SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT GAZA DONORS CONFERENCE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks at the Gaza Donors Conference

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Cairo, Egypt

October 12, 2014

Thank you very much, Foreign Minister Shoukry. Thank you Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; Vice Prime Minister Mustafa; our co-host, Foreign Minister Brende; and our colleague Cathy Ashton, the EU High Representative. I want to particularly thank President Sisi and Foreign Minister Shoukry for their leadership and for their partnership in their efforts for the Palestinian Authority and to help bring all of us here today for their work with Israel on the ceasefire. And we respect and thank them also for their partnership with the United States, not just in working towards a durable ceasefire, but also in helping to pull together, and helping to pull together this massive reconstruction effort.

But President Sisi’s efforts, I think it’s fair to say, have really helped to reaffirm the pivotal role that Egypt has played in this region for so long. The same can also be said of Foreign Minister Brende and Norway, whose historic connection and commitment to these issues go back more than two decades to the Oslo Accords, and I’m personally always impressed by the deep engagement of Norway in efforts to make peace, not just here but elsewhere in the world. And of course, President Abbas, thank you for your perseverance and your partnership.

This has been a difficult few months on a difficult issue in a difficult neighborhood, and no one feels that more than the people of Gaza. This summer, as we’ve heard in some of the statistics that Secretary-General shared with us, more than half a million Gazans had to flee their homes and seek safety. Twenty thousand homes were destroyed or severely damaged, and more than a hundred thousand people remain displaced. And winter is fast approaching.

I have been to Gaza at a time like this, and I will never forget traveling to Izbet Abed Rabo in Gaza in 2009 and watching children playing in the rubble, seeing little Palestinian girls playing where just months earlier, homes and buildings had stood. The humanitarian challenge then was enormous, and shockingly, amazingly – and every speaker has mentioned we area back yet again – the humanitarian challenge is no less enormous in 2014. So the people of Gaza do need our help desperately – not tomorrow, not next week, but they need it now. And that’s why we are all gathered here.

I am proud, personally, that the people of the United States have been working to do their part. We provided $118 million in immediate humanitarian assistance at the time of the crisis, at its height, and the 84 million that we also provided to UNRWA for operations.

Today, I’m pleased to announce an additional immediate 212 million in assistance to the Palestinian people, and obviously we will have to see how things develop in the days ahead. But this immediate money will mean immediate relief and reconstruction, and this money will help meet the Palestinian Authority’s budget needs. This money will, we hope, help promote security and stability, and economic development, and it will provide for immediate distribution of food, medicine, and shelter materials for hundreds of thousands for the coming winter. And it is money that is going to help reconstruct Gaza’s damaged water and sanitation system, so that Palestinians in Gaza will have access to water that they can drink and homes that they can actually start rebuilding.

Taken together, the United States has provided more than 400 million in assistance to the Palestinians over this last year, 330 million just since this summer’s conflict began. But I will say to all of you, and I think everybody knows it: We come here with a sense of awesome responsibility and even resignation about the challenge that we face because we all know that so much more needs to be done, even though there have been encouraging steps.

I’m particularly grateful to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Special Coordinator Robert Serry for helping to broker an important agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority for an end-use monitoring mechanism. And we appreciate Israel’s cooperation in continuing to provide humanitarian access to Gaza through its crossing, which is essential if all of this is going to work.

We welcome that Israel has recently announced new measures that should allow increased trade in agricultural goods between Gaza and the West Bank, and more permits for Palestinian business leaders to enter Israel. We hope to see many more positive steps announced and implemented in the coming weeks and months. And we need to get back to the difficult work not just of reconstruction and recovery in Gaza, but of actually building Gaza’s economy for the long term and developing its institutions under the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Authority and President Abbas must be empowered in all that we do in order to define and determine Gaza’s future. There is, simply, no other way forward, and all of us here need to help the ability of the Palestinian Authority to be able to deliver. There are many steps that we can take. We can and should see Palestinian Authority customs officials at Gaza’s borders. We can and should help the PA to expand its control in Gaza, streamline Gaza’s workforce, and continue to play a key role in the end-use monitoring mechanism for Gaza. And this is absolutely essential, because as long as there is a possibility that Hamas could fire rockets on Israeli civilians at any time, the people of Gaza will remain at risk of future conflict. And even as we work to reconstruct Gaza, we cannot lose sight of the importance of the long-term economic investment for the Palestinian economy that can create a vibrant private sector.

Shortly after I became Secretary of State, working with the Quartet and international local business leaders, we launched the Initiative for the Palestinian Economy. The IPE is a comprehensive plan for Palestinian economic growth in the billions of dollars. And this effort is not about donor projects or corporate social responsibility; we’re talking about real investment. We had McKinsey & Company come in and make analysis of every sector of the Palestinian economy and make a determination about those areas where you could actually reduce unemployment from 21 percent to 8 percent in a period of three years. We’re talking about real investment that produces real jobs and opportunities for thousands of Palestinians, and that is what is going to make the difference over the long term.

Now, we were making real progress, laying down specific projects, creating new opportunities for goods and peoples to move in and out, when tragically conflict once again replaced dialogue. But what I really want to underscore to everyone is what all of us know, but not everyone perhaps wants to confront. This is the third time in less than six years that together with the people of Gaza, we have been forced to confront a reconstruction effort. This is the third time in less than six years that we’ve seen war break out and Gaza left in rubble. This is the third time in less than six years that we’ve had to rely on a ceasefire, a temporary measure, to halt the violence.

Now, I don’t think there’s any person here who wants to come yet again to rebuild Gaza only to think that two years from now or less we’re going to be back at the same table talking about rebuilding Gaza again because the fundamental issues have not been dealt with. A ceasefire is not peace, and we’ve got to find a way to get back to the table and help people make tough choices, real choices. Choices that everybody in this room and outside of it understands have been on the table for too long. Choices about more than just a ceasefire. Because even the most durable of ceasefires is not a substitute for peace. Even the most durable of ceasefires is not a substitute of security for Israel and a state and dignity for the Palestinians.

As everyone here knows, last year the United States joined Israel and the Palestinian Authority in renewed peace negotiations towards a final status settlement. The truth that has not been talked about very much, and there are still legitimate reasons for maintaining that respect for the process, but the truth is that real and significant process was made on substantive issues. Longtime gaps were narrowed and creative ideas were actively being deployed to solve remaining differences.

So I say clearly and with deep conviction here today: The United States remains fully, totally committed to returning to the negotiations not for the sake of it, but because the goal of this conference and the future of this region demand it. There is nothing sustainable about the status quo. In the end, the underlying causes of discontent and suspicion and anger that exist in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza can only be eliminated by resolving the conflict itself. There is no way to fully satisfy the parties’ various demands, no way to bring the full measure of recovery to Gaza, without a long-term prospect for peace that builds confidence about the future. And everything else will be a Band-Aid fix, not a long-term resolution. Everything else will still regrettably fail to address the underlying discontent and suspicion in both Israel and Gaza and the West Bank. Everything else will be the prisoner of impatience that has brought us to this unacceptable and unsustainable status quo.

Make no mistake: What was compelling about a two-state solution a year ago is even more compelling today. Now, I know that in Israel as well as in Gaza and the West Bank, most people would quickly tell you today that as much as they want peace, they think it is a distant dream, something that’s just not possible now. The problem is, having said that, no one then offers an alternative that makes sense. I say it is unacceptable to want peace but then buy into an attitude that makes it inevitable that you cannot have peace. It is unacceptable to simply shrug one’s shoulders, say peace isn’t possible now, and then by doing nothing to make it possible, actually add to the greater likelihood of a downward spiral.

So I say to you clearly and with great conviction: The United States will continue to work with our partners to find a way forward. We are convinced that the needs to both parties on even the most critical issues can be met, and that with common sense, goodwill, and courage we can not only address the long-term needs of Gaza, but we can actually achieve a lasting peace between Israel, the Palestinians, and all their neighbors. We have been clear from day one about the difficulty of the challenge ahead, and we knew there would be tough times. But in the end, we all want the same things: security for the Israelis; freedom, dignity, and a state for the Palestinians; peace and prosperity for both peoples.

So this is a time for leadership. It’s a time for leaders to lead. And at a time when extremism, which offers no constructive vision for the future, is capitalizing on the vacuum, it is imperative for all of us to fill that vacuum with a prospect of peace. That’s what the people of our countries expect from us, and that’s what we must offer them – no less. So out of this conference must come not just money, but a renewed commitment from everybody to work for a peace that meets the aspirations of all – for Israelis, for Palestinians, and for all the peoples of this region. And I promise you the full commitment of President Obama, myself, and the United States of America to try to achieve that. Thank you. (Applause.)

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AFTER MEETING PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRESIDENT ABBAS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks Following Meeting With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Muqata'a, Ramallah

July 23, 2014

---

Excuse me. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you.

I have been in constant touch with President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority over the course of the last months. But particularly in the last days, we have been talking about how to achieve an end to the current violence and an effort to try to not only have a cease-fire, but build a process that can create a sustainable way forward for everybody. I’m very grateful to President Abbas for his leadership, for his deep engagement in the effort to try to find a cease-fire. He has traveled tirelessly, he has been working with all of the interested groups and parties, and encouraging people to do the responsible thing, which is to come to the table – not only have a cease-fire, but then negotiate the immediate issues and the underlying issues.
We had a good conversation today about how we can take further steps, and we’re doing this for one simple reason: The people in the Palestinian territories, the people in Israel, are all living under the threat or reality of immediate violence, and this needs to end for everybody. We need to find a way forward that works, and it’s not violence. President Abbas has been committed to nonviolence and committed to a harder route. Sometimes it’s very satisfying for people to see the immediate impact of the violence, but it doesn’t take you to a solution.

President Abbas understands the road to the solution, and that’s what we’re working for.
So we will continue to push for this cease-fire. We will continue to work with President Abbas and others in the region in order to achieve it. And I can tell you that we have, in the last 24 hours, made some progress in moving towards that goal. And I will leave here now with President Abbas’ thoughts about how we could make some progress, and I will go and meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and subsequently return to Cairo, where we will continue in the hopes that before long, we can change course and, for everybody’s sake, end this violence and move to a sustainable program for the future.

Thank you all very, very much. Thank you. Thanks.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH UN SECRETARY GENERAL KI-MOON

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks With UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Cairo, Egypt

July 21, 2014

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, can you tell us about the new aid that you’re announcing for Gaza today?

SECRETARY KERRY: Let me just say to everybody that, first of all, President Obama and all of us are deeply appreciative for the secretary general’s significant efforts to try to help bring about a ceasefire in the conflict in Gaza. And the secretary general has been meeting in the region, but he purposefully stayed over here a little extra time in order that we could meet and discuss ways in which we might be able to bring about or encourage the parties to embrace a ceasefire under the right circumstances.

We are deeply concerned about the consequences of Israel’s appropriate and legitimate effort to defend itself. No country can stand by while rockets are attacking it and tunnels are dug in order to come into your country and assault your people. But always, in any kind of conflict there is a concern about civilians, about children, women, communities that are caught in it. And we are particularly trying to focus on a way to respond to their very significant needs.

On behalf of President Obama and the United States, I’m privileged to announce tonight that the United States will immediately provide $47 million in order to provide direct humanitarian assistance of no other kind but humanitarian assistance to try to alleviate some of the immediate humanitarian crisis.

And meanwhile, we will work to see if there is some way to not only arrive at a ceasefire of some kind, but to get to a discussion about the underlying issues. Nothing will be resolved by any ceasefire, temporary or long, without really getting to those issues at some point. And that’s what we need to do.

Mr. Secretary General.

SECRETARY GENERAL BAN: Secretary Kerry, ladies and gentlemen, it’s a great pleasure to see you, and I’m very pleased to be joined by you today. Our joint efforts will, I hope, make a great contribution to ongoing mediation efforts by the parties in the region to end the violence. I would like to thank Secretary Kerry for his active engagement and the tireless commitment for the peace and stability in the Middle East, and in particular these days in Gaza and Israel.

Our joint efforts are rooted on three mutually reinforcing efforts. First and foremost, we must find a way to stop the violence. So many people have died. As the Secretary just said, it’s mostly civilian population, women and children. It’s very sad, it’s tragic. We have to do all what we can do. That is why I am here in support of the Egyptian mediation proposal, and I’m coming from Qatar where I met Qatari emir. And also, I met President Abbas in Doha. And I went to Kuwait and I had the very good meeting with the Kuwaiti emir who is now a chair of the League of Arab State summit meeting. Tomorrow I am going to Israel and Palestine.

And second priority should be that we are urging the parties return to a dialogue. I believe that all the options should be on the table so that they can address these issues through dialogue in a peaceful means without resorting to violence.

Thirdly, we hope that they will also address root causes of this crisis. There have been many dialogues and there have been many crises, but we have not yet been able to address all these root causes. I deeply appreciate and highly commend Secretary Kerry’s diplomatic efforts to have Middle East peace process. I sincerely hope that when a ceasefire is realized that you will immediately resume the dialogue at this time.

I full understand, fully sympathize the sufferings of the Palestinian people, particularly in Gaza. These restrictions should be lifted as soon as possible so that people should not resort to this kind of violence as a way of expressing their grievances. At the same time, I fully appreciate the legitimate right to defend their country and citizens of Israel. Israel should also be able to live in peace and security without being endangered of their citizens.

I’m asking that Hamas should immediately stop firing rocket. While I understand all how, why Israelis has to respond militarily, but there is a proportionality. And most of the Palestinian people have been – most of the death toll are Palestinian people.

Therefore at this time our first and foremost effort should be focused on ending violence. I hope during Secretary Kerry’s and my visit in the region these days, we’ll be able to help the parties to agree to a ceasefire in a reasonable form and immediately return to dialogue and address the root causes.

And I really appreciate, again, your diplomatic efforts, and United Nations will spare no efforts. And I really appreciate your very generous humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people. UN is trying to work to mobilize necessary humanitarian assistance as much as we can, as we have been doing in the past. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Let me just say in furtherance quickly – I would like to just say in furtherance of what the secretary general just said, we are both here in support of and in an effort to help get implemented the Egyptian initiative for the ceasefire. Israel and Egypt have encouraged that, and Israel has accepted that ceasefire proposal. So only Hamas now needs to make the decision to spare innocent civilians from this violence.

I know from talking to Prime Minister Netanyahu earlier tonight Israel is obviously going to defend itself, but he feels deeply, as does everybody, what – the pressures that this creates on civilians. But today, Israel lost more soldiers in defense of their country, and so Israel feels this as strongly as anybody. It is important for all of us to try to make certain that we do everything possible.

Hamas now has a decision. Only Hamas is out there awaiting the decision, and we hope they will make the right decision. The secretary general and I will both make certain that the issues that need to be discussed will be discussed if we go forward, but we must have an atmosphere within which people in all concerns and parties can come together to have those discussions.

Thank you.

READOUT: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CALL WITH PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU OF ISRAEL

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Readout of the President’s Call with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke again this morning by phone, their second call in three days to discuss the situation in Gaza.  The President discussed Israel’s ongoing military operation, reiterated the United States’ condemnation of attacks by Hamas against Israel, and reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself.  The President also raised serious concern about the growing number of casualties, including increasing Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza and the loss of Israeli soldiers.

President Obama informed the Prime Minister that Secretary of State John Kerry will soon travel to Cairo to seek an immediate cessation of hostilities based on a return to the November 2012 ceasefire agreement. The President underscored that the United States will work closely with Israel and regional partners on implementing an immediate ceasefire, and stressed the need to protect civilians—in Gaza and in Israel.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY DENIES U.S. TAKING SIDES IN EGYPTIAN UNREST

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Violence in Egypt
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
July 6, 2013

The United States is deeply troubled by the violence across Egypt. We strongly condemn any and all incitement to violence or attempts to divide and provoke, rather than unite, all Egyptians. The United States strongly condemns the violence by all parties and urges calm. At the same time, we firmly reject the unfounded and false claims by some in Egypt that the United States supports the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood or any specific Egyptian political party or movement. The United States has always been and remains committed to the democratic process, not to any party or personality. We want Egyptians to make their democracy work for the good of all Egyptians. At this sensitive moment, we call on all Egyptian leaders to condemn the use of force and prevent further violence among their supporters and we urge all those demonstrating to do so peacefully.

The United States wants to see Egypt’s ongoing transition succeed for the benefit of the Egyptian people. The Egyptians themselves must come together and make the tough decisions necessary for that to happen. As I said in March when I was in Cairo, the United States supports the people of Egypt in their continued transition to a stable, sovereign Egyptian democracy. The only solution to the current impasse is for all parties to work together peacefully to address the many legitimate concerns and needs of the people and to ensure Egypt has a government that is responsive to the aspirations of the millions of Egyptians who have taken to the streets to demand a better future. Lasting stability in Egypt will only be achieved through a transparent and inclusive democratic process with participation from all sides and all political parties. This process must also ensure that the rights of all Egyptian men and women are protected, including the right to peaceful assembly, due process, and free and fair trials in civilian courts.

The Egyptian people seek and deserve an honest, capable and representative democratic government. As President Obama has said, "no transition to democracy comes without difficulty, but in the end it must stay true to the will of the people." The longstanding partnership and friendship between the United States and Egypt is of great importance to the United States, and we will continue to support the Egyptian people to ensure that Egypt’s transition to democracy succeeds.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AT ROUNDTABLE WITH BUSINESS LEADERS IN CAIRO

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at Top of Roundtable Discussion With Business Leaders
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Marriott Zamalek Hotel
Cairo, Egypt
March 2, 2013

　

SECRETARY KERRY: I apologize to everybody for being detained, but I had a very, very spirited, as you can imagine, conversation with members of the opposition, and it was really valuable – very, very valuable. And I’m very grateful to them for taking the time to come and share thoughts. It was really a conversation – we could have gone on for a couple of more hours, and I wish I’d had the time actually to do that because I thought it was very productive.

But I particularly am glad to be back here in Cairo and back here with some of you I met previously and others for the first time. But this is my first trip to Cairo as Secretary of State, obviously, and a lot of things have been happening in the course of the last year, so I wanted to have a chance to be able to talk with you a little bit about the economic challenge that Egypt is facing.

We’ve been a longtime friend and partner, and the American people support Egypt and want its political and economic success. And we really look forward to being able to work with Egypt as it continues to play a very critical role in the region’s economy and in its security issues. We come here – I come here – on behalf of President Obama, committed not to any party, not to any one person, not to any specific political point of view, but filled with the commitment that Americans have to democracy, to a robust commitment to our values – to human rights, to freedom of expression, to tolerance.

And these are things that, historically, the strong civil society of Egypt has cared about. We believe it’s very important for the Egyptian people to come together around those values, but also to come together to meet the economic challenge at this particular moment. It is paramount, essential, urgent that the Egyptian economy get stronger, that it get back on its feet. And it’s very clear that there’s a circle of connections in how that can happen. To attract capital, to bring money back here that will invest, to give business the confidence to be able to move forward, there has to be a sense of security and there has to be a sense of economic and political viability.

And so we understand that. You have to get people back to work, and the energy of this country needs to hopefully be able to move from the streets to enterprise and to work and to daily life and to building the strength of that civil society. And so I’m here primarily to listen to you and you tell me what you think you need to do that. But it’s clear to us that the IMF arrangement needs to be reached, that we need to give the marketplace the confidence. And that very capable and entrepreneurial Egyptian Diaspora that is currently in many parts of the world with its capital, needs to feel comfortable that it could come back here and that there’s a viability in going forward.

So when I speak with President Morsy tomorrow, I will be speaking with him about the very specific ways that we, the United States, that President Obama, would like to see us engage, including economic assistance, support for private businesses, growing Egypt’s exports to the United States, investing in Egypt’s people through education. There are some very specific things that we need to do, and all of them we would only do in consultation with the government of this country. These are not things that we would do on our own without a government desiring it or wanting it or being part of it, obviously. But they are only things that we can do with the same confidence that you make your choices, knowing that Egypt is going to make the right fundamental economic decisions with respect to the IMF and that it stands ready to provide the foundation for sustainable and inclusive growth.

So we’re working on a number of initiatives towards supporting greater trade and business development. Last September, we brought more than 100 representatives from American businesses to Cairo in order to explore these very opportunities. We’re certainly ready to try to do that and try to do more. And I spoke in the last days with Prime Minister Qandil, with President Hollande of France, with Chancellor Angela Merkel, yesterday with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey – all of them are prepared to be helpful, but all of them believe that Egypt needs to make some fundamental economic choices.

The sad thing is that shortly after the visit of those 100 businesses last year, there was a problem in terms of the violence with respect to the Embassy and the community and it deterred people from following up on that. So a clear message: The United States is committed to helping Egypt become an economically successful, democratic nation. And I know that most of you here are – or all of you here are too. And I look forward for hearing from you your thoughts about the ways in which that can happen rapidly and what we can do most effectively to try to help make it happen. And I thank for listening to those opening comments.

On that note, I invite any members of the chamber or any of the businesses here to speak up. We’re going to – sorry – wait for the press. Apologize. Thank you all very much. Appreciate your being here.

U.S. DAILY STATE DEPARTMENT MEETING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 25, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:06 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Good afternoon, everybody. In keeping with our Free the Press campaign heading up to May 3rd, our journalist of the day is from Eritrea. And he is Dawit Isaak, who’s an independent Eritrean journalist. He co-owned the first Eritrean independent newspaper, which often reported on alleged abuses of regime power. He was arrested in 2001 without any formal charges or a trial, and he has since been held incommunicado by the Government of Eritrea. And we take this opportunity to call on the government to release him immediately. And you can learn more about him at our website humanrights.gov.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: I don’t have anything that’s significant enough to begin with, so --

MS. NULAND: Excellent.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) with the Free the Press campaign.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you aware that the Palestinian Authority blocked something like eight websites that are critical of Mahmoud Abbas? And if you are, do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND: I do have something on this. We have seen these reports, and we are concerned about any uses of technology that would restrict access to information. We are raising these concerns with the Palestinian Authority. You know that we’ve had these concerns in other parts of the world, and we wouldn’t want to see the PA going in the direction that some of those regimes have gone in. You know how strongly we advocate freedom of expression, freedom of information. So we will raise these things and endeavor to figure out what’s going on.

QUESTION: Are any of these news agencies and websites U.S.-financed?

MS. NULAND: Said, we started to do a little investigation of that. None of them is funded by the State Department programs under MEPI. I don’t have a full picture of the USAID programs yet. As soon as we do, we’ll get something back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

Please, Andy.

QUESTION: I have a related – slightly related question. In an interview with CNN yesterday, President – Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he supported the idea of a contiguous Palestinian state – which commentators said seemed to be a new line from him – that it wouldn’t look like Swiss cheese under any future arrangement. Is that – do you see that as progress? Is that something that is – marks a step forward?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know that our goal remains a comprehensive peace that creates and allows for a secure Israel and a prosperous and contiguous Palestinian state. But as we’ve always said, we can’t do this through press announcements. We can only do this when the parties sit down together and do the negotiating they have to do.

QUESTION: But I guess my question is: Is Netanyahu’s statement a – does this mark a new – an advance in Israel’s position toward this goal that you’re referring to, contiguous state being now --
MS. NULAND: Well, we ourselves have always called for a contiguous state, so that’s a good thing. But what’s most important is that these parties really roll up their sleeves and work together.
Shaun.

QUESTION: On a somewhat related note, the head of the Israeli military, Lieutenant General Gantz, made some remarks about Iran, saying that he considers the Iranians to be – the Iranian leadership to be rational, and hinting that pressure can work in terms of making them refrain from a bomb. What is your – do you have a reaction to his remarks, an assessment?

MS. NULAND: I don’t, Shaun. I really don’t. I mean, you know where we are. We are working on this approach of pressure and talks in the hope that we can make progress on this. But I think it’s really only Iranian behavior that’s going to tell the true story of what their intentions are.

QUESTION: Also on Iran? There’s the report that apparently, according to the Iranian ambassador to Russia, that the country is now thinking about giving up its nuclear program in order to avoid the looming EU sanctions. Does the U.S know about this? What can you say about it? If this is indeed true, is this a positive development?

MS. NULAND: Well, frankly, these issues have to be negotiated at the table that we have now created and restarted with the P-5+1 process. So the ambassador of Iran to Russia is not a central player in those, and frankly, what’s most important is what Iran says and does at the negotiating table.

QUESTION: But the fact that he is indicating that they are seriously looking at the long-term impact – we believe – ostensibly – on the Iranian economy, is that perhaps a leverage point for the P-5+1 process?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think that we consider it new that the sanctions are biting on the Iranian economy, and that it is a direct result of the international pressure that we’ve been able to bring to bear – more sanctions than we’ve ever been able to muster against Iran – that has brought them back to the negotiating table. But now, what’s most important is that they actually roll up their sleeves and work with us and come clean on their program.

QUESTION: Have there been any conversations with the Embassy in Moscow to see if indeed this was directly communicated, perhaps, to the Russian Government to actually see whether this is just speculation in the press or there might be some sort of signal coming out of this?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think you’re taking this far more seriously than we are. What matters to us is what happens in the room.
Please.

QUESTION: If I can go back to Andy’s question for a second?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you see – does the prime minister’s statement present you with an opportunity to drive the point home about settlement and outposts and so on, the fact that he acknowledged the need for a contiguous contiguity for a possible Palestinian state?

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think there’s any lack of emphasis on our part with regard to how we feel about settlements. I mentioned yesterday that we had been in to talk to the Israelis about this latest move, just to confirm that our Ambassador Shapiro did speak to Israeli negotiator Molho on this issue. So I don’t think there’s any lack of attention to that matter.

QUESTION: Yeah. But up to this point, there has been either a dismissal on the part of the Israelis or they just flat out snub your call to stop the settlements and so on. Now the prime minister himself has spoke of the need for contiguity. Don’t you think that this is a good opportunity to sort of emphatically make the point once more?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve been emphatically making the point all week long, but thanks, Said.
Please.

QUESTION: What was the Israeli response when Shapiro went in to --

MS. NULAND: The Israelis have made their views known on this publicly as well as privately. I don’t think that what they said to us privately differed all that much from what they’ve said privately[1]. But I’ll let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: Which is that?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: Well, what’s your – I want to get – find out what your – is your understanding that they have legalized these outposts?

MS. NULAND: I am not going to get into what happened in the room with them. I’m going to let them characterize their own views. But they’ve been pretty clear publicly --

QUESTION: Well, forget about that. What’s your understanding? I don’t know what they’ve said. I’m asking you: What have they said? What is your understanding of what their position is?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to send you to them on their position.

QUESTION: No, no. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Yeah, yeah. I am.

Go ahead. Please.North Korea?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: No. I need to stay with the Palestinian for a second.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Right. You can ask the Israelis about their own views
.
QUESTION: Yeah. This has to do with a determination that was in today’s Federal Register signed by Bill Burns, who I believe is a U.S. official, right?

It says – and I’m not going to read the whole thing, but it says: “I hereby determine and certify that the Palestinians have not, since the date of the enactment of that act -- ” which refers to the appropriations bill – “obtained in the UN or any specialized agency thereof the same standing as member-states or full membership as a state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians and waive the provisions of Section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Basically what this means is that the Palestinians can still have a waiver to have an office here. Now, I’ve got a couple of questions about this. One, I’m not aware – and maybe I’m wrong, but I am not aware that the Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 has actually been enacted yet.
So one, is that correct? And two, how is possible that you’re waiving this if they got membership in UNESCO in November?

MS. NULAND: Well, I haven’t seen this citation that you’re reading from, so why don’t I take it from you and why don’t we endeavor to come back to you with answers on both of those.
Okay.

QUESTION: A question on North Korea.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: The Chinese vice foreign minister today appeared to make a veiled warning to North Korea not to carry out this supposed or possible nuclear test. I was curious if you had seen or had a reaction to those comments from the Chinese vice foreign minister, and if there’s – what the thinking is, if China is doing enough with their leverage with North Korea to put off a possible nuclear test.

MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve said all through this period, we have been working closely with the Chinese, encouraging them to use all of the political and other kinds of leverage that they have with the DPRK to encourage it to change course. So obviously, public statements of this kind are most welcome. And we look forward to consulting with the Chinese on what more they think can and should be done when we go to – when the Secretary and Secretary Geithner are in Beijing for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue next week.
Please, in the back.

QUESTION: A question to Iran again. They – Iran reported that there was a cyber attack on its oil industry last week. The implications were that the West was behind it, although the United States weren’t named specifically. Have you any idea what might be behind those attacks, who might be, or can you even confirm that these attacks occurred?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have any information on that one way or the other. I refer you to the Iranians.

QUESTION: Former negotiator Larijani said today that this is a really good time for the negotiations to go on between Iran and the West. Do you feel that this is really a propitious time for Iran to go forward with --

MS. NULAND: Well, I think it’s going to be a matter of what these talks produce. So we are obviously committed to working hard. As we said at the time, we believe the first meeting in Istanbul was worth having. We’re going to have another meeting in Baghdad. But I think we’re now getting down to concrete proposals. If there are real steps, we’ll be prepared to respond, but we need to now see some real steps.

QUESTION: So your feeling is that the meeting on May 23rd in Baghdad will be far more substantive than the meeting in Istanbul, which basically set the date of the meeting?

MS. NULAND: I think we’ve sort of set the table at Istanbul. Now we need to start seeing what the meal’s going to look like.

QUESTION: And when you say concrete proposal, do you expect Iran to submit like a – to open up its facilities and to submit to whatever it needs from the West to aid it in a civilian program?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know all of the issues of concern to us with regard to Iran’s program. They’re clearly outlined in the repeated IAEA reports. So we had a chance to have that opening meeting of this round of talks and to talk about all the issues that we care about, and now we have to do some more technical exchanges between now and Baghdad, and then we have to see whether at the Baghdad round we can really get down to what the Iranians are prepared to do and what steps we might be willing to take to respond if the steps are real.

Okay.

QUESTION: And finally, is the feeling in this town that the sanctions are so biting that Iran is beginning to approach these talks seriously?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, we’ve said that we believe that the sanctions are biting, as I said at the top of the briefing. We think that that has led to their decision to come back to the table, and we hope that it’ll continue to contribute to working through this issue diplomatically, because that’s obviously the best way to get this done.
Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you have an update on David Hale?

MS. NULAND: I did, especially after I mangled it yesterday.

QUESTION: Oh. Was he not in Saudi?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. He actually went to Saudi last night. He had a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister bin Abdullah today in Riyadh. He then went on to Cairo this evening. In Cairo, he’s going to meet with Egyptian officials. But he’s also going to meet with Qatari Prime Minister Al Thani, who is also going to be in Cairo at the same time.

QUESTION: So --

MS. NULAND: And then he is coming back to Washington on the weekend.

QUESTION: So he’s not going to Qatar, he’s --

MS. NULAND: Correct, correct.

QUESTION: And wasn’t there another one that he was going to – wasn’t he going to go to the UAE or something like that? Maybe --

MS. NULAND: Net on this trip: He will have been in Jerusalem, Jericho, Amman, Riyadh – I think he was in Kuwait at the front end, I can’t remember – Saudi, et cetera.

QUESTION: All right. And so he decided that it’s not worth his while, it’s not worth his time to go back to Israel and the PA after Cairo?

MS. NULAND: I think he – that he wants to come home and report and consult here before he makes another trip. That’s the current planning.

QUESTION: When he is in Cairo, isn’t he going to bring up the gas issue between Egypt and Israel?

MS. NULAND: The which issue?

QUESTION: The gas.

QUESTION: Gas.

QUESTION: Natural gas.

MS. NULAND: I’m sure that’ll be one of the subjects that he discusses, yes.

QUESTION: Any message he will bring to Cairo in this regard?

MS. NULAND: I think we’ll let him have his consultations in Cairo and we see what we want to read out on those.
Please.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout on Ambassador Grossman’s travel to Copenhagen, Ankara, and Abu Dhabi?

MS. NULAND: I do have some info on Ambassador Grossman’s travels.
First, on his European stops, as you know, he was primarily focused on support for the Afghan National Security Forces in line with the Chicago summit agenda that the Secretary laid out when she was in Brussels last week. He also was yesterday in Turkey for the same purposes, in Ankara. Today, he is in Abu Dhabi, and he – there was also a meeting of the International Contact Group on Afghanistan in the UAE.
And he is going on tonight to Islamabad, where he will be having bilateral conversations, and he will also be taking part in a core group meeting – this is Afghanistan, U.S., and Pakistan – that’ll be attended for the Pakistanis by Foreign Secretary Jilani, and by the Afghans by Deputy Foreign Minister Ludin.

QUESTION: So when he visits Islamabad and meets the foreign ministers, is he carrying any message from Secretary Clinton on --

MS. NULAND: When he goes to Pakistan?
QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Well, this is, as you know, in the context of the parliament concluding its review. We have begun our process of reengaging with the Pakistani Government to work through the issues that have come up during the review. So this will be an effort to really take up those issues one at a time and to see how we work through them.

QUESTION: So has Pakistan formally informed you about the parliamentary review or the conditions that they have announced publicly?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we mentioned a week ago that the Secretary had spoken to Foreign Minister Khar, so she gave some views on this, and it was agreed at that time that Ambassador Grossman would make a trip to Pakistan to deepen and broaden the conversation that we’ve been having. I think you know that we had also had Deputy Secretary Nides in Pakistan, I think it was two weeks ago. And we had
USAID Administrator Shah there, we had Generals Allen and Dempsey there. So you can see us working hard now with the Pakistanis to work through the issues.

QUESTION: And this is a day-long trip?

MS. NULAND: He will be there – he’s arriving this evening. I think he will be there through Friday is my understanding, because the core group meeting is on Friday.

QUESTION: And he’s also going to Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND: He’s not going to Afghanistan on this trip.

QUESTION: He’s going back to D.C.?

MS. NULAND: Correct, yeah.

QUESTION: As part of the deepening of the relationship, did Pakistan inform the U.S. that it was going to conduct this missile test in the last 24 hours?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know what kind of advanced information we have – we had. I assume we had some, because I do know that they did have contact with the Indian Government before they proceeded with this.

QUESTION: Any reaction to that, to the missile test, to this – obviously it comes after the Indian test.

MS. NULAND: Well, we – obviously, the same message that we gave at the time of the Indian test, that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding nuclear and missile capabilities. We understand that this was a planned launch. The Pakistanis have said it wasn’t a direct response to the Indian test. But what’s most important is that they do seem to have taken steps to inform the Indians, and we, as you know, are quite intent on those two countries continuing to work together and improve their dialogue.

QUESTION: Sorry, just on Grossman’s meetings with the Pakistanis, not the core group --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: So Ambassador Grossman is prepared to discuss everything that’s on the list of Pakistani concerns?

MS. NULAND: I think he’s open to working through the results of the parliamentary review with the Pakistani Government. I don’t want to prejudge or preempt how those conversations will go or what agenda the Pakistani side will bring, but as we said, we had been waiting for that review to be concluded before we could fully reengage. So this is our opportunity to do that.

QUESTION: But do you see the results of that review as something that can be negotiated, or is it something that you’re just going to accept flat out or --

MS. NULAND: I think we want to hear the Pakistani Government’s presentation of where it thinks the bilateral relationship needs to go, and then we will present our views and work through the issues, as partners do. That’s the expectation, so --

QUESTION: So it is something that you see as a negotiation process?

MS. NULAND: This is a conversation. This is a bilateral consultation about how we can improve our relationship along all of the lines that have been difficult. So I don’t want to prejudge what he’s going to hear or where we’re going to go in response. But as you know, we had said that we really needed them to complete their internal work and then come back to us, give us a sense of what they think this ought to lead to, and then we can talk. So that’s – this is the talk.

QUESTION: Does he have the authority to – or the authorization to discuss things like drone strikes, which are very high on the Pakistanis’ list? Well, I mean, at the top of the Pakistanis’ list.

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you can imagine that (a) I’m not going to get into intelligence issues and how we talk about them or don’t talk about them; and I’m certainly not going to get into the precise instructions of our fully empowered special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

QUESTION: So he is? He can negotiate with the Pakistanis on this and any other issue?

MS. NULAND: I am not using the “n” word and I’m not going to get into his instructions.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just briefly on that?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you when the last time he was in Pakistan, when his last visit was to Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: I do not have that. I will take it for you.

Yeah, please.

QUESTION: In the same region, Afghanistan. Congressman Rohrabacher has been giving interviews talking about his co-del he was on where he did not end up going to Afghanistan. He said he had a conversation with the Secretary, who, basically, what he is saying is told her it would be best if he did not go to Afghanistan. I was curious if you had any comment on that situation and whether the Secretary might have had any conversations with President Karzai about letting Congressman Rohrabacher come to Afghanistan as part of that co-del.

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think we can improve on what Congressman Rohrabacher himself has said, so why don’t we just leave it there.

QUESTION: Any reason why we would support President Karzai’s wishes over a U.S. congressman going on this trip?

MS. NULAND: I think you know whenever any American travels, including members of Congress, members of the Executive Branch, traditionally there’s a visa process engaged there. In this case, sometimes when they fly in, it’s sort of handled more administratively. We were advised, as Congressman Rohrabacher made clear, that the sovereign government didn’t think this visit was timely. So it was in that context that he made his decision after our advice.
Okay, please.

QUESTION: I have a question on South America --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- for what Americans might consider the ongoing soap opera involving the Secret Service, except this doesn’t involve the Secret Service. We’re talking about three U.S. Marines who apparently have been punished as well as an employee of the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia who apparently were implicated in tossing a prostitute out of a moving car sometime last year. And I wanted to find out, since we know that the Marines have been punished, who was the employee of the Embassy? Was this person an American? Was this person a local hire? What can you say about a pending lawsuit now, apparently, against the Embassy?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, your report of the incident in question is not accurate in terms of what actually happened. Second, this is something that happened back in December. There was a State Department employee involved. The – we did cooperate fully with the appropriate Brazilian authorities, including with the civil police. None of the Americans involved in the incident are still in Brazil. The civil police, as I understand it, are still working on their case, and no charges have been brought by the Brazilian authorities.

QUESTION: When you say that none of the people involved are still in Brazil, does that imply that the Embassy employee is an American?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And does that person still work for the U.S. Government?

MS. NULAND: I do not have the answer to that. I believe so. But as you know, we don’t talk about our personnel for privacy reasons.

QUESTION: What is the policy? Much has been made about the Secret Service reviewing its standards of behavior for its employees when they’re detailed overseas. What is the standard for the State Department and its employees and how they’re expected to behave, conform to local laws overseas?

MS. NULAND: We have a zero-tolerance policy for any kind of conduct of the kind that was of – that involves prostitution or anything of that nature. I can give you the Foreign Affairs Manual regulations, if that’s helpful to you.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS. NULAND: Not only for the reasons of morality and local law, but also because any kind of conduct of that kind exposes our employees to blackmail and other things.

QUESTION: Even though that a country like Colombia may have legalized activity in this (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: Just a couple things on that. What about the description that you were read of the incident isn’t correct?

MS. NULAND: Well, Ros talked about somebody being thrown out of a car and this kind of thing. That is not what happened in this case.

QUESTION: What did happen?

QUESTION: Because that’s the description that the Secretary of Defense offered to reporters who were traveling with him. So --

MS. NULAND: Our information is that after four Embassy personnel left the club, the – a woman involved in this incident attempted to open a car door and get into a closed and moving vehicle. She was not able to do so. She fell and she injured herself. All of the Embassy personnel involved in this incident were interviewed by the Brazilian civil police. We have also conducted our own investigation into the incident, and we’ve taken all the appropriate steps regarding the individuals involved consistent with our laws and our regulations.

QUESTION: Did these – did any of these – in particular, the Embassy employee, did they violate any rule?

MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, they haven’t been charged by Brazilian authorities.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean any of the FAM rules.

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into the precise adjudication of the case for reasons of privacy with regard to our employee.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you said that none of the people are still in the country.
MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: But someone can be moved without being punished. I mean, you could be transferred just simply because this person – for another reason. So do you know if there was any – was there any reprimand or punishment handed out, and was there any reason to? Did they – did these people do anything wrong?

MS. NULAND: Again, my information is that we conducted our own investigation of this issue, and we took the appropriate steps. What I’m not at liberty to get into is what steps those might have been, given the privacy issues involving the employee. And that’s our policy that we don’t talk about disciplinary steps taken with employees.

QUESTION: Well, the Secret Service didn’t either until just recently.

MS. NULAND: I understand that.

QUESTION: Well, that’s why it’s important to know whether they actually did something wrong or they were just transferred or moved to – or demoted or whatever. I mean, maybe – I mean, the description that you just read, it sounds like it could be perfectly plausible that these people didn’t do anything wrong at all. So that’s --

MS. NULAND: And it may well be. I just don’t have information with regard to the case beyond what I’ve just given you.

QUESTION: Well, I would suggest that the Department might want to come clean on this, considering the interest in the – in that. The other thing is that in the FAM, it talks about – it said “notorious behavior” or something like that. But it only talks about that being a problem if it were to become publicly known.

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have the FAM in front of me. I think I should get it for you.

QUESTION: So I’m not sure I – okay. But I’m not – I’m curious as to – you say it’s a zero-tolerance policy, but it’s not clear to me that it is, in fact, zero tolerance if the only way it gets you into trouble is if other people find out about it.

MS. NULAND: But the problem – but this is the problem. This is why you have to have a zero-tolerance policy, because at any given time, if you open yourself up to such behavior, it could become known. And you can’t, as somebody engaged in behavior of that kind, predict when that might happen. And so you’re immediately vulnerable, and so is the U.S. Government. So that’s why we have the regulations that we have.
QUESTION: Okay. Can we --

QUESTION: Is there a lawsuit pending against the U.S. Government?

MS. NULAND: As I said, we have – I have information to indicate that there have been no charges filed by the – in Brazil.

QUESTION: FAM stands for foreign manual?

QUESTION: Wait, wait. I just want to make sure that you understand that – what I’m trying to get. I want – basically, I want to know if the people involved in this violated that FAM regulation.

MS. NULAND: I understand that, and I – my expectation is that we are not going to talk about an individual personnel case from the podium.

QUESTION: I’m just curious as to what FAM stands for.

MS. NULAND: Sorry. Foreign Affairs Manual, which are our published rules and regulations for ourselves. But anybody who’s interested in those, we’ll get them for you. I did have them a couple of days ago. I don’t have them here.
Please.

QUESTION: On Japan?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: There are reports that a U.S.-Japan joint announcement on the realignment of the U.S. forces in Japan scheduled on Wednesday, today, has been delayed because there are some senators have been criticizing it. I am curious if it’s really a reason – if you – do you think you can make an announcement before Japan’s prime minister visit to D.C. at this – at the end of this April?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me say that we have made progress in these negotiations. As you know, and as members of Congress have made clear, we have obligations to consult and to brief. And there are implications, including budgetary implications, that the Congress has to be happy with. So we are having those consultations. I’m not prepared to predict right now when we’ll go public with where we are, but everybody has their internal procedures, and we’re working through those now.

QUESTION: Toria?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I wonder if you’re aware, but the head of the Syrian National Council, Burhan Ghalioun, cancelled his trip to Washington. Are you aware of that, or do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND: I am. I frankly don’t have any back story. He’s a pretty busy guy, so maybe he had things to --

QUESTION: Okay. So it was not done at the suggestion, let’s say, of Washington?

MS. NULAND: No, not at all. Not at all. Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you find yourself in a position where the options towards Syria are actually – they range from bad to worse?

MS. NULAND: Well, the Secretary talked about this quite a bit yesterday. She made clear that we’re at a crossroads, and we’re at a very difficult crossroads as these monitors are starting to come in, are trying to do their job. In some cases, they are able to provide space and bear witness to what is going on, but in other cases, either they’ve had difficulty getting where they need to go, they’ve had difficulty in getting agreement with regard to the makeup of the personnel, and they have – as we talked about yesterday, we’ve had at least one incident where they went into a town, they were able to interview people, and then there were reprisals afterwards, which is just deplorable.

QUESTION: To follow up on my question that I raised a couple days ago on the number of monitors: Are you comfortable that 300 will be able to do their jobs, considering that there are so many flashpoints and there are so many places and villages and hamlets that they need to be at?

MS. NULAND: Well, frankly, we’re – right now we’re at 12, so let us get this scaled up and let us see what a mission of 300 that’s truly able to operate freely, truly able to do what it thinks is necessary in terms of interviewing people, in terms of gathering information, moving around, and then we’ll go from there. But at the moment, we’re at 12, and that’s not enough.

QUESTION: Okay. Going back to the Balkans experience, I mean, we – they had, like, thousands of monitors to be able to do the job. Do you see a point in time where this actually needs to be done?

MS. NULAND: Said, I think we have to take this one step at a time. We’ve seen what just a handful have been able to do in the towns where they’ve been – they’ve shown up. We’ve had outpourings of Syrian civilians thanking them, able to express themselves, so let’s see what we can do with 300. The most important thing now is to get them in and get them deployed and get them deployed freely.
Ros.

QUESTION: The French foreign minister, Mr. Juppe, suggested today that even if we let the full complement of monitors try to do its work in Syria, that it may well be time for the world to start looking at some sort of military intervention. Is he jumping the gun? Pardon the pun.

MS. NULAND: I think the Secretary made clear again yesterday, as she had in Paris, that even as we do our best to get these monitors in and doing their job, we also have to look at increased pressure in case this Annan plan doesn’t succeed. With regard to external military forces, our position on that has not changed, Ros.
Please.

QUESTION: Was the Secretary intending to meet with Burhan Ghalioun?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’d gotten that far in the planning of his schedule. She has met with him, I think, three times now. She – and most recently when we were in Istanbul some three weeks ago. So I think one of the issues was whether he was going to be here when she was here, but yeah.

QUESTION: A U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh from Illinois has written a letter to Secretary Clinton on reviewing a U.S. decision of 2005 not to issue a visa to the Gujarat chief minister in India, Narendra Modi. Is Secretary Clinton responding to the letter? And are you reviewing the U.S. position on that issue?

MS. NULAND: I haven’t seen the letter. I think you know that our position on the visa issue hasn’t changed at all, so I would guess that if we do respond, it’ll be along familiar lines.
I’m getting the high sign here because we have --

QUESTION: One more, on Burma.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Nine NGOs have – in a statement, have expressed concern on Secretary’s decision to ease sanctions on Burma. They are saying this is not going to be fruitful as far as Burma is concerned. How do you address their concerns?

MS. NULAND: If you’re referring – you’re referring to the letter from the American NGOs, right?
QUESTION: Yes.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Well, as you know, we are not at the step with Burma yet that the NGOs are concerned about. We do have a very strong, vibrant dialogue with our own NGOs, with Burmese NGOs, as we develop this action for action policy, and we’ll continue to do that.
Thanks, everybody.