|
Questions on UAE, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Israel dominated State Dept. briefing on Friday
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)--Following is a transcript of the Middle East portions of the press briefing by State Department Deputy Spokesman Robert Wood on Friday:
QUESTION: The case of – the trial of Mr. Hamdan is coming up shortly in the UAE. I know I’ve asked about it before, perhaps to another briefer, but I’d like to know whether the U.S. is assisting – if you could say whether the U.S. is assisting the UAE in the prosecution of Mr. Hamdan, or, perhaps, are you assisting Mr. Hamdan in his defense? Are you taking any role?
MR. WOOD: I don’t really have any update for you on that, Charlie. I’ll see if I can get you something, but I can’t promise you I’ll be able to get something on that particular issue.
Here, and then we’ll go to --
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the demonstrations in Iran today and whether it’s going --
MR. WOOD: I’ve seen some of the footage from the demonstrations and certainly saw a number of press reports, but I think this is just another example of how divided Iran is right now. This is just another example, as I’ve said, of Iran needing to – the Iranian Government needing to come to grips with the reality it faces within its borders. And I don’t think I have very much more to add than – to what we’ve said all along.
QUESTION: And what is the reality that Iran faces? I mean, how do you see that reality?
MR. WOOD: Well, clearly, the people of Iran are not happy with the current situation. Of course, we are all familiar with the aftermath of the Iranian elections. The Iranian Government is – has a crisis of confidence with its people. And so it needs to address that crisis of confidence. And until it does, it’s going to be very hard for that government to gain legitimacy in the eyes of its people.
QUESTION: So are you saying that the government is not legitimate, then, in the eyes of its --
MR. WOOD: It’s not for me to say whether it’s legitimate or not. I think we’ve said this over and again. This is something that has to be determined by the Iranian people. It’s only a decision that the Iranian people can make, not any outside government.
QUESTION: Today, Mr. Rafsanjani was – well, spoke openly about, and with – and critically about the election. And he said that the media should be more open in Iran. Do you consider this comment as significant, or is it for you something, you know, as usual?
MR. WOOD: Well, I mean, the fact that you have a major clerical figure, a former president, making those types of comments is clearly something that one has to pay attention to. It’s no secret that there have been problems with freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, in Iran, and we’ve been mostly concerned, of course, about the violence that has taken place in the aftermath of the election.
But again, this is something that the Iranian Government is going to have to square with its own people. As I said, there’s a crisis of confidence, and we’ve said from the beginning we in no way want to interfere with what’s going on in Iran. But the world is concerned about – particularly in the aftermath of the violence and where Iran seems to be heading.
QUESTION: Next door – can I go next door?
MR. WOOD: Let me just – Samir’s been waiting.
QUESTION: On Iran, would the --
MR. WOOD: On Iran?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. WOOD: Okay.
QUESTION: Would the offer for engagement with Iran go ahead before the government in Iran settled this confidence problem with its people? I mean, do you condition that or you are willing to negotiate with this situation?
MR. WOOD: Well, Samir, as you know, there has been an invitation out to the Iranian Government to engage in a dialogue with the United States. There was an invitation sent by Javier Solana, if you remember, for Iran to attend a P-5+1 meeting. Iran has not responded to these overtures. It’s hard for us to say what kind of a dialogue we’re going to be able to have with Iran if Iran is not willing to engage back.
But as I said, going forward, the Iranian leadership is going to have to deal with the crisis of confidence that the people of Iran have with its leaders – with their leaders. So it’s really up to the Iranian Government as to whether it wants to go down the path that we, the United States, and others in the international community have offered it. And again, our main interests are seeing that Iran not develop a nuclear weapon.
And it’s in our interests, as we’ve said many times, to have this type of direct diplomacy with Iran so that Iran can address some of the concerns that we and others in the international community have, not only about their nuclear program, but other activities around the region.
Yes.
QUESTION: Robert, the (inaudible) president has been reelected. He has reacted very sharply to Secretary Clinton’s speech the other day this week. She talked about Iran, told her – said that, you know, time for Iran to accept the offer, it’s not indefinite, it’s not unlimited. Do you think this is a sign of what you’re to expect in the future? And any reactions to what he has said?
MR. WOOD: Well, I don’t know what to expect from Iran’s – the Iranian leadership in the future. We’ll have to see. But again, the Secretary is very clear: We want to engage Iran and we want to do that. But that offer is not going to be out there forever. Iran needs to take advantage of the opportunities that the international community has put forward to engage.
So far, they haven’t chosen to do that, and it’s really – it’s up to Iran whether it wants to pursue a path of engagement or a path of isolation. It’s really up to Iran, but we have been very clear in terms of where our national interests lie, and that direct engagement is the method that we would like to pursue in terms of dealing with these problems that we face with Iran.
Matt had a – you had something?
QUESTION: Yeah, I wanted to ask you, but go to someone else first and I think --
MR. WOOD: Okay. Please.
QUESTION: In that same vein, I was just wondering, at that same speech at CFR, she said that the U.S. is standing up for human rights everywhere, but when the U.S. makes statements that it’s going to sit down at the negotiating table, considering the government treatment of protestors in Iran, isn’t the U.S. sending mixed signals? Are we concerned about that? I mean – or is it just that we put keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran as a higher priority over human rights?
MR. WOOD: No. The Secretary spoke very clearly in her speech about human rights. And we’re very concerned, as we’ve said many times, about human rights violations in Iran. But we’ve also said at the same time that Iran’s nuclear program is something of great concern to not only the United States, but other countries of the world. And we’re going to do what we’ve can. We’ve said that we want to engage Iran on not only the nuclear issue, but other issues, as I mentioned. Human rights would certainly be one of those issues, and I don’t see them as separate. I mean, they’re all important. That’s why we want to have this dialogue with Iran, so that we can try to get to the bottom of some of these differences that we have.
But again, Iran needs to respond to our offers of engagement. And we still await their response.
QUESTION: Can I go to Iraq for a second?
MR. WOOD: Anything else on Iran? One more.
QUESTION: I just had a question on a statement you made previously. You said that the offer is not going to be on the table forever. What’s the next step that the U.S. makes after – if Iran fails to accept our offer of engagement?
MR. WOOD: Well, let’s see. I mean, it’s still on the table. We’re not putting a timeline on it, obviously, but we need to see if Iran is going to engage. But we’re not going to keep that offer out there indefinitely.
Yes.
Go to the top of right column
|
|
QUESTION: There are going to be some prisoner exchanges in Iraq. You’re going to be turning over detainees that you have, or the military is, to the Iraqis. And I’m just wondering if you’re confident that these prisoners, once they’re transferred, will be well treated or not mistreated.
MR. WOOD: Well, Matt, I’m not aware of any additional transfers of prisoners. You might want to check with the Pentagon. But clearly, should there be that type of a transfer, we wouldn’t do so unless we were confident that the rights of these individuals were respected and that they would be treated humanely. But that’s about the best I can tell you because I’m not familiar with this particular group of prisoners.
QUESTION: On that subject, is that required in the agreement with Iraq, that they guarantee that those prisoners will be treated humanely?
MR. WOOD: I don’t know that that’s necessarily in the agreement, but we certainly had assurances from the Iraqis that people that are turned over will be dealt with humanely. That’s what we would expect, and I’m sure the Iraqi leadership feels the same way in terms of how it will deal with individuals. But I don’t remember exactly in the agreement. You might want to go back and check, but certainly we’ve been given those assurances from the Government of Iraq about the transfer of individuals to their custody.
***
QUESTION: Robert, have you got any information regarding the explosions that occurred in the south of Lebanon two or three days ago?
MR. WOOD: I’ve seen the reports about them, but I don’t have anything to give you on that, any confirmation of that. But I do understand – my understanding is that the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL are conducting a joint investigation of these reported explosions of munitions. And for us, we again want to see the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and we’re committed to that. But there’s an investigation going on, as I said, so I – but I don’t have anything more on that.
Nina.
QUESTION: Robert, any plans for George Mitchell to go to Israel?
MR. WOOD: My understanding is that Senator Mitchell plans to go fairly soon. They’re still working out the itinerary, so I don’t have any dates or locations to announce. But he is planning to go very soon to the region.
QUESTION: Is Fred Hoff still in Syria or what will –
MR. WOOD: I don’t know if he has left at this point. He may still be in Syria, I believe, but I’m not certain. You might just want to check with the NEA folks and see.
QUESTION: So where does he plan to go? Is he going to Israel, Palestinian territories, Egypt, Middle East, any –
MR. WOOD: I just said that itinerary is still working out – being worked out, so I really don’t have that information for you at this point.
ZOA disappointed State Dept. won't list 'Jerusalem, Israel' as a birthplace on U.S. passports
NEW YORK—The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is disappointed by the decision issued last Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, upholding the lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit by an American citizen born in Jerusalem who wanted to have “Israel” listed as his birthplace on his U.S. passport and other official documents. Congress granted this right in 2002 in legislation signed into law by President George W. Bush. Before the law was enacted, the documents of U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem listed “Jerusalem” only, with no country of birth. After the law was passed, the State Department continued to list only “Jerusalem” on the documents of U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem, even when citizens requested that “Israel” be recorded as their birthplace.
The parents of Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, an American citizen born in Jerusalem, sued the State Department to enforce his right to have Israel listed as his birthplace on his U.S. passport and other official documents. The ZOA filed a similar complaint on behalf of another American citizen born in Jerusalem, and the two cases were consolidated.
The district court initially dismissed the cases, deciding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, and that the cases raised a political question that the court could not resolve. Zivotofsky appealed, represented by the esteemed Washington, D.C. legal team of Nathan Lewin, Esq. – a member of the ZOA’s Center for Law and Justice’s advisory board – and Alyza Lewin, Esq. The Court of Appeals concluded that Zivotofsky had standing and sent the case back to the district court to develop a more complete record. When the district court dismissed the case, concluding that it raised a political question that the courts could not decide, Zivotofksy appealed again.
Last Friday, ignoring the U.S. legislation that both Houses of Congress had passed and that President Bush had signed into law, the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the case raised a political question – the power to define U.S. policy regarding Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem – which the courts do not have jurisdiction to address. The Court’s Senior Judge concurred with the result, but decided that the 2002 law was unconstitutional, encroaching on the President’s recognition power regarding Jerusalem.
Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, and Susan B. Tuchman, Esq., the Director of the ZOA’s Center for Law and Justice, were disappointed by the Court’s decision: “The Court of Appeals said that our government’s policy on Jerusalem is unclear, and that the Executive alone has the authority to recognize sovereignty over Jerusalem. But Congress shares foreign policy powers with the Executive Branch. Fourteen years ago, with overwhelming bipartisan support, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and it became law. The law recognizes that every sovereign nation has the right to designate its own capital, that the State of Israel has designated its capital as Jerusalem, and that it is the policy of the United States that Jerusalem should be recognized as Israel’s capital. American citizens like Menachem Binyamin Zivotofksy, who are born in Israel’s designated capital, should have the right to have that fact reflected on their official documents.”
Boxer proposes tax incentive
for wine, nut, fruit growers
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)—U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (Democrat, California) on Thursday introduced legislation that would allow tree fruit, vine and nut growers to qualify for a tax depreciation benefit included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
Congress approved the benefit – a special allowance for depreciation – as part of ARRA to encourage businesses, including farms, to make capital investments to help spur economic growth. Under the provision, property “placed in service” in 2009 is eligible for 50 percent bonus depreciation.
However, crops such as fruit and nut producing trees and vines were excluded from the benefit because the crops are not considered “placed in service” until they produce a commercially-viable yield – even though it can take years for new trees and vines to do so.
This legislation would make these crops eligible to be claimed under this tax benefit by simply changing the “placed in service” date to when the crop is planted.
Senator Boxer said, “Tree fruit, vine, and nut growers play a crucial part in California’s agricultural economy, which is struggling through this tough economic climate. Extending this tax incentive makes sense to encourage producers to invest in their businesses and help our economy grow.”
The legislation is supported by California Citrus Mutual, the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, the California Grape and Tree Fruit League, the Agriculture Council of California, and the California Farm Bureau Federation.
Democratic Senators Bill Nelson of Florida, Dianne Feinstein of California, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York are original cosponsors of this legislation, and Congressman Mike Thompson (Democrat, California) introduced this legislation in the House.
|
|
