MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. No opening statements. Who wants to start the questioning? Jumping in there.

QUESTION: Can you give us a preview of the Quartet meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure, I'll give you a little bit of a preview. They're going to be getting together on Friday, representatives from the EU, Russia, UN, and the United States. This is a meeting that's really designed for the Quartet to get together to take stock of where we are in the Middle East, to talk about how we, as a part of the international system, can help generate the support that is going to be necessary if the Israelis and Palestinians are going to exploit the opportunities that are now before them to potentially move the process of reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians forward.

Speaking in very practical terms, what does that mean? Well, it talks -- it's a little bit of a division of labor within the international system; who has what assets that can help, for example, build up Palestinian institutions, institutions of governance, institutions of security. They will talk about other ways that, collectively, they can marshal the forces of the international community in support of this process.

I expect that they will reaffirm their commitment to the Quartet statement from a year ago yesterday, which outlines the conditions that Hamas has to meet if they want to realize a different kind of relationship with the international community. We'll also talk about -- the Secretary will also talk a little bit about her past trip as well as her upcoming trip to the Middle East, which, it is expected, she would sit down with Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas together. She will have other meetings and other stops along the way during that trip as we get closer to her departure date, which will probably be mid-February, but we don't have anything written in pen at this point. It's penciled in.

She will talk about that trip and how we can all work together and coordinate to reach a common objective and that is to move this process forward, to see if we can collectively help the Israelis and Palestinians exploit the openings that we now have before us.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Does it -- I mean, it sounds a bit like a pledging conference than -- I mean, if you match up (inaudible) --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, I don't -- no --

QUESTION: I mean, how does that work?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, because these are existing resources. I'll give you an example. We are working with the Palestinians, building up their security forces. Those responsible parties within the Palestinian political structure, President Abbas and the people around him; how can they best organize themselves, how can they best train them -- how can they best be trained and equipped to meet the requirements of helping to provide security for the Palestinian people and stopping terror attacks.

They need some help with that, because we all understand exactly how far those security forces had sunk under Yasser Arafat. They were thoroughly corrupt. They were fragmented. There was no central command and control other than the word of Yasser Arafat. So they have a long way to come in order to get up to some sort of international standard that they could help provide security for the Palestinian people and that they -- in doing so, that they would reassure the international community that they would be up to the task for providing security so that you don't have these kind of continuing terrorist attacks. They're not there yet.

The Europeans have worked also with the Palestinians on governance, for example. They have worked also in the areas of police training. So it's really to talk about how -- what we are currently doing, how we can coordinate efforts, political, diplomatic, assistance efforts, and talk about what are the gaps that exist and how either we might fill those or others might be enlisted to help out in the cause.

QUESTION: So is the gaps part, that's what's new? Because, I mean, as you point out, the U.S. is already helping security services, Europeans are already helping. It presumably -- we would already know what we're doing and they would already know what they're doing. So I'm still confused on what the purpose of talking about --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, it is -- in large part this is an exercise in demonstrating political and diplomatic support for the efforts that are currently underway. And it is a manifestation of political and diplomatic support for those in the region who have an interest in bridging the differences between the Israelis and Palestinians and trying to get to a political horizon for the Palestinians and tackling some of the tangible real-world problems and obstacles that exist right now. So that is what is at its root there. There are practical aspects to it as well, like I just talked about.

Yeah.

QUESTION: What's the Russian contribution? You mentioned the U.S. contribution, the EU contribution, what does Russia bring to the table?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, obviously, the political and diplomatic support. I'm not -- I can't tell you I'm fully briefed on exactly their assistance programs to the Palestinians, so we can -- either we or they can talk about more about that in the future.

Samir.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary going to see General Dayton today?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think he is on her schedule today, yes.

QUESTION: Sean, does the Secretary still plan to try to get the three parties -- Olmert, Abbas and the United States -- together this month to talk?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, that's still the plan, still the plan. Like I said, we don't have any date set or venue set yet. We're working through all the preliminaries in order to make that a productive meeting, but that is still our intention, yes.

QUESTION: Sorry, I may have missed this. I came in a little bit late. What part of -- will the Quartet be discussing this summit and what perhaps will be discussed at --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, exactly. She's going to talk a little bit about her past trip, bring them fully up to date, fully up to speed where we are in the process, her discussions during her last trip, subsequent discussions she's had with individuals in the region, others interested in the process, as well as looking forward to what it is that she hopes to achieve in the coming meetings with Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas as well as her other stops in the region.

QUESTION: Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Samir, again.

QUESTION: Sorry. There was a quote in the Washington Post last week, I think by Mr. David Ignatius. He had an interview with the Secretary. He said she's going to encourage Abbas and Olmert to go beyond the roadmap and to start discussing the final status issues. Is that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that wasn't exactly -- that's not exactly it. She talked about working within the framework of the roadmap. And within the roadmap all of these very contentious and thorny issues such as right-of-return and borders and economic issues and Jerusalem. Those are all things that are part of the roadmap that are envisioned at the end of the roadmap.

The idea, as she explained, is to begin to have a conversation about any of the issues, difficult issues, that either side might want to bring up that are part of that political horizon. I'm not trying to specify what they may or may not talk about; that's part of what each of the parties have to decide. But the idea is that they haven't talked about any of these issues for going on six years now. So can they start to have those conversations while they also work on the very practical real-world current issues of roadblocks -- I mean, not roadblocks -- checkpoints, keeping -- how to keep the crossing points between Gaza and Israel functioning, how to better provide security on the Palestinian side. Things that need to be dealt with if -- that, at some point along the way, in the creation of a Palestinian state, so we have to deal with those issues regardless. But also to talk about the issues that are of interest to those who are -- who want to start talking about, well, what are the political outlines of the issues between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

QUESTION: You spoke about demonstrating in political and diplomatic support. What kind of support will be the final statements, something you are going to --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm sure they'll put out -- I'm sure that, you know, David Welch and his counterparts are negotiating a communiqué. We usually put out a piece of paper from these meetings and we will all get that once it has been blessed by the principals of the Quartet. Just the very fact that this group is getting together to talk about the issues before them, talk about how it is that they might support this process I think is an important demonstration of the commitment of everybody around that table to try -- do everything they can to move the process forward.

Yes.

QUESTION: Is that the same as saying that you do expect the Quartet to endorse this change in approach or at least in timeline about what you talk about first or when you talk about it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm not going to presuppose what it is that they're going to agree to, but I think that the fact that they're getting together is a demonstration that they support what is being done by us as well as others.

QUESTION: Do you plan a press conference?

MR. MCCORMACK: Part of the plan is the standard setup with one of these Quartet meetings is they will get together and read a statement and then probably take some question from the Press Corps.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I'm Thomas Bodner (ph) for ARD German TV. I have a question. German prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for 13 suspected CIA agents over their alleged abduction of a German citizen Khaled al-Masri a few years ago. Is it thinkable that the U.S. Government is helping with this prosecution?

MR. MCCORMACK: A couple things. I don't think that our folks have had an opportunity to have a look at some of the details. We've seen the press reports here. These warrants have been issued I understand by a local prosecutor, so it is not -- it is not the typical bilateral to bilateral exchange that you might have with the federal government. So again, we're going to look for more details. In terms of any legal questions concerning the matter, the Department of Justice is going to handle those. They represent us in any of these types of matters.

But I would just reiterate just very simply what the Secretary has said many times over on issues of this type, and that is that we respect the sovereignty of our friends and allies and that we have a very good relationship with Germany, we have a very good relationship with Germany working on counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations.

Lambros, you're going to jump out of your seat. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Actually, he's stolen my question but that's all right. We can move to Cyprus.

MR. MCCORMACK: You can ask it again and I'll say the same thing. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Cyprus. Mr. McCormack, what is the U.S. position vis-à-vis to the limitation of the continental shelf among the Republic of Cyprus, Lebanon and Egypt?

MR. MCCORMACK: I have an answer for that.

QUESTION: How it comes?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, here it is. This issue highlights once again why it is imperative that Cyprus -- the Cyprus issue be resolved as soon as possible. A final settlement will enable all Cypriots to benefit jointly from the island's resources. We encourage both parties to implement UN Under Secretary General Gambari's proposals and move towards a settlement.

QUESTION: Anything to say about the statement of the Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat that Turkey -- I repeat Turkey -- has legal rights in the continental shelf of the Republic of Cyprus?

MR. MCCORMACK: We recognize the Republic of Cyprus as a sovereign state. We also believe that it is important that any developments in the offshore area be done in a way to enhance prospects for reunification.

QUESTION: And since Mr. Talat is talking like a subject of the Turkish Government on this issue and not as the Turkish Cypriot of the Republic of Cyprus, which is under Turkish invasion and occupation, you don't think that his position is creating problems on your efforts, Mr. McCormack, to find a solution to the Cyprus problem?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have anything beyond what I have given you.

QUESTION: And the last one, back on Cyprus. The Greek Under Secretary Tasos Neranzis, N-e-r-a-n-z-i-s --

MR. MCCORMACK: I was going to ask you how to spell it.

QUESTION: -- in charge for energy and development is in town. Do you know if he is going to meet anyone here in the Department of State pertaining issues for Southeast Europe for which you are very, very concerned?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know.

QUESTION: You don't know?

MR. MCCORMACK: I just don't know.

QUESTION: Can you take my question?

MR. MCCORMACK: We will -- Mr. Gallegos will endeavor to get you an answer. I'm afraid I can't keep track of the schedules of everybody in the building, as edifying as that may be --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) et cetera, you know we have common ground for this. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: The Venezuelan legislature this morning surrendered powers to legislate to President Chavez for the next 18 months. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, it's a decision for the Venezuelan legislature and we will see how President Chavez wields these powers that have been given him by the legislature. Our concern with President Chavez all along has been the manner in which he has governed and our concerns as to whether or not he has governed in a democratic manner and whether or not he in his governance has furthered the goals of a liberal democracy. So we'll see, George. I don't think we can offer a final assessment. This was a decision made by their parliament. It certainly raises -- might raise some eyebrows, but it is their decision to make and we will see how Mr. Chavez uses these powers.

QUESTION: Is it possible to be a -- is it possible to have a democracy without an independent legislature?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that that's an open question, George. I think that's an open question. That's why I said we'll see how he uses these powers during the next 18 months and see whether he uses them in the furtherance of Venezuelan democracy.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about this Iraq Reconstruction audit reports?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: There's been a lot of attention drawn to, you know, money that could have been wasted, that too much money is going to security. You got a reaction to this?

MR. MCCORMACK: This is Stuart Bowen's report? Yeah, I think he specifically has said that in conducting his audits, fraud has not been a major component of his findings. He has raised questions about how money has been spent and the priorities that have been placed on the money that's been spent and some of the projects there. And we take those criticisms into account.

Very oftentimes, he has highlighted issues, issue areas that have been of concern to us and we have taken actions to remediate some of the things that he has raised with us. So the special inspector general, the inspector general function in Iraq is an important function. It is valuable to us here at the State Department. It's valuable to the American taxpayer to make sure that their money gets spent in appropriate ways, in ways that are effective, that meet the objectives that we've laid out.

QUESTION: Do you think any -- there will be a problem with the Iraqi Government's ability to budget the money once they have it?

MR. MCCORMACK: The Iraqi Government?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they -- look, they are a fledgling democracy and they're just now building the institutions that come along with a democracy. And along with building those institutions, you have to put in place the mechanisms to ensure that funds are spent properly and that you have proper oversight of how those funds are spent.

I can't comment in detail. I'm sure it will vary from bureaucracy to bureaucracy, but they're just at the starting gate -- but we are very mindful of the fact that they are just at the starting gate and putting in place all of these procedures. So we're working with them to make sure that they are in place. Where there have been instances of -- where the Iraqis have done investigations and found suspicions about fraud and abuse, those people have been held to account. I can think of a couple instances where people have been put on trial for fraud or embezzlement or misuse of funds.

So they are just getting started. There are some hopeful indications there that the system is beginning to function. I'm not telling you by any means that they are at the -- they have a completed product at this point, so we're going to continue working with them to make sure the funds -- any funds that we give to the Iraqi Government are well-spent and spent on the projects that they're intended to be spent on.

QUESTION: Was this a surprise to the State Department that the nature of this report and the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think this is -- this was -- he does quarterly reports and I can't tell you exactly how far in advance we get some of these reports, but we do have an opportunity to provide input to them. Obviously, we provide a lot of information to them as well.

I think that there is also -- there are also some -- there's a case in there about the police academy and that sort of -- and the kind of expenditures that were made and the priorities of how the money was used. I would just point out that when Anne Patterson came into her job in 2005 here for the Assistant Secretary for INL, she looked at all the programs. They have a large budget. In that sense, it's unusual for a State Department bureau, in that they have a lot of actual operational contracts. They do a lot of training and that sort of thing.

So she looked at these contracts, she looked at these programs, and there were some of -- a couple of them in Iraq that really raised some concerns with her, so she immediately went to our inspector general and said, "Look, I actually have some concerns about these programs. I'm asking you to look into them and to do an audit of them." And what happened is that these two efforts actually occurred in parallel, as I understand it. So you had the State Department Inspector General looking into these programs at Anne Patterson's behest, meanwhile you had the SIGIR that was doing the same thing.

So I just point it out as a way of demonstrating that we do take this very seriously here at the State Department. We want to be good stewards of the American taxpayers' dollars.

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: I was just going to say, specifically with this police academy, because it's drawing so much attention, this Olympic-size swimming pool and this kind of thing, is it still sitting empty or --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, they're looking at ways to put the facility to use.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: The report talks about a lot of money that was overpaid in these contracts. Can you tell us where that money is at this point?

MR. MCCORMACK: Overpaid?

QUESTION: There's overpayments and so on. It talks about -- you know, that there were contracts that were irregular and then, you know, it was overpaid. Can you tell us --

MR. MCCORMACK: Where is the money right now?

QUESTION: Where's the money?

MR. MCCORMACK: Kirit, I'll have to get somebody who's more well-versed in the minutia of these reports to get you the information.

QUESTION: Do you know if it's been repaid back at this point or is it --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll have to find out for you, Kirit.

QUESTION: Can I switch topics?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. Let's see.

QUESTION: Iraq.

QUESTION: Well, I have Iraq, but --

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about these reports that the U.S. is investigating that Iran was involved in the attack in Karbala on U.S. soldiers. Do you have anything to substantiate that or?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't. Talking to the folks over at the Department of Defense who are -- I'm not talking specifically of people conducting the investigation but the -- you know, my counterparts over there, they're not sure exactly where this particular report is coming from. Clearly, the Department of Defense is looking into this particular attack. It was a tragedy. American soldiers lost their lives and we want to understand who is responsible and how it happened, absolutely.

The attack was notable, as you have reported, for the fact that it was highly organized. Now, I don't think that the Department of Defense has come to any conclusions as to who exactly is responsible for the attack and what, if any, role -- and I understand what, if any, role -- Iranian agents may have played in it. I just simply can't tell you that. I'm not trying to dissuade you from the point. That may well end up being the case, but I don't think anybody at this point can tell you that that is, in fact, the case now.

We do know that, and we have talked about the fact quite publicly, that the Iranian regime is engaged in supplying militias, they are engaged in training militias. I can't say that any of those activities relate to the people who perpetrated this attack.

QUESTION: I --

MR. MCCORMACK: Do you have a follow-up, Libby?

QUESTION: Yeah. I wanted to just follow up. So you're saying there's no conclusions that have been made by the DOD, but they do have reason to believe -- they are looking into the Iranian connection there?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you that they are. I, you know, honestly I can't tell you from where these reports spring. I can't tell you if people are extrapolating, if they are hypothesizing, where it comes from. All I can -- all I've seen are anonymous sources on this. DOD would be -- is in a much better position. I'm several steps removed over here at the State Department and they would be in a much better position to be able to tell you exactly where they are in their investigation, whether or not they have drawn any of these conclusions. But in my discussions with them, they haven't indicated that they know of anything at this point that substantiate the reports.

QUESTION: And have you seen General Odierno made some comments to USA Today about some of the equipment that Iran allegedly is supplying for Iraqi militias, including Katusha rockets?

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Have you seen those comments that Odierno made?

MR. MCCORMACK: I saw -- yeah, I saw the comments that he made.

QUESTION: Does that sound right to you? Those --

MR. MCCORMACK: He's the man on the ground, so I take his word for it.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

QUESTION: There was some expectation that more evidence would be shown this week about Iran's involvement and activities. When might that --

MR. MCCORMACK: I've been cautioning everybody all week long here, we will do this on our own timeline and we're going to do it in such a way that it is properly presented, it is clear and it is done in such a way that in presenting this information that we don't in any way jeopardize our ability to further collect information about these networks. So we'll do this on our own timeline.

QUESTION: Is there a duty to inform Congress about it first or --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm certainly -- I'm sure we will share the information with the Congress, but I am not sure that there's any legal requirement that guides what steps you take and when you do -- and when you inform them.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. MCCORMACK: What's that? On this topic?

QUESTION: On Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on this?

QUESTION: Just on this letter that the Secretary sent to Senator Levin. It talks about a lot of missed deadlines and so on. I'm just wondering if you had, first, any comment on it. Second, if this is something we've brought up with the Iraqi Government, if we've tried to work with them to help them get to this point and what we're doing at this point.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, absolutely we talk to them about it. They know what they have to do. They are working through their political processes. We're talking with them about the hydrocarbon law, we're talking about the de-Baathification law, we're talking to them about their efforts to create a virtual moderate governing coalition, and also on the security side as well standing up the nine -- the nine districts. They've already appointed a commander getting the forces -- getting their forces deployed. I know they're working on that. Some of the forces are starting to flow from the north down to the south. So they're working through all of these things.

And we're -- you know, we're talking to them every single day about this, I can assure you. And we're certainly -- we're on the case, as are they. And we believe that it is important to give them an opportunity to see if this plan will work. A big component of this plan working is going to be the Iraqis stepping in. They are giving every indication that they are doing that. I think at this point you start to see the forces flowing south, you start to see some of the things that need to happen happen. Now, in terms of are they meeting all of the exact timelines that they have set out for themselves, I think that they would tell you that not all of them at this point. But I think the general assessment is that they are moving in the right direction.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that. I mean, the Administration has touted these benchmarks for a while now. Is it any concern that they've missed them and have you been working with the Iraqi Government to set new deadlines?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it's the same. We work with them every single day to move them along. You can't -- we obviously can't make decisions for them. We can't take -- you know, we don't have a vote in the Iraqi parliament, but we can work with them to move the process along.

QUESTION: Levin's letter, Sean, says specifically that the Administration does not intend to attach meaningful consequences for the Iraqis continuing to fail to meet their commitments. He said that the letter she wrote makes it abundantly clear that there will not be consequences.

MR. MCCORMACK: I think -- you know, I don't think you need to explain the consequences to the Iraqi leadership. I think they understand what the consequences are. I think they've already lived some of the consequences. Tariq al-Hashimi has lost two brothers and a sister. I think they are acutely aware.

QUESTION: But what about --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think they are acutely aware of what the consequences of not succeeding. They know what those --

QUESTION: The consequences for what the U.S. Government action will be?

MR. MCCORMACK: They know what those are. And the President has spoken to the fact that we are working in support of them. But the Iraqis need to demonstrate that they are stepping up and they need to demonstrate that they have not only the will but the capability to execute their plan. And as I was telling Kirit, they are moving along. They are moving along here. And where they need to improve their execution of the plan, we are working with them on that.

QUESTION: You asked rhetorically a moment ago whether they have been meeting all of these target dates set for themselves and answered yourself, "not all of them." Have they met any of them?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. They -- for example, the appointment of a commander for Baghdad, that's one example where they have (inaudible). You know, I don't have the laundry list for you, but they have, yes.

QUESTION: Most of them have to do, though, with passing laws by certain dates, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: A lot of it has to do with that. They are -- you know, the much talked about hydrocarbon law is they're working through the final language fixes. But -- and you know, I'm not going to play their lawyer here, but you have to understand that the hydrocarbon law actually gets to many of the core issues that we're talking about here, how the various parts of Iraq relate to one another and it gets to some of the essential political bargains that are hard to arrive at -- not making excuses for them, but I'm just trying to explain the context --

QUESTION: About setting elections --

MR. MCCORMACK: Setting elections, the de-Baathification law.

QUESTION: Amnesty.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, they are working through all of these things. They haven't succeeded in passing all of them yet.

QUESTION: Well, they haven't succeeded in passing any of those, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: That's right.

QUESTION: Sean, when you talk about the consequences that they see on the ground every day, but the main thing for the State Department that you're working on is making sure that the Iraqis get the political situation together. So I mean, when President Bush talks about benchmarks and making sure the Iraqis meet them, are you going to hold the Iraqis accountable in terms of U.S. support in dollars, in military commitment, for them meeting their benchmarks on getting the political situation together? Consequences for U.S. action?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I understand that. And all of that entails making a bottom line judgment whether or not their efforts are succeeding. And I would put to you that it is too early at this point to make that judgment. President Bush and Secretary Rice have talked about the fact that we need to give them an opportunity to implement the plan, execute the plan and to see if it will succeed. That is where we are right now in the process.

What you're talking about are penalties for failure, not succeeding, or demonstrating a lack of will in executing the plan. What I'm telling you at this point, that's not where we are. President Bush has made it abundantly clear -- the Iraqis understand, the American people understand -- that this is not an open-ended commitment. They have to perform. They understand their part of the bargain in all of this.

Nicholas.

QUESTION: Sean, the incoming head of CENTCOM yesterday indicated that he wasn't familiar in great detail with the President's plan for Iraq. Are you or the State Department now better aware or familiar with the plan for diplomatic augmentation, to use the Secretary's word, in terms of not only the PRTs but any other diplomatic efforts that will have to be made to supplement what's being done on the military side?

MR. MCCORMACK: In Iraq or --

QUESTION: Yeah, in Iraq. In Iraq. Because you've talked about there'll be additional PRTs probably in Baghdad --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, Baghdad and Anbar.

QUESTION: Right. Any -- has that been fleshed out more? It's been a couple of -- well, it's been quite some time now since the President announced the new plan.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think your question is have they started working on staffing these things up.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sort of --

QUESTION: And figuring out exactly what they're going to be doing.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, people are working. I can't tell you exactly, you know, where they are, but even prior to the announcement of the PRTs we were already working on identifying PRT leaders and who would be members of these teams and building up the infrastructure that's needed to support them.

All right, somebody who hasn't had one. Yes, sir. We'll get to you, Mr. Gollust.

QUESTION: Okay. Another subject.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: The Iraqi Government is organizing a regional conference. They are inviting all their neighbors, including Syria and Iran. I wanted to know what is your opinion, if you think it's a good idea.

MR. MCCORMACK: I looked into it a little bit. As I understand I -- I don't know if they've sent out formal invitations to a regional conference -- but certainly we would support such an effort by the Iraqi Government. They have talked about this for some time. We ourselves have worked with many of Iraq's neighbors to encourage them to support Iraq diplomatically, politically through assistance or whatever other way that they see fit. So certainly we would have a positive view of the Iraqis holding such a regional conference.

QUESTION: Even if you are not invited?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're not in the region.

Who else had Iraq? Samir, did you have an Iraq question?

QUESTION: Yes. Do you have a readout of the meeting yesterday Ambassador Khalilzad had with the King of Saudi Arabia?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't. I don't.

Okay. Anybody else on Iraq?

QUESTION: Yeah, actually Khalilzad. When is he -- when is the switchover happening?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think there's been a date set yet. He has to -- first of all both he and Ryan have to go through confirmation hearings. I don't want to get ahead of where we are in the process. But let us presume or hope for a positive outcome of both of those hearings and they're confirmed and so forth; I would expect over the next month or two. But again, this is the Senate's prerogative as to when it schedules hearings and so forth.

QUESTION: They haven't scheduled either of those hearings, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I'm not sure that we've filled our end of the bargain yet, that they've gotten all their paperwork up.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, Senate prerogative, but I think it'll occur next week or two.

Yeah, okay. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: As you know, Turkish Foreign Minister Gul is coming to Washington next week. He will have a meeting with Secretary Rice.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And could you tell a little bit about his visit, what is the agenda? And also after General Ralston yesterday's visit to Turkey, what is the latest situation about combating PKK terror organization in northern Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: I have to tell you, I don't have a read -- a full readout of General Ralston's activities. Clearly, the fact that he is there and you have somebody of his stature working this issue is indication of how seriously we take it. He's working with the Iraqis, working with a Turkish counterpart, a retired general. But I don't have a readout on all of his activities right now.

As for the Foreign Minister, we're a little far out from the meeting right now to have a full list of what's on the agenda. But let me just put out there I'm sure they'll talk about Iraq. I'm sure they'll talk about this cross-border issue that's of concern to us as well as the Turkish Government, talk about Iran. I'm sure that will come up. And most likely Turkish-European relations.

QUESTION: And Cyprus?

MR. MCCORMACK: It could be.

QUESTION: Definitely. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros --

QUESTION: I have a question --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, hold on. Dave Gollust.

QUESTION: Well, I have asked whether the State Department had anything to say about the case of an Iranian dissident from the Azeri minority, a Mr. Abbas Lisani, who is on a -- apparently on a hunger strike and human rights groups have taken up this case.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, I do have something to say about that. The U.S. calls on the Iranian regime to cease the systematic oppression of its citizens, respect the human rights of all Iranian people and to release those arrested and imprisoned for insisting on their universal rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, worship and fair labor standards. And that would include Mr. Lisani.

The regime has banned the Azeri language in schools, harassed Azeri activists, and unjustly jailed Azeris like Mr. Lisani for advocating for cultural and linguistic rights, Iranian Azeris who organized peaceful protests after the publication of an offensive cartoon in May 2006, were beaten, harassed and arrested.

We are deeply concerned by the regime's continuing repression of Iran's minority ethnic and religious groups, including Azeris, Kurds, Baha'i, ethnic Arabs, and others. The regime's repression affects religious minorities, students, women, labor unions, journalists, and academics. We are working with the international community, through the United Nations, foreign governments, and international nongovernmental organizations to focus attention on the Iranian regime to continued abuse of its own citizens and press for improvements in its dismal human rights record.

QUESTION: Also on Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: We've talked a little bit this week about how President Ahmadi-Nejad is falling out of favor because of the nuclear issue and the UN Security Council resolution and some of the economic policies. But there are some analysts in Iran that seem to think that this more confrontational approach by the United States against the Iranian regime could also -- could actually have the opposite effect in a sense that while Ahmadi-Nejad's behavior in Iran is causing a lot of consternation, it'll -- this aggressive stance by the United States could -- and fear that the U.S. is going to attack Iran could actually cause the leadership and the people to rally behind Ahmadi-Nejad. Do you think there's any merit to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I'm not an analyst of the Iranian political scene. I would just back up; you said that he's falling out of favor. I can't subscribe to that. I can tell you that it's quite obvious, if you read press reports coming out of Iran, that there is a -- more of a debate about the current course of this regime regarding the nuclear program and their behavior more generally in the international system.

Where that debate will lead, I can't tell you. The reasons why that debate has broken out, I can't tell you exactly. I would put it to you, however, that it is probably the result of the pressure that the international system is now placing on Iran because of its outlier behavior, especially on the nuclear program. Now in terms of -- and you also talked about the U.S.-Iranian confrontation. This is a problem between Iran and the rest of the world, not just the United States. So this is not a U.S.-Iran issue. I know there are some that would like to make it a U.S.-Iran issue.

We have sought to extend a very attractive offer to the Iranian regime with respect to their nuclear programs; suspend enrichment-related activity and you can realize negotiations with the EU-3, Russia, as well as the United States and Germany as well, breaking with 27 years of past diplomatic practice of the United States, yet they haven't taken us up on that offer. That's hardly confrontation on the part of the international system.

Now in the case of Iran working with networks inside Iraq, those working with networks that pose a danger to American soldiers, absolutely, we're going to confront those networks because they pose a direct threat to the lives of American soldiers. And we are going to take whatever steps in Iraq that we deem necessary in order to protect our forces. I think that any state would do that. So if that is a matter of confrontation, then of course, we are going to protect our forces.

But quite simply, Iran could erase any of those questions or any of those problems by simply not engaging in that kind of behavior. The whole point of our policies are to try to get Iran -- the Iranian regime to change its behavior. They are engaged in a set of behaviors that are clearly out -- beyond the lines that the international system have set in many regards; with respect to the nuclear program, with respect to their human rights record, with respect to their support for terrorism.

So Iran is quite clearly outside the bounds of acceptable behavior in many, many regards within the international system. The fact that you have a Chapter 7 resolution on Iran that passed 15-0, I think, is a clear indication that the international community has in the area of their nuclear program made that judgment. They are clearly outside the bounds of what is accepted international behavior.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The U.S. is going to start a -- I think it's going to start a Somali language broadcast to the Horn of Africa. If you could just talk about what the purpose of that is.

MR. MCCORMACK: I have to look into it for you, David. I don't have anything on it.

Lambros. You asked (inaudible) questions already.

QUESTION: But it's very important for -- on the Armenia resolution. Mr. McCormack, the Armenian Genocide resolution was introduced yesterday with the support over 160 years (inaudible) the Department of State with (inaudible) members to oppose this measure or would the Department if they actually seek to block even an open debate and democratic vote on this issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros, our policy is clear. We mourn the victims of the tragic events of 1950. We have -- 1915. We have never denied these events. The President recognizes these atrocities annually on Armenian Remembrance Day. We oppose attempts to make political determinations on the terminology of this tragedy.

QUESTION: And a follow-up on it? The State Department, Mr. McCormack, apparently not wanting to interfere in the Turkish internal affairs was largely silent on the Turkish Article 301 under which murdered journalist Hrant Dink the other day was prosecuted and sentenced last year. And interestingly the Turkish Government exercised the same restraint. Can you describe for us any Turkish Government efforts to influence your government's, Mr. McCormack, consideration of legislation on the Armenian genocide?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: No?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nicholas.

QUESTION: On Taiwan, John Negroponte yesterday was asked about Taiwan and he said as the UN and many others have said many times that the U.S. policy is based on the "One China" policy and the three communiqués. But he did not mention the Taiwan Relations Act. You haven't mentioned that in a while as well. I'm wondering if that's --

MR. MCCORMACK: It still applies and we still intend to live up to our obligations.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you know if John Negroponte said -- he indicated lots of concern about the proposal for a new constitution.

MR. MCCORMACK: I confess, George, I didn't read the entire transcript.

QUESTION: But he -- are you privately telling the President of Taiwan that it's not a good idea to advocate and push for a new constitution or change this constitution?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have made very clear what our policy is and it's no different than what you have heard in public.

QUESTION: Have you heard anything or find any comment on bin Laden's brother-in-law being murdered in Madagascar?

MR. MCCORMACK: Just before I came out here, I saw the news reports. I don't -- can't confirm them for you.

QUESTION: And tell us quickly about the antiballistic missile test. China -- again I know we discussed this a couple of weeks ago but it's raised its head again on the Hill since (inaudible) a couple of days said that he's calling for new international standards in terms of military use in space. We've had a press conference day. A couple of Republican congressmen saying that Bush wasn't aggressive enough in his response. Anything (inaudible) on this, anymore meetings with China's officials or?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't - I confess, I don't know if we've had any other interactions with them on it. We were pretty strong in our meetings in telling them that they needed to come clean fully in public as to what the data concerning this test, what the motivations behind the test were, what their plans were for future such tests and how this squared with their stated policy of not wanting to militarize space, so we're still waiting for those answers.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:23 p.m.)

DPB # 18