MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, Lambros, special greeting to you. I don't have anything to start off with, so we can get right into your questions.

QUESTION: What's the -- has Deputy Secretary Negroponte's prepared testimony been completed or is it still being revised?

MR. MCCORMACK: It has been completed. We'll try to get you guys a copy; of course, embargoed until he delivers it out of courtesy to those before whom he will be testifying.

QUESTION: Okay. And are you still expecting -- is your assessment of his comments being -- well, is your assessment from this morning about his remarks the same or is it --

MR. MCCORMACK: He's going to -- he's going to answer all the questions that are put to him to the best of his ability. I'm, of course, not going to presume to try to preview for you exactly how he's going to answer each question, but he's going to answer all the questions to the best of his ability. We'll get you his prepared remarks so that you can take a look at those.

QUESTION: And he will be doing so in that the review is not -- in the context of the review not yet being complete? Is that correct?

MR. MCCORMACK: That's correct. That's correct.

Gollust, caught you off guard.

QUESTION: There is a lot of civil unrest in Georgia, seems to be reaching sort of a new height today. Georgian -- people in the Georgian Government actually are accusing the Russians of stirring this up as some sort of a payback for the Rose Revolution, et cetera; just wanted to know if you had anything to say about that situation.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there have been, over the past couple days, some protests in Georgia, political protests raising a variety of different issues with respect to the actions of the government. Of course, we are very supportive, we're -- regardless of where protests may take place, the right of individuals to peacefully protest to express their point of view. I can't speak at this point to any of these accusations that there may be outsiders trying to stir up things in Georgia. Of course, if that were true, that would be something of concern not only to us, but I would expect of special concern to the Georgian Government.

Look, if there are political differences within the political system in Georgia, they can -- they should be worked out within the confines of that political system and also, they should be worked out in a peaceful manner. And neither side, whether the government or the opposition, should take any steps that would be deliberately provocative to the other -- that could lead to violence. So these are issues that can be resolved through peaceful political dialogue in Georgia and certainly, that's what we hope to see.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, is there any U.S. diplomatic involvement here, any contacts with them or --

MR. MCCORMACK: I know that we've been in contact with the Georgian Government. Beyond that, I don't have any information for you.

QUESTION: On Pakistan, you were going to check into whether Anne Patterson or others have talked to Musharraf in the last 24 hours or so and also --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- what our contacts have been with Benazir Bhutto.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Don't believe any contact between Anne and President Musharraf, although she has been in contact -- I will just say this. She has been in contact with a variety of senior -- senior people involved in Pakistani political parties and involved in Pakistani civil society as well as the government. I think you'll understand I'm not going to get into each of the contacts that she's had. We have been in contact with Benazir Bhutto and her political party as well as a variety of others involved in political life in Pakistan.

QUESTION: What are you talking to Benazir Bhutto about?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to detail the contents of those conversations, but I think the -- the tone and bottom line is what you're hearing from us in public. We would repeat this to whomever we are in contact with in the Pakistani political system and that is, of course, there is a right to free expression and to working through this period of turbulence within the Pakistani political system.

We would counsel everybody involved, the government as well as those in civil society and political parties who have an interest in moving forward Pakistan on the democratic pathway, to have a dialogue, to express views in a peaceful manner, in a manner that will help maintain an atmosphere of calm, help lower tensions within the Pakistani political system and not lead to violence. Nobody wants to see an outbreak of violence in Pakistan. That is something that will certainly not help get Pakistan back on the road to constitutional and democratic rule.

QUESTION: Do you think she should -- she said she's going to hold a mass demonstration on Friday and then maybe again next week. Are you urging her to not do this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think -- we're not in a position to counsel -- counsel political parties and political leaders as to what they may or may not do in expressing their views. Our counsel to everybody is to make every attempt to maintain an atmosphere of calm, an atmosphere where channels of communication are open, channels for peaceful expression, are open, and to resist any temptation to engage in deliberately provocative acts that may lead to violence.

Yes, Joe.

QUESTION: Are you seeing that atmosphere of calm right now with the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, clearly --

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) and the arrests of the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Clearly, there's a lot of tension. There is a lot of tension within the Pakistani political system. We understand that. We have counseled President Musharraf and his government to roll back the state of emergency, get back to democratic rule, and -- mainly because that is what is in the best interest of the Pakistani people.

We believe that the Pakistani people want to see a Pakistan that is on the road to political reform, economic reform, to return to that pathway that, frankly, President Musharraf had put the country on, one of greater political and economic reform. We believe that that's in the interest of the Pakistani people and there is -- there are a variety of issues within Pakistani society and the Pakistani political system.

One of the most significant in -- is the threat of violent extremists and all of those with -- with an interest in seeing a moderate, democratic, stable, prosperous Pakistan emerge from this have an interest in resisting -- resisting and fighting against violent extremism. And at the end of the day and in the medium and long term, the greatest antidote to that threat of violent extremism is that stable, democratic, peaceful, prosperous Pakistan.

QUESTION: Ms. Bhutto, this morning, wrote flatly -- I know you spoke about this earlier, that Pakistan now is a military dictatorship.

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, I'm not going to play political scientist. The fact of the matter -- the fact of the matter is Pakistan has veered off the course of the democratic pathway because of the actions that this government has taken. We have urged this government to get back on the pathway to constitutional and democratic rule. That is in the interest of the Pakistani people and the -- certainly, in the interest of our -- in the interest of a lot of the goals that we have in common: fighting terrorism, fighting violent extremism, seeing a more stable South Asia region emerge in the years to come. So an important point of all those things, being successful in all of those things, as well as seeing a better future for the Pakistani people, is to return to democratic rule.

Yeah.

QUESTION: I know you don't want to get into the specifics of Mr. Negroponte's remarks right away, but will he echo statements earlier here that there will be a change in the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan if, in some short period of time, he doesn't go back on his --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to try to predict the course of U.S.-Pakistani relations. We have a lot of mutual interests. I've talked a lot about some of -- what some of those are -- fighting terrorism, seeing a better life emerge for the Pakistani people in which they all share in the benefits of economic reform and political reform. Everybody wants to see that. We have an interest that. We have an interest in seeing the expansion of people-to-people contacts between the American and Pakistani people continue. There's a whole wide -- there's a whole variety of overlapping interests there.

And Deputy Secretary Negroponte will touch upon a little bit of the history of U.S.-Pakistani relations. You can read it for yourself or listen to it for yourself. And Secretary Rice has talked a little bit about this as well, that as a government in that period after the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, that the decisions taken at the time to reassess the relationships in that part of the world, including with Pakistan, had consequences, had consequences for Pakistan, had consequences for our ability to influence the direction that the states in that region, including Pakistan, took.

And it's important to keep in mind those lessons as we look forward to how the U.S.-Pakistan relationship develops, how the relationship between the United States and that region develops. But you can take a look for yourself at his testimony and, of course, listen to what he has to say in response to the questions from the House members.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Pakistan is designated a major non-NATO ally.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Is that something that's able to be rescinded?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know the answer to that, technically. I'm not -- by giving that answer, I'm not trying to indicate anything one way or the other whether or not anybody looks at that. But to my knowledge, it's not something that we're looking at. But I don't know the technical answer to your question.

Anything else on Pakistan?

Lambros.

QUESTION: On Kosovo, Mr. McCormack. The Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica rejected the framework offered by the international mediators for the future of Kosovo as "completely unacceptable" due to the fact that, as he said, "The 14 points as they stand now mean two independent states." Any comment since the document drafted by U.S. envoy, too?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen those remarks, Lambros. But you're well aware of what our position is with respect to Kosovo. The President very clearly defined what the endpoint is. We have defined the roadmap, if you will. That is a plan based on the Ahtisaari proposal that has been put forth. We're working very closely with all the parties involved, including the Europeans and the Russians and others in the region, on how to get to that endpoint. But our bottom line is that, as the President said, there needs to be a resolution to this issue, it needs to be done in the near future, and that's what we're working towards.

QUESTION: One more question on interfaith dialogue. The Council of Religious Institution for the Holy Land is in Washington, Mr. McCormack, including the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem Theofilos. Since Secretary Rice met, as you told us the other day, the group during your recent trip in Israel, how do you assess its efforts to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians via interfaith dialogue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, she was pleased to meet with the group in Jerusalem. I can't speak to their specific efforts and their specific progress. But she was pleased to meet with these people in the context of her efforts to try to bring a solution, a lasting, durable solution to the conflicts between the Israeli and the Palestinian people.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: On Iran, how would you characterize level of cooperation between the U.S. and France at the moment in exerting pressure on Iran? Is the relationship particularly strong? Is France a vital partner in this at present?

MR. MCCORMACK: They are. They are a vital partner in working together to address the potential threat from an Iranian nuclear program. I think we share a view of the potential consequences of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. And we have worked very well on the tactical steps along the way to address that strategic threat. Certainly, we're not alone in working with France on this. We have been working quite closely with the P-5+1.

At the moment, Russia and China have some tactical differences with that group as to what the next steps are. But they have agreed that should Iran continue in its defiance of the P-5+1 Security Council resolutions as well as the IAEA, that it will be important to pass a new Chapter 7 Security Council resolution. Right now, we're having discussions about what the elements to that resolution might be, the specific language. We haven't gotten there yet. And I would expect that it's going to require several more conversations before we're able to arrive at an agreement on what a new Security Council resolution would look like.

But we're working very well with the Government of France. And I would expect that the issue of Iran is going to be very high up on the agenda when the two presidents meet.

QUESTION: Well, would you say that Sarkozy has made a particular difference in French policy to a more aggressive French policy towards Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll let other people make those assessments. We worked quite well with the government of President Chirac on this. President Chirac and the French Government were very strong on this issue. But we have a very good partnership working with President Sarkozy and his government, not only on Iran but on issues related to the Middle East, to Kosovo, to Lebanon, going down the list. We're going to have our differences; of course, that's only natural, even between close friends and allies. But we're working quite well with this government.

QUESTION: Is there a difference in -- I mean, Sarkozy is asking gas companies and oil companies and banks to stop working with Iran. Have you seen a real difference in that?

MR. MCCORMACK: France has taken a leadership role within the EU and Europe on these issues. There are others who are very strong on considering what steps Europe might take to ensure that Iran is not able to use the international financial system for illicit purposes. France has taken a leadership role. Great Britain has taken a leadership role. But more widely I think the Iranians' defiance of the world on this issue has really got the attention of the European governments and they are considering and starting to talk about what measures they might take collectively to help further the efforts of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: Do you have any further clarity on -- this morning, we asked you about the Ahmadi-Nejad statement that now 3,000 centrifuges were fully operating. Do you have anything --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, again, we don't -- we don't know exactly what the state of their centrifuge program is. The IAEA is on the ground and they will be giving a report to the IAEA Board of Governors in the next week or so, not only about their efforts to define past Iranian activities but what is going forward. At the current moment, they wouldn't have a good idea of exactly what the state of their centrifuge program is.

But regardless of what the exact number is right now, one thing you can say about this Iranian Government is that they have followed through on their threats to move forward with their centrifuge program and their nuclear program despite the requests and ultimately demands of the international community to stop their efforts to develop a centrifuge program and stop their efforts to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapons program. That is our belief and that is a shared belief among many in the international program -- international community that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

So I guess regardless of what the number is -- 2,500, 3,000 -- or what the exact state or the operational capability of those centrifuges may be, the bottom line is that Iran continues to defy the international community. There are going to be consequences for that continued defiance. But at the same time, there is a doorway that is open to them if they choose to take it. Thus far, they have chosen not to take it.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Any reaction, please, to Senator Leahy asking for the Secretary's clarification about the Bellinger remarks about the legality of waterboarding American --

MR. MCCORMACK: I looked at the transcript of what John said and I would advise anybody with an interest in this topic to go take a look at exactly what he said. I'm not sure the news story that came out of the interview accurately reflected all of what John said. And he was asked a hypothetical question and he's given the answer that many of us have given about hypothetical questions. We're not going to -- we're not going to get into it.

And I think if you look at exactly what he said, he hasn't said anything different than what the President has said on this topic, specifically in the context of a confirmation hearing that was ongoing for Judge Mukasey. And in terms of John's views, I'm not sure that certainly I would single him out in the way that Senator Leahy has on this. We all serve in these appointed positions at the pleasure of the President. We are here once a decision has been made to support those decisions and to talk about those decisions consistent with the policy that has been decided upon. And what John was doing, I think if you take a look at his remarks, was really going back to what the President as well as others have said on the topic. So I wouldn't necessarily single John's comments out or single John out in this regard.

QUESTION: Do you have anything more on my question this morning about Blackwater? And then two, has the Secretary met with the Sudanese Vice President on the fragile Sudanese -- Southern Sudanese peace deal?

MR. MCCORMACK: I believe she's going to be meeting with him tomorrow, tomorrow morning.

And refresh my memory on Blackwater? I'm sorry.

QUESTION: I was asking if today is the deadline for replying to Congress--

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, right, right. I did check into this. And apparently, we have -- we're up to date in answering all of our questions, all the questions that have been put to us. I know that in looking into this there was a question that was put to us on October 30th. There was a deadline for response by November 2nd. I think just this morning we actually got back to the committee with our answer. And I believe also that Ambassador Kennedy, Pat Kennedy, talked to staff this past Friday on these issues.

So if there's something that's outstanding, I'm not aware of it and the system is not aware of it. But we have a commitment from the Secretary on down to being cooperative and answering all the questions that we possibly can about Blackwater to the best of our ability.

QUESTION: Does that mean we should start the timer right now for when you get the letter from Waxman telling you that you haven't responded to any of the requests?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know, Matt. Do you have the letter yet?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, I don't. But it seems to me -- you just said the deadline was November 2nd. Today, I believe, is November 5th -- 7th. Wouldn't that mean you were five days late?

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, look, we --

QUESTION: I just want to make sure that I understand. Was the deadline today or was it the 2nd?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, it was the 2nd. But look, there's a commitment here to answering all the questions and there's a commitment for answering them in a timely manner. Sometimes -- and I don't know specifically what the question was that is in question -- but oftentimes these are not straightforward, yes-or-no answers. Some people may want to break them down into being yes-or-no answers, but if you want to give a full, complete, thorough answer, oftentimes it's not a yes-or-no answer. It requires a lot of legwork to get things together and to provide the facts.

Are you getting the letter now?

QUESTION: No, I was just looking to see what day -- Friday was the 2nd, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: I guess.

QUESTION: When Pat Kennedy went to speak with his staff, did he tell them that, sorry we didn't make this -- get the stuff, and you have now gotten it to them today?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure. I don't know exactly what he said to them, but I'm sure he reiterated our commitment to making sure that we were being responsive to any of the committees looking into this issue.

QUESTION: What’s your response to the Russian parliament's action on the Conventional Forces Treaty?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I looked into this, and as I understand it, the step that the parliament took is not qualitatively different than the stance of the government and President Putin with respect to suspending the CFE Treaty. We have troubles and problems with the idea of suspending the treaty. That said, we are working closely with other treaty members to try to address some of the concerns that have been detailed by the Russian Government. And have devoted quite a bit of effort to trying to address those concerns. I don't think that this is, you know, the final chapter in this story by any means. But clearly, it's a step that we don't support. It's not different than what the Government of Russia has outlined as their position. So we're still trying to work to resolve the issue, but it's not a helpful action.

Joel.

QUESTION: Yes. You just returned from the Middle East and talks with both Prime Minister Olmert, also Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and President Abbas. And for the last number of months, of course, Gaza Strip has remained a flashpoint with Hamas. To what degree do all the different parameters of those talks have to be initiated before the conference at Annapolis, or will a lot of these issues remain on the table?

MR. MCCORMACK: What issues?

QUESTION: Well, the Palestinians want a -- appear to want everything laid out ahead of time. The Israelis want, of course, a lot of postponement. Any room for compromise there from what you saw in the talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's the whole point of having talks. You know, we'd be saving a lot of jet fuel if everybody agreed on everything at this point, if they both wanted exactly the same thing at exactly the same moment.

What we're trying to do is get them to work through the difference that they have -- differences that they have so that their policy positions converge and that, from that, you can get the consistent and complementary action in terms of both of their responsibilities with respect to the roadmap and then, based on that, move forward, as President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert have said, to coming to negotiations about all of the issues, including the core issues, between them.

Anything else?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: One fellow back here, very briefly.

QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday, Mr. Whiton, Deputy Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, gave a speech in Brussels, Belgium. And he said a resolution on North Korean human rights was on the table in the United Nations General Assembly's Human Rights Committee. And United States (inaudible) support from South Korea again this year to pass that resolution. So does his remarks indicate that the United States will raise North Korean human rights issue more intensively in the future nuclear negotiations with North Korea?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't speak to this specific set of remarks, but the issue of human rights in North Korea has been very high on our agenda, and one that we have consistently raised around the globe, that we have raised with the North Koreans. So it's something that we have talked about quite a bit and I expect that we are going to remain quite concerned about the plight of the North Korean people.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:43 p.m.)

DPB # 197