Middle East Digest - September 19, 2008Bureau of Public Affairs The Middle East Digest provides text and audio from the Daily Press Briefing. For the full briefings, please visit daily press briefings. From the Daily Press Briefing of September 19, 2008 View Video QUESTION: The P-5+1 meeting, I wanted to know if it started. And also there was apparently another meeting earlier this morning -- MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right. QUESTION: -- about Georgia. What was discussed? MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, the P-5+1 political directors are scheduled to meet right around – starting around lunchtime, right around noontime, and that meeting is going to be focused exclusively on Iran. So certainly, we’re not going to bring up any other topics, you know. If somebody else wanted – if the Russians want to bring up Georgia, then I suppose that would spice up the conversation a bit. But our focus is going to be on Iran. And quite frankly, I’m not going – I would not point you to any expectations of any breakthroughs or outcomes. This is really discussion intended to talk about where the various parties in the P-5+1 are regarding timing and substance of a next Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran. There were some meetings, and I think they’re ongoing now, among the United States, France, the UK, and Germany political directors. And they address a number of other issues. They talked about Iran, they talked about Kosovo, they talked about Georgia as well. QUESTION: And why this meeting? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it was an opportunity – it’s an opportunity, when you have the political directors all in one place prior to UNGA, to discuss a number of issues that will probably be a topic of discussion about among ministers at the UN General Assembly. So it’s really – it’s being opportunistic. They have a chance to talk about those issues, and also talk a little bit about Iran going into the noontime meeting. QUESTION: Isn’t it – isn’t the goal of the – or isn’t it one of the goals of this meeting or your hope that this meeting with give – the political directors will come to a consensus to recommend to the ministers that they begin the process of ordering the beginning of the drafting of the next resolution? Is that not – is that not the purpose of this meeting? MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well – well, it’s a pre-meeting. We’re hoping for a P-5+1 ministerial meeting up at the UN General Assembly next week. I think it’s an initial discussion. There’s – the context for this is that all the members of the P-5+1 had previously agreed, if Iran does not meet its international obligations – (a) comply with Security Council resolutions, cooperate with the IAEA, those two things – then they’re headed for a new Security Council resolution. That’s where we are right now. So the Iranians have chosen at that particular fork in the road to go down the pathway of continued defiance, and therefore isolation. So this conversation takes place in that context: What is going to be the timing and content of a new Security Council resolution? And we’ll take the temperature of all the various parties on those particular questions, and we’ll see. Yeah, it is – so in the sense, it is meant to -- as a precursor for the foreign minister – the hope for a foreign minister’s conversation up in New York. But I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t set expectations high at all for this meeting actually producing a definitive answer on the substance or timing of a resolution. QUESTION: Well, is it your understanding that there is consensus to go to a new resolution? The Chinese (inaudible) -- MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that’s the – that’s the – that’s the context of this. That’s the context of this. We’ll see as to, you know, how fast, at what pace, and what the content would be of a new Security Council resolution among the P-5+1. I mention the context only because as far as we know and have been informed, that deal hasn’t changed. That fundamental deal is that if Iran continues to defy the Security Council, they’re headed for continuing – a continuing series of Security Council sanction resolutions. So the Chinese or Russians – anybody – nobody else has come to us and said, well, no, actually, we don’t agree with that – with that strategy. QUESTION: The Chinese have. MR. MCCORMACK: No, they have not. They have not reneged on the fundamental bargain at all of the – of Security Council resolutions. Now, as we saw the last time around, the last time we passed the Security Council resolution, there was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about the timing and content of the resolution, yes. But that fundamental bargain about the – the two pathways for Iran is still in place. So that’s not in question. And certainly, we have not heard otherwise from any of the parties, including the Chinese and the Russians. QUESTION: Well, I don’t understand, though. If this meeting isn’t going to talk about the content or -- MR. MCCORMACK: No, it is. It is. I’m sorry if I left you the impression that it wasn’t. I – I’m just – I’m trying to set – look, I’m trying to set expectations for you here. I don’t expect – don’t expect – don’t expect – don’t expect an agreement on the timing of it or the substance. They certainly will talk about both of those things, but I wouldn’t expect agreement at – coming out of this political directors’ meeting. QUESTION: Well, is the idea that – and I’ll stop after this. Is the idea then to get it to the point where – MR. MCCORMACK: Please. QUESTION: -- the ministers could decide on the timing of the – of the (inaudible)? MR. MCCORMACK: Look, Matt, you know I never – I never, ever bet on when we will pass Security Council resolutions. I wouldn’t expect the meeting of the ministers next week to produce a final agreement, either on the timing or the substance – or the substance of a resolution. QUESTION: Well then what’s the point in having those meetings, other than to make a free lunch at the State Department? MR. MCCORMACK: Because – because – well, because it – Matt, it’s a precursor. We believe we are going to get to that point where you do have a resolution. But as we have seen anytime you have multilateral diplomacy, it takes a lot of time. I know we’ve – you know, we’re always accused of going it alone and not engaging in multilateral diplomacy. Well, let me tell you – we spend a lot of time and effort for a group of people who don’t seem to be concerned with that on multilateral diplomacy. QUESTION: So do you have a text already? MR. MCCORMACK: I’m sure – I don’t believe we have a working text. We’re not to that point. Everybody has their own set of ideas which they have put on paper, so I guess in that sense you can consider it a text. We’re not – we’re not to the point of working from a joint draft of a resolution yet. That will come later. QUESTION: Do you plan to furnish a statement at the end of the -- MR. MCCORMACK: I wouldn’t expect – I would not look for that. Yeah. QUESTION: But what could be in it realistically, though, when there’s people saying, you know, it would have to be quite weak, because there’s clearly not agreement among the parties on what we would put in it? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, again, we’re looking for the most robust Security Council resolution we can get. And there are all variety of options. I’m not going to try to outline those for you right now. What we have – what we have seen, however, is that in a sense, the fact of Security Council resolutions is quite important. And they have some teeth to them. A lot of people have said, well, they’re not exactly what you’re looking for. It’s not exactly what you originally proposed. True enough. I mean, if we were writing these ourselves, then they wouldn’t look exactly like the existing resolutions look. But what – what the – the – one of the very practical effects of these resolutions is that they – they put a cloud of – over the reputation of this Iranian regime. And we have seen numerous instances over the course of the past year of the importance of reputation when you’re in the international financial community, in the international trading community. And suffice -- I think it is very safe to say that because of the combination of the Security Council resolutions and the steps that individual states have taken – that Iran is paying a heavy cost and an increasing cost for their behavior. So this is -- the action in the Security Council is just one part of an overall strategy to try to – try to present a different set of choices to the Iranian regime and to, again, try to get them to make a different set of calculations in terms of cost benefits. You know, clearly, they are capable of doing that. I – judging from some of the public debate we have seen in Iran, there are some who have started making a different calculation in terms of the costs and the benefits of what they’re doing. And the idea is to continue proceeding down that road to demonstrate to them both in political and very practical and real ways that there are increasing costs for their behavior, and therefore we hope – meaning we in the international community – that we hope that there will be an increasing number and an increasing number of people with influence on the decision making process in Iran that say, wait a minute. The costs that we’re incurring just aren’t worth it. We can have a peaceful civilian nuclear program and enjoy a more normal relationship with the rest of the world in terms of politics, economics, and finance than we currently have. So that’s what we’re trying to – that’s what we’re trying to do. QUESTION: Did you talk to the Russians about this before the meeting today? And how’s your leverage with them on this now with all the problems in Georgia and with Secretary Rice’s speech yesterday? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Secretary Rice on September 11th, when she spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov, touched on the variety of issues that the world has before it, including Iran, and just expressed the hope that we could, despite very real differences and difficulties regarding Georgia – that we could work together in the Security Council and the IAEA and elsewhere on – to help prevent Iran from obtaining those technologies they could use to build a nuclear weapon. Like I’ve said before, that’s not a favor to us. It’s not a favor to the United States. It’s not a favor to France. It’s not a favor to Germany or England or anybody else. Russia has made it clear that it isn’t in their national interest that Iran obtain those technologies. And they’ve expressed that in a lot of different ways: voting for Security Council resolutions with Bashir, they have a fuel take-back provision. So quite clearly they have concerns about this. And we would urge them to put aside, as we have, any – any issues that we – that are -- exist between the United States – the United States/the rest of the world -- and Russia on Georgia, and work on areas where we can work together, like Iran. QUESTION: Switching to Yemen. Do you have any update on the investigation? Have the teams arrived – the investigative teams arrived? MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, they’re on – they’re on the ground. They’re working – I don’t really have much of an update beyond that, though. QUESTION: Has the Embassy changed its security posture? I know you said you were going to look at -- MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. They are – I’m not going to comment on any specifics, but this was a post where they were already acutely aware of the various security threats and challenges that existed out there. But once you have an attack like this, you take a look – you take a look at your security posture, you work with the host government and talk about their responsibilities. We have gone to an authorized departure, so we are looking at our footprint, but it was already a very scaled-down footprint. And any family members that are there were family members that – are family members that are actually working at the Embassy, so they’re employed at the Embassy. All of that said, we’re taking a look at what our footprint is. And they have taken the steps that they think are appropriate to make sure that our personnel and our facilities are as safe as they can be. QUESTION: A follow-up on the Kuwaiti -- MR. MCCORMACK: Please. QUESTION: -- question. I wonder if the meeting between Secretary Rice and the Kuwaiti Prime Minister if the agenda would include U.S.-Kuwaiti cooperation on the human trafficking in the Middle East as it is becoming a compounded problem in the Middle East and in the Gulf States, in particular. And there has been some uprising among the laborers – and the foreign laborers that -- the Gulf States depend on importing them. I wondered -- since this is becoming a real problem in the area, I wonder if there is any new cooperation or renewal of cooperation on this issue between the United States and the Kuwaiti Government. MR. MCCORMACK: I honestly can’t tell you. I don’t know if it will be a topic of conversation between the Prime Minister and the Secretary. But trafficking in persons is a global issue. There have been issues in the Middle East; there have been issues all around the world. And we’ve spoken very plainly and very clearly about it, because it’s part of a strategy that is intended to highlight this as an issue, speak clearly in public about it, although it may be painful for governments around the world, including for some friends. But we believe that’s the way to try to get at the issue and to try to resolve it. We have made great progress. There is a lot left to do. QUESTION: What’s going on with the Iraq – the deal on U.S. troops in Iraq? There are reports that -- MR. MCCORMACK: With the SOFA? QUESTION: -- negotiations have stalled again, the question of immunity. MR. MCCORMACK: I’m not going to talk about the substance of the negotiations. They continue. There have been a lot of ups and downs in these negotiations. But we still believe that we will be able to come to some agreement. QUESTION: By December? Obviously, that’s when, you know – What about the idea, though, of going back and doing another UN Security Council – or UN resolution that would just allow them to stay under that authority? MR. MCCORMACK: Our focus is -- QUESTION: Because Maliki’s apparently raised this again as a possibility and -- MR. MCCORMACK: The focus is still on getting – getting an agreement between the United States and Iraq. QUESTION: Yesterday, Secretary Gates said that the team – the U.S. negotiating team would be going out again. I’m wondering when. After the General Assembly? Presumably (inaudible)? MR. MCCORMACK: No. Well, for our part, Ambassador Satterfield, who’s currently back in the United States -- I think he’ll be leaving again Monday or so to go back to Iraq. QUESTION: Okay. Is that – and you don’t know if he’s with the rest of the team or not? MR. MCCORMACK: I assume that they’ll all assemble in Baghdad at approximately the same time. |
 | |||
|
