WHITE HOUSE ON LIBYA IDLs AND NOTICE

FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE 
Letter --Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Libya IDLs and Notice

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011, is to continue in effect beyond February 25, 2014.

Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, his government, and close associates took extreme measures against the people of Libya, including by using weapons of war, mercenaries, and wanton violence against unarmed civilians. In addition, there was a serious risk that Libyan state assets would be misappropriated by Qadhafi, members of his government, members of his family, or his close associates if those assets were not protected. The foregoing circumstances, the prolonged attacks, and the increased numbers of Libyans seeking refuge in other countries caused a deterioration in the security of Libya, posed a serious risk to its stability, and led me to declare a national emergency to deal with this threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

We are in the process of winding down the sanctions in response to developments in Libya, including the fall of Qadhafi and his government and the establishment of a democratically elected government. We are working closely with the new Libyan government and with the international community to effectively and appropriately ease restrictions on sanctioned entities, including by taking actions consistent with the U.N. Security Council's decision to lift sanctions against the Central Bank of Libya and two other entities on December 16, 2011. The

situation in Libya, however, continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and we need to protect against this threat and the diversion of assets or other abuse by certain members of Qadhafi's family and other former regime officials. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to Libya.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE CELEBRATES 20TH ANNIVERSARY

FROM:  STATE DEPARTMENT 
The 20th Anniversary of the Partnership for Peace
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
January 11, 2014

On January 11, 1994, the United States and the other allied nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) created the Partnership for Peace. Today marks its twentieth anniversary.

Based on a commitment to the democratic principles that underpin the Alliance itself, the Partnership for Peace brings NATO together with 22 nations in Europe and Asia. These countries partner together on operations that foster peace and security, as well as on increasing their own security capacity through defense reform, policy and planning, military-to-military cooperation and exercises. Partnership for Peace and other partnership programs have strengthened NATO by adding diversity and political insight while expanding its security reach. Since Partnership for Peace’s inception, twelve countries which were members of this program have become NATO members, and even more partners have contributed to NATO-led operations from Afghanistan to Kosovo and Libya. Together, NATO members and partners have conducted hundreds of exercises to improve their interoperability and capacities for crisis response, conflict resolution and peacekeeping.

As we mark this twentieth anniversary of Partnership for Peace, we pledge to continue to work together with NATO, our Allies and our partners to strengthen and deepen the critical role NATO’s partnerships play in enhancing the adaptability, efficiency and effectiveness of the Alliance and, in turn, promoting the stability and security of our broader community.

REMARKS AFTER MEETING WITH LIBYAN PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague and Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Winfield House
London, United Kingdom
November 24, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you all. It’s our pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister of Libya Ali Zeidan here to Winfield House, our American enclave in the heart of the capital of the United Kingdom. We’re honored to be here with my colleague, William Hague, to do so.

Libya has gone through great turmoil, particularly after the course of the last weeks, and the Prime Minister informed us of a transformation that he believes is beginning to take place and could take place because the people of Libya have spoken out and pushed back against the militias. And so this is a moment of opportunity where there’s a great deal of economic challenge, there’s a great deal of security challenge. And we talked with the Prime Minister today about the things that we can do together – the United Kingdom and the United States and other friends – in order to help Libya to achieve the stability that it needs. So we’re very grateful to him for taking time to come here and do that.

William, do you want to add anything before we introduce the minister?

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, thank you very much, indeed, for hosting this. Like the United States, the United Kingdom is very strongly committed to help the government and the people of Libya, and we are pleased that the people of Libya are also clearly strongly committed to Libya’s government, to democracy and stability in their country, to friendship in the region and with the countries of Europe. So there are many different ways in which we are trying to assist. It’s been a pleasure to discuss with the Prime Minister today more ways in which we can assist. And the United Kingdom, working with the U.S. and European partners, will do our utmost to do so over the coming months.

PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN: (Via interpreter) I would like to thank Secretary Kerry and Mr. Hague for this kind invitation and for their continuous – and their commitment for the continuous support of Libya. The Libyan people have had a long struggle, and lately they have done a lot to get rid of the militias and that there are markers that fell in this process to end the armed militias. And this visit is a witness to the relationship and a confirmation of the friendship that started since the first days of our struggle towards independence. Our friends have supported us in the – during our revolution, and we are here in order to affirm the importance of cooperation with our friends. They have also committed to help Libya in order to become a more independent state, a state that is going to be revealed and to be an active contributor on the world arena.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, very much. Thank you. Thank you so much.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you, Prime Minister. I’ll take my leave, and so I’ll see you soon.

PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN: Thank you.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY EXPRESSES CONCERN OVER RECENT CLASHES AND DEATHS IN TRIPOLI, LIBYA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Violence in Tripoli, Libya
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 16, 2013

We are deeply concerned by the death and injury of many Libyans in recent clashes in Tripoli. We condemn the use of violence in all its forms and urge all sides to exercise restraint and restore calm.

Libyans did not risk their lives in their 2011 revolution for this violence to continue. Libyans fought their revolution to establish a democratic system in which the voices of the Libyan people could be heard through peaceful means, which all Libyan people have a right to do.

If a free people are going to succeed in forging a peaceful, secure, and prosperous country with a government based on the rule of law and respect for human rights, then there can be no place for this kind of violence in the new Libya.

We encourage all Libyans to break the cycle of violence through respectful dialogue and reconciliation.

The United States will continue to work with the Libyan authorities to build its capacity to deliver security and good governance to its people.

We recognize that the Libyan authorities and Libyan people are facing significant challenges in their democratic transition, but too much blood has been spilled and too many lives sacrificed to go backwards. The United States will continue to support the Libyan people in this difficult time.

SECRETARY KERRY MAKES REMARKS WITH BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Remarks With British Foreign Secretary William Hague After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
June 12, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you very much. It’s a huge pleasure for me to welcome my friend and partner in so many efforts, the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, William Hague.


The United States and the United Kingdom obviously share a now time-honored and time-defined relationship, and it’s grounded in so much – our history, our values, our traditions. It is, without question, an essential, if not the essential relationship, and based on a common agenda that we share, our mutual cooperation on so many global issues, from peace and stability in the Middle East, Afghanistan, proliferation, Libya, Egypt, you run the gamut; we have been able to work together in effective ways. We’re the closest of military allies, having served alongside each other in major campaigns over the last 20 years, six major campaigns in total, including right now in Afghanistan, where our troops are serving side-by-side. And we promote together a very vigorous and a capable NATO.

But it’s fair to say that this special relationship really touches many different issues. Let me just say that two days ago, our governments signed a memorandum of understanding for the Global Innovation Initiative. And this important initiative is going to support multilateral research emphasizing science, technology, engineering, and it will focus on issues such as climate change, which we have just discussed at length, and sustainable development. And this initiative will also further our higher education cooperation, which is a priority of both President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron. It will bolster collaborations between universities in the United States and the United Kingdom.

I also want to applaud Prime Minister Cameron and Foreign Secretary Hague for their important leadership in the lead-up to the G-8. The UK is helping to take a lead on an important initiative to prevent sexual violence in conflict areas around the world. We met in London on that as a prep leading up to the G-8, and the Foreign Secretary convened a very important gathering and I think there was some important progress made in our discussions there. And we stood together in April, the G-8 foreign ministers, to affirm what will lead into the meetings in Ireland, Northern Ireland.

Our relationship is also rooted in our very, very close economic cooperation. We are each each other’s largest investors. Almost one million people in the United States work for British companies, and almost one million people work for American companies in the UK. We are also both committed to making this economic relationship stronger. President Obama’s commitment to launch the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union is a significant way to make it stronger. And we look forward to the deliberations that will take place in a few days in the EU with respect to the mandate for those negotiations. We are convinced, both of us, that a successful conclusion to this agreement would have a profound, important impact boosting both of our economies and, in fact, the economies of Europe as a whole.

Together, our two countries also remain committed to a Syrian-led political solution to the crisis there. We are deeply concerned about the dire situation in Syria, including the involvement of Hezbollah, as well as Iran, across state lines in another country. So we are focusing our efforts now on doing all that we can to support the opposition as they work to change the balance on the ground. And together, we have provided tremendous humanitarian assistance in an effort to mitigate the human suffering that is taking place in Syria. We remain committed to the Geneva 2 conference. We both understand the complications with the situation on the ground and moving forward rapidly. But there will have to be a political solution, ultimately, to the situation on the ground, and that is the framework that will continue to be the outline, and we remain committed to it.

Throughout each of our careers, I think it’s fair to say that Foreign Secretary Hague and I have spoken candidly about the urgent need for a two-state solution in the Middle East. This is a top priority for President Obama, a top priority for Prime Minister Cameron, and we will continue to work towards it together.

With respect to Iran’s nuclear program, as President Obama said in Israel in March, Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. We appreciate the United Kingdom’s leadership in continuing to push for the EU efforts to adopt and implement strict EU sanctions on Iran. They are making a difference, and they are – the UK has also been critical in its leadership of the P-5+1 in those efforts.

So I am delighted to welcome, as you can see in all that I have just described, a vital partner, and in our case, I’m happy to say, a close friend. We’ve gotten to know each other better and better in this process, and I think we enjoy working together enormously. And I’m happy to welcome you here, William. Thank you.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you very much, John. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great pleasure to be back here in Washington, D.C and with my great friend and colleague, who I’ve hugely enjoyed – come to enjoy working with already over the last four months, Secretary Kerry. The United States is the United Kingdom’s greatest ally in world affairs, and the range of issues that we have discussed today reflects that.

And I want to pay tribute to the energy and the resolve and the commitment that Secretary Kerry has brought to this role as Secretary of State. I’ve particularly welcomed his personal leadership on the Middle East peace process. He’s put an enormous amount of his time and energy into creating the foundations for a return to negotiations. And no single act would do more to unlock a more peaceful and stable Middle East than a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A two-state solution is the only way to end this conflict and achieve peace and security for both sides, but the window for a viable settlement is closing fast, and the regional environment is growing more difficult and more dangerous, as you know, all the time. The United States can count on the full and active support of the United Kingdom in getting both sides to the negotiating table bilaterally, through our relationships with Israelis and Palestinians, and using our role in the European Union as well.

We also discussed the meeting of the G-8 in Northern Ireland, as you’ve heard, where we hoped to make progress on the priorities of trade and tax and transparency set out by Prime Minister David Cameron. I also reiterated our commitment to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the EU. This is the biggest opportunity in a generation to power new jobs and growth in Europe and America and to provide an immense boost to the world economy. The United Kingdom is fully behind it.

We’ve also discussed our work together to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. We’ve identified new areas in which the State Department and the Foreign Office can work together on climate change issues. And the British Government greatly looks forward to welcoming President Obama to the G-8. We see this as an important opportunity to discuss many matters in world affairs, but it’s also an important opportunity to discuss with world leaders, including President Putin, the most urgent crisis anywhere in the world today, the terrible and deepening conflict in Syria.

Syria has been a focus, of course, of our talks today. We’re both deeply concerned by what is happening to innocent people there. The regime appears to be preparing new assaults, endangering the lives and safety of hundreds of thousands of Syrians who are already in desperate need. And the scale of the regime’s repression and the human suffering that it has caused beggars belief. A campaign of murder and tyranny that they have waged for more than 800 days now is not only a moral outrage, it’s a grave threat to the wider region, it’s a danger to our own national security, and this includes the risks of growing radicalization, the involvement of Hezbollah and Iranian proxies, and credible reports of the use of chemical weapons.

So we agreed today that we cannot turn away from Syria and its people. The United Kingdom believes the situation demands a strong, coordinated, and determined approach by the UK, the U.S., and our allies in Europe and in the region.

I want to pay tribute to the governments and people of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon for their extraordinary generosity in hosting the vast refugee population and the burden that they’re shouldering for the whole world because of their proximity to this appalling conflict. And we will all have to do more in the coming weeks to assist with the immense humanitarian effort that is necessary.

We agreed today, of course, that our priority remains to see a diplomatic process in Geneva that succeeds in reaching a negotiated end to the conflict. But we will have to be prepared to do more to save lives, to pressure the Assad regime to negotiate seriously, and to prevent the growth of extremism and terrorism if diplomatic efforts are going to succeed. So we have discussed that thoroughly, how to help the regime and opposition come to the negotiating table, as well as to protect civilian life.

And we should never forget that this conflict began when the Assad regime turned its tanks, helicopter gunships, and heavy weapons against peaceful protesters. We shouldn’t forget that 1.6 million people have become refugees and more than 4 million are internally displaced. These are innocent victims of war and repression, and they’ve been at the forefront of our minds in our discussions here in Washington today.

Thank you very much.

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

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Secretary Kerry – I have a question, actually, for both Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hague. After this catastrophic defeat for the opposition in Qusayr, do you still believe that they can win and do it without the weapons that they are asking for? That’s to both of you.

And then Secretary Kerry, these reports of NSA surveillance – are you hearing from allies concerned? Did you hear it from Secretary Hague today concerned about this? We’re hearing the Germans are disturbed. They’ll be talking with President Obama about it.

And then finally just a very quick one on the OIG. Are you concerned that these – that allegations of serious, perhaps even illegal behavior or conduct, are not being investigated because of any alleged undue influence by senior State Department officials?

Thank you very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: Okay. Let me take your three questions in order, beginning with the NSA leaks.

The answer is no, I think the Secretary and I both understand the very delicate but vital balance between privacy and the protection of people in our country. And the Secretary made a very fine statement on the floor of the parliament in which, at the beginning of the week, he made clear the British Government’s position with respect to this. And I’ll just say for us, as you’re hearing now more and more, the members of Congress understand that Congress passed on this, voted for it several times, and the judiciary branch of our country has reviewed this and been engaged in this. This is a three-branch of government effort to keep America safe, and in fact, it has not read emails or looked at or listened to conversations, the exception of where a court may have made some decision which was predicated on appropriate evidence.

The United States of America has been hugely protected over the course of these last years by the valiant efforts of our law enforcement community, our international law enforcement efforts, the FBI, our agencies, the Homeland Security, all of whom have coordinated in remarkable ways to prevent some very terrible events from taking place. And I think they have done so in a remarkable balance of the values of our nation with respect to privacy, freedom, and the Constitution. And I think over time, this will withstand scrutiny and people will understand that.

That said, on the OIG I’ll just say very quickly all employees of this Department are held to the highest standards of behavior, and now and always. And I welcome the OIG who was asked – I’m a former prosecutor. I can tell you as a former prosecutor I take very seriously a investigative process, and I am confident that the OIG’s process where he has invited outsiders to come and review whatever took place a year ago will be reviewed. And I welcome that, I think the Department welcomes that, because we do want the highest standards applied.

And finally with respect to Syria, your question on Syria is specifically about whether or not --

QUESTION: About specifically with, after Qusayr --

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah, I got it, whether or not they’re going to be able to win and so forth. Yeah.

QUESTION: Whether you have confidence.

SECRETARY KERRY: Look, I think that nobody wins in Syria the way things are going; the people lose, and Syria as a country loses. And what we have been pushing for, all of us involved in this effort, is a political solution that ends the violence, saves Syria, stops the killing and destruction of an entire nation. And that’s what we’re pushing for. So it’s not a question to me whether or not the opposition can, quote, "win." It’s a question of whether or not we can get to this political solution.

And the political solution that the Russians have agreed to contemplates a transition government. The implementation of Geneva 1 is the goal of Geneva 2, and that is a transition government with full executive authority which gives the Syrian people as a whole, everybody in Syria, the chance to have a new beginning where they choose their future leadership. Now, that’s the goal. And we have said that we will do everything we can and we’re able to do to help the opposition be able to achieve that goal and to reach a point where that can be implemented. And that’s what we’re trying to do. And I think that there’s a unanimity about the importance of trying to find a way to peace, not a way to war. Now, the Assad regime is making that very difficult.

We will be – as everybody knows and has written about, we’re meeting to talk about the various balances in this issue right now. And I have nothing to announce about that at this point, but clearly, the choice of weapons that he has engaged in across the board challenge anybody’s values and standards of human behavior. And we’re going to have to make judgments for ourselves about how we can help the opposition to be able to deal with that.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: On that, I want to support what Secretary Kerry has said. He’s spoken quite rightly, as I often have, of there only being a political solution in the end in Syria. Whatever happens, however long it goes on for, in the end there has to be a political solution. There isn’t a solution for either side of only military conquest. The Syria that would be left at the end of that is not a Syria that would be able to function at all. And so there has to be a political solution. That is why I particularly pay tribute to Secretary Kerry’s efforts to create a new process in Geneva, building on what we agreed last year at Geneva, a transitional government with full executive powers, formed by mutual consent.

But what the regime is doing at the moment, and what you’ve seen over the last couple of weeks in the military action, supported in this case by Hezbollah, is making a political solution more difficult. It may be designed to make a political solution more difficult. And so our efforts in Syria have been to try to save lives, to prevent radicalization, to send a message to the regime that in the end there does have to be a political solution. That’s why the United Kingdom has sent practical support to the opposition, to the national coalition, why we send so much humanitarian support. This is what our diplomatic effort is working towards. And so I think Secretary Kerry are in complete agreement about this. I also don’t have any new announcement that we’re making today about this. But we are determined that we will address this issue together and do our utmost to create the conditions for a political solution in Syria.

On the NSA and intelligence matters, that’s not been the focus of our discussions today. We’ve noted recent controversies, and the Secretary was very kind about my speech in the House of Commons on Monday. The intelligence sharing relationship between the UK and the U.S. is unique in the world. It is the strongest in the world. And it contributes massively to the national security of both countries. I think that’s something that the citizens of our countries should have confidence in, and in particular have confidence in that that relationship is based on a framework of law in both countries, law that is vigorously upheld. And so I repeat what I said in the House of Commons on Monday about the importance of that. And it’s a relationship we must never endanger, because it has saved many lives over recent decades in countering terrorism and in contributing to the security of all our citizens.

MODERATOR: The second question is Tom Whipple, The Times.

QUESTION: Thank you. I’ve got one question for both of you on Syria, if you don’t mind. But first of all, Foreign Secretary, to pick you up on the NSA story, I mean, you have made it clear in Parliament you don’t think British intelligence is breaking the law using information gathered by whatever means by U.S. intelligence. I’m not sure you that you’ve addressed what safeguards there are protecting British people from U.S. intelligence using these kinds of wholesale trawling of phone records and online activity we’ve been hearing about directly on innocent people in the UK.

And on Syria, we have heard what you’ve been saying about Syria for 800 days now. Have you discussed what military help you can give Syria’s rebels? And have you agreed on anything?

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, on the first point, the UK and the U.S. are very close partners on cyber security, on intelligence sharing. There couldn’t be two more trusted partners in the world than the United Kingdom and the United States. And I think that should give some level of assurance to the citizens of our countries. I pointed out in the House of Commons on Monday the legal protections that are there. And of course, I’ve made very clear that any information received by the United Kingdom is subject to all the laws of the United Kingdom. And so that remains the answer. That is the situation.

But no two countries in the world work more closely to protect the privacy of their citizens than the United Kingdom and the United States. There may be threats from elsewhere, of course, and there are, from criminal networks, sometimes from other states. It’s the UK and the U.S. that work together in trying to deal with that. So it’s not the United States we should be looking at when we’re worried about those things.

On the question about Syria, we’ve discussed many things about Syria, but I think we’ve dealt with this point earlier where we are restating today our determination that the UK, the U.S., our other allies in Europe and across the region, will work closely on this. Secretary Kerry has done a great deal in recent weeks to pull together a group of foreign ministers. We’ve met several times, including in Istanbul and in Amman recently, to coordinate our actions and our diplomacy and our support for the national coalition. We will continue to do that, and we may well have to intensify that in various ways over the coming weeks and months in order to make it more likely that we can achieve a political solution in Syria. So we’ve discussed all the ramifications of that today, but I can’t go into any more detail than that at the moment.

SECRETARY KERRY: Which part of it do you want me to answer?

QUESTION: Sorry. About Syria. We’ve heard you say similar things for 800 days about Syria.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, not me. I haven’t been in office for 800 days.

QUESTION: Officials like yourself, sir. Can you say – can you give us a sense, any sense at all, what you’ve been talking about in terms of the kind of help you may be offering the Syrian rebels, and why you aren’t able to say anything more than you’re saying at the moment, which you’re staying pretty tight-lipped about what you’ve been discussing in terms of this help you can give the rebels? At some point, it’s going to be too late for that, isn’t it? Do you think we’ve reached that point?

SECRETARY KERRY: I’m not going to make judgments about the points, where we are or aren’t. I’ll just say to you that as I said to you, we are determined to do everything that we can in order to help the opposition to be able to reach – to save Syria. And that stands. That’s exactly what we’re going to do. I have nothing new to announce today. When and if I do, you’ll hear about it. But at this moment, we are in consideration, as everybody knows – it’s been written about this week. People are talking about what further options might be exercised here. And we certainly had some discussion about that, obviously. But we don’t have anything to announce at this moment.

Thank you, all. Appreciate it.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks very much.

PRESIDENT OBAMA AND NATO SECRETARY GENERAL RASMUSSEN MAKE REMARKS TO REPORTERS

 

President Barack Obama and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen meet in the White House Oval Office, May 31, 2013. NATO photo

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Obama, Rasmussen Praise Afghan Forces, Look to Future
By Nick Simeone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 31, 2013 - Afghan forces are just several weeks away from taking the lead in combat operations from NATO-led forces across Afghanistan, President Barack Obama said today after meeting with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the White House.

Speaking to reporters, Obama called the imminent security transition a "new milestone," one in which NATO's International Security Assistance Force will shift to a training, assisting, and advising role, while U.S and alliance forces continue to draw down ahead of the end of the NATO combat mission in 2014.

"We've seen great progress in the Afghan national security forces. We want to continue that progress," Obama said. "And we are now looking over the next several weeks to a new milestone ... where we are transitioning to Afghan lead for combat operations."

Declaring that "our goal is in sight," Rasmussen noted the progress the Afghan army and police have made over the past year, in the time since NATO leaders agreed at a summit in Chicago to set the middle of 2013 as the goal for transitioning combat operations across the country. Rasmussen said the alliance now is working to establish a new training mission to continue assisting Afghan forces after the current NATO mission ends.

"It will be a very different mission, a noncombat mission with a significantly lower number of troops and trainers," he said. "So we are determinedly moving towards our goal: an Afghanistan that can stand on its own feet."

To that end, Obama and Rasmussen announced NATO will hold a summit next year to determine how the alliance can continue partnering with the Afghan government. Obama said the summit will not only "underscore this final chapter in our Afghan operations, but also paint a picture of a future whereby we're partnering with the Afghan government on behalf of the Afghan people and on behalf of world security" to ensure the country does not become a base for terrorism in the future.

On other matters, Obama and Rasmussen discussed making sure Libya, where several NATO countries intervened to protect civilians from former ruler Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, also does not become a haven for terrorists.

"I think NATO has an important role to play on that front," Obama said, adding that he knows Rasmussen recently met with Libya's prime minister and had discussions about how NATO could provide assistance.

GENERAL STAVRIDIS WANTS MORE NATO DIALOGUE WITH RUSSIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. DOD LEADERS SAY TERRORISTS WILL NOT HAVE BASES IN MIDDLE EAST

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DOD Leaders Vow to Deny Terrorists Middle East, Africa Bases
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3, 2013 - The need for U.S. vigilance in thwarting terrorism throughout the Middle East and North Africa led the conversation during dual interviews Pentagon senior leaders took part in today.

In television segments that aired today on CNN's "State of the Union" and NBC's "Meet the Press," Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey addressed lessons learned following the Benghazi, Libya, embassy attacks on Sept. 11, 2012, and the embassy attack in Ankara, Turkey, Feb. 1, 2013. They also discussed their continued focus on eradicating al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM.

Panetta said that before his retirement, expected later this month, he expects to testify on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi attacks on Sept. 11, 2013. He noted defense officials are working with the State Department to review embassy security around the – "especially around that part of the world." He added, "We are taking steps."

But better security is one of three essential considerations in protecting U.S. embassies, he noted. "You still need to build up the host-country capacity," Panetta said. "[And] you've got to harden these embassies as much as possible."

Panetta and Dempsey described the complexities of orchestrating personnel and aircraft distance, intelligence and other factors to respond to an attack such as Benghazi.

"This is not 911," Panetta said. "You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place; that's the nature of it."

Dempsey said the nearest armed aircraft were in Djibouti, Africa, at the time of the Benghazi attacks.

"The distance from Djibouti to Benghazi is the difference from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles," Dempsey said. "There are some significant physics involved."

The chairman also maintained that with the alert time and intelligence information available at the time, the U.S. was "appropriately responsive."


"We've learned a lot from the Benghazi incident," Dempsey said. "We work with the State Department in surveying those parts of the world where there's a new norm ... of instability."

Dempsey and Panetta agree that many stymied attacks by the U.S. often go virtually unnoticed. Panetta noted the Feb. 1 suicide attack on the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, which left the bomber two gatehouse security guards dead, occurred at the perimeter "nowhere close to the embassy."

"I think that was good security and ... [was] an example of good intelligence ... [guiding] us so that we could prevent something more serious from happening," he said.

Both leaders acknowledged that while AQIM remains a menace to Middle Eastern and North African regions, the U.S. will work with partner nations to contain terrorist organizations and prevent their acquiring chemical or other weapons in the region.

"We're better when we operate with partners," particularly in the Middle East, Dempsey said. "We've got options for any number of military contingencies, and we're maintaining both a deterrent and preparedness posture."

Dempsey said current U.S. planing involves working with partners in Turkey, Jordan and Israel, all of whom "share common interests in making sure these spill-over effects don't affect them."

Panetta said as al-Qaida affiliate leaders become more brazen in their movements, as recently happened in Mali, he is pleased with the French initiative to push back extremist encroachment and prevent burgeoning safe havens.

The secretary added that the U.S. and its partners have successfully targeted senior al-Qaida leaders in the federally administered tribal areas in Pakistan along the Afghanistan border, as well as in Yemen and Somalia. Planners have long foreseen the eventual need to contain extremists in North Africa has long been foreseen, he added.

"We were always aware that there was AQIM [there]," Panetta said. "Now we're focused on AQIM as a result ... of the French action, but we were also anticipating that we would have to move into North Africa."

Panetta said he hopes the massive changes happening in the Middle East and North Africa in the wakrt of the "Arab spring" will move toward greater democracy and stability in those regions, but operations against terrorist cells must not ebb.

"Wherever they are, we have to make sure they have no place to hide," Panetta said. "Bottom line is, al-Qaida is our enemy and we have to make sure we go after them."

SECRETARY OF STATE PANETTA VISITS 'MOST CAPABLE PARTNERS'

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta briefs the press on a flight to Lisbon, Portugal, Jan. 14, 2013. Panetta is on a six-day trip to Europe to visit with defense counterparts and troops. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Panetta Begins Trip to Visit 'Most Capable Partners'
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT, Jan. 14, 2013 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta boarded this Air Force jet at Joint Base Andrews, Md., today, bound for Portugal, Spain, Italy and Great Britain on what he termed "likely my last international trip as secretary of defense."

Panetta told reporters traveling with him that as "a son of Europe" –- he often speaks of his parents, who immigrated to the United States from Italy -- it is appropriate that his final international trip, the 18th he has made as secretary, will include visits to some of America's "most capable and closest military partners."

"I have visited more than 30 countries, including ... [traveling to] the war zone a number of times," he said. "But I've made it a priority, as part of our defense strategy, ... to emphasize the importance of strengthening our alliances and partnerships throughout the world."

The goal for his final trip is in line with that strategy, the secretary said, as he will:

-- Emphasize the importance of NATO and bilateral alliances;

-- Reflect on the accomplishments Portugal, Spain, Italy and Great Britain have helped to achieve as members of NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan; and

-- Lay the groundwork for the future as nations around the world face both national security and budget challenges.

Panetta noted the countries he will visit have all maintained a strong commitment to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. "Because of that commitment, we've been able to make significant progress in the effort to ... build an Afghanistan that can secure and govern itself," he added.

As President Barack Obama announced last week, the secretary said, Afghan forces will assume the lead for security responsibility across their country this spring, with ISAF forces moving into a supporting role.

"That's a significant milestone that is the result of the efforts by the United States, by ISAF and by the Afghans themselves," he said. The secretary added that U.S. leaders had "a successful series of consultations" with Afghan President Hamid Karzai about the future U.S. commitment to Afghanistan's security during that leader's visit to Washington last week. Panetta said he looks forward to updating counterparts on those discussions.

The secretary said he also will discuss with allies innovative approaches to common budget challenges, and that he'll speak with counterparts about key bilateral security issues.

"As always, I will also use this opportunity to visit the troops, and have a chance to thank U.S. men and women in uniform for the sacrifices they're making," he said.

The secretary said that after more than 10 years of war and with the budget constraints the United States and its allies and partner nations face, the United States nevertheless continues to complete its mission in the war in Afghanistan and continues to confront the terrorism threat.

Terrorist activity -- particularly from al-Qaida factions -- in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Mali is a threat common to all the nations he will visit, Panetta noted. North Korea and Iran, turmoil in the Middle East and the cyber threat also are issues of common interest, he added.

No one nation can confront these threats alone, the secretary said.

"The only way we're going to be able to do it is by strengthening and reaffirming and building new partnerships and new alliances in the world," he said. "The model for that is NATO, ... really the oldest alliance we have." That alliance's responses to Afghanistan and Libya, he added, demonstrate its continued importance to global stability.

The 74-year-old secretary said he also hopes to communicate some of his feelings about the alliance to the younger citizens of the countries he will visit this week.

"NATO goes back to 1949," he said. "I think the reality is ... that there are generations that have been born since the fall of the Berlin Wall that may not fully appreciate how important NATO is as an alliance [for] the future."

Panetta said he will focus in his discussions, and in a speech he will deliver in London later this week, in part on "how important it is to be able to pass the baton to [younger generations] when it comes to the strength of these transatlantic alliances and partnerships that we have."

He added, "The purpose of my trip is to make clear that we are going to need this alliance -- today, tomorrow, and in the 21st century."

U.S. TOUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS ON UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Credit:  Wikimedia. 

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

U.S. Accomplishments During Its First Term on the UN Human Rights Council
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 12, 2012

The United States is pleased and proud of its reelection to the UN Human Rights Council earlier today. Since joining the Council in 2009, the United States has ardently worked to help the Council realize its full potential. Our efforts to reform the Council from within have resulted in historic and concrete actions against human rights violators around the world. While much work remains to be done at the Council, in particular ending its excessive and unbalanced focus on Israel, with U.S. leadership the Council has spoken up for those who are suffering major human rights violations and are living under the grip of the world’s cruelest regimes. The Council also has taken action to promote accountability for violations and expand human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide. Today’s vote will allow us to further strengthen the Council and build on what we have already accomplished at the Council by working together with our international partners.

As we prepare for another three years of close collaboration with partners from all corners of the globe to address the many human rights challenges remaining before us, we reflect on the Council’s key accomplishments during our first term, including:

Robust Response to Country-Specific Situations:

Syria: The Human Rights Council has been an active, vocal body in condemning the atrocities in Syria, holding four special sessions and establishing an independent International Commission of Inquiry, as well as a Special Rapporteur to follow up on the work of the Commission of Inquiry once its mandate expires. The Council has adopted eight resolutions on Syria since 2011, all of which the United States co-sponsored, sharply and repeatedly criticizing and illuminating the conduct of the Syrian government.

Libya: Similarly, in 2011 the Council took assertive action to address the dire human rights situation in Libya, establishing a Commission of Inquiry mandated, among other things, to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law in Libya and to make recommendations on accountability measures. With the support of the United States and on the recommendation of the Council, the UN General Assembly took unprecedented action in March 2011 to suspend Libya’s membership rights on the Council helping to catalyze broader UN action to prevent the slaughter of civilians in Libya.

Iran: In 2011, the United States led the Council in adopting a resolution that re-instituted the mandate of a Special Rapporteur on Iran to highlight Iran’s deteriorating human rights situation. Today, the Special Rapporteur is speaking out on behalf of those Iranians who have suffered egregious human rights violations by the Iranian government.

Belarus: In 2012, the United States co-sponsored a resolution at the Council that established a Special Rapporteur to highlight human rights abuses in Belarus. In doing so, the Council re-instituted a mandate that the Council eliminated in 2006, when the United States was not a member.

Sri Lanka: In 2012, the United States led the Council in adopting a resolution on Sri Lanka, which sent a strong signal that Sri Lanka still needs to address outstanding issues of reconciliation and accountability.

Cote d’Ivoire: When the political and human rights environment in Cote d’Ivoire deteriorated in 2011, the Council acted quickly to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate human rights abuses. The Council later created an Independent Expert on human rights in Cote d’Ivoire, with a mandate to follow up on the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations and assist the Government of Cote d’Ivoire in combating impunity.

Burma: Since joining the Council in 2009, the United States supported the adoption of four resolutions addressing the human rights situation in Burma. The most recent resolution extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights for another year. In doing so, the Council took into account the many recent positive changes in Burma, including the Government of Burma’s stated commitment to democratization and the reconciliation process as well as the Government’s engagement with Aung San Suu Kyi and opposition parties.

Promoting Universal Human Rights:

Advancing the Rights of LGBT Persons: In June 2011 the Council adopted the first-ever UN resolution on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons. This resolution commissioned a groundbreaking UN report on the human rights abuses that LGBT persons face around the globe, and has opened a broader international discussion on how to best promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons. As a co-sponsor of this resolution, the United States demonstrated its commitment to an active role in ensuring fair treatment and equality for all people.

Promoting Freedom of Assembly and Association: Since 2010, the United States has led a cross-regional core group of countries in successfully presenting two landmark resolutions on the protection and promotion of freedom of assembly and association. The first resolution created the first new special rapporteur focused on fundamental freedoms in 17 years, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. The second resolution underscores the important role that civil society plays in the promotion and protection of human rights.

Highlighting Internet Freedom: In July 2012, the United States co-sponsored a landmark resolution, that underscores that all individuals are entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms online as they are offline, including the freedom of expression, and that all governments must protect those rights regardless of the medium.

Underscoring the Right to Nationality: In 2012 the United States successfully introduced a landmark resolution addressing the right to a nationality, with a specific focus on women and children. The equal right to a nationality for women, including the ability to acquire and retain nationality and confer it on their children, reduces the likelihood that women and children will become stateless and vulnerable to serious harm.

Reinforcing Freedom of Expression in the Context of Religious Intolerance: The United States worked with a wide range of partners, including the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, to secure adoption in 2011 of the "Combating Discrimination and Violence" resolution, also known as resolution 16/18, which calls on states to take a range of positive actions to combat discrimination, violence, and intolerance on the basis of religion or belief without violating the freedom of expression. This resolution marked a sea change in the global dialogue on countering offensive and hateful speech based upon religion or belief.

U.S. DOD RELEASES BENGHAZI TIMELINE FOR RESPONSE

Sahara Desert In Libya.  Credit:  CIA World Factbook.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DOD Releases Detailed Timeline for Benghazi Response
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 2012 - The Defense Department released a detailed timeline yesterday of the Pentagon's response to the September attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

A senior defense official, speaking on background with Pentagon reporters, emphasized the rapid consultation, planning and troop pre-deployment actions defense leaders undertook in the first hours following the attack.

"With naval, Marine, special operations and air forces either employed or en route to Libya during the attacks, we responded," the official said. "We mourn the loss of four American heroes in Benghazi."

The military's initial response began within minutes of the first incident in Benghazi, the official said: the attack on the U.S. consulate began at 3:42 p.m. EDT [9:42 p.m. Benghazi time], and by 5:10 EDT an unarmed surveillance aircraft was on station over the Benghazi compound.

By 5:30 p.m., all surviving Americans had left the consulate, the official noted, adding that defense officials didn't have that information until later.

The senior official noted that for people to understand the sequence of events in Benghazi, "it's important to discuss the wider context of that tragic day."

In the months before the attack, the official said, hundreds of reports surfaced of possible threats to U.S. citizens and facilities across the globe. In the Middle East and North Africa on Sept. 11, the official added, U.S. facilities in more than 16 countries were operating on a heightened force-protection level, based on specific threats.

"I would note ... that there was no specific or credible threat that we knew of on the day that the attacks ... occurred in Benghazi," the official said.

The official acknowledged that since Sept. 11, many people have speculated on whether increased military intervention, including the use of manned and unmanned aircraft, might have changed the course of events in Libya that night.

"Unfortunately, no alternative or additional aircraft options were available within ... [enough time] to be effective," the official said. "Due to the incomplete intelligence picture on the ground, armed aircraft options were simply not feasible."

The DOD timeline records that in the first hours following the initial attack, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conferred first with the president, and shortly after with senior officials including Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, who leads U.S. Africa Command. Africom's area of responsibility includes Libya.

During those meetings, the official said, Panetta verbally ordered two fleet antiterrorism security team, or FAST, platoons to prepare to deploy from their base in Rota, Spain. The secretary also issued verbal prepare-to-deploy orders for a U.S. European Command special operations force then training in Central Europe and a second special operations force based in the United States.

At 6:30 p.m. EDT, according to the timeline, a six-person security team, including two DOD members, left the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli for Benghazi.

The official noted the Pentagon's National Military Command Center staff, within hours of the attack, began planning support and contingency operations with transportation and special operations experts, as well as with representatives from the four services and Africa, Europe and Central commands. By 8:39 p.m., the official said, the command center had started issuing written orders for the forces the secretary had alerted.

At 11 p.m. EDT, the official said, a second unmanned, unarmed surveillance aircraft relieved the first, and at 11:15 p.m. -- around 5 a.m. Sept. 12 in Benghazi -- the second U.S. facility there, an annex near the consulate, came under mortar and rocket-propelled grenade fire.

By 1:40 a.m. EDT Sept. 12, the first wave of Americans left Benghazi for Tripoli by airplane, with the second wave, including the bodies of the fallen, following at 4 a.m. A C-17 aircraft, under Africom direction, flew the evacuees from Tripoli to Germany later that day, the official said.

As the timeline makes clear, the official said, the evacuation took place before the FAST platoons or special operations forces arrived, although all were converging on Libya -- noting repeatedly that DOD leaders lacked a clear picture of enemy, civilian and American positions in the area.

"There are people out there who have suggested that an overhead surveillance aircraft could have perfect visibility into what was happening on the ground, and on that basis alone, you could send in a team," the official said. "That is not necessarily how things work."

An overhead surveillance aircraft operating at night over a city can't always help military members separate friend and foe on the ground, the official said.

"You get a lot of good information from a surveillance aircraft, ... but it doesn't necessarily provide you a complete and instant picture of what is happening on the ground. ... If you're going to undertake military action, you'd better have solid information before you decide to take the kinds of steps that are required to effectively complete a military mission of this sort," the official told reporters.

Over the roughly 12 hours between the start of the attacks and the time the last Americans were evacuated from Benghazi, the official said, defense leaders postured forces to meet any contingencies that might develop, as there was no way to know in the early, "murky" stages whether the situation would be resolved within hours, days or longer.

"We absolutely had our forces arrayed in a way that could potentially respond to events that might unfold," the official said. "We are an excellent military -- the finest in the world. We're always prepared. But we're neither omniscient nor omnipresent."

THE FORMATION OF A GOVERNMENT IN LIBYA

Map Credit:  CIA World Factbook.
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Libya: Formation of the Government
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 2, 2012The United States congratulates the Libyan people on the formation of a government. This is a critical milestone in their democratic transition. We encourage the country’s leaders to build democratic and security institutions and to promote economic development and the rule of law. The Libyan people fought a difficult revolution in order to enjoy a democratic future with peace, security and prosperity. The United States looks forward to working closely with the new government and is committed to supporting the Libyan people during this historic transition.

PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY LITTLE DESCRIBES BENGHAZI DECISION

Photo:  Libya.  Credit:  CIA World Factbook.

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Little Describes Pentagon's Benghazi Decision Process

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2, 2012 - Two U.S. service members did participate with a CIA team in the mission to rescue Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters today.

Little spoke of the events of that night during a press availability in his Pentagon office. Four Americans -- including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens -- were killed in a terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that night.

The two American service members were based in the Libyan capital of Tripoli and volunteered to join the team that traveled to Benghazi. Little could not say what position the service members held, but did say DOD is proud that they volunteered to perform the mission.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey and U.S. Africa Command commander Army Gen. Carter F. Ham discussed the situation in Benghazi soon after they were notified of the assault.

"There were discussions here at the highest levels including the secretary as to what kind of response we might be able to provide," Little said.

"The secretary ordered appropriate forces to respond," he said. "Those forces included FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) platoons from Europe, a special operations unit in Central Europe, and another contingent of U.S. troops from the United States."

It takes time to notify troops, organize them and then transport them, Little said. It also takes time to develop an intelligence picture of what they might face on the ground.

"The fact of the matter is these forces were not in place until after the attacks were over," he said. "Let me be clear. This department took swift action. We did respond. The secretary ordered forces to move. They simply were not able to arrive in time."

DOD was preparing for a range of contingencies that day.

"We were readying for the need to augment security measures at our facilities in Libya, we were prepared for the possibility of a hostage situation as well," Little said. "These were all the things we were looking at in the midst of an event that we did not know was going to happen in Benghazi that night."

U.S. NAVY PHOTOS OF MISSILE LAUNCHES DURING JOINT TASK FORCE ODYSSEY DAWN

FROM:  U.S. NAVY
110319-N-XO436-136 MEDITERRANEAN SEA (March. 19, 2011) The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG 52) launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 19, 2011. This was one of approximately 110 cruise missiles fired from U.S. and British ships and submarines that targeted about 20 radar and anti-aircraft sites along Libya's Mediterranean coast. Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S. military forces supporting the international response to the unrest in Libya and enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jonathan Sunderman/Released)

110329-N-XO436-010 MEDITERRANEAN SEA (March 29, 2011) The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG 52) launches a Tomahawk cruise missile to support Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn. Odyssey Dawn is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S. military forces supporting the international response to the unrest in Libya and enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jonathan Sunderman/Released)

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HILLARY CLINTON'S STATEMENT ON DEATHS IN LIBYA

Photo:  Libyan Desert..  Credit:  CIA
FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Statement on the Deaths of Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty in Benghazi, Libya
Press Statement
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
September 13, 2012
The attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya on Tuesday claimed the lives of four Americans. Yesterday, I spoke about two: Ambassador Chris Stevens and Information Management Officer Sean Smith. Today, we also recognize the two security personnel who died helping protect their colleagues. Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty were both decorated military veterans who served our country with honor and distinction. Our thoughts, prayers, and deepest gratitude are with their families and friends. Our embassies could not carry on our critical work around the world without the service and sacrifice of brave people like Tyrone and Glen.

Tyrone’s friends and colleagues called him "Rone," and they relied on his courage and skill, honed over two decades as a Navy SEAL. In uniform, he served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2010, he protected American diplomatic personnel in dangerous posts from Central America to the Middle East. He had the hands of a healer as well as the arm of a warrior, earning distinction as a registered nurse and certified paramedic. All our hearts go out to Tyrone’s wife Dorothy and his three sons, Tyrone Jr., Hunter, and Kai, who was born just a few months ago.

We also grieve for Glen Doherty, called Bub, and his family: his father Bernard, his mother Barbara, his brother Gregory, and his sister Kathleen. Glen was also a former Navy SEAL and an experienced paramedic. And he put his life on the line many times, protecting Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other hotspots. In the end, he died the way he lived – with selfless honor and unstinting valor.

We condemn the attack that took the lives of these heroes in the strongest terms, and we are taking additional steps to safeguard American embassies, consulates, and citizens around the world. This violence should shock the conscience of people of all faiths and traditions. We appreciate the statements of support that have poured in from across the region and beyond. People of conscience and goodwill everywhere must stand together in these difficult days against violence, hate, and division.

I am enormously proud of the men and women who risk their lives every day in the service of our country and our values. They help make the United States the greatest force for peace, progress, and human dignity that the world has ever known. We honor the memory of our fallen colleagues by continuing their work and carrying on the best traditions of a bold and generous nation.

MARINES SENT TO LIBYA

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Pentagon Deploys Security Team to Libya
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13, 2012 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has authorized deployment of a Marine Corps fleet anti-terrorism security team to Libya to protect U.S. citizens there and to secure the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said here today.

During a Pentagon news conference, Little said Panetta strongly condemns the recent attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the Middle East.

"The secretary extends his deepest sympathies to the families of the victims and to the entire State Department family," Little said. "The department has been working with the White House and State Department to provide resources to support the security of U.S. personnel and facilities in Libya."

Little said the Defense Department supported the evacuation of American personnel and casualties out of Libya and is supporting the repatriation of the remains of the four State Department personnel, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who were killed in the attack late Tuesday on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey also have worked over the past 48 hours with combatant commanders throughout the region to conduct reviews of their force postures, he said. They also are working "to ensure that we have the flexibility to respond to requests for assistance or orders as directed by the president of the United States," he added.

Little said the focus of the Defense Department is now on supporting whole-of-government efforts to provide security to American personnel in Libya and elsewhere, working closely with the State Department, "and then supporting any efforts that we may be called upon to assist in the effort to, as the president said, 'deliver justice.'"

"The FBI and Department of Justice have opened an investigation into this tragic event," Little said. "Obviously, we will cooperate fully if called upon to support their investigation.

"Rest assured that this department is going to work very closely with our interagency partners to help investigate [and], if we're called upon, to assist," he continued. "And we will play our part in getting to the root of what happened."

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANNETTA CONDEMNS ATTACKS IN LIBYA

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Panetta Strongly Condemns Benghazi Attack

By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2012 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta condemned yesterday's attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in the "strongest possible terms," a senior government official said today.

"The secretary also extends his deepest sympathies to the families of the victims and to the entire State Department family," the official said.

Panetta joined President Barack Obama and Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton in condemning the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service information management officer Sean Smith and two others whose names are being withheld until State Department officials notify their families. Three other Americans were wounded in the attack.

"The Department of Defense is ready to respond with additional military measures as directed by the president," the official added.

Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, commander of the U.S. Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany, briefed Panetta last night on the situation in Benghazi, the official said. The secretary has since received regular updates.

"DOD is working closely with the White House and the State Department to provide all necessary resources to support the security of U.S. personnel in Libya," the official said.

"This support includes a Marine Corps fleet antiterrorism security team based out of Europe," he said, adding that the team's mission is to secure the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and protect U.S. citizens.

DOD is also providing support to evacuate American personnel and casualties out of Libya, the official added.

"Those individuals and the remains of our fallen colleagues will arrive, if they haven't already done so, at Ramstein [Air Base] and Landstuhl [Regional Medical Center] in Germany," the official said.

This morning, the official said, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, placed a call to Pastor Terry Jones about a film by a U.S. producer that is insulting to the Prophet Mohammed.

Jones, pastor of the fundamentalist Christian Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., is known for his 2010 plan to burn Qur'ans, the scripture of the Islamic religion, on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. According to news reports, he also supports the recent film.

The film also was reported to have caused protests by angry crowds yesterday at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

"I can confirm that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey, spoke by phone this morning with Pastor Jones," the official said.

"This was a brief call in which Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it could inflame and the violence it could cause, and he asked Mr. Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film," he said.

Jones did listen to the chairman's concerns but was noncommittal, the official said.

PRESIDENT BOOSTS SECURITY AT DIPLOMATIC POSTS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Obama Directs Security Boost at U.S. Diplomatic Posts

By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2012 - The United States condemns in the strongest terms the outrageous and shocking attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel, President Barack Obama said this morning.

Also killed were Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and two others whose names are being withheld until State Department officials notify their families.

"We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats," Obama said. "I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake -- we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."

At the Defense Department, Pentagon spokeswoman Navy Cmdr. Wendy Snyder said, "We are saddened by this tragic loss at the Embassy in Benghazi. We are working closely with the State Department and standing by to provide whatever support that may be needed."

Standing in the White House Rose Garden with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the president said the United States, since its founding, has been a nation that respects all faiths.

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," he added. "But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence -- none. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."

Already, Obama said, many Libyans have joined the United States in rejecting the acts. The attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya, he added.

"Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans," Obama said. "Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens' body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died."

Obama said it's especially tragic that Stevens died in Benghazi, because it is a city that the fallen diplomat had helped to save.

"At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi," the president said. "With characteristic skill, courage and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya."

When Moammar Gadhafi's regime came to an end, Stevens served as U.S. ambassador to the new Libya and worked tirelessly to support the young democracy, Obama said.

"I think both Secretary Clinton and I have relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there," he added. "He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps."

Stevens and his colleagues died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war, the president said.



Freedom is only sustained "because there are people who are willing to fight for it, stand up for it and, in some cases, lay down their lives for it," Obama said.

"We mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America," the president said. "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake -- justice will be done."

After making his statement, a White House official said, the president visited the State Department, meeting with employees there to express his solidarity with U.S. diplomats stationed around the world.

"At this difficult time," the official said, "he will give thanks for the service and sacrifices that our civilians make, and pay tribute to those who were lost."

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ADDRESSES SECURITY THREATS AND SANCTIONS

Map:  Syria.   Credit:  U.S. State Department
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
　
Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft
Remarks
Jose W. Fernandez
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
San Francisco, CA
July 25, 2012
Introduction
Good evening. Thank you for the introduction. I’m delighted to be in San Francisco and at the World Affairs Council.

I am here to talk about sanctions. Now, I didn’t come into the State Department to get involved in sanctions. I came to support development, promoting American values, and helping U.S. business to compete abroad and create jobs here. But if Clausewitz wrote that "war is diplomacy carried out by other means," my time at that State Department has taught me that sanctions too are a form of diplomacy. And this is nothing new.

Throughout world history, effective diplomacy and statecraft more often than not, required a nation to use its commercial and economic leverage to achieve political and strategic goals. Within this narrow focus, the use of sanctions to exploit that leverage is virtually as old as diplomacy itself. Indeed one of the earliest recorded uses of economic sanctions was by ancient Athens. Pericles ordered all trade between Athens and Megra banned in retaliation for Megra’s support of Sparta. In more recent decades, sanctions were used against a number of countries, such as South Africa for apartheid and Serbia for its actions during the break-up of Yugoslavia. The fact of the matter is that, while there are many carrots that can be offered to countries – development assistance or increased access to markets – economic sanctions is one of the few sticks…short of war.

For the United States, the sticks we use today have evolved from the historic policies of the 20th century that shut out Castro’s Cuba from the global economy, and halted Iranian Oil in 1979 after the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran. These days, our approach is more calibrated. Instead of imposing only wholesale embargos on all of a nation’s trade, our deeper understanding of the many complex relationships, transactions and interactions that make up a nation’s economy enables us to craft sanctions regimes that can focus on certain sectors and actors, which more effectively achieve our goal while avoiding collateral damage. Those targeted measures are what we call "smart sanctions," and that’s what I would like to talk about: how smart sanctions can be an effective foreign policy tool, and how smart implementation of sanctions promotes American economic prosperity and national security.

We start with the reality that there are many foreign policy priorities that will compete with sanctions: negotiating new trade agreements with Korea and Colombia, managing relationships with strategic allies such as Pakistan and Russia, and supporting the transitions in North Africa. So where do sanctions fit within our priorities?

Smart Sanctions

When we discuss smart sanctions, the first question is: "What is our goal?" What are we trying to achieve? Sanctions are generally invoked for one of three purposes: 1) to change a government’s or private actor’s unacceptable behavior; 2) to constrain such behavior going forward; and/or 3) to expose behavior through censure. The goal is to raise the economic cost of unacceptable behavior and denying the resources that make it possible.

Given these goals, what are our available tools? Well, as we ratchet up pressure, sanctions increase and change. At the most basic level, we withhold U.S. government cooperation, such as by prohibiting development assistance. But, this only gets us so far, because most of the bad actors in this world don’t get a lot of assistance. As we move to a higher level, we look to freeze the assets of individuals and governments and restrict their access to the U.S. market or prevent them from receiving visas. Finally, we might also ban exports or imports from countries for certain activities, as in the case of Iran for refusing to address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program.

An even more aggressive approach involves the use of "secondary sanctions." These measures act against companies in third countries who do business with a U.S.-sanctioned target, thereby indirectly supporting the behavior of the bad actor. Ultimately, making that institution choose between doing business with a rogue country or operating in the United States.

But at the same time that we consider the optimum sanctions for a given objective, an important element for consideration is how to ensure that sanctions are structured to achieve the desired outcome, while minimizing collateral damage to U.S. and other interests.

This unwanted collateral damage includes investments, economic and trade relations that we want to maintain, and protecting innocent citizens in the targeted country. For example, in Iran, the door is still open for the sale of agriculture products and medicine. Approval was given for NGOs working to empower Iranian women, support heart surgery for children, for consultants on a telecom fiber optic ring, for a lawyer’s association providing legal training, and for a media company that filmed an Iranian election. So our smart sanctions are targeted.

Effective diplomatic leadership is also crucial to effective sanctions. Sanctions are more likely to have an impact when many countries participate. The more global leaders are on board in imposing sanctions, the more powerful the message that certain behavior is unacceptable in today’s world.

So, let’s look at a few recent cases – Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya – and review our sanctions policy.

1) Iran

Iran’s destabilizing actions speak for themselves: refusal to address international concerns about its nuclear program; defiance of UN Security Council resolutions; support for terrorism, and efforts to stir regional unrest, all present a grave threat to international peace and security. Iran remains one of our top foreign policy and international security priorities.

Smart sanctions have played a prominent role in the success of the Administration’s dual-track policy of pressure and engagement to compel Tehran to address the concerns of the international community over its nuclear program. In fact, senior Iranian officials, including President Ahmadinejad have acknowledged the negative impact of sanctions. The macroeconomic indicators tell the story: the Iranian rial has lost nearly half of its value in nine months, oil exports and revenues are down significantly, and inflation is rampant throughout the economy.

The Administration’s recent actions on sanctions include:
An Executive Order targeting development of Iran’s upstream oil and gas industry and petrochemical sector. This order expands existing sanctions by authorizing asset freezes on persons who knowingly support Iran’s ability to develop its petroleum and petrochemical sector, which is one of Iran’s primary sources of funding for public projects like uranium enrichment.
President Obama also enacted legislation targeting the Central Bank and Iran’s oil revenues. Section 1245 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) places sanctions on foreign financial institutions for significant transactions related to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and designated Iranian financial institutions. As a measure of the successful implementation of the legislation, some 20 countries have qualified for banking exceptions under the NDAA because they significantly reduced their purchase of Iranian crude oil.
In addition, the 27-member European Union implemented a full embargo on Iranian crude oil effective July 1.

The possibility of sanctions has persuaded many firms to discontinue their business with Iran - Total, Shell, Statoil (Norway), Edison International (Italy), and many, many others. In fact, an Iranian official recently admitted that sanctions have led, according to their estimates, to a 20-30 percent reduction in sales of Iranian crude oil. This translates into almost $8 billion in lost revenue every quarter.

Our efforts aren’t limited to oil: as a result of U.S. and multilateral sanctions, major shipping lines have ceased servicing Iranian ports. The Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), Iran’s major shipping line, and the National Iranian Tanker Company, Iran’s tanker fleet, have had increasing difficulty in receiving flagging, insurance, and other shipping services from reputable providers. This further decreases Iran’s ability to gain revenue.

As we continue to seek progress on the negotiating front, we will maintain unrelenting pressure on Tehran. We know the pressure we are bringing to bear has been vital to getting Iran to the negotiating table. We all have a stake in resolving the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program through diplomacy if we can, and so we will continue our work with countries around the world to keep pressure on Tehran.

2) Syria

Although Iran sanctions continue to produce results, Syria requires a different approach. Indeed, as the death toll rises above 17,000, the Syria crisis becomes graver every minute. There are food shortages. There is a lack of safe access to adequate medical services. Syrian families are fleeing the country and registering in refugee camps in neighboring countries. It is a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis.

Our goal in Syria is to support a democratic transition that reflects the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. The United States looks to its sanctions toolbox to isolate Asad and deprive him of financial resources that allow him to continue attacking the Syrian people.

Even before the current outbreak of violence in February 2011, the United States had several sanctions programs against Syria as a result of Syrian support for terrorism. More recently, we applied U.S. sanctions through a series of Executive Orders, issued by President Obama, targeting individuals who use information technology to commit human rights abuses, senior officials of the Syrian government, and supporters of the regime such as some Syrian businessmen.

The United States joined with likeminded countries in a multilateral group known as the "Friends of the Syrian People." Through this group, we work with other countries to harmonize implementation of national sanctions regimes and coordinate efforts for implementing a multi-lateral sanctions regime. The work of this group is especially important given some countries have effectively blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for international sanctions.

In the group, we synchronize the individuals and entities targeted by the sanctions, and discuss ways to strengthen sanctions by identifying measures that will impact the Assad regime while permitting legitimate trade to continue to flow.

So far, U.S. and international sanctions have had a significant effect on Assad’s reserves, and are making it difficult for the regime to finance its brutality.

But what happens when sanctions are successful? How quickly do you unwind?

3) Burma

Recent positive developments in Burma, that were unimaginable just last year, led the Administration to implement an innovative approach that eases certain sanctions and incentivizes further political and economic reform. Within the past year, over 500 political prisoners have been released, and the government and several armed ethnic groups (some of whom have been fighting against the government since 1948) have reached preliminary ceasefire agreements. Pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi re-registered her party and stood for office in recent parliamentary by-elections. She, along with 42 other candidates from her party, was elected to Parliament in early April.

The Burmese parliament has also taken several steps towards reform, including passing new legislation to protect the freedom of assembly and the right of workers to form labor unions. The government is also taking steps to bring increased transparency to the national budget.

Burma became subject to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s. Those sanctions were not universally emulated by many of our traditional allies. But, our sanctions are credited with helping to persuade Burma’s leadership to reconsider its long-term interests and move toward democratic reform. And now the country is becoming a case study in how difficult it is to be "smart" about easing sanctions. Our sanctions were initially developed before we gave serious consideration to the structure of sanctions and they were not built with an exit strategy in mind. That’s made it more difficult to address the developments of the last year, and it’s been a valuable lesson for crafting future sanctions regimes.

With regard to Burma, even though many of our international partners moved to fully suspend their sanctions, we opted for a different route: We are easing our sanctions, but in a calibrated manner. Even after our most recent easing, we remain vigilant about the protection of human rights, corruption, and the role of the military in the Burmese economy. Our approach aims to support democratic reform while aiding in the development of an economic and business environment that provides benefits to all of Burma’s people.

In forming our easing policy, we were also mindful of the desire for American companies to contribute to improved human rights, worker rights, environmental protection, and transparency in Burma, including the need to improve the transparency of the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), Burma’s state-owned oil company. We sought to do so while working for a broad easing across sectors. And we did something that hadn’t been done before in a license context: we integrated novel reporting requirements into the new investment license. These requirements, which will have a public transparency component, cover issues such as due diligence in protecting human rights and worker rights, and transparency in land acquisition and payments to the Burmese government, including state-owned enterprises. In addition, companies working with MOGE must report their investment within 60 days. The purpose of the public reporting is to promote greater transparency and encourage civil society to partner with our companies toward responsible investment. We want American companies to take advantage of the new opportunities. We think that by allowing them to invest in Burma provides an opportunity to share American values, transparency, and model corporate governance in the country.

Another key element of this policy can be found in the general license. While permitting new investment and financial services, we do not authorize new investment with the Burmese Ministry of Defense, state or non-state armed groups (which includes the military), or entities owned by them. U.S. persons are also still prohibited from dealing with blocked persons, including listed Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs), as well as any entities 50 percent or more owned by an SDN. It’s also important to keep in mind that the core authorities underlying our sanctions remain in place. They weren’t terminated, just suspended. This means that back sliding by the Burmese government, or other potential spoilers, on democracy, human rights, etc., can be countered with the appropriate measures.

We took the suspension route because while we are encouraged by the positive steps that President Thein Sein and his government have taken toward a more civilian led and democratic government, concerns still remain. These concerns include the continued detention of hundreds of political prisoners, ongoing conflict in ethnic areas, and Burma’s military relationship with North Korea. Going forward, we hope our calibrated approach results in increased democratic values and economic opportunities, and diminish human rights abuses. But, again, we have also maintained flexibility to further ease, or re-impose, restrictions as necessary. So stay tuned on Burma. We are.

So, let’s look at one of our recent successes?

4) Libya

After suffering from more than four decades of erratic and abusive rule by Muammar Qadhafi, the people of Libya rose up on early 2011. As the Libyan grassroots opposition grew in strength, Qadhafi recognized that his grip on power was threatened. He responded by unleashing the Libyan military on his own citizens.

Working closely with our allies around the world, the United States moved rapidly to support the Libyan people. Our efforts included launching a major economic sanctions program specifically geared to target Qadhafi and his cronies. The program sought to deprive Qadhafi of the resources necessary to sustain his assault, to preserve Libya’s wealth for its people, and to signal to Qadhafi and his allies that they were isolated and their days were numbered. These efforts were on both domestic and multilateral fronts.

Domestically, the U.S. government reached out to U.S. financial institutions to identify assets controlled by the Libyan government, Qadhafi, his family, and their cronies, in anticipation of a new sanctions program, and here we have a pleasant surprise: freezing Libyan assets had a far greater impact than first expected. For example, just one financial institution held assets of over $29 billion; another held almost $500 million in a single portfolio. Freezing these assets substantially constrained Qadhafi’s campaign.

But we do not act alone: just as the United States reacted with unprecedented speed, so too did the international community. The day after President Obama signed the Executive Order to freeze over $30 billion in Libyan assets, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions targeting the individuals most responsible for the violence. As the conflict intensified, the Security Council expanded its approach, imposing further sanctions on key financial and economic institutions, such as the Libyan Central Bank, the National Oil Corporation, and a number of Libyan sovereign wealth funds.

Unilateral and multilateral sanctions, reinforced with intense diplomatic and military efforts, hastened the demise of the Qadhafi regime. Targeted sanctions appeared to motivate Libyan leaders to defect, like the Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa. Broad private sector support in implementing sanctions removed the resources Qadhafi needed to supply his military and pay his mercenaries, and safeguarded the wealth of the Libyan people from Qadhafi and his cronies. Ultimately, this allowed Libya’s people to courageously liberate themselves and begin a new, democratic era. Our goal then became to lead a rapid transition to ease sanctions and help Libya re-open for business.

Last April, I traveled with representatives from twenty U. S. companies to Tripoli. We followed up on U.S. commitments to deepen economic and commercial relations with Libya in the aftermath of Qadhafi. While there, I was met with overwhelming goodwill for the U.S. and appreciation for U.S. leadership in the international operation to protect Libyan civilians against Qadhafi’s regime, and in following through with ensuring the new Libya was on a path to rebound.

Conclusion

Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya remind us there is no one-size-fits-all sanctions strategy. Sanctions tools have to be flexible enough to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. From each application of sanctions, we learn a new lesson. What we learned from unwinding the Libya sanctions, we applied to Burma, and will help us as events unfold in Syria.

We’ve seen success in Libya, changes in Burma, and acknowledgement of an impact in Iran. While the results may take months or years to be apparent, we know economic sanctions work. They can be a powerful tool in diplomacy – a stick whose use we are constantly evaluating and working to improve, and to keep smart.

Thank you.