Middle East Digest, February 20, 2008Bureau of Public Affairs View Video QUESTION: The Palestinians. MR. MCCORMACK: Sylvie. QUESTION: In the Palestinian territories they are thinking about imitating the example of Kosovo and declaring their independence unilaterally. MR. MCCORMACK: Right. QUESTION: What do you think about that? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we think is that at Annapolis the parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians made a commitment to a political process of trying to reach a negotiated solution to the issues that divide them by the end of this year. We think that everyone’s focus, the Israelis, the Palestinians, our focus, other interested parties in the international system, should be on trying to make that process work and helping the Palestinians and the Israelis come to a negotiated solution. That’s the way we believe the process should work. We believe that is the appropriate outcome here that – and that is where people’s energy should be focused. QUESTION: But don’t you think that these kind of comments reflects frustration because of the lack of progress in the Annapolis process? MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t know. I didn’t see who the comments were attributable to. QUESTION: Abed Rabo. MR. MCCORMACK: Look, you know – again, you’re going to have a lot of different comments in this process for a variety of different reasons. I can’t – you know, I can’t tell you exactly what the motivations were for making those comments. But the focus of all responsible individuals involved in this process should be on making it work. And you know, I’m sure from time to time we’re going to hear comments from the Israeli side, from the Palestinian side, from others that may serve as a distraction to the main event. And the main event is making that process work and devoting all possible energy and focus to making that political process that will result in a negotiated settlement work. QUESTION: But is it really working? The General -- the Secretary General of the Arab League Amr Moussa today said that the Annapolis process is collapsing. He says it's -- there is no progress at all. MR. MCCORMACK: Well, seeing as it is the Israelis and the Palestinians that are negotiating, I think they're probably in the best position to actually comment on exactly what kind of progress that they have made. We have talked to them, and it's clear from our discussions with them that they are making -- they are making progress. Do they have a lot of tough issues to resolve ahead of them? Absolutely. But they are making progress. And the negotiators have also abided by a commitment that they have made to one another to talk between themselves and negotiate between themselves and try not to do that in public and in the media. That is an admirable pledge and certainly not one that we are going to do anything to discourage, and certainly we're not going to do anything to abrogate the pledge that they have made to -- with each other. QUESTION: Sean. MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, sir. QUESTION: Why is it again that the Kosovars are allowed to get -- declare independence after nine years and the Palestinians, after how many decades, cannot? MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, you know, our position for a variety of different reasons, and I'm not going to bore you with the history of the conflict in the Balkans, is one that Kosovo is sui generis, that is unique. It is not a precedent for any other -- any other situation around the world, whether that's in, you know, Abkhazia or South Ossetia or in the Middle East or anywhere else around the globe. The Israelis and the Palestinians have been trying for some time in the confines of a political process to try to work something out and come to an accommodation, a solution. The international community has spoken to that as well. We believe that there is hope in that process. It has not run its course. The situation in Kosovo had run its course in terms of trying to find a solution, a negotiated political solution. We believe that there still is the possibility of a negotiated settlement. We witnessed the evident -- the effort that we put into the Annapolis process and that we are now putting into that process to help it -- to help it work. So they are different situations. QUESTION: You know, yeah, that's okay, that's your position. But, you know, as you've heard from -- he's not here today -- but as you've heard repeatedly, you know, that's not the -- you know, that is not the position that other countries take -- the Russians, the Greeks, perhaps less adamantly. And why is that the course for the Palestinians runs on for decades and the course for the Kosovars is less than a decade? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, without boring you with the details and the history of each of these situations, they are different. They are unique in their own respects. And we'll deal with them as unique, and based on the individual facts and histories surrounding each of them, deal with them in the regard that they are different and unique. There is an ongoing process between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and we believe we can help them make that process work. QUESTION: Did you -- I asked Tom this morning at the gaggle about these new houses, new Israeli settlements. MR. MCCORMACK: Right. QUESTION: Do you -- MR. MCCORMACK: It's a -- there have been a number of these different news reports and they're -- what tends to happen is they tend to all get kluged together. They are separate and different and -- QUESTION: Kluged? Is that a diplomatic term? MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, put together. Melded. Melded together into -- welded together, melded together. We have sought clarification from the Israeli Government on these issues at a variety of different levels and we’re going to continue to engage with them on these issues should they continue to arise in the future. I know the President spoke with Prime Minister Olmert about these issues when he visited Jerusalem earlier this year and it’s our view that it’s important for both sides to refrain from any actions that could prejudice the outcome of the negotiations that are now ongoing. And Jerusalem is one of those issues that will be dealt with in the context of these negotiations. I think everybody understands that and has agreed upon it. You know, the how and the when as part of these negotiations is going to be up to the two parties to decide for themselves. QUESTION: And when you say you’ve sought clarification, this is on this latest thing or just in general? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there have been a couple of stories that have come out – a few stories that have come out in recent weeks and we have talked recently to the Israeli Government about those stories. QUESTION: Do you know when that last -- MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t. I’ll see if I can nail that down for you, Matt. Nicholas. QUESTION: Sean, yes, I’m going to do Pakistan, but can I ask just quickly in that previous context, what are the Secretary’s immediate plans in terms of the process in the Middle East? Not necessarily travel, but her involvement in the negotiations. MR. MCCORMACK: What is -- QUESTION: Palestinians, Israelis. MR. MCCORMACK: What is her -- QUESTION: Her immediate plans, the Secretary’s immediate plans in that, whether she plans to get involved anytime soon again. MR. MCCORMACK: I would expect she’ll probably go back towards the beginning of March, go back to the region. QUESTION: What objective? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the Israelis and Palestinians have been making progress. QUESTION: Right. MR. MCCORMACK: They’ve been negotiating. QUESTION: Right. MR. MCCORMACK: To sit down with them, each side, face to face, talk to them, how they see the negotiations, where they stand, what are the outstanding issues, what are the issues that they are currently working on, how do they see bridging any gaps on the current issues and how they see the process playing out over the horizon and, you know, where possible, to help them come together if that’s possible, but to really get a sense of where the negotiations stand at this point and how we might push them forward. It’s also in advance of the President’s travel, probably, for the 60th anniversary coming up in – I think it’s May. I wouldn’t rule out also that she would make another trip after the beginning of March. QUESTION: On Pakistan, the President has now spoken a bit more about the elections. Can you update us on your contacts with either the apparently* opposition groups and the government? MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t have a final list for you, but I think Anne Patterson, our Ambassador in Pakistan, has been in touch with a whole variety of people in the Pakistani political process, including the representatives from the two main opposition parties, at least the two parties that at first blush would have appeared to have won the largest number of seats in parliament. I – you know, and again, I don’t have a complete list of the people with whom she has spoken, but I know that at least with those two parties she has had some contact. QUESTION: And now that moderate parties have won the election, do you still find it necessary – do you think that President Musharraf is still the indispensable moderate that was there before? His argument was always that, you know, he should be there because the extremists might take over or win there in an election now. That hasn’t happened. So what exactly is, do you think, his role in the future when there will clearly be a moderate government? MR. MCCORMACK: Well, he’s the President of Pakistan and I would expect that we are going to work with him and whatever – and that we would hope to work with whatever government emerges as a result of this election. And you know, I can’t predict for you who will comprise that government, who will be the prime minister, who will be the minister of defense, minister of foreign affairs. That’s for the Pakistanis to decide, and we’re certainly not in any way, shape or form going to try to decide for them. That is their decision. We would encourage all the moderate political parties and those with a similar or shared vision of a Pakistan that is on the course of greater democratization, broadened democratization, deeper democratization, greater prosperity, to work together. They have a common – they have a common strategic vision. They also have a common enemy, and that common enemy are violent extremists, terrorists, who seek to undermine the progress that Pakistan has made in the past six years – past seven years. Now, recently, we’ve talked a lot about the fact that we believe that they have deviated from the course of greater democratization. We hope that this election now gets them back on a course whereby the Pakistani people have confidence in a government that is – that they have elected that will serve their interests, that will broaden and deepen political reforms, that will broaden and deepen economic reforms. Because ultimately, that is the bulwark against the encroachment of violent extremists into Pakistani society and having any sort of influence over the direction of Pakistan. You have to deal with – it’s our belief you have to deal with those terror cells, those violent extremists who intend to do harm to civilian populations, whether it’s our people or anybody else, sometimes through use of force with security forces. And we work with the Pakistani Government in that regard. But more importantly, we are fully supportive of working with and on behalf of the Pakistani people where we can to see that their country is more democratic, more free and more prosperous in the future. QUESTION: Just one last one. You obviously know that there have been calls for the president’s resignation and all that. But before the coup in ’99, the position of president of Pakistan did not exist. The prime minister was, in fact, the head of government and head of state, and then President Musharraf changed the rules to assume that position. Do you have an opinion about whether such a post is necessary in Pakistani Government? MR. MCCORMACK: How the Pakistanis arrange themselves politically, what powers they endow certain offices with, whether it’s the prime minister’s office or the president’s office or any other office, is going to be up – it’s going to be for them to decide in the context of their constitution and their laws. I can’t – I can’t tell you the ins and outs of the Pakistani political system or what is possible, what is not possible, based on the numbers of seats in parliament and how they’re apportioned to the various political parties. You’ll have to talk to somebody else about that. But fundamentally, those are questions that the Pakistanis are going to have to decide for themselves. |
 | |||
|
