Showing posts with label SOUTH CHINA SEA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOUTH CHINA SEA. Show all posts

Friday, May 29, 2015

DEFENSE SECRETARY SAYS U.S. TO REMAIN PRINCIPAL SECURITY POWER IN PACIFIC

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

Defense Secretary Ash Carter addresses attendees at the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Pacific Fleet change-of-command ceremonies in Honolulu, May 27, 2015. Navy Adm. Harry B. Harris, who previously commanded U.S. Pacific Fleet, assumed command of Pacom from Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III. Carter’s stop in Hawaii is his first in a 10-day trip to advance the next phase of the Asia-Pacific rebalance. DoD photo.  

Carter Urges Peaceful Resolution of South China Sea Disputes
By Terri Moon Cronk
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, May 27, 2015 – The United States will continue to remain the principal security power in the Pacific region for decades to come, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in Hawaii today.

The secretary also urged countries to work toward a peaceful resolution to territorial disputes in the South China Sea region.

Change of Command

Carter made his remarks during change-of-command ceremonies at U.S. Pacific Command, the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and at the retirement of outgoing Pacom commander Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Honolulu.

Former U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Navy Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr. will take over as the Pacom commander from Locklear, while Navy Adm. Scott H. Swift, formerly assigned to the Pentagon as the Navy Staff director, will command Pacfleet.

“We come together at Pearl Harbor, 70 years after the end of World War II, to mark the change of command at Pacom, our oldest and largest combatant command,” Carter said. “Pacom’s leaders -- and all who serve under them -- are charged with protecting the nation while assuring the peace that’s been the hallmark of the Pacific region for many, many years.”

As Pacom’s commander, Locklear inspired and led DoD’s rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, said Carter, adding that the admiral commanded 350,000 military and civilian personnel, nearly 2,000 aircraft and 180 naval vessels to meet commitments made by President Barack Obama when he announced the U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific.

Outgoing Commander’s Legacy

Locklear was a diplomat, strategist and leader who recognized the importance of people, Carter said. Locklear’s legacy will make the rebalance a reality, the secretary added.

“But along the way, he also taught so many of us, including me, about America’s enduring interests and commitments in the Asia-Pacific,” Carter said. “Sam has advised a generation of government and military leaders -- secretaries of defense, national security advisors, and the Joint Chiefs -- and we’re going to remember those lessons and build on his legacy as we enter the next phase of our rebalance.”

But as Locklear knows, Carter said, the region’s security is rooted in something deeper and more fundamental: a commitment to shared values and principles, such as a commitment to the rule of law, to resolving disputes through diplomacy instead of coercion, and maintaining freedom of navigation and overflight in the region.

“The United States, DoD, and Pacom have always stood up for those principles and we always will because they’ve assured the Asia-Pacific’s peace and prosperity for decades,” the secretary said.

South China Sea

Carter said he wants to be clear about the United States’ position on the South China Sea, where several Asia-Pacific countries, including China, have been engaged in territorial disputes.

“First, we want a peaceful resolution of all disputes and an immediate and lasting halt to land reclamation by any claimant,” the secretary said. “We also oppose any further militarization of disputed features.”

Carter added, “Second, and there should be no mistake: The United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all around the world.”

And, “with its actions in the South China Sea, China is out of step with both international norms that underscore the Asia-Pacific’s security architecture, and the regional consensus in favor of noncoercive approaches to this and other long-standing disputes,” the secretary said.

China’s actions “are bringing countries in the region together in new ways,” Carter said. “And they’re increasing demand for American engagement in the Asia-Pacific. We’re going to meet it. We will remain the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come.”

Monday, August 18, 2014

CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS VISITS VIETNAM

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Right:  Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Lt. Gen. Do Ba T?, Vietnamese chief of defense, in Hanoi, Vietnam, Aug. 14, 2014. DoD photo by D. Myles Cullen.  
Dempsey Building Trust in Vietnam Visit
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15, 2014 – Building trust and confidence is the theme for the first visit by a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Vietnam since 1971.
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey met with his Vietnamese counterpart Lt. Gen. Do Ba Ty in Hanoi. The two men discussed the future of the military-to-military relationship between their countries, but also the legacy of the Vietnam War. The chairman will also visit Da Nang and Ho Chi Minh City during his visit.
Dempsey’s visit is a message to the region that the United States is serious about the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, even as the American military is confronted with challenges in other parts of the world, defense officials said.

Dempsey said in an interview with USA Today’s Tom Vanden Brook that his formative years were colored by the specter of the war in Vietnam. Dempsey graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1974 -- too late to serve in that war.
“I said to General Ty that ‘I spent the first four years of my military career preparing to fight you,’” Dempsey said. “There’s something profound about being here now trying to build a relationship on the basis of common interests.”
And the two countries do have common interests. Vietnam’s geostrategic position -- sitting between straddling China and Southeast Asia -- makes the nation an important factor player in finding a peaceful solution to the territorial issues in the South China Sea, the chairman said.

“They probably have more influence on the South China Sea and how it evolves than any other country,” he noted.

The two military leaders also discussed longstanding issues related to the Vietnam War, including the U.S. Agent Orange remediation program, finding and recovering U.S. personnel and addressing the problem of leftover unexploded ordnance. The two countries cooperate closely on all these issues, Dempsey said. “We owe it to each other to keep making progress on those [issues],” he said.
These programs were more prominent in discussions a year ago than they are today, Dempsey said. “We’re moving beyond those legacy war issues and toward a new relationship,” the chairman said.

All relationships are founded on trust “and that doesn’t happen overnight,” the general said.

The U.S. and Vietnamese militaries are working together in maritime security, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. “We’ve made a tentative agreement to increase the frequency and depth of our staff talks so we understand each others’ long-term strategies for the region,” Dempsey said. “That’s the place where we can make the most progress.”

Dempsey said he’s seeing more information sharing happening between the United States and Vietnam in the maritime domain as well as more work with maritime law enforcement.

“We’re working most closely right now with their coast guard, to establish a law enforcement capability to protect their economic exclusion zone … so they don’t get militarized,” he said.

U.S. officials are also working with Vietnamese counterparts to enhance the training program for maritime operations.

Dempsey stressed that the U.S. interest in Vietnam is not all about countering China. “The shadow of China hangs over the region,” he said. “Everyone thinks our interest here is just about China. It’s not.”

The rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region is inevitable as the area grows and expands in economic, political and diplomatic clout, he said.

“This is important and we do have our shoulder behind it,” the chairman added.
This was Dempsey’s first visit to Vietnam and he said he was struck by the vibrancy of life and the colors of the city.

“…Standing on the platform for the honor ceremony, listening to the two national anthems and seeing the two national flags flying side-by-side, it occurred to me that often adversaries in the past can become our closest friends,” the chairman said. “That won’t happen without some effort, but I think there’s a possibility there.”

Monday, April 28, 2014

PRESIDENT OBAMA, PRESIDENT AQUINO III MAKE REMARKS IN MANILA, PHILIPPINES

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Remarks by President Obama and President Benigno Aquino III of the Philippines in Joint Press Conference

MalacaƱang Palace
Manila, Philippines
3:40 P.M. PHT
PRESIDENT AQUINO:  The honorable President of the United States Barack Obama and his official delegation, members of the Cabinet present, members of the press, ladies and gentlemen: good afternoon.
Today, the Philippines welcomes President Obama and his delegation on his first state visit to the Philippines. The United States is a key ally, a strategic partner, and a reliable friend of the Philippines.
With this visit, we reaffirm the deep partnership between our countries, one founded on democratic values, mutual interest in our shared history and aspirations, and one that will definitely give us the momentum to propel our peoples to even greater heights.
We witnessed the most recent and tangible manifestations of this in the immediate outpouring of assistance from the government of the United States and the American people in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan, or Yolanda, and your nation’s clear expression of solidarity with the typhoon survivors.
Mr. President, in your State of the Union address earlier this year, you spoke of how American volunteers and troops were greeted with gratitude in the affected areas.  Today, I reiterate formally the Filipino people will never forget such kindness and compassion.  On behalf of my countrymen, I thank the United States of America once more for being a true friend to our people.
The friendship and partnership between our countries, however, are evident not only in times of crisis and immediate need, but also in other aspects of our relations.  Our defense alliance has been a cornerstone of peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region for more than 60 years.  And our strategic partnership spans a broad range of areas of cooperation, contributing to the growth and prosperity of both our nations, and fostering closer bonds between our peoples.
As such, President Obama and I met today with the shared resolve to ensure that our deepening relations are attune to the realities and needs that have emerged in the 21st century, which affect not only our two countries, but also the entire community of nations.
I thank President Obama for the U.S.’s support for our government’s efforts in modernizing and enhancing its defense capabilities.  The Philippines-U.S. Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement takes our security cooperation to a higher level of engagement, reaffirms our country’s commitment to mutual defense and security, and promotes regional peace and stability.
Both President Obama and I shared the conviction that territorial and maritime disputes in the Asia Pacific region should be settled peacefully based on international law.  We affirm that arbitration is an open, friendly and peaceful approach to seeking a just and durable solution.  We also underscored the importance of the full and effective implementation of the Declaration of Conduct and the expeditious conclusion of a substantive and legally binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea -- all towards fostering peace and stability in our part of the world.
We, likewise, welcome the active participation of the United States in regional mechanisms such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the East Asia Summit. 
Typhoon Haiyan showed the entire world how vulnerable the Philippines as well as other developing countries are to natural disasters.  As such, humanitarian assistance and disaster response is an essential component of our cooperation.  As the United States and the American people have always been ready to support us in the aftermath of disasters, so too do we look forward to the continued cooperation of the United States and the rest of our partners in the international community as we undertake the task of building back the communities affected by Typhoon Haiyan.
This morning we made a promising start as we discussed how our partnership can be enhanced through building climate resilient communities.  These kind of strong communities are important not only in withstanding disasters, but also in fostering inclusive growth across the entire country.
President Obama and I recognize the importance of strong economic engagement for the continued growth of both the Philippines and the United States.
On this note, we expressed our appreciation for the U.S.’s support for our government’s programs under the Partnership for Growth framework, which enhances the policy environment for economic growth through US $145 million total plan contribution from the USAID.  U.S. support is also coursed through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which supports the implementation of projects and road infrastructure, poverty reduction, and good governance, with $434 million grant from 2011 to 2016.
Recently, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration reinstated the Philippines to a Category 1 status.  This will redound to mutual benefit for our countries from opening more routes for travel between the United States and the Philippines to creating more business opportunities to facilitate the increased tourism and business travel.
We welcome the substantive agreement between our countries on the terms and concessions for the U.S. to support the Philippines’ request for the extension of special treatment for rice imports until 2017. 
We also discussed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a high-standard trade agreement that will shape the global and regional economic architecture in the 21st century.  The Philippines is working to assert in how participation in TPP can be realized. 
The signing of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro last March 27 brings a just and lasting peace within our reach  -- a peace that will serve as a strong foundation for stability, inclusivity, and progress in Mindanao.  This was born of the steadfast commitment and the hard work of our administration, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and other partners and stakeholders, the U.S. included.
We thank President Obama for the United States’ significant assistance and support for the Philippine peace process.  Our meeting today was comprehensive, historic and significant, embodying our shared values and aspirations.  It afforded President Obama and myself the opportunity to build on the relations between our countries, and discuss our strategic mission for the future of the Philippines-United States relationship -- a relationship that is modern, mature and forward-looking, and one that allows us to surpass challenges towards the benefit of our peoples, the entire region and the world.
Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Mabuhay.  Thank you, President Aquino, for your warm welcome and your very kind words. 
With the President’s indulgence, I want to begin by saying a few words about some terrible storms and tornadoes back home in the United States.  Over the weekend, a series of storms claimed at least a dozen lives and damaged or destroyed homes and businesses and communities across multiple states, with the worst toll in Arkansas.  So I want to offer my deepest condolences to all those who lost loved ones.  I commend the heroic efforts of first responders and neighbors who rushed to help.
I want everyone affected by this tragedy to know that FEMA and the federal government is on the ground and will help our fellow Americans in need, working with state and local officials.  And I want everybody to know that your country will be there to help you recover and rebuild as long as it takes.
Now, this is my first visit to the Philippines as President, and I’m proud to be here as we mark the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, when Americans and Filipinos fought together to liberate this nation during World War II.  All these years later, we continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder to uphold peace and security in this region and around the world. 
So, Benigno, I want to thank you and the Filipino people not only for your generous hospitality today, but for a friendship that has spanned generations.  And I’d add that our friendship is deeper and the United States is stronger because of the contributions and patriotism of millions of proud Filipino-Americans.
As I’ve made clear throughout this trip, the United States is renewing our leadership in the Asia Pacific, and our engagement is rooted in our alliances.  And that includes the Philippines, which is the oldest security treaty alliance that we have in Asia.  As a vibrant democracy, the Philippines reflects the desire of citizens in this region to live in freedom and to have their universal rights upheld.  As one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia, the Philippines represents new opportunities for the trade and investment that creates jobs in both countries. 
And given its strategic location, the Philippines is a vital partner on issues such as maritime security and freedom of navigation.  And let me add that the recent agreement to end the insurgency in the south gives the Philippines an historic opportunity to forge a lasting peace here at home, with greater security and prosperity for the people of that region.
I was proud to welcome President Aquino to the White House two years ago, and since then we’ve worked to deepen our cooperation and to modernize our alliances.  Our partnership reflects an important Filipino concept -- bayanihan -- the idea that we have to work together to accomplish things that we couldn’t achieve on our own.  That’s what we saw last year when Typhoon Yolanda devastated so many communities.  Our armed forces and civilians from both our countries worked as one to rescue victims and to deliver lifesaving aid.  That’s what friends do for each other.  And, Mr. President, I want to say to you and the people of the Philippines:  The United States will continue to stand with you as you recover and rebuild.  Our commitment to the Philippines will not waver. 
Today, I’m pleased that we’re beginning an important new chapter in the relationship between our countries, and it starts with our security -- with the new defense cooperation agreement that was signed today.  I want to be very clear:  The United States is not trying to reclaim old bases or build new bases.  At the invitation of the Philippines, American servicemembers will rotate through Filipino facilities.  We’ll train and exercise more together so that we’re prepared for a range of challenges, including humanitarian crises and natural disasters like Yolanda.
We’ll work together to build the Philippines’ defense capabilities and to work with other nations to promote regional stability, such as in the South China Sea.  And I’m looking forward to my visit with forces from both our nations tomorrow to honor their service and to look ahead to the future we can shape together.
As we strengthen our bilateral security cooperation, we’re also working together with regional institutions like ASEAN and the East Asia Summit.  When we met in the Oval Office two years ago, Benigno and I agreed to promote a common set of rules, founded in respect for international law, that will help the Asia Pacific remain open and inclusive as the region grows and develops. 
Today, we have reaffirmed the importance of resolving territorial disputes in the region peacefully, without intimidation or coercion.  And in that spirit, I told him that the United States supports his decision to pursue international arbitration concerning territorial disputes in the South China Sea. 
Finally, we agreed to keep deepening our economic cooperation.  I congratulated President Aquino on the reforms that he’s pursued to make the Philippines more competitive.  Through our Partnership for Growth and our Millennium Challenge Corporation compact, we’re going to keep working together to support these efforts so that more Filipinos can share in this nation’s economic progress -- because growth has to be broad-based and it has to be inclusive. 
We discussed the steps that the Philippines could take to position itself for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  And I encouraged the President to seize the opportunity he’s created by opening the next phase of economic reform and growth. 
Today, I’m announcing that my Commerce Secretary, Penny Pritzker, will lead a delegation of American business leaders to the Philippines this June to explore new opportunities.  And I’d add that we’ve also committed to work together to address the devastating effects of climate change and to make Philippine communities less vulnerable to extreme storms like Yolanda.
So, Mr. President, let me once again thank you for everything you’ve done to strengthen our alliance and our friendship.  I’m looking forward to paying tribute to the bonds between our people at the dinner tonight and to working with you as we write the next chapter in the relationship between our two countries.
Q    Good afternoon, Your Excellencies.  President Aquino, President Obama -- welcome to the Philippines.  My questions are:  How did the United States reassure the Philippines that the U.S. is genuinely committed to countering an increasingly assertive China in the region?  Will the U.S. defend the Philippines in case the territorial dispute with China in the West Philippine Sea or the South China Sea becomes an armed conflict?  And how do you think will China react to the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement?  And what are you going to do with this that is consistent with your position to have the territorial disputes resolved in arbitration?  Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, I’ve been consistent throughout my travels in Asia.  We welcome China’s peaceful rise.  We have a constructive relationship with China.  There is enormous trade, enormous business that’s done between the United States and China.  There are a whole range of issues on the international stage in which cooperation between the U.S. and China are vital.  So our goal is not to counter China.  Our goal is not to contain China. 
Our goal is to make sure that international rules and norms are respected, and that includes in the area of maritime disputes.  We do not have claims in this area territorially.  We’re an Asia Pacific nation and our primary interest is the peaceful resolution of conflict, the freedom of navigation that allows for continued progress and prosperity.  And we don’t even take a specific position on the disputes between nations. 
But as a matter of international law and international norms, we don’t think that coercion and intimidation is the way to manage these disputes.  And for that reason we’re very supportive of President Benigno’s approach to go before the tribunal for the law of the sea and to seek international arbitration that can resolve this in a diplomatic fashion. 
With respect to the new Defense Cooperation Agreement that’s been signed, the goal here is wide-ranging.  We’ve had decades of alliance with the Philippines, but obviously in the 21st century we have to continue to update that.  And the goal for this agreement is to build Philippine capacity, to engage in training, to engage in coordination -- not simply to deal with issues of maritime security, but also to enhance our capabilities so that if there’s a natural disaster that takes place, we’re able to potentially respond more quickly; if there are additional threats that may arise, that we are able to work in a cooperative fashion. 
This is consistent with, for example, the agreement that we have with Australia, in Darwin.  Obviously, we’ve had a longstanding alliance with Australia, but we also recognize that as circumstances change, as capacities change, we have to update that alliance to meet new needs and new challenges. 
And so, I think this is going to be a terrific opportunity for us to work with the Philippines to make sure that our navies, our air force are coordinated, to make sure that there’s information-sharing to allow us to respond to new threats, and to work with other countries, ASEAN countries -- Australia, Japan.  My hope is, is that at some point we’re going to be able to work cooperatively with China as well, because our goal here is simply to make sure that everybody is operating in a peaceful, responsible fashion.  When that happens, that allows countries to focus on what’s most important to people day to day, and that is prosperity, growth, jobs.  Those are the things that we as leaders should be focused on, need to be focused on.  And if we have security arrangements that avoid conflict and dispute, then we’re able to place our attention on where we should be focused.
MR. CARNEY:  The next question comes from Margaret Talev of Bloomberg.
Q    Mr. President, later today we are expecting to hear about new sanctions on people close to President Putin.  And I wanted to ask you, do you see this as a way to get to Mr. Putin’s personal wealth?  Do you believe that he has amassed personal wealth that’s unreported?  Or is it just a means of ratcheting up pressure before a move to sectoral sanctions?  You mentioned yesterday specifically the defense industry as an area where it doesn’t make sense to move without Europe moving.  I wanted to ask you, are we likely to see defense sanctions soon, banking and energy sanctions soon?  What kind of timeframe?
And then, President Aquino, if I may, I also wanted to ask you about China and the new agreement.  What I wanted to ask you is what message should China take away from the U.S. and the G7’s approach to Russia and Ukraine when it comes to territorial disputes?  And do you believe that the military agreement that we’ve just been talking about will in and of itself deter China from being aggressive territorially, or should the U.S. begin  developing military options that could be possible contingencies if you needed to go that course?  Thanks.
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  You’re right, Margaret, that later today there will be an announcement made, and I can tell you that it builds on the sanctions that were already in place.  As I indicated, we saw an opportunity through the Geneva talks to move in the direction of a diplomatic resolution to the situation in Ukraine. 
The G7 statement accurately points out that the government in Kyiv, the Ukrainian government, has, in fact, abided by that agreement and operated in good faith.  And we have not seen comparable efforts by the Russians.  And as a consequence, we are going to be moving forward with an expanded list of individuals and companies that will be affected by sanctions.  They remain targeted.  We will also focus on some areas of high-tech defense exports to Russia that we don’t think are appropriate to be exporting in this kind of climate. 
The goal here is not to go after Mr. Putin, personally.  The goal is to change his calculus with respect to how the current actions that he’s engaging in in Ukraine could have an adverse impact on the Russian economy over the long haul, and to encourage him to actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to diplomatically resolving the crisis in Ukraine.  There are specific steps that Russia can take.  And if it takes those steps, then you can see an election taking place in Ukraine; you can see the rights of all people inside of Ukraine respected. 
The Ukrainian government has put forward credible constitutional reforms of the sort that originally Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the south and east said were part of their grievances, the failure to have their voices heard and represented.  Kyiv has responded to those. 
And so there’s a path here to resolve this.  But Russia has not yet chosen to move forward, and these sanctions represent the next stage in a calibrated effort to change Russia’s behavior.  We don’t yet know whether it’s going to work.  And that’s why the next phase if, in fact, we saw further Russian aggression towards Ukraine could be sectoral sanctions, less narrowly targeted, addressing sectors like banking or the defense industry. 
So those would be more broad-based.  Those aren’t what we’ll be announcing today.  Today’s will be building on what we’ve already done and continue to be narrowly focused but will exact some additional costs on the Russians.  But we are keeping in reserve additional steps that we could take should the situation escalate further. 
PRESIDENT AQUINO:  First of all, I think China shouldn’t be concerned about this agreement, especially if you look at what is being contemplated -- for instance, training for emergency disaster relief operations. 
I’ll give you a perfect example.  The Americans have the V-22 Osprey aircraft, which is quite a significant upgrade in capabilities in terms of reaching out to very remote areas.  We don’t have a comparable aircraft.  We have smaller helicopters.  And we had 44 of our provinces devastated by Typhoon Haiyan.  Now, the training will not just train our people on how to operate this particular aircraft, but more importantly, even help the Office of Civil Defense, for instance, manage this resource in case a storm or another natural disaster of the scale that transpired does happen.
Secondly, I think the statements that America has been making with regards to Ukraine is the same message that has been said to China, and I guess not only by America but so many other countries.  China itself has said repeatedly that they will and have been conforming to international law.  And the rest of the world is I think saying we are expecting you to confirm and, by actions, that which you have already been addressing by words, and not distort international law. 
The Philippines has not just won through arbitration, but we did remind obviously the President and our dialogue partners that in 2002 they tried to come up with a code of conduct with regards to the South China Sea and the portion which the Philippines claims, which we call the West Philippine Sea.  And in 2012, the 10th anniversary, there had still been no progress even -- in the meeting.  So the Philippines felt it was timely to raise the matter up and to remind everybody that there is no code of conduct that binds us that sets the operational parameters for all to manage any potential conflict.  And as a result of that, there has been preparatory meetings towards the formal meeting to try and constitute a code of conduct. 
So at the end of the day, we are not a threat militarily to any country.  We don’t even have -- and I have said this often enough -- we don’t even have presently a single fighter aircraft in our inventory.  Now, we have I think legitimate needs.  We have a 36,000 kilometer coastline.  We do have an exclusive economic zone.  We do have concerns about poaching on our waters and preserving the environment and even protecting endangered species.  So I think no country should begrudge us our rights to be able to attend to our concerns and our needs. 
Q    Good afternoon, Your Excellencies.  This question goes to President Obama, but I would also like to hear the thoughts of President Aquino.  I understand the tough balancing act that you need to do between China and your allies in Asia.  But do you believe that China’s expansionism is a threat to regional peace and stability?  And will the Mutual Defense Treaty apply in the event that the territorial conflict with China escalates into an armed conflict?
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, let me repeat what I said earlier.  I think that it is good for the region and good for the world if China is successfully developing, if China is lifting more of its people out of poverty.  There are a lot of people in China, and the more they’re able to develop and provide basic needs for their people and work cooperatively with other countries in the region, that’s only going to strengthen the region -- that’s not going to weaken it.
I do think that, as President Aquino said very persuasively, that China as a large country has already asserted that it is interested in abiding by international law.  And really, our message to China consistently on a whole range of issues is we want to be a partner with you in upholding international law.  In fact, larger countries have a greater responsibility in abiding by international norms and rules because when we move, it can worry smaller countries if we don’t do it in a way that’s consistent with international law.
And I think that there are going to be territorial disputes around the world.  We have territorial disputes with some of our closest allies.  I suspect that there are some islands and rocks in and around Canada and the United States where there are probably still some arguments dating back to the 1800s.  But we don’t go around sending ships and threatening folks.  What we do is we sit down and we have some people in a room -- it’s boring, it’s not exciting, but it’s usually a good way to work out these problems and work out these issues. 
And I think that all the countries that I’ve spoken to in the region during the course of my trip -- Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and now the Philippines -- their message has been the same everywhere I go, which is they would like to resolve these issues peacefully and diplomatically.  That’s why I think that the approach that President Aquino has been taking, putting this before international arbitration, is a sound one.
And if China I think listens to its neighbors and recognizes that there’s another approach to resolve these disputes, what China will find is they’ve got ready and willing partners throughout the Asia Pacific region that want to work with them on trade and commerce and selling goods and buying goods.  And it’s inevitable that China is going to be a dominant power in this region just by sheer size.  Nobody, I think, denies that.  The question is just whether other countries in the region are also able to succeed and prosper on their own terms and tend to the various interests and needs that they and their people have as well.  And that’s what we support.
PRESIDENT AQUINO:  I think from the onset, our message to China has been I think we’re all focused on achieving greater prosperity for all our respective peoples, and prosperity and continued prosperity does not happen in a vacuum.  There has to be stability.  And in turn, they have responded that the disputes in the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea are not the end all, be all of our relationships.  And we have had good cooperation with them on so many different fronts, and perhaps one could even argue that this is the only sore point in our relationship.
Now, having said that, perhaps -- we have tried to work on that particular premise of building up our ties on different aspects where there is no conflict or very little conflict.  And in this particular instance, I have to find the way and means by which we can both achieve our respective goals, which I believe are not -- or should not be mutually exclusive, but rather should be inclusive if at the end of the day, we do want to strive for the prosperity of our respective peoples.
That I think has to be the primordial concern, rather than disputes on a few rocks that are not possible to be inhabited.  And I think in due time, given the fact that there’s so much commerce that traverses this particular -- both in the maritime and the air domain -- China, which has achieved its goals of improving the life of its people, will see the soundness of this proposal and perhaps will act more, shall we say, consistently and actively towards achieving that stability for all.  That is our hope. 
Q    Thank you to both Presidents.  President Aquino, as a journalist, I’d like to ask you why 26 journalists have been killed since you took office.  And I understand that there have only been suspects arrested in six of those cases.  What are you doing to fix that?
President Obama, as you grappled here with all these national security challenges, I have two questions.  One, back home we’ve learned that 40 military veterans died while they were waiting for health care, a very tragic situation.  I know you don’t run the Phoenix Office of Veterans Affairs, but as Commander-in-Chief, what specifically will you pledge to fix that? 
And, secondly, more broadly -- big picture -- as you end this trip, I don’t think I have to remind you there have been a lot of unflattering portraits of your foreign policy right now.  And rather than get into all the details or red lines, et cetera, I’d like to give you a chance to lay out what your vision is more than five years into office, what you think the Obama doctrine is in terms of what your guiding principle is on all of these crises and how you answer those critics who say they think the doctrine is weakness. 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, Ed, I doubt that I’m going to have time to lay out my entire foreign policy doctrine.  And there are actually some complimentary pieces as well about my foreign policy, but I’m not sure you ran them. 
Here’s I think the general takeaway from this trip.  Our alliances in the Asia Pacific have never been stronger; I can say that unequivocally.  Our relationship with ASEAN countries in Southeast Asia have never been stronger.  I don’t think that’s subject to dispute.  As recently as a decade ago, there were great tensions between us and Malaysia, for example.  And I think you just witnessed the incredible warmth and strength of the relationship between those two countries. 
We’re here in the Philippines signing a defense agreement.  Ten years ago, fifteen years ago there was enormous tensions around our defense relationship with the Philippines.  And so it’s hard to square whatever it is that the critics are saying with facts on the ground, events on the ground here in the Asia Pacific region.  Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force.  And the question I think I would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?  And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?
My job as Commander-in-Chief is to deploy military force as a last resort, and to deploy it wisely.  And, frankly, most of the foreign policy commentators that have questioned our policies would go headlong into a bunch of military adventures that the American people had no interest in participating in and would not advance our core security interests. 
So if you look at Syria, for example, our interest is in helping the Syrian people, but nobody suggests that us being involved in a land war in Syria would necessarily accomplish this goal.  And I would note that those who criticize our foreign policy with respect to Syria, they themselves say, no, no, no, we don’t mean sending in troops.  Well, what do you mean?  Well, you should be assisting the opposition -- well, we’re assisting the opposition.  What else do you mean?  Well, perhaps you should have taken a strike in Syria to get chemical weapons out of Syria.  Well, it turns out we’re getting chemical weapons out of Syria without having initiated a strike.  So what else are you talking about?  And at that point it kind of trails off.
In Ukraine, what we’ve done is mobilize the international community.  Russia has never been more isolated.  A country that used to be clearly in its orbit now is looking much more towards Europe and the West, because they’ve seen that the arrangements that have existed for the last 20 years weren’t working for them.  And Russia is having to engage in activities that have been rejected uniformly around the world.  And we’ve been able to mobilize the international community to not only put diplomatic pressure on Russia, but also we’ve been able to organize European countries who many were skeptical would do anything to work with us in applying sanctions to Russia.  Well, what else should we be doing?  Well, we shouldn’t be putting troops in, the critics will say.  That’s not what we mean.  Well, okay, what are you saying?  Well, we should be arming the Ukrainians more.  Do people actually think that somehow us sending some additional arms into Ukraine could potentially deter the Russian army?  Or are we more likely to deter them by applying the sort of international pressure, diplomatic pressure and economic pressure that we’re applying?
The point is that for some reason many who were proponents of what I consider to be a disastrous decision to go into Iraq haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same note over and over again.  Why?  I don’t know.  But my job as Commander-in-Chief is to look at what is it that is going to advance our security interests over the long term, to keep our military in reserve for where we absolutely need it.  There are going to be times where there are disasters and difficulties and challenges all around the world, and not all of those are going to be immediately solvable by us. 
But we can continue to speak out clearly about what we believe.  Where we can make a difference using all the tools we’ve got in the toolkit, well, we should do so.  And if there are occasions where targeted, clear actions can be taken that would make a difference, then we should take them.  We don't do them because somebody sitting in an office in Washington or New York think it would look strong.  That's not how we make foreign policy.  And if you look at the results of what we've done over the last five years, it is fair to say that our alliances are stronger, our partnerships are stronger, and in the Asia Pacific region, just to take one example, we are much better positioned to work with the peoples here on a whole range of issues of mutual interest.
And that may not always be sexy.  That may not always attract a lot of attention, and it doesn’t make for good argument on Sunday morning shows.  But it avoids errors.  You hit singles, you hit doubles; every once in a while we may be able to hit a home run.  But we steadily advance the interests of the American people and our partnership with folks around the world.
Q    The Veterans Affairs --
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  You got me all worked up on the other one.  (Laughter.) 
The moment we heard about the allegations around these 40 individuals who had died in Phoenix, I immediately ordered the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, General Shinseki, to investigate.  We also have an IG investigation taking place.  And so we take the allegations very seriously.
That is consistent with what has been my rock-solid commitment to make sure that our veterans are cared for.  I believe that if somebody has served our nation then they have to get the benefits and services that they have earned.  And my budgets have consistently reflected that.  That's why we’ve resourced the Veterans Affairs office more in terms of increases than any other department or agency in my government.
That doesn’t mean, though, that some folks may still not be getting the help that they need.  And we're going to find out if, in fact, that's the case, and I'm interested in working with everybody, whether it's our outstanding veteran service organizations or Congress, to make sure that there is not a single veteran in the United States who needs help -- whether because they’re homeless, because they’re sick, because they’re looking for a job.  I want to make sure that they are getting the help that they need.
PRESIDENT AQUINO:  With regards to the killing of journalists, perhaps we should say from the outset that I don't have the figures right here before me.  But we did set up an interagency committee to look on extralegal killings and forced disappearances, torture, and other grave violations of right to life, liberty and security of persons. 
And in this particular body, there has been -- I have the figures for labor-related issues -- there were 62 suspected cases of extrajudicial killings referred to it, and of the 62  investigations before this committee, there have been 10 that have been determined to fulfill the criteria and the definitions of what constitutes an extrajudicial killing.  Of the 10 cases that have been determined to be possible EJK cases, only one happened during our watch -- the case of Mr. Estrellado. 
Now, as far as journalists are concerned, perhaps the track record speaks for itself.  The Maguindanao massacre involved something like 52 journalists, and there are presently something like over 100 people who have been indicted for this crime and are undergoing trial.  That doesn’t mean that we have stopped trying to look for others potentially involved in this particular killing.  And may we just state for the record that even when it comes to journalists, it is not a policy of this state to silence critics.  All you have to do would be to turn on the TV, the radio, or look at any newspaper to find an abundance of criticisms.
Now, having said that, investigations have been done.  Anybody who has been killed obviously is a victim, and investigations have been ongoing.  If at times we do not reveal the discoveries by our intelligence agencies and security services, perhaps we are very sensitive to personal relationships by the people who are deceased who were killed not because of professional activities, but, shall we say, other issues.  But having said that, they were killed.  That is against the law.  And the people will have to be found, prosecuted and sent to jail.
The fourth plank of my promise when I ran for election was judicial reform, and this is still a work in progress.  We want to protect all the rights of every individual but also ensure that the speedy portion of the promise also happens.  Unfortunately, speed is not a hallmark of our current judicial system and there are various steps -- laws, amendments, particular laws -- even a rethink of the whole process to try and ensure the speedy disposition of justice.
Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you very much, everybody.
END
4:22 P.M. PHT

Friday, February 14, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY IN BEIJING, CHINA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Solo Press Availability in Beijing, China
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
JW Marriott Hotel
Beijing, China
February 14, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: I know you all have been waiting a while, so my apologies. Our meetings ran a little longer than anticipated, and you’re patient, and I appreciate it very, very much.

It’s a pleasure for me to be back in Beijing, and particularly tonight with the Festival of the Lanterns and the start of the Lunar New Year, the Year of the Horse. And the Lunar New Year always, here and in other parts of this region, is an exciting time, a time of renewal, as it is for everybody, and a profound sense of optimism, I think, as we heard from the leadership throughout the day.

It’s an auspicious time to visit, and I want to thank all of the leadership of China – the president – President Xi Jinping and the premier, the state councilor, and the foreign minister – for their generous welcome, and for the in-depth and serious conversations that we had today on almost every subject of concern between the United States and China and the region.

I want to emphasize that President Obama and the United States take our role in the Asia Pacific very seriously. As President Obama and I have made clear on any number of occasions, we are committed to strengthening our enduring presence in this dynamic region, and to working with our partners in order to promote long term stability and prosperity. And I think everybody knows that the United States has been a Pacific nation for almost all of our history, throughout the 1800s, 1900s, and now into the 21st century. And our partnership with China is critical to our effort to provide for that stability and prosperity.

As the world’s two largest economies, we really have a particular role, a particular set of responsibilities that we can exercise, and together, if we exercise them in concert with one another, we have an opportunity to make real progress, and also to send important signals to people throughout the world – people who are watching China rise and wonder where it is headed, and people who watch the United States continue to exercise its leadership and to press for the expression of our values and our interests to be met according to the rule of law and according to the highest international standards.

Our partnership with China we view as one of great potential. It is one that is continuing to be defined, and we are convinced that both regional and global challenges that we face, China and the United States, when they can act together in concert with common purpose, have the opportunity to be able to make a significant difference.

As President Obama and President Xi made clear at Sunnylands last year, they are committed to building an historic bilateral relationship based on two most critical elements: one, practical cooperation, and two, constructive management of differences – and there are differences, and we were honest about that today.

In our meetings, we had an opportunity to discuss particularly some key issues, and I’ll just review those very quickly for you. First of all, we spoke about the commitment that the United States and China share to achieve a denuclearized North Korea, as well as the special role that China can play in helping to make that goal a reality. We agree, along with our international partners, that the DPRK must take meaningful, concrete, and irreversible steps towards verifiable denuclearization, and it needs to begin now. I’m pleased that at every level in all of our conversations today, China could not have more forcefully reiterated its commitment to that goal, its interests in achieving that goal, and its concerns about the risks of not achieving that goal – in terms of what it might mean, in terms of stability on the Peninsula, as well as the potential for an arms race in the region. I encourage the Chinese to use every tool at their disposal, all of the means of persuasion that they have, building on the depths of their long and historic and cultural and common history that has brought them together – though while not allies, they have a relationship.

We also discussed – excuse me – we also discussed climate change and clean energy. And this is another area where we are already cooperating closely and where we are looking for even more cooperation. The United States and China, unhappily, are the two largest emitters of greenhouse gasses on the planet, and they contribute together as a result to the fact of climate change. Together, the United States and China account for some 40 percent of the carbon pollution that is released into the atmosphere. It is imperative for us to work together in order to ensure that an ambitious international climate agreement that the united – the UN Climate Summit in 2015 can be achieved. So we talked about that today.

On my last visit to Beijing, last April, we took an important step forward when we came together to launch the climate change working group. That is working, and they are engaged, but there’s a lot more work to do as the science that has been pouring in over the course of the last year tells us every single day, and as the facts on the ground with droughts, fires, and disasters, and acidification of the ocean, and other things happening at an increased pace, it is more urgent that we join together to respond to this problem.

So we need to implement the initiatives that the climate change working group has already identified, but we need to do more than that. We need to see if working together we could identify any further steps that we may be able to take, specifically with respect to arrival at meaningful targets with respect to the 2015 climate change conference that will take place in Paris in December of next year.

In addition, it’s also important that we make good on the promise that was made at Sunnylands last year when our presidents agreed to face down the hydrofluorocarbons – or HFCs, as they’re called. And HFCs are some of the most potent climate pollutants in the world. And if we follow through on all of the fronts that are available to us, we have an opportunity to make real progress in the fight against climate change.

In addition, today, we spoke about our shared interest in preventing Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon. Our close cooperation, which we agreed will absolutely continue, will go a long way towards helping to make the P5+1 negotiations continue. There are many areas where we are able to cooperate closely. But it’s equally important for us to acknowledge areas where our governments disagree and where, most importantly, we need to take steps in order to manage those disagreements appropriately and constructively.

In that spirit today, we did discuss – had a frank discussion about some human rights challenges and the role of rule of law and the free flow of information in a robust, civil society; the challenges of the cyber world that we live in today; the economic challenges; and I emphasized that respect for human rights and for the exchange of information in a free manner contributes to the strength of a society in a country.

Recent arrests of peaceful advocates for reform run counter, in our judgment, to all of our best interests and the ability to make long term progress. I emphasized today that the United States remains concerned about these situations here in China, human rights situations – especially with respect to the Tibetan and the Uighur areas.

I also expressed our concern about the need to try to establish a calmer, more rule-of-law-based, less confrontational regime with respect to the South China Sea, and the issues with respect to both the South China Sea and the East China Sea. And this includes the question of how an ADIZ might or might not come about. We certainly expressed the view that it’s important for us to cooperate on these kinds of things, to have notice, to work through these things, and to try to do them in a way that can achieve a common understanding of the direction that we’re moving in, and hopefully a common acceptance of the steps that are or are not being taken. Certainly, with respect to the South China Sea, it’s important to resolve these differences in a peaceful, non-confrontational way that honors the law of the sea and honors the rule of law itself. And we encourage steps by everybody – not just China, by all parties – to avoid any kind of provocation or confrontation and to work through the legal tools available.

I think it’s important that the same approach of rule of law clarify whatever claims are being made by any party. That’s why we have – the United States, though not yet ratified, lives by and will follow the rules of the Law of the Sea, and we hope others and everybody else chooses to do so, too.

I also shared our interests in China and ASEAN making rapid strides in negotiating the code of conduct, and I think China’s ready and wanting to try to achieve that goal. That would help reduce tensions that stem from the territorial and maritime disputes, and in the meantime, it’s very important that everybody build crisis management tools and refrain from coercive or unilateral measures to assert whatever claims any country in the region may have.

Finally, on Syria, which we also discussed, I stressed the importance of China’s support in the United Nations for the Security Council efforts to help deal with the planet’s greatest humanitarian crisis today. The Syrian people have gone without humanitarian aid for so long that there are people starving to death – children, women. There have been horrendously graphic pictures of both torture and starvation that have indicated the craven depravity that is the hallmark of what is happening in Syria today. And the Syrian people deserve to have the international community stand up and fight for them, since they are not in a position, most of them, to be able to fight for themselves. It is important for the Security Council to speak to this. And I underscored today that no country should stand in the way of increased humanitarian access for the Syrian people, and we are going to continue to press for that.

Our cooperation, frankly, on issues of enormous importance in the world should not go unnoticed. China and the United States are cooperating on big-ticket items. We’ve worked together in the P5+1 on Iran. We’ve worked together on Afghanistan. We have worked together on Syria. We are working together on other issues like South Sudan and the prevention of violence there. And we appreciate enormously the Chinese efforts with respect to those kinds of initiatives. Not many people know that that kind of cooperative effort is underway.

I think today we agreed that it is important for us, as the two most powerful economies in the world, to look for the opportunities to be able to work together and try to cooperate, to try to manage the differences, but most importantly to engage in a practical cooperation that can have an influence on other countries in the world that wonder where these two great powers are headed. And I found today constructive. I thought the tone was excellent. It was frank. There were some differences, needless to say, but they were managed and handled exactly as they should be, in an appropriate exchange and an appropriate kind of discussion. And my hope is that today, particularly with respect to the climate that we discussed, where were are going to work again some more tonight, and even tomorrow morning I have a meeting and I hope out of that will come further definition to the steps that we want to take, and also with respect to North Korea, where we both had thoughts about how to proceed, and I think we both are taking them under advisement. And I will certainly report back to President Obama on what may or may not prove to provide a road ahead. And that is certainly our hope.

So I look forward to the rest of my meetings and to continuing our work with our Chinese partners on these many issues. And I look forward to taking some questions.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Arshad Mohammed of Reuters.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, did you make any tangible headway in getting specific assurances from China that they would actually pursue their maritime claims in line with international law or that they would actually submit them to some kind of international or diplomatic process, such as actually starting negotiations on an ASEAN code of conduct? Or did you not actually get assurances on any of those?

And you’ve made reference to discussing the importance of cooperating on declaring ADIZ. Did you specifically warn China against unilaterally establishing a second ADIZ in the South China Sea? And did you specifically say, as a senior NSC official recently said, that if China did so it – the United States could alter its military posture in the region?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to go into all of the specifics of the conversation, except to say that yes, we did discuss this specific road ahead with respect to resolving these claims in the South China Sea. And the Chinese have made clear that they believe they need to be resolved in a peaceful and legal manner, and that they need to be resolved according to international law and that process.

And I think they believe they have a strong claim, a claim based on history and based on fact. They’re prepared to submit it, and – but I think they complained about some of the provocations that they feel others are engaged in. And that is why I’ve said all parties need to refrain from that. Particularly with respect to some of the islands and shoals, they feel there have been very specific actions taken in order to sort of push the issue of sovereignty on the sea itself or by creating some construction or other kinds of things.

So the bottom line is there was a very specific statement with respect to the importance of rule of law in resolving this and the importance of legal standards and precedent and history being taken into account to appropriately make judgments about it.

With respect to the ADIZ, we have, indeed, made clear our feelings about any sort of unilateral announcements. And I reiterated that again today. And I think hopefully that whatever falls in the future will be done in an open, transparent, accountable way that is inclusive of those who may or may not be concerned about that kind of action. But we’ve made it very clear that a unilateral, unannounced, unprocessed initiative like that can be very challenging to certain people in the region and therefore to regional stability. And we urge our friends in China to adhere to the highest standards of notice, engagement, involvement, information sharing, in order to reduce any possibilities of misinterpretation in those kinds of things.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Paul Richter.

QUESTION: Just to make clear on the DPRK issue, you said that the Chinese voiced their commitment to taking action on this. Did you receive a specific commitment from China to do more to try to prevent North Korean provocations?

On a second issue, President Obama last Friday said that, because of his frustration about the lack of a solution to the Syrian war, that the Administration is reviewing, once again, the options to do more on Syria. I wonder if you could address that. Is the Administration thinking about doing more than providing humanitarian aid and perhaps non-lethal assistance? Have options been presented to senior officials?

SECRETARY KERRY: What was the first part of the question?

QUESTION: About the DPRK.

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you receive a specific --

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah. On the DPRK, China could not have been more emphatic or made it more clear that they will not allow a nuclear program over the long run, that they believe deeply in denuclearization, that denuclearization must occur, that they are committed to doing their part to help make it happen, and that they also will not allow instability and war to break out in the region. They believe it has to be done in a political negotiation and through diplomacy. That is their preference.

But they made it very clear that if the North doesn’t comply and come to the table and be serious about talks and stop its program and live up to an agreed-upon set of standards with respect to the current activities that are threatening the people, that they’re prepared to take additional steps in order to make sure that their policy is implemented. And when I say “their policy,” their shared policy together with the other participants of the Six Party group and those in the region. And there is a very firm commitment to achieving that.

Now what we’re talking about are some of the specifics of how you do that. And they put some ideas on the table, and we put some ideas on the table. And both of us are taking those under evaluation. I will report back to the President those things that the Chinese thought might be helpful, and they are taking under advisement – I shared with each leader at each level our thoughts about what must be done and what we need in order to proceed forward. And they have agreed to take that under advisement. And we will continue this dialogue in the days ahead in a very serious way with a great sense of the urgency of time and purpose.

With respect to Syria, the President is always considering the options. This is not a one-time thing. But I think it is fair to say that because of the increase of the humanitarian crisis, because of the unwillingness of the Assad regime to engage fully in Geneva I talks – which is the sole purpose of Geneva II, to implement Geneva I. And Geneva I makes it clear that you have to have a transition government with full executive authority arrived at by mutual consent. Those are the terms.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stood up beside me in Moscow, in Paris, in Geneva, and elsewhere – not beside me in Geneva, but said in Geneva that is the purpose of our doing Geneva II. There is no question about what this is about. And any efforts to try to be revisionists or walk back or step away from that, frankly, is not keeping word or keeping faith with the words that have been spoken and the intent of this conference.

So it is clear that the crisis of Syria is growing, not diminishing. There’s been a 50 percent increase in the number of external refugees. There’s a 33 percent increase in the number of internally displaced people since last October, when the presidential statement was passed at the United Nations. Almost nothing positive with respect to those refugees or the internal displacement has happened. In fact – what am I saying? – it’s gotten worse, dramatically worse, since the UN issued a presidential statement, which was all that could be achieved because of the opposition of certain countries.

So now we’re back at the United Nations because the situation demands that the civilized world stand up and fight for those people who are the victims day to day of violence that comes from barrel bombs dropped from helicopters and from Scud missiles fired on innocent civilians and starvation and siege that is being laid to over 200,000, 250,000 people trapped in places where they can’t get food. This is grotesque. And the world needs to take note and figure out what the appropriate response is.

President Obama said at his press conference with President Hollande of France that he is deeply concerned about it and deeply concerned about the fact that at Geneva the talks are not producing the kind of discussion of transition government that they are supposed to. And so he is, indeed – he’s asked all of us to think about various options that may or may not exist. The answer to the question have they been presented, no, they have not. But that evaluation by necessity, given the circumstances, is taking place at this time. And when these options are right and when the President calls for it, there will undoubtedly be some discussion about them.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Thanks. Appreciate it.

Friday, January 24, 2014

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY

FROM:  STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at the World Economic Forum
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Davos, Switzerland
January 24, 2014

Well, Klaus, thank you very, very much. It’s an enormous pleasure for me to be back in Davos and to have this opportunity to be able to share some thoughts with all of you about American foreign policy. And I have – as Klaus just said to you all, I have had the privilege of being here many times over the past 20 years. I always appreciate the diversity of thought and the thirst for new ideas that really characterizes this forum. It’s safe to say that Davos pushes the limits of thinking, tries hard to find the new thinking, and that’s really what makes this forum so special. So Klaus, I congratulate you on many, many years of putting together a really remarkable venue for everybody.

Today, I want to share our latest thinking with respect to the role that U.S. diplomacy can play in addressing some of the most pressing foreign policy challenges that we face in an obviously extraordinarily complex, very different world from the world of the last century.

I must say I am perplexed by claims that I occasionally hear that somehow America is disengaging from the world, this myth that we are pulling back or giving up or standing down. In fact, I want to make it clear today that nothing could be further from the truth. This misperception, and in some case, a driven narrative, appears to be based on the simplistic assumption that our only tool of influence is our military, and that if we don’t have a huge troop presence somewhere or we aren’t brandishing an immediate threat of force, we are somehow absent from the arena. I think the only person more surprised than I am by the myth of this disengagement is the Air Force pilot who flies the Secretary of State’s plane.

Obviously, our engagement isn’t measured in frequent flier miles – though it would be pretty nice if I got a few, as a matter of fact – but it is really measured – and I think serious students of foreign policy understand this – it is measured by the breadth of our global commitments, their depth, especially our commitments to our allies in every corner of the world. It is measured by the degree of difficulty of the crises and the conflicts that we choose to confront, and it is measured ultimately by the results that we are able to achieve.

Far from disengaging, America is proud to be more engaged than ever, and, I believe, is playing as critical a role, perhaps as critical as ever, in pursuit of peace, prosperity, and stability in various parts of the world.

Right here in Europe, we are working with our partners to press the Government of Ukraine to forgo violence, to address the concerns of peaceful protesters, to foster dialogue, promote the freedom of assembly and expression. And I literally just received messages before walking in here of the efforts of our diplomats on the ground working with President Yanukovych to try to achieve calm and help move in this direction in the next days. We will stand with the people of Ukraine.

We’re also making progress towards finalizing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which would link the world’s largest market, the EU, with the world’s single largest economy, the United States, raising standards and creating jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the Asia Pacific region, we are negotiating the Trans Pacific Partnership, which will similarly encourage a race to the top, not the bottom, as it unifies 40 percent of the world’s economy. The United States is working extremely closely with China and our allies in the region in order to address North Korea’s reckless nuclear program, and also on diplomatic priorities like disaster relief and development. I was recently in the Philippines, and in a few weeks, I will be back in Asia, my fifth trip as Secretary of State within a year. We are working with our ASEAN partners to discourage escalatory steps and conflict in the South China Sea. And this is a critical part of the President’s rebalance to Asia.

Across Africa, the home to seven of the world’s 10 fastest-growing economies, we are investing heavily in both development and trade. And in the Great Lakes region, we just recently helped end an armed rebellion, demobilizing the M23 armed group. And just yesterday, thanks to our diplomatic intense engagement on the ground, we have helped to achieve a ceasefire in South Sudan. And I can tell you that almost every day during the so-called Christmas break, I was on the phone to either President Kiir or to former Vice President Riek Machar or to the prime minister of Ethiopia or President Museveni of Uganda as we worked diligently to try to move towards peace.

Closer to home, we just completed a U.S.-Canada-Mexico summit in Washington last week in preparation for our leaders who will focus on increased cooperation in our hemisphere, a North American effort for renewed entrepreneurship, renewable energy, and educational exchanges.

So after a decade that was perhaps uniquely, and in many people’s view, unfortunately, excessively defined foremost by force and our use of force, we are entering an era of American diplomatic engagement that is as broad and as deep as any at any time in our history. And such are the responsibilities of a global power.

The most bewildering version of this disengagement myth is about a supposed retreat by the United States from the Middle East. Now, my response to that suggestion is simple: You cannot find another country – not one country – that is as proactively engaged, that is partnering with so many Middle Eastern countries as constructively as we are on so many high-stake fronts. And I want to emphasize that last point: partnering. We have no pretense about solving these problems alone. Nor is anyone suggesting, least of all me, that the United States can solve every one of the region’s problems or that every one of them can be a priority at the same time.

But as President Obama made clear last fall at the United Nations, the United States of America will continue to invest significant effort in the Middle East because we have enduring interests in the region, and we have enduring friendships with countries that rely on us for their security in a volatile neighborhood. We will defend our partners and our allies as necessary, and we will continue to ensure the free flow of energy, dismantle terrorist networks, and we will not tolerate the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Now in reality, all three of these challenges and the relationships that surround them and accomplishing all of these goals requires, in President Obama’s words, for the United States to “be engaged in the region for the long haul.”

From security cooperation with our Gulf partners like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, with whom we are both discussing longer-term security framework for the region, as well as to helping countries in transition like Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, to countering al-Qaida and its affiliates, to ensuring stability for the world’s shipping lanes and energy supply, there is no shortage of the places where we are engaged in the Middle East.

So the question isn’t whether we’re leaving. The question is how we are leading. Today, we believe that there are initiatives that, taken together, have the potential to reshape the Middle East and could even help create the foundations of a new order.

First, the agreement that we reached with Iran. As of this week, Iran’s nuclear weapons program is being rolled back in important ways. On Monday, Iran took a series of steps that the world has long demanded, including reducing its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium, disabling the infrastructure for its production, and allowing unprecedented transparency and monitoring to guarantee Iran is complying with the agreement.

They will have to reduce their 20 percent to zero, and they do not have and will not have the capacity for reconversion. They will have to reduce it to forms that are not suitable for making weapons. Iran must also halt enrichment above 5 percent and it will not be permitted to grow the current stockpile of 3.5 percent enriched uranium. Iran cannot increase the number of centrifuges that are in operation, and it cannot install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium. And while we negotiate a final agreement over these next months, Iran will not be permitted to take any steps to commission the Arak plutonium reactor.

Now clearly, there are good reasons to ask tough questions of Iran going forward – and believe me, we will – and good reasons to require that the promises Iran made are promises kept. Remember – we certainly haven’t forgotten – there is a reason that world has placed sanctions on Iran. There’s a reason why they exist in the first place. And there’s a reason why the core architecture of those sanctions remains in place. And that is why this effort is grounded not in trusting, not in words, but in testing. And that is why now inspectors can be at Fordow every day.

That wasn’t the case before the agreement we struck. Inspectors can now also be at Natanz every day. That’s also new, thanks to the agreement we struck. And inspectors will visit Arak plutonium plant every month, and they are under an obligation to deliver the plans for that plant to us.

Taken altogether, these elements will increase the amount of time that it would take for Iran to break out and build a bomb – the breakout time, as we call it – and it will increase our ability to be able to detect it and to prevent it. And all of this will to an absolute guarantee beyond any reasonable doubt make Israel safer than it was the day before we entered this agreement, make the region safer than it was the day before we entered this agreement, and make the world safer than it was.

Now yesterday, President Rouhani stood here and he said that Iran is eager to engage with the world, and hopefully. But Iran knows what it must do to make that happen. He told you that Iran has no intention of building a nuclear weapon. Well, while the message is welcome, my friends, the words themselves are meaningless unless actions are taken to give them meaning. Starting now, Iran has the opportunity to prove these words beyond all doubt to the world.

Now, let’s be clear: If you are serious about a peaceful program, it is not hard to prove to the world that your program is peaceful. For sure, a country with a peaceful nuclear program does not need to build enrichment facilities in the cover of darkness in the depth of a mountain. It doesn’t need a heavy water reactor designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, like the one at Arak. It has no reason to fear intrusive monitoring and verification. And it should have no problem resolving outstanding issues with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

This is true for every country in the world with an exclusively peaceful nuclear program. And it is the tough but reasonable standard to which Iran must also be held.

So we welcome this week’s historic step. But now the hard part begins, six months of intensive negotiations with the goal of resolving all the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. I want to say that the P5+1 has acted in unity, in great cooperation, and we welcome the international community’s efforts that has characterized this initiative.

So Iran must meet this test. If it does, the Middle East will be a safer place, free from the fear of a nuclear arms race. And diplomatic engagement, my friends, backed by sanctions and other options, will have proved its worth.

The second challenge is Syria, where an enormous, almost unimaginable human tragedy is unfolding before our eyes. Just this week, we have seen the terrible new evidence of torture at the hands of the Assad regime. But this week we also saw the Syrian regime and the opposition sit at the same table in the same room – or separate tables but in the same room – for the first time since the war began. They were joined by more than 40 countries and institutions who have assented to the Geneva communique, which clearly outlines how this conflict must conclude: With the creation of a transitional government with full executive authority by mutual consent.

Let me tell you in simple terms why that means Bashar al-Assad cannot be part of that future. It is simple. It is first because of the extraordinary havoc that he has wreaked on his own country, on his own people; a man who has killed university students and doctors with Scud missiles; a man who has gassed his own people in the dead of night – families sleeping, women, children, grandparents; a man who has unleashed extraordinary force of artillery and barrel bombs against civilians against the laws of warfare. Assad will never have or be able to earn back the legitimacy to bring that country back together.

That’s number one. But number two, because of those things that he has done, because of 130,000 people who have been killed, the opposition will never stop fighting while he is there. And so if your objective is to have peace, this one man must step aside in favor of peace and of his nation. You can never achieve stability until he is gone. And finally, any transitional government formed by mutual consent by definition will not include Assad because the opposition will never consent to permit him to be there.

The United States is engaged in this difficult endeavor because we know that the longer the fighting continues, the greater the risk that Syria’s sectarian divisions will spiral out of control. We know there are people who wish that American young men and women who were on the ground fighting for them – there are people who would love to see America fight the war for them. But that is not the choice.

The choice is first diplomacy in order to avoid the devastating results that could result in the disintegration of the Syrian state, and the instability that could spread across the entire region. We are engaged because the number of refugees pouring into Jordan – I see our friend Nasser Judeh, the foreign minister here – into Lebanon, and Turkey is destabilizing and it’s unsustainable.

We are engaged because, while we are proud to be the largest contributor to the humanitarian assistance to deal with those refugees, the ultimate solution can only come when we stop the supply of refugees, when we stop the fighting. And that can’t happen soon enough because Assad continues to kill and displace innocent Syrians, and in doing so has become the world’s greatest single individual magnet for jihad and terror.

Absent a political solution, we know where this leads: more refugees, more terrorists, more extremism, more brutality from the regime, more suffering for the Syrian people. And we do not believe that we or anyone should tolerate one man’s brutal effort to cling to power. We must instead empower all of the Syrian people.

That is why the United States and our partners who sat around that table this week will continue to fight for a pluralistic, inclusive Syria where all minorities are protected, where all rights are protected, and where Syria can come together to be once again the secular and unified state that it was, represented by a government of the people’s choice where all minorities are protected.

Now, we believe this vision is achievable, and we will continue to work closely with our partners for a new Syria that can exist peacefully as a sovereign, independent, and democratic state where Syrians will be able to able have their voices heard without fear of retribution, imprisonment, or even death.

Now obviously, we know this isn’t going to be easy. In fact, it’s obviously very, very hard. It’s already hard. But we’ve already seen in Syria what forceful diplomacy is able to achieve. As we speak, a man who, the day before he agreed to do it, denied he even had the weapons, is now removing all the chemical weapons from that country. As we speak, the international community is on its way to completely removing all of Syria’s chemical weapons, an unprecedented undertaking that is making the region and the world safer and is setting an example on a global basis.

We are convinced that if the Syrian people are to have the chance to rebuild their country and if millions of Syrian refugees are to have the chance to return home, it is ultimately diplomacy that will make it possible. There is no military solution to the problem of Syria.

And that brings me to the most intractable of all conflicts: the struggle to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Every time I meet my foreign counterparts, anywhere in the world – when they visit me in Washington or when I travel to their countries – I am not kidding you when I tell you that invariably the first issue that they ask me about is the challenge of Middle East peace. It may seem improbable to you, but I’m telling you it’s absolutely true. From Asia to Latin America to Africa, all through Europe, this question lingers. This intractable conflict has confounded administration after administration, prime minister after prime minister, leaders, and peacemakers. And they always ask this about the Middle East even before they complain about what we’re doing or not doing, ironically.

Despite this global interest, my friends, people still ask me – I’m astonished by it – why, with all the troubles in the world, and in the Middle East in particular, why is the Obama Administration so focused on trying to forge Israeli-Palestinian peace? And obviously, I’ve had that question directed at me in personal and in other ways. Well, the reason that we are so devoted to trying to find a solution is really very simple: Because the benefits of success and the dangers of failure are enormous for the United States, for the world, for the region, and most importantly, for the Israeli and Palestinian people. After all the years expended on this, the last thing we need is a failure that will make certain additional conflict.

There are some people who assert this may be the last shot. I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t want to find out the hard way. But I want you to consider what happens if talks fail. For Israel, the demographic dynamic will make it impossible to preserve its future as a democratic, Jewish state. Israel’s current relative security and prosperity doesn’t change the fact that the status quo cannot be sustained if Israel’s democratic future is in fact to be secured. Today’s status quo, my friends, I promise you will not last forever.

President Abbas is committed to negotiation and to nonviolence. But failure will only embolden extremists and empower hardliners at the expense of the moderates who have been committed to a nonviolent track to try to find peace. And what would happen in the West Bank without that commitment to nonviolence?

The Israeli and Palestinian members of Breaking the Impasse initiative who are here today know well what is at stake. Israel’s economic juggernaut is a wonder to behold. Prime Minister Netanyahu was able to talk to you about it here today. But a deteriorating security environment and the growing isolation that could come with it could put that prosperity at risk.

Meanwhile, if this fails, Palestinians will be no closer to the sovereignty that they seek, no closer to their ability to be the masters of their own fate, no closer to their ability to grow their own economy, no closer to resolving the refugee problem that has been allowed to fester for decades. And if they fail to achieve statehood now, there is no guarantee another opportunity will follow anytime soon.

This issue cannot be resolved at the United Nations. It can only be resolved between the parties. If peace fails, the region risks another destabilizing crisis. One unilateral act from one side or the other will beget another, and yet another, and another, until we have fallen yet again into a dangerous downward spiral at a time where there’s already too much danger in the region.

And you know what’s interesting? We often spend so much time talking about what both parties stand to lose without peace that we actually sometimes forget to talk enough about what they stand to gain from peace. I believe that the fact that peace is possible, especially in a region with so much tension and turmoil, ought to motivate people.

Palestinians stand to gain, above all else, an independent, viable, contiguous state, their own place among the community of nations. Imagine this time next year here in Davos if Palestinian businessmen and government leaders from the state of Palestine are able to pitch the world’s largest investors a host of projects from the Palestinian Economic Initiative. And imagine if they could be invited to participate in building a new state with new jobs, new infrastructure, and a new life free from occupation.

And for Israel, the benefits of peace are enormous as well, perhaps even more significant. For starters, no nation on earth stands to gain so many new economic partners so quickly as Israel does, because 20 additional members – nations of the Arab League and 35 Muslim countries stand ready under the Arab Peace Initiative to all recognize Israel and normalize relations the moment a peace agreement is reached.

As Sheikh Abduallah bin Zaid said at a meeting of the foreign ministers of the Arab League, which we held in Paris a few months ago, he said to his minister colleagues – completely spontaneously, unexpected from me, he said, “You know what? After peace, Israel will enjoy greater economic benefit from relations with the Gulf than it now enjoys with Europe.” That’s the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates.

Just imagine what that would mean for commerce and trade. Stanley Fischer, the former governor of the Bank of Israel who President Obama has nominated to serve on our own Federal Reserve Board, said that a peace agreement with the Palestinians could boost Israel’s GDP by as much as 6 percent a year.

And together, the Jewish state of Israel and the Arab state of Palestine can develop into an international hub for technology, for trade, tourism – tourism, unbelievable tourism, the holy sites of the world, of the major three religions. This would invigorate a region. It is long past time that the people of this great and ancient part of the world became known for what they can create, not for the conflicts that they can perpetrate. It is long past time that Jerusalem – the crucible of the world’s three great monotheistic religions – becomes known not as the object of constant struggle, but as the golden city of peace and unity, embodying the aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

The truth is that after decades of struggling with this conflict, we all know what the endgame looks like: an independent state for Palestinians wherever they may be; security arrangements for Israel that leave it more secure, not less; a full, phased, final withdrawal of the Israeli army; a just and agreed solution to the Palestinian refugee problem; an end to the conflict and all claims; and mutual recognition of the nation-state of the Palestinian people and the nation-state of the Jewish people.

That is our destination. And the real challenge is not what is it; it’s just how to get there – how to get the leaders and the body politic of both places to make the courageous decisions necessary to embrace what would be fair and what would work. That’s why I am working with President Abbas and with Prime Minister Netanyahu to achieve a framework for the negotiations that will define the endgame and all the core issues, and provide guidelines for the negotiators in their efforts to achieve a final-status peace agreement.

I have watched over 30 years in the United States Senate. I was on the lawn in Washington when the great handshake took place. I’ve watched Annapolis and Wye and Madrid and Oslo and all of these efforts, but always we’ve left out the endgame. Always, people have had to wonder when or if the real peace could be achieved.

One of the biggest challenges in reaching this agreement, I will tell you, my friends, is security. The Palestinians need to know that at the end of the day, their territory is going to be free of Israeli troops, that occupation ends; but the Israelis rightfully will not withdraw unless they know that the West Bank will not become a new Gaza. And nobody can blame any leader of Israel for being concerned about that reality. We have been working hard on addressing this challenge. President Obama’s approach begins with America’s steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. He knows and I know that there cannot be peace unless Israel’s security and its needs are met.

We have put the full range of resources of the U.S. Government behind this effort in an unprecedented way. For the past nine months, a team led by General John Allen – a four-star general and one of the most respected minds in the U.S. military – has been engaged in a comprehensive security dialogue with our Israeli and Palestinian counterparts.

Based on his efforts, we are confident that, together with Israel, working with Jordan, working with the Palestinians, working with us, all of us together can create a security structure that meets the highest standards anywhere in the world. And by developing a layered defense that includes significantly strengthening the fences on both sides of the border, by deploying state-of-the-art technology, with a comprehensive program of rigorous testing, we can make the border safe for any type of conventional or unconventional threat, from individual terrorists or a conventional armed force. We are well aware that technology alone is not the answer, but we also know that it can play a key role in helping to secure the Jordanian border, just like Iron Dome has played a key role in securing Israel’s southern communities.

Security is a priority because we understand that Israel has to be strong to make peace, but we also believe that peace will make Israel stronger. We are convinced that the greatest security of all will actually come from a two-state solution that brings Israel the lasting peace and secure borders that they deserve, and brings Palestinians the freedom and the dignity that they deserve.

As committed as we are, it is ultimately up to the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach an agreement on how to end this conflict. Make no mistake: this will require difficult political decisions and painful compromises on both sides. These are emotional issues, many embedded in age-old narratives. At the end of the day, it is up to Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to recognize what the world has recognized: that peace is in the best interests of their people. But that makes it no less true that at every level, everybody has a role to play. The Arab League and the European Union have already shown how they can pave the way for peace, and they have been unbelievably cooperative, and we’re grateful for their help. I thank King Abdullah of Jordan and Nasser Judeh and the extraordinary efforts of Jordan to help move this; the Arab League Nabil Elaraby, and Khalid Atiyah, the leader of the Arab League Follow-On Committee that is working month to month to stay current and to be engaged in this.

Many states have made contributions to the Palestinian economy, including a micro-infrastructure initiative that is making a difference to people’s everyday lives. Many companies, including some of you here, have invested in both Israel and the Palestinian territories, and you’ve shown the difference that the private sector can make in this endeavor. And all of you can make a positive contribution by dismissing, please, the all-too-easy skepticism by seeing the possibilities and by building the momentum for peace.

Successful diplomacy, like the conversations here at Davos, demands the kind of cooperation that has to come from many stakeholders. As Klaus Schwab says, in an interconnected world, all challenges must be addressed on the basis of togetherness. That is true, whether you’re talking about this peace effort or about what we must achieve in Syria, or about what we must ensure in Iran. Intensive, creative, strong diplomacy requires cooperation, and that is exactly why the United States is so engaged in the Middle East and around the world, and why we will stay so.

As our friends and partners take courageous steps forward, they can be assured that President Obama and his Administration will remain engaged for the long haul. But we will also confront these challenges with the urgency that they deserve. We dare not, and I sure you, we will not miss this moment.

Thank you. (Applause.)

Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed