REMARKS AT EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS

United States Delegation to the Seventy-Fifth Session of the Executive Council Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

Remarks

Robert P. Mikulak
U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 

Meeting of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Executive Committee

The Hague, Netherlands

March 4, 2014

---

At the opening of this Seventy-Fifth Session of the Executive Council, Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure you of the continued support of my Delegation to the OPCW. We look forward to your leadership of the Council as we maneuver through these challenging times.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Director-General, Distinguished Delegates,
Over the last few weeks we all have witnessed two extraordinary meetings of the Council. On January 30, delegation after delegation after delegation expressed concern about the slow pace of removal of chemicals from Syria and called for acceleration of the CW removal process. Again, on February 21, delegation after delegation after delegation – nearly the entire Council, in fact, – repeated and strengthened their expressions of concern. Now, due to the insistence of members of the Council that Syria meet its commitments, there is the possibility that Syria may at last be starting to take its removal obligations seriously. Syria has now withdrawn its 100-day removal plan, which was indefensible, and presented a 65-day removal plan. Although, this is useful, the Operational Planning Group had earlier recommended steps that would allow all the chemicals to be removed in just 37 days. Moreover, the revised Syrian plan appears vulnerable to quickly expanding back to its original length since the gains were made by simply shrinking the original time devoted to packaging the chemicals at each site. There are few or no gains made by other means, for example consolidating movements into fewer than 24 missions. The Director-General made it clear that the OPG plan offered a faster timeline while also addressing Syrian concerns regarding security and the availability of equipment and personnel.

The United States believes that Syria should implement and, with the assistance of the Operational Planning Group, accelerate the new Syrian plan immediately to ensure that these deadly chemicals are out of Syria as soon as possible. We look forward to learning the Director-General’s detailed assessment, and the further recommendations of the OPCW.
To any members of this Council who might be flush with optimism over the new Syrian plan, a word of caution is appropriate and necessary. What counts is not a plan on paper, but actual performance on the ground. This Council should resist any temptation to simply assume that the government of Syria will follow through on its new plan to remove chemicals from its territory. Syria’s dismal record of compliance to date with the Council’s removal decisions should belie any such assumption. Now is not the time for complacency, but rather for circumspection and diligent exercise of the oversight responsibilities of this Council.

As it has repeatedly done, after weeks of inaction, Syria has moved chemicals just before an Executive Council session. Perhaps more will be moved while the Council is in session this week. What counts is what happens on a consistent and regular basis going forward. The Council needs to see a systematic, sustained, and accelerated series of movements of chemicals to Latakia for removal.

This Council should consider the acceleration of the new plan to be a test of Syria’s commitment to finally comply with its elimination obligations under Executive Council Decisions and UN Security Council Resolution 2118. Syria should be held to account for the plan it has put forward and directed to work with the Joint Mission to substantially accelerate the timeline for completing removal. It should immediately begin to make substantial and regular deliveries of chemicals, particularly Priority One chemicals, to Latakia. We request that the Director-General provide the Council with a chart showing the aggregate amount of chemicals to be moved each week under the plan so that the Council can monitor Syria’s efforts. Weekly reports on removal actions should be provided to the Council by the Technical Secretariat. This Council should not tolerate any slippage on removal actions or political backsliding by the Syrian government.

Mister Chairman,
As you are well aware, this Council has held two successive meetings to discuss the Syria CW situation – on January 30^th and February 21^st – without issuing a report, unfortunately, because consensus could not be achieved. On September 27^th, this Council put politics aside and let itself be guided by the moral compass of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Every State Party on this Council has pledged through the Convention’s preamble “for the sake of all mankind to exclude completely the possibility of the use of chemical weapons ...” So long as those chemicals remain in Syria, the possibility of use remains. For the sake of the Syrian people, let us once again put politics aside and ensure through the actions of this Council that the Syrian government completes, with urgency and dispatch, the removal effort it has begun. To that honorable end, the report of this session should unequivocally reflect the Council’s determination and commitment to closely monitor the government of Syria’s efforts to implement and accelerate its new removal plan.

Mister Chairman,
Let us also not forget that Syria is about to disregard yet another deadline set by this Council. The date set by this Council for completing destruction of Syria’s twelve chemical weapons production facilities is March 15 – two weeks from today. The United States has made every effort to work with Syria to reach an understanding on a destruction plan. Syria has refused to negotiate, and has adamantly clung to its proposal to inactivate, rather than destroy, these CW production facilities.

Mister Chairman,
The Convention is clear with respect to the physical destruction requirement and this Council should also be clear. Since Syria has failed to propose destruction methods that meet the Convention’s requirements, the United States has tabled a draft decision for this Council’s consideration for addressing Syria’s inertia and calculated misreading of the Convention. In our view, a Council decision should have two principal components:
-- First, with respect to the seven hardened aircraft shelters, this Council should require that Syria by March 15 collapse the roofs using precision explosives. The United States and a number of Council members have carefully analyzed this approach, and concluded that it would meet the Convention standard for physical destruction in an expedited and cost-effective manner that ensures the safety of the population and the protection of the environment.
-- Second, with respect to the five underground structures, this Council, noting the additional technical challenges they entail, should extend the deadline for destruction but only on the condition that specified measures be undertaken by Syria first to inactivate them and then to physically destroy the entire underground structure.

Mister Chairman,
The physical destruction of CW production facilities is a fundamental requirement of the Convention, and a prudent protection against the retainment or restart of a chemical weapons program. The seriousness attached to this requirement by the Council is attested to by the past practice of completely leveling all such facilities to the ground. Given the extraordinary circumstances associated with Syria’s accession to the Convention, it would be irresponsible for this Council to exhibit the same inertia and disregard for the Convention as the Syrian government has on this issue. This Council needs to summon the same resolve it evinced in December when it categorically rejected Syria’s request to convert these CW production facilities to allegedly peaceful uses.
Mister Chairman,

In closing, let me emphasize that March will be a critical test for the international effort to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons program. Syrian action – or inaction -- will tell the international community whether Syria is truly committed to giving up its CW arsenal or choosing instead to play political games. As the world waits to see what path Syria takes, this Council, along with its members, should work to ensure that Syria remains committed to giving up its chemical weapons. Every step that Syria has taken has been the result of international monitoring and prodding, not because of Syria’s moral abhorrence of chemical weapons. Indeed, less than a month before it announced its intent to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention, Syria on August 21 launched a brutal chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus. Let us not be swayed by any illusions about the nature or good faith of the Assad regime. Four-and-a-half months after Syria’s accession, we are here in this Council talking about Syria’s failure to meet two deadlines on the path that was set before it by this Council to eliminate the Syrian chemical weapons program. This Council has an essential role to play in keeping the pressure on the Syrian government to ensure that Syria is completely disarmed of its chemical arsenal. Syria is testing the resolve of this Council to defend its own decisions – we as a Council should not fail this test.

Mister Chairman,
As all of us walked into this room today, we passed the Nobel Prize for Peace awarded to the OPCW. That prize honors what this Organization has accomplished and also challenges us to remain a force for peace in the future. The historic effort in which this Organization embarked on September 27, 2013, to eliminate the Syrian chemical weapons program, is not finished; in fact, the end is regrettably not yet in sight. Let us continue to remain a force for peace and finish what we have started. Let us end the silence of this Council and speak loudly and clearly so that the Assad regime knows that we will not relent until Syria’s chemical weapons program – and the threat it poses to peace and security - has been completely eliminated.
I ask that this statement be considered an official document of this Executive Council session and placed on the OPCW website and external server.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

REMARKS: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at the 39th Meeting of the Executive Council
Remarks
Robert P. Mikulak
U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 
The Hague, Netherlands
February 21, 2014

Mr. Chairman,

At the last meeting of this Council, the United States expressed deep concern that the effort to remove chemical agent, key precursor chemicals, and other chemicals from Syria had seriously languished and stalled. Many members of this Council expressed the same concerns. Along with the United States, they called upon the Syrian Government to accelerate and expeditiously complete the relocation of these chemicals to the port of Latakia for removal and destruction.

In the three weeks since this Council last met, there has been progress in eliminating the isopropanol in Syria and in transporting limited quantities of the stabilizer hexamine to Latakia. The fact remains, however, that 95.5 percent of Priority One chemicals – CW agent and key binary precursors – remain in Syria as well as 81.1 percent of Priority Two chemicals, well beyond the dates set for removal by the Executive Council. And the Syrian Government continues to put its energy into excuses, instead of actions.

Regrettably, this Council at its January 30th meeting failed to address Syria’s unacceptable delay in completing removal of all designated chemicals. Why? Because a single member of this Council put its own political agenda above the welfare of the people of Syria and the international community. This lapse in leadership was unworthy of this Council and an affront to the dedicated efforts of the OPCW Technical Secretariat and the OPCW-UN Joint Mission to remove chemical weapons from the military arsenal of the Assad regime.


Mr. Chairman,

While this Council was silent, the growing concern of the international community thankfully found its voice at the UN Security Council. On February 6th, the Security Council publicly addressed the Syria CW situation. In particular,

-- The Security Council noted growing concern, with respect to the decision of OPCW Executive Council EC-M-34/DEC.1, dated 15 November 2013, about the slow pace of the removal of the chemical weapons from the territory of Syria, which has placed efforts behind schedule;

-- The Security Council called upon the Syrian Arab Republic to expedite actions to meet its obligation to transport, in a systematic and sufficiently accelerated manner, all relevant chemicals to Latakia for removal from Syrian territory, and in this regard noted the Secretary-General and Joint Mission’s call for the Syrian Arab Republic to intensify its efforts to expedite in-country movements of chemical weapons material;

--The Security Council noted the Secretary-General and Joint Mission's assessment that the Syrian Arab Republic has sufficient material and equipment necessary to carry out multiple ground movements to ensure the expeditious removal of chemical weapons material, and noted the substantial international support already provided for the removal of chemical weapons materials from the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic;

--Finally, the Security Council expressed its commitment to continue to closely monitor compliance with resolution 2118 (2013) with less than five months until the date for completing destruction of 30 June 2014 established in the OPCW Executive Council decision of 15 November 2013, which is a deadline that Security Council members remain committed to seeing met.


Mr. Chairman,

The United States fully supported the press elements by the UN Security Council chairman on February 6th and reaffirms that position today. In that regard, I would like to underscore the final element and make clear the position of the United States. It was the decision of this Council on November 15th that destruction -- not just removal -- of Syrian chemical weapons must be completed by June 30, 2014. Despite Syria’s inaction, the experts in the OPCW’s Operational Planning Group agreed last week that completion of removal and destruction by June 30, 2014 is indeed achievable if action is taken by Syria now.

The international community has put into place everything that is necessary for transport and destruction of these chemicals. Sufficient equipment and material has been provided to Syria. The ships to carry the chemicals away from Syria are waiting. The U.S. ship to destroy CW agent and precursors is now in the region and waiting. Commercial facilities to destroy other chemicals have been selected and contracts awarded; they are waiting. And yet Syria continues to drag its feet.


Mr. Chairman,

The Council should endorse all of the statements made by the President of the UN Security Council on February 6th, and reaffirm the June 30, 2014, date for removal and destruction of all Syrian chemical weapons. Further, this Council should reject Syria’s delaying tactics and insist that an expedited removal schedule be adhered to by the Syrian Government that will provide the international community sufficient time to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons by June 30, 2014.


Mr. Chairman,

At our meeting on January 30th, the United States called this Council’s attention to another serious issue – the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons production facilities (CWPF). Syria has proposed that seven hardened aircraft shelters and five underground structures previously used in connection with the production of chemical weapons be “inactivated,” by rendering them inaccessible. As detailed in a U.S. national paper and underscored by other members of this Council, Syria’s proposed measures would be readily and easily reversible within days. Thus, they clearly do not meet the requirement that such facilities be “physically destroyed” under the Convention and as implemented by the other States Parties that have declared chemical weapons production facilities. In an effort to resolve this impasse, the United States has engaged Syrian officials at the OPCW on several occasions, most recently a week ago. No progress has been made. Syria has flatly rejected U.S. efforts to find compromises for achieving the “physical destruction” requirement.


Mr. Chairman,

The deadline set by this Council for the destruction of Syria’s twelve chemical weapons production facilities is March 15 – just three weeks from today. Apparently, the Syrian Government intends to ignore yet another requirement set by the Council. This Council, however, cannot ignore the completion dates it established in its consensus decisions.

The United States believes the Council needs to address this issue, and we are considering a draft decision for the Seventy-Fifth Session of the Executive Council to address this impending situation. The United States believes this decision needs to have two principal components:

-- First, with respect to the seven hardened aircraft shelters, this Council should require that Syria by March 15 collapse the roofs using precision explosives. The United States has carefully analyzed this approach and concluded that it would meet the Convention standard for physical destruction in an expedited and cost-effective manner.

-- Second, with respect to the five underground structures, this Council, noting the additional technical challenges they entail, should extend the deadline for destruction but only on the condition that specified measures be undertaken by Syria first to inactivate them and then to physically destroy the entire underground structure.


Mr. Chairman,

In about ten days, this Council will convene in regular session and the Syrian CW situation will dominate our deliberations. This intervening period provides an opportunity for the Syrian Government to chart a new course – one that would allow Syria to meet its obligations in accordance with the decisions of this Council and UN Security Council resolution 2118. Over the next ten days, Syria should take the following actions to demonstrate its commitment to complying with its obligations. Syria should begin making substantial and systematic deliveries of liquid Priority One agent and precursors to Latakia. Syria should revise its 100-day transport schedule to embrace the recommendations developed by the OPCW, the UN, and others in the Operational Planning Group to expedite removal. And finally, Syria should withdraw its proposal to merely inactivate its CWPF aircraft shelters and underground structures, and agree to a true destruction plan.


Mr. Chairman,

If Syria does not soon undertake decisive action to fully comply with its obligations, this Council at its March regular session should require Syria to meet the expedited schedule for removal developed by the Operational Planning Group, with the goal of ensuring that the June 30th deadline for removal and destruction will be met. Further, the Council should adopt a decision to reinforce the Convention's requirement that Syrian CWPF aircraft shelters and underground structures be physically destroyed. We must take seriously the decisions of this Council and the requirements of the Convention, even if the Syrian Government does not.


Mr. Chairman,

The weeks ahead will be critical for the success of this historic endeavor. The United States urges Syria to finally make a course correction and fully comply with its obligations. If not, this Council, and indeed the broader international community, will need to consider the steps that will need to be taken to ensure that the promise of our September 27, 2013, decision and UN Security Council resolution 2118 are realized, and chemical weapons are forever removed from the hands of the Assad regime.


Mr. Chairman,

I request that this statement be made an official document of the meeting and posted on the OPCW website and external server.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

CAPE RAY LEAVES FOR SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS MISSION

FROM:  DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

With Encouragement From Hagel, Cape Ray Leaves for Syria Mission
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28, 2014 – The container ship M/V Cape Ray and its crew deployed from Portsmouth, Va., yesterday with a message of encouragement from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

M/V Cape Ray is the Defense Department’s primary contribution toward international efforts to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons material program, Pentagon officials said in a statement announcing the deployment.
“As you all know, your task will not be easy,” Hagel said in a message to the Cape Ray crew. “Your days will be long and rigorous. But your hard work, preparation and dedication will make the difference.

“You are ready,” the secretary continued. “We all have complete confidence in each of you. You represent the best of our nation, not only because of your expertise and commitment, but because of your willingness to serve when called upon. For that, we will always be grateful. We are also grateful to your families for the love and support they have given you. On behalf of our country and the American people, I wish you much success. Take care of yourselves. God bless you all.”

Hundreds of government and contract personnel have worked over the last several months to prepare the vessel to neutralize Syrian chemical materials and precursors using hydrolysis technology.

“The United States remains committed to ensuring its neutralization of Syria's chemical materials prioritizes the safety of people, protects the environment, follows verification procedures of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and with applicable standards,” officials said in the announcement. “All waste from the hydrolysis process on M/V Cape Ray will be safely and properly disposed of at commercial facilities to be determined by the OPCW. No hydrolysis byproducts will be released into the sea or air. M/V Cape Ray will comply with all applicable international laws, regulations and treaties.”
The Assad regime in Syria is responsible for transporting the chemical materials safely to facilitate their removal for destruction, officials said.

“The international community is poised to meet the milestones set forth by the OPCW, including the June 30 target date for the total destruction of Syria's chemical weapons materials, officials added. “The United States joins the OPCW and the United Nations in calling on the Assad regime to intensify its efforts to ensure its international obligations and commitment are met so these materials may be removed from Syria as quickly and safely as possible,” the statement concluded.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL DISCUSSES WAY FORWARD IN THE MIDDLE EAST

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel Outlines U.S. Posture, Way Ahead in Middle East
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

MANAMA, Bahrain, Dec. 7, 2013 – In a speech before the Manama Dialogue security conference here today, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel emphasized the strength of America’s presence in the Middle East and called for closer cooperation with the Gulf states.

The six-month interim agreement aimed at preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons reached in November between Iran and the five permanent member of the United Nations Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France -- plus Germany, Hagel said, will not alter U.S. presence or determination in the region.

“It is only a first step,” he said. “But it could be an important step. It halts any further expansion of Iran’s nuclear program, begins to roll it back in important ways, and provides sweeping access to verify … Iran’s intentions.”
The Defense Department will not adjust its forces in the region or its military planning as a result of the interim agreement with Iran, the secretary said.
“We have bought time for meaningful negotiation, not for deception,” Hagel said. “All of us are clear-eyed … about the challenges that remain to achieving a comprehensive nuclear solution with Iran.”

He noted that in Syria, international pressure and the threat of U.S. military action created an opening for diplomacy with Russia. That led to a U.N. Security Council resolution and the involvement of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, which put inspectors on the ground in Syria to oversee the removal and destruction of the Assad regime’s chemical weapons.

“We remain on track to destroy Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons,” the secretary said. “The United States is working closely with our key allies and the international community in this process and has offered its unique technical capabilities and technology to help dispose of these weapons. … Once the destruction is complete, a major chemical weapons threat will be eliminated. This will benefit the entire region and the world.”

Issues remain in Syria, Hagel said, but he vowed to work with regional partners to find a political settlement to the conflict.

“We must also confront the rise of violent extremist groups in Syria, and we must work together to ensure that our assistance to the opposition does not fall into the wrong hands,” he cautioned. The secretary noted that humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people remains a serious concern.

“The United States is the largest donor of humanitarian aid for displaced Syrians, and we will continue to support Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey as they provide refuge for victims of the conflict,” the secretary said. “The Syrian regime must also allow humanitarian assistance to reach the Syrian people.”

Hagel pointed out that the potent threat of U.S. military intervention helped to spur progress in resolving the nuclear and chemical weapons threats posed by Iran and Syria respectively, though each country continues to pose regional challenges.
The secretary set out the U.S. presence here: ground, air and sea forces number more than 35,000 U.S. troops in the Gulf area, he said, including “more than 10,000 forward-deployed soldiers in the region, along with heavy armor, artillery, and attack helicopters, to serve as a theater reserve and a bulwark against aggression.”

The secretary said the United States has deployed its most advanced aircraft, including F-22 fighters, throughout the region “to ensure that we can quickly respond to contingencies. Coupled with our unique munitions, no target is beyond our reach.”

The United States also employs its most advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets here to provide a continuous picture of activities in and around the Gulf, Hagel said.

“And we have fielded an array of missile defense capabilities -– including ballistic missile defense ships, Patriot [surface-to-air missile] batteries, and sophisticated radar,” he added.

To ensure freedom of navigation throughout the Gulf, the secretary said, the Navy routinely maintains a presence of more than 40 ships in the broader region, including a carrier strike group, and conducts a range of freedom-of-navigation operations.
“These operations include approximately 50 transits of the Strait of Hormuz over the past six months,” he noted.

The Navy has added five coastal patrol ships to U.S. 5th Fleet here this year, the secretary said, and has ramped up its minesweeping capabilities. DOD also will invest $580 million in a construction program to support expanding 5th Fleet capabilities, Hagel said.

“Yesterday, I visited the Navy’s new afloat forward staging base, the USS Ponce,” he said, calling the ship “a unique platform for special operations, as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, in areas where we do not have a permanent, fixed presence.”

Hagel said during this trip, he also will meet with U.S. service members stationed at the Combined Air Operations Center in Qatar, “where we have representatives from our [Gulf Cooperation Council] partners training and working together.”
Hagel called for closer multilateral coordination among council members, the Persian Gulf states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

He offered three avenues the United States would like to pursue toward that end:
-- A unified focus on missile defense through the regional Air and Air Defense Chiefs’ Conference, which meets several times a year;
-- Making the Gulf Cooperation Council as an entity eligible for the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program; and

-- Convening a regular forum, beginning within six months, where U.S. and Gulf defense leaders come together annually to assess progress and threats in regional security.

These measures constitute “a natural next step in improving U.S.-GCC collaboration,” Hagel said, adding that foreign military sales “will enable the GCC to acquire critical military capabilities, including items for ballistic missile defense, maritime security and counter-terrorism.”

The secretary noted that during his last trip to the region, in April, “we finalized agreements worth nearly $11 billion that will provide access to high-end capabilities including F-15s, F-16s and advanced munitions such as standoff weapons.” These capabilities are the most advanced the United States has ever provided to the region, he said.

“We will continue to ensure that all of our allies and partners in the region – including both Israel and the Gulf States – have these advanced weapons,” the secretary pledged.

In the future, Hagel said, the Defense Department will place even more emphasis on building the capacity of regional partners to complement the strong, proven and enduring U.S. military presence in the region.

“Nations are stronger, not weaker, when they work together against common threats,” the secretary said. “Closer cooperation between the GCC and the United States is in all of our countries’ interests.”

This year’s Manama Dialogue, the ninth of its kind, drew hundreds of delegates from more than 20 countries. Other speakers at the gathering included representatives from Bahrain, the United Kingdom, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Iraq, India, Qatar, Canada and Norway.

Yesterday, Hagel met here with Saudi Arabian Deputy Defense Minister Prince Salman bin Sultan to discuss regional issues, including Iran, Egypt and Syria. Assistant Pentagon Press Secretary Carl Woog said the secretary underscored in that meeting the strength of the bilateral relationship and noted that defense partnership is key in maintaining the long-standing ties between the two countries. Hagel said the United States remains committed to regional security and stability, a shared objective with Saudi Arabia, Woog reported.

The secretary indicated U.S.-Saudi defense cooperation is essential to maintaining the two nations’ shared priorities. He highlighted the Saudi purchase of F-15SA aircraft and advanced weapons as an example of future of improved interoperability and coordination between both militaries, Woog said. The defense secretary will visit Saudi Arabia on Dec. 9.

Hagel also met yesterday at the Safria Palace here with King Hamad al Khalifa of Bahrain.

Hagel and the king discussed the long history of the –U.S.-Bahrain bilateral relationship, Woog said. The secretary emphasized U.S. commitment to Gulf security, and the two exchanged views on shared regional security challenges, including Iran and the signed joint plan of action between the P5+1 and Iran.
The meeting included significant discussion of reform in Bahrain and the importance of political inclusiveness for long-term stability. The secretary thanked the king for hosting the U.S. 5th Fleet and for Bahrain’s ongoing security cooperation, Woog said.

REMARKS AT JOINT PRESS RELEASE ON AUSTRALIA-UNITED STATES MINISTERIAL MEETING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at Joint Press Availability With Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, and Australian Defence Minister David Johnston
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
November 20, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon. I’m delighted to welcome Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston to Washington for what has been a very productive Australia-United States Ministerial meeting, or AUSMIN as we call it for short.

I think everybody understands that the relationship between the United States and Australia is really extraordinary, and though we live in different hemispheres and at opposite ends of the globe, the relationship between us really is as close as a relationship can get. To start with, Australia is a vital partner as we strengthen U.S. engagement throughout the Asia-Pacific, and together we are growing closer and closer to finalizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That will create jobs and investment on both of our shores, and it will also raise the standards of business transactions within that region and raise them to a higher level which we all aspire to. In addition, it will create, we think, a significant strengthening of the infrastructure between us, promoting democracy and good government and supporting gender equality throughout Southeast Asia.

As we meet today, the United States and Australia are working very closely on the emergency assistance efforts with respect to the Philippines, and we are together bringing significant relief to many, many Filipinos as a consequence of the super-typhoon that caused unspeakable devastation a few days ago.

We also work very closely to address the region’s security challenges, including the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and we spent some period of time discussing that today.

Just a few minutes ago, as you witnessed, my colleagues and I signed a nonbinding Statement of Principles that will help to guide us as we move to put together a force posture agreement which will strengthen further the U.S. and Australia relationship over the course of the years to come. And we are trying to see if we can accelerate those negotiations and complete that agreement as rapidly as possible.

Our partnership, important to note, extends well beyond Asia-Pacific. In September, I sat in the chamber of the UN Security Council to join the global community in putting an end to the appalling use of chemical weapons in Syria. Australia held the rotating presidency of the Security Council that particular month, and as we signed that resolution, I was particularly proud to look to my left and see where Ambassador Gary Quinlan was sitting to be able to thank Australia for its leadership of the Security Council during that important period of time.

Today, we discussed our shared efforts to reach a political solution with respect to the conflict in Syria. We both share the goal of realizing a peaceful resolution not just for the Syrian conflict through the Geneva discussions, but also for the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and our efforts – all of us – to try to reach a constructive and acceptable agreement with respect to the threat of a nuclear weapon in Iran. We agreed on each of these that diplomacy is always the preferred approach and that it’s important to exhaust the remedies and possibilities of diplomacy.

We have the best chance we’ve had in a decade, we believe, to halt progress and roll back Iran’s program. And I made clear to our friends from Australia, as I have made clear to my former colleagues in meetings on Capitol Hill over this last week, we will not allow this agreement, should it be reached – and I say “should it be reached” – to buy time or to allow for the acceptance of an agreement that does not properly address our core fundamental concerns.

In the Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and around the world, the U.S.-Australia partnership contributes significantly to our mutual goal of our search for peace and stability and security on a broader basis. This is, I think for all of us, our first AUSMIN, certainly my first as Secretary of State. I’ve had the really good fortune to work with our friends from Australia over the years as a United States Senator, as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I worked very closely with our Australian counterparts on a wide range of issues over that period of time. And when Secretary Hagel and I served in Vietnam, the both of us remember well that we fought alongside our Australian brothers. In fact, American and Australian men and women have fought together in every major conflict since World War I. And this morning, Secretary Hagel and I joined Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston for a moving ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. There we honored together the enormous sacrifice that our nations have endured together and in our – and we also paid tribute to our shared efforts now in Afghanistan and elsewhere to promote democracy and peace.

These sacrifices between our countries continue even to this day, and now we honor the remarkable service of all of our men and women in uniform and we reconfirm and restate our commitment to completing the transfer of security responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces by the end of 2014. I’m pleased to say that in a series of conversations with President Karzai in the course of this morning, even interrupting some of our conversations, that we reached an agreement as to the final language of the Bilateral Security Agreement that will be placed before the Loya Jirga tomorrow.

Now, when we open up trade and when we work on our mutual investment throughout the Asia-Pacific, I’m pleased to underscore that the United States and Australia work hand in hand, as closely as possible. When we’re providing relief to nations in need, our two nations are side by side. And when we’re taking historic steps to ensure that the world’s most heinous weapons are never used again, we are sitting and working side by side. And when we’re on the battlefield fighting to protect our shared values, we are standing side by side.

The United States could ask for no better friend and no closer ally than Australia. And it’s been a great pleasure for Secretary Hagel and me to host the Australian delegation, and we really look forward to continuing our work side-by-side over the years to come. Thank you.

Minister Bishop.

MINISTER BISHOP: First I’d like to thank Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel for their gracious hospitality and for hosting this AUSMIN meeting here in Washington. Both Senator Johnston and I were deeply moved by the arrangements that were made to hold a ceremony at Arlington this morning as we paid tribute to the memories of those who have died in service of your country and reflecting on the fact that, as you say, Mr. Secretary, our forces have fought side-by-side in every conflict in which we have been engaged.

Senator Johnston and I took this opportunity to reaffirm the Australian Government’s commitment to the bilateral relationship and the ANZUS alliance, which is the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy. But as our wide-ranging discussion today made clear, our relationship is much more than just defense cooperation. We engage on every level, whether it be in education or scientific and research collaboration, whether it be tourism, whether it be the new frontiers of space, whether it be trade and investment.

Indeed, I’m reminded that when you take trade and investment together, the United States is Australia’s most important economic partner. And the considerable investment that we see from the United States in Australia and from Australia in the United States means that our economies are stronger, the job opportunities are greater, as our two countries work closely together on economic matters.

We took the opportunity today to discuss a range of issues regarding our region in particular, the Indian Ocean Asia-Pacific. We looked at the challenges – economic, security, strategic – that face the region. We support wholeheartedly the United States rebalance to our region. And it’s most certainly the case that countries in our region look forward to more United States leadership in the region, not less. We also focused on the Indian Ocean and the countries of the Indian Ocean, as well as the Pacific Ocean. We spoke more generally about global issues – about the Middle East, Syria, Egypt, Iran. We talked about the need for denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.

Specifically, we spoke about our joint force posture initiatives, and I’ll ask Senator Johnston to say a little more about that. And we also recognize that the joint membership we have of the regional architecture, the global architecture, including the East Asia Summit, APEC, the G20, means that not only do we work bilaterally, but we also work regionally and globally as partners.

There is no doubt that the relationship we have, the friendship we have, the partnership, the alliance makes us both stronger countries. And I thank our American hosts for having us here. It has been our first AUSMIN. It certainly, I hope, will not be our last.

SECRETARY HAGEL: Secretary Kerry, thank you. Good afternoon. I very much appreciated the opportunity to host, with Secretary Kerry, our friends from Australia, Minister Bishop, Minister Johnston. For me, it also was a personal privilege. As Secretary Kerry noted, we – John and I served together in Vietnam with many Australians. I – as John served in the United States Senate and worked closely with our friends in Australia during those times and visited Australian a number of times. My father served in the South Pacific, including Australia, during World War II. And I celebrated my 22nd birthday in Sydney, Australia. So I am particularly personally grateful for this opportunity to participate in our consultations today.

AUSMIN, as has been noted, is really quite a unique forum, that demonstrates how much the United States values its close relationship with Australia and the continued vitality of this important alliance. Today’s meeting reflected not only the breadth of cooperation between our two countries, two old and good friends, but also the deep bonds we share – bonds of shared values, shared interests, and shared history. We were reminded of these common bonds earlier today as Secretary Kerry, Minister Bishop has noted, at the Arlington National Cemetery. Australians and Americans have fought side by side in every major conflict over the last 100 years and over this last decade. Australia has been the largest non-NATO troop contributor to the war in Afghanistan. The American people are grateful to the Australians for Australia’s continued commitment to that effort. And we deeply respect the great sacrifices made by the Australian defense forces.

Today we discussed America’s force posture initiative with Australia. That force posture was announced during President Obama’s trip to Canberra two years ago. These initiatives remain on track. Two companies of Marines have rotated through Darwin. And we have increased exercises between our air forces. Next year, our Marine rotational force near Darwin will expand to 1,100 Marines. We reaffirm plans for this rotating force to grow. These ongoing rotational deployments to Australia are important to making the U.S. military presence in Asia-Pacific more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and also politically sustainable.

Our relationships in the South Pacific are historic. The rebalance to this – to the Pacific Asia area that the President announced two years ago are based on our common interests with the nations of Asia-Pacific: trade, commerce, culture, education, stability, security. They’ll also help strengthen our capacity and the capacity of our partners in the region, like humanitarian assistance disaster relief efforts currently underway, as Secretary Kerry noted, in the Philippines. The United States and Australia are working side by side in support of the people of the Philippines.

As we continue to implement our force posture initiatives with Australia, we also agreed today on a Statement of Principles that we just signed that will ensure these efforts are closely aligned with both our nations’ shared regional security objectives and our future. Negotiations will begin next month on a binding agreement that will govern these force posture initiatives and further defense cooperation. As we adapt our alliance to an evolving security environment, we are also focused on new challenges, including those in space and cyber. We will continue to work closely together on the full range of cyber threats.

We also are continuing to implement previous agreements to expand our situational awareness in space. Earlier today, Defence Minister Johnston and I signed an agreement to relocate a unique advanced space surveillance telescope to western Australia. This telescope provides highly accurate detection, tracking, and identification of deep space objects, and will further strengthen our existing space cooperation.

All of these steps are helping strengthen our alliance as we continue to work together to face the challenges and opportunities of this new century. It has been an honor, again, to join Secretary Kerry in hosting Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston and the Australian delegation. And we thank the delegation – their ambassador to Washington D.C.; their former ambassador, General Hurley; and the rest of their very distinguished delegation. I look forward to continue working with all of them to advance our common interests, as I do with our partners in the Pacific Asia region. And I know I speak for General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Locklear was here with us this morning, as other leaders of the defense institution. We look forward to advancing our common interests in our friendships, and a more secure and prosperous future for both our nations. Thank you very much.

MINISTER JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Can I adopt and support the remarks of my Foreign Minister Julie Bishop? Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel, today is the third occasion I’ve had the opportunity to discuss Australia’s defense relationship with the United States with Secretary Hagel. And I thank him for his leadership and his friendship on this very important subject to my country.

I also thanked him during the course of the meetings for not just his leadership, but for the leadership of his senior commanders – General Dempsey; General Breedlove, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; General Dunford, ISAF Commander; and of course, in the Pacific, Admiral Locklear. The leadership that is shown by the United States here and more broadly in our engagements across the world – and obviously, Afghanistan is a very important engagement for Australia – is simply splendid. And I thank him and I thank the United States for that.

This is, of course, the first AUSMIN for all of us. It has been, may I say, a very successful exchange. And I trust that Secretary Hagel feels as I do, that he can ring me at any time on any subject as a friend, and we can discuss important relationship matters as we bring Marines to Darwin, as we further explore interrelationships, interoperability, and of the vast number of contacts and technical operations we conduct together into the future.

This is Australia’s most important strategic alliance. The friendship and the demeanor by which we have conducted this has been a very effective, productive, and also a very happy relationship in frankly discussing all of the issues that we both consider to be very important. I want to thank Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel for their hospitality, and it has been a delight to be here. I thank you again.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Jill Dougherty of CNN.

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, thank you. I wanted to – now that you’ve mentioned that you’ve reached agreement on the final language for the BSA, the security agreement between the United States and Australia, I wanted to ask if you could clear up some of the confusion about this issue of a letter to be issued by the United States. We believe that that was your idea, and perhaps you can enlighten us. Some of the words that have been used are “appropriate assurances,” “express regret.” Susan Rice says there’s no apology. So is this – if it’s not an apology to the Afghans, what is it? Who would sign such a letter? And why is it necessary?

And then also, if there’s anything that you could add about details of this agreement, how long – especially how long U.S. forces would remain in Afghanistan. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Jill, thank you. First of all, let me comment that I can’t help but look out from this table with the four of us sitting here and see our two delegations facing each other, and I feel like we’re judges looking at a tag-team wrestling match or a dance contest or something. (Laughter.) General Dempsey versus General Hurley now. (Laughter.) We’ll score you. A diversion.

I don’t know where this idea – I honestly don’t know where the idea of an apology started, because I think someone in the chain of press or something said something to somebody over there, not here. But let me be clear: President Karzai didn’t ask for an apology. There was no discussion of an apology. There will be – there is no – I mean, it’s just not even on the table. He didn’t ask for it. We’re not discussing it. And that is not the subject that we have been talking about.

What we’ve been talking about are the terms of the BSA itself, which provide the outline of the structure, the process by which ISAF, international forces, the United States forces themselves would be engaged going forward. As I think you know, it is a very limited role. It is entirely train, equip, and assist. There is no combat role for United States forces. And the Bilateral Security Agreement is an effort to try to clarify for Afghans and for United States military forces exactly what the rules are with respect to that ongoing relationship.

It’s very important for President Karzai to know that issues that he’s raised with us for many years have been properly addressed, and it’s very important for us to know that issues we have raised with him for a number of years are properly addressed. The agreement will speak for itself when the agreement is approved. And as we sit here tonight, we have agreed on the language that would be submitted to a Loya Jirga, but they have to pass it. So I think it’s inappropriate for me to comment at all on any of the details. It’s up to the people of Afghanistan.

When I left Kabul that late night when President Karzai and I had finished the major part of the negotiation, we both said it has to go to the Loya Jirga. There were some people who may have questioned or doubted whether that was going to happen. Well, it’s happening tomorrow, and it’s happening tomorrow with agreed-upon language between us. And I think it’s up to President Karzai to speak to the Loya Jirga, its process, and how it will work and what the results will be, and it’s up to President Obama and the White House to address any issues with respect to any possible communication between the President or President Karzai. So let’s see where we are.

But the important thing for people to understand is there has never been a discussion of or the word “apology” used in our discussions whatsoever.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Nick O’Malley of the Sydney Morning Herald.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, I was wondering, after the revelations that the NSA had conducted surveillance of the German leadership, the response from America was to seek to placate and reassure Germany.

SECRETARY KERRY: Sorry, I couldn’t hear your last – the response?

QUESTION: The response from America was to seek to placate German leadership. Do you think that would be a useful approach for Australia to be taking after revelations of Australian espionage against Indonesia?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just say, fundamentally, each situation is its own situation. We have great respect, obviously, for the work we do together with our friends in Australia, as we’ve said here today. We have an unbreakable and a critical working relationship, and we have worked together in counterterrorism and many activities on a global basis, and will continue to.

Likewise, we have great respect and affection for Indonesia, we work with our friends in Indonesia on many different issues, and we will continue to do that. But whatever has been or not been released or being discussed in the papers, I believe – as I think our friends in Australia do – is a matter of intelligence and intelligence procedures, and we don’t discuss intelligence procedures in any sort of public way at this point in time, certainly, unless the President indicates otherwise. But that’s where we are.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Scott Stearns of VOA.

QUESTION: A question for Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Bishop: We understand where the international community is on Iran’s right to enrich uranium regarding the NPT. But can you foresee a resolution to this standoff that includes Iran in any way enriching uranium? Or does access to a civilian nuclear program on the part of Iran mean that it needs to access that uranium elsewhere? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, given that there is no stated right within the NPT, which we have reaffirmed again and again with respect to enrichment, whatever a country decides or doesn’t decide to do or is allowed to do and permitted under the rules depends on a negotiation, depends on a process. We’re not in that – we’re at the initial stage of determining whether or not there is a first step that can be taken. And that certainly will not be resolved in any first step, I can assure you.

So the President has said many times Iran, like other nations that are signatories to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, have a right to peaceful nuclear energy. Now, what that contains depends on the standing of that particular nation with respect to NPT requirements and the international community.

So that’s what the negotiation is about, and I’m not going to predetermine its outcome except to say to you that no right is recognized or granted within anything that I’ve seen in the early discussions. It is a subject of negotiation. It would have to be resolved in negotiation and subject to extraordinary standards and scrutiny and process, which is the heart of the negotiation. So there’s no way to suggest anything but that it’s important to get to a negotiation and see what can or cannot be reached.

MINISTER BISHOP: Australia is monitoring the P5+1 scenario very closely, and I’m grateful to Secretary Kerry for keeping us informed in the context of this AUSMIN meeting as to where the proposed negotiations are, where they’re likely to head. But we also reiterate that should a nation require nuclear aspects for the purposes of civilian purpose – for civilian uses, peaceful purposes, then of course, it’s subject to international safeguards, it’s subject to a range of protocols, and that would apply in this case. But we’re not at that stage. We’re not at a stage where Iran has convinced us that its use is for peaceful civilian purposes. Should it get to that point, then of course, the appropriate international safeguards and protocols would apply, as they would to any other country in that situation.

MS. PSAKI: The final question will be from Jane Cowan of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Bishop, given the furor now over the revelations of Australian spying on Indonesia, have you registered Australia’s displeasure with those security lapses that gave rise to the Snowden leaks that have now caused so much discord in that relationship?

And Secretary Kerry, can you confirm that the spying was done at the request of the U.S.?

MINISTER BISHOP: As I have said on numerous occasions, and as the Prime Minister has said, we do not discuss intelligence matters, certainly not allegations. We do not discuss them publicly, and we will not do so. The Prime Minister has made two statements to the Parliament now on this issue, and I would refer you to those statements.

In regard to our discussions today, we had a very wide-ranging discussion about a whole raft of issues that affect our bilateral relationship, very productive and very fruitful discussions. And long may they continue.

SECRETARY KERRY: As Prime Minister Abbott has said and the comments that he has addressed, and as Minister Bishop has said here today and on many occasions, and as I have said in my previous comments, we just don’t talk about intelligence matters in public and we’re not about to begin now.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

JOHN KERRY'S STATEMENT ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS ELIMINATION PROGRESS IN SYRIA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Progress Eliminating Syria's Chemical Weapons Program
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 31, 2013

International inspectors have worked with unprecedented speed to accomplish the first milestone in eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons and reducing the possibility that they will ever be used again. Now we must make sure the job is finished and that every one of these banned weapons is removed and destroyed. This is meaningful progress which many believed would be impossible. The progress must continue.

We must also be crystal clear that eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons is not a substitute for ending the civil war nor does it end the humanitarian catastrophe that continues to unfold. If weapons inspectors can carry out their critical mission, then I refuse to believe we can’t find a way for aid workers to carry out their equally critical mission delivering food and medical treatment to Syrians in need.

But where chemical weapons are concerned, we cannot lose sight of what has been accomplished thus far and what continues every day. Backed by the full weight of the United Nations and the international community, OPCW inspectors have responded to an unspeakable atrocity with unparalleled action. Nothing less would be acceptable after events that shocked the conscience of the world and left 1,400 innocent Syrians dead. Under the U.S.-Russia Framework, Syria must provide all UN and OPCW personnel unfettered access to any and all sites in order to fulfill their critical mission of verifying the full extent, and the eventual elimination, of Syria’s chemical weapons program. Syria’s obligations are clear, and it will need to fully comply with the requirements established by UNSCR 2118 and the OPCW Executive Council’s decision. To borrow from President Reagan’s maxim, where the Assad regime is concerned, there is no ‘trust,’ only ‘verify.’

To date, the United States has provided approximately $6 million in financial and in-kind assistance to support the efforts of the OPCW-UN Joint Mission to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons program, including armored vehicles, training, protective equipment, and medical CW countermeasures for the inspection team. We intend to continue to provide available assistance to help the Joint Mission fulfill its mandate.

READOUT: SECRETARY HAGEL'S MEETING WITH RUSSIAN MINISTER OF DEFENSE SERGEY SHOYGU

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Readout of Secretary Hagel's Meeting with Russian Minister of Defense Sergey Shoygu

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little provided the following readout:

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met with Russia's Minister of Defense Sergey Shoygu today during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Defense Ministerial in Brussels, Belgium.


The leaders discussed a range of issues of mutual interest, to include updates from the August 2+2 meeting, the rationale for pursuing missile defense cooperation, the situation in Syria, and the United States' and Russia's shared interest in supporting security and stability in Afghanistan post 2014.


Secretary Hagel assured Minister Shoygu that the United States' missile defense efforts pose no threat to Russia, and he encouraged Russia to consider joint initiatives that increase transparency and provide for mutually beneficial cooperation; enhancing our mutual strategic stability.


Secretary Hagel highlighted the progress in the implementation of the U.S.-Russia Framework, and the important strides made to reach consensus on how to address Syria's chemical weapons program. He encouraged Minister Shoygu to continue working with Syria to ensure its full cooperation with the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S STATEMENT OF THE AWARDING OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Statement on Awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 11, 2013

I want to congratulate the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The world will never forget the loss of the more than 1,000 innocent Syrians senselessly killed with chemical weapons on Aug. 21. There could be no more stark reminder why for almost 100 years, the international community has deemed the use of these weapons far beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct.

Since that horrific attack, the OPCW has taken extraordinary steps and worked with unprecedented speed to address this blatant violation of international norms that shocked the conscience of people around the world. Just a few weeks ago, a united international community came together at the OPCW and the United Nations to establish a clear path toward eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons forever. And last week, OPCW inspectors, backed by the full weight of the United Nations, took the first, critical steps toward that goal.

Today, the Nobel Committee has rightly recognized their bravery and resolve to carry out this vital mission amid an ongoing war in Syria. On this occasion, I am also particularly mindful of the more than 100,000 Syrians lost in this bloody conflict, and the need for the entire international community to redouble our effort to bring it to an end and give peace-loving Syrians a country to return to, free of carnage.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL MEETS WITH ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER MOSHE YAALON

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel greets Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon at the Pentagon, Oct. 8, 2013. The two leaders met to discuss issues of mutual importance. DOD photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Hinton

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel, Israeli Defense Minister Meet at Pentagon
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon met yesterday at the Pentagon to share views on the range of regional security challenges the United States and Israel are facing together, Defense Department officials said.

In a statement summarizing the meeting, officials noted it was the third face-to-face meeting between the two defense leaders in the past six months.
Hagel told Yaalon that while U.S. officials intend to test the prospect for a diplomatic solution with Iran, they remain clear-eyed about the challenges ahead and will not waver from a firm policy of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, officials said.

The defense secretary applauded the announcement by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria has started, the Pentagon statement said, adding that while much work remains to be done, this is a step in the right direction to eliminating that threat.

The leaders also discussed progress on the United States effort to increase Israel's qualitative military edge with advanced capabilities that Hagel announced on his visit to Israel earlier this year, the statement said.

SECRETARY KERRY'S RECENT REMARKS TO UN SECURITY COUNCIL ON SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at the United Nations Security Council
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
New York City
September 27, 2013

Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished minister members of the Security Council.

Five weeks ago, the world saw rows upon rows of murdered children lying on a hospital floor alone or beside slain parents, all wrapped in un-bloodied burial shrouds. And the world’s conscience was shocked, but our collective resolved hardened. Tonight, with a strong, enforceable, precedent-setting resolution requiring Syria to give up its chemical weapons, the United Nations Security Council has demonstrated that diplomacy can be so powerful, it can peacefully defuse the worst weapons of war.

So tonight, we are declaring together, for the first time, that the use of chemical weapons, which the world long ago determined beyond the bounds of acceptable human behavior, are also a threat to international peace and security anywhere they might be used, anytime they might be used, under any circumstances. As a community of nations, we reaffirm our responsibility to defend the defenseless, those whose lives remain at risk every day that anyone believes they can use weapons of mass destruction with impunity. Together, the world, with a single voice for the first time, is imposing binding obligations on the Assad regime requiring it to get rid of weapons that have been used to devastating effect as tools of terror. This important resolution reflects what President Obama and President Putin and colleagues around the world set out to do.

I want to thank Foreign Minister Lavrov for his personal efforts and cooperation, beginning before Geneva and continuing through this week, so that we could find common ground. I also want to thank my good friends and counterparts, Foreign Secretary Hague and Foreign Minister Fabius, who have been partners every step of the way.

Our original objective was to degrade and deter Syria’s chemical weapons capability, and the option of military force that President Obama has kept on the table could have achieved that. But tonight’s resolution, in fact, accomplishes even more. Through peaceful means, it will for, the first time, seek to eliminate entirely a nation’s chemical weapons capability, and in this case specifically Syria’s. On-site inspections of the places that these weapons are stored will begin by November, and under the terms of this agreement, those weapons will be removed and destroyed by the middle of next year.

Our aim was also to hold the Assad regime publicly accountable for its horrific use of chemical weapons against its own people on August 21st. And this resolution makes clear that those responsible for this heinous act must be held accountable.

In this resolution, the Council has, importantly, endorsed the Geneva Communique, which calls for a transfer of power to a transitional governing body, paving the way for democratic elections and a government that can be chosen by the people of Syria to represent the people of Syria.

We sought a legally binding resolution, and that is what the Security Council has adopted. For the first time since Syria’s civil war began, the Security Council is spelling out in detail what Syria must do to comply with its legal obligations. Syria cannot select or reject the inspectors. Syria must give those inspectors unfettered access to any and all sites and to any and all people.

We also wanted a resolution that would be enforced. And again, that is what the Security Council has adopted. We are here because actions have consequences. And now, should the regime fail to act, there will be consequences. Progress will be reported back to the Security Council frequently, and in the event of noncompliance, the Council will impose measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

Just two weeks ago, when the Syrian regime would not even acknowledge the vast supply of chemical weapons and say that they existed, this outcome, frankly, would have been utterly unimaginable. But thanks to the cooperation within the P-5 of the United Nations, and thanks to our friends and partners around the world, many of whom are here in this room, the Security Council has shown that when we put aside politics for the common good, we are still capable of doing big things. Provided this resolution is fully implemented, we will have eliminated one of the largest chemical weapons programs on earth from one of the most volatile places on earth.

The Assad regime carries the burden of meeting the terms of this agreement. And when it comes to those who murder their own citizens, the world’s patience needs to be short. But make no mistake: The rest of the world still carries the burden of doing what we must do to end mass killing by other means. We must work together with the same determination and the same cooperation that has brought us here tonight in order to end the conflict that continues to tear Syria apart even this very day. We must continue to provide desperately needed humanitarian aid. And neither Assad nor anyone else should stand between that aid and the people who need it. Only when we do these things will we have fulfilled our responsibility to the Syrian people and to ourselves. Only then will we have advanced our own interests and our own security and that of our allies in the region. Only then will we have shown that the UN Security Council is meeting its responsibility to enforce international peace and security.

So we are here united tonight in support of our belief that international institutions do matter, that international norms matter. We say with one voice that atrocities carried out with the world’s most heinous weapons will not be tolerated. And when institutions like the Security Council stand up to defend the principles and values that we all share, when we put violent regimes on notice that the world will unite against them, it will lead not only to a safer Syria, but it will lead to a safer world.

Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA ASKS UN TO CONFRONT SYRIAN PROBLEMS

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Obama Urges UN to Confront Syrian Violence, Chemical Weapons
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24, 2013 - While the world has made strides toward stability, the situation in Syria illustrates the dangers of current trends to the Middle East and the rest of the globe, President Barack Obama told world leaders at the United Nations today.

Obama spoke to the General Assembly meeting in New York this morning giving a synopsis of the situation in Syria and how the United Nations must work to end the violence that has killed more than 100,000 people.

The Syrian civil war has escalated with the government using chemical weapons on its own people. "The international community recognized the stakes early on, but our response has not matched the scale of the challenge," the president said. "Aid cannot keep pace with the suffering of the wounded and displaced. A peace process is stillborn."

The crisis in Syria goes to the heart of broader challenges the international community must confront, Obama said. From North Africa to Central Asia, there is turmoil and getting these nations through this time peacefully is the challenge.

With respect to Syria, the international community "must enforce the ban on chemical weapons," the president said.

"The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st," Obama said. "U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood, and landed in opposition neighborhoods. It's an insult to human reason -- and to the legitimacy of this institution -- to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack."

Obama initially considered launching a limited U.S. military strike against Syrian regime targets, but the United States now is testing a diplomatic solution.

"In the past several weeks, the United States, Russia and our allies have reached an agreement to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control, and then to destroy them," Obama said.

The Syrian government has now begun accounting for its stockpiles.

"Now there must be a strong Security Council resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so," Obama said. "If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the United Nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws.

"On the other hand, if we succeed," he continued, "it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century, and that this body means what it says."

If diplomacy works, it could energize a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement within Syria.

"I do not believe that military action -- by those within Syria, or by external powers -- can achieve a lasting peace," Obama said. "Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria; that is for the Syrian people to decide. Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country. The notion that Syria can somehow return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy."

Obama stated that Russia and Iran must realize that insisting on Bashir al-Assad's continued rule in Syria will lead directly to the outcome that they fear: an increasingly violent space for extremists to operate.

"In turn, those of us who continue to support the moderate opposition must persuade them that the Syrian people cannot afford a collapse of state institutions, and that a political settlement cannot be reached without addressing the legitimate fears and concerns of Alawites and other minorities," he said.

The United States is committed to working the diplomatic track, the president said, and he urged all nations to help bring about a peaceful resolution of Syria's civil war.

He asked U.N. members to step forward to help alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. The United States has committed more than $1 billion to this effort, and he announced the United States will donate a further $340 million.

"No aid can take the place of a political resolution that gives the Syrian people the chance to rebuild their country, but it can help desperate people to survive," he said.

JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING SYRIAN TALKS FROM GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Joint Statements After Trilat
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi
UN Offices
Geneva, Switzerland
September 13, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Let me just say to everybody that we will not – we will each make a very brief statement. We’ll not be taking questions at this time. And we apologize for that, but we need to get back to the conversations that we’re having on the issue of chemical weapons.

First of all, Foreign Minister Lavrov and I both want to thank Lakhdar Brahimi and the United Nations for their invitation to have a discussion today about the question of the Geneva 2 conference. As everybody knows, the principal reason that Foreign Minister Lavrov and I are here are to have discussions with respect to the initiative to gain control of and remove and destroy the chemical weapons in Syria. That is our principal mission here in Geneva. And I think we would both agree that we had constructive conversations regarding that, but those conversations are continuing and both of us want to get back to them now.

We came here this morning at the invitation of the Special Representative for the Geneva 2 and Syria negotiations in order to discuss where those negotiations are and how we can advance them. I will say on behalf of the United States that President Obama is deeply committed to a negotiated solution with respect to Syria, and we know that Russia is likewise. We are working hard to find the common ground to be able to make that happen and we discussed some of the homework that we both need to do. I’m not going to go into it in any detail today. We both agreed to do that homework and meet again in New York around the time of the UN General Assembly, around the 28th, in order to see if it is possible then to find a date for that conference, much of which will obviously depend on the capacity to have success here in the next day, hours, days, on the subject of the chemical weapons.

Both of us – Sergey Lavrov and I, our countries, our presidents – are deeply concerned about the death toll and destruction, the acts on both sides, all sides that are creating more and more refugees, more and more of the humanitarian catastrophe. And we are committed to try to work together, beginning with this initiative on the chemical weapons, in hopes that those efforts could pay off and bring peace and stability to a war-torn part of the world. And we’re very appreciative for Lakhdar Brahimi hosting us today in an effort to try to advance this initiative.

Sergey.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we had a very useful meeting with Lakhdar Brahimi. As you know, as John said just now, we are here basically to discuss the issue of chemical weapons in Syria. Now that the Assad government joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, we have to engage our professionals together with the Chemical Weapons Prohibition Organization, as we agreed with the United Nations, to design a road which would make sure that this issue is resolved quickly, professionally, as soon as practical.

But we are very glad to Lakhdar Brahimi for inviting us on this occasion to discuss a longer-term goal for Syria, namely the preparation for the conference which is called Geneva 2. Russia, the Russian President from very beginning of the Syrian conflict, have been promoting a peaceful resolution. We have firmly supported the Arab League initiative, their being observers, and we supported Kofi Annan’s initiative, the UN observers, and we were one of the initiators of convening Geneva 1. Last year here, we adopted the Geneva communique, resolved major – almost all major players, including all P-5 countries for the region, Arab League, Turkey, European Union, United Nations. And it is very unfortunate that for a long period the Geneva communique was basically abandoned and we were not able to have endorsement of this very important document in the Security Council, as is as adopted.

Thanks to John, who after becoming Secretary of State in spite of his huge workload on Arab-Israeli conflict understood the importance of moving on Syria and doing something about this. And I am very grateful for him for coming to Moscow on May 7th this year when we launched the Russian-American initiative to convene a Geneva conference to implement fully the Geneva communique, which means that the Syrian parties must reach mutual consent on the transitional governing organ which would command full executive authority. And the communique also says that all groups of Syrian society must be represented.

And we discussed these aspects and other aspects of the preparatory work today with Lakhdar Brahimi and his team. We are very grateful to Lakhdar for his insight, for the suggestions which he made and which we will be entertaining as we move forward parallel with the work on chemical weapons. We agreed to meet in New York in the margins of the General Assembly and see where we are and what the Syrian parties think about it and do about it. And we hope that we will be able to be a bit more specific when we meet with you in New York.

SPECIAL ENVOY BRAHIMI: Thank you very much indeed, both of you, first of all, for coming to talk to us in the Palais de Nation in Geneva. We look forward to the work you are doing on chemical weapons in Syria. It is extremely important in itself and for itself, but it is also extremely important for us who are working with you on trying to bring together the Geneva 2 conference successfully.

Our discussions today, as you have both said now, have been useful. And we are not going to retain you much longer; you have other business to do. Thank you again very, very much indeed for being here.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, Lakhdar.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, sir.

SPECIAL ENVOY BRAHIMI: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY KERRY'S TESTIMONY ABOUT SYRIA BEFORE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Proposed Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria
Testimony
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Opening Remarks Before the House Armed Services Committee
Washington, DC
September 10, 2013

Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and distinguished members of the committee, I’m privileged to be here this morning with Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, and we are all of us – all three of us – very much looking forward to a conversation with you about this complicated, challenging, but critical issue that our country faces.

And we don’t come to you lightly. I think Secretary Hagel and I particularly come here with an enormous amount of respect for this process, for what each of you go through at home, and the challenges you face with constituents, and the complexity of this particular issue. So this is good. It’s good that we’re here, and we look forward to the conversation.

And as we convene at this hearing, it is no exaggeration at all to say to you that the world is watching. And they’re watching not just to see what we decide; they’re watching to see how we decide it, and whether or not we have the ability at this critical time when so much is on the line in so many parts of the world. As challenges to governance, writ large, it’s important that we show the world that we actually do have the ability to, hopefully, speak with one voice. And we believe that that can make a difference.

Needless to say, this is one of the most important decisions that any member of Congress makes during the course of their service. And we all want to make sure we leave plenty of time here for discussion. Obviously, this is a very large committee, and so we’ll try to summarize in these comments and give the opportunity for the Q&A.

But I just want to open with a few comments about questions I’m hearing from many of your colleagues, and obviously, from the American people and what we read in the news.

First, people ask me – and they ask you, I know – why we are choosing to have a debate on Syria at a time when there’s so much that we need to be doing here at home. And we all know what that agenda is. Let me assure you, the President of the United States didn’t wake up one day and just kind of flippantly say, “Let’s go take military action in Syria.” He didn’t choose this. We didn’t choose this. We’re here today because Bashar al-Assad, a dictator who has chosen to meet the requests for reform in his country with bullets and bombs and napalm and gas, because he made a decision to use the world’s most heinous weapons to murder more than – in one instance – more than 1,400 innocent people, including more than 400 children. He and his regime made a choice, and President Obama believes – and all of us at this table believe – that we have no choice but to respond.

Now, to those who doubt whether Assad’s actions have to have consequences, remember that our inaction absolutely is guaranteed to bring worse consequences. You, every one of you here – we, all of us – America will face this. If not today, somewhere down the line when the permissiveness of not acting now gives Assad license to go do what he wants – and threaten Israel, threaten Jordan, threaten Lebanon, create greater instability in a region already wracked by instability, where stability is one of the greatest priorities of our foreign policy and of our national security interest.

And that brings me to the second question that I’ve heard lately, which is sort of: What’s really at stake here? Does this really affect us? I met earlier today with Steve Chabot and had a good conversation. I asked him, “What are you hearing?” I know what you’re all hearing. The instant reaction of a lot of Americans anywhere in our country is, “Woah, we don’t want to go to war again. We don’t want to Iraq. We don’t want to go to Afghanistan. We’ve seen how those turned out.” I get it, and I’ll speak to that in a minute.

But I want to make it clear at the outset, as each of us at this table want to make it clear, that what Assad has done directly affects America’s security – America’s security. We have a huge national interest in containing all weapons of mass destruction. And the use of gas is a weapon of mass destruction. Allowing those weapons to be used with impunity would be an enormous chink in our armor that we have built up over years against proliferation. Think about it. Our own troops benefit from that prohibition against chemical weapons.

I mentioned yesterday in the briefing – many of you were there, and some of you I notice from decorations, otherwise I know many of you have served in the military, some of you still in the reserves. And you know the training we used to go through when you’re learning. And I went to Chemical, Nuclear, Biological Warfare school, and I remember going into a room and a gas mask, and they make you take it off, and you see how long you can do it. It ain’t for long.

Those weapons have been outlawed, and our troops, in all of the wars we fought since World War I, have never been subjected to it because we stand up for that prohibition. There’s a reason for that. If we don’t answer Assad today, we will irreparably damage a century-old standard that has protected American troops in war. So to every one of your constituents, if they were to say to you, “Why did you vote for this even though we said we don’t want to go to war?” Because you want to protect American troops, because you want to protect America’s prohibition and the world’s prohibition against these weapons.

The stability of this region is also in our direct security interest. Our allies, our friends in Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, are, all of them, just a strong wind away from being injured themselves or potentially from a purposeful attack. Failure to act now will make this already volatile neighborhood even more combustible, and it will almost certainly pave the way for a more serious challenge in the future. And you can just ask our friends in Israel or elsewhere. In Israel, they can’t get enough gas masks. And there’s a reason that the Prime Minister has said this matters, this decision matters. It’s called Iran. Iran looms out there with its potential – with its nuclear program and the challenge we have been facing. And that moment is coming closer in terms of a decision. They’re watching what we do here. They’re watching what you do and whether or not this means something.

If we choose not to act, we will be sending a message to Iran of American ambivalence, American weakness. It will raise the question – I’ve heard this question. As Secretary of State as I meet with people and they ask us about sort of our long-term interests and the future with respect to Iran, they’ve asked me many times, “Do you really mean what you say? Are you really going to do something?” They ask whether or not the United States is committed, and they ask us also if the President cuts a deal will the Congress back it up? Can he deliver? This is all integrated. I have no doubt – I’ve talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday – Israel does not want to be in the middle of this. But we know that their security is at risk and the region is at risk.

I also want to remind you, you have already spoken to this. Your word is on the line, too. You passed the Syria Accountability Act. And that act clearly states that Syria’s chemical weapons threaten the security of the Middle East. That’s in plain writing. It’s in the act. You voted for it. We’ve already decided these chemical weapons are important to the security of our nation. I quote, “The national security interests of the United States are – the national security interests of the United States are at risk with the weapons of mass – the chemical weapons of Syria.”

The fourth question I’ve been asked a lot of times is why diplomacy isn’t changing this dynamic. Isn’t there some alternative that could avoid this? And I want to emphasize on behalf of President Obama, President Obama’s first priority throughout this process has been and is diplomacy. Diplomacy is our first resort, and we have brought this issue to the United Nations Security Council on many occasions. We have sent direct messages to Syria, and we’ve had Syria’s allies bring them direct messages: Don’t do this. Don’t use these weapons. All to date, to no avail.

In the last three years, Russia and China have vetoed three Security Council resolutions condemning the regime for inciting violence or resolutions that simply promote a political solution to the dialogue – to the conflict. Russia has even blocked press releases – press releases that do nothing more than express humanitarian concern for what is happening in Syria, or merely condemn the generic use of chemical weapons, not even assigning blame. They have blocked them. We’ve brought these concerns to the United Nations, making the case to the members of the Security Council that protecting civilians, prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, and promoting peace and security are in our shared interests, and those general statements have been blocked.

That is why the President directed me to work with the Russians and the region’s players to get a Geneva 2 peace negotiation underway. And the end to the conflict in Syria, we all emphasize today – is a political solution. None of us are coming to you today asking for a long-term military – I mean, some people think we ought to be, but we don’t believe there is any military solution to what is happening in Syria. But make no mistake: No political solution will ever be achievable as long as Assad believes he can just gas his way out of this predicament. And we are without question building a coalition of support for this now. Thirty-one countries have signed on to the G-20 statement, which is a powerful one, endorsing the United States’ efforts to hold Assad accountable for what he is doing. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France and many others are committed to joining with us in any action. We’re now in the double digits with respect to countries that are prepared to actually take action should they be needed were they capable of it. More than 25 – I mentioned 31 nations signing on to the G-12 statement.

But our diplomatic hand, my former colleagues, our diplomatic hand only becomes stronger if other countries know that America is speaking with a strong voice here, with one voice, and if we’re stronger as a united nation around this purpose. In order to speak with that voice, we need you, the Congress. That’s what the President did. Many of you said please bring this to Congress. The President has done that, and he’s bringing it to Congress with confidence that the Congress will want to join in an effort in order to uphold the word of the United States of America – not just a president, but the United States of America – with respect to these weapons of mass destruction.

Now, I want to be crystal clear about something else. Some people want to do more in Syria; some people are leery about doing anything at all. But one goal we ought to all be able to agree on is that chemical weapons cannot be under the control of a man so craven that he has repeatedly used those chemical weapons against his fellow Syrians with the horrific results that all of us have been able to see.

Yesterday, we challenged the regime to turn them over to the secure control of the international community so that they could be destroyed. And that, of course, would be the ultimate way to degrade and deter Assad’s arsenal, and it is the ideal weapon – ideal way to take this weapon away from him.

Assad’s chief benefactor, the Russians, have responded by saying that they would come up with a proposal to do exactly that. And we have made it clear to them – I have in several conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov – that this cannot be a process of delay, this cannot be a process of avoidance. It has to be real, has to be measurable, tangible. And it is exceedingly difficult – I want everybody here to know – to fulfill those conditions. But we’re waiting for that proposal, but we’re not waiting for long.

President Obama will take a hard look at it. But it has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable. It cannot be a delaying tactic. And if the United Nations Security Council seeks to be the vehicle to make it happen, that cannot be allowed to simply become a debating society. There are many countries – and many of you in the Congress, from those who wanted military action to those who were skeptical of military action – want to see if this idea could become reality.

But make no mistake – make no mistake – about why this idea has any potential legs at all and why it is that the Russians have reached out to the Syrians and why the Syrians have initially suggested they might be interested. A lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. Well, it’s the credible threat of force that has been on the table for these last weeks that has, for the first time, brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal. And it is the threat of this force and our determination to hold Assad accountable that has motivated others to even talk about a real and credible international action that might have an impact.

So how do you maintain that pressure? We have to continue to show Syria, Russia, and the world that we are not going to fall for stalling tactics. If the challenge we laid down is going to have the potential to become a real proposal, it is only because of the threat of force that we are discussing today. And that threat is more compelling if Congress stands with the Commander-in-Chief.

Finally, let me just correct a common misconception. In my conversation with Steve Chabot earlier today, he mentioned this. I’ve heard it. I’ve talked with many of you. You’ve told you me you hear it. The instant reaction of a lot of Americans – and I am completely sympathetic to it, I understand it, I know where it comes from, I only stopped sitting where you sit a few months ago – I know exactly what the feelings are. People don’t want another Iraq. None of us do. We don’t want Afghanistan.

But Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we can’t make this decision based solely on the budget. We can’t make this decision based solely on our wishes, on our feeling that we know we’ve been through the ringer for a while. We’re the United States of America, and people look to us. They look to us for the meaning of our word, and they look to us for our values in fact being followed up by the imprint of action where that is necessary.

We are not talking about America going to war. President Obama is not asking for a declaration of war. We are not going to war. There will be no American boots on the ground. Let me repeat: No American boots will be on the ground.

What we’re talking about is a targeted, limited, but consequential action that will reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons. And General Dempsey and Secretary Hagel will tell you how we can achieve that and their confidence in our ability to achieve that. We’re talking about an action that will degrade Assad’s capacity to use these weapons and to ensure that they do not proliferate. And with this authorization, the President is asking for the power to make sure that the United States of America means what we say.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of this committee, I can say to you with absolute confidence, the risk of not acting is much greater than the risk of acting. If we fail to act, Assad will believe that he has license to gas his own people again. And that license will turn prohibited weapons into tactical weapons. And General Dempsey can tell you about this. It would make – it would take an exception, a purposeful exception that has been in force since 1925, and make it the rule today. It would undermine our standing, degrade America’s security and our credibility, and erode our strength in the world.

In a world of terrorists and extremists, we would choose to ignore those risks at our peril. We cannot afford to have chemical weapons transformed into the new convenient weapon, the IED, the car bomb, the weapon of everyday use in this world. Neither our country nor our conscience can bear the costs of inaction, and that’s why we’ve come before you, at the instruction of the President, to ask you to join us in this effort.