FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
United States Calls for Peaceful Resolution to Crisis in Burundi
Press Statement
Marie Harf
Deputy Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 25, 2015
The United States strongly condemns the May 23 killing of the leader of the opposition party Union for Peace and Development (UPD), Zedi Feruzi, and his bodyguard. We also strongly condemn the May 22 grenade attack in a market that killed several people and wounded many more. These attacks only undermine ongoing efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the current crisis through dialogue.
We call on all parties to immediately renounce the use of violence. We urge the Burundian government to conduct timely and credible investigations of the recent attacks to bring to justice those responsible and to take concrete steps to ensure the safety of political actors during the electoral process.
The United States supports the consultative political dialogue facilitated by the UN Special Envoy, Said Djinnit, and envoys from the African Union, the East African Community, and the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR), and we strongly urge all stakeholders to continue to participate in good faith in this dialogue to achieve a peaceful resolution to the crisis. We welcomed the May 18 communique by the ICGLR announcing a heads of state visit to Burundi, which we believe could contribute to facilitating this dialogue.
We call on the Burundian government to provide the political space needed for a peaceful and credible electoral process, including through respect for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression. In this regard, we urge the Burundian government to permit the immediate resumption of broadcasts by independent radio stations, end the use of the term “insurgents” to refer to peaceful protesters, and withdraw the proclamation by the Burundian National Security Council prohibiting future demonstrations.
The United States continues to monitor the situation in Burundi closely and is prepared to take additional measures against those who commit, incite or promote violence or other human rights abuses and violations.
Showing posts with label AFRICAN UNION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AFRICAN UNION. Show all posts
Monday, May 25, 2015
Thursday, December 18, 2014
U.S. UN REPRESENTATIVE'S REMARKS ON THE AFRICAN UNION AND ADVANCING PEACE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Ambassador David Pressman
Alternate Representative to the UN for Special Political Affairs
New York, NY
December 16, 2014
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to express the United States’ profound condolences to the victims of the horrific Taliban attack on a school in Pakistan. This gruesome attack deliberately targeted Pakistan's – indeed, all of our – most precious and sacred resource: our children. Cowardly and senseless violence like this only increases our resolve to fight terrorism and violent extremism.
Mr. Minister, thank you for being here and convening this important debate. We thank the Secretary-General and High Representative Buyoya for your briefings. Enhancing the partnership between the United Nations and the African Union is critical for advancing peace and security in Africa. From the Central African Republic, to Mali, to Somalia, every improvement in the important partnership between the United Nations and the African Union has very real impacts on regional stability and on security.
The African Union and its member states have demonstrated important leadership in responding to African conflicts through peacekeeping and preventive diplomacy to stop potential conflicts from becoming actual ones.
Peacekeeping, whether it is done by the United Nations or the African Union, or in some cases both, is only as strong as its troop and police contributors. Member states must be willing to contribute the needed troops and resources; and troop contributors must be willing to robustly carry out difficult mandates. We commend the African troop-contributing countries who have answered the call, again and again, to serve in peacekeeping operations and who have demonstrated a commitment to implement their mandates, including the protection of civilians.
While blue-helmeted United Nations peacekeeping is a critically important tool, it is not always the best tool to respond to a particular conflict. That is why so many of us have redoubled our efforts to support regional organizations’ capacity, including the African Union, to launch and support peace operations when they are needed and consistent with the Charter of the United Nations.
The Security Council has a unique role under the United Nations Charter but our decisions and actions should be taken in close consultation with all stakeholders, including member states, regional and sub-regional organizations, potential troop contributors, and decisions related to the deployment of UN or African Union peacekeeping missions must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the unique circumstances of each particular situation. Enhancing the capacity of regional forces to respond is critical, but the ability of regional organizations to deploy peace operations must be seen as a complement to, of course, not a substitute for, the United Nations’ own ability to carry out robust peacekeeping operations.
Mr. President, we continue to be immensely grateful for Africa’s contributions to peacekeeping. In September of this year, Vice President Biden joined other leaders at a summit focused on generating new commitments to peacekeeping to ensure that the whole of the international community does more to share the burden.
We have made demonstrable progress in our cooperative efforts to deploy troops quickly to crisis areas when the need arises, but we are still too slow. Delay in our crisis response often means more unnecessary deaths. To be quicker and better, we must work more closely and collaboratively. That is why the United States is committed to improving the Security Council’s engagement with the African Union Peace and Security Council.
And in our effort to do better, to do more, and to do so more quickly, we should learn from the past. The recent transitions from African Union-led peacekeeping operations to United Nations-led operations in Mali and the Central African Republic demonstrate once again that the African Union is sometimes in a position to deploy troops to trouble spots much more quickly than others. Without the initial leadership of the AU and contributions of African, French, and other European troops in Mali and Central African Republic, far more civilians would have died over the past year in both countries.
This is why the United States has created the African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership, which envisions a new investment of $110 million per year for 3-5 years to build the capacity of African forces to rapidly deploy peacekeepers in response to emerging conflict. Under this program, African partner nations will receive additional support and will commit to maintaining forces and equipment ready to rapidly deploy as part of UN or AU missions to respond to emerging crises.
The United States is also prepared to provide additional support, including training for headquarters staff and key enabler functions, such as engineers, to catalyze the AU’s efforts to establish its African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crisis, which is intended to facilitate the deployment of tactical battle groups of approximately 1,500 military personnel deployed by a lead nation or group of AU member states.
There has been some discussion today about the financing of peacekeeping operations. In order to be effective, peacekeeping operations must be accountable. And they must be accountable to the organization that has authorized and funded it. That is why we do not support assessing UN member states for the expenses of regional organizations. Such arrangements do not allow the United Nations to exercise critical and, indeed, essential oversight of complex operational undertakings.
However, it is also why we continue to champion and invest heavily in support for AU operations through voluntary contributions and bilateral assistance. Since 2009, the United States has committed to provide nearly $892 million to develop African peacekeeping capacity and strengthen African institutions.
Most recently, in 2013, the United States committed nearly $200 million toward training, equipping, sustaining, and airlifting African peacekeepers of the African-led International Support Mission in Mali. In the Central African Republic, we provided critical equipment and airlift to both the AU troops and French forces operating alongside them. And in Somalia, we have obligated more than $680 million to AMISOM on top of the more than $455 million in UN-assessed contributions for UNSOA that are attributable to the United States. Other partners such as the EU, through its African Peace Facility, have similarly provided very robust support, and we look for other partners doing the same.
In closing, I want to reiterate the depth of my government’s commitment to strengthening African responses to crises on the continent both bilaterally and through this Council.
Today, there are more than 67,000 African peacekeepers serving with the African Union and United Nations in Africa. Their contributions to peace cannot be overstated. They deserve more support from all of us to train, equip, and enable their deployment.
As President Obama said during our U.S.-Africa Leaders’ Summit held in August, “the United States is determined to be a partner in Africa’s success – a good partner, an equal partner, and a partner for the long term.”
I thank you, Mr. President.
Ambassador David Pressman
Alternate Representative to the UN for Special Political Affairs
New York, NY
December 16, 2014
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to express the United States’ profound condolences to the victims of the horrific Taliban attack on a school in Pakistan. This gruesome attack deliberately targeted Pakistan's – indeed, all of our – most precious and sacred resource: our children. Cowardly and senseless violence like this only increases our resolve to fight terrorism and violent extremism.
Mr. Minister, thank you for being here and convening this important debate. We thank the Secretary-General and High Representative Buyoya for your briefings. Enhancing the partnership between the United Nations and the African Union is critical for advancing peace and security in Africa. From the Central African Republic, to Mali, to Somalia, every improvement in the important partnership between the United Nations and the African Union has very real impacts on regional stability and on security.
The African Union and its member states have demonstrated important leadership in responding to African conflicts through peacekeeping and preventive diplomacy to stop potential conflicts from becoming actual ones.
Peacekeeping, whether it is done by the United Nations or the African Union, or in some cases both, is only as strong as its troop and police contributors. Member states must be willing to contribute the needed troops and resources; and troop contributors must be willing to robustly carry out difficult mandates. We commend the African troop-contributing countries who have answered the call, again and again, to serve in peacekeeping operations and who have demonstrated a commitment to implement their mandates, including the protection of civilians.
While blue-helmeted United Nations peacekeeping is a critically important tool, it is not always the best tool to respond to a particular conflict. That is why so many of us have redoubled our efforts to support regional organizations’ capacity, including the African Union, to launch and support peace operations when they are needed and consistent with the Charter of the United Nations.
The Security Council has a unique role under the United Nations Charter but our decisions and actions should be taken in close consultation with all stakeholders, including member states, regional and sub-regional organizations, potential troop contributors, and decisions related to the deployment of UN or African Union peacekeeping missions must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the unique circumstances of each particular situation. Enhancing the capacity of regional forces to respond is critical, but the ability of regional organizations to deploy peace operations must be seen as a complement to, of course, not a substitute for, the United Nations’ own ability to carry out robust peacekeeping operations.
Mr. President, we continue to be immensely grateful for Africa’s contributions to peacekeeping. In September of this year, Vice President Biden joined other leaders at a summit focused on generating new commitments to peacekeeping to ensure that the whole of the international community does more to share the burden.
We have made demonstrable progress in our cooperative efforts to deploy troops quickly to crisis areas when the need arises, but we are still too slow. Delay in our crisis response often means more unnecessary deaths. To be quicker and better, we must work more closely and collaboratively. That is why the United States is committed to improving the Security Council’s engagement with the African Union Peace and Security Council.
And in our effort to do better, to do more, and to do so more quickly, we should learn from the past. The recent transitions from African Union-led peacekeeping operations to United Nations-led operations in Mali and the Central African Republic demonstrate once again that the African Union is sometimes in a position to deploy troops to trouble spots much more quickly than others. Without the initial leadership of the AU and contributions of African, French, and other European troops in Mali and Central African Republic, far more civilians would have died over the past year in both countries.
This is why the United States has created the African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership, which envisions a new investment of $110 million per year for 3-5 years to build the capacity of African forces to rapidly deploy peacekeepers in response to emerging conflict. Under this program, African partner nations will receive additional support and will commit to maintaining forces and equipment ready to rapidly deploy as part of UN or AU missions to respond to emerging crises.
The United States is also prepared to provide additional support, including training for headquarters staff and key enabler functions, such as engineers, to catalyze the AU’s efforts to establish its African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crisis, which is intended to facilitate the deployment of tactical battle groups of approximately 1,500 military personnel deployed by a lead nation or group of AU member states.
There has been some discussion today about the financing of peacekeeping operations. In order to be effective, peacekeeping operations must be accountable. And they must be accountable to the organization that has authorized and funded it. That is why we do not support assessing UN member states for the expenses of regional organizations. Such arrangements do not allow the United Nations to exercise critical and, indeed, essential oversight of complex operational undertakings.
However, it is also why we continue to champion and invest heavily in support for AU operations through voluntary contributions and bilateral assistance. Since 2009, the United States has committed to provide nearly $892 million to develop African peacekeeping capacity and strengthen African institutions.
Most recently, in 2013, the United States committed nearly $200 million toward training, equipping, sustaining, and airlifting African peacekeepers of the African-led International Support Mission in Mali. In the Central African Republic, we provided critical equipment and airlift to both the AU troops and French forces operating alongside them. And in Somalia, we have obligated more than $680 million to AMISOM on top of the more than $455 million in UN-assessed contributions for UNSOA that are attributable to the United States. Other partners such as the EU, through its African Peace Facility, have similarly provided very robust support, and we look for other partners doing the same.
In closing, I want to reiterate the depth of my government’s commitment to strengthening African responses to crises on the continent both bilaterally and through this Council.
Today, there are more than 67,000 African peacekeepers serving with the African Union and United Nations in Africa. Their contributions to peace cannot be overstated. They deserve more support from all of us to train, equip, and enable their deployment.
As President Obama said during our U.S.-Africa Leaders’ Summit held in August, “the United States is determined to be a partner in Africa’s success – a good partner, an equal partner, and a partner for the long term.”
I thank you, Mr. President.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS ON U.S. COMMITMENT TO AFRICA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Commitment to Africa
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Gullele Botanic Park
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
May 3, 2014
Hallelujah, thank you very much for a spectacular introduction. Thank you for even getting out of the city and up into the mountains. And everything is so beautiful. This is an extraordinary building, and I just had the pleasure of walking out on the veranda here and enjoying the view. I understand this is the first green building, totally green building. So I congratulate the Gullele Botanical Gardens, and I particularly congratulate the University of Addis Ababa. Thank you, Mr. President, for being here. And thank you, all of you, for treading up the hill to join me this morning. I saw a couple of donkeys out there. Did some of you come up on the donkeys? (Laughter.) But a lot of buses and cars, and I am very, very appreciative.
It’s really good to be back in Addis, and I want to thank the Prime Minister and -- Foreign Minister Tedros and Prime Minister Hailemariam for a very generous welcome. And I want to thank them particularly for their terrific support in efforts not just with our development challenges and the challenges of Ethiopia itself, but also the challenges of South Sudan, the challenges of Somalia, the challenges of leadership on the continent and beyond.
I was here last spring to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the African Union and it was an appropriate time to take note of the meaning behind the AU’s significant emblem, the red rings that remind us all of the blood that was shed for an Africa that is free, and the palm leaves that remind us of the fact that the blood was not just shed for freedom, but it was shed for peace. And then the gold that symbolizes the promise of natural resources and economic potential. Today, as I come here to this hilltop, it’s important to understand how we will fulfill the promise of still another symbol of the African Union’s crest, the interlocking rings of green that embody all of Africa’s hopes and dreams.
These are the dreams I believe absolutely can be realized if we are, all of us, together, prepared to make the right choices. And it is a matter of choice. There is no pre-determined destiny out there that pushes us in a direction; this is up to the will of the people, and the will of leaders. We need to make certain that we grab the choice that seizes the future, and we need to refuse to be dragged back into the past.
I have absolutely no doubt that this could be an inflection point for the new Africa, a time and a place where Africans bend the arc of history towards reform, and not retribution; towards peace and prosperity, not revenge and resentment. And it’s important to acknowledge -- at least I feel it's important to acknowledge candidly -- that for too long the ties between the United States and Africa were largely rooted in meeting the challenges and the crises of a particular moment. But we’re discovering that, at the beginning of the 21st century, we both want a lasting and more grounded relationship, one that is not reflective, but visionary and strategic.
And for many Americans, Africa was too long a faraway place on a map, a destination for philanthropy, an occasional and harrowing image on the TV screen of starvation and war, a place of distance and some mystery. The fact is that today Africa is increasingly a destination for American investment and tourism, that African institutions are increasingly leading efforts to solve African problems. All of this underscores that dramatic transformations are possible, that prosperity can replace poverty, that cooperation can actually triumph over conflict.
But even as we celebrate this progress, we are also meeting at a time of continued crisis. Conflicts in South Sudan, which I visited yesterday, Central African Republic, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the events that we've just seen in Nigeria, these are among some of the things that are preventing millions of Africans from realizing their full potential. And in some places they are plunging the continent back into the turmoil of the past.
Now, some things are absolutely certain as we look at this panorama: Africa has the resources; Africa has the capacity; Africa has the know-how. The questions that Africa faces are similar to those confronting countries all over the world: do we have the political will, the sense of common purpose, to address our challenges? Are we prepared to make the hard choices that those challenges require?
The continent’s course is ultimately up to you. It's up to Africans. But we firmly believe that the United States is Africa’s natural partner. One thing we know for sure, the United States could be a vital catalyst in this continent’s continued transformation, and President Obama is committed to that transformation.
The United States is blessed to be the world’s epicenter for innovation. Africa is home to many of the fastest-growing economies in the world. There is no limit to what we can accomplish together by working together, and cooperating, and setting out a strategy, and agreeing to have a vision, and join it in common purpose. And though we never forget -- we never forget -- how our first ties were forged in some of the darkest chapters of human history, we still start from a strong foundation.
Now, I’m sure that some of you have seen that in your travels, hopefully across the United States. Whether it is Little Senegal in Los Angeles, or the Somali community in Minneapolis, or the Ethiopian community in Washington, DC, Africans are making American culture richer, and our economy stronger, and contributing to the future chapters of American history. It’s time to make sure that we build on this deep connection; it’s time that we take these connections to the next level by investing in the future of this continent.
And when we know, as we do, that Africa will have a larger workforce than India or China by 2040, then it is time for us to get ahead of the curve, to invest in education for the vast numbers of young people, and the increasing numbers of people demanding their part of that future. It is time to build a more open exchange of ideas and information that leads to partnership and innovation. President Obama’s Young African Leaders Initiative -- I had a chance to meet a number of them, they will be coming to Washington in August -- YALI, is designed to harness this energy, and it’s one example of how some of these efforts are already well underway. YALI is bringing leadership and networking to thousands of young people across the continent. And I am very, very pleased that many of you who are here today are participating in YALI, and that four of you will come and join us this summer as part of the first class of the Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders.
I was particularly impressed, frankly, by one of the stories of these young women, Haleta Giday. Perhaps it’s because Haleta is a prosecutor, and I used to be a prosecutor in my early career. But she graduated from Jimma University, which you all know is one of the best schools in Ethiopia. And the fact is that she had her pick of any lucrative job that she wanted to do, right here in the capital. Instead, she chose to represent women and children who were victims of violence. And when Haleta saw how many widows went bankrupt after they lost their husbands, she began a campaign to educate women about their legal and financial rights.
Just consider what Haleta has witnessed over the course of her young life: she spent her first years in a nation traumatized by famine. Today, Ethiopia is one of the world’s fastest growing economies. Since Haleta arrived on her first day of school, the number of democratic governments in Africa has tripled. Since she left high school, banking assets have more than doubled. And since Haleta graduated from university, Africa’s telecommunications market has doubled in size. She has already lived a remarkable life, and she’s doing amazing work here in Ethiopia. What’s more remarkable is she is one of many young leaders across this continent who are proving their mettle by taking on some of the toughest challenges.
So this is clearly a moment of opportunity for all Africans. It is also a moment of decision, because it’s the decisions that are made or the decisions that are deferred that will ultimately determine whether Africa mines the continent’s greatest natural resource of all, which is not platinum, it's not gold, it's not oil, it is the talent of its people. Africa’s potential comes from the ability of its citizens to make a full contribution, no matter their ethnicity, no matter who they love, or what faith they practice. This continent is strong because of the diversity and the dynamism of the people. The nations in Africa, like nations all over the world, are strongest when citizens have a say, when citizens' voices can be a part of the political process, when they have a stake in their nation's success.
Over the next three years, 37 of the 54 African nations will hold national elections, including 15 presidential elections. Millions of Africans will be going the polls, selecting their leaders in free and fair elections, and that will have a dramatic impact and show the world the power of this moment for Africa. These elections, I promise you, are vitally important. But elections cannot be the only moment, the only opportunity, for citizens to be able to help shape the future. Whether a citizen can engage with their government, not just on Election Day, but every day, whether or not they can engage with their fellow citizens in political discussion and debate and dialogue every week, every month, these are the questions that matter profoundly to Africa’s future.
The African Union is working to answer “yes” to all of these questions. “Good governance, democracy, and the right to development,” these are enshrined in universal rights, and the African Union’s charter represents that and reflects that. The AU has also gone to great lengths in order to highlight the corrosive effect of corruption, both in the public square, as well as corruption in the marketplace. To the AU’s great credit, they have reported that corruption costs Africans tens of billions of dollars, if not more. And that money -- every one of you knows that money could build new schools, new hospitals, new bridges, new roads, pipes, power lines. That’s why it is a responsibility for citizens in Africa and in all nations to demand that public money is providing services for all, not lining the pockets of a few.
And that is why it is so important for all of us everywhere, in our country, your country, and elsewhere, to fight against public corruption and corruption in the marketplace. Our cooperation is essential in order to protect economic growth that is shared by everybody in order to provide opportunity for all individuals in Africa. And, as you well know, fighting corruption is difficult. It takes courage. It sometimes has its risks. But fighting corruption lifts more than a country's balance sheet. Transparency and accountability attract greater investment. Transparency and accountability create a more competitive marketplace, one where ideas and products are judged by the market and by their merits, and not by backroom deals or bribes. That is an environment where innovators and entrepreneurs flourish, I promise you.
The United States has learned through its own experience that entrepreneurship is an essential driver of prosperity and of freedom. That’s why President Obama launched the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, which this fall will bring some of the world’s brightest minds to Morocco. Last year I had the pleasure of being in Kuala Lumpur for that meeting, for the same meeting. And I was stunned by the 15,000 young people screaming like they were in a rock concert or something, all challenged by the prospect of themselves becoming or being the next Steve Jobs or the next Bill Gates. It was unbelievable to feel their energy and enthusiasm.
And they are all connected, all these kids are connected. Everybody shares everything with everybody else in the world, all of the time. And that changes politics, and it changes business, and it changes perceptions. It changes hopes and dreams and aspirations. And every political leader needs to be tuned in to that reality, because that's what we saw in Tunisia, that's what we saw in Egypt. That's what we're still seeing in Syria, where young people came out, asking for a future.
We want to make certain that every country can provide young people the ability to be able to take an idea and turn it into a business. And we know beyond any doubt that the places where people are free not just to develop an idea, but to debate different ideas, to transform the best ideas into a reality, those are the societies that are most successful. Now, this success is not a mystery, and it's not something that is hard to achieve, if you make the right choices. This success is possible for all of Africa. This new Africa is within everybody's reach. But a new Africa will not emerge without becoming a more secure Africa.
In too many parts of the continent, a lack of security, the threat of violence, or all-out war prevent the shoots of prosperity from emerging. The burdens of past divisions might not disappear entirely, my friends. But they must never be allowed to bury the future. The African Union’s commitment to silence the guns of Africa by 2020 is an ambitious goal. It is the right goal. It is a vision worth fighting for, and one that we will do everything in our power to help you achieve, and that’s why we will continue to provide financial and logistical support to African Union-led efforts in Somalia, where al-Shahaab is under significant pressure. That’s why we will continue to support the African Union Regional Task Force against the Lord’s Resistance Army, where LRA-related deaths have dropped by 75 percent, and hundreds of thousands have returned to their homes. And that’s why we are working to strengthen Nigeria’s institutions and its military to combat Boko Haram, and their campaign of terror and violence.
Let me be clear. The kidnapping of hundreds of children by Boko Haram is an unconscionable crime, and we will do everything possible to support the Nigerian government to return these young women to their homes and to hold the perpetrators to justice. I will tell you, my friends, I have seen this scourge of terror across the planet, and so have you. They don't offer anything except violence. They don't offer a health care plan, they don't offer schools. They don't tell you how to build a nation, they don't talk about how they will provide jobs. They just tell people, "You have to behave the way we tell you to," and they will punish you if you don't.
Our responsibility and the world’s responsibility is to stand up against that kind if nihilism. That is the reason that we have committed up to $100 million to support AU and French forces in Central African Republic to push back, as well as $67 million in humanitarian assistance. It’s why we support wholeheartedly the Framework Peace Process and the leadership of Angola and the 10 other African nations to resolve the root causes of conflict in the Great Lakes. Through our Special Envoy to the Great Lakes, a former Senator, a friend of mine that I appointed, Russ Feingold, the United States has been supporting the burgeoning dialogue that is now taking place, and we have already helped to broker the demobilization of M23. We stand ready to support all efforts that help the parties stay on a peaceful path.
Yesterday I was in South Sudan. I was there at the birth of the nation, at the referendum. I know President Kiir, I know the hopes and aspirations of the people there. And I saw yesterday how a nation that once had a hopeful vision for the future can be challenged by old grudges degenerating into violence by personal ambition, by greed that gets in the way of the hopes of all of the people.
I expressed my grave concerns to President Kiir about the deliberate killings of civilians on both sides of the conflict and he agreed to embark on negotiations to form a transitional government that can lead the nation back from the abyss. I congratulate him for his willingness to do that, and I look forward, as the world will, to watching him lead the nation back from this abyss. I also called the former Vice President, Riek Machar, and I urged him to do the same, to come to Addis Ababa in the near term, and to engage in these direct talks in order to move South Sudan to its rightful future.
If both sides do not take bold steps to end the violence, they risk plunging South Sudan into greater desperation and even famine. And that famine could be right around the corner if we don't turn the corner ourselves in the next days. They will completely destroy what they claim they are fighting for if we do not make a difference now. Both sides must do more to facilitate the work of those providing humanitarian assistance. The UN, UNMIS, and all organizations that are urgently providing aid must be supported and protected and not demonized, the way they have been.
Once again, African nations are all working hard to try to forge a regional solution through the AU's Commission of Inquiry and IGAD Monitoring and Verification Mechanisms. And in the days to come I will continue my personal engagement with both sides, and it is imperative that both sides abide by the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, and implement it as fully as possible. The international community must stay committed to the people of South Sudan and see them through this time of incredible difficulty.
Preventing new conflicts also requires coordination to confront the causes of conflict, including food insecurity and famine and, obviously, poverty. Africa has 60 percent of the world’s arable land. Just think about that. That is a tremendous opportunity for the future, not just to feed Africa’s people, but to feed the world. The United States wants to help Africa seize this opportunity by making investments in agribusiness and in crops with greater yields and greater resistance to extreme weather.
With Feed the Future, which was built on the foundation that was laid by the African Union with your own Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program, the United States is investing several billion dollars to improve seed quality, to enhance farming methods, to protect against soil erosion, and link small farmers to the marketplace. To underscore the importance of these commitments, the AU has made 2014 the year of agriculture and food security.
But it is no exaggeration to say that the greatest risk to African agriculture, and even to our way of life, not just in Africa but on this planet, comes from the potential ravages of climate change.
According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, portions of Mombasa, Dakar, Monrovia, and dozens of other coastal cities could be under water by the middle of this century. Yields from rain-fed agriculture in parts of Africa could decline by 50 percent. An additional 100 million people or more will be living without water or under greater water duress as a result of the changes from climate.
When 97 percent of scientists agree that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible for much of the change, and that it is happening faster than predicted, let me tell you something: We need to listen to that 97 percent, and we need to act. And when this continent produces less carbon than almost any other nation, when the continent produces less carbon than almost any other nation, but has the most to lose climate change, it is true there is an inherent unfairness to that equation. And there can be no doubt about it: greater prosperity in Africa is going to demand greater energy supply. So, citizens in Africa will have to make certain that the mistakes that we make, the mistakes that other developed nations have made, that those are not repeated, that the mistakes that created this moment of urgency for the world are not repeated on this continent.
The United States wants to support Africa’s efforts to develop more sustainably, even as we move to do so ourselves, and move to curb our emissions. And that’s why, as part of the President’s bold Power Africa Initiative, a partnership that will pump billions of dollars into the continent’s energy sector, we are working with programs such as the U.S.-Africa Clean Energy Finance Initiative. We’re leveraging public resources and private resources to support $1 billion in clean energy investment from the private sector. Climate change is a global challenge, and it's going to threaten this continent and all continents in profound ways if it is not matched by global cooperative action.
We will -- we face this challenge remembering that we’ve come together before to confront a borderless, generational crisis, one in which I am proud to say we are now winning. So when someone suggests that we are impotent to combat climate change here on Africa’s soil, remind them that we already turned back armies of indifference and denial in the fight against AIDS.
I’ve worked with some of you in this battle since the 1990s. It was 15 years ago when I co-authored the first Africa AIDS legislation which later became the foundation for PEPFAR. Back then, what I saw this week at Gandhi Memorial Hospital that I visited a couple days ago, that would have been unthinkable back then. Because of the commitment of local doctors and healthcare professionals, and with PEPFAR’s sustained support, we have dramatically reduced the number of young children infected with HIV. And the fact is that we have -- we are -- I think we were about, what, 15,000 children were receiving antiretroviral drugs back in 2004. Today, there are more than 330,000 receiving them. The number of people living with HIV has been reduced by one-third. And, remarkably, we are on the cusp of witnessing the first generation of children who will be born AIDS-free because of what we have learned to do.
There was a sign I saw yesterday at the hospital -- or the day before yesterday. It was -- it read, “Ethiopia and the United States of America investing in a healthy future together.” My friends, that sign tells it all. It tells us what's possible, it tells us what we're doing together. It tells us what’s possible in all of our endeavors together.
Achieving President Obama’s goal for an AIDS-free generation would have been the most distant dream. I tell you it was back when we first started talking about doing something about AIDS. Back then it was a death sentence, and back then it was almost a death sentence for politicians talking about it. They didn't want to hear about it. But despite the difficulties that lie ahead -- and there are still difficulties -- this goal is now within our reach. So don't let anybody tell you we can't do something about climate change or these other things.
In fact, in so many ways, Africa is on the move. And that is why investment is moving here from all over the world. IBM has invested $100 million in Big Data on the continent. IBM’s initiatives are helping Africans to find ways to streamline the work of their businesses and governments, to provide more effective and efficient services. Microsoft is investing in what it calls “Mawingu,” the Swahili word for cloud, to develop cloud computing and storage in Kenya that could be expanded to additional African nations. Google is exploring ways to develop underused spectrum in order to deliver broadband Internet access to remote communities.
And it was here in Addis Ababa that we launched a formal review of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, in order to determine where to take AGOA for the future. President Obama is committed to a seamless renewal of AGOA, as it continues to serve as a vital link in order to facilitate trade between our countries.
I say this unabashedly, too: we want more American companies to be here, to invest, both to unleash the power of the private sector in Africa, and, yes, to create jobs in America at the same time. Now, we’ve seen time and again: when we help nations stand on their own two feet, we share in their success. Out of our 15 largest trading partners today, 11 are former recipients of American aid. They are now donor countries. That is the transformation that can be made.
The transformation from aid to trade has been a powerful driver of American prosperity, as well as global growth. And that’s what we saw take root from our partnerships in Europe after World War II, when America came in and we helped to rebuild Germany (inaudible) before the war, helped to rebuild Japan (inaudible) before the war, helped to rebuild Europe that was crushed by the war. We have seen this same kind of resurgence in Asia, where American investment and partnership helped underwrite their incredible rise. And today, that’s what we’re beginning to see here Africa.
When people say that the kind of development that happened in Europe and Asia can’t happen here, we just plain disagree: it’s already happening. Africans are shaping their future for themselves. You are shaping it for yourselves. And we want to share in your effort and help to provide and drive for a shared prosperity that reaches these millions of young people who need education and jobs. That’s one of the reasons I’ve come to Addis today, and why I’m traveling across the continent from the Horn of Africa to the Atlantic coast in the next couple of days.
So this is a very important time for us both. This summer we will further advance the vital work that we are undertaking together with the Africa Leaders’ Summit. This summit will be the first of its kind. Never before will so many leaders from such a diverse cross-section of the African Continent come together with the President of the United States and leaders from all across American society in the United States. It’s an historic gathering that matches the remarkable importance of this particular moment.
The theme of this Summit will be “Investing in the Next Generation.” And I am pleased to see that generation is so well represented here today, with the younger participants from YALI that I mentioned earlier. These young African leaders are the future. And I have to tell you, when we introduced YALI, we were stunned by the response. We put out this notion of young African leaders and invited people to come to Washington. And guess what, 50,000 young people responded and applied to be a part of this program. We could only take 500. So, what we need to do is make sure those other 49,500, and for millions beyond them, are able to be reached.
That is the kind of commitment that actually inspired a young Bobby Kennedy. Some of you may remember when he came to South Africa during some of that country’s darkest days. And he challenged the young audience at Cape Town University to muster the courage and the determination to confront their generation’s most daunting challenges. He said: “The world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life, but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease.”
It’s that spirit, it’s those qualities, it’s that appetite that I guarantee you will propel the next generation of Africans to tackle today’s greatest challenges. And as they do so, the United States of America will stand beside them, bound together by a shared future, a common purpose, and a shared destiny.
So, I say to you, thank you. (Speaks in foreign language.) Thank you very much. (Applause.)
It’s really good to be back in Addis, and I want to thank the Prime Minister and -- Foreign Minister Tedros and Prime Minister Hailemariam for a very generous welcome. And I want to thank them particularly for their terrific support in efforts not just with our development challenges and the challenges of Ethiopia itself, but also the challenges of South Sudan, the challenges of Somalia, the challenges of leadership on the continent and beyond.
I was here last spring to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the African Union and it was an appropriate time to take note of the meaning behind the AU’s significant emblem, the red rings that remind us all of the blood that was shed for an Africa that is free, and the palm leaves that remind us of the fact that the blood was not just shed for freedom, but it was shed for peace. And then the gold that symbolizes the promise of natural resources and economic potential. Today, as I come here to this hilltop, it’s important to understand how we will fulfill the promise of still another symbol of the African Union’s crest, the interlocking rings of green that embody all of Africa’s hopes and dreams.
These are the dreams I believe absolutely can be realized if we are, all of us, together, prepared to make the right choices. And it is a matter of choice. There is no pre-determined destiny out there that pushes us in a direction; this is up to the will of the people, and the will of leaders. We need to make certain that we grab the choice that seizes the future, and we need to refuse to be dragged back into the past.
I have absolutely no doubt that this could be an inflection point for the new Africa, a time and a place where Africans bend the arc of history towards reform, and not retribution; towards peace and prosperity, not revenge and resentment. And it’s important to acknowledge -- at least I feel it's important to acknowledge candidly -- that for too long the ties between the United States and Africa were largely rooted in meeting the challenges and the crises of a particular moment. But we’re discovering that, at the beginning of the 21st century, we both want a lasting and more grounded relationship, one that is not reflective, but visionary and strategic.
And for many Americans, Africa was too long a faraway place on a map, a destination for philanthropy, an occasional and harrowing image on the TV screen of starvation and war, a place of distance and some mystery. The fact is that today Africa is increasingly a destination for American investment and tourism, that African institutions are increasingly leading efforts to solve African problems. All of this underscores that dramatic transformations are possible, that prosperity can replace poverty, that cooperation can actually triumph over conflict.
But even as we celebrate this progress, we are also meeting at a time of continued crisis. Conflicts in South Sudan, which I visited yesterday, Central African Republic, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the events that we've just seen in Nigeria, these are among some of the things that are preventing millions of Africans from realizing their full potential. And in some places they are plunging the continent back into the turmoil of the past.
Now, some things are absolutely certain as we look at this panorama: Africa has the resources; Africa has the capacity; Africa has the know-how. The questions that Africa faces are similar to those confronting countries all over the world: do we have the political will, the sense of common purpose, to address our challenges? Are we prepared to make the hard choices that those challenges require?
The continent’s course is ultimately up to you. It's up to Africans. But we firmly believe that the United States is Africa’s natural partner. One thing we know for sure, the United States could be a vital catalyst in this continent’s continued transformation, and President Obama is committed to that transformation.
The United States is blessed to be the world’s epicenter for innovation. Africa is home to many of the fastest-growing economies in the world. There is no limit to what we can accomplish together by working together, and cooperating, and setting out a strategy, and agreeing to have a vision, and join it in common purpose. And though we never forget -- we never forget -- how our first ties were forged in some of the darkest chapters of human history, we still start from a strong foundation.
Now, I’m sure that some of you have seen that in your travels, hopefully across the United States. Whether it is Little Senegal in Los Angeles, or the Somali community in Minneapolis, or the Ethiopian community in Washington, DC, Africans are making American culture richer, and our economy stronger, and contributing to the future chapters of American history. It’s time to make sure that we build on this deep connection; it’s time that we take these connections to the next level by investing in the future of this continent.
And when we know, as we do, that Africa will have a larger workforce than India or China by 2040, then it is time for us to get ahead of the curve, to invest in education for the vast numbers of young people, and the increasing numbers of people demanding their part of that future. It is time to build a more open exchange of ideas and information that leads to partnership and innovation. President Obama’s Young African Leaders Initiative -- I had a chance to meet a number of them, they will be coming to Washington in August -- YALI, is designed to harness this energy, and it’s one example of how some of these efforts are already well underway. YALI is bringing leadership and networking to thousands of young people across the continent. And I am very, very pleased that many of you who are here today are participating in YALI, and that four of you will come and join us this summer as part of the first class of the Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders.
I was particularly impressed, frankly, by one of the stories of these young women, Haleta Giday. Perhaps it’s because Haleta is a prosecutor, and I used to be a prosecutor in my early career. But she graduated from Jimma University, which you all know is one of the best schools in Ethiopia. And the fact is that she had her pick of any lucrative job that she wanted to do, right here in the capital. Instead, she chose to represent women and children who were victims of violence. And when Haleta saw how many widows went bankrupt after they lost their husbands, she began a campaign to educate women about their legal and financial rights.
Just consider what Haleta has witnessed over the course of her young life: she spent her first years in a nation traumatized by famine. Today, Ethiopia is one of the world’s fastest growing economies. Since Haleta arrived on her first day of school, the number of democratic governments in Africa has tripled. Since she left high school, banking assets have more than doubled. And since Haleta graduated from university, Africa’s telecommunications market has doubled in size. She has already lived a remarkable life, and she’s doing amazing work here in Ethiopia. What’s more remarkable is she is one of many young leaders across this continent who are proving their mettle by taking on some of the toughest challenges.
So this is clearly a moment of opportunity for all Africans. It is also a moment of decision, because it’s the decisions that are made or the decisions that are deferred that will ultimately determine whether Africa mines the continent’s greatest natural resource of all, which is not platinum, it's not gold, it's not oil, it is the talent of its people. Africa’s potential comes from the ability of its citizens to make a full contribution, no matter their ethnicity, no matter who they love, or what faith they practice. This continent is strong because of the diversity and the dynamism of the people. The nations in Africa, like nations all over the world, are strongest when citizens have a say, when citizens' voices can be a part of the political process, when they have a stake in their nation's success.
Over the next three years, 37 of the 54 African nations will hold national elections, including 15 presidential elections. Millions of Africans will be going the polls, selecting their leaders in free and fair elections, and that will have a dramatic impact and show the world the power of this moment for Africa. These elections, I promise you, are vitally important. But elections cannot be the only moment, the only opportunity, for citizens to be able to help shape the future. Whether a citizen can engage with their government, not just on Election Day, but every day, whether or not they can engage with their fellow citizens in political discussion and debate and dialogue every week, every month, these are the questions that matter profoundly to Africa’s future.
The African Union is working to answer “yes” to all of these questions. “Good governance, democracy, and the right to development,” these are enshrined in universal rights, and the African Union’s charter represents that and reflects that. The AU has also gone to great lengths in order to highlight the corrosive effect of corruption, both in the public square, as well as corruption in the marketplace. To the AU’s great credit, they have reported that corruption costs Africans tens of billions of dollars, if not more. And that money -- every one of you knows that money could build new schools, new hospitals, new bridges, new roads, pipes, power lines. That’s why it is a responsibility for citizens in Africa and in all nations to demand that public money is providing services for all, not lining the pockets of a few.
And that is why it is so important for all of us everywhere, in our country, your country, and elsewhere, to fight against public corruption and corruption in the marketplace. Our cooperation is essential in order to protect economic growth that is shared by everybody in order to provide opportunity for all individuals in Africa. And, as you well know, fighting corruption is difficult. It takes courage. It sometimes has its risks. But fighting corruption lifts more than a country's balance sheet. Transparency and accountability attract greater investment. Transparency and accountability create a more competitive marketplace, one where ideas and products are judged by the market and by their merits, and not by backroom deals or bribes. That is an environment where innovators and entrepreneurs flourish, I promise you.
The United States has learned through its own experience that entrepreneurship is an essential driver of prosperity and of freedom. That’s why President Obama launched the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, which this fall will bring some of the world’s brightest minds to Morocco. Last year I had the pleasure of being in Kuala Lumpur for that meeting, for the same meeting. And I was stunned by the 15,000 young people screaming like they were in a rock concert or something, all challenged by the prospect of themselves becoming or being the next Steve Jobs or the next Bill Gates. It was unbelievable to feel their energy and enthusiasm.
And they are all connected, all these kids are connected. Everybody shares everything with everybody else in the world, all of the time. And that changes politics, and it changes business, and it changes perceptions. It changes hopes and dreams and aspirations. And every political leader needs to be tuned in to that reality, because that's what we saw in Tunisia, that's what we saw in Egypt. That's what we're still seeing in Syria, where young people came out, asking for a future.
We want to make certain that every country can provide young people the ability to be able to take an idea and turn it into a business. And we know beyond any doubt that the places where people are free not just to develop an idea, but to debate different ideas, to transform the best ideas into a reality, those are the societies that are most successful. Now, this success is not a mystery, and it's not something that is hard to achieve, if you make the right choices. This success is possible for all of Africa. This new Africa is within everybody's reach. But a new Africa will not emerge without becoming a more secure Africa.
In too many parts of the continent, a lack of security, the threat of violence, or all-out war prevent the shoots of prosperity from emerging. The burdens of past divisions might not disappear entirely, my friends. But they must never be allowed to bury the future. The African Union’s commitment to silence the guns of Africa by 2020 is an ambitious goal. It is the right goal. It is a vision worth fighting for, and one that we will do everything in our power to help you achieve, and that’s why we will continue to provide financial and logistical support to African Union-led efforts in Somalia, where al-Shahaab is under significant pressure. That’s why we will continue to support the African Union Regional Task Force against the Lord’s Resistance Army, where LRA-related deaths have dropped by 75 percent, and hundreds of thousands have returned to their homes. And that’s why we are working to strengthen Nigeria’s institutions and its military to combat Boko Haram, and their campaign of terror and violence.
Let me be clear. The kidnapping of hundreds of children by Boko Haram is an unconscionable crime, and we will do everything possible to support the Nigerian government to return these young women to their homes and to hold the perpetrators to justice. I will tell you, my friends, I have seen this scourge of terror across the planet, and so have you. They don't offer anything except violence. They don't offer a health care plan, they don't offer schools. They don't tell you how to build a nation, they don't talk about how they will provide jobs. They just tell people, "You have to behave the way we tell you to," and they will punish you if you don't.
Our responsibility and the world’s responsibility is to stand up against that kind if nihilism. That is the reason that we have committed up to $100 million to support AU and French forces in Central African Republic to push back, as well as $67 million in humanitarian assistance. It’s why we support wholeheartedly the Framework Peace Process and the leadership of Angola and the 10 other African nations to resolve the root causes of conflict in the Great Lakes. Through our Special Envoy to the Great Lakes, a former Senator, a friend of mine that I appointed, Russ Feingold, the United States has been supporting the burgeoning dialogue that is now taking place, and we have already helped to broker the demobilization of M23. We stand ready to support all efforts that help the parties stay on a peaceful path.
Yesterday I was in South Sudan. I was there at the birth of the nation, at the referendum. I know President Kiir, I know the hopes and aspirations of the people there. And I saw yesterday how a nation that once had a hopeful vision for the future can be challenged by old grudges degenerating into violence by personal ambition, by greed that gets in the way of the hopes of all of the people.
I expressed my grave concerns to President Kiir about the deliberate killings of civilians on both sides of the conflict and he agreed to embark on negotiations to form a transitional government that can lead the nation back from the abyss. I congratulate him for his willingness to do that, and I look forward, as the world will, to watching him lead the nation back from this abyss. I also called the former Vice President, Riek Machar, and I urged him to do the same, to come to Addis Ababa in the near term, and to engage in these direct talks in order to move South Sudan to its rightful future.
If both sides do not take bold steps to end the violence, they risk plunging South Sudan into greater desperation and even famine. And that famine could be right around the corner if we don't turn the corner ourselves in the next days. They will completely destroy what they claim they are fighting for if we do not make a difference now. Both sides must do more to facilitate the work of those providing humanitarian assistance. The UN, UNMIS, and all organizations that are urgently providing aid must be supported and protected and not demonized, the way they have been.
Once again, African nations are all working hard to try to forge a regional solution through the AU's Commission of Inquiry and IGAD Monitoring and Verification Mechanisms. And in the days to come I will continue my personal engagement with both sides, and it is imperative that both sides abide by the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, and implement it as fully as possible. The international community must stay committed to the people of South Sudan and see them through this time of incredible difficulty.
Preventing new conflicts also requires coordination to confront the causes of conflict, including food insecurity and famine and, obviously, poverty. Africa has 60 percent of the world’s arable land. Just think about that. That is a tremendous opportunity for the future, not just to feed Africa’s people, but to feed the world. The United States wants to help Africa seize this opportunity by making investments in agribusiness and in crops with greater yields and greater resistance to extreme weather.
With Feed the Future, which was built on the foundation that was laid by the African Union with your own Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program, the United States is investing several billion dollars to improve seed quality, to enhance farming methods, to protect against soil erosion, and link small farmers to the marketplace. To underscore the importance of these commitments, the AU has made 2014 the year of agriculture and food security.
But it is no exaggeration to say that the greatest risk to African agriculture, and even to our way of life, not just in Africa but on this planet, comes from the potential ravages of climate change.
According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, portions of Mombasa, Dakar, Monrovia, and dozens of other coastal cities could be under water by the middle of this century. Yields from rain-fed agriculture in parts of Africa could decline by 50 percent. An additional 100 million people or more will be living without water or under greater water duress as a result of the changes from climate.
When 97 percent of scientists agree that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible for much of the change, and that it is happening faster than predicted, let me tell you something: We need to listen to that 97 percent, and we need to act. And when this continent produces less carbon than almost any other nation, when the continent produces less carbon than almost any other nation, but has the most to lose climate change, it is true there is an inherent unfairness to that equation. And there can be no doubt about it: greater prosperity in Africa is going to demand greater energy supply. So, citizens in Africa will have to make certain that the mistakes that we make, the mistakes that other developed nations have made, that those are not repeated, that the mistakes that created this moment of urgency for the world are not repeated on this continent.
The United States wants to support Africa’s efforts to develop more sustainably, even as we move to do so ourselves, and move to curb our emissions. And that’s why, as part of the President’s bold Power Africa Initiative, a partnership that will pump billions of dollars into the continent’s energy sector, we are working with programs such as the U.S.-Africa Clean Energy Finance Initiative. We’re leveraging public resources and private resources to support $1 billion in clean energy investment from the private sector. Climate change is a global challenge, and it's going to threaten this continent and all continents in profound ways if it is not matched by global cooperative action.
We will -- we face this challenge remembering that we’ve come together before to confront a borderless, generational crisis, one in which I am proud to say we are now winning. So when someone suggests that we are impotent to combat climate change here on Africa’s soil, remind them that we already turned back armies of indifference and denial in the fight against AIDS.
I’ve worked with some of you in this battle since the 1990s. It was 15 years ago when I co-authored the first Africa AIDS legislation which later became the foundation for PEPFAR. Back then, what I saw this week at Gandhi Memorial Hospital that I visited a couple days ago, that would have been unthinkable back then. Because of the commitment of local doctors and healthcare professionals, and with PEPFAR’s sustained support, we have dramatically reduced the number of young children infected with HIV. And the fact is that we have -- we are -- I think we were about, what, 15,000 children were receiving antiretroviral drugs back in 2004. Today, there are more than 330,000 receiving them. The number of people living with HIV has been reduced by one-third. And, remarkably, we are on the cusp of witnessing the first generation of children who will be born AIDS-free because of what we have learned to do.
There was a sign I saw yesterday at the hospital -- or the day before yesterday. It was -- it read, “Ethiopia and the United States of America investing in a healthy future together.” My friends, that sign tells it all. It tells us what's possible, it tells us what we're doing together. It tells us what’s possible in all of our endeavors together.
Achieving President Obama’s goal for an AIDS-free generation would have been the most distant dream. I tell you it was back when we first started talking about doing something about AIDS. Back then it was a death sentence, and back then it was almost a death sentence for politicians talking about it. They didn't want to hear about it. But despite the difficulties that lie ahead -- and there are still difficulties -- this goal is now within our reach. So don't let anybody tell you we can't do something about climate change or these other things.
In fact, in so many ways, Africa is on the move. And that is why investment is moving here from all over the world. IBM has invested $100 million in Big Data on the continent. IBM’s initiatives are helping Africans to find ways to streamline the work of their businesses and governments, to provide more effective and efficient services. Microsoft is investing in what it calls “Mawingu,” the Swahili word for cloud, to develop cloud computing and storage in Kenya that could be expanded to additional African nations. Google is exploring ways to develop underused spectrum in order to deliver broadband Internet access to remote communities.
And it was here in Addis Ababa that we launched a formal review of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, in order to determine where to take AGOA for the future. President Obama is committed to a seamless renewal of AGOA, as it continues to serve as a vital link in order to facilitate trade between our countries.
I say this unabashedly, too: we want more American companies to be here, to invest, both to unleash the power of the private sector in Africa, and, yes, to create jobs in America at the same time. Now, we’ve seen time and again: when we help nations stand on their own two feet, we share in their success. Out of our 15 largest trading partners today, 11 are former recipients of American aid. They are now donor countries. That is the transformation that can be made.
The transformation from aid to trade has been a powerful driver of American prosperity, as well as global growth. And that’s what we saw take root from our partnerships in Europe after World War II, when America came in and we helped to rebuild Germany (inaudible) before the war, helped to rebuild Japan (inaudible) before the war, helped to rebuild Europe that was crushed by the war. We have seen this same kind of resurgence in Asia, where American investment and partnership helped underwrite their incredible rise. And today, that’s what we’re beginning to see here Africa.
When people say that the kind of development that happened in Europe and Asia can’t happen here, we just plain disagree: it’s already happening. Africans are shaping their future for themselves. You are shaping it for yourselves. And we want to share in your effort and help to provide and drive for a shared prosperity that reaches these millions of young people who need education and jobs. That’s one of the reasons I’ve come to Addis today, and why I’m traveling across the continent from the Horn of Africa to the Atlantic coast in the next couple of days.
So this is a very important time for us both. This summer we will further advance the vital work that we are undertaking together with the Africa Leaders’ Summit. This summit will be the first of its kind. Never before will so many leaders from such a diverse cross-section of the African Continent come together with the President of the United States and leaders from all across American society in the United States. It’s an historic gathering that matches the remarkable importance of this particular moment.
The theme of this Summit will be “Investing in the Next Generation.” And I am pleased to see that generation is so well represented here today, with the younger participants from YALI that I mentioned earlier. These young African leaders are the future. And I have to tell you, when we introduced YALI, we were stunned by the response. We put out this notion of young African leaders and invited people to come to Washington. And guess what, 50,000 young people responded and applied to be a part of this program. We could only take 500. So, what we need to do is make sure those other 49,500, and for millions beyond them, are able to be reached.
That is the kind of commitment that actually inspired a young Bobby Kennedy. Some of you may remember when he came to South Africa during some of that country’s darkest days. And he challenged the young audience at Cape Town University to muster the courage and the determination to confront their generation’s most daunting challenges. He said: “The world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life, but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease.”
It’s that spirit, it’s those qualities, it’s that appetite that I guarantee you will propel the next generation of Africans to tackle today’s greatest challenges. And as they do so, the United States of America will stand beside them, bound together by a shared future, a common purpose, and a shared destiny.
So, I say to you, thank you. (Speaks in foreign language.) Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Saturday, December 14, 2013
STATE DEPARTMENT FACT SHEET: GLOBAL PEACE OPERATIONS INITIATIVE (GPOI)
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI)
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 13, 2013
The Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) is a U.S. Government-funded security assistance program working to meet the growing global demand for specially trained personnel to conduct international peace operations by building the capabilities of U.S. partner countries to train and sustain peacekeepers; increasing the number of capable military troops and formed police units available for deployment; and facilitating the preparation, logistical support, and deployment of peacekeepers. GPOI promotes international peace and security, saving lives while reducing the burden on U.S. military forces, and helping set the stage for post-conflict recovery around the world.
GPOI currently partners with 69 countries and regional organizations. Through these partnerships, GPOI implementers have:
Facilitated the training of 228,658 foreign military personnel to serve on international peacekeeping missions through both direct training activities (176,047 peacekeepers) and enabling the indigenous training by GPOI partner countries (52,611 peacekeepers);
Supported 45 national and regional peace operations training centers and three regional headquarters for the African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), as well as financial, technical, and staffing support to the Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units (COESPU), an Italian-led center to facilitate the training of stability/formed police unit trainers.
Facilitated the deployment of 180,223 personnel from 38 countries to 25 operations around the world. Currently, there are over 116,000 military, police, and civilian personnel from 115 countries serving in 15 UN peacekeeping operations deployed on four continents.
GPOI is managed by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, which works in close coordination with the Department of State regional bureaus, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Regional Combatant Commands, and other DoD organizations, to develop regional program plans and implement train and equip activities with partner nations worldwide.
GPOI was launched in 2005 as the U.S. contribution to the G8 Action Plan for Expanding Global Capability for Peace Support Operations, adopted at the 2004 G8 Sea Island Summit.
The primary objective of GPOI in FY 2005-2009 was to train and equip at least 75,000 peacekeepers by 2010. GPOI implementers met and surpassed this target, training nearly 87,000 peacekeepers by September 30, 2009. More than 77,000 of this total were African troops trained through the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program. In GPOI’s current activities, program emphasis has shifted from the direct training of peacekeepers by U.S. personnel to building sustainable, self-sufficient, national training capabilities by partner countries, with the target of facilitating training for an additional 242,500 troops.
Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI)
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 13, 2013
The Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) is a U.S. Government-funded security assistance program working to meet the growing global demand for specially trained personnel to conduct international peace operations by building the capabilities of U.S. partner countries to train and sustain peacekeepers; increasing the number of capable military troops and formed police units available for deployment; and facilitating the preparation, logistical support, and deployment of peacekeepers. GPOI promotes international peace and security, saving lives while reducing the burden on U.S. military forces, and helping set the stage for post-conflict recovery around the world.
GPOI currently partners with 69 countries and regional organizations. Through these partnerships, GPOI implementers have:
Facilitated the training of 228,658 foreign military personnel to serve on international peacekeeping missions through both direct training activities (176,047 peacekeepers) and enabling the indigenous training by GPOI partner countries (52,611 peacekeepers);
Supported 45 national and regional peace operations training centers and three regional headquarters for the African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), as well as financial, technical, and staffing support to the Center of Excellence for Stability Police Units (COESPU), an Italian-led center to facilitate the training of stability/formed police unit trainers.
Facilitated the deployment of 180,223 personnel from 38 countries to 25 operations around the world. Currently, there are over 116,000 military, police, and civilian personnel from 115 countries serving in 15 UN peacekeeping operations deployed on four continents.
GPOI is managed by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, which works in close coordination with the Department of State regional bureaus, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Regional Combatant Commands, and other DoD organizations, to develop regional program plans and implement train and equip activities with partner nations worldwide.
GPOI was launched in 2005 as the U.S. contribution to the G8 Action Plan for Expanding Global Capability for Peace Support Operations, adopted at the 2004 G8 Sea Island Summit.
The primary objective of GPOI in FY 2005-2009 was to train and equip at least 75,000 peacekeepers by 2010. GPOI implementers met and surpassed this target, training nearly 87,000 peacekeepers by September 30, 2009. More than 77,000 of this total were African troops trained through the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program. In GPOI’s current activities, program emphasis has shifted from the direct training of peacekeepers by U.S. personnel to building sustainable, self-sufficient, national training capabilities by partner countries, with the target of facilitating training for an additional 242,500 troops.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS ON INTERNATIONAL MISSION IN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Support for the African Union International Support Mission in the Central African Republic
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 20, 2013
I am deeply concerned by the ongoing crisis in the Central African Republic and the deplorable levels of violence and lawlessness that affect millions of people every day. In the continuing aftermath of the March 2013 overthrow of the government by the Seleka rebel alliance, militia groups are now organizing themselves along increasingly sectarian lines and engaging in a cycle of retaliatory abuses against civilians. At this moment, the United States sees no evidence that the CAR transitional government has the capacity or political will to end the violence, especially the abuses committed by elements of the Seleka rebel alliance that are affiliated with the government.
Pending notification to the United States Congress, the Department of State plans to provide $40 million in assistance to MISCA, the African Union-led peacekeeping mission in the CAR, to help protect civilians and provide security throughout the country. This assistance may provide logistical backing, non-lethal equipment, training, and planning support. In the immediate term, we believe that MISCA is the best mechanism to help quickly address the ongoing violence in the CAR and prevent further atrocities. MISCA is also in the best position to help establish an environment that allows for the provision of humanitarian assistance and an eventual political transition to a democratically elected government.
There are nearly 400,000 internally displaced persons and over 220,000 CAR refugees in neighboring countries, including approximately 68,000 new refugees who have fled in recent months. In the past year, the U.S. government has provided more than $24 million in humanitarian assistance to support programs that provide food, health services, and other aid in the CAR. We have also provided an additional $6 million in humanitarian assistance to specifically support new Central African refugees.
We call on the region and the international community to support and fully deploy MISCA in order to restore security in the country, and we will continue to work with others in the region and the international community to implement a credible political transition and assist the people of the CAR who have suffered so greatly in this conflict.
Support for the African Union International Support Mission in the Central African Republic
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 20, 2013
I am deeply concerned by the ongoing crisis in the Central African Republic and the deplorable levels of violence and lawlessness that affect millions of people every day. In the continuing aftermath of the March 2013 overthrow of the government by the Seleka rebel alliance, militia groups are now organizing themselves along increasingly sectarian lines and engaging in a cycle of retaliatory abuses against civilians. At this moment, the United States sees no evidence that the CAR transitional government has the capacity or political will to end the violence, especially the abuses committed by elements of the Seleka rebel alliance that are affiliated with the government.
Pending notification to the United States Congress, the Department of State plans to provide $40 million in assistance to MISCA, the African Union-led peacekeeping mission in the CAR, to help protect civilians and provide security throughout the country. This assistance may provide logistical backing, non-lethal equipment, training, and planning support. In the immediate term, we believe that MISCA is the best mechanism to help quickly address the ongoing violence in the CAR and prevent further atrocities. MISCA is also in the best position to help establish an environment that allows for the provision of humanitarian assistance and an eventual political transition to a democratically elected government.
There are nearly 400,000 internally displaced persons and over 220,000 CAR refugees in neighboring countries, including approximately 68,000 new refugees who have fled in recent months. In the past year, the U.S. government has provided more than $24 million in humanitarian assistance to support programs that provide food, health services, and other aid in the CAR. We have also provided an additional $6 million in humanitarian assistance to specifically support new Central African refugees.
We call on the region and the international community to support and fully deploy MISCA in order to restore security in the country, and we will continue to work with others in the region and the international community to implement a credible political transition and assist the people of the CAR who have suffered so greatly in this conflict.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY MAKES REMARKS WITH ETHIOPIAN FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Remarks With Ethiopian Foreign Minister Adhanom Tedros After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
African Union Headquarters
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
May 25, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. It’s my privilege to be here at this special celebration of the 50th anniversary of the African Union and its predecessor organization. And I’m very, very pleased to have just met with Prime Minister Hailemariam, and I’m happy to be here with the Foreign Minister Tedros who we have met previously and had a chance to talk. And I think there are several key components of our relationship that I want to highlight.
First of all, we are working very closely on economic development, economic issues, bilateral trade issues. And the Prime Minister expressed his hope appropriately that the United States will in fact become more engaged, that the private sector of the United States will become more engaged in Ethiopia. We talked about some of the ways that that could happen. The Africa Growth Opportunity Act – the AGOA Act, as we know it – is one important component, and there will be a conference we hope in August, providing the dates remain firm, that will focus on this economic development. We also support Ethiopia’s accession to the WTO, and we are going to work with Ethiopia in an effort to try to help that transition.
The second area is the area of peace and stability, in the region particularly. Ethiopia has been a very strong partner, a very important partner in efforts with respect to Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia. I worked very closely with former Prime Minister Meles, who – I came here to Addis Ababa, we worked on the issue of the comprehensive peace agreement and the referendum and moving South Sudan to independence. And we worked on the questions of Abyei and the two areas. We talked about that now and we both agreed that the situation between South Sudan and Sudan remains tense. There was work to be done, and we are going to continue to work in order to do – to address those challenging issues of Abyei, Blue Nile, South Kordofan, and the relationship between the North and the South.
I’ve mentioned previously, but I haven’t necessarily said it to the press here, I will be appointing a special envoy to Sudan and South Sudan shortly, and we look forward to engaging with our friends here in Ethiopia on efforts to try to bring greater stability to the region.
We are particularly grateful to Ethiopia for their initiative, a very important initiative in respect to Somalia. It is fair to say that the Ethiopian initiative, together with American help and support, has helped to reduce the threat of ultraviolence, and it has helped significantly to be able to produce a new opportunity for governance. And it is governance now that is the greater challenge, rather than the al-Shabaab threat.
Finally, I just raised the question – the third pillar of concern and of relationship is that of building democracy and of protecting human rights. This is a critical component. As everybody knows, we believe very deeply that where people can exercise their rights and where there is an ability to have a strong democracy, the economy is stronger, the relationship with the government is stronger, people do better, and it’s an opportunity to be able to grow faster, stronger, by rule of law. We want to continue to work with our friends in Ethiopia as they work hard to try to improve any number of initiatives with respect to those concerns.
So I’m delighted to be here. This is a very special moment. Ethiopia is not only the host, but the Prime Minister wears the hat of president of union and we’re honored to be here with him sharing this very important moment. And Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you. Appreciate it.
FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you so much, talking about this very important day for Africa in general, and for Ethiopia in particular. And I would like to also share with you that we have had very useful discussions on the areas that the Secretary already had mentioned – on the economic front as it had say, that should be the focus, especially in our future relationships. And we’re very grateful for the AGOA summit that will be conducted in Ethiopia August 12-13. We hope that will strengthen the trade and investment relationships between the U.S. and Ethiopia.
And in addition to that, we have had, as many of you know, relationships on social, political, defense, and security points. If we take, especially the social one, Ethiopia is the beneficiary of their foreign (inaudible). And that opportunity has been using Ethiopia in a unique way. Not only we have used the three foreign (inaudible) opportunities to save lives, but we used it to build our system also to better fight for the future. And I would like to express how grateful we are for this very generous support from the government and people of the United States. It’s really made a difference in Ethiopia.
And we had also we had (inaudible) very frank discussions on either issues, and Secretary said democracy is our priority. We’re committed to democracy, but as a national democracy. We really need strong cooperation and working together with the U.S. And we had, as we have said, discussed on regional issues – regional peace and security, Sudan and South Sudan. And on Somalia, I think he said it well, so I don’t want to add on that. But I would like to thank the Secretary for his decision to assign an envoy (inaudible) working (inaudible).
So finally I would like again to thank to the historic and very strong partnership we have with the U.S., and I hope it will grow even stronger in the future and look forward to working with you very closely as it does so much good.
SECRETARY KERRY: Likewise.
MS. PSAKI: The U.S. question will be from Scott of VOA.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the Nigerian Government says its broken up some Boko Haram groups in the North, yet there are concerns remaining about gross human rights violations by Nigerian security forces. What’s your message about striking a balance there? And on Sudan and South Sudan, the oil is flowing again, but there remain the other issues between Khartoum and Juba, so how do you help resolve them?
And Mr. Minister, in light of the attacks in Niger, what is the African Union doing along with the international community to try to come up with a strategy to secure the broader Sahelian region against the spread of terrorism? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Well, Boko Haram is a terrorist organization and they have killed wantonly and upset the normal governance of Nigeria in fundamental ways that are unacceptable. And so we defend the right completely of the Government of Nigeria to defend itself and to fight back against terrorists.
That said, I have raised the issue of human rights with the government, with the Foreign Minister. We have talked directly about the imperative of Nigerian troops adhering to the highest standards and not themselves engaging in atrocities or in human rights violations. That is critical. And the balance comes by having strong leadership – leadership from the civilian government, leadership that flows through the forces that are there. We’ve talked about it directly.
To their credit, the government has acknowledged that there have been some problems and they’re not – they’re working to try to control it. It’s not easy; very complicated, and wide open spaces, very ungoverned, very, very difficult – very complex territory and terrain and very challenging enterprise. But always, we all of us try to hold the highest standards of behavior. One person’s atrocity does not excuse another’s. And revenge is not the motive; it’s good governance, it’s ridding yourself of a terrorist organization so that you can establish a standard of law that people can respect. And that’s what needs to happen in Nigeria.
With respect to --
QUESTION: Sudan and South Sudan.
QUESTION: On the Sudan-South Sudan, you are absolutely correct. There are very significant border challenges, but they’re bigger than that. In South Kordofan and Blue Nile, you have people who for a long time have felt that they want their secular governance and their identity respected. And they don’t want independence. They are not trying to break away from Sudan. Unfortunately, President Bashir is trying to press on them, through authoritarian means and through violence, an adherence to a standard that they simply don’t want to accept, with respect to Islamism and a rigidity with respect to their identity. So that’s the fundamental (inaudible).
And what is critical here, in my judgment, is for President Bashir to respect what the people in South Kordofan and Blue Nile are trying to achieve. Now it’s more complicated because you have the SPLM-North that has received support from the South, and that makes the North feel like the South is instigating some of what is taking place. So we need to resolve those differences. And that’s the work of an envoy and my work over the course of these next months, working with our friends here. We’ve always been very focused on and helpful in trying to reduce the violence.
Abyei presents a special challenge, obviously. And I think we agreed that it was critical that Abyei be able to have a referendum with the appropriate Miseria – that is the Miseria who actually live in Abyei and have residence there year round, not the migrant Miseria – that they be able to vote together with residents and then to decide the future.
I think North and South are in a very delicate place right now. It is important to build on the peace process, the comprehensive peace agreement, to build on the new independence of the young state, and to put the focus and energy on the people and on developing the future, not on fighting the issues of the past. That’s our challenge, all of us, and we are certainly going to continue to work at it.
FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: Thank you. On the terrorism issue, especially Niger and the Sahel, as you know, we have now experienced terrorism. It is now serious threat to Africa, and we had experience in this region and certainly (inaudible). And what’s happening in Niger is not isolated incidents. We have to see it in relation to what has happened – what’s happening in Mali and the whole south of Niger. And when it’s experienced in Africa on how to tackle that, we support of course from governments like U.S. and we will address it within that framework based upon the experience we have. But have to consider it as a serious issue, and fight it aggressively.
MODERATOR: (Inaudible) now it is (inaudible) question to the Ethiopian side. Let me invite (inaudible).
QUESTION: Thank you. From (inaudible). It is understood that Ethiopia (inaudible) 12 years. How do you comment this? How can (inaudible) this success you have got to (inaudible)? Another question: The peacekeeping process is very difficult. What will be your assistance to this process?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me begin on the peacekeeping first. Yes, it is expensive and we know that. And we are providing assistance and we will continue to provide assistance. I think Ethiopia feels as if it needs more assistance. We understand that. Let me express my gratitude on behalf of not just the American people but everybody who benefits and cares about peace is grateful to Ethiopia. Ethiopians have put themselves on the line in order to fight against terrorism and to fight for peace. And I believe that we owe Ethiopia support and assistance in order to help them do that.
With respect to the economic growth, we would love to have Ethiopia’s economic growth. Ethiopia’s one of the ten fastest growing countries in the world. It’s up in the double digits in growth. It’s really quite an extraordinary story. And so I think the United States needs to – our private sector businesses need to focus on Ethiopia and recognize the opportunities that are here and hopefully we can encourage more companies to come here and be engaged and help take part in this.
But I think the future’s being defined by countries like Ethiopia, the future of Africa, which we are celebrating in this 50th anniversary meeting today. There’s been an enormous transition in the last 50 years. There are many more democracies and many more transitions to democracy, and many more peaceful places than there are violent ones and dictators. It is changing, and it is changing in a way that is strong so that lots of countries – Russia, Brazil, China, Japan, others – are investing and moving to take advantage of the economic possibilities of growth and development in Africa. The United States has been behind on that, and we need to change that.
QUESTION: We have time for one last --
QUESTION: Excuse me.
FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: What time is the Secretary (inaudible) – for second time there (inaudible) and we apologize for that because we have to run.
SECRETARY KERRY: We have to run. Seriously, the Foreign Minister only has about 68 countries to deal with. (Laughter.) Thank you both.
Remarks With Ethiopian Foreign Minister Adhanom Tedros After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
African Union Headquarters
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
May 25, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. It’s my privilege to be here at this special celebration of the 50th anniversary of the African Union and its predecessor organization. And I’m very, very pleased to have just met with Prime Minister Hailemariam, and I’m happy to be here with the Foreign Minister Tedros who we have met previously and had a chance to talk. And I think there are several key components of our relationship that I want to highlight.
First of all, we are working very closely on economic development, economic issues, bilateral trade issues. And the Prime Minister expressed his hope appropriately that the United States will in fact become more engaged, that the private sector of the United States will become more engaged in Ethiopia. We talked about some of the ways that that could happen. The Africa Growth Opportunity Act – the AGOA Act, as we know it – is one important component, and there will be a conference we hope in August, providing the dates remain firm, that will focus on this economic development. We also support Ethiopia’s accession to the WTO, and we are going to work with Ethiopia in an effort to try to help that transition.
The second area is the area of peace and stability, in the region particularly. Ethiopia has been a very strong partner, a very important partner in efforts with respect to Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia. I worked very closely with former Prime Minister Meles, who – I came here to Addis Ababa, we worked on the issue of the comprehensive peace agreement and the referendum and moving South Sudan to independence. And we worked on the questions of Abyei and the two areas. We talked about that now and we both agreed that the situation between South Sudan and Sudan remains tense. There was work to be done, and we are going to continue to work in order to do – to address those challenging issues of Abyei, Blue Nile, South Kordofan, and the relationship between the North and the South.
I’ve mentioned previously, but I haven’t necessarily said it to the press here, I will be appointing a special envoy to Sudan and South Sudan shortly, and we look forward to engaging with our friends here in Ethiopia on efforts to try to bring greater stability to the region.
We are particularly grateful to Ethiopia for their initiative, a very important initiative in respect to Somalia. It is fair to say that the Ethiopian initiative, together with American help and support, has helped to reduce the threat of ultraviolence, and it has helped significantly to be able to produce a new opportunity for governance. And it is governance now that is the greater challenge, rather than the al-Shabaab threat.
Finally, I just raised the question – the third pillar of concern and of relationship is that of building democracy and of protecting human rights. This is a critical component. As everybody knows, we believe very deeply that where people can exercise their rights and where there is an ability to have a strong democracy, the economy is stronger, the relationship with the government is stronger, people do better, and it’s an opportunity to be able to grow faster, stronger, by rule of law. We want to continue to work with our friends in Ethiopia as they work hard to try to improve any number of initiatives with respect to those concerns.
So I’m delighted to be here. This is a very special moment. Ethiopia is not only the host, but the Prime Minister wears the hat of president of union and we’re honored to be here with him sharing this very important moment. And Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you. Appreciate it.
FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you so much, talking about this very important day for Africa in general, and for Ethiopia in particular. And I would like to also share with you that we have had very useful discussions on the areas that the Secretary already had mentioned – on the economic front as it had say, that should be the focus, especially in our future relationships. And we’re very grateful for the AGOA summit that will be conducted in Ethiopia August 12-13. We hope that will strengthen the trade and investment relationships between the U.S. and Ethiopia.
And in addition to that, we have had, as many of you know, relationships on social, political, defense, and security points. If we take, especially the social one, Ethiopia is the beneficiary of their foreign (inaudible). And that opportunity has been using Ethiopia in a unique way. Not only we have used the three foreign (inaudible) opportunities to save lives, but we used it to build our system also to better fight for the future. And I would like to express how grateful we are for this very generous support from the government and people of the United States. It’s really made a difference in Ethiopia.
And we had also we had (inaudible) very frank discussions on either issues, and Secretary said democracy is our priority. We’re committed to democracy, but as a national democracy. We really need strong cooperation and working together with the U.S. And we had, as we have said, discussed on regional issues – regional peace and security, Sudan and South Sudan. And on Somalia, I think he said it well, so I don’t want to add on that. But I would like to thank the Secretary for his decision to assign an envoy (inaudible) working (inaudible).
So finally I would like again to thank to the historic and very strong partnership we have with the U.S., and I hope it will grow even stronger in the future and look forward to working with you very closely as it does so much good.
SECRETARY KERRY: Likewise.
MS. PSAKI: The U.S. question will be from Scott of VOA.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the Nigerian Government says its broken up some Boko Haram groups in the North, yet there are concerns remaining about gross human rights violations by Nigerian security forces. What’s your message about striking a balance there? And on Sudan and South Sudan, the oil is flowing again, but there remain the other issues between Khartoum and Juba, so how do you help resolve them?
And Mr. Minister, in light of the attacks in Niger, what is the African Union doing along with the international community to try to come up with a strategy to secure the broader Sahelian region against the spread of terrorism? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Well, Boko Haram is a terrorist organization and they have killed wantonly and upset the normal governance of Nigeria in fundamental ways that are unacceptable. And so we defend the right completely of the Government of Nigeria to defend itself and to fight back against terrorists.
That said, I have raised the issue of human rights with the government, with the Foreign Minister. We have talked directly about the imperative of Nigerian troops adhering to the highest standards and not themselves engaging in atrocities or in human rights violations. That is critical. And the balance comes by having strong leadership – leadership from the civilian government, leadership that flows through the forces that are there. We’ve talked about it directly.
To their credit, the government has acknowledged that there have been some problems and they’re not – they’re working to try to control it. It’s not easy; very complicated, and wide open spaces, very ungoverned, very, very difficult – very complex territory and terrain and very challenging enterprise. But always, we all of us try to hold the highest standards of behavior. One person’s atrocity does not excuse another’s. And revenge is not the motive; it’s good governance, it’s ridding yourself of a terrorist organization so that you can establish a standard of law that people can respect. And that’s what needs to happen in Nigeria.
With respect to --
QUESTION: Sudan and South Sudan.
QUESTION: On the Sudan-South Sudan, you are absolutely correct. There are very significant border challenges, but they’re bigger than that. In South Kordofan and Blue Nile, you have people who for a long time have felt that they want their secular governance and their identity respected. And they don’t want independence. They are not trying to break away from Sudan. Unfortunately, President Bashir is trying to press on them, through authoritarian means and through violence, an adherence to a standard that they simply don’t want to accept, with respect to Islamism and a rigidity with respect to their identity. So that’s the fundamental (inaudible).
And what is critical here, in my judgment, is for President Bashir to respect what the people in South Kordofan and Blue Nile are trying to achieve. Now it’s more complicated because you have the SPLM-North that has received support from the South, and that makes the North feel like the South is instigating some of what is taking place. So we need to resolve those differences. And that’s the work of an envoy and my work over the course of these next months, working with our friends here. We’ve always been very focused on and helpful in trying to reduce the violence.
Abyei presents a special challenge, obviously. And I think we agreed that it was critical that Abyei be able to have a referendum with the appropriate Miseria – that is the Miseria who actually live in Abyei and have residence there year round, not the migrant Miseria – that they be able to vote together with residents and then to decide the future.
I think North and South are in a very delicate place right now. It is important to build on the peace process, the comprehensive peace agreement, to build on the new independence of the young state, and to put the focus and energy on the people and on developing the future, not on fighting the issues of the past. That’s our challenge, all of us, and we are certainly going to continue to work at it.
FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: Thank you. On the terrorism issue, especially Niger and the Sahel, as you know, we have now experienced terrorism. It is now serious threat to Africa, and we had experience in this region and certainly (inaudible). And what’s happening in Niger is not isolated incidents. We have to see it in relation to what has happened – what’s happening in Mali and the whole south of Niger. And when it’s experienced in Africa on how to tackle that, we support of course from governments like U.S. and we will address it within that framework based upon the experience we have. But have to consider it as a serious issue, and fight it aggressively.
MODERATOR: (Inaudible) now it is (inaudible) question to the Ethiopian side. Let me invite (inaudible).
QUESTION: Thank you. From (inaudible). It is understood that Ethiopia (inaudible) 12 years. How do you comment this? How can (inaudible) this success you have got to (inaudible)? Another question: The peacekeeping process is very difficult. What will be your assistance to this process?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me begin on the peacekeeping first. Yes, it is expensive and we know that. And we are providing assistance and we will continue to provide assistance. I think Ethiopia feels as if it needs more assistance. We understand that. Let me express my gratitude on behalf of not just the American people but everybody who benefits and cares about peace is grateful to Ethiopia. Ethiopians have put themselves on the line in order to fight against terrorism and to fight for peace. And I believe that we owe Ethiopia support and assistance in order to help them do that.
With respect to the economic growth, we would love to have Ethiopia’s economic growth. Ethiopia’s one of the ten fastest growing countries in the world. It’s up in the double digits in growth. It’s really quite an extraordinary story. And so I think the United States needs to – our private sector businesses need to focus on Ethiopia and recognize the opportunities that are here and hopefully we can encourage more companies to come here and be engaged and help take part in this.
But I think the future’s being defined by countries like Ethiopia, the future of Africa, which we are celebrating in this 50th anniversary meeting today. There’s been an enormous transition in the last 50 years. There are many more democracies and many more transitions to democracy, and many more peaceful places than there are violent ones and dictators. It is changing, and it is changing in a way that is strong so that lots of countries – Russia, Brazil, China, Japan, others – are investing and moving to take advantage of the economic possibilities of growth and development in Africa. The United States has been behind on that, and we need to change that.
QUESTION: We have time for one last --
QUESTION: Excuse me.
FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: What time is the Secretary (inaudible) – for second time there (inaudible) and we apologize for that because we have to run.
SECRETARY KERRY: We have to run. Seriously, the Foreign Minister only has about 68 countries to deal with. (Laughter.) Thank you both.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
U.S. CONCERENED WITH SITUATION IN CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
 |
| Locator Map: Central African Republic. Credit: CIA. |
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPEARMENT
Situation in the Central African Republic
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 30, 2013
The United States remains deeply concerned about the serious deterioration in the security situation in the Central African Republic (CAR). We strongly condemn the illegitimate seizure of power by force by the Seleka rebel alliance, Michel Djotodia’s self-appointment as president, and his suspension of the constitution and National Assembly. We also condemn Seleka’s unlawful designation of a head of state or any other unilateral decisions involving the future governance of the country. The only legitimate government in the CAR is the government of national unity led by Prime Minister Nicolas Tiangaye.
Any decisions on the future governance of the country must be taken in an inclusive and transparent manner, consistent with the Libreville Agreement which was approved by all sides, overseen by the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) and recognized by the African Union. We urge the country’s leadership to quickly establish an open and legitimate process leading to presidential elections and the reestablishment of a constitutional government. The African Union has already suspended the CAR’s membership, and the country risks further alienation from the international community and regional partners. We also urge the regional leaders from ECCAS to vigorously continue their efforts to secure peace and stability in the CAR in furtherance of the Libreville Agreement.
We are also deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation both in Bangui and the interior of the CAR. We condemn the widespread looting of humanitarian organizations and hospitals, which has deprived civilians of urgently needed assistance. All parties must work to ensure the safety of the civilian population and allow unhindered humanitarian access.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM CIA WORLD FACTBOOK
The former French colony of Ubangi-Shari became the Central African Republic upon independence in 1960. After three tumultuous decades of misrule - mostly by military governments - civilian rule was established in 1993 and lasted for one decade. In March, 2003 President Ange-Felix PATASSE was deposed in a military coup led by General Francois BOZIZE, who established a transitional government. Elections held in 2005 affirmed General BOZIZE as president; he was reelected in 2011 in voting widely viewed as flawed. The government still does not fully control the countryside, where pockets of lawlessness persist. The militant group the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) continues to destabilize southeastern Central African Republic, and several rebel groups joined together in early December 2012 to launch a series of attacks that left them in control of numerous towns in the northern and central parts of the country. The rebels - who are unhappy with BOZIZE's government - participated in peace talks in early January 2013 which resulted in a coalition government including the rebellion's leadership.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON AND AFRICAN UNION CHAIRPERSON DLAMINI-ZUMA MAKE REMARKS AFTER MEETING
 |
| Photo: Hillside In Rwanda. Credit: CIA World Factbook. |
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With African Union Chairperson Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma After Their Meeting
Remarks
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
November 28, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon, everyone. It is such a personal pleasure for me to welcome the Chairperson here for our high-level meetings. This is our third high-level meeting, and we highly value the relationship and the increasing cooperation that we are enjoying with the African Union. And of course, I want to congratulate the Chairperson for becoming the first woman chair of the African Union.
I want to start by saying a few words about the ongoing situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The humanitarian impact of this conflict in the eastern part of the country is devastating. More than 285,000 people have been forced to flee their homes since this rebellion began back in April. They are in critical need of assistance. Health workers in Goma have been killed and abducted. Members of civil society, human rights activists, judicial authorities throughout the Democratic Republic of Congo have received death threats. The United States strongly condemns these tactics of fear and intimidation. And those who abuse human rights must be held accountable.
Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson has been in the region holding discussions with leadership from the DRC, Rwanda, and Uganda to try to help bring about a ceasefire. We strongly support continued cooperation among the leaders of these countries and throughout the region and commend the African Union for its recent decision to send a special envoy to the Great Lakes.
With regard to the M23 rebel group, there is only one way forward: They must meet their commitments under the Kampala Accords to cease their attacks, withdraw from Goma, and pull back to the July lines. Under the Kampala Accords, President Kabila’s government has agreed to hear and address the grievances of the M23 leaders, and we call on leaders and governments from throughout the region to halt and prevent any support to the M23 from their territory.
Now this is just one issue that illustrates the importance of enhanced, strong cooperation between the African Union and the United States. First, on peace and security, we strongly support the AU missions in Somalia and Darfur as well as the AU’s facilitation efforts in Sudan and South Sudan. And we are working to support the AU’s leadership with respect to the crises in Mali, and as I said, eastern DRC.
The AU is the partner who is best able to empower and mobilize the resources and the will throughout the continent to address crises, and we are very pleased to see this strong role getting even stronger. Secondly, we want to work together to promote credible elections and foster good governance, strong transparent institutions, and democracy. Third, we want to enhance trade and investment between the United States and Africa. As I never tire of saying, seven of the world’s ten fastest-growing economies are located in Africa. And we want to do more to really see greater prosperity across the continent.
We have a lot of work ahead of us. This high-level meeting builds on President Obama’s presidential policy directive on Sub-Saharan Africa, and we are going to do all that we can to promote peace and prosperity. So it’s a great pleasure to have this meeting, which is a two-day set of meetings here in the State Department and in agencies across our government, and to work together on a framework for implementation with timelines and accountability, something that both the Chairperson and I believe strongly in doing, so that everyone knows what we are trying to achieve together.
So, thank you so much.
CHAIRPERSON DLAMINI-ZUMA: Well, thank you very much. We are very happy to be here, and our approach to this meeting is that we have to have a balance between dealing with crises and peace and security matters with development, because we feel that these are two sides of the same coin. If we delay development, there’ll be more crises and more instability. But at the same time, if we don’t deal with the security situation, we can’t develop. So that balance for us is very important. And going forward, we are working as the AU towards a prosperous Africa which is at peace with itself and the world. And so all our efforts are geared towards those – towards that vision. And we have had very fruitful discussions. And obviously, discussions are as good as the follow-up, and we are going to make sure that we follow up on all the decisions that – and discussions that we’ve had. Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Good. We’ll take two this evening. We’ll start with CNN, Jill Doughterty.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, thank you. I wanted to ask you about tomorrow. The Palestinians go to the United Nations, asking for non-observer status. We know that the U.S. objects, and we know many of the reasons. But why are you adamant about it at this point when Mahmoud Abbas could use some shoring up at home – he’s losing support – and even as Hamas is gaining support?
And then if I could ask you one question on Benghazi: Some are saying since the State Department is responsible for embassies, why wasn’t it you who was on the talk shows on Sunday, as opposed to Ambassador Rice?
Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first with regard to the Palestinian question, I have said many times that the path to a two-state solution that fulfills the aspirations of the Palestinian people is through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not New York. We have made very clear to the Palestinian leadership – you know I met with President Abbas just last week – that we oppose Palestinian efforts to upgrade their status at the UN outside of the framework of negotiations to achieve a two-state solution, because no matter what happens at the United Nations, it will not produce the outcome that this government, this President, and certainly I strongly support. And the only way to get a lasting solution is to commence direct negotiations, and we need an environment conducive to that. And we’ve urged both parties to refrain from actions that might in any way make a return to meaningful negotiations that focus on getting to a resolution more difficult. So I may have more to say about that later, but certainly that’s our overall view.
Let me just say, first of all, that Susan Rice has done a great job as our Ambassador to the United Nations. And of course, this decision about my successor is up to the President, but I’m very happy he has the opportunity with a second term to make a decision. And I’m not going to answer any hypothetical questions about what could’ve happened but didn’t happen. I’m looking forward to being able to discuss all of the issues pertaining to this after the conclusion of the Accountability Review Board. My responsibility was to appoint such a board, which I did immediately. They have been hard at work. We are hoping that they will be finished with their work very soon, and we intend to make the results of their investigation publicly, and at that time I will be able to address all of these issues.
MS. NULAND: Last one this evening, (inaudible).
QUESTION: Madam Chairperson, Madam Secretary, can Rwanda be part of the solution in Kivu if it continues to deny that it’s part of the problem, specifically its support for M23? And do you think President Kagame has any personal responsibility to bear on what’s going on there now?
CHAIRPERSON DLAMINI-ZUMA: Well, our approach to this matter is that it doesn’t help us in fingerprinting – finger-pointing. We just need a solution. And we met in Kampala on Saturday, the summit took decisions that the M23 must be out, that there must be a special force, a neutral force to deal with that area, and that President Kabila should listen and evaluate the concerns of the M23. And so for us, what is important is to get that resolution of that problem, and the rest will be taken care of because Rwanda is part of the Great Lakes. They have taken a decision that there must be a neutral force there. And Rwanda was there. It supported that decision that M23 must move out of Goma. Rwanda was there. It supported that decision. So for us, that’s what is important.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And I would fully support the Chairperson’s comments. We have consistently called on all parties, including Rwanda, to play a positive role in helping to bring about a peaceful resolution of this conflict. And that includes ending any and all support for the M23. Any military assistance from anyone to the M23 is in violation of the UN arms embargo. And we were very heartened by the results of the Kampala summit. And as the Chairperson said, now we want to see it implemented. There was an agreement. There’s a path forward. But it is up to the parties now to hold themselves accountable, and each other, for acting on those agreements.
Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Thank you all very much.
Friday, October 12, 2012
RESOLUTION ON MALI
FROM: U.S. STATE DELPARTMENT
UNSC Adoption of Resolution on Mali
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
October 12, 2012
The United States supports the resolution on Mali adopted by the UN Security Council today as a comprehensive approach to the overlapping governance, security, and humanitarian crises affecting Mali.
This resolution today accomplishes a number of important objectives: it imposes targeted sanctions against AQIM individuals and entities in Mali, supports a negotiation process to seek a sustainable political solution with the North, provides support and assistance from the UN and member states to bolster planning efforts by ECOWAS and the African Union, and expresses the readiness of the Security Council to respond to the request from the Transitional authorities of Mali regarding a potential force to assist the Malian armed forces.
The United States believes that ECOWAS and the AU should play a prominent role in planning and implementing any such response, with strong and active support from the international community. Both military and civilian elements will be essential in responding to the emerging threats in Mali and the Sahel. The U.S. government’s objectives to address the situation in Mali include restoring the authority of the State of Mali over its entire national territory, upholding the unity and territorial integrity of Mali, and confronting the threat posed by AQIM and affiliated groups.
Strengthening democratic institutions must be at the heart of combating extremism and political upheaval. Accordingly, we believe that restoration of democratically-elected government in Mali by April 2013, as called for by ECOWAS, is a crucial component of the overall long-term solution to Mali’s current crises.
Finally, we welcome the appointment of Special Envoy Romano Prodi. The Secretary General should empower the envoy to marshal U.N. resources to help Bamako hold elections by April 2013, and to engage with Malian, Tuareg and regional stakeholders to promote a negotiated settlement to the Tuareg rebellion. In addition, the envoy should support U.N. OCHA’s ongoing efforts to improve the international response to the humanitarian crisis in the Sahel region.
We look forward to the report called for by today’s resolution and for continued international attention regarding the situation in Mali.
 |
| Map Credit: CIA World Factbook. |
UNSC Adoption of Resolution on Mali
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
October 12, 2012
The United States supports the resolution on Mali adopted by the UN Security Council today as a comprehensive approach to the overlapping governance, security, and humanitarian crises affecting Mali.
This resolution today accomplishes a number of important objectives: it imposes targeted sanctions against AQIM individuals and entities in Mali, supports a negotiation process to seek a sustainable political solution with the North, provides support and assistance from the UN and member states to bolster planning efforts by ECOWAS and the African Union, and expresses the readiness of the Security Council to respond to the request from the Transitional authorities of Mali regarding a potential force to assist the Malian armed forces.
The United States believes that ECOWAS and the AU should play a prominent role in planning and implementing any such response, with strong and active support from the international community. Both military and civilian elements will be essential in responding to the emerging threats in Mali and the Sahel. The U.S. government’s objectives to address the situation in Mali include restoring the authority of the State of Mali over its entire national territory, upholding the unity and territorial integrity of Mali, and confronting the threat posed by AQIM and affiliated groups.
Strengthening democratic institutions must be at the heart of combating extremism and political upheaval. Accordingly, we believe that restoration of democratically-elected government in Mali by April 2013, as called for by ECOWAS, is a crucial component of the overall long-term solution to Mali’s current crises.
Finally, we welcome the appointment of Special Envoy Romano Prodi. The Secretary General should empower the envoy to marshal U.N. resources to help Bamako hold elections by April 2013, and to engage with Malian, Tuareg and regional stakeholders to promote a negotiated settlement to the Tuareg rebellion. In addition, the envoy should support U.N. OCHA’s ongoing efforts to improve the international response to the humanitarian crisis in the Sahel region.
We look forward to the report called for by today’s resolution and for continued international attention regarding the situation in Mali.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING APRIL 24, 2012
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 24, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:59 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: All right. Happy Tuesday, everybody. Further to our Free the Press daily highlight as we walk up to World Press Freedom Day, today’s highlighted journalist is Dilmurod Sayid, an independent Uzbek journalist. He wrote for opposition websites including The Voice of Freedom and was a member of the Ezgulik Human Rights Society. He was a particularly staunch critic of corruption in Uzbekistan, and he was convicted in a closed trial that did not meet international standards. So we take this opportunity to again call on the Government of Uzbekistan to release him, and we call your attention to his case on HUMANRIGHTS.GOV.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one thing about this, the human rights?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Was there a call that was sent out to embassies to kind of come up with people that you’re going to highlight, or how do these – how were these people chosen?
MS. NULAND: Our Human Rights Bureau, working with embassies and working with our Annual Human Rights Report, came up with the list of journalists that we’re particularly highlighting. Do you have somebody in particular you want to add to the list?
QUESTION: Well, I was going to add me. (Laughter.) No --
MS. NULAND: We all have concerns about your human rights – (laughter) – and about our human rights at your hand. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I’m sure that’s the case. No, I was just curious as to – I mean, how many are there going to be total?
MS. NULAND: We started this about a week ago and we’re doing it up through May 3rd, which is International Press Freedom Day.
QUESTION: Have you seen any kind of – has there been any response to this that you’re aware of yet?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’re seeing quite a bit of coverage in the various regions that these individuals are from.
QUESTION: But any actual action from the governments who are involved?
MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one. I don’t think that we’ve had any formal responses to these, but sometimes these things take time. And sometimes when we shout out these cases, it emboldens folks in the region or in the host country to do more on their behalf.
QUESTION: Okay. Moving on to the issue of the day, or at least one of them, the situation in Sudan seems to be really deteriorating, even though there was a hopeful – possibly hopeful sign earlier in the week. It’s gotten worse. I’m wondering what your take on that is. What have the contacts been with both North and South? Where is Princeton Lyman now? Is he back? Is he still out there?
QUESTION: He was in the cafeteria about 20 minutes ago.
QUESTION: Thank you. Well, then I don’t need to – you don’t have to answer the last one.
MS. NULAND: Excellent. Well, as we said yesterday, we had the good news of South Sudan withdrawing from Heglig; but rather than responding in kind, we’ve had Sudan increase its aerial bombardment over the last 24 hours. And so these reprehensible bombings are targeting civilians. They are causing casualties all over the place. And they are obviously gross violations of international law, and we continue to call for an immediate cessation.
As the Secretary has been saying over the last week in particular, these countries have to work together if they are each going to succeed. They have got to come back to the table and settle these issues. So I think the concern that we had was, after the trip that Princeton Lyman made where he was in both Juba and Khartoum, where he worked with the parties, where the – we – working with the AU and others, we convinced the South to pull out of Heglig. Rather than that pulling both sides back to the table, the Sudanese seem to have taken negative advantage of it. So it’s very, very concerning. You saw the President’s statement of a week ago.
Ambassador Lyman is here, but he remains in contact with the parties and he remains in contact with a variety of international partners on a daily basis.
QUESTION: And what is the Administration doing, if anything, at the moment, directly with the two sides? Is there – other than Ambassador Lyman’s, I guess now, phone calls, is there anything else?
MS. NULAND: Well, in addition to the presidential statement of the weekend and his direct appeal to the sides, we’re also working with the AU on a package of increased pressure if we can’t get these --
QUESTION: And the UN?
MS. NULAND: And the UN, of course. Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go to Israel?
QUESTION: And the West Bank?
QUESTION: Please.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Hold on. Sudan, just for a second?
MS. NULAND: Why don’t we stay with Shaun and then come to you.
QUESTION: Sure. Just President Kiir was in Beijing.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: I just wanted to see if you had an assessment of China’s role. China traditionally has been quite close to Khartoum, has received some criticism for that. How do you perceive China’s role in this?
MS. NULAND: Well, China has played a role in both Sudan and South Sudan. We actually have been in very close touch with the Chinese. The Secretary has raised the issue of Sudan with Foreign Minister Yang. Princeton Lyman has been in contact with Ambassador Zhang here. He’s traveled to Beijing. So our hope is that Beijing will play a constructive role. They have in the past in trying to encourage the sides to come back to the negotiating table. China has investments throughout the area and also benefits from stability, so we have been working to enlist Beijing and to work together on a common message.
QUESTION: Victoria, just a quick follow-up. Would you say that the withdrawal of the Southern forces is a direct result of the involvement of Ambassador Lyman? And if so, what did he get in return from the North? I mean, he went to both Juba and Khartoum.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is a process of trying to work with both sides and get them back to the table. He works, as you know, in extremely close partnership with the African Union, with the UN peacekeeping forces on the ground. But his own personal relationships and his own diplomacy have been very important to this process.
So I think this is the issue of concern, that Sudan wanted to see the withdrawals from Heglig. Those happened. And the response was – instead of being a response in kind, was a violent response. So that’s extremely concerning.
QUESTION: But the rhetoric today from al-Bashir, the president, is quite belligerent. Is anyone in contact with him from this Administration at the present time?
MS. NULAND: No, of course. And Ambassador Lyman is in regular contact with him, but so are others. And we will continue to be.
QUESTION: Hold on a second. Really? With President Bashir himself? I thought there was a kind of de facto ban on direct contacts between U.S. officials and President Bashir because of his status with the ICC.
MS. NULAND: I think that Princeton has been in contact with him directly. But if that’s not the case, I’ll get back to you.[1]
Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Change of topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just one more on that?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Jill.
QUESTION: This is the immediate problem, the fighting.
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: But there are underlying issues that are fueling this, such as borders. Is there any attempt at this point to even begin to sort that out?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, as part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that created the two states that led to the velvet divorce creating South Sudan, there were unresolved issues of borders and resources and other things that had to be settled. There is a process that is internationally managed that the AU supervises for their negotiators to come to the table and work on these things. But every time we have serious flare-ups of violence, those talks break down, stall, get off the rail. So this is the problem, that they can’t move past the immediate difficulties to get to the underlying settlement of the remaining underlying issues.
And as the Secretary has said again and again, as the President said over the weekend, unless they can settle these issues, neither one of them is going to benefit from the potential to be reintegrated with the international community, to benefit from the resources, and to really invest in their people who are so long-suffering.
QUESTION: Is there a feeling that the AU is not putting enough pressure on either side, or specifically Sudan?
MS. NULAND: I think we’re all looking once again, as we have so many times in this process, at what pressure we can bring to bear – economic pressure, political pressure – but frankly, the AU has done a superb job speaking for the region on these issues. And we continue to work very closely with them on a daily basis.
QUESTION: Just one more on this. And I have to admit that I am not a Sudan expert, but – and this phrase “velvet divorce” is new to me. Is this – but given this – the incidents or the developments, is this --
MS. NULAND: No, of course, of course. I mean there was so much violence.
QUESTION: -- doesn’t really seem to be so much velvet --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- left to it.
MS. NULAND: Well, suffice to say that it was the result of a negotiated settlement, so it was not – the violence, obviously, was the backdrop, but ultimately they came to the table and decided how they were going to divide themselves. So --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Sorry.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Yeah, please, please, please.
QUESTION: Are you coordinating with the Arab League on the issue of Sudan?
MS. NULAND: We are.
QUESTION: I know you have coordinated on Syria, but are you --
MS. NULAND: We are, and we have Arab League meeting, I think, later this week, where we expect that Sudan will be on the agenda as well.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So there are reports out of Israel that the Israeli Government has legalized three so-called settlement outposts. I think it’s the U.S. Government position that such outposts are illegal, but what is your – A, what is your view on Israel’s decision to, quote, “legalize these three outposts,” close quote? And B, how does that affect your efforts to bring the parties back into a direct negotiation?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you’re talking about the reports that there has been a request for a stay of court decisions with regard to the settlements. Is that what you’re referring to?
QUESTION: I – and I’m sorry I don’t have – although I tried to email it to myself --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- I don’t have it in front of me.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: My understanding was that it was not just a request for a stay, but rather a determination that had been made. But maybe I misunderstood.
MS. NULAND: No, I think it’s a request for a court decision. We are, obviously, concerned by the reports that we’ve seen. We have raised this with the Israeli Government and we are seeking clarification. You know where we are on settlements. We don’t think this is helpful to the process and we don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.
QUESTION: And when you say we have raised this, you’ve raised this with them since these reports emerged? In other words --
MS. NULAND: My understanding is we raised it in Tel Aviv today. That’s my understanding.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up, three settlements – Bruchin, Rechelim, and Sansana, and they are on privately owned Palestinian land, they have for 15 years or 16 years – have been declared illegal. And a lot of people are interpreting it as a response to Abbas’s letter. Do you see it that way?
MS. NULAND: Again, we’re seeking clarification from the Israeli Government as to their intentions and making our own views very clear about this.
QUESTION: Yeah, but the office of the prime minister issued a statement that they are legal, that they have been deemed from this point on forward as legal settlements.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, you know where we stand on this. And as I said, we are raising it.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I know where you stand, but what measures are you willing to take in case that the Israeli Government goes forward with this?
MS. NULAND: Again, Said, you know where we are on these things. We make this case every time we have an incident like this that it is not helpful to the process; it doesn’t get us where we need to go. We will continue to raise it, as we have.
QUESTION: Well, beside raising the issue with the Israeli Government, what measures is the United States Government willing to take?
MS. NULAND: Well --
QUESTION: You have constantly taken measures when similar activities are taken by other governments. What measures are you willing to take in this particular case?
MS. NULAND: Again, my understanding is that we have a government statement with regard to its intentions. We are seeking to clarify that. So I’m not going to predict what further response there might be on our side.
QUESTION: Do you know --
QUESTION: Do you feel that the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage efforts by David Hale?
MS. NULAND: David Hale has been in the region all week trying to work on the issues involved here and bring the parties back to the table. I don’t think that we would characterize that at all – the situation at all the way you just have.
QUESTION: And finally, do you see this as boding really ill to Palestinian landowners whose land is shrinking from underneath them?
MS. NULAND: I missed the beginning of your sentence, Said.
QUESTION: I mean, this new decision by the Israeli Government bodes very ill for Israeli landowners, how – for Palestinian landowners, however, that land is shrinking, so to speak.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is the backdrop for the statements that we always make about this kind of activity, but we want to get some more clarification from the Israelis.
QUESTION: So in this case, why wouldn’t the United States Government support an initiative by the United Nations to term the settlements, or these at least illegal outposts, as illegal?
MS. NULAND: Said, you know where we are on these things, and we are going to continue to talk to the Israelis about these issues.
Jill.
QUESTION: Can you just update – you mentioned David Hale. Can you update us on some of his --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah. So he was in Jerusalem yesterday. He met with his Israeli counterpart, the Israeli negotiator Mr. Molho. Today he met with Palestinian negotiator Erekat and with Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh. He also now plans to go on to Qatar and Egypt. And thereafter, his travel plans are up in the air.
QUESTION: Did he meet them separately, with Erekat and Foreign Minister Judeh?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah. I think he went to Amman to see Foreign Minister Judeh.
QUESTION: And so do you know if – was this an issue? Had it happened yet by the – had this government announcement happened by the time he had had his meetings? Do you know if he raised it, or when you say it was raised in Tel Aviv, was it raised by someone else?
MS. NULAND: He was in Jerusalem yesterday. He was with the Palestinians today. So my understanding is this announcement was sometime today, was this morning. So my – what I had was that the Embassy had raised it with the Israelis. If that is not --
QUESTION: Do you know if it was the ambassador or someone else?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have that.
QUESTION: And hadn’t he originally planned to go to Saudi, too? Is that now off the itinerary?
MS. NULAND: I think – no, he was in Riyadh at the beginning of the – oh, sorry. I’ve got it here at the very beginning. Yeah, he’s also in Riyadh today, currently in Riyadh for meetings with the senior Saudi officials. Jerusalem yesterday. Something’s not right here. Riyadh’s on this agenda; I don’t know when, though, because I also have that he is today with the Jordanians and with the Palestinians, but Riyadh is still on the agenda.
QUESTION: Okay. And his – and post – his post-Gulf – you had mentioned earlier that after the Gulf, he was probably going to go back to Israel and the PA. Is that – you said that’s now up in the air. It is because – is that because of this announcement?
MS. NULAND: No, I don’t think it has anything to do with that. I think he just wants to see where he is and whether there’s a need for him to come back to Washington and report first.
Please, Goyal.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: India.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: A number of education ministers from different Indian states were or are in the U.S. studying the U.S. community colleges system and the U.S. education system, and planning to open maybe hundreds of community colleges in India with the U.S. education system help, which Prime Minister Singh and President Obama and knowledge initiative was signed between the two leaders. What role do you think State Department playing in this role?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we support this initiative. We have been working with the Indian side to flesh out the initiative that was agreed between the President and the prime minister through our Education Bureau here. And obviously, we are responsible for the visa issuance for the various folks studying in the United States.
QUESTION: And as far as Indian students now, over 125,000, I believe, in the U.S. What will be their status when these community college will be open in India? Because right now, when they graduate from an Indian university or colleges and their degrees are not really accepted or agreed to here in the U.S.
MS. NULAND: I guess I don’t understand the question, Goyal. You’re asking if they had graduate from Indian college, are those degrees accepted in the United States?
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: I think it’s a case-by-case issue depending upon where they graduate from and where they’re looking to get accredited from, and et cetera. So obviously, if there’s a sister university relationship, sometimes those accreditations can be recognized, but it just depends on what they want to do. I don’t think there’s a blanket way of looking at that.
QUESTION: And finally --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. As far as the U.S. visa for the Indian students coming to higher study in the U.S., is there a change now? Because some feel that the requirements are more or higher than after this incident took place at the various (inaudible) universities, so-called, in the California area.
MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’ve changed our policy with regard to the way we interview applicants. I think what we are doing is making sure that the sponsoring organizations truly are what they say they are in the United States; that if they say that they are bringing students over to educate them, that they intend to educate them, not put them to work, et cetera, so – yeah.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please, Ros.
QUESTION: In the WikiLeaks case, the judge in the Bradley Manning case this morning ordered the State Department, among other agencies, to turn over some of their documents to the defense in order to help the Manning team better prepare its case. Is the State Department going to turn over those documents? And my follow-up is: Does the U.S. still see a negative impact on its relations with other countries in diplomacy because of what happened in the alleged leaking of these documents?
MS. NULAND: Let me take the last part first. I think our view of the entire WikiLeaks incident has not changed at all in terms of the negative effects. With regard to what the court has ordered, Ros, I haven’t seen it, so let me take it and see what we know about what’s been requested of us and what our response is.
Jill.
QUESTION: Russia?
MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The Russian ambassador here in Washington is concerned about legislation that is moving forward, the Magnitsky legislation. And he’s saying essentially that this is just a way of – if you get rid of Jackson-Vanik, this is just another way of punishing Russia. He’s quite concerned about it. I know the State Department has been talking with Congress. Do we know what the status of Magnitsky is? Is the State Department encouraging, discouraging this legislation? What’s the view?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we do support the goals of the legislation. We have programs already in place to ensure that we are sanctioning those who are responsible for human rights abuses, and we are continuing our dialogue with the Congress about how we can appropriately make the views of the Congress and the American people known; at the same time, that we strongly favor the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik legislation, as really being a relic of the past that doesn’t apply to today’s situation. So this is an ongoing conversation that we’re having with the Hill.
QUESTION: Why is Magnitsky needed if the State Department really does have the ability right now legally to refuse visas to people who have been involved in crime, or at least, I guess, maybe alleged – I’m not quite sure how we can define that. But don’t you have the tools already to exclude people and not give them a visa?
MS. NULAND: We do have many of the tools in this legislation. I think it’s a matter of – from the Congress’s point of view, obviously, I would refer you to them. But our understanding in the conversations that we’ve had is that there’s a desire and an interest to make this a matter of law; and particularly, if we are going to make the point with members of Congress that the days are over for the kinds of sanctions that we had under Jackson-Vanik, but that we still have other human rights concerns that need to be taken into account.
So I think there are – there’s a feeling on the Hill that putting this in legislation will create a systemic, routine way of dealing with it and a clear set of guidelines that the Congress and the Administration agree to and understand and that are clear on the Russian side. So let’s see where this legislation goes as it goes through the Congress.
Please.
QUESTION: Thank you. On North Korea, they reported that North Korea is almost ready for the nuclear test. And so I would like to know, what’s the assessment from the U.S. Government?
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think our position on any of this has changed: No launching, no testing, no nothing if you want to have a better relationship with the international community. All of these are provocations, all of them take the DPRK in the wrong direction, so our message on all of this hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: But they say if the U.S. agree in a peace treaty with them, they may abandon the nuclear test. What’s your reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: Starting with the Leap Day deal that the North Koreans have abrogated, we were beginning a conversation again about a step-by-step process that could convince the Six Parties, could convince the international community that this new North Korean leadership was interested in coming back into compliance with its international obligations. Those – was a small first step, and unfortunately now we’re going backwards. So it’s really up to the DPRK to demonstrate that it wants a better relationship with all of us and that it wants to put its energy into peace and stability and taking care of its people rather than expensive weapons.
QUESTION: And last question --
QUESTION: Haven’t they already done that? Haven’t they demonstrated their interest already?
MS. NULAND: Demonstrated their interest?
QUESTION: Or lack of interest?
MS. NULAND: Unfortunately, they are demonstrating a lack of interest, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And then can you just (inaudible), you said no launching, no testing no nothing. I mean, what is that – no nothing? They can’t do anything? (Laughter.) I mean, what if they decide they’re going to free all political prisoners and have democratic elections tomorrow? I mean, is that – that’s bad, too?
MS. NULAND: What they can and should do is take care of their people, open their country, begin to reform the system, and demonstrate to the international community that they’re prepared to meet their international obligations. And they haven’t done any of those things. So what I meant by “no nothing” was no provocative nuclear actions of any kind.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up.
MS. NULAND: Keeping me on my toes.
QUESTION: On this – at the coming U.S.-China S and ED, what’s the U.S. expectation from China on North Korea issue, specifically?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we said very clearly that we have encouraged China to continue to use all of its influence with the DPRK and particularly with the new young leader to encourage a positive course and to discourage the negative course. So I’m sure that we will be exchanging views on North Korea and getting a better sense of how the Chinese side analyzes the situation, what messages they’ve been willing to send, able to send, and what pressure they think they can bring to bear, because it’s absolutely essential we all work together here.
Please, Michel.
QUESTION: On Iran? Iran has warned today that the new U.S. sanctions targeting its access to surveillance technology were negative and could affect its crucial talks next month with the P-5+1 in Baghdad. Do you have any reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that the sanctions that the President announced yesterday were designed to address a different set of concerns that we have with regard to Iran’s behavior, and that’s Iran’s behavior with regard to their own citizens, with regard to the dignity, human rights, standard of living for their own citizens. So frankly, putting sanctions on companies that help Iran spy on their own citizens and having complaints about that begs the question as to why the Government of Iran thinks it needs to spy on its own citizens and block their access to the internet in the first place. So these – this is a set of sanctions that are designed to support the humans rights, freedoms, dignity of the Iranian people.
QUESTION: But do you expect these sanctions to affect the upcoming negotiations in Baghdad – or talks?
MS. NULAND: Well, our hope is that we will have a productive round in Baghdad. We discussed very clearly in Istanbul what it’s going to take to continue to move forward. So it’s really up to Iran. But frankly, what we have done with the President – the sanctions that the President announced yesterday, don’t even have anything to do with the nuclear file. They have to do with our separate concerns about the human rights situation.
QUESTION: Can I just ask a question on these sanctions? The net effect – I mean, one could argue about the effect of these sanctions, whether they actual do anything, whether these companies or institutions actually have any assets that can be blocked, or whether any Americans were doing business in the first place, but that’s not – well, my question is: With the exception of one, the internet provider in Iran, all of these entities and the one individual in Iran and Syria were already under numerous layers of other sanctions that did exactly the same thing. So I’m just wondering, there was no net effect on the IRGC, on the intelligence ministries, on the head of the Syrian intelligence directorate, was there?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think --
QUESTION: I mean, it didn’t do anything new to them. They were already under sanctions that did exactly what these sanctions do.
MS. NULAND: Frankly, I’m not sure that your premise is right, Matt, that there was no – nothing new, that this was an additional layer and all of these same folks and entities had already been sanctioned. I think the larger point here, though, is to express our concern about the circumvention, the importing of foreign technology to be used against your own citizens to deny them access to the internet, to deny them the ability communicate freely.
So regardless of whether it’s an additional layer on top of the same people and entities, the political point here is to express our concern about what these governments, whether they’re Syrian – the Syrian Government or the Iranian Government, are doing to block access to the internet, to block the ability of their people to communicate, to chill the environment for civil discourse and for civil society.
QUESTION: Doesn’t that happen in quite a few countries? In Equatorial Guinea, in Zimbabwe, in --
MS. NULAND: It happens in a number of countries and the Secretary --
QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.
MS. NULAND: -- there are number of countries that as we – as the Secretary has spoken out on many, many times, that seek to limit the right of their citizens to free speech, to free association, to the internet, and we will continue to speak out. But there are particular governments who are now in the business of acquiring the most sophisticated Western technology they can find and targeting it back on their own citizens and squeezing them, in human rights terms, with it. So this is an area of increasing concern.
QUESTION: So that would be the standard then for which countries would in the future those sanctions would apply to, whether they’re acquiring (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think we’re going to take this on a case-by-case basis. But in this case, the President was making the point, and we were making the point more broadly that these two governments are particularly egregious in this area as, if you will, state-sponsors of censorship.
QUESTION: Victoria, could you explain something regarding the board – the atrocity prevention board that the President announced on the sanctions?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Now, is it -- how is the State Department involved? I mean, since we know that Samantha Power is going to lead that effort. Who’s from the State Department? Who will sit on that board?
MS. NULAND: The State Department representative on the board is Under Secretary of State Maria Otero.
QUESTION: Maria Otero. Okay.
MS. NULAND: And the first meeting of the board was yesterday.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: And the board is designed to get together this group of very experienced people to look at how we can, as a government, do more to support accountability and to stop atrocities.
QUESTION: Okay. And one related issue: Last week it was announced – the Open Government Initiative?
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: Is that in any way connected to this – there’s going to be a center of – a connection with this board?
MS. NULAND: Well, some of the people who work on the Open Government Partnership are the same people who work on this atrocities board – as you said, Samantha Power, Under Secretary Otero. But the initiatives are not linked.
What I would say is that when we announced at the Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Istanbul that we were standing up this atrocities clearinghouse for Syria, that’s an example of the kind of initiative that this group of people on the atrocities board brought to bear. They were the sort of idea factory for that idea, and it’s the kind of thing that, assuming that it works well in a Syrian context, we can replicate in other contexts.
Yeah.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Do you have – does the State Department have any additional information on the two Cuban actors who were granted temporary visas and have since disappeared?
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge – and frankly, this is yesterday information and I didn’t have an update from today, so if it’s not right, we’ll get back to you – but neither we nor the film festival has any further information about where the two actors are.
QUESTION: So that hasn’t changed, then, --
MS. NULAND: I do not believe that has changed since yesterday. Okay.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Pakistan. As far as Secretary Grossman’s visit to Pakistan is concerned, and also last week Secretary Panetta told the Pentagon press that the Haqqani Network is the most dangerous, and is also now going back and forth from Pakistan to Afghanistan, Afghanistan to Pakistan. Is that going to be a topic? Because this is the main concern or main issue between the two countries and the security in Afghanistan is concerned.
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have any travel to announce today, Goyal, but I think you know that we’ve been pretty clear. Secretary was clear, Secretary Panetta was clear last week, that we have concerns about the Haqqani Network in – with regard to the most recent incident in Afghanistan. And as the Secretary said in Brussels, we will continue to try to work with Pakistan because this is a threat to both of us.
QUESTION: And finally, are you planning to include Haqqani Network in the Reward for Justice or any other sanctions against this network?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we have sanctions on individual members of the Haqqani Network, and we’re continuing to look at what more we can do there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: A follow-up on Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday, State Department announced Grossman – Marc Grossman visit to three different countries, but Pakistan is not included. And there are some media reports in Pakistan that Pakistani official are getting ready to meet with him, and talk about all issues, including reopening of a NATO supply line. And they also talk about the trilateral core group meeting, including Afghanistan. So do you have any update of his visit? Is he going to Islamabad? Do you confirm that?
MS. NULAND: I think I just said that I don’t have any travel to announce today, but as you know, both Afghanistan and Pakistan fall within his purview. But I don’t have anything to announce today.
Okay?
QUESTION: No. I just want --
MS. NULAND: Sorry.
QUESTION: -- to go back to the WikiLeaks question. When you said that your position had not changed as to whether this – whether the release of these documents have done damage to the national security, what – can you be more – what does that mean? You say that it did damage?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you be more explicit about how it did damage?
MS. NULAND: I think we were quite explicit at the time, and I’m not going to come back to it today.
QUESTION: Well, no, at – well, at the time, you said that it had the potential – well, not you personally; it was your predecessor – but had the potential to do damage and that there was the concern in the – in this building in particular that ambassadors or embassies would be less than forthcoming about what they wrote in cables coming back, knowing that they had been – that it had been compromised.
Has there been any evidence? Is this building concerned or is there evidence that shows that this building is not getting full accounting, full reporting, honest, candid reporting from its embassies abroad in the wake of WikiLeaks?
MS. NULAND: Our embassies abroad continue to do a superb job of working with governments and societies where they are accredited and giving us a good, strong picture of what’s going on. That doesn’t change the fact that there was enormous turbulence in many of our bilateral relationships when this happened, and that there have been impacts on individuals. As you know, we’ve talked about that at the time.
QUESTION: Right. But when you say enormous turbulence in bilateral relationships, has – what has – what can you – what is there that --
MS. NULAND: I don’t think I’m going to go any further than we went at the time. We had concerns from many of our interlocutors.
QUESTION: Well, I know you had concerns --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- but that – but concern is – that does not that mean that there’s – that something has been damaged?
MS. NULAND: I think we’ve got an ongoing lawsuit, and I’m not going to go any further right now.
QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious, though. If the – do you see – has the U.S. ability to conduct its foreign relations been compromised or damaged because of WikiLeaks? Can you point to one or two examples of how that – of how this has done harm to the U.S. national security or U.S. --
MS. NULAND: Matt --
QUESTION: -- ability to conduct diplomacy?
MS. NULAND: -- given the fact that we have an ongoing legal case, I don’t think I’m going to comment any further on this set of issues today.
QUESTION: Well, fair enough, but --
MS. NULAND: Michel, did you have something else?
QUESTION: -- you do understand this is exactly what you’re being asked to produce in court.
MS. NULAND: I understand. And --
QUESTION: And if you’re saying that, “Yes, it did damage, but I’m sorry, I can’t tell you what the damage is because it’s a secret,” that’s what – is that what you’re saying?
MS. NULAND: What I’m saying is there’s ongoing legal work now, and if there are legal responsibilities of this building, we’ll do it in a court of law, not here.
QUESTION: Well, but in terms of the one thing that you did answer, you – there isn’t any evidence that this has affected embassies’ ability or – to report back honestly and accurately about what’s going on in their host countries. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to give a grade to our embassies. We expressed our concern at the time. Those concerns were very clearly stated. I’m not going to get into evaluating, from this podium, what’s come back, what hasn’t come back. We’ve got an ongoing legal case.
Michel.
QUESTION: One clarification still on this, please.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I thought the concern was less that embassies would not report stuff back in cables but that their interlocutors would not tell them stuff in the first place because they no longer had faith that the U.S. Government could keep their conversations or communications private, given the vast leak of cables. So I think the question might be better posed as: Has the State Department discerned a diminution in the candor of its foreign interlocutors as a result of this gross breach of confidentiality?
MS. NULAND: Again, we said what we wanted to say at the time on this case. We now have this case in the courts, and I just don’t think it’s appropriate for me to be commenting any further.
Michael, did you have something else? Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. Any new assessment about the UN observers’ work in Syria?
MS. NULAND: As I said yesterday, we’re continuing to watch this day by day. I think the concern remains that we only have a small number of monitors in, which means that they can stay in some of these towns for only a short time. They were in Zabadani; they were in parts of Hama and Homs in the last couple of days, but we don’t have enough yet to be able to leave them there. And there are concerns that no sooner do they leave when violence restarts. So this is something we’re just going to have to watch going forward.
Please.
QUESTION: There was a bomb that exploded today in Marjeh, which is a densely populated area within Damascus. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. NULAND: Well, we were just getting reporting on this as I was coming down. Obviously, any acts of violence of that kind are reprehensible.
Please.
QUESTION: Does the State Department have any comment on Egypt’s decision not to register, I think it’s eight NGOs, pro-democracy NGOs, including the Carter Foundation?
MS. NULAND: I have to say that we are – we don’t have a full picture of what has happened and what hasn’t happened with regard to these NGOs. So we are in the process of trying to figure it out, and we’re seeking clarification from the Egyptian side.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks, everybody.
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 24, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:59 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: All right. Happy Tuesday, everybody. Further to our Free the Press daily highlight as we walk up to World Press Freedom Day, today’s highlighted journalist is Dilmurod Sayid, an independent Uzbek journalist. He wrote for opposition websites including The Voice of Freedom and was a member of the Ezgulik Human Rights Society. He was a particularly staunch critic of corruption in Uzbekistan, and he was convicted in a closed trial that did not meet international standards. So we take this opportunity to again call on the Government of Uzbekistan to release him, and we call your attention to his case on HUMANRIGHTS.GOV.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one thing about this, the human rights?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Was there a call that was sent out to embassies to kind of come up with people that you’re going to highlight, or how do these – how were these people chosen?
MS. NULAND: Our Human Rights Bureau, working with embassies and working with our Annual Human Rights Report, came up with the list of journalists that we’re particularly highlighting. Do you have somebody in particular you want to add to the list?
QUESTION: Well, I was going to add me. (Laughter.) No --
MS. NULAND: We all have concerns about your human rights – (laughter) – and about our human rights at your hand. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I’m sure that’s the case. No, I was just curious as to – I mean, how many are there going to be total?
MS. NULAND: We started this about a week ago and we’re doing it up through May 3rd, which is International Press Freedom Day.
QUESTION: Have you seen any kind of – has there been any response to this that you’re aware of yet?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’re seeing quite a bit of coverage in the various regions that these individuals are from.
QUESTION: But any actual action from the governments who are involved?
MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one. I don’t think that we’ve had any formal responses to these, but sometimes these things take time. And sometimes when we shout out these cases, it emboldens folks in the region or in the host country to do more on their behalf.
QUESTION: Okay. Moving on to the issue of the day, or at least one of them, the situation in Sudan seems to be really deteriorating, even though there was a hopeful – possibly hopeful sign earlier in the week. It’s gotten worse. I’m wondering what your take on that is. What have the contacts been with both North and South? Where is Princeton Lyman now? Is he back? Is he still out there?
QUESTION: He was in the cafeteria about 20 minutes ago.
QUESTION: Thank you. Well, then I don’t need to – you don’t have to answer the last one.
MS. NULAND: Excellent. Well, as we said yesterday, we had the good news of South Sudan withdrawing from Heglig; but rather than responding in kind, we’ve had Sudan increase its aerial bombardment over the last 24 hours. And so these reprehensible bombings are targeting civilians. They are causing casualties all over the place. And they are obviously gross violations of international law, and we continue to call for an immediate cessation.
As the Secretary has been saying over the last week in particular, these countries have to work together if they are each going to succeed. They have got to come back to the table and settle these issues. So I think the concern that we had was, after the trip that Princeton Lyman made where he was in both Juba and Khartoum, where he worked with the parties, where the – we – working with the AU and others, we convinced the South to pull out of Heglig. Rather than that pulling both sides back to the table, the Sudanese seem to have taken negative advantage of it. So it’s very, very concerning. You saw the President’s statement of a week ago.
Ambassador Lyman is here, but he remains in contact with the parties and he remains in contact with a variety of international partners on a daily basis.
QUESTION: And what is the Administration doing, if anything, at the moment, directly with the two sides? Is there – other than Ambassador Lyman’s, I guess now, phone calls, is there anything else?
MS. NULAND: Well, in addition to the presidential statement of the weekend and his direct appeal to the sides, we’re also working with the AU on a package of increased pressure if we can’t get these --
QUESTION: And the UN?
MS. NULAND: And the UN, of course. Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go to Israel?
QUESTION: And the West Bank?
QUESTION: Please.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Hold on. Sudan, just for a second?
MS. NULAND: Why don’t we stay with Shaun and then come to you.
QUESTION: Sure. Just President Kiir was in Beijing.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: I just wanted to see if you had an assessment of China’s role. China traditionally has been quite close to Khartoum, has received some criticism for that. How do you perceive China’s role in this?
MS. NULAND: Well, China has played a role in both Sudan and South Sudan. We actually have been in very close touch with the Chinese. The Secretary has raised the issue of Sudan with Foreign Minister Yang. Princeton Lyman has been in contact with Ambassador Zhang here. He’s traveled to Beijing. So our hope is that Beijing will play a constructive role. They have in the past in trying to encourage the sides to come back to the negotiating table. China has investments throughout the area and also benefits from stability, so we have been working to enlist Beijing and to work together on a common message.
QUESTION: Victoria, just a quick follow-up. Would you say that the withdrawal of the Southern forces is a direct result of the involvement of Ambassador Lyman? And if so, what did he get in return from the North? I mean, he went to both Juba and Khartoum.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is a process of trying to work with both sides and get them back to the table. He works, as you know, in extremely close partnership with the African Union, with the UN peacekeeping forces on the ground. But his own personal relationships and his own diplomacy have been very important to this process.
So I think this is the issue of concern, that Sudan wanted to see the withdrawals from Heglig. Those happened. And the response was – instead of being a response in kind, was a violent response. So that’s extremely concerning.
QUESTION: But the rhetoric today from al-Bashir, the president, is quite belligerent. Is anyone in contact with him from this Administration at the present time?
MS. NULAND: No, of course. And Ambassador Lyman is in regular contact with him, but so are others. And we will continue to be.
QUESTION: Hold on a second. Really? With President Bashir himself? I thought there was a kind of de facto ban on direct contacts between U.S. officials and President Bashir because of his status with the ICC.
MS. NULAND: I think that Princeton has been in contact with him directly. But if that’s not the case, I’ll get back to you.[1]
Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Change of topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just one more on that?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Jill.
QUESTION: This is the immediate problem, the fighting.
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: But there are underlying issues that are fueling this, such as borders. Is there any attempt at this point to even begin to sort that out?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, as part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that created the two states that led to the velvet divorce creating South Sudan, there were unresolved issues of borders and resources and other things that had to be settled. There is a process that is internationally managed that the AU supervises for their negotiators to come to the table and work on these things. But every time we have serious flare-ups of violence, those talks break down, stall, get off the rail. So this is the problem, that they can’t move past the immediate difficulties to get to the underlying settlement of the remaining underlying issues.
And as the Secretary has said again and again, as the President said over the weekend, unless they can settle these issues, neither one of them is going to benefit from the potential to be reintegrated with the international community, to benefit from the resources, and to really invest in their people who are so long-suffering.
QUESTION: Is there a feeling that the AU is not putting enough pressure on either side, or specifically Sudan?
MS. NULAND: I think we’re all looking once again, as we have so many times in this process, at what pressure we can bring to bear – economic pressure, political pressure – but frankly, the AU has done a superb job speaking for the region on these issues. And we continue to work very closely with them on a daily basis.
QUESTION: Just one more on this. And I have to admit that I am not a Sudan expert, but – and this phrase “velvet divorce” is new to me. Is this – but given this – the incidents or the developments, is this --
MS. NULAND: No, of course, of course. I mean there was so much violence.
QUESTION: -- doesn’t really seem to be so much velvet --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- left to it.
MS. NULAND: Well, suffice to say that it was the result of a negotiated settlement, so it was not – the violence, obviously, was the backdrop, but ultimately they came to the table and decided how they were going to divide themselves. So --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Sorry.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Yeah, please, please, please.
QUESTION: Are you coordinating with the Arab League on the issue of Sudan?
MS. NULAND: We are.
QUESTION: I know you have coordinated on Syria, but are you --
MS. NULAND: We are, and we have Arab League meeting, I think, later this week, where we expect that Sudan will be on the agenda as well.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So there are reports out of Israel that the Israeli Government has legalized three so-called settlement outposts. I think it’s the U.S. Government position that such outposts are illegal, but what is your – A, what is your view on Israel’s decision to, quote, “legalize these three outposts,” close quote? And B, how does that affect your efforts to bring the parties back into a direct negotiation?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you’re talking about the reports that there has been a request for a stay of court decisions with regard to the settlements. Is that what you’re referring to?
QUESTION: I – and I’m sorry I don’t have – although I tried to email it to myself --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- I don’t have it in front of me.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: My understanding was that it was not just a request for a stay, but rather a determination that had been made. But maybe I misunderstood.
MS. NULAND: No, I think it’s a request for a court decision. We are, obviously, concerned by the reports that we’ve seen. We have raised this with the Israeli Government and we are seeking clarification. You know where we are on settlements. We don’t think this is helpful to the process and we don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.
QUESTION: And when you say we have raised this, you’ve raised this with them since these reports emerged? In other words --
MS. NULAND: My understanding is we raised it in Tel Aviv today. That’s my understanding.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up, three settlements – Bruchin, Rechelim, and Sansana, and they are on privately owned Palestinian land, they have for 15 years or 16 years – have been declared illegal. And a lot of people are interpreting it as a response to Abbas’s letter. Do you see it that way?
MS. NULAND: Again, we’re seeking clarification from the Israeli Government as to their intentions and making our own views very clear about this.
QUESTION: Yeah, but the office of the prime minister issued a statement that they are legal, that they have been deemed from this point on forward as legal settlements.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, you know where we stand on this. And as I said, we are raising it.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I know where you stand, but what measures are you willing to take in case that the Israeli Government goes forward with this?
MS. NULAND: Again, Said, you know where we are on these things. We make this case every time we have an incident like this that it is not helpful to the process; it doesn’t get us where we need to go. We will continue to raise it, as we have.
QUESTION: Well, beside raising the issue with the Israeli Government, what measures is the United States Government willing to take?
MS. NULAND: Well --
QUESTION: You have constantly taken measures when similar activities are taken by other governments. What measures are you willing to take in this particular case?
MS. NULAND: Again, my understanding is that we have a government statement with regard to its intentions. We are seeking to clarify that. So I’m not going to predict what further response there might be on our side.
QUESTION: Do you know --
QUESTION: Do you feel that the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage efforts by David Hale?
MS. NULAND: David Hale has been in the region all week trying to work on the issues involved here and bring the parties back to the table. I don’t think that we would characterize that at all – the situation at all the way you just have.
QUESTION: And finally, do you see this as boding really ill to Palestinian landowners whose land is shrinking from underneath them?
MS. NULAND: I missed the beginning of your sentence, Said.
QUESTION: I mean, this new decision by the Israeli Government bodes very ill for Israeli landowners, how – for Palestinian landowners, however, that land is shrinking, so to speak.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is the backdrop for the statements that we always make about this kind of activity, but we want to get some more clarification from the Israelis.
QUESTION: So in this case, why wouldn’t the United States Government support an initiative by the United Nations to term the settlements, or these at least illegal outposts, as illegal?
MS. NULAND: Said, you know where we are on these things, and we are going to continue to talk to the Israelis about these issues.
Jill.
QUESTION: Can you just update – you mentioned David Hale. Can you update us on some of his --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah. So he was in Jerusalem yesterday. He met with his Israeli counterpart, the Israeli negotiator Mr. Molho. Today he met with Palestinian negotiator Erekat and with Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh. He also now plans to go on to Qatar and Egypt. And thereafter, his travel plans are up in the air.
QUESTION: Did he meet them separately, with Erekat and Foreign Minister Judeh?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah. I think he went to Amman to see Foreign Minister Judeh.
QUESTION: And so do you know if – was this an issue? Had it happened yet by the – had this government announcement happened by the time he had had his meetings? Do you know if he raised it, or when you say it was raised in Tel Aviv, was it raised by someone else?
MS. NULAND: He was in Jerusalem yesterday. He was with the Palestinians today. So my understanding is this announcement was sometime today, was this morning. So my – what I had was that the Embassy had raised it with the Israelis. If that is not --
QUESTION: Do you know if it was the ambassador or someone else?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have that.
QUESTION: And hadn’t he originally planned to go to Saudi, too? Is that now off the itinerary?
MS. NULAND: I think – no, he was in Riyadh at the beginning of the – oh, sorry. I’ve got it here at the very beginning. Yeah, he’s also in Riyadh today, currently in Riyadh for meetings with the senior Saudi officials. Jerusalem yesterday. Something’s not right here. Riyadh’s on this agenda; I don’t know when, though, because I also have that he is today with the Jordanians and with the Palestinians, but Riyadh is still on the agenda.
QUESTION: Okay. And his – and post – his post-Gulf – you had mentioned earlier that after the Gulf, he was probably going to go back to Israel and the PA. Is that – you said that’s now up in the air. It is because – is that because of this announcement?
MS. NULAND: No, I don’t think it has anything to do with that. I think he just wants to see where he is and whether there’s a need for him to come back to Washington and report first.
Please, Goyal.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: India.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: A number of education ministers from different Indian states were or are in the U.S. studying the U.S. community colleges system and the U.S. education system, and planning to open maybe hundreds of community colleges in India with the U.S. education system help, which Prime Minister Singh and President Obama and knowledge initiative was signed between the two leaders. What role do you think State Department playing in this role?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we support this initiative. We have been working with the Indian side to flesh out the initiative that was agreed between the President and the prime minister through our Education Bureau here. And obviously, we are responsible for the visa issuance for the various folks studying in the United States.
QUESTION: And as far as Indian students now, over 125,000, I believe, in the U.S. What will be their status when these community college will be open in India? Because right now, when they graduate from an Indian university or colleges and their degrees are not really accepted or agreed to here in the U.S.
MS. NULAND: I guess I don’t understand the question, Goyal. You’re asking if they had graduate from Indian college, are those degrees accepted in the United States?
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: I think it’s a case-by-case issue depending upon where they graduate from and where they’re looking to get accredited from, and et cetera. So obviously, if there’s a sister university relationship, sometimes those accreditations can be recognized, but it just depends on what they want to do. I don’t think there’s a blanket way of looking at that.
QUESTION: And finally --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. As far as the U.S. visa for the Indian students coming to higher study in the U.S., is there a change now? Because some feel that the requirements are more or higher than after this incident took place at the various (inaudible) universities, so-called, in the California area.
MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’ve changed our policy with regard to the way we interview applicants. I think what we are doing is making sure that the sponsoring organizations truly are what they say they are in the United States; that if they say that they are bringing students over to educate them, that they intend to educate them, not put them to work, et cetera, so – yeah.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please, Ros.
QUESTION: In the WikiLeaks case, the judge in the Bradley Manning case this morning ordered the State Department, among other agencies, to turn over some of their documents to the defense in order to help the Manning team better prepare its case. Is the State Department going to turn over those documents? And my follow-up is: Does the U.S. still see a negative impact on its relations with other countries in diplomacy because of what happened in the alleged leaking of these documents?
MS. NULAND: Let me take the last part first. I think our view of the entire WikiLeaks incident has not changed at all in terms of the negative effects. With regard to what the court has ordered, Ros, I haven’t seen it, so let me take it and see what we know about what’s been requested of us and what our response is.
Jill.
QUESTION: Russia?
MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The Russian ambassador here in Washington is concerned about legislation that is moving forward, the Magnitsky legislation. And he’s saying essentially that this is just a way of – if you get rid of Jackson-Vanik, this is just another way of punishing Russia. He’s quite concerned about it. I know the State Department has been talking with Congress. Do we know what the status of Magnitsky is? Is the State Department encouraging, discouraging this legislation? What’s the view?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we do support the goals of the legislation. We have programs already in place to ensure that we are sanctioning those who are responsible for human rights abuses, and we are continuing our dialogue with the Congress about how we can appropriately make the views of the Congress and the American people known; at the same time, that we strongly favor the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik legislation, as really being a relic of the past that doesn’t apply to today’s situation. So this is an ongoing conversation that we’re having with the Hill.
QUESTION: Why is Magnitsky needed if the State Department really does have the ability right now legally to refuse visas to people who have been involved in crime, or at least, I guess, maybe alleged – I’m not quite sure how we can define that. But don’t you have the tools already to exclude people and not give them a visa?
MS. NULAND: We do have many of the tools in this legislation. I think it’s a matter of – from the Congress’s point of view, obviously, I would refer you to them. But our understanding in the conversations that we’ve had is that there’s a desire and an interest to make this a matter of law; and particularly, if we are going to make the point with members of Congress that the days are over for the kinds of sanctions that we had under Jackson-Vanik, but that we still have other human rights concerns that need to be taken into account.
So I think there are – there’s a feeling on the Hill that putting this in legislation will create a systemic, routine way of dealing with it and a clear set of guidelines that the Congress and the Administration agree to and understand and that are clear on the Russian side. So let’s see where this legislation goes as it goes through the Congress.
Please.
QUESTION: Thank you. On North Korea, they reported that North Korea is almost ready for the nuclear test. And so I would like to know, what’s the assessment from the U.S. Government?
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think our position on any of this has changed: No launching, no testing, no nothing if you want to have a better relationship with the international community. All of these are provocations, all of them take the DPRK in the wrong direction, so our message on all of this hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: But they say if the U.S. agree in a peace treaty with them, they may abandon the nuclear test. What’s your reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: Starting with the Leap Day deal that the North Koreans have abrogated, we were beginning a conversation again about a step-by-step process that could convince the Six Parties, could convince the international community that this new North Korean leadership was interested in coming back into compliance with its international obligations. Those – was a small first step, and unfortunately now we’re going backwards. So it’s really up to the DPRK to demonstrate that it wants a better relationship with all of us and that it wants to put its energy into peace and stability and taking care of its people rather than expensive weapons.
QUESTION: And last question --
QUESTION: Haven’t they already done that? Haven’t they demonstrated their interest already?
MS. NULAND: Demonstrated their interest?
QUESTION: Or lack of interest?
MS. NULAND: Unfortunately, they are demonstrating a lack of interest, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And then can you just (inaudible), you said no launching, no testing no nothing. I mean, what is that – no nothing? They can’t do anything? (Laughter.) I mean, what if they decide they’re going to free all political prisoners and have democratic elections tomorrow? I mean, is that – that’s bad, too?
MS. NULAND: What they can and should do is take care of their people, open their country, begin to reform the system, and demonstrate to the international community that they’re prepared to meet their international obligations. And they haven’t done any of those things. So what I meant by “no nothing” was no provocative nuclear actions of any kind.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up.
MS. NULAND: Keeping me on my toes.
QUESTION: On this – at the coming U.S.-China S and ED, what’s the U.S. expectation from China on North Korea issue, specifically?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we said very clearly that we have encouraged China to continue to use all of its influence with the DPRK and particularly with the new young leader to encourage a positive course and to discourage the negative course. So I’m sure that we will be exchanging views on North Korea and getting a better sense of how the Chinese side analyzes the situation, what messages they’ve been willing to send, able to send, and what pressure they think they can bring to bear, because it’s absolutely essential we all work together here.
Please, Michel.
QUESTION: On Iran? Iran has warned today that the new U.S. sanctions targeting its access to surveillance technology were negative and could affect its crucial talks next month with the P-5+1 in Baghdad. Do you have any reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that the sanctions that the President announced yesterday were designed to address a different set of concerns that we have with regard to Iran’s behavior, and that’s Iran’s behavior with regard to their own citizens, with regard to the dignity, human rights, standard of living for their own citizens. So frankly, putting sanctions on companies that help Iran spy on their own citizens and having complaints about that begs the question as to why the Government of Iran thinks it needs to spy on its own citizens and block their access to the internet in the first place. So these – this is a set of sanctions that are designed to support the humans rights, freedoms, dignity of the Iranian people.
QUESTION: But do you expect these sanctions to affect the upcoming negotiations in Baghdad – or talks?
MS. NULAND: Well, our hope is that we will have a productive round in Baghdad. We discussed very clearly in Istanbul what it’s going to take to continue to move forward. So it’s really up to Iran. But frankly, what we have done with the President – the sanctions that the President announced yesterday, don’t even have anything to do with the nuclear file. They have to do with our separate concerns about the human rights situation.
QUESTION: Can I just ask a question on these sanctions? The net effect – I mean, one could argue about the effect of these sanctions, whether they actual do anything, whether these companies or institutions actually have any assets that can be blocked, or whether any Americans were doing business in the first place, but that’s not – well, my question is: With the exception of one, the internet provider in Iran, all of these entities and the one individual in Iran and Syria were already under numerous layers of other sanctions that did exactly the same thing. So I’m just wondering, there was no net effect on the IRGC, on the intelligence ministries, on the head of the Syrian intelligence directorate, was there?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think --
QUESTION: I mean, it didn’t do anything new to them. They were already under sanctions that did exactly what these sanctions do.
MS. NULAND: Frankly, I’m not sure that your premise is right, Matt, that there was no – nothing new, that this was an additional layer and all of these same folks and entities had already been sanctioned. I think the larger point here, though, is to express our concern about the circumvention, the importing of foreign technology to be used against your own citizens to deny them access to the internet, to deny them the ability communicate freely.
So regardless of whether it’s an additional layer on top of the same people and entities, the political point here is to express our concern about what these governments, whether they’re Syrian – the Syrian Government or the Iranian Government, are doing to block access to the internet, to block the ability of their people to communicate, to chill the environment for civil discourse and for civil society.
QUESTION: Doesn’t that happen in quite a few countries? In Equatorial Guinea, in Zimbabwe, in --
MS. NULAND: It happens in a number of countries and the Secretary --
QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.
MS. NULAND: -- there are number of countries that as we – as the Secretary has spoken out on many, many times, that seek to limit the right of their citizens to free speech, to free association, to the internet, and we will continue to speak out. But there are particular governments who are now in the business of acquiring the most sophisticated Western technology they can find and targeting it back on their own citizens and squeezing them, in human rights terms, with it. So this is an area of increasing concern.
QUESTION: So that would be the standard then for which countries would in the future those sanctions would apply to, whether they’re acquiring (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think we’re going to take this on a case-by-case basis. But in this case, the President was making the point, and we were making the point more broadly that these two governments are particularly egregious in this area as, if you will, state-sponsors of censorship.
QUESTION: Victoria, could you explain something regarding the board – the atrocity prevention board that the President announced on the sanctions?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Now, is it -- how is the State Department involved? I mean, since we know that Samantha Power is going to lead that effort. Who’s from the State Department? Who will sit on that board?
MS. NULAND: The State Department representative on the board is Under Secretary of State Maria Otero.
QUESTION: Maria Otero. Okay.
MS. NULAND: And the first meeting of the board was yesterday.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: And the board is designed to get together this group of very experienced people to look at how we can, as a government, do more to support accountability and to stop atrocities.
QUESTION: Okay. And one related issue: Last week it was announced – the Open Government Initiative?
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: Is that in any way connected to this – there’s going to be a center of – a connection with this board?
MS. NULAND: Well, some of the people who work on the Open Government Partnership are the same people who work on this atrocities board – as you said, Samantha Power, Under Secretary Otero. But the initiatives are not linked.
What I would say is that when we announced at the Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Istanbul that we were standing up this atrocities clearinghouse for Syria, that’s an example of the kind of initiative that this group of people on the atrocities board brought to bear. They were the sort of idea factory for that idea, and it’s the kind of thing that, assuming that it works well in a Syrian context, we can replicate in other contexts.
Yeah.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Do you have – does the State Department have any additional information on the two Cuban actors who were granted temporary visas and have since disappeared?
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge – and frankly, this is yesterday information and I didn’t have an update from today, so if it’s not right, we’ll get back to you – but neither we nor the film festival has any further information about where the two actors are.
QUESTION: So that hasn’t changed, then, --
MS. NULAND: I do not believe that has changed since yesterday. Okay.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Pakistan. As far as Secretary Grossman’s visit to Pakistan is concerned, and also last week Secretary Panetta told the Pentagon press that the Haqqani Network is the most dangerous, and is also now going back and forth from Pakistan to Afghanistan, Afghanistan to Pakistan. Is that going to be a topic? Because this is the main concern or main issue between the two countries and the security in Afghanistan is concerned.
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have any travel to announce today, Goyal, but I think you know that we’ve been pretty clear. Secretary was clear, Secretary Panetta was clear last week, that we have concerns about the Haqqani Network in – with regard to the most recent incident in Afghanistan. And as the Secretary said in Brussels, we will continue to try to work with Pakistan because this is a threat to both of us.
QUESTION: And finally, are you planning to include Haqqani Network in the Reward for Justice or any other sanctions against this network?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we have sanctions on individual members of the Haqqani Network, and we’re continuing to look at what more we can do there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: A follow-up on Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday, State Department announced Grossman – Marc Grossman visit to three different countries, but Pakistan is not included. And there are some media reports in Pakistan that Pakistani official are getting ready to meet with him, and talk about all issues, including reopening of a NATO supply line. And they also talk about the trilateral core group meeting, including Afghanistan. So do you have any update of his visit? Is he going to Islamabad? Do you confirm that?
MS. NULAND: I think I just said that I don’t have any travel to announce today, but as you know, both Afghanistan and Pakistan fall within his purview. But I don’t have anything to announce today.
Okay?
QUESTION: No. I just want --
MS. NULAND: Sorry.
QUESTION: -- to go back to the WikiLeaks question. When you said that your position had not changed as to whether this – whether the release of these documents have done damage to the national security, what – can you be more – what does that mean? You say that it did damage?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you be more explicit about how it did damage?
MS. NULAND: I think we were quite explicit at the time, and I’m not going to come back to it today.
QUESTION: Well, no, at – well, at the time, you said that it had the potential – well, not you personally; it was your predecessor – but had the potential to do damage and that there was the concern in the – in this building in particular that ambassadors or embassies would be less than forthcoming about what they wrote in cables coming back, knowing that they had been – that it had been compromised.
Has there been any evidence? Is this building concerned or is there evidence that shows that this building is not getting full accounting, full reporting, honest, candid reporting from its embassies abroad in the wake of WikiLeaks?
MS. NULAND: Our embassies abroad continue to do a superb job of working with governments and societies where they are accredited and giving us a good, strong picture of what’s going on. That doesn’t change the fact that there was enormous turbulence in many of our bilateral relationships when this happened, and that there have been impacts on individuals. As you know, we’ve talked about that at the time.
QUESTION: Right. But when you say enormous turbulence in bilateral relationships, has – what has – what can you – what is there that --
MS. NULAND: I don’t think I’m going to go any further than we went at the time. We had concerns from many of our interlocutors.
QUESTION: Well, I know you had concerns --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- but that – but concern is – that does not that mean that there’s – that something has been damaged?
MS. NULAND: I think we’ve got an ongoing lawsuit, and I’m not going to go any further right now.
QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious, though. If the – do you see – has the U.S. ability to conduct its foreign relations been compromised or damaged because of WikiLeaks? Can you point to one or two examples of how that – of how this has done harm to the U.S. national security or U.S. --
MS. NULAND: Matt --
QUESTION: -- ability to conduct diplomacy?
MS. NULAND: -- given the fact that we have an ongoing legal case, I don’t think I’m going to comment any further on this set of issues today.
QUESTION: Well, fair enough, but --
MS. NULAND: Michel, did you have something else?
QUESTION: -- you do understand this is exactly what you’re being asked to produce in court.
MS. NULAND: I understand. And --
QUESTION: And if you’re saying that, “Yes, it did damage, but I’m sorry, I can’t tell you what the damage is because it’s a secret,” that’s what – is that what you’re saying?
MS. NULAND: What I’m saying is there’s ongoing legal work now, and if there are legal responsibilities of this building, we’ll do it in a court of law, not here.
QUESTION: Well, but in terms of the one thing that you did answer, you – there isn’t any evidence that this has affected embassies’ ability or – to report back honestly and accurately about what’s going on in their host countries. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to give a grade to our embassies. We expressed our concern at the time. Those concerns were very clearly stated. I’m not going to get into evaluating, from this podium, what’s come back, what hasn’t come back. We’ve got an ongoing legal case.
Michel.
QUESTION: One clarification still on this, please.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I thought the concern was less that embassies would not report stuff back in cables but that their interlocutors would not tell them stuff in the first place because they no longer had faith that the U.S. Government could keep their conversations or communications private, given the vast leak of cables. So I think the question might be better posed as: Has the State Department discerned a diminution in the candor of its foreign interlocutors as a result of this gross breach of confidentiality?
MS. NULAND: Again, we said what we wanted to say at the time on this case. We now have this case in the courts, and I just don’t think it’s appropriate for me to be commenting any further.
Michael, did you have something else? Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. Any new assessment about the UN observers’ work in Syria?
MS. NULAND: As I said yesterday, we’re continuing to watch this day by day. I think the concern remains that we only have a small number of monitors in, which means that they can stay in some of these towns for only a short time. They were in Zabadani; they were in parts of Hama and Homs in the last couple of days, but we don’t have enough yet to be able to leave them there. And there are concerns that no sooner do they leave when violence restarts. So this is something we’re just going to have to watch going forward.
Please.
QUESTION: There was a bomb that exploded today in Marjeh, which is a densely populated area within Damascus. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. NULAND: Well, we were just getting reporting on this as I was coming down. Obviously, any acts of violence of that kind are reprehensible.
Please.
QUESTION: Does the State Department have any comment on Egypt’s decision not to register, I think it’s eight NGOs, pro-democracy NGOs, including the Carter Foundation?
MS. NULAND: I have to say that we are – we don’t have a full picture of what has happened and what hasn’t happened with regard to these NGOs. So we are in the process of trying to figure it out, and we’re seeking clarification from the Egyptian side.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks, everybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)