MR. CASEY: Okay, good afternoon, guys. Happy Monday. I don't have anything to start you with, so, Matt.

QUESTION: Have you been able to get any more -- any clarity at all -- not any more but any clarity at all -- on what the aid figures are for Pakistan and exactly what the law does or does not require in terms of suspension or withholding aid in the case of a situation like we have seen?

MR. CASEY: Well, Matt, in terms of the actual aid figures, my understanding based on what I've been told by our folks in the South Central Asia Bureau is that the total amount of U.S. assistance for Pakistan since 2001 is $9.6 billion. I think that's as good a working figure as we've got for you right now.

In terms of the legislation and whether that applies to this circumstance and how much it does or doesn't -- you know, frankly, Matt, I'm sure that this is part of the what the -- I know it's part of what the lawyers will look at in terms of the review. But at this point, I can't hazard a guess for you in terms of what, if any, impact various pieces of legislation might or might not have on our decisions.

The bottom line is we are extremely disappointed by this decision that's been taken. We think Pakistan needs to return to constitutional order as quickly as possible. And we are going to be reviewing our assistance to that country based not only in light of what our legal obligations are, of course, but also on how this decision and the continuation of these kinds of measures will affect our overall bilateral relationship.

As I said earlier this morning, we obviously are going to have to assess what's happened here. But it's hard to see how, if these measures remain in place, our relationship can remain the same.

QUESTION: Okay, 9.6 billion sine 2001?

MR. CASEY: Since 2001, yes.

QUESTION: So -- and this is post-9/11 2001?

MR. CASEY: Yes, exactly.

QUESTION: Okay. You don't have a --

MR. CASEY: You could basically talk about it as since -- you know, since the start of October 1 of that year, since the start of that following fiscal year.

QUESTION: Which begins October 1st, right?

MR. CASEY: Right.

QUESTION: This current budget request that is -- I think it's about 778 or 780. Do you have that?

MR. CASEY: I believe -- I don't have that specific figure in front of me, but it's approximately that.

QUESTION: Does that -- do you include that in this 9.6 billion or is --

MR. CASEY: My understanding is that 9.6 billion is the aid that has been provided to date, so it would not include funding that's yet to be provided because it's not yet been budgeted by Congress.

QUESTION: Okay. So we should add then --

MR. CASEY: So you should add that into the 9.6 billion, and that gets you closer to the -- between -- well, it gets you over 10 and short of 11, and those were the two figures I think we've seen talked about.

QUESTION: Right, okay. How far -- has the review actually begun? Can you say with certainty that the bean counters have gotten into or the lawyers have gotten into a room and started talking about this?

MR. CASEY: Well, certainly, I know in this building there have already been discussions about this. In terms of the broader interagency process that'll be involved, I think there probably still needs to be something convoked. I'm not aware that any interagency meeting has taken place on that. Certainly, I know we're looking within this building and I think the Pentagon and other parts of the U.S. Government are as well. I suspect within the next couple of days there'll be a broader discussion among the various players here because this does involve a variety of different agencies.

Paul.

QUESTION: Since we spoke this morning, there have been a couple of announcements out of Islamabad that I wondered if you've verified. One is that an attorney general said they are committed to holding the elections in January and, two, Musharraf again was quoted as saying he is determined to shed his military uniform.

MR. CASEY: Well, I've seen those press reports. Certainly, I can't confirm for you that that means that those events are going to happen. But we do, as the Secretary stressed in her comments this weekend, want to see President Musharraf honor his commitment to remove the uniform, to end his association or his role as military commander before taking the oath of office again. We also believe it's extremely important that Pakistan move forward with President Musharraf's pledge to hold elections before -- I believe it's January 15th -- and of course, to have those elections happen in a way that's free and fair and transparent, you would also really need to see the removal of these kinds of emergency measures there.

You'd certainly also need to see an end to the crackdown on independent media and on the political opposition that's also been part of what's happened since the emergency decree was declared. So while it would certainly be positive to have President Musharraf reaffirm his desire to take the uniform off and certainly positive to see a reiteration of the intention to hold national elections, the conditions need to be in place for those elections to provide a meaningful result in terms of a reflection of the will of the Pakistani people.

Yeah, Param.

QUESTION: Does any anticipated moves by President Musharraf to restore some semblance of democracy include the reinstatement of the judge who was sacked, the top judge?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I don't want to try and get into the details of this too much because there's a lot of open questions that are there, but we believe it's important that this emergency decree be rescinded and that constitutional order be restored. To my way of thinking, I assume that would mean with the court continuing to play its role in the political process that it was prior to the announcement of this measure.

Yeah, back here.

QUESTION: My name's Brian Bennett from Time magazine. I wanted to follow up on the review that Secretary Rice mentioned. Who has she delegated to lead that review of the funds that go to Pakistan and which offices inside in the State Department will be leading that review of the funds that will go to Pakistan?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself here. It's going to have to be an interagency process. Certainly, the people that would be involved in it here from this building would include but wouldn't be limited to our Bureau of South Central Asian Affairs, USAID. Obviously, you know, this will ultimately involve discussions with the Pentagon, with the National Security Council, followed with a variety of other agencies I haven't even thought of yet. So I suspect as I said to Matt earlier, that while there's some discussions ongoing in this building that Jim Moriarty and the Bureau of South Central Asian Affairs are heading up right now that there will be a broader interagency process and that that's something that has yet to get underway.

Yeah, let's go back here.

QUESTION: Have any -- have there been contacts with Pakistani officials after the imposition of emergency?

MR. CASEY: Well, among other things, our Ambassador Anne Patterson, was part of a group of diplomats in Islamabad that were convoked by President Musharraf earlier today to hear his views on why this measure took place and I'll leave it to him to discuss his rationale behind this. But suffice it to say that Ambassador Patterson, along with many of the other representatives there, made it clear U.S. views on this subject and our disappointment with the move as well as noting our serious concern about the crackdown that has occurred on free media and the opposition in light of this.

QUESTION: And there were reports in Pakistani media that a senior U.S. official from State Department might be traveling to Pakistan?

MR. CASEY: Not that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of any travel plans that I have to announce for you at this point. We'll certainly let you know if anything comes up.

Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary reaching out personally to President Musharraf and, if not, why not, particularly since she did so in the past?

MR. CASEY: I suspect she'll have an opportunity to talk to Pakistani officials about this herself, but I don't have anything to offer you right now on that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. Do you believe Musharraf's move is counterproductive to the war on terror and if so, how?

MR. CASEY: Well, most importantly, it's counterproductive to democracy and democracy's development in Pakistan. And we have long supported the efforts which President Musharraf had undertaken to expand democratic rights and opportunities in Pakistan, including through the development of a free media through the plans for holding elections through his commitment to take off his military uniform and run -- rule as a civilian leader. The fact that he has now taken us a large step backward from that through this emergency decree is unhelpful to Pakistan's development and ultimately, unhelpful to all of our common interest in seeing that country develop as a modern and moderate Islamic state.

QUESTION: I mean, I wanted to take that further. Do you mean -- do you think he's isolating himself from mainstream support and would that eventually take him to a brick wall?

MR. CASEY: Well, look, there are a lot of people that can try and do analysis for you of what the political implications are inside of Pakistan and whether this moves him in one direction or another. I think for us, the most important thing, though, is not President Musharraf; it's the development of Pakistan's democracy and society. That's what we've always placed our emphasis on and certainly, anything that takes us further away from our goals on that is not helpful and it's why we want to see this move reversed and see the kinds of measures that have been taken in terms of restrictions on press, restrictions on NGO groups and restrictions on the opposition end.

QUESTION: Tom.

MR. CASEY: Yeah, Matt.

QUESTION: You said you weren't aware of any plans by anyone from here to go there. Has there been any consideration to having -- to recalling Ambassador Patterson or is the thinking that it's better to have her there?

MR. CASEY: Well, Matt, at this point, I'm not aware that there have been any discussions on that issue. I do think we have a significant situation happening in Pakistan and I think at this point, it's important that we have our ambassador there to be able to convey our policies and views. And I expect that Anne will remain in Islamabad. Again, I certainly haven't heard any kind of discussions here about asking for her removal or withdrawal.

Yeah, Joel.

QUESTION: Tom, what are you hearing from nearby governments such as Afghanistan at Kabul and India at New Delhi, and also through third party from Tehran?

MR. CASEY: Joel, I'd leave it to other countries to talk about their own views on this. I'm not aware of what conversations might have been had among our embassies in a variety of different places on this. Certainly, I'm sure that this is a matter of concern for all of Pakistan's neighbors and -- as well it should be and we certainly hope that they'll add their voices to ours in terms of calling on President Musharraf to end this state of emergency and return to constitutional order.

QUESTION: Further, would you, because of this declaration by President Musharraf, talk to NATO to see if they possibly could expand their influence? They're up in Afghanistan, but just temporarily to maybe ease the situation to the south in Pakistan.

MR. CASEY: Joel, if what you're referring to is having some kind of NATO military operation in Pakistan, I don't think that's contemplated by anyone.

Nina.

QUESTION: So what do you make of reports that the elections will happen as scheduled in January?

MR. CASEY: Well, as I said, I think in response to one of Paul's questions, it would obviously be a positive step to have those elections go forward, but only if they take place under the proper conditions. And the idea is not just to hold elections, but to hold elections that really allow for the Pakistani people to freely choose the leadership of the country. And when elections happen in a situation where there are serious restrictions on freedom of expression and on the ability of others to campaign, that's not exactly the kind of election that we were hoping to see.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

MR. CASEY: You sure can.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about these World Bank loans, $900 million that's still due to go to Iran? There's been some dissent from some members of the subcommittee on this, saying it kind of undermines current U.S. and UN policy. Can you talk about this a bit?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think you'd have to, first and foremost, talk to the World Bank about their programs for Iran. Certainly, we have taken steps to try and limit the ability of Iran to pursue both its nuclear weapons program as well as pursue support for terrorist organizations, and those are some of our primary policy concerns with respect to Iran. We've done that, as you know, through a number of measures, including the sanctions that the Secretary and Secretary Paulson announced a couple of weeks ago. And that includes listing several of Iran's banks as being centers through which either terrorist groups are being financed or through which proliferation activities are being financed.

But these steps are designed specifically to have an impact on those programs and have an impact on the regime's ability to carry them out. I'm not sure what kind of programs the World Bank has in Iran, but certainly to the extent that they would deal with the humanitarian needs of the Iranian people I don't think our goal here is to punish the Iranian people for the misdeeds of the regime.

QUESTION: Still, does this not send the wrong message to Iran when the U.S. is ready to send them such a huge amount, even if it is for humanitarian needs?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, what the World Bank chooses to do or to authorize is not a decision that is in the U.S.'s hands. We certainly do want to see other governments take actions to try and limit the ability of the Iranian regime to be able to conduct proliferation activities to help it on its path towards building a nuclear weapon, as well as to take actions to try and prevent them from providing the funding that we know they give to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and many others, as well as the support that they've provided to militia groups inside of Iraq.

So, you know, we are focusing on the specific problem and on the specific actions of the regime. I don't think anyone at this point has talked about trying to take measures that might have a negative impact on the average person or their ability to feed themselves or have basic kinds of human needs met.

QUESTION: Isn't it time for some kind of review of funding to Iran by the Bank?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think we're constantly looking at our own programs and our own efforts to restrict Iran's capabilities to engage in this kind of negative behavior. I think what it's really time for, though, is for the Iranian Government to try and do what's in the best interests of its people. We certainly would like to see Iran cooperate with the international community, to engage in the negotiations that have been offered to it, and to work with us to be able to deal with what is a concern that's not only that of the United States or of Western Europe but of the broader international community.

And it is remarkable, again, that this Iranian Government has taken so many opportunities to say no to what is a rather unique offer not only from the United States but from the broader members of the international community.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have a preview of the French President's visit? What's on the agenda for --

MR. CASEY: I'll defer over to the White House on that one. It's President Sarkozy meeting with President Bush. Certainly, we welcome his visit here. The United States has had a long and detailed, prosperous relationship with France over the years. This will be a good opportunity for President Sarkozy and President Bush to discuss not only those issues that are on our bilateral agenda, but I'm sure the broader issues that are of concern to all of us, including Iran, including the situation in the Middle East, Lebanon, which is an issue that's been of great importance to France, Darfur, the whole range of issues in which we've been cooperating. But in terms of the specifics of the meetings, I'll leave that to my colleagues over at the White House.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On North Korea, are you able to give us an update on what the disablement team is doing up in Yongbyon and if you can -- if you're able to say that the disablement process has actually begun?

MR. CASEY: Well, I think there is a little bit of a, you know, difference without a distinction here and they arrived -- they arrived in North Korea, as you know, on the 1st and then they went up to Yongbyon over the weekend and they commenced disablement work there. You know, what does that mean, which nut and bolt and chain and screw and piece of equipment has been moved where, I don't think we or anyone else are going to be in a position to give you a blow-by-blow description of that.

But suffice it to say that they are on scene and the work is underway. We expect them to continue at the site until there is completion of the disablement of the three core facilities there, which is the reactor, the reprocessing plant, as well as the fuel fabrication plant. And again, under the terms of the agreement that we reached, that process we expect to be completed by the end of the year.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Have you already received a declaration list from them -- I mean, the North Korean from all the nuclear programs?

MR. CASEY: Not that I'm aware of, though I know there are discussions that are ongoing about that. Chris spoke to that a little bit during his trip over the weekend. Certainly, we want to get a look at a declaration as soon as we can and be able to make sure that we are in a position to verify that that declaration is, in fact, full and complete.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Is there any development about United States food aid to North Korea?

MR. CASEY: Nothing new for you on that, no.

QUESTION: No movement at all by USAID?

MR. CASEY: I'm not aware that any decisions have been made, no.

Okay. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:15 p.m.)

DPB # 195