PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY LITTLE ADDRESSES SYRIA, PAKISTAN

Photo Credit:  U.S. Department of Defense.
FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Little Addresses Syria, Pakistan With Reporters
By Jim Garamone
WASHINGTON, June 12, 2012 - The violence in Syria is "deplorable and disgusting," and another indication that the Assad regime has to go, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters.

At his regularly scheduled news conference, Little said forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad are killing innocent Syrian civilians.

He called it a sign of desperation on the part of Syrian forces.
"They are lashing out, and they are lashing out in a violent and brutal way," he said. "And that is absolutely unacceptable."

International efforts led by United Nations envoy Kofi Annan are underway to find an end to the violence. Little suggested the solution is clear.

"I would reiterate, once again, that it's time for President Assad to step aside and for Syria to return to a country of greater peace and stability and a place where the Syrian people can determine their own future," he said.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has said there is no silver bullet to ending the conflict, and today Little elaborated on what the secretary meant.

"We have a degree of violence that is intolerable, perpetrated by a relatively well-armed regime," Little said. "We have an array of opposition groups that are trying to push back on the regime. We know that the circumstances here are very difficult, and I think that's getting ... to what the secretary was alluding to."

Pakistan =also is causing concern among U.S. officials. American negotiators pulled out of talks with the Pakistani government on re-opening ground supply lines to Afghanistan, which Pakistan closed seven months ago. However, U.S. defense officials say this does not mean all conversations with Pakistan has ended.

"We continue to have dialogue on this issue," Little said. "Yes, the negotiating team is coming home for what we hope is a short period of time. We hope that the [ground lines of communication] are reopened soon, and we look forward to having our officials go back to Islamabad to seal the deal at some point in the near future."

Pakistan closed the land routes into Afghanistan after a NATO airstrike along the Afghan-Pakistan border in November mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.
Little said many of the technical issues toward reopening the supply lines have been resolved.

"We have a few more to work through, and we believe we can get to 'yes' with the Pakistanis at the end of the day," he said. "And we hope that day comes sooner rather than later."

U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UN EXPLAINS VOTE ON RESOLUTION REGARDING SYRIAN GOVERNMENT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, At the Adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2042
Susan E. Rice
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations New York, NY April 14, 2012
AS DELIVERED
After more than a year of brutal violence inflicted by the Government of Syria on its own people, after close to 10,000 deaths, after driving almost 45,000 Syrians out of their country and many more out of their homes, and after the grotesque destruction by Syria’s own armed forces of Syrian towns and neighborhoods, the Syrian government has claimed it is finally ready to step back from its murderous policies. Today, with this resolution, the Security Council has indicated it will judge the Syrian regime by its actions, not its words. The Council has authorized an advance group of monitors to verify the Syrian government’s compliance. In doing so, the Council has taken a step towards fulfilling its own responsibilities. And it’s about time.

On Thursday, the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, Kofi Annan, reported that a "fragile calm appears to be prevailing" in Syria. We all hope it will continue to prevail. But we are under no illusions. Two days of diminished violence after a year of murderous rampage hardly proves that the regime is serious about honoring its commitments. Just today, Syrian forces resumed their brutal shelling of Homs, and shot innocent mourners at a funeral in Aleppo. This resumed violence casts serious doubts yet again on the regime’s commitment to a cessation of violence. Despite this aggression, the Syrian opposition has largely refrained from responding and has honorably sought to extend the fragile calm. The regime’s tanks, heavy weapons, and troops maintain their choke hold on population centers, ready to resume attacks at any time. Towns and large areas remain cut off, and the Asad regime maintains snipers and roadblocks throughout Syria. Reports continue to come in that protesters have been killed and arrested, and thousands of activists remain detained. The Syrian government must meet all of its commitments, not the bare minimum. And it must do so now.

The suffering of the Syrian people has gone on far too long. For many months they protested peacefully, only to be met with violent retribution from their own government. When some protesters finally dared to respond in self-defense, the retribution got immeasurably worse. The Arab League proposed a way forward to end the violence and meet the aspirations of the Syrian people. The regime of Bashar Asad responded with broken promises, only to be followed by intensified violence. In the final days before April 12th, we saw an outrageous escalation of violence by the Asad regime, including the stepped up use of heavy artillery on civilian areas and Syrian forces firing across borders into Turkey and Lebanon.

This horrific cycle has lasted way too long. The Syrian people must be allowed to exercise their rights and freedoms peacefully, without fear of attack, detention, torture, or death. We commend the opposition for the restraint it has shown in observing the ceasefire, after the brutality it has endured. And we demand that the Syrian government at last honor its commitments. Those commitments are plain to everyone. Both this Council and the League of Arab States have fully endorsed Mr. Annan's Six Point Plan. As Secretary Clinton noted, the plan is not a menu of options. It’s a comprehensive set of obligations that requires visible and verifiable actions by the Government of Syria.

The resolution just adopted reaffirms the Council’s support for all elements of the Envoy’s plan, including an immediate end to violence, securing humanitarian access, and a Syrian-led political transition that meets the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people. The resolution stresses that the Syrian government must immediately fulfil its remaining obligations to bring about a full cessation of violence. It emphasizes the necessity of the Syrian government immediately withdrawing all its troops and heavy weapons from population centers and returning its soldiers and their equipment to their barracks. It authorizes the Secretary-General to send an initial team of up to 30 observers to verify that the Syrian government is doing what it is obliged to do, including ensuring that the full monitoring mission can do its job, unimpeded, with full freedom of movement, full access to people and institutions, and unobstructed communications. The resolution also expresses the Council’s intention to establish a larger observer mission once the Secretary General presents a blueprint and if it is clear that the cease-fire is holding and the government is cooperating.

We see this advance team’s deployment as an important test of the Syrian government’s intentions. If the government obstructs their work, it will raise serious concerns about moving forward with the establishment of the full mission. We await the Secretary General's proposal for a full observation mission and express our willingness to work quickly with Council members to authorize such a mission, if indeed the Syrian government fulfils its commitments.

The United States expresses its appreciation again to Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan for his dedicated work to try to stop the violence, respect the rights of the Syrian people, and begin a transition towards a stable and legitimate governance. The opportunity is there; the burden is now on the Syrian government to seize it.

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON REMARKS AT END OF G-8 MINISTERIAL

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at the Conclusion of the G-8 Ministerial
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
   Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
   Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson Benjamin Franklin Room
Washington, DC
April 12, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon, and welcome to the State Department, some of you back again, some for the first time. It has been a great honor and pleasure for me to host the G-8 foreign ministers here in Washington. We’ve just concluded a second day of productive meetings at Blair House.
This group of nations has extensive shared interests and responsibilities around the globe, so we discussed a range of issues that are of pressing concern. And while there was certainly frank debate about the details, we all affirmed our common commitment to confronting these challenges together and working in close consultation with one another. Let me briefly touch on some of the highlights, from Syria to North Korea to Iran and beyond.

First, the foreign ministers discussed the evolving situation in Syria. We welcomed Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan’s report that the violence in Syria, at least for the moment, has abated. I also spoke separately about this at some length with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. If it holds, a ceasefire is an important step, but it represents just one element of the special envoy’s plan. As Kofi Annan reported, the Assad regime has, so far, failed to comply with key obligations. The regime’s troops and tanks have not pulled back from population centers. And it remains to be seen if the regime will keep its pledge to permit peaceful demonstrations, open access for humanitarian aid and journalists, and begin a political transition.

The Annan plan is not a menu of options. It is a set of obligations. The burden of fully and visibly meeting all of these obligations continues to rest with the regime. They cannot pick and choose. For it to be meaningful, this apparent halt in violence must lead to a credible political process and a peaceful, inclusive, democratic transition. The United States will be watching closely to see how things develop. We are particularly interested in seeing what the developments on the ground are, and we are in contact with members of the opposition. We remain firmly resolved that the regime’s war against its own people must end for good and a political transition must begin. Assad will have to go, and the Syrian people must be given the chance to chart their own future.

Given the Assad regime’s record of broken promises, we are proceeding, understandably, with caution. The ministers agreed to remain in close contact in the hours and days ahead. As we speak, our representatives in New York are consulting on a potential UN monitoring mission that would go to Syria under the right authorities, circumstances, and conditions. The United States supports sending an advance team immediately to begin this work. And both will need complete freedom of movement, unimpeded communications, and access throughout the country and to all Syrians, as well as firm security guarantees from all parties.
Now let me turn to North Korea. The G-8 ministers discussed our concerns that North Korea continues to prepare to launch a ballistic missile in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and its own national commitments. We urge the North Korean leadership to honor its agreements and refrain from pursuing a cycle of provocation. We all share an interest in fostering security and stability on the Korean Peninsula, and the best way to achieve that is for North Korea to live up to its word.

We also looked ahead to the P-5+1 talks with Iran, scheduled to take place in Istanbul this weekend. We continue to underscore that we hope these talks result in an environment that is conducive to a sustained process that delivers results. This is a chance for Iran to credibly address the concerns of the international community. Iran, in coming to the table, needs to demonstrate that they are serious.

A few other points to mention: We reviewed the outcomes of yesterday’s Quartet meeting and agreed this is a moment to focus on positive efforts, to build trust, and improve the climate between the parties.
We also discussed Africa and the Sahel, in particular how we can deepen our cooperation to prevent conflicts, to deal with the food security challenges, and protect and advance democracy. And we agreed on the importance of continuing the Deauville Partnership and supporting countries in the Middle East and North Africa working to transition to democracy, to improve governance, to create jobs, to expand trade and investment.

Finally, I spoke with many of my G-8 colleagues about the World Bank and our nominee, Dr. Jim Yong Kim. I have known Jim for some time. I know him to be a devoted public servant with a history of thinking big and taking bold actions. I believe he is an excellent choice, and I was delighted not only when the President nominated him but with the response that his nomination is receiving. And selfishly, of course, I was very happy that he named a World Bank president.

So as I’ve said, we’ve covered a lot of ground over the past two days. All of these discussions underscore a simple truth: Today’s complex challenges require continued leadership of the G-8 countries working together. I know that we laid the groundwork for a successful meeting when the G-8 leaders meet next month at Camp David. And now, I’d be happy to take your questions.

MS. NULAND: We’ll take three today. We’ll start with Scott Stearns of VOA. Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. NULAND: We’re going to start with Jill Dougherty of CNN. All right. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Since it’s Syria and you named Syria first, maybe we’ll start with that, Madam Secretary. You just mentioned now that you – that the United States supports this UN monitoring mission and supporting it immediately. So is that the next step? What do you think about the idea of a buffer zone or this idea of having NATO protect the border with Turkey?

And then also in kind of a broader sense, do you think that now, with the ceasefire holding, that it’s kind of taken the wind out of that move to do something stronger at the United Nations, at the Security Council? Could you also give us a little brief on what you discussed specifically with Sergey Lavrov?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jill, I had good discussions with all of my colleagues about Syria, and I was encouraged that Foreign Minister Lavrov agreed with Kofi Annan that this fragile first step is only that – a first step. Sporadic fighting continues in parts of Syria, Assad has not complied with the six points of the Kofi Annan plan, his forces have not pulled back, and he has not taken any action on any of the other points.
So our first imperative is to test the commitment. And with that in mind, our teams are working in New York on a UN Security Council resolution that calls for Assad to fully comply with all points in the Annan plan and that supports Kofi Annan’s request to send a UN advance team to Syria immediately to prepare the way for a full, robust international monitoring mission. And let me be as clear as I can: That monitoring mission will only be a force for peace and security if it enjoys the full freedom of action within Syria. That means freedom of movement, secure communications, a large enough ground presence to bear witness to the enforcement of the six-point plan in every part of Syria.

And that’s a standard that we would expect of any UN monitoring mission. Foreign Minister Lavrov joined with the other G-8 ministers in welcoming the report of Kofi Annan and welcoming the beginning of the process that would lead to a monitoring mission by sending an advance team. So we are working together to try to enforce, in practical terms, the commitments that the Assad regime claims to have made.
Now, we have to maintain our pressure on the Assad regime to fully comply, so our sanctions and the sanctions of others who have imposed them must continue. Our support for the opposition has to continue because they have to be prepared to participate in a political transition process, and we’re going to continue to work in the Security Council and with like-minded nations as we move forward.
So I think we’re at a point, Jill, where we want to test what has been agreed upon but with our eyes wide open going forward.

MS. NULAND: Next question from Marco Mierke, German Press Agency, please.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. You said you talked about North Korea – discussed North Korea and your concerns regarding the possible imminent rocket launch. Since it’s only probably a couple hours away, did you already discuss any consequences that might follow such a launch?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. We discussed our concerns about the announced actions that the North Koreans may take in the next hours or days. We’ve made it abundantly clear, as have our other G-8 colleagues, that any missile launch would violate North Korea’s obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874. I think our Six-Party members and all the members of the G-8 are in agreement that we will have to be prepared to take additional steps if the North Koreans go ahead.

The text of UN Security Council Resolution 1874 couldn’t be clearer, and let me quote it because I think it’s important that you hear this. The Security Council, and I quote, “demands that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear tests or any launch using ballistic missile technology.” And there is no doubt that this satellite would be launched using ballistic missile technology.

So Pyongyang has a clear choice: It can pursue peace and reap the benefits of closer ties with the international community, including the United States; or it can continue to face pressure and isolation. If Pyongyang goes forward, we will all be back in the Security Council to take further action. And it’s regrettable, because as you know, we had worked through an agreement that would have benefitted the North Korean people with the provision of food aid. But in the current atmosphere, we would not be able to go forward with that, and other actions that other countries had been considering would also be on hold.

MS. NULAND: Last question, Scott Stearns, VOA. Thanks.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, on the last bit of Jill’s question, could you tell us whether you support

NATO protecting the border between Turkey and Syria?

For my question on Iran, please, Iran says it’s bringing new initiatives to these talks in Turkey. Are the P-5+1 bringing new initiatives to these talks? And from your talks with Foreign Minister Lavrov, do you believe that Russia shares your view that time is running out for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, with respect to your first question, there is nothing of that nature pending and I’m not going to comment on hypotheticals.

Secondly, with respect to Iran, as the G-8 statement makes clear, we are united in our resolve and expectation that Iran will come to the talks prepared. And we are receiving signals that they are bringing ideas to the table. They assert that their program is purely peaceful. They point to a fatwa that the supreme leader has issued against the pursuit of nuclear weapons. We want them to demonstrate clearly in the actions they propose that they have truly abandoned any nuclear weapons ambition.

So I’m not going to get into the details of what we expect. We’ve worked very closely inside our own government and then with our P-5+1 colleagues. I’ve been in close touch with Cathy Ashton, who will be leading our efforts in Istanbul. But we’re looking for concrete results. And of course, in a negotiation we understand that the Iranians will be asking for assurances or actions from us, and we will certainly take those under consideration. But I do think it is clear to everyone, certainly in the P-5+1 but far beyond, that the diplomatic window for negotiations is open but will not remain open forever. And therefore time is a matter to be taken into account, so we want to get started this weekend. And we will certainly proceed in a very expeditious and diligent manner in a sustained way to determine whether there is the potential for an agreement.
Thank you all.
MS. NULAND: Thank you all very much.

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON ADDRESSES G-8 MEETING REGARDING SYRIA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at the G-8 Plenary Session
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Blair House
Washington, DC
April 11, 2012

Well, once again, welcome to the historic Blair House here in Washington. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to discuss in person the many global issues that require joint leadership from the G-8 nations. The events of this past year, even of just this past week, affirm the continued need for comprehensive international cooperation, and the G-8 is an essential forum for that.

We are alarmed for the ongoing violence in Syria, and we are concerned about the problems facing Special Envoy Kofi Annan as he attempts to bring about a ceasefire and the end to violence. We are very watchful of this. This will be on our agenda later this afternoon. We will look for ways that we can, together, try to bring about a peaceful resolution of the current situation and a political transition for the sake of the Syrian people.

We also look forward to the beginning of the next round of P-5+1 talks in Turkey. These talks are an opportunity for Iran to address seriously the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. And we believe there is still time for diplomacy, but it is urgent that the Iranians come to the table to establish an environment conducive to achieving concrete results through a sustained process.

And further to the east, North Korea is readying a long-range ballistic missile launch over the East China Sea. It comes just weeks after North Korea agreed to a moratorium on missile testing; it violates multiple UN Security Council resolutions. I think we all share a strong interest in stability on the Korean Peninsula, and we will be discussing how best to achieve that as well.

Earlier today, our Quartet colleagues – which includes the United Nations, represented by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon; the European Union, represented by High Representative Cathy Ashton; the Russian Federation, represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov; and the United States, represented by myself and our special envoys – met to review the situation in the Middle East. Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh briefed on Jordan’s recent engagement. The Quartet underscored its support for Jordan’s positive efforts. We remain committed to the goals that we outlined in New York last September. We agreed on the importance of continued financial international support for the Palestinian Authority, including the need for $1.1 billion in immediate assistance.

And finally, we have begun discussing some of the transnational issues – terrorism, piracy, food security – that affect so many millions of people throughout the world. We are also going to be discussing our shared framework to support the democratic transitions and promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth through the Deauville Partnership in the Middle East and North Africa.

So there’s a lot for us to discuss, and we have a full agenda ahead of us in preparation for the leaders meeting at Camp David next month. So again, I welcome my colleagues and look forward to our work together. Thank you all.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
04/10/2012 03:57 PM EDT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 10, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

12:55 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Happy Tuesday, everyone. I have nothing at the top. Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: I guess we could start with Syria. You have seen the report of Kofi Annan or the letter that he has sent to the Security Council and the report of his aide. So I’m wondering what you make of it, and are you okay with him sticking to this timeline, with the regime not withdrawing its forces as best you can tell, but staying with the timeline? In other words, another 48 hours until there’s a ceasefire? Is that okay with you guys?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve seen the letter that Joint Envoy Kofi Annan has submitted to the council. I think you know that the council is still in session as we speak asking questions of his deputy, talking about the letter and thinking about next steps. My understanding is that, in her capacity as president of the council this month, Ambassador Rice will have some comments to the press after that session breaks. So I don’t think I will comment from here ahead of the council finishing its consultations.
QUESTION: Okay. So you’re basically deferring to Susan Rice.
MS. NULAND: I am.
QUESTION: Victoria –
QUESTION: There was – sorry. There was talks that this deadline is extended till April 12th. Are you – what is this all about?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think I’m not going to speak to the contents of the report by the special envoy. The – as you remember, the initial – the proposal in the six-point plan was that the Syrian regime would begin or complete, depending upon how you interpret their pull-back, by April 10th, and then the opposition would complete its ceasefire by April 12th. That’s why you have a little bit of confusion here about this delta. So –
QUESTION: So you are comfortable with the 48 hours? Apparently the Syrians had asked for 48 hours to complete the pullout. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to comment on the substance of any of this until the council finishes deliberating and Susan has a chance to – Ambassador Rice has a chance to speak for the council and us.
QUESTION: Just to quickly follow up, the Syrians are asking for some sort of guarantees or – that the opposition will cease its attacks and so on. And they’re also saying that there is an increased flow of arms into the opposition, apparently by countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, which at the time of the conference, apparently the Secretary of State said it’s okay for others to go ahead and give aid. Now, are the Syrians principally correct in demanding that arms stop flowing to the opposition and they cease whatever attacks they’re conducting against government sources?
MS. NULAND: Well, starting with where I started before, which is, I’m not going to wade into any of this while the council is deliberating. I’m going to let Ambassador Rice come out and speak for the council as a whole and then speak for the United States in her national capacity. We know who bears the brunt of the responsibility for the violence in Syria. We also know, as we discussed yesterday, that there has been no evidence at all that the Assad regime is complying with the six-point plan, and in fact, the violence has gotten worse as we discussed at some length yesterday.
QUESTION: Yeah. But forgive me; principally, does the Syrian regime have the right or is it within its right to request that the flow of arms stop going to the opposition?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak to any of these issues until we have a chance to hear from Ambassador Rice.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Toria, you just pointed out that there has been no action by the regime so far. So isn’t it time, if you stand back and look at this, to say that the whole UN approach, Kofi Annan’s plan, really isn’t working? Nothing has indicated that that regime is going to anything.
MS. NULAND: Again, Jill, I don’t think it’s appropriate in the middle of a council deliberation for me to be opining on what’s going on in the council.
QUESTION: Would you respond to a statement from Senators McCain and Lieberman who were in the region today that said, “Diplomacy with Assad has failed”?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously we have two senators in the region. Our understanding is that they are touring the refugee camps in Turkey today, and they are obviously speaking to what they are seeing. But I don’t think I’m going to comment on any of this while the council is deliberating.
Please.
QUESTION: Will you intensify your efforts to find a solution for Syria in UN Security Council? I mean, is there any –
MS. NULAND: Again, I think I’m going to speak to next steps after the council has finished hearing the report.
QUESTION: Do you believe that Annan carries the last chance for President Assad?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to put time tables on any of this at the moment.
QUESTION: But you keep asking him to step down. I mean, we’ve been hearing this for so long. I mean, are you asking him to step down now? Is this – the time has come? Or is it you’re talking about giving him more chances? Or when he’s going to step down?
MS. NULAND: Well, our view is that he has lost his legitimacy. The Syrian people appear to be saying the same thing.
Please.
QUESTION: Victoria, do you think that the Russians are sending conflicting signals regarding Syria? On the one hand receiving Muallem and on the other saying that the Syrians should have acted quicker?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the Russians joined us in supporting the Annan plan, in making clear that it was time for the violence to stop, that the Assad regime had to lead the way in that, and our expectation and understanding is that they used the opportunity of Foreign Minister Muallem’s visit to make those same points.
Please. In the back.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: No. One –
MS. NULAND: You can keep trying, but I think we’re not going to do a lot of Syria today.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) on the Russian part.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So would you – do you perceive any type of movement perhaps then on the part of the Russians?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the Russians are represented in the Security Council. They’re receiving the report. We’re having a chance to talk to them there today. As you know, we have the G-8 foreign ministers in town starting tomorrow. So the Secretary will have a chance to consult with Foreign Minister Lavrov tomorrow and Thursday. So we’ll have a chance to compare notes then.
Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Syria?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Still Syria.
QUESTION: It seems that the safe-zone option along the Turkish border is (inaudible). So – and according to news report, Turkey has hinted that it will go along if it get the support of U.S. If Kofi Annan plan fail, are you ready to consider that kind of support?
MS. NULAND: You’re taking me into all kinds of hypotheticals. We talked about this a little bit yesterday. We talked about the several Turkish statements to the effect that they were studying this. We obviously haven’t had the results of their study.
Please.
QUESTION: The Indian Embassy this morning received a bomb threat call. Do you have any information on that and who were behind this?
MS. NULAND: I can confirm that there was a bomb threat at the Indian Embassy in Washington earlier today. Appropriate law enforcement personnel responded immediately. All three of the Indian official locations in Washington have now been cleared – the chancery, the ambassador’s residence, and the visa office, and no device was located.
QUESTION: When you say “cleared,” you mean evacuated? Or “cleared,” you mean checked?
MS. NULAND: Both evacuated and checked for bombs.
QUESTION: And now people have come back to them?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know if they’ve gone back to work, but security officials have declared them clear.
QUESTION: So do you think at this point that it’s probably a hoax, then?
MS. NULAND: I think there’ll be an investigation, obviously, and we’ll see what that leads to.
QUESTION: And where was this call from? Have you been able to trace the call back?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have any information as to who called. I would guess that that’ll be part of the investigative steps that go on.
QUESTION: Does this lead to any kind of increase in security or --
MS. NULAND: Say again?
QUESTION: Does this lead to any kind of increase in security presence outside the Indian embassies or the ambassador’s residence?
MS. NULAND: I would guess that part of our evaluation going forward in terms of what happened will be to determine whether the security posture is adequate.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry. Can I just clarify one thing? You guys – someone called here to tell you that there was a bomb at the Indian Embassy?
MS. NULAND: Frankly, I don’t know whether the Indian Embassy was notified that there might be a threat and then they notified law enforcement and us, or whether we were notified and --
QUESTION: Can we move --
MS. NULAND: I don’t know. Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Move on?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: I realize that you said probably as much as you’re going to say yesterday, but I’m going to try again.
MS. NULAND: It’s one of those kind of days. Yeah.
QUESTION: Weeks, maybe.
MS. NULAND: Weeks. I’m sorry, sir. Although we were up here for an hour and 10 minutes yesterday.
QUESTION: Well, let me try and go to it at a different angle. The White House yesterday seemed to take alert when you mentioned something about reporting from North Korea yesterday. And I asked you about it, and you seemed to suggest that there wasn’t any problem. But then, now there are White House officials coming out on the record telling news organizations not to be sucked in by this North Korea propaganda campaign. Is this the – does the State Department share those concerns?
MS. NULAND: I haven’t actually seen what White House colleagues have said. Was that something that --
QUESTION: Tommy Vietor.
MS. NULAND: -- that Tommy said? Well, look, I mean, obviously freedom of the press – you all will cover this as you see fit. Our concern obviously would be that the North Koreans would use this for propaganda purposes and that news organizations that cover it extensively might be playing into that. But it’s obviously your call how to cover this story.
QUESTION: You don’t think that North Korea would be using it for propaganda purposes without any – I mean, in the absence of inviting people in to cover it?
MS. NULAND: Well, it obviously has propaganda value. But the more that it is covered and spread and the more stories about it, it just keeps them on the front page in a way that does not enhance peace and security. But you’ll obviously all make your own decisions.
QUESTION: Understood. But I’m just curious about that, because I mean, it’s going to be on the front page whether there are news – Western news organizations there or not. Right? It’s a matter of concern. It’s a newsworthy event if they launch a missile, is it not?
MS. NULAND: It’s obviously a newsworthy event. I think that --
QUESTION: So what’s the concern?
MS. NULAND: If – again, having not seen what Tommy had to say, I would guess that the sentiment expressed was simply that if you have lots of nightly news coverage and long pieces climbing up and down the rocket and all that stuff, it just is free publicity for this --
QUESTION: But doesn’t that illustrate the problem?
MS. NULAND: Well --
QUESTION: And shouldn’t that make people – I mean, increase the concern? I mean, it seems to me that this is a problem for – the idea of the launch is a problem, correct? Yes.
MS. NULAND: We’ve been clear about that.
QUESTION: So the more attention that’s paid to that, the greater understanding there is of this problem, no?
MS. NULAND: I don’t think that it is a matter of the issue going unreported. It’s simply, I would guess, the sense that the more coverage of this, the more long pieces about North Korea, all this kind of stuff, they get exactly what they want. They get lots of attention from all of you about their situation.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: And frankly, this is publicity that --
QUESTION: But here’s the thing. They’re going to get all this attention from you regardless, right? So I don’t get – what difference does it make?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’ll refer you to the White House on what they were thinking. Thanks.
QUESTION: A follow-up on a question about the U.S. team that was sent to Pakistan to help in the avalanche. Are they still in Islamabad?
MS. NULAND: That is my understanding, Cami, that they are still in Islamabad.
QUESTION: Any word on when they might move? Are they going to move? Are they just going to sit in Islamabad?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously we responded to the request for help. They went to Islamabad to coordinate with Pakistani officials. I really can’t speak to either what the conditions on the mountain are, whether there are issues having to do with getting in, or whether, several days having gone by, there is sort of rethinking about whether the international teams can and should be deployed. I’m just going to send you to the Pakistanis on that. But we are making them available so that they can help in whatever way the Pakistanis might find helpful.
Please.
QUESTION: Can I just go back to North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, the White House at its press gaggle in Palm Beach and the comments just said that it would be, quote, “hard to imagine” that the food aid would still be delivered if this launch goes ahead. Is that a statement of policy now that if this launch goes ahead, the food aid will be retracted?
MS. NULAND: We’ve been clear about where we are on this for weeks and weeks, and I think the White House statement reflected that, obviously.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Syria just for a minute?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on Nadia’s question on the issue of stepping down, Bashar al-Assad to step down, would that be a requirement that he must do immediately, or are you willing to consider – not you but the international community – giving him like maybe a two-year period until the next election? I mean, what is the deal here? What is the demand?
MS. NULAND: You’re getting me into negotiations with Assad now?
QUESTION: I mean, what is your principle position? That he must immediately step down?
MS. NULAND: Our view is that Syria cannot move forward with Assad in power. The President has been clear about that for months and months and months. We had supported the Arab League plan, which gives a detailed roadmap for how this could proceed, looks similar to some of the other situations we’ve seen in the region. Again, this is an issue for the Syrian people to settle. We want to see the fighting stop so we can get to that conversation about how a transition should go forward.
QUESTION: Okay. So your support for the Arab League plan has not changed at all?
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: Speaking of roadmaps, I understand the Quartet envoys are meeting today to try and come up with some kind of statement that suggests that there is progress being made when, in fact, there isn’t. Is that correct? And what can you do to – tell us to preview tomorrow’s Quartet meeting, principals meeting?
MS. NULAND: The Quartet envoys are meeting later this afternoon to prepare the meeting at the level of ministers and principals tomorrow. They – so tomorrow the Quartet will meet at the level of principals, which is Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, EU High Representative Ashton, UN Secretary General Ban, and obviously Secretary Clinton. Quartet Representative Tony Blair will also join that meeting.
We do anticipate that there will be a Quartet statement at the conclusion of that meeting tomorrow about midday. The envoys are working on it today, and it’ll be concluded by principals tomorrow.
The focus of the Quartet meetings tomorrow won’t surprise you, will continue to be trying to support the parties and move them closer to dialogue and creating the context for dialogue between them. They will also be looking at how they can build on the work that was done by the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee when it met in Brussels last week, emphasizing the need for robust international support for the Palestinian Authority and institution building. But obviously, we have to see to what the results of the meeting are tomorrow.
QUESTION: Are you still pushing for the Jordan – the Jordanian-sponsored talks to resume? Or is that now a dead duck?
MS. NULAND: Well, we obviously think that the talks that were conducted in Jordan were very useful in January, that they began a process that we would be prepared to see built on. But there are other ways for the parties to reengage with each other, and we would be supportive of any means of reengagement that would be helpful.
QUESTION: So you moved beyond the Jordan --
MS. NULAND: Again, if the parties are ready to go back to Jordan, we continue to support that process. But we also would support other ways that reengagement can happen.
QUESTION: There’s no participation --
QUESTION: They are meeting in the Blair House?
MS. NULAND: Blair House tomorrow. Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. And just a quick follow-up. There’s also a meeting tomorrow between Fayyad and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding a letter that the Palestinian Authority has submitted. Will that statement in any way reflect what is in the letter or what is being discussed or what comes out of that meeting between Fayyad and Netanyahu?
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to Fayyad, Netanyahu meeting tomorrow. We’ll have to see if, in fact, the meeting is tomorrow, and if, in fact, there is a letter. I think our goals are obviously all the same, which is how we can get these parties to continue to work together and work on stability and security in the Palestinian territories.
QUESTION: And finally, you keep insisting that the proper venue is the resumption of the talks. Now, on the other hand, the Palestinian Authority is planning some sort of a campaign to reach out to the Israeli public, like YouTube and messages and advertisements and all these things. Is that a good thing or is that in contradiction with what you want them to do?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think all of the parties engaged in this, whether they’re Quartet parties or whether they’re the Israelis and Palestinians, engage in public diplomacy in any way that they deem appropriate. What’s most important is that we all be seeking a negotiated solution.
QUESTION: There is no representation of either the Palestinians or the Israelis in tomorrow’s meeting. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: Is that normal for them not to be represented?
MS. NULAND: Actually, usually when the Quartet meets, they meet on their own, and then the envoys go off and see the parties. That’s generally the way it happens, yeah.
QUESTION: Just to stay on this --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- with Israel just for one second. And that is – and I realize this is a White House thing, so you’re probably going to send me there, but the Pollard case. Do you – did you at all – are you aware of a letter that was sent by the Israeli president to President Obama asking for Pollard’s release?
MS. NULAND: I understand that the White House has now received the Pollard letter. I will refer you to them.
QUESTION: Okay. Because that’s more than Jay Carney said earlier this morning. They have gotten it?
MS. NULAND: I understand. They have now received it, yep. And that the President obviously appreciates hearing the views, but I’m going to send you to the White House for more on that.
QUESTION: Does the State Department take any position in this?
MS. NULAND: I think the entire Administration’s position on the Pollard case has not changed.
Please.
QUESTION: Can we switch to China?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: There are reports that – there’s a report, excuse me, singular, on Xinhua that Bo Xilai’s wife is under suspicion of having murdered the British businessman, Neil Heywood. I realize this is a Chinese investigation regarding the murder or death of a British citizen, but does it strike you as a step forward that the Chinese at least appear to be investigating the circumstances of his death, which I think were originally attributed to excessive alcohol consumption?
MS. NULAND: We’re aware of these reports. I think we are going to decline to comment on them one way or the other.
Jill.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the investigators in Russia dropping the charges against a nurse who was implicated in the death of Sergei Magnitsky?
MS. NULAND: We were waiting for you yesterday, Jill.
QUESTION: I know. I wasn’t here. But I saved it up.
MS. NULAND: Look, you know our view, that the investigation into the circumstances of Magnitsky’s death has been inadequate and has failed to produce justice. We continue to call on Russian authorities to conduct a genuine investigation, to prosecute and punish those responsible for Magnitsky’s death. So obviously we’re not moving in that direction.
Please, Cami.
QUESTION: On Libya, the apparent attack today on the head of the UN mission there. Someone apparently threw an explosive device at the convoy. Just wondering how concerned you are about the continuing violence there and the prospects for Libya making some sort of economic recovery if these sorts of attacks are going to go on against Western or international targets.
MS. NULAND: Well, we strongly condemn today’s attack on the UN convoy travelling through Benghazi. We call for a full investigation, the Libyans cooperating with UN authorities on that. We are, again, taking this opportunity to call on all armed groups in Libya to exercise restraint, to refrain from violence, to work through their issues through dialogue. But I have to tell you, Cami, we don’t have a lot of information as to who was responsible, or what the circumstances of this were. But it’s absolutely unacceptable. We are just thankful that nobody was hurt.
All right?
QUESTION: Yeah. I have one more.
MS. NULAND: Please, Matt?
QUESTION: Two more, actually.
MS. NULAND: Yep.
QUESTION: Bahrain. Yesterday, you said that there were going to be more calls made about this hunger striker? Were those calls made?
MS. NULAND: Our ambassador in Bahrain, Ambassador Krajeski had a number of calls yesterday and today with Bahraini officials making clear our concern about this case.
QUESTION: No one else?
MS. NULAND: No.
QUESTION: And you’re aware of the latest today on this case? I mean, there was – again, the other day, there was the Bahrainis refusing to release them and now that – is it the Danish or the Norwegian, I can’t --
MS. NULAND: Danish.
QUESTION: Danish. The Danish have reupped their – resubmitted their appeal for his release, and apparently it’s been rejected again. So we can be clear: Your – the Administration’s position on this is that he should be allowed to go to Denmark, or what is it that these calls are being made to --
MS. NULAND: We are not – yeah. We are not dictating any particular solution. We are just asking for a humanitarian resolution of this case.
Please.
QUESTION: Toria, have you raised concern about the deteriorating health of Al-Khawaja in prison?
MS. NULAND: This is the case – this is the – yeah. This is case that we talked about it yesterday, and I’ve just responded.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about his daughter? Yesterday, all you said was that you were aware of her arrest.
MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything new on his daughter. I understood that she was arrested – she was detained temporarily and that she’s been released. But if that’s not accurate, we’ll get back to you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please, Nadia. Nadia, and then --
QUESTION: Do you have any position on whether former regime – former Mubarak regime’s official should stand in election – presidential election or not? Because there is a committee in the parliament now approved the banning of Omar Suleiman from nominating himself for the presidential election.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. I think we’re not going to comment on these individual issues inside of Egypt other than to say we want to see the election procedures followed. We want to see a transparent, open process with clear rules of the road.
Please.
QUESTION: Afghanistan? Afghanistan interior ministers are here in town. Are they having any meetings in this building?
MS. NULAND: I don’t believe so. I don’t believe so. Okay? Thanks, everybody.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING

FROM U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 9, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:41 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Happy Monday, everybody. I hope that everybody who had holidays this weekend had a great weekend and that everybody else just enjoyed the great weather.
Let’s – I have two things to do at the top, then we’ll go to what’s on your minds. The first is with regard to the attack on Russian journalist Elena Milashina over the weekend. The United States has long been deeply concerned about violent attacks on journalists in Russia. Journalists and representatives of civil society everywhere must be free to report without fear of reprisal or intimidation.
Most recently in Moscow, late on the evening of April 4th, Novaya Gazeta reporter, Elena Milashina and her friend, who was a representative of a nongovernmental organization, Freedom House, were brutally assaulted. We’re concerned that this attack may have been related to the journalistic work of Ms. Milashina as an investigative reporter. We urge the authorities in Russia to work quickly to bring those responsible to justice.
Our second note is with regard to the passing of Chinese democracy advocate Fang Lizhi. We are saddened by the passing of democracy advocate and physicist Fang Lizhi who was a champion of human rights and democratic reform in China. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and loved ones.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Where to begin?
MS. NULAND: Yes. It is going to be a very, very busy week.
QUESTION: Yeah. I guess, let’s start with what may be the shortest of your answers, and that’s North Korea. So the North has showed off its new missile that they’re – or its new rocket – satellite-bearing rocket that they’re about the launch. And then there are also signs – at least according to the South Koreans – that they’re preparing for a possible nuclear test. I’m wondering what you all have to say about that beyond, “Just don’t do it.”
MS. NULAND: Well, our position remains: Don’t do it. North Korea’s launch of a missile would be highly provocative, it would pose a threat to regional security, and it will be inconsistent with its recent undertakings to refrain from any kind of long-range missile launches. And as you know, we consider that it would be a violation of UN Security Council resolution 1718 and 1874. So we are continuing to make the point that it is a bad idea to do this.
As the President said in Seoul, we are also working with our Six-Party counterparts to try to make the same points to North Korea and to urge all of the countries in the Six-Party Talks to use their influence with the DPRK. We believe in particular that China joins us in its interest in seeing a denuclearized Korean peninsula, and we are continuing to encourage China in particular to act more effectively in that interest.
QUESTION: But what about the signs of a possible nuclear test?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, that would be equally bad, if not worse.
QUESTION: Do you see any such signs?
MS. NULAND: I’m not in a position to confirm one way or the other, and certainly not to share any intelligence that we might have.
QUESTION: Are you asking those nations in the region to be on high alert because of this North Korean missile launch and other threats?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think everybody needs to be vigilant at this time, obviously.
QUESTION: What about Japan’s --
MS. NULAND: Behind you, Ros.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you have any concern if condemning North Korea after the launch it might give them, like, excuse that they will do the nuclear test?
MS. NULAND: Well, they shouldn’t be doing either. And any of these types of action are just going to further isolate them and make it harder for them to be part of the world community and to give their people a better quality of life.
Ros.
QUESTION: Japan has been making some comments suggesting that it might respond in some way if this missile launch does happen. Have you cautioned Tokyo to dial down its rhetoric at all?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve been consulting with all of our Six-Party counterparts on all of this; our position, as you know, has been that Japan, Korea, any of the countries in the region, obviously, have the right to self-defense.
Please.
QUESTION: Change topic?
QUESTION: No, no, no. I’m not --
MS. NULAND: Stay on DPRK?
QUESTION: Yeah, North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Yeah. North Korean official announcement yesterday that if and when the United States have additional sanctions against the North Korea, then North Korea will regard it as an act of war. What is your comment on that?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get into all kinds of hypothetical, “we do this and they do that,” situations. The bottom line is we strongly urge North Korea not to do this.
Please, right here. And then come back to you, Matt.
QUESTION: North Korea is now all set to launch the long-range rocket. And the sanctions made have not been working very well so far. So do you have any new good ideas to prevent them to doing so?
MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, we’re making clear we think this is a very bad idea. With regard to what kinds of consequences there are going to be, I’m not going to predict at this point.
QUESTION: Well, at this point --
MS. NULAND: Let me go back to Matt.
QUESTION: That’s okay.
MS. NULAND: No? No.
QUESTION: Mine’s very brief.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea invited all over the world in journalists. Has North Korea invited any U.S. journalists?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know the answer to that. But obviously we would be discouraging of that.
Matt.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. You would be discouraging of what?
MS. NULAND: Of folks going and celebrating this launch, which we consider a violation of --
QUESTION: Celebrating? Or – I’m sorry, celebrating or just witnessing --
QUESTION: Covering.
QUESTION: Covering.
QUESTION: Covering --
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, there’s been plenty of coverage.
QUESTION: -- this propaganda.
QUESTION: Well, you don’t have a problem with reporters going to cover it, do you?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’re not in a position to tell reporters what to do one way or the other, as you guys well know.
QUESTION: Okay. I was just – right. I just wanted – the last time we talked about this, you were not aware – or you were aware that there had been no direct contact between you and the North Koreas with this warning or this appeal not to do it. Do you know if that’s changed? Has there been any direct contact? Or is your message pretty much – this is how you’re delivering the message?
MS. NULAND: We wouldn’t say anything different in private that we’re not saying here.
QUESTION: No, I know, but --
MS. NULAND: So, to my knowledge, we haven’t had any additional private contact with them, other than the day that they advised us they were going to do this and we said --
QUESTION: That Thursday?
MS. NULAND: Yes. Exactly.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: The North Koreans inviting the journalists, showing them really it has no armament value whatsoever. You don’t believe them? Do you consider that to be just a public relations stunt?
MS. NULAND: Said, we’ve talked about this many times.
QUESTION: I know, but --
MS. NULAND: They can’t launch the thing without using ballistic missile technology which is precluded by UN Security Council Resolution 1874. So regardless of what they say about it, it’s still a violation.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: All three stages of the rocket are ready on the launch pad, so how much hope do you actually have that you’re going to be able to convince North Korea to not do this in the next few days? It’s already there.
MS. NULAND: We’re not in the hope business here. We’re simply making clear we think this would be a very bad idea.
QUESTION: The Chinese Government has been convincing North Korea to – not to launch this rocket?
MS. NULAND: Well, you heard me say that we are continuing to urge all of the countries that may have influence on the DPRK, most notably China, to continue to use that influence to make clear that they also disapprove of this and think it would be a bad idea and will just further isolate the DPRK.
QUESTION: It seems like we go through these periodic moments of DPRK appears to be reconciling with the U.S. and other members in the Six-Party talk regime, then we have some sort of provocation, to use the U.S. Government’s term, and then we repeat. What’s it going to take to break this cycle if the DPRK continues to engage in what the U.S. and others country consider provocative and destabilizing behavior?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we’d share your assessment that it is extremely disheartening that we seem to be in this cycle of thinking that we are coming to some sort of an agreement, as we did on Leap Day, and then having new threats of provocative activity or provocative activity itself. Our concern is for the people of the – of North Korea, who are just further and further in isolated – whose quality of life is not improving, and this – and the regime, who seems bound and determined to isolate their country rather than rejoining the community of nations.
Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MS. NULAND: Say again.
QUESTION: Syria?
MS. NULAND: Syria, yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Could I just stay on North Korea?
MS. NULAND: One more North Korea; then we’re going to move on. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Is it fair to say you are not very satisfied with the way – how Chinese Government is pressurizing or not pressurizing North Korea, or – and could there be specific measure, action, taken by the Beijing to prevent it?
MS. NULAND: I think we continue to encourage China to do all that it can, and we are hopeful that they will continue to use their influence in the hours and days ahead.
On Syria?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just – Victoria, the deadline is fast approaching for a – the Assad regime to pull its forces out of the cities and neighborhoods and so on, and obviously they’re not doing that. So once the deadline has come and gone, what will be your next trip – next step, I’m sorry – to deal with this issue?
MS. NULAND: Well, before we get to the step that might follow a day from now or the day after, let’s start with the news today, which are the reports of cross-border violence across the Turkish border. Let me just start by saying that we strongly condemn any attack by the Syrian regime on refugees in bordering countries, and we’re absolutely outraged by today’s report. We join the Turkish Government in calling for the Syrian regime to immediately cease fire. And these incidents are just another indication that the Assad regime does not seem at all willing to meet the commitments that it made to Kofi Annan. Not only has the violence not abated; it has been worse in recent days.
QUESTION: So does that mean that you are not – you don’t trust the regime in following through on its commitment to cease fire by the 10th of April?
MS. NULAND: Well, we see no indication that it is preparing to do so. It’s done some moving around of its tanks and artillery but only so that it can use them in other places. There are new, horrific reports in addition that over 100 people were summarily executed in the last period outside of Aleppo, that there were 200 bodies found in Idlib in similar conditions. So are we optimistic that he’s going to meet his commitments? No. But obviously, we’re going to wait for tomorrow’s deadline and take it from there.
Ros.
QUESTION: Does this cross-border attack raise any alarms among the NATO alliance? And what sorts of discussions have started because of what happened overnight?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we’re all consulting with our Turkish counterparts in trying to ascertain what the facts are. I would not be surprised if the Turks do raise this in Brussels. I haven’t heard that that’s the case yet.
Please.
QUESTION: In addition to the attack on Turkey’s (inaudible) killed a Lebanese journalist today inside the Lebanese borders. Are you aware of that?
MS. NULAND: I’m not aware of that, Samir. We’re – we’ll look into that. But again, was this another cross-border incident? Is that what you understood? Again, the violence clearly hasn’t abated at all.
Please.
QUESTION: You stated that all the indications show the Assad regime is not prepared to follow up Annan plan. What is – what are you preparing to do after tomorrow? It is not months; it’s just tomorrow. What are you going to do?
MS. NULAND: Well, tomorrow we’re expecting that there will be a report from Kofi Annan’s representative in the Security Council, probably in the afternoon. I think we will wait and see what his evaluation is and then what he recommends, but as we have said, we expect that we will be having intensive consultations in the Security Council. And then, as you know, we have G-8 countries in Washington this week for ministerial meetings with Secretary Clinton. I’m sure that Syria will be a subject of discussion here, too.
QUESTION: Can we go back to the cross-border incident?
QUESTION: Do you still have any hope for the Annan plan to – at any rate be implemented at this point?
MR. NULAND: Well, again, we’re going to wait until tomorrow. The deadline is tomorrow. But based on what we’re seeing today, we are not hopeful.
QUESTION: What is it that you understand transpired on the border? Our early reports said it was not clear whether people were deliberately targeted or whether this might have been stray or accidental fire. Are you convinced that the people in Turkey were deliberately targeted by Syrian forces?
MR. NULAND: That is the view of the Turkish officials who have been briefing us, that the regime knew that it was firing across the border, that it was pursuing activists and that these were intentional acts. But we are obviously continuing to consult with the Turks who are there.
QUESTION: And how does this – if that is what happened, how does that differ from, say, hot pursuit, say, from Afghanistan into Pakistan?
MR. NULAND: This is – you’re talking about apples and oranges. In the Pakistan-Afghanistan situation, as you know, along that border, we have a complex but very intensive dialogue and set of protocols between Afghan forces, Pakistani forces, and NATO as to how you manage when insurgents are seen crossing the border, et cetera. The reports that we’re having from Turkish officials indicate that these were firings on innocents. These were not in response to any kind of fire.
Said.
QUESTION: Victoria, the regime has requested that the opposition put down in writing that they are ceasing fire. One, how could they possibly do that? And conversely, how would the regime be assured that these groups, who probably number a hundred or something like this, would actually cease fire?
MR. NULAND: Well, precisely. This is just more chaff being thrown up in the air at the last minute to deflect attention from the fact that the regime is not meeting the commitments that they made to Kofi Annan. Remember, it wasn’t simply that the accepted the plan, but that they reported to Annan some – about a week ago or even less that they had started to withdraw - none of which seems to be the case. And now two days before the deadline, they’re asking for written guarantees from groups that are loose and amorphous and have themselves declared that if they saw the regime cease fire that they would also cease fire. So this is just another way to stall for time.
QUESTION: Is there a new estimate on how many people in Syria may have been killed since the – overall since the uprising began? I mean, you just mentioned a hundred people found here, several dozen found over there. I mean, what’s – what figure are we talking about now?
MR. NULAND: My understanding that the figure that the UN Human Rights Council has been using is around 9,000, but I would refer you to their figures. I don’t think anybody has a complete and accurate accounting, obviously, because we’re not able to get into Syria.
QUESTION: Does this death toll, seemingly rising by the day, add any additional urgency? I mean, we’re more than a year on into this and there’s no security, it seems, for the Syrian people. We saw the satellite images put out by Ambassador Ford on Friday afternoon. Tanks are still sitting on Homs, and they’re still sitting across Idlib province. What’s it going to take for the U.S. and other countries to actually do something against Bashar al-Assad’s regime?
MR. NULAND: Ros, let me take issue with the premise. I mean, first of all, let’s start with the fact that this has been urgent for months and months and months. Remember that the President called for Assad to go way back in November, I believe it was, if not earlier. What we have done is marshaled an enormous coalition of countries that are now sanctioning Assad. We talked last week about all of the measures taken at the Friends of the Syrian People conference: crippling sanction not only from the U.S. and the EU and the Arab League, but now globally; the effort to assist now the Syrian opposition, in our case on a nonlethal basis, other countries choosing to do other things to help them to defend themselves; the humanitarian assistance; the effort to take – to stand up an accountability center so that we can help the Syrian people document the abuses; et cetera. And we will keep squeezing and isolating this guy until the violence ends.
Ilhan.
QUESTION: Should people in Syria assume that unless the Assad regime decides to just stop its attacks that each day could be their last?
MR. NULAND: Ros, we are all horrified by the violence, and we are doing what we can to increase the pressure on Assad, and we will continue to stand with the Syrian people until they have the future that they want and that they deserve.
Please.
QUESTION: From the beginning, you have been supporter of the Annan plan. In fact, the UN envoy, Ms. Susan Rice, said this outstanding choice for Mr. Annan and the best solution was cited. My question is: Do you have any regret that the Assad regime agreed to Arab League plan, agreed to different plans, and now you again supported this Annan plan, and now over a thousand people just past week have died. Do you take any kind of responsibility for your choice of policy on the Annan plan?
MR. NULAND: Look, the Annan plan is based on all of the efforts that all of us have been making for months now to try to end this violence. He is a highly respected diplomat. He put forward something that was accepted by the entire international community, which was not the state that we were in before he joined this effort, and that was accepted by Assad. The fact that it hasn’t worked yet doesn’t change the fact that having the international community increasingly united and increasingly willing to pressure Assad will not eventually bring him down. He will go down. The question is when and the question is how many of his supporters, how many of his military are going to continue to execute his orders right up until the end and face the justice that is coming to them as well.
Please, Goyal.
QUESTION: So you don’t have any regret – should we understand that you don’t have any regret supporting the Annan plan?
MS. NULAND: Kofi Annan is doing what he can to represent the will of the international community. We’re going to see what he has to say tomorrow when his representative reports on the outcome, not only in terms of how he appraises what’s happened, but what he proposes for next steps.
Please.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: No. Wait, I just – back to the question about NATO.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. – what does the U.S. think about this? Does the U.S. believe that there are NATO implications for the – for what happened?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, I can’t --
QUESTION: Or that there could be? And do you know, given your past expertise or current expertise of NATO, does an aggrieved country have to ask for Article 5 to be invoked? Because I don’t remember what happened after 9/11. Did the U.S. ask for Article 5 to be invoked, or did it – did others invoke it on our behalf?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, with regard to whatever the Turkish conversation might be in NATO, Ros asked if that has happened. I said that I didn’t know whether Turkey had briefed the NATO council, so --
QUESTION: No, no, but I don’t – I’m not interested in whether they have or not.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. With regard to --
QUESTION: I’m interested in if the U.S. believes that it – if there are Article 5 – NATO Article 5 implications.
MS. NULAND: I don’t think that we have gotten to that point in our analysis. We’re still trying to ascertain the facts here.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: With regard to how NATO works, Article 5 is invoked by consensus, so any member of the council can propose --
QUESTION: Can say – so the Turks don’t have to go and say we want this invoked; the Greeks could do --
MS. NULAND: Any member of the council can propose something and then the council would have to be unanimous in its support.
QUESTION: Another subject?
QUESTION: (Inaudible) follow-up on Matt’s --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- on the NATO thing. Suppose Turkey decided that this is really a hostile act and decided to take a military response to this thing. Would NATO automatically give support in this case? I mean, from your experience --
MS. NULAND: You’re getting me into 17 layers of hypotheticals, Said --
QUESTION: I mean, from your personal experience in --
MS. NULAND: -- which you can imagine I’m not going to get into.
QUESTION: -- that area, how would it happen? I mean, they --
MS. NULAND: NATO works by consensus. Any NATO action has to be proposed in the council and has to be supported by all member states.
Okay.
QUESTION: India and --
QUESTION: Sorry, what’s that date on the issue of having safe havens for the refugees? Is this an issue under discussion with the Turkish Government?
MS. NULAND: Well, the Turks, as you know, have provided safe haven inside Turkey in a number of locations along the border, and they are continuing to feed and house and care for a growing number of Syrian refugees. We have all offered our support to that effort. International humanitarian organizations are supporting that effort inside Turkey.
QUESTION: India and Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So there is nothing going in Syria? Because even today and yesterday, Turkish officials have been talking about – we have seen different reports that Turkey is seriously considering these safe havens within Turkey. What is your position on this idea right now?
MS. NULAND: You’re talking about expanding the refugee centers --
QUESTION: Inside.
MS. NULAND: -- within Turkey?
QUESTION: Within Syria.
MS. NULAND: Within Syria. We’ve seen the same reports that you have, that various Turkish officials have said that they’re looking at it, studying it. I would refer you to Turkish officials.
QUESTION: But Turkish officials have not told your – briefed U.S. on this matter so far?
MS. NULAND: Our understanding is that at various levels, Turkish officials have studied or are studying this. I don’t think we would have any comment unless and until those studies were complete.
Please, Goyal.
QUESTION: It was a great diplomatic week between India and Pakistan.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: President Zardari of Pakistan, he took a mission – what he called – in Delhi and also at – religious pilgrimage, that this mission is for peace between the two countries and forget the past, whatever we have done. But a new chapter was started between the two countries’ relations. And both agree now that they will work at the highest level, including prime minister visiting Pakistan on the invitation of President Zardari.
So what is the future of this relationship goes as far as the U.S. is concerned, this quasi -- moreover, a diplomatic and religious mission for peace?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, we are very pleased that Prime Minister Singh and President Zardari had a chance to meet in New Delhi yesterday, and that Prime Minister Singh has accepted President Zardari’s invitation to visit Pakistan in the near future. As we have said for a long time, we believe that expanded and improved engagement between these neighbors are not only going to help the neighbors - they’re going to help the entire region and provide opportunities for millions of citizens in the neighborhood to live in a more secure and stable region. So we applaud the trend. We hope that India and Pakistan continue to build on this progress, and we look forward to more such meetings.
Please.
QUESTION: On Burma?
MS. NULAND: On Burma.
QUESTION: There are – several reports came out saying Derek Mitchell will be named as a next ambassador to Burma. When will you be ready to make the announcement?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we don’t make announcements about presidential personnel decisions from this podium. If there’s something to announce, I’m sure the White House will announce it.
Please.
QUESTION: The sanctions. In the days which are --
MS. NULAND: Still Burma?
QUESTION: Burma. I’m sorry.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is sanctions in the near future coming down for Burma or are you going up, lifting the sanctions?
MS. NULAND: Well, you heard the Secretary make some announcements when she saw the press after the Thaci meeting. I can review those for you again, but essentially, in addition to continuing to work to name an ambassador as soon as we can; she talked about opening the USAID office in Burma. She talked about normalizing UNDP country program opportunities for Burma, lifting travel restrictions on key Burmese officials and parliamentarians, and also beginning the process of easing some of the restrictions that we’ve had on U.S. financial services and investments into Burma. So those are the things that we are looking at. Remember that we always said action for action, so these come in the wake of the good round of parliamentary elections.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS. NULAND: Said? Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes, ma’am. Very quickly --
MS. NULAND: Let’s talk to Said and then go to --
QUESTION: -- there are groups in Iraq that are opposing the appointment of Ambassador Brett McGurk to --
MS. NULAND: We’re in Iraq? I heard Iran. Yeah.
QUESTION: In Iraq. Yes, Iraq. I’m sorry. Yeah. The new ambassador-designate to Iraq, they oppose his appointment, including Alawi and many other groups. Does that in any way influence your decision?
MS. NULAND: The President has nominated Brett McGurk to be our new ambassador, and he made a strong statement in his support, that he will greatly – that our nation will be greatly served by his talents and by his experience in Iraq, and we look forward to the Senate’s advice and consent on his appointment.
QUESTION: Okay. And follow-up. Yeah. Go ahead. Follow-up on Iraq?
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Okay. Barzani was in town, and he called Maliki the new dictator of Iraq. He says that he’s the minister of defense, the minister of interior - he’s the head of the armed forces, now he’s trying to even become the president of the Central Bank, and this is really unprecedented action. So do you feel that Maliki is the new dictator of Iraq?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the Vice President and the Secretary and Deputy Secretary Burns had a chance to meet with Mr. Barzani and have a full exchange on his views. We continue to believe that the tensions and the concerns and the disagreements between the different political groups in Iraq are best solved by dialogue among them. We want to see them get together in a national unity conversation and air their differences and work through them.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the new appointment of Mr. McGurk, who is apparently close to Mr. Maliki or has had good relations with him, would that in any way influence these negotiations?
MS. NULAND: Well, the President nominated Mr. McGurk because he thought that he would strongly represent U.S. interests --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: -- and that his experience in Iraq could be put to good use. As you know, our current ambassador plays a strong role in trying to help the various different political factions stay in contact with each other, encouraging dialogue among them, and I would expect that the same would be true of the future ambassador, assuming confirmation.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up on that, and then I want to go to Iran. But if I understand it correctly, the White House never announces a nomination until you have obtained agrement from the government in question, correct?
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: So the fact that some Iraq political figures might be complaining about his choice – yeah, I mean, from your point of view, you’ve got the government’s acceptance, and it’s just a matter for the Senate, correct?
MS. NULAND: I would have to confirm, but it is, I think, always practice that we seek agrement before we put a nomination forward.
QUESTION: Seek and obtain, right?
MS. NULAND: Seek and obtain. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. And then on Iran, so obviously you’re well aware of the decision to hold the P-5+1 meetings in Istanbul on the 14th.
MS. NULAND: Didn’t we tell you guys it was going to be Istanbul?
QUESTION: Is it only going to be on the 14th, or is it possible that it will run for more than one day?
MS. NULAND: Well, the meetings of the P-5+1 with the Iranians are going to be on the 14th. I don’t think there’s any expectation that it will run longer, but I wouldn’t want to preclude it from this podium. Obviously, we’ll see how it goes.
QUESTION: Aren’t there --
QUESTION: Like --
QUESTION: Well, just on the scheduling of this, isn’t – aren’t the P-5+1 minus Iran meeting on the 13th?
MS. NULAND: There may be a preliminary meeting of our group on the 13th. I think there probably will be. That’s usually the practice.
QUESTION: And it will, indeed, be Under Secretary Sherman who represents the United States?
MS. NULAND: It will.
QUESTION: What, if anything, can you say about The New York Times report that came out Saturday night, saying that the United States wants Iran to cease enrichment at 20 percent, turn over its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium, and close the – and immediately close the Fordo facility?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’re obviously not going to conduct our P-5+1 negotiations with Iran before the meeting or from this podium or in public, so I’m not going to get into the details of what the P-5+1 might be proposing to Iran. I’m sure that we’ll have some information for you all as those talks go forward.

What I would say is that our concerns with regard to Iran’s behavior are well-known, they’re well-documented, they’re spelled out clearly in numerous IAEA reports – IAEA reports that we’ve all signed up to. And as the Secretary said at her own press conference in Istanbul about a week ago, we don’t have any problem with peaceful civilian nuclear power by Iran. And the Iranians themselves have said, at the level of the supreme leader, that they don’t have any weapons intention. Well, if it that is, in fact, the case, then it ought to be relatively straightforward for them to demonstrate that to the international community’s satisfaction. And that’s what we’ll be talking about when we see them.
QUESTION: So everything that the Secretary said in that April 1st press conferences still stands?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Because I’m looking at the transcript of it, and it says, “The government” – this is quoting her. “That government policy” – i.e., the Iranian Government’s policy – “can be demonstrated in a number of ways: by ending enrichment – the enrichment of highly enriched uranium to 20 percent; by shipping out such highly enriched uranium out of the country; and by opening up to constant inspection and – inspections and verifications,” which is basically, I think, the Secretary saying on the record what The New York Times – what The New York Times had to source to senior officials. Isn’t, in fact – did she, in fact, say exactly that?
MS. NULAND: She, in fact, said exactly that.
QUESTION: -- on the record on April 1st --
MS. NULAND: On the record.
QUESTION: -- eight days before this great, exclusive story appeared in The New York Times?
MS. NULAND: Matt has a particular thing with New York Times reporting.
QUESTION: Well, with one in particular, I suppose. But I just – I just – I mean, so I don’t understand your response to Arshad’s question, though.
MS. NULAND: Well, I did make note of the press conference --
QUESTION: I mean, if she said this --
MS. NULAND: I didn’t have an encyclopedic --
QUESTION: She said all of this on the record.
MS. NULAND: She did.
QUESTION: More than a week ago.
MS. NULAND: She did.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. NULAND: I mean, look --
QUESTION: Well, why not come out and – why not repeat it?
MS. NULAND: I could have repeated it. I didn’t have it in front of me.
QUESTION: Oh. Okay.
MS. NULAND: But I’m glad you did. Thank you very much, Matt. You did my job for me. I appreciate it, as ever.
QUESTION: So –
MS. NULAND: Still on Iran?
QUESTION: One other one on this.
MS. NULAND: And then to Said.
QUESTION: Is it still – a couple of – actually, on this. Is it still the U.S. Government’s position that in line with multiple UN Security Council resolutions, Iran should cease all uranium enrichment pending its having satisfied the international community with the peaceful nature of its program?
MS. NULAND: Our position with regard to UN Security Council resolutions is unchanged.
QUESTION: So why then does the Secretary make reference to the – only the highly enriched uranium, the 20 percent level, and not the 3.5 percent level?
MS. NULAND: Again, the Secretary’s comments came in the context of a broad answer on Iran on the talks. I don’t think that she was looking to be exhaustive. She was looking to give a set of examples of the kinds of things that we are concerned about as an international community – all things that have been well documented as areas of concern by the IAEA.
QUESTION: But as you know, the Secretary can be exquisitely precise in her language.
MS. NULAND: She can. I think you are parsing the – you are cutting this salami too finely, looking to try to read through it.
QUESTION: I would hate – I would hate to be her spokesperson and suggest that that was a deliberate – that it was just accidental and, in fact, she meant that they should cease enrichment entirely, not just the 20 percent, and she just somehow got it wrong. I mean, I think she said 20 percent for a reason.
MS. NULAND: Arshad, again, we’re not going to have these negotiations with the Iranians from this podium. She’s given the parameters of what we’re seeking, and we’ll have to see how these negotiations go.
QUESTION: So you’re not --
MS. NULAND: Said.
QUESTION: One last one here. You’re not actually then seeking their – at least in the first instance, their suspension of uranium enrichment to 3.5 percent?
MS. NULAND: We are seeking their compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions. We are seeking to be able to verify that compliance through inspections and other means. And beyond that, I’m not going to slice the salami thin enough for you to read through. I’m sorry.
Said.
QUESTION: Toria, you always cite that – Iran’s behavior. I mean, in the old days when they cited Saddam’s behavior - he had attacked Iran, he had attacked Kuwait and occupied Kuwait and all these things. But what in Iran’s behavior that really placed it in such a rogue status where it could not do this or pursue this nuclear thing in a peaceful fashion?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, go back and read this exquisite press conference on April 1st --
QUESTION: I did.
MS. NULAND: -- where the Secretary spoke not only about our concerns vis-a-vis Iran with regard to the nuclear docket, which are about a weapons program. They are not about civilian nuclear power. But she also spoke about the export of terrorism from Iran, about Iran’s internal human rights record, and about its destabilizing behavior in the neighborhood.
QUESTION: So --
MS. NULAND: So all of these are issues of concern. These talks are about our nuclear concerns.
QUESTION: So although the – Khamenei, the supreme leader, said that we have no intention – in fact, there is a fatwa – they issued a fatwa against acquiring nuclear weapons --
MS. NULAND: And the Secretary made reference to that on April 1st, too.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Victoria --
MS. NULAND: I’m sorry. Here and then back there. Go ahead.
QUESTION: You were just saying that you don’t want to get into the conversation on the subject, on the P-5+1 talks with Iran. But actually, it seems like the conversation has already started. What the Secretary has said they have already taken as conditions, they’re saying we won’t talk with preconditions. And on the enrichment, again they’re saying we’re going to continue the 20 percent enrichment until we have enough for our research reactor. Don’t you think this is a nonstarter already?
MS. NULAND: Again, we’re going to get to Istanbul. We’re going to sit down with the Iranians. We’ll hear what they have to say. From our perspective, it’s relatively straightforward if, in fact, their program is purely peaceful, for them to be able to demonstrate it to everybody’s satisfaction.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: I have two questions. One, getting back to Pakistan, is there anything further to add --
MS. NULAND: Sorry. Let’s finish Iran, then we’ll come back to Pakistan. Okay? Arshad.
QUESTION: Iranian media quoted Iran’s nuclear chief Fereidoun Abbasi Davani as dismissing the idea of a revival of the TRR deal under which they would have received more highly enriched uranium to run that reactor. But he then goes on to say that once Iran has obtained sufficient more highly enriched uranium, it would – quote, “We will scale back production and maybe even convert it to 3.5 percent uranium.”
Is it at all hopeful to you that an Iranian official is talking about, however hedged or conditioned, the idea of at some point ceasing to enrich to the higher level?
MS. NULAND: Again, I don’t think it’s productive four days before these talks start to be reacting to Iranian comments to the press. What we want to do is have productive talks in the room that show a sustained effort to demonstrate the peaceful intent of the program. That’s what we’ll be looking for, but I’m not going to react to stray Iranian press comments.
Please. Back to Pakistan?
QUESTION: Do you have anything further to add on the Siachen tragedy? And did Pakistan – you’ve sent nine – the U.S. has sent nine experts to help in rescue efforts in Siachen. Has an effort been made to send – are more experts being sent, or has Pakistan asked for more help from the United States?
MS. NULAND: This is with regard to the avalanche --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. NULAND: -- over the weekend or early – at the end of last week. At the request of the Government of Pakistan, the USG did deploy an eight-man U.S. military alpine search-and-rescue team from Kabul to Islamabad. They arrived yesterday. The team is currently in Islamabad, has not yet deployed to the region. We’re discussing with the Pakistani military how best they might be used. But we stand by to assist, and to my knowledge, we haven’t had any additional requests from Pakistan.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up, another question, different matter. Center for Constitutional Rights based in Washington, DC says that a lawyer who represents drone victims in Pakistan isn’t being given a visa by the U.S. Embassy to come attend a conference on drones in Washington later this month. He says that he has not received any reply from the U.S. Embassy. And his name is Shahzad Akbar and he represents drone victims in Pakistan.
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to an individual visa case. I’ll send you to our Embassy in Islamabad for an update on that one.
QUESTION: This might be better directed to the Pentagon, but do you have any more details on this deployment of an eight-man search and rescue? I mean, the Pakistanis actually invited U.S. military into their country?
MS. NULAND: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: Oh, so it’s okay, then, for them to do that and tell you to – just give you the short end of the stick? I mean, how did they get there? Did they fly in on their own helicopter or plane?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know how they got in. They – this was obviously a humanitarian request, a horrible situation with the --
QUESTION: Well, it’s very nice of you to --
MS. NULAND: -- avalanche and --
QUESTION: Considering how nice they’ve been to you lately, it’s very nice of you to send your troops there.
MS. NULAND: Well, we felt it was --
QUESTION: Are you sure that they’re safe?
MS. NULAND: We felt it was important to respond to their request. As I said, they haven’t left Islamabad yet, but they’re ready to help.
QUESTION: Are they – is their presence there at all covered by the parliamentary review of relations between the two countries? Is this – are they going to make a special exception so that these guys – it’s okay for them to come in?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is that the Pakistanis asked for this specialized help, that we made them available. And we are delighted to have them help in any way they can.
Scott.
QUESTION: Nigeria?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Still on Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Still on Pakistan.
QUESTION: This is a follow-up of the avalanche tragedy, which, in a way, the deployment there is a result of the India-Pakistan conflict. And you have been very vocal in the recent past about better relations between both countries and your willingness that they should try to resolve their issues. Could you also play a role in trying to reach a diplomatic and political settlement of the Siachen conflict?
MS. NULAND: Of the Kashmir conflict?
QUESTION: Siachen.
QUESTION: The Siachen conflict.
MS. NULAND: Of the Siachen conflict. Well, we have made clear to both India and Pakistan that we are prepared to be supportive in any way that might be helpful but that primarily we see this being settled by dialogue between them.
On to Nigeria?
QUESTION: Please.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Another violent Easter in Nigeria, at least 36 dead now from that blast in Kaduna. Response – the United States has assisted in investigations into Boko Haram in the past. Are you involved in this as well?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that the United States strongly condemns yesterday’s attacks on two churches in Kaduna and Jos, Nigeria. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and the loved ones of those who were killed and injured. This violence has no place in a democracy. We support the Nigerian authorities in their efforts to bring the perpetrators of these violent acts to justice, and we stress the importance nonetheless of respecting the human rights and protecting civilians in any security operation.
To my knowledge, we have not been asked for any direct support for this investigation but obviously would be prepared to consider a request like that if it came to us.
QUESTION: Can I ask an ECOWAS question as well? On Mali, you have, in the last week, 10 days, supported the ECOWAS approach on Mali. ECOWAS has decided to lift its sanctions because it’s satisfied with the deal that was cut on Friday. Will you follow suit and resume your suspended aid?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that we commend the strong leadership of ECOWAS throughout this episode in brokering the agreement with the junta leaders and fully restoring civilian rule. As you know, President Toure has now taken the step to stand down in order to restore peace and security and democracy in Mali, and the National Assembly Speaker Traore will now head a transition government. So this is a very good step in the restoration of democracy in Mali.
We obviously want to see these steps consolidated. We will look over the coming days at whether enough progress has been made to restore our full programming, but we don’t have any decisions today.
QUESTION: So the message is the stepping down of a duly elected president following a military coup is a good thing in terms of the restoration of democracy?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the issue here arose because there were unresolved grievances between the military and the leadership of the country. These escalated to the point of the situation that we saw, which was a complete overturning of the democratic system in Mali.
Is it ideal to have to broker a deal where the president steps down and you have to have an interim president until elections? Of course, it’s not ideal. But it does mark a very important restoration of civilian rule, without which we didn’t think Mali was going to be able to move forward. And as the same time, as you know, there have been very dangerous gains in the north by not only Tuareg militants, but also AQ elements that have taken advantage of the instability.
So we wanted civilian rule reestablished so that dialogue can now commence with the Tuaregs that redresses their grievances within a unified Mali, and real effort can be made to secure the country against the AQ elements that have taken advantage.
QUESTION: The only problem is that in accepting such an outcome, does it not send a signal potentially to other militaries that if they have longstanding – or if they have any grievances with their elected government, they can just mutiny, stage a coup, oust them, and then try to work out a way to make the ouster permanent?
MS. NULAND: Well, recall that that was not the junta leaders’ first choice. The junta leaders’ first choice was to run the country themselves. So from our perspective, restoring civilian rule to Mali was absolutely paramount. There are new elections planned anyway this spring, so we were going to have a government change shortly. And if we have to have an interim head in order to get to that stage where the people of Mali can make their choice – as I said, the situation should never have arisen in the first place. That’s a message that we and ECOWAS and the AU sent, and there were strong sanctions put in place by everyone. That said, we are very pleased now to see civilian rule reestablished so that we can get to the elections that the people of Mali deserve.
QUESTION: And then just to go back to Scott’s question, because maybe you answered it and I didn’t hear it. But have you guys made a decision about restoring your suspended assistance?
MS. NULAND: We have not. We want to see this restoration of civilian rule consolidated. So I don’t have anything to announce today, but we’ll look at it on a day-by-day basis.
QUESTION: So – but just on that, because it’s, I think, an important point, leaving aside the inconsistency over whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing, I think it’s a good point that you made that all they had to do was to wait for this election anyway. There never had to be a mutiny. Did you – when you suspended the aid, knowing that it took you so long to do it or to figure out how much was suspended, did you actually come to the determination that a coup had taken place, that there had been an undemocratic change in a – or an unconstitutional change to a democratically elected government?
MS. NULAND: Well, in terms of our congressional notification of suspension, we didn’t actually invoke the “c” word --
QUESTION: You did not?
MS. NULAND: -- because it was such a fluid situation --
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: -- which we were hoping was on its way to reversal.
QUESTION: Does that then mean that – normally, when that does happen, there has to be an actual election and an elected government come to power before the aid can be restored. In this case, does it mean that simply you can turn the switch back on as soon as there’s – you’re satisfied that there’s a civilian leadership without an election?
MS. NULAND: We can turn the switch back on when we are satisfied that civilian rule has been reestablished.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes, the Palestinian issue.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Wednesday, you’re set to meet on the periphery of the G-8 – the Quartet is set to meet. But also on the same day, Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad is set to meet with Netanyahu and give him a letter. Basically, the Palestinians are saying that unless you respond positively, we’re going to go back to the UN. So do you have a comment on all this?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you said, we do have Quartet envoys meeting – we have Quartet ministers meeting at Secretary Clinton’s level on Wednesday morning, so I don’t want to get ahead of the events of Wednesday. I think we’ll take it one step at a time, Said.
QUESTION: Are they likely to discuss the topics that are allegedly in the letter that Abbas is sending to Prime Minister Netanyahu?
MS. NULAND: I think you won’t be surprised if they discuss where we are in the proposal that they made in September, where we are in supporting the Palestinian authorities and maintaining stability, maintaining good quality of life for the Palestinian people. They’ll be talking about the full range of issues, I would guess.
QUESTION: I’ve got two very brief --
MS. NULAND: Two. Please.
QUESTION: -- Gulf questions. One on Bahrain. I understand the Administration has taken some interest in the case of this Norwegian Bahraini dual-national.
MS. NULAND: Danish. Yeah.
QUESTION: Danish. Sorry. Danish dual-national who’s on a hunger strike.
MS. NULAND: We are very concerned about the case of Mr. al-Khawaja particularly with regard to his health. We are in touch with the Bahrainis and with our international partners, and we are urging a humanitarian solution.
QUESTION: Do you know how – when you say we’re in touch, do you know who has been in touch with who?
MS. NULAND: Jeff Feltman’s been in touch – Assistant Secretary Feltman. We’ve been in touch at the embassy level, and more contacts are planned.
QUESTION: And what about – on this. What about his daughter, who was reported to – last week was reported to have been arrested? I think the interior ministry, if I’m not mistaken, said that she had – I think an interior ministry source was quoted as saying she had assaulted someone. Do you have any views on her case?
MS. NULAND: We’re also seeking more clarity on her case.
QUESTION: Did you say that someone from the Embassy has been to see Mr. al-Khawaja?
MS. NULAND: No, we’ve been in contact with Bahraini authorities about the case.
QUESTION: But no one has visited and then saw how bad--
MS. NULAND: To my mind – knowledge, no. He’s not an American citizen.
QUESTION: And the other one is on the Emirates and the case – this NDI situation. Is that completely resolved now, as far as you know?
MS. NULAND: In terms of the American who was involved --
QUESTION: Not in terms of the American, because I believe she left the country.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. In terms of the Serb national who worked for NDI, to my knowledge, that is not completely resolved.
QUESTION: And are there contacts going on on that?
MS. NULAND: There are. There was.
QUESTION: And do you know when the last one was?
MS. NULAND: I don’t. I don’t.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: All right, thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.