Afghanistan: America-Iran Challenge

SOURCE:
http://www.uspolicy.be/Article.asp?ID=3C970698-E2D3-4A61-B956-F91CA723DD70

Stabilizing Afghanistan Common Challenge for America and Iran
No plans for formal U.S.-Iran talks at upcoming international
conferences

By David McKeeby
Staff Writer

Washington - In two conferences in March, American and Iranian diplomats
will focus on a shared challenge: making new progress on promoting
security and development in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region.

"There are no plans for any substantive meetings with Iran," said State
Department spokesman Robert Wood on March 19, but he added that "it's
not unusual for U.S. and Iranian officials to cross paths during a
multilateral meeting, so I'm not going to rule anything in or rule
anything out."

Engaging Iran and stabilizing South Asia are among the Obama
administration's top foreign policy priorities. Both challenges are
subjects of comprehensive policy reviews by top White House advisers,
seeking to realize the president's goal of renewing American diplomacy.

"Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history
and traditions, but ... its actions over many years now have been
unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the
region and around the world," Obama said February 9 in a nationally
televised press conference. "In the coming months, we will be looking
for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the
table, face to face, [with] diplomatic overtures that will allow us to
move our policy in a new direction." (See "Analysis: Will Iran Accept
America's "Open Hand"?)

As the Obama administration moves closer to completing its Afghanistan
strategy review, analysts have stressed the importance of working
closely with all of the nation's neighbors, including Iran, to help
eliminate terrorist safe havens, build effective governing institutions
and promote economic development.

Iran hosted millions of Afghan refugees during the 1990s, and its border
guards were targeted by Taliban forces in a series of deadly skirmishes.
While the United States and Iran have not had formal diplomatic
relations since 1980, Washington and Tehran coordinated efforts to
stabilize Afghanistan when a U.S.-led coalition toppled the Taliban
regime in 2001. Further U.S.-Iranian cooperation has been complicated by
the international dispute over Iran's nuclear program as well as
allegations that some Afghan militant groups may have received support
from elements within Iran.

As a parallel Iran policy review remains under way at the White House,
diplomats from Washington and Tehran will be attending two major
international events aimed at forging a new road ahead for the region.

Patrick Moon, principal deputy assistant secretary of state for South
and Central Asian affairs, will travel to Moscow for a March 27 meeting
of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - a multilateral security
organization founded in 2001 and comprised of China, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Iran and Pakistan are observers in the organization, while Afghanistan
has attended group events as an SCO guest and in 2005 formed a contact
group to facilitate efforts by the group to contribute to Afghan
reconstruction and stability.

America's participation in the meeting is another step in the
administration's plan to consult broadly across the international
community on the challenges facing Afghanistan and Pakistan, Wood said.

"The reason why we think it's important to go to this conference is that
it's about Afghanistan and how the international community can try to
better the situation on the ground [and] better coordinate our
activities," Wood said. "Even though we're not a member, we're not an
observer, we think it's important."

On March 31, Secretary of State Clinton will attend an international
conference on Afghanistan sponsored by the United Nations in The Hague,
Netherlands. Clinton proposed the meeting earlier this month at a
gathering of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, Belgium. (See "NATO
Agrees to Resume High-Level Ties with Russia.")

Iranian officials have said they would consider an invitation and are
willing to help in Afghanistan, but have yet to announce which officials
would travel from Tehran to the meeting.

"I will not rule out the fact that there could be some kind of a ... a
greeting of some type, but there's no plan, as far as I know, for there
to be a meeting between the two delegations," Wood said March 18. "This
conference is more than just the U.S. and Iran. It's about Afghanistan
and the situation in the region. And that's where we need to keep our
focus."

"This administration is interested in engaging Iran. We want to do that. But we also need to complete our review so that we can spell out for the international community … how we plan to go forward,” Wood said.

3/19 State Dept Brief: North Korea

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/03/120687.htm

Robert Wood

Acting Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

March 19, 2009

INDEX:
NORTH KOREA

Possible Launch of Missile by North Korea / U.S.-South Korean Military
Exercises

...

QUESTION: Robert, you know, the last time you talked about this, I think
you were reluctant to describe what the U.S. would do if the North
launches a missile. Now there have been more recent comments coming out,
I believe, from the Defense Department saying that it's likely that the
U.S. would shoot that down.

MR. WOOD: I haven't seen those reports. I'm certainly not going to get
ahead of the situation. First of all, the launch hasn't taken place, and
I would think we want to examine all of our options, certainly, before
declaring what we may or may not do. And I just want to reiterate we
remain concerned about any possible launch of a missile by the North.
And as I've said before, we would view it as a provocative act. And we
encourage the North to get away from the idea of launching missiles and
to start focusing on denuclearization.

...

QUESTION: Yes, just one more on North Korea. Secretary Clinton said
earlier this month that there are a range of options that the U.S. could
take should North Korea launch a missile. I'm just wondering if one of
those options under consideration is additional bilateral sanctions?

MR. WOOD: Well, I don't want to lay out what we may or may not do should
the North launch this missile. But let me just say, there are a number
of options, as the Secretary said, that we would look at. I'm not going
to spell it out it. But if indeed a launch takes place, we will
certainly let you know what our reaction is going to be to it.

Okay.

QUESTION: Robert, just one more on North Korea.

MR. WOOD: Sure.

QUESTION: Sorry, to close the loop here. The North Koreans say that
these war games or war - military exercises are actually threatening
them and that they should be stopped, and this is one reason they are so
nervous about the situation. Could you comment on that?

MR. WOOD: You know, Jill, I've commented many times from here about
that. These annual exercises are no threat to the North Korean regime -
absolutely no threat. The North knows what it needs to do, and we want
to see it change its behavior, focus on denuclearization, stop all of
the bellicose rhetoric, and live up to the commitments that it pledged
it would. So again, these types of comments from the North are not
helpful. It knows very well what these exercises are about. And so, as I
said, the North knows what it needs to do. Okay.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 12:02 p.m.)

3/19 State Dept: Iran

SOURCE: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/03/120687.htm

Robert Wood

Acting Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

March 19, 2009

EXCERPT

...

QUESTION: Can you discuss the apparent decision by the United States to
attend the Shanghai group meeting, and whether Patrick Moon is actually
going to meet with an Iranian there?

MR. WOOD: Yeah, my understanding is that Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Patrick Moon is planning
to attend this Shanghai Cooperation Organization conference in Moscow on
the 27th of March. It's a conference about Afghanistan and its
neighbors. And as you know, we're not a member or - nor do we send
observers to this conference. But it's an important one. We were
invited. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Moon is going to go, and
we look forward to attending.

QUESTION: This group was sort of cast as a grouping that was set up
originally, I think, to kind of counter U.S. influence in that region.
Is that over now?

MR. WOOD: Well, look, the reason why we think it's important to go to
this conference is that it's about Afghanistan and how, you know, the
international community can try to better the situation on the ground,
better coordinate our activities, see what types of things we can do
together to help, you know, make things better for the people of
Afghanistan. So we view it as important. Even though we're not a member,
we're not an observer, we think it's important, we're glad we were
invited, and we look forward to attending and, hopefully, we can get
something constructive out of this conference.

QUESTION: Robert, it is my understanding that the Russians actually
invited - I mean, they invited members - all NATO members, all members
of the G-8, members of the OSCE who are non-member - who are
non-members, non-observers to the Shanghai group. Do you know if the
U.S. was invited? The U.S. is a member of all three of those - the G-8,
OSCE, and NATO. Do you have any idea if the invitation to the U.S. was
extended on - through its membership in one of those groups or was it
extended separately?

MR. WOOD: It could very well have been. I don't know. I just know that
we received that invitation from the SCO. I just - I don't know, to be
honest.

We'll get to you. Did you want to stay on this?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. WOOD: Please.

QUESTION: What sort of plans are there at that conference for any
contact with Iran?

MR. WOOD: Well, there are no plans for any substantive meetings with
Iran. You know, it's not unusual for U.S. and Iranian officials to, you
know, cross paths during a multilateral meeting, so I'm not going to
rule anything in or rule anything out. It is a conference about
Afghanistan and its neighbors. Iran is certainly a neighbor of
Afghanistan, and so we'll see. But as I said, there are no planned
substantive meetings with the Iranians.

...

3/18/09 State Dept: Missile Defense

SOURCE: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/03/120510.htm

Robert Wood

Acting Department Spokesman

Daily Press BriefingAlbouari, Charlie

March 18, 2009

CZECH REPUBLIC

US Will Consult with Czech Allies on Future of Missile Defense Agreement / Missile Defense Systems in Europe to Counter Future Threats / US Is Reviewing Missile Defense Policy

QUESTION: Yes. Yesterday, Czech Government announced the decision to postpone the ratification of the treaty about the deployment of the ABM system in the Czech Republic with the U.S. Do you have any comments about that?

MR. WOOD: The only thing I would briefly say is that we’re consulting with our Czech allies about the future of this agreement. But I just want to draw you back to the reasoning behind our desire to move forward on, you know, employing missile defense, you know, considering putting a missile defense system in Europe. And that, again, was to deal with future threats that we – you know, we certainly can see emanating from the Middle East region, specifically from Iran. So we will continue to have discussions with the Czech Government on this and – you know, as we go forward.

QUESTION: Do you feel that it’s an indication of their reluctance to locate the ABM or not?

MR. WOOD: No, that’s an internal matter for the Czech Government as to whether, you know, it was going to put this treaty forward in parliament. And as I said, we will have discussions with our allies, our Czech allies, and go forward from there. But I don’t have anything further to add.

QUESTION: About missile defense.

MR. WOOD: Sure.

QUESTION: From Polish public television – I assume that after signing treaties with Poland, the Czech Republic – there was a certain schedule of work. Is it in progress right now? What – at what state is it now?

MR. WOOD: Well, I – what I would do is refer you to those governments to give you an accurate assessment of how far work has come, how far work has gone forward. I can’t give you that from here.

QUESTION: But from the U.S. side, what is done so far? What was done so far?

MR. WOOD: Well, what I can tell you is that we have mentioned from – we have mentioned many times that we are going to consult with, you know, both the Czech Government and the Polish Government and our other allies. And as you also know, we – the Obama Administration is looking at the whole concept of missile defense, particularly with regard to this system that had been proposed for Europe, and we want to make sure that it is cost-effective, that it works, and, you know, once that review is completed, we’ll be able to say more about that.

But in terms of where things are on the ground, I’m not in a position to give you a good assessment at this point, but I would, you know, suggest that you talk to both the Czech and Polish governments.

xxx

3/18 State Dept.: Iran

Source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/03/120510.htm

Robert Wood

Acting Department Spokesman

Daily Press Briefing

March 18, 2009

IRAN

Iran Is Isolating Itself and Its People / Iran Must Improve Its Behavior / US Looks Forward to Engaging Iran / Not Aware of Plans to Meet with Iranians in The Hague / Iran Policy Is Under Review

QUESTION: The president of the UN General Assembly has said that the U.S. has been demonizing people forever and specifically spoken about Iranian president. Any comments on – any reaction on that?

MR. WOOD: I actually haven’t read the remarks, but in terms of demonizing a country, we’re – look, Iran is isolating itself and its people by its behavior in the international realm. And we and other countries, specifically our allies, have called on Iran to change its behavior. If it wants to have a better relationship with the international community, it needs to behave differently. And we look forward, as the Secretary and the President have said, of engaging Iran to see what Iran’s intentions are, is it really interested in a better relationship with the international community. And we’ll have to see how that goes.

…

QUESTION: On Afghanistan and the UN-sponsored meeting in The Hague, what specific goals would – the U.S. would like to achieve at that meeting? And secondly, would the U.S. delegation be planning to meet the Iranian delegation at the bilateral level there?

MR. WOOD: I’m not aware of any plans to meet with – for the U.S. delegation to meet with the Iranian delegation. I will not rule out the fact that there could be some kind of a – you know, a greeting of some type. But there’s no plan, as far as I know, for there to be any – a meeting between the two delegations.

With regard to what our goals and objectives are, I think I spelled them out yesterday for you. One of the things we want to see is a coherent international policy going forward and dealing with the situation on the ground in not only Afghanistan, but Pakistan as well.

QUESTION: May I – can I follow up?

MR. WOOD: Oh, yeah. And Lach, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah. No, it was on the Middle East.

MR. WOOD: I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on – well, Hamas claims that Israel is to blame for the collapse of the prisoner swap. Do you have any comment on these negotiations and its broader impact for the stability in the region?

MR. WOOD: I don’t have any comment on those specific remarks. But I think if we’re looking – if there is any group to blame for what’s been going on in the region, it’s Hamas.

QUESTION: Yeah, I’m --

MR. WOOD: Let me go to Nina.

QUESTION: On Iran.

MR. WOOD: Well --

QUESTION: On the Afghanistan conference, I’m a little confused. I mean, the whole idea of this Administration is to, you know, reach out your hand if people unclench their fist or whatever. So why are you saying, you know, there are no particular plans to meet the Iranian delegation? I mean, part of the plan was to invite them.

MR. WOOD: Because I’m saying I’m not aware of any plans. I’m not ruling out, as I said, some type of a, you know, chance interaction. I just – I’m not aware of any plans at this point --

QUESTION: But this --

MR. WOOD: -- for the delegations to engage.

QUESTION: But this is exactly the same language that Secretary Rice always used: Oh, if I happen to bump into him, I’m a polite woman, I’ll greet him. I mean, it’s the same --

MR. WOOD: Well, again, as I’ve said over and again, we are still in the midst of a review of our Iran policy. And I think it’s important for us to be able to finish that so that we can give you a clear outline of what our policy objectives are, how we plan to go forward in engaging Iran in the future. So let us complete that review, and then I think we’ll be able to deal with your questions.

QUESTION: Yeah, but, I mean, you’ve invited them to the conference, so obviously you want them to --

MR. WOOD: The UN invited them.

QUESTION: Well, it was your idea for the conference – your idea to invite them.

MR. WOOD: It was our idea for the conference, that’s right.

QUESTION: Do you know that the UN invited them?

MR. WOOD: As I said to you yesterday, you’ll need to check with the UN.

QUESTION: Okay. But the U.S. – it was Secretary Clinton’s idea for the conference?

MR. WOOD: That’s right.

QUESTION: And it was Secretary Clinton’s idea to invite them?

MR. WOOD: Well --

QUESTION: So if you’re going to have them there, I mean, what’s the point of having them there if you’re not going to talk to them about how you can cooperate on Afghanistan? Just so that you can say that you invited them, is that really engagement, or is it engaging them on an issue of mutual concern, like why do you need a review for that? If they’re going to be at the conference, obviously, before the review is out, you’ve decided that you want to have them there.

MR. WOOD: Well, look, it’s important to have all of the key regional players at this conference, as we’ve said.

QUESTION: But it’s not important to talk to all the key regional players?

MR. WOOD: I didn’t say it wasn’t important to talk to them. I just said that before we engage in a real dialogue with Iran on a number of these issues, we need to finish our review. And I think that’s only fair.

QUESTION: Fine. So you might not want to talk to them about all of the litany of issues that you have with Iran, but specifically on Afghanistan, I mean, if there was an opportunity to talk to the Iranian foreign minister about how the U.S. and Afghanistan could cooperate, I mean, if you’re going to invite them, why not talk to them about it there?

MR. WOOD: Well, as I said, Elise, this conference is about Afghanistan and, you know, obviously, Pakistan. And we are going to have discussions with a wide range of people – of governments who are in attendance and international organizations. And what’s important here is that we all try to agree on some basic principles in terms of going forward with regard to dealing with the problems in those two countries, specifically focused on Afghanistan. And there will be plenty of interchange amongst the delegations at this conference. I’m just not aware that there are any plans to have our two delegations engaged.

Is it possible that that could change? You know, I’m not going to rule anything out. Anything is possible. But this conference is more than just the U.S. and Iran. It’s – as I said, it’s about Afghanistan and the situation in the region, and that’s where we need to keep our focus.

QUESTION: Well, why not – I know you don’t have diplomatic relations with them, but why not use this opportunity to push the case, for example, of the Iranian American journalist who is – can’t be released? Why not approach it from – that’s pragmatic?

MR. WOOD: Well, we are already – with regard to that journalist, we are having – we are communicating through the Swiss in dealing with that issue. Again, this conference is about that region of the world. And as I said, there are no plans at this moment that I’m aware of. But is it possible that we could have discussions or there could be, you know, a – you know, chance greetings, that type of thing? Yeah. I mean, I can’t say with exact certainty that that won’t happen.

But what I’m trying to – the message I’m trying to communicate is that what you need to look at is how all of the countries who have equities in that situation in the region need to cooperate and don’t focus solely right now on the U.S. and Iran. As I said, this Administration is interested in engaging Iran. We want to do that. But we also need to complete our review so that we can spell out for you and all others in the international community who are interested in this subject of how we plan to go forward.

QUESTION: Just from a policy perspective, one thing is that the Bush Administration, when they met the Iranians in terms of discussing Iraq, if only Iraq was on the table, all other subjects were taboo. What’s your policy in terms of meeting the Iranians if you are going to see the Iranians on Afghanistan --

…

QUESTION: Can I just go back to Iran? I don’t think you can answer this, but anyway --

MR. WOOD: Then why ask it? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is it – if I have to – is it true that the Administration, as part of this review, is even considering allowing Iran to keep some kind of low-grade indigenous enrichment capability that could be monitored?

MR. WOOD: I don’t know, Nina. Look, let’s let the review be completed, and then we can, as I said, spell out our policies going forward.

QUESTION: Can you give us any sense of when the review will be completed?

MR. WOOD: Hopefully soon, but I can’t give you anything better than that.

QUESTION: Weeks or months or…?

MR. WOOD: I don’t know. You all will find out about it.

QUESTION: You’ll let us know.

MR. WOOD: Please.

3/18 State Dept.: Russia/Missile Defense

Robert Wood

Acting Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

March 18, 2009

RUSSIA

US and Russia Share Concern of Future Threat from Iran / Missile Defense Is in Response to Iranian Behavior / Look Forward to Working with Russia on Missile Defense

QUESTION: When Secretary Clinton met Foreign Minister Lavrov, there were indications that there was wiggle room for some sort of compromise with the Russians in terms of missile defense. Where are you at the moment with the Russians on missile defense? Because there were some new ideas being bandied around.

MR. WOOD: Well, I think where we are is that the Russians share our view about the concern of a future threat emanating from Iran. The Russians are under no illusions about Iran’s behavior. And as I said, they share our concerns. We have said, you know, that this missile defense system that was proposed for both Poland and the Czech Republic was in response to our concern about Iranian behavior and a future threat emanating from Iran. And so, you know, that’s why the previous administration went forward with – or, you know, launched into this concept because of that concern about Iran.

And so, you know, if that threat from Iran no longer is real, then obviously, we would, you know, adjust our policies accordingly. But our concern remains Iran and what – and that threat posed by Iran. So – and the Russians, as I said, see it the same way we do, and we look forward to cooperating with Russia on missile defense as we’ve said many times.

SOURCE:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/03/120510.htm

03/13/09:Press Briefing: DPRK

State Department Daily Press Briefing

Deputy spokesman Gordon Duguid briefs reporters March 13


U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Friday, March 13, 2009
11:52 p.m. EST

Briefer: Gordon Duguid, Acting Deputy Spokesman

NORTH KOREA

-- Belligerent Statements, Actions Not Helpful to Six-Party Process

-- North Korea Should Come Back to the Table

-- Proposition of a Missile Launch is a Bad Idea/Violation of UNSCR 1718

EXCERPT

QUESTION: On North Korea, other news reports that North Korea’s begun cancelling visas for American groups who have already received permission to travel to the country, to enter the country, can you comment on this?

And then to follow up, how do you view this measure, in light of some of the more recent, provocative language from the North about potential missile launches?

MR. DUGUID: I have not had any information or seen any reports that they are cancelling visas, so I’m not prepared, really, to make any comment on that.

We’ve said several times this week, we’ve said several times over the past month that North Korean belligerent statements and actions are not helpful to the Six-Party process. They are not part of what North Korea has committed to do under the Six-Party Talks, and that in the interest of moving forward to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, North Korea should live up to its agreements and come back to the table and start discussing where we go after that to make progress.

QUESTION: Can you – Gordon, could you take that question about whether North Korea has begun cancelling visas it had already issued? That would be interesting if it were the case.

MR. DUGUID: We will take it. I am not certain how we would confirm that, since they’re North Korean visas issued to individuals. We would have to refer you to individuals. They do not necessarily report the cancellation of their visas to us.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. DUGUID: But we will look and see what we can get for you, if we have had complaints through various channels.

Yes, please.

[...]

Yes, Jill.
QUESTION: Can I just ask a little clarification on North Korea and the missile? It seems, at least in my mind, it’s unclear what the United States would do if they launched this. Is there a threat that the United States would actually shoot it down? Will the U.S. be monitoring it? If it’s – if they think it’s a satellite going into space, what would they do? In other words, is there a clear position what the United States would do if that missile is fired, as we expect, in April?

MR. DUGUID: Well, you’re asking me to do two things, both of which I can’t do. One is to speculate, and one is to get into intelligence matters.
The UN, all other five parties in the Six-Party Talks, a number of nations around the world have come out and said that the proposition of a missile launch, whatever is on top of it, by the North Koreans is a bad idea. Most interpret a launch, as well, as being a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1718. I think the isolation that North Korea feels on this issue is something that should be noted by us, if it’s not being taken to heart there.
But as to what will happen and when things happen, I’ll have to leave that for a future discussion.

QUESTION: Gordon, I don’t think it’s intelligence or speculation anymore. They have said that they’re going to do it. They’ve announced it and informed international bodies to which they’re a party.

MR. DUGUID: The question was what will we do in response.

QUESTION: Right, so what will you do in response to something they’ve said --

MR. DUGUID: And I will leave that for a future briefing.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MR. DUGUID: Yes, please.

QUESTION: Japan has said that they could shoot down the missile, if it was fired over Japan. Does the U.S. have any comment on that?

MR. DUGUID: I will leave Japan’s statement for the Japanese to further discuss.

QUESTION: Do you think it’s helpful --

MR. DUGUID: Yes, please. In the back.

03/09/09: State Dept. Press Briefing: DPRK

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing Partial Transcript

Monday, March 9, 2009

NORTH KOREA

-- Rhetoric Coming out of Pyongyang is Provocative/Further Destabilizes the Region

-- U.S. Working with Other Parties towards Denuclearization

EXCERPT

QUESTION: On North Korea. As the drumbeat of belligerent rhetoric continues, are you concerned, seriously concerned, that it could result in armed conflict?

MR. WOOD: Well, I mean, look, I certainly hope not. Certainly, the rhetoric coming out of Pyongyang is unwarranted and counterproductive. North Korea needs to refrain from provocative rhetoric and actions that only further destabilize the region. And that's all I have on it.

QUESTION: But you said you don't always understand what's going on in North Korea, and it seems though, in general, you accept what is widely believed to be analysts who interpret it as trying to grab attention from the Obama Administration, that the Obama Administration has competing priorities and they don't want to be forgotten. Secretary Clinton made similar statements: North Korea is not going to get a different relationship with the United States while insulting and refusing dialogue with the Republic of Korea.

Well, let's say you're misinterpreting what they feel. I mean, do they think these military exercises are designed at regime change?

MR. WOOD: Our military exercises with the Republic of Korea are not a threat to the North. What is a threat to the region is this bellicose rhetoric coming out of the North. What we're trying to do, as I've said many times, Lach, is to get the North back to the table within the Six-Party framework, denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. And this type of rhetoric is just not helpful. Provocative actions don't lead to stability in the region. We want to have a different type of relationship with the North, but the North knows what it needs to do, and we want to get them back, as I said, in that framework of the Six-Party Talks and go forward on denuclearization.

QUESTION: Robert, you've often said that - and others have said as well, that actions speak louder than words. In this case, you're seeming to suggest that words are more powerful than actions. You're talking about a major military exercise, which is an actual action, is going to take place, and you're saying that that is not a threat; and yet, North Korea's bombast, which is typical - it's nothing - you know, nothing unusual -

MR. WOOD: As I said --

QUESTION: -- that that somehow is a threat?

MR. WOOD: Matt, as I said, the U.S.-ROK exercises are not a threat to the North. The Republic of Korea has not been threatening the North. The North is the party that is, you know, prepared to launch missiles, has launched missiles in the past. Its actions are of concern, not just to the United States and the Republic of Korea, but to the entire international community.

And so you're not going to - the responsibility lies with the North. The North has verification responsibilities in the Six-Party framework. As you know, they were not willing to provide in writing some of the verification requirements that are needed to get us to the next phase. The onus is on the North. And again, as I said, this type of rhetoric coming out of the North is not helpful, it's provocative, and we want to see it stop.

QUESTION: Is there any risk, though, that this isolated regime perceives the actions by the U.S. and by South Korea as a military threat to them? They've heard about regime change in the previous administration. Do they see changes in government the way we see them?

MR. WOOD: I can't tell you how they see things, Lach.

QUESTION: You have to know, though.

MR. WOOD: It's hard to know. As I've said, it's hard to get into the mindset of the North Korean regime. But what we have said to them, and they have agreed to this, is that we need to find a way to get to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. They agreed to a number of steps. There's been a lot of work in this area that's been quite successful. We still have a ways to go. And we hope that the North will live up to its responsibilities.

But we are not creating an environment that's threatening to North Korea. What we are trying to do is work with the North and the other parties to eventually get to that goal of denuclearization.

QUESTION: And do you think that this rhetoric that's going on is actually delaying the whole negotiating process? Because that was the kind of implication of what --

MR. WOOD: I would just say it's not helpful to the process. What we want the North to do, as I said, is to get back to the table so that we can go forward on denuclearization.

03/09/09 State Dept. Press Brief: Iran

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing Partial Transcript

Monday, March 9, 2009

 

IRAN

-- Two-Year Anniversary of the Disappearance of Robert Levinson

-- Roxana Saberi/U.S. Request Swiss as Our Protecting Power to Get More Information/U.S. Wants Her Released/Requests Transparency of Judicial Process

-- U.S. Has Offered Hand to the Government of Iran/Engagement Depends on Iran's Willingness to Change Behavior

 

SYRIA

-- Acting A/S Feltman and Dan Shapiro Meetings with Syrian Officials/Very Productive

-- Agenda Addressed Concerns with Syrian Behavior Around the World

 

NORTH KOREA

-- Rhetoric Coming out of Pyongyang is Provocative/Further Destabilizes the Region

-- U.S. Working with Other Parties towards Denuclearization

 

 

xxxx

 

QUESTION:  On Iran?

 

MR. WOOD: On Iran.  Yes, please.

 

QUESTION:  The Turkish prime - I'm sorry, foreign minister has said that, if asked, Turkey might consider mediating the talks between Iran and the U.S.  Is that something that you might have considered, or might the U.S. Government go - the Syrian way, just go directly and talk to them?

 

MR. WOOD:  Well, again, we're still in the midst of that review.  I don't want to speculate as to what we might do.  But let us just say that - let me just say that we have offered our hand to the Government of Iran, and we hope to be able to engage this government on a whole range of issues.  But a lot of it's going to depend on, you know, Iran and its willingness to engage and its willingness to change its behavior in a number of areas where we have concern.

 

 

xxxxx

 

QUESTION:  Any sense of the reviews - policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran might be coming up?

 

MR. WOOD:  The Afghanistan policy reviews, I think we've said we expect to be done some time, fairly soon, I'd say within -you know, and I think we've said mid-March.  But the Iran review - I don't have a timeframe on that for you at this point.

 

Lach.