AG LYNCH'S REMARKS AT MAGNA CARTA COMMEMORATION

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT  
Attorney General Lynch Delivers Remarks at Magna Carta Commemoration Ceremony
London United Kingdom ~ Monday, June 15, 2015
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Thank you, Secretary [Philip] Hammond, for that kind introduction.  Your Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, honored guests – it is a pleasure to be here this morning, and a great privilege to join you all at this important commemoration.

Eight hundred years ago, on the grounds of Runnymede, King John sealed a piece of parchment – a Great Charter – that extended basic rights to individuals subject to his reign.  That Magna Carta was neither expansive nor long-lived – its rules applied to only a small group of noblemen, and it was first annulled just 10 weeks after being sealed.  But its adoption served as a signpost on a long and difficult march, and those who forged its compromise stood as early travelers on the road to justice.  While the hands that wrote the Magna Carta have long been stilled, the principles they carved out of the struggles of their day – of the struggles of the human condition – live on.

Seven and a half centuries after that historic day, in 1957, a crowd of 5,000 people walked in storied footsteps to dedicate this memorial and to recognize its significance.  Among them was Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of America’s Supreme Court and one of our nation’s greatest jurists, who noted in an opinion a year later that principles traced back to Magna Carta represented a concept that is “nothing less than the dignity of man.”

For Chief Justice Warren, and for the many American lawyers and jurists who gathered by his side, this monument had special meaning, because Magna Carta had come to symbolize more than a simple agreement between noblemen and their king.  This social contract between a monarch and his people codified, however imperfectly, notions that would one day stand at the heart of our own system of justice: the idea that no power is unconditional, and no rule is absolute; that we are not subjugated by an infallible authority, but share authority with our fellow citizens.  That all are protected by the law, just as all must answer to the law.  These fundamental, age-old principles have given hope to those who face oppression.  They have given a voice to those yearning for the redress of wrongs.  And they have served as the bedrock of free societies around the globe, inspiring countless women and men seeking to weave their promise into reality.  

For those who drafted the U.S. Constitution, the significance of Magna Carta was clear.  Its influence helped shape a political system that enshrines separation of powers, due process and the rule of law; a legal system that recognizes and honors the dignity of all people; and a commitment to ongoing efforts to realize these ideals in every interaction between our citizens and our institutions.

Even today, America continues to pursue these goals.  We are engaged in initiatives to promote trust and understanding between law enforcement officers and the communities we serve.  We are working with partners in the United States and around the world to pursue those who would deny human dignity, whether through trafficking or corruption, violence or terrorism.  And we are carrying out a historic reorientation of our criminal justice practices to end an overreliance on incarceration.  At every turn, we are driven by that same devotion to the rule of law whose seeds took root in this field so long ago.

Of course, our journey has not been easy, and it is far from over.  Just as men and women of great conscience and strong will have, over eight centuries, worked to advance the cause that animated their forebears – in nations around the world – we too must advance and extend the promise that lies at the heart of our global community.  We too must deliver on the spirit of Magna Carta.  And we too must carry forward our work to new fields of equality, opportunity and justice.

On the day that this monument was dedicated in 1957, one of the former presidents of the American Bar Association called his journey to Runnymede a “devout pilgrimage to the ancestral home, to the well springs of our profession, to the fountainhead of our faith.”  Today, we not only pay tribute to the source of our legal doctrine – we reaffirm our devotion to its values and recommit ourselves to the service of its most treasured ideals.  As we go forward, I am proud, I am honored and I am humbled to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with all of you in our shared pursuit of a more just world.

Thank you all, once again, for the opportunity to take part in this commemoration.  Thank you for your dedication to the ennobling ideals we are here to celebrate.  I look forward to all that our nations will achieve together in the spirit of their promise in the years ahead.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT U.S. EMBASSY IN LONDON

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
02/21/2015 04:31 PM EST
Remarks at Press Availability
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy London
London, United Kingdom
February 21, 2015

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. Appreciate everybody’s patience. Well, good evening, everybody. It’s a pleasure for me to be back in London, and I’m very grateful to my friend Philip Hammond, foreign secretary of the U.K., not just for his hospitality but for his partnership in wrestling with some very difficult issues today.

The United States and the United Kingdom have a long tradition of great cooperation, and frankly, that tradition was reinforced today and it continues. Under President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron’s leadership, our two nations are helping to articulate the path forward in many areas of concern for the global community. And this evening I want to focus on a number of them that we discussed here today.

First, the foreign secretary and I reviewed the progress in degrading and ultimately defeating Daesh. Throughout our history, we have faced significant threats together – genocide, aggression, chaos, dictatorship, the battle against fascism and tyranny. Today we’re asked away to a new campaign against a new kind of enemy. The battlefield is very different and the weapons are different, so the strategies that we employ have to be different too in order to overcome that enemy.

I am confident that based on the choices we are making we will degrade and ultimately defeat Daesh. And in my judgment, there should be no question about that. Working together, we have brought together a coalition of more than 60 countries and it is growing still. We’ve seen progress in Iraq. Daesh was defeated at Kobani. Territory is now being taken back. The Iraqi army is beginning to stand up. Their communications, the communications of Daesh, have been disrupted. Their ability to be able to move in convoys has been disrupted. Their supply lines are being disrupted. The transportation networks they utilized are being disrupted.

And so we have started this great enterprise. We’re engaged and we’re coordinating. But obviously, there is a lot more to be done. We understand that, and that’s what we talked about today. Toward our common goal of unity and action, President Obama hosted a summit in Washington this week that brought together leading figures from local and national governments, from civil society and the private sector, people from all around the world who came together, including a robust U.K. delegation led by Home Secretary Theresa May. We’re very grateful for her contribution .

Our goal with the summit was really very simple: to expand the global conversation, and more importantly to listen to each other, share best practices, learn the lessons where things haven’t worked particularly well if they haven’t, and clarify an action agenda that identifies, shares, and deploys those best practices in preventing and countering violent extremism.

In this effort, frankly, we decided – and I think everybody agreed on this yesterday and the day before – there’s a role for every country. There’s something for everybody to be able to do in this.

Together, we committed to help countries that are at immediate risk to be able to grow stronger and to be able to fight back. And Philip Hammond and I discussed some of the things we could do to accomplish that today.

We also committed to interrupt financial flows so that the terrorist become as bankrupt in financial terms as they are in any kind of ideology or program or morality. We committed to stop the recruitment into the terrorist ranks and to work very hard in order to be able to deprive terrorists of the access that they have to those who are disillusioned or disconnected to their particular countries or societies.

We committed to help areas of the globe that are on the front lines or the ones that are next in line as targets, and particularly those that might be subject to the potential of terrorist infiltration. We also committed to work hard to create greater opportunity of positive role models for young people everywhere, and we committed to teach skills and work to improve the economies of many countries where there is a ready pool for the potential of terrorism in order to reduce the numbers of people who might be attracted to the misguided appeals that have brought, frankly, too many people to the battlefield.

Now, make no mistake: The rise of violent extremism remains a challenge for everyone, and it is particularly a challenge to global rule of law. Foreign Secretary Hammond and I agreed that we believe we have made the right initial choices, that we are on the right path, we are confident about the future, but we’re also realistic about those places where we still need to do more to meet the challenge. The reason we are confident is, frankly, because the terrorists have absolutely nothing positive to offer anyone and because nations are coming together across every boundary, every boundary – the boundaries of territory, the boundaries of creed, of religion, of ideology, of governance – in order to move forward in the name of decency, civility, and reason.

Foreign Secretary Hammond and I also discussed the egregious Russian and separatist violations of the February 12th Minsk agreement in Ukraine which embraced the September agreements and set forth a very clear path for what was needed to be done to be able to put a cease-fire in place and begin to live up to those agreements.

One of the most egregious violations is obviously the assault, the full-scale assault on the city of Debaltseve and the violations of the cease-fire in the resupply of the separatists by Russia. Let me be clear: We know to a certainty what Russia has been providing, and no amount of propaganda is capable of hiding these actions. And for anyone who wants to make gray areas out of black, let’s get very real. The Minsk implementation agreement is not open to interpretation. It’s not vague. It’s not optional. It’s called for a complete cease-fire that was to take effect on the night of February 15th with full OSCE access to the conflict zone, and the pullback of all heavy weapons from the line of contact.

So far, Russia and the separatists are only complying in a few areas selectively, not in Debaltseve, not outside Mariopol, and not in other key strategic areas. And that is simply unacceptable. If this failure continues, make no mistake: There will be further consequences, including consequences that would place added strains on Russia’s already troubled economy. We’re not going to sit back and allow this kind of cynical, craven behavior to continue at the expense of the sovereignty and integrity of another nation. And I am confident that the United States and the United Kingdom and others are prepared to stand up and take the measures necessary to add to the cost of these actions.

Foreign Secretary Hammond and I also discussed the concerns that we share about the continued viability of the Palestinian Authority if they do not receive funds soon. If the Palestinian Authority ceases or were to cease, security cooperation – or even decide to disband as a result of their economic predicament, and that could happen in the near future if they don’t receive additional revenues – then we would be faced with yet another crisis that could also greatly impact the security of both Palestinians and Israelis. And that would have the potential of serious ripple effects elsewhere in the region.

So we’re working hard to try to prevent that from happening, and that’s why we’ve been reaching out to key stakeholders in order to express these concerns but also to try to work together to be able to find a solution to this challenge.

Finally, Foreign Secretary Hammond and I discussed the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran. Our governments remain in lockstep with our international partners on the importance of cutting off Iran’s pathways to the potential of a nuclear weapon. And will travel to Geneva tomorrow to meet with Foreign Minister Zarif to see if we can make progress in these talks. A unified P5+1 has put on the table creative ideas to achieve our objective, and now we will find out whether or not Iran is able to match its words about its willingness to show that its program is fully peaceful with the verifiable actions and verifiable decisions that are necessary to accomplish that goal.

Finally, I meant to say a moment ago we also discussed Syria today. The challenge of the Assad regime, which continues to drop barrel bombs on innocent civilians, the challenge of a country that is continuing to be torn apart by this violence. The jihadis who are attracted to Syria because of Assad’s presence and the extraordinary spillover of impact on Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, the region, as a consequence of the numbers of refugees that continue to be created by this violence.

So it is our hope that with good effort over the course of the next weeks and months, we might even be able to find a way to have a greater impact on finding the negotiated path, which is the only ultimate path which will resolve the question of violence and restore stability and integrity to a potentially unified, secular, and stable Syria.

With that, I would be happy to take some questions.

MS. HARF: Great. The first question is for Rosiland Jordan of Al-Jazeera. I’m going to bring the microphone to you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. First on Ukraine, you described in general terms what came out of your discussions with Foreign Minister Hammond. How likely is it, first, that more economic sanctions and travel bans are going to be imposed? How long is the U.S. willing to wait to see whether the Minsk cease-fire of the past week actually is going to take full effect? Why is it realistic to think that even more economic sanctions are going to persuade Vladimir Putin and his government to change course? Their economy has now been rated at junk bond status and they still seem to be intent on spreading their influence using separatists and Russian troops.

And finally on Ukraine, is it time to give the Ukrainian military lethal weapons so that they can better defend their own territory, especially given that there isn’t a NATO commitment to Ukraine’s security?

And then on the Iran nuclear talks --

SECRETARY KERRY: I’ve got to get a pencil here to write all those questions down. (Laughter.) I need a piece of paper, actually. You’ve got a few more questions there than (inaudible).

QUESTION: Regarding the talks, sir –

SECRETARY KERRY: On what now?

QUESTION: On Iran.

SECRETARY KERRY: We’re Iran now?

QUESTION: Yes, we’re on Iran. Will the U.S. and Iran actually achieve a political framework for a deal by March 31st? How urgent in your estimation is the sentiment on both sides to achieve this deal? Does the fact that the U.S. Energy Secretary Dr. Moniz and his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Salehi, to discuss the technical issues mean that the really tough stuff is getting worked out and that everyone is getting very close to this deal?

And then we have to look at the prospect of what you and the President have said in the past: “No deal is better than a bad deal.” If there is no deal by March 31st, is the U.S. willing to walk away from the table, leave behind the efforts of the JPOA, and essentially reestablish the status quo regarding Iran’s nuclear program?

SECRETARY KERRY: Okay. So let me begin with the last of the questions with respect to Ukraine and then I’ll deal with the other questions on Ukraine. With respect to lethal weapons, we’ve made it very, very clear that that is a discussion that it taking place in Washington both in the Congress as well as in the Administration. No decision has been made by the President at this point in time, and I think we have to see what happens in the next few days with respect to the events that are taking place now on the ground.

With respect to the events that are taking place now on the ground, I think I’ve spoken to them in the course of my opening comments very, very clearly. But the fact is that yes, sanctions are being considered because there are a number of more serious sanctions that yet remain available to the European Community and the United States and others who are sharing in the implementation of these sanctions.

And they are having an impact; there is no question about it. Now, it may not have yet succeeded in presenting President Putin with a choice that he’s been willing to make, but I am confident that in Russia generally there will be an increasing amount of questioning of the course that he is on should additional sanctions be implemented. And there are some yet very serious sanctions that can be taken which have a profound increased negative impact on the Russian economy.

I have said persistently, as President Obama has, that we’re not seeking to hurt the people of Russia, who regrettably pay a collateral price as a result of these sanctions, and we’ve tried to target them as effectively as possible to be able to have an impact on the decision making of those in government itself. But increasingly, there will be an inevitable broader impact as the sanctions ratchet up.

So in the next few days, I anticipate that President Obama will evaluate the choices that are in front of him and will make his decision as to what the next step will be. But there is serious discussion taking place between us and our European allies as to what those next sanction steps ought to be and when they perhaps ought to be implemented. And I am confident that some additional steps will be taken in response to the breaches of this cease-fire and to the process that had been agreed upon in Minsk.

QUESTION: And regarding the Iranian talks?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, regarding the Iranian talks, the presence of Secretary Ernie Moniz is a reflection of the fact that these talks are very technical, and because we are pushing to try to come to agreement on some very difficult issues, it was deemed necessary and appropriate to be able to have our technical people be able to sit with their technical people at the highest level in order to try to resolve any differences that may exist.

I would not read into it any indication whatsoever that something is about to be decided as a result of that. There are still significant gaps. There is still a distance to travel. And with respect to the end date that you asked about, President Obama has no inclination whatsoever to extend these talks beyond the period that has been set out with a feeling that it is imperative to be able to come to a fundamental political outline and agreement within the time span that we have left. And if that can’t be done, that it would be an indication that fundamental choices are not being made that are essential to doing that.

So our target remains, as the President has said, towards the end of March, and I am absolutely confident that President Obama is fully prepared to stop these talks if he feels that they’re not being met with the kind of productive decision making necessary to prove that a program is, in fact, peaceful.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Great. Our final question is from Nick Childs of the BBC.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. In view of the Ukraine crisis, the issues of the broader relationship now with Russia, and in particular how NATO as an alliance responds to it, the United Kingdom is one of the few countries within NATO now that currently maintains the 2 percent minimum defense spending level, but at the moment the British Government has no formal commitment to sustain it beyond 2016. With the backdrop of everything that is going on, would you welcome a firmer commitment from the United Kingdom Government to sustain the 2 percent defense spending level into the future, perhaps to encourage others?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just say that I don’t want to inadvertently find myself getting in the way of – in any kind of domestic debate that may be going on with respect to an election that is not too far away. And so I’ll answer it in a way that is straightforward but nevertheless not, I think, different from where we’ve been in the past with respect to this issue.

It is standing policy of NATO, standing policy of the United States, which we have expressed through the years frequently and I have personally expressed recently in Brussels, the importance of all NATO members adhering to the 2 percent level. We’re not looking for some kind of reaffirmation or restatements that go well out into the future or something. What we’re looking for is this year’s budget, and that’s what’s important given what has happened in Ukraine, given the pressures on frontline states and the need to have a shared responsibility in order to meet the overall challenge of sustaining NATO as the vital alliance that it is and has been, and being able to send a message to anybody who were to challenge it that people are prepared to live up to their obligations and not just keep it strong but strengthen it at this particular moment. We’ve engaged in a very significant reassurance plan to a number of countries – the Baltics particularly, Poland, others – who are on the front lines. And I think it’s important for them to know that their fellow members of the NATO alliance are doing their share at the same time.

So we’re very pleased that Great Britain has been and remains a steadfast member and contributor to that alliance, one of the leaders of the alliance, in fact. And we have great respect for the armed force capacity and partnership that Great Britain provides with respect to its military obligations and efforts. And I’m confident that the prime minister and the current government will continue to do that. Thank you.

MS. HARF: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, all. Appreciate it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

REMARKS: SECRETARY KERRY WITH JORDANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks With Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh Before Their Meeting

Remarks

John Kerry
Secretary of State

London, United Kingdom

May 15, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, we had a very constructive meeting today with all of the London 11, but I want to particularly thank Jordan. His Majesty King Abdullah and Foreign Minister Judeh have been just terrific partners in not only the efforts to deal with the crisis of Syria in the region, but particularly, also they are stakeholders and critical partners in the Middle East peace process. And we continue always to work at that, even quietly. It’s an issue that doesn’t go away.

So I express my gratitude for the friendship and the tremendous working partnership that we have.

FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. It’s always great to see you and always I’m happy to maintain our constant consultation, and that comes in the spirit of the true friendship and partnership between our two countries and the relationship – the special relationship that His Majesty the King has with President Obama and with your good self. And I think that as we meet here today on the margins of the London group, the core group, discussing Syria (inaudible) developments there, I hasten to remind of the humanitarian spillover of that crisis, of which Jordan bears perhaps the biggest brunt. It is time that we continue our consultations.

On the peace process, Mr. Secretary, I know that in over 60 years of this conflict, we’ve had many ups and downs. We’re certainly going through what looks like a down, but we shouldn’t give up. And as you mentioned, we’re a stakeholder. Peace in the Middle East, peace between Palestinians and Israelis, is peace of mind for the rest of the world. And I think this is the root cause of many problems in our part of the world. We salute you for your personal efforts, for your dedication, for your commitment, and we hope that we will find ways and means to revive this very, very soon. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY TAKES QUESTIONS FROM PRESS IN LONDON

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Press Availability in London

Press Availability

Foreign Commonwealth Office

London, United Kingdom

May 15, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. First of all, let me just thank Foreign Secretary William Hague for his terrific hosting today, convening all of us together to be able to talk about a number of challenging issues that we’re facing together, and I think after today, with an even better sense of direction.

We gathered here, I think it’s safe to say, frankly more united than we have been in some time. And we, all of us, unanimously, remain committed to changing the dynamics on the ground in Syria.

Since we last met, the opposition has itself taken some significant steps forward to expand their leadership, to expand their reach into Syria, to become more effective. And we know, as you know, we just hosted President Jarba and his delegation in Washington for a number of days and a series of meetings, including meetings with the State Department, the White House, and the President.

The truth is we all know that the grave humanitarian crisis is growing more dire by the day, notwithstanding the best efforts of people to date. And the bloodshed and the suffering of the Syrian people have not stopped. So today in one unified voice we made it clear that we remain committed, even more so, to taking steps that could in fact make a difference. Most importantly we start in one unified voice with rejecting any notion whatsoever that the elections that the Assad regime has called somehow have any legitimacy whatsoever. There is no way for this illegitimate effort, for this impossible set of circumstances for an election to somehow give legitimacy where there is none. Together we are unified in saying that Assad’s staged elections are a farce, they’re an insult; they are a fraud on democracy, on the Syrian people, and on the world.

And the fact is that the cynical political theater that he is engaged in will not change one thing the day after it happens. His status in the world, his position with respect to future leadership in Syria, and in fact, the potential of any resolution will be exactly where they were the day before the election – although perhaps even slightly worse because of the fraud of this effort. It just – I mean, ask yourself: How do you have a legitimate election when half the people in your country are displaced and not able to vote? How do you have a legitimate election when another several million people are in refugee camps unable to vote? How do you have it when hundreds of thousands of people, literally – almost a million perhaps – are scattered in various countries in the region, seeking safety from Assad? It is just impossible to believe that under those circumstances, where people are hunkered down in their homes, intimidated and afraid to be able to come out, afraid of being forced to do one vote or another – you just have no climate, no framework within which you can talk about legitimacy.

We also agreed today that we have to redouble our efforts, all of us, in support of the moderate opposition in order to bring about a peaceful resolution that the people of Syria want. And that requires the full support of the international community, and that was really the focus of our discussions today. I’m sure your question would be: So what’s different today? Well, look at the length of the communique. It’s short and it’s purposefully short. It purposefully points to the election and then to the renewed efforts, and the most important sentence, I think, is the last sentence in which it points out that our teams are going to come together in very short order now to lay out a specific set of steps that we can and will take together in order to have a greater impact here.

There isn’t anybody who didn’t come together today with the realization that there have been hurdles over the course of the last year, from the time when Foreign Minister Lavrov and I announced the possibility of a Geneva conference in Moscow last year – about a month earlier than now. Things changed on the ground. Hezbollah entered the fight. IRGC – Iranian forces entered the fight on the ground. And more terrorists were attracted to the fight against Assad, regrettably, thereby creating a framework where some of the opposition was fighting the terrorists, not Assad.

So that is a very clear and simple reality of what has taken place over the course of the year. That has changed. And now I think there’s a greater level of coordination, a greater level of unity, a greater level of understanding of purpose, and over the next days as those teams meet, there will be a serious definition of steps that can be taken in order to have a greater impact. The United States is committed to doing our part. Each country today sat there and sort of discussed what they felt they could do to grow the effort. And that is what is different.
Just last week, we announced that the Syrian Opposition Coalition representative offices are now foreign missions. And we’re also working to provide new nonlethal assistance and to speed up the delivery of assistance to the Free Syrian Army. The Treasury Department has imposed new sanctions and restrictions against members of the regime, and we will continue to strengthen our ties with the Syrian opposition, as I think you’ve seen firsthand in the visit to Washington this past week.

On behalf of the United States, I want to extend our deep concern for the two British journalists who were shot and who were beaten while trying to share with the world the real story of what is happening in Syria. And this is not the first time that courageous reporters have been part of the heartbreaking story of Syria. Far too many journalists and innocent civilians have been hurt, killed, or held hostage in Syria. And just two days ago in Washington, we met with one of the families – with many of the families, actually – of those being held in Syria. And we’re keeping up a very focused effort to try to secure their release. We reiterate our respect and our admiration for the reporters who put their lives and their liberties on the line to tell the stories to the world that otherwise people would never learn.

Let me also say a quick word about two other issues that we touched on this week, here, today, in the early part of our meeting this morning: that is Ukraine and Libya. We had a very good discussion this morning with the British, French, German, Italian foreign ministers, our counterparts – on Ukraine. We welcome the successful National Dialogue roundtable in Kyiv that took place yesterday and the very good conversation there on decentralization, constitutional reform, and the protection of minority rights. And we hope that the separatists, we hope the Russians, we hope that others who are disgruntled by what has taken place will take note of a legitimate effort to try to reach out, bring people to the table, and find political compromise.

We are absolutely committed to the notion that there must be a protection of these minority rights, and we support the government in Kyiv’s efforts to reach out with serious, concrete plans for increased autonomy and decentralization. I would note that the level of decentralization and autonomy that Prime Minister Yatsenyuk has articulated far exceeds any level of autonomy or decentralization that exists anywhere in Russia. And I think it’s important for everybody to note that.

We believe that the process of the roundtables coupled with the election provides the people with Ukraine with an opportunity to be able to heal the divide. And that will now be encouraged through a second meeting of a roundtable that will take place in eastern Ukraine in a few days.
This morning, we also underscored the vital importance of a free and fair presidential election across Ukraine on May 25^th, including, importantly, the eastern provinces. And we’re also working with the Ukrainians and the OSCE to protect the rights of all Ukrainian citizens and to make their voices heard through the ballot box in a legitimate election.

We call on the separatists and Russians to respect this election process, to help to make it happen, even; to encourage Ukrainians to be able to define their future. That’s the best way to de-escalate this situation.

We believe that this effort to legitimize an election and move to have a broad-based election according to the constitutional process of Ukraine is in stark contrast to the agenda of the pro-Russian separatists and their supporters, who are literally sowing mayhem in communities like Slovyansk. Far from defending the rights of the people in the east, they are seeking to speak for everybody through the barrel of a gun and through their own narrow sense of what they want for an outcome.

We agreed this morning that if Russia or its proxies disrupt the election, the United States and those countries represented here today in the European Union will impose sectoral economic sanctions as a result. Our message is really quite simple: Let Ukraine vote. Let the Ukrainian people choose their future and let them do so in a fair, open, free, accessible election.
Finally on Libya, the United States and our quintet of partners reiterated today our shared commitment to the stability and security for the Libyan people and for the region. We agreed that we need to do more, and we understood that there is this challenging moment in Libya. We need to try to accelerate the effort to bring about stability and security and the governance that is necessary to provide the time and the space for Libyan authorities to be able to confront the threat from extremism and the challenges that their country faces of just providing governance to their people.

In that light and in support of the Libyan Government, we are working collectively through a number of different envoys. The Arab League has an envoy, the – Great Britain has an envoy, we have an envoy – we will work in concert, and we task them, literally, to be working as one entity – not as individuals out there in opposite directions. And we’re going to do all we can to help the Libyans in these next days to try to be able to gain control over their revenues and begin to forge the kind of coalition that can actually begin to build the offices of governance that are necessary. This is a small country – six and a half million people – smaller than the state that I represented in the Senate – privileged to represent for almost 29 years. I know something about what you can provide when you want to. Libya is a country rich in resources, rich in people with talent and capacity. And we hope that in the days ahead we’re going to be able to tap into that and find a way to help the Libyan people to move forward to have the kind of stability and peaceful governance that they aspire to.

So with that I thank you, and I’d be happy to take a couple questions quickly.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Karen DeYoung of The Washington Post.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. On Syria, I think you correctly put your finger on what the question is, which is: What’s different after today? In terms of U.S. policy, could you tell us whether the United States is prepared to do what Britain has done, which is to change the way its aid is sent into Syria and start sending it through NGOs or other means instead of through the United Nations?

And also on the expanded aid that you’ve talked about to both the military and political sides of the opposition, President Jarba has publicly called for increased weapons assistance, specifically portable surface-to-air missiles to stop the Syrian Government’s air attacks against civilians, including the barrel bombs that you personally have denounced. Are you now prepared to take this step or allow your allies to take this step? And if not, why not?
And finally on Syria, Foreign Minister Fabius said in Washington this week that France has seen credible evidence of at least 14 chemical attacks by the Syrian Government since October. Secretary Hagel said in Saudi Arabia yesterday that the United States has seen no such evidence. Is this because you haven’t seen what the French have seen, or that you’ve seen it and don’t find it conclusive? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me take them one, two, three. We are open to the idea of providing aid through any means that will get to the people who need it. And while the decision has not been categorically made, I’d just repeat: We are open to anything that will get the aid to the people, and we are very frustrated with the current process. It is not getting to people. It’s going through one gate, one entryway, and it’s going through Damascus and/or controlled by the Assad regime. That’s unacceptable. We need to be able to get aid more directly and we’re going to work to do that. That’s a certainty.

We are in addition that, Karen, we are going to in the United Nations Security Council challenge the appropriate level of follow-through that is necessary to be able to fulfill what was passed in the resolution previously a few months ago in order to guarantee the delivery of aid. It is not being fulfilled. It has to be fulfilled and our patience is gone. We’re going to join with other countries in an effort to try to guarantee accountability through the UN in making that happen. We are determined that people will be able to get aid.

The people who left Homs, for instance, did so because they were literally under siege. They were being starved to death – civilians and others. And that is against the laws of war – not to mention anybody’s fundamental values and decency, but obviously not Assad’s. So we intend to press this issue in every way possible in the days ahead.

On the issue of weapons, I’m not going to discuss what specific weapons, what country may or may not be providing or not providing – as you know, we’re providing nonlethal aid. But I will say that out of today’s meeting every facet of what can be done is going to be ramped up. Every facet, and that includes political effort. It includes the aid to the opposition. It includes economic efforts, sanctions. Today we announced, as I told you, additional sanction. There will be ramped up effort to make it clear that despite the fact that Assad may think today he’s doing better and this process is somehow going to come to a close with him sitting pretty, the answer is: no. It’s not going to suddenly – we’re not going away. The opposition is not going away.

We are determined to reach a political settlement that protects all of the people of Syria, and I want to make it clear: Alawite, other minority, all can be protected here. Assad’s just protecting himself. The fact is that he, in doing so, he is making partnership with terrorist elements, attracting terrorists, engaging in terrorist activities against his own people, and I don’t think that anybody today felt deterred one iota in the notion that there might be a better route, another route, other than a political settlement, which can only be brought about when he is prepared to negotiate.

As everybody looks at Lakhdar Brahimi’s resignation and makes a judgment about it, it’s not that – I mean, he performed valiantly against great odds. But if the parties aren’t prepared to perform according to the standards that they have accepted to negotiate on, there’s nothing that a negotiator or an intermediary can do. So we remain committed to try to find that solution and I’m not going to discuss specific weapon systems or otherwise except to say that every possible avenue that is available is going to be pursued by one country or another.
One the third issue – the issue of evidence, I suspect – I haven’t talked with Secretary Hagel about what was in his mind or what he was referring to with respect to that. Chlorine is not listed on the list of prohibited items by itself freestanding under the Chemical Weapons Convention. But chlorine, when used and mixed in a way that is used as a chemical weapon in the conduct of war, is against the chemical weapons treaty. And I have seen evidence, I don’t know how verified it is – it’s not verified yet – it’s hasn’t been confirmed, but I’ve seen the raw data that suggests there may have been, as France has suggested, a number of instances in which chlorine has been used in the conduct of war. And if it has, and if it could be proven, then that would be against the agreements of the chemical weapons treaty and against the weapons convention that Syria has signed up to.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Mina Al-Oraibi.

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, to follow up on your last point, if it is proven that chlorine was used as a chemical in war, which is prohibited, what will the Syrian Government face? What steps can be taken?

And I want to go back to the point of military aid. I know you won’t go into details of the assistance, however, what I’d like to ask you is: are you more confident now in the Free Syrian Army and after the meetings you’ve had with the Syrian opposition linked to the use of weaponry by the FSA and the SNC in general.

SECRETARY KERRY: I think the Free Syrian Army – I’m going to give you the second part first. The Free Syrian Army has clearly improved. It has clearly gained in its capacity. It has gained in its command and control. It is also now being supported in a more coordinated way than it was over the last year as one country or another may have been supporting one group or another, now that is much more concentrated.

So we think that they’re making progress. Are they a trained army in the context of nation-states that we measure things by in many places? No, not yet. But they are improving and under very difficult circumstances holding their own, in fact making gains in certain parts of the country. Now, we have – we are committed to continue to be helpful to them and give them greater capacity in many different respects. And everybody there today shared in that commitment.
With respect to the CW and what the consequences are, it has been made clear by President Obama and others that use would result in consequences. We’re not going to pin ourselves down to a precise time, date, manner of action, but there will be consequences if it were to be proven, including, I might say, things that are way beyond our control and have nothing to do with us. But the International Criminal Court and others are free to hold him accountable. And as you know, we have a resolution that will be in front of the United Nations with respect to culpability for crimes against humanity, atrocities in the course of this conflict. So one way or the other, there will be accountability.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Indira Lakshmanan from Bloomberg.

QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you just told us that you and the four EU foreign ministers agreed today that sectoral sanctions will be imposed on Russia if Russia or its proxies disrupt the May 25^th elections. Foreign Minister Hague earlier referred specifically to Russia’s specific interference. So I want to know – Russia has denied Western reports of supplying weapons, personnel, and coordination to the separatists. Will Russia be held accountable and responsible for actions of the separatists even if they cannot be proved as a link to Russia itself, or what’s the criteria that you and the EU and are going to use?

And second part of that question: We understand that the approach for sanctions is going to be a scalpel, not a hammer. So does that mean it won’t be Iran-style bans on entire sectors of commerce, and does that mean that it’ll be a ban on future deals with an exemption for existing contracts?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to get into announcing today what the precise sanctions are except to say to you we have completed our work. We know what they are. We’re ready. And last week we had State Department and Treasury personnel here in Europe working with our European allies in order to define precisely what that road ahead should be. And indeed, our hope – I’m not going to get into characterizations of scalpel or sledgehammer or whatever except to say to you that they’re effective, and if they have to go into effect they will have an impact.

Now, obviously, the purpose of it is to have a greater impact on the target than it is on the people imposing it, and so we will be thoughtful and we are being thoughtful and we’re being very, I think, deliberative in trying to make determinations about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.

Let me emphasize our hope is not to do this. Our hope is not that we have to go to a next stage. I say to the Russians and everybody our hope is to de-escalate. We appreciate that President Putin made a statement about the elections and sort of acknowledging that they would take place and probably a good thing, I think was his language. We acknowledge that he said that the referendum should be stopped but didn’t stop the referendum.

And so what we need to make certain is that people aren’t trying to have everything both ways. William Hague a few moments ago told you that it’s in the attitude and behavior that you make this judgment about what is being done. And I’m not going to start laying out the whole series of definitions except to say to you that it is clear what proxies mean. If Russia or its proxies disrupt the elections, stand in the way of the Ukrainian people being able to exercise their vote, that is when and if there would be additional sanctions.

But our hope is that Russia will join in to encouraging the vote, that Russia will encourage pro-Russian separatists to say that they should work through the process that has now been opened up that Russia has helped insist on, that that process now be given a chance to work through the OSCE and otherwise. That’s our preference. That is what we want to have happen here. And our hope is that in the eight days, between now and the election, there can be a concerted effort to try to put the confrontation behind us and put the effort to build Ukraine in front of us and to try to do it together. That makes a lot more sense and that would be our hoped-for direction.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, all. Appreciate it.

PARALYMPIC SHOOTER USHERED IN INNOVATIVE PROSTHESIS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Army Sgt. 1st Class Joshua Olson, center, a member of the 2012 U.S. Paralympic shooting team, makes adjustments to his air rifle during a competitive round of shooting at the Royal Artillery Barracks in London, Sept. 1, 2012. DOD photo by Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.

　
Paralympian Soldier Pioneers Prosthesis, Hopes to Inspire Others
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

LONDON, Sept. 1, 2012 - A sharpshooting Army sergeant who helped to usher in an innovative prosthesis that has helped countless wounded warriors has brought his sharp eye to compete in the 2012 Paralympic Games here.

Army Sgt. 1st Class Joshua Olson, a member of the 2012 Paralympic shooting team and of the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit helped to develop an advanced prosthesis for wounded service members.

"[In] October 2003, I was wounded in Iraq by a rocket-propelled grenade during an ambush," Olson said. "From there, I was medevaced to Landstuhl [Regional Medical Center in Germany], and I was there for about eight days." After that, he said, he woke up at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., where he spent about 18 months.

"In my stay at Walter Reed, there was an outdoor event every day in occupational therapy – shotgun shooting," he said. "I went out and shot sporting clay one day. I hit my first 49 out of 50."

Olson said his shooting acuity caught the attention of the program director at Walter Reed, who put in a call to the Army Marksmanship Unit at Fort Benning, Ga., to see if a position was available for a competitive shooter or marksmanship instructor.

"I went down to Fort Benning from Walter Reed, had a tryout and was very successful," Olson said. "[I] got along great with the coaches and the other shooters on the team."

The Army sergeant said he was assigned to the marksmanship unit in June 2005 and "slowly, but surely, started shooting."

"And I'm here today," he added.

Olson noted that been many troops in his position have wished to stay in the military despite their injuries, but were unable to.

"There's a lot of guys that have been wounded that want to continue to serve," he said. "I'm very blessed and very fortunate to be able to do that.

I hope I inspire, not even [just] wounded soldiers, but other soldiers," he continued, "just to [let them know], 'Hey, you might be going through something tough, such as [post-traumatic stress], but if you work hard and give yourself goals to work on, it helps you get out of bed every day [and] helps you work hard and overcome things in your life."

In discussing the origin of the "Olson Socket," the Army sergeant is quick to note he didn't invent the prosthesis himself.

"I was just the first guy to wear it and help make it work," Olson explained. "In late 2004, I went down to Orlando, Fla., where Prosthetics and Associates is, and [met] a gentleman by the name of Dennis Clark."

"Those guys got together [with] myself and the actual designers, and originally drew it up on a bar napkin," he revealed. "And we tried it out, and we put it together and made it work."

Olson said as soon as he got back to Walter Reed with the prosthesis, officials there immediately began sending service members down to Florida to be fitted for the same prosthesis and socket system.

"I was very fortunate and very blessed they named it after me, but I just happened to be the first guy to ever have one," he said.

Olson credited his military service for the discipline that got him here to compete in the Paralympic Games.

"Military service has prepared me for the Paralympics by teaching me determination, patience and just overall hard work," he said. "My goal for the Paralympics is to be able to perform my best – to perform at the level I know I can. If I do that, I should be on the medal stand."

The key to his success, Olson said, is practicing, staying focused and concentrating on the fundamentals of his sport.

"For me, my biggest challenge is the ability to stay focused during the entire match," he said. "So I do some mental exercises, a lot of imagery and some visualization exercises. This sport is 95 percent mental and 5 percent physical.

"I've been training a long time for this," he added. "There's really no shooting drill, no mental exercise or anything you can really do to prepare for actually sitting there."

Olson's next Paralympic Games shooting event is scheduled for Sept. 4 at the Royal Artillery Barracks.

COMMENTS AT THE RUSSI MISSILE DEFENSE CONVERENCE

Photo:  Missile Tracking System.  From:  U.S. Air Force.
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Missile Defense Conference
Remarks Ellen Tauscher
Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense 2012 RUSI Missile Defense Conference
London, United Kingdom
May 30, 2012
Thank you, Michael, for that kind introduction.
I am honored to be back here, at RUSI, speaking about my favorite topic, missile defense. I particularly appreciate this year’s program where I get to speak first.
Last year, as many of you may recall, I was the last speaker, which is tough when you follow so many renowned experts in the field. Going first is much easier, so thank you.
Let me acknowledge some of my colleagues that are in attendance today. Without their support and cooperation, much of the progress we have made on these issues would not have been possible.

I want to acknowledge Bogdan Aurescu, who will speak to this group a little later. It was a tremendous honor to work with him so closely in Romania.
I also want to mention Ambassador Daalder and Madelyn Creedon.
Madelyn and I did a similar routine at the Moscow missile defense conference earlier this month.

This conference is particularly well timed, coming just one week after the NATO Summit in Chicago. Instead of just giving my typical Monday, Wednesday, Friday missile defense speech, I would like to discuss some of the areas where we still need to make progress on missile defense.

Let me start with the recent announcement at Chicago of an “interim missile defense capability.”

The progress on missile defense is remarkable given that NATO only made its decision to develop a territorial ballistic missile defense capability 18 months ago. In that year-and-a-half period, the United States and our NATO Allies have achieved an operationally significant peacetime ballistic missile defense capability.

That means that NATO now has its first missile defense radar, its first interceptors, a single commander, and a NATO command and control system for ballistic missile defense.

This progress was only possible because our NATO Allies embraced President Obama’s European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), which is focused on protecting our European allies and deployed U.S. forces against the existing ballistic missile threats.

It has been a great privilege for me to have worked so closely with all of our Allies over the last couple of years to reach this point, especially my colleagues in Poland, Romania, Spain, and Turkey.

Because of their support and leadership, for which we are incredibly grateful, we were able to reach agreement on the basing of our missile defense assets in Europe.
As you know, last September, we made three big announcements.
First, Turkey agreed to host the Phase 1 ANTPY-2 radar.

Second, we signed the Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement with Romania to host the Phase 2 land-based SM-3 site.

Third, the U.S.-Poland agreement for the Phase 3 land-based site entered into force as well.
And then a few weeks later in early October, Spain agreed to serve as a home port for four Aegis destroyers.

As we like to say in the United States, that’s not bad for government work.
We also appreciate the other contributions by our NATO Allies to this effort. Our NATO Allies will contribute more than $1 billion dollars in NATO Common Funding to the ALTBMD command and control system. The Netherlands has indicated that it will spend close to 250 million Euros to modify the radars on its frigates to detect and track ballistic missiles at long ranges and contribute its Patriot missiles to NATO missile defense.
Germany is also exploring developing an airborne infrared sensor. France has proposed a concept for a shared early warning satellite. There is much that our allies can contribute to NATO’s developing missile defense system.

Of course, the announcement in Chicago is just an initial but important step in implementing NATO’s territorial ballistic missile defense capability.
The Obama Administration is committed to working with NATO on these efforts and deploying all four phases of the EPAA as our voluntary national contribution.
For our part, much work remains to be done on the systems that the United States will deploy as potential contributions to NATO missile defense, but considerable work has already begun.

Just look at the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2013.
Even in a constrained budget environment, the United States has protected the funding for the European Phased Adaptive Approach.

These actions are a clear demonstration of the United Sates’ continued commitment to European security and our Article 5 obligations. At the same time as we are working with our NATO Allies, there is a tremendous opportunity to develop a meaningful strategic partnership with Russia in the area of missile defense cooperation.

Missile defense cooperation can achieve two very important objectives. First, it would allow Russia to see with its own eyes what we are doing on missile defense and it will give us time to demonstrate how our systems operate.

It will allow Russia to see that the European Phased Adaptive Approach is not directed against Russia, but limited regional threats from outside of Europe… not Russia.
Second, it could give the United States, NATO, and Russia the opportunity to forge a true strategic partnership that enhances security for all.

I realize it takes time to build confidence. But, we have that time. Russia has expressed concerns about our plans for Phases 3 and 4 of the EPAA.

There are six years before we deploy Phase 3 in the 2018 timeframe. We should use that time positively on cooperation and not confrontation.

Russia should come inside the missile defense cooperation tent and see what we are doing.
During that time, we will be testing an Aegis BMD site in Hawaii. We will be developing and testing the SM-3 Block IIA and IIB interceptors.

Russia has also observed our intercept tests in the past and the invitation to observe a future test still stands.

We will also be working with our NATO Allies to ensure how to best protect NATO European populations and territory.
At the same time, the U.S., NATO and Russia can work together on a broad range of cooperation: Sharing sensor data, working on developing common pre-planned responses, conducting a joint analysis of missile defense systems, and working together on missile defense exercises.

The United States and NATO have been transparent about our missile defense programs.
We have provided Russia with a number of ideas and approaches for transparency and we are also committed to discussing other approaches to building confidence between our two countries.

At Chicago, NATO Allies made a very clear statement of our intent. NATO declared in the Chicago Summit Declaration “…the NATO missile defense in Europe will not undermine strategic stability. NATO missile defense is not directed against Russia and will not undermine Russia’s strategic deterrence capabilities.”

And, as I have told my Russian colleagues, if Russia doesn’t like what it has learned throughout this period of cooperation, then it can terminate cooperation at any point.
But that means getting Russia inside the missile defense tent now, working alongside the U.S. and NATO, while we are in the initial phases of deploying this capability. It will take time and effort to build the trust that is currently lacking on this issue.

But let me be clear. While we can work cooperatively together, we cannot agree to the pre-conditions outlined by the Russian Government.

We are committed to deploying effective missile defenses to protect the U.S. homeland and our Allies and partners around the world from the proliferation of ballistic missiles.
We will not agree to limitations on the capabilities and numbers of our missile defense systems.

We cannot agree to any “military-technical criteria,” that would, in effect, limit our ability to develop and deploy future missile defense systems that will protect us against regional threats such as Iran and North Korea.

If we can work together on European missile defense, and make this a subject for cooperation rather than competition, that would be a game-changer for our security relationship.

We understand that there are risks involved, and it takes courage to move away from familiar ways and long-held positions. We believe those risks are manageable.
The alternative is competition, something none of us can afford or want.
So we will keep working to see if we can come up with a plan for cooperation.
We will continue to press in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Joint Staff channels. We will keep moving forward in the run up to the June G-20 meeting between Presidents Obama and Putin, and we will keep going long after June.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak here at this impressive gathering of experts. I look forward to answering any questions you might have.