Earthquake in China: U.S. Aid Approved VIDEO PODCAST

U.S. Department of State Earthquake in China: U.S. Aid Approved FULL STREAMING VIDEO Daily Press Briefing Sean McCormack, Spokesman Washington, DC May 13, 2008 12:43 p.m. EDT PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. I don’t have any statements to start off with, so we can get right to your questions.

QUESTION: Sean, do you know if your people who are in Bangkok have yet – have gotten reports from the NGOs in the field about whether the food aid that arrived or that you guys sent actually got to the intended recipients?

MR. MCCORMACK: Hadn’t heard, hadn’t heard. I know that we’re going to try to, as best we can, cobble together a feedback group to – so that we can understand, as you said, whether that aid that is entering into Rangoon is making it down to distribution points in the affected areas. And what we were hoping to do is work with NGOs to try to get an idea roughly -- you’re never going to get a precise accounting of it, but roughly whether or not the food that we are sending in is making it down to affected areas. I don’t have feedback from our guys yet. Be happy to, once we have an assessment, you know, a large enough sample size to make an assessment, provide that.

QUESTION: Okay. You’re aware of the reports that not all --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- things are getting to where they should be going and that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- in some cases, that spoiled goods are being given to civilians and the military --

MR. MCCORMACK: I know. I’ve seen all the various reports. At this point, I’m not going to offer any particular comment until we have, as I said, some reliable information or information that we can consider reliable, and that we have enough of a sample size there to assure ourselves that either things are working or things aren’t working or somewhere in between.

QUESTION: Well, I’m – the reason I’m asking this is because of the – it’s somewhat related to the idea of distribution of food aid to North Korea, to where you’ve made this distribution and ensuring that it gets to the people a precondition for that aid. Why not – why wasn’t that the case with Burma?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you’re – well, you’re dealing with, first of all, a natural disaster in Burma. You have a quick reaction --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- down there. In North Korea, it has been an ongoing problem. It is not just us that has had concerns in that regard, but others; the World Food Program, for instance, did. Now, all of that said, we actually did have some very good conversations. The team that went to North Korea had some good conversations about North – what North Korea believed it needed in terms of humanitarian assistance and how we might go about improving the monitoring mechanism for the distribution of that food. That, as you pointed out, was really sort of the biggest hangup that we had in the past.

We have, to a large degree, been able to work through what we – or come up with what we believe could be a better monitoring mechanism for the food. So we’re now taking a close look at what the needs are, what our capabilities to help fill that need might be, as well as, you know, seeing if everybody is comfortable throughout the U.S. Government with the kinds of monitoring mechanisms that would be put in place. I don’t have an announcement today.

QUESTION: Right. So it’s a question of urgency? Is that what you’re saying? Because some would argue --

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: -- that the situation in North Korea is urgent and has been --

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: -- for some time.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. Look, they are completely different situations, Matt, just totally and completely different situations. With North Korea, you have a long history of dealing with this issue. And while we have made attempts to work – you know, work through it and come up with a better monitoring mechanism, it isn’t really up until the current day that we think that we are on the verge of coming up with a monitoring mechanism that is much better. In Burma, you have something that came upon the world in Burma quite suddenly, and you’re doing what you can to try to remediate what is a terrible, terrible situation.

You know, I’m sure that we will all have an opportunity in the future to do after-action reports and to think about how to improve responses. Up until this point, the real obstacle has been the regime.

Yeah.

QUESTION: So the news reports that you’ve agreed on 500,000 tons of food aid are wrong? Is that what you’re saying, that you haven’t reached a deal yet?

MR. MCCORMACK: What I’m saying is I don’t have any announcements for you today. No final decisions have been made. But we did have a good set of – the information that the team brought back was fed into our decision-making process, one which is really almost constantly ongoing, where you’re looking at the need, the capability, and then, as we just talked about, the need for robust monitoring mechanisms.

QUESTION: Would you say you’re leaning sort of more towards sending that food aid?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, we had some good discussions. We’ll probably have some announcements for you in the coming days, but nothing for you today.

QUESTION: Because last week, you said they were inconclusive, so --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, and we had a long discussion about that. Just because it was inconclusive, we didn’t have the information back from the teams, so I couldn’t offer you an assessment of their discussions there. They’ve had the opportunity to come back, report. People have had a chance to digest that information, analyze it. And we’re working on, now, a proposal for food aid to address the humanitarian need in North Korea.

QUESTION: So would you say, in principle, you’ve agreed to it?

MR. MCCORMACK: What I’d say, in principle, is we don’t have an announcement till we have an announcement and there’s no announcement today.

Yeah. Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: On Colombia and about extradition on --

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Anything else on – hold on a second – anything else on North Korea food aid?

QUESTION: An aid question for China or is that --

MR. MCCORMACK: That’s totally separate.

QUESTION: Another subject.

MR. MCCORMACK: That is as we would say, only tangentially, both regionally and topic-wise related.

Yes. Colombia.

QUESTION: Yeah. On Colombia and about extradition of 14 paramilitary leaders that happened this morning, there is a concern about what’s going to happen with the victims and their crimes. Probably they’re going to be an impunity. What’s your opinion about that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, I think it’s – the extradition of the 14 former paramilitary leaders is an indication of the strong relationship between the United States and Colombia and also demonstrates the Colombian Government’s commitment to the following through on the justice and peace process. There are mechanisms in our bilateral arrangements which will allow for information to flow back to Colombia in response to questions posed.

And I would expect and I’ll – let me state upfront, the Department of Justice is going to talk about any judicial procedures or processes. But I would expect if there are judicial processes and procedures, that there would also be a wide airing of the kinds of information that not only we, but the citizens of Colombia and specifically those who had friends or family members victimized by these paramilitaries, would be able – would have access to.

Sue.

QUESTION: Different topic? Iran says it’s going to put forward its own proposals --

MR. MCCORMACK: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: -- to resolve this little nuclear dispute.

MR. MCCORMACK: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: I just wondered what your views were on Iran coming up with its own ideas. Do you think that it would have merit -- that their proposals would have merit?

And then secondly –

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- when are you going to – or when is the P-4+1 going to do that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing for you.

QUESTION: -- excluding you?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Nothing for you.

QUESTION: They’ll deliver it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look, we’re – I know people like to make a lot of the fact that, you know, we – we’re not going to send our political director to Tehran or elsewhere to meet with Iranian interlocutors concerning the proposal that’s been on the table. I think that distracts from the fundamentally sound offer which is on the table for the Iranians and now has been refreshed and will be presented to them again in the not-too-distant future.

Now, as for the delivery mechanisms and – those will be worked out. But frankly, that is – those are just minor protocolary niceties at the --

QUESTION: What was the word?

MR. MCCORMACK: -- protocolary niceties at this point.

QUESTION: Is that a real word?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it is. Check it out.

QUESTION: Well, I will.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. It’s – yeah. Matt, very often, I know you have to refer to the dictionary for the big words we use at the briefing here. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: (Laughter.) Anything that, you know, gets beyond the three, four-letter limit. You know --

QUESTION: (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: So look, we’re working through all of those. And in terms of the Iranian proposal, they know what the requirements are. It’s been clearly stated in Security Council and IAEA Board of Governors statements and resolutions. So they know what – they know what the bar is. Thus far, they have not even come close to getting over the bar, but we will –we shall see.

QUESTION: So you don’t have -- hold out much hope for this? You think it’s going to be –

MR. MCCORMACK: We’ll see. Given the track record, if they continue on the trend and pathway that they have been on, I don’t think anybody is going to hold their breath. But one, again, would hope that they decide to change course in the face of mounting cost to Iran for its behavior that is clearly outside the lines of acceptable behavior in the international system as defined by three Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: So you haven’t set a date for the delivery of the refreshed packaged?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think – I would expect it’s going to be soon. I don’t know. I haven’t checked this morning, but I’m not aware that anybody has agreed upon a date on the calendar.

QUESTION: So have you agreed upon the text of what the letter and the – whatever’s going to accompany it – and the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, we’ll – in the fullness of time, when all of this gets delivered, we will talk about all of these various topics in detail. At the moment, I don’t have anything new for you.

Yes.

QUESTION: Time is getting pretty full on this. I mean, you can’t say anything about what exactly is the delay, and is Iran refusing to receive –

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, no.

QUESTION: -- a delegation that doesn’t include the U.S.?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. We’re still dotting some Is and crossing some Ts among the P-5+1.

Yeah. Gollust back there.

QUESTION: Well my question – Libby seemed to start asking about the state of play with China –

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: on U.S. earthquake aid. Could you --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right now, the Chinese Government has said it will accept donations. And I believe that they have specified monetary donations, and we have approved a $500,000 initial donation. The Embassy came back to Washington with that request. It has been approved. So I would expect that that is going to be delivered very soon. I understand also that the Red – International Red Cross is going to be putting out a call for donations. We’ll, of course, take a look to see what we can do to help with what is very clearly a very difficult situation for the Chinese Government and the Chinese people as they deal with this natural disaster.

Again, from our point of view and our folks, our people are accounted for. Our consulate in Chengdu is up and working and appears that, at least through visible inspection, hasn’t suffered any damage. And we’re continuing to work with people on the ground there as well as anybody who has an interest in welfare and whereabouts of friends or loved ones.

Yeah.

QUESTION: There has been reports of some Americans who are in a panda sanctuary somewhere out there and they can’t be found. Do you have any information --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- about that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the – I think the responsible Chinese ministry has said that they are okay and accounted for. We haven’t had any direct contact with them, though.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: So I can’t based on our direct contact or experience with them, I can’t say that they’re okay, but we have heard they are okay.

QUESTION: And then the other question was, you had said, I think, yesterday, that the U.S. is considering or making ready certain teams to go in for search and rescue and so on. Do you know any news on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. The offer still stands. Thus far, the Chinese haven’t put in a request for those – that kind of assistance. And, you know, having, back during Katrina, been on the receiving end of those kinds of offers, very oftentimes, you know, offers of monetary assistance are really the things that are most useful during these initial periods.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On India, Sean, do you have anything on these – apparently, there were a number of bombings earlier today there.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, we’re still collecting some information about this. But, you know, given the facts that we know now, quite clearly, these bombs were intended to claim innocent life, and it’s something that we very clearly condemn. I don’t – I can’t offer you any more insight as to who might be responsible or who the victims were. I don’t have any news reports of American citizens being affected by this, but again, as the situation develops and we get a little bit more information, we’ll probably have a more full statement out this afternoon about it.

QUESTION: Can you rule out whether it was al-Qaida or not?

MR. MCCORMACK: Don’t know. I mean, it was – as I understand it, based on the reports that we have, is five or six bombs set off, timed to go off in a compressed period of time, either in sequence or at the same time; quite clearly, an act designed to take innocent lives.

QUESTION: Can I go back to China for just a second?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: 500,000 is for who?

MR. MCCORMACK: Disaster – it’s disaster relief. It goes to the NGOs working on disaster relief.

QUESTION: That’s what the Chinese have asked for? They’ve asked for cash donations to NGOs or they’ve asked --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- for the money to go to them?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, I think it goes through NGOs. I can’t tell you exactly what the end use is for, Matt, but it’s humanitarian assistance. I can’t tell you whether it’s for food or tarps or plastic sheeting or water, that sort of thing.

QUESTION: But it goes to NGOs?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it goes through NGOs.

Yeah, Michel.

QUESTION: Yes. Sean, U.S. victims of attacks in Israel and their families are suing Swiss bank UBS for $500 million alleging it financed terrorism by doing business with Iran. Do you have anything on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t, Michel. Let me check for you. You know, when – you know, our, obviously, sentiments are to make sure that victims of terrorism are able to, in a fair way, address their claims. But I want to tread carefully whenever you have legal issues involved, so let me check on that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on that American Vietnamese political activist who was sentenced to six months in jail today in Hanoi? And he was accused of terrorism. He’s being allowed to come home, but I wondered whether you had any comment (a), on the sentence and (b), whether – and the charges of terrorism against him.

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me understand the facts of the case a little bit better before I offer comment.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on this incident in Zimbabwe between the diplomatic convoy with the U.S. Ambassador and the police in --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I guess there were – let me get the list here and get this right. There were several chiefs of mission. Our chief of mission, Ambassador James McGee, chiefs of mission from the U.K, EU and Japan and officials from Netherlands and Tanzanian missions were questioned for about 45 minutes today by Zimbabwean security forces outside – at a roadblock outside of Harare. Now, this was, I believe, also after they were – they had visited a hospital. They were delayed from leaving the hospital grounds. They were questioned as to what they were doing there.

In neither of these cases were any of the individuals physically harmed. Nothing was confiscated. And their travel after the roadblock, which was the second of the two incidences – incidents continued uninterrupted. I don’t know if -- you know, the Ambassador will follow up as he sees appropriate with the Zimbabwean Government, but it’s indicative of the kind of atmosphere that is -- that exists in Zimbabwe right now. If you have foreign diplomats accredited to Zimbabwe who are facing this kind of treatment, you know, you can only imagine for Zimbabwean citizens what life is like if they make an effort to speak up and voice their opinions. So again, it’s indicative of the kind of atmosphere that exists in Zimbabwe right now.

QUESTION: Do you see it as a form of harassment?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think I’d want to talk to Ambassador McGee a little bit more closely, but you know, yeah, I guess it is harassment. You know, I don’t know how he felt, but if -- by definition, if on two occasions you’re held up for, you know, nearly two hours and questioned about what you’re doing by security officials, then yeah, that’s harassment, sure.

QUESTION: And on a related matter, the Zimbabwean Government has said it will only accept -- it will not accept international monitors from countries that have imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe and only if those sanctions are lifted will international monitors from those nations be allowed in. I wonder whether you had -- is this something that you might consider, you know, lifting sanctions so that your monitors --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t think --

QUESTION: -- can go in?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it’s our view that probably beyond our Embassy officials, I’m not sure that it would be productive to have U.S. Government monitors there. Now, the question of from where monitors should come is an open one right now. We would push for more openness to more countries and more monitors as our default position. It’s something that we are talking very closely with the SADC countries that are, you know, effectively in the lead on this, as well as with the UN, who is also going to play an important role in generating monitors on the ground there.

So you know, our default position is that there shouldn’t be any restrictions in terms of nationality or geography regarding the monitors. But again, we’re working with the SADC and the UN on this.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On the Secretary’s last trip to Israel and West Bank, she talked a good bit about the importance of lifting roadblocks and checkpoints that actually mean something --

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The qualitative --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, qualitative measure (inaudible).

QUESTION: Can you update us on the status of that, you know, review and whether she’s going to take up the same question on this trip that -- for which she leaves today?

MR. MCCORMACK: We’ll she’s traveling with the President --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- and so she’s part of the President’s party. You know, I don’t --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: I’m -- I don’t know if she’s going to have any side meetings or not. But the President’s travel to Israel is not intended -- it’s intended to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary. Now, I would suspect that along the way there would be substantive discussions, but you know, I’m -- the White House will handle description of those discussions.

As to the review of the roadblocks, I haven’t talked to Will Fraser recently. Maybe we can try to generate something for you guys. I don’t have an assessment.

QUESTION: On that, do you know anything about a Canadian aide to General Dayton going down to Gaza and meeting with Hamas?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I don’t.

Yeah, Samir.

QUESTION: Yesterday, you issued the statement on the Friends of Lebanon.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: How is this -- these commitments and the statement going to translate on the ground in Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what specifically are you referring to, Samir?

QUESTION: I mean, like how are you going to strengthen the government and allow the army to play a different role?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, those are, at the end of the day, going to be decisions that the Lebanese Government takes in terms of how it addresses the current situation. We have supported -- we and the Friends of Lebanon have supported this government diplomatically and politically. We’ll continue to do so. As I said, we have had a continuing program of military assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces. I think that’s been valuable in terms of the capabilities of those armed forces, not only training but in terms of material. That continues. I know others have programs of cooperation. So there are a lot of different ways that we can continue to support Lebanon, and I don’t have anything more specific to offer you at this point, though.

QUESTION: Anything from the Security Council? Any action through Security Council?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I know that it was a topic of discussion among members of the Security Council.

QUESTION: On military aid, the President’s interview with Al Arabiya yesterday said he was not satisfied, fully satisfied, with the performance of the Lebanese army. How can you, at this point, assure taxpayers that the aid has been well spent? And he appeared to be indicating -- you know, hinting that there may be a request soon for more aid. How -- how will that money be better spent if their performance wasn’t up to snuff in this go-round?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think you just look back at the qualitative measures and their performance up in the camps in -- around Tripoli, down in Nahar al-Bared, the performance was outstanding. Again, I’m not going to --

QUESTION: That didn’t threaten the U.S.-backed government in Beirut, however.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, it’s -- look, you know, I’m not going to offer an assessment of their performance from here. I think that the Lebanese Government has used them in ways that they thought benefitted the best interests of the Lebanese people. And it’s a very tough situation. But it’s an organization that has made progress in terms of its capabilities over the past several years. It used to be the case that this was a military that could not help exercise sovereignty throughout all of Lebanon. Now, there are still issues with respect to that and control of borders and other things. And quite clearly, the -- Hezbollah’s illegal activities and violent activities posed a challenge not only to the institutions of the government, but also to the military. They are responding to it. Our job is to do what we can to help them respond to it.

Yeah.

QUESTION: You said that the Military Assistance Program is continuing.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Would you – and would you consider stepping up this program?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t have anything to announce in that regard today.

QUESTION: Sean, on the conference call, what – how long did it go?

MR. MCCORMACK: Wasn’t a long time. I don’t have a – you know --

QUESTION: I understand it was something like 4:11. It was supposed to start at 2:00. It couldn’t have started on time. It wasn’t two and half --

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t know. I think it was like 45 minutes or an hour.

QUESTION: 45 minutes?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, you had a lot of – and as I went through --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- yesterday, a lot of participants. So --

QUESTION: So --

MR. MCCORMACK: – and their ministers, so –

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- all like to talk and --

QUESTION: Right. So, is – how come it took about -- almost four hours for the statement to come out?

MR. MCCORMACK: That’s – Matt for a multilateral statement, that is record time, man.

QUESTION: Yeah. It is? Then how come that’s --

MR. MCCORMACK: Absolutely. That is light speed.

QUESTION: How come that statement doesn’t have the word “Hezbollah” in it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, this is – look, it’s an agreed-upon statement. You know, we don’t write them ourselves. If we wrote them ourselves, it would come out a little bit differently. That said, we think it’s a good, strong, solid statement.

QUESTION: It seems an awful lot like the Arab League statement from –

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look – hey, look at what Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said today, concerning Lebanon. I think that’s a very strong statement. So there’s no lack of condemnation of what Hezbollah has done. Everybody understands that their acts were illegal acts that resulted in the deaths of innocent Lebanese. So they have demonstrated a willingness to kill the citizens of their own country, which is certainly a tragedy for Lebanon and all the more reason why the world is rallying to the support of this government.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: I have a question regarding Rewards for Justice. There was an interesting report this morning in US News & World Report that al-Masri, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq was dropped quietly from the list. He had a $5 million reward for him – he was then added to a DOD list at only a $100,000 reward. Can you explain why he was dropped from this list?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, there – these things always involve a lot of discussion and it happens from time to time, you know, to – essentially, you have people making judgments that doing that will actually be more effective in helping get -- either dealing with or getting our hands on this individual. So I can’t – I don’t want to go into it any more than that. But essentially, people on the ground think that these actions will actually help them in what they’re doing to address the security threat posed by these kinds of individuals.

QUESTION: Is that indicative of you seeing his influence in Iraq waning? Do you see him as not as important? Is that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Kirit, you know, to try to open up this any more and walk through it really defeats the purpose of taking the steps that they did. I would – I would say only that this is – these types of things, and I don’t have specific information on this case, but in general, I know – I’ve been aware of previous cases where this was considered – that there’s a lot of input from people on the ground before those kinds of decisions are taken.

QUESTION: Okay. And I guess that that was my question, was whether this was a decision that was made at the behest of somebody in Iraq or –

MR. MCCORMACK: I can’t tell you the originator of the idea. But I know for a fact in these cases that the folks on the ground have heavy input.

Yeah, Michel.

QUESTION: Sean, after what happened in Beirut, have you sent any message, any clear message to Syria and Iran to stop interfering in Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: I try to do it almost every single day from here. I don’t think it --

QUESTION: (inaudible) the statements.

MR. MCCORMACK: I’m not aware of any direct communication that we’ve had, certainly, with the Iranians.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:10 p.m.) DPB # 85 Released on May 13, 2008

Tags: China and Earthquake or North Korea

John McCain Television Ad: "Johnny's Mom"

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign released a new television ad, entitled "Johnny's Mom." In time for Mother's Day, "Johnny's Mom" features John McCain and his mother, Roberta McCain, discussing his childhood. The ad aired Sunday on Mother's Day on select DirecTV channels including ABC Family, A&E, Hallmark Channel, Lifetime, Oxygen and TLC.

For Immediate Release, New Television Ad: "Johnny's Mom" May 8, 2008 Contact: Press Office 703-650-5550

Tags: John McCain and Johnny's Mom or Roberta McCain

John McCain on Climate Change Policy - TV AD - A Better Way

TV AD - A Better Way

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks as prepared for delivery at the Vestas Training Facility, in Portland, OR: (editors note: as soon as the video for the following speech is avalable it will be posted here)

Thank you all very much. I appreciate the hospitality of Vestas Wind Technology. Today is a kind of test run for the company. They've got wind technicians here, wind studies, and all these wind turbines, but there's no wind. So now I know why they asked me to come give a speech.

Every day, when there are no reporters and cameras around to draw attention to it, this company and others like it are doing important work. And what we see here is just a glimpse of much bigger things to come. Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better. And one day they will change our economy forever.

Wind is a clean and predictable source of energy, and about as renewable as anything on earth. Along with solar power, fuel-cell technology, cleaner burning fuels and other new energy sources, wind power will bring America closer to energy independence. Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, and so, in many ways, does our security. A large share of the world's oil reserves is controlled by foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. And as our reliance on oil passes away, their power will vanish with it.

In the coming weeks, I intend to address many of the great challenges that America's energy policies must meet. When we debate energy bills in Washington, it should be more than a competition among industries for special favors, subsidies, and tax breaks. In the Congress, we need to send the special interests on their way -- without their favors and subsidies. We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and on all the resources a free market can provide. We need to keep our eyes on big goals in energy policy, the serious dangers, and the common interests of the American people.

Today I'd like to focus on just one of those challenges, and among environmental dangers it is surely the most serious of all. Whether we call it "climate change" or "global warming," in the end we're all left with the same set of facts. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we to act meet the challenge, and act quickly.

Some of the most compelling evidence of global warming comes to us from NASA. No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I've seen some of this evidence up close. A few years ago I traveled to the area of Svalbard, Norway, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean. I was shown the southernmost point where a glacier had reached twenty years earlier. From there, we had to venture northward up the fjord to see where that same glacier ends today -- because all the rest has melted. On a trip to Alaska, I heard about a national park visitor's center that was built to offer a picture-perfect view of a large glacier. Problem is, the glacier is gone. A work of nature that took ages to form had melted away in a matter of decades.

Our scientists have also seen and measured reduced snowpack, with earlier runoffs in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. We have seen sustained drought in the Southwest, and across the world average temperatures that seem to reach new records every few years. We have seen a higher incidence of extreme weather events. In the frozen wilds of Alaska, the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, wildlife biologists have noted sudden changes in animal migration patterns, a loss of their habitat, a rise in sea levels. And you would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new dangers, then humanity can respond as well.

We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.

There are vital measures we can take in the short term, even as we focus on long-term policies to mitigate the effects of global warming. In the years ahead, we are likely to see reduced water supplies, more forest fires than in previous decades, changes in crop production, more heat waves afflicting our cities and a greater intensity in storms. Each one of these consequences of climate change will require policies to protect our citizens, especially those most vulnerable to violent weather. Each one will require new precautions in the repair and construction of our roads, bridges, railways, seawalls and other infrastructure. Some state and local governments have already begun their planning and preparation for extreme events and other impacts of climate change. The federal government can help them in many ways, above all by coordinating their efforts, and I am committed to providing that support.

To lead in this effort, however, our government must strike at the source of the problem -- with reforms that only Congress can enact and the president can sign. We know that greenhouse gasses are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change. And we know that among all greenhouse gasses, the worst by far is the carbon-dioxide that results from fossil-fuel combustion. Yet for all the good work of entrepreneurs and inventors in finding cleaner and better technologies, the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy. This has to change before we can make the decisive shift away from fossil fuels.

For the market to do more, government must do more by opening new paths of invention and ingenuity. And we must do this in a way that gives American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow. The most direct way to achieve this is through a system that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gases, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions. And this is the proposal I will submit to the Congress if I am elected president -- a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy.

As a program under the Clean Air Act, the cap-and-trade system achieved enormous success in ridding the air of acid rain. And the same approach that brought a decline in sulfur dioxide emissions can have an equally dramatic and permanent effect on carbon emissions. Instantly, automakers, coal companies, power plants, and every other enterprise in America would have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions, because when they go under those limits they can sell the balance of permitted emissions for cash. As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy. It is very hard to picture venture capitalists, corporate planners, small businesses and environmentalists all working to the same good purpose. But such cooperation is actually possible in the case of climate change, and this reform will set it in motion.

The people of this country have a genius for adapting, solving problems, and inventing new and better ways to accomplish our goals. But the federal government can't just summon those talents by command -- only the free market can draw them out. A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy. The market will evolve, too, by requiring sensible reductions in greenhouse gases, but also by allowing full flexibility in how industry meets that requirement. Entrepreneurs and firms will know which energy investments they should make. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices. A cap-and-trade reform wi ll also create a profitable opportunity for rural America to receive market-based payments -- instead of government subsidies -- for the conservation practices that store carbon in the soils of our nation's farms.

We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring progress by reference to past carbon emissions. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the course of time, it may be that new ideas and technologies will come along that we can hardly imagine today, allowing all industries to change with a speed that will surprise us. More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt -- and that is good economic policy. It is also a matter of simple fairness, because the cap-and-trade system will create jobs, improve livelihoods, and strengthen futures across our country.

The goal in all of this is to assure an energy supply that is safe, secure, diverse, and domestic. And in pursuit of these objectives, we cannot afford to take economic growth and job creation for granted. A strong and growing economy is essential to all of our goals, and especially the goal of finding alternatives to carbon-based technology. We want to turn the American economy toward cleaner and safer energy sources. And you can't achieve that by imposing costs that the American economy cannot sustain.

As part of my cap-and-trade incentives, I will also propose to include the purchase of offsets from those outside the scope of the trading system. This will broaden the array of rewards for reduced emissions, while also lowering the costs of compliance with our new emissions standards. Through the sale of offsets -- and with strict standards to assure that reductions are real -- our agricultural sector alone can provide as much as forty percent of the overall reductions we will require in greenhouse gas emissions. And in the short term, farmers and ranchers can do it in some of the most cost-effective ways.

Over time, an increasing fraction of permits for emissions could be supplied by auction, yielding federal revenues that can be put to good use. Under my plan, we will apply these and other federal funds to help build the infrastructure of a post-carbon economy. We will support projects to advance technologies that capture and store carbon emissions. We will assist in transmitting wind- and solar-generated power from states that have them to states that need them. We will add to current federal efforts to develop promising technologies, such as plug-ins, hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles, and hydrogen-powered cars and trucks. We will also establish clear standards in government-funded research, to make sure that funding is effective and focused on the right goals.

And to create greater demand for the best technologies and practices in energy conservation, we will use the purchasing power of the United States government. Our government can hardly expect citizens and private businesses to adopt or invest in low-carbon technologies when it doesn't always hold itself to the same standard. We need to set a better example in Washington, by consistently applying the best environmental standards to every purchase our government makes.

As we move toward all of these goals, and over time put the age of fossil fuels behind us, we must consider every alternative source of power, and that includes nuclear power. When our cap-and-trade policy is in place, there will be a sudden and sustained pursuit in the market for new investment opportunities in low-emission fuel sources. And here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions. We have 104 nuclear reactors in our country, generating about twenty percent of our electricity. These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released every year. That's the annual equivalent of nearly all emissions from all the cars we drive in America. Europe, for its part, has 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. Those good practices contribute to the more than two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide avoided every year, worldwide, because of nuclear energy. It doesn't take a leap in logic to conclude that if we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful ally in that cause.

In a cap-and-trade energy economy, the cost of building new reactors will be less prohibitive. The incentives to invest in a mature, zero-emissions technology will be stronger. New research and innovation will help the industry to overcome the well known drawbacks to nuclear power, such as the transport and storage of waste. And our government can help in these efforts. We can support research to extend the use of existing plants. Above all, we must make certain that every plant in America is safe from the designs of terrorists. And when all of this is assured, it will be time again to expand our use of one of the cleanest, safest, and most reliable sources of energy on earth.

For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction -- toward machines, methods, and industries that used oil and gas. Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren't counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans, and all across the natural world. They are no longer tenable, sustainable, or defensible. And what better way to correct past errors than to turn the creative energies of the free market in the other direction? Under the cap-and-trade system, this can happen. In all its power, the profit motive will suddenly begin to shift and point the other way toward cleaner fuels, wiser ways, and a healthier planet.

As a nation, we make our own environmental plans and our own resolutions. But working with other nations to arrest climate change can be an even tougher proposition. One of the greatest difficulties is to gain the cooperation of China. That nation today is dealing with a catastrophic earthquake and the loss of thousands of citizens, including many children and students. The United States government has offered to help in any way possible, and all of us hope that rescuers will be able to save more lives at a terrible time for the people of the Sichuan Province.

In addressing the problem of climate change, cooperation from the government of China will be essential. China, India, and other developing economic powers in particular are among the greatest contributors to global warming today – increasing carbon emissions at a furious pace – and they are not receptive to international standards. Nor do they think that we in the industrialized world are in any position to preach the good news of carbon-emission control. We made most of our contributions to global warming before anyone knew about global warming.

This set of facts and perceived self-interests proved the undoing of the Kyoto Protocols. As president, I will have to deal with the same set of facts. I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach -- an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation.

Shared dangers mean shared duties, and global problems require global cooperation. The United States and our friends in Europe cannot alone deal with the threat of global warming. No nation should be exempted from its obligations. And least of all should we make exceptions for the very countries that are accelerating carbon emissions while the rest of us seek to reduce emissions. If we are going to establish meaningful environmental protocols, then they must include the two nations that have the potential to pollute the air faster, and in greater annual volume, than any nation ever in history.

At the same time, we will continue in good faith to negotiate with China and other nations to enact the standards and controls that are in the interest of every nation -- whatever their stage of economic development. And America can take the lead in offering these developing nations the low-carbon technologies that we will make and they will need. One good idea or invention to reduce carbon emissions is worth a thousand finely crafted proposals at a conference table. And the governments of these developing economic powers will soon recognize, as America is beginning to do, their urgent need for cleaner-burning fuels and safer sources of energy.

If the efforts to negotiate an international solution that includes China and India do not succeed, we still have an obligation to act.

In my approach to global climate-control efforts, we will apply the principle of equal treatment. We will apply the same environmental standards to industries in China, India, and elsewhere that we apply to our own industries. And if industrializing countries seek an economic advantage by evading those standards, I would work with the European Union and other like-minded governments that plan to address the global warming problem to develop effective diplomacy, effect a transfer of technology, or other means to engage those countries that decline to enact a similar cap.

For all of its historical disregard of environmental standards, it cannot have escaped the attention of the Chinese regime that China's skies are dangerously polluted, its beautiful rivers are dying, its grasslands vanishing, its coastlines receding, and its own glaciers melting. We know many of these signs from our own experience -- from environmental lessons learned the hard way. And today, all the world knows that they are the signs of even greater trouble to come. Pressing on blindly with uncontrolled carbon emissions is in no one's interest, especially China's. And the rest of the world stands ready to help.

Like other environmental challenges -- only more so -- global warming presents a test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next. We need to think straight about the dangers ahead, and to meet the problem with all the resources of human ingenuity at our disposal. We Americans like to say that there is no problem we can't solve, however complicated, and no obstacle we cannot overcome if we meet it together. I believe this about our country. I know this about our country. And now it is time for us to show those qualities once again.

Thank you. ###

Tags: John McCain and Climate Change or global warming

A digital haven for terrorists on our own shores?

Caption: Prof. Niv Ahituv. Credit: AFTAU. Usage Restrictions: None.

If you use one of America’s top Internet service providers, you may share server space with an organization that enables worldwide terrorism, says a new study by Tel Aviv University. A workshop on terrorist organizations and the Internet was organized for the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) by the Netvision Institute for Internet Studies (NIIS) and the Interdisciplinary Center for Technology Analysis & Forecasting, both of Tel Aviv University. Berlin’s Institute for Cooperation Management and Interdisciplinary Research (NEXUS), affiliated with the Technical University of Berlin, also participated in the workshop.

The findings were presented in Berlin to a closed audience of high-ranking representatives from NATO in February 2008.

Organizing and Recruiting Online

Enlisted by NATO officials to study the web activity of terrorist organizations, researchers found that some of the world’s most dangerous organizations are operating on American turf. Hezbollah, the Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda all have websites hosted by popular American Internet service providers –– the same companies that most of us use every day.

“These websites hosted in America are targeting Muslim mothers in America, Canada, the U.K. and all over the world, convincing them that being ‘Shahid’ or a suicide bomber is particularly good and very important for their sons,” says Prof. Niv Ahituv of the NIIS.

Available in English, Arabic, Spanish and other languages, the websites also provide tutorials on bomb building and enlist impressionable American and British Muslim women and men into a life of terror activity.

Free-Speech for Terrorists

Prof. Ahituv acknowledges the dilemma that America’s First Amendment creates — free-speech protections may foster propaganda directed towards the U.S. “America’s First Amendment protects these websites from being shut down,” he says, recognizing the irony of waging a war on terror when some of the most dangerous propaganda is being created at home.

According to the study, the Islamic Jihad operates 15 websites in Arabic and English, hosted by both U.S. and Canadian companies. Hamas operates 20 websites in eight languages, a portion of which are based in the U.S and Canada, while Hezbollah operates 20 websites, also hosted by companies in the U.S. and Canada.

Limited Successes and American Law

The FBI has shut down a few websites, but American law prevents the closure of most, says Prof. Ahituv. Terrorists could coordinate a 9/11-scale attack via these websites, he warns. There are, however, some people who believe that leaving those websites intact is desired in order to monitor content, trends and policy. It is hard to tell which side is right, adds Prof. Ahituv.

An issue of great concern is that terrorist organizations are using the Internet to bypass the role of the established press, he notes. “Since those organizations do not possess TV stations, radio stations and printed press outlets, they use the Internet to impart their views and events to the public and to the media.” ###

American Friends of Tel Aviv University supports Israel’s largest and most comprehensive center of higher learning. It is ranked among the world’s top 100 universities in science, biomedical studies, and social science, and rated one of the world’s top 200 universities overall. Internationally recognized for the scope and groundbreaking nature of its research programs, Tel Aviv University consistently produces work with profound implications for the future.

For more information, see The Netvision Institute for Internet Studies, www.niis.tau.ac.il. Contact: George Hunka ghunka@aftau.org 212-742-9070 American Friends of Tel Aviv University

Tags: American Friends of Tel Aviv University and Internet service providers or digital media

Freedom Calendar 05/10/08 - 05/17/08

May 10, 1866, U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no.

May 11, 1949, Birth of African-American Republican and sharecropper’s daughter Janice Rogers Brown, nominated by President George W. Bush as Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

May 12, 1850, Birth of U.S. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA), whose 1890 Federal Elections Bill enforcing African-American voting rights passed House on party-line vote but was defeated in Senate by a Democrat filibuster.

May 13, 1983, President Ronald Reagan designates first national observance of American Indian Day.

May 14, 1971, Republican Senators Jacob Javits (NY) and Charles Percy (IL) appoint the first female pages in U.S. Senate.

May 15, 1999, Death of Judge John Minor Wisdom of U.S. Court of Appeals, renowned author of landmark civil rights decisions; appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower to key Fifth Circuit covering Southern states.

May 16, 1860, U.S. Rep. David Wilmot (R-PA), anti-slavery leader and Republican Party co-founder, delivers keynote address at Republican National Convention nominating Abraham Lincoln.

May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education.

“Believing that the spirit of our institutions as well as the Constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation impairing their security.”

1856 Republican Party national platform

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or NAACP and Republicans or African-Americans and 13th Amendment or right to vote and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Brown v. Board of Education and Martin Luther King or Dred Scott

Presidential Podcast 05/10/08

Presidential Podcast 05/10/08 . Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Mother's Day

Bush radio address 05/10/08 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 05/10/08 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address

Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today is my daughter Jenna's wedding day. This is a joyous occasion for our family, as we celebrate the happy life ahead of her and her husband Henry. It's also a special time for Laura, who this Mother's Day weekend will watch a young woman we raised together walk down the aisle.

Mother's Day is a special time for mothers all across America. On this holiday, we pause to celebrate the love and compassion of the women who have raised us, and to thank them for the many years of patience and selflessness. Throughout our lives, mothers are there with an encouraging word, a sympathetic ear, and a tender heart. They set our direction in life, and from time to time they have been known to correct our course.

Like many of you, my life has been blessed by a mother who is a source of unconditional love. Those of us who have been so fortunate are forever in debt to these caring women. So on this holiday weekend, we celebrate all those mothers who help make our country a better place.

On this Mother's Day weekend, we think of the mothers who are celebrating this holiday for the very first time. Few blessings can compare to starting a new family. And few bonds are stronger than those between a mother and her newborn baby. This is also a special time for new adoptive mothers, who have welcomed their children into their homes with open arms and an open heart. We wish all these new parents many happy Mother's Days to come.

On this Mother's Day weekend, we think of the many mothers who raised the brave men and women serving our country in uniform. And to those mothers, I offer the thanks of a grateful Nation. Your sons and daughters are defending our freedom with dignity and honor. And America appreciates the sacrifices that your families make in the name of duty.

On this Mother's Day weekend, we remember the mothers grieving a son or daughter lost in the service to their country, as well as the children who have lost a mother in uniform. We share their pride in these wonderful Americans who have given everything to protect our people from harm. Nothing we say can ever make up for their loss. But on this special day, we hold them in our hearts and we lift them in our prayers.

I wish every mother listening this morning a blessed Mother's Day, including my own. And I have a message for every son and daughter listening this morning: Remember to tell mom the first thing tomorrow how much you love her.

Thank you for listening. # # #

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary May 10, 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Mother's Day

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 05/10/08

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 05/10/08 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST

Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova y recibir la dirección de radio presidencial semanal en inglés y español con informes selectos del departamento del estado. Ofreciendo transcripciones audio y con texto completo verdaderas, más fuentes contentas agregaron a menudo así que la estancia templó.

Buenos Días.

Hoy se casa mi hija Jenna. Es una ocasión de alegría para nuestra familia, al celebrar la vida feliz que está por delante de Jenna y de su esposo Henry. También es un momento especial para Laura, quien este fin de semana del Día de la Madre verá ir al altar a una joven mujer que ella y yo criamos juntos.

El Día de la Madre es un momento especial para madres en todo Estados Unidos. En este día festivo, hacemos una pausa para celebrar el amor y la compasión de las mujeres que nos criaron y agradecerles por los muchos años de paciencia y abnegación. Durante nuestras vidas, las madres están presentes con una palabra motivadora, un oído comprensivo y un corazón tierno. Ellas fijaron nuestra dirección en la vida, y de vez en cuando se las ha visto corregir nuestro rumbo.

Como muchos de ustedes, mi vida ha sido bendecida por una madre que es fuente de amor incondicional. Nosotros que hemos sido tan afortunados estaremos para siempre en deuda con estas mujeres cariñosas. Por lo tanto, en este fin de semana festivo, celebramos a todas las madres que ayudan a que nuestro país sea un lugar mejor.

En este fin de semana del Día de la Madre, pensamos en todas las madres que celebran este día festivo por primera vez. Pocas bendiciones se comparan a la de comenzar una nueva familia. Y pocos lazos son más fuertes que los que existen entre una madre y su recién nacido. Este es también un momento especial para nuevas madres adoptivas que han acogido a sus hijos a sus hogares con los brazos abiertos y un corazón abierto. Les deseamos a todos estos nuevos padres muchos más Días de la Madre por venir.

En este fin de semana del Día de la Madre, pensamos en las muchas madres que criaron a los valientes hombres y mujeres que sirven a nuestro país en uniforme. Y a esas madres les ofrezco las gracias de una nación muy agradecida. Sus hijos e hijas están defendiendo nuestra libertad con dignidad y honra. Y Estados Unidos aprecia los sacrificios que sus familias hacen en el nombre del deber.

En este fin de semana del Día de la Madre, recordamos a las madres que lloran por un hijo o hija perdido(a) en el servicio a su país, as como los hijos que han perdido una madre en uniforme. Compartimos su orgullo en esos maravillosos estadounidenses que dieron todo para proteger a nuestro pueblo del mal. Nada que podamos decir podrá jamás compensarlos por su pérdida. Pero en este día especial, los llevamos en nuestro corazón y los elevamos en nuestras oraciones.

Les deseo a todas y cada una de las madres que estén escuchando esta mañana un santo Día de la Madre, incluso a la mía propia. Y tengo un mensaje para todo hijo e hija que esté escuchando esta mañana: recuerde de decirle a primera hora mañana a su mamá cuanto la quiere.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata Oficina del Secretario de Prensa 10 de mayo de 2008

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush

State Department Daily Press Briefing, 05/09/08 VIDEO, PODCAST, TEXT

State Department Daily Press Briefing Sean McCormack, Spokesman FULL STREAMING VIDEO Washington, DC May 9, 2008 1:15 p.m. EDT PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. I have a couple things to start off with here, the first of which is a Media Note we’ll put out after the briefing here, and just encourage you to make note of the fact that the Secretary is going to be having an event on Monday in the afternoon.

This is at the One Woman Initiative. It’s the Fund for Women’s Empowerment. This is something the Secretary has been deeply involved in, as you know, hosting a number of meetings. The focus on this issue and the centerpiece of this particular meeting is going to be the announcement of a public-private partnership of corporations, foundations, and the U.S. Government that will apply $100 million to projects aimed at empowering women. So we’ll put out a Media Note for you on that after the briefing.

And second, I’d like to update you on some of the phone calls the Secretary has been making on various issues this morning. She’s been quite busy. First, on Zimbabwe, she has spoken with Botswana President Khama, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Zambian President Mwanawasa, and Tanzanian President Kikwete. And she really wanted – she wanted to talk to these important leaders. Some of them are part of the SADC. Secretary General Annan, obviously, is somebody who is – plays an important role in the international system, but is – and particularly on issues related to Africa – to talk about the current situation, how they see the situation moving forward.

On Lebanon, she spoke with Saudi Foreign Minister al Faisal. She is now – I think right about now, speaking with French Foreign Minister Kouchner and also Secretary – UN Secretary General Ban. With Secretary General Ban, she also spoke with him about Burma as well. And on Lebanon, it was really to talk about the current situation, what the international system can do to support this Lebanese Government that is acting on behalf of the Lebanese people in the face of illegal acts by the armed gangs aimed at destabilizing the political situation in Lebanon.

On Burma, as you know, she yesterday spoke with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang. I mentioned Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. And she also spoke with Indian Foreign Minister Mukherjee. Of course, part of their discussion also was about the Indian Civil Nuclear Deal, but they focused quite a bit on the issue of Burma. And the message there from the Secretary was to urge all the parties to do what they can to reach out and use whatever leverage they have with that top decision-making layer in the Burmese regime to get them to reverse the course that they have been on in terms of not allowing large scale humanitarian supplies to come into Burma, and then also, and very importantly, to allow experts who are – can offer assistance with humanitarian relief into Burma.

Then, finally, I have a statement from the Secretary, and this is on Lebanon. We’ll put out a paper version of this after the briefing, but again, this is from her:

The United States is deeply concerned about the ongoing violence in Lebanon. We condemn the use of force by illegitimate armed groups and call upon all parties to respect the rule of law. Backed by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah and its allies are killing and injuring fellow citizens, undermining the legitimate authority of the Lebanese Government and the institutions of the Lebanese state. Seeking to protect their state within a state, Hezbollah has exploited its allies and demonstrated its contempt for its fellow Lebanese. No one has the right to deprive Lebanese citizens of their political and economic freedom, their right to move freely within their country, or their sense of safety and security.

Our support for the legitimate Lebanese Government, its democratic institutions and its security services is unwavering. This support is a reflection of our unshakable commitment to the Lebanese people and their hope for democratic change, economic prosperity and confessional harmony. We will stand by the Lebanese Government and peaceful citizens of Lebanon through this crisis and provide the support they need to weather this storm. With --

QUESTION: What harmony?

MR. MCCORMACK: Confessional harmony.

QUESTION: Confessional harmony?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes. What it refers to are the political arrangements between the various groupings within --

QUESTION: Sorry. Didn’t know --

MR. MCCORMACK: -- Lebanon.

QUESTION: So on Lebanon – yeah, on – the – you said that when she spoke to the Saudi, the French -- or was speaking with the French and Secretary General Ban, it was – what they were talking about was what can the international system do to help the Lebanese. And what was the answer to that question?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, fundamentally, it’s a situation that the Lebanese Government is going to need to deal with on the ground. But of course, we are offering our political and diplomatic support, as are many others in the international system, to the Lebanese Government, which is acting in the best interests of the Lebanese people. It is really worth underlining the fact that these armed gangs, in taking their actions, have killed Lebanese citizens. It is also becoming more apparent now that the linkages that we know exist and then – and are ongoing between Hezbollah and Syria and – and Iran are starting to manifest themselves in the current crisis. We are seeing, now, some evidence of those groups that are linked to Syria, that are in Lebanon right now, are taking a much more active role in fanning the flames of violence and those acts that are -- those acts that are really destabilizing the political situation in Lebanon.

QUESTION: So you're saying that Iran and particularly Syria are --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm saying, in particular, Syria -- I want to make sure we put this in the right context. We've had a lot of questions about Iran and Syria and the linkages between Hezbollah and are they playing a role in the current crisis right now.

I would say, up until this point, I haven't been able to say that. But I -- in talking to our experts who are really watching the situation on the ground quite closely, they are starting to see some evidence of those groups on the ground that have been linked in the past to Syria and are known to -- and over which the Syrian Government is known to have some influence are starting now to engage in acts that serve to really fan the flames of violence in Beirut.

Yeah, Samir.

QUESTION: You said you will provide political support. Is there any intention to provide any military support to the army?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. We -- going back to this past summer, Samir, we have been working quite closely with the Lebanese military in terms of training and equipment. The programs, in terms of the kinds of assistance we provide around the world, is actually quite modest but has been important for the Lebanese military, which we believe is really a much more effective and professional institution now that serves the interests of the Lebanese people as a whole. I don't have any information for you about any recent assistance that we have provided in the context of this current crisis.

QUESTION: When you say that –

QUESTION: What about in (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any information about that, Sylvie. Again, as I said, we have an ongoing problem -- ongoing program of assistance. But I don't have any information about whether there is any uptick in the level of assistance in the context of this current political crisis.

Yeah.

QUESTION: So, just to clarify, when you said in your statement that you're going to provide support needed, you mean political and diplomatic support? You don’t mean anything --

MR. MCCORMACK: At the moment, that's what we're talking about, yeah.

QUESTION: Can you give us any idea of what evidence you're talking about, linking these -- the Syrians with the --

MR. MCCORMACK: It's really just -- it really is reporting back on the ground, as simple as seeing some of these groups that are known to have strong linkages to Damascus, and over which Damascus has some known influence, starting to engage on the ground, out in the streets, and really engaging in the kind of acts of -- or at least encouraging these acts of violence in -- that result in kind of an atmosphere of political instability.

QUESTION: I was under the impression you thought Hezbollah, as a whole, was in Syria.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, that's true in terms of the linkages. But there are -- you know, there are a variety of different groups now in Lebanon, as you know, and there are various groups, individuals that are known associates, proxies for Syria. And your -- we hadn't seen any evidence of their really engaging during this crisis. But you're starting to see more evidence now on the streets and on the ground of their starting to engage. And that's the basis for my -- you know, revising --

QUESTION: Okay. Is that --

QUESTION: -- our earlier statements. And, you know, as I said, at the beginning, we didn't see it. Now we're starting to see more of it.

QUESTION: Okay. Is that -- does that mean that your -- you guys have evidence of specific individuals who are known proxies or known associates who --

MR. MCCORMACK: Groups, individuals. What we're going to also try to do is get you guys a briefing later on with some of our -- at least one of our Lebanon experts to maybe provide a little bit more insight to you -- for you on this.

Samir.

QUESTION: Is she considering calling Prime Minister Siniora too?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll let you know if there's any other phone calls. I wouldn't -- I certainly wouldn't rule out that possibility.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you provide information at this point about any Americans killed, injured, the status of the Embassy at this point?

MR. MCCORMACK: The Embassy is working. They're obviously taking the appropriate -- the steps that they believe are appropriate to do their work in a safe environment, a safe and secure way. We're in contact with the American citizens who are in Lebanon as – partially as a result of the experience in 2006, we actually have a pretty robust Warden System and system of registration for American citizens there, so we’re in contact with them, letting them know the – how we see the situation. Of course, anybody on the outside who’s considering traveling back to Beirut should take a look at the situation on the ground. The airport is closed; you can’t actually travel from the airport in. So as always, it’s an individual decision, but I think, given the circumstances, they should really exercise an abundance of caution.

QUESTION: Are you in contact – are you trying to provide any assistance to Americans who are trying to leave the country at this point?

MR. MCCORMACK: We – again, that’s going to have to be on the individual initiative of these citizens. We’ll do what we can, but at this point, we’re not engaged in any authorized or ordered departure of our Embassy employees. So any decision for individuals to leave is going to – they’re going to have to make that on their own and find their own means to leave. But of course, we’ll do what we can. It’s one of our primary missions, to make sure that we help out American citizens as they’re traveling overseas.

Yeah.

QUESTION: You said that there’s evidence of these groups that are backed by Syria’s engaging -- evidence that they’re engaging --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- engaging in what way? Supplying weapons, supplying manpower, what?

MR. MCCORMACK: I would just – I’m not going to get into any more detail other than to see – we’ve started to see them out in the streets and engaging in the – in acts that really serve to fan the flames of instability.

QUESTION: Is it ultimately (inaudible) for Iran too, that they’re engaging on the streets? Have you seen anything --

MR. MCCORMACK: Haven’t – I can’t say – I can’t say the same thing about Iran. Charlie --

QUESTION: You can say nothing on – regarding Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. Charlie, we’ll try to get you some more information. Again, we’ll try to do a briefing with somebody who is one of our Lebanon experts.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The March 14th Group and their decision – I guess one of the main decisions behind these clashes is their challenging of the telecom system that Hezbollah is pretty much their strongest point. Does the U.S. maintain its support for the March 14th Group? Do you think they’re at an advantage point right now?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we – in the Secretary’s statement, she restated our unshakable and unswerving support for the government, and the March 14th movement is a pillar of that government as well. We are absolutely in contact with them. Our Chargé on the ground, Ambassador Sison, is in contact with a variety of individuals who are involved in the government as well as the March 14th movement.

QUESTION: And as far as – well, it seems to be Hezbollah taking control of many areas of Beirut. Is that a concern for the U.S. Government? How concerned are you about it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, we’re – we are concerned, as are many others. And it’s – you know, it isn’t – you asked the question: Is the U.S. Government concerned? Yes, we are concerned, absolutely. But the real question is: Why are we concerned. And that is because in engaging in these acts, in these aggressive, violent acts, Lebanese people – Lebanese citizens have died. So these people are killing Lebanese citizens and they’re trying to, as we’ve seen before, turn back the clock on the kinds of progress, on the economic, political front that this Lebanese Government has made.

And certainly, we are going to do everything that we can in terms of political, diplomatic support that we can to support this government. And that is, in effect, supporting the Lebanese people in their desire for a different kind of Lebanon.

QUESTION: Sean?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: I’m a little confused there. You just said that you didn’t see evidence Iranian-backed groups are trying to fan the flames, but the first time you mentioned that, actually, you said Syria and Iran starting to manifest itself. Which one is it, just to look at --

MR. MCCORMACK: It’s – sorry for the confusion. We’re looking at Syria. Yeah, we’re seeing evidence of these Syrian-backed groups.

QUESTION: Sean?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Samir.

QUESTION: The March 14 leadership had a meeting and issued a statement saying the – the Hezbollah operation is paying to bring Syria back to Lebanon and Iran to the Mediterranean. What – how do you react to this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Very – very clearly, in the Middle East, there is a divide. And on one side of that divide, you see Iran, you see Syria, you see their proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other violent groups. On the other side of that line, you see responsible states that have an interest in seeing a different kind of Middle East that have – support a democratic Lebanon that is able – that has a government that’s able to exercise sovereignty over all Lebanese territory. You see support for the creation of a democratic Palestinian state. You see support for a democratic Iraq now. Some of these governments themselves are not democratic, but again, they express support and manifest that support in tangible ways for a different kind of Middle East.

So we can see, if you look across the map of the Middle East today, various points where those forces for -- that aim to turn back the clock, those forces of violent extremism, those forces that have -- that call themselves resistance forces but really are engaged in sort of a deception of the resistance -- of that term, use of the term -- are trying to fight back against the spread of democracy, fight back against greater prosperity and freedom for the people in the Middle East. And that is the larger context in which these kinds of struggles like we see in the streets of Beirut take place.

Yeah.

QUESTION: What kind of evidence points to Syria when you say, you know, you’re seeing evidence of Syrian-backed groups?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And is -- just to try to join up the dots, is Hezbollah one of these groups? You’re talking about Hezbollah groups, you know --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, not specifically Hezbollah. We know about the links between Hezbollah and Syria. But again, I can’t point to Syria pulling the string on Hezbollah in taking these actions. Like I said, I can’t be more specific than our reporting back from the ground seeing evidence of these individuals, these groups, known members of these groups, out in the streets engaged in acts of violence, engaged in acts designed to fan the flames of crisis. I can’t be any more specific than that.

QUESTION: Sean?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: How concerned are you that you might be -- what might be happening is kind of a repeat of what happened in Gaza, in the sense that you have a – here, you have a group that has been designated a terrorist organization by yourselves and others battling -- fighting for control -- fighting against a legitimately elected --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- government or a government that you consider to be legitimately --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- elected for control of a piece of -- a piece of territory that is – that’s critical? The -- as you had with the PA, you have helped the Lebanese armed forces--

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- PA security forces in Gaza were overrun. Some of that stuff was then taken by Hamas.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you -- are there any concerns along those lines or that you may -- at least in terms of U.S. assistance falling --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- in the hands of Hezbollah, or -- and also the larger picture --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Are there concerns that Hezbollah might take control of Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, each of these situations are completely different in terms of the specifics of the situation, the history, so again, I don’t want to draw any linkages between Palestinian areas and Lebanon.

I would say that it -- the common -- the only commonality is one in which I tried to describe in answer to Samir’s question, in talking about the basic struggle between those forces that are interested in building up democratic governing institutions that function on behalf of the people to -- are pillars of the democratic society, part of which is providing security to the people, and those who want to rule not by the ballot box, but by the Kalashnikov. And that’s a real struggle in the Middle East today. You see that struggle in the Palestinian areas. You see that struggle in Iraq. You see that struggle in the past couple days in Beirut. So in that sense, there is that commonality. But I, again, don’t try to -- I, in no way, am going to try to draw us any linkages between the Palestinian areas and what’s going on in Beirut.

In terms of the assistance, no, I don’t -- I haven’t heard anybody express those kinds of concerns.

QUESTION: Well, aren’t you worried that the result may be the same?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, I can’t tell you what the ultimate motivations or strategy of Hezbollah is in taking the steps that they have taken, violent steps that they’ve taken over the past several days. They very clearly wanted to destabilize the situation. They clearly wanted to provoke a confrontation with the government.

You know, again, the Lebanese Government is standing strong. They are acting on behalf of the Lebanese people. The institutions are functioning, including the military, on behalf of the -- the Lebanese people. And we have every confidence that they will be able to deal with the situation, although this is certainly a direct challenge to the Lebanese people. You know, you can see that, in that the real victims here have been, quite literally, innocents victimized by the actions of Hezbollah.

QUESTION: How are you going to stop Hezbollah, or how are the Lebanese going to stop Hezbollah if the army's going to stay out of it? And I take it --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- from your talking this morning, that the army, if it did get involved, could easily divide because they are made of different factions.

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me -- but the army has undergone a number of different tests over the past year or so, certainly. And that -- each time, they have met the test put to them and functioned under the orders of the elected government and on behalf of the Lebanese people.

There was another part to your question?

QUESTION: Well, the army -- I mean, you may have (inaudible) of the river, the north -- by Tripoli, they faced down the Palestinian leader --

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm. Yeah – no, no, no, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- and the Islamic militants.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But here, we're faced -- the army -- there are Shiites in the army and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- they would be facing Hezbollah. So how can you have Shiites fight Hezbollah? And it seemed this morning, you were happy that the army stayed out of it.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm not going to --

QUESTION: (inaudible) stop Hezbollah --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm not going to be armchair -- look, I'm not going to be an armchair general, and I would encourage others not to be armchair generals as well. The government is effectively trying to deal with the situation on the ground and they have command of the army, and they are deploying the army in ways that they think will be effective in dealing with this. I would encourage people not to second-guess the government in that regard. They are acting in -- we believe, acting in the best interest of the Lebanese people.

It's really Hezbollah, again, that is acting contrary to the interest of the Lebanese people, in fact, killing innocent Lebanese civilians. So any sort of veneer that they might have tried to portray -- tried to use in portraying themselves as a resistance movement, I think has been completely stripped away, given the actions of the past several days.

Yeah.

QUESTION: People in the Middle East are saying that the U.S., pretty much -- not forced, but encouraged the March 14th Group to take this action and are now pretty much leaving it to face the consequences. Is this true? Are you -- is the U.S. maintaining its support for the March 14th -- for the consequences that now Hezbollah is wrecking upon?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we fully support the Government of Lebanon and (inaudible) -- and the political factions in that government that are working on behalf of the Lebanese people. What you're talking about is the Lebanese states simply exercising sovereignty over the territory of Lebanon. They are acting on behalf of the Lebanese people. You have a situation with Hezbollah that is trying to act as if it is not part of the Lebanese state in terms of building (inaudible) fiber optic networks, exercising a great deal of influence over how the airport is managed and run and what comes in and what comes out. You know, quite simply, for any government that is responsible to the people that elected it, it cannot stand by and have some entity operating as if it is outside the control of the state.

Now I know that throughout Lebanese history, and this has been a particular struggle and a particular issue, but the fact is this government has steadily been working to strengthen the institutions of the state and strengthen the institutions of the government so that they can effectively govern, and govern on behalf of all of the Lebanese people. So the actions that the government took certainly were legitimate actions that any government around the world would recognize as working on behalf of the people that elected that government.

QUESTION: But by taking this action, and the clashes that ensued in the last 48 hours, is it realistic to say that there is a possibility that the March 14th group can actually come out with even less influence, less control?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, I'll leave it to political pundits to, you know, do the political scorecard. We support this government. We support those in Lebanon who are fighting on behalf of democracy and the Lebanese people.

QUESTION: Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, anything else on this?

Kirit.

QUESTION: Burma, if we could switch topics?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Could you tell us a little bit more about this plane that's going on Monday, where it's going to be coming from, what it's going to have onboard? And then, if you can give us any sort of tick-tock or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- readout of how these talks went down and how you got the agreement to go in?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I guess, as I understand it, we first got word back, it was today, via the Burmese Deputy Foreign Minister, who had a conversation with our Chargé Shari Villarosa in Rangoon, who said that they would grant permission for one C-130 flight coming in, I think, on Monday. You know, our intention is to use that to transport in humanitarian supplies. I can't specify for you what exactly those will be. But we're going to make as effective use of that flight as we possibly can.

Was there anything else, Kirit?

QUESTION: I mean, did they give us any reason for why now? I mean, why -- was there any particular --

MR. MCCORMACK: No. It's an opaque decision-making process, as I've said. I think it has suffered from the fact that there's the government, then there's the layer of leadership there who really makes the decisions. I'm not sure that there's the most efficient flow of information up the chain. But it is positive that one flight has been allowed in. Quite clearly, in order to meet the humanitarian needs that exist as a result of the humanitarian disaster, there's going to be -- need to be many, many, many, many more flights that are allowed in.

I understand the World Food Program is working through some of the difficulties that it initially had in getting some of its aid in there, and they're going to resume flights. Again, what needs to happen is a massive influx of humanitarian assistance and a significant influx of humanitarian relief experts who can not only provide immediate assistance but also provide a on-the-ground assessment about what further is going to be needed. You know, every indication is that this is just a massive humanitarian disaster as a result of the cyclone hitting and some subsequent storms that have come in. So there is quite clearly an immediate, large-scale need. We are prepared to be part of that. And as I -- as you can tell from just in part getting one small window into our diplomacy through the Secretary’s calls, we are actively engaged in trying to use diplomacy, international politics, to get the Burmese regime to reverse the current course that it has been on.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Given the World Food Program’s problems with its aid being initially seized and confiscated, whatever they want to call it, how concerned are you that that will not happen to -- or that that might happen to your plane when it arrives? Have you received any assurances? You won’t -- I’m assuming you haven’t received visas yet for this team to go in. How will it be distributed? Have you worked that out?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we’re -- we’ll focus on (a) composing the flight in terms of what’s going to be on it and the humanitarian assistance. You know, it’s always a concern when you’re going into a situation where you don’t have the usual kinds of networks, distribution networks that you have in these kinds of situations. I can’t speak to the specific circumstances surrounding the World Food Program. I think that they are probably best positioned to describe those. I’m not going to -- you know, I would expect that we wouldn't see a repeat of that. But again, you know, we don’t know. If we do run into any difficulties, of course, we’re going to deal with them. The mission here is to try to get food and assistance to those who need it.

QUESTION: And what’s the distribution mechanism (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, normally, when you -- I mean, the distribution mechanism on the ground right now?

QUESTION: For Monday (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: For Monday. I won’t try to speak to that, Kirit. I can’t give you the details on it.

Okay. Anything else on Burma?

QUESTION: Yeah. Actually, that was my question. At this point, you don’t know who’s going to distribute the aid that you’re going to --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I don’t. We’ll -- again, we have been pretty good at trying to get you the details of who’s doing what, and we’ll try to -- Gonzo, we should probably try to do a briefing on Monday, update from AID about what we’re doing.

QUESTION: And is there any update then on the visas other than that they still haven’t been granted --

MR. MCCORMACK: Still working it. Still working the issue.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Was there -- and there was no -- was there any rationale given for Monday as opposed to, like, immediately or tomorrow?

MR. MCCORMACK: Don’t have any insight to that.

Yeah. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Do you have a sense about what each day’s delay in getting aid in means in terms of the impact on the people here?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can’t quantify it for you in terms of numbers. But quite clearly, the -- the delay and the human component of this compounds the natural disaster. So you know, clearly, as you have every tick of the clock that goes by without aid flowing in, without the assistance from experts who really know how to address these kinds of situations, you compound the humanitarian crisis, you compound the human misery, you compound the possibility of people losing their lives as a result of the natural disaster.

QUESTION: What’s the best estimate now of what the death toll may be?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t have a good estimate for you. I know that there are a range of estimates. But I think it stands to reason that with each passing day that you don’t have this kind of assistance and a massive effort to address what is a clear humanitarian disaster, that that toll is going to rise, although I can’t offer you an estimate.

QUESTION: What is the biggest problem, though? Is it hunger? Is it disease? Is it -- well, what is --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it -- you know, I’m not an expert in these things, but I think the people who deal with these kinds of humanitarian crises will tell you that it -- the nature of the most significant problem will change over time. Certainly, you know, hunger is a problem, lack of shelter. And then over time, in part because of those factors as well as others, disease can be an issue. But again, we’re not on the ground. We don’t have international groups on the ground. We don’t have good reporting out of Burma right now. So I can’t tell you what is currently, today, the biggest problem and even a week from now what is going to be the biggest issue.

QUESTION: Sean?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Goyal.

QUESTION: Just to follow, it’s been one week, and according to press reports and other experts, over 100,000 people have died in Burma and also millions are living in or sleeping in water. And many countries, including the U.S., are not allowed. So don’t you think that some way, somehow, international diplomacy have failed? And what can you insert in the future something like this to save the millions of victims or human beings?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Goyal, I think we just spent a long time, not only today but also in the past couple days, talking about not only our response but the response of the international system. Clearly, we’re prepared, we’re ready to offer massive assistance. The world is ready to prepare -- is prepared to offer massive assistance that we believe is needed given what we know about the scope of the disaster.

It is -- the issue to this point has been the decision of the Burmese regime not to allow in this large-scale assistance. We’re doing everything that we possibly can -- the United States -- but importantly, the entire international system is mobilized now to do what it can to convince the Burmese regime to change its decision.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: Two questions. Why is this flight not going until Monday and why only one plane? This was both mandated by the government to you?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. That’s what we were told. One flight Monday. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. And then do you have any indication that they’re -- that they may allow more in? And was there anything more on that or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Don’t know. Certainly, our hope is that regardless of whose airplane it is or, you know, who provides the material that’s -- the humanitarian assistance that’s in the airplane, that you get more assistance in.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Did she meet with the Deputy Foreign Minister in person?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t know. I’m happy to track -- try to track down that detail for you.

QUESTION: Well, then the other thing is -- did she -- does -- is the Deputy Foreign Minister aware that there is a lot more out there that could come in, and did she also make the case to him again about the visas for the DART team?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t know specifically in that conversation whether or not she did. It has been a repeated talking point for us with Burmese officials, so they clearly have --

QUESTION: But you -- you’ve told them that there is X amount out there which is a lot -- a lot more than one planeload, right? And they said okay just to one?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, Matt, I don’t know that we have specified – you know, while we – you know, that we have, for example, 50 or 60 or whatever planes ready to go, however many it is. I feel comfortable in saying, however, that the – certainly, the people with whom we interact in the Burmese regime have an understanding of the readiness, not only of the United States, but of the entire world to respond to the humanitarian disaster and the scope of the kinds of assistance that we – and when I say we, the international system is prepared to provide.

QUESTION: On India?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, can you talk a little bit more about the Secretary’s call with the Indian Foreign Minister, Mr. Mukherjee, and also – on the nuclear deal? And also, there is some kind of confusion or misunderstanding among the people in India and also in parliament, especially the Lefts, that comments made by the Secretary last week about the middle class rising in India and because of the food – the rise of food around the globe is blamed on the Indians, that they’re doing better, eating better or there – people are angry in India, from these comments from the United States.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, in terms of the phone call, Goyal, I’ve described it in the terms that I’m going to describe it. I’ve seen the press reports, certainly, about this particular reaction. And certainly, nobody in the U.S. is trying to single out a government or – nobody in the United States is expressing the sentiment that – that it is not a good thing that, you know, there is greater calorie intake among more people around the world than ever before. That is a positive thing.

I think the statement just gets to the basic fact that the world and the international system is changing. And the fact that you have greater economic prosperity around the world, whether it’s in India or China or elsewhere around the world, and as a result, there are – there are different standards of living, a positive sense, that is good for the international system. That really speaks to some of the goals of – that were expressed at the inception of the current international financial, economic, and political system when you look back to the immediate post-war period in ’46, ’47, ’48. It’s a positive thing.

So again, I’m not sure how – what prism people are viewing the remarks through, but I would encourage them to not look at them in a way that is intended to single out, in a negative fashion, the people of India or anybody else around the world.

Yeah, Matt.

QUESTION: Change in subject to Zimbabwe. Why this sudden flurry of calls on Zimbabwe? Does it have to do with President Mbeki’s visit and if it does, why didn’t she call him?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there’s – we’re in touch with the South Africans, but we’re – I know that there is quite a bit of activity and a lot of discussion among the SADC countries, as well as within Zimbabwe, about how – how to move forward, what are the appropriate next steps.

Fundamentally, it’s going to be up to the opposition parties, the leaders of the opposition party in coming to some understanding of how they would like to proceed. There are a variety of different options out there, but fundamentally, they’re going to have to decide. Whatever the decision is about how to move forward, it’s going to need the support and encouragement of neighboring countries, SADC countries, as well as others in the international system, us and other interested parties, the U.K. – you can go down the – you can go down the list.

So the Secretary and Jendayi just thought it was the right time to engage at a high level to get a sense for – from leaders in the region who really have some deep insights into the situation and how it might go forward -- as to what the situation is, how they saw it, and how they were thinking about it – might move forward.

Yeah, yes.

QUESTION: Was – is there any response at all today to the article in the Wall Street Journal saying that ties between Venezuela and FARC may be more extensive than at least were publicly known previously?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I saw the article and there’s been a lot of reporting about this and I think we’ve talked a little bit about it, even over the past months. And clearly, if there are such ties, that should be of deep concern to the region as well as the international system. I will leave it to the Colombian Government to talk at the moment in any more depth about what they have learned through their analysis of the contents of the laptop and other information that they may have gleaned. They were – I know that they were working quite closely with Interpol to make sure that they were confident in the provenance of the information that they were looking at and how that fit together with all their various other sources of information they have.

So I'm sure, at a certain point, we'll all be talking a lot more about this. But I think it's really only appropriate to allow the Colombian Government, at this point in time, to go into any more depth about the issue if they choose to do so.

QUESTION: Will the Secretary continue to support the trade agreement with Colombia in the meantime?

MR. MCCORMACK: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Until the authenticity of the files are --

MR. MCCORMACK: Absolutely. Again, I -- and when I was talking about the provenance, the validity, and -- being able to confirm the provenance of the file, I don't think anybody -- I haven't heard one word uttered questioning it at this point. It's just that when you're going through and doing a careful analysis, you want to make sure you know what you know and you know where it came from. But I haven't heard any discussion that -- in any way that there was anything suspicious about the provenance of the files, I guess is the way to put it.

Yeah. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can I just make a follow-up on this question in Zimbabwe?

MR. MCCORMACK: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Was the Secretary, in particular, as it is now clear that Zimbabweans are not going to have a runoff because of the situation there, the violence, arrest of lawyers, journalists, the killing of opposition supporters, are you worried that we are likely to have in Zimbabwe a leader who is going to rule for another year without a mandate?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think everybody's concern is that the will of the people is expressed in the form of the government that leads Zimbabwe. That is -- that's the fundamental question at issue right now. And I'm not going to dismiss any particular possible means to achieve that outcome, you know, other than to add, as we always do, that violence serves nobody's purposes. So it's going to fundamentally going to be up to the, you know, opposition to take a look at what are the best options for moving the political process forward. And of course, they will be consulting very closely with neighboring states, other leaders that might have some influence over the situation.

QUESTION: Was there any reason why you couldn't speak directly with a mediator in that situation in Zimbabwe this morning?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I -- perhaps -- you know, I don't have any particular -- particular reason. She wanted to get a sense from these leaders -- you can see they're a pretty high-level group of people -- as to their insights into the current situation.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: To follow on the Venezuela question, actually. Those files in the laptop were passed onto the U.S. for their own analysis. Has there been any conclusion in that? Do you have any sort of --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to get out ahead of the Colombia Government.

QUESTION: Sean, quick on Nepal, please. Sean, now the terrorist organization which is on the U.S. State Department's terrorist list and a part of the Nepali Government and now they are politicians or political party. And they're asking the State Department to be off the list of the terror list. I mean, do you have any comments that -- or terrorist organizations are now becoming politicians or part of the governments? And are you now prepared to take them off the terrorist list?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll get back to you with something, Goyal.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:58 p.m.)

DPB # 83 Released on May 9, 2008

Tags: State Department and video or podcast and BURMA or ZIMBABWE