GEN. BREEDLOVE SAYS RUSSIA TAKING A 'DIFFERENT PATH' SIGNALED BY ACTIONS IN UKRAINE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Breedlove: Russia Now Taking ‘Different Path’
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, May 1, 2015 – The West assumed the best of Russia once the Cold War ended, but Russian President Vladimir Putin had other plans and NATO must remain strong in face of the threat from the East, Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove said here yesterday.

Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and commander of U.S. European Command, told the Atlantic Council that freedom is being challenged by “a revanchist Russia embarked on a reaching revision of what once were shared hopes for a stable and mutually beneficial partnership.”

Breedlove yesterday received the Distinguished Military Leadership award from the council.

The general said that when the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, the United States fundamentally changed the way it dealt with Russia. The United States believed there was a genuine hope for a new friendship, a new partnership and the prospect of a Europe whole, free, at peace and prosperous, he said.
“We broke with confrontation and pursued a policy of cooperation, and for a long time many of us believed Russia would also embrace that cooperation,” Breedlove said. “But as we look back, there were clear signs that Russia was on a different path.”

In the early 1990s, Russia stoked separatist tensions in Georgia and Moldova, Breedlove said. In 2007, Russia suspended observance of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. In 2008, Russian forces invaded Georgia. Through it all Russian leaders clamped down on freedoms the Russian people had only recently won, the general said.

‘Signals of a Changing Russia’

“All of these were signals of a changing Russia, breaking with the principles and the values of the West,” he said.

But the United States and its NATO allies remained optimistic and continued to treat Russia as a valued and trusted partner, Breedlove said.

But last year, with the illegal annexation of Crimea and movement into Eastern Ukraine the West’s optimism faded, the general said. Russia’s actions against Ukraine since last year have signaled “a clear end of what I see as two decades of clear Russian struggle over security policy,” Breedlove said.

Russia is now on a far different course, he said, one that shifts the relationship between Russia and the West from strategic cooperation to one of strategic competition. This is not a temporary aberration, but the new norm, Breedlove said.

“This is a Russia that recognizes strength and sees weakness as an opportunity,” he said.

Strategic Competition

This strategic competition requires a new mindset and a new approach, the general said.

“The U.S. and NATO must adapt,” he said. “And we are. The stakes are high but we must not shy away from that because, frankly, Russia is not.”

There still must be a dialogue with Russia, but conversations with the country must be done from a position of strength, the general said.

“We must embrace cooperation wherever our mutual interests align, but we must also ensure that we are ready to compete,” Breedlove said.
NATO is Strong

NATO is strong and it gives the West the ability to compete successfully against current and future challenges, he said.

Breedlove said NATO must challenge Russia’s current policies and demonstrate that Putin’s current approach will not be allowed to damage security.

The alliance also must deter Russia “by carefully shaping Moscow’s choices and managing Putin’s confidence,” the general said.

He added, “And it means continuing to lead courageously, as an alliance and as a nation.”

NATO is rock solid, Breedlove said.

“We are standing together,” he said.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY AND RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER MAKE REMARKS AFTER MEETING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Joint Press Availability With Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Bali, Indonesia
October 6, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good morning, everybody. I want to thank Foreign Minister Lavrov for joining me here today to sign this important agreement. Amending the NRRC agreement is another important step towards reducing risks associated with nuclear weapons, and I think both of us are cognizant of the fact that 26 years ago our predecessors from the United States and the former Soviet Union, Secretary of State George Shultz and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze signed the original NRRC agreement which established centers in Moscow and in Washington through which our nations were able to communicate with each other the details of our compliance with arms control treaties.

The Cold War is now long over, but thousands of nuclear weapons remain, and we both recognize a responsibility to do everything possible to keep each other appraised of important developments in order to avoid misunderstandings and potentially catastrophic consequences. I might remark that, for instance, after 2001, September 11th, we were quickly in touch with each other through this center as we took our armed forces to the highest level of alert in order to communicate immediately and directly so there could be no misunderstanding about what was taking place. In addition, on at least 13 different conventional and other kinds of treaties between us since then, this center has now become a critical component in helping us to apply the rules, live by the rules, and understand what we’re both doing.

This amended agreement better enables us to do those things. By upgrading the centers, it provides vital support for our strategic and our conventional arms treaties and agreements, like the New START Treaty, which I was privileged to help take through ratification in the Senate just a couple of years ago.

Regarding our meeting today, I would characterize the meeting as really one of the most productive that we have had since our meetings in Geneva, which were obviously productive. And I think Sergey and I talked at great length about Syria. Since the binding resolution was passed in New York, which will eliminate the weapons – the chemical weapons in Syria, we have continued to take very important steps. And I want to thank Sergey for the cooperation Russia has provided in this. It’s been very important. I think it’s an important part of our relationship. And it’s not insignificant that within days of the passing of this resolution in New York inspectors are in Syria, they are on the ground, and now they are already proceeding to the destruction of chemical weapons. That actually began yesterday. There are missile warheads and other instruments that were destroyed yesterday, so the process has become – begun in record time, and we are appreciative for the Russian cooperation, as well as obviously for the Syrian compliance to this date.

We also strongly supported the recent United Nations Security Council statement urging unhindered access to enable humanitarian aid providers to immediately reach parts of the country where the need is most urgent. We talked about that a little bit, and our Russian friends are engaged in almost daily interventions in an effort to move the Syrian regime to comply. And obviously we want to get that aid to the places where the need is much urgent and we want to get there are rapidly as possible. As the world’s largest provider of humanitarian assistance of aid to Syria, the United States applauds the Council for rapidly taking this up and for shining a light on this appalling situation.

Finally, Foreign Minister Lavrov and I discussed our mutual goal, which we are extraordinarily focused on, of ending the war in Syria through a political transition to a more broadly acceptable democratic government, under the terms of the Geneva communique. We agreed, again, that there is no military solution here. We share an interest in not having radical extremists on either side of any kind assuming a greater status or position in Syria. And that is why we recommitted today with very specific efforts to move the Geneva process as rapidly as possible. We are going to both engage with Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and lay the groundwork for a round of talks. It is our mutual hope that that can happen in November. And we are both intent and determined in consultation with our friends in these efforts to try to make certain that this can happen in November. A final date and the terms of participation will have to be determined by the United Nations, but we had a very constructive discussion about the path to getting there and we are both committed to leave here with a determination to begin that process, because we both believe – both countries believe, our leaders believe, President Putin and President Obama – that nothing is served by the prolongation of the violence in Syria. The humanitarian catastrophe is overwhelming the region, and we have a significant responsibility to try to address it. Thank you.

Sergey.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Thank you, John. And gentlemen for the benefit of the Russian journalists I will speak in Russian, with your permission.

(Via interpreter) Dear ladies and gentlemen, since John Kerry entered into office as Secretary of State this February, we met 11 times. And our meetings in Geneva and New York are counting, but we have met quite a lot of time also.

Today, we have signed an agreement about the National Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers. These centers are functioning since 1987, but it’s high time to adapt them to new realities with our joint effort. And, of course, these centers are very important to ensure all directions of our joint work to ensure the confidence and such agreements as START agreements, the Vienna agreements, as well as the agreements on Open Skies. And I would like also to say that three weeks ago, there was signs and another important agreement about a scientific cooperation in nuclear energy field.

So this agreement was prepared specially for the Russian-American summit in Moscow that was planned for the 4th of September and which unfortunately didn’t take place. But anyway, this intense cooperation of signing agreements shows that there is no pause in our bilateral relations and there can’t be any one.

In the landlines of our attention was Syria today. Ten days ago, by our joint efforts and with the help of the Security Council of the United Nations, we could work out important decisions. There was also a resolution adopted on the document of – in the framework of the OPCW about the liquidation and elimination of chemical weapons. This is already taking place. The decisions are being fulfilled, and the elimination has started. And during all these weeks up to joining – after Syria joined the document on the elimination of chemical weapons, Damascus is working jointly with – to work on these decisions. And we hope that it will take effect soon. I hope that it will be happening in the future as that. And of course, this bears all the attention and all the necessary responsibility on – not only for this responsibility on the Syrian Government, but also on the opposition and all the states in this sphere should, of course, not let these weapons to fall into the hands of non-state subjects.

And looking into – while the concerns of chemical weapons, we haven’t forgotten other important goals. Of course, the humanitarian situation is very important for us, as well as the situation with the refugees in this country. And of course, we welcomed the Security Council announcement about the goals before the international community to help with the humanitarian situation in this country. Of course, this situation is quite complicated also because the opposition is – of course, important for the opposition to take a part in this process. And I’m convinced that with due cooperation with the United Nations, with the Red Cross, there will be a possibility to get to the places, the necessary places, the humanitarian help such needed in this country.

Of course, we looked into the political settlement, which is much needed in Syria. We also would like to say that we are very concerned and we would like it to take place, the conference on political settlement, in mid-November, as well as the Syrian Government said about its readiness for that. And we also agreed that the government would come with – completely prepared to fulfill all the commitments taken to join this international conference. And I would like to reiterate the government and the opposition to be ready for such a conference. And, of course, the composition which is completely for such an event with the participation of the Special Envoy Brahimi for such an event is very important also. And of course, the main important – the most important thing is for the long-term settlement is for the Syrians themselves to agree on it and all the other participants to fully help in such result.

We also have exchanged opinion on the settlement of the Iranian nuclear program. And we consider that such a positive situation, such a positive signal with the President and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran, which also have met on the General – on the sidelines of General Assembly will materialize in concrete affairs for the course of these actions.

We have also expressed our – of course, our help, our support for achieving for Israelis and the Palestinians to settle their affairs. And of course, thanks to the efforts of John Kerry and the international mediators help, we consider that that could bear fruit.

We have also agreed on many issues of bilateral agenda, and we consider with – that with due efforts we could eliminate all the irritators that are in the bilateral – in the general of our bilateral relations. And I’m sure that if we are guided by the principles of equality, of non-interference in our internal affairs, and consideration of interests of each others, our countries would progress in the field of cooperation for the benefit of Russia and the United States and the whole world.

SECRETARY KERRY: We’re happy to take a few questions.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Lesley Wroughton of Reuters.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. You’ve spoken today of a positive meeting on Syria. Do you believe that the elimination of the chemical weapons is going well? Do you expect it to be completed within a certain time? And how close to you – are you on actually setting a date for the peace talks for Geneva 2? Is there ever – is that ever going to happen? We’ve heard about this a long time?

And to the Minister, what have you done to convince Assad to come to the peace talks? Have you actually convinced him to do that – and the – of moving into a transitional government?

And for Secretary Kerry, there has been a complaint from Libya regarding the operation by U.S. military forces, which has provoked a complaint that Mr. al-Libi was kidnapped. Did you give them advance notice of what – of the operation? And number two, what perception do you think this leaves the world when people are snatched off the street of foreign countries by the U.S. military?

SECRETARY KERRY: So let me be crystal clear. The – we’re very pleased with the pace of what has happened with respect to chemical weapons. In a record amount of time, the United Nations Security Council has embraced a unique approach in a joint effort with the OPCW, the Office for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. That’s never happened before. They agreed within a record period of time to follow the framework that Minister Lavrov and I negotiated in Geneva, and they put it into place both in The Hague as well as at the United Nations. I think that was a terrific example of global cooperation, of multilateral efforts, to accomplish an accepted goal.

And they have moved with equal speed to get on the ground in Syria and begin the operations. I think it is extremely significant that yesterday, Sunday, within a week of the resolution being passed, some chemical weapons were already being destroyed. I think it’s also credit to the Assad regime for complying rapidly, as they are supposed to. Now, we hope that will continue. I’m not going to vouch today for what happens months down the road, but it’s a good beginning, and we should welcome a good beginning.

I don't know if you’re planning to do the translation? Are we? All right. Please.

And in a world that needs to see government working effectively and that needs to see multilateral institutions serving their purposes, I think this a very important beginning.

With respect to setting a date, neither Minister Lavrov nor I are supposed to set a date. That date has to be set by the United Nations and by Special Envoy Brahimi and the Secretary General. We both agreed that we have some homework to do in preparation, but we are also agreed that we will meet with Lakhdar Brahimi, and we will urge that a specific date be set within the framework that the Envoy has already set, which is somewhere in the second week of November or so. And we will urge a date to be set as soon as possible.

With respect to Abu Anas al-Libi, he is a key al-Qaida figure and he is a legal and an appropriate target for the U.S. military under the Authorization of the Use of Military Force passed in September of 2001. And of course, we regularly consult with our friends in the region; we consult regularly with the Libyan Government on a range of security and counterterrorism issues. But we don’t get into the specifics of our communications with a foreign government or in any kind of operation of this kind.

Finally, I’d just say that with respect to the perception, I hope the perception is in the world that people who commit acts of terror and who have been appropriately indicted by courts of law, by the legal process, will know that the United States of America is going to do everything in its power that is legal and appropriate in order to enforce the law and protect our security. Abu Anas al-Libi was indicted in the southern district of New York in connection with his role in al-Qaida’s conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, to conduct attacks against interests worldwide, which included al-Qaida plots to attack forces in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, as well as attacking the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya.

So an indictment is an accusation. In our legal system, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But he will now have an opportunity to defend himself and to be appropriately brought to justice in a court of law. And I think it’s important for people in the world not to sympathize with alleged terrorists but to underscore the importance of rule of law. And that is the perception that we believe is the important one for people to understand.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) Concerning our stance about the process of chemical weapons eliminations, we’re satisfied with such a process. We have no grounds to consider that the cooperation that is doing the Syrian Government to fulfill, perfectly, this – that these concerns is – will change anyhow. And the Russian part will do everything so that Damascus will follow the cooperation without any changes.

But there is another thing that concerns us, and we have grounds to suspect that the extremist groups are trying to undermine such a process. And we hope that the resolution of the Security Council, which was adopted 10 days ago, will be fulfilled by all the parties, as well as the countries which are neighbors of Syria, and so to fulfill the requirements of the Security Council not to fall the chemical weapons and the chemical elements into the hands of non-state subjects, as well as the territories for the work of – the territories of this country for the work of terrorists.

And in general, we would like to reiterate – and today we’ve talked about – that we are going to do everything so to completely find the terrorists and extremists element in this country. And it’s our own task and the task of everybody who want this country to be multiconfessional, secular, and to be in peace.

About the terms and the dates of the conference, John already said that we are not to establish this date. And we know the position of Damascus, and from the point of view of the government of Damascus that conference could already be established many months ago.

And we shouldn’t do anything so the delegation from Syrian Government would go there. They already said about their efforts and about their intentions to go there. Already although some of them, they went in Geneva, were adopted of the joint – the joint resolutions of American and Russians.

And we shouldn’t do anything, and we’d like – we have to do everything so that the opposition will also come and agree to come without any preliminary conditions. The important steps that they should do is to fulfill the Geneva communique, which was adopted on the 30 of May last year.

And we also talked about it with John Kerry. We would like to support all the efforts to form the delegation of the oppositions, will be a representative in all its sense. And we also would like so the National Coalition would speak with one voice, because some days ago the leaders said that – they announced that they are ready to go there, but then their partners say that they are really not ready.

And I would like to reiterate that we have a common understanding with our American colleagues that there should be synchronized and coordinated efforts to convene a conference, which would be represented by all parties with the help of important international players.

MODERATOR: (In Russian.)

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Oleg Velano from Interfax Agency. The last question – that recently the Chief of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran said that the decisions of the Group of Six is already on the table. How could you comment that in – take into account the planned new round of the Group of Six meeting?

And another question is to John Kerry, that there – Iran and the United States are getting quite close each time. And there are some – will there be any changes in relation to the missile defense in Europe? Because the threat of Iran – of a nuclear threat from Iran was the main reason of the deployment of that missile defense.

SECRETARY KERRY: Was the question on the Group of Six to Sergey or to me?

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: If I understood the question right, the question was about yesterday’s statement of Minister Zarif that Iran expects new proposals from the 3+3, not that the old proposal is on the table. And my understanding of this statement of Minister Zarif is that we discussed in New York – six ministers of the 3+3 group, plus Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran, Mr. Zarif – and we discussed the need to have a roadmap which would, at the end of the day, satisfy the international community that the Iranian nuclear program is entirely peaceful and that this program is pulled under total and strict control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. And when this is achieved, Iran wants all sanctions to be lifted.

I don’t think that this is contradictory to what the 3+3 has been doing all these years. Iran probably wants more clarity, more specific steps to be spelled out on the road to the result which we all want to achieve. And I think this would be discussed next week in Geneva, a meeting to which Iran agreed, and to which Iran and 3+3 are getting ready in a very constructive mood, as our contacts in New York showed.

SECRETARY KERRY: No translation?

INTERPRETER: No translation, Mr. Kerry.

SECRETARY KERRY: Another (inaudible) please. Does she understand English?

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Yeah, she does.

SECRETARY KERRY: Okay. Gotcha.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: And French. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: What else can you tell us, Sergey? (Laughter.)

On Iran, the Group of Six put a proposal on the table in Almaty, and I don’t believe that, as of yet, Iran has fully responded to that particular proposal. So I think we’re waiting for the fullness of the Iranian difference in their approach now. But we’re encouraged by the statements that were made in New York, and we’re encouraged by the outreach.

But as the President – as President Obama has said, and I think other the members of the P-5+1 agree, it’s not words that will make the difference. It’s actions that will make the difference. So what we need are a set of proposals from Iran that fully disclose how they will show the world that their program is peaceful. And we have made it clear that if there are those indicators, the United States and our allies are absolutely prepared to move in appropriate ways to meet their actions. So we still have to wait and see where that comes out.

With respect to the part of your question about Iran and the U.S. getting close, I would just say to you that the talk of these first days and the exchanges of a couple of meetings and a phone call do not indicate a closeness. They indicate an opportunity. They indicate the opening of a door or a window to some discussion. We’re very anxious to have that discussion, but it’s way too premature to make any determinations about where we would wind up with respect to the deployment of the missile defense, which you’re right, was predicated on that threat. But as long as that threat is there, we still have to deal with that issue.

Now, that said, the Foreign Minister and I did discuss Iran and we discussed also the discussion that is underway between the United States and Russia on the subject of missile defense. And I think we’re in a place now where the next step in that discussion can take place, regardless of what happens with respect to Iran. And we look forward to having a good, continued discussion with Russia regarding mutual defense. We obviously would like to see something – we’d like to reach an understanding with Russia, and I think the Russians would like to reach an understanding with us. So that discussion will continue in the appropriate channels where it is currently located.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: And I would just like to add that, indeed, we have this appropriate channels activated, they never actually were frozen, and missile defense is one of the important items on our agenda. We should like to resolve in the way which would not create any suspicions regarding the strategic stability sustainability. And indeed, I (inaudible) of what John said now, that as long as the Iranian threat quote/unquote exists, the American plans remain. So I assume that if we manage to make sure that everyone agrees that the threat is not any longer there, then those plans might be reconsidered.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, that’s not exactly what I said, Sergey, but obviously we will respond to threats. And I think you know that we’re trying to work out a way for the missile defense system to meet your needs and our needs, and no matter what happens, we’ll pursue that discussion, and I think that’s a very important discussion.

Now obviously if the overall situation in the entire region changes, we’re open to a much more significant discussion.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you. Thanks, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AT U.S. EMBASSY IN BRASILIA, BRAZIL

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Meeting With Staff and Families of Embassy Brasilia
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy Brasilia
Brasilia, Brazil
August 13, 2013

AMBASSADOR SHANNON: (In progress.) -- serve the United States and serve Brazil in building a relationship that we think holds enormous potential for us. So, sir, thank you very much for being here.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, Tom. Thank you very, very much. Thank you, everybody. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Muito Obrigado. I am very happy to be here. Bom Dia. (Laughter.) I have Portuguese around my house every day, guys. I sit there and I go (in Portuguese). That’s right. But I learned a little bit. My wife – her native tongue, my wife’s native language is Portuguese. She was born in Mozambique, and we actually had to come to Rio to meet. We actually met in Rio at the Earth Summit back in 1992, and the rest is history, as they say. (Laughter.) Anyway, but it’s a real pleasure for me to be here, and I’m listening to my wife speak Portuguese all the time and I’ve been very bad about not learning it. I’m struggling with some other languages.

Anyway, it’s great to see you all. Everybody good?

AUDIENCE: Yes.

SECRETARY KERRY: Good. I’m delighted to hear that. You have to be. I just saw three tennis courts out here. (Laughter.) I said, man, this can’t be that tough. I don’t know. (Laughter.) Looks pretty good to me. But it’s really wonderful to be able to be here, and thank you to all the kids. Where are all the kids here? Hey, guys. Why don’t you guys come up here with me? I like having kids come up here with me. Come on. Come on, guys. Come on.

You’re the future and this is what it’s all about, so I’m happy to have you here. Is this – and we have a six-month-old over here, very patriotically dressed. (Laughter.) What’s the name of our six-year-old patriot? Has everybody seen how patriotic this six-month-old is here? (Laughter.) Come here. Look at this. Yeah. There you are. What’s --

PARTICIPANT: Her name’s Willow Grace.

SECRETARY KERRY: Her name is Willow Grace, and --

PARTICIPANT: Nine months.

SECRETARY KERRY: Nine months, okay. All right. How we doing? Yeah. I have a new grandchild, a new grandchild on the way, a couple of other grand – so it’s really great. I love to see it. Anyway, you have to stand up here the whole time. (Laughter.)

Anyway, how are you guys doing? You having fun? How old are you?

PARTICIPANT: I’m 11.

PARTICIPANT: I’m 13.

SECRETARY KERRY: Wow. You’re 11. She is exactly the age that I was when my dad joined the Foreign Service and we went off to Berlin, Germany not too long after the war, World War II. I’m really dating myself now. (Laughter.) But it was a great adventure. You having fun? You like the adventure?

PARTICIPANT: Yes.

SECRETARY KERRY: This your first posting?

PARTICIPANT: Yeah, this is my first.

SECRETARY KERRY: Pretty cool. How’s your language coming?

PARTICIPANT: Oh, it’s okay. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Okay. Alright. I won’t push you any further. (Laughter.) I won’t push you any further.

Anyway, so the rest of you all, you go to school – at which school, international? American?

PARTICIPANT: (Off-mike.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Cool, and that’s fun, isn’t it? How big is it? How many kids are in it?

PARTICIPANT: Like, 50.

SECRETARY KERRY: Fifty? (Laughter.) That’s pretty small.

PARTICIPANT: Six hundred and fifty.

SECRETARY KERRY: Six hundred and fifty, that’s better. All right, that’s better. (Laughter.) All right.

Well, listen, I just want to – where’s (inaudible)? Is (inaudible) here? Is she out here?

PARTICIPANT: She couldn’t come.

SECRETARY KERRY: She couldn’t come. Forty-two years of service, I understand. That’s one of – that’s the longest period of service. I’ve now been to, what, 29 countries, I think, as Secretary. I haven’t met anybody who’s done 42 years, so – I haven’t met her either, so what I can say? (Laughter.) But I met a bunch of people who have 37, 38, 39, things like that, which is pretty amazing.

I just want to say thank you to everybody. I really appreciate the chance to be back in Brazil. Thank you.

PARTICIPANT: We have an employee here, who is 42 years of service.

SECRETARY KERRY: Forty-two years? Come on. Come up here and let me tell who you are. (Applause.) What’s your name?

PARTICIPANT: Maria Salle Jorgia.

SECRETARY KERRY: Maria Salle what?

PARTICIPANT: Jorgia.

SECRETARY KERRY: Maria Salle Jorgia, and she has 42 years of service. I can’t believe it. And you look like you’re only, like, 28 years old. (Laughter.) It’s very – how did you do that?

PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, it’s really fabulous.

PARTICIPANT: I started here at the Embassy back in ’71.

SECRETARY KERRY: Wow. That’s incredible. So you’ve been through a few secretaries. (Laughter.) Okay. I won’t --

PARTICIPANT: Happy to be here with you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it.

PARTICIPANT: You have so much hair. It’s amazing. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY KERRY: I know. I need a haircut. (Laughter.) Thank you very much. It’s not every day I get my hair cut, but the truth is I’ve been so busy, I literally have not been able to get a haircut. (Laughter.) I got up this morning and I looked at myself and I said, “Oh my God, I got to get a haircut,” but anyway, isn’t there something more serious to talk about here? (Laughter.)

I just, really, on behalf of the President and behalf of everybody in the country really want to say thank you for what you do. And it’s a mix of so many different people. We got Foreign Service officers and civil servants and locally employed and contractors and different agencies. I think there are something like 25 or – how many do you have – about 25 agencies here with whom we cooperate, and then a whole bunch of TDY-ers and others who come through, and then three consulates and five consul agencies, so it’s extraordinary. And you guys have processed something like a record million-plus visas last year, which is absolutely extraordinary.

And it’s a reflection of a lot of things, not the least of which is the efforts by President Rousseff and the Brazilians to send more of their young folks to study in the United States, and of course, our reciprocal efforts to bring people to study here. And I can’t tell you how sometimes that seems sort of like light diplomacy or soft diplomacy, whatever you want to call it. I have always found it’s amazing when I’m meeting with people – and I’ve been meeting with people now for 35 years or more, 29 of them in the United States Senate, and some of them this term in the Foreign Relations Committee, so I would meet everybody. And the numbers of foreign ministers, finance ministers, environment ministers, prime ministers, presidents who look at me and say, “I studied at the University of Chicago,” or “I studied at Stanford,” or Berkeley or Harvard or wherever it is, University of Mississippi – it’s just amazing how they are – they take pride in it, they love it. And it’s an experience that stays with people for a lifetime.

Most recently I’ve been talking with Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Foreign Minister – longest-serving foreign minister in the world incidentally – of Saudi Arabia, and he is a proud Princeton graduate, and he’s always talking to me about his years at Princeton, what it meant to him, and what it means to him now. And more often than not, I’m meeting now even more of these officials whose sons and daughters are all studying abroad. I mean, yesterday when I was in Colombia, the President was telling me how his youngest son is about to go off to UVA. He has another son who just graduated from Brown and another one – I forget where, but this is important, so this is a very important part of what we do, and in the long run, it will do more to bring people together than anything that I can think of.

Years ago, when I was a younger senator, I started the Fulbright Program in Vietnam when we were first trying to open up our relations after the war, and that program became the largest Fulbright Program in the world. It’s now the second largest, the largest being in Pakistan. But the other day I met the Foreign Minister of Vietnam, and he pulled out a photograph, and he showed me the photograph, and it was me as a young senator 25 years ago meeting him as a student at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and he proudly showed it to me, and here I am dealing with him now, and boy did I feel old. Huh? (Laughter.) Scary.

But I just very quickly – I don’t want to tie you all up too long. What we are doing – and I mean we. I get to be the Secretary and run around and get to a lot of countries and you all are doing different things here in one place for a period of time, and then you move somewhere else. But this is a family effort. The State Department is a great family, and no way has that come home to us more than with some of our losses in the last few years. Ambassador Chris Stevens and Anne Smedinghoff recently in Afghanistan, who happened to have been my control officer only a week and a half before that.

So there are risks, and there are hardships. People leave home, you have to pack up, you’ve got to repack, go another place, leave friends behind, take your kids to another school, but in the end I can’t think of anything – very few things at least where you get up in the morning every day and go to work and know – not just feel like, but know that you are contributing to making a difference to the relationships between peoples, to the opportunities that some people will have in a lifetime: that person who gets a visa, that person whose human rights are protected in some country or someplace, the person we fight for because no one else will fight for them, the kids that we feed in one country or another, the young people who will grow up now AIDS-free because of a program called PEPFAR and because of the health programs we bring to people.

We are making a difference every day in the relationships between countries, the relationship between peoples, and the aspirations and opportunities that people will have somewhere in the world. That’s a great adventure. It’s also a well-spent life. It’s a way to do things where you can say there’s a real reward to risk factor, and you know you’re contributing to something bigger than yourself. We are dealing in the most complicated world ever, and I mean ever.

I’m a student of history, and I love to go back and read a particularly great book like Kissinger’s book about diplomacy where you think about the 18th, 19th centuries and the balance of power and how difficult it was for countries to advance their interests and years and years of wars. And we sometimes say to ourselves, boy, aren’t we lucky. Well, folks, ever since the end of the Cold War, forces have been unleashed that were tamped down for centuries by dictators, and that was complicated further by this little thing called the internet and the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously and to have more information coming at them in one day than most people can process in months or a year.

It makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest, and that is complicated by a rise of sectarianism and religious extremism that is prepared to employ violent means to impose on other people a way of thinking and a way of living that is completely contrary to everything the United States of America has ever stood for. So we need to keep in mind what our goals are and how complicated this world is that we’re operating in.

So I thank you, every single one of you, about 1,322 people here I think representing all those different entities that I talked about. You really do make a great team, and you are engaged in a great enterprise. And on behalf of President Obama, on behalf of the American people, and on my behalf as the Secretary who has the privilege of leading this great Department, I want to thank you. This is the adventure of a lifetime, and as these kids will learn and look back on it years from now, they have pretty special parents, and they have pretty special opportunities made available to them because of what you all do. So thank you all, and God bless. Thank you. (Applause.)

'20/20 BY 2020'

DAYTON, Ohio -- Lockheed SR-71A in the Cold War Gallery at the National Museum of the United States Air Force. The aircraft was retired in 1990. (U.S. Air Force photo) 

FROM:  U.S. AIR COMBAT COMMAND
Beale removes fuel storage tanks that kept Blackbird soaring 
by Staff Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo
9th Reconnaissance Wing Public Affairs 

7/22/2013 - BEALE AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- Beale is conducting a four-month deconstruction project to remove Cold War-era fuel storage tanks that once fueled the SR-71 Blackbird.

The project is a part of the Air Force's "20/20 by 2020" initiative, which aims to reduce excess capacity by reducing a base's footprint, as well as reducing operating costs by 20 percent by the year 2020.

Three of the storage tanks have already been removed, and the remaining two are scheduled to be demolished in the upcoming months.

During the mid-1960s, Beale was home to jets that required massive amounts of fuel including the Blackbird.

Five tanks at Beale's fuel terminal held between 400,000 and 657,000 gallons each of specially designed JP-7 jet fuel. This fuel was developed by the U.S. Air Force to power the SR-71 and was brought to the fuel terminal via a locomotive system.

The fuel was then pumped through a 4.5 mile-long pipeline to the flight line where the Blackbird consumed approximately 36,000 to 44,000 pounds of fuel per hour of flight.

The tanks became cold war relics with the retirement of the SR-71 in 1998 and coupled with the transfer of the B-52 Stratofortress bomber and KC-135 Stratotanker air refueling missions to other bases.

"They're kind of historic structures," said Robert Nordhal, 9th Civil Engineer Squadron flight chief of programs. "We just don't have the need for high capacity fuel storage anymore."

Nordhal said that unused structures cost the Air Force in maintenance and repairs as well as pose safety concerns.

"These tanks were not fitted with modern safety features," said Mark Hoover, fuels terminal superintendent with AKIMA Technical Solutions. "It would cost more for us to upgrade those tanks then to build new ones."

In addition to maintenance and repair costs, Beale will also save in the demolition of the tanks themselves.

"The scrap metal from the tanks is being recycled and is being used to fund the demolition," Hoover said. "It's essentially saving the Air Force tens of thousands of dollars.

TESTIMONY BEFORE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON EXPORT CONTROL REFORM

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Export Control Reform: The Agenda Ahead

Testimony
Thomas Kelly
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Statement Before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on Export Control Reform
Washington, DC
April 24, 2013

I thank the Chairman for his introduction, and would ask that my written remarks be entered into the record.

Chairman Royce, Congressman Sherman, Committee Members: it has been two years since the Committee last met to hear testimony on the President’s Export Control Reform Initiative. A lot of work has been done in the intervening period. I would like to start by thanking thw Committee on behalf of the State Department for its bipartisan support throughout the process.

As the pace of technological advance accelerates, and as technological capability spreads around the world, the need to update our Export Controls is increasingly urgent. We are no longer in an era in which a handful of countries hold the keys to the most sensitive technologies, as was the case during the Cold War. Today, a whole range of nations have advanced technological capability.

At the same time, because of the diffusion of technology, many U.S. companies must collaborate with foreign partners to develop, produce and sustain leading-edge military hardware and technology. Their survival depends on it.

But because our current export controls are confusing, time-consuming, and – many would say-- overreaching, our allies increasingly seek to ‘design out’ US parts and services, thus avoiding our export controls and the end-use monitoring that comes with them in favor of indigenous design. This threatens the viability of our defense industrial base, especially in these austere times.

Our current system has another problem. It can prevent our allies in theatre from getting the equipment and technology they need to fight effectively alongside our troops in the field.

This system has its basis in the 1960s, and has not undergone significant update since the early 1990s. It is cumbersome, complex and incorrectly controls too many items as though they were "crown jewel" technologies.

What that has meant is that an inordinate amount of agencies’ resources – both in terms of licensing and compliance activities – has been expended on nuts and bolts as well as our REAL "crown jewel" technologies.

In November 2009, President Obama directed a White House task force to identify how to modernize our export control system so that it will address the current threats we face, as well as account for the technology and economic landscape of the 21st century.

His direction was grounded in national security, with the goal of putting up ‘higher fences’ around the items that deserve the greatest protection, while permitting items of lesser sensitivity to be exported more readily when appropriate.

To address the problems the task force identified, they recommended reforms in four key areas: licensing policies and procedures; control lists; information technology; and export enforcement.

The President accepted the recommendations, and since early 2010, agencies have been working hard to implement them.

Much of agencies’ efforts have centered on revising the U.S. Munitions List and the Commerce Control List. This reform will draw a "bright line" between the two lists using common terms and control parameters. This will help our exporters determine far more easily which list their products are on. The reform will ensure that those items of greatest concern to us from a national security and foreign policy perspective will remain on the USML, and thus be subject to the most stringent licensing requirements, while items of less sensitivity will be moved to the CCL.

I want to emphasize a key point: items moving to the CCL are going to remain controlled. They are not being "decontrolled", but in specific circumstances, they will be eligible for export under Commerce’s more flexible licensing mechanisms.

I am confident that the revised lists will permit State to continue to perform its national security and foreign policy mandates in export licensing.

I will also note that we are making tremendous progress in the effort to rewrite the categories. We have published twelve rebuilt USML categories in the Federal Register for public comment. The proposed rules for the seven remaining categories have been drafted and are either undergoing or awaiting interagency review so that we can then publish them for public comment.

On April 16, the Departments of State and Commerce published companion rules that implement the revised USML Categories VIII (Aircraft) and XIX (Engines). This is the first pair in a series of final rules that put in place the rebuilt export control lists. Our goal is to publish the revised USML in its entirety on a rolling basis throughout this year.

In the last phase of our reform effort, we will need legislation to bring the initiative to its logical conclusion by creating a single licensing agency. The Administration has not yet determined when to approach this effort, but we will fully engage our oversight Committees and know that we can count on your support when we do.

On that note, one final point I want to make is that this has not only been an interagency process, but a cross-government process. Over the course of the last three years, we have had the opportunity to work closely with this Committee, and with many others across the Congress, on both the broader strategic questions of national security, and the finer technical details of our proposals. Our work together shows what we can achieve together. I am grateful for your bipartisan support for this initiative and look forward to continuing to work closely with you on the remainder of the reform effort.

With that, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify. I now would like to turn the floor over to Commerce Assistant Secretary Kevin Wolf.

　

　

AIR FORCE GEN. KEHLER ON PLANNING FOR THE UNEXPECTED

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Strategic Command Plans for Unexpected, Commander Says
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb., April 8, 2013 - The last thing Air Force Gen. C. Robert Kehler -- the point man for the U.S. nuclear arsenal as well as space, cyber, ballistic missile and other capabilities -- wants is to be caught by surprise.

As commander of U.S. Strategic Command, Kehler's job is to ensure U.S. deterrence remains so strong that it dissuades potential adversaries from challenging it.

In the days of the Cold War, the concept of deterrence was relatively straightforward, with both the United States and former Soviet Union recognizing that a nuclear attack by either side would result in "mutually assured destruction," he told American Forces Press Service.

Today, deterrence is a whole different matter, he said, with a broader array of potential adversaries, all operating in different ways and guided by different motivations. The challenge is to ensure that as the United States confronts this whole new ball game, it doesn't get dealt a devastating curve ball.

So Kehler regularly challenges his staff to think about the unthinkable to ensure they're ready for whatever comes their way.

"The question for us is, 'Are we ready to deal with uncertainty?'" he said. "Have we prepared ourselves in a way that acknowledges that surprise is going to happen -- and that surprise can be deadly if we allow it to be so?"

Being open to "alternative futures," he said, "helps us think about things we are not thinking about today, and therefore, prepare as a matter of course for things that may not unfold the way we think they will."

Kehler is such a firm believer in out-of-the-box thinking that he's made "prepare for uncertainty" one of his top five command priorities. He and his senior staff regularly gather around a conference table to ponder "what ifs" that may seem inconceivable to many.

"This isn't about what happens if Martians land," Kehler said. "This is about coming up with some plausible scenarios that make you step back and go, 'Hmmm ....'"

Doing so presents situations in a new light, and sometimes with new insights, the general said.

"I believe you can train yourself to recognize that you probably don't have it right, and that there is going to be something else out there," he said.

Kehler cited historical examples when an unrecognized "something else out there" had a devastating effect on the United States.

"I think it's our responsibility to go back and ask ourselves, 'What were we thinking on 6 December 1941, and then on 8 December 1941?" he said, referring to the dates surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor. "And what were we thinking on 10 September 2001, and then on September 12?"

Kehler said he largely agrees with those who blame the 9/11 attacks on "a failure of imagination."

"If that is so, then we had better be imaginative now," he said. "Because as complex and uncertain as the world is, we are not going to get all this right. It is not going to be all neatly presented to us in a planning problem. And that makes it more important than ever that we understand the things that are out there."

Tabletop exercises and brainstorming sessions might not identify the exact next threat or predict who will launch it, and when, he acknowledged.

"But at least we will have given ourselves a bunch of challenges to think about that I believe help us prepare for the day when something has happened that you just didn't foresee," Kehler said. "That way, we're not left flabbergasted and flat-footed here because something happened, because we weren't so locked in on things that we didn't recognize that it could happen."

GENERAL STAVRIDIS WANTS MORE NATO DIALOGUE WITH RUSSIA

Stavridis Presses for More NATO-Russia Dialogue
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 - Noting increased cooperation between NATO and Russia in several key areas, the top NATO and U.S. European Command commander emphasized today the importance of working through stumbling blocks in what he called a "complicated partnership."

In a blog post, Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis cited concerted efforts by both parties since NATO's 2010 summit in Lisbon, Portugal, where the alliance's 28 heads of state and government agreed on the need to pursue "a true strategic partnership" between NATO and Russia and noted in the strategic concept that they expect reciprocity from Russia.

Stavridis recognized several areas where increased cooperation has shown signs of paying off: counterpiracy; support for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, military exchanges and training exercises, counterterrorism and counternarcotics, among them.

"Overall, we enjoy cooperation and some level of partnership in a variety of important areas," he said. "On the other hand, there are clearly challenges in the relationship."

Stavridis noted Russia's objections to the European phased adaptive approach for missile defense. "Russia sees the NATO missile defense system as posing a threat to their strategic intercontinental ballistic missile force," he said. "We strongly disagree, and feel that the system is clearly designed to protect populations against Iran, Syria and other ballistic-missile-capable nations that threaten the European continent."

NATO and Russia also disagree over Russian forces stationed in Georgia and NATO's role in Libya, Stavridis said.

"We maintain that we operated under the U.N. Security Council mandate to establish a no-fly zone, provide an arms embargo and protect the people of Libya from attacks," he said, calling NATO's actions "well within the bounds of the [U.N.] mandate and the norms of international law.

"Russia sees this differently," Stavridis continued, "and whenever I discuss this with Russian interlocutors, we find little room for agreement. This tends to create a differing set of views about the dangerous situation in Syria as well."

Stavridis noted Russian Ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko's stated concerns that these differences -- and the installation of NATO military infrastructure closer to Russia's borders -- threaten to unravel progress made in their relations.

"Notwithstanding differences on particular issues, we remain convinced that the security of NATO and Russia is intertwined," Stavridis said, quoting the NATO strategic concept agreed to in Lisbon. "A strong and constructive partnership based on mutual confidence, transparency and predictability can best serve our security," it states.

Stavridis recognized areas in which the growing NATO-Russian relationship is bearing fruit:

-- Counterpiracy: Loosely coordinated efforts by NATO and Russian ships have reduced piracy by 70 percent over the past year and caused the number of ships and mariners held hostage to plummet in what the admiral called "a very effective operation."

-- Afghanistan support: Russia contributed small arms and ammunition to the Afghan security forces and sold MI-17 helicopters and maintenance training to the Afghan air force. In addition, Russia provides logistical support, including a transit arrangement that helps to sustain NATO-led ISAF forces and redeployment efforts.

-- Military exchanges and exercises: Russian service members are participating in more of these engagements with the United States and NATO. These exchanges, including port calls in Russia, have been well-received by both militaries, Stavridis noted.

-- Arctic cooperation: Russia is collaborating with other members of the Arctic Council, including the United States, Norway, Denmark, Canada and Iceland, to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of cooperation.

-- Counterterrorism: In the lead-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, NATO is offering assistance and information-sharing via a variety of channels, Stavridis reported.

-- Counternarcotics: NATO and Russia are working together to stem the flow of heroin from Afghanistan, a high priority for Russia.

Expressing hopes that NATO and Russia can continue to build on this cooperation, Stavridis said areas of tensions and disagreements need to be addressed.

"No one wants to stumble backwards toward the Cold War, so the best course for the future is open discussion, frank airing of disagreements, and hopefully seeking to build the 'true strategic partnership' set out in the NATO strategic concept," he said. "Clearly, we have some work to do."

BALLISTIC MISSILE EARLY WARNING SYSTEM BECOMES OPERATIONAL

The Ballistic Missile Early Warning System site at Thule, Greenland, became operational on Jan 1, 1961. The BMEWS was the first operational ballistic missile detection radar and was built during the decade of the 1950s in response to the Cold War with the former Soviet Union.  Photo Credit:  U.S. Air Force Space Command.
FROM: U.S. SPACE COMMAND
AFSPC Milestone: First Ballistic Missile Early Warning System site is operational

8/11/2012 - Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. -- As Air Force Space Command approaches its 30th Anniversary on 1 Sep, here is a significant milestone which led to the creation of a new command responsible for the space domain...


On 1 January 1961, the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System site at Thule, Greenland, became operational. The BMEWS was the first operational ballistic missile detection radar and was built during the decade of the 1950s in response to the Cold War with the former Soviet Union. It provided long-range warning of a ballistic missile attack over the polar region of the Northern Hemisphere. The radar also provided satellite tracking data.


The BNEWS site at Thule AB was one of three radars of this type operated by the Air Force. All three facilities operated their original 1950s vintage radars for more than four decades until they received upgrades to the more modern phased array radars.


Even today, ballistic missile warning is critically important to U.S. military forces. At least 20 nations currently have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and the technology to deliver them over long distances.

COLD WAR HERO CAPT. GARY FRANCIS POWERS RECEIVES POSTHUMOUS SILVER STAR

Photo:  Recovered items from Capt. Powers Aircraft.  Credit:  NSA Museum and Wikipedia.
FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Cold War Hero Powers Receives Posthumous Silver Star
By Jim Garamone
WASHINGTON, June 15, 2012 - More than half a century after his plane was shot down over the Soviet Union, the heroism Air Force Capt. Francis Gary Powers displayed while piloting his U-2 aicraft was finally recognized during a Pentagon ceremony today.
Powers, who died in a helicopter crash in 1977, was posthumously awarded the Silver Star -- the nation's third-highest award for combat valor. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz presented the medal to Powers' grandson, Francis Gary "Trey" Powers and granddaughter Lindsey Berry.

The downing of his plane on May 1, 1960 was one of the most famous incidents of the Cold War. Powers was flying a clandestine mission in a U-2 over the former Soviet Union. The program, a Joint Air Force and Central Intelligence Agency mission, was a top-secret effort to monitor Soviet nuclear and missile programs.

Powers took off from Peshawar, Pakistan, and headed over the Central Asian Soviet republics. The U-2 cameras gathered invaluable information for the United States and its allies at a time when the Soviet Bear seemed to be on the ascent.

The Soviets had launched Sputnik -- the world's first satellite -- in 1957. John F. Kennedy -- then running for president -- deplored the "missile gap" between the United States and Soviet Union. It was the height of the Cold War with schoolchildren conducting "duck and cover" drills in case of nuclear attack. Most buildings had signs indicating the location of fallout shelters, rooms designed to protect against radiation contamination.
Powers' mission was to overfly Soviet missile sites, nuclear plants and rocket-launching facilities. Over Sverdlovsk his plane -- flying at more than 70,000 feet -- was hit by a SA-2 missile and brought down. Soviet forces captured Powers and he was held by the Soviet secret police, the KGB, in Lubyanka Prison in Moscow.

The shoot down sharply increased tensions between Washington and Moscow. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had to admit that the United States was flying over another sovereign nation. Protests over this broke out in Japan and Europe. Relations with Pakistan deteriorated. A Big-4 Summit -- leaders of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and the United States -- scheduled for Paris was canceled. The Soviet Union made propaganda of the incident at the United Nations.

And the Soviets wanted more. Teams of KGB interrogators worked on Powers to get him to give up information or turn against his country. While they never beat him, they constantly threatened him with death, said his son Gary Francis Powers Jr.
Powers spent 21 months in a Moscow prison, Schwartz said. "For nearly 107 days, Captain Powers was interrogated and harassed by numerous Soviet secret police interrogation teams," the chief said. Powers also was held in solitary confinement.
"Although weakened by lack of food and denial of sleep and mental anguish of constant interrogation, Captain Powers refused all attempts to glean from him sensitive information that would have proved harmful to the defense and security of the United States," Schwartz said.

In February 1962, the Soviets exchanged Powers for Soviet spy KGB Col. Rudolph Abel. The handover was conducted on "The Bridge of Spies" in Berlin.
It was a sign of the times that Powers' return home was fraught with uncertainty and questions. A teacher told Dee Powers, the captain's daughter, that her father should have killed himself rather than getting captured. The program was still top secret and what Powers went through was classified. The captain received the CIA Intelligence Star for Valor in 1965 and the Senate Armed Services Committee declared that Powers had conducted himself, "as a fine man under dangerous circumstances."

The younger Powers started researching his father's case in the late 1980s. Much of it was classified. "I would speak about the U-2 incident at classes and people would think I was talking about the rock group," he said.

It wasn't until 1998, seven years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that the CIA declassified records of the program and Powers' full heroism became known, said young Gary. At that point, the captain posthumously received the CIA Director's Award for Extreme Fidelity and Courage, the Air Force Distinguished Flying Cross and the Prisoner of War Medal.

Today's award of the Silver Star puts to rest the idea that somehow the captain behaved poorly in captivity, his son said.

"He loved his family, he loved flying and he loved his country," he said.