Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 30, 2010


Index for Today's Briefing
  • DEPARTMENT
    • Anniversary of the detention in Iran of three hikers
    • Signing of Arrangements and Procedures in accordance with the U.S.-India Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation
    • Assistant Secretary Robert Blake discusses U.S. policy toward Central Asia at Carnegie Endowment
    • GAO report on visa processing vulnerabilities
  • FRANCE
    • Suspicious letter opened at embassy in Paris
  • IRAN
    • U.S. and European Union sanctions on Iran
    • P-5+1 Engagement / Details on proposal regarding Tehran research reactor
  • AFGHANISTAN
    • UN delisting of five Afghan Taliban names
  • MEXICO
    • Closure of Consulate Ciudad Juarez
  • ISRAEL/PALESTIANS/ARAB LEAGUE
    • Recommendations made by the follow-up committee to the Arab Peace Initiative
  • AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN
    • Effects of Wikileaks documents
  • CHINA
    • Travel Warning


TRANSCRIPT:

12:39 p.m. EDT

MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. A couple of announcements before taking your questions. After the briefing you will receive a statement by Secretary Clinton regarding the one year of detention of the three hikers. As you’ll see in the statement, today marks the year-long detention of three U.S. citizens – Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd, and Joshua Fattal – for allegedly crossing into Iran during a hiking vacation in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Their release by the Iranian Government is long overdue and their continued detention is unjustifiable. Iran has long espoused to the world its commitment to justice, security, and peace for all. We urge Iran to take action in this case – detained the three hikers – detained for a year in Evin prison without charge to match its stated commitments.

We call on Iran to do the right thing and allow these three Americans to return home to their families.

QUESTION: Is it today or is it tomorrow?

MR. CROWLEY: It’s tomorrow. But I will release the statement today. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns and Indian ambassador to the United States H.E. Meera Shankar, today will sign the arrangements and procedures pursuant to Article 6(iii) of the agreement for cooperation concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which regards the reprocessing of U.S.-obligated nuclear material in India.

Upon entry into force, the arrangements and procedures will enable reprocessing by India of the United States obligated nuclear material at a new national processing – reprocessing facility to be established by India, dedicated to the reprocessing of safeguarded nuclear material under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. What that really means is, is today marks one of the final steps in terms of implementation of the U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement.

Very shortly, Assistant Secretary Bob Blake will be at the Carnegie Endowment to discuss U.S. policy toward Central Asia. His remarks will focus significantly on Kyrgyzstan, but he’ll review the priorities of the – of our policies toward Central Asia including: expanding cooperation with Central Asian states to assist coalition efforts in Afghanistan; increasing development and diversification of the region’s energy resources and supply routes; encouraging political liberalization and respect for human rights, that is particularly important in our emerging relationship with Kyrgyzstan; fostering competitive market economies and economic reform; and preventing emergence of failed states, or in more positive terms, increasing the capacities of states to govern effectively. And we’ll have a text of his remarks out later on this afternoon.

And finally, by popular demand or the absence of popular demand, we will suspend the daily press briefing on Fridays through Labor Day, unless the news of day warrants.

QUESTION: Perfect. Can we start today?

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) Absolutely.

QUESTION: Can you give us a rundown of what happened at the embassy in Paris today? Not everything that happened, but what happened involving the employees and this mysterious envelope. I don’t want to --

MR. CROWLEY: My understanding is two employees opening letters today at the embassy in Paris detected a strange odor. They alerted our security forces; they, in turn, brought in French authorities and the – whatever the smell was, it was not deemed harmful, it’s not toxic. I’ve seen one report that French authorities have suggested it might be tear gas. As a precaution, the two employees were sent to the hospital and have experienced no ill effects from whatever was detected in these letters.

QUESTION: Well, you mean, you don’t know what it was. It might have been tear gas?

MR. CROWLEY: I’ve seen one report from French authorities suggesting it was tear gas, with the investigation still ongoing. But the key is, nothing harmful was detected and the two employees, when they were examined by medical authorities, did not seem to be suffering any ill effects.

QUESTION: Well, having been on the receiving end of tear gas several times, it’s not exactly not harmful. So, I --

MR. CROWLEY: It’s not toxic.

QUESTION: Can you distinguish --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, wait a second. But the employees at the embassy, they themselves, they were sent to the hospital as a precaution. I don’t know that they suggested that they were suffering any ill effects.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to distinguish what could have been a benign shipment of something that smelled versus something malodorous?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, put it this way. We are continuing to investigate this as are French authorities. We can’t account for what might have happened, but at least at the present we at least understand that it’s not something toxic. But beyond that, obviously, we will continue to investigate and see what we can figure out about the incident.

QUESTION: Who from the U.S. is investigating? Is it --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, Diplomatic Security –

QUESTION: Yes, okay.

MR. CROWLEY: --would be involved. Yeah.

QUESTION: FBI involved?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I can’t say that they’ve been called in. Obviously, we have a presence of our legal attaché, so they might at some point be called in to assist, but right now, as far as I know, it’s Diplomatic Security and French authorities.

QUESTION: Do most of our embassies still open the mail in the embassy compound or do they have offsite facilities like here in the States?

MR. CROWLEY: That’s a very good question. I’m assuming that it was on the embassy compound if that’s --

QUESTION: Offsite.

MR. CROWLEY: It was offsite?

QUESTION: It was offsite.

MR. CROWLEY: All right, it was offsite. Very good.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Very good. Good call, good catch.

QUESTION: The Chinese foreign ministry said today that it opposes the unilateral sanctions imposed – recently announced by United States and the European Union. So do you think that China will also make a similar objection to new U.S. sanctions on North Korea?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I don’t want to put words in the mouth of the foreign minister. He did have statements about the EU sanctions. We’re pursuing our own national steps. We have had conversations with Chinese officials since Congress passed legislation explaining what we are planning to do. And obviously, we will continue to talk to and work with China. It will be very important for all countries, including China, to live up to obligations both under Security Council resolutions. I think, as Special Advisor Einhorn said in his testimony yesterday, we want to be sure that the cumulative actions of the international community and along with national steps that individual countries or regions will take, apply significant pressure on Iran. And we don’t want to see actions by any one country undercut, the overall global efforts to move Iran in a more constructive direction.

We think that the effects of not only 1929, but the sanctions announced by the UN – I’m sorry, by the EU and by the United States, are having an effect on the thinking in Tehran. We’ve heard again today that Iran appears to be a bit willing to engage in a direct conversation. We hope that if we are able to set up such a meeting, they will engage constructively. Time will tell. But – so we will continue to have conversations with China and other countries as we move through and fully implement international and national sanctions.

QUESTION: P.J., do you think the new U.S. sanctions on North Korea will be similar to those on Iran?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the – we don’t take a cookie-cutter approach here. Iran and North Korea are two different countries. Iran has resources, particularly in the energy sector. North Korea does not. So we will apply measured sanctions against North Korea as we have in the past and tailor to help influence the thinking of the government and those who support the government. Likewise, we are directing sanctions at Iran and it’s the agencies that are linked to the concerns that we have – proliferation, nuclear concerns that we have. But they are different.

QUESTION: The UN has apparently taken some Taliban off of its sanctions list. Is there any reaction to that and do – will the U.S. follow suit in removing them?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think it’s important that this is an ongoing process. We obviously welcome today’s announcement on the delisting of five Afghan Taliban names under the 1267 process. These are individuals who have cut ties with al-Qaida and accepted the Afghan constitution and have given up the fight. So this is an ongoing process and we continue our conversations within the UN and we’ll look to see -- to make sure that the 1267 process is dynamic.

QUESTION: But will the U.S. follow suit? Will they also – will the U.S. also remove –

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, yes, yeah. The actions work in tandem, yes.

QUESTION: Several of them were actually dead?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. CROWLEY: Yes. That’s --

QUESTION: So how – if they didn’t – I assume didn’t renounce the Taliban or al-Qaida before they died, but –

MR. CROWLEY: I was – a fair point –

QUESTION: No, no. But I wasn’t – I’m not trying to be a smart ass.

MR. CROWLEY: Not all of the five are living. That’s true.

QUESTION: Of the ones that were dead on the list, though, now that they are off the list, that unfreezes their assets. Is there concern that money that they had that is now unfrozen is going to end funding the Taliban again?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean this is something that we worked through as part of the process. We understand that in these cases you’ve got family relationships, tribal relationships, and we took that into account.

QUESTION: So that means you’re not concerned that the money is going –

MR. CROWLEY: It is something that we have watched carefully. But again, we’re doing two things. We obviously don’t want to take steps that add risk on the battlefield. But at the same time, we are supporting the Afghan-led process that opens – paves the way and opens the door for important steps on the political front as well.

QUESTION: Can you give –

MR. CROWLEY: All right. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Me?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Mexico, closing of the consulate, Ciudad de Juarez. Can you explain exactly why this is taking place? And also, how busy is this consulate?

MR. CROWLEY: It is a very significant facility for us, a major component of our ability to process visa applications for Mexicans wishing to come to the United States. We are reviewing our security posture at the consulate. It has been closed today as part of that review. There is some threat information that we’ve received that we’re evaluating. It’s hard to know if it just is – if it’s threat information related to the broad area, where the consulate is or it’s more specific to the consulate itself. So that’s part of this review process that we have.

QUESTION: Speaking of visa processing –

MR. CROWLEY: All right. Hold on.

QUESTION: Wait, wait. When you say it’s a significant facility for – can you quantify that at all? I mean, how many visas or –

MR. CROWLEY: We’ll see if we can get that. It should be findable.

QUESTION: I was trying to build on the GAO report that was released yesterday with visa processing. Is the State Department taking any direct steps to keep people from – as the investigators to – using bogus drivers’ licenses and birth certificates?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, actually, they weren’t necessarily using bogus drivers’ licenses. And as Brenda Sprague outlined in her testimony yesterday, there are some definite steps that we think can be taken to strengthen our ability to detect fraud in passport applications. We believe that we have done a lot in recent years, but clearly this points out that we have more work to do.

What we discussed with the Congress leading up to the hearing yesterday and we’re grateful that there is support – and in fact, there’s been a bill introduced by Senators Cardin, Feinstein, and Lieberman on the Passport Identity Verification Act. We need to have some expanded authorities that allow us to have complete access to the same kinds of information that states have access to when issuing drivers’ licenses so that there’s some portion of the database that we have access to today if we can expand the authorities. And one way to do that would be by designating consular affairs as a law enforcement entity so that we could have fuller access to information and that way do a more effective job of detecting the kind of action that the GAO did in its investigation.

Likewise, we want to see standardization of birth and identity documents that will help us. We’ve discussed with the Congress requiring American citizens, if they have one, to provide their social security number, which also gives us another means of verifying the document submitted as part of the application process. And finally, understanding that as we are continuing to strengthen the processes underneath the issuance of passports, we want to make sure that we have the resources necessary to do that work.

QUESTION: As a practical matter, how bad of a problem do you have?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we process millions of applications every year. In this particular case, GAO submitted a – I think it was nine applications inside the process. We detected half of them. So it pointed out some areas where if we have – the more information we have, the more we’ll be able to detect this. By the same token, the ones that we did put – we did detect were done by some of the tools that we put in place in recent years that allowed us to see that in this particular case, the driver’s licenses were valid, but the – I think the pictures presented with the driver’s licenses were not.

QUESTION: Are you – you’re advocating requiring Social Security numbers?

MR. CROWLEY: That’s something that we’re discussing with the Congress, yes.

QUESTION: Doesn’t that run counter to the entire idea of what a Social Security number is supposed to be? I mean, it was specific – when it came into place, it was – there were specific concerns about it becoming a national ID number or a national ID card. Doesn’t this – doesn’t that run contrary to the spirit of what it is?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, and this is something that we’re discussing. Look, we – as we said, we – the more information that we have access to, the better that we can identify that the person applying for the passport is who he or she says he or she is. It’s just that simple. So – and a Social Security number is one way in which you can identify that somebody is rooted in the community and is offering – and we’re able to verify that person is – this is a legitimate application.

Again, we will work with the Congress and we think that there will be support in the Congress for the kinds of steps that we want to take. Whether they’ll advocate – they’ll accept every step that we have proposed, that’s part of the ongoing process.

QUESTION: Change topics?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Direct negotiations; anything you could share with us on the continent (inaudible) as far as recommendations made by the follow-up committee to the Arab Peace Initiative that was sent to President Obama yesterday?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t feel comfortable laying out the contents of the letter. We have it. We’re evaluating the ideas that were put forward yesterday by the peace initiative committee. For the most part, it entails how direct negotiations would unfold, and in particular, parameters where those stakeholders would want to see progress or understanding in terms of the issues that will be addressed in direct negotiations.

So it was a supportive letter. It was supportive of the role of the United States in this process. And we will be responding to those ideas in the coming days.

QUESTION: They requested – if I may, I have a couple follow-ups.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: They requested that the United States submits or gives some sort of written guarantees, written guarantees on certain things – on settlements, on some of the other issues. That’s what the Arab League secretary general said. Are you – do you think that the Administration has the flexibility to do that or accommodate that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, we have spent the last few months trying to establish a strong basis for negotiations to proceed. We have been trading ideas with the parties so that everyone has the right expectation should Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas agree to move forward into direct negotiations. But we want to see them get into direct negotiations as quickly as possible, and we’re – that’s – that will be our focus in the coming days.

QUESTION: On a related matter, as we talk now, the meeting, the summit in Lebanon is winding down, it’s ending between the king of Saudi Arabia, the president of Syria, and the president of Lebanon. What are your hopes for the summit? I mean, what is it that you would like to see the summit do?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, I’ll let the leaders themselves talk about their achievements. Clearly, there is heightened concern about the situation in Lebanon. We are committed to Lebanon’s sovereignty. It is not negotiable, as Secretary Clinton made clear in her most recent trip to Beirut. And we think it reflects the commitment that King Abdullah has to do everything possible to pursue peace in the region.

So our hope is that from this, there will be a recommitment to Lebanese sovereignty, there will be an understanding to try to restrain those elements within Lebanon who have precipitated conflict in the past, and we would hope to avoid that in the future.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Just – I have just one question on this Burns-Shankar meeting. Is there anything new in these arrangements and procedures that they’re signing or is this just the next step? Is there nothing --

MR. CROWLEY: The next step.

QUESTION: -- added to it?

QUESTION: P.J., may I go to a couple of questions on the leaks? Yesterday, I --

MR. CROWLEY: If you insist, Goyal.

QUESTION: Well, it’s a different question, not the one you’ve been answering or somebody been asking you. One, yesterday, Admiral Mullen at the DOD, at the Pentagon, said that it is unacceptable that ISI is involved or Pakistan was playing a double game. Do you agree what he said when he said unacceptable? That means he did agree and accepted that ISI (inaudible) was there.

But my question is that everybody is saying that you all knew what was going on, but only came to in public light only after it became officially on the website. So what steps that you really had taken?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, Goyal, I’ll challenge the last part of your question in particular. We do not believe that the documents released present any new information in terms of Pakistani interest in and association with elements that have played a role in Afghanistan. And it is very, very important to understand that there have been historical links going back a couple of decades.

We believe that Pakistan has made a strategic shift. They are now aggressively attacking these elements inside their borders that have safe havens inside of Pakistan’s territory that not only threaten Afghanistan, the United States, but also Pakistan. The links between Pakistani agencies and these elements have been known and understood for quite some time.

The real question is: What is Pakistan doing now? We are satisfied with the action, the aggressive action that Pakistan has taken. But we want to see Pakistan continue on the offensive. We’ve made that clear since these documents came out.

QUESTION: And despite all that, you continue to give billions of dollars to Pakistan. And also, in the meantime, there is no really – what you call real accountability or real progress.

MR. CROWLEY: Well – and Goyal, your question again reflects a – kind of a zero-sum mentality that we think is – cannot be the equation in the region. We are investing in Pakistan because it’s in the United States’ interest to do so. We have a presence in Afghanistan because it is our interest to do so. We are working cooperatively across the region, including with India, because ultimately, these are countries that have to live together and find stable relationships that serve their own interest and a collective interest. That’s what we’re trying to do and we have – we think we have the right strategy to do this. We’ve emphasized and taken a regional approach to this challenge, which is why we have a relationship with Afghanistan, we have a relationship with Pakistan, we have a relationship with India. All three countries and others can play a role in helping to stabilize the situation.

QUESTION: And one more, if you don’t mind, quick --

MR. CROWLEY: Quick.

QUESTION: Quick one, I’m sorry, to follow. You would be surprised to know that Mr. (inaudible) Gul, who was the ISI chief during 9/11, and he was in New York and in Washington on 9/11 and 9/10. Now he said, as far as these leaks are concerned, this is a plot against Pakistan by the Obama Administration.

MR. CROWLEY: It’s not.

QUESTION: That’s according to The Washington Post, his interview.

MR. CROWLEY: It’s not.

QUESTION: Can I ask you --

QUESTION: On Iran --

QUESTION: Well, hold on a second.

QUESTION: Iran nuclear issue for a second. Have you heard anything --

QUESTION: Hold on. Can we stay on the leaks for just a second?

MR. CROWLEY: Okay.

QUESTION: Not having to do with India’s well-known interest in this, is the State Department aware that WikiLeaks is in possession of any diplomatic cables?

MR. CROWLEY: Can we – well, there were a handful of cables that came out among this tranche, maybe five or six. So that infers that, yes, there may well have been some State Department cables in whatever was transmitted to WikiLeaks. Obviously, there have been reports that there’s a large tranche of State Department cables. We can verify that.

The investigation is ongoing and dealing with the forensics and trying to determine exactly why it might have been transmitted from government computers to WikiLeaks is still an ongoing process. We would hope that WikiLeaks would not release any further documents. As both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen reflected yesterday, we think this has done damage and has the potential to do additional damage to our national security. But we’ll see what happens.

QUESTION: Well, based on the five or six that were included in this first tranche, do you have any specific concerns about what there might be out there?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we – do we have concerns about what might be out there? Yes, we do. Would the --

QUESTION: Do you have any idea what it might – and do you have any idea what it might do, given --

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think we’ve arrived at a specific determination of what might have been downloaded. Look, when we provide our analysis of situations in key countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, we distribute these across the interagency, including to military addressees. So within – resident within military networks are State Department classified documents.

So is the potential there that State Department documents have been compromised? Yes. And clearly, we have the same concern on our end that the military has on its end. We rely on sources to provide us information and perspective that allows us to understand what’s going on around the world and make sure that our policies are appropriate to those circumstances. If those sources are compromised, we lose valuable information, and sources – in many cases, human sources – can be put at risk.

QUESTION: Has anyone in the U.S. Government begun any kind of dialogue with WikiLeaks to find out what else they had and encourage them --

MR. CROWLEY: I am not aware of any direct dialogue with WikiLeaks.

QUESTION: Why is that? I mean, the U.S. is willing to talk to North Korea, but not WikiLeaks?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think you have to ask the question of WikiLeaks.

QUESTION: So the U.S. reached out to them, but WikiLeaks won’t respond?

MR. CROWLEY: We have passed messages to them, yes.

QUESTION: Coming back again to the WikiLeaks, yesterday, both of them at the Pentagon suggested that they – as you said, they have no dialogue with him, but they criticized him. And today, he has issued a statement criticizing the U.S. Government, so this tit-for-tat going on through media, is it not – are you planning to sit down with him or approach him for the leftover documents?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, he’s not an American citizen, so our ability to talk to him, wherever he might be, is obviously limited. We respect the fact that once these documents were distributed to news organizations, it was news organizations that contacted us, and we had the opportunity to express specific concerns. And I think we understand that the news media organizations took some steps to minimize the risk of compromise of sources and methods of the intelligence involved in this case.

We would prefer, obviously, that none of this information be released in public. It does do damage to our national security. But as to whether or not he’ll come forward and engage in a constructive process, I can’t say.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) respecting intelligence service in the world is pouring over these things like there is no tomorrow, and they have all kinds of English speakers and --

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: -- translators and going through it with a fine-tooth comb. I mean, this is not just the media that can really guard it.

MR. CROWLEY: No, you’re right. No, and that’s – I think that’s the point that the secretary and Admiral Mullen made yesterday, that you dump out tens of thousands of documents, intelligence services all over the world will be looking over them and seeing what they can glean in terms of how we gain information, and this can have a national security impact.

We’re not saying that because the release of these documents is somehow inconvenient. Actually, the release of the documents by themselves have not really had a significant effect. But behind these documents is a very important intelligence system that is vital to our national security. And we are concerned and will remain concerned that if WikiLeaks continues on its current path, this will do damage to our national security.

QUESTION: The –Secretary Gates yesterday also mentioned that, falling back on his background as a former director of CIA and all that, that a major damage has been done and there will be a lot of repair work that needs to be done. So have you launched that repair work?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we – as Secretary Gates made clear yesterday, we are fully investigating this across the government. I think you touched on a very good point. We do have important and vital conversations every day with representatives of other governments. And that is important to us. It helps us understand what’s happening in the world and the impact of our policies around the world.

If those conversations are now somewhat constrained because someone will fear that if I say something to an American diplomat today, it will appear on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow, that too has an impact. We have to be able to build and sustain a trusting relationship with other countries. And quite legitimately, leaders of various countries have asked this question – how could this happen? And unfortunately, somebody inside the system has compromised their sovereign oath. We are investigating that and we’ll be prepared to prosecute those involved.

But by the same token, this kind of unauthorized leak does have an impact, and that’s why you’ve heard the response that you’ve heard from leaders from the President to the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of State, to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

David.

QUESTION: Do you have anything – back on Iran, have you heard anything that – diplomatically that would back up the notion put forth by the Iranian nuclear chief today that they would be willing to enter into talks within days? Is this something you’re trying to track down?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, there have been contacts between Iran and Catherine Ashton and we have made clear that we are willing to sit down, as the P-5+1, with Iran and we will see if a meeting can be worked out and how quickly, I can’t say at this point.

QUESTION: Was this in addition to the meeting Ashton had with Mottaki in Kabul on the 20th?

MR. CROWLEY: I think it’s part and parcel, the same process. There – we do have indications from Iran that they are willing to have a meeting. Again, it takes some preparation to understand, are they willing to come forward, are they willing to engage seriously on the full range of issues – most significant to us, the nuclear issues. If we’re satisfied that Iran is prepared to have a constructive meeting, then we’ll work with others to try to set it up.

QUESTION: But nothing has changed, really, since --

MR. CROWLEY: Nothing has changed, no.

QUESTION: -- Wednesday when --

MR. CROWLEY: Correct, correct, correct.

QUESTION: And do you see what they are announcing yesterday, that they are willing not to enrich up to 20 percent as a genuine position or a tactical --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, that’s a very good question. In the case of the proposal regarding the Tehran research reactor, the details matter, both in terms of level of enriched material that would be subject to shipment, who will oversee that shipment, who will have responsibility for that shipment, and what will be the disposition of that material.

There is – we are looking to use the TRR to satisfy ourselves that Tehran cannot achieve a breakout capability in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty and its international obligations. That’s our interest. But we’ll see, if we get into a meeting, how flexible Iran is in using the research reactor proposal to try to start to satisfy and answer the questions that we have about the nature of their nuclear program.

QUESTION: You said earlier that Iran changing – reversing its position, which Mottaki insisted on at the UN, because of the sanctions?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I’m not sure that Iran – that’s the very point. The Tehran declaration fell short of the concerns that we had, and we are willing to meet Iran and discuss those concerns. But in terms of whether we can actually move forward with this kind of arrangement, a lot depends on the details of what Iran is prepared to do.

QUESTION: The – Sonia Gandhi, the top official from the Ruling Congress Party of India, is visiting U.S. along with her son, Rahul Gandhi. Do you have any comments or are there any engagements?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not aware that she has planned to come here.

QUESTION: Just a quick one, a new subject. Department has a new Travel Warning to China. Is that something to do with the religious crackdowns by the Chinese authorities?

MR. CROWLEY: Goyal, I missed the first --

QUESTION: A Travel Warning to China.

QUESTION: Travel Warning to China --

MR. CROWLEY: A Travel Warning to China?

QUESTION: From the State Department.

QUESTION: It had to do with floods.

MR. CROWLEY: Oh, I think it had to do with – yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: Okay. Thanks. Have a nice weekend.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:16 p.m.)

Refers to the Secretary of Defense

DPB #126

[This is a mobile copy of Daily Press Briefing - July 30]