U.S. OFFERS WARMEST GREETING TO KOREAN PEOPLE DURING CHUSEOK HOLIDAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Korean Chuseok Holiday

Press Statement

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

September 4, 2014

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I offer my warmest greeting to the Korean people during this Chuseok holiday.

Chuseok is a time to remember the importance of family, the strength of our values, and the blessings that we are fortunate to share. As Koreans come together to celebrate this harvest season, my thoughts are with you as I reflect on the warmth of your culture that I remember so fondly from my recent visit to Seoul.

Our strong and vital partnership invigorates our economic ties, fortifies our alliance, and empowers our global cooperation. We are grateful for your friendship and good counsel as we continue to work together to increase global peace and prosperity.

Our best wishes to all Koreans and their families at this special time.

READOUT OF DEPUTY SECRETARY CARTER'S MEETING WITH JAPANESE PARLIAMENTARY SENIOR VICE MINISTER ETO

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
Readout of Deputy Secretary Carter's Meeting with Japanese Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto

           Pentagon Press Secretary George Little provided the following readout:

           Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter hosted Japanese Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister of Defense Akinori Eto today at the Pentagon. 

           Deputy Secretary Carter welcomed Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto and expressed admiration for the strong work the United States and Japan have accomplished together in support of the bilateral Alliance.  Deputy Secretary Carter emphasized the steadfast nature of the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific rebalance, and noted the significant role of the U.S.-Japan Alliance in maintaining regional security and stability.  The two leaders discussed the strategic environment and the possibility of a review of the 1997 U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines in order to meet emerging opportunities and challenges. They agreed that strengthening cooperation with other regional partners, including the Republic of Korea, is an important element of promoting peace and stability.

           Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto updated Deputy Secretary Carter on the status of Japan's National Defense Program Guidelines, including the content of the interim report released on July 26.  Deputy Secretary Carter and Parliamentary Senior Vice Minister Eto agreed to make steady progress on the realignment of U.S. Forces Japan, including the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Henoko and of U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam.  They also discussed progress being made with respect to the Joint Strike Fighter program. The two leaders agreed to stay in close touch to build upon the strong bilateral relationship between their two countries.

PACIFIC COMMAND'S FOCUS ON NORTH KOREA

U.S. Marines with 3rd Battalion, 12th Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force, launch artillery shells with South Korean counterparts during a bilateral artillery coordination exercise at Camp Rodriguez, South Korea, April 20, 2011. U.S. forces stand side by side with South Korean counterparts to maintain stability on the Korean peninsula. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Kentavist Brackin 　
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
North Korea Remains Key Focus for Pacific Command
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
 CAMP SMITH, Hawaii, Aug. 13, 2012 - Nearly six decades after an armistice agreement established a cease-fire that ended the Korean War, maintaining the fragile peace there and ensuring South Korean and U.S. troops are prepared to respond to aggression remains a top priority for U.S. Pacific Command.
  North Korea looms as the most pressing trouble spot in Pacom's vast area of responsibility that spans half the globe, Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, the Pacom commander, told American Forces Press Service.
  Locklear expressed concern about tenuous, unstable conditions stemming from North Korea's new, relatively untested leader, Kim Jong Un, and North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions.
  "If there is anything that keeps me awake at night, it's that particular situation," the admiral said. "We have to ensure that we maintain as much of a stable environment on the Korean peninsula as we can."
  Toward that end, Locklear relies heavily on the leadership of Army Gen. James D. Thurman, commander of Combined Forces Korea and U.S. Forces Korea, to ensure that South Korean and U.S. forces remain strong.
 Traveling to South Korea to meet with Thurman and South Korean leaders shortly after assuming the top U.S. military post in the Asia-Pacific region in March, Locklear emphasized the importance of the U.S.-South Korean alliance in deterring aggression and maintaining security and stability.
  Locklear offered assurance of the "unwaverable" U.S. commitment to the alliance.
 Although tensions on the peninsula have ebbed and flowed since the signing of the armistice, North Korean provocations, coupled with uncertainty as the new leader took power, have remained relatively high in recent years, noted William McKinney, director of Locklear's North Korea strategic focus group. The group of military and civilian experts, one of three "mini think tanks" within the Pacom staff, advises Locklear and his senior staff on the North Korean threat and plans for a U.S.-South Korean military response, if required.
 McKinney, a retired foreign area officer who spent 15 years of his military service in South Korea, plus three years as the civilian U.S. representative for the Korea Energy Development Organization, expressed disappointment about the difficult stalemate that continues to characterize the peninsula.
  "We've been [in] sort of [a] treading-water situation for quite some time with North Korea," he told American Forces Press Service at the Pacom headquarters here.
  There's a common saying within McKinney's strategic focus group. "We had to build a fence across the peninsula to fence out North Korea," he said. "But regrettably, that has also fenced us out from North Korea. It was never intended to be a lasting division."
 Ultimately, McKinney said, the United States would love a unified Korean peninsula -- but only, he emphasized, if it had "a democratically elected, free market-based government for all of the Korean people."

In a perfect world, that unified Korea would be an ally to the United States and a source of regional stability, he added.
  While acknowledging that it's still too soon to know the impact of Kim's leadership, McKinney admitted that some of the initial signs are worrisome.
  A missile test conducted just months after he came to power defied North Korea's agreement to a moratorium on missile testing in exchange for 240,000 tons of U.S. food aid. North Korea also has yet to return to the Six-Party Talks with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea aimed at getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
  A nuclear-free Korean peninsula is critical, McKinney explained, because a nuclear-armed North Korea would upset the balance of power in the region. Making it particularly troubling, he said, is concern that a weak, even rogue North Korean state is ill-prepared to handle the challenges and responsibilities of possessing nuclear weapons.
  The balance-of-power issue has dogged the Korean peninsula for the past 100 years as Japan, China and Russia all fought to control it, McKinney noted. And during that timeframe, the peninsula has been a primary battleground for four of the five wars in the Pacific: the Sino-Japanese War of 1894; the Russia-Japanese War of 1905; World War II; and the Korean War. At the signing of the Korean conflict's armistice agreement on July 27, 1953, the United States had lost 37,000 military lives and suffered 92,000 wounded. And what happens on the Korean peninsula today remains critically important to the United States, McKinney said.
  That's not only because of the U.S. alliance with South Korea, he said, but also because the destabilizing balance-of-power situation hasn't gone away and continues to affect the entire region.
  McKinney said he's been impressed by the growing professionalism of South Korea's military, which has been operating side by side with 28,500 U.S. troops there to maintain the peace.
  "Over the years, there is no question that the [South Korean] forces have strengthened themselves and become a more professional military -- a military that has modern weaponry, knows how to use it and that has operated for the last 25 years or more in a combined command with the United States," he said. "They have become, in all senses, a much more modern, professional military than they were 60 years ago."
  As South Korea prepares to assume wartime operational control of its forces from the United States in 2015 and the United States focuses on rebalancing its military to the Asia-Pacific region, McKinney said, he doesn't expect many force-posture changes on the Korean peninsula.
  "From the standpoint of balance, the United States has really never left the Korean peninsula," he said. "We have never lessened the importance of our forces on the Korean peninsula [or] our commitment ... to the alliance."
  But Locklear made clear while visiting South Korea that North Korea's government has important decisions to make.
  "Should the North Korean leadership choose to start abiding by its international obligations, to cease provocations, this would be a preferred path," he told reporters in the South Korean capital of Seoul.
  "But if further provocations is the path that they would continue to pursue," he continued, "then the challenge for us is to ensure that our alliance remains strong, that we work closely together to monitor and share information, and that we have the proper procedures in place ... [so] the security of the alliance is ensured."

REMARKS BY CLINTON, PANETTA AND KOREAN DEFENSE MINISTER KIM KWN-JIN

Photo:  Refueling Over Korea.  Credit:  U.S. Air Force. 
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-Hwan and Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-Jin After Their Meeting




Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea Kim Sung-Hwan, Minister of National Defense of the Republic of Korea Kim Kwan-Jin
Thomas Jefferson Room
Washington, DC
June 14, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me welcome all of you, particularly our Korean friends, to the Thomas Jefferson Room here in the State Department. Today, Secretary Panetta and I hosted the second session of the U.S.-Republic of Korea Foreign and Defense Ministerial Consultation, what we call our 2+2 meeting. And it is a great pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Kim and Defense Minister Kim to Washington as we continue to find ways to strengthen the global alliance and cooperation between our countries.

Today we discussed how our partnership has advanced in the three years since our two presidents set forth their joint vision for the alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States. We are combating piracy together in the Indian Ocean, investing in sustainable development in Africa, promoting democracy and the rule of law and human rights around the world. It would be difficult to list all the ways we are working together.

We touched on how we are deepening our economic cooperation. Just a few months ago, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement officially entered into force, and it is already creating jobs and opportunities on both sides of the Pacific.

It is fitting that today is the Global Economic Statecraft Day at the State Department, because around the world in all of our embassies we are highlighting economic cooperation. And our relationship with the Republic of Korea is a textbook example of how our economic statecraft agenda can boost growth and create jobs.

As Korea has developed into an economic powerhouse, it has also steadily assumed greater responsibilities as a global leader. Today, it is an anchor of stability in the Asia Pacific and a go-to partner for the United States.

On the security side of our dialogue, we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic alliance between our countries. Secretary Panetta will speak to our military cooperation, but I want to emphasize that the United States stands shoulder to shoulder with the Republic of Korea, and we will meet all of our security commitments. As part of this, we discussed further enhancements of our missile defense and ways to improve the interoperability of our systems.

Today we also agreed to expand our security cooperation to cover the increasing number of threats from cyberspace. I am pleased to announce that the United States and Korea will launch a bilateral dialogue on cyber issues. Working together, we can improve the security of our government, military, and commercial infrastructure, and better protect against cyber attacks.

With regard to North Korea, our message remains unchanged. North Korea must comply with its international obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874. It must abandon its nuclear weapons and all existing nuclear programs, including programs for uranium enrichment. And it must finally put the welfare of its own people first and respect the rights of its own citizens. Only under these circumstances will North Korea be able to end its isolation from the international community and alleviate the suffering of its people.

So again let me thank the ministers for our excellent discussions. And let me thank the Korean people for the friendship between our countries that continues to grow.
And now let me turn it over to Foreign Minister Kim.

FOREIGN MINISTER KIM: (Via interpreter) Let me first thank Secretary Clinton and Secretary Panetta for inviting Minister Kim and I to the ROK-U.S. 2+2 ministerial meeting. This meeting was first held for the first time in 2000 in Seoul. That was 60 years since the Korean War. And I am pleased that we held today the second 2+2 ministerial meeting this time in Washington. We took note that a number of alliance issues are proceeding as planned, and we had our agreement in that this will contribute to a greater combined defense system.

And we also agreed that should North Korea provoke again, then that we will show a very decisive response to such provocation. But we also shared our view that the road to dialogue and cooperation is open should North Korea stop its provocation and show a genuine change in its attitude by taking concrete measures.

Also, in order to enhance deterrence against North Korea’s potential provocation using nuclear and conventional forces, we decided to develop more effective and concrete (inaudible) policies. We also agreed to promote bilateral cooperation regarding North Korea, just as Secretary Clinton just mentioned, against cyber security threats, and will in this regard launch a whole-of-government consultative body.

We are concerned the human rights situation, the quality of life of the North Korean people, have reached a serious level and urge the North Korean Government to respect the human rights of its people and to improve their living condition.

The Republic of Korea welcomes the U.S. policy that places emphasis on the Asia Pacific. We agree that the increased U.S. role within the Asia Pacific region will greatly contribute to peace and stability in this region. We welcome the efforts of the Government of Myanmar to advance democracy and improve human rights and continue supporting such efforts.

Today’s meeting was very productive and meaningful in that it allowed us to review the current status of the alliance. And we also agreed to discuss a way forward for our strategic cooperation. We’ll continue to hold this 2+2 ministerial meeting in the future.

SECRETARY PANETTA: Secretary Clinton, Ministers, I was very pleased to be able to participate in this very important 2+2 meeting. I want to commend Secretary Clinton for her leadership in guiding us through this discussion, and also thank both ministers for their participation.

I’ve been very fortunate over the past year, since becoming Secretary of Defense, to have developed a very strong working relationship with my Korean counterparts. I’ve been – I made a visit to Korea last fall, and we have had a series of consultations such as this 2+2. I just returned, as many of you know, from a two-week trip to the Asia Pacific region, where I met with Minister Kim at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. And at the time, I made clear that the United States has made an enduring commitment to the security and prosperity of the Asia Pacific region, including the Korean Peninsula.

I also made clear that our military will rebalance towards the Asia Pacific region as part of our new defense strategy. As part of that strategy, even though the U.S. military will be smaller in the future, we will maintain a strong force presence in Korea which reflects the importance that we attach to that relationship and to the security mission that we are both involved with.

The United States and the Republic of Korea face many common security challenges in the Asia Pacific region and around the world, and today, we affirmed our commitment to forging a common strategic approach to addressing those challenges. I’m very pleased that we are progressing on our schedule to achieve the goals that we outlined in our Strategic Alliance 2015 base plan. We remain on track to transition operational control by December 2015 in accordance with the base plan timeline.

As the Strategic Alliance 2015 initiative proceeds, we will continue to consult closely with the Republic of Korea in order to ensure that the steps that we are taking are mutually beneficial and strengthen our alliance. During our meeting, we also discussed ways that we can further strengthen our alliance, including greater cooperation in the area of cyber security. To that end, we are making our bilateral military exercises more realistic through the introduction of cyber and network elements.

Another way to strengthen and modernize our alliance is by expanding our ongoing trilateral collaboration with Japan. On my trip to Asia, I was pleased to participate in a trilateral discussion that included the Republic of Korea and Japan, because this kind of security cooperation helps strengthen regional security and provides the additional deterrent with respect to North Korea. I’d like to thank the ministers again for their commitment to this alliance, and I look forward to hosting Minister Kim in Washington for the 44th Security Consultative Meeting in October. This alliance has stood the test of time, and today, we affirmed that it will remain an essential force for security and for prosperity in the 21st century.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Defense Minister.

DEFENSE MINISTER KIM: (Via interpreter) Today’s 2+2 ministerial meeting was held at a strategically critical moment amid continuing provocation threats from North Korea and volatile security environment in North Korea, a time which calls for a proactive alliance response.

Through today’s meeting, the two countries confirmed once again that the ROK-U.S. alliance is more solid than ever, and made it very clear that the alliance will strongly and consistently respond to any North Korean provocation, in particular regarding North Korean nuclear and missile threat. The ROK and the U.S. agreed to strengthen policy coordination to reaffirm the strong U.S. commitment to provide extended deterrents and to develop extended deterrent policies in an effective and substantial way. We also agreed to strengthen alliance capability against North Korea’s increasing asymmetric threats such as cyber threats like the DDoS attack and GPS jammings.

Furthermore, the two countries confirmed that the 2015 transition of operational control and the building of a new combined defense system are progressing as planned. We also confirmed that they were – ROK military will acquire the critical – military capabilities needed to lead the combined defense, and the U.S. military will provide bridging and engineering capabilities.

The two countries also confirmed that USFK bases relocation projects such as YRP and LPP are well underway and agreed to work to ensure that these projects are completed in time. We assess that combined exercises in the West Sea and Northwest Islands deter North Korean provocation and greatly contribute to the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula. We agreed to continue these exercises under close bilateral coordination.

Next year marks the 60th anniversary of the ROK-U.S. alliance which was born in 1953 with the signing of the ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty. In the past six decades, the two countries worked to ensure a perfect security of the peninsula and have developed the alliance into the most successful alliance in history. In the future, the two countries will expand and deepen the scope and level of defense cooperation from the Korean Peninsula, and to the regional and global security issues, will continue evolving the alliance into the best alliance in the world for the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula, and of the world. Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Scott starts.

QUESTION: Can we do it the reverse? I’m sorry. Scott and I always do this, get it a little confused. But in any case, thank you, Madam Secretary. I’d like to start out with Egypt, please. What is your reaction to dissolving parliament? Is this a step backwards?

And then also on Syria: For the second day in the media and the news, we’re talking about the weapons and the helicopters. By making this such a high-profile issue – and by pinning your strategy of shaming the Russians, are you running the risk of allowing Moscow to define what happens or doesn’t happen in Syria? In other words, I guess, where is the American strategy?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, with regard to Egypt, we are obviously monitoring the situation. We are engaged with Cairo about the implications of today’s court decision. So I won’t comment on the specifics until we know more.

But that said, throughout this process, the United States has stood in support of the aspirations of the Egyptian people for a peaceful, credible, and permanent democratic transition. Now ultimately, it is up to the Egyptian people to determine their own future. And we expect that this weekend’s presidential election will be held in an atmosphere that is conducive to it being peaceful, fair, and free. And in keeping with the commitments that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces made to the Egyptian people, we expect to see a full transfer of power to a democratically elected, civilian government.

There can be no going back on the democratic transition called for by the Egyptian people. The decisions on specific issues, of course, belong to the Egyptian people and their elected leaders. And they’ve made it clear that they want a president, a parliament, and a constitutional order that will reflect their will and advance their aspirations for political and economic reform. And that is exactly what they deserve to have.

Let me also note that we are concerned about recent decrees issued by the SCAF. Even if they are temporary, they appear to expand the power of the military to detain civilians and to roll back civil liberties.

Now regarding Syria, I spoke extensively about Syria yesterday. Our consultations with the United Nations, our allies and partners, and the Syrian opposition continue on the best way forward. Today, my deputy, Bill Burns, had a constructive meeting in Kabul with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. We don’t see eye to eye on all of the issues, but our discussions continue. And President Obama will see President Putin during the G-20 in Mexico.

We’re also intensifying our work with Special Envoy Kofi Annan on a viable post-Assad transition strategy. And I look forward to talking to him in the days ahead about setting parameters for the conference that he and I have discussed and that he is discussing with many international partners. Our work with the Syrian opposition also continues. Ambassador Ford is in Istanbul today for a conference with the opposition that Turkey is hosting.

So we’re working on multiple fronts. I think our strategy is very clear. We want to see an end to the violence, and we want to see the full implementation of Kofi Annan’s plans, including the political transition so that the people of Syria have the same opportunity that the people of the Republic of Korea or the United States have to choose their own leaders and to build their own future. And the work is urgent, because as you know, the Syrian Government continues to attack its own people, and the bloodshed has not ceased. And we have to do everything we can to end the violence and create a framework for a transition.

MS. NULAND: Next question: Kang Eui-Young from Yonhap News, please.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Thank you for the opportunity to give you question. I’m – name is Kang from the Yonhap News Agency. My question is for Minister – Defense Minister Kim. It is written in this statement that you have decided to develop a comprehensive alliance approach towards the missile defense. I want to know what this means. If you are referring to the missile defense, are you intending to build a Korea air missile defense or are you saying that you will be integrated into a U.S.-led missile defense? Could you elaborate on what missile defense system you are envisioning? You mention comprehensive alliance defense system. What – how does this build into the U.S.-led assistance?

DEFENSE MINISTER KIM: (Via interpreter) The position of the ROK military regarding the missile defense is this given the terrain of the Korean Peninsula. The most effective approach is a low-tier defense. And how will this be linked to the U.S. missile defense system? This is of the analysis – the studies that are being conducted right now. That’s what I mean by saying an effective combined air defense system.

QUESTION: Secretary Panetta, is the United States expanding intelligence gathering across Africa using small, unarmed, turbo-prop aircraft disguised as private planes, as reported by The Washington Post?

SECRETARY PANETTA: Well, I’m not going to discuss classified operations in that region, other than to say that we make an effort to work with all of the nations in that region to confront common threats and common challenges. And we have closely consulted and closely worked with our partners to develop approaches that make sure that the nations of that very important region do not confront the kind of serious threats that could jeopardize their peace and prosperity.

MODERATOR: Today’s last question will be from Ju Young Jim of SBS.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Reporter from the SBS, Ju. This is a question for Defense Minister Kim and Secretary Panetta. Right now, the Korean media is dealing – covering very extensively about the range extension of the Korean ballistic missiles and that the ROK side is insisting on 800 kilometer whereas the U.S. is insisting on 500 kilometer, where although the countries have agreed on the payload. Senator Carl Levin said that he is positive when it comes to the range extension. Has this issue been discussed at the 2+2, and will the two countries be able to show a concrete outcome by the end of the year?
One additional question is – this one is for Secretary Clinton. Kim Jong-un, the new leader, he has taken over his father, deceased father, and is now already six month as the new leader. How do you assess his leadership so far?

DEFENSE MINISTER KIM: (Via interpreter) Let me first address this range extension issue. This is still being discussed on the working level. This issue was not dealt at today’s 2+2 ministerial meeting.

SECRETARY PANETTA: In consultation and negotiations with the Republic of Korea with regards to this area, I think we’re making good progress. And our hope is that we can arrive at an agreeable solution soon.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Regarding the new leader in North Korea, I believe leaders are judged by what they do to help their people have better lives, whether they create stability and security, prosperity, opportunity. And this new young leader has a choice to make, and we are hoping that he will make a choice that benefits all of his people.

And we also believe strongly that North Korea will achieve nothing by threats or provocations, which will only continue to isolate the country and provide no real opportunity for engagement and work toward a better future. And so we hope that the new leadership in Pyongyang will live up to its agreements, will not engage in threats and provocations, will put the North Korean people first. Rather than spending money on implements of war, feed your people, provide education and healthcare, and lift your people out of poverty and isolation.

This young man, should he make a choice that would help bring North Korea into the 21st century, could go down in history as a transformative leader. Or he can continue the model of the past and eventually North Korea will change, because at some point people cannot live under such oppressive conditions – starving to death, being put into gulags, and having their basic human rights denied. So we’re hoping that he will chart a different course for his people.

MS. NULAND: Thank you very much.

STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 23, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING                                                                                                         
MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
1:15 p.m. EDT

MS. NULAND:  Happy Monday, everybody.  You were just treated to an hour of Professor Clinton up at Syracuse University, so we’ve covered a number of issues.  Let me do a couple of quick things at the top, and then we’ll go to what’s on your minds.

Today, the Chinese Government announced the fourth round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which will be held in Beijing May 3rd and 4th.  Secretary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Geithner will be joined for the dialogue by their Chinese co-chairs, Vice Premier Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.   The Chinese also announced the third round of the U.S.-China Consultations on People-to-People Exchanges, which will be held in the same time period in Beijing.

And then further to our daily highlighting of a human rights case, and particularly a journalistic freedom/press freedom case in the walkup to World Press Freedom Day on May 3rd, today’s case, if you’ve seen our website HumanRights.gov, is the case of Yoani Sanchez in Cuba.  Yoani Sanchez is a Cuban blogger who has attracted international following for her blog Generation Y, which gives readers unprecedented insight into life in Cuba.  The Cuban Government has repeatedly denied Ms. Sanchez’s request for travel some 19 times, most recently she was – when she was granted a visa to go to Brazil to attend the premieres of a documentary about media freedom.  So she is our person of the day, and we call your attention to our website, HumanRights.gov.

Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION:  Can I just start briefly with Syria?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Maybe not so briefly on others, but mine is only brief.  Are you okay with the limits, the restrictions that the Syrians want to put on the monitoring mission in terms of where monitors can come from, what countries they can come from, how they are able to travel?

MS. NULAND:  We are most emphatically not okay with restrictions on monitors.  We make clear in Resolution 2043 that we expect monitors to have full freedom of movement, to have full access to Syrians and parts of Syria that they think are important to monitor, and that we expect them to have complete freedom to communicate, to choose their personnel, et cetera.  So this is a matter of concern as these monitors begin to deploy.  And as the Syrian National Council put it in their own statement after Resolution 2043 was passed, this first deployment of monitors is really a litmus test for the Assad regime’s seriousness with regard to the six-point plan.

QUESTION:  And what about the other – about the – where the monitors come from?

MS. NULAND:  And of course, with the – it’s up to the United Nations to decide who should be chosen for the monitoring trip.

QUESTION:  So you would not be comfortable with a monitoring team made up of people from – made up of monitors from Iran, Belarus, Eritrea --

MS. NULAND:  It is not for the Government of Syria to decide who should be a UN monitor for this mission.  It’s up for the – to the United Nations to make those decisions.

QUESTION:  So have you – you’ve told that – you’re aware of what – where they want the people to come from, correct?

MS. NULAND:  We are.  We are.

QUESTION:  And you’ve raised your objections to them?

MS. NULAND:  We have.

QUESTION:  Okay.  That’s all.

QUESTION:  And you are comfortable that 300 monitors can actually do the job that is assigned to them?

MS. NULAND:  Well, again, we’ve only just started to have monitors deploy over the last week and a half.  We are only at double-digit strength, as you know, with more coming in.  The monitors, as you have probably seen through the press reporting, have been greeted warmly by crowds of Syrians wanting to express themselves peacefully wherever they have been able to go.  But I think the concern is, as in places like Hama and Homs, that the monitors come in, they are able to provide some space and some openness for opposition leaders to come out and make their views known.  They’re beginning to start to see people, and then no sooner do they leave town when the artillery resumes.  So this is a matter of concern and something that we will be watching day on day.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  I understand that they are greeted very well and people have probably waited for them to arrive.  But are they – will they be able to discharge their duties as they should?  I mean, keep track of what’s going on, have actual data so it can be vetted and determined and defined and so on?

MS. NULAND:  Well, these are the standards that we insist this monitoring team be able to have, so we just have to see, Said.  It’s really very early days, but as I said, it’s a litmus test for the seriousness of the regime.

QUESTION:  And just a quick follow-up to the discussion that took place here last Friday on the Plan B – your Plan B, so to speak – a great deal of discussion was talked about yesterday.   The Washington Post had an editorial saying that you don’t really have a Plan B, that basically your approach to this whole Syria crisis has been ad hoc.  Do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND:  Well, of course, we disagree with that.  As the Secretary made clear in Paris, even as these monitors deploy, the international pressure has to stay on the Syrian regime.  You saw the EU impose new sanctions today.  The United States imposed new sanctions today.  We are continuing to work with all of our international partners.  And as the Secretary made clear in Paris, if this Kofi Annan plan fails, if this monitoring mission fails, we’re going to be back in the UN Security Council, we’re going to be looking at Chapter VII and looking at other ways to increase the pressure.

QUESTION:  That’s once the 90-day period is over, correct?

MS. NULAND:  I’m not going to speak to the timetable.  I think we have to see how it goes, as I said, day on day.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MS. NULAND:  Please.

QUESTION:  And that within the 90 day, or after the 90 days, you’re going to go to the Security Council?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think Said just asked that question.  Obviously, Resolution 2043 gives this initial monitoring effort 90 days, but I think the question is, even within the 90 days, are we able to get folks in?  Are they able to do the job?  Is the zone of peace enlarging or is it shrinking as a result?  And we’re just going to have to watch and see.
Please, Jay.

QUESTION:  A question concerning China.  Just --

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.  Are we done – first of all, are we done with Syria?

QUESTION:  Oh, yeah.

MS. NULAND:  Yeah?  Okay.  Go ahead.  Go on to China.

QUESTION:  I know you guys aren’t getting into the give-and-take on the Bo Xilai case, but I’m trying to get sort of on a broader sense if the – if you could describe what the State Department’s, like, policy is towards walk-ins.  Are there sort of clear parameters that the State Department has always used or is using now in dealing with them, just on a general basis?  Because there have been cases in the past where, I guess during Tiananmen, we gave sanctuary to a dissident for, like, more than a year.  So I was just trying to see if there was any parameters you could outline.  And traditionally, is the White House involved in these decisions?

And the other question I just had is:  Is there any – do you know what the status is of Bo Xilai’s son is up in Boston as far as his legal status here?  I assume he came in as a student, on a student visa, but I don’t know if he’s – if there’s any sense on if he has to renew it or if the Chinese want him back.  I was trying to get an update on that.

MS. NULAND:  Well, first, on the latter question, there’s been broad press reporting that he is a student in good standing at Harvard.  We don’t speak to individual visa matters, as you know, but you can draw your own conclusions from that.  And obviously, student visas are, as a general matter, subject to the term of the educational opportunity that the person is here for.

With regard to walk-ins, every case is different.  People walk into U.S. embassies and consulates around the world for a broad variety of reasons and with a broad variety of requests.  There are some guiding regulations with regard to individual requests that might be made in the Foreign Affairs Manual.  We can get you those if you need, Jay, but in general cases have to be decided based on the circumstances, and they’re very much case by case, depending upon what the individual is seeking and what the circumstances are.

Please.  Still on this issue?  No.  Something else?

QUESTION:  Can I try Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND:  Why don’t we stay on China, first?  Yeah.  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  A question that’s much easier.  First, could you please talk to us about the focus of this, the fourth one of S&ED?

MS. NULAND:  I don’t have too much more detail than what was put out by the Chinese side.  As you know, this is a broad Strategic Dialogue that allows us to talk about the full range of bilateral issues, regional issues, and global issues.  On the Treasury side, they’ll speak to their issues, but you know that – all those things that we talk about on the economic and financial and currency side with the Chinese Government.  On the State Department side, it’s everything from our student exchange program, as you can imagine, to the regional issues that we talk about, like North Korea, to the global issues, like our work together on Iran, et cetera.  So I think it’ll be a rich and broad menu of issues.

QUESTION:  Will the South China Sea issue be addressed?  Because I’m wondering if you are following the dispute with (inaudible).  The Philippines now is seeking international support in the standoff with China.  So under what circumstance will the U.S. wade into this dispute?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think you know our position on these disputes in the South China Sea.  We want to see them resolved through dialogue; we want to see them resolved through consensual means.  In general, in all of the most recent meetings that Secretary Clinton has had with Chinese counterparts, whether they were here, whether they were in China, whether they were in multilateral fora, she has reiterated our interest in deepening and broadening mechanisms within ASEAN, within regional fora, and bilaterally for solving these things consensually, not by force, calling for restraint by all sides.  That’s where we are on this particular one and where I’m sure we’ll be in Beijing next week.

QUESTION:  So do you believe China and the ASEAN countries can solve this problem in a – through friendly diplomatic consultations?

MS. NULAND:  We do.  We have always thought that this needed to be resolved through dialogue, and we’ll continue to press that on everybody.

Andy.

QUESTION:  When was the last time you haven’t?

MS. NULAND:  Haven’t what?

QUESTION:  Thought that something should be resolved through dialogue?  (Laughter.)  When was the last time you said, “No, I think we really need war.”

MS. NULAND:  In the Libya context, dialogue failed and we had to call in NATO and call in other countries, as you’ll recall.  That’s probably the --

QUESTION:  On that same issue, I think you saw that Liberation Daily had a very strong piece over the weekend which essentially accused the United States of, in support of the Philippines, increasing the potential for military conflict in the South China Sea.  Do you have any response to that charge from a newspaper which is widely seen as the mouthpiece of the PLA?

MS. NULAND:  Well, again, our position has been consistent.  The Secretary’s position has been consistent on all of these skirmishes in the South China Sea and certainly with regard to this one, that this can only be solved diplomatically, that we want to see restraint on all sides, we want to see ASEAN play a helpful role in coming to a resolution.  And that’ll be the Secretary’s message again when she’s in Beijing next week.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Also --

MS. NULAND:  In the back.  Afghanistan?

QUESTION:  Can we try Afghanistan?  Thanks very much.  May I try two actually?  As you know, the Strategic Partnership Agreement is being inked now to take the United States relationship on beyond 2014.  And we’re hearing that $2.7 billion is going to go to Afghan security forces.  It’s a huge amount of money.  What more can you tell us about the inking of the Strategic Partnership Agreement, please?

MS. NULAND:  Well, let me start by saying that on April 22nd Ambassador Crocker and Afghan National Security Advisor Spanta initialed the text of the Strategic Partnership Agreement.  Let me stress this is an initialing.  This is not yet a signing.  After much work together, we’re pleased that our negotiating teams have come to a common text to recommend to their respective governments.  As is the case with all such agreements, both governments now have to review it, the text in interagency terms.  We have to, on our side, have consultations with our Congress and the President has to make a final review.  So that is still to be done.

With regard to dollar figures, I don’t have anything to announce yet.  I think you know that we have been talking to the Afghan Government, we’ve been talking to our allies and partners around the world about the need to ensure that as the Afghan national security forces take on lead responsibility for security around Afghanistan that they are fully funded, that they are fully equipped, and that we have the ability to continue to train them.  The Afghans themselves will contribute to those costs, but it’s going to take international support as well.  As the Secretary made clear when she was with Secretary Panetta at NATO last week, we’re talking to lots of countries about how they can help the Afghans foot the bill, and the United States also will pay its fair share, but I’m not going to get into numbers here today.

QUESTION:  Okay.  I’m going to just add one more, and that is:  What effect do you think the initialing of this document will have on peace talks with the Taliban?

MS. NULAND:  Well, frankly, at this stage, that is very much up to the Taliban.  Let me say that the Strategic Partnership document is primarily about the United States’ medium and long-term relationship with the Government of Afghanistan, with the Afghan people, and it sets out a blueprint for how we can move forward together on the political side, on the economic side, and continuing to provide appropriate security support, even as the Afghans manage their security increasingly self-reliantly.

As you know, in the context of the larger peace effort that the Afghan Government’s engaged in, we have very much supported the idea of Afghan-Afghan talks about political reconciliation.  We have tried to be helpful in that regard, but really the Taliban have a choice to make now.  They need to decide if they are ready to come to the table under the terms that we’ve all supported, led by the Afghan Government, starting with renouncing violence and expressing interest in these talks.  So ball’s very much in their court.

QUESTION:  Do you have anything to add to your statement from this morning on Sudan?

MS. NULAND:  Other than to say that our Special Envoy Princeton Lyman remains very much engaged with the parties, with the African Union, and that we very much welcome the fact that the South Sudanese did withdraw from Heglig and that it’s now time for the Government of Sudan to stop its aerial bombardment and for everybody to get back to the table.  That’s essentially where we are.  And just to remind again that neither one of these governments is going to be able to fully benefit from the resources of both countries, from peace, from integration with the international community, until the violence stops.  So they both – both sides have an interest in getting this violence stopped.

Said.

QUESTION:  Change of issue?

MS. NULAND:  Say again?

QUESTION:  Change topics?

MS. NULAND:  Yes.

QUESTION:  The Palestinian issue?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Yes.  There is an apparent estrangement between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.  And my question to you, in this kind of atmosphere, how do you conduct whatever talks or lack of talks, if you would, with both entities?  How do you conduct your business with them?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I’m not going to get into internal issues within the Palestinian Authority.  Obviously, we work with all the leading Palestinian figures.  We obviously work with President Abbas, who David Hale had the chance to sit with on Saturday.  We see Mr. Fayyad obviously, and David also works with Palestinian negotiator Erekat, who he anticipates seeing, I think it’s tomorrow.

So our goal is to continue to try to work with all parties on the Palestinian Authority side and with the Israelis to increase the opportunity for them to be in direct contact and to really get this conversation back to where it needs to be.

QUESTION:  And Mr. Hale discussed the content of the letter that Mahmoud Abbas submitted last week with him?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I would anticipate that he did, but I’m not going to get into the details of their discussion.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  This letter is really the point of contention between the two – between Fayyad and Abbas.

MS. NULAND:  From our perspective, the fact that the sides are in contact, whether it’s by letter – obviously we prefer face to face, but the fact that this conversation is continuing is important.  So we are trying to talk to all of the involved parties about how they can make the most of the time in front of them and the channels available to them.

QUESTION:  Are you aware of the misunderstanding between Abbas and Fayyad?

MS. NULAND:  I’m really not going to get into internal issues between members of the Palestinian Authority.

Please.

QUESTION:  There are some press reports that (inaudible) Turkey is blocking Israel’s participation to next NATO summit.  And the U.S. side is not happy with that.  It’s disappointed and trying to convince Turks not to block Israel to NATO.  Do you have any comment on that – on those reports?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think you know for quite some time now, we have been continuing to talk to both our ally Turkey and our ally Israel about the relationship that they have with each other, to encourage them to continue to get back to a place where can have conversation with each other, where they can work well together.  We think it’s important to both of them, and it’s certainly important to the region.

With regard to arrangements for the NATO summit and partnership events, as you know, Israel is one of NATO’s partners in the Mediterranean Dialogue.   I don’t have anything particular to announce on partnership planning at the moment.  Those discussions are continuing as we head towards the May summit in Chicago.

QUESTION:  So Israel may participate in some?

MS. NULAND:  Again, we’re still working on what the partnership arrangements are going to look like for the summit, so I’m not going to comment on them from here as those conversations continue.  There are many aspects of how the partners may or may not participate in the NATO summit that are still being worked on.

QUESTION:  Well, are you comfortable with the Turkish position?

MS. NULAND:  Again, I’m not going to comment on internal deliberations going on at NATO about arrangements for the summit from this --

QUESTION:  NATO operates by consensus, correct?

MS. NULAND:  Correct.

QUESTION:  As you well know.  So if one NATO member objected to Israel or any other country’s participation in a partnership dialogue, you wouldn’t be allowed to – that country wouldn’t be allowed to participate, correct?

MS. NULAND:  We need consensus at NATO.  And again, Israel is one of NATO’s partners, has participated over the years in many, many, many NATO activities, consultations, exercises, et cetera.  So we’re going to keep working on the arrangements for partnership at Chicago, but I don’t have anything particular to announce today.

QUESTION:  Well, would you be – would the Administration be comfortable if Israel did not participate?

MS. NULAND:  Again, there are many, many ways that these partnership activities may go forward.  They’ve been done in different ways at different summits.  So I’m not going to get into what we’re talking about, how it might work, who’s going to come.  We’re still working on all of that.

QUESTION:  The Administration won’t come out and say that it wants Israel to be at the – to participate at the summit in Chicago?

MS. NULAND:  We haven’t made any announcements about who --

QUESTION:  I know.

MS. NULAND:  -- among NATO’s 25-30 partners around the world we expect to invite to Chicago.  So I’m not going to comment on individual partners and whether they’re coming to Chicago.

QUESTION:  Well, you’re being asked about one specifically.

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Is it important to the United States for Israel to participate?

MS. NULAND:  It’s important that we come to a consensus agreement at NATO about a strong partnership aspect of this summit.  So we’re still working on that.

QUESTION:  So you’re saying that that could happen without Israel’s participation?

MS. NULAND:  I’m saying that there are 25-30 global partners of NATO.  Is it still under discussion at NATO what events there will be in the context of the summit that will highlight the partnership and which partners will be invited.  No decisions have been made.

QUESTION:  So you’re saying that some partners may not be invited?

MS. NULAND:  I’m saying that there have been NATO summits where no partners were invited --

QUESTION:  Toria, I’m trying to help you out here, because you’re going to get absolutely slammed.

MS. NULAND:  I understand.  Matt, there is no --

QUESTION:  You are.  If you can’t come out and say that the United States wants Israel to participate, its main ally in the Middle East and you won’t come out and say that the Administration wants them to participate in whatever event is going in Chicago, that’s – that is going to be seized on.

MS. NULAND:  Matt, at the last summit in Lisbon, there was zero partnership participation with the exception, I think, of ISAF partners.  At Lisbon there were some partnership events, and I don’t know whether all partners were included.  I think they were not.

QUESTION:  Well, as --

MS. NULAND:  So every summit is done on a case-by-case basis, and we haven’t made a decision about who’s going to be invited yet.

QUESTION:  Well, yeah, but isn’t the planning for at least most of these partnership – these partnerships to have some kind of meeting revolving around Chicago?

MS. NULAND:  NATO has, I think, five --

QUESTION:  Wasn’t there a meeting at heads of state level between NATO and the Russians in Lisbon?

MS. NULAND:  I think there was a NATO-Russia Council at Lisbon.  There will not be a NATO-Russia council meeting at Chicago.  So again, the point is that for each summit, NATO makes decisions by a consensus what the partnership geometry will be.  And that has not been decided.

QUESTION:  Fair enough.  But the Turks wouldn’t be objecting to Israel’s participation if someone hadn’t proposed that Israel participate.  And if you have proposed that they participate --

MS. NULAND:  Again --

QUESTION:  -- and you’re not willing to stick up for it, I don’t understand why.

MS. NULAND:  I’m not going to get into, here, what we have proposed and where we are in the internal dialogue at NATO until the issues are settled by consensus.  That’s not the way NATO works.  Okay?

Let’s move on.

QUESTION:  Can we go back to the Palestinian issue?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Is Ambassador Hale mediating between the Palestinians, or between the Palestinians and the Israelis?

MS. NULAND:  So David – let me just go through his schedule, if I can.  Special Envoy Hale met with President Abbas on Saturday, with Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sabah and other officials in Kuwait on April 22nd.  He arrived in Jerusalem today.  He will meet with Israeli negotiator Molho.

QUESTION:  I’m sorry.  Can you say that again?

MS. NULAND:  He’s in Jerusalem today.  He’ll meet with Israeli negotiator Molho, and then he’ll meet with Palestinian negotiator Erekat separately tonight and tomorrow.  I’m not sure in what order.  And then he will also, tomorrow, see Foreign Minister Judeh, I assume in Amman.  And then, as we said, he plans to go on to Saudi, to Qatar, to Egypt.  And then he’s probably going to go back to the region, but that hasn’t been decided yet.

QUESTION:  That means he’s not mediating between Abbas and Fayyad?

MS. NULAND:  Correct.  He is not getting involved in internal Palestinian Authority issues.

QUESTION:  And when did he see Fayyad?

MS. NULAND:  Say again?

QUESTION:  When did he see Fayyad, the prime minister?

MS. NULAND:  We had Fayyad here in Washington not too long ago.

QUESTION:  No, no.  Isn’t he supposed to meet with Fayyad in --

MS. NULAND:  I don’t have that on this list, but let me check with him whether he intends to see Mr. Fayyad on this trip.

QUESTION:  New topic.  On Myanmar, here seems to be a hiccup in this warming – warmth between Aung San Suu Kyi and the ruling party, the military-backed party, and that they disagree over the oath of office and Aung San Suu Kyi’s – and her NLD counterparts have declined to take their seats in parliament until this oath is changed.  Does that concern you at all?  Do you think that’s a setback?  And what’s your view on this – the oath itself?

MS. NULAND:  Well, as you’ve said, Andy, our understanding is the same as yours, that Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of her party from the National League of Democracy did not sit when parliament opened today because they were concerned about taking an oath requiring them to safeguard the constitution that was passed under military rule.  Our understanding is that the NLD is in discussion with the government and with other parties with regard to this issue and we are calling on everybody to try to work this through in a manner that will allow the NLD to take its seats.
QUESTION:  Would the action for action that the U.S. has promised to continue to implement be on hold pending them actually sitting in their seats in parliament?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think the measures that we’ve already announced are obviously going forward.  We want to see the government and the opposition continue to work on their issues in a consensual manner through dialogue, and that is our understanding of what the NLD itself wants.  So I think we need to watch this and hope that in coming days, this can be settled.

QUESTION:  And do you have any position on the oath itself?  Do you think that the NLD is correct in its objections to the wording of the oath?

MS. NULAND:  I think we’re not going to get into the internal conversation that they’re having.  As you know, the NLD has concerns about a number of things, including the name of the country, that were adopted at a time when they were not able to participate in the political process.  So they’re going to have to work through these things together as part of the general opening in the reform process.

Please.

QUESTION:  On Iraq, KRG President Maliki criticized an arms sales which will be made by U.S. to Baghdad Government – about the F-16 sales.  And he said to freeze the sales until there will be a solution between KRG and Baghdad Government because he’s suspicious that the Maliki government can use this F-16 against KRG.  Do you have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND:  I’m sorry.  Who made these initial comments?

QUESTION:  President Barzani.

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  KRG president.

MS. NULAND:  I’m not going to get into the middle of intramural efforts between the various Iraqis.  I think you know where we are on this, that we want to see the disagreements that they have with each other also settled through dialogue and through a big roundtable process that they’ve all pledged to join but that still needs to get off the ground.

QUESTION:  Is that F-16 sales will go on?

MS. NULAND:  I don’t think there’s any change in our policy.

QUESTION:  About the – just a follow-up about an oil agreement made by Exxon-Mobil and KRG.  Since it’s an American company, the Exxon-Mobil, this agreement is excluding Baghdad Government’s role in the use of oil in KRG region.  Do you have any comment?  How do you see this agreement?  Is it threatening to unity of Iraq, or how do you see Exxon-Mobil and KRG oil agreement?

MS. NULAND:  We’ve talked about this issue many times.  Our position on it has not changed, that we think the lack of a comprehensive oil agreement is holding Iraq back, that we’ve called on all sides to continue to work through what is necessary to come up with a national oil policy.  And we also regularly counsel our companies, including Exxon, about the fact that there isn’t such an agreement.  So I think we’ll have a little bit more to say on the issues of Iraq and energy later today.  We’re going to have – we have the U.S.-Iraqi energy dialogue going on, and we’ll have some folks briefing later this afternoon on those things.

QUESTION:  Toria, just a quick follow-up to this, but Maliki had really harsh words for Turkey.  And now both of them are your allies, you have invested a great deal in Iraq.  I mean, they’re – he’s pushing the envelopes.  You don’t have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND:  We have, for almost a decade now, encouraged increased dialogue, increased direct contacts between Iraq and Turkey.  There are mechanisms for them to work through their issues together which we have endeavored to facilitate, and we encourage them to continue to use them to work through the issues that they have.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MS. NULAND:  Please.

QUESTION:  On North Korea?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Different topic.  There are multiple reports that the North Koreans have threatened Seoul and South Korean President Lee’s government.  Do you have a reaction on those reports with military action?

MS. NULAND:  I don’t think our position on this is any different than it’s been before and after the satellite launch.  I think if you got a chance to see what the Secretary had to say when she was on Wolf Blitzer last Thursday, that’s the – obviously the most eloquent statement of where we are, that the DPRK needs to understand that it’s not going to achieve anything but further isolation and pressure by threats, by launches, by any of this.

And we call on the new North Korean leadership to change course; instead put their effort into moving their country into the modern world, into the 21st century, opening up the system and giving their people the right to live in dignity and with openness, well fed, et cetera.  And they’re just putting their energy in the wrong place.

Please.

QUESTION:  Any reaction to Iraqi prime minister’s visit to Iran?  And do you think – is it related to the P-5+1 meeting in Baghdad next month?

MS. NULAND:  I’m going to send you to both of those governments for comments on their bilateral visit.

Okay.  Thanks very much.

REMARKS TO THE WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL BY SEC. OF STATE CLINTON

FROM:  STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks to the World Affairs Council 2012 NATO Conference
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Sheraton Waterside Hotel
Norfolk, VA
April 3, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much for that introduction. And in this fast-changing world, we need leaders with a steady hand and a clear vision for the future. General, you have demonstrated both, and I very much appreciate that.

I also want to thank Larry Baucom – thank you, Admiral, for your leadership of the World Affairs Council of Greater Hampton Roads – Mayor Paul Fraim and the city council for helping to host this event. I’m delighted that Congressman Bobby Scott and Congressman Scott Rigell could join us, and I thank them for that.

It is for me a great pleasure to be back in Norfolk. When I was representing New York in the United States Senate, I was asked to serve on a committee advising the Joint Command. It was a fascinating experience, and I have many very wonderful memories of the meetings and the hospitality that we were afforded here. And it’s especially timely that we would meet, since tomorrow marks the 63rd anniversary of the signing of the Washington Treaty, when 12 countries pledged to safeguard each other’s freedom and committed to the principles of democracy, liberty, and the rule of law.

From those earliest days, Norfolk served as a crucial naval base and training facility for the alliance and our partners. And today it is home to ACT, where staff from every nation in NATO are taking on one of the most important challenges we face together – how to continue transforming our alliance so that it can champion those principles just as effectively in the 21st century as we did in the 20th century. And there can be no better place and no better time, as you celebrate another Norfolk NATO Festival, to discuss the greatest alliance in history and the future we are shaping together.

This morning, I had the great privilege of going to VMI and addressing the cadets and members of the community there. And I talked about General Marshall, an extraordinary American whose life of service still is unique, not only as a military leader but as the secretary of state and the secretary of defense. And I was reminded, as I looked through the pictures in the George Marshall Museum after speaking with the cadets about George Marshall and our vision of how to take those eternal values that he so well represented and bring them forward into today’s time and then projected into the future, of the challenges faced by that generation when they began this great enterprise known as NATO. There was nothing certain about it. NATO and the Marshall Plan were extraordinarily visionary. They were smart power, the original form of that phrase, in action. And it set the future on a firm foundation.

So I think we live in a similarly challenging time. And it therefore is incumbent upon us, citizens and leaders alike, to chart a similarly firmly-founded future, based on the values we cherish and the direction that we seek for the kind of country and world we want to leave to our children.

It was extraordinary, 63 years ago, when this enterprise known as NATO started. Now, some will say the world was a simpler place, divided into that bipolarity of freedom and communism, the West and the Soviet Union and others. And it was dangerous; there was no doubt about that. I grew up during that period and can still remember those drills of going under our desks in case we were attacked by a nuclear weapon. (Laughter.) Looking back now, it seems a little strange – (laughter) – but at the time, we all understood that we were in a battle, a battle for the future.

Well, we are now in a battle for the future. And one of the great attributes of our country has always been how we preferred the future, how we planned and executed in order to achieve tomorrow what we hoped to see happen, and also how we came together for the common good around common goals, and therefore representing in a historic arc the success of this remarkable nation.

Well, as we live in this period of breathtaking change, we are called upon to respond similarly. Democratic transitions are underway in North Africa and the Middle East, whose outcomes are not known. Syrians are undergoing horrific assault by a brutal dictator. The end of the story has not yet been written. The United States has ended combat operations in Iraq, but the future of Iraq is not secure. And in Afghanistan, NATO and our ISAF partners have begun transitioning responsibility for security to the Afghan people.

Now, these and other shifts are taking place in the context of broader trends – the rise of emerging powers, the spread of technology that is connecting more people in more places, and empowering them to influence global events and participate in the global economy like never before. And this is all occurring against the backdrop of a recovering economy from the worst recession in recent memory.

Now, amid all this change, there are some things we can count on. One is the unbreakable bond between America and Europe, a bond created by shared values and common purpose. In virtually every challenge we face today, Europe is America’s partner of first resort. We’re working together in the Middle East and North Africa, in Afghanistan, and reaching out to emerging powers and regions, like those nations in the Asia Pacific.
Now, we will always work together, Europe and America. That won’t change. But the way we work together must change when the times require it. We have to test ourselves regularly, making sure we are focusing on the right problems and putting our resources where they’re needed most. At the State Department and USAID, I started a process designed to do just that: the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, modeled on a similar review that the Defense Department undertakes every four years. We finished that first review more than a year ago, and it continues to drive our effort to become more adept at responding to the threats and opportunities of our time.

Now all of this should sound familiar to those of you who are following the transformation of NATO. This alliance is no stranger to change. Fifty years ago, it was created to lay that foundation for the reemergence of Western Europe and to stand as a bulwark against Soviet aggression.

After the Cold War, NATO’s mission evolved to reforming and integrating Central and Eastern Europe as they rose from decades of Communism. Then two years ago in Lisbon, the leaders of NATO set another new course for our alliance by adopting a strategic concept that takes on the security threats of the 21st century from terrorism to cyber attacks to nuclear proliferation. Next month, we will take another step in this evolution when President Obama hosts the NATO Summit in Chicago. Now, we are both eager to show off Chicago – I was born there, and he of course calls it home, and we’re looking forward to making concrete progress on a number of important issues.

First, is the ongoing transition in Afghanistan. I understand that your own and Maria Zammit came back yesterday from leading a WAC mission to Afghanistan and will be reporting to your fellow group members throughout the country on what she saw there, and I’m glad the State Department could help make that trip happen.

In Lisbon, we set a goal of transitioning full responsibility for security to Afghan security forces by 2014, and they’re making real progress toward that goal. Al-Qaida senior leadership has been decimated and its relationship with the Taliban is fraying.
Meanwhile, the Afghan National Security Forces are becoming stronger and more capable. Today, roughly 50 percent of the Afghan population lives in an area where they are taking responsibility for security. And this spring, the number will go up to 75 percent.
Now, I’m well-aware we’ve had a very difficult period in that relationship. And there is certainly a lot to be learned from the incidents that we have watched unfold. But it should not (inaudible) the fact that we have made progress and are continuing to do so. In Chicago, we will work to define the next phase in this transition, in particular, we will look to set a milestone for 2013, when ISAF will move from a predominantly combat role to a supporting role, training, advising and assisting the Afghan National Security Forces while participating in combat operations when necessary.

This milestone is consistent with the commitments we made in Lisbon because it will ensure that ISAF maintain a robust troop presence and combat capability to support the Afghan people as the transition completes. By the end of 2014, Afghans will be fully responsible. In Chicago we will discuss the form that NATO’s enduring relationship with Afghanistan will then take. We also hope that, by the time we meet in Chicago, the United States will have concluded our negotiations with Afghanistan on a long-term strategic partnership between our two nations. We anticipate that a small number of forces will remain, at the invitation of the Afghan Government, for the sole purpose of training, advising, and assisting Afghan forces and continuing to pursue counterterrorism operations. But we do not seek permanent American military bases in Afghanistan or a presence that is considered a threat to the neighbors, which leads to instability that threatens the gains that have been made in Afghanistan.

It is also essential that the Afghan National Security Forces that we have worked so hard to train have sufficient, sustainable funding for the long run. We’re consulting with allies and partners to reach a unified vision for how we can support these forces. We want to make it clear to the Afghan Government and the Afghan people, as well as to the insurgents and others in the region that NATO will not abandon Afghanistan.

Now, clearly our relationship with Afghanistan has its share of challenges, from the killing of American and allied troops by Afghan security personnel to the unintentional
mishandling of Qu’rans and the tragic murder of Afghan civilians by Americans. People on all sides are asking tough questions about whether we can work past our differences. And while these such incidents have tested our relationship, they have also shown how resilient it is. So the transition remains on track and Afghan officials have worked with us to lower tensions. We have maintained communications at the highest levels and continue having productive discussions on complex issues, like a plan to transition detention operations. We believe a stable Afghanistan is in America’s interest, in NATO’s interest, and we remain committed to working to achieve it.

We also remain committed to supporting Afghan reconciliation. Our goal is to open the door for Afghans to sit down with other Afghans and work out the future for their country. The United States has been clear about the necessary outcomes of any negotiation. Insurgents must renounce violence, abandon al-Qaida, and abide by the laws and constitution of Afghanistan, including its protections for women and minorities. If Afghanistan is ever going to reach its full potential, the rights of women, minorities, and all Afghans must be protected, and their opportunities to participate in their society must be preserved.

We’ve also been clear about the steps the Taliban must now take to advance the process. They must make unambiguous statements distancing themselves from international terrorism and committing to a peace process that includes all Afghans.

So the Taliban have their own choice to make. We will continue to apply military pressure, but we are prepared to work with Afghans who are committed to an inclusive reconciliation process that leads toward peace and security.

Now, as we proceed on these diplomatic and security fronts, we’re also promoting economic development. Afghanistan’s political future is inextricably linked to its economic future, and in fact, the economic future of the entire region. That is a lesson we have learned over and over all over the world: People need a realistic hope for a better life, a job and a chance to provide for their family. And to that end, last year in Bonn, ISAF partners adopted a vision for what we call the Transformation Decade – the period stretching from 2014 through 2024, when international assistance will encourage growth and development in the Afghan private sector. Part of that effort is an idea we call the New Silk Road, a web of economic and transit connections that will bind together a region too long torn apart by conflict and division. We’re partnering with the World Bank and others to help Afghanistan integrate its economy with others in the region, to begin trading and investing with one another, and developing new sources of growth. The private sector will be crucial role in this effort.

On each of these fronts – security, diplomatic, and economic – we are helping the people of Afghanistan strengthen their country and ensure that it never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists.

Our second goal in Chicago touches on a subject that is at the center of ACT’s work, our shared effort to update NATO’s defense capabilities for the 21st century. Two years ago in Lisbon, our leaders laid out a vision for the alliance for the next decade. That vision commits us to ensuring that NATO can deter and defend against any threat. Yet we are taking on this challenge at a moment when the budget of every member country is stretched especially thin. So in Chicago, we will outline a clear vision of how NATO will maintain the capabilities we need in line with the resources we have. This approach works hand-in-hand with Secretary General Rasmussen’s concept of smart defense, which is designed to make sure our alliance remains agile and efficient as well as strong. And I appreciate the work that has been done from ACT in building political support throughout NATO for this innovative approach.

Here’s an example of how it works in practice. We are collaborating on a new Alliance Ground Surveillance system, which uses drones to provide crucial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information to our forces. If each country in NATO had to buy this system separately, it would be prohibitively expensive. But by pooling our resources and sharing the burden, we can provide better security for every ally at a lower cost. And in Chicago, we’ll decide how to use this system as a hub for joint operations.
There are other ways we will look to strengthen our work together. In Lisbon, for example, we agreed to deploy a missile defense system to provide full coverage and protection for NATO European territory, population, and forces against the growing ballistic missile threat. In Chicago, we will look to advance that goal by developing our plans for NATO to exercise command and control of missile defense assets. We will also seek a commitment to joint exercises and training programs that deepen the habits of cooperation we have developed through our work together in Afghanistan. And we will highlight NATO’s decision to extend the Baltic Air Policing Program, which reassures our Baltic allies and frees up resources they can contribute to other NATO efforts, including Afghanistan.

Finally, our third goal in Chicago will be to cement and expand our global partnerships. Now of course, NATO is and always will be a transatlantic organization, but the problems we face today are not limited to one ocean, and neither can our work be. More than 20 non-NATO countries are providing troops and resources in Afghanistan. Elsewhere, we work with non-NATO partners to fight piracy, counter violent extremism, keep peace in Kosovo. And when NATO moved to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions on the protection of civilians in Libya, it did so in lockstep with non-NATO partners from Europe and the Middle East.

And let me pause here for a moment to celebrate the role so many of you at ACT played in that effort. Operation Unified Protector was a massive and complex undertaking. It succeeded because our allies and partners collaborated smoothly, and that cooperation was made possible by the training and interoperability planning that you do here. It’s no exaggeration to say that thousands of Libyans are alive today because of your work.
In Chicago we will build on these partnerships, as promised. We’ll recognize the operational, financial, and political contributions of our partners across a range of efforts to defend our common values in the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and North Africa. We want to learn what worked and what didn’t, and I do believe in evidenced-based planning. And what we see in NATO is a very impressive example of that. It’s not only the planning that looks forward, but it’s the lessons learned that help us look backward to make that forward planning even better.

Now, the three areas I’ve outlined today – defining the next phase of the transition in Afghanistan, outlining a vision for addressing 21st century challenges in a period of austerity, and expanding our partnerships – shows just how much NATO has evolved over the past six decades. But they should also remind us that we must continue to evolve. Transforming any institution isn’t easy, and it doesn’t happen overnight. In fact, it is a project that never really ends. But we have strong leaders and the right strategies in place. And everything we have accomplished so far points toward how much we can achieve in the days and years to come. If we stay nimble and work together, we can continue to make the world more peaceful and secure.

So let me end where I started, with George Marshall. Now, I’m not sure that even someone as visionary as he could have imagined that NATO would be working together in Afghanistan, or protecting civilians in Libya from a ruthless dictator, or keeping the peace in the Balkans, but I don’t think he would’ve been surprised. Remember, this was a man who played a part in preparing the United States for war in the First World War, rebuilding the Army between the wars, and then rebuilding it again for Korea. This is a man who always understood that our military strength was necessary but not sufficient, that what America stands for, the values that we’ve all (inaudible) and practiced, are really what is most attractive to the rest of the world about us.

And he was also someone who took on himself the task of selling the Marshall Plan to a country exhausted from war. I often just wonder with great admiration how he pulled it off. Here was this idea that he and President Truman and Dean Acheson and Senator Vandenberg and others decided was crucial to America’s future. But just put yourself back into the mindset of someone like my father, who had finished his time in the Navy and was really only interested in getting back to business, raising a family, just having a peaceful future. And all of the sudden, the leaders of his country are saying, you know, we’ve just spent our blood and treasure defeating enemies that we now want to tap you to help rebuild. What an astonishing idea.

And it took visionaries (inaudible) both parties who understood what was at stake in the world that existed after the end of that horrific spasm of violence that took so many lives. And George Marshall went about the business of making the case, coming to organizations like this, speaking to civic clubs across the country, explaining why it was in America’s interest. And thankfully, I would argue, he made that case. And in today’s dollars, it cost about $130 billion, so that people like my father, a small businessman, kept paying taxes that went to rebuilding countries that he had trained young men to go and fight in.

So as we look at the future before us, as complex and unpredictable as it is, we need to be guided by our own very clear-eyed view of what is in America’s interests, and then to chart a path along with our partners in NATO and other nations who share the values that we believe represent the best hope for humanity – freedom and democracy, respecting the dignity and human rights of every person. And as we do that, we of course will have no guarantee of what the future holds. That’s never been possible. But we will once again make the right bet, a bet on America’s leadership and strength, just as we did in the 20th century, for this century and beyond.
Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

Mark C. Toner, Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 30, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:58 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. Happy Friday. Yay. First of all, I want to welcome – I think we have a number of students from the International Student House. Is that right, guys? Hey. As well as – led by Barbara Slavin, who’s known to many of you and formerly part of the noble State Department press corps. And anyway, welcome to the State Department.
QUESTION: You mean it’s that bad today? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: I am not above pandering, really, honestly. It’s – if it makes this thing any quicker. Anyway, welcome to the State Department.
Also, before beginning, I do want to mention how very pleased we all here at State of the large number of nominees who were confirmed by the Senate yesterday, including our very own Mike Hammer, which is the reason why I’ve donned a purple tie today, because it’s his favorite color. So kudos to Mike, as well as Tara D. Sonenshine, who’s our new Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. So, congratulations. There’s a long list, you’ve all seen it, but indeed we’re very pleased that these individuals can now begin their work in earnest. And we also will continue to work with Congress on the remaining nominees.
And then, just before taking your questions, I do want to note – and we’ll be putting out a Media Note later, right after the briefing – that Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman will be traveling to New Delhi and to Patna, India, April 1st through 4th. In New Delhi, Under Secretary Sherman will meet with Foreign Secretary Mathai as well as other senior Government of India officials to discuss preparations for the upcoming U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, which will be held here in Washington in mid-June.
On April 4th, she’ll travel to Kathmandu, Nepal, where she’ll meet with Prime Minister Bhattarai as well as other Government of Nepal officials. And then she’ll travel on to Dhaka, Bangladesh on April 5th, where she’ll meet with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and Foreign Minister Moni, as well as other Bangladeshi officials. And she’ll also go on to visit the Grameen Borrower Group site outside of Dhaka.
So we’ll put this out just after the briefing with all the details. That’s it.
QUESTION: I want to go back to something we talked about yesterday involving Russia and Ambassador McFaul.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: What – have you all decided on what course of action you’re going to take about what’s been going on?
MR. TONER: Well, I think we put out a taken question. At least, it should’ve gone out shortly – a short time ago. Did it not? Is it a go? Okay.
QUESTION: Saying what?
MR. TONER: Basically saying that – answering the question that was raised at yesterday’s briefing, which is that have we raised this with the Government of Russia, and indeed we have. So --
QUESTION: And, well, I mean, what have you raised with the Government of Russia?
MR. TONER: Well, we’ve raised our concerns. There’s been a number of incidents since his arrival there that have caused us to have some concerns about his security and safety. So as we would in any – following normal protocol, we’ve raised that with the Government of Russia.
QUESTION: Do you have any concerns at all about just – I mean in general about the tweets that he’s been sending out?
MR. TONER: No. I think I said yesterday that we have full confidence in our chiefs of mission to use Twitter as a way to communicate to a number of followers, whether they be in Russia – in Mike McFaul’s case, but – or outside. And I did note, having looked at his Twitter account – we had an exchange yesterday – but there’s quite a few of his followers who respond in Cyrillic, so he does have some measure. I don’t have any way to measure that, but you questioned --
QUESTION: One of his followers appears to be someone with the name the – at least the Twitter handle Prostitutkamila. Do you have any – (laughter) – whose avitar is crossed legs. Do you have any – I mean, he is going back and forth with Prostitutkamila about this situation yesterday. Do you have any concerns or problems with that? Is that appropriate for – I mean, God knows who this person actually is, but --
MR. TONER: Right. Exactly, Matt. You well know, as I do, even though we’re not of the – this generation that uses Twitter – well, maybe you do, maybe you are, I don’t mean to age you – but that avitars come in all shapes and forms.
QUESTION: Well, I know, but, I mean, here he’s having a discussion saying that he was accosted by Cossacks at this event where these journalists – there were not just journalists there, there were men in military uniform, and I just – do you think that ambassadors should be routinely engaged in Twitter conversations with people who identify themselves as prostitutes?
MR. TONER: Again, he’s engaged with his followers. I’m not going to get – regulate or talk about from this podium who within his followers he should be talking to. Twitter – his tweets go out to a broad audience.
QUESTION: Did your concerns with – over his security and safety predate his Twitter activities yesterday?
MR. TONER: Yeah. I mean, I would say that. There’s been a number of incidents. I’m not going to go into them in detail but – because they do pertain to his security, but we’ve raised this.
QUESTION: Okay. And did you raise the concerns with the Russians before or after that exchange yesterday?
MR. TONER: Before. And we’re going to raise the latest concerns as well.
QUESTION: The latest concern being about his security, maybe --
MR. TONER: Well, and about --
QUESTION: My understanding was previous – the ones previous were about the anti-American incidents that --
MR. TONER: That’s right.
QUESTION: And then – but the new concern comes from the fact that he seems to be being followed around and --
MR. TONER: That’s my understanding, yes.
QUESTION: -- thinks that his phone and --
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Have the Russians said anything in response to this latest --
MR. TONER: No. I don’t have any details about what their response has been.
QUESTION: Have they responded to the previous concerns about his being followed?
MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Going back to the Senate confirmations, India is now, for a long time, without any U.S. ambassador, and now – we have now, you said, Strategic Dialogue is coming up and a lot of (inaudible) are going back to – back and forth to India and to New Delhi to Washington. Have Secretary – she’s making any plea to the Senate for the confirmation of --
MR. TONER: Who? We --
QUESTION: -- for --
MR. TONER: Nancy Powell was --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. TONER: -- was on my list of those confirmed yesterday.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: So --
QUESTION: There is an ambassador to India now --
MR. TONER: Yeah. There is an ambassador to India. I was somewhat confused.
QUESTION: -- as well as an ambassador to many other countries that are --
MR. TONER: Absolutely. I didn’t go through the long laundry list that --
QUESTION: -- that also didn’t have ambassadors for a long time.
MR. TONER: Right. Thank you, Matt. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: And she’ll – when’s she leaving?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I’m sure as soon as possible. I was just confused because your question seemed based on the premise that she was not confirmed, so --
QUESTION: No, because you did not answer – I mean, you didn’t mention --
MR. TONER: I didn’t go through the laundry – I mean, there’s a long list of people, so I just gave a shout-out to the folks in PA.
QUESTION: The question sort – also on India, the deadline’s looming for the President on sanctions on – regarding oil to Iran, to give --
QUESTION: It’s here.
QUESTION: It’s here – to give exemptions. Is that something the State Department will be handling, or does that come in from the White House?
MR. TONER: I think I’d refer you to the White House on his --
QUESTION: Just the exemptions for countries, what – about the – about purchasing oil from Iran.
MR. TONER: Well --
QUESTION: A lot of the sanctions --
MR. TONER: We continue to – I mean, we already announced a number of those exemptions, and we continue to have a dialogue with a number of countries, including India. And when we have – and when we’re ready to announce a new round of exemptions, then we’ll do so, but nothing planned.
QUESTION: Syria?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Those discussions are ongoing.
QUESTION: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs told reporters as he was returning from Latin America that the message has been sent from the U.S. to the Syrian opposition that it would be helpful if they would basically consolidate who they are and consolidate their actions. I know – I’m asking, here at State, has that message indeed been sent to the various parts of the broader Syrian opposition that it’s better to get behind one banner at this point?
MR. TONER: Well, indeed. I mean, it’s going to be one of the topics of discussion in Istanbul. And the Secretary herself spoke to it the other day about this need for a unifying vision for the Syrian opposition, recognizing, of course, the challenges that are inherent in this process, which is that you’ve – they’re under relentless pressure by the Assad regime trying to basically survive, much less come up with a vision statement. And then you’ve got elements of the opposition who are outside the country and obviously many more who are within the country. So it’s a difficult task. We recognize that.
QUESTION: Does that kind of solidification make it easier for the U.S. to figure out exactly how it’s going to provide assistance if you actually have some sort of organization that you can direct countries to, such as what we saw with the NTC in Libya?
MR. TONER: Well, certainly. As we move forward on the path set out by the Annan plan that foresees a dialogue and then a transition, it’s absolutely essential that we’ve got a strong unified opposition. We believe that’s happening, but it’s just taking time.
QUESTION: Mark, conversely – a follow up to Ros’ question. I mean, is it – doesn’t that – the fact that they have a hundred different group make it really very difficult for you to provide aid and, in fact, frustrates whatever aid that might be forthcoming, and, in fact, may have nixed whatever possible military support to the opposition groups?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, it depends, Said, what we’re talking about. I mean, our humanitarian assistance is ongoing, and that’s metered out through – basically through the ICRC, but other international organizations. When you’re talking about assistance, the President and others have mentioned a possibility of non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, and that’s going to be one of the topics of discussion in Istanbul.
QUESTION: You said that --
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just a follow up. Should the opposition feel now be – or should the opposition be resigned to the fact that no military aid is forthcoming, at least not in the foreseeable future?
MR. TONER: Look, we’ve – our position hasn’t changed on that. We’re focused on political, economic pressure on Assad to choke off his options, as well as ramping up humanitarian assistance. And as I’ve said, talking about non-lethal assistance or aid to the Syrian opposition to help them come together and become more coherent.
QUESTION: You said as we move forward with the Annan plan. Do you see any indication that that plan is actually moving forward at this stage?
MR. TONER: Well, look, I talked yesterday about giving him the diplomatic space that he needs to operate. He continues to consult. We haven’t seen – I think what you’re asking – we haven’t seen any signs by Assad or his regime that they’re following the first element of that plan is for a ceasefire.
QUESTION: So when does it – when do you make the calculation that giving him diplomatic space to operate is also giving Assad physical space to keep on mowing down his people? I mean --
MR. TONER: Well --
QUESTION: -- you’re – it seems --
MR. TONER: This isn’t a – no. I mean, it’s a fair question, but this isn’t – when I talk about giving him the diplomatic space to operate, I’m not at all implying that we’re relenting in any way in our other efforts to apply economic and political pressure on Assad. I mean, these things are concurrent.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Mark, Syrian sources say that the Bashar al-Assad is getting ready to give a major speech in about a week. And it is expected that during that speech, he will announce ceasing fire. Is that good enough?
MR. TONER: Look, we want to see immediate ceasefire on the ground. If they said – and they sent through a letter to Kofi Annan that said that they were – that they agreed with the plan, then they should take immediate steps to halt the violence.
QUESTION: Yeah, but --
MR. TONER: We’ve seen – look, I’m not – the Secretary and others spoke to this. We’re not going to – we’re going to remain skeptical until we see real action on the ground, real steps being taken.
QUESTION: But you don’t think that Kofi Annan told them, “Okay. We’ll give you one more week to finish up your business,” so to speak.
MR. TONER: I think – I can’t speak for him. I think he’s working equally hard to stop the violence as soon as possible.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: In India yesterday, five fastest growing economies including India – Brazil, India, China, Russia, and South Africa, they met and established a, what it called, BRICS. And what they’re saying is, like, challenging the IMF and the World Bank. And also they are calling on the United States that there should be some kind of change as far as the way World Bank and IMF is works. And any – and also, they want to do business in their own local currencies rather than in dollar.
MR. TONER: Well, in answer to your first question, I don’t – or your question implied that they was established – I think that BRICS been around for a few years as a multilateral organization. We enjoy good relations with all the countries within the BRIC. We have ongoing bilateral dialogues with all of them. So we understand their positions on a broad range of multilateral issues and we welcome the BRICS’ efforts to engage constructively on global issues, and we’re going to continue to talk with them about the range of global issues.
QUESTION: And also, at the same time, the U.S. Commerce Secretary John Bryson was in India – he’s in India. So where do we stand as far as U.S.-India trade and commerce is concerned today?
MR. TONER: Well, I haven’t had a chance to get a readout from his visit, but I’m fairly certain that we’re on solid footing in terms of trade with India.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead. You had a question.
QUESTION: Do you mind going back to Iran?
MR. TONER: I don’t mind going back to Iran.
QUESTION: On the issue of the Iranian sanctions slated to take place at the end of June, how concerned is the Administration with the fact that these increased sanctions will have an effect on oil prices, gas prices back here?
MR. TONER: Well, look, I think the fact that we’re having very deliberate and ongoing consultations with many of our friends and allies around the world to impress upon them the need to stop their import of Iranian crude and then to move to other sources shows that we’re going about this in a very deliberative way. We want to – and certainly the announcement a couple weeks ago of those countries that we believe have made substantial progress in this indicate that there’s a – that we’re confident that we can do this in a very coherent, deliberative fashion that’s not going to affect the market.
QUESTION: It seems to be (inaudible) White House (inaudible).
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: On the Secretary’s trip, I’m wondering if you have any readouts from the U.S. side on what the Secretary is doing, since she’s gone there without her faithful band of followers and the only word we have now is from the Saudi Foreign Ministry. So can you tell us?
MR. TONER: And precisely because of that, I don’t have much of a readout for you because my faithful --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: My faithful colleague, Toria, is on that same second plane. As many of you know, the Secretary’s plane developed some mechanical problems yesterday. She went forward, I believe, with just a few skeleton staff to carry out her meetings, bilateral meetings on the ground. And then the larger plane followed with the rest of her staff, including Toria, of course, and the press corps. So I don’t have a readout. We’ll try to get it to you.
QUESTION: You’re not likely to get anything until Toria actually gets on the ground? I mean, there are other senior U.S. officials with the Secretary.
MR. TONER: I understand that, and I know she’s coordinating with them to try to get something.
QUESTION: Different topic?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. On Palestinian issue, today the Israelis – and in fact Haaretz – exposed that the Israelis have plans to annex 10 percent of the West Bank and allocate it for a settlement. Do you have any comment on that? They published the maps and that actually will turn the West Bank, the area designated for a Palestinian state, into basically a discontiguous, Swiss cheese area.
MR. TONER: I really don’t. I haven’t seen the story. I don’t know what it’s based on. You know our policy on – our position regarding settlements.
QUESTION: Well, it’s a major expose in an Israeli –
MR. TONER: Well, we’ll certainly take a look at it --
QUESTION: -- a most respectable (inaudible) --
MR. TONER: I’m pretty sure our position is going to remain the same, which is --
QUESTION: Yeah. But I mean, beside your position remaining the same, if this is the case, if there are actually secret plans to annex – I mean --
MR. TONER: But, Said, you’re asking me to comment on secret plans. I mean, I – just it’s impossible for me right now to do that. I’ll take a look at the article and – but you know what our position is.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: I think you --
QUESTION: Can we stay on that for a second?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: And this has to do with Jerusalem, but it’s not the same question from the other day. Do you know if you all have taken a position on the construction of this Museum of Tolerance that the Israelis are building? It’s supposed – there’s some controversy about it because it’s going to be built on a Muslim cemetery.
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question, Matt. I don’t know what our position is.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Mark, is the Armenia and Turkish relation, the genocide topic or the church property issues, part of the Secretary’s discussions in Turkey?
MR. TONER: You know what? I can’t speak to – I know she’s going to have some bilateral discussions on the side and, of course, on the margins of the Syrian – Friends of Syria meeting. It’s impossible for me to judge. Of course, those issues, those topics are a constant source of – or a issue that we discuss with Turkey and with Armenia, in fact. So we want to see the rapprochement process continue in that regard.
QUESTION: New topic?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Pakistan?
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: On the reports that Usama bin Ladin’s wife is saying that he was always in Pakistan, is it your assessment that the Pakistani Government was consistently lying to the U.S. Government over the years?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t think we have an assessment. We have – as you know, immediately after the Abbottabad raid, we asked the Pakistani Government the question of whether there was a larger network at play here or there was some kind of network of support, I guess, for bin Ladin when he was there. We have not received any information that indicates that there was such a network of support there. So I don’t really have anything new for you on that.
QUESTION: So you don’t believe that they were lying?
MR. TONER: I don’t believe so. Again, we haven’t received any indications that indicate that there was some broader network, no.

Go ahead, Shaun.
QUESTION: On Burma, Myanmar?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up real quick?
MR. TONER: On Pakistan? Yeah, go ahead. Let’s stay on Pakistan.
QUESTION: A just quick one that Pakistanis are again angry at the U.S. because of this recent attack, drones and also --
MR. TONER: Recent? I’m sorry. Recent --
QUESTION: Missile attack.
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: Over Pakistan. I believe they are saying three people were killed and they are asking the U.S. that they should stop this as far as drone attacks and missiles are concerned in order to have good relations or opening of the doors and all so forth.
MR. TONER: Well, you know where we’re at on this, Goyal. We continue to await the results of the parliamentary review. That’s still ongoing. But I think that in terms of our relations, we continue to have engagement at all levels within the Pakistani Government. And we certainly respect the review process that’s underway and we look forward to the results, and then we’ll be willing to discuss some of the issues raised by that. But as to this incident, I don’t have any comment.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On Burma?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. Burma. Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: The bi-elections, of course, are coming up this weekend.
MR. TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: Aung San Suu Kyi overnight made some remarks about the elections, saying that while obviously Burma is not a perfect democracy yet, but that what’s – what she saw as problems, irregularities, and that that’s well beyond what’s acceptable. What’s your read so far? What’s the State Department’s read so far on the elections –
MR. TONER: I’m sorry, just to go back to the tail end of what her comments were --
QUESTION: Sure. Saying that the level of irregularities were not acceptable. What’s the State Department’s read on how the bi-elections are going?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we just have – as you guys all know very well, that we’re going to have representatives of the National Democratic Institute as well as the International Republican Institute who are going to actually be on the ground – I believe they actually are on the ground – to observe the – Sunday’s elections. We view that, in and of itself, this invitation to – of the international community to observe the elections, as a – as something that’s positive in terms of the country’s democratic development.
They’ve been very clear that they cannot do a proper election observation in that short a window, but certainly, we’ll look forward to their analysis leading up to it. I think we have raised our concerns, though, about – going into this about some of the irregularities that we’ve seen. But we’re going to have folks on the ground on Sunday to observe how they’re carried out.
QUESTION: Sure. Just to expand on that a little bit --
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: I mean, is there – the overall conduct of these, that you’ve raised concerns about some irregularities, is – I mean, is – at this point, do you see it as credible? Do you see the by-elections as – or is it too early to judge?
MR. TONER: Well, I think – no, I think – first of all, this is a really – this is an important moment for Burma. These by-elections would demonstrate – if they are seen as free and fair – would demonstrate the government’s continued commitment to democratization. So we certainly want to see free and fair elections on Sunday. This would certainly propel further momentum in our bilateral relations, but we have noted some of these irregularities, and we’re just going to – as we move forward through Sunday, we’re going to assess.
QUESTION: Speaking of the bilateral relationship, how is the process of trying to establish an embassy going there?
MR. TONER: Well, it’s ongoing. I mean, we talked a little bit about this yesterday. If you’re asking about naming an ambassador --
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. TONER: What? Oh, of course. Thank you, Matt. (Laughter.) We do have an embassy. I jumped to the conclusion you’re talking about naming an ambassador, and that’s really something for the White House. Thank you, Matt.
Yeah. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR. TONER: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: In fact, the northern region of Kurdistan. The president of the northern region of Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani, is coming to town. I think he arrives tomorrow. And --
MR. TONER: And you want to know if we’re meeting with him and what we’re doing with him?
QUESTION: Yeah, exactly. Is the Secretary –
MR. TONER: I’ll find out for you, Said.
QUESTION: Please, yeah.
MR. TONER: I don’t have that in front of me. Thanks, though.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: A different topic?
MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Mali.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: The coup leader, if you want to call – yeah, the coup leader – Captain Sonogo, is, I believe, his name – he made a statement saying – appealing for help, saying that there’s quite a drastic situation with the rebellion, the Tuareg rebellion. What’s the level of concern that the U.S. has with this situation in Mali, both the –
MR. TONER: Well --
QUESTION: -- since the coup and with the rebellion?
MR. TONER: Well, we are very concerned. You saw that ECOWAS heads of state held an emergency meeting in Abidjan yesterday, and they presented the mutineers with an ultimatum that they must step down and return Mali to constitutional rule within 72 hours. And if they don’t comply, ECOWAS is going to impose economic, financial, and – financial and other sanctions on Mali. And these would include, I believe, closing the borders with ECOWAS countries and freezing Mali’s account within the West African Central Bank.
We echo ECOWAS’s call for the mutineers to step down and allow for a swift return to democratic rule and for presidential elections to – ultimately to take place. We have seen these reports you’re talking about, advances by the Tuareg rebels. We are very concerned. Toria spoke to this last week when she said that if these mutineers are so concerned, then why are they occupied with events in Bamako rather than pressing the fight against the Tuaregs in the north of Mali.
So we are very concerned about this. I know ECOWAS has offered to mediate between the Tuaregs and the Government of Mali. And we do recognize that these mutineers have some grievances against the government, but their actions to date have not been the right way to get – have anyone to address those grievances in any kind of productive way.
QUESTION: Has the situation risen to the level of needing a Security Council meeting?
MR. TONER: I simply don’t know where the discussion is on that yet. I mean, we believe that ECOWAS has taken an appropriate leadership role to date on this.
QUESTION: But if we get to Monday and the general is still holding press conferences and talking to any media come --
MR. TONER: We still believe there’s time for this to reverse itself and for democratic rule to return to Mali and for elections to take place.
QUESTION: And what do you know about the security of the president right now?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I don’t have any updates on his whereabouts. We’ve been told he’s secure and safe, but I don’t have any confirmation of that.
QUESTION: And you will have – now having had a week, you have those numbers for us?
MR. TONER: I believe we’re getting close on those numbers.
QUESTION: Oh? Where – how close would that be?
MR. TONER: We’ll release them at 8 o’clock tonight, how about that? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: How about 4:00 in the morning?
MR. TONER: That’s right. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Just on --
QUESTION: North Korea --
MR. TONER: Point taken, Matt. We – I can’t say it enough that these are complicated. Military assistance has stopped and we’re de-conflicting all of the assistance that goes directly to the Malian Government. But these are pots of money within programs, and it simply takes time for us to --
QUESTION: Yeah, but five days?
MR. TONER: I appreciate your thoughtful analysis.
Yes.
QUESTION: Just if I may, a quick follow – Shaun’s question on Burma quickly?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Burmese community here – I meant what they are saying is that they’ve been waiting for a free Burma for the last 20-plus years and they are optimistic that as far as free and fair elections, unless U.S. really takes a closer look and gets involved because that’s what happened in the 1990 elections when she – Aung San Suu Kyi was cheated or her party. So what’s new or different now in the previous 1990 elections and today – I mean, this coming one?
MR. TONER: Well, we’re taking a step-by-step approach in Burma. You are very well aware we’ve had the Secretary out there visiting. We’ve had this positive momentum in the relationship. The government has indeed taken many steps, including the freeing up of – or the freeing of political prisoners inter alia that have led us to engage with the Burmese Government. But we’re obviously going to be looking to these elections on Sunday as another indication of what direction the country’s moving in.
QUESTION: But Mark, what they’re saying is that the international community, including the U.S., been dealing with the dictator for the last 20 years. How come?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. What are you – I didn’t hear the last question, that we’ve been --
QUESTION: The international community and the U.S. been dealing with a dictator, a military dictator.
MR. TONER: I don’t think that’s true at all. We’ve had a very strong sanctions program against Burma. We have had this period of the two-track approach, and we believe its borne fruit.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. One more thing going back to the Palestinian issue --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Today is Land Day. It’s a day that the Palestinians celebrate every year. And Israel imposed very severe restrictions on the movement of people, and there are actually some violent clashes that the Israeli Army committed against the Palestinian demonstrators. I wonder if you have a comment on that.
MR. TONER: Well, we certainly don’t want to see any violence on a – by either side. We certainly, as you all know, support the rights of people everywhere to protest peacefully, and so we would just call for restraint.
QUESTION: They actually imposed a great many closures. I mean, people are not able to move from one place to another. They closed the West Bank, Gaza --
MR. TONER: No, I’m aware of those. And again, we would want people to be able to peacefully protest, of course.
Yeah. In the back.
QUESTION: Mark, I recall last time when the Secretary of State was in Armenia, she mentioned that it’s up to Turkey now to make a step towards reconciliation. I think she said, “The ball is on Turkey’s side.” I was wondering if this is the same message that this building is trying to deliver to Ankara authorities as well.
MR. TONER: You know what? Let me, frankly, take the question. I mean, I know that we continue to look for movement on this issue, but as to where it is exactly and where that ball is, let me take the question.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: For modern times some uncharacteristically tough language from Tokyo about this planned missile launch in mid-April. Has the U.S. talked to Tokyo about its threats to intervene militarily to keep this from happening?
MR. TONER: You’re talking about which comments specifically?
QUESTION: That they’ve authorized this response if North Korea goes ahead with its planned satellite launch.
MR. TONER: Well, of course, we consult extremely closely with Japan, with our other allies in the region, and we’re certainly understanding of their concerns, which is why we’ve been so vocal about asking or telling North Korea that this planned missile launch is a mistake, that they should back away from it, and that it’s jeopardizing the Leap Year agreement.
QUESTION: That is certainly different from what Chinese officials were saying, which is basically, “North Korea, reconsider what you’re doing.” This is actually elevating or escalating the rhetoric, as it were. Does that worry this building at all?
MR. TONER: Well, again, let’s be very clear that it’s the intentions stated by North Korea that are elevating tensions, which is why we are asking them to back away from that decision.
QUESTION: Is this building telling Tokyo that perhaps it should be a little more careful in its language if trying to manage the situation is the goal here?
MR. TONER: Look, we continue to consult very closely with the Japanese on this situation, and as I said, we share their concerns.
QUESTION: Was there any sense that Tokyo could make good on its threats?
MR. TONER: That’s a question for Japan.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On North Korea. The State Department has consistently been saying that they are working to encourage North Korea to back away. Concretely, what has this meant? What forms has this encouragement taken?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, we’ve been very publicly vocal about our concerns and the fact that this launch, if it goes forward, would call into question the credibility of all North Korea’s commitments. So beyond that, we continue to consult with our allies and partners within the Six-Party process about next steps. I know China and others have also been vocal as well about expressing their concerns.
Yeah.
QUESTION: I – forgive me if I’ve missed this detail, but could you give me a rundown of exactly what contact the U.S. has had with North Korea since the announcement of the launch? I remember on March 16th, a few hours before North Korea put out their statement --
MR. TONER: That’s correct.
QUESTION: -- they had contacted the U.S. though the New York channel.
MR. TONER: That’s correct. And as far as I’m aware – I have not spoken with Glyn Davies in a couple of days, but I’m not aware that we’ve had any contact with them since then. I can check.
Yeah. In the back.
QUESTION: Yeah. For old time’s sake if I get to ask a question, there’s a report in Foreign Policy by Mark Perry that the Israelis are – have a deal with Azerbaijan to use military bases, air bases there, as a contingency perhaps to attack Iran. Does the U.S. State Department have any comment on that?
MR. TONER: We do not. Nope. I took this question yesterday, and I said the same thing. You know where we are in terms of Iran, and the President’s been very clear that we believe there’s still time for diplomacy to work here. We want to see Iran return to the negotiating table willing to address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program in a real, substantive, and ongoing manner – not just one meeting but indeed a process here where we can really discuss and reach agreement on these issues.
QUESTION: Have you raised it with the Azerbaijanis?
MR. TONER: We have not.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Back to North Korea.
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. planning to have any direct communication or meetings with the North Koreans before this proposed launch in mid-April?
MR. TONER: Again, we continue to consult with our Six-Party allies and partners. I don’t have anything to preview for you in terms of direct conversations with North Korea. It’s not something we usually do, in fact.
QUESTION: Okay. And one on Japan, please?
QUESTION: There’s been no contact through – there’s been no contact through the New York channel?
MR. TONER: No. I just said I’m not aware of – the last is what she cited, which is the conversation we had up to – right before North Korea decided to make its announcement.
Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: On Japan and the Koreas. Secretary Clinton, at the beginning of this month, said as soon as possible she wanted to have a trilateral meeting with the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. Has a date been set for that?
MR. TONER: I’m not aware that a date has been set. Once we have something to announce, we’ll let you know. But I don’t think it has been.
QUESTION: Okay. Is there an intention to try to schedule it around the time that a lot of Japanese officials will be coming here in April, including foreign minister --
MR. TONER: It could be. I mean, we always look for – look, I don’t have a date for you, simply put. I mean, we try to, obviously, accommodate foreign leaders as well as the Secretary’s own schedule as much as we can.
Is that it?
QUESTION: Just one quick one. I just got – today, there was a hearing for this Dr. Fai as far as his connection working for Pakistan. He has been sentenced for 24 months because his connection with Pakistan and working against the U.S. Any comments on that?
MR. TONER: I don’t have any comments.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. And finally, Secretary, are you buying any Mega tickets? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: Oh yeah. I wish. (Laughter.) You wouldn’t see me at the podium on Monday, if that were the case. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Thank you, Mark.