SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH NORWEGIAN FOREIGN MINISTER BRENDE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
02/26/2015 12:21 PM EST
Remarks With Norwegian Foreign Minister Borge Brende
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
February 26, 2015

SECRETARY KERRY: Are we still morning? We are for a few more minutes. (Laughter.) Good morning, everybody. This is a great pleasure for me because Borge Brende and I have become really good friends in the course of our work together. And Norway is such an extraordinary partner. There is nowhere or anything that is an issue where Norway is not playing a role. And really, it is a pleasure for us to have a partner who is always so willing to step up on all of the major crises that we’re currently challenging.

Borge was here for our summit on Countering Violent Extremism. Norway is making major contributions to the Syria conflict, helping to provide humanitarian assistance. Norway is a critical partner with respect to the protection of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. We work with Norway on Middle East peace. They are constantly engaged in helping to both support the rights of Israelis to be free from violence, but also the rights of Palestinians to have a better life, to be able to receive the humanitarian aid that they need.

So it is safe to say that on every major conflict in the world today, Norway – not the biggest country in the world, but the biggest in heart and in commitment – is always by our side and is a superb ally. We have a lot to talk about today in the context of the efforts against Daesh, the efforts to deal with Libya, the Maghreb, the Sahel, the Arabian Peninsula. There’s no dearth of challenges right now. And Minister Brende is constantly traveling to try to help leverage the values of Norway and the interests of Norway to help bring about stability and peace.

So I’m very grateful. Thank you for being here, and we’ll have the opportunity to talk in a few minutes. Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER BRENDE: Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Kerry. Thank you, John. Thank you for the very kind words and thank you for your friendship. We have developed a genuine, close collaboration, U.S. being our most closest ally. This is important for us in a time where we see a new security landscape in Europe. We feel that what has taken place in Ukraine and the breach of international law is something very serious. And what we have agreed also in the NATO context when it comes to also making sure that all the allies are really reassured that we have a full NATO solidarity – I’m thinking about our Baltic friends – is very important.

And we will, in the coming weeks, also be very clear with the Russians on the “Minsk plus” if there is any more violence of what has – violation of what has been agreed, it needs to have implications for Russia.

Thank you, John, for your leadership on the summit last week on Countering Violent Extremism. The U.S. leadership now and your personal engagement in getting this coalition against ISIL in place is extremely important. And I think we’ve done this in a good and strategic way, getting all the Arab countries on board, a new government in Baghdad – more inclusive, and now starting the real fight against ISIL and making also advances in Iraq.

Also, the U.S. leadership and your personal commitment to a two-state solution and peace between Israel and Palestine is very important. And after the Israeli elections, I hope we can re-engage and see again new initiatives from the U.S. side. We will support as much as possible to set up the donor group for Palestine. And we will, of course, also follow up on Libya, on Maghreb, and all the present issues that you are seeing.

And we are also looking forward to your chairmanship now in the Arctic Council. We know you care so much about the environment, oceans, and the fight against climate change. And this U.S. chairmanship will be very important.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, my friend, and I’m looking forward to traveling to Norway and being up in the north.

FOREIGN MINISTER BRENDE: Thank you, and we are so much looking forward to welcoming you to Svalbard --

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER BRENDE: -- and also this frozen vessel into the ice that’s on the front page of National Geographic now. It’s to (inaudible).

SECRETARY KERRY: I look forward to it.

FOREIGN MINISTER BRENDE: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Thank you all.

AG HOLDER URGES INTERNATIONAL EFFORT TO DEAL WITH FOREIGN FIGHTERS IN SYRIA

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Attorney General Holder Urges International Effort to Confront Threat of Syrian Foreign Fighters

During Visit to Norway, Attorney General Outlines Law Enforcement Approaches to Countering Violent Extremism

In a speech Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder called Syria "a cradle of violent extremism" and urged multilateral law enforcement action to confront the security threat posed by radicalized individuals from the United States and Europe traveling there.

An estimated 7,000 foreign fighters, including dozens of Americans, have streamed into Syria to participate in the conflict there. These individuals can link up with violent extremist groups operating in the region and then seek to return to their home countries with training in how to carry out violence on a large scale. Attorney General Holder said the U.S. and its allies have a mutual interest in confronting this trend, observing that the ability of citizens of European nations to travel, visa-free, to the United States--and likewise, U.S. citizens' ability to freely visit Europe--means that "the problem of fighters in Syria returning to any of our countries is a problem for all of our countries."

Holder called for a four-part strategy to counter the threat. The approach includes enacting statutes that allow governments to prosecute planning activities undertaken by radicalized extremists seeking to aid terrorist groups. Holder also pointed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's undercover operations as a successful method for identifying violent extremists and disrupting their plots. He also called for more information sharing among nations about travelers to Syria, and for expanded outreach to key communities in order to prevent individuals from becoming radicalized in the first place.

"In the face of a threat so grave, we cannot afford to be passive," Holder said. "Rather, we need the benefit of investigative and prosecutorial tools that allow us to be preemptive in our approach to confronting this problem. If we wait for our nations’ citizens to travel to Syria or Iraq, to become radicalized, and to return home, it may be too late to adequately protect our national security."

The Attorney General spoke in Oslo at the U.S. ambassador's residence. The remarks followed one-on-one meetings earlier Tuesday with both the Prime Minister of Norway and the country’s Minister of Justice. In 2013, Norway amended its laws to criminalize preparatory acts to terrorism, including training for terrorism, preparation for terrorism and participation in a terrorist organization. In addition, last month the Norwegian government announced a 30-point "Action Plan Against Radicalism and Violent Extremism" that focuses on civic engagement and detection of threats. Holder praised both steps in his remarks Tuesday and said the United States looked forward to continued cooperation with Norway on these matters.

Later this week, Attorney General Holder travels to London for the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Quintet of Attorney Generals from the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The issue of Syrian foreign fighters is expected to be part of those discussions as well.

A copy of the Attorney General's remarks appears below.

Thank you for those kind words – and thank you all for such a warm welcome.  Ladies and gentlemen; distinguished guests; leaders and citizens – it is a pleasure to be in Norway.  And it’s a great privilege to be in the beautiful city of Oslo today.

I’d like to thank the Norwegian government – and especially Prime Minister [Erna] Solberg and Minister of Justice [Anders] Anundsen, with whom I met earlier today – for their hospitality.  I’d also like to recognize our Charge, Julie Furuta-Toy, and the hardworking men and women of the U.S. Embassy for bringing us together – and for all that they do, every day, to advance our shared interests.

It’s an honor to join them – and to stand with all of you – in strengthening the ties that bind our nations together; in discussing some of the most critical challenges the international community must confront; and in reaffirming our mutual commitment to the values we share, and the high ideals – of democracy, liberty, and equal justice under law – that have defined our nations’ friendship over the past two centuries.

That friendship, and those values, have deep roots.  Norwegian-Americans have played an important role in the development of our country.  And your citizens and values have had an impact around the world.  Two hundred years ago, Norway ratified a constitution that asserted certain essential and immutable rights.  Through centuries of triumph and challenge, our people and our governments have both been guided by a shared understanding that “all people are born free and equal.”

Today, Norway is a leader in extending worldwide the promise of equality and justice, through its own development work overseas, and through its support of international institutions.  And Norway leads global efforts to address urgent threats – most recently in Syria, where Norwegian and American personnel are working side-by-side to rid that country of chemical weapons.  Around the world, Norway is recognized as a champion of democracy and human rights.  And, for decades, you’ve been leading by example.

After all, as history teaches us – and as you’ve seen here in Norway and we in the United States – progress is not inevitable.  And our democratic values, our open societies – and our commitment to tolerance and inclusion – must be continuously protected against agents of intolerance, extremism, and hate.

Particularly when hatred and extremism take expression in acts of violence and terror, we must be resolute in our protection of equal rights, democracy, and the rule of law.  And we must be both innovative and aggressive in combating violent extremism in all its forms.

It was just three years ago this month that Norway endured devastating attacks on the government quarter of Oslo and a Workers’ Youth League summer camp – heinous acts that shocked citizens everywhere, and earned swift condemnation and sympathy from around the world – as President Obama stated, our hearts went out to you.  Horrific crimes like these are not only terrible tragedies for the individuals and the nations targeted; they test our fortitude and challenge the very foundations of who we are.  Yet Norway has not faltered or changed its values – and is an example for the world in this regard as well.

Like Norway, the United States is all too familiar with domestic threats, having suffered deadly attacks on our soil – including against government buildings, places of worship, and sporting events.  These attacks, like the attacks you suffered here in Norway, share a common theme:  they are attacks on tolerance, in the name of violent extremist ideologies.

Under the Obama Administration, while we have acted to protect our country and our allies, we have also redoubled our commitment to civil rights and to tolerance.  This is what violent extremists most fear, for their goal is to undermine open societies.  At the same time, we also have joined with our international partners to ensure that there is no impunity for those who seek to commit terrorist attacks.   Now, Norway, the United States, and countries around the world face a new threat – the possibility that violent extremists fighting today in Syria, Iraq, or other locations may seek to commit acts of terror tomorrow in our countries as well.

U.S. intelligence officials estimate that nearly 23,000 violent extremists are currently operating in Syria.  Among these are over 7,000 foreign fighters – among whom are dozens of Americans, a number that is growing.

We have a mutual and compelling interest in developing shared strategies for confronting the influx of U.S.- and European-born violent extremists into Syria.  And because our citizens can freely travel, visa-free, from the U.S. to Norway and other European states – and vice versa – the problem of fighters in Syria returning to any of our countries is a problem for all of our countries.

This is a global crisis in need of a global solution.  The Syrian conflict has turned that region into a cradle of violent extremism.  But the world cannot simply sit back and let it become a training ground from which our nationals can return and launch attacks.  And we will not.

In the face of a threat so grave, we cannot afford to be passive.  Rather, we need the benefit of investigative and prosecutorial tools that allow us to be preemptive in our approach to confronting this problem.  If we wait for our nations’ citizens to travel to Syria or Iraq, to become radicalized, and to return home, it may be too late to adequately protect our national security.

That’s why we need to adopt a multilateral four-pronged strategy to combat this threat, to counter violent extremism in all its forms, and to keep our citizens safe.

The first element of our united approach must be to ensure that there are laws in our systems that enable governments to properly police that threat.  In its Rabat Memorandum, the Global Counterterrorism Forum – a group of 30 countries from around the world, working in partnership with the UN – stated that “Criminalizing preparatory acts, such as conspiracy, terrorist fundraising, terrorist recruitment, planning and training, particularly when a terrorist attack has not yet been carried out, is vital in an effective criminal justice preventive approach to counterterrorism.”  In this regard, the U.S. relies on a statute that criminalizes the providing of “material support to terrorist organizations.”  Our material-support law, which was originally enacted in 1994 and amended after the attacks in New York on September 11, 2001, bars not only contributions of personnel, cash, weapons and other tangible aid to designated terrorist organizations, but also intangible means of support – such as training, service, and expert advice or assistance.  Similarly, in 2013, Norway amended its laws to criminalize preparatory acts to terrorism, including training for terrorism, preparation for terrorism and participation in a terrorist organization   Likewise, in 2012, France enacted a new statute that enables prosecutors to charge individuals with “criminal association with the intent to commit terrorist acts.”  Earlier this year, French authorities sentenced the nation’s first three defendants under this new law; all three were plotting to travel to Syria.  Today, I urge governments around the world to consider similar measures that criminalize the preparatory acts committed by those with terrorist plans.

The second part of our comprehensive strategy looks to ensure that we have in place law enforcement investigative tools and techniques that are both effective and protective of individual rights and the rule of law.  In this regard, we have found undercover operations – which the Federal Bureau of Investigation pioneered in fighting transnational organized crime – to be essential in fighting terrorism as well.  In the United States, the FBI has already conducted undercover operations that have identified individuals with intentions to travel to Syria.  These operations are conducted with extraordinary care and precision, ensuring that law enforcement officials are accountable for the steps they take – and that suspects are neither entrapped nor denied legal protections.  Here, too, the Global Counterterrorism Forum’s Rabat Memorandum calls for such techniques to be applied in countries around the world:  one of the “good practices” it advocates is that countries “Provide a Legal Framework and Practical Measures for Undercover Investigations of Terrorist Suspects or Organizations.”

Third: in order to further our investigative capabilities, we must strengthen international cooperation, in a variety of respects.  As an initial matter, we must prioritize the sharing of traveler information as a potential way to prevent would-be foreign fighters from going to Syria in the first place – and tracking those who come back.  The United States is committed to doing its part in this regard.  As we speak, through law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, U.S. authorities are working with Interpol to disseminate information on foreign fighters.  We encourage other countries to use Interpol – and Interpol notices – to combat the foreign-fighter phenomenon.  And we are actively supporting Interpol’s Fusion Cell, which focuses on information-sharing relating to foreign fighters.  In fact, the U.S. has provided personnel, including FBI agents, to support this specialized office.

While we are committed to ensuring that we protect the safety of our fellow citizens, we are also committed to protecting their privacy.  Alongside policymakers in Brussels, we’re also working to attain an “umbrella” data-sharing agreement between the United States and the European Union, that would strengthen the already strong protections that are presently in existence and that ensure that law enforcement information is shared effectively, and in accordance with data privacy principles.  This agreement will guarantee that there will be no diminishment of the key exchanges of law enforcement information, including terrorism information, that is critical to the safety of citizens in Europe, the U.S., and around the world.  And as a step to advance this endeavor, last month – in Athens – I announced a United States commitment that the Obama Administration would seek legislation to create the ability – for non-U.S. persons – to seek judicial redress for access and rectification, and for willful or intentional disclosure, of law enforcement information transferred to the United States.  This is an historic commitment by the United States to extend privacy protections beyond U.S. persons in this context.  It is imperative that we reach an “umbrella” agreement in this regard as soon as possible.  The time for posturing has long past.  It is time for nations that have long shared fundamental views about privacy to act together.

Countries must also effectively use mutual legal assistance and extradition to counter foreign fighters.  Here, too, the Rabat Memorandum of the Global Counterterrorism Forum is instructive:  “Because terrorism often transcends national boundaries, timely and effective international cooperation is indispensable to a criminal justice response to terrorism.”  Through international mutual legal assistance, the U.S. Department of Justice has provided evidence to countries for use in prosecutions of terrorist organizations – including terrorist groups that were recruiting others to fight in Syria.  We continue to assist foreign partners around the globe by acting on mutual legal assistance requests and providing evidence to support those criminal investigations and prosecutions.  And we believe it’s critical that countries develop their abilities to effectively engage in mutual legal assistance – including by strengthening their central authorities – so that we can work together to counter this shared threat.

International cooperation also means working together to build the capacity of other nations, as Norway does in so many different contexts.  Norwegian and U.S. Department of Justice legal advisors have worked together to build Rule of Law in Georgia and Moldova.  And to enhance similar efforts on a global scale, the U.S. Department of Justice is providing capacity-building assistance to help our partners build fair and transparent justice systems that will allow their countries to confront transnational crime and terrorism, including the problem of foreign fighters.  Applying the standards of the UN Counterterrorism Treaties, and the best practices of the Rabat Memorandum, our capacity-building work, and that of our foreign partners, has helped advance laws permitting police and prosecutors to more effectively investigate and prosecute suspected foreign fighters, within the Rule of Law – leading to the disruption of foreign fighters and the dismantlement of organizations that recruit would-be fighters to travel to Syria.  Through ongoing programs in places such as the Balkans, Africa, and elsewhere, we continue to work with international partners to help them stem the flows of foreign fighters; to use the tools they have to more effectively impede their movements; and to assist in the investigation and prosecution of foreign fighters once captured.

Today, I challenge additional nations to step forward, as Norway has.  Commit to robust, and privacy-protective, data-sharing in service of our mutual security.  Pledge support for Interpol’s “Transnational Fighter Initiative.”  Support mutual legal assistance and capacity building.  And urge others to do their part by participating fully in these efforts – which will be effective only to the extent that they are as comprehensive as possible.

The fourth and final element of our strategy is founded on the notion that strong laws, effective investigative tools, and robust information-sharing must be matched with public engagement – and extensive community outreach.  We must seek to stop individuals from becoming radicalized in the first place by putting in place strong programs to counter violent extremism in its earliest stages.  In my time here in Norway, I have had the chance to learn about – and have been deeply impressed by – Norway’s Action Plan Against Radicalization and Violent Extremism.

Indeed, I have found it critical to engage in international exchanges with my counterparts regarding how we can do better on combating radicalization, and to learn from each other.   I will take home with me important lessons from Norway’s experience.  These lessons will help us implement our own National Strategy and Strategic Implementation Plan, which is led by the Justice Department, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center.

Our approach depends on building mutual trust and respect with members of communities across the country – so that we can understand their needs and concerns and to foster open dialogue with community leaders and citizens.  This enables us to work with them to mitigate tensions and identify emerging threats.

At the heart of these engagement efforts in the United States are our United States Attorneys, the chief federal prosecutors in each of the jurisdictions they serve.  Since 2012, our U.S. Attorneys have held or attended more than 1,700 engagement-related events.  And the resulting relationships have not only served to build trust.  They have also produced valuable cooperation, in some cases spurring community members to alert law enforcement about individuals who show an inclination to turn to violence.

Across the United States and in countries around the world, such counter-radicalization programs show significant promise.  They serve our broader aim of fostering tolerance, inclusion, and understanding – which are themselves powerful tools against violent extremism.  But ultimately, our goal must be not just to fight radicalization or apprehend dangerous individuals.  At its core, this work is about forging more just and open societies – and building a more peaceful world.

That’s why it’s especially fitting that we recommit ourselves to these efforts here in Oslo – where so many of mankind’s highest ideals and aspirations have been recognized.  For more than a century, this city has welcomed some of the most devoted peacemakers the world has ever known – from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who advocated for “a more noble civilization” in the midst of America’s long night of racial injustice; to Nelson Mandela, who insisted that “an injury to one is an injury to all.”

Throughout history, these pioneers of peace have called us to recognize that our capacity for courage has no limit.  The struggle for human rights, civil rights, and equal justice knows no borders or boundaries.  Yet their stories also remind us that, for all the progress that they have made possible, our journey still stretches beyond the horizon.  And our work has no end.

You know as well as anyone that the work ahead will not be easy.  None of the challenges we face are simple or straightforward.  We will suffer setbacks. But so long as we remain committed to standing together, working together, and striving together – as people of courage, as leaders of conviction, and as nations of high ideals – I cannot help but feel optimistic about where our joint efforts will lead us.  I thank you all, once again, for your leadership, your collaboration, and your friendship.  And I look forward to everything the United States and the Kingdom of Norway will achieve together in the months and years to come.

Thank you.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S STATEMENT REGARDING RELEASE OF KEVIN SUTAY FROM FARC

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Release of Kevin Sutay From Captivity by the FARC
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 27, 2013

We welcome the release today of Kevin Scott Sutay from captivity at the hands of the FARC.

The United States is profoundly grateful to the Government of Colombia and commends its tireless efforts to secure his release. We offer special thanks to President Juan Manuel Santos for his assistance.

We also appreciate the contributions of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the Governments of Norway and Cuba in securing Mr. Sutay’s freedom. And we thank the Reverend Jesse Jackson for his efforts in consistently advocating for Mr. Sutay’s release.

COURT AUTHORIZES JOHN DOE SUMMONSES IN NORWAY SEEKING IDENTITIES OF PAYMENT CARD USERS

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
Monday, July 29, 2013
Federal Courts Authorize Service of John Doe Summonses Seeking Identities of Persons Using Payment Cards in Norway

Ten Lawsuits Initiated Pursuant to Tax Treaty Between United States and Norway; Seven Petitions Granted, Three Petitions Remain Pending
The Justice Department announced that federal courts in Minnesota, Texas, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Virginia and California have entered orders over the past week authorizing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to serve John Doe summonses on certain U.S. banks and financial institutions, seeking information about persons who have used specific credit or debit cards in Norway.  The summonses are referred to as “John Doe” summonses because the IRS does not know the identity of the person being investigated.  While orders have been entered in seven of these cases, the United States’ petitions in three additional cases remain pending.

The lawsuits, filed on July 19 and 22, 2013, in nine federal districts, were initiated at the request of the Norwegian government under a treaty between Norway and the United States.  The treaty allows the two countries to cooperate in exchanging information that is helpful in enforcing each country’s tax laws.  The United States is seeking the identities of persons who have used specific debit or credit cards issued by certain U.S. financial institutions so that Norway can determine if those persons have complied with Norwegian tax laws. A total of 18 U.S. financial institutions are identified in the government’s court filings. The filings do not allege that these financial institutions have violated any U.S. laws with respect to these accounts.

As alleged in court papers filed by the Justice Department, Norwegian authorities have reason to believe, based upon the use of payment cards in Norway that were issued by U.S. banks, that unidentified card holders may have failed to report financial account information or income on their Norwegian tax returns.  Court papers cite examples where individuals using non-Norwegian payment cards have claimed to be tax residents of other countries but were found to have resided in Norway for sufficient time to subject them to taxes in Norway.  

 “The Department of Justice and the IRS are committed to working with our treaty partners to fight tax evasion wherever it occurs,” said Kathryn Keneally, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “All taxpayers should know that our efforts in this area are global, coordinated and will continue.”

  “These summonses reflect our continuing efforts to work with our international partners on offshore tax evasion,” said Douglas O’Donnell, IRS Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Large Business & International (LB&I). “By using effectively our existing network of bilateral agreements, countries can help one another put an end to the global practice of evading taxation by hiding assets abroad.”

The lawsuits are a part of ongoing international efforts to stop persons from using foreign financial accounts as a way to evade taxes.  Courts have previously approved John Doe summonses allowing the IRS to identify individuals using offshore accounts to evade their U. S tax obligations.  In the present suits, the Justice Department is seeking the identities of persons who may be attempting to hide their Norwegian taxable income in U.S. financial accounts.

SEC. CLINTON IN NORWAY SPEAKS OF NEW PATH IN GLOBAL HEALTH

 FROM:  U.S. NAVY.  Members of the Indonesian army board the Military Sealift Command hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH 19). Mercy is participating in Pacific Partnership, an annual U.S. Pacific Fleet humanitarian and civic assistance mission now in its seventh year that brings together U.S. military personnel, host and partner nations, non-government organizations and international agencies to build stronger relationships and develop disaster response capabilities throughout the Asia-Pacific region. U.S. Navy photo by Kristopher Radder (Released) 120531-O-ZZ999-007 
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

A World in Transition: Charting a New Path in Global Health
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Oslo, Norway
June 1, 2012
Well, that is quite a compliment. And whatever it takes to accept, I do. Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Mayor, my dear friend and colleague, your excellent foreign minister, also let me recognize Ingrid Schulerud, wife of the prime minister who, along with her husband, just hosted me and my delegation for a wonderful luncheon, and to everyone who has organized this extraordinary conference, which I think does come at a historical turning point.

It’s no surprise that we would be meeting here in Norway, one of the most generous nations on earth when it comes not only to global health but so much more, and that we would have gathered here the panel and others who bring such broad and deep experience, and also have the opportunity to elevate an issue that is connected to so much else.

I often think about issues like maternal health from a personal perspective because I am privileged to have known what it meant to me to have had the great good fortune and gift of my daughter. And I think about what it would have been like that cold February day in 1980 if I didn’t know that the facility was available. Or were it available, I didn’t really know for sure if it would be open. And I couldn’t count on a doctor or a midwife or a nurse being present. Or if they were, if something went wrong, that they would have the equipment and the expertise to handle whatever the emergency might be. But indeed, as we have just heard described by the minister from Sierra Leone, that is the experience of many millions of women every single day throughout the world.

So I greatly appreciated the invitation by the foreign minister to increase and accelerate our mutual efforts as to how together we, and hopefully bringing others with us, can do more to save the lives of mothers during labor and delivery. Now, maternal health has a value in and of itself, I think we would all agree with that, but it is deeply connected to a broader purpose. And our panelists have all very persuasively discussed that.

How do we achieve health systems that will help every country improve life for more of their people? And the key question comes down to, if you really want to know how strongly a country’s health system is, look at the well-being of its mothers. Because when a woman in labor experiences complications, it takes a strong system to keep her alive. It not only takes skilled doctors, midwives, and nurses, it takes reliable transportation, well-equipped clinics and hospitals that are open 24 hours a day. Where these elements are in place, more often than not women will survive childbirth. When they aren’t, more often than not they die or suffer life-changing, traumatic injuries.

When China, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia upgraded and expanded their health systems, their maternal mortality rates dropped dramatically. When Zimbabwe’s system began to crumble, its maternal mortality rates shot up dramatically. That is a powerful, inescapable correlation. And it is why improving maternal health is a priority for the United States.

Through our development agency USAID, we are supporting more skilled midwives and cell phone technology to spread health information. We’re involved in the International Alliance for Reproductive, Maternal, and Newborn Health, a five-year effort to improve donor coordination. We are partnering with Norway and others to support innovative interventions that improve outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. And we are working to ensure access to family planning so that women can choose the spacing and size of their families. Reproductive health services can and do save women’s lives, strengthen their overall health, and improve families’ and communities’ well-being.

And of course, women’s health means more than just maternal health and therefore we must look to improve women’s health more generally, because it is an unfortunate reality that women often face great health disparities. And improving women’s health has dividends for entire societies, from driving down child mortality rates to sparking economic growth. And Norway, as Jonas just pointed out, has been a leader in not only doing that, but recognizing it.

And the comment he made at the end about the difference between Norway’s GDP with oil and gas and with women’s empowerment and involvement is very striking because a recent study that Norway has just completed demonstrated that Norway’s GDP actually do more to the empowerment of women than the discovery of natural resources and their exploitation.

Norway has been a leader in also pointing out the direct links between gender-based violence and health. So for our part, the United States is integrating services throughout our health programs so women and their families have access to the range of care they need. And we are linking our health programs to others that address the legal, social and cultural barriers that inhibit women’s access to care, such as gender-based violence, lack of education, and the low social status of women and girls.

But you can’t impose a health system, and you can’t change some of these attitudes from the outside. We understand that. There has to be encouragement for it to grow from within, the kind of leadership that the minister is discussing about what is happening in Sierra Leone.

That is the principle of what we call country ownership. And I think it’s important to stress the connection between maternal mortality, strong health systems, and country ownership. Because while the global health community has recognized that we have to rigorously think about what works and what doesn’t work, and that we endorsed country ownership at the high-level forum in Paris in 2005 and reaffirmed it in Accra and Busan, it is enshrined in numerous global health agreements.

But few of us have honestly forced ourselves to examine what country ownership means for the day-to-day work of saving lives. Now, for many people, that phrase is freighted with unstated meaning. Some worry that it means donors are supposed to keep money flowing indefinitely while recipients decide how to spend it. Others, particularly in partner countries, are concerned that country ownership means countries are on their own. (Laughter.) Still others fear that country-owned really means government-run, freezing out civil society groups or faith-based organizations that in some places operate as many as 70 percent of all health facilities.

And this is not just a matter of semantics, because if we are not clear about what country ownership means, we cannot know whether we are making progress toward achieving it. And we certainly can’t identify what works and what doesn’t. And what’s more, we will achieve real gains in maternal health and global health more generally only with effective country ownership. Now, one or two programs in isolation are not enough. It takes an integrated, country-owned approach. So let me share with you what our latest thinking about what that means is.

To us, country ownership in health is the end state where a nation’s efforts are led, implemented, and eventually paid for by its government, communities, civil society and private sector. To get there, a country’s political leaders must set priorities and develop national plans to accomplish them in concert with their citizens, which means including women as well as men in the planning process. And these plans must be effectively carried out primarily by the country’s own institutions, and then these groups must be able to hold each other accountable as the women did in front of the parliament in Sierra Leone.

So while nations must ultimately be able to fund more of their own needs, country ownership is about far more than funding. It is principally about building capacity to set priorities, manage resources, develop plans, and carry them out. We are well aware that moving to full country ownership will take considerable time, patience, investment, and persistence. But I think there are grounds for optimism.

Economic growth is making it possible for many developing nations to meet more of their people’s own needs. In 2010, the GDPs of Mozambique, Botswana, and Ethiopia grew more than 8 percent. Nations across sub-Saharan Africa are seeing similar growth. And what we want to be sure of is that countries don’t substitute donor funding for their own, because unfortunately, there are examples – Zimbabwe being one – where an existing health system that was providing basic services to many was allowed to deteriorate while the government chose to put funding elsewhere. We have seen ministries of health lose funding to ministries of defense or ministries of transportation. And so what had been possible only a decade before becomes very difficult going forward.

So what we are trying to do is to help put in place the essential pieces of strong health systems. That means we are helping to build clinics and labs, to train staff, improve supply chains, make blood supplies safer, set up record-keeping systems; in short, creating platforms upon which partners can eventually launch their own efforts. Now, with this momentum, the question before us is not: Can we achieve country ownership? We think we are in a very good position to begin that process. Instead, we have to ask ourselves: “Are we achieving it? And if we are not, what must each of us do better?”

Well, some countries are. And earlier we heard about Sierra Leone. And I am very excited by what the minister has done to enlist 1,700-plus women as health monitors, responsible for checking up on their local clinics, reporting problems to the health ministry. That’s a wonderful way for ownership to migrate down from the national level to the local level and then come back up as a reporting mechanism.

Or consider Botswana, where the government manages, operates, and pays for HIV treatment programs. With PEPFAR’s support, it is also working with American universities to build a national medical school that will train the nation’s next generation of healthcare workers. And perhaps we can then stop the brain drain, because so many countries train excellent doctors, midwives, and nurses who then leave that country. My birth was assisted by a nurse midwife from Ghana – the birth of my daughter, and I know how wonderful and skilled she was. Now she’s back in Ghana, because she thinks she has opportunities to do her best work in her home country.

If you look at what India has achieved – and I appreciate the minister being here – six years ago, when the government launched its National AIDS Control Program, half the budget came from outside donors. Today, less than one fifth does, and the Indian Government covers the rest. But these are the exceptions, not yet the rule.

In too many countries, if you take a snapshot of all the health efforts, you see donors – that’s all of us – failing to coordinate our work, leaving some diseases underfunded, burying our partners in paperwork that I am convinced hardly anyone ever reads once it’s filled out, paying too little attention to improving systems. You see partner countries committing too few of their own resources and avoiding accountability for delivering results. And you see patients encountering a maze of obstacles that block them from the services they need. So therefore it is up to us – donor and country alike.

There is an old proverb that says: “When a man repeats a promise again and again, he means to fail you.” At the turn of this century, we made a collective promise to cut the maternal mortality ratio by three quarters and achieve universal access to reproductive health services. And yes, we have repeated that promise again and again. And although we do not mean to fail, we risk failing all the same, if we don’t change course.

So what do we need to do? Let me offer a few suggestions. Beginning with donors, governments, foundations, multilateral organizations – and I see a number of familiar faces. First, we do need to move from rhetoric to the reality of making it a priority to strengthen country-led health systems. That means meeting our commitments even in tough economic times. Part of this assistance should include an assessment of country systems, led by the countries themselves, with common international benchmarks so we can compare results across borders. And those are not only national borders but donor borders.

We need, for example, to follow closely the National Heath Accounts supported by USAID that give us an excellent view of the state of a health system’s financing – not to point fingers or cast blame, but to identify gaps and then develop plans to fill them.
Second, we donors have to recognize that supporting country ownership in health requires hard choices. It is often easier to start a new program than to phase out an existing one, even when the existing one is not producing results. But if we are serious about helping our partners plan, implement, and ultimately pay for their own efforts, we have to be willing to make the tough calls.

Third, donors must embrace transparency, even when it brings bad news. For example, when Zambia uncovered corruption in its Global Fund program, some donors responded by punishing them for the corruption, rather than applauding them for uncovering it. Now, we should never turn a blind eye to corruption or throw good money after bad, but it is counterproductive to punish our partners when they root out problems like that. It sends exactly the wrong message: We want you to fight corruption, but if you find any, we might freeze your funding. Instead, we should say find the corruption so that we can help you fix the problems.

And fourth, donors need to solve the coordination curse. Donor coordination has been a theme at health and development conferences for so long, it is a cliché. But there’s a reason it keeps coming up, and that’s because it is critically important and notoriously hard to get right.

When President Obama took office, we recognized that the United States Government needed to do a much better job of coordinating with ourselves to start with, as well as our partners and other donors.
For years, health teams within the U.S. Government operated independently. HIV/AIDS teams under PEPFAR would work with a country to develop one plan; USAID, which was the implementing partner for HIV/AIDS, might very well develop another plan; in would come our malaria team, they would develop a third plan, so on and so on. It was enough to make anybody just dizzy.

So we are trying to integrate our programs. And under our Global Health Initiative, each of our country teams now assess how they fit within a comprehensive vision and program, based upon a health plan established by the country where we are operating. And we have worked with partners to develop these health plans in more than 40 countries.

For donors, tackling all these problems will be essential if we want to get more partners back on the path to helping build sustainable, country-owned systems. And this goes for the emerging economies that recently were recipients of assistance but now are net donors. These countries are playing an increasingly important role, and some have shared technical advice and lessons with their developing nation partners. We want to see that expand.

But at the same time, we look to all emerging powers to recognize that with this growing power comes growing responsibility, and they should consider working whenever possible through existing multilateral channels and ensure that the ultimate aim of their efforts is to put more countries on the path to meeting their own needs, not to – figuratively and literally – pave the way for extracting countries’ natural resources.

Now, partner countries have challenges to meet as well. First, I challenge our partner countries to invest more in the health of their own people. If you went to Abuja and agreed to put 15 percent of your national budget into health, we need you to deliver on that commitment. That should be a priority – not just for health ministers, but for all political leaders, starting with presidents and prime ministers to finance and defense ministers. Meeting this commitment will pay off many times over, making it possible to expand services to underserved areas and people, develop your workforce, and even expand economic growth.

And there’s a special opportunity here for those nations that have recently discovered new sources of wealth in oil, gas, and other extractive industries. I urge you to follow the examples of two countries that are not often mentioned together in the same sentence: Norway and Botswana. Both discovered large stores of natural resources. Both dedicated a portion of the income to health and education. And in both cases, their investments coming from their own ground, their own natural resources, are saving lives and lifting up communities. And both Norway and Botswana are very generous in being willing to offer advice and technical assistance about how to do this.

Second, partner countries must take on the flip side of donor coordination. While it’s absolutely true we donors need to do a better job of working together, only one player has the authority to speak about a nation’s needs and orchestrate all the different groups working in a county, namely the national government of that country. So we need you to help identify the needs that aren’t being met and to convene the partners to determine who will fill which gaps. I applaud Rwanda and Ethiopia for their exemplary progress along these lines. Now, I know it is very difficult for many countries, but in the end only you have the power. No one else can do it for you.

Third, partner countries must begin bringing down the political barriers to improving health. That means making regulatory changes that allow faster approval of new drugs, procurement reform to ensure that drugs get to clinics on time, setting and delivering a living wage for health workers.

And it also does mean taking on corruption at every level. We’ve had the very sad experience of negotiating to provide antiretroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS in some countries, and it’s very clear that the leadership of the country wants to make sure that they get their hand in the money for those drugs before it is delivered to the people who need it. And we have been very clear you have to take on corruption – local, regional, national – ensuring that drugs don’t get diverted to the black market.

It means repealing laws that stop progress, like the unfortunate treatment of women in so many places, ending gender-based violence and discrimination, creating true health equality for women and men. In some countries, women and girls are considered inherently less valuable than men and boys and are treated that way by custom and law. In many countries, members of the LGBT community are considered very much outside the mainstream and are treated that way, often therefore not being able to access health services that will benefit them and benefit the larger community. A system with built-in bias against any part of the population is not only unjust, but is unstable and unsustainable.

Now, my own country’s views about this global health work is shaped by what we have learned. As I said earlier, we are very proud that PEPFAR helped create platforms that countries can use to tackle a wide range of health problems. But as many observers have pointed out, PEPFAR did not initially set out to strengthen country systems. Instead, it began by creating a parallel network of clinics that were separately managed and paid for.

That’s a fair point. But let’s remember that in 2003, when the world faced an epidemic unlike any we had seen, HIV/AIDS demanded an emergency response, and the United States had the resources to answer the call. And today, we’ve made phenomenal progress with more than 4 million people receiving lifesaving treatment, 600,000 babies having been born HIV-free, and just last year 40 million receiving HIV counseling and testing.

But we know now it is time to shift from that emergency response to a country-owned model built to last. Last year, when I spoke about the goal of an AIDS-free generation, I made it clear that it could only happen by embracing country ownership. And PEPFAR provides us the framework, because there are five-year plans we have made with nearly two dozen countries to identify their most critical needs, to make joint commitments to meet those needs, and outline steps for transitioning responsibility for their HIV/AIDS programs. Our partners are no longer just recipients. They are now managers of their own response to the epidemic. And what we’re doing extends beyond HIV/AIDS. In Nepal, we have a USAID partnership to drive the expansion of family planning, maternal health, and children’s health. Nepal is now on track to achieve Millennium Development Goal five, as are Bangladesh, Egypt, and other countries.

So I am very pleased that the United States will be a part of the Saving Mothers, Giving Life partnership, along with Merck for Mothers, Every Mother Counts, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. We’re not focusing on a single intervention, but on strengthening health systems. We are beginning with projects in parts of Uganda and Zambia, learning what works and how we then can spread it. And I want to thank Norway for your extraordinary commitment, and I am pleased to announce the United States is committing $75 million to this partnership.

There are so many forums where matters of global health are discussed. I think every one of us have been to dozens, probably. But we have to do things differently. We have to be open about the obstacles that we confront. We have to be willing to admit what doesn’t work. We have to be ready to applaud those who point out mistakes or corruption. That kind of dialogue can be difficult. There will be times when we don’t see eye to eye. But it is fitting that we meet here in Oslo City Hall, where the world comes together each year to honor historic accomplishments that further the cause of peace, and think about the men and women who have stood here in this city hall being honored – the organizations like the International Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders.

Norway has long understood that the stability of any nation is tied up in the well-being of its people. And every life we save is a step toward that more peaceful, prosperous planet we seek. I think back to that day when I had my daughter and how fortunate I was. But surviving childbirth and growing up healthy should not be a matter of luck or where you live or how much money you have. It should be a fact for every woman everywhere. And I think we can make this happen, and by doing so, bring the world closer to recognizing that working together we not only can save lives, we can help improve them, bring greater peace, prosperity to all.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)