MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon. No opening statements, so we can get right into your questions. Whoever wants to start first?

QUESTION: Let’s take a look, if we can, of what's going on in New York. The Secretary's going up. Do you know when?

MR. MCCORMACK: No announcements on her travel plans, Barry. She certainly looks forward to being able to go up to New York to vote for a Security Council resolution that brings an end to the violence in such a way that it lays out a pathway for a lasting, durable peace in that part of the world.

QUESTION: In other words, she times her arrival or her trip to completion of a draft that can be put to a vote?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that's fair, yeah.

QUESTION: And she -- the drafting -- the negotiations of the drafting, she's obviously working here.

MR. MCCORMACK: She is.

QUESTION: But she’ll want to be up there to apply the clincher?

MR. MCCORMACK: Apply the clincher.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have John Bolton who's on the ground, Barry.

QUESTION: Yeah, sure.

MR. MCCORMACK: And Secretary Rice is in close contact with him, as well as other of her foreign counterparts as well, working on this. A lot of people working hard on it. John up in New York, Nick Burns, David Welch out in the region, as well as a host of others here at the Department.

QUESTION: Can I ask you one substance question and then I'll give way?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: The Arabs want an Israeli withdrawal. The President has said he doesn't want to see a vacuum that Hezbollah could jump into. Would the United States support a withdrawal before the hole is filled, so to speak?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we're working on, Barry, I think it's fair to say one of the key issues remaining in the resolution is how do you solve the following problem: not have a vacuum as President Bush talked about because we don't want to end up right back where we were three weeks from now. You also don't -- and everybody agrees on that. Everybody agrees also that you don't want foreign forces on Lebanese territory. I think if you ask the Israelis that, you ask the Lebanese that, you ask us, any member of the international community, they’ll agree on that.

So how do you affect that situation where you get to a point where you have the Lebanese armed forces deployed down to the southern border of Lebanon which Prime Minister Siniora yesterday made the proposal that the Government of Lebanon would do and we think that that is an important proposal. We think that that proposal is -- it is a necessary step for peace. But you also have to have that kind of deployment done in the context of the current discussions up in New York, so that you don’t return to the status quo ante, so that you don't have armed militias roaming freely along the southern border of Lebanon, free to threaten Israel and plunge the region into violence.

So there is also a discussion about the international forces component of that. You will need the international forces to support the Lebanese armed forces. They are not a -- at this point a robust enough entity to be able to on their own exercise total control of that southern area of Lebanon. That's why you have the need for a international force. So that's -- those are the pieces that we're dealing with, Barry, and a lot of this comes down to timing and sequencing and that's what's being hammered out up in New York as well as the capitals around the world.

QUESTION: So under what circumstances then could the United States support the Arab call for an Israeli withdrawal? What among those -- sort of that global picture you drew has to happen in what order before you can start?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that’s what we’re working out diplomatically, and that’s best done through private diplomatic channels and not negotiated in public. We all share the same goal here. The Arab League, the Arab representatives that are going to be up in New York today, the United States, Lebanon, Israel, everybody wants to have an end to the violence, but we want to have an end to the violence that is durable. Nobody wants to be back in this same situation three weeks, three months or three years from now.

We’ve seen the results of negotiating ceasefires in which you have groups like Hezbollah that are allowed to re-arm, build themselves back up, build fortifications and pose a threat to peace and stability in the region. Nobody wants to go back to that situation. So everybody has the same goal. We’re working together -- we’re working together and with members of the Security Council. We want to hear what the representatives from the Arab League as well as the UAE and Qatari Foreign Minister have to say. Certainly the Counsel will factor into its deliberations what they have to say. And I think also these Arab countries, as well as other Arab countries; can play a positive role in the future. There will be an end to this violence and Lebanon will see another day when it will be up to the people of Lebanon and the international community to help rebuild Lebanon. That was a task that was there prior to the beginning of this conflict and, certainly, it is a significant task after this conflict.

So I think it’s also -- it’s also important for those Arab League representatives and those representatives of Arab states to look within themselves to see what they might do in the future to help Lebanon rebuild itself and realize a brighter future.

Yeah.

QUESTION: I know you said the Lebanese army’s a robust enough entity to play a long-term stabilization role. Is it?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, it’s not quite what I said. At the moment, it is not an entity that by itself could exercise sovereignty over all of that area of southern Lebanon. Certainly, the goal is to have the Lebanese army be able to do that. And that’s why you now have this question of an international force. We want to help them.

I don’t think the Lebanese army has been deployed down to that southern border since the late ‘70s. You can check exactly when the date was. I think its right around 1978. So it’s been nearly 30 years since they’ve been down there. And they would need the support of an international force. I think Prime Minister Siniora has indicated as much in his statements.

QUESTION: But could they play an interim buffer role, which has been proposed now, to allow, facilitate a quicker Israeli withdrawal pending deployment?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, all the timing and sequencing, that’s a lot of what we’re working on up at the UN. Certainly the deployment of Lebanese forces, as I’ve said, would be a necessary step for peace. It would play an integral role in a resolution of this conflict in such a way that we are not subject the whims of Hezbollah on that southern border firing rockets at Israeli towns or kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

So they will play a very significant role, and that is part of the overall vision, the vision of the Lebanese people, who have spoken through the ballot box, and the international community that they have to have control over their own destiny. They don't want to be subject to the whims of armed groups, states within a state, that can take the Lebanese people off into a tragic direction. They don't want that.

Yeah, Elise.

QUESTION: The Lebanese actually don't favor an international stabilization force. They favor a beefed-up UNIFIL force and argue that if you handle all of these things -- beefing up UNIFIL, deploying the army and a comprehensive political settlement up front -- this is going to eliminate the very reason for Hezbollah's existence and you won't need -- and Hezbollah won't see the need to take up any arms, and so that's why it's important to have this political settlement up front and not prolong it for another resolution which creates a permanent ceasefire and political settlement. What's your response to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, our response is we're working closely with the Government of Lebanon. We're having a lot of conversations with them. Ambassador Feltman is in close contact with them. David Welch has been to Beirut recently. He remains in the region. Secretary Rice just this morning spoke with Prime Minister Siniora. So we are in very close contact with the Government of Lebanon. I think they have a full appreciation of our thinking as well as the thinking of other important members of the Security Council on how to move forward. And look, we all have the same goal and I think that we are trying to work towards a solution that works for everybody.

As the President pointed out and as Secretary Rice pointed out yesterday, that the Lebanese have items on the agenda, the Israelis have items on the agenda, the international community has items on their agenda. Are the agenda items of the Lebanese Government and the Israeli Government going to be fully consonant? Probably not. But the international community does have a view of how to solve this and we're going to work out a solution that will bring an end to the violence, has a positive pathway forward, political pathway forward to address the root causes of the beginnings of this violence, and have it be done in such a way that you have the Lebanese exercising sovereignty over all their territory with the help and support of an international force.

QUESTION: But this idea -- if I may. This idea that you've been moving towards in the last several days about a two-phased approach, I mean, the Lebanese case is that this prolongs a long-term settlement and you need to have a settlement up front which will create the conditions for the Lebanese to deploy the army, to create a political settlement, to help them exercise their authority. And you said that what you want to do is strengthen the Lebanese Government.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. And stay tuned. We're working on a resolution. A lot of this diplomacy gets done privately, doesn't get done in public from podium -- from podia or in news interviews. So we'll try to keep you abreast on how we're doing in a general sense. A lot of the details we're not going to talk about in public and I think people understand that.

Yeah, Teri.

QUESTION: Sean, you had mentioned --

QUESTION: A very quick follow-up?

QUESTION: -- that Prime Minister Siniora had expressed his support for an international force. So that's something that is in contrast to some of the other things we've heard from Lebanese officials. So Prime Minister Siniora is expressing -- this is a question, not a statement -- is expressing to you, to Secretary Rice?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think in his public statement yesterday he did talk about the international presence to assist the Lebanese armed forces. Now, we --

QUESTION: But once again, they're saying UNIFIL, you're saying international force.

MR. MCCORMACK: UNIFIL is an international force --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- by definition.

QUESTION: Would UNIFIL, for you, fulfill the mandate of an international presence?

MR. MCCORMACK: You want to have, overall, looking at the total picture down in southern Lebanon, robust enough forces -- and I say forces -- so that you can have those entities exercising some control and sovereignty over the southern part of Lebanon. Now, it's envisioned that ultimately over the medium- and long-term that's the Lebanese armed forces alone. Everybody wants to get to that end state. They will need some support in the interim, at the very least, getting down to the south, traveling down to the south and in other ways as well.

Having -- the handover of areas of operation and responsibility from one military to another, even when it's within a single military; say, for example, in Iraq handing over a U.S. military to another U.S. military entity, is very complicated operationally. It requires a lot of planning and it requires a lot of communications capability, logistics capability. And the Lebanese armed forces I think would need some assistance with this.

QUESTION: My question is much narrower than that. Is a UNIFIL force -- is a beefed up UNIFIL force, for you, the same as an international force or are you talking about a new international force for which you are now -- you have been speaking with other countries about sending troops?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, to get back to the beginning, UNIFIL is an international force.

QUESTION: Right. But you're --

MR. MCCORMACK: But the specific -- you're asking the question of, well, what are the -- what's the specific mandate? What does this international force look like exactly? What are the rules of engagement? You know what, those are questions that are now being discussed and those are being discussed in private through diplomatic channels. And at this point, we're just not going to get into the details of those discussions until we have something that is agreed upon by all the parties that need to sign off on something like that.

QUESTION: But you are willing to rewrite the resolution to reflect this, to reflect the change of 15,000 new troops?

MR. MCCORMACK: We want -- well, I think it was already envisioned and stated from the very beginning. I think, if you look back to the St. Petersburg comments and all throughout, that it was envisioned that the answer -- the medium- and long-term answer to exercising sovereignty and exercising control in south Lebanon so you don't have Hezbollah doing that with militias -- was the Lebanese armed forces. They're going to need some support.

So the question is: How do you -- how best to support those Lebanese armed forces and how best to sequence in time this handover so that they are in fact down there, they are playing a role, that they are fulfilling what is in an eventual Security Council resolution. Now those are questions that are all being discussed right now. The very questions you're asking about -- the who, what, when and where -- of an international force. Those are things that are being discussed right now.

QUESTION: So you don't rule out --

QUESTION: You're not ruling out UNIFIL doing the job?

MR. MCCORMACK: Barry, I'm not going to --

QUESTION: That's amazing. You don't want to go to the status quo ante. UNIFIL has been inept.

MR. MCCORMACK: Barry, Barry --

QUESTION: Do you want to do -- no, I'm asking you, is that a possibility?

MR. MCCORMACK: Barry, I think I just gave a very long answer here. And if you listened carefully, what I talked about is you want to have forces that are in the south of Lebanon.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: That don't allow a return to the status quo ante.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: And the calculation of what kind of international force is required to support the Lebanese army is one that is now ongoing. I -- safe to say, it will have to be a robust international force certainly.

Because if you talk about -- I just made the point, you talk about the Lebanese armed forces, how long has it been since they’ve been down on the southern Lebanon border? Nearly three decades. And I think everybody understands. The Lebanese Government understands that the Lebanese armed forces need to be built up. We ourselves have talked about how thinking ahead to this very idea that we’re going to provide funds. We’re not going to send trainers. We’re going to provide funds to train and equip the Lebanese armed forces. I suspect there are other countries that are going to be doing that as well.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary -- just wanted to tie one thing up. She spoke to the Prime Minister. Did she at that point say favorable things, as you have publicly, about the Lebanese proposal? Did she tell him --

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn’t talk to her about the phone call. But what I’m telling you about our reaction to Prime Minister Siniora’s proposal certainly reflects her thinking on that.

QUESTION: No, I know that. I just wondered if she informed them. But we’re not for sure?

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: We’re not sure. Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have any more details on how much funding the U.S. will put into training and providing equipment, what kind of equipment?

MR. MCCORMACK: I’ll try to get you an exact count on that. I think it’s $10 million plus, in that neighborhood.

QUESTION: And secondly, who’s going to disarm Hezbollah? Would it be the Lebanese forces? Would it be the beefed up UNIFIL? Would it be a completely separate international force? What’s your plan there?

MR. MCCORMACK: That is so -- that is a question that has to be addressed and has to be addressed ultimately by the Lebanese Government.

QUESTION: Is it included in a new resolution?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I mean the international forces?

QUESTION: Disarming -- no, the disarming of Hezbollah.

MR. MCCORMACK: We’ll see. It’s certainly the end state that is envisioned by the Taif Accords as well as 1559 it would be reflected in the resolution. But I don’t expect it's international forces that do the disarming of Hezbollah.

QUESTION: Is it -- is the U.S. preparing a new draft or -- France openly admits that it is. Is the United States --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we’re working with the French and we’re --

QUESTION: But does the U.S. have a different version that it’s preparing to present or is this continuing to be a U.S.-French draft?

MR. MCCORMACK: These are all -- yeah. These are all, you know, kind of version 2.0, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4 to sort of borrow a software comparison. I mean, it’s all -- it’s all -- it’s an evolutionary iterative process. So you could argue that every time you have a word or sentence change you have a new draft. It’s a rolling text. The draft that we -- that was circulated by the French and the United States earlier is the foundation from which we’re working. Of course there are going to be changes to it as we get inputs from other countries, and right now the work continues.

QUESTION: What, in its current iteration are they -- in its current iteration is it still a joint text?

MR. MCCORMACK: We are still working on the joint text.

QUESTION: And is one of those inputs specifically an Israeli withdrawal? Is that language that the U.S. is willing to see put in the resolution?

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, we’re not going to negotiate in public on this.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: About a million refugees -- Lebanese refugees and displaced people have been spread in Lebanon and going to Syria and after the bombing by Israel of their villages and houses. They look back and they see the Palestinian refugees escaping certain bombings in the past and refugees from the Golan Heights, the Syrian Golan Heights, who thought that they will be back to their villages and homes when they -- and they’re -- there’s one million Lebanese, they look at their situation now. They find themselves in a catastrophic situation and they don’t hear much from the United States’ side, much mention of their catastrophic situation. What kind of assurances can you give them that you are taking into account their return fast and -- very fast return to their villages and their houses? That you care as much about that as you care about what you talk about the Israelis, you know, living in peace and all that.

MR. MCCORMACK: I would just point to the most recent comments from President Bush just yesterday expressing his real concern for the humanitarian situation of the Lebanese people. Of course we are very concerned about that. It's why you want to bring an end to the violence. Of course you want to have a safe, orderly, timely return of those people to their houses, to their towns, to their villages.

But you know, let's remember why they find themselves displaced. They find themselves displaced because Hezbollah launched an unprovoked attack across the blue line into Israel. And it's not only the Lebanese people that are suffering; it's the Israeli people as well. There are -- I don't know the numbers, but there are significant numbers of Israeli -- innocent Israeli people who have been displaced who are living in bomb shelters fearing a Hezbollah rocket is going to fall on their head.

So these two populations are suffering and we want to see that come to an end. And the United States has contributed. We have announced our intention to contribute $30 million for humanitarian relief supplies. Our people are on the ground working to get humanitarian relief supplies through. We're working with the ICRC. We're working through with international NGOs to do the best we can to see that food, medicine and other kinds of supplies get through to those people, especially in the south, that need them. It is a very difficult operating environment; I grant you that. But we in no way have abandoned the Lebanese people. We are there on the ground working to try to help them in what is a very difficult humanitarian situation.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, they don't have much problem of receiving humanitarian aids. They are getting medicine and food from Arab countries. But they care about --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, not only Arab countries. They're getting it from --

QUESTION: From other countries, too.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. But you are doing -- you know, I hope that you don't, you know, continue to be misunderstood by many people in the Middle East when you say that the reason for their becoming refugees is Hezbollah as if you are endorsing the violation, the Israeli violation of Geneva Conventions that Israel should not use its might against a civilian population, destroying their villages and houses and lives.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, okay. I mean, we can get into a long conversation about Israeli military operations, but just one general comment about that. We have from the very beginning talked to the Israeli Government about the fact that it needs to take the utmost care in defending itself against Hezbollah. But let's point out here, let's remember exactly what the tactics of a group like Hezbollah are. This is a group that will hide itself among civilian populations, launch rockets at other civilians across a border, hoping to kill them, and hide themselves among families, at schools, hospitals, almost daring other forces to try to get them. I mean, this is the sort of -- these are the sort of cowardly tactics that this group -- that these groups employ.

And that while for the Israeli Government, a responsible democracy, member of the United Nations, there are mechanisms to look at their actions to see if they did in fact fall outside the Israelis' rules of engagement, whether or not they complied with international treaties. Those aren't judgments that we make. In large part, those are judgments that democracies themselves make. They look at those things. The Israeli Government has launched investigations into its actions. There is no such accountability mechanism for a group like Hezbollah that operates outside the boundaries of laws and treaties and norms of civilized behavior.

So let's just remember, let's remember that. We're dealing on one hand here with a responsible democracy, a free people governed by rules and laws, and on one hand; and on the other hand, a terrorist organization that operates outside the bounds of laws and norms of international behavior.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Two questions. First of all, the Red Cross has said that the Israelis have stopped a lot of shipments of aid that they're trying to get through and in fact have imposed what amounts to or what translates into a blockade of some areas. Do you have any information on that? Have you talked to the Israelis on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have been working with the Israeli Government as well as with international NGOs, including the ICRC, to make sure supplies go through. You know, it is a complicated process of coordination. They are operating in a zone of conflict. So it is something that we ourselves are involved in, working with the Israeli Government, working with others to try to facilitate that process. I'm sure that there have been instances where, for one reason or another, humanitarian supplies have not gotten through in the way that they were intended to. Our goal is to see that people who need those things -- food, medicine, materials to construct shelter -- get them. It is a real concern for us. We're devoting a lot of energy to it.

QUESTION: I know also you say that you don't talk to the Israelis specifically about their various operations, but you have told them to be careful of targets and make sure that their target is an intended Hezbollah strongholds. It seems as if more and more Christian neighborhoods that traditionally are not believed to be Hezbollah strongholds, Hezbollah targets, are being targeted. I mean, how involved with you are the -- how involved with the Israelis are you in terms of asking or ensuring that these targets are necessary targets?

MR. MCCORMACK: We speak in general about these things. I know that there were some questions several days ago about some bridges in the north of Beirut that were targeted. The Israeli Government in public said that they were targeting those routes because they were using them as new supply -- Hezbollah was using them as new supply routes. I can’t speak to the validity of it. But they are talking about the reasons for their actions, and I think they’re probably in a better position to talk about them than I am.

QUESTION: But while you say -- but while you’re not kind of directing your operations or talking to them about specific operations, how do you balance that with your desire to ensure that these are targets that are legitimate targets and not indiscriminate targets in the country?

MR. MCCORMACK: Elise, we talk to them in general terms. They themselves are held to account by their own public as well as people reporting on the ground. They’re the ones that have to answer for those questions, the questions that are raised by their actions. We, for our part, it’s not our job to pick and choose targets for the Israeli military. That’s not a business that we get into, but we do talk in general terms about what our concerns are.

Yeah.

QUESTION: A new topic.

MR. MCCORMACK: On Lebanon?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, Lebanon.

QUESTION: Sean, as far as terrorism in the Middle East is concerned, how many Arabs in Muslim countries have officially or publicly denounced terrorism in the Middle East? And also because we see the pictures that millions of people there celebrating attacks by Hezbollah against the Israelis. I’m not disputing innocent people has been killed from both sides and it must stop. But what I’m talking about is that as far as UN resolutions are concerned, are we talking about a resolution with a country because war is always between two countries. Here you’re talking about number of countries in war supporting terrorism.

And then what is the resolution all about is it against countries or against terrorist organization? Why don’t we go after the countries who are supporting them and providing all those rockets?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there are international conventions against that. There are resolutions that call upon member-states not to support terrorist groups. Sadly, there are countries like Iran that ignore those resolutions and that employ support for terrorist organizations as an integral part of their foreign and national security policy.

It is up to the international community to highlight these instances. And I think that countries like, in this instance, countries like Iran find themselves very much isolated from the mainstream of the international community.

Now while there have been a number of Arab states that have called for immediate ceasefires, they have taken slightly different approaches in policy from us, we all share a common goal of ending the violence and ending the violence in a way such that Hezbollah can’t pull the cord and have the entire region descend into violence.

So that is something that ultimately we hope, we believe that when the situation is resolved and there is an agreed upon pathway supported by the international community to end the violence and to end it on a durable basis, that you will find countries like Iran, they will find themselves much more isolated at the end of this conflict than they did at the beginning of the conflict, that it will be in essence a strategic setback for countries like Iran.

QUESTION: Just to follow up quick, it’s always a Muslim people who die no matter where in the world.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: As far as this resolution is concerned, how can we guarantee that terrorists will lay down their arms? And who will guarantee, because this has been going for years and will continue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, there are examples around the world where you do -- you have had processes where terrorist group, armed militias operating outside the rule of law have laid down their arms. There are precedents for that. And there are precedents for political reconciliation. And I think if you look at a lot of these cases, at the heart of it it is a political process. Certainly this disarmament through a disarmament process is an important practical step and needs to happen. But at the heart of it, it is a political process, and that is a big part of what we have been talking about, a big part of what 1559 is about and what the Taif Accords were about. So there is precedent for this, Goyal, and it is our goal to work with the Lebanese as well as others to see that that is, in fact, our end state in Lebanon.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one more, ask you specifically on the Lebanese proposal for the 15,000?

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Can I ask you to comment specifically on the fact that it was supported by the two Hezbollah ministers and whether that surprises you at all and what it tells you, if anything, about the willingness of Iran and Syria to abide by any ultimate settlement?

MR. MCCORMACK: I will -- I -- you know, I don’t know -- I don’t know what Syria and Iran think about this proposal by Prime Minister Siniora or an eventual settlement. They’ll speak for themselves about it.

As for Prime Minister Siniora, I think that it was his proposal. I can’t speak to the internal deliberations within the Lebanese cabinet, but I think that certainly on this count Prime Minister Siniora has demonstrated real leadership and has demonstrated that he is looking for a way to end the violence, to -- for the Lebanese Government to play an important role in that and that ultimately he is with this proposal and this commitment to act positioning the Lebanese Government in such a way that it will be able to exercise sovereignty over all of Lebanese territory as was envisioned by him, the voters of Lebanon, as well as by the international community under 1559.

QUESTION: So you are or are not surprised that the two Hezbollah ministers --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I can’t speak to their calculations.

QUESTION: Sean?

MR. MCCORMACK: On the same subject, okay.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, any communication between Secretary Rice and the Greek Foreign Minister Theodora Bakoyannis for the war in the Middle East?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t believe there has been. I know that we have been in touch with the Greek Foreign Ministry on the topic. I don’t think that we -- Secretary Rice, just doing a quick review of her phone calls here -- has had any recent phone calls with the Greek Foreign Minister.

QUESTION: Can we have the list?

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. I think you’re pretty much up to date from yesterday. She spoke with Foreign Minister Steinmeier. Today she has spoken with, as I said --

QUESTION: Also yesterday, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: What’s that?

QUESTION: Also Steinmeier yesterday?

MR. MCCORMACK: Steinmeier was yesterday, Foreign Minister Steinmeier.

QUESTION: Oh, okay. Sorry.

MR. MCCORMACK: So today we have Prime Minister Siniora from Lebanon, Secretary General Annan, Danish Foreign Minister Moeller, and Canadian Foreign Minister MacKay.

QUESTION: Any update on your efforts for a multinational force in Lebanon for which Turkey has been asked to provide 1,000 soldiers?

MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Any update in your efforts for a multinational force in Lebanon for which already Turkey has been asked to provide 1,000 soldiers?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing beyond our extended discussion earlier in the briefing.

QUESTION: Did you ask NATO to get involved?

MR. MCCORMACK: NATO as an organization, I don't think, is going to be involved in generating a force.

QUESTION: No, in your diplomacy did you get the chance to discuss that with the Secretary General of NATO if such a possibility exists to deploy NATO forces --

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros, I don't think that's going to happen. As for what conversations happened with Mr. de Hoop Scheffer, you know, I can't tell you, but I don't think anybody envisions that this is a NATO force.

QUESTION: On the Turkish -- Mr. McCormack, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan expressed his outrage over the ongoing Israeli military assault, as he is saying in Lebanon, saying that the war unfolding in the Middle East can never be considered legitimate. Any comment?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen his comments.

Yeah, Sue.

QUESTION: Change of topic?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: In Sudan the humanitarian situation is deteriorating quite rapidly. Apparently the AU has scaled down a lot of its forces and aid is not able to reach really quite desperate populations. Seeing as Khartoum is still refusing to accept a UN force, I just wondered what is the U.S. doing to try and ease the plight of people stuck in a very difficult situation in Sudan. And are you still speaking to Khartoum about this? Zoellick is gone -- he was the sort of main interlocutor between -- with the Sudanese. So what's -- what are you doing?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have an update for you on our continuing humanitarian efforts in Sudan. I can't give you specific numbers. But those efforts continue to be robust and are ongoing.

As for the getting a UN peacekeeping force in there, I believe that the Sudanese Government has put together a high-level commission to look at this, look at this question. It is something that we continue to push on. We would like to see a resolution and deployment of such a force as early as possible. We would certainly hope that those actions could take place in the fall time. But the Darfur Peace Agreement implementation is continuing. I think Mr. -- I think Minni Minnawi was actually seated as an official, essentially the fourth-ranking official. So it is -- the political process is moving forward, which ultimately will be the basis for a resolution to all the variety of conflicts in Sudan.

Now, that said, do we want the peacekeeping part of this to move faster, transition from purely an AU force to a blue-helmeted force? Yes, we do. And we're working on that every single day.

QUESTION: But in the meantime the AU has less money and it's just not able to do its job. Are you looking at bolstering the AU or helping them out a bit? I mean, it was hard enough to get 50 million bucks through Congress a few months ago, so I imagine it would be even more difficult now.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'll check for you to see what other funds, if any, we are going to try to make available to the AU.

QUESTION: Also on Sudan?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: About this high-level commission that the Sudanese Government -- I mean, do they necessarily have to study it? Isn't it the U.S. position and the position of the international community that this is not an option and that, you know, you say that you've been pushing the Sudanese Government to accept the force. I mean, do they really have a choice in this? I mean, shouldn't they be accepting it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, yeah, they should be. They should be. And I would just say a couple things. One, do we want this process to move faster? Yes. Also, over time, if you look back at the record of the Sudanese Government, have they ultimately under the scrutiny and pressure of the international community gotten to where the international community has urged them to go or asked them to go? Yes, they have. And this high-level commission, if this is a mechanism that will allow this peacekeeping force to land on the ground and for those UN blue-helmeted forces to get in there, then certainly okay, that's the mechanism that they want to use, that they want to use to do that for whatever internal reasons they have.

So the bottom line is we want to -- we have been pushing this. We do push it every single day. It is a matter of continuing concern for the people at the State Department, a matter of continuing concern for the Secretary. It's something that she watches, that she watches closely.

QUESTION: Just one more --

QUESTION: The same thing with letting -- they said they would let the team in. The president said he would let the team if there was an agreement.

MR. MCCORMACK: Teri, I think I've answered the question.

QUESTION: Just one more. When you say that if ultimately -- if the international pressure is put on the Sudanese Government, they ultimately get to where the international community wants them to be, what kind of additional pressure can you put on the Sudanese Government? Can you push for further action at the UN, for some kind of mandatory resolution, you know, requiring them to admit the force? Are there any international instruments that you could --

MR. MCCORMACK: There are a lot of different levers, Elise. And we try to use every single one at the right time.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Is one option -- and Bob Zoellick discussed this at something he gave at Brookings, I think it was -- is there an option to have a forced intervention? Is that something that you're looking at as one of the scenarios?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sue, we have a variety of different ways we're coming at this. But I think the root of all the questions here is: Is the United States working on this problem? The answer is yes. And it is a problem that has the attention of the Secretary and it is something that has her personal interest and that it is something that we work every single day.

QUESTION: Could you --

QUESTION: On this, George?

QUESTION: -- take the question or maybe you have an answer now, as to whether the violence is accelerating in Darfur and whether the humanitarian situation is worsening?

MR. MCCORMACK: If we have those kinds of assessments available, we'll be happy to provide them to you.

QUESTION: Could you give an example of one of the positions that the Sudanese Government has eventually adopted that is what the international community wanted?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, the Darfur Peace Agreement.

QUESTION: Which is it -- they're not implementing, though, are they?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think I just pointed out in answer to Sue's question that Minni Minawi was appointed as -- is appointed as a minister. Look, are these perfect working conditions that we have in Sudan? No. Is this a conflict in a variety of different forms that has been going on for more than two decades? Yes. Is this something that President Bush himself put on the radar screen of the international community? Yes. And is this a situation where we have arrived at a point that we wouldn't have absent the active intervention and work of this President, this Secretary of State and a lot of other people at the State Department and this Government? That's right. I don't think we would be to the point where we do have the hope for a settlement of the variety of different conflicts in Sudan without this President and without the United States of America.

QUESTION: On the peace agreement, what is your opinion of efforts by the Government of Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed and do you think that they've made any efforts in that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have an assessment for you, Elise.

QUESTION: Department of State announced on Friday, made a statement on Friday about sanctions about two Russian companies, Sukhoy and Rosoboronexport. Can you just give us a detailed reasons and any comment on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have anything beyond what's in the Federal Register. I know that there have been a variety of different conspiracy theorists out there talking about the reasons for this. The fact of the matter is when a foreign company breaks American law, they'll be held to account and they will be sanctioned according to U.S. law. Just as if there are U.S. companies that break U.S. laws, they are sanctioned as well. I think there are 33 countries that are -- 33 companies that are on the list. They each have unique circumstances, each are looked upon with a view that they have unique circumstances and how their actions match up against U.S. law. If they break U.S. law, they're going to get sanctioned.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you just update us on where the New York situation stands, the Iran diplomacy -- resolution and whether you have any reason to believe at this point that Iran is either going to answer its own deadline of August 22nd or the Secretary and her counterparts, P-5 deadline of the end of the month?

MR. MCCORMACK: As for where the Iranians stand on taking up the offer of the international community, you'll have to talk to the Iranians. I don't think we've heard anything official via Mr. Solana. I know that there have been a variety of public statements from the Iranians, but we haven't seen any evidence yet that they are complying with the now demand of the -- and requirement of the international community to suspend all enrichment-related activities, a condition, I might add, that is not the United States’ condition but it is actually something that was originally generated by the European Union during their negotiations with the Iranians.

So we'll see. They have a deadline of August 31st to take actions to meet the requirements of Security Council Resolution 1696. If they don't meet those requirements, then they will face sanctions under Chapter 7 Article 41 of the UN Charter. And that is the commitment that we have from the P-5+1 partners and I expect that over the coming days and weeks it'll be a topic of conversation among Secretary Rice and her counterparts as well as at the working level. But nothing new, nothing new to announce at this point.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Mexican presidential contender López Obrador has called for a complete recount and said he will abide by the results even if he is the loser. Can you comment upon the refusal of the electoral court to grant a complete recount, especially since the Mexicans are, you know, sitting in in Mexico City and the whole city is being tied up?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have faith in Mexican electoral institutions to make the decisions with regard to these kinds of requests based on Mexican law. I understand that the decision of the commission, the court, was a unanimous decision. So this -- we firmly believe that these are questions for Mexican -- the Mexican people and Mexican institutions to answer, and we have faith in Mexico's democracy and its institutions.

Lambros.

QUESTION: On Iran, two questions.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Very important.

MR. MCCORMACK: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: According to New York Times today, Mr. McCormack, "A captured Hezbollah terrorist who had took part in the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers that sparked the war in Lebanon has confessed he received military training in Iran according to a recording of his interrogation. Under questioning by Israeli authorities, Hussein Ali Suleiman (inaudible) revealed he was sent to Iran to ask for weapons and expressed this action most recently at the end of 2003." Do you have anything on that to say?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not -- certainly nothing on the specifics of it. In general, we know of the close ties between Iran and Hezbollah. Iran are the patrons of Hezbollah. You know, Hezbollah at its origins was a creature of Iran. They are the ones that created Hezbollah and they continue to fund it and support it in a variety of different ways.

QUESTION: It was reported extensively in Europe that the British Prime Minister Tony Blair signaled that his government does not object to the U.S. Government using British air base to dispatch air strikes against Tehran in an effort to stop the Hezbollah activities in Lebanon. Do you have anything on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: We comply with all the requirements of British law with regard to the transit of American aircraft through British airspace.

QUESTION: And now last one on Kosovo. Very short. Very short. Anything on the failure of the Kosovo talks today in Geneva between Serbs and Albanian representatives for which has been given big publicity in Europe?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think -- I am not aware of any readout we have gotten --

QUESTION: So you can take this question?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll be happy to look into it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, Goyal. Yes.

QUESTION: Sean, last week I asked question about terrorists in Bangladesh and the very same day Assistant Secretary of State of South Asian Affairs Mr. Richard Boucher was in Bangladesh and also then he was in India. He's a fine, great diplomat and he also understood and there was a need for (inaudible) who is behind the terrorist bombings in India and very, very strong public opinion in India that Pakistan is behind many bombings in India. And my question is that Mr. Boucher, Ambassador Boucher, was not very clear that if U.S. has demanded Pakistan to hand over bomber but he was clear that he's a terrorist and should be labeled as a terrorist organization also. What I'm asking you really if Indian Government and in talking with the Secretary of State or any demand there for the release -- I mean, of his handing over to India. And also they are saying that there is a need now for --

MR. MCCORMACK: Do we have a question in here?

QUESTION: -- on Pakistan.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have anything to add to what Richard said.

QUESTION: But my question is --

MR. MCCORMACK: You had your question, okay.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you, in Ethiopia. This weekend the Ethiopian Foreign Minister Seyoum has been visited in Somalia following the transitional government and returned back to Ethiopia. Did they discuss with you regarding what they have discussed with Somalia transitional government?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think we've gotten a readout of their discussion. Certainly it's a, you know, quite serious situation in Somalia where you have this Federal Institution that the international community has been trying to build up becoming weaker through these resignations. Certainly we've seen a lot of different news reports about various attempts of Somalia's neighbors to interfere in Somalian affairs. That is certainly not something that we or any other member of the Somalia Contact Group would want to see. We would want to see the international community try to play a positive role to help Somalia and the Somalian people.

We are currently scheduled to have a meeting of the Somalia Contact Group at the end of this month, at the end of August and we'll keep you up to date on the when and the where of that.

Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:18 p.m.)

DPB # 132