I Crave SF Blog 3

• DEPARTMENT
  • Establishment of the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations
• IRAQ
  • Exxon Mobil’s Agreement with Kurdish Regions in Iraq / Investing in Iraqi Security Sector / Political and Legal Risks for U.S. Companies that Sign Contracts in Iraq before National Agreement on Oil Revenue Distribution
• EGYPT
  • Remain Concerned about Violence in Egypt / Condemn Excessive Force by Police / Urge Government of Egypt to Exercise Restraint / Discipline Forces / Protect Universal Rights of all Egyptians / Looking into Reports of Use of U.S. Tear Gas / No U.S. Security Assistance Funds Used for the Purchase of Tear Gas
  • General Tatwani’s Press Conference / Elections to Begin on Time / Military Intends to Hand Back Power to Civilians / Democratic Transition Process Completed by July 2012
  • Detention of Three U.S. Citizens / U.S. Has Requested Consular Access
• PAKISTAN
  • U.S. Has Not Received Official Notification of Ambassador Haqqani’s Resignation
• RUSSIA
  • U.S. to Cease Certain Obligations under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treat with Regard to Russia / Decision Made after Four Years of non-Russian Implementation
  • Bilateral Discussions with Russia Concerning Afghanistan
• INDIA
  • U.S. Wants U.S. Companies to Have the Opportunity to Compete Freely and Fairly in India’s Civilian Nuclear Industry / U.S. Continues to Work with the Government of India
• JAPAN
  • No Policy Change on U.S. Beef Exports to Japan

12:59 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: Afternoon, everybody. Quiet room. Looks like people are starting their Thanksgiving holidays.

I’ve got one small thing at the top, and then we’ll go to what’s on your minds – to announce that today the Department of State launches its new Bureau of Conflict Stabilization Operations. This is a further to the implementation of the Secretary’s vision under the QDDR. This new bureau will elevate conflict prevention and response as a core civilian mission for the State Department. And specifically, it’ll advance U.S. national security by driving integrated civilian-led efforts to prevent, respond to, and stabilize crises in priority states, setting conditions for long-term peace. And for those of you who have an interest in this development, particularly the elevation to a full State Department bureau, we’ll have a background briefing on the new bureau at 2 o’clock today.

Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Couple of things. One, just a quick question on Exxon’s agreement with the Kurdish regions of Iraq. What does the U.S. Government – well, a couple things. One, what does the U.S. Government think about the fact that Exxon went ahead and cut this deal?

MS. NULAND: Well, first to say that the United States has advised all of our companies, including ExxonMobil, that want to invest in the Iraqi security sector that they run significant political and legal risks if they sign contracts with any parties in Iraq before there has been a national agreement to work out the complex issues having to do with oil revenue distribution within Iraq. That said, you know that for many years, in fact, the United States has been urging all parties in Iraq to enact the necessary national laws that can govern the oil and gas sector because the sooner they do that, the sooner companies can invest in a legally viable way.

QUESTION: You said the Iraq security sector. Did you mean the Iraqi energy sector?

MS. NULAND: I meant the Iraqi energy sector. I apologize.

QUESTION: So you told them for ages that they should not – that they run significant risks if they go ahead and do this, absent the revenue sharing agreement, which has not been there despite the fact that they’ve been trying to work this out for seven or eight years, right? So did you specifically advise Exxon against this specific deal? Did they come to you and say, hey, we plan to do this? And did you say, hey, not such a good idea?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to whether anybody at Exxon spoke to anybody in USG about its intention to go ahead and sign this, but we have had conversations with Exxon for some time, as we have with all of our firms, advising them to wait for national legislation.

QUESTION: The Iraqi Government is saying that they may sanction Exxon. Normally, it’s the U.S. Government that is slapping sanctions on other people. Is this – in this instance, does it strike you as warranted on the part of the Iraqi Government to consider sanctioning Exxon for doing something that you yourselves have advised them and others was not a good idea?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get into the business of advising the Iraqi Government one way or the other how to respond to this – simply to say that our message to Iraq and to all the parties involved in the crafting of national legislation is that this is overdue, that it is in Iraq’s interest to get this done so that companies like Exxon can invest in a way that is legally viable and sustainable. That said, when Exxon has sought our advice about this, we asked them to wait them to wait for national legislation. We told them we thought that was the best course of action.

QUESTION: And just so I’m clear, when you say when Exxon has asked us about this, did that include this particular transaction, or you just mean as a general principle with regard to Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Well, certainly as a general principle. I can’t speak to whether there was an exchange with regard to this specific signing.

QUESTION: Could you take that one? And I realize I’m asking that on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, but we still have maybe 24 hours where people will be working, so if you could check whether there was a specific contact with Exxon about this specific deal, that would be, I think, interesting and helpful. Are you willing to take that?

MS. NULAND: Well, let’s – let me take it in the following manner. I will check whether Embassy Baghdad had contact with Exxon about this particular signing.

QUESTION: And the second part of this would be: Has the U.S. Government had contacts subsequent to this signing with either Exxon or with Iraq? I mean, Exxon is one of the largest capitalization companies in the world. It’s a major American corporation. It would not surprise me if the U.S. Government might not have reached out to them after this deal or reached out to the Iraqi Government about this to see what might be done to resolve the situation. Have you done so?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, let me take it in terms of whether either Embassy Baghdad or our new energy bureau here have had contact either with the Iraqis or with Exxon since this incident began.

QUESTION: And why – just so I understand, why limit it only to those two sectors? Because that would exclude if the Secretary, for example, had worked on this, then we would never know.

MS. NULAND: Well, again, contacts could’ve been made with Exxon anywhere in this government. I want to take it in terms of what the State Department is responsible for.

QUESTION: Right. But by limiting it just to the Embassy and the new energy bureau, it excludes a lot of other places in the building, right? That might’ve had contacts? I mean, I’m – Assistant Secretary Feltman could’ve had contacts, Deputy Secretary Burns, the Secretary herself. I’m not – I’m just trying to make sure that in defining it this way, we’re not excluding – I don’t expect you to ask every person in the U.S. State Department –

MS. NULAND: Thank you for that, Arshad. Let me see what I can do –

QUESTION: — the day before Thanksgiving, but –

MS. NULAND: — to be responsive to your question. (Laughter.) (Inaudible.)

Jill.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: The ruling military council in Egypt has accepted the resignation of the government, the civilian government. What – does this mean – what’s the reaction? What does this mean for the process of elections going forward? And do you have an update on those students, the U.S. students who have been taken into custody?

MS. NULAND: Well, first let me say that the United States remains very concerned about the violence in Egypt. We condemn the excessive force used by the police, and we strongly urge the Egyptian Government to exercise maximum restraint, to discipline its forces, and to protect the universal rights of all Egyptians to peacefully express themselves.

While all parties in Egypt need to remain committed to nonviolence, we believe that the Egyptian Government has a particular responsibility to restrain security forces and to allow the Egyptian people to peacefully express themselves.

You may have heard, just before we came down here, General Tantawi of Egypt gave a press conference. In that press conference, he said a number of things that Egyptians have been wanting to hear and have been needing reassurance on. The first thing that he said was that the Egyptian Government will ensure that the elections begin on time. That’s something that we have been calling for, as I did here yesterday, as we have throughout the government. Second, that the Egyptian military intends to hand power back to civilians. And the third important statement was that the Egyptian military expects that the electoral process and the handing back of power to civilians will be completed before July 2012. So we consider that these were important reassurances, reassurances that we have also wanted.

So with regard to your precise question about the government stepping down, we are looking forward to the naming of a new Egyptian government. That government’s first responsibility will obviously be to organize and ensure that free and fair elections do move forward in a peaceful environment to allow for the credible transition to democracy that the Egyptian people want.

QUESTION: And then those students who apparently have been taken –

MS. NULAND: So our Embassy has been in contact with Egyptian authorities throughout the day. We can confirm that there are three U.S. citizens in detention in connection with the protests. We have requested consular access to them. We expect that we will have that access tomorrow.

QUESTION: So no details about them?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, you can imagine that privacy concerns would constrain me from giving any more details here, particularly before we’ve had access to them and have been able to obtain –

QUESTION: Do you know exactly where they are right now?

MS. NULAND: I believe we do. Yes.

QUESTION: Are they safe? Is – at least can you tell us that?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think we have any information to indicate otherwise.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Are they basically being detained, or have they been charged with anything? And if so, what are the charges against them?

MS. NULAND: To our knowledge, they have simply been detained. But again, we are seeking more information from the Egyptian Government and we’re seeking access to them.

QUESTION: Ambassador Haqqani has resigned in Pakistan –

QUESTION: Can we stick with Egypt for just another moment, please?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.

QUESTION: Thank you. A couple of other things: Do you believe the ruling military council’s reassurances on all these (inaudible)?

MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, these are reassurances that the Egyptian people and many of the political parties had been seeking for some time. The fact that General Tantawi went out and reaffirmed them today was significant, and we certainly will hold the ruling authorities to the commitments that were made today.

QUESTION: How?

MS. NULAND: We have made clear from the beginning that we stand with the Egyptian people in their aspiration for a full democratic transition. We have wanted that to proceed peacefully, we have wanted that to proceed transparently and quickly. So we have reassurances now from military authorities again that that is their intention and that gives us a basis to, going forward, hold them to what they’ve committed to the Egyptian people. But of course, first and foremost, the Egyptian people will have the same expectations of the governing authorities.

QUESTION: But how are you going to hold them to account? I mean, are you going to cut off military assistance? Are you going to – I mean, just saying we’re going to hold you to account doesn’t mean you actually hold them to account. What are you going to do to hold them to account?

MS. NULAND: Well, you’re asking me to get ahead of events that haven’t happened here, Arshad. So what we have today is a reassurance from General Tantawi that this democratic transition process will be complete by July 2012. So that’s an expectation that he has now given to his own people, and we will stand with the Egyptian people as they ensure that the process delivers as he has promised.

Please.

QUESTION: Yeah. Ambassador Haqqani has resigned in Pakistan and his resignation has been accepted. Has the U.S. Government received any official intimation from Pakistan in this regard?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is that these are events that happened today in Pakistan. We have not had any official notification with regard to his standing here.

QUESTION: Before going to Pakistan, his last meeting was with Ambassador Grossman. Was there any indication that this was a farewell meeting?

MS. NULAND: That this was a what?

QUESTION: Farewell meeting.

MS. NULAND: Favorable meeting?

QUESTION: A farewell meeting.

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to that. I think they spoke about the full range of Pakistani issues. I do know that Ambassador Haqqani said he was going back for consultations, but I don’t know whether he characterized –

QUESTION: Okay. Do you have a comment on his three years (inaudible) working as Ambassador here? Because there were several ups and downs. And what kind of role do you think he played as an ambassador?

MS. NULAND: Again, I don’t want to get into valedictory comments here unless and until we’ve had a formal notification from the Pakistani Government.

QUESTION: Just on that, do you actually –

QUESTION: Have you had an informal notification? I mean, have you been told anything informally even, like “He’s gone and we’ll send you the note later?” or –

MS. NULAND: I mean, obviously we’re watching the same recording that you are watching in the press. But unless and until we – generally, the process is that if an ambassador is going to be withdrawn you, have a formal notification. So that is presumably –

QUESTION: So the statement by the prime minister’s office that they had asked for his resignation isn’t enough?

MS. NULAND: Again, he has a status here until he’s formally withdrawn. That usually happens by letter. Presumably based on the prime minister’s statement – well, we will see that, but I’m not going to be making valedictory comments about him in the current state.

QUESTION: The Secretary has – aware about the developments in Pakistan with regard to Memogate, which is resulting in political turmoil inside Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: I think we spoke to this yesterday. I’m not going to get into an internal Pakistani issue.

Anything else? Really? Is that all we have today? (Laughter.) Oh, no, no. There we go.

QUESTION: It’s a big day.

MS. NULAND: Okay, Jill. What else do you have?

QUESTION: For those of us who are fans of the CFE, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, what does this mean, what’s going on? Does this affect missile defense? Doesn’t sound good for the reset.

MS. NULAND: Are you a fan of the CFE, Jill?

QUESTION: I’ve always loved it.

MS. NULAND: I thought I was the only fan of the CFE around here. Well, we will shortly put out a statement later today – or is the statement already out?

QUESTION: It is out.

MS. NULAND: Statement is already out – there you go – advising that the U.S. has made a decision to cease implementing, vis-à-vis Russia, our – certain obligations under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. This move responds to Russia’s cessation of implementation of CFE, which began in December 2007, and the subsequent impasse with Moscow on a way forward.

As you know, we’ve made repeated efforts to bring Russia back to full implementation of CFE. Efforts were made in 2007. Efforts were made in 2009 and 2010. So what this means specifically is that the U.S. will not accept Russian inspections of our bases under the CFE, and we will also not provide Russia with the annual notifications and military data called for in the treaty. And it is our understanding that a number, if not all, of the U.S.-NATO allies will do the same.

QUESTION: Why is that a good thing?

MS. NULAND: Well, we have a treaty now that is not serving the purpose for which we signed, which was to provide military transparency among all the 30 states parties to the treaty, and to allow for reassurance. We have tried repeatedly to bring Russia back to the table, because we do believe in the CFE and we think it provides reassurance. But we’re at a stage now where, after a number of efforts to salvage this, we don’t think it’s in our interest to continue to provide data that is not reciprocated on the Russian side.

QUESTION: Right, but my question goes more to the – I’m sorry, did you want to –

QUESTION: Well, you can –

MS. NULAND: Both.

QUESTION: Just one more on this.

MS. NULAND: Sure.

QUESTION: I mean, why is it you’re essentially giving up on the possibility of sustaining this treaty? Now, I understand that they unilaterally ceased to comply with its provisions four years ago, but to say, “Well, we’re not going to comply either,” would seem to suggest that you’ve just given up on it. And I wonder why that is – I understand not wanting to continue handing over data when they’re not reciprocating. But what I don’t understand is why you would just give up entirely and why you wouldn’t actually continue to try to persuade them to either adhere to the treaty or amend it in such a way that they would be willing to continue with it?

MS. NULAND: Well, you’re making an assumption not in evidence. We are not giving up on conventional arms control nor are we giving up on the possibility of saving and modernizing the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, which, as you know, has been a goal of this Administration.

We are simply saying that at this stage, after four years of non-Russian implementation, and after repeated efforts, including high-level efforts to save the treaty, we think that it’s important to take some countermeasures vis-à-vis Russia, and maybe this will crystallize the mind in terms of our ability to get back to the table. Because hitherto, there had been, as you said, a nonreciprocal situation where we were giving data, giving data, giving data and being open, and Russia was not reciprocating.

I would also say that we will continue to give data and cooperate in inspections with regard to the other 28 states parties in the CFE Treaty. So the CFE Treaty goes forward normally vis-à-vis the countries who are implementing it fully. And it is our hope and our goal that we can still get back to the table and resolve the situation with Russia.

QUESTION: Okay. And there’s nothing scheduled for now? No more talks are scheduled for now with them on CFE?

MS. NULAND: There are no more 30-country talks at the moment. We obviously are open and prepared to talk to Russia bilaterally about CFE at any stage.

QUESTION: Do you think that this will have an effect on missile defense?

MS. NULAND: Well, our missile defense policy remains that we want to have a collaborative agreement with Russia that allows us to cooperate, allows us to share information, allows us to connect our systems. That remains our goal. But it’s, again, up to Russia to want it as well. So from this point of view, we don’t see a direct connection between the two. Missile defense is missile defense. Conventional arms control is conventional arms control. We want to have both. We want to have a good collaborative relationship with Russia on both. But it takes two to tango.

QUESTION: But again – we always have to ask this when things happen with Russia – the overall effect on the reset, I mean, this is – it’s pretty serious when the U.S. says it’s not going to carry out a treaty, albeit if the Russians are not doing it, what will be the effect?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, remember where this started. This started with Russia unilaterally suspending its own implementation of the CFE Treaty, and the U.S. then leading two rounds of efforts with our NATO allies, with other treaty parties to bring Russia back. We are prepared to continue those efforts. But what we’re not prepared to do is to give our data in the absence of Russian data over a four-year period.

So what we’ve always said about the reset was that the reset would enable us to collaborate and cooperate more where we could, but also to be clear and honest when we have difficulties and we have differences. And this is a difference that’s been going on since December 2007, so we thought it was important to be clear now and reciprocal.

Please.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MS. NULAND: Yep.

QUESTION: A follow-up to your question on yesterday’s nuclear deal with India: You said the State Department’s looking for – working towards American companies having a level playing field in India and in India’s civilian nuclear industry. This gives us a sense that the U.S. believes that U.S. companies doesn’t have that kind of level playing field in India. So my question is: What steps – what specific steps do you want India to take so that American companies have a level playing field in India’s civilian nuclear industry?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get into the back-and-forth of a very sensitive issue that has been under discussion between our governments for a number of months. But I think our statement speaks for itself in the sense that we want to ensure that our companies can compete freely and fairly in this industry as we hope and expect that they’ll be able to compete in other industries both in India and around the world. So we want to make sure that legislation on the books in India does not disadvantage American firms.

QUESTION: But do you agree that that is not the case right now?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think the statement makes clear that this is an issue we have not yet resolved with the Government of India, and we’re continuing to work on it because we think it’s very important for both countries to finalize all of the terms that offer so much promise for both of our people.

QUESTION: And do you also agree that this is something which is now a sticking point between India-U.S. bilateral relations?

MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, this is an issue that we’ve been discussing. It’s an issue that both governments know we have an interest in resolving. Sometimes these things take time, so we’re going to continue to work on it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a –

QUESTION: Just one quick one on Russia. I don’t know whether you have anything on this, but there’s apparently a bill that’s supported by Putin’s party which would – it’s in two major Russian cities – that would criminalize almost all activity that is related to LGBT equality, equating any discussion of that issue with pedophilia. Have you heard about this? Is this anything that the State Department would be interested in taking up?

MS. NULAND: I have not heard about that one, Jill. I’ll certainly ask our Embassy in Moscow whether they have been active on this issue. I think you know the principled stand that the United States Government takes on this issue and that the Secretary of State in particular takes on this issue, which is that gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. And so I don’t think the Russian Government could have any question about where we would stand on such an issue. But let me take it and see whether we’ve been active at all.

In the back.

QUESTION: About Japan?

MS. NULAND: I’m sorry, I can’t hear. About Japan?

QUESTION: Japan.

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: In order to increase beef export to Japan, does the State Department hope to see from Japan?

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think our policy on this has changed. We’ve been having discussions, negotiations on this issue for some period of time, so I don’t think I have anything new to report. We’re trying to work through the issues with regard to the export of delicious beef from the United States to Japan so that the Japanese people can enjoy it.

Arshad.

QUESTION: Just to come back to something that came up yesterday, you were asked yesterday about reports that U.S. manufactured tear gas has been used in Egypt, and a colleague has asked me to check in on this. Do you have any guidance on this? Is there anything illegal about American companies selling tear gas to Egypt? Is there any American assistance that funds this? Is there any reason why the United States might rethink or seek to restrict such sales, given that you feel that the Egyptian police have used excessive force? Or is this perfectly legal, and it continues, and there’s no reason why the U.S. Government would get involved?

MS. NULAND: Well, thanks for the question, Arshad. We did want an opportunity to speak to this again today. Let me first say that we will examine fully reports of use of U.S. tear gas. What I can say today is that no U.S. security assistance funds have been used for the purchase of tear gas, that direct commercial sales between the Egyptian Government and private companies have, however, been licensed in the past. The U.S. Department of Commerce and State have in the past approved such licenses, but we don’t have any pending at the moment. But we are going to be looking into these reports.

QUESTION: And just one other thing here. Do you have any reason, other than its use – I mean, tear gas gets used by all sorts of governments, including U.S. local authorities, when faced with protestors. I think the issue is more whether you feel like it may have been misused. So do you have any reason to believe that the Egyptian authorities have misused tear gas in seeking to contain the protests?

MS. NULAND: Well again, as I said, we’re going to look into fully the question of use of U.S. manufactured tear gas that was licensed by us. But I can’t speak today to – I can’t evaluate today before we look into it what we might conclude.

QUESTION: Okay, and last one on this. You said it had been licensed in the past. Do you know if those licenses were a long, long, long time ago? Like, ten years ago, so it’s unlikely that any U.S. tear gas would still be there and available for use? Or do you know if that was more recently, in the last couple of years?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know how recently these licenses are. I can tell you there aren’t any new licenses pending for consideration.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Jill. You are busy today.

QUESTION: I know. I’m just printing them out right and left. This is –

MS. NULAND: Thanksgiving rush?

QUESTION: No, there are just a lot of things from our network that are important to follow up on. And there’s one case in Afghanistan of a woman, whose name is Gulnaz – and we can give you more information – who was raped and – essentially the only way to expiate the guilt of her family for this is to marry the man who raped her. It’s a case that really is quite shocking and it raises issues about rule of law in Afghanistan. Would you be able to take this, or somebody could look into it, to see whether there is any comment? I presume you don’t – you’re not up on that case right now.

MS. NULAND: I am not. The circumstances you describe obviously sound horrific. We will take it.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Please. Behind.

QUESTION: There are reports that Pakistan had started talks – peace talks with Pakistani Taliban. Are you aware about it, and do you support such an initiative of the Government of Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: I think you asked the same question yesterday, or somebody asked this question.

QUESTION: I was not –

MS. NULAND: There we go. This question was asked yesterday. As I said yesterday, this is not an issue that the United States is party to so I’m going to refer you to the Government of Pakistan about what it may or may not be doing with its own Taliban. But you know where we are on these issues in terms of what it takes to reconcile.

QUESTION: And one more on Afghanistan’s loya jirga, which approved that they – Afghanistan wants U.S. to have its military presence for another 10 years. Now Russia has issued a statement saying that they want U.S. to explain why it wants to have permanent military base in Afghanistan for another 10 years.

MS. NULAND: The Russians issued a statement?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. NULAND: Who issued the statement?

QUESTION: I’m not sure. It was issued in Kabul. It’s one of the (inaudible) in Kabul.

MS. NULAND: Well, I haven’t seen the Russian statement. We have had extensive bilateral discussions, including the Secretary with Foreign Minister Lavrov, about these conversations we’re having with Afghanistan, that we’re seeking a long-term, consensual relationship on the civilian side, on the security side, and that we’re working out the details, and we’ve been quite explicit with the Russians about what this will and will not be, that these will not be American bases, et cetera.

Please.

QUESTION: Just one more about CFE.

MS. NULAND: Didn’t know there were so many CFE fans. This is –

QUESTION: Love it.

MS. NULAND: (Laughter.) Me too.

QUESTION: Do you see a – is this reflective of a broader deterioration in relations with Russia?

MS. NULAND: I think I’ve spoken to this, that the reset has allowed us to make significant progress on some very difficult issues, and you know what those are. The conclusion of the new START deal, a better understanding on Afghanistan, significant progress vis-à-vis Iran. But reset also allows us to speak quite frankly when we have difficulties and disagreements, as we’ve had on issues like the sovereignty of Georgia, et cetera. And with regard to CFE, this is an issue that we’ve been working on ever since the Russians withdrew in December 2007. We’ve made two extremely serious efforts to try to resolve the concerns of the Russian Federation.

We’ve called for the modernization of this treaty, which, as you know, was originally conceived in the ’80s, was modernized in the ’90s, but could use even further modernization. But unfortunately, we’ve not yet succeeded in that. Our door remains open to resolve these issues because we do believe it’s an important treaty. We believe that conventional arms control among the 30 states’ parties and even to include more parties in Europe is useful. But this move that we’ve made today signals the fact that, after four years of giving data when the Russians haven’t, we think it’s important to take some counter-measures.

Please. You’re also busy today. Please.

QUESTION: Do you have any dates for the Secretary’s travel to Burma? Is that been firmed yet?

MS. NULAND: I think we put out an announcement, didn’t we? Middle of last week? December 1^st and 2^nd.

QUESTION: December 1^st and 2^nd?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Good. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:31 p.m.)

DPB # 179

• MIDDLE EAST
  • Deputy Secretary Burns Trip to the Middle East / Bilateral Relationship / Regional Issues / G-8 BMENA / President Abbas / Ongoing Political Process / Quartet Proposals
• EGYPT
  • Violence / Peaceful, Transparent, Fair Elections / Drafting of a New Constitution / Clear Transition
• SYRIA
  • Violence / Update on Ambassador Ford’s Return / Arab League / International Observers / Additional Sanctions
• IRAN
  • Sanctions / Increasing Pressure / IAEA Report
• ETHIOPIA
  • African Union and IGAD Determine Role in Regional Stabilization Efforts / Potential Troops in Somalia
• INDIA
  • Inaccurate State Department Map
• SPAIN
  • General Election
• PAKISTAN
  • Reconciliation
  • Ambassador Haqqani Consultations
• LIBYA
  • Seif al-Islam Trial / Judicial Process that Meets International Standards
  • Investigation on Death of Muammar Qadhafi

12:45 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: Happy Monday, everybody. We missed you on the road, just back from Asia and Hawaii. I have a couple things at the top, and then we’ll go to your questions.

First, just to advise that Deputy Secretary Burns is on a multi-stop trip to the Middle East for consultations with regional leaders. He met yesterday with Palestinian Authority President Abbas in Ramallah. And today, he meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jerusalem, and with King Abdullah in Amman. During each of these meetings, Deputy Secretary Burns will be stressing the value the U.S. places on our bilateral relationships as well as discussing a wide range of regional issues, including the importance of the Israelis and Palestinians taking advantage of the Quartet’s proposals. They will also – he’ll also be talking about Iran at all stops.

Later today, Deputy Secretary Burns will head to Kuwait, where he will lead the U.S. delegation to the annual ministerial of the G-8 BMENA Forum for the Future. This ministerial, as you know, brings together G-8 countries and regional government leaders, civil society, and the private sector to develop priorities for political, economic, and social reform. And this year, they’ll be discussing ways we can support the important democratic transformations going on in the region.

One more issue. This is with regard to the violence in Egypt over the weekend. The United States is deeply concerned by the violence in Egypt over the past few days. We deplore the loss of life, and our condolences go out to the families of the victims of this violence. In the coming days, it will be very important for all parties to focus on holding free, fair, and peaceful elections as scheduled on November 28^th. And we urge all involved to act with restraint in order to allow free and fair elections to proceed. The United States supports the Egyptian people and their goal of having a democratically elected civilian government that respects universal human rights, including the protection of women, minorities, and the press, and that will help Egypt to address its economic challenges.

Let’s go to your questions.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that last one?

MS. NULAND: Arshad. Please, yeah.

QUESTION: One thing you didn’t mention there is whether the United States believes that the Egyptian military should have some kind of special guaranteed status in Egyptian society going forward and any kind of constitutional or otherwise legally protected special status. That seems to have been the issue that is behind some of the latest protests, this feeling that the military council that has governed the country – the unelected military council that has governed the country since Mubarak’s departure – was trying to preserve its prerogatives in a future Egypt. Is that – do you not have – do you have anything to say about that specific aspect of this?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, the United States is not going to get ahead of the process in Egypt. As you know, after this parliamentary set of elections, the Egyptian people will then – this body will be in charge of drafting a new constitution which will set out the parameters for governance in Egypt going forward. So it’s obviously going to be up to the Egyptian people and those representatives that they elect to deal with these kinds of issues in a constitutional way.

That said, as you know, last week, or maybe it was the week before, there were some proposals to try to lock in certain guarantees, and those were met with broad opposition across the political spectrum and they were dropped. So obviously, this is an issue that the Egyptian people and their representatives are going to have to work through, but we have to take this in a step-by-step way as the Egyptians themselves are trying to do by having, first and foremost, a good and peaceful and transparent and fair electoral process, starting on November 28.

QUESTION: Do you have, in stressing the importance of holding that election on time and having it be free and fair just a week from today – it sounds as if you are afraid that the military authorities will not do so. Have you had any indications from them that they are thinking of scrapping it or that they are thinking of conducting it in a less than free and fair manner?

MS. NULAND: We have not. I think our emphasis today is that all of this energy and, frankly, the concerns that have led to violence, we want to see the Egyptian people express themselves peacefully and express themselves through the polls. So we want to see those elections go forward and we want to see all concerns brought forward through the electoral process and then through the process of, ultimately, drafting the constitution and moving forward.

QUESTION: And have any senior officials from this building – I know you can’t speak for the White House and I know that President Obama spoke to Field Marshal Tantawi, I think, three weeks or a month ago. But can you say whether any senior officials from this building have reached out to the Egyptians in the last day or two following the latest protests and the attendant violence?

MS. NULAND: Well, the Embassy and our Ambassador, Anne Patterson, has been in constant contact with all parties in Egypt. I believe that Jeff Feltman has also been on the phone with some Egyptians, but let me confirm that for you because he’s on travel.

QUESTION: Okay. But nothing by the Secretary yet?

MS. NULAND: No.

QUESTION: Victoria, I know you say you want the people to demonstrate their feelings peacefully. However, there obviously are a lot of people who are feeling very distraught about the situation right now. Does the U.S. share any of that concern that we have déjà vu again, with people on the streets but this time acting legitimately, it would appear, out of frustration over the military government? I mean, I know you’ve had statements before concerning the military government, but at this point, how high is the level of frustration here in the United States that they are not going in the right direction, however you want to phrase it?

MS. NULAND: Well, let’s start with the fact that we are very concerned about the violence. That’s obviously deplorable and not the direction we want to see Egypt go. What we are focused on, as I said, is helping and hoping that the Egyptian people can start this electoral process on time in a free, fair, and peaceful manner on the 28^th of November.

The best hope for democracy in Egypt is for these elections to go forward, for the people to express themselves through the ballot box, and then for the process of democratization to move forward in Egypt. We’ve been very clear with the SCAF that that’s what we want to see, that we want to see this electoral process go forward, and that they need to hear the will of the people as it evolves. We’ve also been clear that we think that the emergency law should be dropped, and we’ve – the other concerns that we’ve had about steps that these protesters have been also concerned about.

QUESTION: So Victoria, what is the message that you do – you give to the – you give the council, the military council in Egypt today?

MS. NULAND: I think I’ve just given it, that we want these elections to go forward in a free, fair, transparent, peaceful process. We want that to be the beginning of this full round of parliamentary elections. As you know, they have to – they’re going in three cycles. And then we want to see the Egyptian roadmap followed, which begins the process of drafting the new constitution and deciding how the country goes forward democratically.

QUESTION: So when the Secretary states that the military should know that they cannot continue to rule Egypt through unelected officials, or something akin to that, does that mean in any way – or should that be taken as an encouragement to the other forces to go ahead and sort of seize the moment, so to speak, like the Muslim Brotherhoods?

MS. NULAND: Well, nobody’s encouraging violence. On the contrary, we’re encouraging expression by all Egyptians through the ballot box. That’s what we are encouraging.

QUESTION: Like when you say the violence is deplorable, whom are you deploring, the protestors who are turning violent or authorities who are responding to the protests?

MS. NULAND: Well, anybody involved in the use of violence for any purpose, in this case.

QUESTION: And who, to your knowledge, was responsible in this case?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get into who started what and who responded here. That’s a matter that the Egyptians are going to have to investigate.

QUESTION: Well, you do it in Syria. You say, in the latest case last week with the Free Syrian Army, that it was clear that it was Asad who was responsible. Why in Egypt is it different?

MS. NULAND: Well, in this case, there was some confusion initially. There was some violent response. So I’m not going to get into sort of parsing all of the events of the weekend except to say that violence is not the answer. It’s not the answer from Egyptian authorities; it’s not the answer from the Egyptian people. The ballot box is the answer.

QUESTION: Well, but come on. I mean who (inaudible) – who – look, it’s – I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question, though. I mean, you’re going to deplore something, you ought to be able to say fundamentally who you are deploring. Do you believe both sides are responsible for this to some degree?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into parsing the events over the weekend. We’ve seen every –

QUESTION: But you’re deploring them. That’s a very strong word to use without being able to say who and what exactly you’re deploring.

MS. NULAND: Arshad, I think I have already said that there was – there were actions and reactions in Egypt which led to a violent situation, which we deplore.

QUESTION: So it’s both sides.

MS. NULAND: So what we are saying in this case is that everybody ought to be focused now on getting to the polls in a free, fair, peaceful, and transparent way.

QUESTION: One last question from me on this: Given that the state, in theory, has a monopoly on the use of violence, are they not – do they not bear some of the responsibility for making sure that the use of force is, to the extent that it occurs, is in line with, sort of, protecting people, not attacking protesters?

MS. NULAND: This is a message of nonviolence to all parties that we’re issuing here.

QUESTION: Toria, do you accept the assertion by some military commanders who are saying that their action is because they are driven by or motivated by preventing the violence from getting out of hand between the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhoods, and liberals?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to try to get ourselves into the middle of the events except to say that no use of violence by any side was justified in this case.

QUESTION: So what do you expect on the 28^th or the 29^th of this month?

MS. NULAND: What we want to see is this first round of balloting for the new parliament to go forward peacefully, to go forward freely, fairly, and transparently. And we want to see the aspirations of the Egyptians people expressed through their balloting.

QUESTION: How confident are you that this process is actually going to the go forward in a free, transparent manner?

MS. NULAND: Well, one is never confident until the day, but that is what the Egyptian people deserve, and that’s what we want to see.

QUESTION: So you’re simply taking SCAF’s word that it’s going to put out an election process and that it’s going to work?

MS. NULAND: No, Ros. What we are saying is that we want to see a free and fair and transparent election. And all sides in Egypt, including the governing authorities, have to work hard from that – for that between now and then.

QUESTION: So what happened over this weekend doesn’t give the U.S. Government pause that there could be some sort of disruption? I mean, we’re six, seven days out now. There’s no real concern that this first round of elections won’t actually take place?

MS. NULAND: I think I started with the fact that we were concerned about the violence, and then went on to the fact that we want to see everybody now redouble their efforts in working towards a free, fair, peaceful election, because that’s what the Egyptian people deserve and that’s the best way for them to express themselves.

QUESTION: But with all due respect, when you say that, as Arshad pointed out, when you deplore something, it’s rather tough diplomatic language. And then, yet you’re suggesting that preparations for these elections are going to go forward as if what just happened in the last 72 hours didn’t happen, that you don’t have people claiming their relatives’ bodies from the morgue and people out in the middle of the night chanting we want the military to step down, we want them to leave power. It does – they don’t jibe. They don’t jibe.

MS. NULAND: Ros, I think we’ve been through this about six times now. What we want to see after these deplorable incidents over the weekend is all parties – ruling party, all of the folks in the Egyptian public, all of the parties – focusing their energies on getting to a good first round of elections on the 28^th of November. That’s what the Egyptian people deserve, and that’s what they ought to have.

QUESTION: One of the –

QUESTION: Do you see the military maintaining its legitimacy to oversee this whole process?

MS. NULAND: Well, there’s not only the government involved. We have NGOs involved, we have international observers supporting, so this is why we have an internationally open process, and why we want to see an internationally open process to –

QUESTION: But the military is shepherding the transition right now. And do you think its actions are strengthening or weakening its legitimacy as kind of the guardians of this democratic transition?

MS. NULAND: Again, we need to see a free, fair, and transparent election on the 28^th. And that’s what will be a first step in demonstrating that not only governing authorities but all parties involved are sticking to the democratic roadmap, and that it has integrity going forward.

QUESTION: But if people are dying in clashes, is that really enough?

MS. NULAND: Is what really enough?

QUESTION: The free, fair and elections – free and fair and – what’s the third? Transparent?

MS. NULAND: Again, what we are saying is that we don’t want to see energy directed in a violent manner. We want to see people come together and use this right that they now have of the ballot box to express their views. We want to see the elections held in a free, fair, and transparent manner, and we want to see broad participation by the Egyptian people. That is the best answer to the grievances that people are expressing, and that’s the best answer to the concerns about whether Egypt is going to move in a democratic direction.

QUESTION: And then just lastly, would the elections be stained if they were marred by further violence in the coming days?

MS. NULAND: Again, we want to see peaceful elections. I’m not going to crystal ball this here, but that is the best way forward for the Egyptian people and the best way for those who want to see a different future to express their views.

Please.

QUESTION: One of the biggest demands of the protestors right now – not only to see elections, but also to see clear timetable for the transition. Do you share this largest concern of the protestors right now?

MS. NULAND: We do. We want to see a clear transition timetable, but again, the plan now is to have these rounds of parliamentary elections to elect a body that can begin then laying out of the rest of the timetable, including for the drafting of the constitution and including for the decisions on head of state and government. So we have to get started here in order to complete the process.

QUESTION: Egyptian military over the weekend, and including today, has been using – heavily using teargas, and according to reports, this teargas had been provided by the U.S. companies. After seeing this violence on the protestors, are you open to reconsider this aid, military aid, to Egypt?

MS. NULAND: Again, what we want to see is this democratic process go forward. We want to see this first round of elections go well. We want to see the electoral process continue. And we don’t want to see violence by any side between now and then or going forward.

QUESTION: Victoria, could you explain to us the nature of engagement with the different Egyptian groups? For instance, is it military to military? Is it the Pentagon with the U.S. military? Are you engaged with NGOs or the Muslim Brotherhood? And in the lead-up in the remaining days, how do you engage the different political groups in Egypt?

MS. NULAND: Said, I think you know the answer to this question – that we are open to talking to all groups who want to talk to us, who are willing to support universal human rights, appropriate democratic principles going forward, and our door has been open. And our Embassy in Cairo as well as our folks in Washington across the interagency have been conducting broad consultations with all the parties.

QUESTION: I guess my question is about the mechanism, because we understand there is very close engagement right now going on with the Muslim Brotherhood. For instance, who is conducting these engagements? Who is talking on behalf of the U.S. Government with the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance?

MS. NULAND: Well, we spoke to this last week. Mark made the point that Jake Wallace had had a meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood at its instigation. Our Embassy has also been open to those conversations. But we use those conversations to stress the values and democratic principles that undergird our support for Egypt’s electoral process and for anybody that we’d be able to work with in the future.

Jill.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The UK this morning cut off all financial ties to Iranian banks, including the Central Bank, and we know that the Treasury Department and Secretary Clinton will be announcing more this afternoon. Can you give us any indication of where the U.S. stands? And especially on that issue of the Central Bank, which is a big subject on – up on Capitol Hill.

MS. NULAND: Well, as you noted, Jill, the Secretary and Secretary Geithner will speak to the issue of Iran at about 4:30 this afternoon upstairs, so I think you won’t be surprised if I don’t get ahead of what they have to say when they speak.

QUESTION: But could you – the UK is doing it, we understand that the EU will be discussing this, and it looks as if there’s kind of a full court press emerging. Is that the case that there is now a coordinated attempt to put more pressure on Iran?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know that we always try to work with our allies and partners, and particularly with P-5+1 countries, as we ratchet up the pressure on Iran. So yes, you are seeing coordinated and consolidated moves, and the Secretary will have more to say about this at 4:30.

QUESTION: I take it – obviously, you don’t want to say anything, but with the UK –

MS. NULAND: You can try again, though. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: The UK is a very significant step, though. I mean, do you have any reaction to what they have done?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we’re gratified that our allies are increasing the pressure on Iran. We think this is the right response to the concerns expressed in the IAEA report, and the continued unwillingness of Iran to meet the conditions that the international community has set forth with regard to its nuclear program.

QUESTION: What has the U.S. heard from either Russia or China about these efforts to further isolate Iran financially?

MS. NULAND: Well, the White House spoke to this a little bit after the President’s bilaterals with Russian President Medvedev and with Hu Jintao in Bali last week, so you know that the subject of Iran has come up and you know that we have been talking both about the IAEA report and about the assassination plot here against the Saudi Ambassador. And there is – there was strong support for P-5+1 unity. You saw that in the way the BOG vote came through last week. So it’s been very much a subject at the forefront of our diplomacy with both countries.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: Syria. Is Ambassador Ford going back today? And if not today, is he still going to get there before Thanksgiving?

MS. NULAND: Ambassador Ford is not going back today. He will now be eating that turkey in the United States. We are now in a process of consulting with our allies and partners on appropriate timing for his return. We do still intend for him to go back, but the precise timing is under discussion with a number of other countries, and we’re consulting on that. I think our issue here is to ensure that when he goes back, not only is he safe, not only is Syria willing to live up to its Vienna Convention obligations, but also that he can be effective in getting out and meeting with people.

So that’s a conversation that we are having internally, and it’s also a conversation that we’re having with other countries who have had ambassadors currently on hiatus from Damascus.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question, then, about what’s – I guess the first question would be why he’s not going back. Today, you’ve mentioned several reasons that seem to contribute to it, one being safety, another being what you call this effectiveness to operate, and then the third being cooperation with allies. Can you say to what extent it was only – was a security decision today or any of those three? I mean, what’s the reason for not going back today?

MS. NULAND: You’ve – we’ve had a number of developments in the last week in Syria, including in Damascus, which has led more countries to pull their ambassadors home for consultations, so we want to coordinate with those countries. We’ve also had continuing intransigence in Syria. We’ve also had more discussion with our own folk about the importance of him being able to be effective when he goes back, and – but we do intend for him to go back, but I think we need a little bit more time to look at these issues and to consult, and to consult with others.

QUESTION: Do you think he’ll go back this year?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And now that the deadline –

QUESTION: But do you expect him to go back this year?

MS. NULAND: That is the expectation at the moment, yes.

QUESTION: He plans to stuff Christmas socks now in Damascus?

MS. NULAND: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Victoria, now that the deadline has come and gone – the three-day deadline given by the Arab League, it has come and gone, and apparently the Syrians have not acted on the recommendations. What do you expect to see next? What do you expect the Arab League to do next?

MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve said repeatedly, the Arab League needs to make its own decisions about how it will increase the pressure on the Syrian Government, but since this has been going on, and even just over the weekend, we have reports of an additional 58 civilians killed in Syria between November 28^th – November – sorry, November 18^th and today. So not only has the Syrian Government done virtually nothing to meet its – the commitments that it reportedly originally made to the Arab League, but it’s continuing to kill its own citizens. And as you know, the Arab League took issue with the Syrian Government’s effort to weaken and water down some of the commitments it had made, particularly with regard to human rights observers.

We had this supposed agreement again last week, Thursday, Friday, to take the international observers, and particularly to take Arab League observers, only to turn around and find out that the Syrians wanted to take just a handful of them and constrain them to Damascus, et cetera. So the Arab League has understandably rejected that. So our view has been clear from – for quite some time. This is not a guy – Asad – who is planning to do what is necessary to allow his country to move forward, and therefore he needs to step aside.

QUESTION: Do you have a general idea of which areas that can really hurt the regime most, that you can impose a sanctions in the next, let’s say, week or two, if the situation calls for it?

MS. NULAND: Well, you’ve seen that – what we have done, that we have done what we can to cut off the revenues that Syria makes from hydrocarbons. We have done our best to sanction individuals who we think are responsible for violence. We have certainly called for other countries to match these steps, and also to renounce the sending of weapons to the Syrian regime. So those kinds of steps – steps that match ours, that match the EU’s steps – would be most welcome, and we think would increase the pressure on the Asad regime.

QUESTION: And lastly, do you call – do you also call similarly on the neighboring countries not to allow arms to flow into insurgents or armed groups, and so on?

MS. NULAND: Correct. We’ve obviously wanted –

QUESTION: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this weekend that Asad was driving Syria to the brink of civil war. Is that an assessment that you would share?

MS. NULAND: Well, Secretary Clinton spoke to this on Saturday in some of her TV interviews, and expressed similar concerns that it is Asad who bears responsibility for the dangerous spiral that we’re seeing in Syria now.

QUESTION: But do you see this case of a civil war now as a distinct possibility?

MS. NULAND: Well, the Secretary herself expressed – Secretary Clinton expressed some concerns that this is the path that Syria could go down.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: This next story in Lebanon, and I imagine you may not have anything to say about it, but there are reports that a number of CIA assets have been busted and some sort of intel ring was disrupted by Hezbollah and by the Iranians in the last few months. Do you have anything to say about that or any concern about the loss of capability in the eyes on Hezbollah?

MS. NULAND: I’m certainly not going to comment on anything having to do with intelligence. Good effort, though, Kirit.

QUESTION: Worth a try.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

Please.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MS. NULAND: Let me go to –

QUESTION: Different topic. Does the U.S. support this apparent entry of Ethiopian troops into Somalia?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, let me say that we have not ourselves been able to confirm that Ethiopian troops have entered Somalia. As you know, the Ethiopians themselves have denied that they have crossed the border. What we have said is that we believe that the African Union, and particularly the Intergovernmental Authority on Development – the IGAD – should determine the appropriate role for Ethiopia in the ongoing regional stabilization efforts. We obviously support the efforts of the African Union and of neighboring countries in their fight against al-Shabaab. But we want the African Union and IGAD to drive the train here.

QUESTION: I see. So the U.S. doesn’t have misgivings about the possibility that any such action would – might make famine relief much – that much harder?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, it’s al-Shabaab who is making famine relief difficult here. So what we’re looking for is a peaceful settlement. We’re looking to end the violence and we’re looking for the African Union to be in the lead.

In the very back, Mike –

QUESTION: A different subject: India, two questions. So firstly, I asked Mark last week about the new regulations under the Nuclear Liability Act, and do you have any comment on that? And secondly, the Ministry of External Affairs in India has taken up the subject of a map of India, which has appeared on the State Department website, which shows a part of Kashmir as part of the territory of Pakistan. So do you have any comment on that? Is the map correct? And what’s your view?

MS. NULAND: Well, first, with regard to the map, we’ve taken the map down off the website. It did contain some inaccuracies which were associated with the boundaries of some geographic features. This was unintentional; we’re going to get the map fixed and put up a fixed map.

With regard to the question that you asked Mark last week, I’m not aware whether we answered it or not. Mark is shaking his head, so we will take it and answer it for you.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) follow-up on that –

QUESTION: If it’s inaccurate – obviously, it’s a map, right? Clearly, it’s inaccurate with regard to some geographic features, right?

MS. NULAND: Right.

QUESTION: So can you not sort of close the loop and say that it was inaccurate over the delineation of Kashmir?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is that is the way that it was inaccurate, that it wasn’t drawn properly.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on the – so when you put the map up and then you just – it vanishes from there, when I saw it. And then just before I came in, there was nothing there in the body of the page except some links. Will you be posting a statement saying that there was inaccuracy in the map and we are reposting a corrected map? And the second question is was there any person or a company responsible for this found guilty and any action taken about it?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, consider this our statement. I’ll say it again: The map was inaccurate. We’ve taken it down. We will put up the new map when we acquire one that we are confident is accurate.

And with regard to where the map came from, I think I’m not going to comment on that other than to say it was inaccurate and we have so represented. And we will get it fixed.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, I checked just before the briefing and it’s still on your travel web site.

MS. NULAND: All right, we’ll fix that one too. Travel web site, gentlemen.

QUESTION: Have you talked to any officials about this?

MS. NULAND: We have. We have.

QUESTION: What about Pakistani officials?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know. It sounds like we should talk to Pakistani officials.

QUESTION: Probably a good idea.

MS. NULAND: We will make sure that happens.

Way in the back. Thanks.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: About yesterday’s election in Spain, has the Secretary contacted the president-elect that won yesterday? And there are very important issues that are being negotiated with Spain, namely the transfer of some Guantanamo prisoners, for instance. Do you think that is going to affect your work with the government?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, welcome. I don’t think I’ve seen you before. Can you tell me what news organization you’re from?

QUESTION: I’m with El País.

MS. NULAND: Not surprised you decided to come today.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. But I’ve been here before. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Okay. Hiding, hiding, hiding. Well, first of all, the United States congratulates the People’s Party and Mariano Rajoy on his victory in Spain’s general election. Spain is obviously a close partner and ally of the United States, and we look forward to continuing our strong relationship with the future government of Spain on a wide range of issues, including some of the issues that you discussed.

Said.

QUESTION: New topic?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Deputy Burns’ visit?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: The Israelis claim that Deputy Burns issued a very stern warning to President Abbas if they continue their misbehavior with going to the international community, that they are going to be dire consequences. Could you confirm that?

MS. NULAND: I’m certainly not going to get into the private discussion, diplomatic discussion that Deputy Secretary Burns had with President Abbas, except to say that it was a long and full meeting.

QUESTION: What was it focused on? What were some of the points that Deputy Burns raised that are, let’s say, different from what was raised last week or the week before by Ambassador Hale, for instance?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously it was at a higher level. They have a long personal relationship. And the main thrust of the meeting, as I said at the outset, was designed to encourage President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to make the best possible use of the opportunity that the Quartet has put forward to get the parties back together and get them talking about the real issues.

QUESTION: Did he talk with Mr. Abbas about his upcoming meeting or his meetings with Hamas, ongoing meetings with Hamas, whether at his level or other levels, to form a new government that excludes someone like Salam Fayyad and may bring in someone that is more acceptable to Hamas?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, I’m not going to get into the back and the forth and all of the issues that we discussed. But in general, we do talk about the ongoing political process in the Palestinian Authority. You know where we are on the situation with Hamas. We don’t want to see anybody in the Palestinian Authority government who is not prepared to renounce violence, recognize the state of Israel’s right to exist, and live up to previous agreements.

QUESTION: And finally, will he raise with Prime Minister Netanyahu the issue of the new announcement on new settlements?

MS. NULAND: Again, I would expect that that conversation will cover the full range of issues that we always talk to the Government of Israel about.

QUESTION: And will he convey your position that settlements are illegal?

MS. NULAND: Again, I would expect that conversation will cover the full range of issues.

QUESTION: Can I ask another quick one?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Is it still the plan to have detailed proposals brought forth by each side, I think it was what, 90 days after the last Quartet meeting, so end of January?

MS. NULAND: That is what we are continuing to encourage, Brad. And we continuing to work with each side in an effort to hone and refine proposals that they could make to each other.

QUESTION: Now, the original plan was they’d already be meeting directly by now. So, presumably, they would have you know brought that to another meeting and exchanged and looked at it. How does that work now when the negotiators aren’t even in the same room together?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, we’re continuing to work with each of the parties to refine and hone proposals that they can put to each other and to encourage them to be ready to put them to each other as soon as possible. So that process goes forward.

QUESTION: So is there a third-party interlocutor that the proposals have to go through, because they’re not actually meeting?

MS. NULAND: Well, they’re not exchanging either. They are working on their own proposals at this stage. Our view is that the proposals should be directly exchanged, and that is what we are encouraging.

QUESTION: So you hope by that logic that they will meet before that end January post or benchmark for these proposals?

MS. NULAND: Well, that’s what the Quartet proposal calls for and that’s what we’re continuing to work for.

QUESTION: Right, but you missed the previous deadline for that. So I’m wondering, is now — is there a hope that this will happen before those deadlines?

MS. NULAND: That continues to be the goal of all the Quartet countries, including the United States.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: You said that they are — that each side is continuing to work on their own proposal. And you said that we, by which I assume you mean the United States and other members of the Quartet, are working with them to hone and refine their proposals. When we asked last week, it wasn’t clear to me from the readout after the last Quartet meeting that either side actually had begun to develop a proposal. Are you absolutely certain that each side has now drafted proposals of their own?

MS. NULAND: Well, let’s put it this way. Each side has over time had proposals of various kinds. Some of them are being reworked and thought through, but they’re not at the stage where they have been ready to exchange them. So we’re continuing to talk to each side about what would go in an appropriate proposal about security and about land.

QUESTION: But they are, in fact, reworking previous proposals?

MS. NULAND: We are working with them on their –

QUESTION: But they are? That’s my question, because it’s not clear to me that they’re actually doing this work themselves or whether they think that this is so elusory a process that they’re not actually bothering yet to craft proposals. I mean, are you certain that they have themselves actually begun working on their own proposals? Not that they did proposals in the past, which there have been, of course, many, but that they are now actually concretely working on proposals.

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m confident that we and other Quartet members have been talking to each side about the elements that we would hope to see in proposals that they would put to each other. How much they have been drafting and redrafting, I can’t speak to from this podium.

QUESTION: The reason I ask is that because the use of the words “hone” and “refine” implies that there are concrete proposals on each side that are being sharpened, buffed, shaped. And now I’m not so sure that that’s what’s actually transpiring here. Now I’m beginning to think that maybe you guys are just talking to them about, hey, you could do this, you could do that, but not that they are necessarily shaping these things themselves.

MS. NULAND: Well, again, it is going to be up to them to shape their proposals and to put them to each other. They are obviously building on work that they had done in the past. We want to see that work shaped, honed, refined, ready to present to each other as soon as possible.

QUESTION: There are reports that Pakistani officials are trying to negotiate a peace deal with the Taliban in tribal areas on a give-and-take basis, and Taliban have laid out some demands, like free movement and that they have demanded compensation, which are not certainly in line with the hard lines that you referred to. So my question is that are you aware of these developments? And if you are, do you have any reservations on this?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything on negotiations that may or may not be going on between Pakistan and the Pakistani Taliban. I would refer you to the Government of Pakistan on that. I think our own views about reconciliation have been very clear in terms of what it takes to truly reconcile, but I can’t speak to what may or may not be going on between these groups.

QUESTION: Okay. And a Sunday Times story says that Ambassador Munter has met Imran Khan, a cricketer and politician, in the presence of DG ISI. Can you confirm the meeting, and what was the agenda?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one. I don’t have any information one way or the other.

QUESTION: Can we go to the arrest of Seif al-Islam – the capture of Seif al-Islam Qadhafi?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have confidence in the Libyan justice system to provide a fair trial for Seif al-Islam?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know where we have been on this issue. We have, in general terms and now in very specific terms, with regard to Seif, appealed to all parties in Libya to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners in their custody and to ensure that independent monitors have access to him and to prepare a judicial process that meets international standards. So that is what we are continuing to encourage. Ambassador Cretz has had a number of conversations with members of the TNC about that. The Libyan Government itself, the TNC, has made assertions that that is its goal and aspiration. And I think you know that the ICC is on its way to Libya to discuss these issues as well.

QUESTION: But do you encourage the Libyan officials to turn over Seif al-Islam to the ICC?

MS. NULAND: Our view is that he needs to see justice in a manner that meets international standards. It’s a matter for the Libyan authorities and the Libyan people to decide how that is done.

QUESTION: But are you confident that the current justice system can actually provide that?

MS. NULAND: Again, it’s a matter for the Libyan governing authorities and the Libyan people to demonstrate to the world that they can meet high international standards. The international community is prepared to support them and assist them if they decide to do this in Libya, and that’s one of the reasons why the ICC is on its way to Tripoli now to have that conversation.

QUESTION: Is Seif al-Islam still in the hands of the militia that captured him?

MS. NULAND: That is my understanding, that he has not yet transferred to Tripoli.

QUESTION: Right. So then what influence does the TNC actually have over his treatment when they have not even been able to convince the militia to hand him over? I mean, isn’t it the militia you should ultimately be talking to since they actually have him and therefore they affect the conditions he is kept in?

MS. NULAND: Well, the TNC, as I understand it, is having these discussions with the guys who have him captured. And I expect that the ICC will also have something to say about this. So this is a relatively new event. I think he was picked up less than 48 hours ago. So the TNC is working this hard, and we are certainly making clear to the TNC that we see this as something where they can really prove to the world the high standards that they support.

QUESTION: And just to go back – forgive me, Brad. Just to go back, you told us after the death of Muammar Qadhafi that the TNC was going to conduct an investigation into his treatment. I know investigations take time, but it’s also not 48 hours since his capture and subsequent death. Did you ever get an answer back from the TNC about what precisely happened and how it is that he appeared to die after he was captured?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the TNC did pledge to do a full and open investigation. Our understanding is that that investigation is still underway and they have not yet completed it or made public the results. So we’ll obviously have to judge it when it’s completed.

QUESTION: My question goes – it’s the same thing, because you said at the time that that was a chance for the Libyan Government to prove to the world community that it will adhere to these high international standards. So it actually hasn’t done that. It hasn’t taken that chance yet. We’ll see if it does in the future. Now it has another chance, yet you have no doubts about its ability to adhere to the principles it has laid out?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, with regard to the investigation, I think we need to let them do the investigation that they have pledged to do before we judge it. So let’s –

QUESTION: How long does that take?

MS. NULAND: I think we need to let them have some time to do this investigation. So –

QUESTION: How long?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to put an artificial timeline on this. It’s only been a number of weeks, and if we want this thing done credibly, I’m sure they need a little bit of time to do it.

That said, they – the TNC from the very beginning has in all of its public statements prioritized the issue of justice, said that it wants a credible, independent justice system, in contrast to the way Qadhafi did things. The international community has said, including the United States and now the ICC, that we stand ready to help Libya as it develops its system and as it begins to deal with cases like the case of Seif. So we’re having that conversation now. They continue to say the right things, and we will look to them to do the right things.

QUESTION: But the one – the biggest example of its chance to put these principles into action was a shamble. So I don’t understand why you have such full confidence in their ability to adhere to these principles.

MS. NULAND: Well, you’re putting words in my mouth here. What we have said is that they have asserted that they want to stand in contrast with the Qadhafi regime by having a credible judicial process that meets international standards. That they want to also have a credible investigation into what happened to Qadhafi himself. We have said that we stand ready to help. So I think we need to let this process go forward before we stand as judge and jury in front of it.

Okay.

QUESTION: Just a quick one?

MS. NULAND: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Pakistani Ambassador Haqqani has gone back home after a meeting in this building. So are you confident he’s safe, and any other updates on that following this Memo Gate?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything to say on the specific issue. Our understanding is that Ambassador Haqqani is home on consultation, so I would refer you to the Pakistani Government with regard to his consultations and what he is specifically up to. We always expect that Pakistan’s leaders will act in accordance with Pakistan’s constitution, and in a manner respectful of its democratic institutions. So beyond that I don’t have any specific comments on this issue.

QUESTION: Very quickly, going back to Syria. Are you planning to work at the UN Security Council this week to pass resolution on Asad or on the regime this week? Are you going to start any – resume any work in New York?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we always leave open the door to continue work at the United Nations and its various constituent bodies as well as in the UNSC. But I don’t have anything particular to report to you today.

Okay? Thank you, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:34 p.m.)

DPB # 178

• MIDDLE EAST
  • Deputy Secretary Burns Trip to the Middle East / Bilateral Relationship / Regional Issues / G-8 BMENA / President Abbas / Ongoing Political Process / Quartet Proposals
• EGYPT
  • Violence / Peaceful, Transparent, Fair Elections / Drafting of a New Constitution / Clear Transition
• SYRIA
  • Violence / Update on Ambassador Ford’s Return / Arab League / International Observers / Additional Sanctions
• IRAN
  • Sanctions / Increasing Pressure / IAEA Report
• ETHIOPIA
  • African Union and IGAD Determine Role in Regional Stabilization Efforts / Potential Troops in Somalia
• INDIA
  • Inaccurate State Department Map
• SPAIN
  • General Election
• PAKISTAN
  • Reconciliation
  • Ambassador Haqqani Consultations
• LIBYA
  • Seif al-Islam Trial / Judicial Process that Meets International Standards
  • Investigation on Death of Muammar Qadhafi

12:45 p.m. EST

MS. NULAND: Happy Monday, everybody. We missed you on the road, just back from Asia and Hawaii. I have a couple things at the top, and then we’ll go to your questions.

First, just to advise that Deputy Secretary Burns is on a multi-stop trip to the Middle East for consultations with regional leaders. He met yesterday with Palestinian Authority President Abbas in Ramallah. And today, he meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jerusalem, and with King Abdullah in Amman. During each of these meetings, Deputy Secretary Burns will be stressing the value the U.S. places on our bilateral relationships as well as discussing a wide range of regional issues, including the importance of the Israelis and Palestinians taking advantage of the Quartet’s proposals. They will also – he’ll also be talking about Iran at all stops.

Later today, Deputy Secretary Burns will head to Kuwait, where he will lead the U.S. delegation to the annual ministerial of the G-8 BMENA Forum for the Future. This ministerial, as you know, brings together G-8 countries and regional government leaders, civil society, and the private sector to develop priorities for political, economic, and social reform. And this year, they’ll be discussing ways we can support the important democratic transformations going on in the region.

One more issue. This is with regard to the violence in Egypt over the weekend. The United States is deeply concerned by the violence in Egypt over the past few days. We deplore the loss of life, and our condolences go out to the families of the victims of this violence. In the coming days, it will be very important for all parties to focus on holding free, fair, and peaceful elections as scheduled on November 28^th. And we urge all involved to act with restraint in order to allow free and fair elections to proceed. The United States supports the Egyptian people and their goal of having a democratically elected civilian government that respects universal human rights, including the protection of women, minorities, and the press, and that will help Egypt to address its economic challenges.

Let’s go to your questions.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that last one?

MS. NULAND: Arshad. Please, yeah.

QUESTION: One thing you didn’t mention there is whether the United States believes that the Egyptian military should have some kind of special guaranteed status in Egyptian society going forward and any kind of constitutional or otherwise legally protected special status. That seems to have been the issue that is behind some of the latest protests, this feeling that the military council that has governed the country – the unelected military council that has governed the country since Mubarak’s departure – was trying to preserve its prerogatives in a future Egypt. Is that – do you not have – do you have anything to say about that specific aspect of this?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, the United States is not going to get ahead of the process in Egypt. As you know, after this parliamentary set of elections, the Egyptian people will then – this body will be in charge of drafting a new constitution which will set out the parameters for governance in Egypt going forward. So it’s obviously going to be up to the Egyptian people and those representatives that they elect to deal with these kinds of issues in a constitutional way.

That said, as you know, last week, or maybe it was the week before, there were some proposals to try to lock in certain guarantees, and those were met with broad opposition across the political spectrum and they were dropped. So obviously, this is an issue that the Egyptian people and their representatives are going to have to work through, but we have to take this in a step-by-step way as the Egyptians themselves are trying to do by having, first and foremost, a good and peaceful and transparent and fair electoral process, starting on November 28.

QUESTION: Do you have, in stressing the importance of holding that election on time and having it be free and fair just a week from today – it sounds as if you are afraid that the military authorities will not do so. Have you had any indications from them that they are thinking of scrapping it or that they are thinking of conducting it in a less than free and fair manner?

MS. NULAND: We have not. I think our emphasis today is that all of this energy and, frankly, the concerns that have led to violence, we want to see the Egyptian people express themselves peacefully and express themselves through the polls. So we want to see those elections go forward and we want to see all concerns brought forward through the electoral process and then through the process of, ultimately, drafting the constitution and moving forward.

QUESTION: And have any senior officials from this building – I know you can’t speak for the White House and I know that President Obama spoke to Field Marshal Tantawi, I think, three weeks or a month ago. But can you say whether any senior officials from this building have reached out to the Egyptians in the last day or two following the latest protests and the attendant violence?

MS. NULAND: Well, the Embassy and our Ambassador, Anne Patterson, has been in constant contact with all parties in Egypt. I believe that Jeff Feltman has also been on the phone with some Egyptians, but let me confirm that for you because he’s on travel.

QUESTION: Okay. But nothing by the Secretary yet?

MS. NULAND: No.

QUESTION: Victoria, I know you say you want the people to demonstrate their feelings peacefully. However, there obviously are a lot of people who are feeling very distraught about the situation right now. Does the U.S. share any of that concern that we have déjà vu again, with people on the streets but this time acting legitimately, it would appear, out of frustration over the military government? I mean, I know you’ve had statements before concerning the military government, but at this point, how high is the level of frustration here in the United States that they are not going in the right direction, however you want to phrase it?

MS. NULAND: Well, let’s start with the fact that we are very concerned about the violence. That’s obviously deplorable and not the direction we want to see Egypt go. What we are focused on, as I said, is helping and hoping that the Egyptian people can start this electoral process on time in a free, fair, and peaceful manner on the 28^th of November.

The best hope for democracy in Egypt is for these elections to go forward, for the people to express themselves through the ballot box, and then for the process of democratization to move forward in Egypt. We’ve been very clear with the SCAF that that’s what we want to see, that we want to see this electoral process go forward, and that they need to hear the will of the people as it evolves. We’ve also been clear that we think that the emergency law should be dropped, and we’ve – the other concerns that we’ve had about steps that these protesters have been also concerned about.

QUESTION: So Victoria, what is the message that you do – you give to the – you give the council, the military council in Egypt today?

MS. NULAND: I think I’ve just given it, that we want these elections to go forward in a free, fair, transparent, peaceful process. We want that to be the beginning of this full round of parliamentary elections. As you know, they have to – they’re going in three cycles. And then we want to see the Egyptian roadmap followed, which begins the process of drafting the new constitution and deciding how the country goes forward democratically.

QUESTION: So when the Secretary states that the military should know that they cannot continue to rule Egypt through unelected officials, or something akin to that, does that mean in any way – or should that be taken as an encouragement to the other forces to go ahead and sort of seize the moment, so to speak, like the Muslim Brotherhoods?

MS. NULAND: Well, nobody’s encouraging violence. On the contrary, we’re encouraging expression by all Egyptians through the ballot box. That’s what we are encouraging.

QUESTION: Like when you say the violence is deplorable, whom are you deploring, the protestors who are turning violent or authorities who are responding to the protests?

MS. NULAND: Well, anybody involved in the use of violence for any purpose, in this case.

QUESTION: And who, to your knowledge, was responsible in this case?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get into who started what and who responded here. That’s a matter that the Egyptians are going to have to investigate.

QUESTION: Well, you do it in Syria. You say, in the latest case last week with the Free Syrian Army, that it was clear that it was Asad who was responsible. Why in Egypt is it different?

MS. NULAND: Well, in this case, there was some confusion initially. There was some violent response. So I’m not going to get into sort of parsing all of the events of the weekend except to say that violence is not the answer. It’s not the answer from Egyptian authorities; it’s not the answer from the Egyptian people. The ballot box is the answer.

QUESTION: Well, but come on. I mean who (inaudible) – who – look, it’s – I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question, though. I mean, you’re going to deplore something, you ought to be able to say fundamentally who you are deploring. Do you believe both sides are responsible for this to some degree?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into parsing the events over the weekend. We’ve seen every –

QUESTION: But you’re deploring them. That’s a very strong word to use without being able to say who and what exactly you’re deploring.

MS. NULAND: Arshad, I think I have already said that there was – there were actions and reactions in Egypt which led to a violent situation, which we deplore.

QUESTION: So it’s both sides.

MS. NULAND: So what we are saying in this case is that everybody ought to be focused now on getting to the polls in a free, fair, peaceful, and transparent way.

QUESTION: One last question from me on this: Given that the state, in theory, has a monopoly on the use of violence, are they not – do they not bear some of the responsibility for making sure that the use of force is, to the extent that it occurs, is in line with, sort of, protecting people, not attacking protesters?

MS. NULAND: This is a message of nonviolence to all parties that we’re issuing here.

QUESTION: Toria, do you accept the assertion by some military commanders who are saying that their action is because they are driven by or motivated by preventing the violence from getting out of hand between the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhoods, and liberals?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to try to get ourselves into the middle of the events except to say that no use of violence by any side was justified in this case.

QUESTION: So what do you expect on the 28^th or the 29^th of this month?

MS. NULAND: What we want to see is this first round of balloting for the new parliament to go forward peacefully, to go forward freely, fairly, and transparently. And we want to see the aspirations of the Egyptians people expressed through their balloting.

QUESTION: How confident are you that this process is actually going to the go forward in a free, transparent manner?

MS. NULAND: Well, one is never confident until the day, but that is what the Egyptian people deserve, and that’s what we want to see.

QUESTION: So you’re simply taking SCAF’s word that it’s going to put out an election process and that it’s going to work?

MS. NULAND: No, Ros. What we are saying is that we want to see a free and fair and transparent election. And all sides in Egypt, including the governing authorities, have to work hard from that – for that between now and then.

QUESTION: So what happened over this weekend doesn’t give the U.S. Government pause that there could be some sort of disruption? I mean, we’re six, seven days out now. There’s no real concern that this first round of elections won’t actually take place?

MS. NULAND: I think I started with the fact that we were concerned about the violence, and then went on to the fact that we want to see everybody now redouble their efforts in working towards a free, fair, peaceful election, because that’s what the Egyptian people deserve and that’s the best way for them to express themselves.

QUESTION: But with all due respect, when you say that, as Arshad pointed out, when you deplore something, it’s rather tough diplomatic language. And then, yet you’re suggesting that preparations for these elections are going to go forward as if what just happened in the last 72 hours didn’t happen, that you don’t have people claiming their relatives’ bodies from the morgue and people out in the middle of the night chanting we want the military to step down, we want them to leave power. It does – they don’t jibe. They don’t jibe.

MS. NULAND: Ros, I think we’ve been through this about six times now. What we want to see after these deplorable incidents over the weekend is all parties – ruling party, all of the folks in the Egyptian public, all of the parties – focusing their energies on getting to a good first round of elections on the 28^th of November. That’s what the Egyptian people deserve, and that’s what they ought to have.

QUESTION: One of the –

QUESTION: Do you see the military maintaining its legitimacy to oversee this whole process?

MS. NULAND: Well, there’s not only the government involved. We have NGOs involved, we have international observers supporting, so this is why we have an internationally open process, and why we want to see an internationally open process to –

QUESTION: But the military is shepherding the transition right now. And do you think its actions are strengthening or weakening its legitimacy as kind of the guardians of this democratic transition?

MS. NULAND: Again, we need to see a free, fair, and transparent election on the 28^th. And that’s what will be a first step in demonstrating that not only governing authorities but all parties involved are sticking to the democratic roadmap, and that it has integrity going forward.

QUESTION: But if people are dying in clashes, is that really enough?

MS. NULAND: Is what really enough?

QUESTION: The free, fair and elections – free and fair and – what’s the third? Transparent?

MS. NULAND: Again, what we are saying is that we don’t want to see energy directed in a violent manner. We want to see people come together and use this right that they now have of the ballot box to express their views. We want to see the elections held in a free, fair, and transparent manner, and we want to see broad participation by the Egyptian people. That is the best answer to the grievances that people are expressing, and that’s the best answer to the concerns about whether Egypt is going to move in a democratic direction.

QUESTION: And then just lastly, would the elections be stained if they were marred by further violence in the coming days?

MS. NULAND: Again, we want to see peaceful elections. I’m not going to crystal ball this here, but that is the best way forward for the Egyptian people and the best way for those who want to see a different future to express their views.

Please.

QUESTION: One of the biggest demands of the protestors right now – not only to see elections, but also to see clear timetable for the transition. Do you share this largest concern of the protestors right now?

MS. NULAND: We do. We want to see a clear transition timetable, but again, the plan now is to have these rounds of parliamentary elections to elect a body that can begin then laying out of the rest of the timetable, including for the drafting of the constitution and including for the decisions on head of state and government. So we have to get started here in order to complete the process.

QUESTION: Egyptian military over the weekend, and including today, has been using – heavily using teargas, and according to reports, this teargas had been provided by the U.S. companies. After seeing this violence on the protestors, are you open to reconsider this aid, military aid, to Egypt?

MS. NULAND: Again, what we want to see is this democratic process go forward. We want to see this first round of elections go well. We want to see the electoral process continue. And we don’t want to see violence by any side between now and then or going forward.

QUESTION: Victoria, could you explain to us the nature of engagement with the different Egyptian groups? For instance, is it military to military? Is it the Pentagon with the U.S. military? Are you engaged with NGOs or the Muslim Brotherhood? And in the lead-up in the remaining days, how do you engage the different political groups in Egypt?

MS. NULAND: Said, I think you know the answer to this question – that we are open to talking to all groups who want to talk to us, who are willing to support universal human rights, appropriate democratic principles going forward, and our door has been open. And our Embassy in Cairo as well as our folks in Washington across the interagency have been conducting broad consultations with all the parties.

QUESTION: I guess my question is about the mechanism, because we understand there is very close engagement right now going on with the Muslim Brotherhood. For instance, who is conducting these engagements? Who is talking on behalf of the U.S. Government with the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance?

MS. NULAND: Well, we spoke to this last week. Mark made the point that Jake Wallace had had a meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood at its instigation. Our Embassy has also been open to those conversations. But we use those conversations to stress the values and democratic principles that undergird our support for Egypt’s electoral process and for anybody that we’d be able to work with in the future.

Jill.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The UK this morning cut off all financial ties to Iranian banks, including the Central Bank, and we know that the Treasury Department and Secretary Clinton will be announcing more this afternoon. Can you give us any indication of where the U.S. stands? And especially on that issue of the Central Bank, which is a big subject on – up on Capitol Hill.

MS. NULAND: Well, as you noted, Jill, the Secretary and Secretary Geithner will speak to the issue of Iran at about 4:30 this afternoon upstairs, so I think you won’t be surprised if I don’t get ahead of what they have to say when they speak.

QUESTION: But could you – the UK is doing it, we understand that the EU will be discussing this, and it looks as if there’s kind of a full court press emerging. Is that the case that there is now a coordinated attempt to put more pressure on Iran?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know that we always try to work with our allies and partners, and particularly with P-5+1 countries, as we ratchet up the pressure on Iran. So yes, you are seeing coordinated and consolidated moves, and the Secretary will have more to say about this at 4:30.

QUESTION: I take it – obviously, you don’t want to say anything, but with the UK –

MS. NULAND: You can try again, though. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: The UK is a very significant step, though. I mean, do you have any reaction to what they have done?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we’re gratified that our allies are increasing the pressure on Iran. We think this is the right response to the concerns expressed in the IAEA report, and the continued unwillingness of Iran to meet the conditions that the international community has set forth with regard to its nuclear program.

QUESTION: What has the U.S. heard from either Russia or China about these efforts to further isolate Iran financially?

MS. NULAND: Well, the White House spoke to this a little bit after the President’s bilaterals with Russian President Medvedev and with Hu Jintao in Bali last week, so you know that the subject of Iran has come up and you know that we have been talking both about the IAEA report and about the assassination plot here against the Saudi Ambassador. And there is – there was strong support for P-5+1 unity. You saw that in the way the BOG vote came through last week. So it’s been very much a subject at the forefront of our diplomacy with both countries.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: Syria. Is Ambassador Ford going back today? And if not today, is he still going to get there before Thanksgiving?

MS. NULAND: Ambassador Ford is not going back today. He will now be eating that turkey in the United States. We are now in a process of consulting with our allies and partners on appropriate timing for his return. We do still intend for him to go back, but the precise timing is under discussion with a number of other countries, and we’re consulting on that. I think our issue here is to ensure that when he goes back, not only is he safe, not only is Syria willing to live up to its Vienna Convention obligations, but also that he can be effective in getting out and meeting with people.

So that’s a conversation that we are having internally, and it’s also a conversation that we’re having with other countries who have had ambassadors currently on hiatus from Damascus.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question, then, about what’s – I guess the first question would be why he’s not going back. Today, you’ve mentioned several reasons that seem to contribute to it, one being safety, another being what you call this effectiveness to operate, and then the third being cooperation with allies. Can you say to what extent it was only – was a security decision today or any of those three? I mean, what’s the reason for not going back today?

MS. NULAND: You’ve – we’ve had a number of developments in the last week in Syria, including in Damascus, which has led more countries to pull their ambassadors home for consultations, so we want to coordinate with those countries. We’ve also had continuing intransigence in Syria. We’ve also had more discussion with our own folk about the importance of him being able to be effective when he goes back, and – but we do intend for him to go back, but I think we need a little bit more time to look at these issues and to consult, and to consult with others.

QUESTION: Do you think he’ll go back this year?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And now that the deadline –

QUESTION: But do you expect him to go back this year?

MS. NULAND: That is the expectation at the moment, yes.

QUESTION: He plans to stuff Christmas socks now in Damascus?

MS. NULAND: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Victoria, now that the deadline has come and gone – the three-day deadline given by the Arab League, it has come and gone, and apparently the Syrians have not acted on the recommendations. What do you expect to see next? What do you expect the Arab League to do next?

MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve said repeatedly, the Arab League needs to make its own decisions about how it will increase the pressure on the Syrian Government, but since this has been going on, and even just over the weekend, we have reports of an additional 58 civilians killed in Syria between November 28^th – November – sorry, November 18^th and today. So not only has the Syrian Government done virtually nothing to meet its – the commitments that it reportedly originally made to the Arab League, but it’s continuing to kill its own citizens. And as you know, the Arab League took issue with the Syrian Government’s effort to weaken and water down some of the commitments it had made, particularly with regard to human rights observers.

We had this supposed agreement again last week, Thursday, Friday, to take the international observers, and particularly to take Arab League observers, only to turn around and find out that the Syrians wanted to take just a handful of them and constrain them to Damascus, et cetera. So the Arab League has understandably rejected that. So our view has been clear from – for quite some time. This is not a guy – Asad – who is planning to do what is necessary to allow his country to move forward, and therefore he needs to step aside.

QUESTION: Do you have a general idea of which areas that can really hurt the regime most, that you can impose a sanctions in the next, let’s say, week or two, if the situation calls for it?

MS. NULAND: Well, you’ve seen that – what we have done, that we have done what we can to cut off the revenues that Syria makes from hydrocarbons. We have done our best to sanction individuals who we think are responsible for violence. We have certainly called for other countries to match these steps, and also to renounce the sending of weapons to the Syrian regime. So those kinds of steps – steps that match ours, that match the EU’s steps – would be most welcome, and we think would increase the pressure on the Asad regime.

QUESTION: And lastly, do you call – do you also call similarly on the neighboring countries not to allow arms to flow into insurgents or armed groups, and so on?

MS. NULAND: Correct. We’ve obviously wanted –

QUESTION: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this weekend that Asad was driving Syria to the brink of civil war. Is that an assessment that you would share?

MS. NULAND: Well, Secretary Clinton spoke to this on Saturday in some of her TV interviews, and expressed similar concerns that it is Asad who bears responsibility for the dangerous spiral that we’re seeing in Syria now.

QUESTION: But do you see this case of a civil war now as a distinct possibility?

MS. NULAND: Well, the Secretary herself expressed – Secretary Clinton expressed some concerns that this is the path that Syria could go down.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: This next story in Lebanon, and I imagine you may not have anything to say about it, but there are reports that a number of CIA assets have been busted and some sort of intel ring was disrupted by Hezbollah and by the Iranians in the last few months. Do you have anything to say about that or any concern about the loss of capability in the eyes on Hezbollah?

MS. NULAND: I’m certainly not going to comment on anything having to do with intelligence. Good effort, though, Kirit.

QUESTION: Worth a try.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

Please.

QUESTION: Another subject?

MS. NULAND: Let me go to –

QUESTION: Different topic. Does the U.S. support this apparent entry of Ethiopian troops into Somalia?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, let me say that we have not ourselves been able to confirm that Ethiopian troops have entered Somalia. As you know, the Ethiopians themselves have denied that they have crossed the border. What we have said is that we believe that the African Union, and particularly the Intergovernmental Authority on Development – the IGAD – should determine the appropriate role for Ethiopia in the ongoing regional stabilization efforts. We obviously support the efforts of the African Union and of neighboring countries in their fight against al-Shabaab. But we want the African Union and IGAD to drive the train here.

QUESTION: I see. So the U.S. doesn’t have misgivings about the possibility that any such action would – might make famine relief much – that much harder?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, it’s al-Shabaab who is making famine relief difficult here. So what we’re looking for is a peaceful settlement. We’re looking to end the violence and we’re looking for the African Union to be in the lead.

In the very back, Mike –

QUESTION: A different subject: India, two questions. So firstly, I asked Mark last week about the new regulations under the Nuclear Liability Act, and do you have any comment on that? And secondly, the Ministry of External Affairs in India has taken up the subject of a map of India, which has appeared on the State Department website, which shows a part of Kashmir as part of the territory of Pakistan. So do you have any comment on that? Is the map correct? And what’s your view?

MS. NULAND: Well, first, with regard to the map, we’ve taken the map down off the website. It did contain some inaccuracies which were associated with the boundaries of some geographic features. This was unintentional; we’re going to get the map fixed and put up a fixed map.

With regard to the question that you asked Mark last week, I’m not aware whether we answered it or not. Mark is shaking his head, so we will take it and answer it for you.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) follow-up on that –

QUESTION: If it’s inaccurate – obviously, it’s a map, right? Clearly, it’s inaccurate with regard to some geographic features, right?

MS. NULAND: Right.

QUESTION: So can you not sort of close the loop and say that it was inaccurate over the delineation of Kashmir?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is that is the way that it was inaccurate, that it wasn’t drawn properly.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on the – so when you put the map up and then you just – it vanishes from there, when I saw it. And then just before I came in, there was nothing there in the body of the page except some links. Will you be posting a statement saying that there was inaccuracy in the map and we are reposting a corrected map? And the second question is was there any person or a company responsible for this found guilty and any action taken about it?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, consider this our statement. I’ll say it again: The map was inaccurate. We’ve taken it down. We will put up the new map when we acquire one that we are confident is accurate.

And with regard to where the map came from, I think I’m not going to comment on that other than to say it was inaccurate and we have so represented. And we will get it fixed.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, I checked just before the briefing and it’s still on your travel web site.

MS. NULAND: All right, we’ll fix that one too. Travel web site, gentlemen.

QUESTION: Have you talked to any officials about this?

MS. NULAND: We have. We have.

QUESTION: What about Pakistani officials?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know. It sounds like we should talk to Pakistani officials.

QUESTION: Probably a good idea.

MS. NULAND: We will make sure that happens.

Way in the back. Thanks.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: About yesterday’s election in Spain, has the Secretary contacted the president-elect that won yesterday? And there are very important issues that are being negotiated with Spain, namely the transfer of some Guantanamo prisoners, for instance. Do you think that is going to affect your work with the government?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, welcome. I don’t think I’ve seen you before. Can you tell me what news organization you’re from?

QUESTION: I’m with El País.

MS. NULAND: Not surprised you decided to come today.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. But I’ve been here before. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Okay. Hiding, hiding, hiding. Well, first of all, the United States congratulates the People’s Party and Mariano Rajoy on his victory in Spain’s general election. Spain is obviously a close partner and ally of the United States, and we look forward to continuing our strong relationship with the future government of Spain on a wide range of issues, including some of the issues that you discussed.

Said.

QUESTION: New topic?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Deputy Burns’ visit?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: The Israelis claim that Deputy Burns issued a very stern warning to President Abbas if they continue their misbehavior with going to the international community, that they are going to be dire consequences. Could you confirm that?

MS. NULAND: I’m certainly not going to get into the private discussion, diplomatic discussion that Deputy Secretary Burns had with President Abbas, except to say that it was a long and full meeting.

QUESTION: What was it focused on? What were some of the points that Deputy Burns raised that are, let’s say, different from what was raised last week or the week before by Ambassador Hale, for instance?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously it was at a higher level. They have a long personal relationship. And the main thrust of the meeting, as I said at the outset, was designed to encourage President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to make the best possible use of the opportunity that the Quartet has put forward to get the parties back together and get them talking about the real issues.

QUESTION: Did he talk with Mr. Abbas about his upcoming meeting or his meetings with Hamas, ongoing meetings with Hamas, whether at his level or other levels, to form a new government that excludes someone like Salam Fayyad and may bring in someone that is more acceptable to Hamas?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, I’m not going to get into the back and the forth and all of the issues that we discussed. But in general, we do talk about the ongoing political process in the Palestinian Authority. You know where we are on the situation with Hamas. We don’t want to see anybody in the Palestinian Authority government who is not prepared to renounce violence, recognize the state of Israel’s right to exist, and live up to previous agreements.

QUESTION: And finally, will he raise with Prime Minister Netanyahu the issue of the new announcement on new settlements?

MS. NULAND: Again, I would expect that that conversation will cover the full range of issues that we always talk to the Government of Israel about.

QUESTION: And will he convey your position that settlements are illegal?

MS. NULAND: Again, I would expect that conversation will cover the full range of issues.

QUESTION: Can I ask another quick one?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Is it still the plan to have detailed proposals brought forth by each side, I think it was what, 90 days after the last Quartet meeting, so end of January?

MS. NULAND: That is what we are continuing to encourage, Brad. And we continuing to work with each side in an effort to hone and refine proposals that they could make to each other.

QUESTION: Now, the original plan was they’d already be meeting directly by now. So, presumably, they would have you know brought that to another meeting and exchanged and looked at it. How does that work now when the negotiators aren’t even in the same room together?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, we’re continuing to work with each of the parties to refine and hone proposals that they can put to each other and to encourage them to be ready to put them to each other as soon as possible. So that process goes forward.

QUESTION: So is there a third-party interlocutor that the proposals have to go through, because they’re not actually meeting?

MS. NULAND: Well, they’re not exchanging either. They are working on their own proposals at this stage. Our view is that the proposals should be directly exchanged, and that is what we are encouraging.

QUESTION: So you hope by that logic that they will meet before that end January post or benchmark for these proposals?

MS. NULAND: Well, that’s what the Quartet proposal calls for and that’s what we’re continuing to work for.

QUESTION: Right, but you missed the previous deadline for that. So I’m wondering, is now — is there a hope that this will happen before those deadlines?

MS. NULAND: That continues to be the goal of all the Quartet countries, including the United States.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: You said that they are — that each side is continuing to work on their own proposal. And you said that we, by which I assume you mean the United States and other members of the Quartet, are working with them to hone and refine their proposals. When we asked last week, it wasn’t clear to me from the readout after the last Quartet meeting that either side actually had begun to develop a proposal. Are you absolutely certain that each side has now drafted proposals of their own?

MS. NULAND: Well, let’s put it this way. Each side has over time had proposals of various kinds. Some of them are being reworked and thought through, but they’re not at the stage where they have been ready to exchange them. So we’re continuing to talk to each side about what would go in an appropriate proposal about security and about land.

QUESTION: But they are, in fact, reworking previous proposals?

MS. NULAND: We are working with them on their –

QUESTION: But they are? That’s my question, because it’s not clear to me that they’re actually doing this work themselves or whether they think that this is so elusory a process that they’re not actually bothering yet to craft proposals. I mean, are you certain that they have themselves actually begun working on their own proposals? Not that they did proposals in the past, which there have been, of course, many, but that they are now actually concretely working on proposals.

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m confident that we and other Quartet members have been talking to each side about the elements that we would hope to see in proposals that they would put to each other. How much they have been drafting and redrafting, I can’t speak to from this podium.

QUESTION: The reason I ask is that because the use of the words “hone” and “refine” implies that there are concrete proposals on each side that are being sharpened, buffed, shaped. And now I’m not so sure that that’s what’s actually transpiring here. Now I’m beginning to think that maybe you guys are just talking to them about, hey, you could do this, you could do that, but not that they are necessarily shaping these things themselves.

MS. NULAND: Well, again, it is going to be up to them to shape their proposals and to put them to each other. They are obviously building on work that they had done in the past. We want to see that work shaped, honed, refined, ready to present to each other as soon as possible.

QUESTION: There are reports that Pakistani officials are trying to negotiate a peace deal with the Taliban in tribal areas on a give-and-take basis, and Taliban have laid out some demands, like free movement and that they have demanded compensation, which are not certainly in line with the hard lines that you referred to. So my question is that are you aware of these developments? And if you are, do you have any reservations on this?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything on negotiations that may or may not be going on between Pakistan and the Pakistani Taliban. I would refer you to the Government of Pakistan on that. I think our own views about reconciliation have been very clear in terms of what it takes to truly reconcile, but I can’t speak to what may or may not be going on between these groups.

QUESTION: Okay. And a Sunday Times story says that Ambassador Munter has met Imran Khan, a cricketer and politician, in the presence of DG ISI. Can you confirm the meeting, and what was the agenda?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one. I don’t have any information one way or the other.

QUESTION: Can we go to the arrest of Seif al-Islam – the capture of Seif al-Islam Qadhafi?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have confidence in the Libyan justice system to provide a fair trial for Seif al-Islam?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know where we have been on this issue. We have, in general terms and now in very specific terms, with regard to Seif, appealed to all parties in Libya to ensure the humane treatment of prisoners in their custody and to ensure that independent monitors have access to him and to prepare a judicial process that meets international standards. So that is what we are continuing to encourage. Ambassador Cretz has had a number of conversations with members of the TNC about that. The Libyan Government itself, the TNC, has made assertions that that is its goal and aspiration. And I think you know that the ICC is on its way to Libya to discuss these issues as well.

QUESTION: But do you encourage the Libyan officials to turn over Seif al-Islam to the ICC?

MS. NULAND: Our view is that he needs to see justice in a manner that meets international standards. It’s a matter for the Libyan authorities and the Libyan people to decide how that is done.

QUESTION: But are you confident that the current justice system can actually provide that?

MS. NULAND: Again, it’s a matter for the Libyan governing authorities and the Libyan people to demonstrate to the world that they can meet high international standards. The international community is prepared to support them and assist them if they decide to do this in Libya, and that’s one of the reasons why the ICC is on its way to Tripoli now to have that conversation.

QUESTION: Is Seif al-Islam still in the hands of the militia that captured him?

MS. NULAND: That is my understanding, that he has not yet transferred to Tripoli.

QUESTION: Right. So then what influence does the TNC actually have over his treatment when they have not even been able to convince the militia to hand him over? I mean, isn’t it the militia you should ultimately be talking to since they actually have him and therefore they affect the conditions he is kept in?

MS. NULAND: Well, the TNC, as I understand it, is having these discussions with the guys who have him captured. And I expect that the ICC will also have something to say about this. So this is a relatively new event. I think he was picked up less than 48 hours ago. So the TNC is working this hard, and we are certainly making clear to the TNC that we see this as something where they can really prove to the world the high standards that they support.

QUESTION: And just to go back – forgive me, Brad. Just to go back, you told us after the death of Muammar Qadhafi that the TNC was going to conduct an investigation into his treatment. I know investigations take time, but it’s also not 48 hours since his capture and subsequent death. Did you ever get an answer back from the TNC about what precisely happened and how it is that he appeared to die after he was captured?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the TNC did pledge to do a full and open investigation. Our understanding is that that investigation is still underway and they have not yet completed it or made public the results. So we’ll obviously have to judge it when it’s completed.

QUESTION: My question goes – it’s the same thing, because you said at the time that that was a chance for the Libyan Government to prove to the world community that it will adhere to these high international standards. So it actually hasn’t done that. It hasn’t taken that chance yet. We’ll see if it does in the future. Now it has another chance, yet you have no doubts about its ability to adhere to the principles it has laid out?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, with regard to the investigation, I think we need to let them do the investigation that they have pledged to do before we judge it. So let’s –

QUESTION: How long does that take?

MS. NULAND: I think we need to let them have some time to do this investigation. So –

QUESTION: How long?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to put an artificial timeline on this. It’s only been a number of weeks, and if we want this thing done credibly, I’m sure they need a little bit of time to do it.

That said, they – the TNC from the very beginning has in all of its public statements prioritized the issue of justice, said that it wants a credible, independent justice system, in contrast to the way Qadhafi did things. The international community has said, including the United States and now the ICC, that we stand ready to help Libya as it develops its system and as it begins to deal with cases like the case of Seif. So we’re having that conversation now. They continue to say the right things, and we will look to them to do the right things.

QUESTION: But the one – the biggest example of its chance to put these principles into action was a shamble. So I don’t understand why you have such full confidence in their ability to adhere to these principles.

MS. NULAND: Well, you’re putting words in my mouth here. What we have said is that they have asserted that they want to stand in contrast with the Qadhafi regime by having a credible judicial process that meets international standards. That they want to also have a credible investigation into what happened to Qadhafi himself. We have said that we stand ready to help. So I think we need to let this process go forward before we stand as judge and jury in front of it.

Okay.

QUESTION: Just a quick one?

MS. NULAND: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Pakistani Ambassador Haqqani has gone back home after a meeting in this building. So are you confident he’s safe, and any other updates on that following this Memo Gate?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything to say on the specific issue. Our understanding is that Ambassador Haqqani is home on consultation, so I would refer you to the Pakistani Government with regard to his consultations and what he is specifically up to. We always expect that Pakistan’s leaders will act in accordance with Pakistan’s constitution, and in a manner respectful of its democratic institutions. So beyond that I don’t have any specific comments on this issue.

QUESTION: Very quickly, going back to Syria. Are you planning to work at the UN Security Council this week to pass resolution on Asad or on the regime this week? Are you going to start any – resume any work in New York?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we always leave open the door to continue work at the United Nations and its various constituent bodies as well as in the UNSC. But I don’t have anything particular to report to you today.

Okay? Thank you, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:34 p.m.)

DPB # 178

• DEPARTMENT
  • Do not Recognize Legitimacy of Elections Held in Georgia’s South Ossetia Region on Nov 13
  • Support for Georgia’s Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity / Urge Russia to Fulfill Obligations Under 2008 Ceasefire Agreement
• SYRIA
  • Welcome Arab League’s Suspension of Syria / Growing Syrian Isolation / Mutual Goal is to Protect Civilians
  • Don’t Want to Further Militarize Syria / Sanctions
  • International Media in Syria
  • Attacks on Foreign Embassies
  • U.S. and International Diplomatic Presence in Syria
• PAKISTAN
  • Question Regarding Pakistani Journalist Seeking Asylum in U.S. / Press Freedom
• AFGHANISTAN
  • Loya Jirga / Leaked Security Plans
• ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
  • Quartet Meeting in Jerusalem
  • Development of Proposals that will hopefully Lead to Direct Talks
  • Composition of U.S. Negotiating Team
  • Continued Work toward Direct Negotiations
  • Possibility of Hamas-Fatah Unity Government
• JORDAN
  • Relocation of Hamas
• CHINA/TAIWAIN
  • Charges brought against Director General of the Kansas City Taipei Cultural and Economic Office
• ROK/DPRK
  • Dialogue between DPRK and ROK
• KEYSTONE
  • U.S. Commitment to Rigorous Keystone Review Process
  • U.S.-Canada Relationship

12:54 p.m. EST

MR. TONER: Good afternoon. Welcome to the State Department. Happy Monday. I want to let the – allow the new, svelt Samir to take a seat, plug into the mult box. Ready? Great.

Just very briefly at the top of the briefing, we do want to note and comment on the November 13^th South Ossetian de facto presidential elections and referendum. The United States does not recognize the legitimacy or the outcome of these so-called presidential elections and referendum that were held in Georgia’s South Ossetia region on November 13^th. We reiterate our strong support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders and we, again, urge Russia to fulfill all of its obligations under the 2008 ceasefire agreement, including withdrawal of forces to pre-conflict positions and free access to humanitarian assistance to the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

And with that, I’ll take your questions, except about football. I don’t want to –

QUESTION: Believe me, I don’t want to talk about football either. (Laughter.) What do you mean the so-called elections and referendum? Are you saying that they just –

MR. TONER: We don’t recognize them because we don’t recognize their sovereignty.

QUESTION: I know. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re so – don’t deserve the term so-called, do they? I mean –

MR. TONER: We chose that expression to characterize our –

QUESTION: Gotcha. The pressure seems to be mounting on President Asad of Syria. There’s – they’ve been suspended by the Arab League; I know you all have commented on that and so has the President. There is an Arab League meeting coming up soon. I’m wondering what you would like to see them do and if you are looking right now to expand either your sanctions – your bilateral sanctions on the Syrians, or if you’re going to be pushing harder for other countries in a multilateral fora to do the same thing.

MR. TONER: Okay. First, as you mentioned, we did welcome the Arab League’s very strong and historic stance aimed at stopping the violence in Syria and protecting Syrian civilians. And, as you said, both the President and Secretary Clinton issued statements on that over the weekend. It speaks to, again, the growing isolation of Syria. We are, indeed, looking to the Arab League’s next meeting, which is on November 16^th. It is a significant development that happened over the weekend, as I said, and we’re going to continue to consult not only with the Arab League but also with the EU and our other partners as we move forward in trying to find ways to increase the pressure on Asad.

QUESTION: The Syrians themselves have called for an emergency summit of the Arab League. What do you make of that?

MR. TONER: Well again, you’ll have to ask the Arab League for their reaction to it. To us it looks like another attempt to buy yet more time. We’ve seen this consistent pattern in Syria’s reactions to efforts – whether they were Turkey’s efforts to resolve and end the violence and then the Arab League’s initial offer that they continue to seek delay tactics, if you will.

QUESTION: Would you like – as you well know, the Arab League called for (inaudible) ways to stop the violence against civilians. Given that your calls, and pretty much everybody else’s calls, thus far have failed to persuade the Asad government to stop the violence for which it is responsible, what other ideas do you have for how to stop the violence, beyond rhetoric?

MR. TONER: Well, as the Arab League stated, one of their – one thing they’d like see happen, and one thing that we have also pushed for, is getting monitors on the ground, as well as opening up Syria to international media. This would help, I think, provide witness to what the Syrian Government is carrying out – the violence. It would make them, we believe, much more reluctant to carry out that violence against innocent civilians under the watchful eyes of international observers, as well as the international media. So that’s one idea.

QUESTION: Well, they found ways to expel, as far as I’m aware, just about every foreign news organization. It doesn’t seem likely that they’re going to accept monitors or journalists to go back in. So what else is there? I mean as – all I can see basically from the response is some sanctions, but not any recently, nothing at the UN level of significance, and then rhetorical calls for it to stop or for the Syrian Government to allow in monitors, which they don’t seem of any mind to do. Is there anything else that you’re thinking of?

MR. TONER: Well again, I wouldn’t want to in any way downplay the significance of the Arab League’s action on – over the weekend. Its agreement to suspend the participation of Syria is a very, very strong statement with regard to their view and the international community’s view that Syria is carrying out violence against innocent protesters.

That said, I don’t think anyone wants to see more militarization in the Syrian situation right now. We’re going to continue to seek ways that we can apply economic pressure. We’re going to continue seek ways that we can call the world’s attention to what’s going on. And, as I said, international monitors would be one way to increase that pressure on Syria. But again, we don’t want to see any more violence on the ground.

QUESTION: One more from me on this one.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: The Secretary, in the past, has been fairly explicit in public about how there simply isn’t the international consensus for action in Syria, as there was in Libya. She did so in a speech just last week. Do you think that the Arab League decision is, in any way, comparable to the Arab League’s essentially calling for an intervention in Libya? Or does it fall far short of that, and therefore you still don’t have the international consensus to take more robust actions here?

MR. TONER: I think what we’re seeing is definitely a strengthening of the consensus against Asad. Against what his regime is doing. And that’s a – and I – as I said, there’s – I don’t want to, in any way, downplay the significance of what we saw on Saturday. It was, indeed, a very significant step forward. This is a sign that Asad’s neighbors are disgusted with his actions and with his regime’s actions. And again, what we’ve seen all along here – perhaps slowly at first, but I think with increasing momentum – is the international community, the U.S, the EU, the Arab League, individual states like Turkey taking stronger and stronger stances against what’s going on in Syria.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: What’s your response to Iraq abstaining from that vote?

MR. TONER: Well, that’s their sovereign decision; I’d have to point you to their government to explain that.

QUESTION: Yeah. But this Administration has often said how strategic that partnership is, and the relationship is with Iraq, and the first important vote that comes along in a while, it votes against the wishes of this Administration. Is it a partner or not?

MR. TONER: Well, look, we believe we have a – we’re building a stronger partnership with Iraq, but I’d have to really ask you to ask the Government of Iraq to explain their position. We want to see all of Syria’s neighbors take a stronger stance against what’s going on there.

QUESTION: Mark.

MR. TONER: Yeah, Said. And then over -

QUESTION: Back in the ’70’s, the Arab League took a decision to formulate an Arab Deterrent Force. And, in fact, it was led by Syria, to go and defuse – to go into Lebanon and defuse the civil war. Would you like to see the same thing happen this time around by the Arab League, to form actually some sort of an Arab or Islamic deterrent force to do that?

MR. TONER: Look, I’m going to leave it up to the Arab League to decide how it’s going to find ways to increase the pressure on Asad. I think what they’ve talked about now is the use of monitors and other actions that they can take to try to protect civilians. And I think that’s our mutual goal here.

QUESTION: But it is not something that the Administration would look favorably at?

MR. TONER: Again, we’re not going to – I’m not going to pre-judge or try to pre-determine the – what actions the Arab League may take. I think what’s very important here is that we share their concern about the protection of civilians in Syria.

QUESTION: Two quick ones.

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What would you like to see next? Would you like to see that, let’s say, commercial flights stop from flying into Damascus and out of Damascus? That’s one.

MR. TONER: Well, there’s a number of steps that they can take that would, we believe, continue to isolate Syria. But again, they’re going to meet on Wednesday. Let’s let that meeting take place. They took very strong action over the weekend. We believe they’re very unified in their reaction to the situation in Syria. And moving forward, we certainly feel like they’re now on board with the rest of the international community that’s growing more and more concerned by the human rights situation in Syria.

QUESTION: Yeah. But a clarification finally – I’m sorry.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: When there is an Arab summit, the United States attends, attends these Arab League meetings. Was there an American representative in this Arab League meeting of the foreign ministers?

MR. TONER: Yeah. I don’t believe there was, Said. If that’s not right, I’ll let you know. I don’t believe there was. But again, we’ve been, obviously, consulting with our Arab League partners, both before and after.

QUESTION: Yemen and Lebanon have voted against the Arab League decision. How do you view their position?

MR. TONER: Again, look, we’re very pleased with the Arab League’s actions. We think it sends a very strong signal. I’m not going to parse out how individual countries voted. It’s up to them to explain themselves.

QUESTION: Well, surely you have an opinion of it. I mean, what does it say about President Saleh’s continued commitments – ongoing promises to step down, if his government then votes against (inaudible) Syria. Don’t tell me no one in this building has an opinion about –

MR. TONER: Well, if you want me to talk about the situation in Yemen, I certainly –

QUESTION: No, I’d like –

MR. TONER: We certainly do believe that President Saleh has shown time and time again that he is unwilling to accept the GCC’s proposal and put his country on a path towards a democratic transition. Whether their vote on vis-à-vis Syria is indicative of that, I – that’s for them to –

QUESTION: Well, I mean, when the Russians and the Chinese voted against sanctions on Syria, you – the Secretary came out and proclaimed that they were on the wrong side of history. So the – it holds no water when you try to claim that this building or this Administration doesn’t have an opinion on how Lebanon and Yemen voted in the Arab League.

MR. TONER: We’re very clear that we believe the Arab League –

QUESTION: So they made the wrong choice? They voted the wrong way with –

MR. TONER: — made the right choice.

QUESTION: No, no.

MR. TONER: The Arab League made the right choice in its actions against Syria.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. TONER: We believe that this is increasing the pressure on Asad and that increasingly it’s changing – it’s building momentum on Asad. These countries — they made their choices, but they’ll have to explain themselves.

QUESTION: Right. But you – but if you say that the Arab League made the right choice in suspending Syria –

MR. TONER: You can infer what you will from that.

QUESTION: Well, conversely, you should be able to say that the countries that did not agree with that made the wrong choice. Why not?

MR. TONER: I’m just saying that –

QUESTION: Are you holding out hope that Lebanon and Yemen are going to come around?

MR. TONER: I’m just saying that – look, it’s – they need to evaluate their decisions.

QUESTION: Just call it like it is. Call it like you see it. Don’t – I mean, I don’t understand the pussyfooting around here. I don’t get it.

MR. TONER: Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Matt. But what I’ll just say is we believe that the Arab League made a very strong decision in suspending Syria’s membership.

Yeah. Go ahead, and then back to you.

QUESTION: Yeah. What kind of outcome the U.S. would prefer to see from the November 16 meeting of the Arab League? In another word, do you prefer that they go to the sanction? And if so, do you like that Turkey would join, too, with them?

MR. TONER: Well, our goal here is to increase pressure, economic pressure on Asad and political pressure on Asad. So actions that would help up that pressure or increase that pressure we believe would be beneficial.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: When you say nobody wants to see the further militarization of this conflict, is that code for nobody wants to see outside intervention or an externally imposed no-fly zone or any kinds of other concerted international efforts to stop the violence through the use of U.S., Western, or other international military forces? I mean, is that what you’re saying?

MR. TONER: Again, I would just say that when we – there’s a lot of violence already taking place. What we’ve heard from the Syrian opposition and others is that they don’t want to see a further militarization; they don’t want to see another – or more escalation of the violence. And frankly, in many ways, that just plays into Asad’s hands. And he’s tried and his regime has tried very hard to make this some kind of international conspiracy against his regime. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we believe that the Syrian opposition doesn’t want to see an escalation of the violence either way.

QUESTION: But – I mean, I’m trying to – as a general rule, nobody usually wants to see more violence. And I’m trying to get at what you’re really trying to say here, and whether what you’re saying has much less to do with sort of the violence inside Syria and much more to do with the fact that nobody really seems to want to do anything militarily to try to protect the civilians there. I mean, isn’t that what you’re saying here?

MR. TONER: Well, if you’re speaking about the international community has a whole, the U.S. certainly never takes any option off the table. But I think that from what we’ve heard from the Syrian opposition and others is that we don’t want to see a militarization of this conflict or any further militarization of the conflict. And our focus now is on increasing the economic pressure on Asad.

QUESTION: And it’s inconceivable to you that the exercise of force to try to stop the violence against civilians might actually work and ultimately stop the violence? You’re certain that any kind of a military effort to do this would simply lead to more violence and a worse situation?

MR. TONER: Well, it’s impossible to say. What I would just say is that there’s momentum building. You’re thinking, I think, several steps ahead. We’re not there yet. What our focus is right now is on trying to increase the economic noose, if you will, around Asad’s regime to choke them off financially so that they feel the effects of this and growing isolation and that they cease the violence. In terms of additional steps, we never take any options off the table, certainly, but we’re going to try to find ways to increase the political and economic isolation on Syria.

Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Conversely, are you concerned that the increased rhetoric, inflammatory rhetoric, if you would, about this conflict sort of deteriorating and degenerating into an all-out war in the region that can involve Israel and Iran and others and so on, as it’s been said? Are you concerned that this might happen?

MR. TONER: Well, I think we don’t want to see, as I said, any greater violence. We don’t want to – we’ve said many times that we call on all sides – that includes the Syrian opposition – to refrain from violence. Certainly, that’s been repeatedly ignored by the Syrian Government and Syrian regime, but largely respected, greatly expected, by the Syrian opposition. And that gives them the moral authority to carry out their demonstrations and their aspirations, their call for political and democratic change in the country.

QUESTION: So you call on, let’s say, the Governments of Turkey and Jordan to have a tight grip on the flow of arms from their borders into Syria, to (inaudible), allegedly.

MR. TONER: Well, we – yeah. I mean, you’re –

QUESTION: Allegedly.

MR. TONER: Look, we don’t want to – we – what we – not speaking specifically about your question, but we do want to see – we don’t want to see any more arms flow into Syria, and our goal remains to politically and economically choke off the Asad regime.

QUESTION: (Off mike.)

MR. TONER: I think –

QUESTION: Another subject?

MR. TONER: You have a Syria question?

QUESTION: No.

MR. TONER: Syria? We’re done with Syria. Okay. Goyal.

QUESTION: Another subject? Thank you. Mark, do you have any comments – in Arlington, federal judge, immigration judge, granted asylum to a Pakistani journalist, Siraj Ahmed Malik, despite Pakistani democracy. And what he’s saying that his colleagues and friends and relatives continuously disappearing in Baluchistan, Quetta, where he comes from. So more cases of this kind may follow. Any comments on –

MR. TONER: Well, I’d just refer you to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on questions of asylum. As you know, asylum cases are extremely sensitive, so we have to adhere to a strict code of confidentiality. If you’re speaking more broadly about the safety of journalists in Pakistan, that’s an issue we have raised with the Pakistani Government’s – regarding the troubles that some Pakistani journalists have faced when they’re reporting on sensitive topics.

QUESTION: Just a quick, to follow. One, do you still believe that there is a democracy and freedom of the press in Pakistan? And second, if –

MR. TONER: Just a quick follow-up.

QUESTION: If immigration officials seek any information from the State Department, a letter to the asylum.

MR. TONER: To your second question, I don’t know. And I don’t know that I could speak to it, given what I just said. And to your first question, we believe that Pakistan is continuing to build democratic institutions, including a free and independent media. But there are concerns, which we’ve been very frank in conveying to the Pakistani Government.

Go ahead. Oh, and then back to you. Okay. Is it Pakistan?

QUESTION: No, no. Just to clarify one thing.

MR. TONER: I’m sorry. I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: Yeah. There was some assaults against some embassies in Syria, especially in Turkey, France –

MR. TONER: Absolutely, and thank you for raising that. We do condemn the recent attacks, I believe on the Qatari and Saudi embassies. And then additional attacks on Turkish and French consulates in Latakia. And as we’ve said about our own embassies – our own embassy – we call on the Syrian Government to uphold its obligations to protect the diplomatic community in the country.

QUESTION: Mark, one last thing on Syria. Is Ambassador Ford still planning to have Thanksgiving with the staff at the embassy?

MR. TONER: That remains our belief, yes, that he will be returning shortly.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) see the Arab League do, is withdraw their ambassadors from these countries? To withdraw their ambassadors from Syria?

MR. TONER: Correct, that’s one of the things they did talk about.

QUESTION: And yet your own ambassador, you want to go back.

MR. TONER: I said correct, that is one of the things that they talked about doing to send a signal, but it’s each country’s sovereign decision whether they’re going to recall an ambassador or not.

QUESTION: No, I understand that, but don’t you think that would – but I understand the position is that you think that’s a good idea. That they should, or you think that it would send a signal.

MR. TONER: I think it’s the Arab League’s decision –

QUESTION: Yes. Mark, I’m not asking you to make the decision for them.

MR. TONER: No, no. That’s okay.

QUESTION: I’m asking you does the United States believe it would be a good signal, a good strong signal to send to the Asad government, for Arab League countries to withdraw their ambassadors from Syria?

MR. TONER: We think it’s a signal that they’ve talked about adopting, that they would withdraw their ambassadors. That’s certainly up to the – it’s a sovereign decision for each government to make –

QUESTION: Understood.

MR. TONER: But it would send a very strong signal of Asad’s isolation. We’ve been very clear why we believe Ambassador Ford needs to be on the ground, that he is, in fact, providing that kind of witness to what the regime is carrying out.

QUESTION: So you don’t see any disconnect between saying that other countries should withdraw their ambassadors, and yet you’re – and you planning to send your ambassador back?

MR. TONER: We do not. I do not.

QUESTION: Really? Okay. That’s amazing.

QUESTION: One other thing, aren’t those – isn’t there utility in having ambassadors there as, sort of, international monitors?

MR. TONER: Absolutely. That’s one of the things we’ve talked about with our ambassador on the ground. And we believe he is playing a very positive and useful role, as are other ambassadors who are there. But it’s still – it’s a country’s sovereign decision whether they’re going to pull their ambassador or not. That also sends a statement. We believe that. That’s why I don’t see a disconnect.

QUESTION: Has the United States Government sought to, in any way, influence the Arab League members’ thinking about this? Have you made – not about the ambassadors, but about the general thing. Have you made the case to them in private that suspending Syria might be a good signal? I mean, you welcomed it, but prior to that, did you make the case to them that you felt that suspending Syria would be a good idea? Or that taking other steps, like allowing – or telling them to urge Syria to allow back foreign journalists and international monitors would be a good step? Have you made that case to Arab League members?

MR. TONER: Well, all along this process, we’ve been consulting closely – whether it’s through Assistant Secretary Feltman – but at every level, frankly, with our partners and allies in the region – about ways to increase the pressure on Asad, and to end the violence there. That was before Saturday’s meeting, it’s going on after Saturday’s meeting. But let’s be very clear that this was a decision that the Arab League made on its own, and sent a very strong signal to the Syrian Government. And I want to be clear there, because again, we’ve seen the Syrian Government try to paint this as some kind of international or U.S. manipulation. And nothing could be further from the truth; it’s ridiculous.

Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: In Assistant Secretary Feltman’s testimony, he mentioned that waiting for Turkey to join E.U. and U.S. to put sanction within next two weeks. Would you be able to elaborate on that, on what indications you’re expecting the sanctions to come out from Turkish Government in next two weeks?

MR. TONER: I don’t, I would really have to direct you to the Turkish Government to talk about possible next steps. We continue to look at additional sanctions. I think the EU does. E.U. just announced some additional sanctions today, I believe, and we certainly applaud those. I know there’s been some discussion about Turkey also taking similar steps, but it’s really to them to define those.

Yeah. Sure, Catherine’s been – yeah, I think – (inaudible).

QUESTION: That’s okay. In Afghanistan, the Loya Jirga scheduled for Wednesday – the security plans had to be changed because they leaked out. Was the U.S. – did the Afghan Government consult with the U.S. about either the leak or about redoing the security plans?

MR. TONER: Well, first of all, I do want to say – and I believe this was said by our ambassador in Kabul – Ambassador Ryan Crocker said earlier today that – he noted that the Loya Jirga itself is a traditional Afghan institution for which we have the utmost respect. And the U.S. and Afghanistan are close partners and allies, and we have great confidence that this Loya Jirga’s going to reaffirm that strong partnership. In terms of security, I’d have to refer you to the Government of Afghanistan regarding security efforts surrounding the meeting.

QUESTION: Sorry –

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: You have great confidence that the Loya Jirga’s going to do what?

MR. TONER: Is going to reaffirm the partnership between the U.S. and Afghanistan.

QUESTION: You do?

MR. TONER: We do.

QUESTION: Okay. It’s on Wednesday, right? So Wednesday afternoon we’ll be able to find out if your great hopes were – can we move on? Or is there more?

MR. TONER: We can move on.

QUESTION: I’m going to take a stab here and ask you about what I presume to be a highly successful Quartet meeting in the post – first in the post-Dennis Ross era. So I’m sure that they accomplished something, right? They didn’t just agree to meet again, did they? There was something more?

MR. TONER: Well, you did see that they did, in fact, meet. The Quartet envoys and Quartet Representative Blair met separately today in Jerusalem, with representatives of the parties. This is a follow-up on the October 26 meeting. The emphasis, again, was on getting parties back to direct negotiations. And they discussed the kind of developmental proposals that will hopefully lead to those direct talks, and I believe there’s going to be a follow-on meeting in December.

QUESTION: So my high hopes for something other than they are agreeing to have another meeting were dashed, yes?

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think that what’s important here is that this is a process. Progress is incremental; I won’t argue with that. It’s not easy. But they continue to move forward. Proposals on territory and security were discussed, again, in the strong hopes to – that this will entice the parties back into direct negotiations.

QUESTION: And you’re telling me that there was incremental progress made here?

MR. TONER: We think every time they meet and there is a dialogue, whether – even though they’re separate meetings, but every time we do meet and talk about these issues, it’s constructive. This was – is certainly a constructive meeting, but there’s – they do plan to meet again in mid-December.

QUESTION: Just two (inaudible), Mark –

MR. TONER: Yeah, I’ll get to you, Arshad.

QUESTION: Yesterday, David Hale met separately –

MR. TONER: He did meet separately with –

QUESTION: — with Authority President Abbas and Molho. Could you tell us about the substance of the meeting?

MR. TONER: Well, I can’t get into the substance of those meetings. It’s –

QUESTION: Some of the highlights or the points that were really discussed?

MR. TONER: They were constructive. They talked about the range of issues and challenges that we face. Again, I think it’s just – we are committed to this process. We’re committed to seeing these parties get back into direct negotiations. And so we’re continuing to meet with them whenever we can on an individual basis to press our case.

QUESTION: Are you done?

QUESTION: Yeah. I just want to ask a quick follow-up.

MR. TONER: I’m not going to get – we’ve talked about it many times. We’re not going to get into the substance of those meetings.

QUESTION: With the departure of Mr. Dennis Ross, with – Mr. Hale now is the point interlocutor with the Palestinians and the Israelis on behalf of the Administration?

MR. TONER: I mean, in essence, he’s already been –

QUESTION: Right.

MR. TONER: — one of or the principal interlocutor on behalf of the Administration, so yes.

QUESTION: Okay. But our understanding was that Mr. Hale coordinated quite closely with Mr. Ross, so who does he coordinate with?

MR. TONER: Well, again, there’s a very strong team that remains in place. That team continues to work towards our goal, which is direct negotiations.

QUESTION: Do you get any sense from the meetings – the separate meetings with the parties – have they actually begun to prepare proposals on territory and security?

MR. TONER: Again, we think that they’re – they are receptive. Again, I don’t want to stray too much into the substance, but we did talk about their development of these kinds of proposals, so that was a topic of discussion.

QUESTION: But what I’m trying to figure out –

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: — and I’m not asking about the substance of their proposals or what percentage of land might be exchanged or which crops might be or what the security arrangements might be. All I’m interested in figuring out is whether they gave you any reason to believe that they’ve actually started working on such proposals, or whether your discussion of the development of such proposals came down to the Quartet saying, “Hey, please do these proposals,” and they’re saying no.

See what I mean? I mean, I’m trying to get a sense whether they’re actually starting to work on these things.

MR. TONER: Yeah. And I would just say that they’re – we believe it was a constructive atmosphere, so that both sides are receptive to these discussions and look – and ready to meet again.

QUESTION: But your statement about their – the discussion of the development of these proposals should not then be interpreted to suggest that they’re actually working on them?

MR. TONER: I don’t know, frankly, what progress has been made by – on behalf of the parties.

QUESTION: I want to ask a legal question.

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: There are – some of the settlers that actually commit acts of violence or crimes against Palestinian residents of the West Bank, such as burning their wheat field, uprooting their trees, or destroying their property and so on, they hold dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship, and they do make frequent trips back and forth to the United States. Are they, under the law, liable in the United States of America?

MR. TONER: Well, first off, we – you raise these attacks, and we certainly condemn those attacks on innocent Israeli citizens. In terms of the legal, you said that they have dual citizenship and whether they could be prevented entry or somehow –

QUESTION: Well, once they’re in the United States –

QUESTION: The attacks aren’t on Israeli citizens.

MR. TONER: What’s that?

QUESTION: The attacks aren’t on Israeli citizens.

MR. TONER: What are you talking about? Sorry, just to –

QUESTION: I’m asking that – there are settlers who hold dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship, and they travel back and forth. They enter this country on their U.S. passport.

MR. TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: They have committed some criminal acts. Are they liable under U.S. law for prosecution?

MR. TONER: Sorry, I thought you were talking about a completely different issue. I don’t know. I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: One more on Israeli-Palestinian matters. Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad has again, I gather, said that he’s willing to step down if there is – to allow for the creation of a unity government. I think the Administration’s been pretty clear that it doesn’t think the idea of a unity government between Hamas and Fatah is a very good idea. But what is your view on the possibility of a unity government, and what is your view about the possibility of Fayyad –

MR. TONER: Well, we’ve been clear in saying that – right – for Hamas to play any meaningful political role, it needs to take the steps that we’ve called on it to take – renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist, adhere to past agreements. And if it does so, we do believe it could play a political role. And with regard to his statements, it’s – those are – that’s an internal political matter. What we believe is important is that – the progress that the Palestinian Authority has made and institution building continues uninterrupted.

QUESTION: But you don’t want him to go, do you? I mean, he’s been the exemplar of building institutions for the past (inaudible).

MR. TONER: Absolutely, and that’s why I just – I made that point. I just think we want to see that progress continue.

Yeah. Sure, Said.

QUESTION: Just one follow-up on Hamas: The Jordanian Government, a close ally of the United States of America, is welcoming back Hamas without any conditions. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. TONER: I’m not sure I know what you’re–

QUESTION: They’re relocating Hamas from Damascus. You know for many years, Hamas had its headquarters in Damascus, and now they are relocating –

MR. TONER: Oh, back to –

QUESTION: — some to Cairo and some back to Amman, and in fact, the Jordanian Government said that they are welcome back, that it was wrong for them to throw Hamas out to begin with, without posing any conditions and demands on the terrorist –

MR. TONER: Well, I haven’t seen those reports, so I’m disinclined to comment on them. Our position remains the same; we believe they’re a terrorist organization. They need to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

QUESTION: Have you been able to raise the issue of potential attack by Israel on Iran? It has been about two weeks that the news reports and –

MR. TONER: I’m sorry. Raise the issue with –

QUESTION: With the Israeli Government about their potential plans.

MR. TONER: Well, I think I talked about this last week. We raised the issue of Iran and our concerns – shared concerns about Iran and their nuclear program with Israel on a regular basis.

QUESTION: So you have not asked whether Israeli Government has such plans on Iran?

MR. TONER: Again, it’s really up to the Israeli Government to explain what its policy –

QUESTION: But they don’t.

MR. TONER: — is vis-à-vis Iran. What I can say unequivocally is Israel, like the United States, like many in the international community, many in the region, have very serious concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. And certainly, those concerns have only been solidified in – after the IAEA report of last week.

QUESTION: So you are not taking any kind of stance on these news reports? You don’t comment on them whether they are (inaudible)?

MR. TONER: No.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR. TONER: Yeah. In the back, there.

QUESTION: On (inaudible), okay?

MR. TONER: Are we off – yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Taiwan foreign official in Kansas, Hsien-Hsien Liu, was arrested by FBI last week for labor contract fraud. And what’s the latest developments of this case? And can this case apply to diplomatic immunity?

MR. TONER: You’re talking about the – just for the edification of the rest of the journalists here, you’re talking about the charges brought against Liu Hsien-Hsien?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. TONER: The director general of the Kansas City Taipei Economic and Cultural Office. Well, that’s – I can’t comment on an ongoing legal matter, so I would just refer you to the United States Attorney’s Office in the Western District of Missouri. Your question, I believe, specifically touched on diplomatic immunity?

QUESTION: Yeah. So can this case apply to diplomatic immunity?

MR. TONER: You mean would she be eligible for diplomatic immunity?

QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah.

MR. TONER: My understanding is that the relevant privileges and immunities of Taiwan representatives in the United States were set forth in the October 1980 agreement on privileges, exemptions, and immunities. And under that agreement, she does enjoy a status similar to that of consular officers, which means that she would have immunity only for acts performed within the scope of her authorized functions.

QUESTION: She does what? She runs –

MR. TONER: She is the director general of the Kansas City Taipei Economic and Cultural Office.

QUESTION: There’s a Taipei cultural and economic office in Kansas City?

QUESTION: Kansas City (inaudible).

QUESTION: Do you know how many of these offices there are? Are they in other huge hubs like Wichita and –

MR. TONER: If you’re trying to have me make a comment about the importance of Kansas City –

QUESTION: No. I’m just trying –

MR. TONER: — I’m not going to go there. It is a large –

QUESTION: How many of these offices do they have?

MR. TONER: — Midwestern metropolis with – that plays a vital economic role in the country.

QUESTION: Well, I’m not trying to diss Kansas City.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Okay. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’m just wondering why that – how many of these offices are there. If they have one in Kansas City, that would mean that they –

MR. TONER: I’m not sure, Matt. That’s a fair question. I don’t –

QUESTION: Because often times these things are done reciprocally, right?

MR. TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Taiwan, which is on a map the size of – I don’t know. I can’t – if they have an office in Kansas City, how many do we have in Taiwan, which has, what, one city?

MR. TONER: One city. I think we have one. So –

QUESTION: Right. So I’m just curious because –

MR. TONER: Yeah. I’m not sure, Matt. I’ll –

QUESTION: — of the reciprocal –

MR. TONER: I can try to get you an answer to that.

QUESTION: All right. Thanks.

QUESTION: Just a question on SAARC. Do you have any update as far as the SAARC summit took place? And, U.S. delegation was led by Assistant Secretary –

MR. TONER: Oh, I’m – you know what? Goyal, no, that’s okay. You weren’t here. Assistant Secretary Blake came down and briefed us on the SAARC. So you’ll see the transcript. He did it right at the top of the briefing.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR. TONER: Just a couple more questions. Sorry. Yeah.

QUESTION: Another topic.

MR. TONER: Matt clearly caught it.

QUESTION: The officials of The Elders are visiting Korea tomorrow to meet with senior government officials there, and there is a report by South Korean media that a senior North Korean official has told The Elders that Pyongyang is willing to have an inter-Korean summit. Do you see this move as part of the concrete steps by North Korea that the U.S. has been demanding?

MR. TONER: I’ll just say that we would certainly look positively on any effort to – as we’ve said many times – to improve the dialogue between the DPRK and South Korea, and it’s impossible for me to say whether this is a positive step or a step in that direction or not based on press reports and anonymous sources.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just following up on the decision released by the State Department last week concerning the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf states. Alberta Premier Alison Redford is in Washington today. Her officials have said that she wants to seek some answers about what led to last week’s decision and the go forward process from here.

Yesterday in Hawaii, Prime Minister Harper sat down with the President. Prime Minister Harper again stated that the Canadian Government is behind Keystone, and he’s disappointed with the decision, and the President reiterated his position that he supports the decision by the State Department.

There does seem to be some tension there. How concerned is the Secretary of State about how this decision could affect Canada-U.S. relations?

MR. TONER: Well, I think that our emphasis throughout this process has been on running a very rigorous, transparent review that’s in the national interest of the United States, that would make a decision that’s in the national interest of the United States. That’s been our priority throughout. We’ve been very clear and forthright in that view. And so when we made our decision last week, we believe again that it’s incumbent on us, the State Department leading this process, to examine every option thoroughly in order to make the right decision. I can’t speak to – we certainly hope this doesn’t affect our bilateral relationship, but our decision making process on this was based solely on those criteria.

QUESTION: What kind of follow-up can there be to the sit-down that the prime minister and the President had yesterday where they seemed to be entrenched in their positions? And that does – again, that does seem to pose – to be a bit of a problem diplomatically.

MR. TONER: Well, again, we don’t view this as a bilateral problem. We are committed to continuing our rigorous process that we have in place to reach a decision. Again, our decision last week was in that spirit, and moving forward, we’re going to continue to work to make the right decision that’s in our national interests. And in terms of our bilateral relationship, we don’t believe it’s going to have a negative effect.

That’s it?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:37 p.m.)

DPB # 173