SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH ALBANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER DITMIR BUSHATI

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Albanian Foreign Minister Ditmir Bushati
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
April 20, 2015

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good morning, everybody. It’s my pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Bushati of Albania, and particularly to do so because Albania is, first of all, a very strong friend and NATO ally. Beyond that, they’ve been really deeply involved in working with the United States and our partners on a number of different fronts. And today, we will have the pleasure of signing the U.S.-Albania – or Albania-U.S. Strategic Partnership, which is an effort to cooperate even more fully on our mutual interests against counterterrorism, for security in the region against ISIL, and other initiatives.

I had a chance in Wales at the summit last year to meet with Prime Minister Rama, where we discussed many of these issues, and now today we’re going to follow up on it. Albania has also been very helpful in terms of relocation of the MEK folks and other issues. We support their ascension to the EU as soon as possible, and they’re on the road to do the things necessary for that ascension. We’re also very pleased that Albania has agreed to host one of the follow-on ministerial meetings on the Countering Violent Extremism. And this is critical, obviously, to everybody’s interests, given the daily headlines and news with respect to what ISIL is engaged in. And finally, we are working very closely on the overall regional counter-ISIL efforts. Their cooperation on that has been, as a member of the coalition and a partner, absolutely essential.

So a lot of security issues. There will be, additionally, discussions with respect to other matters. Particularly in the EU ascension, there’s a lot of economic and domestic reform efforts – rule of law, other kinds of issues – where we’re working together.

So Ditmir, happy to have you here. Thank you very much for taking time to be with us, appreciate it. Welcome.

FOREIGN MINISTER BUSHATI: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I’m so happy to be here with you today. Albania and the United States are strategic partners and allies both in NATO and other international organizations. We are working closely together in Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently on the fight against global terrorism and violent extremism. If our region is nowadays at peace and is looking towards EU membership, it is largely due to constant engagement of U.S. And I’m here today to discuss with Secretary Kerry also about the ways on how to further streamline our strategic cooperation on strategic sectors between Albania and the United States. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, my friend. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you.

SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTER-TERRORISM OFFICIAL SENTENCED FOR TRYING TO SUPPORT HEZBOLLAH

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
South American Counter-Terrorism Official Sentenced to 195 Months in Prison for Attempting to Support Hezbollah
Also Convicted of Narcotics Trafficking and Firearms Offenses

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York announced that Dino Bouterse, a citizen of Suriname who assisted in the formation of that country’s Counter-Terrorism Unit, was sentenced today in federal court in New York City to 195 months in prison for attempting to provide material support and resources to Hezbollah, a designated terrorist organization, along with narcotics trafficking and firearms offenses.  Bouterse, who was arrested in Panama on Aug. 29, 2013, and arrived in the United States on Aug. 30, 2013, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, who also imposed today’s sentence.

“Dino Bouterse was supposed to oppose terrorism,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara.  “Instead, Bouterse betrayed his official position and tried to support and aid Hezbollah, including his agreement to assist Hezbollah in acquiring weapons, and conspiring to import cocaine to the U.S.  Today he has been sentenced to a lengthy prison term for those odious crimes.”

According to the indictment, other documents filed in federal court and statements made at today’s sentencing:

In 2013, Bouterse used his position within the government of Suriname to assist individuals he believed were members of Hezbollah, who informed Bouterse that they intended to conduct terrorist attacks against American interests.  In exchange for a multimillion-dollar payment, Bouterse agreed to allow large numbers of purported Hezbollah operatives to use Suriname as a permanent base for, among other things, attacks on American targets.  In furtherance of his efforts to assist Hezbollah, Bouterse supplied a false Surinamese passport to a purported Hezbollah operative for the purpose of clandestine travel, including travel to the United States; discussed heavy weapons that he could provide to Hezbollah; and instructed the purported Hezbollah members about how Hezbollah operatives, supplied with a Surinamese cover story, could enter the United States.

In June 2013, Bouterse and a co-defendant, Edmund Quincy Muntslag, met in Bouterse’s office in Suriname with confidential sources (the CSs) working with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to discuss importing cocaine into the United States using commercial airline flights.  During the meeting, Bouterse showed the CSs a rocket launcher and a kilogram of cocaine.

Approximately one month later, Bouterse and Muntslag worked to provide transportation and security for cocaine being sent through Suriname to the United States.  As a test run, Bouterse and Muntslag sent 10 kilograms of cocaine on a commercial flight departing from Suriname.  Bouterse personally verified the arrangements for the 10-kilogram cocaine shipment in a text message.  The cocaine was intercepted by law enforcement officials after it departed Suriname.

In July 2013, Bouterse met with one of the CSs to discuss opening Suriname to the CSs’ purported Hezbollah associates.

Later that month, Bouterse met in Europe with one of the CSs and with two other men who purported to be associated with Hezbollah.  During this meeting, Bouterse discussed initially hosting 30 to 60 Hezbollah members in Suriname for training and operations.  He also indicated that he wanted a Hezbollah cell in Suriname to act, in part, as a personal armed force.  Bouterse confirmed his understanding that the purported Hezbollah operatives would operate in South America against American targets, and he agreed to supply Surinamese passports to the operatives and to assist with their applications for visas to travel from South America into the United States.  In addition, in response to a request for surface-to-air missiles and rocket-propelled grenades, Bouterse stated that he would need “two months” and that he would provide a list of what he could supply.  Finally, at the July 2013 meeting in Europe, Bouterse agreed to create a false Surinamese passport for one of the purported Hezbollah operatives so that Bouterse and the Hezbollah operative could travel to Suriname to inspect the facilities that Bouterse had agreed to prepare for the Hezbollah contingent.

At a subsequent meeting in August 2013, Bouterse delivered a Surinamese passport with false identifying information to a purported Hezbollah operative.  As had been discussed at the July 2013 meeting in Europe, the purported Hezbollah operative was to use the fraudulent passport to travel to Suriname.  Bouterse indicated that everything was ready in Suriname for the arrival of the purported Hezbollah members, and that some “toys” – a code-word for weapons – would be available for inspection.

Following this meeting, Bouterse was arrested by Panamanian law enforcement and transferred to the custody of the DEA.

* * *

On Aug. 29, 2014, Bouterse pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to Hezbollah, a foreign terrorist organization; conspiring to import five kilograms or more of cocaine into the United States; and using and carrying, or aiding and abetting the use and carrying of, a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime.  In addition to his prison term, Bouterse, 42, a citizen of Suriname, was ordered to pay a $300 special assessment fee.

Assistant Attorney General Carlin joined U.S. Attorney Bharara in praising the outstanding efforts of the DEA’s Special Operations Division.  Assistant Attorney General Carlin and U.S. Attorney Bharara also thanked the DEA’s Miami Field Division, Panama City Country Office, Port-of-Spain Country Office and Bogota Country Office; the Government of the Republic of Panama; and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael D. Lockard, Adam Fee, Michael Ferrara and Edward Y. Kim of the Southern District of New York and Trial Attorney Andrew Sigler of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

WHITE HOUSE READOUT: HOMELAND SECURITY ASSISTANT MEETS WITH NEW YOUR CITY OFFICIALS

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

October 14, 2014

Readout of Lisa Monaco’s Meeting with New York City Officials

The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Lisa Monaco, met at the White House this afternoon with New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio and New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton to discuss strengthening federal, state, and local coordination on counterterrorism issues as well as the U.S. government’s response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.  On counterterrorism, they reviewed threat streams overseas associated with al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and the Khorasan Group, and discussed measures to take to better protect the U.S. homeland from potential threats posed by these groups as well as homegrown violent extremists.  They specifically noted the threat from foreign fighters, including Western passport-holders, and the comprehensive, whole-of-government strategy to counter it.  On Ebola, they reviewed the status of additional airport screening measures that were implemented at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport on Saturday and that will be rolled out later this week at Newark and other domestic airports. They also reviewed ongoing efforts to prepare hospitals and healthcare workers nationwide, including in New York City, to identify and treat Ebola patients safely and effectively.

CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS DESCRIBES WHY IRAQ IS IMPORTANT TO U.S.

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Chairman Describes U.S. Interests in Iraq

By Jim Garamone

DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, July 3, 2014 – The United States has sent troops back to Iraq because it is in America’s interest for the country to remain stable and to counter Sunni militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said today.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey told a Pentagon news conference that Iraq’s leaders must form an inclusive government that respects the rights of all groups.
Iraq can and should be a U.S. partner in countering terrorism, Dempsey said. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which has captured large sections of the country’s north and west over the past few weeks, is a regional threat, Dempsey said, but could become a transnational and global threat in the future. They have “made some pretty significant and rapid advances.”

Yet “they’re stretched right now,” the chairman said, “stretched to control what they have gained and stretched across their logistics lines of communication.”
There are currently nearly 800 American service members in Iraq, with some protecting the American embassy and other facilities. Other U.S. troops are assessing the situation on the ground and have now opened a second joint operations center in Erbil in northern Iraq after establishing one in Baghdad last month. President Barack Obama ordered up to 300 U.S. special forces to the country last month to provide advice on how best to assist the Iraqi military in their fight against Sunni militants.

Meanwhile, Iraqi security forces have stiffened resistance in face of the militants’ gains.

“I don’t have the assessment teams’ exact language, but some initial insights are that the ISF is stiffening, that they’re capable of defending Baghdad,” Dempsey said.

Iraqi forces would be challenged however, if they went on the offensive against the militants, he added.

Dempsey emphasized the ability of Iraq’s military to defend the country depends on political leaders in Baghdad uniting to form a government of national unity.
In addition, what role the United States will play in Iraq going forward, he said, depends on the conclusions of the U.S. military assessment teams, as well as Iraq’s political progress.

Currently, U.S. advisors in Iraq are not involved in combat operations, Dempsey said, but he did not rule that out.

“If the assessment comes back and reveals that it would be beneficial to this effort and to our national security interests to put the advisors in a different role, I will first consult with the secretary, we will consult with the president,” he said. “We’ll provide that option and we will move ahead.”

Even so, he said U.S. involvement in Iraq does not amount to “mission creep.” Choosing to characterize it instead as “mission match.”

“We will match the resources we apply with the authorities and responsibilities that go with them based on the mission we undertake, and that is to be determined,” the chairman said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S REMARKS ON IRAQ SITUATION

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Remarks by the President on the Situation in Iraq

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:32 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I just met with my national security team to discuss the situation in Iraq.  We’ve been meeting regularly to review the situation since ISIL, a terrorist organization that operates in Iraq and Syria, made advances inside of Iraq.  As I said last week, ISIL poses a threat to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to U.S. interests.  So today I wanted to provide you an update on how we’re responding to the situation.

First, we are working to secure our embassy and personnel operating inside of Iraq.  As President, I have no greater priority than the safety of our men and women serving overseas.  So I’ve taken some steps to relocate some of our embassy personnel, and we’ve sent reinforcements to better secure our facilities.

Second, at my direction, we have significantly increased our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets so that we’ve got a better picture of what’s taking place inside of Iraq.  And this will give us a greater understanding of what ISIL is doing, where it’s located, and how we might support efforts to counter this threat. 

Third, the United States will continue to increase our support to Iraqi security forces.  We’re prepared to create joint operation centers in Baghdad and northern Iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of ISIL.  Through our new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, we’re prepared to work with Congress to provide additional equipment.  We have had advisors in Iraq through our embassy, and we’re prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward.

American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.

Fourth, in recent days, we’ve positioned additional U.S. military assets in the region.  Because of our increased intelligence resources, we’re developing more information about potential targets associated with ISIL.  And going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action, if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it.  If we do, I will consult closely with Congress and leaders in Iraq and in the region.

I want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective response to a threat like ISIL will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces, like Iraqis, take the lead. 

Finally, the United States will lead a diplomatic effort to work with Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in Iraq.  At my direction, Secretary Kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the Middle East and Europe, where he’ll be able to consult with our allies and partners.  And just as all Iraq’s neighbors must respect Iraq’s territorial integrity, all of Iraq’s neighbors have a vital interest in ensuring that Iraq does not descend into civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists.

Above all, Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq’s future.  Shia, Sunni, Kurds -- all Iraqis -- must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence.  National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq’s different communities.  Now that the results of Iraq’s recent election has been certified, a new parliament should convene as soon as possible.  The formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis.

Now, it’s not the place for the United States to choose Iraq’s leaders.  It is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the Iraqi people together and help them through this crisis.  Meanwhile, the United States will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another.  There’s no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States.  But there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable Iraqi security force, and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like ISIL a safe haven.

In closing, recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by America’s war in Iraq.  Alongside the loss of nearly 4,500 American patriots, many veterans carry the wounds of that war, and will for the rest of their lives.  Here at home, Iraq sparked vigorous debates and intense emotions in the past, and we’ve seen some of those debates resurface. 

But what’s clear from the last decade is the need for the United States to ask hard questions before we take action abroad, particularly military action.  The most important question we should all be asking, the issue that we have to keep front and center -- the issue that I keep front and center -- is what is in the national security interests of the United States of America.  As Commander-in-Chief, that’s what I stay focused on.  As Americans, that’s what all of us should be focused on. 

And going forward, we will continue to consult closely with Congress.  We will keep the American people informed.  We will remain vigilant.  And we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the security of the United States and the safety of the American people. 

So with that, I’m going to take a couple of questions.  I’ll start with Colleen McCain Nelson of the Wall Street Journal.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Do you have any confidence in Prime Minister Maliki at this point?  And can Maliki bring political stability to Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT:  As I said, it’s not our job to choose Iraq’s leaders.  Part of what our patriots fought for during many years in Iraq was the right and the opportunity for Iraqis to determine their own destiny and choose their own leaders.  But I don’t think there’s any secret that right now at least there is deep divisions between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders.  And as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it’s going to be very hard for an Iraqi central government to direct an Iraqi military to deal with these threats.

And so we’ve consulted with Prime Minister Maliki, and we’ve said that to him privately.  We’ve said it publicly that whether he is prime minister, or any other leader aspires to lead the country, that it has to be an agenda in which Sunni, Shia and Kurd all feel that they have the opportunity to advance their interests through the political process.  And we’ve seen over the last two years, actually dating back to 2008, 2009 -- but I think worse over the last two years -- the sense among Sunnis that their interests were not being served, that legislation that had been promised around, for example, De-Ba’athification had been stalled. 

I think that you hear similar complaints that the government in Baghdad has not sufficiently reached out to some of the tribes and been able to bring them in to a process that gives them a sense of being part of a unity government or a single nation-state.  And that has to be worked through.

Part of the reason why we saw better-equipped Iraqi security forces with larger numbers not be able to hold contested territory against ISIL probably reflects that lack of a sense of commitment on the part of Sunni communities to work with Baghdad.  And that has to be fixed if we’re going to get through this crisis.

Jim Acosta.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Americans may look at this decision that you’re making today as a sneak preview of coming attractions; that the number of advisors that you’re planning to send in may just be the beginning of a boots-on-the-ground scenario down the road.  Why is Iraq’s civil war in the national security interests of the United States?  And are you concerned about the potential for mission creep?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think we always have to guard against mission creep, so let me repeat what I’ve said in the past:  American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again. 

We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in Iraq.  Ultimately, this is something that is going to have to be solved by the Iraqis.

It is in our national security interests not to see an all-out civil war inside of Iraq, not just for humanitarian reasons, but because that ultimately can be destabilizing throughout the region.  And in addition to having strong allies there that we are committed to protecting, obviously issues like energy and global energy markets continues to be important. 

We also have an interest in making sure that we don’t have a safe haven that continues to grow for ISIL and other extremist jihadist groups who could use that as a base of operations for planning and targeting ourselves, our personnel overseas, and eventually the homeland.  And if they accumulate more money, they accumulate more ammunition, more military capability, larger numbers, that poses great dangers not just to allies of ours like Jordan, which is very close by, but it also poses a great danger potentially to Europe and ultimately the United States.

We have already seen inside of Syria that -- or groups like ISIL that right now are fighting with other extremist groups, or an Assad regime that was non-responsive to a Sunni majority there, that that has attracted more and more jihadists or would-be jihadists, some of them from Europe.  They then start traveling back to Europe, and that, over time, can create a cadre of terrorists that could harm us.

So we have humanitarian interests in preventing bloodshed.  We have strategic interests in stability in the region.  We have counterterrorism interests.  All those have to be addressed.

The initial effort for us to get situational awareness through the reconnaissance and surveillance that we’ve already done, coupled with some of our best people on the ground doing assessments of exactly what the situation is -- starting, by the way, with the perimeter around Baghdad and making sure that that's not overrun -- that's a good investment for us to make.  But that does not foreshadow a larger commitment of troops to actually fight in Iraq.  That would not be effective in meeting the core interests that we have.

Q    Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq?  Any regrets about that decision in 2011?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me; that was a decision made by the Iraqi government.  We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces.  We had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is, is that they're provided immunity since they're being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they're not somehow hauled before a foreign court.  That's a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. 

The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us that immunity.  And so I think it is important though to recognize that, despite that decision, that we have continued to provide them with very intensive advice and support and have continued throughout this process over the last five years to not only offer them our assistance militarily, but we’ve also continued to urge the kinds of political compromises that we think are ultimately necessary in order for them to have a functioning, multi-sectarian democracy inside the country.

Juliet Eilperin. 

Q    Mr. President, you just mentioned Syria a moment ago.  The United States has been slow to provide significant weapons and training directly to the Syrian opposition.  Has the expansion of the Syria war into Iraq changed your mind about the type of weapons and training we’re now willing to give the opposition there?  Is that what prompted Secretary Kerry to say of Syria, “We are augmenting our assistance in significant ways”?  And can you elaborate on what you are you doing now that you weren’t doing before?

THE PRESIDENT:  That assessment about the dangers of what was happening in Syria have existed since the very beginning of the Syrian civil war.  The question has never been whether we thought this was a serious problem.  The question has always been, is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists that might have been pouring in, as well as an Assad regime supported by Iran and Russia that outmanned them and was ruthless.

And so we have consistently provided that opposition with support.  Oftentimes, the challenge is if you have former farmers or teachers or pharmacists who now are taking up opposition against a battle-hardened regime, with support from external actors that have a lot at stake, how quickly can you get them trained; how effective are you able to mobilize them.  And that continues to be a challenge.  And even before the situation that we saw with ISIL going into Iraq, we had already tried to maximize what we could do to support a moderate opposition that not only can counteract the brutality of Assad, but also can make sure that in the minds of Sunnis they don't think that their only alternative is either Mr. Assad or extremist groups like ISIL or al Nusra.
 
Q    And can you speak to what you might be doing differently, as the Secretary of State alluded to?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that the key to both Syria and Iraq is going to be a combination of what happens inside the country working with the moderate Syrian opposition, working with an Iraqi government that is inclusive, and us laying down a more effective counterterrorism platform that gets all the countries in the region pulling in the same direction.  And I alluded to this in the West Point speech.  I talked about it today with respect to the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund.

There is going to be a long-term problem in this region in which we have to build and partner with countries that are committed to our interests, our values.  And at the same time, we have immediate problems with terrorist organizations that may be advancing.  And rather than try to play Whac-a-Mole wherever these terrorist organizations may pop up, what we have to do is to be able to build effective partnerships, make sure that they have capacity.  Some of the assets that have been devoted solely to Afghanistan over the last decade we’ve got to shift to make sure that we have coverage in the Middle East and North Africa. 

You look at a country like Yemen -- a very impoverished country and one that has its own sectarian or ethnic divisions -- there, we do have a committed partner in President Hadi and his government.  And we have been able to help to develop their capacities without putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground at the same time as we’ve got enough CT, or counterterrorism capabilities that we’re able to go after folks that might try to hit our embassy or might be trying to export terrorism into Europe or the United States. 

And looking at how we can create more of those models is going to be part of the solution in dealing with both Syria and Iraq.  But in order for us to do that, we still need to have actual governments on the ground that we can partner with and that we’ve got some confidence are going to pursue the political policies of inclusiveness.  In Yemen, for example, a wide-ranging national dialogue that took a long time, but helped to give people a sense that there is a legitimate political outlet for grievances that they may have.

Peter Maer.

Q    Thank you, sir.  Going back to where you see Prime Minister al-Maliki playing a role at this point, you said that it’s a time to rise above differences, that there’s a need for more inclusive government.  Is he a unifier?  And how much clout does the United States ultimately have with any of the leadership in Iraq at this point really?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we still provide them significant assistance.  I think they recognize that, unlike some other players in the region, we don’t have territorial ambitions in their country.  We’re not looking to control their assets or their energy.  We want to make sure that we’re vindicating the enormous effort and sacrifice that was made by our troops in giving them an opportunity to build a stable, inclusive society that can prosper and deliver for the basic needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people.

And at the same time, they are a sovereign country.  They have their own politics.  And what we have tried to do is to give them our best advice about how they can solve their political problems.  Now that they are in crisis, we are indicating to them that there is not going to be a simple military solution to this issue.  If you start seeing the various groups inside of Iraq simply go to their respective corners, then it is almost certain that Baghdad and the central government will not be able to control huge chunks of their own country.  The only way they can do that is if there are credible Sunni leaders, both at the national level and at the local level, who have confidence that a Shia majority, that the Kurds, that all those folks are committed to a fair and just governance of the country.

Right now, that doesn’t exist.  There’s too much suspicion, there’s too much mistrust.  And the good news is that an election took place in which despite all this mistrust, despite all this frustration, despite all this anger, you still had millions of Iraqis turn out -- in some cases, in very dangerous circumstances.  You now have a court that has certified those elections, and you have a constitutional process to advance government formation.

So far, at least, the one bit of encouraging news that we’ve seen inside of Iraq is that all the parties have said they continue to be committed to choosing a leadership and a government through the existing constitutional order.

So what you’re seeing I think is, as the prospects of civil war heighten, many Iraq leaders stepping back and saying, let’s not plunge back into the abyss; let’s see if we can resolve this politically.  But they don’t have a lot of time.  And you have a group like ISIL that is doing everything that it can to descend the country back into chaos. 

And so one of the messages that we had for Prime Minister Maliki but also for the Speaker of the House and the other leadership inside of Iraq is, get going on this government formation.  It’ll make it a lot easier for them to shape a military strategy.  It’ll also make it possible for us to partner much more effectively than we can currently.

Q    Given the Prime Minister’s track record, is he a unifier?  Can he play that role after what we’ve seen play out over the last couple of weeks is brought into play?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think the test is before him and other Iraqi leaders as we speak.  Right now, they can make a series of decisions.  Regardless of what’s happened in the past, right now is a moment where the fate of Iraq hangs in the balance, and the test for all of them is going to be whether they can overcome the mistrust, the deep sectarian divisions, in some cases just political opportunism, and say this is bigger than any one of us and we’ve got to make sure that we do what’s right for the Iraqi people.  And that’s a challenge.

That’s not something that the United States can do for them.  That’s not something, by the way, that the United States Armed Forces can do for them.  We can provide them the space, we can provide them the tools.  But ultimately, they’re going to have to make those decisions.

In the meantime, my job is to make sure that American personnel there are safe; that we are consulting with the Iraqi security forces; that we’re getting a better assessment of what’s on the ground; and that we’re recognizing the dangers of ISIL over the long term, and developing the kinds of comprehensive counterterrorism strategies that we’re going to need to deal with this issue.  And that’s going to involve some short-term responses to make sure that ISIL is not obtaining capacity to endanger us directly or our allies and partners.  But it also is going to require some long-term strategies, as well. 

Because part of what we’ve with respect to ISIL is a broader trend that I talked about at West Point -- rather than a single network, a discreet network of terrorists, this fluid combination of hardened terrorists, disaffected local leadership.  And where there’s vacuums, they’re filling it and creating the potential for serious danger for all concerned.

Thank you very much.

Q    On Iran, Mr. President, any words on what you’re willing to do, and are you also willing to work with them?

THE PRESIDENT:  Our view is that Iran can play a constructive role if it is helping to send the same message to the Iraqi government that we’re sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it’s inclusive and that if the interests of Sunni, Shia and Kurd are all respected.  If Iran is coming in solely as an armed force on behalf of the Shia, and if it is framed in that fashion, then that probably worsens the situation and the prospect for government formation that would actually be constructive over the long term.

Q    What’s your sense of that right now?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that just as Iraq’s leaders have to make decisions, I think Iran has heard from us.  We’ve indicated to them that it is important for them to avoid steps that might encourage the kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war. 

And the one thing that I think has to be emphasized -- we have deep differences with Iran across the board on a whole host of issues.  Obviously, what’s happened in Syria in part is the result of Iran coming in hot and heavy on one side.  And Iran obviously should consider the fact that if its view of the region is solely through sectarian frames, they could find themselves fighting in a whole lot of places.  And that’s probably not good for the Iranian economy or the Iranian people over the long term either.  I suspect there are folks in Iran who recognize that.  A Iraq in chaos on their borders is probably not in their interests.  But old habits die hard, and we’ll have to see whether they can take what I think would be a more promising path over the next several days. 

Thank you very much, everybody. 

END
2:01 P.M. EDT

REMARKS BY SECRETARY KERRY AND EU HIGH REPRESENTATIVE LADY ASHTON

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks With EU High Representative Lady Catherine Ashton After Their Meeting

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

May 6, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon, everybody. I am very pleased, as always, to welcome my very good friend and colleague in these endeavors, the EU High Representative Cathy Ashton back here to Washington. I’m also personally happy to be back in Washington – (laughter) – after a trip through Africa that has left us with a very long to-do list, which we’re already working on.

Lady Ashton and I just covered a lot of ground, but since we’re in agreement on so much of it, we were able to cover it quite quickly. We discussed, most importantly, our shared strategy of using the tools of diplomacy in order to reduce the conflicts that are threatening Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of the world, but particularly there.

Let me begin with Ukraine. In the weeks since Lady Ashton and I met in Geneva, along with the Ukrainian foreign minister and the Russian foreign minister, we have been, it is fair to say, nothing less than disappointed to see Russia to fail to live up to the very plain and simple, easy-to-interpret commitments that were made in Geneva. And I’ll reiterate: The agreement that we made in Geneva, it really isn’t vague and it’s not open to some loose interpretation. It was simple, it was specific, and it outlined concrete steps that all of the parties had to take. Ukraine’s government, literally before the ink was dry, started to implement on that agreement. And they have held up their end of the bargain.

Ukraine has shown remarkable restraint. Almost immediately coming out of that meeting in Geneva, they ordered a cessation of any kind of counterterrorism activity, any effort to remove people from buildings based on the notion that both sides were going to work to bring people out of those buildings. And the fact is that they have been committed in Kyiv to trying to move their country forward through nonviolence, through constitutional reform, through dialogue, and by reaching out to the disaffected parts of Ukraine.

We also are very concerned about efforts of pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk, in Luhansk to organize, frankly, a contrived, bogus independence referendum on May 11^th. We flatly reject this illegal effort to further divide Ukraine, and its pursuit will create even more problems in the effort to try to de-escalate the situation. This is really the Crimea playbook all over again, and no civilized nation is going to recognize the results of such a bogus effort.

As President Obama has made clear, if Russian elements continue to sabotage the democratic process and prevent Ukraine from holding a free and fair election 19 days from now on the 25^th, then we stand ready to implement additional sanctions. And the “we” is Europe and the United States together. I know the European Union is strong in its commitment to do this, and I think the high representative will address meetings that are shortly going to be held next week in furtherance of our common goals here.

We are not going to sit idly by while Russian elements fan the flames of instability, instead of fulfilling the commitments that we made. Look, we came together, and we came together in a real spirit of trying to de-escalate. And we weren’t playing a game. We laid down some very specific steps that could be taken, and immediately, the Government of Ukraine, in good faith, undertook to implement those steps, including removing barricades from the Maidan in Kyiv, removing people from buildings, as well as reaching out to make clear to the people of Ukraine how decentralization could take place to give more power to those people in places that were disaffected. Regrettably, that was not met with reciprocity, and reciprocity is one of the things that we discussed very clearly in Geneva.

I must add also that it’s very hard to reconcile that Russia is now making the argument that Ukraine ought to reduce – not have an election or postpone an election because of the violence that’s taking place, but Russia is full, whole-hog behind having an election in Syria where there is far worse violence. Reconcile that one for us, please.

So the choice is really Russia’s. The United States, the EU, and our allies have made our choice very, very clear: We are going to stand together united not just in support of Ukraine, but united in support of de-escalating; united in support of a peaceful, diplomatic solution; united in recognition that, yes, there are historic and cultural and other ties between Russia and Ukraine, but the way to assert them is at the diplomatic negotiating table, not at the end of a gun. And we believe that we will also stand together in the effort to try to de-escalate this situation.
Next week, I will meet in London with our European counterparts in order to discuss what the appropriate next steps will be.

I also want to underscore that Lady Ashton and I applaud the commitment and the courage of the monitors of the OSCE. We’re deeply appreciative of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, who have put themselves in harm’s way, not on one side or the other, but on the side of a peaceful resolution, on the side of de-escalation. And they have tried to enforce compliance of the Russian-backed forces to ensure that there is a fair and reasonable approach to defining the future for all of the people of Ukraine.

We believe that the OSCE can now play an enhanced role, and right now there are efforts taking place. I talked yesterday with the OSCE chairman, President Burkhalter of Switzerland, and he is tomorrow going to be traveling to meet with President Putin. Today there were meetings. I talked yesterday also with the foreign minister of Germany, Frank Steinmeier. He today met with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Vienna, and there are further discussions taking place. I will talk with him in an hour or two from now. So there’s a lot of energy being expended to try to see if we can find a reasonable way forward here. And we support the efforts very much of this kind of diplomacy to help the Ukrainians restore law and order and improve the environment for free and fair elections on May 25^th.

And before I invite our honored guest to offer her thoughts here, I just want to briefly mention a couple of other topics that we discussed very quickly this afternoon: South Sudan, Nigeria, and Iran.

First on South Sudan, the cessation of hostilities agreement that was signed in January by the South Sudanese Government and the opposition has obviously not been upheld. And the recent attacks by the South Sudanese Government and the anti-government forces, both of them, are absolutely unacceptable, and the United States condemns them in the strongest terms.

I talked this morning with Prime Minister Hailemariam of Ethiopia, and he has been directly in touch with Riek Machar, who tells him that he will come to a meeting though they’re working on the precise date and hope to have something to announce shortly. He has also talked to President Kiir, and President Kiir has, in fact, committed absolutely to be there and to come. And we’re very hopeful that that can be the beginning of a dialogue, and we will have participants there to assist in that process.

As President Obama has made clear, however, we will hold accountable those who have stood in the way of a peace plan. And I’ve said as much directly to President Kiir and to former Vice President Riek Machar when I was there this past weekend. So today, the United States will announce sanctions on two individuals responsible for violating the cessation of hostilities agreement, individuals responsible for perpetrating unthinkable violence against civilians. The first is the commander of the South Sudanese Government’s Presidential Guard Forces Marial Chanuong, and he has led violent attacks against civilians in Juba. And that will – further details will be announced later regarding that. The second, Peter Gadet, who led anti-government forces in the April 17^th attack on Bentiu that left more than 200 civilians dead.

And we will do our utmost to prevent South Sudan from plunging back into the violence and despair that tore that country apart for so long. We will continue to stand with the people of South Sudan who call for peace and who recognize that the only way to resolve this conflict is through a political dialogue.

Secondly, on Nigeria: Today I spoke with President Goodluck Jonathan on behalf of President Obama and offered – on behalf of President Obama offered America’s support for Nigeria in their response to this crisis. Our embassy in Abuja is prepared to form a coordination cell that could provide expertise on intelligence, investigations, and hostage negotiations, and to help facilitate information-sharing and victim assistance. And President – the President was – President Goodluck Jonathan was very happy to receive this offer and ready to move on it immediately, and we are immediately engaging in order to implement this. We remain deeply concerned about the welfare of these young girls, and we want to provide whatever assistance is possible in order to help for their safe return to their families.

And finally, Lady Ashton and I discussed – I think you see the breadth of the things that we’re talking about. You get a sense of the tremendous cooperation between the EU and the United States, and particularly between Cathy Ashton and myself, for which we are very, very grateful. And we are extremely grateful for her stewardship of the important negotiations that are taking place with Iran on the nuclear program, on a comprehensive – on the search for a comprehensive solution to the challenge of that program.

We – Lady Ashton and our political directors will meet again in Vienna next week. And as we try to seize this diplomatic moment and make our allies and ourselves safer, Iran obviously has to make some very tough decisions. We remain firm in our goals. They don’t vary. Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon, and it must ensure it has a peaceful nuclear program. And as I’ve said many times, we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal.

Let me close by extending to Lady Ashton early greetings for Europe Day, which falls this Friday. It’s a holiday that recalls and renews the EU’s vision for a united, peaceful, stable, and democratic Europe, and the United States will stand side by side with Europe as it strives to live up to that vision and to those high ideals. Lady Ashton, thanks for being with us.

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: Thank you. Thank you very much, Secretary Kerry, or John, as I would prefer. Thank you for your good wishes for Europe Day. I held a reception in New York last night, and it was my great pleasure to be able to see the Empire State Building lit up in the colors of the European Union of blue and yellow. It is a recognition of this incredibly important transatlantic partnership that every nation of the European Union values so highly, and for which I thank you, your predecessors, and all of your colleagues for the work that has gone on to develop it to the point where I think we are very much joined up in our thinking.
As you’ve said, we’ve talked about a range of issues. We talk a lot in between these meetings, so we cover a huge number of current concerns. And I will just pick up on the back of some of this news. You’ve said two or three of them, of which Ukraine is inevitably the highest on our agenda, and the latest news of the great concern that we have from the illegal actions by armed separatist groups is, of course, at the foremost of our attention. We want to see Russia join in in the call to see an immediate end to these actions, and that is very much, as you’ve said, in line with the discussions we had in Geneva, where we talked practically for seven hours. We talked about what this meant. There was no vagueness. There was absolute clarity in what we were trying to do – to try and find ways to begin the de-escalation. And we will continue, as the European Union, to engage fully in seeking a political solution and to stay fully behind what we said in Geneva and to find ways that we can see the implementation done by everyone.
We know, too, that Ukraine has the right to defend its territorial integrity. We understand the international obligations that it has, and we work closely with them. And as you have indicated, they have done a lot from the beginning of leaving Geneva at the end of that day to try and implement what was agreed.

I pay tribute, like you, to the OSCE, and I join the chief monitor of the special mission, who’s called upon all sides to exercise maximum restraint, to avoid bloodshed, and to solve differences peacefully. You all know that on the 28^th of April we took the decision to extend the number of people subject to targeted sanctions for actions that undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence. Any further steps that destabilize the situation in Ukraine would lead to additional and far-reaching consequences for our relations in a broad range of areas.

Like you, too, we are focused on the elections and the importance of free and fair presidential elections. This is a really important step in the stabilization of Ukraine. It’s about democracy. It’s an opportunity, too, for there to be a legitimate and broad debate on the future of Ukraine and to engage with people who do want to talk about how that future should be – peacefully working together, and to take this opportunity to be able to do that. We, of course, will continue as well with our assistance package, which, as you know, will bring in overall support of about 11 billion euros over time.

I want, as well, to mention the terrible escalation of violence in South Sudan and to pay tribute to your visit. I already know from our special representatives in the region and from people from the countries concerned that your visit was extremely timely and your efforts were very well recognized. So may I pay tribute to you for that, as well as many, many other things.
I’m worried that this country is on the brink of what could be a civil war, ethnically motivated. And the prospects of famine and the humanitarian disaster – they’re really looming large now, so we need to work together. We need to work to ensure that the leaders in South Sudan really do take the action that you’ve identified they need to. And when the meeting takes place on Friday, they really have got to now try and put aside personal differences and try and change the atmosphere and to try and prevent any further offenses and to respect the cessation of hostilities.

We’re actively considering the targeted sanctions that you’ve described. As you know, the Foreign Affairs Council, we’re meeting on Monday, and that’s the forum where I am president to try and look at all of these issues and see how we go forward. So we need to work very closely in good cooperation with you and with others and to make sure that we put as much energy as possible into trying to prevent what, as I said, could be a disaster.

Like you, our thoughts are with the parents of the Nigerian girls and with the girls themselves. These are the future of the country. They are teachers, dancers, politicians. They are scientists; they are mothers. They are women in the making, who have a right to play their full part in their society. And what has happened to them is devastating for all of us, and we must do, like you, everything possible to try and reunite them with their families and to prevent this ever, ever happening again.

But I want to end, if I might, by also reiterating my full support for everything that you have done in the Middle East. Your efforts are not, by any means, over yet. I know that. And I know that this has been a difficult time. But I do think that you have made tremendous progress and the European Union stands absolutely beside you as you continue your efforts and remains committed to supporting you in every way possible.

My final thought is on Iran. We will, of course, next week try and take this process forward. And we’re all interested in making sure that if we can get an agreement it’s the best agreement.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, Cathy.

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: We always hug. There’s always a hug. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Andrea Mitchell of NBC News.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, Lady Ashton. On Nigeria first, why has it taken so long to mobilize an American effort? We understand that President Jonathan today said he is welcoming the help, that there was no invitation before this, and if you understand that to mean that you can now act. But it will take a while to organize this cell in the Embassy. Why, given our extraordinary abilities with surveillance, with detection, did not the United States act sooner with other allies? It’s understood that some of these girls may have been taken across borders. There is an international issue. They are listed as a terror organization, Boko Haram, on the State Department list. It seems inconceivable to people around the world that we could not act sooner where lives are at stake. And how long now will it take to act?

And if I could ask you about Benghazi, because this is our first opportunity, sir. First of all, your response to Chairman Issa’s committee’s subpoena for you to appear, we understand that on May 21^st, the date that you were ordered to appear, that you are supposed to be traveling, previously scheduled, in Mexico. Will you now organize another day to appear? How do you feel about being subpoenaed rather than being invited, as would have been the normal protocol? And what is your response to the committee’s charge that the State Department, under your watch as well, has dragged its feet on being forthcoming with all of the demands for documents?

And if I could ask Lady Ashton, finally, given the conversations between President Obama and Chancellor Merkel last week, can the international community really wait to see whether the sectoral sanctions should be imposed? It does seem as though Vladimir Putin and his supporters, these separatists, are not changing their policy and are not responding even to the damage that has been done, whatever it has been, to their economies.
Thank you all so very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: The last question --

QUESTION: Well, you can --

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: He’ll answer it as well.

SECRETARY KERRY: No, no, no. I want her to answer it. I thought it was for her.

QUESTION: Yes, for both, but --

SECRETARY KERRY: So – well, give me the last question again of the four questions I got on here.

QUESTION: Sorry. The last question is: Why wait to impose tougher sanctions given that Vladimir Putin has shown no sign of desisting despite the sanctions that have already been imposed? But I think first --

SECRETARY KERRY: Well --

QUESTION: -- Nigeria and Benghazi.

SECRETARY KERRY: All right, sure. Well, let me speak to Nigeria. First of all, we have been in touch from day one, and our Embassy has been engaged and we have been engaged. But the government had its own set of strategies, if you will, in the beginning. And you can offer and talk, but you can’t do if a government has its own sense of how it’s proceeding. I think now the complications that have arisen have convinced everybody that there needs to be a greater effort, and it will begin immediately. I mean literally immediately. We are in touch, our Embassy is in touch. We’ve been talking with AFRICOM, we’ve been talking with the various entities, and I think you’re going to see a very, very rapid response.

QUESTION: We have satellites, though, surveillance?

SECRETARY KERRY: I understand. Yeah, we do, but it depends where they are and what they’re looking at on any given day. And so there are options, and I can assure you – I think the White House will have more to say about what we are going to be doing, and I’ll let them speak for that. But the simple answer is we’re going to do everything in our power to able to be helpful. And I’m going to see the President in a little while this afternoon. I think the President may or may not have something to say about this in the near term.

And let’s just – the important thing is that we have put everything on the table. We’re going to send a team, and it’ll be a combined team ready to work. But you have to have a host country that’s ready to receive and work with you in any situation, and we’re prepared to work.
On the issue of Benghazi, I served 29 years in the United States Senate, 28-plus. And I was chairman of a major committee, and I don’t think I ever issued a subpoena to somebody that I hadn’t first invited to come and speak. I think this sort of speaks for itself, frankly.

We have had more than, I think, 50 briefings. There have been in the double digits of hearings. We’ve delivered over 25,000 documents. And the fact is that documents require a legal process to go through for examination of executive privilege or other kinds of – classified or other kinds of things that may or may not be in them. That’s just not – it doesn’t happen automatically. But I’ve guaranteed that we would cooperate in every single way. We have, and I will, and the Department will. That’s our obligation. And of course, we will. But I think everybody needs to take a hard look at – and sort of measure what’s been already put out there versus where this effort is going. And you see a very partisan response on the Hill with respect to it.
I also think there’s an issue of the requisite body figuring out who has jurisdiction over this, from what I understand. There are still some questions as to who is going to do what. So we’ll respond, because we have absolutely nothing to hide whatsoever, and I look forward to complying, whatever responsibilities we have.

QUESTION: Do you intend to --

SECRETARY KERRY: With respect to – I’ll comply with whatever responsibilities we have. And with respect to the question of tougher sanctions and sanctions, what we are doing is having a major impact. Nobody should doubt that. The bonds in Russia are already just above junk bonds in categorization, and they’ve had to postpone a number of sales of bonds. The economy is already on the downward decline. The IMF has already declared that it’s in recession. Their growth was going to be about 1.3 percent; it’s now prospected to be perhaps .1 or 2 percent, minimal, and we have only yet begun, if we have to. And I think there’s no question. But it is important for the United States and Europe to try to move together in this. We believe that. And so that requires a certain element of preparation, coordination. You have to do the right paperwork, the right examination. You have to pull your teams together. And we are proceeding, I think, in a very effective and authoritative way.

We’ve made it very clear – President Obama and Chancellor Merkel had a meeting the other day. And they said clearly that if there are interference or continued interference, if there is continued interference with respect to the election and election process, there will be more sanctions that this time will start to bite into the sectors of the economy. And those become even more compelling than what has been put on the table to this point.

But obviously, when you’re trying to keep a door open to be able to find some kind of a diplomatic solution, when the other party says they’re willing to come to the table and actually engage in that discussion, it seems to me reasonable to try to do that. And I think most people in most places want a responsible government, not to escalate to the point of creating an inevitable confrontation, but rather to find out if there’s a way to be able to find that diplomatic solution. That’s what diplomacy is about. There’s no question about our ability, when we want to, to be able to put sanctions in place that are even more biting than what we have today. But you have to ask yourself if the price has been (inaudible) ahead of time, whether or not that invites something further that you don’t want to have happen.

So there’s a delicate mix here, and I think President Obama has calibrated this extremely effectively. It’s having a biting effect, and we will continue to proceed in unity with our European allies to do what we think has the greatest impact and the most effect.

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: I mean, I have nothing much more to add, except to say that from the perspective of what the European Union is doing, it is this desire to see a way to find a method of de-escalation. And that was what Geneva was about. It’s why we put on hold measures that we were considering, because that’s, as you said, is what you do. When we saw that we were not getting the results from Geneva, we pressed the start button again and we’ve continued with those measures. And we’re looking at all of the possibilities. It’s a mix of things that you want to do to try and create the circumstances that will lead to the most important thing, which is stopping the violence, for people to stop occupying the buildings, and to get the kind of discussion, debate, and democratic approach that will lead Ukraine into its future. And so you have to consider all of the ways in which that can be done.

I will be bringing together the 28 foreign ministers on Monday. They will be discussing all of the elements of that approach, working very closely with our colleagues in the United States, in order to see how we can best do that. And it’s why countries like Germany, like others, obviously, engaging and talking as well as looking at what we might do as a coordinated effort, and I really hope that we’re successful in that.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Gero Schliess from Deutsche Welle, and I’m sure I butchered that, but go ahead.

QUESTION: Gero Schliess, Gero Schliess, thank you. First part also on Ukraine: Some people have the impression that for the U.S. sanctions – or, let’s say, punishment or isolation of Mr. Putin is the most important goal. And I have a perception that Europe seems to be reluctant to pursue this policy. And my question to both of you is: We have (inaudible) that Putin is a problem, but in what respect could he be also part of a solution? And today, did you discuss the option of a neutral Ukraine that would possibly satisfy Putin and might be acceptable for the Western countries?

And the second part of my question goes – is about Syria. As Syrian delegation of – Syrian opposition is in D.C. to talk to the Secretary of State, Mr. Kerry, your Administration has granted the U.S. offices of Syrian National Coalition diplomatic status. Does this signal that the U.S. are getting more actively involved in the civil war, including providing the rebels with heavy weaponry?

And to you, Lady Ashton, would the European Union also grant diplomatic status to the Syrian National Coalition?

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: Should I start?

SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead, please.

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: On Ukraine, it’s for the people of Ukraine to decide what Ukraine is and will be, and they will consider very carefully where they sit in the world. I’ve said whenever I visited Ukraine, when I met with the then-President Yanukovych and in more recent times, that it’s not about a competition between Europe and Russia for a nation, that Ukraine will want strong and good economic links with Russia. And we recognize that that’s important. This is never and never should be about this idea of a competition.

For us, it’s always about trying to find now the way forward, as I’ve already indicated, to find the formula that’s going to help to de-escalate the situation, to talk with everybody and to keep all the doors open while being very clear that the situation cannot continue as it is.
On Syria, I’ll answer very briefly, the European Union of itself does not do diplomatic relations with anyone. It’s individual member states who do that.

QUESTION: And may I ask, how far could Putin be part of a solution concerning the Ukraine crisis?

HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: Well, President Putin is president of Russia, and Russia is playing a role at the moment. So the question for Russia is: If you take what I’ve just said about the fact that Ukraine as a nation needs to have a good relationship with all of its neighbors, then you need to start looking at how, from Russia’s perspective, they’re going to define that. And defining that for me is about strong economic links. Yes, there are strong historical links, and yes, there needs to be a way in which they can be peacefully co-existing side by side. And I hope that President Putin might consider that that is the way forward.

SECRETARY KERRY: With respect to your question on President Putin, there’s no observer of Russia, there is no one engaged in diplomacy today who doesn’t understand that President Putin is calling the shots in Russia, that a very narrow group of people around him are advising him in one way or the other. But President Putin is almost exclusively, if not exclusively calling the shots.

There is no specific effort by the United States of America to somehow single him out other than to respond to the fact that in his name, Russia has deployed its forces, engaged in direct activities involved first in Crimea, now in east and south of Ukraine, in ways that are destabilizing that country, and still has 40,000-plus or so troops lined up on the border in a place that it didn’t have them before they began to move into Crimea.

Now, what we are trying to do is not targeted on him because we have some personal thing or something about him. It’s because he’s making decisions that are adversely affecting the region and the rights of the people of Ukraine to choose their future and to have their sovereignty respected. We have only one interest in this. That is the stability and respect for Ukraine, its integrity and its sovereignty, and the opportunity of the people of Ukraine to choose their future. That’s our interest. And we are not seeking alignment; we’re not seeking anything except this universal value that is respected around the world for the right of people to not be bludgeoned at the butt of a gun, or with military invasion, to be told what to do.

Now, we believe that it’s appropriate for us to respond in response to the legitimate demands of a government that was voted on even by the former supporters of President Yanukovych, who deserted the country of his own free will, and made a decision not to live up to the agreement that he signed back in February. And the parliament, with his own party’s support, voted him out and provided for an interim government and called for elections. Now, what could be more sensible than to allow this country under siege to be able to have an election where they give legitimacy to a new government by having all of the people be able to vote? That’s all people are looking for here. It seems to me that it shouldn’t be so complicated for Russia to be able to engage in that process.

And we respect that Russia has a long historical connection to Ukraine, and that Kyiv is the home – the birthplace of Russian religion, and that wars of liberation have been fought on that territory. And we understand the connection and the strong feelings about protection of people who – Russian-speaking and so forth. We’re not – nobody’s arguing against that, though. The fact is that the interim government of Ukraine is prepared to respect the Russian language, prepared to respect the greater autonomy for people in that region, to give them – frankly, the people – the Government of Ukraine has offered to give the people in south and east Ukraine more power over their own lives on an everyday basis than Russia gives any individual state or province in Russia. That’s a fact.

And so the answer is that what we think is important here is that the rights of the people be respected. And Lady Ashton’s correct: They have to choose their future. But they have said they are not seeking alignment. They’ve said they’re not looking for NATO membership. And NATO and those of us who are members have said we’re prepared to respect the choice of the interim government and whatever future government of Ukraine there is.

Final comment: We have said again and again to the Russians – and I hope they hear it again today – we are not seeking for a Ukraine that belongs to some other part of the world, but only – we want one that just belongs to Ukraine. And we’re not seeking one that is a pawn between East and West. We’d like Ukraine to be a bridge between East and West. And we certainly agree with President Putin’s vision that we could have an economic arrangement that goes from Vladivostok to Lisbon that involves everybody in a major market where everybody benefits.

So there’s more to talk about than unfortunately some of the heated rhetoric has given people a sense of. And our hope is that – that’s why we pursue these discussions, is to see if we can’t find a way to make those interests meet the moment and find a way forward that de-escalates this confrontation.

MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, and Syria. I didn’t answer Syria. On Syria, we have not recognized the SOC. We’ve given them diplomatic status to be able to come here, but because we have previously said that they are the legitimate representative. But we have not moved to create a diplomatic – to recognize them or create a diplomatic situation. But we’re hopeful that, again, there also, we can find a way forward that deals with this extraordinary violence that is literally destroying the country of Syria. And our hope is that we could have a reasonable way forward to do that. Thank you. Thank you all.

DOD WILL CERTIFY TO CONGRESS, EGYPT IS MEETING OBLIGATIONS UNDER '79 EGYPT-ISRAEL PEACE TREATY

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel Notifies Egypt of Upcoming U.S. Certification
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 23, 2014 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel informed his Egyptian counterpart yesterday that Secretary of State John F. Kerry soon will certify to Congress that Egypt is sustaining the strategic relationship with the United States and is meeting its obligations under the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty.

In a statement summarizing Hagel’S phone call to Egyptian Defense Minister Col. Gen. Sedki Sobhy, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said these certifications are required to obligate fiscal year 2014 funds for assistance to the Egyptian government.

“Secretary Hagel told General Sobhy that we are not yet able to certify that Egypt is taking steps to support a democratic transition,” Kirby said, “and he urged the Egyptian government to demonstrate progress on a more inclusive transition that respects the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Egyptians.”
Hagel also informed Sobhy of President Barack Obama's decision to deliver 10 Apache helicopters in support of Egypt’s counterterrorism operations in the Sinai, Kirby said.

“The secretary noted that we believe these new helicopters will help the Egyptian government counter extremists who threaten U.S., Egyptian, and Israeli security,” he added. “This is one element of the president’s broader efforts to work with partners across the region to build their capacity to counter terrorist threats, and is in the United States’ national security interest.”