SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY IN BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Press Availability in Brussels, Belgium
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
NATO Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
December 3, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon and thanks, everybody, for being here. And thanks for your patience.

In less than three months, the international community has come together to form a coalition that is already taking important steps to degrade and defeat ISIL, or Daesh. And today was an opportunity for representatives from about 60 members of the anti-ISIL coalition to come together, share their views, receive updates on coalition efforts, make suggestions about the roadmap ahead, and discuss as carefully as possible the pluses and minuses of the strategy engaged and what needs to be done to accomplish our goals going forward.

It was absolutely clear in the comments of everybody, particularly the prime minister of Iraq and his team, that we have made already significant progress in two and a half months. But we also acknowledge there is a lot more work yet to be done. Daesh is still perpetrating terrible crimes, but there was a consensus that the momentum which it had exhibited two and a half months ago has been halted, that it has been forced to modify its tactics – and some of those modifications severely hampering their ability to operate in the way that they were, certainly – that their hold on territory has been challenged already, and their finances have been strained, and in almost every media market that exists, and certainly within the region, their message is being denounced. Their message of hate is being challenged in public meeting places, in mosques across the globe. This clearly represents a multifaceted effort, which is precisely what we defined in the earliest days of suggesting that we would build a coalition and the coalition would take on Daesh.

Now, while airstrikes may capture the headlines – and there have been more than 1,000 of them thus far – this is far more than simply a military coalition. And it will not be successful, we all agree, if it were to rely on military alone, which it does not. Destroying Daesh is going to require defeating the ideology – the funding, the recruitment, and the devastation that they’ve been able to inflict on people in the region. And these are the areas that were really the primary focus of today’s discussion.

During this morning’s meeting, we reviewed the progress in each of our five lines of effort and came together in issuing a joint statement, all countries signing on, that underscores our unity and our firm support for our partners and our absolute determination to succeed. Participants noted the gains that we have made across all of the lines of effort – defeating ISIL on the battlefield, restricting its finances, enacting laws to restrict the flow of foreign fighters, and countering its toxic ideology.

The long-term success of the effort in Iraq is key to the success of the coalition. And today we heard directly from Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi, whose government yesterday revealed and reached a long-sought agreement, a landmark oil deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government. The prime minister also provided an update on the fight against Daesh in Iraq and on his broader reform agenda, including an executive order that he just issued to begin important changes in the criminal justice system of Iraq. Nothing will do more to defeat Daesh than an Iraq that is united and has more representative and effective security forces.

Now, obviously there’s a lot more work ahead. But the prime minister has taken steps to unite the country, including outreach to Sunni tribes. He has taken steps to root out corruption and to reform the Iraqi Security Forces and to take on the threat that Daesh represents. I think it’s fair to say that all of the foreign ministers, ambassadors, representatives who were there today came away impressed by Prime Minister Abadi and by what he has accomplished today, which is the down payment on the roadmap that he laid out for the future.

Earlier today, I participated in a meeting on the complex situation in Libya. And later we – I had a bilateral wide-ranging discussion at lunch with EU High Representative Federica Mogherini. And we talked about all of the key issues in the transatlantic agenda – trade, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; the energy security challenges; the opportunities presented by these energy challenges, which really represent game-changing set of possibilities with respect to the movement of liquefied natural gas, also alternative and renewable energy possibilities. We also talked about support for Ukraine, the Middle East, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and the challenge of Ebola.

And I ended the day just now by attending a meeting of the EU-U.S. Energy Council, where we talked about the major possibilities for realignment with respect to energy security, environment issues, climate change, all of the possibilities that the energy agenda provide us in terms of a new marketplace with new job opportunities, new technologies, an enormous kick to the economy, as well as increases in security – environment security, energy security, health security, and the economy itself.

We reviewed progress in facilitating the reverse gas flows and the EU effort to reach an accord on natural gas supplies with Ukraine and Russia, which was a very important step which we congratulate the EU on taking. And second, we talked about the overall challenge of European energy security, which requires regulatory cooperation, investments in infrastructure, and an intensive commitment to sustainable technology.

And finally, we talked about the urgency of further breakthroughs on climate change itself. The EU took the important step earlier in the fall of putting out publicly its targets for 2015 at the Paris conference. We recently came back, President Obama and myself and our team, from a bilateral series of meetings in China where we were able to agree with China on setting certain kinds of goals. We’re continuing that work not only with China, but with other countries with the hopes of having an impact on the meeting in Peru, which I will attend later next week, and which will be the lead-in to a year of important focus on climate change and high hopes for success in Paris next December.

With the ongoing meetings in Peru and what will follow over the course of the next year and the U.S. President, President Obama’s, pledge of a contribution of $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund and the EU’s early commitments, we believe that we are making clear that the Obama Administration and the United States are all in on this issue and committed to try to take steps that are long overdue. We intend to continue to try to build momentum moving into next year, and we believe that not only is there obviously the practical advantage of responding to the events, to the transformation taking place in the climate that is contributing to very severe weather events, to major flooding, major fires, major drought, to shifts in agriculture and other impacts that have huge cost, but we believe it is becoming more and more evident that it is cheaper to invest in the new technologies and move to the clean energy economy. And we are going to continue to work for that.

So with that, I’d be pleased to respond to your questions with respect to any of the topics that I touched on.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Lara Jakes of the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Actually, I’m not asking a question today.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, I’m sorry. Oh, I’m sorry. Michael Gordon of The New York Times. All right.

QUESTION: On behalf of Lara Jakes. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: He’s prettier than I am.

QUESTION: If – sir, if Iraqi forces are successful with U.S. and allied air support in retaking Mosul, Fallujah, and other populated areas in what could be block-to-block fighting, Iraq will likely confront the need for a major reconstruction effort, and Iraq may also face pressing humanitarian needs as civilians will need to get through the winter in newly reclaimed areas.

What assistance did Prime Minister Abadi seek during his meetings with you and other partners in terms of help with reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, and also additional military training and equipment? What is this likely to cost? Hundreds of millions of dollars, billions? And is the United States and the international community prepared to meet those needs? Will there be another donor conference or another international meeting? How do you plan to proceed?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Michael, it’s a really good question, and very important to the road ahead. The subject absolutely came up. Prime Minister Abadi himself put the topic of reconstruction on the table. And I’m happy to say that a number of Gulf states which have capacity on their own have engaged in this discussion with Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqis. I think it’s up to them to identify themselves, but we are particularly excited about the prospect of having the region engage in a significant way across sectarian lines, I might add, in order to be able to address this reconstruction notion.

So I don’t think this is something where Americans or Europeans or others have to recoil and say, “Oh my God, we’re going to be facing this monumental task of rebuilding yet another place when we have our own challenges.” Might we have to contribute to it? Sure, we ought to. It’s part of our foreign policy and it’s part of our engagement. But I’m excited by the prospect that already, for instance, Saudi Arabia has made half a billion dollars available before we even fully engaged in this effort as a sign of good faith in an effort to try to say to the people of Iraq that they could cross the sectarian divide and offer humanitarian assistance.

Now there were a number of countries in the region that are talking about a further reconstruction fund that would specifically help to rebuild as the country is taken back from the clasp – the unwanted clasp of the terrorists who are controlling a significant portion of Anbar and other parts of Iraq at this moment. So I’m very, very hopeful that that will take place and it will be a natural outgrowth of this coalition as it meets in the days ahead, and as we plan for the roadmap.

It won’t do any good, obviously, if you simply reclaim a town and the folks in that town have worse or less opportunities than they may have had before and life is even harder. So part of winning this back – and this is what we’ve been saying from day one – is not just the task of the military campaign; it’s the campaign that goes on every day thereafter in providing a government that is responsive, that is inclusive, that is pluralistic, that is freeing itself from any clutches of corruption that may or may not exist. That’s what we want to see, and that effort is very much part of the planning stage at this early moment.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Sangwon Yoon of Bloomberg News.

QUESTION: U.S. – the Pentagon said that it believes that Iran carried out several airstrikes in Iraq’s Diyala province in the past couple of days. Are you aware of these strikes? Do you welcome such Iranian air missions in Iraq? Do you think they’re helpful to the fight against ISIL or do you think that it’d be better if Iran avoids these actions?

And also, in your opening remarks today in the meeting, you talked about the importance of having a dialogue to share best thoughts, about ways to do things better and plan carefully. Now, notwithstanding these Iranian airstrikes in Diyala, Iran’s role in fighting ISIS in Iraq has been growing. Has the time come now for the U.S. and the coalition to start directly coordinating efforts in order to maximize the global campaign to defeat and degrade ISIL?

SECRETARY KERRY: Let me answer that – both parts of that question. First of all, I’m not going to make any announcements or confirm or deny the reported military action of another country in Iraq. It’s up to them or up to the Iraqis to do that, if it indeed took place. We are obviously flying our missions over Iraq and we coordinate those missions with the Iraqi Government. And we rely on the Iraqi Government to deconflict whatever control of their airspace may in fact need that deconfliction.

So nothing has changed in our fundamental policy of not coordinating our military activity or other activities at this moment with Iranians. We’re not doing that. And we are not – not only not coordinating militarily right now, but there are no plans at this time to coordinate militarily. I think it’s self-evident that if Iran is taking on ISIL in some particular place and it’s confined to taking on ISIL and it has an impact, it’s going to be – the net effect is positive. But that’s not something that we’re coordinating. The Iraqis have the overall responsibility for their own ground and air operations, and what they choose to do is up to them.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Noureddine Fridhi of Al-Arabiya.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I have a couple of questions, if you don’t mind. In these meetings, there – are they new commitments regarding the moderate opposition, Syrian moderate opposition, in terms of supporting them by equipment, training, on political level?

And my second question is about the issue of there is no-fly zone until now, as the Turkish are asking. But do you see yourself alternatives for the Turkish side to protect its border of the country from these borders, thousand foreign fighters entered into Syria, sir?

SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah. Well, regarding the issue of new commitments with respect to the Syrian opposition, the answer is simply that this meeting was about ISIL/ISIS/Daesh. This meeting was not about the Syrian opposition and the other parts of that struggle. Did it come up? Was it discussed? Yes. Did some countries talk about their concerns about the regime? Absolutely, but it was not with any sense of division. This was a united group here to deal with the challenge of Daesh. And while people expressed an opinion regarding the regime, as you saw, there was a completely unified communique, which understood clearly what the mission was that brought people here today.

Now in the course of – even the communique mentions the opposition and talks about the continued support for the opposition – moderate opposition, that is – and that will continue, and everybody understands who’s committed to that and who’s engaged in that direct effort. But there was no specific plus-up with respect to that.

On the issue of no-fly zone and so forth, the United States remains extremely engaged in its discussions with Turkey. Turkey, as everybody knows, is a NATO ally. It is a very important coalition partner. It is an absolute – it has a border with Syria, it has critical impacts because of what is happening in Syria, and a deep stake in the outcome of what is going on there. And therefore, we are having a very serious discussion with Turkey.

Vice President Biden was just there. He had a long discussion with President Erdogan; long discussion with Prime Minister Davutoglu. Prime Minister Davutoglu just visited Iraq. There’s a lot of discussion going on about the way we will go forward. But it is premature to suggest at this moment of time that we are close to making a decision or moving forward with any form of a safe zone or a buffer zone at this moment in time. But we are continuing our discussions with our Turkish allies in order to have conversations about how we best bolster security in the region and deal with the problem of Syria.

And it is no secret that the United States continues to believe that President Assad has lost all legitimacy, that the regime will not be able to find peace in Iraq as long as – in Syria as long as Assad remains in power. There needs to be some kind of transition. We know it’s not going to happen through a military, direct process, so there has to be a political solution. And we’re looking still for the way to engage all of the countries in the region in an effort to achieve what was originally laid out in Geneva. That remains the operative objective.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: That’s it. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH IRAQI PRIME MINISTER AL-ABADI

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
NATO Headquarter
Brussels, Belgium
December 3, 2014

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, were you notified of the Iranian airstrikes in Iraq?

SECRETARY KERRY: We’re not really having Q&A right now, but we’ll have a chance a little later.

QUESTION: Okay.

MODERATOR: Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Let just say very quickly how significant the efforts of the prime minister have been in the last days particularly, and the oil agreement which they have reached is something that has been sought for years now. And in a matter of months, the prime minister has spearheaded and moved forward. It’s a terrific sign of a change in Iraq and a sign of strong leadership, and we’re very excited by the news.

PRIME MINISTER AL-ABADI: Well, thank you very much. I think that beside that, of course, we are achieving a lot of progress on the ground in fighting of Daesh. We have moved to the north and we are very much closing reaching (inaudible) which is in the north. I hope developments on the ground will succeed very, very quickly.

I know there are a lot of challenges, but yesterday I have signed another decree about human rights and abuse against prisoners which will not – we have zero tolerance with this in Iraq. We are working very hard on this. We don’t want any excuses. Of course, Daesh is number one in atrocities and they’re committing huge atrocities against the Iraqi people. We expect some probably backlash on this, but we are very eager to stop all abuses from all sides.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Great. Thanks, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY AT NATO HEADQUARTERS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Press Availability at NATO Headquarters

Press Availability

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Brussels, Belgium

June 25, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. Excuse me. As you know, this is the last foreign ministers gathering before NATO’s next Heads of State Summit in September. Excuse me, let me just get a little water here. (Laughter.) I’ve got the travel whatever. So today, we had a chance to take stock of the strong measures that have been taken in order to provide reassurance to our eastern allies on the land, on sea, and air, and we’ve taken measures that demonstrate that our Article 5 commitment is absolutely rock solid. We also affirmed NATO’s open door policy as well as the vital importance of having strong, capable partners.
Today we spent a significant amount of time in our discussions focused on Ukraine and our allies’ sustained support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and the right of its people to determine their own future. The Ukrainian Government has recently taken a series of important steps to forge a more inclusive society for all Ukrainians, no matter what language they speak or what region the country they live in or what their ethnic background may be. And after a free and fair election, the Ukrainian people celebrated a peaceful transfer of power earlier this month and are now implementing a ceasefire and a peace plan which offers constitutional reform, broad decentralization of power, and local autonomy to Ukraine’s regions and communities.
The United States commends the Ukrainian Government for reaching out to separatists and to the Russian Government. And now we believe it is critical for President Putin to prove by his actions, not just his words, that he is indeed fully committed to peace. It is critical for him to stop the flow of weapons and fighters across the border, to call publicly for the separatists to lay down their arms, to pull Russian forces and equipment back, and to help get OSCE hostages released.

Until Russia fully makes that kind of commitment to the peace process and to the stability of Ukraine, the United States and Europe are compelled to continue to prepare greater costs, including tough economic sanctions, with the hopes that they will not have to be used. But that is dependent on the choices that Russia and its president make in the next days and weeks.
As Secretary General Rasmussen has said, Russia’s recent moves in Ukraine served as a wakeup call. As our economies begin to grow again, a strong NATO requires defense spending by all, and President Obama is committed that the United States will do its part, and he has asked Congress for an additional $1 billion for defense spending in Europe.
As we head to the Wales summit, every ally spending less than 2 percent of their GDP needs to dig deeper and make a concrete commitment to do more. And all you have to do is look at a map in order to understand why – Ukraine, Iraq, Syria – all threats to peace and to security, and they surround the region.

On the minds of all of us today also is the situation in Iraq. Earlier this week, I traveled to Baghdad and Erbil at the request of President Obama, and while here I briefed my fellow foreign ministers on the conversations that I had with Iraq leaders. Iraq is obviously facing an extraordinary security challenge and a set of political challenges and choices. The United States is also working to support Iraq in its fight against ISIL. We need to remember that ISIL is a terrorist army that threatens not only Iraq, but threatens every country in the region which is opposed to it, and Europe and the United States.

Succeeding in this fight is going to require Iraqis to come together, finally, in order to form an inclusive government. And in every meeting with leaders of each of Iraq’s main communities, I stressed the importance, the urgency of them coming together to do just that.

President Obama has also asked me to travel to Saudi Arabia on Friday in order to meet with His Majesty King Abdullah and to discuss regional issues, including the situation in Iraq and how we can counter the shared threat that is posed by ISIL, as well to discuss our support for the moderate opposition in Syria. None of us need to be reminded that a faraway threat can have tragic consequences at home in the most unexpected way at the most unexpected moment.

Just a few months ago right here in Brussels, a man who had recently returned from fighting in Syria shot three people at a local museum. NATO allies in the entire international community must remain focused on combatting the growth of extremism. With the Wales summit in September, our alliance has the chance to become far more adaptable in how we meet emerging threats and far more capable in how we build the capacity of our countries to be able to not only respond to them but, more importantly, to preempt them.

One of the first tests of NATO’s ability to forge stronger, more capable partners will be resolute support – NATO’s post-2014 train, advise, and assist mission with the people of Afghanistan. And today we discussed our coordinated efforts to wind down our combat presence in Afghanistan while continuing our commitment to combatting terrorism and preserving the gains made by the people of Afghanistan. NATO, significantly, has succeeded as an alliance for more than six decades now because it has always recognized that security threats of the future will not always look like the security threats that you face today, and certainly not like those of the past.

Remarkably, this gathering that is now discussing Afghanistan – 50 nations – has come together and stayed together for 12 years. At a time when people doubt the ability of multilateral efforts to make a difference, the meeting here today stands in stark testimony to the contrary. It does make a difference. It has made a difference. And at the Wales conference – summit, I am confident that NATO will demonstrate strength at home in its unity and in meeting, in new ways, many of the 21st century challenges that we face today.

So I’d be happy to take some questions.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you said a moment ago that Russian President Putin will be judged by his actions, not his words, on Ukraine. He did call this week for the rescinding of the invasion powers for Ukraine, and that was acted on today. Is that enough, in your view, to at least start the conversation about what the West might do in response – specifically, not taking the sectoral sanctions step? Is there anything really practical that you want to see Putin do in the next couple of days before the EU meets on Friday to continue that conversation? The things you outlined are much more long term. What do you want to see him do in the next like 36 hours that would change that conversation on Friday?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, first of all, we are not announcing a new round of sanctions today, but we are going to continue to take steps to prepare in the event that the circumstances on the ground warrant those sanctions. And so we’re coordinating with our European partners in order to prepare for that.

Now, we are delighted that President Putin put to the Duma the retraction of that law which empowered Russia to take action in Ukraine. That’s important. It’s a great step. But it could be reversed in 10 minutes, and everyone knows that. The greatest difference will be made by the president publicly calling for the separatists to lay down their arms, by President Putin engaging his diplomatic service actively in the effort to help empty buildings, helping to get people to disarm, helping to convene the meetings that need to take place in order to negotiate and to move forward.

There are concrete actions – moving forces out, not allowing tanks and rocket launchers to actually cross the border. There are many concrete things that would make a difference, and we intend to work as cooperatively as possible. These aren’t – what we’re trying to do is make a set of concrete suggestions that really make the difference to what is happening on the ground. Yesterday, a helicopter – a Ukrainian helicopter was shot down and nine Ukrainian soldiers were killed. And it was shot down with a Russian weapon, with a MANPAD RPG capacity that took that helicopter out. And so it is – there are concrete steps, and we are prepared to work very, very closely with Russia in an effort to implement those steps.

And likewise, Ukraine also can take steps in a mutual way, and they’re prepared to do that. President Poroshenko obviously has done so by unilaterally putting in place a ceasefire and by taking great political heat himself in doing so. Now’s the time for this moment to really come together, and that is why the allies are talking about preparing sanctions – not implementing them today, but preparing them in the event that this effort were to fail.

MS. PSAKI: The next question is from Erik Eenlo from Baltic News Service.

QUESTION: Yes. This readiness action plan that NATO is preparing – is that something that addresses the Russian arms buildup and increasing number of military provocations in the Baltic Sea region?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, it certainly – that is part of it. But it’s also much broader than that. It’s an effort to recognize that we’re living in a different world. The type of threats that existed in the past are not what played out in Crimea, where you had soldiers who were hiding behind masks and without any identification on them, and a massive public relations campaign simultaneously denying the reality of what everybody was seeing on the ground; where you had this incredible capacity for deception, for denial, which was both a surrogate effort of a government and a linkage to activists, terrorists, and others.

That’s a new animal in a sense, and I think we’re seeing with ISIL crossing from Syria and moving rapidly into Iraq a similar kind of hybrid new form of effort, which is going to require people to think through strategically intelligence gathering, preparations, response, response times, nature of response. And that’s what the NATO alliance has always done effectively, and that’s what the – a lot of today’s discussion focused on, is how do you have not just permanent basing in certain places, but permanent vigilance and permanent capacity to be ahead of the curve. And that’s really the – that’s what readiness really means, and that will be a lot of the focus of the Wales summit.

MS. PSAKI: The final question is from James Rosen of Fox News.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I wanted to ask about two different facets of the Iraq crisis, if I may. First, I presume you saw the comments that Prime Minister al-Maliki made in his weekly address, in which he spoke of a “national salvation government,” quote unquote, as a coup against constitutional processes in Iraq and one in which he declared his refusal to participate. I wonder what you make of those comments, whether you regard them as helpful or not to the task of government formation in Iraq, and whether it is still the professed position of the United States Government that the Obama Administration is utterly disinterested in the question of whether al-Maliki stays or goes.

And the second facet of the crisis I’d like to ask you about is this: I wonder if the disclosure that Iran has been secretly flying drones over Iraq – from an airfield in Baghdad, no less – and has been secretly shipping literally tons of military equipment to the central government in Baghdad serves effectively to complicate the United States’ own evolving military operations and diplomatic mission in Iraq, and whether in fact it represents a widening of the war there.

SECRETARY KERRY: So let me take each question. With respect to the prime minister’s remarks about a so-called salvation government, that is not something that I discussed with him. That is not something that was on the table in the context of our meetings while we were there. In fact, there was no discussion that I had with any of the leaders there regarding a so-called salvation government. And I’ve heard reports about it, but I’m not sure exactly what it is that he rejected or spoke to.

What I do know is that in the prime minister’s remarks today he did follow through on the commitments that he made in our discussions. He clearly committed to completing the electoral process, he committed to meeting on the 1st of July and having the Council of Representatives come together, and he committed to moving forward with the constitutional processes of government formation. And that is precisely what the United States was encouraging. He also called on all Iraqis to put aside their differences to unite in their efforts against terrorism. That is also what we had discussions about.

So what he said today with respect to the things we talked about was entirely in line with the conversations that I had with him when I was there. And the constitutional process that we’ve urged all Iraqis to commit to at this time, we believe is critical to the ability to form a government.

Now, Iraqis will decide that. And the United States is not disinterested in what happens in a future leadership, but the United States is not going to engage in the process of suggesting to Iraqis who that ought to be. It’s up to Iraqis to make those decisions. And we have stated clearly that we have an interest in a government that can unite Iraqis that, like Grand Ayatollah Sistani said, will not repeat the mistakes of the past and go backwards but can actually bring people together. It’s up to Iraqis to decide who has the ability to do that and who represents that future.
With respect to Iran and its intentions and role in Iraq, frankly, you should best direct that question to Iran and to the Government of Iraq. But from our point of view, we’ve made it clear to everyone in the region that we don’t need anything to take place that might exacerbate the sectarian divisions that are already at a heightened level of tension. And so it’s very important that nothing take place that contributes to the extremism or could act as a flash point with respect to the sectarian divide. And --

QUESTION: Has the war been widened?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, widened from what? Widened from five minutes ago, an hour ago, yesterday? It’s been widened, obviously, in the last days with the reports of IRGC personnel, of some people from Iran being engaged in Iraq, with perhaps even some Syrian activities therein. And that’s one of the reasons why government formation is so urgent so that the leaders of Iraq can begin to make decisions necessary to protect Iraq without outside forces moving to fill a vacuum.

And again, President Obama is very, very clear that our priority is that government formation, and we’re going to take every step we can over the next days. We had conversations about it here. There are people here who will be encouraging that to take place. I know William Hague, the foreign secretary of Great Britain, will be traveling there. He will be having conversations. This is a multiple allied interest in having a unity government that can move Iraq to the future and pull it back from this precipice. And all of us remain hopeful that in the next days that can happen.

Thank you all.

PRESS BRIEFING BY SECRETARY HAGEL AT NATO

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Department of Defense Press Briefing by Secretary Hagel at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL: Good afternoon.

The NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] defense ministers have just concluded a positive and productive series of meetings. A key focus has been on laying the groundwork for next year's NATO summit, which will enable NATO leaders to set priorities for the future of the alliance. In our discussions, we began to define a forward-looking agenda that will be the base of the content and the efforts and the objectives of the summit next year focusing on strengthening the transatlantic alliance.



We see three priority areas for the summit: capabilities, partnerships, and Afghanistan. Our sessions yesterday focused on NATO military capabilities and the need to continue to invest in these capabilities to meet 21st century challenges.



On cyber, NATO's Computer Incident Response Center is on track to achieve full operational capabilities next week. This center will provide protection from cyber intrusions against NATO computer networks, a capability that was identified as a priority at our June ministerial meeting.



The U.S. supports a proposal for the center to have teams of NATO cyber experts that can be quickly deployed to assist allied nations if they request help in dealing with cyber intrusions or attacks. It was agreed that the alliance must do more to deal with cyber threats, and this will remain a top priority going forward.



On missile defense, the United States continues to meet its commitments to deploy the European Phased Adaptive Approach, and it's on schedule. To continue this progress next week, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller will join NATO leaders at a groundbreaking ceremony for the missile defense radar site in Romania, and then he'll attend a missile defense conference in Poland.



Two decades of experience in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Libya, and off the Somali coast have helped us build NATO forces that can work together seamlessly. We want to preserve that hard-won capability in the future. And that is the goal of NATO's new Connected Forces Initiative. Yesterday, ministers agreed on the key elements of the Connected Forces Initiative. In 2015, the alliance will begin regular large-scale exercises to ensure that our forces continue to gain experience working alongside each other, and even after we draw down combat forces from Afghanistan, we will continue to work together and enhance and enlarge these exercises.



To help NATO maintain a ready force, the U.S. is also increasing its participation in the NATO Response Force, a rapidly deployable, multinational alliance capability. We will begin rotating a battalion-sized unit to Europe twice a year so that we can participate in NATO Response Force training and train with individual allies.



In a few weeks, the United States will deploy U.S.-based forces to support the NATO Response Force Exercise Steadfast Jazz. This will mark the first time the U.S. has sent a ground unit to a NATO Response Force exercise.



These new U.S. commitments to NATO send a strong signal about the importance America places on this alliance. During this ministerial, I stressed the need for our partners to make strong, long-term commitments to NATO. Overdependence on any one country for critical capabilities brings with it risks, and we must continue to work to more equally share the burden of providing security.



Yesterday, ministers agreed to pursue flagship projects for next year's summit that will help balance alliance burdens, while filling capability shortfalls in combat lift, missile defense, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.



Our work to build effective working partnerships also extends to nations outside of NATO. Today we held the first defense ministerial meeting in several years of the NATO-Russia Council. Russia and NATO have many areas of common interest, including the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles.



Following the NATO-Russia Council, I had good bilateral discussions with Russian Defense Minister Shoygu. The cooperation between the United States and Russia on Syria's chemical weapons underscores the benefits that come when our two nations pursue practical cooperation in areas of common interests. In order to help identify other areas for practical cooperation and promote greater transparency, Minister Shoygu and I today agreed to increase consultations with each other and between our staffs. The minister and I will hold regular video teleconferences to ensure these consultations move forward. This new security cooperation channel can help lay a foundation for progress in what's an important military-to-military relationship.



Finally, in today's ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] session, we assessed the progress we are making in Afghanistan toward achieving our security goals. I also discussed this progress yesterday with Afghanistan's defense minister. ISAF nations continue planning for the new train, advise and assist mission to help develop Afghan security capability after 2014. In the session we just completed, ISAF defense ministers endorsed General Breedlove's strategic planning assessment for this new mission.



This document will help the alliance and national governments move ahead with their planning efforts. A post-2014 NATO troop presence will require the approval of the Afghan government, a signed bilateral security agreement [BSA], and a status-of-forces agreement between Afghanistan and NATO.



In the ISAF meeting, I updated ministers on the status of the BSA and the recent progress we've made toward its completion. As we prepare for next year's summit, NATO will continue to focus on the challenges ahead and the new structures and strategies that will be required to deal with them.



Thank you. I'd be glad to take some questions.



PRESS SECRETARY GEORGE LITTLE: We'll start with Lita Baldor of the Associated Press.



Q: Mr. Secretary, we were told yesterday that the Afghan minister expressed confidence that the BSA would be approved. I'm wondering, during your discussions with him, did he also offer any assurances or express equal confidence that the provisions that the U.S. says it needs in the BSA, including the jurisdiction in counterterror operations provisions, would be in the BSA and that there are no real hurdles to that?



And just secondarily, the president initially had said that the end of October was the deadline for approval of the BSA. In your mind right now, can you tell us when you think this actually has to be completed by, end of the year, early next year? Can you just give us a sense of timing?



SEC. HAGEL: First, the minister did note his optimism about the BSA being completed with the language that both countries require. Our position has been very clear on this, especially on jurisdiction. But he was very positive and felt very good about the loya jirga going forward and advising a president to sign it, and then the next event, as you know, would be the ratification by the parliament.



As to the timing, I noted before, obviously, the sooner, the better. We need -- we all need time to plan, prepare. But that planning has been going on. It's been going on here at NATO headquarters for a post-2014 train, advise and assist mission, so that's not new.



But I believe we are on track with a -- right now, a scheduled late November loya jirga session, which should take a few days. I think if that works as we anticipate -- and, as the minister noted yesterday, he believes will -- we could get an agreement fairly soon. The sooner, the better, but we're not waiting for the signed BSA. We're continuing to plan and prepare, as we are with our ISAF NATO partners.



 MR. LITTLE: Yes, sir?



Q: Thank you very much. (Inaudible) from the Egyptian Television.



Minister, I have two questions, if you'll allow me. The first, you did agree with the Russian minister about the importance of Geneva II and destroying the chemical weapon, but do you have some other things you disagree with the minister, something you -- it was clearly that you -- (inaudible) -- work together?



And the second, considering the action you did take in Egypt by freezing some military aid, is it a type of measure you take or a type of sanction against Egypt? And when do you think this type of action you can withdraw? Thank you very much.



SEC. HAGEL: Well, regarding Geneva II, yes, we strongly support, as you know, moving forward with Geneva II. I think all of you know Secretary Kerry is in Europe today -- (off-mic.) -- London, I think, yesterday. And we are working with our Russian partners and the other 10 nations involved in this effort. We believe -- and we said it -- I think the Russians feel the same -- that a diplomatic solution, political solution is what's required, going to be required for Syria. So, yes, we strongly agree on the importance of Geneva II.



As to Egypt, the decision that was made regarding some weapons systems for Egypt was a decision to put on hold some of those systems. We announced one of our sophisticated airplanes that, the F-16, which would be put on hold a couple of months ago. Just recently we made some other announcements regarding Apache helicopters, tank kits, and so on.



We have laws in the United States that we must comply with on what are the restrictions and what are the boundaries of our assistance to allies regarding government and human rights. And we comply with those laws. So we're working with the Egyptian government. It's been very clear, the interim government, we believe, is moving in the right direction, road map toward inclusive, free democracy, rights for all people, assuring that all individuals, all citizens of Egypt have the same rights.



So we continue to work with the interim government in Egypt and hope that those rights will be fulfilled and they will continue to make progress on elections, on a new constitution, and a new and inclusive democratic republic. Thank you.



MR. LITTLE: We'll turn to Phil Stewart of Reuters.



Q: Yes, hi, Mr. Secretary.



First, a quick follow-up. You said you would be starting regular video conferences with your Russian counterpart. How often will those be? And why -- when was the last time the secretary had regular conferences? Is this unprecedented or not?



And then on Syria and the destruction of chemical weapons, both the NATO secretary general and the Russian defense minister raised the possibility of some sort of role in doing -- helping eliminate the chemical weapons. What might the United States do to contribute to that, by way of U.S. forces on the ground perhaps? Or what would they -- what would the U.S. do? And then why would it be important, perhaps, for NATO to have a role in that? Thank you.



SEC. HAGEL: On the Russian defense minister and the United States secretary of defense ministerial follow-ups, specifically teleconferences, I don't know if -- if that has occurred in the past. We have not decided on what kind of a regular basis we would do it. Our staffs will be meeting very soon on starting to lay out some kind of a schedule of an agenda, the point being we could use at least the initial teleconferences to, first, as I suggested in the meeting, have a very open, transparent and frank discussion about not just where we agree, but where we disagree, how we might be able to accommodate each other in some of these areas.



Also, I noted that I think it's particularly important that leaders from significant world powers have some regular occasion to talk to each other to anticipate problems, to anticipate issues that may be coming, rather than waiting for a crisis and then -- then we are forced together to communicate because of a crisis, something's blowing up in the world. Aren't we wiser to try to get out ahead of that, anticipate that, talk through some of these issues?



We have differences. We're going to continue to have differences. But I think it's always smarter and better for everyone if -- not only can we anticipate some of these big issues that may be coming, these challenges, threats, but also deal directly with our differences and find common interests and enhance ways where we can cooperate when we do have common interest.



As to your second question, I think -- if we can continue to see progress made, and I believe everybody believes we can, in destroying chemical weapons in Syria, then it seems to me that this is going to open opportunities for a lot of nations to play roles in -- in Syria in order to accomplish the objective.



It may well be that NATO will be asked for some assistance. Right now, as you know, the OPCW [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] has the lead here. The United Nations is involved. And I think it would probably be something we would assume would occur if we can stay on track and make progress, like we believe we can, that other nations would be asked for help. And maybe -- it may be NATO. As to specifically your question about U.S. involvement, there are no plans to have any U.S. forces in any way in Syria.



MR. LITTLE: And the gentleman in the front row will have the final question.



Q: (Inaudible) from (Inaudible).



Was it Mr. Shoygu's initiative for this media conference thing? Because I know that he likes these videoconferences. He had them a lot -- worked a lot when he was emergency minister in Russia. And will this be replacing or adding up to the existing two-plus-two format?



SEC. HAGEL: Thank you. Yes, as to your first question, Mr. Shoygu has had a lot of experience with these, and they've been very effective and productive for him. I've used videoconferences over many, many years in different jobs I've had. I think they are productive. They are effective. We use them all the time, National Security Council with the president. It is a good way to stay connected.



Some of you may recall that, when we did have the two-plus-two in Washington, we actually mentioned this, that we were going to see if there was a possibility if we could pursue it. So what we did today was we followed up on some general thoughts that Minister Shoygu and I had in our initial meeting before the two-plus-two, which we had just -- we had an hour alone before the two-plus-two. So this was a follow-up from that idea that we each kind of came to. And I thought it was -- the timing was right. Obviously, Minister Shoygu thought the timing was right.



So, again, this is -- it seems to me -- one of the examples that can be used and should be used to take advantage of areas where we can agree, where we can anticipate and get out ahead, and where we -- we can enlarge and scope things out, where we could have more participants in something like this effort in Syria and chemical weapons.



But this teleconference -- just being one -- but this teleconference and videoconference that we would have would be not limited to any specific area, as I think I outlined some of the areas that we would have some interest in. And he's very receptive to that. I'm very receptive. I think he and I have a similar pattern, a style of doing business.



MR. LITTLE: And that will conclude our business today. Thank you, everyone.



SEC. HAGEL: Thank you very much. Thanks.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA GIVES PRESS CONFERENCE AT NATO HEADQUARTERS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta February 22, 2013
Press Conference with Secretary Panetta at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON E. PANETTA: Let me begin by welcoming everyone to what should be my final press conference on this -- the last of my international trips as secretary. I've been saying that a lot lately, but my hope is that this time it really works.

Truthfully, I have appreciated the opportunity to be here and to be able to consult with my fellow NATO and ISAF defense ministers one last time as secretary of defense. And I should say that I deeply appreciate all of their -- their kind comments to me and also to Giampaolo. Both -- both Italians are going to be moving on.

Foremost on the agenda has been the mission in Afghanistan, which was the focus, as many of you know, of this morning's session and a key topic of my bilateral meetings over the last two days. In my discussions with the other ministers of defense, there is a strong consensus that our mission is succeeding, it's succeeding on the ground because of the growing role and capabilities that all of us have seen of the Afghan National Security Forces.

The ANSF are now in the lead for nearly 90 percent of combat operations. And they are on track to step into the lead for all of these operations by this spring. That has truly exceeded the expectations that were set at the Chicago summit last year, but it is as a result of their success in the field that General Allen, in particular, felt that we could make that transition in the spring.

This success led President Obama to accept General Allen's recommendation that the U.S. maintain a strong presence, once we've made this transition of combat control to the Afghans, that it was important for the United States to maintain a strong presence throughout the fighting season of 2013. What we're looking at is probably a presence in excess of 60,000 during the fighting season through the final transition of tranche five, which would take place in August of 2013.

Following that, sometime in the fall, we would then begin a drawdown that would take us to roughly about 50,000 by November, and then it would take us down, as the president indicated, to 34,000 by February of 2014. We would maintain that number through the election in order to provide and assist the Afghans in providing sufficient security for the elections. Once those elections were completed, we would then begin the final drawdown of our forces towards the end of 2014. I have full confidence that we'll be able to achieve our goal of giving the ANSF full responsibility for security nationwide by the end of 2014 and successfully complete this mission.

As my Italian father used to say in an old expression that he repeated oftentimes, "piano piano te va lontano," which means, "Step by step, you'll go a long way." And I think that's probably good advice for all of us as we approach this final period, hopefully, in the completion of the mission that we've been engaged in, in Afghanistan.

As we draw closer to the end of our combat mission, the alliance has also begun to discuss how to implement our strong commitment to the long-term security of Afghanistan. In particular, we discussed how we could best continue to support the ANSF, building on the commitments that nations made last year in Chicago.

That continued support includes enablers and the possibility of providing funding to extent the ANSF at the surge level of 352,000 through 2018, before moving towards what would then be, hopefully, a more sustainable number. That is seriously being considered by the president, and it's something we discussed with President Karzai when he came to Washington.

We also discussed how to transition to our new train, advise, and assist mission after 2014. Today, we ask NATO to begin planning for a range of options on the post-2014 posture that would provide for an effective regional presence, not only in Kabul, but at fixed sites in the north, the south, the east, and the west.

As the United States weighs our own force posture options and consults with the Afghan government on a post-2014 presence, we will continue to work very closely with ISAF nations, particularly the other regional lead nations, to continue to discuss a range of options with regards to what the NATO force will look like in that post-2014 period. And our goal is obviously to ensure the success of this new mission and the long-term stability of Afghanistan. We've made a commitment to a strong enduring presence, and we intend to stand by that commitment.

As I prepare to leave NATO headquarters, I can say that, among the things that I am most proud of as secretary is the success of our troops that have been able to achieve the kind of successful direction that we've been able to achieve on the ground in Afghanistan and the extraordinary unity and strength and resolve of ISAF.

I had the opportunities a number of times to go to Afghanistan. This last time, I went to Afghanistan, had the opportunity to meet with all of our military leaders in the field. And to a person, each of them said that -- that this mission was headed in the right direction, and they all expressed confidence in the growing capability of the Afghan force to be able to handle security and to take on the enemy.

We've laid the groundwork for how our nations can come together to resolve the security challenges of the 21st century, including emerging challenges like the threat posed by violent extremism in North Africa and cyber attacks. I think the ability of having pulled together this great alliance and the effort in Afghanistan can really serve us as a model for how we decide to take on other challenges in the world that will confront us.

To resolve these challenges together, we must really commit to acting together. And there's no question that in the current budget environment, with deep cuts in European defense spending, the kind of political gridlock that we're seeing in the United States right now with regards to our own budget, is putting at risk our ability to effectively act together.

As I prepare to step down as secretary of defense, I do fear that the alliance will soon be -- if it is not already -- stretched too thin. In our sessions devoted to these topics, the questions I asked my fellow ministers were simple. Will we let our nations retreat from our responsibilities in the face of growing budget constraints? Or will we demonstrate the kind of creativity and innovation and political will to develop and share the capabilities we must have in order to meet future security threats together as an alliance?

The choice for our allies is clear. And I want to commend Secretary General Rasmussen for his leadership in warning against the effect of budget cuts and in proposing new ideas, like the Connected Forces Initiative, that will help our militaries continue to train and operate together, even as our deployments to Afghanistan are reduced.

These are critical to ensuring the readiness of the alliance, which has to be the top priority in an unpredictable and crisis-prone world. I'd also like to commend the secretary general for making cyber a major area of focus for the next defense ministerial. It's a call that I made upon NATO that they should do. We have seen -- we are seeing continuing attacks in the cyber arena on the private sector, on the public sector, in the defense arena. This is, without question, the battlefield for the future, and it's an area that NATO needs to pay attention to.

Let me conclude by noting, as I did last month in a speech that I gave in London, that there is a generational shift that is occurring. I'm probably the last American secretary of defense to have direct memories of World War II. And our youngest men and women in uniform today were born after the end of the Cold War.

The bonds that formed the basis of our alliance were built on the basis of those 20th century conflicts. But over more than a decade of war in Afghanistan, I believe we have renewed those bonds for the 21st century and carried out the most enduring and effective alliance campaign since World War II. If we have the strength to carry those bonds forward, then I believe that we can realize our shared dream of a better and more peaceful and more secure world for future generations. Thank you.

GEORGE LITTLE: The secretary is pleased to take a few questions. We'll start with the Associated Press. Or we'll start with Bloomberg.

Q: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Gopal Ratnam with Bloomberg News. Good luck to you as you leave and head back to your beloved California. I want to ask you two questions. This morning, the German defense minister has told reporters that you had expressed to him the U.S. would keep between 8,000 and 12,000 troops in Afghanistan post-2014. One, would you confirm that? And, second, in your discussions with your counterparts here in NATO, what kind of commitments do you ask of them post-2014? And what kind of promises have you got or what kind of concerns have they expressed to you about their commitments?

SEC. PANETTA: First of all, that report is not correct. We did discuss a range of options. And what we discussed was a range of options that would -- that would be directed to the NATO force overall, which includes both the U.S. force contribution that we would make, plus what other NATO countries would contribute, as well.

And that -- those options are there. NATO will continue to do a planning process around those options. And we will be working with them as we develop the final decisions that the president makes with regards to our commitment to that enduring presence.

With regards to the 2014 period, we did describe that we felt it was important to develop this regional approach to be able to have a presence in some of the key areas in the northwest, east, and south, to be able to have a presence, obviously, in Kabul, that we would provide -- continue to provide enabling capabilities, particularly on a strategic level, with regards to those forces, and that we would continue to work with them to develop what the train, advise, and assist mission should look like. So we're going to be continuing to work on that.

And that was -- I have to say -- there was good receptivity among all of the ministers with regards to the broad elements that I described during this last session.

Q: (off mic)

SEC. PANETTA: Pardon me?

Q: (off mic)

SEC. PANETTA: All of -- all of the ministers, a number of the ministers spoke. And I have to say that all of the ministers who spoke indicated that they appreciated the outlines that we presented and that they, too, were committed to an enduring presence. So I feel very confident that we are going to get a number of nations to make that contribution for the enduring presence.

MR. LITTLE: Yes, sir?

Q: It's (inaudible) from German television ZDF. I just heard the same thing, that the minister of defense of Germany said 8,000 to 12,000, so I just would like to make that understandable for me. So you say altogether there might be 8,000 to 12,000, is the contribution of the U.S. troops even less than 8,000 to 12,000? Or -- and in which region would you like to place troops?

SEC. PANETTA: What -- what we discussed was a range of options. I don't want to go into particular numbers, because, frankly, we want -- we want to be able to have the flexibility to look at a range of options that we ought to have for our enduring presence. But I want to make very clear that the range of options we were discussing was with regards to the NATO force.

And the NATO force consists of both a U.S. presence, plus NATO contributions. And we didn't define specifics on that. Frankly, that remains to be determined as we go forward with the planning process.

MR. LITTLE: Now the Associated Press.

Q: All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The discussion about extending and maintaining 352,000 Afghan troops for the next five years, can you talk a little bit about how you're going to be able to go to the U.S. Congress and defend something like that, when just the other day you had to issue public notice of furloughs for 800,000 civilian workers? How can you defend increasing this amount of spending when, obviously, the Defense Department in the United States is in deep financial problems?

SEC. PANETTA: Well, I think -- I mean, look, first and foremost, with regards to the crisis that we confront in the United States, the fact is, as I've said, that this, frankly, should not be a crisis. This is a -- this is a political crisis. It's not a crisis that relates to our capabilities within the budget that we've defined for the Defense Department.

And my hope is that -- that Congress does not allow sequester to take place. I think it would be, frankly, a very shameful and irresponsible act of political dysfunction if, in fact, that were to occur. The American people would be justly outraged to have people who they elect to office to protect them harm them by allowing sequester to take place.

So I guess my -- what I want to make clear is that sequester is -- is by no means -- doesn't reflect the budget that we have put in place to implement our strategy. It would be -- it would be truly an act of -- of irresponsibility if it happened.

And then I -- in terms of the consequences of sequester, I have to say, if sequester does take place, it could impact not only our readiness, but, frankly, the role that we would play with regards to the readiness of NATO, as well. So all of that would be impacted if that occurred.

Assuming that doesn't happen, then our view is that we -- you know, if the president makes the decision to continue the ANSF presence at 352,000, that that would be an investment that would be worth making, because it would allow us greater flexibility as we take down our troops, and it would allow us greater flexibility, frankly, to save in the funds that we now dedicate to the warfighting effort. And I think I can make that case to the Congress, that that would be an effective tradeoff.

MR. LITTLE: We have time for one more question. Yes, sir? And we'll wrap it up.

Q: (Inaudible), Tolo TV Afghanistan. Sir, most of the Afghans believe that the U.S. will abandon Afghanistan again when the combat mission finishes in Afghanistan. What type of guarantee you can give them, sir? Because on one hand, Taliban still pose a serious threat to the Afghan government, and the peace process is also not going well.

SEC. PANETTA: I -- you know, I want to make clear that -- that the United States and ISAF, the NATO -- the NATO countries that are involved in the ISAF effort, all of us are committed to supporting Afghanistan, not just now, but in the future. And that commitment is unwavering.

And the best example of that commitment is that we are going to maintain in excess of 60,000 troops there even after we've made the transition to the Afghans for combat responsibility. So we will maintain a significant presence there through a key fighting season and through the final transition of areas. And even as we draw down, we'll still maintain a significant presence there throughout the Afghan election.

And beyond that, we will maintain an enduring presence to be able to fulfill two key missions, to be able to train, assist and continue to support the Afghan army and defense force, and in addition to that, to conduct counterterrorism activities to make sure that Al Qaida and its affiliates never again are able to establish a safe haven there.

So I -- in the discussions I've had, both with President Karzai, with the defense minister, and with others, we have made very clear that we have a continuing and dedicated commitment to make sure that Afghanistan is a country that ultimately can govern and secure itself.

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, everyone. Have a good afternoon.