MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. How are you doing? How is everybody?

QUESTION: Great. How are you?

MR. MCCORMACK: Good. Doing all right. I don't' have any opening statements, so we can get right into your questions.

Yes.

QUESTION: What do you make of the two different responses coming out of Tehran today on willingness to talk from Ahmadi-Nejad and Khamenei? Do you think you have an answer?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think we have a final answer yet. We're going to be looking for a definitive response from the Iranian Government via Mr. Solana. We haven't received that yet. We certainly continue to hope that the Iranian Government would take the opportunity presented to it -- two pathways presented to it, take the pathway of negotiation, which is certainly the positive pathway. There is a pathway of disincentives which leads them --leads towards further isolation.

I would point out that today at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting, there was nearly unanimous consensus that Iran should cooperate with the IAEA and urging Iran to take up the offer that was presented to it by the P-5+1. There's a long list of states that came out with that message for Iran.

Interestingly, many of the non-aligned movement board members did that as well. There were national -- individual national statements from India, Singapore, South Africa, Ghana, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador. They called upon Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and to respond positively to the P-5+1 offer. The only out wires were, not surprisingly, Syria and Cuba.

So what you see here is the world speaking with one voice telling, telling Iran cooperate with the IAEA and take up the offer that has been presented to it. There is a positive pathway. The world, through this P-5+1 proposal has offered that pathway. And we continue to urge the Iranian Government to take up that offer.

QUESTION: Doesn't Iran have to speak with one voice, or do you take it in (inaudible) bad find that you've got conflicting statements?

MR. MCCORMACK: Since the Foreign Secretary Beckett came out and made the announcement in Vienna that there was a package, that it would be presented to the Iranian Government, you've heard a number of different comments coming out of Tehran. What we have yet to hear is a definitive response. So I'm not going to comment on every utterance that comes out of Tehran. We, the P-5+1, will wait for that definitive response, which we have not yet received.

Yes.

QUESTION: A question on Iraq, if I could.

QUESTION: Iran? Can I stay on?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, okay.

QUESTION: Can you comment on a report this morning that -- we talked about this before in briefings, but that Solana only presented disincentives to the Iranians and that -- I'm sorry, incentives to the Iranians, and only verbally talked about disincentives with them?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. We have talked about this in the past. The P-5+1 agreed among themselves that Mr. Solana was empowered to go into whatever level of detail he felt appropriate, both on the incentive side and the disincentive side. And it was up to him as a matter of diplomacy how he would present it. We are confident that the Iranian regime has a full sense that there are two pathways, both the incentive side as well as the disincentive side. So we're very comfortable that Mr. Solana conveyed that sense of two pathways and where those two pathways would head.

QUESTION: But they won't know the details of the pathways. I mean, the incentives obviously they know. But do you think that Iran understands the gravity of the possible disincentives? I mean, just the idea of disincentives doesn't really make clear that they could be serious.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I think that both with the public statements as well as with that private message to the Iranian Government that they have a full appreciation for both sides of this package, the incentive side and disincentive side and where those two pathways may lead.

Anything else on Iran?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: Recently -- this week a Fox news representative was in Tehran speaking with officials from the leadership of both Khamenei and Ahmadi-Nejad and an aide to Ali Khamenei said that Iran actually wanted to help the United States in Iraq, wanted to be more helpful. That they said they had some common goals and considered this somewhat of an overture, another overture following the letter. Has the U.S. received any such signals through your lines of communication and how do you view this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll have to check to see exactly what kinds of communications we may or may not have received from the Iranian Government. Look, we and the Iranian Government as well as all of Iraq's neighbors have an interest in Iraq being stable, secure and prosperous and certainly we would encourage good transparent neighborly relations between the Iranian Government and the Iraqi Government. There have been visits back and forth between the Iranian and the Iraqi governments and we have expressed our concerns previously about Iranian meddling in Iraq. And the way to help out the Iraqi Government, should the Iranian Government have an interest in that, is to cease that meddling in the affairs of their neighbor and have good transparent neighborly relations with them.

QUESTION: But at one point, of course, as we've discussed many, many times, you were considering talking directly to them and also there was the desire to hold off until the Iraqi Government was in place. Now that is completely in place as of last week. Are you ready to move forward on those bilateral talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: That channel of communication on that narrow set of issues remains open. I believe, however, the Iranian Government has recently in the past couple of weeks come out and said that they weren't interested in that channel of communications right now on that particular topic. So the channel remains open, but thus far, there have been no discussions in that channel.

QUESTION: Just one more on this. They expressed to our person there that they were -- they continue to be disappointed that there's been no further response to Ahmadi-Nejad's letter. Is that basically a dead issue with you guys or not, considering a response?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing -- nothing new for you on the letter.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Okay. Anything else on Iran?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Well, are you going to commit to that or --

QUESTION: It's -- well, it's related (inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: -- are you sort of waffling on it?

QUESTION: No, no, no. It's the Shanghai organization, you know, Shanghai group. Iran was -- attended the group meeting, and I wanted to know if you have any comment on their decisions to expand their economic and security links?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they were -- they attended this cooperation dialogue, I believe, as an observer. Now, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has a stated goal of increasing cooperation and furthering national goals, of fighting terrorism, improving infrastructure, increasing the prosperity of the nations in the region, and fighting narcotics. Certainly, those are goals and a concept that we can certainly support. And in fact, the organization has had some positive developments. China, for example was able to resolve in this framework some pre-existing border disputes with countries like Kazakhstan and Tajikistan and Russia, as well as others. So there's positive things. And as I said the concept of this organization is positive in that it is -- attempts to address certain goals.

Now in practice there have been a couple of things, developments that would seem to run counter to those stated goals. The Astana Declaration in which they called for a set timetable of pulling out multinational forces from Afghanistan when, in fact, Afghanistan was not a state that signed up to that particular statement. We think that that was a counterproductive statement. And certainly counter -- it would run counter to the idea of fighting terrorism in the region. And certainly, having Iran there as an observer -- Iran, the world's largest or most significant state sponsor of terrorism, again runs counter to the idea that this is a group dedicated, in part, to countering terrorism in the region.

So you know, the concept of the organization I think certainly we can support that. But -- and there have been, as I said, some positive things, positive developments that have come out of these meetings. But in practice, there also have been some developments that we view as running counter to the stated goals of the organization.

QUESTION: So you think it couldn't have been positive if Iran became a full member of this organization as they wish?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, if this is an organization that is intended to do a lot of different things in terms of fighting trafficking of narcotics, fighting terrorism, increasing regional prosperity and you apply equal weight to those goals, certainly Iran, at least in our view, wouldn't qualify on the fighting terrorism score. Then again, we're not members of it. We haven't sought membership or observer status to the organization.

QUESTION: Do you view this organization as anti-American?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. Okay, I think we can get to Mr. Shanker’s question finally.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. Government been informed officially by the new Iraqi Government about a reconciliation plan? If so, what is your understanding of whether it will grant amnesty to insurgents, even those who have attacked American or other Coalition Forces? Members of Congress are already expressing outrage. Does the U.S. Government plan to respond?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Thank you for that question, Thom. In fact, just recently there was -- Mr. al-Rubaie, who is the National Security Advisor to the Iraqi Government, has come out and said that in fact the Iraqi Government is not proposing to grant amnesty to those who have killed Iraqi or American soldiers. So that's not -- he has stated in public that that is not something that they are considering.

We have not seen a detailed proposal on the topic of national reconciliation from the Iraqi Government, but I think it is a natural step. At a certain point, I would expect in the not too distant future, that the Iraqi Government is going to look at how you -- how to heal the divisions that currently exist in Iraq.

How do you bring in to the political process those individuals who may, in some fashion, have supported or been involved with anti-governmental activities? That's been the long-term -- that has been the strategy for some time of the multi-national forces as well as the Iraqi Government. And now you have a permanent Iraqi Government. And part of what they are charged with by the Iraqi people is to bring together the Iraqi people in support of this government and bring the Iraqi people together in furtherance of the stated goals of this government, to provide the Iraqi people with security, to spread the institutions that will support an Iraqi democracy, and to help increase the level of prosperity among the Iraqi people. That's what this government is charged with by the Iraqi people for delivering.

So we would expect that they are going to have some proposals on how to do that. And also at the same time, how to marry that up with increased security in Iraq. And we look forward to hearing those -- hearing and seeing those detailed proposals from the Iraqi Government.

Now that said, there are going to be those who are irreconcilable to any political process, those adherence of al-Qaida or terrorist groups in Iraq, those foreign fighters and those Iraqis involved with those groups as well as those hardcore Iraqi elements, perhaps former regime elements, former Ba'athists, others, who are just irreconcilable to any political process that is now ongoing in Iraq. And those are individuals that -- both Iraqi forces and multi-national forces are going to have to deal with through other means. They're going to have to deal with them militarily, and that is what Iraqi forces and what our forces are doing now in support of this Iraqi Government.

QUESTION: Question on Somalia? Are you ready?

MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on Iraq? Okay.

QUESTION: Kofi Annan today was critical of countries such as the United States which have shown support for warlord groups in Somalia, and he said that he didn't think it was a good idea for either the U.N. or any of its members to support any warlord groups.

I just wondered as a matter of principle what the U.S. view is on supporting warlord groups, especially those who have professed to be fighting against terrorism. And also -- I'll follow up.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that presumes I won't answer your question in full --

QUESTION: This is true.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- that you'd have to follow up. We'll see if you have a follow-up. (Laughter.) My bet is that you will.

First of all, warlord groups -- supporting warlord groups. This is a very broad, not very well defined term.

Our principle is that we want to work with individuals and groups who have an interest in fighting terrorism, fighting the presence of foreign terrorists on Somali soil. Those individuals interested in helping to build up Somali institutions of governance so that you can someday have -- get to the point where Somalis are able to build a fully functioning state for themselves. That is not the case now. It hasn't been the case since the early 1990s.

So our objective is to seek out and work with those individuals who have those interests, those individuals who want to see a better day for Somalia. We, as well as others in the international community, want to see that happen, and that's one of the reasons why we have the Somalia contact group that is now meeting up in New York -- well, not right now, it will be meeting shortly. It will be -- they will be meeting at the Norwegian Mission. I went through yesterday who is attending. I can run through that list again. Members of the contact group, that would be the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Tanzania and the European Union. And the United Nations and African Union are going to be participating as observers.

QUESTION: And what about the EU? Did you say the EU?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. They are a member of it, yes.

QUESTION: On these discussions that you're having today, are you going to be looking at the various groups within Somalia and which groups should be supported? One view of some analysts is -- or experts on Africa -- is that the transitional government should be sort of expanded into a broader national unity government and more groups, especially the spoilers should probably be invited in to help just to make sure that all the various groups are represented. Are you going to be looking at issues like this? What could be done to bring a more stable society in Somalia?

MR. MCCORMACK: Very generally, the goal of this is to look at what efforts individual countries or groups, as in the case of the EU, are making to further their national interest goals. And very generally, everybody shares the same goals. They want to see an alleviation of the humanitarian -- amelioration of the humanitarian situation there. They want to see the Transitional Federal Institutions made more robust so they can build the institutions and they want to fight terrorism. So everybody very generally agrees on that.

I think they'll talk more about the specific goals so they can get a better idea of how to coordinate various programs, efforts and diplomacy in furtherance of those goals and what new initiatives they might take. At this point, Sue, I'm not going to prefigure what the outcome of the discussions will be. We will try to get you as much information about those discussions as we possibly can. I think that you will probably see some draft -- some statement come out of this meeting. That's one of the objectives that we're going to have. So you will have that from the group and from our perspective we'll try to provide you a fuller sense of the discussions and where we're going to be heading with the group.

And I would point also that, as I said yesterday, one of the things that we are going to be -- we hope to look at with this group is addressing the point that you made about bringing others into the Contact Group.

You have a question, Elise?

QUESTION: Yeah. It's more about bringing other groups, Somali groups, into the transitional government. I mean, the transitional government, up until very recently, has been sitting in Nairobi, doesn't have a whole lot of power or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they're actually in Baidoa. They're actually -- the Transitional Federal Institutions are in Baidoa.

QUESTION: Well, no, I know.

MR. MCCORMACK: There are other groups. I know there are other groups and individuals that --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Government itself, the transitional government itself, and while the ICU has control of Mogadishu right now, it certainly, by all accounts, expanding its influence beyond the capital. I mean, is there a recognition that you're going to have to deal with these people in some way when you take into account the future building of Somalia and Somali institutions. I mean, you're not -- you can't just deal with this transitional government that has no legitimacy.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, yeah, the point here is to try to bring the various groups in Somalia together so that they channel their efforts in one direction building a better day for Somalia. And part of that equation is to buildup these -- buildup legitimate institutions that serve the interests of the people and are respected by the people. Now as for the Islamic Courts, again, we are reserving judgment. We have received a letter from them. We have not yet responded to that letter.

What we know of this group now is, I can say, that it's not a homogenous group. It is not a homogenous group in terms of their viewpoints. So I think that we want to have a better assessment of this group and the situation on the ground. Now in the meantime they are seeking to expand their influence and take territory outside of Mogadishu and that is something that we are watching closely. And that I have to say at this point we don't have a full picture of exactly where they are and what their level of control is.

But to get back to the original point, we want to see groups in Somalia come together for fighting to end in Somalia. That is, I think everybody's shared goal -- I would hope inside Somalia those who want to see a better day for that country as well as those on the outside, certainly including us. And the mechanism through which we are going to try to further those goals is the Somalia Contact Group.

QUESTION: What -- with no presence in Mogadishu and just a very small staff monitoring from outside the country, what efforts are being done to get a better sense of who this group is? Are people in the region reaching out to them? Are people in the African Affairs Bureau here doing that? Are you getting your picture from other sources?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have a variety of different sources. We have contacts with people who travel into and out of Somalia, people who are there as well, people in the region who might have contacts with these individuals. So we try to gather information from a variety of different sources.

Anything else on Somalia?

QUESTION: Sean, I just wonder why haven't you replied to the letter?

MR. MCCORMACK: Just because we want to have a fuller sense of to whom we might be replying. It is -- the situation in Somalia is, I guess you can say, a relatively fluid one and it has been for quite some time. I would point out that fighting and the various -- the exchange of territory among different groups is not something that started four weeks ago or two months ago. This goes back many, many years. So you want to have a better sense -- a better sense of this group, their objectives and who -- to whom we would be replying. As I said, the situation on the ground is a little bit murky and this is not a homogenous group in terms of its membership and its point of view. So you want to have a better understanding of those things before you actually have some even implicit form of commitment to working with them and you would have -- and which would be represented by replying to their letter.

Yeah. Anything else on Somalia? Okay. Yes.

QUESTION: Hamas, do you have any information on reports that Hamas is delivering suitcases full of money into the Gaza Strip through the Rafah border crossing?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have much more information other than the news reports that I have seen -- seen about this. Even at the amounts that have been reported in the press, it still falls far short of what is required to keep the Palestinian Authority up and running on a monthly basis or a daily basis. So I think that there are governments involved in monitoring that crossing and will have an interest in looking at that situation. But I can't offer any specific information that would confirm it.

QUESTION: Sean, last one?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Let's go to Dave here and then we’ll come back.

QUESTION: Sean, there was a suggestion published today that the United States has pretty much frustrated this effort by the Europeans to set up the so-called mechanism to assist the Palestinian. But because of the -- apparently the expansiveness of U.S. banking regulations, that everyone's afraid to move. What's your take on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, I suppose it's one interpretation of it. And the other interpretation might be that we're working in good faith with the EU and our Quartet partners on this issue. The EU raised this issue of finding other mechanisms, another mechanism by which the international community could provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. Everybody agrees that that is a worthy objective. And out of the Quartet meeting in New York, the EU was tasked with taking the lead in coming up with the details of what this mechanism might consist of. The understanding is that it would be limited in duration and limited in scope.
So we've been working closely with the EU on this matter, as well as staying in touch with our Quartet partners on the issue. We haven't worked out, we as a group, have not worked out all the details. The EU is still working on it as well. They're talking to the World Bank as well as other actors in the international community about how to do this.

Certainly we have an interest in helping the Palestinian people with the Humanitarian situation. We ourselves have provided a great deal of assistance, millions and millions of dollars of assistance to the Palestinian people to alleviate the humanitarian situation that exists there now. We have provided in-kind assistance as well. We have provided medicines and medical equipment to address the health situation there, as have others around the globe.

But fundamentally, the reason why the Palestinian people face these difficulties, shall we say, is because its government is not a partner for peace. The Hamas-led government refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. It refuses to turn away from violence. It refuses to turn away from the use of terror. And that is something that the international community, not just the United States, but the international community has said it's unacceptable and that the international community has called upon Hamas to change its points of view. Thus far, they have not. And the world and the Palestinian people need to understand that the reason why they may be facing some difficulties is because Hamas has chosen this pathway. They are the ones that are refusing to comply with the just demands of the international community.

And as far as U.S. laws and regulations, those are in place for good reason. Those are in place so that groups and individuals cannot provide funding to terrorist organizations. Money to the terrorist organizations is their life blood. And those rules and regulations are there for good reason.

Now if various private international financial institutions choose not to deal with financial institutions in the Palestinian areas, that is their decision. They are making a judgment about reputational risk. And certainly they are well aware of U.S. laws. But those laws and regulations are there for a good reason.

Yes.

QUESTION: On this subject of the international aid to the Palestinians, International Crisis Group, which is a group set up by governments to advise them, published a document the day before yesterday and they asked the Government of U.S. to revise their legislation on international aid to allow these banks to give directly money to the Palestinians, to revise the Office of Foreign Asset Control directives. So do you think it would be a good idea? Do you think it's something the U.S. would be ready to do?

MR. MCCORMACK: I guess there are a lot of different ways to answer that. But I think the simple one is no. Like I said, those laws and regulations are there for a good reason.

QUESTION: But don't you think this position can -- where as the risk of radicalizing a part of the Palestinian population which is not radical yet?

MR. MCCORMACK: Hold on. You know, again, there are various members of the international community that would like to make this somehow the problem of the United States or the international community. It's not.

Again, let's be clear about why we find ourselves in this position. Let's be clear about why the Palestinian people find themselves in this position. It's for one reason. It's because Hamas-run Government refuses to turn away from terror. They refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. They, therefore, refuse to be a partner for peace. And the international community, rightly so, has come out and said that's unacceptable. This government is turning away from more than a decade's worth of precedent of behavior and policies of previous Palestinian Governments.

So what has changed here is not the international community, not U.S. laws, not U.S. regulations, not the viewpoint of the international community. What has changed is that you now have a Hamas-led Government that has broken with past practice of the Palestinian Authority. So that's the reason why we find ourselves in the position that we do right now.

Yeah?

MR. MCCORMACK: How far do you think the aid mechanism should go in terms of easing the plight of Palestinians? For example, should it pay doctors and teachers' salaries but not politicians' salaries? Where is your sort of red line?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're going to leave those kind of discussions for diplomatic discussions with our European and Quartet colonies.

QUESTION: But in terms of salaries, do you think that salaries should --

MR. MCCORMACK: We have said that we favor providing humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. And that we agreed with our Quartet partners that we would examine the development of this potential international mechanism. The EU is taking the lead on it, and we're working in good faith with the EU as they come up with proposals. I think there's been a good dialogue and a good dynamic in that regard.

So we'll see what the final proposal is and what the Quartet's reaction is to that proposal.

QUESTION: Just to follow on this. I'm sorry if you went over this the other day, but earlier this week there was a massive storming of the legislature building where unsalaried workers are, you know, attacking members of Parliament and the Hamas-led Government. I mean, does this concern you that there is more instability in the territories, or do you see this as a positive signal that Hamas is losing power?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, certainly we don't advocate violence or the use of violence. It is up to the government, in this case the Hamas-led Government, to provide for a secure situation in the Palestinian areas. That's part of their job.

And, I would -- again, I would just point out the reason why there may be a lack of funds on the part of the Palestinian Authority is because the policies and behaviors of the Hamas-led Government.

QUESTION: What do you think about the decision of the Israeli Government to transfer weapons to Abbas?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I don't think that that is exactly -- check with the Israeli Government I think for exactly what it is that they have said they would allow. So I think in general the international community -- we ourselves have worked with President Abbas' office and his security forces, the presidential guard has taken control, I believe, over the security for the border crossing at Rafah. So they do have a role and he has the potential, as I understand it, to exercise other authorities with regard to the security forces in the Palestinian areas. At this point, he has not exercised those authorities. But on this particular question, I'd refer you to the Israelis about exactly what it is that they have said that they would do or allow to happen.

QUESTION: Okay. So if it's not Israelis weapons, it's -- what is it?

MR. MCCORMACK: I would refer you to the Israelis.

Yes.

QUESTION: On another subject, Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Tomorrow Dr. Rice will receive the visit of the Italian Foreign Minister Mr. D'Alema. What's the agenda of the meeting and is Dr. Rice worried or disappointed by a recent Italian position on Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and --

MR. MCCORMACK: She looks forward -- she would like very much to have a good meeting with her new counterpart. They'll talk about, I would expect, most of the issues you would expect they talked about and whatever else happens to be on their minds at the moment. I would expect they talk about the war against terrorism, talk about Iran, talk about Iraq, talk about Afghanistan, as well as transatlantic issues. So certainly we want to have a good relationship with this new Italian Government. Italy is a good friend and close ally. And so she would like very much to have a good meeting with them.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION:  Thank you. Do you have any comments on the recent agreement reached between Taiwan and the Mainland on the direct cargo and passenger flights?

MR. MCCORMACK:   I'll have to look into it for you. I don't have any details on that. We'll see if we have -- can find something for you on that.

QUESTION: And can I follow up with one question on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? This year, the joint statement, the six leaders stated flatly that models of social development and political assistance should not be exported. Some see the statement as directed at the U.S. And obviously, this is -- kind of conflict with the U.S. efforts to promote democracy in this region. Do you -- what's your take on this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen that specific language. So I couldn't respond on the basis of whether or not that is, in fact, what the people who drafted that language intended it to mean. I would, as a general point, however, I think that you would -- you can look at the remarks from President Bush. You can look at Secretary Rice's remarks just from yesterday and it is our belief that democracy is not a "U.S. political model." It is based upon the fundamental principle that every individual should -- has inalienable universal rights and that those rights are not the possession of the United States. Those are rights that are inherent to each -- every individual around the globe. And the way that they manifest themselves in what political system is going to be up to them. Democracy is certainly the model that has worked all around the world in that regard, but it is not solely America's patented invention that we sell around the world. This is something we believe springs from individuals and their own inherent rights.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Liberia?

MR. MCCORMACK: On Liberia. Yes.

QUESTION: Britain has offered to host Charles Taylor if he's convicted --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: -- which opens the way for his trial to take place in The Hague. I wondered whether you had any comment on that and whether you thought they should proceed a little bit more quickly with his trial possibly?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's certainly a positive development, and we welcome that offer and gesture from the British Government. I think it demonstrates -- just the fact that they have stepped up on this issue shows their commitment to seeing those individuals who have -- are alleged to have committed gross crimes brought to justice on the international level.

I understand that they would still need to pass some legislation, pass a law in the UK in order to follow through on this commitment. But certainly we welcome the stated intention to -- your word -- host Charles Taylor should he go through a criminal proceeding and be found guilty. I think that certainly we do want to see this judicial process move forward and move forward as quickly as it possibly can.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that the Secretary will meet with the Spanish Foreign Minister next week?

MR. MCCORMACK: I believe she will. Yes. Off the top of my head, I can't give you the exact date.

QUESTION: Monday.

MR. MCCORMACK: Monday, yeah.

QUESTION: What is on the agenda?

MR. MCCORMACK: Talk about U.S.-Spanish relations, talk about the U.S.-European relations, war on terror. We'll probably talk a little bit about the situation in our hemisphere. The Spanish Government has played a constructive role on several fronts in that regard. So I would expect they have a wide range of conversation.

QUESTION: And the Spanish relations with Venezuela?

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, probably a variety of different aspects of the hemisphere that they'll talk about.

Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: Keep coming back and forth monopolizing the briefing. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah. Yemen has apparently sent a letter to the U.S. asking for more information about the death of the detainee in Guantanomo Bay. Could you please provide any details of this communication? And also from Saudi Arabia, have they asked --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check into that for you, Sue.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Sean, can I just go back to something -- I just got it. You know, we already talked about the fact that --

MR. MCCORMACK: It's inherited, I'm sure.

QUESTION: I know, sorry.

QUESTION: No, you'll know the answer to this (laughter) and those are fair. About you getting a clarification from the Iraqi Government on the release or amnesties? Didn't we talk about that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, we did.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: We did.

QUESTION: You said --

MR. MCCORMACK: I thought we had already talked about that.

QUESTION: We did. But apparently on the Hill, Warner and McCain are now -- and others -- are now going to contact State or have already done so to find out what you know. But just to reconfirm, you have received a clarification that puts your mind at ease.

MR. MCCORMACK: There's a publicly stated clarification, if you will, saying that that was not their intention.

QUESTION: Why do you think there's still so much misunderstanding then here in Washington?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. I watched it myself before I came out here.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: There was an interview, shall I say, another network (laughter), with Mr. Rubaie --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- on this matter. And he stated very clearly that that is not what the Iraqi Government intended.

QUESTION: Was it just misreported or you don't know?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't account for it. I don't know.

QUESTION: Have you received any other clarification directly or just this public statement that you watched?

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me check to see exactly what kind of communication we've had on it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll try to get you something afterwards.

QUESTION: But anyway, you don't think there's any longer any reason to be worried abut this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I take those statements at face value.

QUESTION: All right, thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:15 p.m.)

DPB # 100