NASA IMAGE OF PHYTOPLANKTON IN WATERS OFF ARGENTINA

FROM:  NASA:

Caption Credit:  NASA.  Late spring and summer weather brings blooms of color to the Atlantic Ocean off of South America, at least from a satellite view. The Patagonian Shelf Break is a biologically rich patch of ocean where airborne dust from the land, iron-rich currents from the south, and upwelling currents from the depths provide a bounty of nutrients for the grass of the sea—phytoplankton. In turn, those floating sunlight harvesters become food for some of the richest fisheries in the world. The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on Suomi NPP captured this view of phytoplankton-rich waters off of Argentina on Dec. 2, 2014. Scientists in NASA’s Ocean Color Group used three wavelengths (671, 551, and 443 nanometers) of visible and near-infrared light to highlight different plankton communities in the water. Bands of color not only reveal the location of plankton, but also the dynamic eddies and currents that carry them. > More Information Image Credit: Norman Kuring, NASA’s Ocean Color Group, using VIIRS data from the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership.

SEC CONCLUDES BRIBERY CASE AGAINST FORMER SIEMENS EXECUTIVES

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SEC Concludes Its Case Against Former Siemens Executives Charged with Bribery in Argentina, Obtaining Judgments over $1.8 Million

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on February 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Andres Truppel, a former CFO of Siemens Argentina. On February 4, 2014, the Court also entered

a final judgment against Ulrich Bock and Stephan Signer, both former Heads of Major Projects at Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (Siemens). The judgments resolve the Commission’s Civil Action against Truppel, Bock and Signer for their role in a decade long bribery scheme at Siemens and its regional company in Argentina.

On December 13, 2011, the Commission filed a Civil Action charging Bock, Signer, Truppel and four other senior executives of Siemens and its regional company in Argentina with violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. The Commission alleged that between 2001 and 2007, the defendants paid bribes to senior government officials in Argentina to retain a $1 billion contract (“the DNI contract”) to produce national identity cards for Argentine citizens. The officials included two Argentine presidents and cabinet ministers in two presidential administrations.

The Commission’s complaint alleged that Bock and Signer, both senior Siemens managers based in Germany, took various actions to revive the DNI contract after it was cancelled by government officials in Argentina, and made sure that the bribery connected to the contract went undetected. Truppel, a former CFO of Siemens Argentina with close ties to government officials, assisted their efforts. The Commission’s complaint also alleged that Uriel Sharef, a member of Siemens Managing Board, or “Vorstand,” and the most senior officer charged in connection with the scheme, met with payment intermediaries in the U.S. and agreed to pay bribes to Argentine officials while enlisting subordinates to conceal payments and circumvent Siemens’ internal accounting controls.

The final judgment as to Bock and Signer enjoins them from violating Sections 30A and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting Siemens’ violations of Exchange Act Sections 31(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and orders them to each pay a civil penalty of $524,000, the highest penalty assessed against individuals in an FCPA case. The judgment also orders Bock to pay disgorgement of $316,452, plus prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $97,505. Bock and Signer failed to respond to the Commission’s complaint.

The final judgment as to Truppel enjoins him from violating Sections 30A and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting Siemens’ violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and orders him to pay a civil penalty of $80,000. Truppel settled the Commission’s charges without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint.

This concludes the SEC’s case. The Commission previously announced that on April 16, 2013, a final judgment was entered by the Court against Uriel Sharef, a former officer and board member of Siemens, for his role in the long standing bribery scheme. The final judgment, to which Sharef consented without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, enjoined him from violating the anti-bribery and related books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA, and ordered him to pay a $275,000 civil penalty. Bernd Regendantz settled with the Commission when the complaint was filed, and allegations against Herbert Steffen and Carlos Sergi were dismissed. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Department of Justice, Fraud Section, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Prosecutor General in Munich, Germany and authorities in Argentina.

FINAL JUDGEMENT ENTERED IN BRIBERY CASE AGAINST FORMER SIEMENS CFO

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SEC Concludes Its Case Against Former Siemens Executives Charged with Bribery in Argentina, Obtaining Judgments over $1.8 Million

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on February 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment against Andres Truppel, a former CFO of Siemens Argentina. On February 4, 2014, the Court also entered

a final judgment against Ulrich Bock and Stephan Signer, both former Heads of Major Projects at Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (Siemens). The judgments resolve the Commission’s Civil Action against Truppel, Bock and Signer for their role in a decade long bribery scheme at Siemens and its regional company in Argentina.

On December 13, 2011, the Commission filed a Civil Action charging Bock, Signer, Truppel and four other senior executives of Siemens and its regional company in Argentina with violations of the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. The Commission alleged that between 2001 and 2007, the defendants paid bribes to senior government officials in Argentina to retain a $1 billion contract (“the DNI contract”) to produce national identity cards for Argentine citizens. The officials included two Argentine presidents and cabinet ministers in two presidential administrations.

The Commission’s complaint alleged that Bock and Signer, both senior Siemens managers based in Germany, took various actions to revive the DNI contract after it was cancelled by government officials in Argentina, and made sure that the bribery connected to the contract went undetected. Truppel, a former CFO of Siemens Argentina with close ties to government officials, assisted their efforts. The Commission’s complaint also alleged that Uriel Sharef, a member of Siemens Managing Board, or “Vorstand,” and the most senior officer charged in connection with the scheme, met with payment intermediaries in the U.S. and agreed to pay bribes to Argentine officials while enlisting subordinates to conceal payments and circumvent Siemens’ internal accounting controls.

The final judgment as to Bock and Signer enjoins them from violating Sections 30A and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting Siemens’ violations of Exchange Act Sections 31(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and orders them to each pay a civil penalty of $524,000, the highest penalty assessed against individuals in an FCPA case. The judgment also orders Bock to pay disgorgement of $316,452, plus prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $97,505. Bock and Signer failed to respond to the Commission’s complaint.

The final judgment as to Truppel enjoins him from violating Sections 30A and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting Siemens’ violations of Exchange Act Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and orders him to pay a civil penalty of $80,000. Truppel settled the Commission’s charges without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint.

This concludes the SEC’s case. The Commission previously announced that on April 16, 2013, a final judgment was entered by the Court against Uriel Sharef, a former officer and board member of Siemens, for his role in the long standing bribery scheme. The final judgment, to which Sharef consented without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, enjoined him from violating the anti-bribery and related books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA, and ordered him to pay a $275,000 civil penalty. Bernd Regendantz settled with the Commission when the complaint was filed, and allegations against Herbert Steffen and Carlos Sergi were dismissed. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Department of Justice, Fraud Section, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Prosecutor General in Munich, Germany and authorities in Argentina.

SECRETARY KERRY TOUTS LOWERING U.S. TRADE BARRIERS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at the Launch of the 100,000 Strong in the Americas Partnership
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Loy Henderson Auditorium
Washington, DC
January 17, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Ben, thank you very, very much. Thanks for your incredible collaboration and leadership on all of this. Mr. Vice President, thank you for being here with us today. And Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, old pal, thank you for being here and being part of this. And Roberta Jacobson, I just – her ears should be burning because I just swore in a new class of civil servants here, and I just called her “the best of the best” and a whole bunch of things, and so – look at her, she’s – (laughter). But she is doing a spectacular job. And Evan Ryan, who’s not up here, shares efforts on this, and we have a great team. And it’s really exciting to be able to be engaged in this kind of an initiative.

I know Roberta from her time as an OAS fellow in Argentina. Really found her worldview shaped through that experience. And so she comes to this with a very personal kind of early commitment that really helps us to translate this into the program that it’s becoming and going to become. And Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, likewise. I’ve watched her for years and years and years as she and I –

MS. TOWNSEND: A hundred years. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, you know. You and I – I actually knew Kathleen when she was – that puts me in a different category, and I think Senator Biden, too. So whatever happens, I’m – (laughter) – I’m way the hell ahead of you, so relax. (Laughter.)

I’m really pleased to see that Steve Vetter is here. He leads the Partners of the Americas, and that’s created opportunities across the hemisphere for more than five decades, no small accomplishment. And I’m also happy that Steve Ferst is here from NAFSA, another organization which has done so much to promote these kinds of global exchanges.

And most of all, I want to thank the fellow to my left, the Vice President of the United States, for being with us because his presence here really underscores the Administration’s priority of creating shared prosperity across the hemisphere. On official visits to Panama, Colombia, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago, and throughout his five years in the White House and well before that in the 30 years or so that he was on the Foreign Relations Committee, the Vice President has helped to make this priority a reality. And because of his pragmatic and personal commitment to this kind of diplomacy, connecting young people to the future, to opportunity – which is really getting people in touch with our values and their interests, and that marriage is critical. And the Vice President is a key asset for the President of the United States in helping us to engage and reach out in this kind of a program.

He and I both believe – as does President Obama. I think if there’s any topic that the President has put sort of first among equals, if you will, it’s education. And I – we share the belief, all of us here on this podium, education is the great equalizer of the 21st century, because of the dramatic changes that have taken place in the workplace and the challenges of globalization. And the success of many of the leaders in this room is, frankly, a testament to that reality. The Costa Rican ambassador, Muni Figueres, received her BA at City College in New York. Nester Mendez, the ambassador from Belize, did graduate work right down the street at George Washington. And Jose Antonio Meade, who I met with this morning in a trilateral with our friends from Canada, he is Mexico’s foreign secretary and he received his PhD at my alma mater, Yale University.

You have no idea how many people you meet – when I go around the world representing the country and meet a foreign minister, environment minister, finance minister, prime minister, president – who with pride talk about their time in the United States at one college or another or graduate school and what it has meant to shaping their views.

All of the people I just mentioned are distinguished diplomats who come from three different nations, and they pursued very different programs of study. But for each one of them, studying abroad in the United States helped them succeed in a much more internationalized world. As President Obama said last year in Mexico, “When we study together, we learn together, we work together, and we prosper together.” And that’s why the President launched this initiative of 100,000 Strong. It’s an ambitious goal: double the two-way traffic of young people studying in our respective universities.

So I’m proud to announce today that the State Department, with our partners in the private sector, have already raised – and we’ve just begun – have already raised a total of 3.65 million to promote study abroad and cross-cultural learning across the Americas. And as I said, that’s the beginning. We’re going to continue this effort.

These investments are going to help universities develop greater capacity to support study abroad, and they will challenge and reward institutions to find innovative ways to spur greater exchanges and to encourage schools and students who haven’t traditionally participated in this to come to see its value.

I am genuinely proud that the State Department is doing this, and I want to thank Santander Bank and ExxonMobil for their contribution as members of the 100,000 Strong in the Americas Founding Circle. I want to applaud Coca-Cola, Freeport McMoRan, and the Ford Foundation for being the initiative’s first contributing partners.

It’s also fitting that we host this event on that same day that Foreign Secretary Meade and I celebrated the 20th anniversary of NAFTA. And through two decades, the vast majority of North Americans have seen incredible benefits as we’ve lowered the barriers to trade, brought talent together and investments across the lines. We now trade about $1.2 trillion a year, compared to $77 billion with Brazil a year, and about $59 billion with India. So we massively, as North America, dwarf, and we haven’t paid enough attention, frankly, to building the longer-term future by creating this kind of relationship.

So I can tell you this: No matter where we’re from, every one of us shares the same basic aspiration – opportunity, security. And we all know that that better future is within reach if you have the chance to reach for the brass ring which comes from education. We are living in a world where countless countries, including this hemisphere, have vast populations under the age of 30 – 65 percent in some, 60 percent; 50 percent under the age of 21, 40 percent under the age of 18. And if those young people who are able to be wired and see what the rest of the world is getting and doing don’t have an opportunity to reach out and touch that, we’re all going to inherit the consequences of our lack of focus and inattention.

So it’s my honor now to introduce someone who has done so much in promoting these partnerships and this prosperity across our two continents, the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden. (Applause.)

U.S. MARSHALS RETRIEVE 2003 DOUBLE HOMICIDE SUSPECT FROM ARGENTINA

FROM:  U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
2003 Double Homicide Suspect Who Fled to Argentina 
Extradited Back to Miami by U.S. Marshals
Miami, FL – Hugo Ramon Quesada, a man wanted on homicide charges by the Miami Dade Police Department arrived back in the U.S. today after being extradited from Argentina.

Deputy U.S. Marshals flew to Argentina earlier this week and took custody of Quesada and returned him to Miami today at 6:10 a.m. Quesada was turned over to the custody of the Miami Dade Police Department upon arrival at the Miami International Airport. In August 2003, an arrest warrant was issued by the Miami Dade Police Department that charges Quesada with two counts of first degree murder, and one count of attempted murder.

On Sunday, Aug. 10, 2003, Quesada went to the home of his wife, Martiza Quesada in Miami and allegedly murdered her. Quesada is alleged to have also killed his wife’s stepfather Emilio Xiques at the same residence and placed his body in a tool shed in the yard. According to police reports, Quesada then drove to his wife’s mother’s home in the Little Havana neighborhood of Miami and told her he had just killed her daughter and her husband. Quesada is accused of then stabbing his wife’s mother in the back and fleeing the residence, leaving her for dead. Quesada’s mother-in-law was critically wounded but survived the attack and was able to provide police with the identity of her attacker. Quesada fled the crime scene in a white vehicle rented by Maritza Quesada and was never seen again.

Miami Dade Police homicide detectives named Quesada as a suspect, but soon realized that Quesada fled the United States and returned to his home country of Argentina. On Aug. 19, 2003, Miami Dade police detectives requested the assistance of the U.S. Marshals to track down Quesada in Argentina in hopes of returning the suspect back to Miami to face criminal charges. During the next three years, Deputy U.S. Marshals and ICE/HSI agents assigned to the U.S. Marshals Fugitive Task Force began interviewing numerous family members and associates of Quesada in Miami to determine where the fugitive was hiding in Argentina.

Hard work and determination finally paid off when Deputy Marshals and ICE/HSI agents in Miami developed information in July 2006 on a location where Quesada was hiding out in Argentina. Deputy Marshals and HSI agents forwarded this information to Interpol Inspectors in Argentina. Deputy Marshals also requested the State Attorney’s Office in Miami to pursue a Provisional Arrest Warrant through the Department of Justice/Office of International Affairs in Washington, D.C.

On Nov. 2, 2006, Quesada was arrested by the Federal Police of Argentina (Interpol) in Buenos Aires, Argentina on the outstanding Provisional Arrest Warrant from the United States. At the time of his arrest, Quesada was utilizing the identity of his brother-in-law in an attempt to avoid capture. Quesada began fighting the extradition process to avoid being returned to the South Florida to face homicide charges.

On Aug. 21, the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires in Argentina approved the extradition of Quesada to be returned back to the United States. On Oct. 24, the Government of Argentina formally approved the extradition. Quesada arrived this morning escorted by U.S. Marshals and was turned over to Miami Dade Police homicide detectives.

This arrest and successful extradition has been the result of the combined efforts of: the Miami Dade Police Department, the Miami Dade State Attorney’s Office, agents with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/ ICE Homeland Security Investigations, the Federal Police of Argentina assigned to Interpol, Department of Justice Office of International Affairs and the U.S. Marshals Service.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S REMARKS ON REGIONAL SHALE OIL AND GAS TRANSITIONING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
World Shale Oil & Gas
Remarks
Robert F. Cekuta
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Energy Resources
Latin America Summit
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Session One: The Bigger Picture

“A Game-Changer for Latin America? Defining the Region’s Shale Potential by Global Comparison”

Good morning. Fellow panelists and distinguished guests, it is a pleasure to be here at the Latin America Summit of the World Shale Series. We are here today to examine the potential impact of gas resources in the region and globally. Unconventional gas, and shale gas in particular, have dramatically changed the energy landscape in the United States, and there is no reason to think that the United States is the only place where this resource can be developed safely and responsibly. This tremendous sea change in accessible energy resources has strong implications not only for our geopolitical relationships and economy, but also for our ability to address shared environmental goals.

I would like to talk a bit about what we have learned and in particular, highlight the political and policy challenges which exist as the United States transitions from being a net importer of energy resources.

Our dialogue this week in Buenos Aires represents one of a number of elements in the ongoing, close cooperation between the United States and Latin America on energy sector issues – whether it is the creation of complimentary energy efficiency standards for appliances throughout North and Central America or the promotion of electrical grid interconnections through the hemispheric Connecting the Americas 2022, we look forward to building strong and long-lasting partnerships in the Americas.

It is extremely appropriate that we are meeting here in Buenos Aires to discuss unconventional oil and gas development in Latin America. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2013 World Shale Report notes Argentina has the world’s second-largest estimate of technologically recoverable shale gas resources. Other Latin American countries, such as Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, also hold potentially significant amounts of unconventional hydrocarbon resources. These resources will contribute profoundly to countries' economic growth as well as to world energy supplies and global energy security – if developed in a responsible and environmentally sustainable manner.

Changes At Home

I would like to discuss some of the changes which have propelled the United States into becoming a net exporter of natural gas. Over the past five years there has been a surprising transformation in the energy landscape of the United States. A few years ago, experts projected the United States would have to import approximately 64 percent of our natural gas needs by 2035. However, we have now initially begun to export some LNG, due in no small part to the “shale gas revolution” in the United States. Current projections estimate that unconventional gas – including shale gas, tight gas, and coal-bed methane – could make up more than 75 percent of U.S. natural gas production and that U.S. gas production could reach 33.14 trillion cubic feet in 2040.

Industry in the United States – and some foreign firms – have seen expanding supplies and lower prices as another positive factor for future economic growth in my country. The shale gas boom is attracting interest in industries such as steel, glass, and cement production, supporting the contention of a number of studies that low-priced natural gas can be a feedstock catalyzing a renaissance in American manufacturing, or what European Union Commissioner for Energy, Günther Oettinger called the “re-industrialization of the United States.” Unconventional oil and gas development is currently projected to create, directly or indirectly, almost 2.5 million jobs and add $350 billion to the U.S. GDP by 2015.[1]

The question many people are asking is can the experience of the United States be duplicated elsewhere? We think it can. Technological breakthroughs in horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing have been essential in tapping and developing unconventional gas. But new technology is only one part of this success story.

Producers in the United States are able to capitalize on factors like a well-functioning market, attractive investment frameworks, extensive pipeline networks and other infrastructure, and an experienced and capable workforce from the conventional upstream side of the industry.

We would be remiss in discussing the shale gas revolution if we didn’t also mention the financial requirements and climate necessary for unconventional oil and gas development to flourish. Single unconventional wells can cost twice as much or more than conventional wells. Up-front exploration and initial production costs are high relative to conventional costs, and high depletion rates after initial production require continuing capital expenditures to maintain and increase target levels of shale gas or oil production. An attractive fiscal regime has been essential to the success of unconventional resource development in the United States.

Global Potential for Unconventional Gas and Oil Development

These developments are not confined to the United States, but have significant ripple effects on third party gas markets. We have seen this in terms of LNG from Qatar and Trinidad and Tobago once destined for the United States now going to other markets. As these imported LNG supplies were diverted from the United States and provided European markets with lower priced gas and meaningful competition to more expensive pipeline gas from Russia.

Looking forward, we anticipate that growing global supplies of gas could result in gas prices being de-linked from oil, as has already happened already in the United States. One possible outcome could be further reducing the power of gas transportation monopolies to use natural gas exports as a political lever.

Unconventional resource development is also changing the tenor of our engagement with major energy exporters. A few years ago, our dialogue with OPEC and other major producers was based almost exclusively on our oil import needs as the world’s largest importer. Discussions in international meetings now look at the declining import needs of the Americas, the rising import needs of Asian and non-OECD markets, and the growing number of new oil and gas producers. Patterns in the global energy trade are already changing, and the implications of these changes are important for energy producers and consumers alike.

Other countries have been watching these developments and wondering if they can replicate the U.S. experience. Numerous countries have reached out to the United States and have participated in international meetings on the subject sponsored by academic institutions or international organizations like the International Energy Agency. We welcome these discussions and see it as important to share what we have learned, what we are learning, and the things we wished we had known earlier on.

Challenges to Unconventional Gas and Oil Development

While recognizing the energy security benefits and the economic gains from unconventional gas and oil development in the United States, it is important to also note that there are many challenges as well. It is essential to develop these resources in an environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable manner. For this reason, we have taken an “all of government” approach to working with the range of stakeholders, including Civil Society – citizens groups, academia and non-governmental organizations on best practices. To that end, the Bureau of Energy Resources in the State Department manages the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program (UGTEP), which brings together experts in policy and regulatory affairs from the United States to disseminate best practices based on the lessons learned in the United States over the past 40+ years in the environmental, social, health and safety, and commercial application of unconventional gas development.

Federal, state, and local officials in the United States are paying close attention to protecting water resources. The United States is adhering to or strengthening best practices to address fugitive methane emissions during the production and distribution processes. In tight oil development, gas flaring is a challenge, especially where the gas pipeline infrastructure is scarce. We are also looking at ways to help others reduce flaring just as we are looking to share our experiences and lessons-learned in developing unconventional oil and gas.

These issues are at the forefront of our bilateral and multilateral discussions on unconventional gas development. One way we share our experience under the UGTEP program is through visits to and from the United States, technical workshops addressing the environmental, social, and economic ramifications of unconventional gas development, and regulator training courses. And it is through these implementing mechanisms that we are helping governments implement best practices based on “lessons learned” in the U.S. experience – and allowing them to benefit from that experience by creating their own regulatory frameworks with the hindsight of our experiences in the United States.

Countries must determine how best to meet their energy resource development needs. The United States remains open to sharing what we have learned – the good and the bad experiences – to promote global security of supply and economic growth.

Conclusion

As I close, let me reiterate that there remains a global need for energy to meet the needs of people, industry, and society. Energy is a necessity for people's well-being in addition to a key factor in economic growth. Moreover, we increasingly recognize due to climate change and other factors that we need to focus on sustainability.

The United States is transitioning from being a natural gas importer to an exporter. We are open to sharing our experience with other countries as they seek to develop their unconventional resources, should they want to do so. We look forward to a productive and rewarding collaborative partnership.

Thank you and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION SETTLES FCPA ALLEGTIONS WITH JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Monday, April 22, 2013

Ralph Lauren Corporation Resolves Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Investigation and Agrees to Pay $882,000 Monetary Penalty

Ralph Lauren Corporation (RLC), a New York based apparel company, has agreed to pay an $882,000 penalty to resolve allegations that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by bribing government officials in Argentina to obtain improper customs clearance of merchandise, announced Mythili Raman, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and Loretta E. Lynch, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

According to the agreement, the manager of RLC’s subsidiary in Argentina bribed customs officials in Argentina over the span of five years to improperly obtain paperwork necessary for goods to clear customs; permit clearance of items without the necessary paperwork and/or the clearance of prohibited items; and on occasion, to avoid inspection entirely. RLC’s employee disguised the payments by funneling them through a customs clearance agency, which created fake invoices to justify the improper payments. During these five years, RLC did not have an anti-corruption program and did not provide any anti-corruption training or oversight with respect to its subsidiary in Argentina.

In addition to the monetary penalty, RLC agreed to cooperate with the Department of Justice, to report periodically to the department concerning RLC’s compliance efforts, and to continue to implement an enhanced compliance program and internal controls designed to prevent and detect FCPA violations. If RLC abides by the terms of the agreement, the Department will not prosecute RLC in connection with the conduct.

The agreement acknowledges RLC’s extensive, thorough, and timely cooperation, including self-disclosure of the misconduct, voluntarily making employees available for interviews, making voluntary document disclosures, conducting a worldwide risk assessment, and making multiple presentations to the Department on the status and findings of the internal investigation and the risk assessment. In addition, RLC has engaged in early and extensive remediation, including conducting extensive FCPA training for employees worldwide, enhancing the company’s existing FCPA policy, implementing an enhanced gift policy and other enhanced compliance, control and anti-corruption policies and procedures, enhancing its due diligence protocol for third-party agents, terminating culpable employees and a third-party agent, instituting a whistleblower hotline, and hiring a designated corporate compliance attorney.

In a related matter, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission today announced a non-prosecution agreement with RLC , in which RLC agreed to pay $$734,846 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Daniel S. Kahn of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Sarah Coyne, Chief of the Business and Securities Fraud Section of the Eastern District of New York. The case was investigated by the FBI’s New York Field Office. The department acknowledges and expresses its appreciation for the assistance provided by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 18, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:17 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Everyone, welcome to the State Department. Just quickly at the top, I do want to note that World Press Freedom Day is approaching. I’m sure it’s something you all have a date on your calendars that you all have, given your profession. And UNESCO will be hosting its annual conference in Tunis beginning on May 3rd. I believe Assistant Secretary for International Organizations Esther Brimmer will be attending that on behalf of the United States and will deliver the keynote address on May 3rd.
But every year, the U.S. Government, as you know, we mark World Press Freedom Day. This year we’re trying something a little bit different in light of the large number of journalists who have been jailed, attacked, disappeared, or forced into exile or even murdered. As part of our Free the Press campaign, we’ll be highlighting some of these freedom of expression cases on our website, which is HumanRights.gov.
Today, for example, there’s a profile of the jailed Vietnamese blogger Dieu Cay. And as the – and continuing this run-up to World Press Freedom Day, we’ll continue to roll out cases from around the world that are emblematic of the problems facing your counterparts and colleagues as they try to do their job throughout the world.

I would also note if you’re really interested in a deeper dive on this subject, Under Secretary Sonenshine, as well as Assistant Secretary Posner, gave a press conference earlier today at the Foreign Press Center, and I’m sure there’ll be a transcript available of that.

Matt. By the way, I missed you yesterday. I apologize.

QUESTION: Well, thank you for – (laughter) – the apology. I’m not sure you’re really telling the truth that you miss me, but –

MR. TONER: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I actually don’t have anything that really warrants starting the briefing with, so I’ll defer to whoever.

MR. TONER: Okay. Shaun, you got anything?

QUESTION: Sure. Well, to begin with, in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, she’s going to be traveling for the first time overseas since her house arrest, to speak – going to be going to Norway and to the UK. I was wondering – presumably, the Secretary invited her during her trip last year. Are there any plans in the near future for Aung San Suu Kyi to come here?

MR. TONER: Well, Shaun, as you correctly noted, we – she certainly would always have an open invitation to carry on the dialogue that began when the Secretary was in Burma. I don’t know that there’s any plans at this time, but certainly we welcome, in fact, her ability to go out and travel to these countries and to engage in a dialogue with these governments; view it as a positive sign.

QUESTION: Sure. Could I switch topics --

MR. TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: -- to Sudan? Just want to see if you could have any update on Princeton Lyman’s visit there, and also a look at the developments now. President Bashir earlier today gave a speech where he was talking about the potential overthrow of the South Sudanese authorities. I think he referred to them as insects. Just what your read is on the situation and what Princeton Lyman’s been able to do, or not do?
MR. TONER: Well, as you noted, there’s a lot of unconstructive rhetoric being thrown around. We’ve also seen reports of new fighting along the Sudan-South Sudan border. Our central message is the same as it was yesterday. We continue to call for an immediate and unconditional cessation of violence by both parties, and that means we want to see the immediate withdrawal of South Sudanese forces from Heglig, and we want to see the – an immediate end to all aerial bombardments of South Sudan by the Sudanese armed forces.
Just – you asked about Princeton’s travels. He was, as you noted, in Khartoum. He has held high-level meetings with the Government of South Sudan, as I mentioned yesterday, including President Kiir, and he is in Khartoum today meeting with Sudanese officials.

QUESTION: Do you know whom he met?

MR. TONER: I don’t have a list of the officials with whom he met. I’ll try to get that for you.

QUESTION: Is he still there? Is he planning to continue his work, or is that --

MR. TONER: He’s still there for the time being. I don’t know where he’ll go from Khartoum.

QUESTION: Follow on that, please.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: In that rally, President al-Bashir said that his main target is now to liberate the people of Southern Sudan from the SPLM. Does that raise concerns about what you think Khartoum’s respect for that new border?

MR. TONER: Well, I mean, obviously, given the escalation of violence over the past few weeks, given the rhetoric that’s being thrown about, we’re very concerned. We continue to, as we’ve said, through Princeton on the ground as well as publicly here, call for both sides to get back to the AU process. The Secretary spoke about this a few weeks ago, where she said it’s absolutely in both sides’ interests to get back to the negotiating table to settle borders, to talk about resources, and sharing of those resources. The situation such as it is right now gains nothing for either side.

QUESTION: Could I --

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead, Andy.

QUESTION: Just another one on that because, I mean, you have been making this comment for quite a while now, and yet it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Is there any backup plan or second strategy that you guys might have to try to get these guys back to the negotiating table? I mean, it seems like the Thabo Mbeki initiative isn’t going anywhere. Princeton Lyman hasn’t been able to get them to do what everyone says they should do, which is pull back. Why – I mean, isn’t there anything else that the international community can do to get this together?

MR. TONER: Well, as you know, we’ve already – we still are – have sanctions in place against the Government of Sudan. I think part of this is trying to remind both parties what there is to gain to a peaceful resolution of this conflict and these contested areas. As I just said, there’s absolutely no military solution to the present situation. We’re going to continue with the on the ground diplomacy from Princeton. I know that Mbeki was in – at the UN, I believe, yesterday where he briefed the Security Council on the situation. People are concerned about the situation there. I think they’re concerned about the escalation and fighting, but we remain engaged with both sides.
Yeah. In the back.

QUESTION: Different subject?

MR. TONER: We can go ahead with a different subject.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from The Guardian. The story in The New York Times this morning about China and Bo Xilai. I know the State Department has said repeatedly it doesn’t discuss asylum-seeking requests, but The New York Timestoday – a few wrinkles that make it different. There’s discussion – why did the State Department or the consulate agree to cooperate with the authorities and hand him over to someone in Beijing rather than in Chengdu? Why was a discussion with the White House about the – whether this would impact on the visit with Biden?

Sorry, just a related thing. There’s also a report in the last few days suggesting that Bo Xilai’s son was taken from his apartment under escort. Was he taken into custody for his own protection or what?

MR. TONER: I’ll start with your second question first. I – we’ve had inquiries about his son. As far as we know, there’s nothing to those reports. I can recommend you contact local authorities, but as far as we know, there’s nothing to those reports. He remains at school at Harvard.

In response to your first question, I agree it was an interesting read based on anonymous sources within the U.S. Government. Obviously, I can’t speak to the credibility of any of their statements. I can only say that, as we’ve said previously, that Wang Lijun requested a meeting with U.S. Consulate General Chengdu officials in early February. That meeting was scheduled accordingly. He was there, I believe, on Monday, February 6th and Tuesday, February 7th, and left of his own volition. But I can’t talk about the contents of that meeting.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Wang Lijun – his current status and – are there any concerns about his status right now? He was taken into custody after --

MR. TONER: Well again, we don’t – we have no contact with him since his departure from the consulate. So I’d just have to refer you to the Chinese Government for any information.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a Canada question, if I may.

QUESTION: Well, wait.

MR. TONER: Sure. We can stay on this topic. We’ll stay. We always finish the topic and then --
QUESTION: Okay. Sure. Fantastic.

QUESTION: Sorry. What – you can’t speak to the credibility of colleagues of yours? You’re saying that they’re incredible?

MR. TONER: I said I can’t speak to quotes from anonymous sources in a newspaper article.

QUESTION: Well, let’s not talk about their quotes.

MR. TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Let’s talk about what they actually said. I mean, is it correct that he brought with him documents that were related to – or that you presume that the consulate employees presume to – or that he said had to do with corruption and investigation into --

MR. TONER: Again, I’m not going to get into the discussions that were held. I can only confirm that he was at the consulate in Chengdu on the dates that I just specified. I can’t get into the contents or what we discussed or --

QUESTION: There wasn’t any concern – well, there was no request for asylum?

MR. TONER: I couldn’t speak about it if it were.

QUESTION: There – is it correct that the U.S. Government does not like to give asylum to people with – who have somewhat checkered records?

MR. TONER: There’s no way for me to – I mean, asylum cases are all – follow a precise legal framework, and in fact, many of those – almost all asylum cases – speaking now globally or largely about the issue, all asylum cases, I believe, are carried out within the United States.

QUESTION: Did the Embassy actually make it – facilitate his phone call to officials in Beijing?

MR. TONER: I can’t comment on that.

QUESTION: You can’t comment because you don’t know or because you --

MR. TONER: I can’t comment on it because I don’t know --


QUESTION: Because that’s the purview of anonymous officials speaking in The New York Times.

MR. TONER: -- but it would also be within the purview of our diplomatic exchanges with another individual and a country. So we don’t need to --

QUESTION: Oh okay. So --

MR. TONER: -- talk about the substance of those conversations.

QUESTION: -- when he showed up --

MR. TONER: Or those meetings.

QUESTION: -- at the consulate, he was acting on behalf of the Chinese Government?

MR. TONER: Matt, I think I’ve gone about as far as I can on this. He came to the consulate, he requested a meeting --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. TONER: -- it was scheduled --

QUESTION: As a member of the Chinese --

MR. TONER: He was there on the dates --

QUESTION: -- Government? Or as an individual?

MR. TONER: It was in his capacity as vice mayor.

QUESTION: In his capacity as vice mayor. And you regard the vice mayor of Chengdu to be an official of the national --

MR. TONER: A local government official, yes.

QUESTION: A local government official, which is that --

MR. TONER: And again, those conversations would be confidential, absolutely.

QUESTION: Except when your colleagues speak about them to The New York Times.

MR. TONER: Again, I can’t speak to the veracity of any of the --

QUESTION: I’m just curious if you can’t speak to the veracity of them because you think that – because they’re not true, or you can’t speak to the veracity of them because you were told that you can’t speak to the veracity.

MR. TONER: Let’s try to end this line of conversation, because I don’t think it’s productive. I can’t speak to the veracity of any anonymous officials being quoted in newspapers.

QUESTION: You could speak to the veracity of what those people said, though.

MR. TONER: And I can’t speak to the substance of any of this issue – this story. I can’t talk about what was discussed in the meeting for reasons I just gave. I can only confirm there was a meeting. He left there on his own volition. We’ve not had contact with him since.

QUESTION: Did you understand that he left alone, as he came?

MR. TONER: I don’t know that.

QUESTION: Have you sought to make contact with him since then?

MR. TONER: I don’t know.

QUESTION: You don’t know.

QUESTION: Well, is it correct that the Administration believes that it has been put into a position that it was – in other words, put into a position that it doesn’t want to be in, involved in the middle of a power struggle in the Chinese Government, or the Chinese couldn’t --

MR. TONER: Well, again, that wouldn’t be – it wouldn’t be my position to comment on internal Chinese politics.

QUESTION: Well, no, I’m not asking you about internal Chinese politics. I’m asking about --

MR. TONER: I thought you were.

QUESTION: No, no. I’m saying is it correct – the statement in the story says that it’s pressed the Administration into a position that it doesn’t want to be in, that it really doesn’t want to have anything to do with power struggles and internal Chinese power struggles.

MR. TONER: Well, I’m not going to --

QUESTION: Is that correct? Do you not --

MR. TONER: To talk about some of the implications of this – that are discussed in this story would be to, I think, address the substance of the story, and I said I’m not going to get into that.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Mark, move back to Syria?

MR. TONER: We can go to Syria.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, France has pulled for tougher sanction and Secretary Clinton will be tomorrow in Paris. First, will she join the Friend of Syria meeting? Secondly, will she propose something new in light of the new escalation on the ground?

MR. TONER: Thank you. You stole my top line, but you already heard the Secretary from Brussels said she will be attending tomorrow, Thursday, the ad-hoc meeting taking place in Paris with a group of foreign ministers to discuss next steps on Syria. I think she spoke to this; Ambassador Rice spoke to it earlier in New York, of our concern that the ceasefire is showing signs of eroding, that the other conditions laid out in the Annan plan are not being fulfilled.

That said, the Secretary was clear that she didn’t want to prejudge the success of the monitoring mission. It is moving forward. There are more monitors on the ground and there will be more in the coming days. And we’re going to look to their reporting back, as well as, I believe the Secretary General himself is going to provide a report on the monitoring mission, the scope and the size of it in the coming days.

QUESTION: Mark, just wanted to – the Secretary also said that the international community’s response to Syria is at a critical point and that --

MR. TONER: She did.

QUESTION: -- Assad can either let the monitors do their job or squander his last chance. And the question is: Or what? Squander his last chance or what happens? More expressions of outrage, or is there actually a plan?

MR. TONER: Well, I think the plan going forward – there’s going to be this meeting. We’ve always had a two-track approach to this, as you well know. We’ve – well, actually three tracks. I mean, there’s been our unilateral sanctions against Assad, but there’s also been the UN track, which we saw bear fruit with the latest Security Council resolution. And we’ve also been pursuing this Friends of Syria track and working with likeminded countries and organizations around the world.

And that’s what the goal of tomorrow is, is that she’s going to be there talking about what possible next steps we can do, undertake, to put more pressure on Assad. I think the sanctions working group met yesterday in Paris and had the chance to talk about further coordination on – and sanctions. So our basic thrust here is the same. We’re going to continue to work to implement the Annan plan, while at the same time, we’re going to continue to look at ways we can add more sanctions, more pressure on Assad as we move forward.

QUESTION: So I’m curious about --

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- your choice of words. You said the ceasefire is showing signs of eroding. Really? Showing --
MR. TONER: Is that too much passive voice? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know. No, no. Not too much passive voice. I mean, just think it’s -

PARTICIPANT: I mean, I think it’s --

QUESTION: -- because seems like it’s a total mudslide. It’s not just showing signs of erosion. It’s like it didn’t – it’s a Grand Canyon-type erosion that we’re talking about here.

MR. TONER: Well, you are correct, Matt, that we have seen a lot of violence, almost to pre-ceasefire levels throughout the past 24 hours. I think I’ve seen that 70 people were killed in Syria yesterday and today, reports that at least 24 were killed.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. TONER: I don’t mean to downplay that at all.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, isn’t – this ceasefire seems to have been an increase fire, in fact, because it doesn’t look like – I mean, things have gotten worse rather than better since it happened. So I just don’t understand why you all have any confidence that adding an additional 30 or 25 monitors in the short term and then presumably, if the Syrians even agree to it, adding another 250 or 300 is actually going to do anything. It just seems to be, to use one of your words, Pollyanna-ish to think that that’s --
MR. TONER: One of my words?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. TONER: In any case, look, we aren’t under any illusions here. It is very clear that the violence is beginning to return. The Secretary, Ambassador Rice both spoke to the fact that the onus is on Assad. He needs to comply with the Annan plan. He needs to take steps to meet its conditions. He hasn’t done so. Even with the ceasefire, it wasn’t enough. There are other aspects to the plan, including the release of political prisoners and access for international media and international humanitarian assistance.
There’s been no progress on any of those fronts, so we’re going to continue, as I just said to Andy, to look at Plan B or Option B, which is ways to increase the pressure on Assad as we move forward. But that said, we’re not going to prejudge the outcome of the Annan plan and this monitoring mission. If we can get 250 monitors on the ground reporting back credible information about the situation there, then that’s valuable.

QUESTION: So you don’t think that it’s already failed?

MR. TONER: I think we’re --

QUESTION: Even though it’s shown no – even though nothing – none of the conditions have been met, and one of them, the ceasefire, has actually gotten worse, not better, you don’t think that’s a sign of abject failure?

MR. TONER: I think we’re going to wait to hear back from the monitoring mission, from the secretary general, and even from Kofi Annan, but we are very concerned.

QUESTION: Because somehow, they can tell you what you don’t know already?

MR. TONER: No, Matt, but just to understand and to appreciate --

QUESTION: Because – well, I – okay, I get that you want to hear back from the guy whose plan it is, but frankly, that’s not going to be for another four or five days, right? I mean, he’s not expected to report back until at least the weekend, right?

MR. TONER: Well, it’ll be up to --

QUESTION: So that’s another four or five days that people are going to get slaughtered.

MR. TONER: Matt --


QUESTION: Am I right or am I wrong?

MR. TONER: I don’t think I’m trying to couch this in any other terms than a realistic expectation here that the ceasefire plan, as I just said, is eroding. I mean, we are very concerned about the situation there. The Secretary is going to Paris talking about next steps.

QUESTION: But I guess – my question is --

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: My question is why not say this is --

MR. TONER: You’re saying why don’t we declare it --

QUESTION: Yeah, say, “All right, all right, we tried this one plan and it hasn’t worked. Clearly it hasn’t worked. And it’s now time to move to the next stage,” instead of waiting for another --
MR. TONER: Well, we’re not --

QUESTION: -- 150, 200 people to get killed?

MR. TONER: The bottom line is we’re not waiting. We’re going to continue to work with the Friends of Syria Group to put pressure on Assad. At the same time, we’re going to try to give the Annan plan more opportunity to work.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you get in touch with Moscow and exchange view with respect to this deterioration in the last 24 hours?

MR. TONER: I don’t believe the Secretary’s had any calls or contacts with Lavrov. Of course, I don’t know that – whether Ambassador Rice has spoken to her Russian counterpart in New York.
Yeah.

QUESTION: New topic, (inaudible)?

MR. TONER: Oh, sorry. Yeah, finish it (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I just – I was wondering – and I apologize if you addressed this last week, but there was this – that German ship that’s been towed to a port in Turkey --

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- suspected of taking Syrian arms – arms to Syria. Do you guys have anything on that?

MR. TONER: Well, we have seen these reports that you mentioned. It’s a Ukrainian charted ship that’s now in a Turkish port that is apparently or allegedly carrying munitions to Syria. If true, this would be a violation of the EU arms embargo on Syria, and any aid to the regime’s violent capacities supports the killing of innocent victims, so we want to see the – we want to see it stopped and sanctioned.

QUESTION: But you don’t have any independent reason to believe that this is (inaudible)?
MR. TONER: I don’t at this point.

QUESTION: Sorry. How is it a violation of the EU arms embargo?

MR. TONER: Against Syria.

QUESTION: I’m sorry; I don’t understand. Turkey is not in the EU and neither is Ukraine, at least the last time I checked. Why would this be a violation?

MR. TONER: Look, I think that --

QUESTION: Turkey wants to be in the EU.

MR. TONER: (Laughter.) I know that they want to be in the EU.

QUESTION: Or at least they did.

MR. TONER: I’m aware of their aspirations. I think that we are calling on all countries that are unified – and certainly, Turkey is with us on our stance against the situation in Syria – to comply with existing embargos. And we would seek in this case --
QUESTION: Well, my understanding is there is not an arms embargo on Syria, a UN arms embargo, so who is the – who would be – I mean, the Russians or whoever the Ukrainians can ship as – whatever they want without violating – I mean, EU – an EU arms embargo, to me, suggests that that means that EU countries cannot send weapons to Syria.

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think it’s a fair question. I’m not sure the legality or the – all the legal aspects to it. I think fundamentally, what we’re trying to say here is that countries like Turkey have played a leadership role in speaking out against Syria and taking action against the regime there, and what they’re carrying out should be willing to comply with this.

QUESTION: You think that the ship is owned by a German company?

MR. TONER: I think it’s owned by a German company, thank you. As you know, these – the ships also – often have a long pedigree.
QUESTION: Venezuela?

MR. TONER: No, let’s do Canada.

QUESTION: Very quickly, I’m just wondering what you can tell us about the request to transfer Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay to Canada, how that process will now move ahead, and why the U.S. is so anxious to get this transfer moving.

MR. TONER: Well, I can say that the U.S. Government and the Canadian Government continue to work closely to effectuate Omar Khadr’s application to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada, which was pursuant to his plea agreement. And the first step, as you know, in this process was completed last year, which was an exchange of diplomatic notes. And those notes continue to govern this transfer. We did recently approve the transfer of Khadr to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada, and we’ve been in regular contact with the Canadian Government on this case. We’ve worked diligently to take appropriate steps consistent with the treaty, but we’re not going to be able to give you a transfer timeline. But we’re working quickly and deliberately to close this process out.

I think your question was: Why are we working so quickly? Well, as you know, we’re working to close Guantanamo Bay, and as part of that process, we’re trying to find homes, if you will, for the remaining prisoners.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up: Is there any more action that the United States has to take in order for this to happen, or is it now entirely in the hands of Canada?

MR. TONER: That’s a good question. I think I’ll have to take that question, frankly. I’m not sure whether we have any more legal steps we need to take in this process.
QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Other than, obviously, the physical transfer.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Venezuela?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday the highest official in the Venezuelan Government – Eladio Aponte, supreme court – defected to the United States as serious accusations against the Chavez government – high military officials, the closest aides to Chavez on corruption and drug trafficking. How this changes the dynamic of the U.S. Government relations with Venezuela?

MR. TONER: Well, with regard to his current status and situation, I’d have to refer you to the DEA. As to the larger issue, I don’t really have any comment on the broader implications of his transfer.
QUESTION: Is there a concern about corruption and narco-traffic within the highest echelons of the Venezuelan Government?

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we talk about our concerns. We’ve talked about them before, about our concerns about drug trafficking and corruption, frankly, in the region and the negative effects of it. But as to this case, because of its legal ramifications, I can’t really talk about any more detail.

Yeah. Go ahead, Scott.

QUESTION: Have you finished studying Argentina’s proposed nationalization of YPF? Can you give us anything on that?

MR. TONER: Well, I can give you a little bit more today, yes. I can say that we’re very concerned about the Government of Argentina’s intent to nationalize Repsol YPF. Frankly, the more we look at this, we view it as a negative development along the lines of what the Secretary said the other day, in that these kinds of actions against foreign investors can ultimately have an adverse effect on the Argentine economy and could further dampen the investment climate in Argentina.

And just to add that we’ve raised this on numerous occasions and at the highest levels of the Government of Argentina; our concerns about these kinds of actions that can affect the investment climate in Argentina. And we would just urge Argentina to normalize its relationship with the international financial and investment community.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on that. The Spanish foreign minister today said that this issue not only affects Spain’s interests or the European Union interests, it affects the interests of the whole international community. Do you agree with that?

MR. TONER: Well, insofar as along the lines of what I just said insofar as that it creates a very negative investment climate. Yes.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Palestinian issue?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: According to press report, President Abbas, in his letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that he might go back to the United Nation or he might raise legal issue before the international justice. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. TONER: Well, as we talked yesterday, I am aware that the parties did meet yesterday. Obviously we’re encouraged by these face-to-face exchanges. There was a letter that was exchanged. To your broader question, our position hasn’t changed with regard to going to the UN or other organizations. It’s not productive and conducive to creating the kind of atmosphere that’s going to get both parties back to the negotiating table.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Did the U.S. get a copy from President Abbas of the letter he gave to the Israeli prime minister?

MR. TONER: I don’t know. Possibly. I don’t have confirmation. I haven’t spoken with David about that.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a couple of little ones.

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: The first is the Indian Government had plans – they’ve now postponed them, but they have plans to test this new missile. Apparently it can carry payloads deep into China or perhaps even as far as Europe. I was just wondering if you’d had any communication with that – on that subject with them.

MR. TONER: Well, look, you know that we’ve got a very strong strategic and security partnership with India, so we obviously have routine discussions about a wide range of topics, including their defense requirements. I’m not aware that we’ve specifically raised this issue with them. We’ve certainly seen the reports that between April 18th and 20th that they plan to test this ballistic missile. As I – I think I understand or saw in press reports that it was postponed.

Naturally, I just would say that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding nuclear capabilities. That said, India has a solid nonproliferation record. They’re engaged with the international community on nonproliferation issues. And Prime Minister Singh, I believe, has attended both the nuclear – both of the nuclear summit – security summits, the one in Washington and then Seoul.

QUESTION: So you wouldn’t have any specific concerns on it as a destabilizing factor in the region?
MR. TONER: I think I’ll just stay with – the fact that we always caution all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.

QUESTION: Okay. And one other one --

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: On a separate issue, the Embassy in Abuja put out this morning about Boko Haram and threats to attack hotels. And the Nigerian Government has reacted rather unhappily to this warning, saying that it just fans panic. Did you guys run this by the Nigerians before you put it out? What sort of information was it based on? Can you tell us?

MR. TONER: Yeah. In response to your question about whether we ran this by the Government of Nigeria, I don’t know that we would be obliged to do so. I don’t know if we did in this case. We did receive, however, information that Boko Haram may be planning attacks in Abuja, Nigeria, as you said, against hotels frequently visited by Westerners. We don’t have any additional information regarding the timing of these attacks. But as you know, in accordance with the Department’s no double standard policy, when we deem a threat to any U.S. citizen – safety – rather a threat to a U.S. citizen’s safety or security to be specific, credible, and non-counterable, we do issue these kinds of emergency messages.

QUESTION: Specific, credible, and what?

MR. TONER: Non-counterable, meaning we can’t find any evidence to refute it.

QUESTION: Or non-counterable, meaning it can’t be stopped?

MR. TONER: No. Non-counterable meaning we can’t find any readily available evidence to dispute it.

QUESTION: And you can’t be any more specific?

MR. TONER: I can’t at this – no.

QUESTION: Because --

MR. TONER: Because I don’t know that we have any other information beyond what I just said, which is that – attacks against hotels frequented by Westerners. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Well, no, I – the source of this information I think it was what the question was.

MR. TONER: I can’t. We don’t comment on the source of our threat information.

QUESTION: Well, do you regard it – you believe it to be specific and credible?

MR. TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Like, so what you said?

MR. TONER: Yes. What I said.

QUESTION: Specific, credible, and non-counterable?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: On India (inaudible) --

MR. TONER: And I also asked what non-counterable meant, and I think that’s the explanation I was given. If that’s wrong, I’ll let you guys know.

QUESTION: Doesn’t the development of an ICBM cross a certain line?

MR. TONER: I’m sorry. Where are we at again?

QUESTION: India. The missile.

MR. TONER: Look, there’s been no launch; it’s been postponed. I think I gave you all I’m going to say on that.

Yeah, go ahead, Scott.

QUESTION: The French Government has issued an international arrest warrant against the son of the president of Equatorial Guinea. This is the guy who the Justice Department went to court last week seeking to seize as much as $70 million of his assets. He’s a large property owner in California. Has there been any contact by the French Government to the United States Government about this arrest warrant?

MR. TONER: I’m sorry. This is – this individual is --

QUESTION: The son of the president of Equatorial Guinea.

MR. TONER: Okay. I’m not aware of it. I’ll just take the question, Scott.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. TONER: Yeah, let’s go in the back then.

QUESTION: Yeah. Can I just follow up on Omar Khadr?

MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: And – yeah. I was just wondering, what was part of the negotiation between the U.S. and Canada regarding – because we were being told that it was a deal – and if Canada was offered something in return.

MR. TONER: I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying – that whether there was some kind of quid pro quo or something or --

QUESTION: No. That there was that – because we were being told that there was a deal regarding his transfer.

MR. TONER: I don’t have anything to add other than that there was – and I would just point you in the direction of there were diplomatic notes exchanged last year that are publicly available that spell out the transfer and the rules that govern it.

QUESTION: But there is nothing newer than that?

MR. TONER: Certainly not that I’m aware of. No.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: North Korea. The Japanese newspaper, the Yomiuri Shimbun, reported today that China has suspended deportations to North Korea of refugees. The article was saying that this was partly in retaliation because North Korea didn’t consult China or inform China about its launch recently. But obviously, the U.S. has had long-standing concerns.

MR. TONER: We have had long-standing concerns. I’m frankly not aware of this particular report, but --

QUESTION: Just if there’s any information about whether those repatriations have actually been stopped.

MR. TONER: I don’t know. I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: Sure, sure.

MR. TONER: Is that it, everyone? Thanks guys.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 17, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
TRANSCRIPT:

12:46 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Good afternoon.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
MR. TONER: Welcome. (Laughter.) I feel sometimes a little schoolmarm-ish up here when I – I don’t know why. It’s ridiculous. (Laughter.) Anyway, welcome to the State Department. Jill, Cami, good to see you guys, too. (Laughter.) Anyway, I have nothing for the top, so I’ll take your questions.
Jill.
QUESTION: Actually, I’m interested in North Korea.
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: North Korea is saying that the February – the Leap Day Agreement is over, no longer binding. So of course, what does that mean? Is there any reaction? Does it mean they’re paving the way for a nuclear test?
MR. TONER: Well, it’s difficult to say. I mean, in terms of what we’ve seen reported, the statements about these commitments that they made on Leap Day - it’s not surprising, given their recent behavior. We’ve been very clear, especially the presidential statement that was passed by the UN Security Council yesterday, that North Korea needs to comply with the Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874. And that includes abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs as well as no more nuclear tests, or abstaining from any nuclear tests. So – and it was also very clear that the Security Council was determined to take action in the event of any future launch or nuclear test.
QUESTION: Is there any indication the U.S., at this point, believes that they might be laying the groundwork for a nuclear test?
MR. TONER: I can’t, obviously, talk about any intelligence that we might have about this. And frankly, it’s very difficult to say; it’s a very opaque regime. We parse out their public comments. We also know that in the past, as we’ve said, there’s been this pattern of bad behavior, if you will. So we can’t preclude anything at this point – but again, very clearly reminding them of their obligations under existing UN Security Council resolutions and also very clearly conveying the fact that the Security Council would take appropriate actions.
QUESTION: What are the appropriate actions that could be taken, given the raft of sanctions that are already facing not just the North Korean Government but various individuals, including the new leader Kim Jong-un?
MR. TONER: Well, you are correct in saying that. I don’t think any other country, or very few countries in the world, have as strict or rigid a sanctions program against them as North Korea. They’re probably one of the most heavily sanctioned countries in the world. The presidential statement did speak yesterday about, though, going back to the UN Sanctions Committee to find out ways that those sanctions, existing sanctions, can be strengthened.
And I talked a little bit about this yesterday, that there’s sanctions that are on the books, and then the second part of making an effective sanctions regime is constantly adding to them but also seeking ways to make them stronger through the implementation. And that’s what they’ll be doing.
Yeah.
QUESTION: What’s the U.S. view on the Leap Year Agreement? Is it – obviously the U.S. part has been suspended with the nutritional assistance.
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: But does the U.S. still believe that it’s in force, that North Korea is bound to what it promised at that point?
MR. TONER: Well, indeed. I mean, we’ve – we believe that, again, it’s not just the commitments that North Korea made on Leap Day, but also existing Security Council resolutions that hold North Korea to the pledge not to conduct any nuclear tests.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just to make sure we understand, then, is the Leap Day Agreement null and void, or is it just that it still remains as a legal agreement which they have broken? Maybe it’s the same thing, but --
MR. TONER: Well, I don’t know if I would term it a legal agreement, but it was a pledge of commitment that North Korea took. We undertook a commitment to look at nutritional assistance at the same time. Given the fact that they’ve reneged on their commitments by launching this satellite, then we’ve suspended our side of the commitments.
QUESTION: Different issue?
MR. TONER: Different issue. Do you have another or --
QUESTION: No.
MR. TONER: Okay. Sure, Shaun.
QUESTION: Repsol – the issue in Argentina with the nationalization. I saw Secretary Clinton spoke a little bit about this, but didn’t really give much commentary on it. Does the U.S. want to stay out of this, or is there some viewpoint that you could give? The EU has --
MR. TONER: I think her comment reflected that we’re still studying the details of the case. She spoke about the need for diverse markets, and certainly that’s one of our core beliefs: diverse energy markets. But beyond that, we don’t have any comment.
Yeah. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MR. TONER: We can go to Syria.
QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday you made a couple comments, but right after that I think there was a comment made by the Secretary of State and by the representative of the United Nations. Both were not actually very helpful as far as the ceasefire is concerned. Could you care to comment on that?
MR. TONER: You’re saying that the Secretary nor the representative --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: Well, I think I spoke to it a little bit yesterday. By our accounts, based on sources inside the country, 26 people were killed in Syria yesterday. We also understand that violence continues with tank shelling in Homs and in another town in southern Syria, Busra al-Harir. And it’s – this – as I said yesterday, this erosion of the cessation of violence that we had in place – and we called it fragile from the start – is – this erosion is unacceptable. We need to see the Assad regime live up to its pledge, and the onus is on the Assad regime. So far, the Syrian opposition has held its fire and lived up to its side of the agreement.
QUESTION: Yeah. But there is also a back and forth going on with the amir of Qatar saying that it has a chance of 3 percent of success. I don’t know how he came up with that figure. But also today with Mr. Lavrov in Moscow saying that there are people – alluding to Qatar and Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf countries – who are trying to actually collapse the ceasefire. Do you concur with that assessment, with the Russians?
MR. TONER: I don’t think anybody wants to see the violence return to Syria. I can’t really say that because it hasn’t fully abated, but nobody wants to see the Syrian regime crank up its artillery assaults on civilians again to the degree that it had been in previous weeks. I think the GCC countries have played, obviously, a strong leadership role in trying to address this crisis. And it’s frustrating to see one small, fragile step forward, but then to see that eroding before our eyes.
So again, the onus is on Assad. The onus is on his regime. They need to live up to their side of the bargain. They need to fulfill all the points of the Annan plan – implement all the points of the Annan plan. To date, they have not. They barely fulfilled one. And so – and we do need to let these monitors get on the ground, establish themselves, and go out and actually report on what they see.
QUESTION: So you’re saying that the ceasefire, by itself, is not enough, right? There’s got to be also – the regime has to be forthcoming on all the other points.
MR. TONER: Absolutely.
QUESTION: What is your assessment of how the ongoing discussions in Paris about the economic sanctions aimed at Syria and efforts to toughen them? What’s the – this building’s read on what’s happening there?
MR. TONER: Well, the tougher the better. We’ve said all along that we want to see sanctions, political pressure, economic pressure increased on Assad, increased on his regime. We would have the message conveyed very clearly to those around Assad that the tide has turned, and they need to reconsider their options.
Yeah. Go ahead, Jill.
QUESTION: What are monitors doing exactly?
MR. TONER: They are – again, this is a very small group that arrived over the weekend. I believe just five monitors are on the ground – six monitors are on the ground. They’ve set up an office in an existing UN office, I would imagine in Damascus. They’ve also met with officials at the Syrian foreign ministry, and we expect the number of monitors to quickly increase to 25 or 30 in the next five to seven days. And as you probably saw from reporting out of UN, they’re still trying to establish – waiting for recommendations from the Secretary General on how large this mission will be.
QUESTION: How – what will you base your assessment on whether or not this initial monitoring effort is successful? I mean, what does it take? What do they have to do that they – that you all would then say that this is actually working?
MR. TONER: Well, first off, they need unlimited access to all parts of Syria, and I think that we’ve seen this come out in some of the discussions ongoing in New York. They need to be able to – as we talked about before with the Arab League, these monitors are only as good as the access that they’re provided. If they can get out, if they can see all areas of the country, then they can provide an objective and detailed assessment of the situation. So I think we’ll – as we move forward, we’ll see how – what kind of access they get, their ability to travel around, and then we’ll, obviously, wait for their report back to the UN.
QUESTION: I mean, you’re saying that that group could expand to up to 30 within seven days.
MR. TONER: That’s correct.
QUESTION: You think that within that seven-day period we’ll be able to judge whether or not this is --
MR. TONER: I honestly – I think it’s going to be a critical week as we see how this mission is implemented, and I think the Secretary alluded to that last night. I don’t know whether we’ll expect a full report, from them in that time. I just can’t say.
QUESTION: The Secretary General suggested in his comments today in Doha that perhaps even 250 monitors might not be enough, given the size of Syria and given the scope of the ongoing --
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: -- violence. And he also suggested, perhaps, providing helicopters and other means of travel to these monitors. Are we seeing a slow ratcheting up of some sort of outside intervention here?
MR. TONER: Ros, I think he’s just looking at – and I just spoke to this a little bit. He’s looking at what’s required for an effective monitoring mission. Indeed, Syria’s a very large country. And so they need access to all parts of the country in order to carry out an effective mission. So I believe that as we move forward in the next couple of days, the Secretary General will go back to the Security Council with his recommendations on the size and scope of the mission, and then we’ll move from there.
QUESTION: Is there any concern that the Assad regime could push back on aerial modes of transportation, to use a bureaucratic phrase, because of some concern that perhaps people could fire weapons out of those aircraft?
MR. TONER: Again, these are unarmed observers, so I don’t preclude any action, however absurd, by the Syrian Government. But it would be indeed absurd to assume that.
QUESTION: Mark, some Syria – I’m sorry, go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to clarify.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: With the monitors, and essentially, they’re talking with the foreign ministry, trying to establish how they’re going to go about this --
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: -- as opposed to actually carrying it out, right?
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: And then is – do you have any feedback in terms of how the Assad government is reacting, what they are saying? Are they cooperating?
MR. TONER: I really don’t at this point. Other than what we’ve seen in terms of the return of violence or the slow ratcheting up of violence in several areas of the country, I really don’t have an assessment about their meetings with the foreign ministry, at least yet.
QUESTION: The fact they’re saying that Secretary Clinton’s going to be in Paris on Thursday for the sort of – some Friends of Syria meeting. Are you able to confirm that?
MR. TONER: I can’t confirm at this point. She’s obviously up in the air. I’ve seen those same press reports. We’ve talked about – certainly, the Secretary is very willing to meet – to discuss this important issue, obviously. But I just can’t confirm at this point.
QUESTION: I wonder if I can get you to comment on something. Some old Syria hands in town are suggesting that perhaps the United States Government could share intelligence with the opposition groups and so on, saying that now there is a movement of tanks or now there’s a movement of military contingent moving towards this neighborhood or that neighborhood. Is that something that is being discussed, at least, in this building?
MR. TONER: Well, if it was being discussed, I wouldn’t be able to tell you about it.
QUESTION: But is it --
MR. TONER: No. I think what we’re working at is along the lines of what was decided at the last Friends of Syria meeting, which is non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, improve their communications. Again, you’ve seen some of the imagery also that’s appeared on Ambassador Ford’s Facebook site, and that, in effect, is a way to hold the Syrian regime accountable. You can actually see heavy weaponry surrounding some of these cities. So our focus right now: working with the opposition, trying to strengthen their cohesion, strengthen their unity, so as we move towards what we hope is an eventual transition, that they’re ready for that.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up to rephrase my question. So as part of that assistance in communications, would that be communicating to the opposition that they’re about to be attacked? Is that part of communication?
MR. TONER: My understanding is that this is communication that’s supposed to strengthen their own intra-communication, their ability to – and again, the Secretary spoke about when she met with members of the opposition during the last meeting in – Istanbul? Sorry, was it Istanbul or – okay, thank you – talked about meeting with a woman who talked about, during these bombardments in places like Homs, their inability to even know what’s going on in another part of the city. So we’re trying to look at ways that we can strengthen that kind of communication.
Yeah, in the back, Scott.
QUESTION: Sudan, please. Could you – what can you tell us about Ambassador Lyman’s efforts in Juba?
MR. TONER: Sure. I don’t have a lengthy readout for you, Scott. I can say that he is in Juba, as I mentioned yesterday, for meetings with the Government of South Sudan. He did meet with President Kiir yesterday. I think I said they’re looking at ways to deescalate the tension and end the current crisis. He is going to travel to Khartoum, I believe, later today or tomorrow for meetings with Sudanese officials to essentially stress the same message, which is that we need an immediate and unconditional cessation of violence, and we need both sides to get back to the AU process.
QUESTION: Does it continue to be your position that the SPLA troops need to withdraw from Heglig?
MR. TONER: It does.
QUESTION: Was that raised with President Kiir?
MR. TONER: I’m sure it was.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey blamed Pakistan-based Haqqani Network for the attacks in Kabul, and Secretary Clinton also talked to Foreign Minister Khar. So what – does the initial evidence lead to Pakistan at the moment? Was this coordinated by the Haqqani Network elements in Pakistan or in Afghanistan? What is your initial information?
MR. TONER: Right. I mean, the quick answer is we don’t know yet. It appeared to bear the hallmarks of the – an Haqqani Network-style attack. We’ve seen them obviously carry out one last fall that was coordinated in this kind of fashion, but beyond that, we’re still in the information-gathering stage. It’s still an investigation carried out by Afghan authorities. So we should know more.
QUESTION: And last year, we heard a lot about Haqqani Network that was – all sorts of – that went from communication with Pakistan. But that seemed to go in the background during the last few months when everything between Pakistan and U.S. seemed to be at a standstill. So was there any kind of communication on Haqqani Network, or are your concerns about the same? You thought Pakistan actually did take some action or they did nothing? What is your impression?
MR. TONER: Well, I think the Secretary spoke to this in her press availability yesterday in Brasilia, and she simply said that when she was in Pakistan in the fall, that she raised our concerns about the Haqqani Network, and frankly, our concerns that this is a shared threat. We all need to take action against this network. It’s a threat to Pakistanis, it’s a threat to Afghans, and it’s a threat to, obviously, Americans living in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
QUESTION: No, my question is that --
MR. TONER: Sorry.
QUESTION: -- you have been raising this concern with Pakistan over the last year or so. You have done that a number of times.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: Have you seen any improvement or you think the situation is actually deteriorating?
MR. TONER: Well, again, it’s – we’ve been going through a fairly difficult period with Pakistan that we’re now hopefully emerging from. And throughout that, our counterterrorism cooperation has continued, but we want to try to strengthen it. We recognize that we do face these shared threats, and we need to keep up the fight. We continue to make that case to the Pakistani Government, that this is a group that is killing Pakistanis as well as Americans as well as Afghans, so we need to put the pressure on them. I think I’ll just leave it there.
Yeah, Scott.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you think that this attack, and if Pakistan doesn’t take any action against Haqqani Network, as U.S. has been demanding, it could sabotage whatever efforts there are at the moment to bring this relationship back on track?
MR. TONER: We’re going forward. We have the parliamentary review process complete, but going forward, we’re going to have a strong and serious discussion on all the issues, including counterterrorism, including the Haqqani Network. The Secretary stated that yesterday. We take it very seriously.
QUESTION: There are Azerbaijani officials in town this week. Can you tell us about any talks they might be having in this building, and if any of those talks have included Afghanistan?
MR. TONER: Scott, I’ll take the question. I don’t have any details with me.
Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: Treasury today said it was easing some sanctions on Myanmar, certain sanctions that would allow nongovernmental organizations --
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: -- particularly to do their jobs. I’m wondering, is this the extent of the action for action that we can expect at this stage or are you contemplating further moves?
MR. TONER: No, I think the other – we talked about a number of actions on April 4th, I guess it was, which included naming an ambassador, opening a USAID office, establishing a normal country program for UNDP, facilitating travel for select government officials, and also easing restrictions on the export of U.S. financial services. And then also, one of these elements was, as you just mentioned, easing restrictions on nonprofit activities. So today, as you correctly noted, the Office of Foreign Assets Control did issue a general license easing financial restrictions for certain not-for-profit activities in Burma. These include health, education, good governance, and certain noncommercial development initiatives. And as I said, this is – I think you’ll see more steps as we implement what we laid out on April 4th. You’ll see additional measures.
QUESTION: Okay. So I mean, it isn’t that the Burmese have to do more now to get more, that --
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: I mean, these were our action for action, if you will, in response to what we viewed as very positive parliamentary elections.
Yeah, Jill.
QUESTION: Mark – Egypt. Some of the NGO people are now worried that they will be on an Interpol list and will not be able to travel internationally. Do you have any update on where their status is, what their status is?
MR. TONER: I don’t, and I’m somewhat limited to what we can say about Interpol matters. I’ll take the question, though, and see if we can get anything back for you.
QUESTION: All right. And you may have addressed this --
MR. TONER: But I mean, obviously, what we said previously, Jill, just to – we’ve been very clear that we think these are politically motivated charges and without merit, and so let me just reiterate that, that we don’t – there’s no reason for these individuals to be on any kind of list, international legal list.
QUESTION: All right. And just one quick one on – you may have addressed this this week, I could’ve missed it, but the level of concern here in this building about the Egyptian elections, in which a number of people have been –
MR. TONER: Yeah. I spoke a little bit about this yesterday. This is – obviously, Egyptians are following this process very closely, and rightly so. Our concern is that we want to see a fair and transparent process moving forward and a successful handover election and handover of power to a civilian government along the timeframe that the SCAF has already laid out. So they’ve already had successful parliamentary elections. We want to see that trend continue, and leading to a transfer of power.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Change topic? Palestinian-Israeli issue?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Okay. Last year, the Quartet, as part of its effort, requested that both the Palestinians and the Israelis submit their proposals for the borders and so on. The Palestinians did; the Israelis did not. Today there is a letter that is being submitted from Abbas to Netanyahu. Do you expect, as a result of this letter, that the Israelis will come forth with their own proposal of the borders, and will you support that?
MR. TONER: Well, what I can say is that, as you noted, the parties are set to meet today. I didn’t have confirmation coming down here that the actual – the meeting – actually the meeting was underway. But I can --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: They did already meet?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Yeah. No, and I – again, I was trying to get confirmation about that as well. But I do – I can say that the Palestinians did intend to deliver a letter addressed to Prime Minister Netanyahu and that we understand there’s a – there are plans for an Israeli reply. But I obviously can’t get into the substance of those.
Yes. Back here.
QUESTION: On Guinea-Bissau.
MR. TONER: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Following the coup in Mali, you supported the ECOWAS deal, which had the vice president come to power and the soldiers step back. The military, who’s now in control of Guinea-Bissau, says that they will have a similar transitional authority, but the soldiers will decide what civilians will take part in that. Is that acceptable?
MR. TONER: No – I did see that. Let’s be very clear that we support the ECOWAS-led efforts in the country as – and I believe it’s not just ECOWAS; it’s the community of Portuguese-language countries that are also involved in this. We certainly want to see a return to civilian power, but I can’t speculate on what’s being proposed by these mutineers except to say that we strongly support ECOWAS and CLP efforts to return the country to civilian rule.
QUESTION: Would it be acceptable to you that soldiers determine which civilians could take part in this transitional authority?
MR. TONER: Again, I mean, it’s somewhat speculative. I’ve heard those comments. I haven’t seen anything to back them up. I don’t know what – but I don’t know if they’re credible. I just have seen press reports at this point. ECOWAS is there on the ground. They’re working hard to – are there to mediate. We just want to see a return to civilian rule. But certainly, we would want to see something that is in keeping with democratic standards.
QUESTION: On Vietnam?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: I don’t know if you have anything to say about charges that have been filed against a number of journalists and bloggers, one Nguyen Van Hai. They’re accused of anti-state propaganda.
MR. TONER: Right. I mean, obviously, we’re watching these cases very closely. We’re very concerned and monitoring the charges. But I’ll take the question and see if we can get more details for you.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On South Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Lim Sung-nam is in town and is at the State Department today for meetings. And I’m wondering if you have any information about who he’ll be meeting with?
MR. TONER: He is. And I’m trying to – I hope I have this – I did have a readout – or not a readout but a preview. You’re talking about Special Representative Lim?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: He is going to be meeting with Glyn Davies, our Special Representative for North Korea, as well as Assistant Secretary Thomas Countryman. And, obviously, they’ll talk about the range of issues, probably first and foremost, North Korea, and next steps following yesterday’s presidential statement.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Yes. I have a question about Argentina and the oil company. The Spanish foreign minister has said he’s disappointed with Secretary Clinton reaction to the nationalization of the YPF company. I would like to know what should Spain expect from the U.S. Government? What position should Spain expect in this issue from the U.S.?
MR. TONER: Well, I think Secretary Clinton was simply – said that she was still looking at the case. She commented, as I mentioned to Shaun earlier, the importance that we subscribe to – or ascribe to diversity of energy resources. We believe that’s the best route to go. But beyond that, we’re still studying the implications.
QUESTION: A follow-up?
MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Does the United States, to be clear, condone or condemn this nationalization?
MR. TONER: I think we’re still trying to get the details of what’s happened and making an assessment. But speaking more generally, when it comes to energy markets, as I just said, we want to see more diversity, not less.
QUESTION: Yesterday, governor of Tokyo made a speech in D.C., saying that city of Tokyo will be purchasing Senkaku Islands. Do you have any reaction to this news?
MR. TONER: Nothing beyond our standard policy or position on the Senkaku Islands, which I can give to you chapter and verse, if you like. But I don’t have any specific comment on his speech, no. Yeah.
Anything else, guys? Great. Thank you.