STATE DEPARTMENT ON USE OF SANCTIONS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks to the ACIEP Sanctions Subcommittee
Remarks Jose W. Fernandez
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Washington, DC
April 11, 2012
INTRODUCTION
You know, I spend a lot of time doing very positive work in a number of areas at the State Department. One area we focus on in the Bureau of Economic and Business affairs is economic sanctions, which I know can sometimes be viewed as “the dark side” of our work. We have many carrots at our disposal, but sanctions work is our big stick. But the message that I want all of you to walk away with today is that sanctions regimes can be an effective way to promote some very positive changes around the world.
I will begin my remarks with a brief description of some of the goals and work of our sanctions team, some of whom are here to help answer your more difficult questions, before I present you with a few case studies on sanctions, and I will conclude with how we see our work going forward.

However, I am particularly interested in hearing from you. I’d like to hear your thoughts on the role you envision for U.S. sanctions regimes in our overall economic tradecraft and our message to the business community, so I encourage you to present any ideas or questions you may have at the end of my comments.

THE WORK OF THE SANCTIONS TEAM AT STATE
Sanctions are a foreign policy tool somewhere between hard and soft power, which can play a significant role in encouraging bad actors to change their behavior. Under the Obama Administration, sanctions have proven to be one of our most effective means of increasing pressure on rogue actors and regimes without resorting to force.

Secretary Clinton has noted that one of our country’s great challenges is advancing our global leadership at a time when power is often measured and exercised in economic terms. Our sanctions regimes are a critical part of our economic outreach, and we envision an economic foreign policy in which promotion of business development meshes seamlessly with sanctions that simultaneously encourage our global partners to focus on responsible, innovative markets and isolate the world’s worst human rights abusers and weapons proliferators.

Additionally, the Department has been ramping up its focus on making our sanctions regimes as strong and effective as possible. Given the horrific events occurring in Iran and Syria over the past couple years, these improvements to our sanctions protocol are timely, and in sync with the Administration’s commitment to using sanctions in the most effective manner possible.

In light of this new focus, we have been expanding our sanctions team, adding six more people and bringing in a new Deputy assistant Secretary to focus wholly on our sanctions programs. We are aiming for a re-vamped sanctions Deputate by mid-summer.

Already, our economic sanctions experts are in constant contact with others at the State Department who also play a key role in sanctions policy, including our colleagues focused on non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, and human rights, and those on our country desks who coordinate our overall relationship with a country. Through this interaction, we ensure that our sanctions policies are focused in the right way so as to maximize their impact.

We hope that these changes will allow the State Department to coordinate more effectively with other agencies to wield targeted sanctions and other economic pressure against our adversaries.
Wherever possible, we have attempted to target our sanctions on individuals and entities within a country directly engaged in the activities that we seek to change. These targeted sanctions are sometimes referred to as “smart sanctions.” In doing so, we seek to make it clear that we are not targeting the population of a country but rather those in control who can stop the bad behavior of a particular regime.

CASE STUDY: LIBYA
Libya is an example of when sanctions can be most effective: in environments of international cooperation. When the international community cooperates on sanctions, targeted entities have a harder time avoiding them and the likelihood of success in effecting desired changes increases. These sanctions, in combination with an effective military pressure and support for Libyan rebel forces provided by the international coalition, helped isolate the Qadhafi regime, resulting in the regime’s ultimate downfall.
I will be traveling to Libya in a week’s time, and I will get a better sense of lessons learned from our sanctions regime while I am there.

As you all know, both the Administration and the international community have now passed measures that significantly ease sanctions on Libya. Though final winding down of the Libyan sanctions programs may take some additional time, this is a good example of how sanctions regimes can change over time based on the goals of each sanctions program and the situation on the ground.

CASE STUDY: BURMA
Although challenges remain, the Burmese Government has taken some positive steps toward democratization and civic openness since Than Sein became President in 2011. During her trip to Burma in December 2011, Secretary Clinton announced an “action-for-action” strategy to encourage reformers to take further steps.
As a result of Burma’s successful by-elections on April 1, Secretary Clinton announced on April 4 a series of steps that the United States is prepared to take as part of our action-for-action strategy.
Among steps on the sanctions front, these include a broad exemption from our Burma sanctions for a wide spectrum of non-profit activities. This will make it much easier for U.S
. entities and individuals to build schools, clinics, libraries, and other institutions in Burma. U.S. citizens will also be authorized to set up university exchange programs, public health initiatives, conservation projects and a host of other activities that will benefit the Burmese people.
This step is in line with the Secretary’s commitment during her visit to Burma to increase exchanges with the people, civil society organizations, and government.

We will also begin the process of a targeted easing of our ban on the export of U.S. financial services and investment, as part of a broader effort to help accelerate economic and political reform.
Our aim will be to recognize the reforms underway and take actions that assist the country's development and reform process. We will work closely with our allies and counterparts, including within our own government, to coordinate these changes.

CASE STUDY: SYRIA
Syria presents another example of international coordination. As it became clear that President Assad was not going to lead a democratic transition, and as the violence against the Syrian people increased, we felt it necessary to coordinate a strong international response.

We have worked systematically to increase our own pressures, including tough targeted sanctions against the Assad regime. At the same time, in literally hundreds of meetings and conversations, President Obama, Secretary Clinton, senior officials, our ambassadors, and others have steadily and systematically worked to build concerted international pressure.
Our aim was to build a strong international effort in support of the universal rights of the Syrian people, and to condemn and isolate the Assad regime. We recognized from the start that American leadership was crucial to this effort, but to have maximum impact in Syria, we wanted to lead the chorus of voices and pressures, not just make this a solo act.
This coordination led to similar actions by our partners and allies around the world, such as the EU and Canada, to isolate the Government of Syria from the international financial system and deprive it access to significant revenue streams that are generated by its petroleum sector.

Syria continues to pose challenges, and we continue to look at ways in coordination with our international partners to increase pressure on the Syrian regime. Again, this dire situation requires a chorus, not a solo.

CASE STUDY: IRAN
Iran remains one of our greatest foreign policy challenges, and our Iran sanctions regimes are one of our greatest tools in pressuring Iran to comply with its international obligations.
The United States and our international partners are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We remain committed to a dual-track policy that combines the use of pressure with engagement.

In response to Iran’s actions, which point to an Iranian nuclear weapons program, as well as to last fall’s Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, the United States and its international partners have continued a steady drumbeat of new sanctions measures. Let me review a few of the most recent developments.
First is Executive Order (E.O.) 13590, which President Obama issued in November. This Order targets the provision of goods and services to Iran’s upstream oil and gas industry and to Iran’s petrochemical sector. This order expands on existing sanctions, and authorizes sanctions on persons who knowingly support Iran in a way that could directly and significantly contribute to Iran’s ability to develop its petroleum and petrochemical sector.

These new measures will make it more difficult for Iran to circumvent existing sanctions by obtaining foreign expertise to assist in the development of its petroleum resources or dual-use items to refine petroleum in its petrochemical facilities. They will also help accelerate the decline of Iran’s already-deteriorating crude oil production.
In December, President Obama signed into law the National Defense authorization act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2012. This law provides for sanctions on foreign financial institutions for significant transactions, both petroleum and non-petroleum related, with the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and designated Iranian financial institutions. These new sanctions are designed to target both the CBI and Iran’s crude oil revenues, while avoiding disruptions to international oil markets. We are reaching out to oil-consuming countries to help them respond to the new legislation and find alternatives to energy supplies from Iran.

These efforts have been successful. Most recently, the Secretary announced that 11 countries have qualified for an exception under the NDAA because they significantly reduced their imports of Iranian crude oil. These actions will reduce demand for Iranian crude and the revenues it needs to continue pursuing its nuclear aspirations.
In January, the European Union followed our lead and imposed strong sanctions of its own, imposing an embargo on Iranian crude and sanctioning the CBI. This multilateral approach has brought an unprecedented amount of pressure on Iran.

We also continue to enforce existing laws. For example, in January we imposed sanctions under the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA) on three companies for conducting business with Iran’s energy sector, specifically the provision of refined petroleum products to Iran. The firms are Zhuhai Zhenrong Corporation (China), Kuo Oil Pte. Ltd. (Singapore), and Fal Oil Company Ltd (UAE). These firms were among the biggest remaining suppliers of refined petroleum to Iran.

Ironically, though, we have been most effective when we haven’t imposed sanctions under these laws. In many cases, we have used the law as leverage to convince firms to discontinue their business with Iran. The Department does extensive outreach to foreign companies at risk of violating these regulations, and works with them and their governments to deter sanctionable activity in Iran. In this manner, we have prevented many companies across the world from doing business in Iran’s energy sector, and have cut off billions of dollars in potential investments in Iran.

These efforts, combined with our demonstrated resolve to impose sanctions when necessary, sends a clear message to our international partners in the business community: Although we are eager and enthusiastic to work with you to find alternate sources of energy, businesses that continue to support Iran’s energy sector and help facilitate Iran’s continued unwillingness to comply with its international nuclear obligations will face serious consequences.

We are committed to engagement, and we are hopeful that Iran's recent willingness to meet in the P5+1 Framework will lead to serious negotiations about its nuclear program. We believe that the united international front and increasing global pressure have been critical in getting Iran to return to the negotiating table. For that reason, we must continue to impose pressure through sanctions and other means until Iran addresses the international community's concerns over its nuclear program.

LOOKING FORWARD
We and others in the Administration and in Congress are always looking at new ways to further increase pressure on the worst regimes. We are especially focused now on additional measures to take against Iran and Syria. In any deliberations, we look to leverage the best possible outcome in line with U.S. foreign policy goals.

Our multifaceted approach to Economic Statecraft presents many opportunities for businesses around the world to grow and prosper working with the United States, while simultaneously staking a strong position, along with our global partners, that it cannot be business-as-usual with states that ignore the international community, flaunt illicit nuclear development, and commit terrible abuses on their own people. On sanctions, the United States is dedicated to a leadership role in developing a responsible and innovative global economic policy.
I welcome any questions or comments you may have, and my team is here to assist when things get very technical.

THINGYAN- NEW YEAR WATER FESTIVAL IN BURMA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Thingyan - New Year Water Festival
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
April 17, 2012
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I am delighted to send best wishes to the people of Burma as you celebrate Thingyan.
Over the past year, Burma has taken important steps on an historic new path toward democracy and economic development. As you build a brighter future filled with new opportunities, the United States will continue to work with you to strengthen mutual understanding and trust between our two countries and peoples. We look forward to deepening cooperation on a wide range of issues that promote democratization and national reconciliation, from increasing access to education to expanding health care and encouraging a vibrant civil society.

As you gather with family, friends, and neighbors to honor your rich traditions and culture, know that the United States sends our congratulations and best wishes for a peaceful, prosperous, and happy New Year.

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 13, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

12:57 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. Just a brief statement at the top, and then perhaps can answer some of your questions about the situation in Guinea-Bissau.
We strongly condemn the attempt by certain elements of the military to undermine the legitimate civilian leadership of Guinea-Bissau. We regret that they have chosen to disrupt the democratic process, which already was challenged by the opposition’s call to boycott the second round of presidential elections. We urge all parties to put down their weapons, release government leaders immediately, and restore legitimate civilian leadership. And we’re clearly deeply concerned about the safety of all those in Bissau today, and we’re going to continue to work with our partners in the region and beyond as we monitor developments.
Matt.
QUESTION: That’s it?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: To say – have you decided – no decision has been made about – on aid or anything like that?
MR. TONER: No. I mean it’s – look. It’s – we’ve got a situation that’s still developing, events still unfolding. But as I mentioned, since the evening of April 12th, it looks like military forces have taken control of radio and television stations. They remain off the air, as well as seized the headquarters of the ruling party for the independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde party and are attempting to restrict movement. So we obviously strongly condemn this attempt to undermine the civilian authority there. We want it restored as soon as possible.
QUESTION: Right. Okay. Well, then, in the interest of saving time on a beautiful Friday afternoon --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- I’ve got three really quick ones.
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: One, two, three. You can just – do you have anything new to say about North Korea that hasn’t been said by the Secretary – what is she – the White House Secretary or Susan Rice at the UN?
Two, do you anything new to say about the Pakistani parliament and the rules of engagement, or whatever they’re calling them, that wasn’t said in Toria’s statement of last night?
And three, do you have anything new to say about the P-5+1 talks tomorrow?
MR. TONER: No, no, and no. (Laughter.) But I think I’ll still get the questions. I don’t think everyone’s as single-minded as you are. But thanks, Matt. I appreciate that, actually. Any other questions you want to –
QUESTION: I have one on North Korea? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just about the IAEA --
MR. TONER: I couldn’t resist.
QUESTION: -- monitors. Yeah. Is this – does the U.S. still support sending IAEA monitors into North Korea after the launch?
MR. TONER: It’s a fair question. I mean, obviously, that’s something for you to ask the IAEA. I know – I don’t – I’m not aware of where they’re at, frankly, on deliberations about that monitoring mission. I mean, obviously, what we’ve seen in the past week or so since – or two weeks or so since North Korea announced its intention and then moved ahead with this launch has been the same old, same old with North Korea. And we’re obviously very concerned about the situation there, so – yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just two, like a short one and a kind of longer.
MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: First, on the food aid. Will – nothing had been delivered, right? There was no --
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: So is there any technical thing that we have to look at in terms of food aid? Do you just stop it? Nothing happens? There’s nothing in the pipeline floating around Asia that might has to be – have to be pulled back, or anything like that?
MR. TONER: I don’t believe so. My understanding where we were at shortly after the Leap Day agreement or statement was that they – a team tried to finalize some of the arrangements to be made on food assistance. But then when we had the announcement by North Korea that it was moving ahead with this satellite launch, then we suspended that program.
QUESTION: And then a longer format question.
MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just in terms of the approach and the policy of the United States right now, I mean, where does engagement go? Is this – we just turn our backs and say you have done what the world didn’t want you to do, and we don’t talk? Because the President did leave open the door, still, of engagement. But realistically, what happens?
MR. TONER: Well, you are correct that the White House statement yesterday did note that the door does remain open for engagement, or that we’re prepared to engage constructively with North Korea. But as we’ve said many times, we’re not going to reward bad behavior with engagement. And in fact – and we don’t, as you’ve often heard us say, don’t want to engage in talks for talks’ sake.
And so as we move forward – you talked about where we’re at diplomatically. I mean, I think first, we’re in intensive consultations with all our Six-Party colleagues. And in fact, the Secretary has already spoken today, I believe, with China – Chinese Foreign Minister Yang, and then yesterday with South Korea’s Foreign Minister Kim, and of course, with the G-8 here, she also had the opportunity to speak intensively on this matter with Foreign Minister Lavrov, as well as -- where am I forgetting, who else she spoke with --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Sorry?
QUESTION: (Off-mike).
MR. TONER: But anyway, these consultations continue intensively, and moving forward, we’re going to continue to talk with them as we talk about next steps. Obviously, discussions are ongoing today, and Ambassador Rice just gave a readout, in fact, of the Security Council meeting on North Korea’s launch. But I think it’s going to be – I guess if I was trying to characterize it, we’re going to consult, we’re going to move together in a unified manner, and we’re going to – when we do take action, we’re going to do so in a deliberate way.
QUESTION: And just one other thing. The Secretary indicated, and I think Toria in her previous briefing, said often actions from North Korea come in twos or threes. So the obvious next step would be for them to move toward some type of nuclear testing. Is the U.S. picking up any indications from them that they are – I’m not talking about even spies, but – or that type of intelligence, but are you picking up any indication that they are now going to move to that?
MR. TONER: Well, first of all, my do-over. When I was talking about Foreign Minister Lavrov and then, of course, had my brain freeze – that’s what a week in Florida will do to you – I meant Foreign Minister Gemba to add as well. So she’s had a chance to consult with the Japanese, with the Russians, and now reached out subsequently after the launch with South Korea and China.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Thank you. Anyway, to answer your – your question was about talk about a nuclear test. I mean, obviously, I can’t talk about intelligence matters from the podium. In the past we’ve seen a pattern, if you will, to North Korea’s bad behavior, but I can’t talk, obviously, about any intelligence matters. So –
QUESTION: On North Korea, did you – what the Chinese are saying – what kind of a role they have played or – in this process or as far as missile launch is concerned?
MR. TONER: Just rewinding Goyal, the first part of your question was who?
QUESTION: What role you think Chinese played in this process with North Korea as far as missile launch?
MR. TONER: Well, the Secretary, as I just said, had a good opportunity – or an opportunity to have a good conversation with the Chinese foreign minister this morning. One of the things that she stressed was the need to obviously consult closely with other members of the Six-Party team, if you will, and that we move together in a deliberate and unified way to speak out and condemn this action. So we’re cooperating closely, consulting closely with China. And obviously they’ve got a very important role.
Sorry, to just finish up --
QUESTION: Sorry.
MR. TONER: They’ve – we’re asking them to use their relationship with North Korea to convey our concern about their recent actions.
QUESTION: And finally, what are you telling the regional nations like South Korea and Japan and others now, because they were angry before that they will take action? And where do we stand now as far as regional nations are concerned of the threat in the region?
MR. TONER: Where do we stand now with other – well, as I said, I think the international community is rightly concerned, as I said, given North Korea’s launch yesterday but also its behavior in the past, this pattern of bad behavior. And so we’re going to consult very closely with other Six-Party colleagues as we move forward and speak out in a unified voice.
QUESTION: Could I follow up on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just with the food aid, the nutritional assistance.
MR. TONER: Sure. Thank you.
QUESTION: As far as the U.S. is concerned, is this completely null and void, the Leap Year agreement and everything, in light of what North Korea has done? Or could food aid potentially – if their behavior changes in the weeks and months to come, could food aid be resumed or the plan for food aid be resumed, or is this completely over at this point?
MR. TONER: I guess I would answer that by saying that North Korea’s behavior to date since we signed this agreement has – as we’ve discussed several times, has raised doubts about their ability to live up to their obligations and their commitments. And so given their willingness to flout international obligations and move ahead with a launch that was clearly in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, that we don’t feel we can move forward at any level, including at the nutritional assistance level, because we don’t feel that we can frankly trust the North Koreans that this will end up in appropriate hands.
QUESTION: Is that – I mean, in your view, is that linking politics with the humanitarian situation? I mean, are there still concerns about – I mean, aid groups --
MR. TONER: I think it’s – I think it’s simply acknowledging that if you can’t trust the government to live up to its commitments on – in one aspect of – then you can certainly not expect it to live up to its commitments on another aspect. And so these – as we’ve talked about all along, nutritional assistance needs to be credibly monitored. We need to ensure that it goes in the hands of the people who need it and who it’s designed for. And so if we can’t trust North Korea to live up to its commitments in terms of its activities and launch of ballistic missiles, then we feel that we can’t trust it on the nutritional assistance that it will get to the appropriate people.
QUESTION: And just – the February 29th agreement as a whole, is the United States still looking for North Korea to comply with that, or is that – as far as you’re concerned, that’s just – that’s over, that’s (inaudible)?
MR. TONER: I would say – I mean, the word I’d say is “suspended” given the current state of –
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Another subject?
QUESTION: Pakistan, please?
QUESTION: Still on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Let’s go – yeah, you had your hand up for Pakistan.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Are we done with North Korea?
QUESTION: No. Still on North Korea.
MR. TONER: North Korea. Sorry. Tomoko, finish up with that.
QUESTION: Would you say one of the reason that they failed the launch is the current sanction on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Look, you’re asking me to – I have absolutely no idea. I would point you in the direction of NORAD or NORTHCOM, who can provide you with a detailed technical analysis of the launch, or to the Government of North Korea, which I think acknowledged the launch’s failure.
Yeah. Go – oh, are you still on North Korea?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Sure. Sorry. I will get to Pakistan. Sorry.
QUESTION: You’ve been referring to the missile launch activity as “deal breaker.” And I remember you using the word “abrogation” as well. But you just said the White House statement still leaves some room open for some talk. Has your position changed? Is the Leap deal agreement effective as of today?
MR. TONER: I just – the White House statement, I think, simply said that we’re prepared to engage constructively with North Korea, but only a North Korea that wants to engage constructively with the rest of the world. And until we see that type of pattern of behavior, then that’s not going to be possible.
QUESTION: So is a deal – was a deal breaker? Did it break the deal? Is the deal still effective?
MR. TONER: We think it was a deal breaker. Yeah.
Yeah, go ahead. Now Pakistan.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you, Mark. These rules of engagement, these are actually recommendations from the Pakistani parliament to negotiate a future relationship with the United States. So do you plan to reengage them? Do you plan to discuss a future relationship with them? Do you have any schedule in mind – future meetings, visits? Are you looking for a midway for building a new relationship particularly on the issue of drones and other issues that they have raised?
MR. TONER: I mean, I – it’s a very good question. I mean, I don’t have any announcements to make today about upcoming trips or travel. I do --
QUESTION: You’ve got someone pretty senior there right now.
MR. TONER: Well, I was going to – I was getting there. I was going to say that our USAID Administrator Raj Shah is on the ground right now in Pakistan. And I think that speaks to what we talked about a little bit in the past weeks, is that we’ve already seen in the past weeks and month or so a reengagement at a high level both with the President’s conversation with President Zardari and then subsequent visits by Deputy Secretary Nides and others. We’ve been reengaging already with – at a high level with the Pakistani Government.
But nothing to announce in terms of next steps or next – or upcoming trips or travel, beyond the fact that what we said yesterday, which is that we are ready to engage with the Pakistani Government on this parliamentary review and on the issues that it has raised. We want to build a very constructive relationship with Pakistan and one that is based on mutual understanding.
QUESTION: Are you looking for a meeting point? I mean, they have come up with certain demands, and you would probably have something --
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear your question. Are we looking for --
QUESTION: A meeting point for a future relationship. I mean, you probably would go with some of your points, some of your demands. And so do you think – how would you build up this relationship? What will be the basis for this?
MR. TONER: I do think we’re ready to have – as we’ve said many times, we’re awaiting the end of this parliamentary review. And my understanding, in fact, is that this still has to be – obviously, there’s still a little bit left in this political process. It still has to be approved by the cabinet, is my understanding.
But as we move forward, we definitely want to engage, to talk about the breadth of issues that have been raised in this parliamentary review and to come to a better understanding of our relationship.
QUESTION: Did they tell you that these are not binding on the government?
MR. TONER: Did they --
QUESTION: Did they tell you that these recommendations are not binding on the government; the government does not have to follow them in letter and spirit?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we’re – we’ve talked a lot about this parliamentary review. We’re going to engage with the Pakistani Government in a way that listens to their concerns, recognizes their needs in the relationship, recognizes that this is a shared relationship and a shared commitment, and move forward.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Who is Shah seeing while he’s there, and will he be discussing any of the things that are in the Pakistani demands, list of demands?
MR. TONER: He did actually meet with Foreign Minister Khar today, and that is all I have just from – I’m not sure – was he supposed to meet with President Zardarai? Thank you. Yes. But I’m not sure when that meeting is taking place.
QUESTION: Do you know if they’ll be talking about any of --
MR. TONER: Not to my understanding. No, he’s – I mean, he’s there to talk about our civil assistance – civilian assistance, rather.
QUESTION: Is there – and what about that? Is there some --
MR. TONER: Well, that’s been --
QUESTION: What are the issues with that?
MR. TONER: I mean, that has continued throughout this parliamentary review and throughout the turmoil, if you will, in the relationship post November 26. So that’s been ongoing. That has not stopped. So he’s there to review those programs.
QUESTION: Mark, there are four major demands. One, are you ready to apologize? They’re asking for the 24 Pakistani soldiers who were killed. Two, stop all the drone and other attacks. And three, that Pakistani should be treated just like you treat India. And fourth, finally, that Pakistan should be a given a nuclear – civil nuclear just like to India.
MR. TONER: Goyal, those are a nice try to get me to negotiate and talk about that ongoing relationship from the podium, but let’s let us sit down with our senior officials, sit down with Pakistan’s senior officials, and discuss it.
QUESTION: No, this is what --
MR. TONER: Sure, Goyal.
QUESTION: Sorry. This is what I am saying that this is what has been going on in the media in Pakistan every day and in discussions among those politicians and all that. That’s --
MR. TONER: No, I think we’re aware of some of the concerns that the parliamentary review raised. And they’re – frankly, some of them are not new to us, so we’re going to engage.
QUESTION: You said that you’d talk about the breadth of the whole thing, correct? That would be every subject that you’re willing to talk about with them?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if we would talk about every subject under the sun. We’d talk about --
QUESTION: No, no. Every subject that they raised, you’re willing to talk about, including --
MR. TONER: Well, we’re going to talk to them about our civilian cooperation as well as our counterterrorism cooperation, security cooperation --
QUESTION: So you’re willing to talk with them about the drone strikes?
MR. TONER: You know I can’t talk about any intelligence matters.
QUESTION: You can’t talk about it with us. Can you talk about it with them?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we have very robust counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, is this something – they put this on the table. Are you – is this something that’s on the table for the U.S.?
MR. TONER: I’ll just say that we’re going to talk about aspects – all aspects of our relationship moving forward.
QUESTION: You’re going to talk about all aspects of what they raised?
MR. TONER: Including counterterrorism cooperation, but you know --
QUESTION: Does that include – is that your understanding? Does that include drone strikes?
MR. TONER: I cannot address that point.
QUESTION: But wait – forget about the word – the two words “drone” and “strike.” You are willing – the U.S. is going to talk to them about everything that’s in this review?
MR. TONER: I think we’re willing to address their concerns moving forward and find a middle ground.
QUESTION: Well, without naming them, are there some issues that you’re not willing to talk about?
MR. TONER: Again, let’s let these conversations move forward until – and I’m not going to – we’re not going to take anything off the table or put anything on the table.
QUESTION: Can I talk about India-Pakistan relations going on now at the --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- especially at the Atari border, a lot of activities are going on between India and Pakistan people-to-people and trades, and they want to open the borders and cultures and trade relations and opening. As far as Mr. Shah, sir, being in Pakistan today, is he discussing any of these things or that as far as opening of the – a lot of things that people-to-people between the two countries after especially the President Zardari’s visit to India?
MR. TONER: It’s a fair question, Goyal. I can’t tell you specifically whether it’s being raised in his conversations. Of course, you know where we stand. We support improved relations, better dialogue, more people-to-people exchanges. Everything you essentially just ran through we view as a very positive development. But I can’t preclude that he’s – it’s going to be raised in some of his conversations.
Yeah. In the back. Sorry.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Staying in the region --
QUESTION: Can we stay on Pakistan, please?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Pakistani Finance Minister Hafeez Shaikh is coming to town this week – weekend. Is he meeting anyone in this building next week?
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: India’s movie star Shah Rukh Khan was detained at a New York airport yesterday. Do you know why he was detained for the second time in two years, and what are the reasons? Is there something pending against him? Do you suspect something against him?
MR. TONER: Well, I can say we are certainly aware, as you stated, that he was temporarily delayed before admission at the White Plains, New York airport. He was – or is apparently, or was apparently traveling to an event at Yale University. And we have, obviously, the utmost respect for Mr. Khan and his work both as an artist and a humanitarian. And we offer our apologies for any discomfort or inconvenience he may have suffered as a result of this incident.
QUESTION: What were the reasons for delay, and how long was the delay?
MR. TONER: Well, I’d refer you to the TSA for any specific questions about the incident.
QUESTION: Have you received any official communication from Indian Government?
MR. TONER: We have. Both the Indian Ministry of External Affairs as well as the Indian Embassy in Washington have expressed their concern.
QUESTION: This for the second time that he was detained or delayed at the airport in U.S. And first time after he was detained, you had said this will not be repeated again. So what happened this time?
MR. TONER: Well, again, my understanding – you used the word “detained.” I’ve been told he was simply delayed. But in any case, I wouldn’t necessarily look at this as some sort of pattern but rather two separate incidents. Obviously, we’ve expressed our regret about the incident and recognize him – that he’s a very renowned artist and humanitarian. Obviously, he was going to Yale, I think, to receive a prestigious award there. And we apologize.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry. You said – I’m not sure – quite sure I understand the --
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- nuance of delay. Was he delayed in handcuffs in a cell? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: No. No.
QUESTION: Well, what does that mean?
MR. TONER: Now my understanding, he was delayed actually --
QUESTION: Delayed – I mean, delay is what happened when there’s bad weather.
MR. TONER: -- actually disembarking from the airplane. There was a delay of an hour or so from him getting off the airplane.
QUESTION: Well, what does that mean?
MR. TONER: He wasn’t – that it wasn’t --
QUESTION: What, he couldn’t physically get off the plane?
MR. TONER: It wasn’t – that is not detention. That is a delay.
QUESTION: Well, was it delay because --
QUESTION: Was it tied to him?
MR. TONER: Sorry?
QUESTION: I mean, was the delay personally tied to him, or was it an airport thing?
MR. TONER: Again, I’d refer you to the TSA, but no, I don’t – they believe it was airplane related. But again, he wasn’t – but he wasn’t detained. He was simply delayed getting – disembarking.
QUESTION: Well, were all the other passengers on the plane delayed?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I don’t think so.
QUESTION: Is that because --
QUESTION: Well, then this is not a delay. I’m sorry. I mean, if he was yanked off the plane – he was held on the plane?
MR. TONER: That is my understanding.
QUESTION: And he was not allowed to leave the plane?
MR. TONER: Again, I would refer you to the TSA for details of the incident.
QUESTION: This is really Orwellian. That’s a delay?
MR. TONER: That’s a delay.
QUESTION: Was he on some type of –
QUESTION: Is that because his name is Khan? That’s number one. And number two, in India, what discussions are going on now, Mark, that this is not the only one first incident only with Mr. Khan or a famous film star but also many other incidents took place with the high-class Indians. They named all of them and they were really concerned why it is happening, only somebody with a turban but he is in the Prime Minister Manmohan’s government and a high class and other – among other businessmen and so forth. So what can you assure them in the future what should be done or what can be done between these problems?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, actually there is a program whereby travelers can alert – identify their status before they depart via the Embassy. And that’s one approach or avenue to take.
In answer to your first question, look, I really would have to refer you to the TSA in terms of their screening procedures, why this individual, why two times. Again, I don’t know. I don’t have the answers.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on Goyal’s question, I think that the allegation that the Indians are making was that it was racial profiling, that – because he has a Muslim name. Is that --
MR. TONER: I mean, I think we all know that that’s clearly not the case. The fact of the matter is tens of thousands of Muslims travel to and from the United States every day and are not detained or delayed. (Laughter.) And --
QUESTION: Well, this one was.
MR. TONER: And so when something obviously goes wrong, we hear about it, but we don’t hear about the vast majority when – and it all goes smoothly. So no.
QUESTION: Sorry. One last thing on that.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: So you said that this is something that the TSA is sort of in charge of?
MR. TONER: Well, they’re responsible for airport screening, so I don’t know – I don’t have – they probably have a very detailed report about the incident. I don’t know. I don’t know why he was delayed.
QUESTION: But it’s not something that you then work with them on, especially after an Embassy and the foreign ministry calls the State Department to ask them about that. I mean, how – what kind of communication does the State Department and the TSA have on issues like this?
MR. TONER: Well, we respect very much that they have an important job in keeping passengers safe and keeping Americans safe and keeping all airline passengers who are traveling or transiting the United States safe. And so we’re very respectful of the important role that they play. Certainly, we’re always seeking – I don’t know, in this particular case, what the follow-up might be. I can certainly look into it. But I know in the past, we’ve certainly talked with them about procedures, but again, mindful of the fact that they’ve got – they have a job to do.
QUESTION: Just a clarification?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: You said that the incident happened, the apology has been given, but you said to stop it in future --
MR. TONER: And he went on to --
QUESTION: To inform the Embassy --
MR. TONER: -- to Yale, where he received his award.
QUESTION: No, no. To – yeah, but in future, to stop such things to happen, you said to inform the Embassy. What exactly is that, the details? Have you talked to the Indian ministry?
MR. TONER: I’d refer you to the Embassy in New Delhi, but it’s a program that they have where they can identify their status before they depart to address any difficulties that they may experience.
QUESTION: And finally, as far as the U.S. new ambassador, Madam Nancy Powell, is concerned, and she must be going through all this, facing all these questions when she arrives in Delhi. She must be briefed all this.
MR. TONER: Look, I’m – it’s a – as I think I’ve said, it’s an unfortunate incident. We’ve apologized. I don’t know what more there is to say beyond the fact that he went on and had a very fruitful visit and, I believe, made the – helped or encouraged – there’s a YouTube video, somebody told me, of him dancing with the director of admissions at Yale as though they were in a Bollywood musical. So all’s well that ends well.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: On another subject if they’re all done?
MR. TONER: It’s still – I’m sorry, are we still --
QUESTION: Was an apology issued to Mr. Kahn, or was it issued through the Indian Embassy – the Embassy of the U.S. and India?
MR. TONER: Well, I offered my sincere apologies that he may have experienced – I’m not sure that it was done on a personal level. I don’t have that information.
QUESTION: I just wondered, when might the advance team go to Syria ahead of or as part of this monitoring mission? And do you have to wait until you get some kind of clearance in New York, or what’s --
MR. TONER: It’s all being – yeah. I mean, that’s exactly what’s going on right now in New York. And obviously, they met this morning. Ambassador Rice emerged – talked about the conversation that they had deploring North Korea’s actions, and then went back in. The second part of the meeting, I think, is going to focus on Syria and next steps.
You heard the Secretary yesterday talk about a very robust monitoring mission is what we want to see, and we want to see that advance team out there. What we saw in the last day or so was a very fragile truce emerge, a very fragile first step. So now it’s important to get this advance team out there and to get a monitoring mission on the ground.
QUESTION: So right now you’re still waiting for some agreement in New York on that? You’re not thinking about just going ahead?
MR. TONER: That’s what they’re discussing. I mean, obviously, this is in support of Kofi Annan’s process here, and so it’s appropriate that that’s done through the council.
Yeah. Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: When you -- just on that, I mean, would you expect to be part of a monitoring mission?
MR. TONER: You know what? I don’t know if that’s – again, I don’t know if the composition’s been discussed or debated.
QUESTION: Do you think that the Syrians would welcome an American presence?
MR. TONER: I’m very doubtful, but the Secretary’s very clear that she wants to see as robust a mission as possible.
QUESTION: And you’re not going to barge your way in? You’re not going to just barge your way in and say hi, we’re here to monitor the ceasefire?
MR. TONER: We never barge.
QUESTION: Oh? I’ll remember to tell that to the Iraqis. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: To follow up, I mean, what’s your assessment of how the truce is holding? It’s been a day. There’s been some reports from human rights groups of deaths. I mean, what’s the assessment?
MR. TONER: Sure. I’ve heard there’s – sure – from – we do hear from these LCCs, these local coordination committees that sporadic fighting continues in parts of Syria. I’ve heard estimates of seven to ten people killed today. So again, this is – at best can only be described as fragile. But it is a first step; we want to try to build on it.
And obviously, as the Secretary was very clear about yesterday, as – there are still other elements to the Annan plan that need to be implemented by the Syrian Government. This is not a menu; this is a set of obligations, so we need to see them move forward on all of the elements of the plan, which is an inclusive, Syrian-led political dialogue and transition, a cessation of all forms of violence, humanitarian assistance, access to all areas and populations in need, the release of all political prisoners, and the freedom of movement, access for media and journalists, as well as freedom of assembly.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary discuss Syria yesterday with the Saudi defense minister?
MR. TONER: I promise you I will try to get you a readout. You, of course, saw that they walked out and did a – brief comments at the top of their meeting. I did not get a full readout of their meeting. I can certainly imagine that they discussed in some detail Syria.
QUESTION: Is the Reward for Justice – one, is it working as far as – and second, one person, Jubair Ahmad from Woodbridge, Virginia, a Pakistani citizen, he pled guilty that he was providing information and material support to the LET in Pakistan.
MR. TONER: Right. Geez, I left talking about that, and I come back a week later and still talking about it. Anyway, this will take some time, Goyal. These programs often do. They do have a very high success rate overall, which is why we use them, frankly. So let’s wait and see.
And in terms of your second question, I’m not familiar with the case, so I would refer you to the other – Department of Justice or local authorities.
QUESTION: Just a brief one. The health minister of Myanmar, Burma is here. I was just wondering if there was anything specific that the U.S. wanted to discuss or wanted to promote in the country during his visit.
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, obviously we’ve got the reopening of a USAID office in Burma, which is a positive first step. I can imagine many of the programs – again, I don’t have a detailed list or assessment in front of me, but many of our programs touch upon health matters – preventative health care, childhood communicable diseases, that kind of stuff. So – but I don’t know what – specifically who he’s meeting with.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: Oh, Samir, anything else? Are we done?
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the demonstrations in Egypt today against the military rule and the people from the Mubarak era not to run for the presidency?
MR. TONER: I don’t, beyond that it’s up to the Egyptian people to set the parameters of their political process and democratic transition moving forward, and they certainly have the right to peaceful assembly.
Thank you.

STATE DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON BURMA

FROM U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing on Burma
Special Briefing Senior Administration Officials
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
April 4, 2012
MODERATOR: Hi everyone. It’s [Moderator]. Thanks for joining us this afternoon. This afternoon’s call is on background. We have [Senior Administration Official One] as well as [Senior Administration Official Two] and from here on out they’ll be known as Senior Administration Official One and Two. So without further ado, I want to go ahead and turn it over to Senior Administration Official Number One. Go ahead, sir.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you very much, and we really appreciate you all joining us on such short notice today. And it’s a great to be on the call with my colleague and friend [Senior Administration Official Two]. What I’d like to do, since the Secretary has laid out some specific things today, is to provide you a little bit of context on each of them, and hopefully that will answer many of your questions. And then [Senior Administration Official Two] will jump in with a few other comments as well. And then if you have any particulars, we’ll be happy to follow up with you directly. So let me just go through.

The Secretary had some very strong words of support for the reform efforts, for the leadership that we’ve seen demonstrated by the government in Nay Pyi Taw. She singled out the president, I think, with some sincere comments of support for his courage and determination. She was also very congratulatory and thrilled to see Aung San Suu Kyi be elected with such a strong mandate into the parliament that will be seating – seated later this month.

In addition, she laid out some specific steps, and I’d to just kind of go through a few things about those steps if I can. And just the most important thing is what the Secretary has laid out. Really, they marked the beginning of a process. And every step along the way, both in the past, currently, and in the future, will involve very detailed consultations with Congress, friends and allies in Europe and Asia. As we speak now, Ambassador Mitchell is in Europe in consultations. And I’ve just come from backgrounding a variety of friends in Asia. And each of these steps that we’re taking are complex, they’re multifaceted, and they will take a period of time to implement. And we will be providing more details to you on several of them regarding timeframe and scope.

So let me just go through a few of the specifics if I can. We are very close to being able to name formally an ambassador. We are in the process now of what is called seeking agrement with the authorities in Nay Pyi Taw. That is the formal process whereby their government agrees to our nominee. We’ve been in close consultation with colleagues and friends on Capitol Hill about this, and we have high confidence that this will be announced formally in short order. To be perfectly honest, we haven’t done this in a long time, so we’ll – it’ll – I think it’ll move quickly, but we want to follow the appropriate procedures.

On the UN Development Program, just a few points of background: For the past decade, the United States has not permitted the UNDP to conduct what would be called a normal country program inside the country in Burma, and we have restricted UNDP activities to ensure that no funds benefit any level of the Burmese Government, including local officials. And as the Secretary indicated, we now believe that the conditions permit UNDP to pursue what we would call a normal country program. We think that such an effort will focus on pro-democracy and ethnic minority groups. Although they play a small role in parliament, we think supporting programs accordingly will be important.
We think that a number of the steps that the government has taken, most recently in terms of the currency and other steps, can be supported effectively by the UNDP. And so we will inform the United Nations and the UNDP specifically of our intention to support this, and we’ll emphasize the importance of ensuring that assistance is coordinated in an effective and transparent manner among key states and that we would very much like to see programs developed that are aimed at poverty alleviation, furthering the process of economic reform and the development of those most in need. And again, many of those are in ethnic minority areas.

In terms of USAID, at present USAID provides something over 35 million in annual assistance to the Burmese people. And our regional development mission in Bangkok is the hub responsible for managing this assistance. And we have a couple of USAID staff in country to monitor these programs. And so what we are proposing to do is to reestablish a formal USAID mission in Burma. This, I think, will help us in terms of making sure that we have full knowledge of how programs are being implemented, their successes, where there needs to be adjustments, and will give us the best opportunity to coordinate with other partner countries who are increasingly managing their operations from inside the country rather from surrounding states. So this is an appropriate step. It is in line with what Britain has done, what Australia is doing, and what other countries also involved are moving towards.

In terms of nonprofit activity that the Secretary described, there are sanctions that have impeded certain kinds of activities in the country. We have, in the past, supported certain humanitarian and religious activities, but other programs and projects have to go through a rather intense, and sometimes, laborious case-by-case basis. And we have made the determination to allow U.S. entities and individuals to pursue a much broader range of non-profit activities in Burma that promote democracy, public health, education, environmental conservation, and other non-commercial development related initiatives. And this, I think, is in line and supports the Secretary’s commitment during her visit to Burma in late 2011 to increase exchanges with people, civil society organizations, and the government.

We are working closely, as with everything that we’re doing inside the government, with the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, to create what we would call an expanded general license that will authorize this wider spectrum of activities. On a daily basis, we are being approached by universities, non-profit groups, student initiatives, all desiring to lend their shoulder to efforts aimed at reform and development in Burma – in Myanmar, and we believe that these steps will help move positively in this direction.

Key points in terms of facilitating travel; this is a little bit more complicated. The United States does not have one travel ban. Through a variety of sanctions – and remember, Burma is a – has a number of interlocking and overlapping sanctions – but through a variety of sanctions, including an executive proclamation and what is called the 2008 JADE Act, we currently restrict the travel of certain Burmese persons to the United States, such as leaders of the military, those involved in repression of human rights, and cabinet ministers and vice ministers.

Now we are going to begin the process of using our travel sanctions to facilitate travel to the United States, specifically for select reform-minded authorities who are constructively engaging with the United States and other members of the international community. We think easing these restrictions in a targeted manner will promote much greater dialogue, more confidence, and hopefully will allow us to gain greater confidence on some of our core concerns.

This is an important step and, frankly, we’ve had very little travel of senior officials to the United States. And I think it’s time, as the reform effort takes hold, for us to be able to invite senior and key players to Washington. You will see some invitations in the coming days that we look forward to reciprocating some of the hospitality that we have received on our visits there.

I think it is also the case that, as the Secretary indicated, that we will begin also a process of easing financial services and the investment ban. We have committed to a targeted easing of our ban on the exportation of financial services to Burma and U.S. investment in the country. This is going to be a step-by-step process.

We will identify, first of all, the areas and the sectors that we think are most likely to make an immediate impact on the livelihood of the people in the country, and we also will highlight areas that we believe, frankly, are impeding the process of reform. Let me just give you an example. Burma is one of the few countries in the world where you cannot use a credit card, and it makes it extraordinarily difficult for some of the most basic kinds of economic exchanges. And we think some small steps will allow businesses to flourish, certain opportunities to take hold.

This will be a very intensive process. It will involve very strong consultations with friends and allies and with key stakeholders on Capitol Hill. [Senior Administration Official Two] and myself, many others are involved almost on an hourly basis in these discussions, and they will go forward. We have consulted closely, not only with people in Congress, but also non-profit organizations. We have had detailed private interactions and more formal ones with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and many other members of civil society and inside the country. And we believe that we are – that our steps are true to their goals and ambitions, and they are broadly supported.
I think I’ll end there and ask [Senior Administration Official Two] to jump in, if that’s okay.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Thank you, [Senior Administration Official One]. Just one point I’d add to that. And I think they’re the two principles that underline – or underlie what we announced today.

First is the measured incremental approach that we’re taking here. The purpose is to send a clear signal of support for the reform process and reformers. At the same time, we have no illusions about the difficult road ahead in Burma and that there remain severe challenges down the road. And I think the Secretary laid out a number of those challenges in her statement today. I don’t need to go through them again. I think you all know the things that had not happened in Burma, as much as what has happened to date in the reform process. So the measured incremental approach, I think, is the number one principle.

The second fundamental principle here is that we are taking the bluntness out of the sanctions and we are now focusing and targeting on those areas as a fundamental principle, as we look to do this down the road, target and focus our efforts on the regressive elements, the corrupt elements, the elements that are not looking forward and consistent with reform going forward.

So those two are very fundamental and important principles that we are looking at as we implement this and put the details and meat on the bones of what was announced today and what [Senior Administration Official Two] laid out. So that’s the only thing I think I would add.

MODERATOR: Operator, we’re ready to go ahead with questions.

OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1. You will be prompted to un-mute your phone and record your name. Once again, it is *1 to ask a question. And our first question comes from Shaun Tandon of AFP. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah. Hi, guys. Thanks for doing this call. Just to follow up a little bit on the investment part, Senior Official Number One, you were talking about the credit cards. Is that something concrete that you think will be one of the first areas? And just if you could be a bit more specific about how long does it take to ease the restrictions on investment. And while it’s obviously up to the private sector, what – if there’s any ballpark figure for what you expect U.S. investment in Burma to look like?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes. Thank you, and I’ll have a – [Senior Administration Official Two] will also probably want to touch base on this. I can’t give you a specific timeframe because, frankly, some of these things – lifting sanctions is a challenging process. We have a strong determination to do it, but we want to work closely and carefully with our counterparts, our allies, and also with key players on Capitol Hill.
What you were referring to, Shaun, particularly on credit cards, really has to do with the financial sanctions as opposed to investment bans. And I think we will be taking some permanent – some steps on the financial side soon, and those will be to allow a certain kind of electronic commerce. We are looking carefully at sectors, and I think I’d like to ask [Senior Administration Official Two] to talk a little bit about how we’re thinking about this at this current time.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Well, let me just add a different point, aside from the sectoral side of things, which is we need to be careful, as we look at Burma, that even as we ease bans on investment or bans on financial services, businesses around the world have not had these restrictions on them. They have gone in and looked around and they’ve walked back with their tail between their legs. And what they say is, look, the business environment is not conducive for investment; it’s not appropriate for their activity. I don’t think there’s going to be a huge rush right now. There will be a rush, I think, in terms of looking fresh at Burma.

But what this does, in essence, if done carefully and right, it puts the ball in the Burmese court to create now the conditions. They can’t blame the international community or the West for the problems. They now have to create the right conditions for responsible investment and responsible engagement, and right now those conditions don’t exist. So in terms of timelines of when anything would be set up or how fast folks should move in or – that’s all going to be based on the conditions on the ground, which are not necessarily very good right now. And I think we can’t really predict how that will be going down the road, but that ball now is in the Burmese – will be in the Burmese court more and more going forward.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MODERATOR: Operator, we’re ready for the next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Arshad Mohammed with Reuters. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Could Senior Administration Official Number Two follow up on what Official Number One had said in terms of giving us some sense of the kinds of sectors that you are looking at in terms of easing the – both the financial and the investment bans? Can you give us any greater clarity on what kinds of things U.S. companies might ultimately be able to do? What are the sectors? Is – on the investment side, is it all mineral resources and timber, things like that? And on the financial side, tangibly what kinds of exports – financial services exports are you willing to or are you looking at allowing?
And one question for Official Number One: I noticed you used the – you described the country in question as Myanmar at one point, although I think the government – U.S. Government policy has been to refer to it as Burma. Is there any change in that policy?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Let me answer the sectoral question first. Again, the principle I think we’re going to be using to underline anything we do in terms of easing is what has the most benefit has the most benefit for the average Burmese. And so what sectors can provide the greatest bang in terms of employment and development for those who have been hurt by the system for so long? And certain sectors I think jump out at you. I mean, agriculture is one. I think many have looked at tourism as another. Some have looked at potentially telecommunications as another.

I don’t want to go into every different sector, but there are certain sectors that seem to have greater benefit for the broader cross-section that don’t get to, as I said, regressive elements the Burmese economy and Burmese society. And as you get into things like the resource questions – timber, gems – I think you get into those more regressive sectors, those that are in the ethnic minority areas and therefore are done on the backs, oftentimes, of local populations and those that are most interested in a national reconciliation with the government in good faith. That’s – we have to be very careful in that regard. So I don’t want to – this is all sort of general thinking on this. There have been no decisions – final decisions on this type of thing. But just to give you a sense of the general thinking and the principles behind it, I think gives you some sense.

QUESTION: That was on the investment side, presumably – agricultural, tourism, telecommunications – as general possibilities. How about on financial services? Can you give us a general sense of what area? Are we talking about Citibank opening up branches?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are we talking about people – investment banks being able to help Burma –

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- issue bonds? I mean, what --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think another sector could be in the banking sector as well, on that list for consideration, because that as well can help with the financial system some of the, again, regressive elements and that are still on our designated enemy list. And the one thing that’s not changing, as you know, are the specific targeted designated entities and individuals that we are sanctioning. Those remain in place, and some of those are banks within the system. So banks are a possibility here because they can help create a more open, transparent, principled system of economic activity.
So when you talk about financial services, I think it would parallel what I’m talking about in terms of investment. I think you would see them in tandem. So if you’re going to lift it on investment – or really the other way around – if you’re going to lift it on financial services, you’d want to lift it on investment as well to allow companies also to engage productively and responsibly.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And then on the first question, thank you very much. The – I think as you know, there are only two countries really who use the term Burma officially in the current context. That is the United States and Great Britain. Many publications, most of our interlocutors in Southeast Asia and elsewhere – we in almost all circumstances use the term Burma in official settings. And occasionally in private meetings, we will refer to the country either by its capital name Nay Pyi Taw, Burma, or Myanmar.

It is the case that in certain meetings that government officials are – in the country are occasionally unhappy with the use of the term, because in their view, our concern has always been Aung San Suu Kyi’s concern, which is not the name itself as much as the process of how the decision was made to change the official name from Burma to Myanmar.

For some of the country, however, it is the concern about the name itself. Remember that Myanmar/Burma is a multiethnic country, and Burmans are a majority group but there are a number of others. The name Myanmar has been used historically, and in fact, Burma is the bastardization; it is what some of the British original settlers thought they heard when the people they interacted first used the term Myanmar. And even members of the NLD and others, when they write their country out in a letter, they use the word “Myanmar.” However, it is the case that we – official practice – and you will have seen it today when Secretary Clinton spoke – is to continue to use the term “Burma.”
QUESTION: Great. Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Could I just add one more thing on the first question, which is that the Burmese Government retains restrictions on international investment in the banking sector, so that still remains, I believe, a constraint on any international investment. So in the hypothetical that you raised – and I should probably not go into hypotheticals, just talking more in principle – but there are still restrictions I think the Burmese place on that kind of activity that would have to be lifted even if we wanted to lift restrictions on that sector.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Operator, next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Steve Myers with New York Times. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, gentlemen. Thanks so much. I wanted to follow up on the sanctions question, because as you mentioned, there’s this whole raft of sanctions covering all sorts of things, the JADE Act being just the latest one. It sounds like what you’re saying is you’re not looking to remove any of those sanctions from the books but simply look at ways that you can target some investment that would be waived or allowed through the presidential authority that you have already under those laws. Is that correct?
And then on the second thing, could you just spell out the travel ban a little bit more? Do you know how many officials now are on that list, even roughly, and then how many might be allowed – or taken off the list soon? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Let me take the second question and let [Senior Administration Official Two] take the first. There is no travel ban per se. There is no list. There is a travel ban, but there is no list. We have, as a general practice, prohibited and discouraged until very recently – I think as you know, [Senior Administration Official Two] hosted the foreign minister this fall when he came to Washington, and this is a part of a process where not only will we change that approach, we will encourage visitors, we will be inviting senior officials. The Secretary has invited the foreign minister to visit. We expect the minister of health to be visiting the Washington area in the near future.

Our intention here is to assertively engage and invite our key interlocutors, particularly those who have been supportive of reform, to the United States. So that’s really the direction that we’re seeking today.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: My apologies; if you can say the first question again.

QUESTION: I wanted to follow up specifically on the question of the sanctions, because there are many sanctions that are on the books now passed by Congress.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Oh, you mean legislative sanctions, is what you’re referring to?

QUESTION: Yeah, exactly. As well as executive sanctions as well, right? So the question – it sounds like – are you removing any of those, or are you simply looking for ways that you can make exceptions to them under the authorities that already exist, or are you going to go to Congress and say, “Let’s take this one off the books”?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: We haven’t come to a conclusion on what we’d go to Congress with. I think we’re still figuring out what we want to do, and then we’ll figure out a way to do it. And the sanctions are byzantine, to put it mildly, in terms of executive orders that overlap and legislation that overlaps with something else. So we’ll need to figure out how to navigate that, but we think we have the ability, always in consultation with Congress though. Clearly, we want to move in sync with Congress or at least get their understanding as we go. But there’s no plan at the current time to ask them to get rid of anything legislative. I think the current idea is to use waiver authorities and we can rescind executive orders to at least do much of what we’re looking to do.

QUESTION: Great. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Operator, next question.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from William Wan of Washington Post. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks, guys. Yeah, I feel like you guys covered the sanctions pretty well. There was one question I was wondering. In her speech, the Secretary kind of drew this long narrative arc stretching back to the beginning of the Administration, this policy of engagement, Obama’s speech of reaching out with an open hand, et cetera. It seemed to me like perhaps a first or the most kind of forceful kind of assertion of some small victory in this sector and that – I just was wondering, is this a sign that you guys see these reforms as being more permanent, or what caused that kind of tracing of the history of engagement that brought you here? I just wanted some kind of read on that, if you have any insight on that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, I can start with that and then I’d love to hear [Senior Administration Official Two]’s perspective. I would say that it’s – for some people who are just tuning in now, right, it’s important to underscore just how far we’ve come in seven months, really since August. It’s just – it’s remarkable. And so it’s important to look at these elections, which are indeed historic and dramatic. But it’s also important to put this in the context of a number of substantial steps that the government has taken – the release of political prisoners, some elements in civil society, some new legal provisions – that all point in a positive direction.

But it was also important when you laid that out to do it in such a way so that you can also indicate that there are a number of areas where we are still looking for more progress: a final release of all political prisoners. It’s been very impressive, but there’s still more to be done. An unconditional release and a waiver of legal restrictions on those that have been freed from prison, steps relating to the military relationship with North Korea, these are areas that we’re looking for more progress. And in particular, what we hear again and again is that while there has been substantial progress in urban areas, many of the circumstances are unchanged – the brutality along the border in ethnic areas. And that’s the point that the Secretary wanted to make: Put the progress clearly out front but also indicate that this is – that we seek further steps in these other areas as well.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Let me just add I fully endorse what [Senior Administration Official One] said. I would add, of course, the ethnic minority situation is an absolute large concern of ours. We will not forget that there continue to be terrible abuses in Kachin State and in Shan State and in Chin and elsewhere that continue to offend the conscience of the international community and will prevent us from having a normal relationship as long as they go on. We need access to internally displaced persons who are in dire need. There’s still all the atrocities going on.

We do not want to give any sense that this is somehow a time where we are turning the page, we feel things are fine, and they’re on some irreversible track forward. And from the beginning, what we’ve tried to do is put wind in the sails of reform and give encouragement to reformers, empower the reformers, and to put our weight behind the progressive elements of the society that are doing, frankly, what’s good for the country and its long-term interests and is good for stability in the region and that conforms to our values.

And this is just another point in that process that we feel that we ought to get in and assist that in a tangible way, as a tangible moment that obviously was not a perfect process. There are a lot of concerns about the electoral process. They have a lot of work to do leading to 2015, which is the next point – one major point, not just the next one but a major milestone down the road. But we feel that we’ve seen enough movement, enough encouragement that there are people trying to do some serious things, and that we can play a constructive role in that, and we should get in and try and do that the best we can. And if we see it fail or reversed, then we will recalibrate our approach accordingly.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Can I also just – on that point, I really like what [Senior Administration Official Two] said. But I would just underscore that all of these things – first of all, they can be turned off or reversed quickly if there is backtracking. That’s number one. Number two, I think the Secretary determined in close consultation with the President that right now, given what has taken place, that the United States wanted to send a very strong signal that we support, we acknowledge, and we are grateful for the steps that have taken, and we want to be assisting in that process. And I think that’s the inspiration behind this, and again, the – [Senior Administration Two] has been a key architect in helping us think about how we go about this overall process.

QUESTION: Can I just ask – I forgot to ask about this. Is there a timeline for these sanctions, or where – can – is there even kind of a general, vague sketch of that? Like how – when you’re rolling these things out, what are you talking about? Weeks or months? And is there a point at which it’ll – you’ll start looking at, like a permanent lifting of sanctions and what that might take? And is that years? Or how far away is that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: If I could take that, it’s hard to assess. I mean, I think we’re talking – we’re in a continual process now, in a very intense process of considering how and what scope we want to make this lifting of restrictions and to implement what we’ve done, particularly on the services and investment side. The others are fairly straightforward but will take a little bit of a process. I think the others can be in a matter of days and weeks.

The – in terms of overall sanctions, legislative sanctions and such, I don’t think we have a timeframe. It really depends on the conditions on the ground and whether momentum continues, whether Aung San Suu Kyi is fully integrated in her party, and the others in the opposition are fully integrated as respected members of governance. There are a lot of issues still that remain to be worked on, along with all the other things we listed earlier of concern. So I wouldn’t put a timeframe on lifting all sanctions or normalizing the relationship. I think we’re going to take it a step at a time.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think that’s actually maybe a good place to end this. I think you’ve probably gotten enough from us. Moderator, do you think that’s okay?

MODERATOR: Yeah. We’re okay to end the call. Thank you so much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Okay. Thank you all very much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Thank you.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 3, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:31 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: All right. Happy Tuesday, everyone. I have a brief statement on Mali at the top, and then we’ll go to what’s on your minds. And we will also be putting this statement out right after the briefing.

The United States remains deeply concerned about the ongoing political crisis in Mali. Mali’s territorial integrity is at stake, and its political institutions will be further weakened if Captain Amadou Sanogo and his supporters do not release their illegitimate grip on Mali and its people immediately. We commend the ongoing leadership of the ECOWAS group to restore full civilian and constitutional rule, and we echo ECOWAS’s call – that’s hard, echo ECOWAS’s call – on Captain Sanogo and his supporters to return to power – return power to the civilian leadership, consistent with Mali’s constitution.

At the same time, the United States urgently calls on all armed rebels in the north of Mali to cease military operations that compromise the Republic of Mali’s territorial integrity, and we exhort all parties in the north to ensure the safety and security of Mali’s northern populations. As civilian leadership is restored in Mali, we also urge all armed rebels to engage in dialogue with the civilian leaders in Bamako to find a nonviolent path forward for national elections and peaceful coexistence.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Well, just on that, before, when this was a – before the coup, weren’t you fully supportive of the fight against the Tuaregs? And now you’re saying they should talk to the – they should talk to whoever’s in control?

MS. NULAND: Well, the concern has been that as the security forces of Mali have split, some of them joining the junta leaders, some of them still supporting the elected government, they have stopped fighting the Tuaregs in the north. We’ve seen the result of that, that the Tuaregs have made a march not only on Gao but on Timbuktu, that the situation has become considerably worse. We have always said that the government in Mali needed not only to be fighting, but also to be providing an opportunity to address legitimate political grievances in the north.

So our call now is obviously not only for the civilian government to be restored, but for the Tuaregs to cease their violence, and once we get back to a civilian government, for that government and those with grievances in the north to engage in dialogue rather than to be trying to settle these issues by violence.

QUESTION: Did you ever figure out how much aid you suspended?

MS. NULAND: I have to say to you, Matt, that we are continuing to work through these programs one by one. It is relatively complicated because we want to continue the humanitarian aid while we cut off anything that provides support to the government. So we’re still continuing to work through that, but we are also looking at other ways we can bring pressure to bear on Captain Sanogo.

QUESTION: Well, okay. Like what?

MS. NULAND: We will have more to say about that in coming days.

QUESTION: The French, for instance, are saying that they think it’s time for the UN Security Council to get involved. Is that something the United States supports?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is that the Security Council is discussing Mali today, and in fact there may well be a presidency statement, whether it’s today or in coming days, and we would strongly support that.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: No. Wait a sec. Just – you said relatively complicated? I mean, okay, relatively complicated I can understand – one day, two day, three days, four days, maybe even five days. But it’s now been 10, at least. It’s that complicated? That would seem to be more than relatively complicated. That would seem to be a, I don’t know, a problem of such immense proportion that the entire building, or whoever’s in charge of it, is unable to come up with this in 10, 12 days.

MS. NULAND: Well, my understanding is that the agencies that manage these programs were given about a week to report exactly what they’re doing, what the programs, one by one, fund. So for about a week of this, we were waiting for accurate information to come in to Washington. Now we’re going through the policy and the legal review, and we also have to notify the Congress. So I’m frustrated, I know you’re frustrated, but that’s what’s happing.
Okay.

QUESTION: Just following up on that, ECOWAS, one of the things they’ve talked about is an embargo, an embargo on Mali in the wake of the coup. Is that something the United States supports, and is there anything the United States can do to make that a reality?

MS. NULAND: Well, my understanding is that ECOWAS, as you know, they had threatened sanctions about a week ago, that today they actually did impose their sanctions, including closing borders, suspending flights, those kinds of things. We very much support their efforts, as well, to pressure Captian Sanogo to relinquish power.

QUESTION: The AU also today imposed travel bans and various other sanctions --

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: -- on Sanogo and others. Is that something the United States supports and will follow, or --

MS. NULAND: Those are the kinds of things that we’re looking at.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: What would a presidential statement at this point do or achieve, from the Security Council?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we have to see the text, but usually a presidency statement is the first step in the council expressing its concern. Let’s see what the text says, but obviously, thereafter one can do more of a punitive nature.
Please.

QUESTION: Syria?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. Today, the Foreign Minister Walid Muallem issued a statement that they are cooperating with the International Committee of the Red Cross and facilitating their access to all the areas that need to be accessed, and they are cooperating with them. Do you know anything about that?

MS. NULAND: Well, our understanding is that, throughout this crisis, the ICRC has had some limited access. You know that we had given an initial $10 million in humanitarian aid. We decided to increase our aid on the humanitarian side – we’re up to some 25 million – because we were seeing some of that aid flowing to the Syrian people in need. Our concern had been that the humanitarian organizations had not been getting to the areas in greatest need, particularly when they’re under assault. I would refer you to the ICRC for their view of how they are doing, but our understanding is their access if far from complete.

More importantly, however, as you know, the assertion to Kofi Annan was that Assad would start implementing his commitments immediately to withdraw from cities. I want to advise that we have seen no evidence today that he is implementing any of those commitments.

QUESTION: Although they did make a statement that they are, in fact, withdrawing from the cities. They’re taking their mechanized units from certain areas in Homs and Idlib and many other areas. You have no way of verifying that?

MS. NULAND: In fact, our information is the opposite - that nothing has changed.
QUESTION: So there has been more deployment into these areas, these crowded areas where the demonstrations are taking place?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to whether there has been increased deployment, but certainly, through our own means, we have been able to verify no withdrawal of mechanized units, which is what he’s claiming credit for today.

QUESTION: So you don’t have confidence that the Syrian Government will fulfill its commitment to pull out by April 10th?

MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve said consistently, including again tomorrow at the Security – yesterday at the Security Council, we’re going to judge this by – this guy by his actions, not by his words.

QUESTION: One thing that came out yesterday in the discussion, the – Kofi Annan’s report to the Security Council was the Russian position, and Foreign Minister Lavrov has told Interfax that they now explicitly back the demand on Assad to take the first step in withdrawing his troops. Do you read that as a change in their position? And do you think that’s an important sign, as the international community tries to sort of get a coherent view on this?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’ll let the Russians speak for themselves as to whether their position has changed in the last 24 hours. I think you do know that we have been feeling convergence on the Security Council for some two weeks now. Certainly that was highlighted by the presidency statement that endorsed the Kofi Annan six-point plan. And everybody was together yesterday in agreeing that there needed to be this timeline, and that we were waiting for the regime to demonstrate its good faith.
Please.

QUESTION: But the plans to send 250 monitors after the – April 10th is still on. Are you – when are you going to decide to send this mission?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think as Ambassador Rice said yesterday in New York at her press
event, the DPKO, the peacekeeping arm of the UN, is preparing to be able to send monitors in the event that Assad keeps his word and we are able to get a ceasefire so that they could move immediately in and provide eyes and witness, et cetera, and give comfort to the people of Syria. So that – we’re at the preparatory stage with DPKO, but obviously they can’t deploy unless we have movement on the ending of the violence.

QUESTION: Could – just to follow up on your monitoring of the situation in Syria?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: With the embassy not there, with people like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch have no presence in Syria, and all the diplomatic missions have really lowered their presence almost to nil, nothing, how do you keep on top of the situation? How do you stay – let’s say – how do you get verifiable information on what’s going on?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we maintain broad contacts with folks inside Syria. Robert Ford, Fred Hof, speak to people in Syria every single day in different parts of the country. In addition, we work with our allies and partners who live in the same neighborhood and have their own contacts. And then, as you know, we have other means for evaluating things like troops movements.

QUESTION: What’s the title of Mr. Hof?

MS. NULAND: He’s special advisor to the Secretary for Syria. I’ll get the precise title, Samir. Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to a different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.

QUESTION: Burma, Myanmar.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Following up on your response to Andy’s question yesterday, is there a timeline for the United States to decide any further steps? Is the United States waiting, for example, for Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD supporters to actually enter parliament? Is there any timeline for when the U.S. could take further steps?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, as we said yesterday, we congratulate all who participated, and it does appear to be a big victory for the NLD in these elections. The – we have the preliminary results, and our statements were based on that. Our understanding is that over the next few days, those results will be confirmed in final. As we’ve said, we are prepared to match positive steps of reform in Burma with steps of our own. We are now looking at what might come next on the U.S. side. I don’t have anything to announce, but I would look for more movement from us on this in the coming weeks.

QUESTION: And is there something specific you’re waiting for, or is it just an internal process to --

MS. NULAND: No. We’re doing some internal work. We’re also consulting with partners in ASEAN, partners in the EU who may be making similar steps to coordinate them.

QUESTION: Change of topic?

QUESTION: A follow-up?

MS. NULAND: Still on Burma? Anybody? No?

QUESTION: Yeah. Let me just follow up.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madam, this ruling party backed by the military government was shocked and surprised about the size of victory that Aung San Suu Kyi had in her party. Now, the situation is this time as it was in 1990, but her election in 1990 was annulled by the military government. Now, will – is she going to get some kind of place there so it will not be the situation of 1990? That’s what many Burmese are asking there and here.

MS. NULAND: Well, our expectation is that the government will honor the results as they are certified. As you know, the initial reporting is that she won her own seat, so she’ll be able to join the party. And then she has 42 other members of her party who appear to have won their seats. So our expectation is that these results will be honored and that the parliament will now reflect the results of these elections.

QUESTION: Is U.S. going to back or ask the ruling military party and government that they should have now – a kind of a free and fair general election, national election, so now she can have a place in – like as a prime minister or so?

MS. NULAND: Well, as the Secretary said – I think was on Sunday when we were in Istanbul – it’s now going to be critical for Burmese authorities to continue to work on reform of the electoral system so that it fully meets international standards, including transparency, and it expeditiously looks into any irregularities. But we are obviously hoping for a continuing evolution of the Burmese political system heading towards the next scheduled elections, which I think are 2015, right?

QUESTION: And finally, a quick one. Have you spoken – or any action or reaction from
India or China? Because they both were supporting the previous government in Burma.

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know Under Secretary Sherman is in India today. I don’t have a full report, but I’m expecting that she’s obviously talking to Indian authorities about Burma, among other subjects.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Was there a – Palestinian issue --

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Ros.

QUESTION: Lashkar e-Tayyiba. The U.S. has put out a $10 million reward for the arrest and prosecution of Hafiz Saeed, who is the head of the affiliated charitable organization. He’s suspected of being the mastermind behind the Mumbai killings. Why now? That happened more than three years ago, and his organization, as well as Lashkar e-Tayyiba, have already been on this – the U.S.’s terrorist list.

MS. NULAND: Well, this effort to arrange a Rewards for Justice bounty, if you will, for Hafiz Mohammad Saeed and also for Abdul Rahman Makki has been in the works for quite a number of months. These things are somewhat complicated to work through all of the details. So the announcements were only able to be posted when the process was complete. But there was – we’ve been working on this for some time.

QUESTION: More than a few months? More, less than a year? Can you characterize?

MS. NULAND: I think less than a year but more than three or four months.


QUESTION: Can you explain exactly what it is about – what’s so complicated about offering money for some of – what – printing the posters? What is it that’s so complicated?

MS. NULAND: Well, there is a review process to determine, in the first instance, whether offering a bounty of this kind – in this case, it’s $10 million for Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, it’s $2 million for Abdul Rahman Makki – is likely to lead to any results in the case. So there has to be an intelligence evaluation, there has to be a policy evaluation, there has to be a discussion with Congress. This is a lot of money for the U.S. taxpayer to put up. And so that process takes some time. Things have to be correlated. There is an entire review process. There’s an interagency rewards committee that has to look through this. And then the Secretary has to approve it.

QUESTION: Right. But if it’s only started a couple months ago – Mumbai was quite a – when did the process begin?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to whether, right after the bombing, we looked at this at that time. But I think sometimes what happens is intelligence and other information comes later with regards to whereabouts of individuals, which leads one to think that offering a reward might cause citizens who know where they are to come forward. And sometimes that isn’t evident right at the time of the crimes. So sometimes it comes up later. As you may know, one of these individuals has been appearing on television and has been quite brazen. So I think the sense has been over the last few months that this kind of a reward might hasten the judicial process, if you will.

QUESTION: So you’re saying --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) you know his television appearances, he did speak to Al Jazeera today about this bounty being placed on him. And he suggested that this is being done because he has been putting pressure on the government in Islamabad to not reopen the southern transport routes for supplies to NATO ISAF forces. Is there anything to that, or is this specifically because of his suspected involvement in the Mumbai attacks?

MS. NULAND: No, it has everything to do with Mumbai and his brazen flouting of the justice system.

QUESTION: Just to --


QUESTION: As he lives more or less openly in Pakistan, has there been communication with the Pakistani Government, the Pakistani authorities, seeking for his arrest?

MS. NULAND: Absolutely. We have been in communication with Pakistan on this issue.

QUESTION: And he is wanted --

QUESTION: Have they acceded to his placement on this list? Because there’s been some analysis suggesting that doing so could put even more strain on the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. And to follow up on that, is that something that Deputy Secretary Nides would be dealing with in his meetings in Islamabad on Wednesday?

MS. NULAND: Well, on the latter question, the full range of issues related to international terrorism, terrorist threats in Pakistan internationally, is obviously one of the subjects that Deputy Secretary Nides will be talking about. We have continued to impress on the Government of Pakistan that we believe it has a special responsibility to fully investigate and bring those to – those responsible to justice, to the extent that it can. The Government of Pakistan has regularly, in our conversations with them, pledged its cooperation in the investigations. We fully expect that it will follow through on those commitments. I would guess that this case probably will come up.

QUESTION: Is this reward has been – in the consultation of the Indian Government?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is that the primary work that is done before we offer these rewards is internal, that we do advise affected governments that we intend to do this, but it’s not a consultative process, per se.
QUESTION: Thank you, ma’am. Can we change topics?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: No. It’s – the reward is for information that leads to the conviction of – conviction where?

MS. NULAND: Wherever he can be found. It’s not specific in the way that it goes --

QUESTION: You’re trying to charge – has he been charged with the murder of the six Americans in Mumbai?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have any back --

QUESTION: I guess I’m just trying to find out, why is it for the United States to offer a reward for this guy? Is that the reason?

MS. NULAND: Well, it’s because we want to see him brought to justice. I believe that he has been charged, but I don’t have the – I’ll get you some more on that.

QUESTION: But do you – I mean, you want him brought to justice here? In India? In Pakistan? Where is it that – I mean, what – if I gave you information that he was on such street corner and he gets picked up and arrested, how do I –

MS. NULAND: My understanding --

QUESTION: -- where does he have to be convicted so I can get the money?

MS. NULAND: Okay. Let us get you some more information. But my understanding of
this – and I may have it wrong – is that he’s actually been charged in India --

QUESTION: Yeah.


MS. NULAND: -- in connection with this case, that he has been at large --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: -- and has not been able to be either arrested --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: -- or brought to trial.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: So the precise formulation in the Rewards for Justice announcement is $10 million for information leading to the arrest or the conviction of either – of this individual, $2 million for the other individual.

QUESTION: How much are the Indians offering for this?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know the answer to that.

QUESTION: Are they offering anything, do you know?
MS. NULAND: I do not.

QUESTION: I’m just curious as to why it’s the U.S. job to offer a reward for this guy when --

MS. NULAND: Well, we have Americans killed and it’s only cooperate --

QUESTION: I understand. Six Americans were killed.

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: But you also have Americans killed in other places where you’re not offering any rewards or --

MS. NULAND: Well this program, as you know, we have --

QUESTION: Well, it seems to be that the vast amount of damage that this guy and his group has done is to India, and I’m not aware that they’re offering any rewards. So I want to know why the U.S. taxpayer is offering a reward. That’s --

MS. NULAND: Well, I can’t speak to whether India has its own Rewards for Justice-type program. I’m going to refer you to the Indians with regard to that. This is a program that we’ve had for a long --

QUESTION: I understand that, but --

MS. NULAND: Can I finish my point? We’ve had for a long time, when we are concerned that people who have killed Americans overseas are not being able to be brought to justice. So again, this is a case that’s been going on for a long time. This is with regard to justice being served on people who have killed Americans --

QUESTION: Right. Can you --

MS. NULAND: -- so that there is no impunity for them anywhere in the world.

QUESTION: Can we – can you find out, though, where it is that this guy has to be convicted for the reward to be --

MS. NULAND: We will get you a little bit more information on that, Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Okay.

QUESTION: One more about the overall program?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: It’s been noted that upwards of $100 million have been paid. Is there a breakdown by amounts, since I understand that there’s no revelation of the people who get the rewards? Is there a breakdown per case, how much was paid out, and when they were paid out?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that, Ros. As you know, to protect those who come forward, we don’t generally advertise these things. How much – whether we do an accounting of how much has been authorized under the program and for what cases, I’m not sure. So let me take it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay?
Said.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian issue?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday, there was a meeting between Deputy Secretary Burns and a member of the PLO Executive Committee Hanan Ashrawi. Could you tell us what has transpired as a result of the meeting?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one too, Said. I don’t have a debrief on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Please.

QUESTION: Egypt?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Members of the Freedom and Justice Party, which is the political arm of the Muslim Brothers, and one of them is a member of the parliament, are in town. It’s the first level – this level visit to Washington that will meet different people. Is there any meeting going on – to take place in this building or not?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know whether we’re meeting this delegation at any level in this building. Let me take that one as well. We’ll get back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Please, Scott.

QUESTION: Can you speak today on the release of the hostages in Colombia? And what the United States hopes happens next between the government and FARC?

MS. NULAND: Yes. And thank you for your patience yesterday. As you know, the operation was ongoing and we wanted to be careful vis-a-vis the Colombians and the Brazilians, to let them complete the operation.

So the United States is pleased that these Colombian officials, some of whom were unjustly held for up to 14 years by the FARC, are now free and that they’ve been reunited with their families. We commend the ICRC, the Government of Brazil, for the positive roles that they played in this release.

As you know, President Santos of Colombia has welcomed this release and has, in addition, again called for the FARC to renounce all violence and lawlessness and to release all remaining hostages as essential conditions to move forward with a durable peace. I think he used the term that this was positive but insufficient, and we certainly want to see further progress in this regard as well.

QUESTION: Do you believe that the FARC continues to have support from other governments in that region?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know that we’ve had historic concerns about this. I don’t think that those concerns have changed.
Anything else? Please.

QUESTION: On Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Two questions, quick. One, are you worried about ongoing violence, especially in Karachi? And second, Pakistan is now deporting three wives of Usama bin Ladin, two to Saudi Arabia, one to Yemen. If – you had access to them because they had vital information about Usama bin Ladin’s activities?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to speak to our intelligence relationship with Pakistan. I think it’s now an internal matter between Pakistan and those governments about the disposition of the wives.
Elise.

QUESTION: And violence – ongoing violence in Karachi?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything in particular on that. If we have anything to say,
we’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Elise.

QUESTION: There have been reports that North Korea is – in addition to the launch that you’re expecting, is also preparing even bigger, long-range missile tests, and there have been some reports that U.S. officials are quoted that it could be even more concerning than originally thought. Do you have anything on this?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything new on that. Any kind of missile launch of any kind is of great concern and would be a violation, in our view, of UN Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: On the --

MS. NULAND: Yeah, Iraq.

QUESTION: On Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. Massoud Barzani, the president of the northern region of Kurdistan, is in town. I asked Mark last week – he is to meet with Deputy Secretary Burns, I guess. Why is he not meeting with the Secretary of State?

MS. NULAND: Well, he’s being hosted, as you know, by the Vice President, so his senior interlocutor will be the Vice President, and then in this building, he’ll have a chance to talk with Deputy Secretary Burns.

Please.

QUESTION: Quick one on Iran, the Secretary in her comments at VMI today again references the expectation that there’ll be these talks next month. Do you have any clarity yet on this?

QUESTION: This month.

QUESTION: This month, sorry.

MS. NULAND: This month, it’s April, right?

QUESTION: Yes, we’re --

MS. NULAND: We’re – life is ticking by.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if that’s actually been nailed down, when and where.

MS. NULAND: I think we are still where we were yesterday – that we have made a proposal, we think it’s an appropriate proposal, and we are awaiting Iranian confirmation.
QUESTION: On Russia?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: There was a new statement from a senior Russian official criticizing U.S. funding on democracy. Does the United – I mean, arguing that it distorts the Russian domestic process – does the United States have anything new to say to these charges leveled by the Russians?

MS. NULAND: Well, first, I would call your attention to the interview that the Secretary gave to Jill Dougherty of CNN over the weekend. I think we put out the transcript yesterday where she spoke very clearly about our support for Russians’ right to work and speak openly about their interest in more freedom, more democracy, more transparency, more openness.

We have, as the Secretary affirmed, proposed to Congress the creation of a new fund to empower Russian civil society, to protect human rights, to enhance a free and diverse information environment to work with NGOs to create the – increase the dialogue that they have with American NGOs to support the development of political leadership among young people. This would be a $50 million fund that would be drawn from liquidated assets from the former U.S.-Russia Investment Fund. We’re working with Congress on this.

And again, this is designed to support a vibrant civil society in Russia and to allow us to work with those Russian NGOs who want to work with us, to develop their skills and their voice and their ability to represent the aspirations of Russians to increasingly deepen and strengthen their democracy.

QUESTION: Quickly, going back to Iran P-5+1 --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- in your proposal, did you also include Istanbul as a --

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: -- venue?

MS. NULAND: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: Did you all take any position on the Palestinian bid for membership in the ICC?

MS. NULAND: With regard to the --

QUESTION: Criminal court – International Criminal Court.

MS. NULAND: To the criminal court? Well, I think – we’ve seen, obviously, the announcement by the prosecutor. This is within his mandate, obviously, to decide, so our focus is obviously, as it has been straight along, just to --

QUESTION: Oh, I know, but you know that countries take positions on things like this.

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we did not take any position.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay. All right. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: I will now be off. Have a great holiday week. Mark will be on the podium tomorrow and Thursday.
QUESTION: Oh, yeah.

MS. NULAND: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Have a great trip.