JOINT STATEMENT ON INITIATIVE TO PROMOTE FUNDAMENTAL LABOR RIGHTS AND PRACTICES IN MYANMAR

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
November 13, 2014
Joint Statement
November 14, 2014

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, the United States of America, Japan, Denmark and the International Labour Organization (ILO) today are jointly launching a new Initiative to Promote Fundamental Labor Rights and Practices in Myanmar.  The Initiative is designed to: 1) improve Myanmar’s system of labor administration through a multi-year labor law reform and capacity building plan (labor reform plan); and 2) foster strong relations among businesses, workers, civil society organizations, and the Government of Myanmar through a stakeholder consultative mechanism.  The Initiative is intended to build upon Myanmar’s existing labor reform efforts, including ongoing legislative reform activities supported by the ILO.  To that end, the labor reform plan developed under this Initiative is intended to serve as a blueprint to prioritize legal changes, coordinate donor assistance, and strengthen government capacity to implement those reforms in close cooperation with civil society representatives.  The stakeholder consultative mechanism is intended to provide a forum for business, labor, and other civil society representatives to provide guidance on the development of the labor reform plan to the government and to foster constructive relationships among them.

As an initial step in the development of the Initiative, the Government of Myanmar established the Technical Committee Cluster on Labor Law Reform and Institutional Capacity Building (“Labor Law Reform Cluster”) in October 2014 under the Employment Opportunities Sector Working Group (EOSWG).  The EOSWG is one of 15 Sector Working Groups established by the Government of Myanmar under the Nay Pyi Taw Accord for Effective Development Cooperation.  This Labor Law Reform Cluster is intended to provide donor partners, stakeholders, and the ILO a forum to support the Government of Myanmar and civil society in the development of the labor reform plan.  To support this process, the United States is providing initial funding to the ILO for a labor law expert to advise the government on its reform efforts.  The Initiative participants also envision organizing a broad stakeholder forum in Myanmar in early 2015 to provide input on the development of the labor reform plan.

The participating governments and the ILO welcome the engagement of other interested governments, stakeholders, and institutions in support of this Initiative.  Myanmar is at a pivotal stage of its political and economic development, and the country’s future depends on its ability to grow its economy, create decent work, and re-integrate into the global economy.  Governments and stakeholders have a unique opportunity to promote lasting positive development in Myanmar by working together to improve an important component of its investment environment – its labor regime.  The Initiative is designed to support the government and stakeholders in promoting international labor standards and responsible business practices, helping to make Myanmar an attractive sourcing and investment destination, protecting Myanmar’s workers and supporting its businesses, and advancing Myanmar’s overall sustainable growth and development.

U.S. SENDS BEST WISHES TO PEOPLE OF MYANMAR ON THEIR INDEPENDENCE DAY

FROM:  STATE DEPARTMENT 
Myanmar's Independence Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 3, 2014

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I’m honored to send best wishes to the people of your country as you celebrate your Independence Day.

Few days would be more appropriate to reiterate America’s commitment to supporting your country as you continue down the path towards becoming the democratic, peaceful, economically-vibrant nation so many of you have sacrificed so much to achieve.

It is my sincere hope that in the future we may celebrate the fulfillment of your aspirations.

Since I first visited your country in 1999 as a U. S. Senator, I have cared deeply about the relationship between our two countries, and, given the commitment President Obama has made to a bold new start with Myanmar, I look forward to working with you to see those ties continue to grow.

As 2014 marks the beginning of an exciting year of your ASEAN Chairmanship, please accept the best wishes of the American people for a happy Independence Day.

MUTATION AND DENGUE FEVER

Photo:  Mosquito.  Credit:  NSF/Wikipedia.

FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION"Defective" Virus Leads to Epidemic of Dengue Fever


It's 2001 in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), a country in Southeast Asia. Almost 200 people have died, and more than 15,000 are ill--all having contracted dengue fever.

Dengue is a disease transmitted by mosquitoes and caused by four types of dengue virus. Infection may not result in symptoms, or may cause mild, flu-like illness--or hemorrhagic fever.

Dengue virus infects some 50-100 million people annually in Southeast Asia, South America and parts of the United States.

In 1998, a pandemic of dengue resulted in 1.2 million cases of dengue hemorrhagic fever in 56 countries.

In Myanmar, dengue is endemic. The disease has occurred there in three- to five-year cycles since the first recorded outbreak in 1970. Each one has been more deadly.

What caused the widespread infection in Myanmar in 2001, a disease that resulted from one type of dengue virus, DENV-1? For more than a decade, researchers have been working to solve the puzzle.

All viruses not created equal

Could the DENV-1 in Myanmar have been different in some way, perhaps "defective"?

Defective viruses result from genetic mutations or deletions that eliminate essential functions. They're generated in viruses with high mutation rates, but were believed to be unimportant.

But it now appears that defective viruses may be able to play a critical role in the spread of disease.

In a paper published this week in the journal PLoS Pathogens, scientists funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) report a significant link between one such defective virus and the high rate of transmission of DENV-1 in Myanmar in 2001.

"The idea has always been that defective viruses are either meaningless or detrimental," says James Lloyd-Smith, an ecologist and evolutionary biologist at University of California, Los Angeles.

"We've found the opposite--that the defective virus is actually helping the normal, functional virus. It's bizarre and hard to believe, but the data are the data."

"We've shown that the defective virus not only goes with the normal virus, but increases the transmission of that virus," says scientist Ruian Ke, also of UCLA.

While defective viruses can't complete their life cycle on their own, if they're able to get into the same cell with a non-defective virus, they can "hitch-hike" with the non-defective one and propagate.

Deadly outbreak of DENV-1

The research team--James Lloyd-Smith; Ruian Ke; John Aaskov, a virologist at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia; and Edward Holmes, a biologist at the University of Sydney--found that the presence of a defective DENV-1 virus may have led to a spike in dengue fever cases in Myanmar during 2001-2002.

"The causes of epidemics are much more complicated than we thought," says Sam Scheiner, NSF program director for the joint NSF-National Institutes of Health Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases (EEID) Program. At NSF, EEID is funded by the Directorates for Biological Sciences and Geosciences.

In addition to EEID, the research was supported by NSF's Advancing Theory in Biology Program.

"Pathogens can depend on the presence of other microbial species or, as in this case, other varieties of the same species," says Scheiner. "Understanding these interactions is critical for predicting when the next epidemic might occur--and how to prevent it."

In the study, Ke designed a mathematical model to learn how the defective DENV-1 virus interacted with the normal virus.

Aaskov and Holmes collected genetic sequences from the defective viruses from 15 people sampled over an 18-month period in Myanmar. All were infected with DENV-1 virus; nine were also infected with the defective version.

Ke discovered that the lineage of defective viruses emerged between June 1998 and February 2001; it spread through the population until at least 2002.

The following year, the lineage appeared in the South Pacific island of New Caledonia, carried there by a mosquito or a person.

The scientists analyzed the genetic sequences of the defective and normal viruses to estimate how long the defective virus had been transmitting in the human population.

"We can see from the gene sequence of the defective version that it's the same lineage, and is a continued propagation of the virus," says Lloyd-Smith.

"From 2001 to 2002, it went from being quite rare to being in all nine people we sampled that year," says Lloyd-Smith. "Everyone sampled who was getting dengue fever was getting the defective version along with the functional virus.

"It rose from being rare to being very common in just one year."

Most surprisingly, say the scientists, the combination of the defective virus with the normal virus was "more fit" than the normal dengue virus alone.

"What we've shown is that this defective virus, which everyone had thought was useless or even detrimental to the fitness of the functional virus, actually appears to have made it better able to spread," Lloyd-Smith says.

Ke calculated that the defective virus makes it at least 10 percent more transmissible. "It was spreading better with its defective cousin tagging along than on its own," says Lloyd-Smith.

It takes two (viruses) to tango

The functional virus and defective virus travel in unison. The two transmit together in an unbroken chain.

"That's not just a matter of getting into the same human or the same mosquito--they need to get into the same cell inside that human or mosquito in order to share their genes, and for the defective version to continue hitchhiking," says Lloyd-Smith.

"We're gaining insights into the cellular biology of how dengue is infecting hosts. It must be the case that frequently there are multiple infections of single cells."

The defective virus appeared one to three years before the major epidemics in 2001 and 2002.

"One could imagine that if you build an understanding of this mechanism, you could measure it, see it coming and potentially get ahead of it," says Lloyd-Smith.

Defective viruses: disease transmitters beyond dengue?

Might defective viruses play a role in the transmission of the flu, measles and other diseases?

"There are a few signs that this phenomenon may be happening in other viruses," Lloyd-Smith says.

"We may be cracking open the book on the possible interactions between normal, functional viruses and the defective ones that people thought were just dead-ends.

"These supposedly meaningless viruses may be having a positive effect--positive for the virus, not for us.

"There's great variation from year to year in dengue epidemics in various locations, but we don't understand why. This is a possible mechanism."

Why would a defective virus increase transmission of a disease?

Lloyd-Smith offers two hypotheses.

One is that the presence of the defective virus with the functional virus in the same cell makes the functional virus replicate better within the cell by an unknown mechanism.

"It might give the virus flexibility in how it expresses its genes, and may make it more fit and better able to reproduce under some circumstances," Lloyd-Smith says.

A second idea is that the defective virus may be interfering with the disease-causing virus, making the disease less intense.

People then have a milder infection, and because they don't feel as sick, they're more likely to go out of their homes and spread the disease.

In conducting the research, Lloyd-Smith and Ke combined genetic sequence analyses with sophisticated mathematical models and bioinformatics.

"We were able to show that this defective virus transmitted in an unbroken chain across this population in Myanmar for a year-and-a-half," Lloyd-Smith says.

"Without gene sequencing, we wouldn't have been able to establish that."

The biologists hope their work will help turn the tide of the next deadly outbreak of dengue in Myanmar--and in other tropical countries around the globe.

 

THE U.S.-INDIA STRATEGIC DIALOGUE

Photo Credit:  U.S. Library of Congress and Wikimedia.
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Readout of the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue
Remarks Robert O. Blake, Jr.
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian AffairsWashington Foreign Press Center
Washington, DC
June 14, 2012
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the introduction and thank you all for coming. It’s nice to see a lot of old friends in the crowd today. I’ll provide a readout, not just of the Strategic Dialogue, but really the whole week because we’ve had a great many different dialogues over the course of the last five days. So let me just briefly summarize some of those.

One was the Science and Technology Joint Commission meeting that was chaired by the President’s Science Advisor, John Holdren, as well as India’s Science and Technology Minister Deshmukh. Second was, of course, the Higher Education Dialogue chaired by Secretary Clinton and Minister of Human Resources Development Kapil Sibal. The third were regional consultations that were held earlier today between Foreign Secretary Mathai and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, and then also our Global Issues Forum that is probably still going on between, again, Foreign Secretary Mathai and Under Secretary Otero.

And then last but not least was, of course, the Strategic Dialogue itself. You all heard Secretary Clinton and External Affairs Minister Krishna describe the progress that we are making. Secretary Clinton remarked that the strategic fundamentals of our relationship are pushing our two countries into ever closer strategic convergence, and she highlighted progress in five separate areas. Since we’re celebrating Global Economic Statecraft Day today, let me start with the economic piece of it.

The Secretary remarked that bilateral trade between our two countries is up 40 percent since we began our Strategic Dialogue three years ago, and it is on track to exceed what we hope will be a hundred billion dollars this year. In addition, we want to advance our negotiations on the Bilateral Investment Treaty, and of course, we want to continue to do everything we can to reduce barriers to trade and investment in both directions.
The Secretary welcomed the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed between Westinghouse and India’s Nuclear Power Corporation, committing both sides to work towards early works agreements on things like preliminary licensing and site development that will be needed to begin construction work in Gujarat. She also noted that General Electric is also making progress in its talks with NPCIL. The Westinghouse MOU marks a very significant step towards the fulfillment of our landmark civil-nuclear cooperation agreement. The Secretary finally described in this area how we have mobilized more than $1 billion in clean energy finance for projects of various kinds. You’ve all heard me describe in the past how OPIC and Ex-Im and others have extremely large programs in India as a result.

The second major area of cooperation and progress was in the area of science and technology. The Secretary described how our joint commission is working to improve our linkages in sciences, engineering, and data-sharing. And she also welcomed the agreement concluded earlier this week to share the U.S.-India Open Government Platform software that is promoting transparency and accountability, and we’re very pleased to welcome a third-country partner, our first third-country partner, which will be Rwanda, and we hope to, of course, welcome many, many more.

The third area of cooperation was in the area of education and people-to-people ties. And again, the Secretary welcomed the progress that both sides have been making in the Higher Education Dialogue to increase educational exchanges and strengthen ties between our universities with a particular focus on community colleges.

Fourth, on security and defense cooperation, Secretary Clinton highlighted progress in the fight against violent extremism, our growing security cooperation both on the military exercise front but also on our bilateral trade, defense trade, which now exceeds $8 billion.
And finally, in our cooperation in South and East Asia, the United States welcomed India’s contribution towards building a stable, secure, and prosperous Afghanistan, including its more than $2 billion in assistance that it is providing. The Secretary thanked the Indians for hosting on June 28th a very important investment conference that will take place in Delhi to galvanize more international private sector investment for Afghanistan to look ahead to the transition there. She announced our intention to have a U.S.-India-Afghanistan trilateral dialogue. And the U.S. welcomes India’s support for our participation as a dialogue partner in the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation.

We have a lot more information on all of the things that we have talked about and negotiated. You will have all seen the very lengthy joint statement that we put out. And then I also just wanted to call your attention to four different fact sheets that we put out in the areas of energy and climate change, public health and research, science and technology, and security and regional cooperation. So you’ll find a wealth of really terrific information in all of those as well.

So with that, I’d be happy to take some of your questions, including those from our friends in New York who I understand are joining us as well.

MODERATOR: All right. As we move to the question-and-answer session, please wait for the microphone, identify yourself by name and media organization, and we’ll start over here on the right, please.

QUESTION: Thank you. Chidu Rajghatta, the Times of India. Ambassador, about the trilateral on Afghanistan involving Afghanistan, U.S., and India, how do you expect to get around Pakistan? And at any point, was a quadrilateral considered? And why not a quadrilateral?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Well, I think first of all, we want to start with a trilateral. First off, we start with a bilateral, and so of course we have very good bilateral dialogues with – well, each of us with Afghanistan. We’ve each signed strategic partnership agreements. So there’s a great deal to talk about with respect to Afghanistan. This is certainly not in any way seen as directed against Pakistan. On the contrary, it’s to talk about the situation inside Afghanistan, but also how we continue to support Afghanistan and the very important three transitions that are going to be taking place – not only the security transition, but the political transition, because Afghanistan will be holding very important elections in 2014, and then the equally important economic transition that you’ve heard me talk about a great deal.

So we haven’t really yet talked about the details of this since we’ve just agreed on this trilateral consultation, but we’ll be doing so in the days and weeks ahead.

MODERATOR: All right. Sir, we have a question from New York, so we’ll go ahead and turn the audio over to them. New York, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, good afternoon, Assistant Secretary. Thank you first for giving the opportunity to ask a question. And basically, as it has become the threat for not only Bangladesh, also for the regional peace and security, is there any formula for a permanent – I mean, to – for the permanent solution of the Rohingya issues in Myanmar and in Bangladesh borders?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Is there any permanent formula? Is that what you said?

QUESTION: Yes. I mean any formulas to solve this problem permanently.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Well, I think we’re focused right now particularly on the Rohingya situation as it affects Burma. As you know, there’s been a lot of ethnic fighting between – inside Burma, and several have sought refuge in Bangladesh. And we have urged our friends in Bangladesh to provide humanitarian access and to honor their international obligations to do so. And we hope they will because, again, I think many of these are fleeing potential violence, many need medical assistance, and many others will need access to shelter and food and water. So Bangladesh has a long history of accommodating the Rohingyas, and we hope that they will continue to do so.

MODERATOR: We have a question here in the front.

QUESTION: Seema Sirohi, Firstpost.com and Gateway House.
Mr. Ambassador, I was wondering if this agreement signed between Westinghouse and NBCIL, does it mean that your issues with the nuclear liability law are resolved? Is there – has that been taken care of? And the other question is --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Sorry, let me answer that question first, Seema.
QUESTION: Okay.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: No, it doesn’t mean that the issues with respect to liability law are resolved. But I think both of our countries wanted to show that we still share a strong interest in seeing these commercial contracts come to fruition. We do have, still, some concerns about the liability law. But the signing of this MOU and the future conclusion of early works agreements will provide very concrete evidence of our intention to move forward, and particularly from our perspective, the interests of our companies in continuing to work with NPCIL to develop the very promising opportunities in this – what will be a $40 billion sector.
QUESTION: I have another question.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Please.

QUESTION: On India’s desire to negotiate a totalization agreement with the United States, the minister said that you don’t even want to talk about it. So what’s going on? Why doesn’t the U.S. want to talk about it and be fair on this issue?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Well, this is a legal question for us as well. There’s a great imbalance in our systems right now, and so there are legal restrictions on what kind of agreements we can enter into with partner countries. But certainly, we have a dialogue with this and we understand the importance of this issue to our Indian friends.
MODERATOR: We’ll take our next question in the back on the left, please.

QUESTION: Aziz Haniffa with India Abroad and Rediff.com. Piggybacking on Chidu’s question on Afghanistan, sometimes you come to regret what you wish for. Earlier, there was a perception by – in India that India was being kept out of the whole process because of pressure from Pakistan, et cetera. Now you guys seem to be going overboard in terms of trilateral commissions and everything else.

Is India going to be left with the baby in the bathwater in terms of responsibilities – because the Taliban is still a major force there – in terms of security also?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Well, I think, first of all, Aziz, I would take issue with the premise of your question, which is we have not always welcomed the important role that India has played in Afghanistan. I don’t think you’ll ever – if you go back years and years, you’ll not hear criticism from me or any other spokesman talking about India’s role in Afghanistan. And we continue to welcome that across a broad range of what your country is doing, not only in terms of the assistance program that I talked about, the investments that are taking place in things like that Hajigak iron ore facility and deposit, but then also the very important support that India is providing in terms of private sector investment and, more broadly, the whole concept of regional integration. So we very much welcome India’s strong support for Afghanistan in all of these areas, and as Secretary Panetta said during his trip, we also welcome India doing more in terms of training, particularly the ANSF and police training back to Indian facilities in India itself.

As we look ahead to the transition, we are very focused on showing to Afghanistan that there will be strong international community support for all of these transitions that I just mentioned. So you’ve heard me and many, many other people talk about what we are calling the transition dividend, but also the “transformation decade,” as we say, of the next decade, 2014 to 2024, where we hope very much that the international community will continue to be very engaged not just in helping to support the ANSF, but also to provide the economic assistance that Afghanistan will need to develop. And so I think this upcoming conference that’s going to take place in Tokyo on July 8th will be a very important milestone in, again, looking forward to the economic piece of what I just talked about.

QUESTION: But a quick follow-up --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: So we’re certainly not leaving India to – in Afghanistan. We’re all going to be working very closely to help support Afghanistan.

QUESTION: But as a quick follow-up, is there going to be a security dimension too at this conference? Because the Taliban is still a major force. There has no – been no vanquishing of them, you know?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Right.

QUESTION: And of course, elements of Haqqani and others have been responsible for attacks on the Indian Embassy in Kabul, et cetera.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Well, there’s not a direct security focus. It’s obviously – there’s an economic focus. But the more success we have in developing private sector investment to developing private sector jobs and sustainable jobs for Afghans, of course, that will help to undermine the appeal of the Taliban. So in that sense, there is a security aspect to it.

MODERATOR: We’ll take another question here on the right.

QUESTION: Thank you. This is Lalit Jha from Press Trust of India. Welcome here to the Foreign Press Center.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Only one question, Lalit. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: This is the fun part. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Let’s begin with the follow-ups. The two follow-ups I have – (laughter) – on Afghanistan, at what level do you think this dialogue is going to be? And have you spoken to Pakistan or informed Pakistan that this is what you’re going to do, the trilateral consultations between India, Afghanistan, and the U.S.?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Sorry, let me answer that because I won’t remember them. (Laughter.)
We haven’t yet. As I say, we’re just beginning to think about this and talk to both India and Afghanistan about how we’re going to structure this dialogue. So we haven’t made a decision yet about things like the level. But yes, we did have some contacts with the Government of Pakistan.

QUESTION: On Rohingya, Bangladesh, you know as a poor country it doesn’t have much resources. Is the U.S. willing to help or provide some kind of financial assistance to Bangladesh to take care of the refugees that are coming across the border from Burma?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Certainly. And normally, the way this works, Lalit, is that UNHCR, the UN High Commission for Refugees, has – is supporting assistance efforts there. They have their own camps, but also they work with NGOs. So we typically respond to an appeal from the UNHCR. So if the UNHCR determines that it needs more resources to help Bangladesh to accommodate these refugees, then I’m sure that we will be more than happy to accommodate that request, because the United States, as you know, is always one of the most generous and early supporters of these kinds of appeals.

So again, Bangladesh will not be facing this problem alone. We understand that these kind of things impose a burden on countries and a cost on countries, so again, we hope very much that they will open their borders and allow people in and that UNHCR and others will be permitted to work very closely with the Bangladeshi authorities to accommodate those new refugees.

QUESTION: And my question: Was China factor discussed during the Strategic Dialogue? Because in the last couple of years, I have seen all the joint statements, but U.S.-China Dialogue didn’t mention to South Asia. And India-U.S. Dialogue, there is some mention to China. In this joint – 14-page joint statement, there’s no reference to China at all. Even the briefing, there has been no reference to China. So was this discussed or have you kept out of it?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Well, China was discussed. I don’t want to say China was a focus. I mean, we were much more focused on things like Afghanistan and so forth. But as you’ve heard me say before, both India and the United States want a good, strong engagement with China, and we don’t see our strategic partnership as coming in any way at the expense of China. And so, again, I think it was more in that context. And we will continue to look for opportunities to engage bilaterally with China, but also, as you know, we have offered a trilateral dialogue with China as well that we hope that they will agree to.

MODERATOR: All right. We have a few questions on the left. We’ll start in the back.

QUESTION: Thank you. Kitty Wang (ph) with NTD TV. Regarding deepening the defense cooperation with India, did you heard any concern from the Indian part in the dialogue such as increased U.S. military presence there or deployment there?
And also, could you talk a more about your cooperation with India on the cyber security aspect?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: We didn’t hear any complaints, if that’s what you’re asking about, any kind of military presence. Whenever we have a military presence, it’s only at the invitation of the Government of India. And for – typically for our bilateral exercises – as you know, we have the largest program that India has with any country of bilateral military exercises. We certainly welcome those opportunities.

So we talked a little bit about that, but we also talked about how we both want to continue to try to work to expand our defense trade, particularly to take it into new areas like co-production and co-development.

MODERATOR: All right. We’ll take another –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Sorry. You have one more question? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Regarding the cyber security, how will you defend --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Oh, yes. I mean, we had a good discussion on cyber security. To be honest, I don’t want to get too much into the details of what we talked about for understandable reasons, but, again, I think we see this as a very important new area of cooperation, not just because of our very large IT sectors that each of us have and the growing cooperation in that area in terms of the service industry, but also in terms of the threats that each of us face as well. And so we – again, we have common interest in sharing best practices and again, addressing those. But again, for obvious reasons, we don’t want to go too much into the details of that.

MODERATOR: All right. We’ll stay here on the left.

QUESTION: Thank you. Raghubir Goyal, India Globe and Asia Today. Mr. Secretary, two questions: One, is how much Pakistan was discussed, because Minister spoke about this yesterday at the media conference with the Indian media? He was not very happy the response he got from the U.S. as far as – many terrorists are wanted by India from Pakistan who were involved in Mumbai attacks, and also he spoke about Headley, among others. So response is not very good from Pakistan, and Pakistan is still helping those, Haqqani Network and all that are against India.

And second, my question will be: As far as U.S.-India Business Council and –
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Sorry. Let me answer the first one – question. Well, I didn’t see the Minister’s comments, but let me just say that we had a good conversation. We obviously share India’s concerns about some of the threats that are emanating from Pakistan, from groups like Lashkar-e Tayyiba. And we’re working very hard to – both to encourage Pakistan to take action against those, but also to prevent those kinds of attacks from occurring through our intelligence and other kinds of cooperation.

With respect to your question about David Headley and things like that, that’s really the province of the Department of Justice, and so I’d refer you to them. But as a whole, I would just tell you that there’s been very good information exchange between our two countries on – with respect to Mr. Headley and others. And we are very firmly committed to continuing that information exchange and certainly to sharing any kind of threat information the instant that we get it, because that is – that, of course, is extremely important to the security of India, but also to – an important part of our counterterrorism cooperation.

QUESTION: And second question will be on economy and trade. Since two countries, India and U.S., are the world’s largest and richest democracy, both are moving towards (inaudible) trade, economic, and other issues. But visa is a major issue among those U.S.-India Business Council and 500 Fortune companies doing business or who wants to do business in India and also vice versa, companies from India. One, are you moving forward as far as free trade agreement with India, just like you have with South Korea and other countries? Because since when you are saying that India is the most moving forward partnership now in the future? And finally visa, how far these companies they are seeking and asking more visas and but you are cutting visas rather than giving them more visas to do business in India – to do business in the U.S. Thank you, sir.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Okay. There are a lot of different questions in that question. So let me try to unpack those a little a bit. (Laughter.) First of all, with respect to visas, you’re – I think you’re referring primarily to H1-B visas and, as you well know, India now receives 65 percent of the worldwide total of H1-B visas. So I think that’s a pretty commendable number and percentage and in terms of the L-1 visas – the so-called intra-company transfer visas – India receives 37 percent of those -- again, 37 of the worldwide total. Congress is the one that determines the caps for H1-B visas, not the United States Government. So – and that cap has remained fairly steady for quite a long time now.

So, again, I think we’re doing everything we can within our own, within the law to give Indian companies fair access to the H1-B system, and I think that they have shown themselves more than capable of taking advantage of all the opportunities, and we continue to welcome those kinds of workers. And the real quibble, if I might say, has been more on the L-1 – the intra-company transferees where the number of – the rate of rejections has gone up slightly. And we have a refusal rate that’s gone up a little bit because we’ve seen a higher level of unqualified applicants and in some cases some fraud. So naturally, we want to make sure that everybody that comes in is a qualified applicant and is coming for the purposes that are stated in the visa application.

So we’re looking at why that refusal rate seems to have gone up a little bit more but – in response to the concerns that have been raised. But again, I’m a strong supporter of all of our consular officers and think they do a superb job.

MODERATOR: All right. I think --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Oh sorry, FTA. I told you, you can’t ask me more than question at once, I can’t remember.
We’re not currently now working on a Free Trade Agreement with India. As I said earlier, our efforts are focused first on trying to conclude a Bilateral Investment Treaty. We have had a model Bilateral Investment Treaty approved earlier this year, so that then gave us the opportunity to again re-launch negotiations on the bit with India, and we’ve had some good early rounds of discussions and, again, we hope to advance those as rapidly as possible.

MODERATOR: Sir, I know your time is running short. Do we have time for one more question?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Sure, sure – or a couple more.

QUESTION: I just wanted to come back to the $1 billion question and the visas.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Sure.

QUESTION: What is the legal justification you mentioned for extracting a billion dollars annually from people who are ostensibly guest workers in terms of social security payments? And what is the moral justification for not returning the money? You say that there is an ongoing dialogue, but the minister actually distinctly said that the U.S. refuses to even talk about this. And this is $1 billion annually from a country that’s not very --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Well, again, I don’t want to make it sound like we are discriminating against Indians. I mean, these are taxes that are taken out of every single worker in the United States, and that’s – when you come to the United States, that’s one of the things that you agree to do, is that --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Well, any worker. That’s just part of our system to make sure that taxes and social security and other – are automatically deducted from your paycheck. And so I don’t want to – your question implies that we’re somehow discriminating against Indians. Everybody is subject is to this --

QUESTION: Because – there are totalization agreements with countries like Belgium where the money’s returned. So why not with India?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Right. But that’s – see, again, there’s an imbalance in our system between – in between what -- your system is configured completely differently from our own. If you want, I could have a chat with you offline, because it’s – it gets into very technical, complicated details. But essentially, for the moment, we’re not in a position to be able to enter into a totalization agreement with India, and we’ve explained the reasons why we can’t do that. But we understand very well their concerns.

MODERATOR: So maybe one final question.

QUESTION: I have two questions. On the sidelines of the SCO meeting, the Chinese vice premier apparently pulled aside Minister Krishna and whispered in his ear that the "real relationship," quote/unquote, is between China and India. And this was with an eye to sort of criticizing the growing U.S.-India relationship. So I was wondering if you’d like to comment on that.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: I don’t have anything to say beyond what I’ve already said on that. So what else?

QUESTION: Okay. The second question is on Iran oil sanctions.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Sure.

QUESTION: Are we done with this, or is this going to be a recurring demand that we – India keep cutting oil imports, because this is causing unnecessary friction?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: No, no. We’re certainly not done. And again, this is something that we’re asking of all of our partners around the world. This is not something that’s focused on India. But the current exceptions that have been granted apply for a period of 180 days – so for a period of six months.

So we’re asking all of our friends and all countries around the world to continue to reduce their imports of oil from Iran and to discontinue transactions with the Central Bank of Iran and that there needs to be continued progress on that. So we hope we’ll see that. And again, I think that as many others have said, these sanctions have had a real impact, and they’ve helped to bring Iran to the negotiating table. And so – and have again helped to dramatically reduce Iranian oil exports from I think a high of 2.5 million barrels to down to a range of 1.2 to 1.8 million barrels a day. So that’s quite significant and it’s, again, it’s just important to keep the pressure on Iran so that they will come and negotiate with in good faith with the P-5+1 and with – and to continue, again, to work very closely with the IAEA and allow the IAEA access to all relevant facilities inside Iran.

MODERATOR: Sir, thank you very much for coming to the Foreign Press Center. This event is now concluded. Thank you all for coming.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Thank you all. It was great to see you all. Thanks a lot.

STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 23, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING                                                                                                         
MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
1:15 p.m. EDT

MS. NULAND:  Happy Monday, everybody.  You were just treated to an hour of Professor Clinton up at Syracuse University, so we’ve covered a number of issues.  Let me do a couple of quick things at the top, and then we’ll go to what’s on your minds.

Today, the Chinese Government announced the fourth round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which will be held in Beijing May 3rd and 4th.  Secretary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Geithner will be joined for the dialogue by their Chinese co-chairs, Vice Premier Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.   The Chinese also announced the third round of the U.S.-China Consultations on People-to-People Exchanges, which will be held in the same time period in Beijing.

And then further to our daily highlighting of a human rights case, and particularly a journalistic freedom/press freedom case in the walkup to World Press Freedom Day on May 3rd, today’s case, if you’ve seen our website HumanRights.gov, is the case of Yoani Sanchez in Cuba.  Yoani Sanchez is a Cuban blogger who has attracted international following for her blog Generation Y, which gives readers unprecedented insight into life in Cuba.  The Cuban Government has repeatedly denied Ms. Sanchez’s request for travel some 19 times, most recently she was – when she was granted a visa to go to Brazil to attend the premieres of a documentary about media freedom.  So she is our person of the day, and we call your attention to our website, HumanRights.gov.

Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION:  Can I just start briefly with Syria?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Maybe not so briefly on others, but mine is only brief.  Are you okay with the limits, the restrictions that the Syrians want to put on the monitoring mission in terms of where monitors can come from, what countries they can come from, how they are able to travel?

MS. NULAND:  We are most emphatically not okay with restrictions on monitors.  We make clear in Resolution 2043 that we expect monitors to have full freedom of movement, to have full access to Syrians and parts of Syria that they think are important to monitor, and that we expect them to have complete freedom to communicate, to choose their personnel, et cetera.  So this is a matter of concern as these monitors begin to deploy.  And as the Syrian National Council put it in their own statement after Resolution 2043 was passed, this first deployment of monitors is really a litmus test for the Assad regime’s seriousness with regard to the six-point plan.

QUESTION:  And what about the other – about the – where the monitors come from?

MS. NULAND:  And of course, with the – it’s up to the United Nations to decide who should be chosen for the monitoring trip.

QUESTION:  So you would not be comfortable with a monitoring team made up of people from – made up of monitors from Iran, Belarus, Eritrea --

MS. NULAND:  It is not for the Government of Syria to decide who should be a UN monitor for this mission.  It’s up for the – to the United Nations to make those decisions.

QUESTION:  So have you – you’ve told that – you’re aware of what – where they want the people to come from, correct?

MS. NULAND:  We are.  We are.

QUESTION:  And you’ve raised your objections to them?

MS. NULAND:  We have.

QUESTION:  Okay.  That’s all.

QUESTION:  And you are comfortable that 300 monitors can actually do the job that is assigned to them?

MS. NULAND:  Well, again, we’ve only just started to have monitors deploy over the last week and a half.  We are only at double-digit strength, as you know, with more coming in.  The monitors, as you have probably seen through the press reporting, have been greeted warmly by crowds of Syrians wanting to express themselves peacefully wherever they have been able to go.  But I think the concern is, as in places like Hama and Homs, that the monitors come in, they are able to provide some space and some openness for opposition leaders to come out and make their views known.  They’re beginning to start to see people, and then no sooner do they leave town when the artillery resumes.  So this is a matter of concern and something that we will be watching day on day.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  I understand that they are greeted very well and people have probably waited for them to arrive.  But are they – will they be able to discharge their duties as they should?  I mean, keep track of what’s going on, have actual data so it can be vetted and determined and defined and so on?

MS. NULAND:  Well, these are the standards that we insist this monitoring team be able to have, so we just have to see, Said.  It’s really very early days, but as I said, it’s a litmus test for the seriousness of the regime.

QUESTION:  And just a quick follow-up to the discussion that took place here last Friday on the Plan B – your Plan B, so to speak – a great deal of discussion was talked about yesterday.   The Washington Post had an editorial saying that you don’t really have a Plan B, that basically your approach to this whole Syria crisis has been ad hoc.  Do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND:  Well, of course, we disagree with that.  As the Secretary made clear in Paris, even as these monitors deploy, the international pressure has to stay on the Syrian regime.  You saw the EU impose new sanctions today.  The United States imposed new sanctions today.  We are continuing to work with all of our international partners.  And as the Secretary made clear in Paris, if this Kofi Annan plan fails, if this monitoring mission fails, we’re going to be back in the UN Security Council, we’re going to be looking at Chapter VII and looking at other ways to increase the pressure.

QUESTION:  That’s once the 90-day period is over, correct?

MS. NULAND:  I’m not going to speak to the timetable.  I think we have to see how it goes, as I said, day on day.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MS. NULAND:  Please.

QUESTION:  And that within the 90 day, or after the 90 days, you’re going to go to the Security Council?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think Said just asked that question.  Obviously, Resolution 2043 gives this initial monitoring effort 90 days, but I think the question is, even within the 90 days, are we able to get folks in?  Are they able to do the job?  Is the zone of peace enlarging or is it shrinking as a result?  And we’re just going to have to watch and see.
Please, Jay.

QUESTION:  A question concerning China.  Just --

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.  Are we done – first of all, are we done with Syria?

QUESTION:  Oh, yeah.

MS. NULAND:  Yeah?  Okay.  Go ahead.  Go on to China.

QUESTION:  I know you guys aren’t getting into the give-and-take on the Bo Xilai case, but I’m trying to get sort of on a broader sense if the – if you could describe what the State Department’s, like, policy is towards walk-ins.  Are there sort of clear parameters that the State Department has always used or is using now in dealing with them, just on a general basis?  Because there have been cases in the past where, I guess during Tiananmen, we gave sanctuary to a dissident for, like, more than a year.  So I was just trying to see if there was any parameters you could outline.  And traditionally, is the White House involved in these decisions?

And the other question I just had is:  Is there any – do you know what the status is of Bo Xilai’s son is up in Boston as far as his legal status here?  I assume he came in as a student, on a student visa, but I don’t know if he’s – if there’s any sense on if he has to renew it or if the Chinese want him back.  I was trying to get an update on that.

MS. NULAND:  Well, first, on the latter question, there’s been broad press reporting that he is a student in good standing at Harvard.  We don’t speak to individual visa matters, as you know, but you can draw your own conclusions from that.  And obviously, student visas are, as a general matter, subject to the term of the educational opportunity that the person is here for.

With regard to walk-ins, every case is different.  People walk into U.S. embassies and consulates around the world for a broad variety of reasons and with a broad variety of requests.  There are some guiding regulations with regard to individual requests that might be made in the Foreign Affairs Manual.  We can get you those if you need, Jay, but in general cases have to be decided based on the circumstances, and they’re very much case by case, depending upon what the individual is seeking and what the circumstances are.

Please.  Still on this issue?  No.  Something else?

QUESTION:  Can I try Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND:  Why don’t we stay on China, first?  Yeah.  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  A question that’s much easier.  First, could you please talk to us about the focus of this, the fourth one of S&ED?

MS. NULAND:  I don’t have too much more detail than what was put out by the Chinese side.  As you know, this is a broad Strategic Dialogue that allows us to talk about the full range of bilateral issues, regional issues, and global issues.  On the Treasury side, they’ll speak to their issues, but you know that – all those things that we talk about on the economic and financial and currency side with the Chinese Government.  On the State Department side, it’s everything from our student exchange program, as you can imagine, to the regional issues that we talk about, like North Korea, to the global issues, like our work together on Iran, et cetera.  So I think it’ll be a rich and broad menu of issues.

QUESTION:  Will the South China Sea issue be addressed?  Because I’m wondering if you are following the dispute with (inaudible).  The Philippines now is seeking international support in the standoff with China.  So under what circumstance will the U.S. wade into this dispute?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think you know our position on these disputes in the South China Sea.  We want to see them resolved through dialogue; we want to see them resolved through consensual means.  In general, in all of the most recent meetings that Secretary Clinton has had with Chinese counterparts, whether they were here, whether they were in China, whether they were in multilateral fora, she has reiterated our interest in deepening and broadening mechanisms within ASEAN, within regional fora, and bilaterally for solving these things consensually, not by force, calling for restraint by all sides.  That’s where we are on this particular one and where I’m sure we’ll be in Beijing next week.

QUESTION:  So do you believe China and the ASEAN countries can solve this problem in a – through friendly diplomatic consultations?

MS. NULAND:  We do.  We have always thought that this needed to be resolved through dialogue, and we’ll continue to press that on everybody.

Andy.

QUESTION:  When was the last time you haven’t?

MS. NULAND:  Haven’t what?

QUESTION:  Thought that something should be resolved through dialogue?  (Laughter.)  When was the last time you said, “No, I think we really need war.”

MS. NULAND:  In the Libya context, dialogue failed and we had to call in NATO and call in other countries, as you’ll recall.  That’s probably the --

QUESTION:  On that same issue, I think you saw that Liberation Daily had a very strong piece over the weekend which essentially accused the United States of, in support of the Philippines, increasing the potential for military conflict in the South China Sea.  Do you have any response to that charge from a newspaper which is widely seen as the mouthpiece of the PLA?

MS. NULAND:  Well, again, our position has been consistent.  The Secretary’s position has been consistent on all of these skirmishes in the South China Sea and certainly with regard to this one, that this can only be solved diplomatically, that we want to see restraint on all sides, we want to see ASEAN play a helpful role in coming to a resolution.  And that’ll be the Secretary’s message again when she’s in Beijing next week.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Also --

MS. NULAND:  In the back.  Afghanistan?

QUESTION:  Can we try Afghanistan?  Thanks very much.  May I try two actually?  As you know, the Strategic Partnership Agreement is being inked now to take the United States relationship on beyond 2014.  And we’re hearing that $2.7 billion is going to go to Afghan security forces.  It’s a huge amount of money.  What more can you tell us about the inking of the Strategic Partnership Agreement, please?

MS. NULAND:  Well, let me start by saying that on April 22nd Ambassador Crocker and Afghan National Security Advisor Spanta initialed the text of the Strategic Partnership Agreement.  Let me stress this is an initialing.  This is not yet a signing.  After much work together, we’re pleased that our negotiating teams have come to a common text to recommend to their respective governments.  As is the case with all such agreements, both governments now have to review it, the text in interagency terms.  We have to, on our side, have consultations with our Congress and the President has to make a final review.  So that is still to be done.

With regard to dollar figures, I don’t have anything to announce yet.  I think you know that we have been talking to the Afghan Government, we’ve been talking to our allies and partners around the world about the need to ensure that as the Afghan national security forces take on lead responsibility for security around Afghanistan that they are fully funded, that they are fully equipped, and that we have the ability to continue to train them.  The Afghans themselves will contribute to those costs, but it’s going to take international support as well.  As the Secretary made clear when she was with Secretary Panetta at NATO last week, we’re talking to lots of countries about how they can help the Afghans foot the bill, and the United States also will pay its fair share, but I’m not going to get into numbers here today.

QUESTION:  Okay.  I’m going to just add one more, and that is:  What effect do you think the initialing of this document will have on peace talks with the Taliban?

MS. NULAND:  Well, frankly, at this stage, that is very much up to the Taliban.  Let me say that the Strategic Partnership document is primarily about the United States’ medium and long-term relationship with the Government of Afghanistan, with the Afghan people, and it sets out a blueprint for how we can move forward together on the political side, on the economic side, and continuing to provide appropriate security support, even as the Afghans manage their security increasingly self-reliantly.

As you know, in the context of the larger peace effort that the Afghan Government’s engaged in, we have very much supported the idea of Afghan-Afghan talks about political reconciliation.  We have tried to be helpful in that regard, but really the Taliban have a choice to make now.  They need to decide if they are ready to come to the table under the terms that we’ve all supported, led by the Afghan Government, starting with renouncing violence and expressing interest in these talks.  So ball’s very much in their court.

QUESTION:  Do you have anything to add to your statement from this morning on Sudan?

MS. NULAND:  Other than to say that our Special Envoy Princeton Lyman remains very much engaged with the parties, with the African Union, and that we very much welcome the fact that the South Sudanese did withdraw from Heglig and that it’s now time for the Government of Sudan to stop its aerial bombardment and for everybody to get back to the table.  That’s essentially where we are.  And just to remind again that neither one of these governments is going to be able to fully benefit from the resources of both countries, from peace, from integration with the international community, until the violence stops.  So they both – both sides have an interest in getting this violence stopped.

Said.

QUESTION:  Change of issue?

MS. NULAND:  Say again?

QUESTION:  Change topics?

MS. NULAND:  Yes.

QUESTION:  The Palestinian issue?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Yes.  There is an apparent estrangement between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.  And my question to you, in this kind of atmosphere, how do you conduct whatever talks or lack of talks, if you would, with both entities?  How do you conduct your business with them?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I’m not going to get into internal issues within the Palestinian Authority.  Obviously, we work with all the leading Palestinian figures.  We obviously work with President Abbas, who David Hale had the chance to sit with on Saturday.  We see Mr. Fayyad obviously, and David also works with Palestinian negotiator Erekat, who he anticipates seeing, I think it’s tomorrow.

So our goal is to continue to try to work with all parties on the Palestinian Authority side and with the Israelis to increase the opportunity for them to be in direct contact and to really get this conversation back to where it needs to be.

QUESTION:  And Mr. Hale discussed the content of the letter that Mahmoud Abbas submitted last week with him?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I would anticipate that he did, but I’m not going to get into the details of their discussion.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  This letter is really the point of contention between the two – between Fayyad and Abbas.

MS. NULAND:  From our perspective, the fact that the sides are in contact, whether it’s by letter – obviously we prefer face to face, but the fact that this conversation is continuing is important.  So we are trying to talk to all of the involved parties about how they can make the most of the time in front of them and the channels available to them.

QUESTION:  Are you aware of the misunderstanding between Abbas and Fayyad?

MS. NULAND:  I’m really not going to get into internal issues between members of the Palestinian Authority.

Please.

QUESTION:  There are some press reports that (inaudible) Turkey is blocking Israel’s participation to next NATO summit.  And the U.S. side is not happy with that.  It’s disappointed and trying to convince Turks not to block Israel to NATO.  Do you have any comment on that – on those reports?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think you know for quite some time now, we have been continuing to talk to both our ally Turkey and our ally Israel about the relationship that they have with each other, to encourage them to continue to get back to a place where can have conversation with each other, where they can work well together.  We think it’s important to both of them, and it’s certainly important to the region.

With regard to arrangements for the NATO summit and partnership events, as you know, Israel is one of NATO’s partners in the Mediterranean Dialogue.   I don’t have anything particular to announce on partnership planning at the moment.  Those discussions are continuing as we head towards the May summit in Chicago.

QUESTION:  So Israel may participate in some?

MS. NULAND:  Again, we’re still working on what the partnership arrangements are going to look like for the summit, so I’m not going to comment on them from here as those conversations continue.  There are many aspects of how the partners may or may not participate in the NATO summit that are still being worked on.

QUESTION:  Well, are you comfortable with the Turkish position?

MS. NULAND:  Again, I’m not going to comment on internal deliberations going on at NATO about arrangements for the summit from this --

QUESTION:  NATO operates by consensus, correct?

MS. NULAND:  Correct.

QUESTION:  As you well know.  So if one NATO member objected to Israel or any other country’s participation in a partnership dialogue, you wouldn’t be allowed to – that country wouldn’t be allowed to participate, correct?

MS. NULAND:  We need consensus at NATO.  And again, Israel is one of NATO’s partners, has participated over the years in many, many, many NATO activities, consultations, exercises, et cetera.  So we’re going to keep working on the arrangements for partnership at Chicago, but I don’t have anything particular to announce today.

QUESTION:  Well, would you be – would the Administration be comfortable if Israel did not participate?

MS. NULAND:  Again, there are many, many ways that these partnership activities may go forward.  They’ve been done in different ways at different summits.  So I’m not going to get into what we’re talking about, how it might work, who’s going to come.  We’re still working on all of that.

QUESTION:  The Administration won’t come out and say that it wants Israel to be at the – to participate at the summit in Chicago?

MS. NULAND:  We haven’t made any announcements about who --

QUESTION:  I know.

MS. NULAND:  -- among NATO’s 25-30 partners around the world we expect to invite to Chicago.  So I’m not going to comment on individual partners and whether they’re coming to Chicago.

QUESTION:  Well, you’re being asked about one specifically.

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Is it important to the United States for Israel to participate?

MS. NULAND:  It’s important that we come to a consensus agreement at NATO about a strong partnership aspect of this summit.  So we’re still working on that.

QUESTION:  So you’re saying that that could happen without Israel’s participation?

MS. NULAND:  I’m saying that there are 25-30 global partners of NATO.  Is it still under discussion at NATO what events there will be in the context of the summit that will highlight the partnership and which partners will be invited.  No decisions have been made.

QUESTION:  So you’re saying that some partners may not be invited?

MS. NULAND:  I’m saying that there have been NATO summits where no partners were invited --

QUESTION:  Toria, I’m trying to help you out here, because you’re going to get absolutely slammed.

MS. NULAND:  I understand.  Matt, there is no --

QUESTION:  You are.  If you can’t come out and say that the United States wants Israel to participate, its main ally in the Middle East and you won’t come out and say that the Administration wants them to participate in whatever event is going in Chicago, that’s – that is going to be seized on.

MS. NULAND:  Matt, at the last summit in Lisbon, there was zero partnership participation with the exception, I think, of ISAF partners.  At Lisbon there were some partnership events, and I don’t know whether all partners were included.  I think they were not.

QUESTION:  Well, as --

MS. NULAND:  So every summit is done on a case-by-case basis, and we haven’t made a decision about who’s going to be invited yet.

QUESTION:  Well, yeah, but isn’t the planning for at least most of these partnership – these partnerships to have some kind of meeting revolving around Chicago?

MS. NULAND:  NATO has, I think, five --

QUESTION:  Wasn’t there a meeting at heads of state level between NATO and the Russians in Lisbon?

MS. NULAND:  I think there was a NATO-Russia Council at Lisbon.  There will not be a NATO-Russia council meeting at Chicago.  So again, the point is that for each summit, NATO makes decisions by a consensus what the partnership geometry will be.  And that has not been decided.

QUESTION:  Fair enough.  But the Turks wouldn’t be objecting to Israel’s participation if someone hadn’t proposed that Israel participate.  And if you have proposed that they participate --

MS. NULAND:  Again --

QUESTION:  -- and you’re not willing to stick up for it, I don’t understand why.

MS. NULAND:  I’m not going to get into, here, what we have proposed and where we are in the internal dialogue at NATO until the issues are settled by consensus.  That’s not the way NATO works.  Okay?

Let’s move on.

QUESTION:  Can we go back to the Palestinian issue?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Is Ambassador Hale mediating between the Palestinians, or between the Palestinians and the Israelis?

MS. NULAND:  So David – let me just go through his schedule, if I can.  Special Envoy Hale met with President Abbas on Saturday, with Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sabah and other officials in Kuwait on April 22nd.  He arrived in Jerusalem today.  He will meet with Israeli negotiator Molho.

QUESTION:  I’m sorry.  Can you say that again?

MS. NULAND:  He’s in Jerusalem today.  He’ll meet with Israeli negotiator Molho, and then he’ll meet with Palestinian negotiator Erekat separately tonight and tomorrow.  I’m not sure in what order.  And then he will also, tomorrow, see Foreign Minister Judeh, I assume in Amman.  And then, as we said, he plans to go on to Saudi, to Qatar, to Egypt.  And then he’s probably going to go back to the region, but that hasn’t been decided yet.

QUESTION:  That means he’s not mediating between Abbas and Fayyad?

MS. NULAND:  Correct.  He is not getting involved in internal Palestinian Authority issues.

QUESTION:  And when did he see Fayyad?

MS. NULAND:  Say again?

QUESTION:  When did he see Fayyad, the prime minister?

MS. NULAND:  We had Fayyad here in Washington not too long ago.

QUESTION:  No, no.  Isn’t he supposed to meet with Fayyad in --

MS. NULAND:  I don’t have that on this list, but let me check with him whether he intends to see Mr. Fayyad on this trip.

QUESTION:  New topic.  On Myanmar, here seems to be a hiccup in this warming – warmth between Aung San Suu Kyi and the ruling party, the military-backed party, and that they disagree over the oath of office and Aung San Suu Kyi’s – and her NLD counterparts have declined to take their seats in parliament until this oath is changed.  Does that concern you at all?  Do you think that’s a setback?  And what’s your view on this – the oath itself?

MS. NULAND:  Well, as you’ve said, Andy, our understanding is the same as yours, that Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of her party from the National League of Democracy did not sit when parliament opened today because they were concerned about taking an oath requiring them to safeguard the constitution that was passed under military rule.  Our understanding is that the NLD is in discussion with the government and with other parties with regard to this issue and we are calling on everybody to try to work this through in a manner that will allow the NLD to take its seats.
QUESTION:  Would the action for action that the U.S. has promised to continue to implement be on hold pending them actually sitting in their seats in parliament?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think the measures that we’ve already announced are obviously going forward.  We want to see the government and the opposition continue to work on their issues in a consensual manner through dialogue, and that is our understanding of what the NLD itself wants.  So I think we need to watch this and hope that in coming days, this can be settled.

QUESTION:  And do you have any position on the oath itself?  Do you think that the NLD is correct in its objections to the wording of the oath?

MS. NULAND:  I think we’re not going to get into the internal conversation that they’re having.  As you know, the NLD has concerns about a number of things, including the name of the country, that were adopted at a time when they were not able to participate in the political process.  So they’re going to have to work through these things together as part of the general opening in the reform process.

Please.

QUESTION:  On Iraq, KRG President Maliki criticized an arms sales which will be made by U.S. to Baghdad Government – about the F-16 sales.  And he said to freeze the sales until there will be a solution between KRG and Baghdad Government because he’s suspicious that the Maliki government can use this F-16 against KRG.  Do you have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND:  I’m sorry.  Who made these initial comments?

QUESTION:  President Barzani.

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  KRG president.

MS. NULAND:  I’m not going to get into the middle of intramural efforts between the various Iraqis.  I think you know where we are on this, that we want to see the disagreements that they have with each other also settled through dialogue and through a big roundtable process that they’ve all pledged to join but that still needs to get off the ground.

QUESTION:  Is that F-16 sales will go on?

MS. NULAND:  I don’t think there’s any change in our policy.

QUESTION:  About the – just a follow-up about an oil agreement made by Exxon-Mobil and KRG.  Since it’s an American company, the Exxon-Mobil, this agreement is excluding Baghdad Government’s role in the use of oil in KRG region.  Do you have any comment?  How do you see this agreement?  Is it threatening to unity of Iraq, or how do you see Exxon-Mobil and KRG oil agreement?

MS. NULAND:  We’ve talked about this issue many times.  Our position on it has not changed, that we think the lack of a comprehensive oil agreement is holding Iraq back, that we’ve called on all sides to continue to work through what is necessary to come up with a national oil policy.  And we also regularly counsel our companies, including Exxon, about the fact that there isn’t such an agreement.  So I think we’ll have a little bit more to say on the issues of Iraq and energy later today.  We’re going to have – we have the U.S.-Iraqi energy dialogue going on, and we’ll have some folks briefing later this afternoon on those things.

QUESTION:  Toria, just a quick follow-up to this, but Maliki had really harsh words for Turkey.  And now both of them are your allies, you have invested a great deal in Iraq.  I mean, they’re – he’s pushing the envelopes.  You don’t have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND:  We have, for almost a decade now, encouraged increased dialogue, increased direct contacts between Iraq and Turkey.  There are mechanisms for them to work through their issues together which we have endeavored to facilitate, and we encourage them to continue to use them to work through the issues that they have.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MS. NULAND:  Please.

QUESTION:  On North Korea?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Different topic.  There are multiple reports that the North Koreans have threatened Seoul and South Korean President Lee’s government.  Do you have a reaction on those reports with military action?

MS. NULAND:  I don’t think our position on this is any different than it’s been before and after the satellite launch.  I think if you got a chance to see what the Secretary had to say when she was on Wolf Blitzer last Thursday, that’s the – obviously the most eloquent statement of where we are, that the DPRK needs to understand that it’s not going to achieve anything but further isolation and pressure by threats, by launches, by any of this.

And we call on the new North Korean leadership to change course; instead put their effort into moving their country into the modern world, into the 21st century, opening up the system and giving their people the right to live in dignity and with openness, well fed, et cetera.  And they’re just putting their energy in the wrong place.

Please.

QUESTION:  Any reaction to Iraqi prime minister’s visit to Iran?  And do you think – is it related to the P-5+1 meeting in Baghdad next month?

MS. NULAND:  I’m going to send you to both of those governments for comments on their bilateral visit.

Okay.  Thanks very much.

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 13, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

12:57 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. Just a brief statement at the top, and then perhaps can answer some of your questions about the situation in Guinea-Bissau.
We strongly condemn the attempt by certain elements of the military to undermine the legitimate civilian leadership of Guinea-Bissau. We regret that they have chosen to disrupt the democratic process, which already was challenged by the opposition’s call to boycott the second round of presidential elections. We urge all parties to put down their weapons, release government leaders immediately, and restore legitimate civilian leadership. And we’re clearly deeply concerned about the safety of all those in Bissau today, and we’re going to continue to work with our partners in the region and beyond as we monitor developments.
Matt.
QUESTION: That’s it?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: To say – have you decided – no decision has been made about – on aid or anything like that?
MR. TONER: No. I mean it’s – look. It’s – we’ve got a situation that’s still developing, events still unfolding. But as I mentioned, since the evening of April 12th, it looks like military forces have taken control of radio and television stations. They remain off the air, as well as seized the headquarters of the ruling party for the independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde party and are attempting to restrict movement. So we obviously strongly condemn this attempt to undermine the civilian authority there. We want it restored as soon as possible.
QUESTION: Right. Okay. Well, then, in the interest of saving time on a beautiful Friday afternoon --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- I’ve got three really quick ones.
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: One, two, three. You can just – do you have anything new to say about North Korea that hasn’t been said by the Secretary – what is she – the White House Secretary or Susan Rice at the UN?
Two, do you anything new to say about the Pakistani parliament and the rules of engagement, or whatever they’re calling them, that wasn’t said in Toria’s statement of last night?
And three, do you have anything new to say about the P-5+1 talks tomorrow?
MR. TONER: No, no, and no. (Laughter.) But I think I’ll still get the questions. I don’t think everyone’s as single-minded as you are. But thanks, Matt. I appreciate that, actually. Any other questions you want to –
QUESTION: I have one on North Korea? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just about the IAEA --
MR. TONER: I couldn’t resist.
QUESTION: -- monitors. Yeah. Is this – does the U.S. still support sending IAEA monitors into North Korea after the launch?
MR. TONER: It’s a fair question. I mean, obviously, that’s something for you to ask the IAEA. I know – I don’t – I’m not aware of where they’re at, frankly, on deliberations about that monitoring mission. I mean, obviously, what we’ve seen in the past week or so since – or two weeks or so since North Korea announced its intention and then moved ahead with this launch has been the same old, same old with North Korea. And we’re obviously very concerned about the situation there, so – yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just two, like a short one and a kind of longer.
MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: First, on the food aid. Will – nothing had been delivered, right? There was no --
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: So is there any technical thing that we have to look at in terms of food aid? Do you just stop it? Nothing happens? There’s nothing in the pipeline floating around Asia that might has to be – have to be pulled back, or anything like that?
MR. TONER: I don’t believe so. My understanding where we were at shortly after the Leap Day agreement or statement was that they – a team tried to finalize some of the arrangements to be made on food assistance. But then when we had the announcement by North Korea that it was moving ahead with this satellite launch, then we suspended that program.
QUESTION: And then a longer format question.
MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just in terms of the approach and the policy of the United States right now, I mean, where does engagement go? Is this – we just turn our backs and say you have done what the world didn’t want you to do, and we don’t talk? Because the President did leave open the door, still, of engagement. But realistically, what happens?
MR. TONER: Well, you are correct that the White House statement yesterday did note that the door does remain open for engagement, or that we’re prepared to engage constructively with North Korea. But as we’ve said many times, we’re not going to reward bad behavior with engagement. And in fact – and we don’t, as you’ve often heard us say, don’t want to engage in talks for talks’ sake.
And so as we move forward – you talked about where we’re at diplomatically. I mean, I think first, we’re in intensive consultations with all our Six-Party colleagues. And in fact, the Secretary has already spoken today, I believe, with China – Chinese Foreign Minister Yang, and then yesterday with South Korea’s Foreign Minister Kim, and of course, with the G-8 here, she also had the opportunity to speak intensively on this matter with Foreign Minister Lavrov, as well as -- where am I forgetting, who else she spoke with --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Sorry?
QUESTION: (Off-mike).
MR. TONER: But anyway, these consultations continue intensively, and moving forward, we’re going to continue to talk with them as we talk about next steps. Obviously, discussions are ongoing today, and Ambassador Rice just gave a readout, in fact, of the Security Council meeting on North Korea’s launch. But I think it’s going to be – I guess if I was trying to characterize it, we’re going to consult, we’re going to move together in a unified manner, and we’re going to – when we do take action, we’re going to do so in a deliberate way.
QUESTION: And just one other thing. The Secretary indicated, and I think Toria in her previous briefing, said often actions from North Korea come in twos or threes. So the obvious next step would be for them to move toward some type of nuclear testing. Is the U.S. picking up any indications from them that they are – I’m not talking about even spies, but – or that type of intelligence, but are you picking up any indication that they are now going to move to that?
MR. TONER: Well, first of all, my do-over. When I was talking about Foreign Minister Lavrov and then, of course, had my brain freeze – that’s what a week in Florida will do to you – I meant Foreign Minister Gemba to add as well. So she’s had a chance to consult with the Japanese, with the Russians, and now reached out subsequently after the launch with South Korea and China.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Thank you. Anyway, to answer your – your question was about talk about a nuclear test. I mean, obviously, I can’t talk about intelligence matters from the podium. In the past we’ve seen a pattern, if you will, to North Korea’s bad behavior, but I can’t talk, obviously, about any intelligence matters. So –
QUESTION: On North Korea, did you – what the Chinese are saying – what kind of a role they have played or – in this process or as far as missile launch is concerned?
MR. TONER: Just rewinding Goyal, the first part of your question was who?
QUESTION: What role you think Chinese played in this process with North Korea as far as missile launch?
MR. TONER: Well, the Secretary, as I just said, had a good opportunity – or an opportunity to have a good conversation with the Chinese foreign minister this morning. One of the things that she stressed was the need to obviously consult closely with other members of the Six-Party team, if you will, and that we move together in a deliberate and unified way to speak out and condemn this action. So we’re cooperating closely, consulting closely with China. And obviously they’ve got a very important role.
Sorry, to just finish up --
QUESTION: Sorry.
MR. TONER: They’ve – we’re asking them to use their relationship with North Korea to convey our concern about their recent actions.
QUESTION: And finally, what are you telling the regional nations like South Korea and Japan and others now, because they were angry before that they will take action? And where do we stand now as far as regional nations are concerned of the threat in the region?
MR. TONER: Where do we stand now with other – well, as I said, I think the international community is rightly concerned, as I said, given North Korea’s launch yesterday but also its behavior in the past, this pattern of bad behavior. And so we’re going to consult very closely with other Six-Party colleagues as we move forward and speak out in a unified voice.
QUESTION: Could I follow up on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just with the food aid, the nutritional assistance.
MR. TONER: Sure. Thank you.
QUESTION: As far as the U.S. is concerned, is this completely null and void, the Leap Year agreement and everything, in light of what North Korea has done? Or could food aid potentially – if their behavior changes in the weeks and months to come, could food aid be resumed or the plan for food aid be resumed, or is this completely over at this point?
MR. TONER: I guess I would answer that by saying that North Korea’s behavior to date since we signed this agreement has – as we’ve discussed several times, has raised doubts about their ability to live up to their obligations and their commitments. And so given their willingness to flout international obligations and move ahead with a launch that was clearly in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, that we don’t feel we can move forward at any level, including at the nutritional assistance level, because we don’t feel that we can frankly trust the North Koreans that this will end up in appropriate hands.
QUESTION: Is that – I mean, in your view, is that linking politics with the humanitarian situation? I mean, are there still concerns about – I mean, aid groups --
MR. TONER: I think it’s – I think it’s simply acknowledging that if you can’t trust the government to live up to its commitments on – in one aspect of – then you can certainly not expect it to live up to its commitments on another aspect. And so these – as we’ve talked about all along, nutritional assistance needs to be credibly monitored. We need to ensure that it goes in the hands of the people who need it and who it’s designed for. And so if we can’t trust North Korea to live up to its commitments in terms of its activities and launch of ballistic missiles, then we feel that we can’t trust it on the nutritional assistance that it will get to the appropriate people.
QUESTION: And just – the February 29th agreement as a whole, is the United States still looking for North Korea to comply with that, or is that – as far as you’re concerned, that’s just – that’s over, that’s (inaudible)?
MR. TONER: I would say – I mean, the word I’d say is “suspended” given the current state of –
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Another subject?
QUESTION: Pakistan, please?
QUESTION: Still on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Let’s go – yeah, you had your hand up for Pakistan.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Are we done with North Korea?
QUESTION: No. Still on North Korea.
MR. TONER: North Korea. Sorry. Tomoko, finish up with that.
QUESTION: Would you say one of the reason that they failed the launch is the current sanction on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Look, you’re asking me to – I have absolutely no idea. I would point you in the direction of NORAD or NORTHCOM, who can provide you with a detailed technical analysis of the launch, or to the Government of North Korea, which I think acknowledged the launch’s failure.
Yeah. Go – oh, are you still on North Korea?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Sure. Sorry. I will get to Pakistan. Sorry.
QUESTION: You’ve been referring to the missile launch activity as “deal breaker.” And I remember you using the word “abrogation” as well. But you just said the White House statement still leaves some room open for some talk. Has your position changed? Is the Leap deal agreement effective as of today?
MR. TONER: I just – the White House statement, I think, simply said that we’re prepared to engage constructively with North Korea, but only a North Korea that wants to engage constructively with the rest of the world. And until we see that type of pattern of behavior, then that’s not going to be possible.
QUESTION: So is a deal – was a deal breaker? Did it break the deal? Is the deal still effective?
MR. TONER: We think it was a deal breaker. Yeah.
Yeah, go ahead. Now Pakistan.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you, Mark. These rules of engagement, these are actually recommendations from the Pakistani parliament to negotiate a future relationship with the United States. So do you plan to reengage them? Do you plan to discuss a future relationship with them? Do you have any schedule in mind – future meetings, visits? Are you looking for a midway for building a new relationship particularly on the issue of drones and other issues that they have raised?
MR. TONER: I mean, I – it’s a very good question. I mean, I don’t have any announcements to make today about upcoming trips or travel. I do --
QUESTION: You’ve got someone pretty senior there right now.
MR. TONER: Well, I was going to – I was getting there. I was going to say that our USAID Administrator Raj Shah is on the ground right now in Pakistan. And I think that speaks to what we talked about a little bit in the past weeks, is that we’ve already seen in the past weeks and month or so a reengagement at a high level both with the President’s conversation with President Zardari and then subsequent visits by Deputy Secretary Nides and others. We’ve been reengaging already with – at a high level with the Pakistani Government.
But nothing to announce in terms of next steps or next – or upcoming trips or travel, beyond the fact that what we said yesterday, which is that we are ready to engage with the Pakistani Government on this parliamentary review and on the issues that it has raised. We want to build a very constructive relationship with Pakistan and one that is based on mutual understanding.
QUESTION: Are you looking for a meeting point? I mean, they have come up with certain demands, and you would probably have something --
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear your question. Are we looking for --
QUESTION: A meeting point for a future relationship. I mean, you probably would go with some of your points, some of your demands. And so do you think – how would you build up this relationship? What will be the basis for this?
MR. TONER: I do think we’re ready to have – as we’ve said many times, we’re awaiting the end of this parliamentary review. And my understanding, in fact, is that this still has to be – obviously, there’s still a little bit left in this political process. It still has to be approved by the cabinet, is my understanding.
But as we move forward, we definitely want to engage, to talk about the breadth of issues that have been raised in this parliamentary review and to come to a better understanding of our relationship.
QUESTION: Did they tell you that these are not binding on the government?
MR. TONER: Did they --
QUESTION: Did they tell you that these recommendations are not binding on the government; the government does not have to follow them in letter and spirit?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we’re – we’ve talked a lot about this parliamentary review. We’re going to engage with the Pakistani Government in a way that listens to their concerns, recognizes their needs in the relationship, recognizes that this is a shared relationship and a shared commitment, and move forward.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Who is Shah seeing while he’s there, and will he be discussing any of the things that are in the Pakistani demands, list of demands?
MR. TONER: He did actually meet with Foreign Minister Khar today, and that is all I have just from – I’m not sure – was he supposed to meet with President Zardarai? Thank you. Yes. But I’m not sure when that meeting is taking place.
QUESTION: Do you know if they’ll be talking about any of --
MR. TONER: Not to my understanding. No, he’s – I mean, he’s there to talk about our civil assistance – civilian assistance, rather.
QUESTION: Is there – and what about that? Is there some --
MR. TONER: Well, that’s been --
QUESTION: What are the issues with that?
MR. TONER: I mean, that has continued throughout this parliamentary review and throughout the turmoil, if you will, in the relationship post November 26. So that’s been ongoing. That has not stopped. So he’s there to review those programs.
QUESTION: Mark, there are four major demands. One, are you ready to apologize? They’re asking for the 24 Pakistani soldiers who were killed. Two, stop all the drone and other attacks. And three, that Pakistani should be treated just like you treat India. And fourth, finally, that Pakistan should be a given a nuclear – civil nuclear just like to India.
MR. TONER: Goyal, those are a nice try to get me to negotiate and talk about that ongoing relationship from the podium, but let’s let us sit down with our senior officials, sit down with Pakistan’s senior officials, and discuss it.
QUESTION: No, this is what --
MR. TONER: Sure, Goyal.
QUESTION: Sorry. This is what I am saying that this is what has been going on in the media in Pakistan every day and in discussions among those politicians and all that. That’s --
MR. TONER: No, I think we’re aware of some of the concerns that the parliamentary review raised. And they’re – frankly, some of them are not new to us, so we’re going to engage.
QUESTION: You said that you’d talk about the breadth of the whole thing, correct? That would be every subject that you’re willing to talk about with them?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if we would talk about every subject under the sun. We’d talk about --
QUESTION: No, no. Every subject that they raised, you’re willing to talk about, including --
MR. TONER: Well, we’re going to talk to them about our civilian cooperation as well as our counterterrorism cooperation, security cooperation --
QUESTION: So you’re willing to talk with them about the drone strikes?
MR. TONER: You know I can’t talk about any intelligence matters.
QUESTION: You can’t talk about it with us. Can you talk about it with them?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we have very robust counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, is this something – they put this on the table. Are you – is this something that’s on the table for the U.S.?
MR. TONER: I’ll just say that we’re going to talk about aspects – all aspects of our relationship moving forward.
QUESTION: You’re going to talk about all aspects of what they raised?
MR. TONER: Including counterterrorism cooperation, but you know --
QUESTION: Does that include – is that your understanding? Does that include drone strikes?
MR. TONER: I cannot address that point.
QUESTION: But wait – forget about the word – the two words “drone” and “strike.” You are willing – the U.S. is going to talk to them about everything that’s in this review?
MR. TONER: I think we’re willing to address their concerns moving forward and find a middle ground.
QUESTION: Well, without naming them, are there some issues that you’re not willing to talk about?
MR. TONER: Again, let’s let these conversations move forward until – and I’m not going to – we’re not going to take anything off the table or put anything on the table.
QUESTION: Can I talk about India-Pakistan relations going on now at the --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- especially at the Atari border, a lot of activities are going on between India and Pakistan people-to-people and trades, and they want to open the borders and cultures and trade relations and opening. As far as Mr. Shah, sir, being in Pakistan today, is he discussing any of these things or that as far as opening of the – a lot of things that people-to-people between the two countries after especially the President Zardari’s visit to India?
MR. TONER: It’s a fair question, Goyal. I can’t tell you specifically whether it’s being raised in his conversations. Of course, you know where we stand. We support improved relations, better dialogue, more people-to-people exchanges. Everything you essentially just ran through we view as a very positive development. But I can’t preclude that he’s – it’s going to be raised in some of his conversations.
Yeah. In the back. Sorry.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Staying in the region --
QUESTION: Can we stay on Pakistan, please?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Pakistani Finance Minister Hafeez Shaikh is coming to town this week – weekend. Is he meeting anyone in this building next week?
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: India’s movie star Shah Rukh Khan was detained at a New York airport yesterday. Do you know why he was detained for the second time in two years, and what are the reasons? Is there something pending against him? Do you suspect something against him?
MR. TONER: Well, I can say we are certainly aware, as you stated, that he was temporarily delayed before admission at the White Plains, New York airport. He was – or is apparently, or was apparently traveling to an event at Yale University. And we have, obviously, the utmost respect for Mr. Khan and his work both as an artist and a humanitarian. And we offer our apologies for any discomfort or inconvenience he may have suffered as a result of this incident.
QUESTION: What were the reasons for delay, and how long was the delay?
MR. TONER: Well, I’d refer you to the TSA for any specific questions about the incident.
QUESTION: Have you received any official communication from Indian Government?
MR. TONER: We have. Both the Indian Ministry of External Affairs as well as the Indian Embassy in Washington have expressed their concern.
QUESTION: This for the second time that he was detained or delayed at the airport in U.S. And first time after he was detained, you had said this will not be repeated again. So what happened this time?
MR. TONER: Well, again, my understanding – you used the word “detained.” I’ve been told he was simply delayed. But in any case, I wouldn’t necessarily look at this as some sort of pattern but rather two separate incidents. Obviously, we’ve expressed our regret about the incident and recognize him – that he’s a very renowned artist and humanitarian. Obviously, he was going to Yale, I think, to receive a prestigious award there. And we apologize.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry. You said – I’m not sure – quite sure I understand the --
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- nuance of delay. Was he delayed in handcuffs in a cell? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: No. No.
QUESTION: Well, what does that mean?
MR. TONER: Now my understanding, he was delayed actually --
QUESTION: Delayed – I mean, delay is what happened when there’s bad weather.
MR. TONER: -- actually disembarking from the airplane. There was a delay of an hour or so from him getting off the airplane.
QUESTION: Well, what does that mean?
MR. TONER: He wasn’t – that it wasn’t --
QUESTION: What, he couldn’t physically get off the plane?
MR. TONER: It wasn’t – that is not detention. That is a delay.
QUESTION: Well, was it delay because --
QUESTION: Was it tied to him?
MR. TONER: Sorry?
QUESTION: I mean, was the delay personally tied to him, or was it an airport thing?
MR. TONER: Again, I’d refer you to the TSA, but no, I don’t – they believe it was airplane related. But again, he wasn’t – but he wasn’t detained. He was simply delayed getting – disembarking.
QUESTION: Well, were all the other passengers on the plane delayed?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I don’t think so.
QUESTION: Is that because --
QUESTION: Well, then this is not a delay. I’m sorry. I mean, if he was yanked off the plane – he was held on the plane?
MR. TONER: That is my understanding.
QUESTION: And he was not allowed to leave the plane?
MR. TONER: Again, I would refer you to the TSA for details of the incident.
QUESTION: This is really Orwellian. That’s a delay?
MR. TONER: That’s a delay.
QUESTION: Was he on some type of –
QUESTION: Is that because his name is Khan? That’s number one. And number two, in India, what discussions are going on now, Mark, that this is not the only one first incident only with Mr. Khan or a famous film star but also many other incidents took place with the high-class Indians. They named all of them and they were really concerned why it is happening, only somebody with a turban but he is in the Prime Minister Manmohan’s government and a high class and other – among other businessmen and so forth. So what can you assure them in the future what should be done or what can be done between these problems?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, actually there is a program whereby travelers can alert – identify their status before they depart via the Embassy. And that’s one approach or avenue to take.
In answer to your first question, look, I really would have to refer you to the TSA in terms of their screening procedures, why this individual, why two times. Again, I don’t know. I don’t have the answers.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on Goyal’s question, I think that the allegation that the Indians are making was that it was racial profiling, that – because he has a Muslim name. Is that --
MR. TONER: I mean, I think we all know that that’s clearly not the case. The fact of the matter is tens of thousands of Muslims travel to and from the United States every day and are not detained or delayed. (Laughter.) And --
QUESTION: Well, this one was.
MR. TONER: And so when something obviously goes wrong, we hear about it, but we don’t hear about the vast majority when – and it all goes smoothly. So no.
QUESTION: Sorry. One last thing on that.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: So you said that this is something that the TSA is sort of in charge of?
MR. TONER: Well, they’re responsible for airport screening, so I don’t know – I don’t have – they probably have a very detailed report about the incident. I don’t know. I don’t know why he was delayed.
QUESTION: But it’s not something that you then work with them on, especially after an Embassy and the foreign ministry calls the State Department to ask them about that. I mean, how – what kind of communication does the State Department and the TSA have on issues like this?
MR. TONER: Well, we respect very much that they have an important job in keeping passengers safe and keeping Americans safe and keeping all airline passengers who are traveling or transiting the United States safe. And so we’re very respectful of the important role that they play. Certainly, we’re always seeking – I don’t know, in this particular case, what the follow-up might be. I can certainly look into it. But I know in the past, we’ve certainly talked with them about procedures, but again, mindful of the fact that they’ve got – they have a job to do.
QUESTION: Just a clarification?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: You said that the incident happened, the apology has been given, but you said to stop it in future --
MR. TONER: And he went on to --
QUESTION: To inform the Embassy --
MR. TONER: -- to Yale, where he received his award.
QUESTION: No, no. To – yeah, but in future, to stop such things to happen, you said to inform the Embassy. What exactly is that, the details? Have you talked to the Indian ministry?
MR. TONER: I’d refer you to the Embassy in New Delhi, but it’s a program that they have where they can identify their status before they depart to address any difficulties that they may experience.
QUESTION: And finally, as far as the U.S. new ambassador, Madam Nancy Powell, is concerned, and she must be going through all this, facing all these questions when she arrives in Delhi. She must be briefed all this.
MR. TONER: Look, I’m – it’s a – as I think I’ve said, it’s an unfortunate incident. We’ve apologized. I don’t know what more there is to say beyond the fact that he went on and had a very fruitful visit and, I believe, made the – helped or encouraged – there’s a YouTube video, somebody told me, of him dancing with the director of admissions at Yale as though they were in a Bollywood musical. So all’s well that ends well.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: On another subject if they’re all done?
MR. TONER: It’s still – I’m sorry, are we still --
QUESTION: Was an apology issued to Mr. Kahn, or was it issued through the Indian Embassy – the Embassy of the U.S. and India?
MR. TONER: Well, I offered my sincere apologies that he may have experienced – I’m not sure that it was done on a personal level. I don’t have that information.
QUESTION: I just wondered, when might the advance team go to Syria ahead of or as part of this monitoring mission? And do you have to wait until you get some kind of clearance in New York, or what’s --
MR. TONER: It’s all being – yeah. I mean, that’s exactly what’s going on right now in New York. And obviously, they met this morning. Ambassador Rice emerged – talked about the conversation that they had deploring North Korea’s actions, and then went back in. The second part of the meeting, I think, is going to focus on Syria and next steps.
You heard the Secretary yesterday talk about a very robust monitoring mission is what we want to see, and we want to see that advance team out there. What we saw in the last day or so was a very fragile truce emerge, a very fragile first step. So now it’s important to get this advance team out there and to get a monitoring mission on the ground.
QUESTION: So right now you’re still waiting for some agreement in New York on that? You’re not thinking about just going ahead?
MR. TONER: That’s what they’re discussing. I mean, obviously, this is in support of Kofi Annan’s process here, and so it’s appropriate that that’s done through the council.
Yeah. Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: When you -- just on that, I mean, would you expect to be part of a monitoring mission?
MR. TONER: You know what? I don’t know if that’s – again, I don’t know if the composition’s been discussed or debated.
QUESTION: Do you think that the Syrians would welcome an American presence?
MR. TONER: I’m very doubtful, but the Secretary’s very clear that she wants to see as robust a mission as possible.
QUESTION: And you’re not going to barge your way in? You’re not going to just barge your way in and say hi, we’re here to monitor the ceasefire?
MR. TONER: We never barge.
QUESTION: Oh? I’ll remember to tell that to the Iraqis. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: To follow up, I mean, what’s your assessment of how the truce is holding? It’s been a day. There’s been some reports from human rights groups of deaths. I mean, what’s the assessment?
MR. TONER: Sure. I’ve heard there’s – sure – from – we do hear from these LCCs, these local coordination committees that sporadic fighting continues in parts of Syria. I’ve heard estimates of seven to ten people killed today. So again, this is – at best can only be described as fragile. But it is a first step; we want to try to build on it.
And obviously, as the Secretary was very clear about yesterday, as – there are still other elements to the Annan plan that need to be implemented by the Syrian Government. This is not a menu; this is a set of obligations, so we need to see them move forward on all of the elements of the plan, which is an inclusive, Syrian-led political dialogue and transition, a cessation of all forms of violence, humanitarian assistance, access to all areas and populations in need, the release of all political prisoners, and the freedom of movement, access for media and journalists, as well as freedom of assembly.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary discuss Syria yesterday with the Saudi defense minister?
MR. TONER: I promise you I will try to get you a readout. You, of course, saw that they walked out and did a – brief comments at the top of their meeting. I did not get a full readout of their meeting. I can certainly imagine that they discussed in some detail Syria.
QUESTION: Is the Reward for Justice – one, is it working as far as – and second, one person, Jubair Ahmad from Woodbridge, Virginia, a Pakistani citizen, he pled guilty that he was providing information and material support to the LET in Pakistan.
MR. TONER: Right. Geez, I left talking about that, and I come back a week later and still talking about it. Anyway, this will take some time, Goyal. These programs often do. They do have a very high success rate overall, which is why we use them, frankly. So let’s wait and see.
And in terms of your second question, I’m not familiar with the case, so I would refer you to the other – Department of Justice or local authorities.
QUESTION: Just a brief one. The health minister of Myanmar, Burma is here. I was just wondering if there was anything specific that the U.S. wanted to discuss or wanted to promote in the country during his visit.
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, obviously we’ve got the reopening of a USAID office in Burma, which is a positive first step. I can imagine many of the programs – again, I don’t have a detailed list or assessment in front of me, but many of our programs touch upon health matters – preventative health care, childhood communicable diseases, that kind of stuff. So – but I don’t know what – specifically who he’s meeting with.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: Oh, Samir, anything else? Are we done?
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the demonstrations in Egypt today against the military rule and the people from the Mubarak era not to run for the presidency?
MR. TONER: I don’t, beyond that it’s up to the Egyptian people to set the parameters of their political process and democratic transition moving forward, and they certainly have the right to peaceful assembly.
Thank you.