Special Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
New York City
September 23, 2008
UNGA: Briefing on Various TopicsQUESTION: So, Sean, are you disappointed that the Russians don’t appear to want to come to your meeting, the P-5+1 meeting?
MR. MCCORMACK: Look, Sue, you know, we agree with them the time isn’t right to have this meeting.
QUESTION: I didn’t hear that.
MR. MCCORMACK: We agree with them the time is not right to have a meeting at the ministerial level. There is still work to be done at the political directors level, and the ministers will have an opportunity to meet at some future time. In the meantime, the political directors can continue on their work, their assignments, regarding a future resolution. There’s no question here about the two-track process that remains in place. All are committed to that process.
QUESTION: Do you really think everyone is committed to the two-track or two --
MR. MCCORMACK: Absolutely. You saw the statement just – or the points that we used after the Friday meeting in which everybody agreed. Everybody agreed to those points that the two-track process is still the process that everybody is committed to.
QUESTION: Georgia has obviously got in the way. That’s the key issue.
MR. MCCORMACK: I would talk to – you know, look, talk to the Russians if they have anything more in particular they want to say. I read their statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that referenced a number of different issues. Look, Secretary Rice and Foreign Minister Lavrov are going to have a meeting, I think tomorrow. There is going to be a --
QUESTION: You think, or they are, because --
MR. MCCORMACK: No, they are going to have a meeting. I think it is tomorrow. I’ve lost track of the days. We’ve only been here a couple days and I’ve already lost track. And they’ll see each other at the P-5 breakfast later in the week and they’ll have an opportunity to talk about all of these things. I’m sure Georgia is going to come up. Iran will come up. North Korea will come up, as well as anything else that happens to be on the Russian Foreign Minister’s mind.
QUESTION: So has Secretary Rice told the Russians that she doesn’t want to attend this meeting either, she doesn’t think it’s a good idea? I mean, is it off officially?
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. There is not going to be a P-5+1 ministers meeting. Right. No, we agree. As a matter of fact, we told them we thought the time wasn’t right, and they agreed with us as well.
QUESTION: So who told each other first?
MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, I – you know, I don’t know the stock trade. I didn’t get it down to the microsecond. But --
QUESTION: Because it sounds to me like the Russians dissed you and said we don’t want to attend.
MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, no. Look, I think we can – I can ask Bill Burns whether or not he picked up the phone first. I think we may have even called them first.
QUESTION: That’s not the sense that he got.
QUESTION: No, that’s not from the senior official who spoke to us.
MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I don’t know. Like I said, I didn’t time it down to the microsecond or the second or the minute.
QUESTION: So it’s definitely postponed.
MR. MCCORMACK: Correct, correct. But the political directors are going to continue their work.
QUESTION: Are they going to meet on Thursday (inaudible)?
MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t think they are. I’ll have to check with Bill to see if they are. Everybody has a full slate of meetings, so we’ll see.
QUESTION: So is it a response from Russia to the speech of the Secretary?
MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t think so.
QUESTION: They say that her speech said that U.S. would continue to cooperate with Russia on certain points, not all the points. And so they – even they (inaudible) about that and they say you cannot have both ways.
MR. MCCORMACK: You cannot have it both ways?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. MCCORMACK: I’m not sure I – I’m not sure I get what they’re – what you’re getting at.
QUESTION: They say if you don’t want to cooperate with us, we won’t cooperate with you.
MR. MCCORMACK: No, he didn’t say that. He said that we have a number of mutual interests here. And the fact of the matter is the Russian Government, the American Government and the Chinese Government, all the governments in the P-5+1 process, are acting out of national interest. They’re doing this because it is in their national interest to do so and to pursue a two-track policy, all because everybody agrees that Iran possessing the technologies that would allow it to develop a nuclear weapon is not something they want to see come about. That’s not a favor to the United States or Secretary Rice or President Bush or anybody else. That’s because Russia has decided it is in their national interest to pursue that policy. And we are all cooperating in that regard. And Russia’s national interest regarding Iran and seeing that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon hasn’t changed in the past week.
QUESTION: Well, that’s – I mean, it looks a lot like a political – a diplomatic blow to the U.S. You were --
MR. MCCORMACK: How so? In no way, shape, or form.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) in the political directors meeting last week --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: -- you were hoping to start new discussions for a new resolution. They just --
MR. MCCORMACK: And they did. And they did. And those discussions are going to continue. Look, again, this is – you know, this is not the United States pet rock. This policy has come about because everybody has made an objective, cold-eyed judgment that preventing Iran from obtaining those technologies and that know-how is in their national interest, not a favor to the United States or anybody else. The Russians have made that calculation, as have we and the French and the Germans and the British and the Chinese. And none of that has changed.
QUESTION: Sean, just to follow on that, just – it’s not hypothetical, but if the Russians had been – well, it is hypothetical. If the Russians had been willing to have a P-5+1 ministerial, are you saying the United States would have said no, let’s not have one, it’s not time?
MR. MCCORMACK: That’s hypothetical, Charlie.
QUESTION: Not really.
QUESTION: Sean --
QUESTION: Given your prior statements, it really isn’t hypothetical.
MR. MCCORMACK: Look, the process --
QUESTION: Or did you go to them first and say, you know, what, let’s not do it?
MR. MCCORMACK: The process is going to continue.
QUESTION: But last year, there was no agreement on the sanctions and the P-5+1 ministers have met here in New York.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right. And I expect that at some point there will be another sanctions resolution. And I never take bets on the timing of sanctions resolutions.
We as well as others are going to continue efforts outside of the Security Council to put pressure on Iran to make a different set of calculations regarding cooperation with the international community on this question. That is going to continue. And as a matter of fact, those --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. MCCORMACK: You know, we haven’t done a breakdown of it, but I would say as a rough calculation that those efforts have actually had more of an effect on Iran than the Security Council resolutions. At the end of the day, you need both action within the Security Council as well as action outside of the Security Council if you’re going to create a different set of conditions where Iran makes a different set of choices. So those actions and activities outside the Security Council, those are going to continue. We’re going to continue working on them. The Europeans are going to continue working on them. And there are still three outstanding Security Council resolutions. I expect that there will be a fourth at some point in the future.
QUESTION: Do you think you’ll have one before the end of the Administration?
MR. MCCORMACK: We’re certainly going to work on a basis of getting one passed in the not-too-distant future, in the coming weeks and months.
QUESTION: And usually, you go on holidays. Do you think Thanksgiving, or are you going through Christmas?
MR. MCCORMACK: That’s Charlie’s question. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I’m so jaded even I didn’t ask it. (Laughter.)
MR. MCCORMACK: Look, you know, I never apply dates to these things. We’re going to be devoting the appropriate amount of attention and energy to the issue, as are all the other members of the P-5+1.
QUESTION: Do you think that Russia’s reluctance to attend this meeting, even though you say it may have come from you, too, is because of the Secretary’s speech? Is this a direct correlation?
MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. The Secretary’s speech was an honest speech and it was a direct speech. And I – judging by some of the Russian reaction, they didn’t like parts of it. But the fact of the matter is the Secretary’s speech was based on the situation as she saw it and it was a speech and an assessment and a set of prescriptions that need to be – needed to be put out in public. And if that was difficult for the Russians to take in some regard, well, it nevertheless was a speech that needed to be given and it was a direct, honest assessment from her.
QUESTION: Aren’t we back at the situation of like – similar to the Cold War when it was tit-for-tat on, you know, on one subject to another?
MR. MCCORMACK: Certainly not --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) this country, another one, that one?
MR. MCCORMACK: Certainly not in our view. Look, just referencing the Secretary’s speech, there is no set of two systems, there is no unipolar world, there is no multipolar world. It’s a set of interconnectedness and a set of network relationships that allow the international system to function. And Russia has to make a decision about its full participation or not in that system and those sets of institutions. It has to take a look at its behaviors both at home as well as at how those behaviors manifest themselves outside of their borders.
So you know, back to the question about the Cold War, no, it’s not back to the Cold War. That world is --
QUESTION: No --
MR. MCCORMACK: That world is gone and there is one international system. Russia is a player in that international system. We would certainly want them to be a full and productive player in that, a positive force in that system, as we would wish many other countries that are developing new strengths, whether they’re economic or political in that system. So we encourage all of that. We encourage Russia to play a positive role in that system.
But the system has certain norms that are established; for example, with respect to the WTO or the OECD, as examples. And those norms aren’t going to change.
QUESTION: What about the 123 Agreement with India? Is it possible while the Indian Prime Minister is here that (inaudible)?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we’re – we continue to work very hard with the Congress on getting this legislation through the Senate as well as the House. We’re doing everything we possibly can. We have expressed our commitment both in private and in public to members of Congress and to the Indian Government to working as hard as we can to get this passed in this session of Congress.
Yes, ma’am.
QUESTION: Do you have any update on the meeting of Christopher Hill with other Six-Party members? I mean, any meeting schedule or --
MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing – I don’t know if he had any meetings here individually with other members of the Six-Party Talks. I saw him around today, but I don’t know what his schedule is.
QUESTION: Any new reports on the dear leader’s health?
MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing new on that.
QUESTION: What about the meeting with Saakashvili?
MR. MCCORMACK: I wasn’t in that one.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. MCCORMACK: No, I didn’t talk to the Secretary about it.
QUESTION: Do you think we’ll ever get a readout of that?
MR. MCCORMACK: We can try. We can try to get you some incredibly useful points for you.
QUESTION: Do you have a readout of the Karzai meeting?
MR. MCCORMACK: I was in part of that. They went to one-on-one after a while. But they talked about our efforts in Afghanistan, the international efforts in Afghanistan; talked about the importance of making sure all of our efforts are as efficient and effective as possible. And you heard Secretary Gates talk about the review the Pentagon is doing. We’re taking a look at our efforts as well to make sure that they are as effective and efficient as they possibly can. We want to make sure that --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it means we’re taking – we’re doing a review of our efforts there and making sure that for a given set of inputs that we are maximizing the positive effect of those inputs.
They talked about the importance of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as others, playing a role in Afghanistan, working to control the border and to work on the security situation there. He talked – President Karzai talked a bit about his visit to Pakistan for the inauguration of President Zardari. And that was really about it. Then we got booted out.
Okay.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. MCCORMACK: All right.
QUESTION: Thank you.
2008/768
|
