to work with them as we would with all other members of the UN Security Council. And we would hope that Libya and all the new members would work in support of the principles of the charter and contribute effectively to the working of the Council. There's a lot of important issues that are before the UN Security Council. And we would hope that the non-permanent members, as well as the permanent members, would be willing to contribute positively to it.

QUESTION: And in terms of the opposition of the Pan Am, where you said --

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I -- in terms of their comments, I haven't seen anything specific from them. But certainly the resolution of that issue remains a high priority for us in our bilateral relations with Libya. It is something that we raised with them on a regular basis and I expect we will continue to do so.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. CASEY: Yeah, in the back.

QUESTION: Quick -- Blackwater. In -- regarding your protection for U.S. in Iraq, do you have any idea of when you might be implementing the security cameras in the convoys? Have you already started to do that?

MR. CASEY: Yeah. We've already started to do so. Sue actually asked this yesterday. I am still trying to get a rough approximation of when those will be complete. But we're actively in the process of implementing them now.

Joel.

QUESTION: Tom, the Chinese are holding their 17th Party Congress. And over a period of time, they have been putting forth a bit more of a military strength in Southeast Asia, such as in Burma, Nepal, Tibet, and of course, it's ongoing with what they look to with Taiwan. Additionally, they have commercial contracts and have been sending some weapons into Africa, especially in the Darfur region. Has Secretary Hill and Secretary Rice -- Ambassador Hill and Secretary Rice, have they made their feelings known to the Chinese regime in this regard?

MR. CASEY: Well, Joel, there are a number of things in that question. In terms of China's military developments, I think we have spoken and the Pentagon has as well. And our concern is that there's a lack of transparency in the development of China's military programs and we'd certainly like to see more transparency. We think that's important for regional security and for providing assurances to people about the nature of that program itself. In terms of China's military sales, certainly we would expect that they would follow all of the standard practices, including ensuring that they did not sell arms to any countries that might not be ineligible for such sales because they're under UN or other kinds of sanctions. And those are the kinds of issues, though, that are part of our regular dialogue with China.

QUESTION: Now, (inaudible) also spoken to them concerning the human rights record. In some of these instances, they've jailed opposition groups, jailed various dissidents, and it's an ongoing struggle.

MR. CASEY: Yeah. Joel, human rights and human rights issues are an important part of our ongoing dialogue with the Chinese. They're raised on a regular basis, both in terms of individual cases, we're concerned about it as well as some of the general principles involved in it.

Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm pointing the wrong way here. Sorry, Nicholas, let's go to you and then we'll go back down to Sue.

QUESTION: Chris Hill has been speaking in Sydney and said that he expects the uranium military program of North Korea to be stopped or suspended by the end of the year. It seems to me sort of a raising of expectations more than the agreement requires. Do you have an explanation why he was doing that? Why was he talking about the program that they haven't even acknowledged they have?

MR. CASEY: You know, after -- given that the Red Sox are down 2-1, I think Chris should be given a pass on anything he says over the next few days. No, seriously, I think -- I'm sure that -- I have seen the press reports. I haven't seen specifically what Chris said. I think we are very hopeful that this agreement can be implemented and it can be implemented in a way that gives us some assurances about the full measure of North Korea's nuclear activities and that's why the declaration is so important.

In terms of the specifics of uranium enrichment activities that North Korea might be engaged in, this is an issue, again, that's been very important to us. It's been important to us since there was a first discussion of that between North Korean officials and Jim Kelly back in, I believe it was 2002. So making sure that we understand the full nature of the program and that the full nature of that program is halted is a key priority. In terms of what specific steps Chris might have had in mind on that, I'll have to defer to him on those comments. But I'm sure that even heartbroken though he is by the current status of the Red Sox, that he was probably speaking based on an understanding of how he thinks this process will work.

QUESTION: Well, what you just said and what he said sort of assumes that the uranium enrichment program is going on as we speak. Is that your belief?

MR. CASEY: Look, I think there was about as clear as I can draw our understanding of it for you was what was included in the National Intelligence Estimate and some of the things that Chris has said subsequent. I don't have anything new to offer you in terms of an assessment of what that program is.

QUESTION: I'm asking because if that program was active during the time you're negotiating with them, that would probably erase a lot of questions in Washington. I don't believe that you believe the program is active. That's why I'm asking.

MR. CASEY: I think at this point, Nicholas, I will let Chris speak to this to the extent he wants to. But for us, the proof will be in seeing a declaration and making our determinations about its completeness. And I think at that point we can probably have a discussion about the specifics of what that program --

QUESTION: Is there a way to get his speech from Sydney today or tomorrow?

MR. CASEY: I'll see -- we'll see if our friends in EAP can come up with it for you.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MR. CASEY: Sue.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Mugabe government's latest crackdown on the opposition? You mentioned a little bit this morning.

MR. CASEY: We talked a little bit about that, yeah. I did look into this for you a bit. My understanding is the latest thing that has happened is that there were a series of arrests of peaceful demonstrators of the Women of Zimbabwe Arise, WOZA group on the 15th in downtown Harare. And it's obviously regrettable that the Government of Zimbabwe would continue this kind of actions and these kind of oppression while talks between the government and the Movement for Democratic Change, the main opposition parties, are occurring under the auspices of the South African Development Community. We want to encourage those talks to move forward. We do encourage those talks to move forward and strongly hope that the negotiations will facilitate an end to violence and intimidation and set the stage for free and fair elections.

Realistically, what the opposition figures, whether that's the trade unionists, whether that's the opposition, whether that's other groups that have gone out there to peacefully express their views and have been repressed by the Mugabe government are trying to do is to have a real say in the government of their country and have a real opportunity to choose their leaders in free and fair elections. And that's what we want to see happen.

Param.

QUESTION: Tom, I wonder whether you have seen a (inaudible) a bipartisan (inaudible) from the Senate of so-called joint financial squeeze on Myanmar -- U.S., Europe and several key Asian nations.

MR. CASEY: I actually haven't. I'll try and look into it for you.

Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:12 p.m.)

DPB # 182