SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY IN BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Press Availability in Brussels, Belgium
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
NATO Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
December 3, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon and thanks, everybody, for being here. And thanks for your patience.

In less than three months, the international community has come together to form a coalition that is already taking important steps to degrade and defeat ISIL, or Daesh. And today was an opportunity for representatives from about 60 members of the anti-ISIL coalition to come together, share their views, receive updates on coalition efforts, make suggestions about the roadmap ahead, and discuss as carefully as possible the pluses and minuses of the strategy engaged and what needs to be done to accomplish our goals going forward.

It was absolutely clear in the comments of everybody, particularly the prime minister of Iraq and his team, that we have made already significant progress in two and a half months. But we also acknowledge there is a lot more work yet to be done. Daesh is still perpetrating terrible crimes, but there was a consensus that the momentum which it had exhibited two and a half months ago has been halted, that it has been forced to modify its tactics – and some of those modifications severely hampering their ability to operate in the way that they were, certainly – that their hold on territory has been challenged already, and their finances have been strained, and in almost every media market that exists, and certainly within the region, their message is being denounced. Their message of hate is being challenged in public meeting places, in mosques across the globe. This clearly represents a multifaceted effort, which is precisely what we defined in the earliest days of suggesting that we would build a coalition and the coalition would take on Daesh.

Now, while airstrikes may capture the headlines – and there have been more than 1,000 of them thus far – this is far more than simply a military coalition. And it will not be successful, we all agree, if it were to rely on military alone, which it does not. Destroying Daesh is going to require defeating the ideology – the funding, the recruitment, and the devastation that they’ve been able to inflict on people in the region. And these are the areas that were really the primary focus of today’s discussion.

During this morning’s meeting, we reviewed the progress in each of our five lines of effort and came together in issuing a joint statement, all countries signing on, that underscores our unity and our firm support for our partners and our absolute determination to succeed. Participants noted the gains that we have made across all of the lines of effort – defeating ISIL on the battlefield, restricting its finances, enacting laws to restrict the flow of foreign fighters, and countering its toxic ideology.

The long-term success of the effort in Iraq is key to the success of the coalition. And today we heard directly from Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi, whose government yesterday revealed and reached a long-sought agreement, a landmark oil deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government. The prime minister also provided an update on the fight against Daesh in Iraq and on his broader reform agenda, including an executive order that he just issued to begin important changes in the criminal justice system of Iraq. Nothing will do more to defeat Daesh than an Iraq that is united and has more representative and effective security forces.

Now, obviously there’s a lot more work ahead. But the prime minister has taken steps to unite the country, including outreach to Sunni tribes. He has taken steps to root out corruption and to reform the Iraqi Security Forces and to take on the threat that Daesh represents. I think it’s fair to say that all of the foreign ministers, ambassadors, representatives who were there today came away impressed by Prime Minister Abadi and by what he has accomplished today, which is the down payment on the roadmap that he laid out for the future.

Earlier today, I participated in a meeting on the complex situation in Libya. And later we – I had a bilateral wide-ranging discussion at lunch with EU High Representative Federica Mogherini. And we talked about all of the key issues in the transatlantic agenda – trade, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; the energy security challenges; the opportunities presented by these energy challenges, which really represent game-changing set of possibilities with respect to the movement of liquefied natural gas, also alternative and renewable energy possibilities. We also talked about support for Ukraine, the Middle East, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and the challenge of Ebola.

And I ended the day just now by attending a meeting of the EU-U.S. Energy Council, where we talked about the major possibilities for realignment with respect to energy security, environment issues, climate change, all of the possibilities that the energy agenda provide us in terms of a new marketplace with new job opportunities, new technologies, an enormous kick to the economy, as well as increases in security – environment security, energy security, health security, and the economy itself.

We reviewed progress in facilitating the reverse gas flows and the EU effort to reach an accord on natural gas supplies with Ukraine and Russia, which was a very important step which we congratulate the EU on taking. And second, we talked about the overall challenge of European energy security, which requires regulatory cooperation, investments in infrastructure, and an intensive commitment to sustainable technology.

And finally, we talked about the urgency of further breakthroughs on climate change itself. The EU took the important step earlier in the fall of putting out publicly its targets for 2015 at the Paris conference. We recently came back, President Obama and myself and our team, from a bilateral series of meetings in China where we were able to agree with China on setting certain kinds of goals. We’re continuing that work not only with China, but with other countries with the hopes of having an impact on the meeting in Peru, which I will attend later next week, and which will be the lead-in to a year of important focus on climate change and high hopes for success in Paris next December.

With the ongoing meetings in Peru and what will follow over the course of the next year and the U.S. President, President Obama’s, pledge of a contribution of $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund and the EU’s early commitments, we believe that we are making clear that the Obama Administration and the United States are all in on this issue and committed to try to take steps that are long overdue. We intend to continue to try to build momentum moving into next year, and we believe that not only is there obviously the practical advantage of responding to the events, to the transformation taking place in the climate that is contributing to very severe weather events, to major flooding, major fires, major drought, to shifts in agriculture and other impacts that have huge cost, but we believe it is becoming more and more evident that it is cheaper to invest in the new technologies and move to the clean energy economy. And we are going to continue to work for that.

So with that, I’d be pleased to respond to your questions with respect to any of the topics that I touched on.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Lara Jakes of the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Actually, I’m not asking a question today.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, I’m sorry. Oh, I’m sorry. Michael Gordon of The New York Times. All right.

QUESTION: On behalf of Lara Jakes. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: He’s prettier than I am.

QUESTION: If – sir, if Iraqi forces are successful with U.S. and allied air support in retaking Mosul, Fallujah, and other populated areas in what could be block-to-block fighting, Iraq will likely confront the need for a major reconstruction effort, and Iraq may also face pressing humanitarian needs as civilians will need to get through the winter in newly reclaimed areas.

What assistance did Prime Minister Abadi seek during his meetings with you and other partners in terms of help with reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, and also additional military training and equipment? What is this likely to cost? Hundreds of millions of dollars, billions? And is the United States and the international community prepared to meet those needs? Will there be another donor conference or another international meeting? How do you plan to proceed?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Michael, it’s a really good question, and very important to the road ahead. The subject absolutely came up. Prime Minister Abadi himself put the topic of reconstruction on the table. And I’m happy to say that a number of Gulf states which have capacity on their own have engaged in this discussion with Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqis. I think it’s up to them to identify themselves, but we are particularly excited about the prospect of having the region engage in a significant way across sectarian lines, I might add, in order to be able to address this reconstruction notion.

So I don’t think this is something where Americans or Europeans or others have to recoil and say, “Oh my God, we’re going to be facing this monumental task of rebuilding yet another place when we have our own challenges.” Might we have to contribute to it? Sure, we ought to. It’s part of our foreign policy and it’s part of our engagement. But I’m excited by the prospect that already, for instance, Saudi Arabia has made half a billion dollars available before we even fully engaged in this effort as a sign of good faith in an effort to try to say to the people of Iraq that they could cross the sectarian divide and offer humanitarian assistance.

Now there were a number of countries in the region that are talking about a further reconstruction fund that would specifically help to rebuild as the country is taken back from the clasp – the unwanted clasp of the terrorists who are controlling a significant portion of Anbar and other parts of Iraq at this moment. So I’m very, very hopeful that that will take place and it will be a natural outgrowth of this coalition as it meets in the days ahead, and as we plan for the roadmap.

It won’t do any good, obviously, if you simply reclaim a town and the folks in that town have worse or less opportunities than they may have had before and life is even harder. So part of winning this back – and this is what we’ve been saying from day one – is not just the task of the military campaign; it’s the campaign that goes on every day thereafter in providing a government that is responsive, that is inclusive, that is pluralistic, that is freeing itself from any clutches of corruption that may or may not exist. That’s what we want to see, and that effort is very much part of the planning stage at this early moment.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Sangwon Yoon of Bloomberg News.

QUESTION: U.S. – the Pentagon said that it believes that Iran carried out several airstrikes in Iraq’s Diyala province in the past couple of days. Are you aware of these strikes? Do you welcome such Iranian air missions in Iraq? Do you think they’re helpful to the fight against ISIL or do you think that it’d be better if Iran avoids these actions?

And also, in your opening remarks today in the meeting, you talked about the importance of having a dialogue to share best thoughts, about ways to do things better and plan carefully. Now, notwithstanding these Iranian airstrikes in Diyala, Iran’s role in fighting ISIS in Iraq has been growing. Has the time come now for the U.S. and the coalition to start directly coordinating efforts in order to maximize the global campaign to defeat and degrade ISIL?

SECRETARY KERRY: Let me answer that – both parts of that question. First of all, I’m not going to make any announcements or confirm or deny the reported military action of another country in Iraq. It’s up to them or up to the Iraqis to do that, if it indeed took place. We are obviously flying our missions over Iraq and we coordinate those missions with the Iraqi Government. And we rely on the Iraqi Government to deconflict whatever control of their airspace may in fact need that deconfliction.

So nothing has changed in our fundamental policy of not coordinating our military activity or other activities at this moment with Iranians. We’re not doing that. And we are not – not only not coordinating militarily right now, but there are no plans at this time to coordinate militarily. I think it’s self-evident that if Iran is taking on ISIL in some particular place and it’s confined to taking on ISIL and it has an impact, it’s going to be – the net effect is positive. But that’s not something that we’re coordinating. The Iraqis have the overall responsibility for their own ground and air operations, and what they choose to do is up to them.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Noureddine Fridhi of Al-Arabiya.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I have a couple of questions, if you don’t mind. In these meetings, there – are they new commitments regarding the moderate opposition, Syrian moderate opposition, in terms of supporting them by equipment, training, on political level?

And my second question is about the issue of there is no-fly zone until now, as the Turkish are asking. But do you see yourself alternatives for the Turkish side to protect its border of the country from these borders, thousand foreign fighters entered into Syria, sir?

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah. Well, regarding the issue of new commitments with respect to the Syrian opposition, the answer is simply that this meeting was about ISIL/ISIS/Daesh. This meeting was not about the Syrian opposition and the other parts of that struggle. Did it come up? Was it discussed? Yes. Did some countries talk about their concerns about the regime? Absolutely, but it was not with any sense of division. This was a united group here to deal with the challenge of Daesh. And while people expressed an opinion regarding the regime, as you saw, there was a completely unified communique, which understood clearly what the mission was that brought people here today.

Now in the course of – even the communique mentions the opposition and talks about the continued support for the opposition – moderate opposition, that is – and that will continue, and everybody understands who’s committed to that and who’s engaged in that direct effort. But there was no specific plus-up with respect to that.

On the issue of no-fly zone and so forth, the United States remains extremely engaged in its discussions with Turkey. Turkey, as everybody knows, is a NATO ally. It is a very important coalition partner. It is an absolute – it has a border with Syria, it has critical impacts because of what is happening in Syria, and a deep stake in the outcome of what is going on there. And therefore, we are having a very serious discussion with Turkey.

Vice President Biden was just there. He had a long discussion with President Erdogan; long discussion with Prime Minister Davutoglu. Prime Minister Davutoglu just visited Iraq. There’s a lot of discussion going on about the way we will go forward. But it is premature to suggest at this moment of time that we are close to making a decision or moving forward with any form of a safe zone or a buffer zone at this moment in time. But we are continuing our discussions with our Turkish allies in order to have conversations about how we best bolster security in the region and deal with the problem of Syria.

And it is no secret that the United States continues to believe that President Assad has lost all legitimacy, that the regime will not be able to find peace in Iraq as long as – in Syria as long as Assad remains in power. There needs to be some kind of transition. We know it’s not going to happen through a military, direct process, so there has to be a political solution. And we’re looking still for the way to engage all of the countries in the region in an effort to achieve what was originally laid out in Geneva. That remains the operative objective.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: That’s it. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT U.S. VISA EVENT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at a U.S. Visa Event
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy Beijing
Beijing, China
November 12, 2014

MR. KRITENBRINK: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome. My name is Dan Kritenbrink, and I’m the deputy chief of mission here at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. It is a great honor to have everyone here this afternoon, including members of the press, staff of the Embassy’s consular section, and of course, our group of distinguished visa applicants. Expanding economic cooperation and increasing people-to-people exchanges are key elements of America’s policy toward China. As evidence of our commitment to that goal, today we celebrate the first day in a new era for millions of people who wish to travel between the United States and China.

We are, of course, particularly honored to be joined today by the U.S. Secretary of State, and our boss, Secretary John Kerry. Secretary Kerry will tell us about this exciting new development in our bilateral relationship. So now won’t you please join me in warmly welcoming Secretary of State John Kerry. (Applause.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Ni hao. And I hope that didn’t need a translation. (Laughter.) This is very exciting for me. I’m really happy to be here. I see a lot of smiling faces. And I think most of them are on the faces of those about to receive their visas.

I’m delighted to be here with Dan Kritenbrink and I thank him for the tremendous work that he is doing as the DCM here in the Embassy. He has mastered the language and he has risen through the ranks of the Department at lightning speed, and – first as a political officer here in Beijing, and as director for the Office for Chinese and Mongolian Affairs in Washington, and now as DCM. Let me say that we’re particularly grateful to Dan and all of the folks at the Embassy, all those of you in the Embassy staff who helped to support the visits of Michelle Obama and also Vice President Biden, who came here for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue; and of course, my own visit earlier in the year with Secretary Lew for the same. So we thank you for the tremendous work you’re doing.

The ambassador as I think you know is escorting the President to the airport, and so that’s the reason that he isn’t here to celebrate this with us. But he is very excited about this program. And I’m very glad he’s going to help make sure the President gets out alright because the sooner the President’s plane gets out of here, the easier it is for my plane (inaudible). (Laughter.)

I want to thank all of the folks who work here at the Embassy first before I say a word about the visas. One of our most sacred, important responsibilities in the State Department is to work hard to show people everywhere who we are and what our values are. And that’s what all of the people who work here do every single day in a large embassy like this or in small posts somewhere in the world – they help people to try to understand who we are, what we believe, and we’re particularly appreciative to all the people locally who come and share the burden of attempting to reach out and touch so many people.

And I say this all the time and I mean it: No matter what rank you are, no matter where you are in the Embassy, whether you’re one year in or months in or you’ve been here for years, everybody is an ambassador. Everybody carries with them the responsibility to be an ambassador for those values and for our country. And every time you go out of the Embassy and you go down An Jia Lou Road, you carry with you those values and the face of America. And by the way, An Jia Lou Road is not named after Angelia Jolie. (Laughter.)

So when you go out and you promote American business in Pudong or right here in Beijing with a company like Xiaomi, or you show people the best of American effort to bring a company to America or to bring a company here, you are really engaged in the best of entrepreneurial spirit. And I want to emphasize how important that is in this globally, totally interconnected world that we are living in and working in and competing in. In this new world and new age that we’re living in, foreign policy is economic policy, and economic policy is foreign policy. And I say this all the time. I want every officer in the State Department to be an economic officer because that’s the world we’re living in.

And that is why what we are doing here today is really so important. This is – visas are a critical part of that interconnected world and high-speed business world that we live in. That is why I’m so proud to announce today that effective immediately – and we mean immediately, when I stop talking (laughter) – we will be issuing the first ten-year visas to Chinese tourists and business men and women on a reciprocal basis. I want to say a special thank you to our consular chief, Chuck Bennett, who’s over here, who’s worked so hard – and the whole consular section – to be able to make this possible.

With this announcement, we are making an important investment in our relationship, U.S.-China. And believe me, this will pay huge dividends for American and Chinese citizens, and it will strengthen both of our economies. Because of this, if you’re one of the 2 million Chinese or American citizens who travel between our countries every year – and that will grow, but if you’re one of those two million now, you will not have to reapply and pay the application fee every year. If you’re a business that operates in both China and the United States, you will be able to travel back and forth and develop your business, interview your employees, invest, travel, do all the things you need to do to grow your business, and you’ll do it with much greater ease, with less burden.

If you’re a businesswoman in Shanghai, for instance, and you need to suddenly go to a business meeting in San Francisco, you don’t have to wait and apply for a visa. You go to the – buy your ticket, go to the airport. (Laughter.) If you’re a grandparent from Chongqing, you don’t have to apply every single year or every time you want to go visit your grandchildren in Boston, for instance.

And I’m proud to say that this is just the latest step that the Obama Administration is taking in order to facilitate travel. Over the last years, we’ve increased staffing, we’ve changed our procedures, we’ve extended our hours, we’ve done enormous efforts in order to be able to make it easier for people to get a visa, to take less time, so that now we’ve kept the wait times for interview appointments in China under one week for the last three years. And most people are in and out of those interviews in less than an hour.

Now, I want to emphasize that visa validity is a two-way street. And that’s why we’re working very hard to make sure that ten-year Chinese visas will also be available within a very short time for people who want to travel to China. But let me emphasize: What I am talking about today, this ten-year proposal from America, is not a one-time deal; it’s not just for a short time, this is here, it’s here to stay. And this is not a reciprocal – it’s a long-term reciprocal arrangement, but when we say it’s here to stay, we mean it. We will issue a ten-year visa to qualified applicants tomorrow, next month, and next year, and that’s our commitment.

So I get to stand up here today and bring you the good news. And that’s my privilege as Secretary of State, but it’s the people behind these windows, and Chuck and his team and people back in Washington who work so hard in order to make this possible. And they’re the ones who will implement it each day and I want everybody here to say thank you to them for their (inaudible). Thank you. (Applause.)

So in a couple of moments we’re going to make history here. We’re going to issue some of the first ten-year visas to Chinese businessmen and women. So those of you who get the visas and all of you folks in the consular section here, you are literally helping to write the next great chapter of the history between the United States and China.

The Chinese have a beautiful saying: (In Chinese.) (Laughter.) “Follow the past, herald the future.” So that’s what brings us here today. And everybody here and millions of people out there, actually one billion-three, have a huge stake in this, as do the 330 million people in the United States of America. This will help to grow our economies, create more jobs, and to bring us together as friends, and I’m very proud to be here today to share in that. Thank you.

So Dan and Chuck, let’s help some businesspeople and create some jobs. (Applause.)

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS IN BEIJING, CHINA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Press Availability in Beijing, China
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
China National Convention Center
Beijing, China
November 8, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. I want to begin by thanking our Chinese hosts for their very, very warm welcome and for the depth and breadth of the discussions that we’ve been able to have at APEC this year.

This is my ninth trip to Asia and the Asia Pacific in the 21 months since I have served as Secretary of State. And I have returned again and again to this region for one simple reason: The United States is a Pacific nation, and we take our enduring interests here very seriously, our responsibilities likewise. We know that America’s security and prosperity are closely linked to the Asia Pacific, and that is why President Obama began the rebalance to Asia in 2009. It’s why he has asked me to redouble my own efforts in the region over the course of the next two years.

I’ve had a number of very productive bilateral meetings in the course of the last day here on the sidelines of the APEC conference with Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China and other Asia Pacific allies and partners, including Australia, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand. And both the Japanese and Chinese foreign ministers briefed me on the progress that they announced in their bilateral relations, and we, the United States, very much welcomed the reduction in tension between Asia’s two largest economies. I look forward to continuing these discussions and to deepening our partnerships with APEC economies when President Obama arrives on Monday for the APEC Leaders’ meetings here in Beijing. Excuse me.

To ensure that the partnerships that we talk about here at APEC are able to endure, it is really essential that we reach agreement on the rules of the road. And we need to do so through multilateral institutions where all voices can be heard. APEC is essential to upholding the rules-based system throughout the Asia Pacific. It is the best way to ensure that all of our economies, big and small economies, have a voice. And I am very pleased with the progress that we made this year on the regional economic integration and on strengthening connectivity and infrastructure development. The United States is very committed to working with our APEC partners in order to build stable regional economic order based on rules and norms that are reinforced by institutions. Our goal is to remove barriers to trade and investment so that businesses in all APEC economies can grow and create jobs and compete with other companies and other countries on an equal basis. APEC has and will continue to play a critical role in guaranteeing that.

Today, we also made important progress with China and other APEC economies on promoting women’s economic empowerment, combating corruption, supporting educational opportunities across borders, and advancing our commitment to clean energy. First, we launched the APEC Women and the Economy Dashboard. The dashboard will be a measure of progress across APEC economies on key issues for women’s economic empowerment. And it will allow us the ability to be able to measure education, leadership positions, opportunities for employment, all the different things that contribute to the ability to increase women’s empowerment in the economy. We also launched a Women’s Entrepreneurship in APEC Network. And that will link women entrepreneurs and business owners to each other and to supply chains all across the region. Frankly, that is good for business, it is good for workers, and it is good for all of our economies.

Second, we deepened our partnership with APEC economies on combating corruption. The principles that we adopted are clear and they are compelling. We are determined to prevent, detect, and effectively prosecute foreign bribery. We’re providing guidance to our businesses on how they could help prevent and detect corruption. And we are enhancing our law enforcement cooperation and we’re promoting the adoption of APEC business codes of ethics for small and medium enterprises. And we believe that this cooperation is a major step forward. Corruption not only creates an unfair playing field, it not only distorts economic relationships, but corruption also steals from the people of every country the belief that the system can work for everybody. So it is important that systems are transparent and accountable, and ultimately, that people at every level have an ability to have confidence that that system is working for everybody with the same set of rules.

We also made progress in education and clean energy. We launched an APEC scholarship, an internship initiative, to provide more educational opportunities for students in all APEC economies. We committed to doubling the share of renewables in the region’s energy banks by the year 2030. And we reaffirmed our commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. I can’t emphasize enough how critical it is for APEC to lead the way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We at last have an opportunity to put ourselves on the path to a clean energy future, and that is a path that is more essential than ever because of the urgent threat of global climate change. The solution to climate change is good energy policy. And we believe today, we helped in APEC to move APEC economies to a commitment in that direction.

These efforts complement and reinforce one another. Curtailing corruption makes our marketplace more efficient and more fair. Cutting fossil fuel subsidies creates a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. Enhanced opportunities for women affect and advance the cause of social justice and prosperity. And these are all separate fronts, but actually, all of them support a single, important goal: securing an equitable and sustainable future for all of our countries.

Finally, we also discussed a broad array of challenges, global challenges – from Daesh or ISIL, from the turmoil of the Middle East, from Ebola, to climate change, to the threat of terrorism in many different places. We all understand that Ebola is a global threat requiring global action, and I particularly want to thank Japan for providing an additional $100 million for treatment, prevention, and broader efforts that will promote stability in the hardest-hit countries. Over the last weeks under President Obama’s leadership, many countries have been coming together in an effort to try to create a greater response on Ebola. Many countries have responded remarkably and they’re contributing healthcare workers, they’re contributing construction materials, medical supplies, doctors, nurses, experts, technicians, laboratories, beds, hospital equipment. Every country has an ability to do something, and we are grateful for those that are, but we need more countries to still do more.

And I want to emphasize, across the board, as a planet, all of us on this globe are not yet doing enough to be able to curb and eradicate the threat of Ebola. There are hundreds of new cases each week, and the UN has identified $1 billion in urgent needs. In my meetings over the past two days, I urged all of our APEC partners to help to meet that need with specific efforts along the lines that I just described. So we hope the response will grow, and obviously, out of that can come an enormous example of the ability of countries to come together. What we do against Ebola can actually be a model for what we can do against any other future challenge of similar kind. So this is not a one-time lost moment; this is something that can serve all of us to build a long-term infrastructure to deal with the potential of any communicable disease that can move across boundaries and borders at any time.

With that, I would be happy to answer a few questions.

MS. HARF: Our first question is from Carol Morello of The Washington Post, and there is a microphone for you too, if you’ll just hold on one second.

QUESTION: Could you provide some more details on your discussions this morning with Mr. Lavrov, specifically about Ukraine and Iran? Did he provide any assurances that Russia is committed to upholding the Minsk agreement, particularly when it comes to sending troops and tanks into Luhansk? And if there is credible evidence to the contrary, how would the U.S. respond? New sanctions or something else?

On Iran, did he assess what he considers the prospects for a November 24th agreement? And what is your sense, given the correspondence between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei, that Iran is prepared to make a deal given they – the fact they still refuse to be transparent regarding current and past use of nuclear materials?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov was a very in-depth meeting in which we discussed a number of different crises in the following context: Obviously, the United States and Russia have some clear differences and some clear disagreements about certain policies at this point in time. And we discussed, obviously, those disagreements. But we also know that we need to find the places where we can agree and cooperate because it is important for the world to do so.

With respect to Iran, Russia has been a constructive, engaged, serious partner in the effort to try to find a solution to a problem that is not – that shouldn’t lend itself to other disagreements, but which has enormous impact for everybody and which is strategically important not just to the United States or the P5+1, but to all countries, and which can have a profound impact on nonproliferation for the long term. So Russia has been working as a constructive participant in the P5+1 process. They have made various suggestions that have helped to move the process along. And we are hopeful that over the course of the next weeks, it will be possible to close real gaps that still exist in order to be able to reach an agreement, but I’m not going to stand here and predict at this point in time what the odds of that are.

I also want to make this very, very clear: No one, to my knowledge, has confirmed or denied whether or not there is a letter or was a letter, and I’m not going to comment on what the President of the United States and a leader of another country may or may not communicate – may or may not communicate privately. I will tell you this, though: No conversation, no agreement, no exchange, nothing has created any kind of a deal or agreement with respect to any of the events that are at stake in the Middle East. There is no linkage whatsoever of the nuclear discussions with any other issue, and I want to make that absolutely clear. The nuclear negotiations are on their own, they are standing separate from anything else, and no discussion has ever taken place about linking one thing to another, one involvement with another, that I am aware of. And I’m confident I am aware of what the President has been doing and saying with respect to this issue.

The issue of Ukraine we discussed, obviously, at length, but we also discussed Syria, we discussed the Middle East peace process, we discussed other issues of concern. Suffice it to say that we do have some disagreements about some of the facts on the ground with respect to Ukraine. We have agreed to exchange some information between us regarding that. And we have also agreed that this is a dialogue that will continue. But the issue of sanctions or other issues obviously have been made clear, are that the choices Russia makes will decide what happens with respect to sanctions in the long run here.

And our hope is still that the process of the Minsk agreements can go forward, that they will be implemented, and that it will be possible over time, with their implementation, to see the border sealed, to see the troops withdrawn, and to see stability restored in a way that allows everybody to move down a path of de-escalation. But it really is up to the events over the course of the next weeks to determine whether or not that happens.

MS. HARF: Great. Our final question is from Hu Ling of Phoenix TV. The mike is coming.

QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary. I come from Hong Kong, Phoenix TV. My question --

SECRETARY KERRY: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, sorry. My question concern about the China and Japan relationship. You have also mentioned about a little bit in your final (inaudible) speech, and I wonder how you – what’s your comment on the agreement reached by China and Japan, and that they finally made the top leader meeting during the APEC time? And also, do you think it’s come to a release – relief for U.S. and also other Asia country? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: What was the last part of the question? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Sorry, I do wonder, the meeting – the top leader meeting welcomes to relief for U.S. and also other neighboring country in Asia? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: The top leader meeting in – between --

QUESTION: Yeah, between China and Japan.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I discussed this new agreement with both Foreign Minister Wang Yi and also with Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan. And both of them explained to me what they believe they have achieved in the four points with respect to the agreement between them. I want to be clear that the United States welcomes this initiative. We think that any steps that the two countries can take to improve the relationship and reduce the tensions is helpful not just to those two countries, but it’s helpful to the region.

And I think it’s entirely appropriate that that particular discussion took place here at APEC, which frankly is becoming not just a place to discuss economic ideas, but also to reflect on the fact that today, the ability of economics to work requires stability and a peaceful process in place. So I think that security issues are also automatically on the table. So to have this emerge from this meeting, I think, is important.

Now this agreement is a beginning; it’s not an end. It’s the outline of steps that now need to be taken in order to really define how certain tensions are going to really be resolved. So it will be over time that this will be given a little more meat on the bones. But we absolutely appreciate the initial effort, we think it’s very constructive, and we have hopes that it can lead to a greater definition and to a reduction further of any conflict or tension in the region.

MS. HARF: Great. Thank you all very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY IN PARIS, FRANCE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Press Availability in Paris, France
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Chief of Mission Residence
Paris, France
November 5, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Well good evening, and thank you for being here. It’s a pleasure for me to be back in Paris on my way to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Beijing. And in the meantime, I was able to have a number of important and constructive meetings here today, particularly with Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of France and also with Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh of Jordan.

I want to express my appreciation to Minister Fabius for his generous welcome and for his hosting us here today in Paris, and I’m particularly pleased with the extent and breadth of the discussion that we were able to have.

I’m also able to welcome – though she isn’t here right now because she was presenting her credentials in Monaco today – but I want to welcome our new ambassador to France, Jane Hartley and just mention I know Jane. And whether it’s been as a top staffer at the Department of Housing and Urban Development or at the White House, in the private sector, she comes here with a huge understanding of our country and the values that we stand for, and also with a huge commitment to public service which has been enduring over a long period of time. And we’re delighted to have her in Paris, finally, to continue and to deepen the partnership with the oldest alliance that the United States has.

Foreign Minister Fabius and I covered a lot of ground in our discussion this afternoon, and we went through – particularly focused on, among other things, the nuclear negotiations with Iran, our shared fight against ISIL, the complications of Syria, the challenges of Syria, the Mideast peace process itself; as well as other subjects such as turning the tide on Ebola, the situation in Lebanon, and of course, the larger issues of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace; and particularly the challenge of Ukraine and the implementation of the Minsk agreement.

Nowhere is the mission of a Europe that is whole and free and at peace more clear at this particular moment than in the challenge of Ukraine. The United States and France remain deeply committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty, to its territorial integrity. And the parliamentary elections in Ukraine last month were a very bold and very clear statement about the choice for change that the people of Ukraine have made. They want an inclusive, accountable government, and they made it clear that they also want a future that was connected to Europe. They want a European future, as well as respect for their sovereignty and their right of choice.

As I discussed with President Poroshenko, who I talked to while I was flying here yesterday, we are concerned, obviously, about the lack of follow-through on some aspects of the Minsk agreement. And I particularly urged President Poroshenko to take the next step by naming a broadly inclusive governing coalition and articulating a concrete reform agenda in order to address the voters’ demands that they expressed in their election for a transparent, open government; a clean, modern judiciary; long-term energy security; and strengthening the investment climate, among other priorities.

We also talked about the need to continue to take the high road of adhering to the Minsk agreement, and not to fall into the possibility invited by measures taken by Russia to engage in a tit-for-tat process. I think President Poroshenko could not have been more clear about his determination to maintain that high moral ground, to continue to press for the implementation of Minsk, to continue to press for the ability of the people of Ukraine to determine their future, and he expressed his desire to honor the special law with respect to the separatist’s desires within Luhansk and Donetsk, but he wants to do so within the context of the process that had been agreed upon. It is essential to resolving the conflict in eastern Ukraine and the country’s other challenges that they take transparent political steps to bring people to the political process in a way that resolves the conflict, not exacerbates it.

By contrast, unlawful voting in eastern Ukraine over the weekend is a blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and the Minsk agreement. And President Obama has been clear, as have I during my conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov, that neither the United States nor the international community will recognize the results. The only legitimate local elections in Donetsk and Luhansk will be those that conform with Ukrainian law and with the Minsk agreement, and that is where the focus of Ukrainians, Russians, and the international community should be.

We also call on Russia and its proxies in eastern Ukraine to end the violence around Mariupol and the Donetsk airport and to enforce the ceasefire and to begin working in good faith on restoring Ukrainian control over the international air border. And the President and I have repeatedly said if the Minsk agreement is fully implemented, sanctions can be rolled back; and if it isn’t and violations continue, pressure will only increase. The choice is Russia’s.

So Foreign Minister Fabius and I also spent a good deal of time discussing the EU-coordinated P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran. The United States and France remain in lockstep with our international partners on the importance of making certain that Iran does not have a pathway to a nuclear weapon. This is the policy of the international community, of everybody, and of the United Nations as expressed through a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

With the November 24th deadline rapidly approaching, I will travel to Oman later this week to meet with Foreign Minister Zarif and Cathy Ashton. A unified P5+1 has put on the table creative ideas to be able to achieve our objective, and now we will see if Iran is able to match the public words that they are prepared to prove to the world that they have a peaceful program, to match those words with the tough and the courageous decisions that need to be made by all of us. The time is now to make those decisions.

And during my meetings today with Foreign Minister Fabius and Foreign Minister Judeh, I also discussed the best way to coordinate international efforts against the ISIL threat. The size and strength of ISIL demands a broad-based coalition. The nature of their actions demands a broad-based coalition. And we are working intensively with our partners along five reinforcing lines of effort to shrink ISIL’s territory, cut off its financing, stop the flow of foreign fighters, expose the hypocrisy of its absurd religious claims, and provide humanitarian aid to the victims of its aggression.

More than 60 countries have come forward with critical commitments and many others have expressed strong opposition to ISIL’s campaign of terror and of horror. The world is united against this threat, and President Obama’s strategy will succeed because doing it with allies and partners isn’t just smart, it is absolutely essential and it is the strong way to deal with this challenge. And I will continue to work to build support for the coalition at the APEC meeting in Beijing.

In my conversation with Foreign Minister Judeh, we also discussed the increasing tensions recently in areas across Jerusalem, and particularly surrounding the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. We condemn the terrorist attack in Jerusalem this morning that killed at least one person when a car was driven wantonly, purposefully into pedestrians. And the confrontation at the al-Aqsa Mosque is also of particular concern where reports of damage are deeply disturbing. Holy sites should not become the sites of tension, and concrete steps need to be taken now by all sides to de-escalate this situation.

We also note the importance of the special role of Jordan in the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem, a role confirmed in the Jordan-Israel treaty of peace. And we obviously believe that peace between Israel and Jordan is central to stability in the region, and we are in touch with both sides on this matter and hope that all parties will draw back and reduce these tensions.

Finally, the United States is committed to intensify every aspect of our engagement in the challenge of Ebola, and we call on our international partners to join in doing the same. We are deeply appreciative of the contributions that so many have made. We’re deeply appreciative of the contributions France has made, and we appreciate the leadership that they are taking particularly with respect to Guinea.

I’ve been making phone calls each day to counterparts in order to try to encourage concrete steps from one country or another. Each country may choose to do something different. But the important point to make is that no one country is going to resolve this by itself. This needs to be a global initiative, a global effort. And we believe that already the steps that we are taking is having impact that can be measured. And literally, we are raising this issue in every single bilateral meeting that we are having.

So I am very proud that the people of the United States have contributed more than $360 million to the response effort; directly to the response, another billion-plus to the military deployment of our folks who are over there now putting themselves at risk in order to build the capacity to be able to help to deal with this. We are delivering support in some very unique ways that only the American military is able to provide.

But we know, as I said a moment ago, even that will not be able to do it on its own. Every country has a contribution to be able to make of people, of money, of humanitarian assistance, medical supplies, beds, airlift. There are countless ways to be able to help, and we hope that more yet will join in that initiative. Everything that we do literally depends on how we all coordinate together, and I want to thank our many partners in this effort for the tremendous contributions from as far away as China and in Asia, to those right in the epicenter in Africa who are helping to fight back.

With that, I’d be very happy to take any questions.

MS. HARF: Great. The first question is from Pam Dockins of Voice of America. And wait, the mike will be coming to you. We only have one mike.

SECRETARY KERRY: Excuse me? Oh, we only have one mike.

PARTICIPANT: (Off-mike.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Good.

QUESTION: Clearly, the Iran nuclear talks were front and center for you today. Can the negotiations go past the November 24th deadline, and what is the likelihood of that happening? Additionally, is there a new urgency to reach an agreement before the new Republican majority in the Senate takes over? And then finally, also, how do you see last night’s election results impacting U.S. foreign policy and America’s standing with the rest of the world?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you. On the issue of the Iran nuclear talks, we are gearing up and targeting November 24th. We’re not talking about or thinking about going beyond that date. That’s a critical date. And we believe it is imperative for a lot of different reasons to get this done. Most people don’t understand why, if you’re simply trying to show that a program is peaceful, it would take so long. People want to know that the transparency and accountability necessary to get this done is on the table, and we ought to be able to reach agreement. So our press is to try to get this done. And I think that it gets more complicated if you can’t. It’s not impossible if you’re not able to, but I think let’s see what happens when we bear down as we are.

An enormous amount of work has gone into this. For months upon months, we’ve had expert teams sitting down, working through details, looking at all of the technical information that is necessary to be able to make a judgment about what the impact of a particular decision is. Some of it’s very complicated, and we’ve tried to reduce it to as simple and understandable a format as possible. And it’s been very constructive. The Iranian team has worked hard and seriously. The conversations have been civil and expert.

And my hope is that now is the moment for really political decisions to be made that make a judgment that we can show the world that countries with differing views, differing systems, but with a mutual interest of trying to prove a peaceful program can in fact do that and get the job done. So we’re very hopeful about that, and I have every intent of making myself available and doing everything necessary to try to do that. And I’m confident that Foreign Minister Zarif will likewise make himself available and continue to push forward.

On the subject of the elections, let me just say that it was 10 years ago this afternoon that I conceded in a race for the presidency. And I have nothing but the greatest respect for the American political electoral process. There are winners and there are losers. Sometimes it’s your friends; sometimes it’s yourself. What you learn, if you’re in the process, is nothing but respect for the voters and for the system.

Now, I’m out of politics now. I’m in a different role, and I’m not going to comment on the – any of the political aspects of it, except to say that America will remain joined together with a strong voice with respect to our foreign policy. Our values are our values, shared by all Americans, and they are at the core of American foreign policy and of what we try hard to enforce and stand up for and advocate about around the world. That will not change. Sometimes there’s a different view or another about a particular subject, but in our process, traditionally the United States of America has been strongest when partisanship is left at the water’s edge and we stand up for America’s interests. I’m confident that is what will continue to happen over the course of these next months.

The one thing I would ask for with this election is I hope that, now that the election is over, the 60 outstanding nominees who have been the prisoner of the political process for these past – over a year now will be able to be passed very, very quickly. Thirty-nine of them are already on the Senate calendar. And some of them, I might say – I happen to have it here with me right now, no accident – well, one of them has been waiting 477 days, 473 days to be passed. Another, 466 days; another, 460 days; another, 460 – 460, 460, 418, 418, 399 – excuse me, 382. And yes, 399.

So I mean, I could run through a long list here. These are professionals. These are career people. They got kids. They need to know where they’re going to school. They need to be able to go out and do their jobs. My hope is that with this election now, in the next days when Congress comes back, I really hope that they will get affirmed very quickly in a bloc form or otherwise, because I think they deserve it, and I think our country is stronger and better served when we have the full team on the playing field.

MS. HARF: Our final question is from Lara Jakes of the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Thanks. I wanted to ask you about the Mideast peace process, but wondering if you would mind clarifying something you just said about the Iran negotiations. You said we ought to be able to reach an agreement; it gets more complicated if you can’t, but it’s not impossible. So the question was: Do you see these negotiations going past November 24th? Are you saying it’s not impossible for them to go past November 24th?

SECRETARY KERRY: What I’m saying is we have no intention at this point of talking about an extension, and we’re not contemplating an extension. If we were inches away, and most of the logical, achievable, expectable – expected issues are dealt with, but you have some details you just got to fill in, could I see a – under those circumstances, perhaps. But it would depend entirely on what’s outstanding. If big issues are hanging out there that are really fundamental and pretty simple, no, I don’t. I think that under those circumstances, something’s wrong. And so we’re going to have to see. And I think if it becomes more complicated to manage in terms of externals, if it is prolonged for reasons that are harder to explain – that’s the point I’m making.

So we have no expectation of a continuation. We’re not – I’m not contemplating it. I want to get this done. I think they do. I think the team does. And we are driving towards the finish with a view to trying to get it done.

QUESTION: But it gets more complicated with Republicans controlling the House and the Senate.

SECRETARY KERRY: No, it’s not a question – no, it has no – I don’t believe that changes either side. I honestly don’t. I believe that the same substantive issues would be there regardless of who is in control of the United States Senate. And remember, the United States Senate is still going to be subject to 60 votes to pass anything. So while it may be Republican or Democrat, it’s still subject to 60 votes. And as we have learned in the last few years, the minority has enormous power to stop things from happening, so this really is going to depend on other things. That is not what I am referring to. What is complicated is managing internal expectations in other places outside of us that may or may not have a profound impact on the longer term.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I go back to my original question about Mideast peace? I appreciate your indulgence. You met today with former Prime Minister Tony Blair; you expressed concerns about continued Israeli settlements after your meeting with Foreign Minister Fabius. And then you heard Foreign Minister Judeh call for a new round of Mideast peace talks.

At this point, how do players from the U.S., France, Britain, and Jordan convince Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table? Do you see this happening anytime within the next three to six months? And how harshly do you expect the international community to respond to the new settlements? Also, if you have any readout on your meeting with Mr. Blair, we’d appreciate it.

SECRETARY KERRY: So we got three more questions there as an add-on, right?

QUESTION: You know – (laughter) --

QUESTION: You see this (inaudible).

QUESTION: You read that whole list of numbers, so this is my payback. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: I’m actually not – let me just say this, that Foreign Minister Judeh very effectively said that the only way to resolve these issues of the Middle East, whether it’s the Haram al-Sharif, the Mount – the Temple Mount, the issues of East Jerusalem, the issues of settlements, the issues – the only way to resolve them is through a negotiated settlement in the end.

As President Obama said very directly at the United Nations in his speech a few weeks ago, there is nothing sustainable about the status quo, and we’re seeing that unfold. It’s not sustainable. So we need to get back to those negotiations. But I am not going to speculate and I’m not going to get into any of the internals of what those expectations are or aren’t. I think it’s important to leave space here politically for the leaders to be able to make their decisions in the next days. We are in touch. I’m talking constantly with all of the leaders involved in this issue, both immediately and tangentially in the neighborhood, and we’re going to continue to be pressing forward.

Obviously, we’ve all been reading about the potential of issues going to the United Nations at some point in time, and individual countries have already engaged in their own initiatives – Sweden, Great Britain, and others may. But for the moment, I think my role is better defined by saying less rather than more with respect to what the expectations may or may not be and what we may or may not do.

Thank you all.

MS. HARF: Great, thank you very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: Appreciate it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all.

QUESTION: And their building activity?

SECRETARY KERRY: You know we’re opposed. We’ve said that very clearly.

QUESTION: Your meeting with Mr. Blair – is it on Mideast?

SECRETARY KERRY: Among other things.

MS. HARF: Thank you. Thank you, guys.

QUESTION: There’s no more misunderstanding with Mr. Netanyahu (inaudible)?

QUESTION: Only tonight?

SECRETARY KERRY: No, no, no. That’s not --

MS. HARF: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS ON U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks on U.S.-China Relations
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Washington, DC
November 4, 2014


SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Dean Nasr. I’ve had the privilege of knowing Vali for a while. When I was in the Senate, he was a very valuable advisor, and I can remember coming down to the State Department and meeting with him and with Richard Holbrooke and others in the early days of working on what was then called AfPak – Afghanistan, Pakistan, and particularly Afghanistan. So Vali, thank you for your journey. Thanks for imparting your wisdom here at SAIS.
And thank you all very, very much here at SAIS for allowing me to come here today to share a few thoughts with you about this special relationship with China, an important relationship. And I’m happy to be here, staring at a lot of mobile devices. (Laughter.) It’s a whole new world out there. I’ll tell you, when I ran for president in 2004 I never saw this barrage of rectangular devices facing you when you were talking. (Laughter.) It was usually just one, and it was the opposition guy, listening to everything you said in order to get you into trouble, if you didn’t get yourself into trouble.

Anyway, I’m getting ready to leave in a very few hours – in fact, I go directly from here to the airport – on a typical Secretary of State journey – to Paris this evening, meetings tomorrow, then to Beijing, to Muscat, discussions on Iran nuclear program, then back to Beijing for bilateral meetings with the Chinese Government, then back to somewhere, perhaps Washington, but at this moment, with a lot of things in the air, it’s hard to say. So it’s nice for me to get a chance before I take off to talk substance with all of you and to talk about a critical issue before I depart.

This school was founded during World War II by Paul Nitze and Christian Herter, both of whom I’m very proud to say were from Massachusetts. (Laughter.) They could – they had a great skill, those of you who have read about them, to see that even then, the world was going to be a fundamentally changed place after World War II and that foreign policy makers would need to change with it, not just to keep pace but to set the pace, to express a vision, to be able to see over the horizon and define how the United States would stay strong and lead and join with other countries, increasingly in empowering those other countries. And we did with the Marshall Plan, which as many of you may know, was unpopular at the time, but succeeded in rebuilding whole nations, creating democracies, and setting a new direction.

The world has continued to change in the 70-plus years since, almost certainly in ways that Herter and Nitze could only have dreamed of. And it has changed, I might say, for the better, despite the headlines and the challenges of religious, radical extremism and terrorism. It has nevertheless changed for the better in large measure precisely because of the careful and creative analysis that these men so believed and hoped would, in fact, shape a world that is more free, more prosperous, and more humane. And despite the headlines and places of tension, the world is, in fact, those things.

The great American philosopher Yogi Berra once said, “It’s tough to make predications, especially about the future.” (Laughter.) He really said that. (Laughter.) While I am reminded that speculating about the future is obviously always risky, there are two predictions that I am very certain about. The Asia Pacific is one of the most promising places on the planet, and America’s future and security and prosperity are closely and increasingly linked to that region.

Back in August, when I was returning from a trip to Burma and Australia, I delivered a speech at the East-West Center in Honolulu about President Obama’s rebalance towards the Asia Pacific and the enormous value that we place on longstanding alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines and our bourgeoning relationships with ASEAN and countries in Southeast Asia. In that speech, I outlined four specific opportunities that define the rebalance, goals if you will.

First, the opportunity to create sustainable economic growth, which includes finalizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP is not only a trade agreement, but also a strategic opportunity for the United States and other Pacific nations to come together, to bind together, so that we can all prosper together. Second, powering a clean energy revolution that will help us address climate change while simultaneously jumpstarting economies around the world. Third, reducing tensions and promoting regional cooperation by strengthening the institutions and reinforcing the norms that contribute to a rules-based, stable region. And fourth, empowering people throughout the Asia Pacific to live with dignity, security, and opportunity.

These are our goals for the rebalance. These are the objectives that we are working to pursue. And we are working together with our allies and our partners across Asia. And these are the goals that the President will discuss with other leaders next week at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Beijing and also at the East Asia Summit that follows in Burma.

The goal of the rebalance is not a strategic initiative to affect one nation or push people in any direction. It is an inclusive invitation to join in this march towards prosperity, dignity, and stability for countries. I can reaffirm today that the Obama Administration is absolutely committed to seeing through all of these goals.

But there should be no doubt that a key component of our rebalance strategy is also about strengthening U.S-China relations. Why? Because a stronger relationship between our two nations will benefit not just the United States and China, not just the Asia Pacific, but the world. One of the many very accomplished alumni of this school is China’s Ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai, and we’re delighted that he’s here today. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for being here with us.

Ambassador Cui spoke at SAIS about one year ago and he described the U.S.-China relationship as, quote, “the most important as well as the most sensitive, the most comprehensive as well as the most complex, and the most promising as well as the most challenging.” All of those attributes are true, but I would respectfully add one more to that list: The U.S.-China relationship is the most consequential in the world today, period, and it will do much to determine the shape of the 21st century.

That means that we have to get it right. Since President Obama first took office, that’s exactly what he has focused on doing. What he has worked to build over the past six years and what we are committed to advancing over the next two as well is a principled and productive relationship with China. That’s why he and I have both met each with our Chinese counterparts in person dozens of times. It’s why President Obama hosted the Sunnylands summit last June, shortly after President Xi took office. It’s why a couple of weeks ago, I invited Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi and the ambassador and others in his delegation to my hometown of Boston, where we spent a day and a half together charting new opportunities for our bilateral relationship. And it’s why I will join the President in China next week on what will be my fourth trip to the country since I became Secretary of State less than two years ago.

The sheer size of China and its economy, coupled with the rapid and significant changes that are taking place there, means that our relationship by definition has vast potential. As two of the world’s major powers and largest economies, we have a profound opportunity to set a constructive course on any number of issues, from climate change to global trade, and obviously, we have a fundamental interest in doing so. For that reason, our relationship has to be carefully managed and guided – not by news hooks and grand gestures, but by a long-term strategic vision, by hard work, by good diplomacy, and by good relationships.

It’s important to remember that not too long ago U.S.-China ties were centered on a relatively narrow set of bilateral and regional matters. But today, thanks to focused diplomacy on both sides, the leadership President Obama and President Xi have displayed, our nations are collaborating to tackle some of the most complex global challenges that the world has ever seen. And we’re able to do that because together our nations are working closely in order to avoid the historic pitfall of strategic rivalry between an emerging power and an existing power. Instead, we’re focused on the steps that we need to ensure that we not only coexist, but that we cooperate.

America’s China policy is really built on two pillars: Constructively managing our differences – and there are differences – and just as constructively coordinating our efforts on the wide range of issues where our interests are aligned. Now make no mistake, we are clear-eyed about the fact that the United States and China are markedly different countries. We have different political systems, different histories, different cultures, and most importantly, different views on certain significant issues. And the leaders of both nations believe it is important to put our disagreements on the table, talk through them, and manage and then work to narrow the differences over time. And these debates, frankly, don’t take place in the spotlight, and much of what we say usually doesn’t end up in the headlines. But I assure you that tough issues are discussed at length whenever our leaders come together.

And when we talk about managing our differences, that is not code for agree to disagree. For example, we do not simply agree to disagree when it comes to maritime security, especially in the South and East China Seas. The United States is not a claimant, and we do not take a position on the various territorial claims of others. But we take a strong position on how those claims are pursued and how those disputes are going to be resolved. So we are deeply concerned about mounting tension in the South China Sea and we consistently urge all the parties to pursue claims in accordance with international law, to exercise self-restraint, to peacefully resolve disputes, and to make rapid, meaningful progress to complete a code of conduct that will help reduce the potential for conflict in the years to come. And the United States will work, without getting involved in the merits of the claim, on helping that process to be effectuated, because doing so brings greater stability, brings more opportunity for cooperation in other areas.

We do not agree to disagree when it comes to cyber issues. We’ve been very clear about how strongly we object to any cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets and other sensitive information from our companies, whoever may be doing it. And we are convinced that it is in China’s interest to help put an end to this practice. Foreign companies will invest more in China if they can be confident that when they do their intellectual property will be safeguarded. Chinese markets will be more attractive to international industries if China shows that it’s serious about addressing global cyber concerns. And China’s own industries will only prosper if they are generating their own intellectual property, ultimately, and if their government enforces the rules fully and fairly for everybody. The United States is committed to using an open and frank dialogue to help build trust and develop common rules of the road on those pressing economic and security challenges.

And we certainly do not agree to disagree when it comes to human rights. The United States will always advocate for all countries to permit their citizens to express their grievances freely, publicly, peacefully, and without fear of retribution. That’s why we’ve spoken out about the situation in Hong Kong and human rights issues elsewhere in China, because respect for fundamental freedoms is now and always has been a centerpiece of American foreign policy, and because we have seen again and again that respect for rule of law and the protection of human rights are essential to any country’s long-term growth, prosperity, and stability, and to their respect in the world.

Let me be clear: The United States will never shy away from articulating our deeply held values or defending our interests, our allies, and our partners throughout the region. And China is well aware of that. But the relationship between our two countries has developed and matured significantly over time. Our differences will undoubtedly continue to test the relationship; they always do, between people, between families, between countries. But they should not, and in fact, must not prevent us from acting cooperatively in other areas.

So what are those areas? Where are the great opportunities? Well, it starts with economics. Thirty-five years ago when diplomatic relations began between the United States and China, trade between our two countries was virtually nonexistent. Today, our businesses exchange nearly $600 billion in goods and services every single year. Our mutual investments are close to $100 billion. You read a lot about American businesses going over to China. Well, let me tell you something. The truth is that today, even more Chinese businesses are setting up shop in the United States. And we welcome that. In fact, we do a lot to encourage Chinese investment here, while our embassies and consulates in China are simultaneously doing great work in order to identify opportunities for American companies over there.

Even as U.S. and Chinese businesses compete in the marketplace, we each have a huge stake in the economic health of the other. And the fact is that the world as a whole has a huge stake in the economic vibrancy of both China and the United States. That is why we’re focused on enhancing trade and investment between our countries, including through the ongoing negotiations of a high-standard bilateral investment treaty. Established rules of the road that do more to protect businesses and investors on both sides of the Pacific will help both of our economies to be able to continue to grow and to prosper. One recent study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that if we’re able to open up trade and investment significantly, our countries could share gains of almost half a trillion dollars a year.

So let me underscore: Our aligned interests are more than just economic and cooperation is more than just commercial. As China pursues interests well beyond the Asia Pacific, there is both opportunity and necessity to coordinate our efforts to address global security concerns. Our shared efforts to respond to the global threat of climate change are a perfect example. The UN climate report that was released over this last weekend is another wakeup call to everybody. The science could not be clearer. Our planet is warming and it is warming due to our actions, human input. And the damage is already visible, and it is visible at a faster and greater rate than scientists predicted. That’s why there’s cause for alarm, because everything that they predicted is happening, but happening faster and happening to a greater degree. The solutions are within reach, but they will require ambitious, decisive, and immediate action.

Last year in Beijing, State Councilor Yang and I launched the U.S.-China Climate Change Working Group, which is already engaged in pilot projects, policy exchanges, and more. We raised the climate change issue to the ministerial level so that we would be dealing with it on an ongoing high-level basis. And we’ve also been engaged since then in constant discussions aimed at ensuring that the global community can do everything possible to be able to reach a successful, ambitious climate agreement when we all meet in Paris next year. In February, we announced plans to exchange information and to discuss policies to develop respective plans to strengthen domestic emissions targets for the 2015 UN climate negotiations, what I just referred to. And by the way, we’ll be meeting shortly in Lima, Peru as the lead-up to this particular meeting next year in Paris. So there’s a lot of work going into this.

Next year, countries are supposed to come forward with their stated goals. And we hope that the partnership between China and the United States can help set an example for global leadership and for the seriousness of purpose on those targets and on the negotiations overall. If the two countries that together are nearing 50 percent of all the emissions in the world, which happen to be also the two largest economies in the world – if they can come together and show seriousness of purpose, imagine what the impact could be on the rest of the world. The United States and China are the two largest consumers of energy, and we are the world’s two largest emitters of global greenhouse gases. Together, we account for that roughly – it’s about 45 percent and climbing, unfortunately.

So we need to solve this problem together. Why? Because neither one of us can possibly solve it alone. Even if every single American biked to work or carpooled to school or used only solar panels to power their homes – if we reduced our emissions to zero, if we planted each of us in America a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to counteract the carbon pollution coming from China and the rest of the world. And the same would be true for China if they reduced everything and we continued. We would wipe out their gains; they would wipe out our gains. Because today, if even one or two major economies neglects to respond to this threat, it will erase the good work done everywhere else.

Never before has there been a greater urgency to countries around the world coming together to meet what is not just an environmental threat but an economic threat, a security threat, a health threat, and a security threat because we will see refugees in certain parts of the country displaced by vast changes in the ability to grow food, the ability to receive water, and the ability to survive, and that will change the nature of security and conflict in the world. That’s the reality of what we’re up against. And that’s why it is so imperative that the United States and China lead the world with genuine reductions that put us on a path to real progress.

The good news is that our shared responsibility to address climate change brings with it one of the greatest economic opportunities in history. With shared responsibility can come shared prosperity. The solution to climate change is as clear as the problem itself. And it’s not somewhere out there, pie in the sky, over the horizon, impossible to grab ahold of; it’s staring us in the face. The solution is energy policy. It’s as simple as that. Make the right choices in your energy policy, you solve the problem of climate change.

Guess what? You also happen to kick your economies into gear. You produce millions of jobs. You create economic opportunity unlike any that we have ever known, because the global energy market of the future is poised to be the largest market the world has ever known. Between now and 2035, investment in the sector is expected to reach nearly $17 trillion. The market that made everybody wealthy in America – everybody saw their income go up in the 1990s, and the greatest wealth in the history of our nation was created in the 1990s. It was a $1 trillion market with one billion users. The energy market is a $6 trillion market with four to five billion users today, and it’s going to grow to maybe nine billion users over the next 30, 40, 50 years. Think of that. Seventeen trillion dollars is more than the entire GDP of China and India combined. And with a few smart choices, together we can ensure that clean energy is the most attractive investment in the global energy sector and that entrepreneurs around the world can prosper as they help us innovate our way out of this mess and towards a healthier planet.

And none of this will happen if we don’t make it happen. How our two countries lead – China and the United States – or don’t lead on climate and clean energy will make the difference as to whether or not we’re able to fully take advantage of this unprecedented economic opportunity and whether the world is able to effectively address climate change and the threat that it poses to global security, prosperity, and health.

Our cooperation also makes a difference when it comes to nuclear proliferation. We are very encouraged by China’s serious engagement on the Iran negotiations as a full partner in the P5+1, and we’re very hopeful that working more closely together the United States and China will ultimately bring North Korea to the realization that its current approach is leading to a dead end, and the only path that will bring it security and prosperity is to make real progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. Our cooperation there also can make a difference.

It can also make a difference in countering violent extremist groups like ISIL, which seek to harm people in every corner of the globe. And it can help in bringing stability to places like Afghanistan, where today we are partnering to support political cohesiveness and prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a safe haven for terrorists. We welcome China’s role as a critical player in the Afghan region. And just last week, in fact, President Ghani, our Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Dan Feldman, and President Obama’s counselor John Podesta all traveled to Beijing to participate in a conference focused on supporting Afghan peace and reconstruction.

And as we’ve seen recently with the Ebola epidemic, China has also shown that it is prepared to take on a bigger role in addressing international crises – including those that emerge far from Asia, even those on the opposite side of the globe. We’re very grateful that China has committed more than $130 million to date in aid and supplies to help address the Ebola crisis. And last week, China announced its plans to dispatch a unit from the People’s Liberation Army to Liberia to help manage the crisis. That’s global leadership, and it’s important, and that cooperation with us is more than welcome.

We all need to do more, and fast. But the kind of support from China that we’ve seen is critical, and it speaks to China’s understanding of global interests and responsibilities. The fact is that among the major threats and crises that face the world today, there really isn’t one that couldn’t be addressed more effectively with expanded U.S.-China cooperation.

But as State Councilor Yang and I discussed earlier this month in Boston, with China engaged more and more on the global stage, our cooperation can also be used to seize opportunities for change and for growth, like the many opportunities for development in Africa, Central America, and other parts of Asia. And we talked about that in Boston, about the possibility of the United States and China cooperating on specific development targets.

There are countries across these regions where both China and the United States are already deeply invested. If we double-down on coordinating our assistance and development work, if we ensure that our approaches are complementary and coordinated, we can bring more communities into the 21st century faster, we could help millions of families lift themselves out of poverty, we can give more people across the world the tools and the data to shape their own future. And as we help more countries to make the transition from foreign aid to foreign trade, we’ll all benefit in terms of economic growth, expanded export markets, job creation, and ultimately, the stability and the prosperity and the dignity that comes from that. Beyond that, as these regions become more prosperous, believe me, they’re going to become more stable. And that, in the end, means we can all be more secure.

The bottom line is this: The United States and China comprise one quarter of the global population. We make up one third of the global economy. We generate one fifth of the global trade. And when we are pulling in the same direction on any issue, we can bend the curve in a way that few other nations on Earth can accomplish.

Between governments, we’re doing more than ever in order to ensure that that is the case. Jack Lew, our Secretary of Treasury, and I meet regularly with our counterparts in the Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China. Today, although we have more than a hundred different bilateral dialogues on everything from trade to transportation, we are, in fact, focused at the highest level on a regular basis.

But I’ll tell you, if this relationship is going to live up to its full potential, government-to-government cooperation alone is not enough. We have to continue also to deepen our people-to-people ties. A recent poll indicated that Americans view China less favorably than they did just a few years ago, and vice versa; Chinese view us less favorably. So obviously, we need to do more to connect our peoples and to make sure that we’re communicating effectively between each other so that we are communicating to our peoples effectively. We need to build on the sense of common purpose and camaraderie that can be essential to sustaining our relationship for decades to come. And that is the logic behind the dialogue on exchange that I co-chair with China’s Vice Premier Madame Liu.

One of the best ways for us to improve our connection is by expanding the student exchanges – I just stopped and met with a bunch of students who have been part of the exchange here from SAIS, and we all – I hope you’re all aware of President Obama’s 100,000 Strong initiative. Today, more students from China study in the United States than any other foreign country, and we are actively investing in ways to expand study abroad opportunities for American students in China, because we recognize that nothing brings about a common understanding more than effectively getting the chance to live in another country, see the world through another lens, and forge friendships that can last for decades.

I’ll just tell you very quickly the number of foreign ministers that I interact with very regularly in the Middle East and elsewhere, proudly sit in front of me and talk to me about their graduate school or undergraduate school experiences in the United States. It has lasted with them forever, and it helps them and us to be able to work through difficult moments.

Let me take this opportunity to note that this is not an earthshattering new principle I’ve just articulated. It is something that SAIS has long understood. You’ve had an international campus in Nanjing for nearly 30 years, and it focuses on everything, from facilitating student exchanges to all the prospects of business and relationships in the future. And as a result, its students are better prepared than most for the globalized world that we live in. But believe it or not, there are a lot of places that don’t take it for granted the way you do, for whom this would actually be a new enterprise, even now in 2014.

So I want to thank David Lampton and the others as SAIS for their leadership on this effort. Ultimately, the United States and China need to find more ways to interact at more levels of government, across more sectors and among more people who live in all the corners of our nations. And these connections will help us to understand each other better and to forge a better relationship going forward. They’ll help us work through our differences, and these connections will ultimately erase the misperceptions and stereotypes that fuel mistrust, and these connections will help us pull in the same direction and take advantage of the unique opportunities our countries have to help each other and ultimately to help the world.

We don’t underestimate – I certainly don’t – the complexity of the world we’re living in today and the sensitivity of this challenge that we face. The path to a productive relationship between the United States and China has seen its bumps, and it may see more. But the fact is that it has never been more important to us to be able to continue down the path that we are on. Our two nations face a genuine test of leadership. We have to make the right choices in both Washington and in Beijing.

In many ways, the world we’re living in today is much more like 19th-century and 18th-century global diplomacy, the balance of power and different interests, than it is the bifurcated, bipolar world we lived in in the Cold War and much of the 20th century. This is a new bursting on the scene of new powers. But guess what? They’re doing the things we wanted them to do. At least 15 of today’s donor countries giving aid to other countries were only 10 and 15 years ago recipient countries of aid themselves. And we welcome the growth of these nations to their global responsibilities and to the assumption of increased global ability to make a difference.

But it’s more complicated. When other countries have stronger economies and when there’s more competition for goods and services and for market share, it’s a more complicated world. And with the release of sectarianism and radical religious extremism and other things that have come with this transformation and confrontation with modernity, we all face a more difficult, complex diplomatic path.

But it is clear that coming from the different places we come from, China and the United States, we actually do have the opportunity as two leading powers to find solutions to major challenges facing the world today. And if we can cooperate together and help show the way, that will help bring other nations along and establish the norms for the rest of the world. We have an opportunity to demonstrate how a major power and an emerging power can cooperate to serve the interests of both, and in doing so, improve the prospects for stability, prosperity, and peace around the equator, from pole to pole, throughout this world we live in.

Maybe that’s a lofty objective; I don’t think it’s too lofty. I think it’s easy to say it in a speech, yes – a lot harder to produce it. But it will be in the doing of it, in the quality of our dialogue, in the persistent search for solutions to issues large and small, in the determination to manage the differences and find the big places to cooperate, and in order to seize the opportunities when they arise, that will provide the real measure of failure or success in this approach.

When he was in the twilight of his life, Paul Nitze was asked about the extraordinary contributions he had made to the Marshall Plan, to NATO, to the U.S.-Soviet relations. He didn’t brag, he didn’t boast, he just said: “I have been extremely lucky. I have been around at a time when important things needed to be done.”

There has never been a demand more than there is today for important things to be done. I hope that the United States and China – who are both blessed with great strength, with ample resources, with extraordinary people – can do important things now and can do them together. And I hope that as we come together in Beijing in the days ahead, as we work together in the months and years to come, that we are going to meet that charge and live up to the standard that Paul Nitze said, not just when he founded this school but when he lived his life.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

DOD NEWS NOW VIDEO: 1100 OCTOBER 10, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY'S STATEMENT ON SENTENCING IN CHINA OF HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTER

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Conviction and Sentencing of Ilham Tohti

Press Statement

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

September 23, 2014

The United States is deeply disturbed that Ilham Tohti has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Peaceful dissent is not a crime.

This harsh sentence appears to be retribution for Professor Tohti’s peaceful efforts to promote human rights for China’s ethnic Uighur citizens.

Ilham Tohti is known to the world for his many years working to foster mutual understanding, tolerance, and dialogue to peacefully promote harmony and unity between Uighurs and Han Chinese. His detention silenced an important moderate Uighur voice.

Mr. Tohti and those like him are indispensable in helping to resolve the underlying causes of unrest and violence. Silencing them can only make tensions worse.

I have raised Professor Tohti’s case repeatedly, including during the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in July. Ambassador Baucus reiterated our calls for Professor Tohti’s release just last week during his visit to Xinjiang. And we again urge the Chinese authorities to release Professor Tohti, as well as his students who remain in detention.

They deserve the protections and freedoms to which they are entitled under China’s international human rights commitments and its own constitution.

Differentiating between peaceful dissent and violent extremism is vital to any effective efforts to counter terrorism.

MICHAEL FUCHS MAKES REMARKS AT SOUTH CHINA SEA CONFERENCE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Fourth Annual South China Sea Conference

Remarks

Michael Fuchs

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Center for Strategic and International Studies

Washington, DC

July 11, 2014

Good morning. I’d like to thank Ernie Bower and CSIS for organizing this conference.

This is a timely conversation, and I understand that the discussions yesterday were informative and productive. It’s essential to have a wide range of perspectives as we look for creative solutions to the challenges we face in the South China Sea.

In that spirit, today I’ll offer some practical suggestions for how the U.S. and the parties in the region can move forward to reduce tensions and set relations on a better path.

But first I’d like to take a step back and address the regional context surrounding this issue and U.S. policy in the region. We are all familiar with the dynamism of the Asia-Pacific. The trade numbers, the demographics, the transnational challenges – the statistics and the trends are clear and compelling. And they lead us to the inevitable conclusion that what happens there is increasingly important not only to the United States, but also to the world.

That is why President Obama decided to rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. That is why we are continuing to modernize our alliances, invest in strengthening regional institutions, expand our trade and investment, deepen engagement with new and emerging regional partners, and why we continue to expand people-to-people ties and promote our values and universal human rights.

And yet, despite our enhanced engagement and long-standing ties to the region, some are questioning and criticizing our policy. These criticisms come in all shapes and sizes.

Some call alliances outdated. But these critics ignore the fact that U.S. alliances have served as the foundation for regional peace and security, providing the environment for countries to prosper and resulting in some of the world’s most remarkable growth stories, from China to South Korea to countries across Southeast Asia. Today, our efforts to modernize these alliances – including new agreements like the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the Philippines and the U.S.-Australia Force Posture Agreement – will benefit the entire region.

Some call us “outsiders” and tell us not to intervene in regional issues. But they ignore that for decades the United States has been a Pacific power, integral to regional peace and stability, and that our interests are directly affected by what happens across the Asia-Pacific. They ignore an increased demand for enhanced U.S. engagement and presence from allies and partners across the Asia-Pacific who want us more deeply involved in the region’s future.

And some say that our attention has been diverted by crises elsewhere. But the best demonstration of our how the rebalance continues to move forward despite competing priorities is that the United States – our people, our businesses, and our security presence – is woven into the fabric of the Asia-Pacific. As the numbers show – from trade to travel to student exchanges to the time and attention of our senior leaders and the placement of our resources – U.S. engagement in the region is increasing, and our efforts are bearing fruit. Of course, while the U.S. has been essential to peace and prosperity for decades, we can’t rest on our laurels. We must continue adapting to seize new opportunities and meet new challenges.

We are working to seize new opportunities through trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which we are looking to conclude soon, and the bilateral investment treaty negotiations with China, which we agreed to begin again last year. But while dynamic economic growth and trade deals bring prospects for jobs and growth in the U.S. and across the region, threats to progress remain. Growing provocative actions, increased military spending, strident nationalism, and rehashing of painful history make up a combustible mix that threatens the region’s stability and its future prosperity.

These challenges highlight the need to strengthen the transparent, rules-based order and institutions that have helped the region thrive for decades. Everyone has benefited from this order, and everyone can continue to benefit, if we work together.

That’s why the U.S. is investing in the institutions that bring the region together to advance common interests and strengthen norms of behavior. Open and inclusive multilateral forums are critical to upholding and enforcing international law and standards that help manage relations between countries and ensure a fair playing field for all.

The Association of Southeast Asian nations is a key partner that sits at the heart of the Asia-Pacific's architecture. Especially since joining the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia in 2009, we have adopted an increasingly proactive role in working with and promoting ASEAN and related institutions, including by joining the East Asia Summit and holding annual summits with ASEAN.

We believe strongly that ASEAN and other regional institutions such as APEC are the key forums where countries can have frank and open discussions about the region’s most concerning challenges, come together to forge solutions, and build habits of cooperation. The tensions arising from competing territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea are a key test of the region’s institutions and their ability to uphold international law and resolve disputes peacefully.

The situation in the South China Sea, no doubt, is complex. Six claimants, plentiful fisheries and potential hydrocarbon reserves, the growing presence of maritime law enforcement vessels, and hundreds of geographic features make for a dynamic situation. Moreover, many of these features are submerged and therefore not subject to sovereignty claims but are nonetheless a source of friction in the region.

Now some may ask why, given the many areas of tension across this part of the world, small features in the middle of the sea are generating so much concern and so much attention. It’s because the way in which countries pursue their claims speaks to whether future disputes will be handled by the threat and use of force on the one hand or the rule of law on the other. It speaks to whether the same rules will apply to all claimants – big and small alike. And it’s because everyone inside and outside the region stands to lose if rules are devalued, dialogue breaks down, misreadings and misinterpretations multiply, and tensions spiral.

Recent events in particular are of great concern. Incidents involving the coercion and the threat of force contribute to an increasingly tenuous situation that could affect not only the claimants, but the entire region and beyond.

No claimant is solely responsible for the state of tensions. However, a pattern of provocative and unilateral behavior by China has raised serious concerns about China’s intentions and willingness to adhere to international law and standards.

Provocative actions include efforts to assert claims in the South China Sea – such as its restrictions on access to Scarborough Reef, pressure on the long-standing Philippine presence at Second Thomas Shoal, and, most recently, the commencement of drilling operations in disputed waters near the Paracel Islands.

While the United States does not take a position on the sovereignty over land features in the South China Sea, we have a strong interest in the manner in which countries address their disputes and whether countries’ maritime claims comport with the international law of the sea.

International law, not power or an ambiguous sense of historical entitlement, should be the basis for making and enforcing maritime claims in the South China Sea.

The ambiguity of some claims, such as China’s nine-dash line, and recent actions in disputed areas heighten regional tensions and inhibit the emergence of cooperative arrangements to jointly manage resources. They undermine possible resolutions to the overlapping disputes.

As a Pacific power with a clear national interest in how these disputes are addressed, the United States is working to lower tensions and help peacefully manage these disputes. First, we have communicated our growing concerns – from the President down – to the Chinese very clearly, both in public and in private – most recently in the Strategic Security Dialogue and the Strategic and Economic Dialogue that were held in Beijing earlier this week. U.S. concerns are also regularly expressed at the highest levels to other claimants, and we consistently encourage all claimants to clarify their claims and base their claims on land features in the manner set out under the international law of the sea, as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention. Others have also raised their concerns, as evidenced by recent statements from ASEAN and the G-7.

Second, we are working with ASEAN and the international community to help put in place diplomatic and other structures to lower tensions and manage these disputes peacefully. We are reinforcing the importance of exercising restraint, lowering rhetoric, behaving safely and responsibly in the sky and at sea, and resolving the disputes in accordance with international law. This includes building habits of cooperation through mechanisms like the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum, where we are promoting concrete multilateral cooperation on everything from ensuring the safety of seafarers to working together to respond to oil spills.

Third, the administration has invested considerably in the capabilities of our partners in the maritime domain. For instance, last December Secretary Kerry announced an initial commitment of $32.5 million in new regional and bilateral assistance to advance maritime capacity building in Southeast Asia. Including this new funding, our planned region-wide support for maritime capacity building exceeds $156 million for the next two years.

Fourth, enhanced U.S. presence and posture in the Asia-Pacific as a result of the rebalance continues to help ensure regional stability and deter conflict.

And fifth, we continue to urge all parties to use diplomatic means, including arbitration or other dispute resolution mechanisms, to address these issues. This includes encouraging ASEAN and China to quickly complete a meaningful Code of Conduct. An effective Code of Conduct would help reduce tensions by creating crisis management tools to address contentious issues as they arise.

In the meantime, China and ASEAN already committed under the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea to avoid activities that “would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability.”

However, based on the rhetoric we’ve seen from claimant states, there isn’t a consensus or definition of what kinds of activities complicate or escalate disputes.

Recent incidents highlight the need for claimants to be transparent about their respective activities in disputed areas and to reach a shared understanding on appropriate behavior in these areas. As such, we are urging China and ASEAN to have a real and substantive discussion to flesh out elements of the Declaration on Conduct that call for self-restraint.

We have called for claimant states to clarify and agree to voluntarily freeze certain actions and activities that escalate the disputes and cause instability, as described in the DoC. Such commitments would help to lower tensions and expand space for peaceful solutions to emerge. They would be a strong confidence-building measure as more difficult details are worked out in the Code of Conduct negotiations.

Deciding on what elements would be included in a freeze would ultimately be up to the claimants, but there are a number of different types of commitments that could be included in such an agreement and would be relatively easy for the claimants to agree to.

To start, claimants could recommit not to establish new outposts. This is already in the DoC and is an easy first step. More important, claimants could commit not to seize features that another claimant has occupied since before the November 2002 Declaration on Conduct was signed.

Construction and land reclamation by claimants have been another constant source of tension. Claimants could clarify what types of alterations are provocative and what are merely efforts to maintain a long-existing presence in accordance with the 2002 status quo. For example, alterations that fundamentally change the nature, size, or capabilities of the presence could fall under the “freeze,” whereas routine maintenance operations would be permissible. Finally, claimants could agree to refrain from unilateral enforcement measures against other claimants’ long-standing economic activities that have been taking place in disputed areas.

All of these measures that I have listed would more clearly define the type of activities already suggested by the DoC, to which the parties have already committed. And the agreement would not affect any party until all claimants had agreed to abide by its terms. Moreover, if adopted, the freeze would not be prejudicial to the resolution of competing claims. The freeze would simply halt efforts to reinforce claims, pending their resolution.

Exercising self-restraint via this type of voluntary freeze would create a conducive and positive environment for negotiations on a China-ASEAN Code of Conduct and dramatically lower the risk of a dangerous incident. This would benefit all concerned parties. We make this suggestion as an idea to spark serious discussions about ways to reduce tensions and address the disputes; the claimants themselves should get together to decide the parameters of a freeze.

To conclude, the United States is a Pacific power and plays a central role in ensuring regional peace and prosperity. And while we are not a claimant in the South China Sea, the actions of the claimants in the South China Sea are affecting everyone in the region and beyond, and therefore we all have roles to play in tackling this challenge.

I hope that the next month leading up to the ASEAN Regional Forum will see real progress on regional efforts to promote the peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea, and I have outlined some specific steps to that end. It’s high time for the region to have a robust discussion on tangible ways to de-escalate the current dispute, and hopefully some of these ideas can help begin that discussion.

Thank you and I’ll be happy to take a few of your questions.