12:44 p.m. EDT

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon. I don't have anything to start off with, so we can get right into your questions.

QUESTION: Have there been any more conversations with the Turks from this building or the Iraqis about the --

MR. MCCORMACK: From this building, I don't know. Involving the Secretary, no.

QUESTION: Do you have any announcement on the review into contractors, please?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing -- nothing right now, what -- we're going to look to try to get you something, I hope, this afternoon. The Secretary received a series of recommendations yesterday from this panel that she commissioned to take a look at personal security contractors and their operations in Iraq in all their aspects: rules of engagement, legal authorities, oversight and management and coordination with other U.S. Government entities in Iraq.

And the recommendations fell in three basic categories: the set of recommendations that she has already implemented that I announced a couple of weeks ago, so those are done; another set of recommendations that can be implemented by the Department of State unilaterally without respect to consultation with anybody else; then another set of recommendations that would probably involve or would involve consultation with the Department of Defense. And the Secretary has talked about that. She wants to have a sit-down with Secretary of Defense Gates to talk through that and make sure that everybody's on the same page and in total agreement on those recommendations.

What I hope to be able to do for you this afternoon is to list out for you those recommendations that the State Department can do by itself that the Secretary has approved and make an announcement on those. So we're going to have to stay tuned this afternoon. If we do it this afternoon, we'll probably put out a paper statement for you and then try to organize a conference call with somebody who might be able to give you a little bit more context about the recommendations.

QUESTION: Could you give us something on camera?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll take it under advisement.

QUESTION: That would be great.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you say anything about the role of private security contractors? Based on these recommendations, anything going to be changing on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, at this point in time, personal security contractors for the U.S. Government are a fact of life in Iraq as well as elsewhere around the world. And what we want to do is make sure that those -- that they operate in such a way that they're, at the very least, in no way detracting from the overall foreign policy and national security goals that we want to achieve in these places, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. And one would hope that their operations in support of what we do further our foreign policy interests,

But at this point in time, personal security contractors are a fact of life with respect to the U.S. Government operating in Iraq as well as Afghanistan and other places around the world and that's not limited to just the State Department. The Department of Defense uses them as well as other government agencies and I would point out NGOs as well as news organizations operating in Iraq use personal security contractors.

So it's something that basically everybody who's operating in Iraq regardless of what they're trying to do -- report the story, work with the Iraqis to build governing capacity, working in the security area -- they're using security contractors.

Yeah.

QUESTION: In a bid to tighten up coordination between the U.S. military and security contractors, the Defense Department is saying that they would like to have these security contractors under their control. Is this something that you're looking at and something that you think would be useful?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, let's let Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates have a conversation on -- I can't confirm for you that that is, in fact, the view of Secretary Gates. I know that he's expressed, you know, an interest in how do you make sure that we're all pulling on the oar in the same direction.

One of the things that -- if I could just pull back the curtain a little bit, on the report, one of the things that they found is that there was, in fact, good coordination at certain levels between the civilian side of the State Department and MNFI, the DOD military presence there. It's a matter of making sure that that coordination both between the organizations works at all levels and making sure that there's good information flow up and down the separate chains.

And we're working on our part to make sure that that happens. We find then the report identified a couple ways that we could do that. But as far as I know, as far as I have been able to discern, there -- in the past several years, there haven't been any blue on blue incidents, meaning military on contractor incidents. So that's just one small indicator that there is, in fact, some coordination. Can you do better in that coordination? Absolutely and we're going to identify some ways for them to do that.

QUESTION: So you said at certain levels the coordination was good. So where are the problem areas?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll get more into that. We'll get more into that. I wouldn't say -- I wouldn't say necessarily a problem area, but can you do better in -- on some of this? Yeah, absolutely, you can.

QUESTION: Sean, just -- I just want to make sure of one thing. One of the -- what appears to be the main recommendation of the port is for a unified command. Is that --

MR. MCCORMACK: I wouldn't necessarily say that that is, in fact, true.

QUESTION: Well, is that one of the things that she would need to talk to Gates about before implementing it? When you talk about the three tranches --

MR. MCCORMACK: There are a couple of things in there. And at this point, I'm not going to get into it. I saw a lot of new stories in this regard. I would caution you against following some of those -- following some news stories. We're going to try to -- in the, you know, coming hours and days talk a little bit more about the report. But basically you want to make sure that there is the best possible coordination between the State Department and DOD. There are a lot of different ways to do that. And part of what the Secretary wants to do is have the opportunity in a considerate way, sit down and talk to Secretary Gates about that and she thinks it's important. It is important. We're all working in the same space in Iraq. And you want to make sure that our operations are as efficient as they possibly can be and that all of our operations, including the State Department, are moving us towards the goal that we all share.

QUESTION: Are you saying that some of the news reports were incorrect?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm saying I would just caution you against some of those news reports.

QUESTION: But the unified command issue is something that --

QUESTION: Which ones?

MR. MCCORMACK: What's that?

QUESTION: Which ones?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think you want me to get into that.

QUESTION: The unified command issue is something, though, that falls obviously under both departments. It's not one of the unilateral steps that Rice was speaking about last night. Correct? I mean, I'm just saying that -- she said she could implement, you know, unilateral steps. And the unified command issue is not one of those.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. That would be --

QUESTION: I'm just clarifying that.

MR. MCCORMACK: That would require a conversation if, in fact, that's something that you were considering to --

QUESTION: And has she managed to speak with --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think she's connected with him, yet.

QUESTION: Is she still trying today, though?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think -- I'll check for you, Matt. I'll see if we have the schedules synched up. Okay.

QUESTION: You know, seeing as this affects your three security contractors in Iraq, have you brought them in to discuss these changes or what -- how you think communication could be improved, perfected (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you for the suggestion. I'll check for you, Sue. I'm sure on the ground our regional security officers -- our security officers on the ground are working with the contractors both to implement the recommendations that the Secretary has already approved and that she has ordered to take place. And I'm sure that they will also be in contact with the contractors about any further steps that we take inasmuch as we need to work with them on any particular recommendations.

Nicholas.

QUESTION: Sean, do you know -- now that cameras have been installed in all vehicles that are being used (inaudible) within Iraq? How is that going? Do you have --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have a status report. The Secretary ordered that that happen. I can't tell you whether or not they've bought the cameras, installed the cameras. I'll try to find out for you the status of implementation of it. But the Secretary ordered that that happen and it will happen.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary accepting all of the recommendations and plans to implement all the recommendations?

MR. MCCORMACK: I would expect that we in some way, shape or form will act promptly on all of the recommendations.

QUESTION: Can I ask about the SIGIR report?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: I know you said this morning it was sort of an old story, but it obviously is still going on and the State Department is still trying to correct some --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, right.

QUESTION: -- of the problems that are listed.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: What are you doing specifically to improve your oversight of this contract?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, let me rewind the tape a little bit because I want to make it clear that this is something the State Department itself identified as a problem back in 2005 and we, in fact, went to the OIG here in the State Department. And SIGIR was also made aware of the fact that there were issues. So these are self-identified issues and inasmuch as we want to make sure that there's good management in the State Department, we're also -- we also instituted some self-correcting measures. We changed the management of the contract and we also are seeking to recoup some of the money that was expended as part of the contract.

To date, roughly, I understand that there has been about $1.2 billion expended on the police training contract with DynCorp. We have recouped, through our auditing processes and working with DynCorp, well over $100 million from that total. We're continuing that. That total is going to go up. So the idea here isn't that you're going to recoup all of the $1.2 billion. The operating principal is we want to get our money's worth. And in those areas where we have paid for something that wasn't performed or we were paying for a service that was not up to standard, we're going to get our money back. And that's the process that we're working through right now.

I can't tell you how long that process is going to extend out into the future. But there's a commitment to make sure that we go through and look at 100 percent of those expenditures and those total receipts.

QUESTION: And you think you have the personnel to do that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Well, I also wanted to ask about -- now I'm losing my train of thought.

MR. MCCORMACK: You were so stunned by the certainty of my answer that -- (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, go ahead. It will come back to me. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: Let's go back to Iraq and the Kurds for a second. Maliki's office just said they're going to shut down all the PKK offices in Iraq. Is this something that you guys were looking for -- asked or suggested, or otherwise welcome?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, well, I don't want to get into what specific suggestions or ideas we might have had or what might have been generated by the Iraqi side or the Turkey side.

It's a start. But as I have said, what needs to happen is that the Iraqis, acting on their own accord and in cooperation with the Turks as well as us, need to act to prevent further terrorist attacks. That's an immediate issue. What needs to happen over the medium to long term is that the PKK is dismantled and eliminated as a terrorist organization operating from Iraqi soil. Also, I thought I saw some comments from the Iraqi side making this -- indicating that they understood that that's the task before them.

So there's this -- I understand there's this commitment to shut down offices. Okay. But what you need to see are actual outputs from inputs that the Iraqi Government might make. The outputs are that you need to stop terrorist attacks, there need to be prevention of terrorist attacks, and you need to get to the root cause here, and that is stop the -- stop this terrorist organization from operating on Iraqi soil.

QUESTION: Is this something that you guys will be able to follow up on, to actually go and see if the PKK is still operating in a shop front in wherever?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Good question. Let me see what sort of movement and on-the-ground awareness we have of those, what sort of ground truth we can gather. I'm not sure, Matt.

QUESTION: The President is coming tomorrow to talk about Cuba policy.

MR. MCCORMACK: That's right.

QUESTION: Can we stay on this?

QUESTION: Oh, sorry. Sure.

QUESTION: Just want to do a quick one. The Secretary talked yesterday about the meeting that she was proposing with the Iraqis and the Turks when she goes to Istanbul next week. Do you expect representatives of the KRG to be at that meeting, the Kurds in Iraq, and what -- you just outlined what you need them to do, but what exactly are her goals for that meeting when she meets with the two sides?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the last part first. Part of that will depend on what happens between now and then, what actions the Iraqi Government takes and what sort of channels of cooperation open up between Turkey and Iraq. I also saw some comments from the Iraqi Foreign Minister saying that they were committed to working with Turkey in a cooperative way to address the threat from the PKK. So that's very positive.

What precisely is on the agenda or the work list for that meeting around the Iraq neighbors conference in Istanbul is going to depend in large part upon what happens between now and then. But certainly, there will also -- there will be a focus on the long term as well as the short term. The amount of amount of time and the weight that you give to a certain -- to parts of the conversation will depend on what happens, though.

In terms of who attends from the Iraqi side, that's going to be up to them. Iraqi Government representatives -- I can't tell you who they're going to send to the meeting, either the Istanbul neighbors conference or this tripartite working group.

QUESTION: Isn't it logical when you discuss something that's happening in northern Iraq to have representatives of the local government there?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's going to be up to them.

QUESTION: The U.S. --

MR. MCCORMACK: This is an Iraqi -- this is a national Iraqi Government issue. Everybody knows that the Kurdistan Regional Government will have a lot to say in terms of what gets done in preventing terrorist attacks and ultimately dismantling the PKK, but it's going to be up to the Iraqi side to determine who they bring to the meeting.

QUESTION: Change of topic?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any plans for the Secretary to meet with Prime Minister Erdogan before Istanbul?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're taking a look at her travel schedule right now as part of -- within that trip.

QUESTION: I meant here.

MR. MCCORMACK: Not that I'm aware of. Nothing more.

QUESTION: Okay. And are you aware that the Turks have sent -- have re-recalled their Ambassador, he is back? Do you know that?

MR. MCCORMACK: That he's back here? Not aware of --

QUESTION: You don't know if he came and just told you that I'm back?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't -- he very may well have, but he didn't come to tell me that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, yesterday Deputy of Iraq Prime Minister Barham Salih said at Brookings that they have no power enough to protect their borders and Kandil Mountains were reported some PKK camps there. So if Turks go over the border, who will deal with this threat and who is capable or in charge to do that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, this gets back to the conversation we've been having for the past week or more. And that is we have urged that we not get to that point where there's a unilateral incursion by Turkey into Iraq. We think that diplomacy is the way to get at a durable and effective solution to the problem. That's one thing that we have counseled consistently over the past weeks and months as both sides have been grappling with this issue.

It's -- the threat from the PKK operating out of northern Iraq into Turkey is one that's been around for a long time. It's not something that was invented over the past four years. But we now have an opportunity with an Iraqi Government that has an interest in playing a positive role in the region, an opportunity to arrive at a solution. And that's what we are pushing for. That's what we are counseling. And we have also heard subsequent to those remarks some positive statements out of the Iraqi Government about the importance of diplomacy, about the importance of action, about the importance of working with Turkey to address what is a very real threat to Turkish populations.

So that is encouraging. But we understand that there's going to be a lot more work that's required to realize both short-term goals of stopping these terrorist attacks as well as the long-term goal of dismantling this terrorist organization.

QUESTION: On Cuba. So the President is coming tomorrow to the State Department to talk about Cuba policy. Do you think it's time to lift some travel restrictions with respect to Cuba? And are you -- what are you looking at?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any announcements for you today. I guess you can tune into the President's speech tomorrow.

QUESTION: But is that the way the wind is blowing right now, to lift?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no --

QUESTION: Or to --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not trying to indicate that.

QUESTION: -- or to put more travel restrictions on it?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not trying to indicate anything other than to say if there are any announcements to be made about Cuba policy, I'm going to let the President make them.

QUESTION: Well, there's been a lot of pressure from Congress, from you too, actually.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, that's not new. There's been -- that's been something that's been going on, I think, for a decade or more.

Joel.

QUESTION: Sean, yesterday there was a sizable demonstration in front of the Saudi Embassy and roughly a thousand protesters came, protesting against Wahabbism and of course you saw the audio tape that bin Laden came out with again yesterday. I guess you're examining that. They want -- they're complaining about the desecration of their holy site stemming from 1926 and also they want massive changes that are largely ignored by the Saudi Government. Have you heard from that group directly and are you willing to perhaps mediate between they and the Saudis or is it strictly a Saudi type of --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it's something for the Saudi Government to deal with.

Yeah. Nina.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) question on Pakistan.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you think this misperception by some of the American public that they're not doing enough in the war on terror? And if so, can you give some examples of the sort of thing that they do do?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I can't tell you. I don't know what the perceptions of the American public are of Pakistan. But President Musharraf and the Pakistani Government over the past five years have been good allies in the war on terror. They have worked closely with us to set Pakistan on a different course. President Musharraf has decided that himself and we've tried to be supportive of that.

They themselves have launched numerous operations inside Pakistan to try to disrupt terrorist attacks as well as break up terrorist cells. There was an issue of Taliban sympathizers, al-Qaida operating in those tribal regions in the northwest of Pakistan. And the Prime Minister and his government are very much aware that it's a problem. It's a problem for them. We've seen the kind of violence that potentially can emanate from those regions and it is directed at us, it's directed at the Afghan populations. It's directed at Pakistani populations. So they understand very well what the threat is. Now, in those tribal areas, they made some efforts. Thus far, they have not been successful in closing down these terrorist networks and those who are supporting them. That's going to require a concerted effort. And we're going to continue to work with the Pakistani Government to see that there is not a safe haven from which those terrorist groups and terrorists can operate.

Matt.

QUESTION: Sean, can I ask you -- and this is a serious question -- what exactly the United States hopes to achieve by signing a shipboarding agreement with Mongolia, which is, the last time I looked, a landlocked country that is completely filled with the Gobi desert.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Matt, I'll have to check, but it could be the case that they are actually, strangely enough, a registry for ships.

QUESTION: And it won't surprise you to -- okay, go ahead.

MR. MCCORMACK: We -- no, please go ahead. Please proceed. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: It won't surprise you to know that I've done a little research on this. Yes, it is a flag of convenience. There are exactly 61 ships that are Mongolian flagged. That puts them at about tied for 18th on a list of 32 countries that have -- that offer this convenience. So you know, you got eight, but there's still ten ahead of Mongolia.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have -- and we've signed up a lot of those. I can get you the latest figure, but we've actually been pretty effective in terms of signing up countries and getting a fair percentage of the total registry around the world for these shipboarding agreements. It's important to get as much coverage as you possibly can.

And while this may be a modest number of ships, as the total population goes, it's important to get as much coverage as you possibly can.

But we've actually -- we actually have a pretty decent percentage in terms of the total number of ships registered around the world that we have shipboarding agreements with the countries that register their ships. We can post it for you. It's actually pretty good. It's been a real success as far as the story of the Proliferation Security Initiative.

QUESTION: Well, you can post it for others. I've already done this, so I know. But what's the -- what do the Mongolians get out of this? It is a reciprocal agreement which allows them a country with no navy to board U.S. flagships in international waters.

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I don't know if there's ever been a request. You can ask the Mongols what they think it's in -- what they think is in it for them.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the Secretary's meeting with the Armenian Prime Minister? I know it's coming up, but what do you plan to discuss? Why is it important?

MR. MCCORMACK: All a matter of relations, I think. We have a significant bilateral assistance program with Armenia and we'll talk about that, talk about their continuing process of political and economic reform. I expect the Secretary will also touch on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh and where that -- where the process stands in bringing about a resolution to that conflict.

QUESTION: And what about the genocide resolution?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not on the agenda from our side.

QUESTION: Same subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: The President of Iran has been in Armenia for the last couple of days and reports about that visit suggest that they have extended a pipeline agreement and that they're going to build a joint -- this is Armenia and Iran --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- build a joint refinery. Given Armenia's generally pro-Western orientation, are you sort of disappointed with this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I understand that there hasn't been a final agreement that has been signed. Often -- very oftentimes, you will have these circumstances where Iran working with other governments will try to engage in a series of preliminary agreements to lend the perception that all is normal and well in terms of dealing with Iran when, in fact, the truth could not be further from that kind of perception.

We have counseled the Armenians, as we have counseled others who have entertained entering into these sort of oil and gas agreements with Iran against doing so. We don't think the time is right to even be entertaining the idea of concluding these kinds of agreements. It is not business as normal with Iran for all the reasons that we have talked about so very often in this room.

So we will continue to counsel them against entering into any sort of oil and gas agreements and of course, if there are any applicable laws that are triggered by any actions taken by any entities, we will take a look at the agreements with respect to U.S. law.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, good.

QUESTION: I just wanted to get your reaction to something Stuart Bowen actually said about that contract with DynCorp. He said --

MR. MCCORMACK: Who said this?

QUESTION: Stuart Bowen.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: He said that this was, by far and away, the largest contract you had ever taken on and that you bit off more than you could chew. So I just wanted to see, more broadly, what does that say about the State Department's ability to handle contracts of that size?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look, we have -- we have significant contracts around the world. I can't -- you know, I can't tell you whether or not this is the largest contract the State Department has with any given contractor. You know, I just don't know.

But we are operating in a different kind of environment in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places around the world and it's clearly a different -- a new era for the State Department in terms of the kind of work that is being called upon to do, whether that is in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere around the world. And the kind of work that we are being called upon to do is much more, shall we say, expeditionary in nature. It is not the traditional work that people conceive of striped-pants diplomats doing, sitting behind their desks writing reports, reporting on the political developments of the third -- I know there's an --

QUESTION: I was trying not to laugh. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, it was an intentional reference and --

QUESTION: You just ruined their sound bite now. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just kidding.

MR. MCCORMACK: And you know, reporting on the developments in the third political party in whatever country they happen to be in. Now those -- that work is important. It's important to inform decision-makers in Washington as to what's going on. It's important on the ground to further U.S. interests. But it is also important to actually go out there and be agents of change in behalf of United States policy and that is what many of our Foreign Service officers and civilians and contractors are out doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.

And as a result, as we go through this transitional period in the kind of work that the State Department is doing, you're going to have to adjust your management style, you're going to have to adjust what I refer to as the management feedback loop, making sure that you have in place the proper assets to make sure the rules are clear to everybody, that there's good management and oversight and where people are coloring outside the lines, that they are, in fact, held to account. And I think you're seeing some of that.

What the Secretary wants to do is make sure that there is a -- understood to be a very high standard in terms of the performance of Foreign Service officers and our people overseeing contracts. We want to make sure that we get our money's worth and that we're good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. And the rule should be that there isn't any deviation from a standard of excellence, but we also live in the real world and sometimes, there are deviations from that. When there are, we want to make sure that we are the first ones to identify those and to correct and to put in place any needed remediation efforts.

The example of the DynCorp contract that was written about in today's newspaper, I think, is a prime example of the fact that the State Department itself identified the problem, investigated it, and has put in place efforts to make sure that we correct any mistakes that were made in the past, inasmuch as we can.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, Lambros.

QUESTION: Greece last -- FYROM. The UN Special Envoy Ambassador Matt Nimetz --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- issued yesterday a statement saying that the talks between Athens and Skopje on the name issue are going to resume again November 1st in New York City. Any comment?

MR. MCCORMACK: That's positive. We made our decision on the issue.

QUESTION: The next one -- one more question?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Are you planning to get involved during this negotiating process --

MR. MCCORMACK: Are we what?

QUESTION: -- talking to the concerned parties, Greece and FYROM, since those talks are in a crucial stage due to the -- FYROM would like to become a member of NATO, an agreement should be reached?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have encouraged a resolution to this issue. As you know, we have made our decision on the name issue.

Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:10 p.m.)

DPB # 187