PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY LITTLE ADDRESSES SYRIA, PAKISTAN

Photo Credit:  U.S. Department of Defense.
FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Little Addresses Syria, Pakistan With Reporters
By Jim Garamone
WASHINGTON, June 12, 2012 - The violence in Syria is "deplorable and disgusting," and another indication that the Assad regime has to go, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters.

At his regularly scheduled news conference, Little said forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad are killing innocent Syrian civilians.

He called it a sign of desperation on the part of Syrian forces.
"They are lashing out, and they are lashing out in a violent and brutal way," he said. "And that is absolutely unacceptable."

International efforts led by United Nations envoy Kofi Annan are underway to find an end to the violence. Little suggested the solution is clear.

"I would reiterate, once again, that it's time for President Assad to step aside and for Syria to return to a country of greater peace and stability and a place where the Syrian people can determine their own future," he said.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has said there is no silver bullet to ending the conflict, and today Little elaborated on what the secretary meant.

"We have a degree of violence that is intolerable, perpetrated by a relatively well-armed regime," Little said. "We have an array of opposition groups that are trying to push back on the regime. We know that the circumstances here are very difficult, and I think that's getting ... to what the secretary was alluding to."

Pakistan =also is causing concern among U.S. officials. American negotiators pulled out of talks with the Pakistani government on re-opening ground supply lines to Afghanistan, which Pakistan closed seven months ago. However, U.S. defense officials say this does not mean all conversations with Pakistan has ended.

"We continue to have dialogue on this issue," Little said. "Yes, the negotiating team is coming home for what we hope is a short period of time. We hope that the [ground lines of communication] are reopened soon, and we look forward to having our officials go back to Islamabad to seal the deal at some point in the near future."

Pakistan closed the land routes into Afghanistan after a NATO airstrike along the Afghan-Pakistan border in November mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.
Little said many of the technical issues toward reopening the supply lines have been resolved.

"We have a few more to work through, and we believe we can get to 'yes' with the Pakistanis at the end of the day," he said. "And we hope that day comes sooner rather than later."

U.S. STILL WORKING TO OPEN SUPPLY ROUTES IN PAKISTAN

Photo Credit:  U.S. Navy.
FROM:   AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Work Continues Toward Opening Pakistan Supply Routes
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
WASHINGTON, June 11, 2012 - Though a team of U.S. negotiators is returning home after several weeks of discussing reopening ground supply routes in Pakistan, the talks are not mired, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said here today.

In November, Pakistan closed ground routes that had been used to resupply forces in Afghanistan after a NATO airstrike accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers earlier in the month.

"The [ground lines of communication] remain an open issue," Little told reporters. "We've not reached a resolution yet with the Pakistanis on reopening the ground supply routes. We hope to resolve the issue soon. We haven't gotten to 'yes' yet, but this is something we're going to continue to work very hard [on] with our Pakistani counterparts."

Officials will continue to work through the office of the defense representative in Pakistan to try to resolve the matter, Little said. "We will continue to have dialogue," he added, "so while the issue is not resolved, the talking has not stalled."

The press secretary emphasized that the negotiating team's departure from Pakistan shouldn't be taken as a sign of unwillingness to continue the dialogue.

"The members of the team that are leaving, or have left, are prepared to return to Islamabad at any moment to continue discussions in person," he said. Little said he thinks there is agreement, in concept, that the supply routes can be reopened. "Both sides would like to be able to reopen the ground supply routes," he said. "There are some specific issues that need to [be] worked through."

Although it's possible to continue the mission in Afghanistan without the Pakistani ground supply routes, Little said, having them open would provide more options and would be less expensive.

"The more options you have available to you when you're mounting a major logistics effort like supplying the war effort in Afghanistan, and in bringing people and equipment out, the better," he said.

Little said the decision for the U.S. team to leave Pakistan was independent of Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta's comments reflecting frustration over Pakistan serving as a safe haven for terrorists.

"The comments ... were largely directed at the problem of the Haqqani network and the safe haven in Pakistan," he noted. "We've made our concerns known for a very long time about the safe havens in Pakistan, and the ability of the Haqqani network to cross the border and conduct attacks inside Afghanistan. The secretary's remarks on the trip were focused [on that]."

Little said the Haqqani network's ability to conduct operations inside Afghanistan remains a "very serious concern" for the United States.

"We believe that it's important, as [Panetta] indicated, that the Pakistanis do their part, on their side of the border, to stop the Haqqanis from mounting operations," he said.
"This is something we need to work through with the Pakistanis," he added. "We believe that we can establish a relationship that produces the kind of action we believe is required on their side of the border."

BRIEFING FROM THE PENTAGON JUNE 5, 2012

Photo:  Pentagon.  Credit:  U.S. Department of Defense.
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Presenter: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations Capt. John Kirby June 05, 2012
OD News Briefing with Capt. Kirby from the Pentagon
            CAPTAIN JOHN KIRBY:  Afternoon, everybody.
            First, as you -- just a couple of thoughts here.  First, as you know, Secretary Panetta continues his trip to the Asia-Pacific region this week.  Today he arrived in New Delhi, and he paid calls on both Prime Minister Singh and National Security Advisor Menon.  We provided you all a readout of those meetings, both of which the secretary appreciated.  And he continues to believe these meetings are valuable to helping us continue to improve the military relationship that we enjoy with India.

            You may also have seen that we reached agreement today with India to resume activities related to the recovery of remains of U.S. airmen lost in World War II.  We believe there's about 400 unaccounted-for service members from some 90 wartime crashes in northeastern India, and we have information on about 16 of known crash sites and continue to develop information about others.  As the secretary noted, the return of our fallen heroes remains a top priority for the department.  This agreement reached with India today is a critical first step to providing some comfort to the families of those American airmen, and we are grateful for the government -- to the government of India for their cooperation and understanding.
            With that, Bob.
            Q:  John, what can you say about the U.S. government's degree of confidence in having killed al-Libi in the airstrike yesterday?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yeah, as you know, Bob, we don't talk about the specific of the counterterrorism operations, so I'm not going to be able to confirm those press reports.  But this is a very dangerous individual, and for him to no longer be walking the earth would be a good thing for everybody.  I think the leadership development program of al-Qaida is -- has some health risks and hazards that we think are good.
            Q:  (Off mic) -- drone attacks took place?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  No, as I said, we don't discuss the specifics of counterterrorism operations.  So I'm not going -- I'm not going to speak to specifics of operations.
            Q:  But can -- could you say if al-Libi, the al-Qaida number two in Pakistan, is one of the United States' targets?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Senior leaders of al-Qaida period, no matter where they are, by virtue of what they choose to do for a living, are threats to our security, the security of the American people, and the security of our friends and allies around the world.  They remain threats, and the president, the secretary of defense have made it very clear that we're going to deal with those threats wherever they are.
            Q:  So not responding specifically to this operation yesterday or anything that happened in the incidents yesterday, do you have any indication Abu Yahya al-Libi (ph) is less alive today than he was -- (inaudible)?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I have nothing for you on that today.
            Spence.
            Q:  On India, the secretary asked the Indians to step up their involvement in Afghanistan.  How is that not potentially provocative to the Pakistanis at a time when the department is trying to get greater Pakistani cooperation on a range of Afghanistan-related issues?  And to what degree do the benefits of that deeper Indian cooperation outweigh those potential costs?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I think the reports have been slightly exaggerated; I don't believe the secretary asked them to impress them to do more rather than expressed how much he appreciated the work they were doing to help provide support in Afghanistan and some of the things that they were -- that they have expressed interest in continuing to do in Afghanistan, but also in the region.  And so I think it was really more a statement of appreciation for everything they've done and the hope that they'll continue to stay involved as a leader in the region.
            And they're -- you know, this is a -- it's a vital part of the world, and our engagement in the region is not about bilateral relations only with any one particular country.  We've long said that security in Afghanistan is a -- is tied very closely to our relationship with Pakistan, as it is also with our relationship with other countries in the region, including India.  India is a global power, and they are meeting their responsibilities and we welcome that.
            Q:  So to clarify, did the secretary or did the secretary not ask the Indians for a deeper involvement in training the Afghan army and police?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I think he expressed gratitude for what they have done and -- that his fervent hope that they'll continue to stay engaged in the region and in particular in helping Afghanistan as it moves forward.
            Tony.
            Q:  I'm going to shift gears to the F-22.  On May 15th, you and George Little came up here and announced the flight limitation.  Fast-forward three and half weeks later, where does that -- is there any new information you can impart about how close the Air Force is to divining a cause for the oxygen issue?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I know that -- I don't have anything new to announce today, but I do know that their work continues.  They're working on this very, very hard.  We expect that they will be briefing the secretary, giving him an update, in the very near future.  But I wouldn't want to get ahead of that.  And I certainly would refer you to Air Force on any specifics.  Right now I don't have anything new to announce but -- other than to tell you that we do know that there has been a lot of work in the intervening weeks.  And again, they're preparing to update the secretary soon.
            Q:  What's the -- what's OSD's position on grounding the fleet if at some point a cause is not determined and it's still hanging out there -- as in an engineering problem that needs to be solved, using your words?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Right.  And I think the secretary -- the secretary takes this issue very, very seriously.  It's a safety-of-flight issue.  He understands that.  And he's not taking any options off the table with respect to the future of the aircraft.
            Right now he doesn't believe that grounding the fleet is the prudent course.  And he endorsed the way forward that the Air Force is pursuing, and also, as we announced, imposed some flight restrictions.  I think he wants to see how that's going and he wants to get updated from Air Force leadership, find out what they've learned before we take any more decisions moving forward.
  But no options with respect to this program are off the table right now.  Again, it's a safety-of-flight issue that he takes very, very seriously.
            Q:  (Inaudible) -- national weapons program in case -- if it is forced into combat would these limitations -- not cripple, but curtail its combat effectiveness?
            CAPT. KIRBY: Well, it's on an operational deployment, as you know, in the Middle East region right now, and we haven't discerned any operational impact as a result of the flight limitations that have been placed on it.  So right now the aircraft is performing very well in an operational setting, and again, we're just going to continue to watch this as we move forward.
            Yes, sir.
            Q:  Japan has a new defense minister.  Has the secretary spoken to him on the phone?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Not to my knowledge, they have not communicated, no.
            Q:  Captain, may I ask you something on Mexico?  Recently -- well, as you know, in the current situation the most reliable institution and the most respected institution in Mexico is the army, the Mexican army.  They are struggling against the drug cartels.  Mexico and U.S. have been working closer in this relationship between militaries.  But however, now there are allegations of corruption against four high-rank generals of the army.
            Do you have any concern about these allegations?  Do you think some -- how can harm the current relationship and the work of the -- of the -- of both countries against the organized crime?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't have anything -- I've not heard anything about these allegations.  So this is the first I'm hearing that there are allegations against senior officers in the Mexican army.  So I wouldn't be able to comment on that specifically, except to say that we do value our relationship with the Mexican armed forces and we take very seriously our commitment across the interagency in the United States, not just in the Defense Department, to try to help stem the issue of narcotics flow and narco-violence and terrorism that has occurred inside Mexico -- again, to the degree the Mexicans want support.  I mean, we're not -- we're not doing anything without, of course, their invitation and their request and with their approval.  But it's -- but it's a serious issue we share across that border and that we both are taking very, very seriously.
            And without respect to these allegations that -- again, that I don't know anything about -- I would tell you that I don't see anything changing our commitment to continue to assist the Mexican armed forces to the degree that we can.
            Q:  Do you think there is something that must -- can be done, not only in Mexico but in some other countries to avoid the corruption of the military by these cartels?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, again, your question would imply that there is rampant corruption inside the Mexican military, and I certainly wouldn't make that change here today.  Again, it's a very important relationship that we take very seriously, on a very serious topic and issue, a security issue, for both our nations.  And we want to just continue to look for ways to get that cooperation even better, even closer, to continue to address this problem.
            Bob.
            Q:  NATO's announcement yesterday that they have an agreement with -- I think with Uzbekistan and other countries to the north of Afghanistan to -- for the removal of materiel out of -- out of Afghanistan --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Right.
            Q:  Should this be seen as an indication that the U.S. has essentially given up persuading the Pakistanis to reopening the supply -- overland supply routes?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  No, I wouldn't take it that way at all.  This is an agreement that -- and I would let the alliance speak to it -- that the alliance made with these three nations.  As you know, we have bilateral agreements with them as well, through the Northern Distribution Network, to move goods in and out of Afghanistan.  We are very appreciative for those arrangements and continue to use them.
            We've also long said that we do believe having the ground gates open at Chaman and the Torkham gates open for the flow of coalition traffic in and out of Afghanistan is -- remains valuable.  And we continue to be in discussions with our Pakistani counterparts about the -- about trying to get those gates open and, in general, trying to improve the relationship with Pakistan writ large.
            But no, I would not take the pursuit of this deal and this agreement as any kind of repudiation of the importance of those gates or the larger relationship with Pakistan.
            Q:  The discussions with the Pakistanis about the two gates -- is it -- has it boiled down to a negotiation over money, or are there other issues?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I wouldn't get into the details here from -- I don't want to be negotiating this in public.  But I mean, it -- certainly the gates are a topic of discussion here in these discussions.  There's no question about that.  But it is really, writ large, about trying to get the relationship, at a strategic level, on a better and more firm footing than it has been since the November 26th incident.
            Jeff?
            Q:  I'm just curious -- after 2014, will the Air Force have a role in supplying the Afghan army and police?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  The post-2014 U.S. presence and mission has yet to be determined.  We have long said and continue to believe that they'll be some U.S. presence in Afghanistan and a -- and a U.S. military mission of some kind after the ISAF mission ends at the end of 2014.  But the details of that are -- we aren't even at the point where, you know, we're starting to lay all that out.  It will most likely be in some sort of training, advising and assisting capacity that could involve Air Force personnel and Air Force capabilities.  But we just aren't there yet, Jeff; we just haven't gotten to that point.
            Q:  Now that NATO's moving so much stuff out of Afghanistan, are there any plans to activate the CRAF?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  The CRAF?
            Q:  Civil Relief Air Fleet.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  None that I'm aware of, but I learned a new acronym today.  (Laughter.)  I appreciate that.
            Yes, sir.
            Q:  Captain Kirby, a Chinese official recently described what the secretary announced about the U.S. Naval pivot to Asia as untimely.  What is DOD's reaction to that?  Are you concerned that this announcement could create more tensions with China?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  The secretary has made it clear on his trip that the defense strategy, which includes a rebalancing and more focus on the Asia-Pacific region, is not targeted at any one country in that region but rather the region as a whole -- and our firm belief that we have significant security interests in the Asia-Pacific, significant security commitments to allies and partners in the region.
            It's not aimed at rebuffing or trying to limit the growth and development of any one country.  In fact, he's also made it clear that the peaceful, prosperous rise of China is a good thing, not just for that region, but for the world.
            And as for the timeliness, I think we would all agree that the -- that the defense strategy as written and as endorsed by not only this department, but by the president, is absolutely timely.  This is the right time to be looking at the Asia-Pacific region for -- to renew our commitments there and to rebalance our resources and our attention there.
            Sir.
            Q: Could I just ask for -- on Syria, has there been any contact between the U.S. military and anyone involved with the Syrian Free Army?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  No.  No.  We work -- as I said last week, remain -- we still remain deeply concerned by the violence and by what the Assad regime continues to do to its own people.  They still have an opportunity here to do the right thing, step down, stop killing their own people.  We certainly -- that's the expectation.
            Sir.
            Q:  There are some reports in regards with the exercises of some military troops that are part of NATO before they go to Afghanistan near the border of Mexico.  Is there anything you can tell us about that?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  No, I'm afraid not.  I don't have anything for you on that today.
            Q:  Has there been any agreement with Canada, maybe, to provide some sort of terrain similar to Afghanistan for the training of their troops?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Is there an agreement with Canada about sending troops to Afghanistan?
            Q:  (Off mic) -- no, no, no, providing some training -- a place to train with similar conditions to Afghanistan, for example?  (Off mic) -- Arizona perhaps?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Oh, I'm not aware of anything like that.  I'm happy to take the question and look at that; but I have never -- I have not heard anything about that at all.
            Q:  (Off mic)?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yeah.
            Q:  Can you comment at all about the CBS report that suggests that unmanned drones are collecting information on Americans that could be shared with law enforcement?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Not heard that; have seen that report.  I mean --
            Q:  Well, it's the Defense Department -- (inaudible) --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  -- the Defense Department does not spy on the American people.  But I've not seen that report.
            Q:  So it's not allowed to do this?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  That's right.  Yeah, the Defense Department does not spy on the American people here at home, and I mean, I just -- I've not seen the report, but I certainly wouldn't comment beyond that.
            Q:  Thank you.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yeah.
            OK?
            Q:  Thank you.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Thanks, everybody.
            Q:  (Off mic) --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yep -- sorry, we had one more?
            Q:  I'll just take another bite at this apple.  (Laughter.)  Does the department wish to see India deepen its involvement in the Afghanistan war or maintain what its involvement already is?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  We have been -- we encourage all countries in the region -- and I think it came out of the Chicago summit -- encouraged countries around the world to continue to do more to invest in Afghanistan's future, and there was broad consensus at the Chicago summit by every nation attending to do just that.  But to characterize this -- the secretary's visit to India as some sort of poke in the chest to get them to do more would be -- would be to do his visit a disservice.  That's not why he's in India.  He's in India to thank them for their efforts at regional leadership and to look for ways to deepen our defense cooperation with India and our relationship with India.  That is something he would like to do more of.
            But we're very appreciative of India's efforts in the region and in Afghanistan in particular.  Did that help?
            Q:  Thank you.  Thank you.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  You're welcome.
            Thanks, everybody.

U.S. BELIEVES AL-QAIDA IS STILL MAJOR THREAT

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Al-Qaida Offshoots Are Biggest Terror Threat, Official Says

By Jim Garamone

WASHINGTON, April 29, 2012 - Core Al-Qaida – the group led by Osama bin Laden – has been surpassed by its affiliates as the biggest terrorist threat to the United States, a senior intelligence official said.

"With bin Laden's death, the global jihadist movement lost its most iconic, most effective and most inspirational leader," Robert T. Cardillo, deputy director for intelligence integration with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, told reporters in an April 27 conference call.

Bin Laden's death allowed al-Qaida second-in-command Ayman al Zawahiri to move up, but he has not changed the group's strategic direction and does not have the charisma to appeal to new recruits, Cardillo said.

Navy SEALs killed bin Laden in Pakistan during an intelligence-driven operation on May 2, 2011.

The al-Qaida offshoots – al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Shabob in Somalia, al-Qaida in the Mahgreb – "will surpass the core al-Qaida remaining in Pakistan," Cardillo said. "Each group will seek opportunities to strike Western interests in its operating area, but each group will have different intent and opportunity to execute those plans."

The "Arab Spring" uprisings that began last year have influenced the jihadist movement, the deputy director said. "The unrest and reduced security provides terrorists inspired by that movement more operating space as security services focus more on internal security and regime stability," he said.

As new Middle East leaders address public demands for their participation in government, "we assess that core al-Qaida and the jihadist movement will suffer a strategic setback in that the Arab Spring strikes at the very core of their jihadist narrative," he said.

Al-Qaida believes in progress by violence, but the elections in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and the up-coming election in Libya rebuke that assertion, Cardillo said.

"However, prolonged instability or unmet promises by these new governments ... would give al-Qaida, its affiliates and its allies more time to establish networks, gain support and potentially engage in operations," he said.

U.S. DAILY STATE DEPARTMENT MEETING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 25, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:06 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Good afternoon, everybody. In keeping with our Free the Press campaign heading up to May 3rd, our journalist of the day is from Eritrea. And he is Dawit Isaak, who’s an independent Eritrean journalist. He co-owned the first Eritrean independent newspaper, which often reported on alleged abuses of regime power. He was arrested in 2001 without any formal charges or a trial, and he has since been held incommunicado by the Government of Eritrea. And we take this opportunity to call on the government to release him immediately. And you can learn more about him at our website humanrights.gov.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: I don’t have anything that’s significant enough to begin with, so --

MS. NULAND: Excellent.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) with the Free the Press campaign.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you aware that the Palestinian Authority blocked something like eight websites that are critical of Mahmoud Abbas? And if you are, do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND: I do have something on this. We have seen these reports, and we are concerned about any uses of technology that would restrict access to information. We are raising these concerns with the Palestinian Authority. You know that we’ve had these concerns in other parts of the world, and we wouldn’t want to see the PA going in the direction that some of those regimes have gone in. You know how strongly we advocate freedom of expression, freedom of information. So we will raise these things and endeavor to figure out what’s going on.

QUESTION: Are any of these news agencies and websites U.S.-financed?

MS. NULAND: Said, we started to do a little investigation of that. None of them is funded by the State Department programs under MEPI. I don’t have a full picture of the USAID programs yet. As soon as we do, we’ll get something back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

Please, Andy.

QUESTION: I have a related – slightly related question. In an interview with CNN yesterday, President – Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he supported the idea of a contiguous Palestinian state – which commentators said seemed to be a new line from him – that it wouldn’t look like Swiss cheese under any future arrangement. Is that – do you see that as progress? Is that something that is – marks a step forward?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know that our goal remains a comprehensive peace that creates and allows for a secure Israel and a prosperous and contiguous Palestinian state. But as we’ve always said, we can’t do this through press announcements. We can only do this when the parties sit down together and do the negotiating they have to do.

QUESTION: But I guess my question is: Is Netanyahu’s statement a – does this mark a new – an advance in Israel’s position toward this goal that you’re referring to, contiguous state being now --
MS. NULAND: Well, we ourselves have always called for a contiguous state, so that’s a good thing. But what’s most important is that these parties really roll up their sleeves and work together.
Shaun.

QUESTION: On a somewhat related note, the head of the Israeli military, Lieutenant General Gantz, made some remarks about Iran, saying that he considers the Iranians to be – the Iranian leadership to be rational, and hinting that pressure can work in terms of making them refrain from a bomb. What is your – do you have a reaction to his remarks, an assessment?

MS. NULAND: I don’t, Shaun. I really don’t. I mean, you know where we are. We are working on this approach of pressure and talks in the hope that we can make progress on this. But I think it’s really only Iranian behavior that’s going to tell the true story of what their intentions are.

QUESTION: Also on Iran? There’s the report that apparently, according to the Iranian ambassador to Russia, that the country is now thinking about giving up its nuclear program in order to avoid the looming EU sanctions. Does the U.S know about this? What can you say about it? If this is indeed true, is this a positive development?

MS. NULAND: Well, frankly, these issues have to be negotiated at the table that we have now created and restarted with the P-5+1 process. So the ambassador of Iran to Russia is not a central player in those, and frankly, what’s most important is what Iran says and does at the negotiating table.

QUESTION: But the fact that he is indicating that they are seriously looking at the long-term impact – we believe – ostensibly – on the Iranian economy, is that perhaps a leverage point for the P-5+1 process?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think that we consider it new that the sanctions are biting on the Iranian economy, and that it is a direct result of the international pressure that we’ve been able to bring to bear – more sanctions than we’ve ever been able to muster against Iran – that has brought them back to the negotiating table. But now, what’s most important is that they actually roll up their sleeves and work with us and come clean on their program.

QUESTION: Have there been any conversations with the Embassy in Moscow to see if indeed this was directly communicated, perhaps, to the Russian Government to actually see whether this is just speculation in the press or there might be some sort of signal coming out of this?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think you’re taking this far more seriously than we are. What matters to us is what happens in the room.
Please.

QUESTION: If I can go back to Andy’s question for a second?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you see – does the prime minister’s statement present you with an opportunity to drive the point home about settlement and outposts and so on, the fact that he acknowledged the need for a contiguous contiguity for a possible Palestinian state?

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think there’s any lack of emphasis on our part with regard to how we feel about settlements. I mentioned yesterday that we had been in to talk to the Israelis about this latest move, just to confirm that our Ambassador Shapiro did speak to Israeli negotiator Molho on this issue. So I don’t think there’s any lack of attention to that matter.

QUESTION: Yeah. But up to this point, there has been either a dismissal on the part of the Israelis or they just flat out snub your call to stop the settlements and so on. Now the prime minister himself has spoke of the need for contiguity. Don’t you think that this is a good opportunity to sort of emphatically make the point once more?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve been emphatically making the point all week long, but thanks, Said.
Please.

QUESTION: What was the Israeli response when Shapiro went in to --

MS. NULAND: The Israelis have made their views known on this publicly as well as privately. I don’t think that what they said to us privately differed all that much from what they’ve said privately[1]. But I’ll let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: Which is that?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: Well, what’s your – I want to get – find out what your – is your understanding that they have legalized these outposts?

MS. NULAND: I am not going to get into what happened in the room with them. I’m going to let them characterize their own views. But they’ve been pretty clear publicly --

QUESTION: Well, forget about that. What’s your understanding? I don’t know what they’ve said. I’m asking you: What have they said? What is your understanding of what their position is?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to send you to them on their position.

QUESTION: No, no. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Yeah, yeah. I am.

Go ahead. Please.North Korea?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: No. I need to stay with the Palestinian for a second.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Right. You can ask the Israelis about their own views
.
QUESTION: Yeah. This has to do with a determination that was in today’s Federal Register signed by Bill Burns, who I believe is a U.S. official, right?

It says – and I’m not going to read the whole thing, but it says: “I hereby determine and certify that the Palestinians have not, since the date of the enactment of that act -- ” which refers to the appropriations bill – “obtained in the UN or any specialized agency thereof the same standing as member-states or full membership as a state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians and waive the provisions of Section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Basically what this means is that the Palestinians can still have a waiver to have an office here. Now, I’ve got a couple of questions about this. One, I’m not aware – and maybe I’m wrong, but I am not aware that the Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 has actually been enacted yet.
So one, is that correct? And two, how is possible that you’re waiving this if they got membership in UNESCO in November?

MS. NULAND: Well, I haven’t seen this citation that you’re reading from, so why don’t I take it from you and why don’t we endeavor to come back to you with answers on both of those.
Okay.

QUESTION: A question on North Korea.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: The Chinese vice foreign minister today appeared to make a veiled warning to North Korea not to carry out this supposed or possible nuclear test. I was curious if you had seen or had a reaction to those comments from the Chinese vice foreign minister, and if there’s – what the thinking is, if China is doing enough with their leverage with North Korea to put off a possible nuclear test.

MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve said all through this period, we have been working closely with the Chinese, encouraging them to use all of the political and other kinds of leverage that they have with the DPRK to encourage it to change course. So obviously, public statements of this kind are most welcome. And we look forward to consulting with the Chinese on what more they think can and should be done when we go to – when the Secretary and Secretary Geithner are in Beijing for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue next week.
Please, in the back.

QUESTION: A question to Iran again. They – Iran reported that there was a cyber attack on its oil industry last week. The implications were that the West was behind it, although the United States weren’t named specifically. Have you any idea what might be behind those attacks, who might be, or can you even confirm that these attacks occurred?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have any information on that one way or the other. I refer you to the Iranians.

QUESTION: Former negotiator Larijani said today that this is a really good time for the negotiations to go on between Iran and the West. Do you feel that this is really a propitious time for Iran to go forward with --

MS. NULAND: Well, I think it’s going to be a matter of what these talks produce. So we are obviously committed to working hard. As we said at the time, we believe the first meeting in Istanbul was worth having. We’re going to have another meeting in Baghdad. But I think we’re now getting down to concrete proposals. If there are real steps, we’ll be prepared to respond, but we need to now see some real steps.

QUESTION: So your feeling is that the meeting on May 23rd in Baghdad will be far more substantive than the meeting in Istanbul, which basically set the date of the meeting?

MS. NULAND: I think we’ve sort of set the table at Istanbul. Now we need to start seeing what the meal’s going to look like.

QUESTION: And when you say concrete proposal, do you expect Iran to submit like a – to open up its facilities and to submit to whatever it needs from the West to aid it in a civilian program?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know all of the issues of concern to us with regard to Iran’s program. They’re clearly outlined in the repeated IAEA reports. So we had a chance to have that opening meeting of this round of talks and to talk about all the issues that we care about, and now we have to do some more technical exchanges between now and Baghdad, and then we have to see whether at the Baghdad round we can really get down to what the Iranians are prepared to do and what steps we might be willing to take to respond if the steps are real.

Okay.

QUESTION: And finally, is the feeling in this town that the sanctions are so biting that Iran is beginning to approach these talks seriously?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, we’ve said that we believe that the sanctions are biting, as I said at the top of the briefing. We think that that has led to their decision to come back to the table, and we hope that it’ll continue to contribute to working through this issue diplomatically, because that’s obviously the best way to get this done.
Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you have an update on David Hale?

MS. NULAND: I did, especially after I mangled it yesterday.

QUESTION: Oh. Was he not in Saudi?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. He actually went to Saudi last night. He had a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister bin Abdullah today in Riyadh. He then went on to Cairo this evening. In Cairo, he’s going to meet with Egyptian officials. But he’s also going to meet with Qatari Prime Minister Al Thani, who is also going to be in Cairo at the same time.

QUESTION: So --

MS. NULAND: And then he is coming back to Washington on the weekend.

QUESTION: So he’s not going to Qatar, he’s --

MS. NULAND: Correct, correct.

QUESTION: And wasn’t there another one that he was going to – wasn’t he going to go to the UAE or something like that? Maybe --

MS. NULAND: Net on this trip: He will have been in Jerusalem, Jericho, Amman, Riyadh – I think he was in Kuwait at the front end, I can’t remember – Saudi, et cetera.

QUESTION: All right. And so he decided that it’s not worth his while, it’s not worth his time to go back to Israel and the PA after Cairo?

MS. NULAND: I think he – that he wants to come home and report and consult here before he makes another trip. That’s the current planning.

QUESTION: When he is in Cairo, isn’t he going to bring up the gas issue between Egypt and Israel?

MS. NULAND: The which issue?

QUESTION: The gas.

QUESTION: Gas.

QUESTION: Natural gas.

MS. NULAND: I’m sure that’ll be one of the subjects that he discusses, yes.

QUESTION: Any message he will bring to Cairo in this regard?

MS. NULAND: I think we’ll let him have his consultations in Cairo and we see what we want to read out on those.
Please.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout on Ambassador Grossman’s travel to Copenhagen, Ankara, and Abu Dhabi?

MS. NULAND: I do have some info on Ambassador Grossman’s travels.
First, on his European stops, as you know, he was primarily focused on support for the Afghan National Security Forces in line with the Chicago summit agenda that the Secretary laid out when she was in Brussels last week. He also was yesterday in Turkey for the same purposes, in Ankara. Today, he is in Abu Dhabi, and he – there was also a meeting of the International Contact Group on Afghanistan in the UAE.
And he is going on tonight to Islamabad, where he will be having bilateral conversations, and he will also be taking part in a core group meeting – this is Afghanistan, U.S., and Pakistan – that’ll be attended for the Pakistanis by Foreign Secretary Jilani, and by the Afghans by Deputy Foreign Minister Ludin.

QUESTION: So when he visits Islamabad and meets the foreign ministers, is he carrying any message from Secretary Clinton on --

MS. NULAND: When he goes to Pakistan?
QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Well, this is, as you know, in the context of the parliament concluding its review. We have begun our process of reengaging with the Pakistani Government to work through the issues that have come up during the review. So this will be an effort to really take up those issues one at a time and to see how we work through them.

QUESTION: So has Pakistan formally informed you about the parliamentary review or the conditions that they have announced publicly?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we mentioned a week ago that the Secretary had spoken to Foreign Minister Khar, so she gave some views on this, and it was agreed at that time that Ambassador Grossman would make a trip to Pakistan to deepen and broaden the conversation that we’ve been having. I think you know that we had also had Deputy Secretary Nides in Pakistan, I think it was two weeks ago. And we had
USAID Administrator Shah there, we had Generals Allen and Dempsey there. So you can see us working hard now with the Pakistanis to work through the issues.

QUESTION: And this is a day-long trip?

MS. NULAND: He will be there – he’s arriving this evening. I think he will be there through Friday is my understanding, because the core group meeting is on Friday.

QUESTION: And he’s also going to Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND: He’s not going to Afghanistan on this trip.

QUESTION: He’s going back to D.C.?

MS. NULAND: Correct, yeah.

QUESTION: As part of the deepening of the relationship, did Pakistan inform the U.S. that it was going to conduct this missile test in the last 24 hours?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know what kind of advanced information we have – we had. I assume we had some, because I do know that they did have contact with the Indian Government before they proceeded with this.

QUESTION: Any reaction to that, to the missile test, to this – obviously it comes after the Indian test.

MS. NULAND: Well, we – obviously, the same message that we gave at the time of the Indian test, that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding nuclear and missile capabilities. We understand that this was a planned launch. The Pakistanis have said it wasn’t a direct response to the Indian test. But what’s most important is that they do seem to have taken steps to inform the Indians, and we, as you know, are quite intent on those two countries continuing to work together and improve their dialogue.

QUESTION: Sorry, just on Grossman’s meetings with the Pakistanis, not the core group --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: So Ambassador Grossman is prepared to discuss everything that’s on the list of Pakistani concerns?

MS. NULAND: I think he’s open to working through the results of the parliamentary review with the Pakistani Government. I don’t want to prejudge or preempt how those conversations will go or what agenda the Pakistani side will bring, but as we said, we had been waiting for that review to be concluded before we could fully reengage. So this is our opportunity to do that.

QUESTION: But do you see the results of that review as something that can be negotiated, or is it something that you’re just going to accept flat out or --

MS. NULAND: I think we want to hear the Pakistani Government’s presentation of where it thinks the bilateral relationship needs to go, and then we will present our views and work through the issues, as partners do. That’s the expectation, so --

QUESTION: So it is something that you see as a negotiation process?

MS. NULAND: This is a conversation. This is a bilateral consultation about how we can improve our relationship along all of the lines that have been difficult. So I don’t want to prejudge what he’s going to hear or where we’re going to go in response. But as you know, we had said that we really needed them to complete their internal work and then come back to us, give us a sense of what they think this ought to lead to, and then we can talk. So that’s – this is the talk.

QUESTION: Does he have the authority to – or the authorization to discuss things like drone strikes, which are very high on the Pakistanis’ list? Well, I mean, at the top of the Pakistanis’ list.

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you can imagine that (a) I’m not going to get into intelligence issues and how we talk about them or don’t talk about them; and I’m certainly not going to get into the precise instructions of our fully empowered special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

QUESTION: So he is? He can negotiate with the Pakistanis on this and any other issue?

MS. NULAND: I am not using the “n” word and I’m not going to get into his instructions.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just briefly on that?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you when the last time he was in Pakistan, when his last visit was to Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: I do not have that. I will take it for you.

Yeah, please.

QUESTION: In the same region, Afghanistan. Congressman Rohrabacher has been giving interviews talking about his co-del he was on where he did not end up going to Afghanistan. He said he had a conversation with the Secretary, who, basically, what he is saying is told her it would be best if he did not go to Afghanistan. I was curious if you had any comment on that situation and whether the Secretary might have had any conversations with President Karzai about letting Congressman Rohrabacher come to Afghanistan as part of that co-del.

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think we can improve on what Congressman Rohrabacher himself has said, so why don’t we just leave it there.

QUESTION: Any reason why we would support President Karzai’s wishes over a U.S. congressman going on this trip?

MS. NULAND: I think you know whenever any American travels, including members of Congress, members of the Executive Branch, traditionally there’s a visa process engaged there. In this case, sometimes when they fly in, it’s sort of handled more administratively. We were advised, as Congressman Rohrabacher made clear, that the sovereign government didn’t think this visit was timely. So it was in that context that he made his decision after our advice.
Okay, please.

QUESTION: I have a question on South America --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- for what Americans might consider the ongoing soap opera involving the Secret Service, except this doesn’t involve the Secret Service. We’re talking about three U.S. Marines who apparently have been punished as well as an employee of the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia who apparently were implicated in tossing a prostitute out of a moving car sometime last year. And I wanted to find out, since we know that the Marines have been punished, who was the employee of the Embassy? Was this person an American? Was this person a local hire? What can you say about a pending lawsuit now, apparently, against the Embassy?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, your report of the incident in question is not accurate in terms of what actually happened. Second, this is something that happened back in December. There was a State Department employee involved. The – we did cooperate fully with the appropriate Brazilian authorities, including with the civil police. None of the Americans involved in the incident are still in Brazil. The civil police, as I understand it, are still working on their case, and no charges have been brought by the Brazilian authorities.

QUESTION: When you say that none of the people involved are still in Brazil, does that imply that the Embassy employee is an American?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And does that person still work for the U.S. Government?

MS. NULAND: I do not have the answer to that. I believe so. But as you know, we don’t talk about our personnel for privacy reasons.

QUESTION: What is the policy? Much has been made about the Secret Service reviewing its standards of behavior for its employees when they’re detailed overseas. What is the standard for the State Department and its employees and how they’re expected to behave, conform to local laws overseas?

MS. NULAND: We have a zero-tolerance policy for any kind of conduct of the kind that was of – that involves prostitution or anything of that nature. I can give you the Foreign Affairs Manual regulations, if that’s helpful to you.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS. NULAND: Not only for the reasons of morality and local law, but also because any kind of conduct of that kind exposes our employees to blackmail and other things.

QUESTION: Even though that a country like Colombia may have legalized activity in this (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: Just a couple things on that. What about the description that you were read of the incident isn’t correct?

MS. NULAND: Well, Ros talked about somebody being thrown out of a car and this kind of thing. That is not what happened in this case.

QUESTION: What did happen?

QUESTION: Because that’s the description that the Secretary of Defense offered to reporters who were traveling with him. So --

MS. NULAND: Our information is that after four Embassy personnel left the club, the – a woman involved in this incident attempted to open a car door and get into a closed and moving vehicle. She was not able to do so. She fell and she injured herself. All of the Embassy personnel involved in this incident were interviewed by the Brazilian civil police. We have also conducted our own investigation into the incident, and we’ve taken all the appropriate steps regarding the individuals involved consistent with our laws and our regulations.

QUESTION: Did these – did any of these – in particular, the Embassy employee, did they violate any rule?

MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, they haven’t been charged by Brazilian authorities.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean any of the FAM rules.

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into the precise adjudication of the case for reasons of privacy with regard to our employee.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you said that none of the people are still in the country.
MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: But someone can be moved without being punished. I mean, you could be transferred just simply because this person – for another reason. So do you know if there was any – was there any reprimand or punishment handed out, and was there any reason to? Did they – did these people do anything wrong?

MS. NULAND: Again, my information is that we conducted our own investigation of this issue, and we took the appropriate steps. What I’m not at liberty to get into is what steps those might have been, given the privacy issues involving the employee. And that’s our policy that we don’t talk about disciplinary steps taken with employees.

QUESTION: Well, the Secret Service didn’t either until just recently.

MS. NULAND: I understand that.

QUESTION: Well, that’s why it’s important to know whether they actually did something wrong or they were just transferred or moved to – or demoted or whatever. I mean, maybe – I mean, the description that you just read, it sounds like it could be perfectly plausible that these people didn’t do anything wrong at all. So that’s --

MS. NULAND: And it may well be. I just don’t have information with regard to the case beyond what I’ve just given you.

QUESTION: Well, I would suggest that the Department might want to come clean on this, considering the interest in the – in that. The other thing is that in the FAM, it talks about – it said “notorious behavior” or something like that. But it only talks about that being a problem if it were to become publicly known.

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have the FAM in front of me. I think I should get it for you.

QUESTION: So I’m not sure I – okay. But I’m not – I’m curious as to – you say it’s a zero-tolerance policy, but it’s not clear to me that it is, in fact, zero tolerance if the only way it gets you into trouble is if other people find out about it.

MS. NULAND: But the problem – but this is the problem. This is why you have to have a zero-tolerance policy, because at any given time, if you open yourself up to such behavior, it could become known. And you can’t, as somebody engaged in behavior of that kind, predict when that might happen. And so you’re immediately vulnerable, and so is the U.S. Government. So that’s why we have the regulations that we have.
QUESTION: Okay. Can we --

QUESTION: Is there a lawsuit pending against the U.S. Government?

MS. NULAND: As I said, we have – I have information to indicate that there have been no charges filed by the – in Brazil.

QUESTION: FAM stands for foreign manual?

QUESTION: Wait, wait. I just want to make sure that you understand that – what I’m trying to get. I want – basically, I want to know if the people involved in this violated that FAM regulation.

MS. NULAND: I understand that, and I – my expectation is that we are not going to talk about an individual personnel case from the podium.

QUESTION: I’m just curious as to what FAM stands for.

MS. NULAND: Sorry. Foreign Affairs Manual, which are our published rules and regulations for ourselves. But anybody who’s interested in those, we’ll get them for you. I did have them a couple of days ago. I don’t have them here.
Please.

QUESTION: On Japan?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: There are reports that a U.S.-Japan joint announcement on the realignment of the U.S. forces in Japan scheduled on Wednesday, today, has been delayed because there are some senators have been criticizing it. I am curious if it’s really a reason – if you – do you think you can make an announcement before Japan’s prime minister visit to D.C. at this – at the end of this April?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me say that we have made progress in these negotiations. As you know, and as members of Congress have made clear, we have obligations to consult and to brief. And there are implications, including budgetary implications, that the Congress has to be happy with. So we are having those consultations. I’m not prepared to predict right now when we’ll go public with where we are, but everybody has their internal procedures, and we’re working through those now.

QUESTION: Toria?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I wonder if you’re aware, but the head of the Syrian National Council, Burhan Ghalioun, cancelled his trip to Washington. Are you aware of that, or do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND: I am. I frankly don’t have any back story. He’s a pretty busy guy, so maybe he had things to --

QUESTION: Okay. So it was not done at the suggestion, let’s say, of Washington?

MS. NULAND: No, not at all. Not at all. Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you find yourself in a position where the options towards Syria are actually – they range from bad to worse?

MS. NULAND: Well, the Secretary talked about this quite a bit yesterday. She made clear that we’re at a crossroads, and we’re at a very difficult crossroads as these monitors are starting to come in, are trying to do their job. In some cases, they are able to provide space and bear witness to what is going on, but in other cases, either they’ve had difficulty getting where they need to go, they’ve had difficulty in getting agreement with regard to the makeup of the personnel, and they have – as we talked about yesterday, we’ve had at least one incident where they went into a town, they were able to interview people, and then there were reprisals afterwards, which is just deplorable.

QUESTION: To follow up on my question that I raised a couple days ago on the number of monitors: Are you comfortable that 300 will be able to do their jobs, considering that there are so many flashpoints and there are so many places and villages and hamlets that they need to be at?

MS. NULAND: Well, frankly, we’re – right now we’re at 12, so let us get this scaled up and let us see what a mission of 300 that’s truly able to operate freely, truly able to do what it thinks is necessary in terms of interviewing people, in terms of gathering information, moving around, and then we’ll go from there. But at the moment, we’re at 12, and that’s not enough.

QUESTION: Okay. Going back to the Balkans experience, I mean, we – they had, like, thousands of monitors to be able to do the job. Do you see a point in time where this actually needs to be done?

MS. NULAND: Said, I think we have to take this one step at a time. We’ve seen what just a handful have been able to do in the towns where they’ve been – they’ve shown up. We’ve had outpourings of Syrian civilians thanking them, able to express themselves, so let’s see what we can do with 300. The most important thing now is to get them in and get them deployed and get them deployed freely.
Ros.

QUESTION: The French foreign minister, Mr. Juppe, suggested today that even if we let the full complement of monitors try to do its work in Syria, that it may well be time for the world to start looking at some sort of military intervention. Is he jumping the gun? Pardon the pun.

MS. NULAND: I think the Secretary made clear again yesterday, as she had in Paris, that even as we do our best to get these monitors in and doing their job, we also have to look at increased pressure in case this Annan plan doesn’t succeed. With regard to external military forces, our position on that has not changed, Ros.
Please.

QUESTION: Was the Secretary intending to meet with Burhan Ghalioun?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’d gotten that far in the planning of his schedule. She has met with him, I think, three times now. She – and most recently when we were in Istanbul some three weeks ago. So I think one of the issues was whether he was going to be here when she was here, but yeah.

QUESTION: A U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh from Illinois has written a letter to Secretary Clinton on reviewing a U.S. decision of 2005 not to issue a visa to the Gujarat chief minister in India, Narendra Modi. Is Secretary Clinton responding to the letter? And are you reviewing the U.S. position on that issue?

MS. NULAND: I haven’t seen the letter. I think you know that our position on the visa issue hasn’t changed at all, so I would guess that if we do respond, it’ll be along familiar lines.
I’m getting the high sign here because we have --

QUESTION: One more, on Burma.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Nine NGOs have – in a statement, have expressed concern on Secretary’s decision to ease sanctions on Burma. They are saying this is not going to be fruitful as far as Burma is concerned. How do you address their concerns?

MS. NULAND: If you’re referring – you’re referring to the letter from the American NGOs, right?
QUESTION: Yes.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Well, as you know, we are not at the step with Burma yet that the NGOs are concerned about. We do have a very strong, vibrant dialogue with our own NGOs, with Burmese NGOs, as we develop this action for action policy, and we’ll continue to do that.
Thanks, everybody.

PAKISTAN SAFE HAVENS ADD TO PROBLEMS IN AFGHANISTAN

FROM AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Pakistan, Corruption Affect South, West Afghanistan

By Jim Garamone

WASHINGTON, April 24, 2012 - Pakistani safe havens add to the difficulty in Afghanistan's Helmand province, and corruption also retards progress, the former commander of NATO forces in the region said here today.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. John A. Toolan, commander of the 2nd Marine Division and the former commander of Regional Command-South West, told the Defense Writers' Group that during his year-long tour in command of the region the problem of Pakistan frustrated him.

His area of operations in Afghanistan -- the provinces of Helmand and Nimruz and Regional Command-South centered around Kandahar -- are particularly susceptible to interference coming from Pakistan.

Pakistan represents a safe haven for terror groups working inside Afghanistan. The two places inside Pakistan that were problematic are Chaman -- a Pakistani city near Spin Bolduk -- and Bahram Chah. Chaman is a major port of entry on the road to Kandahar. It is free-flowing trade hub and the enemy has built up huge caches of bomb-making material and Taliban supplies.

Bahram Chah is a hub where drugs go out of the country and lethal aid is coming in, Toonan said. "We saw it. We interdicted a lot," he said.

His Marines and their Afghan allies interdicted about $78 million in drugs. "But it's a pittance," he said. "I'm told by DEA that it's less than 12 percent of the opium that's moving across the border."

The Pakistani Army's 12th Corps was positioned across the border, he said. In his year-long tour, Toolan said he didn't have the opportunity to sit down with 12th Corps commanders and say, "'Here's what we're doing on our side of the border. If you can do this on your side of the border, we can really take care of this problem.'"

The problem is, he said, Pakistan has worries of its own and Balochistan, which borders Afghanistan's Helmand and Nimruz provinces, has its own separatist movement underway.

"The Pakistani military knows, "if they start doing things, they could stir up the Balochistan beehive, so they just sit there. And it's frustrating.

Diplomatic pressure on Pakistan is important, "but we don't want to break the Pakistani government," Toolan said.

"From my perspective as a military commander having to deal with the problem, it's like I can't shut the water off, I just keep mopping up the floor," Toolan said. "If I could turn the water off in Pakistan it would be a lot better."

The biggest threat inside Afghanistan is corruption, Toolan said. This threat, he said, consists of two types: parasitic and predatory. Parasitic corruption, he said, is from government officials feathering their own nests.

The general cited an Afghan senator from his area who is "a bad influencer in the south of Afghanistan. He's connected to the drug industry and his influence is to keep that alive."

Toolan said the man in question actively works to weaken the authority of Afghanistan's central government. "As long as the central government allows people like that to operate, it keeps it weak," he said.

Predatory corruption is something military commanders can deal with, Toolan said. This is the abuse of power, he said. This is soldiers or police who abuse their official positions for profit.

"While I was in Helmand province, there were indications that predatory corruption was occurring," the general said. "What we tried to do was to identify it quickly ... and actually hold people accountable."

During his tour in the province, Toolan said the rule of law was starting to take root and the provincial governor and police chief also wanted to crack down on such predatory corruption.

There are solutions, but they will take time, the general said.

"We need to work really hard at strengthening the central government to take on the parasitic corruption, and maintain a close watch and cooperation with government officials to identify predatory corruption," Toolan said.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 16, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

MR. TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the State Department. Very briefly before getting to your questions, I did want to congratulate the people of Timor-Leste, the institutions of government, and civil society on the successful conduct of a peaceful and orderly presidential election on April 16. So far the information available to us suggests that the elections was free and fair. We understand that Timor-Leste electoral authorities are continuing to tabulate the official results of this second round e
Provisional results should be forthcoming in the next 24 hours or so, but clearly we congratulate the people of Timor-Leste. We strongly support the country in its efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and consolidate peace and security. And of course, this election constitutes a significant step in that process.
That’s all I have for the top. Matt.
QUESTION: Yeah. I wonder if we can start with Iran.
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I realize that there’s been some comment about the results of the meeting on Saturday, including from the President yesterday. But I’m just wondering, what is it that the United States thinks was achieved?
MR. TONER: Well, I think going into this we were looking for, as the Secretary and others said, a sustained process. We’re already looking to a second meeting next month in Baghdad. I think this was – I don’t think anyone’s trying to characterize this as more than a beginning and a first step, if you will. We said that we want to Iran come up with some concrete proposals moving forward, and that if that were to happen, we would look at ways – Cathy Ashton’s statement said as much – to reciprocate. But we view this as a good, positive, initial first step.
QUESTION: She described it – Catherine Ashton described it as constructive and useful. But it seems to me that the only thing that resulted from it is an agreement to meet again. That’s a pretty low bar. We used to kind of make fun of results like that, where the only thing that you can say that they managed to accomplish was they agreed to meet each other again.
MR. TONER: Well, I don’t think anyone’s under any illusions that we were going to come away from this first meeting advancing the ball far down the field, to use a sports metaphor. We were looking for, as we’ve said all along, the beginning step of a sustained process.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Secretary and President have been very clear that there’s still time for diplomacy. But there is an urgency here, so we want to see it move forward.
QUESTION: All right. So the goal is to have a sustained process?
MR. TONER: Not – no. Ultimately the goal is to have Iran take concrete steps that obviously address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. But we recognize that that’s going to take time.
QUESTION: Can you describe for me where a sustained process has worked in the past to achieve the result that you were looking for? In particular, I think of the sustained processes that I’ve dealt with, and not a single one of them has ever achieved any success.
MR. TONER: Well, I would just – look, this is so apples and oranges to compare one negotiation to another --
QUESTION: No, I don’t know. I mean, if it’s the process --
MR. TONER: -- and one type of engagement to another. We did have a – our engagement and our sanctions – our two-track approach, if you will, to Burma has borne fruit, in the sense that Burma’s really opened up and taken steps. But it’s a completely different issue. Don’t really want to go down there. You asked me for a comparison.
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but except that you weren’t talking with the Burmese before. There wasn’t a sustained process at all. The only place you’ve had a sustained process is in the Middle East, and it’s gone absolutely nowhere. So I’m just wondering why you think that the immediate goal – not the end goal, but the immediate goal of getting a sustained – of establishing a sustained process, why you think that that’s the right way to go.
MR. TONER: Well, Matt, no one’s – by sustained process, no one’s trying to downplay the urgency and the need for concrete action.
QUESTION: All right. Well, the problem with --
MR. TONER: So we are moving to another step. This was a beginning meeting. We came away with looking towards Baghdad, but we’re obviously going to look for serious engagement and action on the part of the Iranians.
QUESTION: One last thing, then.
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: And that is that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not seem too pleased with this and he said basically you’ve given them another five weeks to keep enriching and to do whatever they want without any pressure at all. Why is he not right?
MR. TONER: Well, the President spoke to this yesterday. It’s – there’s no freebie for Iran.
QUESTION: The President gave --
MR. TONER: We’ve got the strongest sanctions in history against Iran right now, and they’re going to get stronger as we move into the summer. And there’s no sense that Iran’s getting some kind of freebie here.
QUESTION: Well, just – can you say – is it in fact correct that Iran will be able to, until the next meeting at least, continue to do whatever it wants?
MR. TONER: Again, Iran is – and we’ve seen --
QUESTION: Well, isn’t that right or not?
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: No?
MR. TONER: We’ve seen the effects that these sanctions are having on Iran. It’s strangling its economy. The rial has fallen in value. So the idea that they’re getting some kind of free pass is not true.
QUESTION: Well, the question is, what is there right now – why is Netanyahu wrong? Why does this not mean that Iran now has another five weeks to do whatever it wants?
MR. TONER: Again, because it’s not as though Iran were free and clear. They are operating under very difficult, if not crippling, international sanctions, and they are aware of that. So they have every motivation to engage constructively and come to the table with concrete proposals.
QUESTION: And why --
QUESTION: Were there any particular --
QUESTION: Why five weeks, not two weeks?
MR. TONER: I don’t know why that time frame. But they’re looking to Baghdad.
Yeah.
QUESTION: As a result of the Istanbul meeting, is Iran really closer to the U.S. or international position on the issue of, let’s say, uranium enrichment?
MR. TONER: Again, I’m not going to get into those specific discussions, and I’m not going to negotiate this from the podium. I think --
QUESTION: It is your understanding that they are closer, that they have actually moved towards the position of the United States and other international community members?
MR. TONER: I think that they came to the table serious. The talks focused on the nuclear issues of concern here, which has not always been the case in the past. But we’re very much at a beginning stage here. But we feel it was a foundation for next talks.
QUESTION: And that does give you reason to believe that Iran is headed in the right direction as far as coming clean on its nuclear program?
MR. TONER: I think we’re going to wait and see what they actually come to the table with in terms of proposals, and then we’ll be ready to --
QUESTION: So in five weeks, you could say we have another five weeks to meet, let’s say, this time somewhere else?
MR. TONER: I don’t think – I think the Secretary – the President was very clear there is a window that remains open, but that window is closing.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Mark, Tehran’s already asking for the West to start canceling the sanctions. Is that where it comes into place before the Baghdad meeting?
MR. TONER: No. We’re not there yet. Sanctions remain in place and – until we – no one’s talking about any sanctions being reversed or canceled at all.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On North Korea?
MR. TONER: I think – did you have another question, Shaun, or --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. TONER: Okay. Do you want to switch? Are we done with Iran?
QUESTION: Just one Iran.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: Actually, a follow-up. If there will be a result on the – in negotiation in Baghdad. The sanction regime will be started on June 28th. There will be a change in the sanction regime if – I mean, according to the results of – Baghdad result, in Baghdad conference?
MR. TONER: I think you’re – that’s just a very speculative question. Let’s wait till we get to Baghdad and see.
QUESTION: No, I mean – and to understand the process.
MR. TONER: No. I mean, look, nobody’s talking about ending or suspending the sanctions regime that’s in place.
QUESTION: Except the Iranians.
MR. TONER: Except for the Iranians, but we’re definitely not there.
Yeah, go ahead. North Korea?
QUESTION: On North Korea, regarding North Korean missile launch, does the United States have any additional separate sanctions against North Korea?
MR. TONER: Does the U.S. have --
QUESTION: Any additional separate sanctions against North Korea?
MR. TONER: You mean aside from existing UN sanctions or --
QUESTION: Yeah, U.S. sanctions.
MR. TONER: I believe we do have, clearly, bilateral sanctions against North Korea. We’ve got very strong sanctions in place against North Korea, clearly. But you raise North Korea and I did want to note you’ve obviously all seen reports out of New York that the presidential statement was adopted earlier today that condemns North Korea’s recent attempt to launch a satellite. Ambassador Rice spoke to it more eloquently than I ever could, but she obviously stressed that this was an extremely quick response by the Security Council and a swift and unanimous adoption is what she said, and it’s very true.
QUESTION: Freezing of North Korean financial sanctions against North --
MR. TONER: I think what – again, what this presidential statement referred to is they’re going to refer it to the Sanctions Committee to look at ways that they can tighten – always when there’s sanctions in place – and we do this across the board whether it’s Iran or Syria or indeed North Korea – there’s always ways to look at how to tighten the implementation and strengthen the implementation of the sanctions. So I think that’s one of the things we’re looking at.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: North Korea told a State Department official that it will not accept IAEA inspections because those were based on the condition of nutritional assistance. So what is the U.S. view on this?
MR. TONER: I would just refer you to the IAEA. I don’t know. I haven’t seen any of those reports, so it’s really their response that matters here.
Go ahead, Shaun. Okay, Ros.
QUESTION: What’s the sense of whether or not North Korea might still be planning to launch any underground nuclear tests?
MR. TONER: I mean, others have spoken. I had mentioned on Friday there is very often a cycle or a pattern to these kinds of actions. It’s impossible, frankly, for us to say at this point, but we strongly, strongly discourage it from moving down that track.
QUESTION: I don’t know if you want to go down this road, but --
MR. TONER: (Inaudible) not. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Not a good preface. But Kim Jong-un, he spoke for the first time in public. Any observations from – from – about the leadership transition, about how it’s going? Maybe give us --
MR. TONER: No. Honestly, it’s a pretty opaque system, so it’s really difficult to make any kind of judgments. He spoke about their further military industrialization, or however you want to term it. What we’ve said before is something I would just say again, which is North Korea needs to focus less on further militarization and more on meeting the needs and aspirations of its people.
QUESTION: Was this a speech his father could have given?
MR. TONER: No idea.
QUESTION: So U.S. options on the table for sanctions against North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yes. I mean, we’re always looking at – I’m not sure what the – you’re saying --
QUESTION: Any particular options do you have it? I mean, U.S. have --
MR. TONER: I mean, we’re always looking at ways to strengthen our sanctions regime, whether it’s bilateral or multilateral through the UN, especially in light of North Korea’s actions.
Yeah. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
QUESTION: No. Let’s stay here.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: Do – are there any plans to talk to the North Koreans, to tell them what, if anything, they could do to get – to revive the February 29th agreement? Is there anything that they can do to revive that?
MR. TONER: Well, I think it’s pretty clear with the satellite launch that they’ve dug themselves into a hole, if you will, of further isolation. They’ve walked away from the statements or the commitments that they made on Leap Day that you just mentioned. I’m not aware that there’s going to be any further engagement with the North Koreans moving forward. Nothing is certainly planned. The President said the other day that if they do come back and appear to engage or are willing to engage constructively, then we can move forward down that track. But again, we’ve not seen any indication that they’re going to do that.
QUESTION: You and numerous other officials have constantly been referring to North Korea and have used the phrase, “We’re not going to – we’ve seen that movie once; we’re not going to watch it again.”
MR. TONER: We have a lot of --
QUESTION: Yeah. Why are you willing --
MR. TONER: A lot of cliches flying around.
QUESTION: Why are you willing to watch the movie again still?
MR. TONER: Well, you were – you’re saying that we are, in fact, watching this movie again.
QUESTION: Well, I’m just wondering. I mean, if – are they irredeemable? And if they’re not irredeemable, why not? And how can you ever trust anything that they say again?
MR. TONER: It’s a fair question, Matt. I mean, and one I frankly can’t answer. I think all we can do is offer a different path, the opportunity for North Korea to engage constructively with the rest of the world. That opportunity is clearly in their interest. We can see it. They for some reason cannot. But they have to, again, cease, come in line with existing UN Security Council resolutions. That’s the bare minimum. They’ve been unable to do that.
QUESTION: The U.S. had essentially conceded that there was some sort of food emergency inside North Korea. Now, with this attempted missile launch and the suspension of the food aid, how serious does the U.S., does the World Food Program, judge what’s happening inside North Korea right now?
MR. TONER: I mean, I frankly don’t have the latest assessments in front of me. We are moving into the growing season, but really, I’d have to refer you to the experts in Rome or the World Food Program, who can give you a better judge of that. It’s unfortunate that we no longer can move forward with this program. Our hearts go out to the North Korean people who are suffering, but it’s clear that we can’t have any confidence that this program will be implemented in the way that we want to see it implemented.
QUESTION: Campbell mentioned that the trilateral meeting between U.S., Japan, and South Korea will happen sometime after --
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: -- next month. Is there any update as to where this will happen, or the when?
MR. TONER: I don’t know.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Just stay tuned, but no, I don’t have any further information.
Are we ready to move on from North Korea?
QUESTION: I think the North – North Korea doesn’t care about the sanctions against North Korea, the UN Resolution 1780 – 1718 or 1874, whatever. They don’t care about – they ignore their sanctions. How can, continually, North Koreans ignore it?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, they – it’s their own – it’s – you’re saying that they simply ignore these existing resolutions --
QUESTION: Yes, sir.
MR. TONER: And as long as they continue to do so, the door for further engagement will remain shut and they’ll remain under sanctions. And it’s clearly not in their interest, as I said to Matt. We can all see that, but they cannot. But we do remain ready to engage them. But again, at the bare minimum, they need to come in line with existing UN Security Council resolutions.
Yes, Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MR. TONER: Let’s go to Syria, then I’ll get over to you guys.
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask if you have any update on the conduct or the ability of the UN observers with a blue cap --
MR. TONER: Right. My understanding in terms of – that there are – there is an advance group of monitors there on the ground now, I believe six monitors. Obviously, the full complement, I think, is 31, so we’re looking at another 25 remaining in the next couple of days.
But overall, the news has not been good. We’ve seen sporadic fighting continuing in parts of Syria. I think we’ve all seen reports out of Homs that the government forces continue to shell parts of the city. So it’s very clear that Assad has not complied with the six points in terms of allowing democratic or peaceful demonstrations to take place, releasing political prisoners. There’s no movement on any of the other five points, and it appears that the fragile ceasefire is eroding as well.
QUESTION: Didn’t you say last week that --
QUESTION: So once it’s completely eroded, once it’s --
MR. TONER: I don’t know that you can say it’s completely eroded. I can say that the Syrian opposition --
QUESTION: No, no. I said “once,” once this happens, if you are saying that it’s eroding quickly, so we are going to get to a point where it is completely eroded. So what is the next step?
MR. TONER: Well, I do think that we’re looking at the advance team of monitors’ deployment as an important test of the Syrian Government’s intentions going forward. These individuals, as – sorry, but these individuals, as they get on the ground, as we’ve said, need to be out and have access to all parts of Syria.
QUESTION: Well, the regime has already suggested that it has the right to turn back any monitor whose nationality it has a problem with, and it also says that it’s going to put in whatever restrictions it feels are necessary on the team’s movements. Is that already a capitulation that they’re not going along with this? I mean, how effective can these monitors be if they’re already walking into these roadblocks?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, clearly if they can’t get out to see the parts of the country that they need to see, then they’re not going to be very effective. So let’s let them get the full complement on the ground and look at it from there. But at the same time, we’re under no illusions that the Syrian Government has time and time again said it was complying with the Assad plan, with the peace plan set out by the Arab League, with the Turkish initiative, and has only used it to stall for time.
QUESTION: Mark?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: I realize this is a UN operation, but since you are the president of the Security Council – not you personally, but the United States is the president of the Security Council this month – I figure you have something to do with it. Are 31 monitors enough to do the job? And who came up with this idea? Why not 33? Why not 37?
MR. TONER: I stopped short of that. I think that’s right and not a typo that I’m not – it’s not 30 monitors. I don’t know the answer to that.
QUESTION: Well still, who came up with it?
MR. TONER: I don’t know and I don’t – I mean, the Secretary has called for a robust mission --
QUESTION: Thirty-one?
MR. TONER: I think we’d like to see more monitors on the ground and going forward --
QUESTION: Can you ask --
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question behind the number.
QUESTION: I think it’s somewhere around like 250.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: Is that sufficient, in your view?
MR. TONER: I mean, again, we want to see as many – I think it’s a better number, certainly, than 30. But again, we’re going to let this mission move forward --
QUESTION: But --
MR. TONER: -- and we’re going to – again, the proof here is whether these individuals can actually get out and are not thwarted in their attempt to view different parts of Syria and really to be able to guarantee or to certify that the ceasefire is, in fact, in place.
QUESTION: How do you determine – how do you determine how many you need? Like you look at the Kosovo or the Balkans example back in the ‘90s and so on. How do you decide that we need X number of monitors in Syria or in the very – in Homs or Daraa and Deir al-Zour and so on? How do you decide that?
MR. TONER: That’s probably a better question for the UN, even though Matt correctly points out we’re the president of the Security Council. But I’d really have to refer you to the experts. I think what we’ve been on the record saying is we want as robust a mission as possible, so we would rather see more rather than fewer.
Yeah. Go ahead, Ros.
QUESTION: Where’s the deterrence effect in all this in terms of keeping the regime from continuing to attack people in areas where they feel that they need to be put down, for lack of a better expression?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think the idea behind monitors is you can actually get them out into all areas of the country, then they do become a deterrence factor insofar as their eyes and ears on the ground bearing witness to what’s going on. The other deterrence factor is we’ve not let up, if you will, on the gas on increased sanctions, on increased political pressure. And that’s going to stay absolutely in place until we see Syria take – the Syrian Government take concrete steps to implement the Annan plan.
QUESTION: But isn’t that ascribing these monitors a level of moral authority that somehow the intrinsic dignity of the people themselves don’t seem to have on the regime?
MR. TONER: Not at all. Not at all. It’s simply providing, as we would with – we’ve advocated for as robust as possible an international media presence on the ground, because we recognize that these so-called impartial observers can add a measure of credibility to reports that we’re already well aware of that are happening, of the atrocities that are happening on the ground. And it’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to – out of the last Friends of Syria meeting, this group that – accountability group that’s going to take – that’s going to begin compiling evidence of these atrocities, because as we’ve said many times, the Syrian Government – those officials who have been – are implicit – or complicit, rather, in this – in the regime’s abuses are going to be held accountable.
QUESTION: There are some activists who have argued that sending in the monitors is all well and fine, but what they really need are weapons to fight back against the regime.
MR. TONER: Well look, as I noted earlier, it’s the – the Syrian opposition has courageously refrained, in large part, from engaging in this latest assault by the government’s forces, by Assad’s regime’s artillery shells. And that, I think, speaks to their commitment to a peaceful way forward.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask about Ambassador Ford. Is he in any way in touch with the internal opposition?
MR. TONER: Yes. He still maintains contact. He obviously has a Facebook page that’s still seen throughout Syria, and he uses that as a platform to show, as you’ve seen, satellite photos and other imagery --
QUESTION: So he only communicates --
MR. TONER: -- that shows some of the regime’s abuses.
QUESTION: -- through that medium, through Facebook?
MR. TONER: He can. And we’ve also got, obviously, other – I mean, as much as – clearly communication is an issue here. That’s some of the things we’ve talked about before. But he does remain in contact with members of the opposition.
QUESTION: How long will they stay this time – monitors in Syrian cities?
MR. TONER: You know what? I don’t – I apologize. I don’t have the – I mean, I think they’ll stay as long as they can to ensure that the Annan plan is indeed being implemented. I don’t have a timeframe.
QUESTION: Long way to go. So will there be any Americans within the group?
MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware of. We are obviously supporting this – supporting the mission financially, but we don’t expect to deploy U.S. monitors.
QUESTION: About the buffer zone, there’s some circles they discussed this buffer zone option on Syria in the – over the weekend, including the spokesman of Kofi Annan. Have you started to discuss with allies the buffer zone option in Syria?
MR. TONER: Again, we’ve been pretty clear that it’s – a buffer zone is a pretty complex undertaking, and there’s obviously – it’s not necessarily as easy as it sounds to implement. We talked about – I know the Turkish Government officials have made reference to some type of buffer zone. We’d certainly be willing to listen to any ideas that are on the table; but what we want to see, what we’ve been focused on, is a ceasefire and then humanitarian access to those areas that desperately need it.
QUESTION: Humanitarian corridor is an alternative to buffer zone for you?
MR. TONER: Again, I think we’re always willing to look at various alternatives while recognizing the difficulties inherent in some of these operations. And there are indeed serious challenges. But I think, as we said, our focus right now – we’ve got the Annan plan. Let’s see this ceasefire take hold, strengthen, and then we can get the kind of humanitarian access that’s needed to people --
QUESTION: So you’re expecting this idea from Turks or other neighborhood countries in the region?
MR. TONER: Yes. I mean, that – we certainly would be open to ideas.
QUESTION: And the last question about the refugees in Turkey. Have you offered any aid to Turkish Government for – to handle this refugee problem?
MR. TONER: You know what? I haven’t checked on that lately. I mean, I believe we have, as well as other international organizations. Turkey’s played just a remarkable leadership role in this crisis and especially with regard to hosting these refugees on Turkish soil. I’m not – I do know at the beginning of the crisis when refugees started crossing the border into Turkey that we had offered and Turkey had declined. I’m not sure where we’re at. I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: The Palestinian issue?
QUESTION: No.
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: One. Since no matter how imperfect or initial or preliminary this ceasefire is, if it really is even a ceasefire since fighting continues, does the Administration, despite that it was – in fact, that is was signed, is the Administration still planning to ramp up its aid to the Syrian opposition?
MR. TONER: You’re talking about the non-lethal?
QUESTION: Uh-huh.
MR. TONER: I think that’s moving forward, yes.
QUESTION: So that’s going to go ahead regardless of whether the ceasefire actually takes hold and --
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: -- whether the regime agrees to all the steps in the Annan plan?
MR. TONER: Well again, right. I mean, this is a way to allow --
QUESTION: It’s going to continue no matter what the government does?
MR. TONER: My understanding is yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Because what we’re trying to do is build --
QUESTION: And then --
MR. TONER: Sorry, just to complete the thought. I mean, what we’re trying to do is help the peaceful opposition coalesce, to be able to communicate and coordinate themselves. And indeed, if they were looking down the road at some kind of democratic transition, that would be useful.
QUESTION: And then the second thing is: What’s your understanding about the next Friends of Syria meeting? Is there one scheduled?
MR. TONER: Yeah. I did check on that. I think we’re still obviously open to it, but we haven’t seen any announcements out of Paris. So we’ll wait and see how that develops, but certainly the Secretary remains ready to go.
QUESTION: One more on that. Ambassador Ford’s engagement with Syrian Government officials – how much has he had --
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. You said Syrian Government officials?
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: I’m not aware that he’s had any contacts with Syrian Government officials. I’ll have to check. I don’t think so.
QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian issue?
MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead. I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Mark, tomorrow the Palestinians are getting ready to hand in a much touted and talked about letter to the office of Prime Minister Netanyahu. And now my question to you (inaudible) from a report from Haaretz. They’re saying that initially the letter had a threat by Abbas that they will dissolve the Authority, but under a great deal of pressure from the Government of the United States, that he backed down. Could you confirm or deny that?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. Can you just rewind there? I didn’t get all of it.
QUESTION: Did you exercise a great deal of pressure on Palestinian President – Authority Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw a clause in his letter that threatened to dissolve the Palestinian Authority?
MR. TONER: It’s --
QUESTION: Are you aware of the letter that I’m talking about?
MR. TONER: I’m not aware of the letter. We had a Quartet meeting here last week. You saw the statement. I can’t confirm any letter, and I’m certainly not going to get into the contents of any letter that I don’t know whether it exists.
QUESTION: Well, because this was also published --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and the full text was --
MR. TONER: The full text of the letter?
QUESTION: -- published by the AFP, I mean, today. It would be a good thing to look at to see what is your response to some of the points that were made in the letter.
My second question on the Palestinian issue: Israel has blocked about 1,500 pro-Palestinian activists, mainly from Europe, to come to the West Bank – Bethlehem and Ramallah and other places. Do you have a position on this issue? Are you aware of it?
MR. TONER: You’re talking about the so-called “flytilla?”
QUESTION: Yeah. The international “flytime.” Yeah.
MR. TONER: Well, just to finish on the – speaking more broadly, I mean, obviously I can’t confirm there’s a letter. I can’t – I’m not – and if I was able to, I wouldn’t get into the contents.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: But we do – sorry, just to finish my thought – we do support direct communication between the parties. I mean, we think that’s in and of itself a good thing. In terms of the “flytilla,” I would just say Israel is a sovereign nation like any sovereign nation that has a right to control the flow of people and goods through its ports.
QUESTION: But you do agree that Area A, at least Area A in the Palestinian territory, which includes Bethlehem and Ramallah and so on, is basically a sovereign area. So they can conceivably go visit Palestinian territories, correct?
MR. TONER: You’ve heard our positions.
Go ahead, in the back.
QUESTION: Yeah. Hi, Mark. And with respect to Cartagena, did the Embassy there learn about the alleged conduct of Secret Service agents from the local authorities? And what steps did Embassy personnel take after learning that – those allegations?
MR. TONER: I’d – first of all, I’d have to refer you to the Secret Service for any details about the investigation into the incident. I don’t have details of how it came to light. But again, the President spoke to this yesterday in Cartagena, saying there’s an investigation underway. Let’s wait for all the details to emerge. I’m not sure, frankly, if the Embassy had any direct role.
QUESTION: Well, Congressman King – I mean, he’s quoted on the record saying that they were brought in by the police. But I’m wondering if that kicked off either an internal investigation within State or them calling the U.S. State Department to inform the status.
MR. TONER: Well, as you know, I mean, very often there’s – in these advance groups that go down or go anywhere for a trip that there are many representatives of the United States there on the scene. I’m not sure what the Embassy’s precise role was, if any. I’ll have to take the question.
But in terms of the investigation, the President spoke to it. It needs to be fully played out. But he also spoke to the need for any American official who’s abroad to recognize the fact that they are representatives of the United States and conduct themselves appropriately.
QUESTION: And just last --
QUESTION: And was a message given to the employees of Diplomatic Security, just as a friendly reminder?
MR. TONER: I don’t know of any updated information. We certainly expect any U.S. diplomat overseas at all times to behave accordingly and behave appropriately, and to recognize that when they are overseas, they are seen as representatives of the United States.
QUESTION: I wasn’t aware that you had moved your Embassy from Bogota to Cartagena.
MR. TONER: I didn’t – did I – I didn’t mean to imply that.
QUESTION: There is a consulate in Cartagena, yeah?
MR. TONER: I believe so.
QUESTION: And would they have been the ones who were involved in this?
MR. TONER: That’s what I – I don’t know, Matt. I don’t know. I mean --
QUESTION: Or how much of the Embassy staff was up in Cartagena for --
MR. TONER: That’s what I was trying to get at is that, obviously, for a presidential visit --
QUESTION: Yeah. But there is a consulate --
MR. TONER: -- there would be a detail of Embassy staff as part of the advance team.
QUESTION: There is a consulate in Cartagena, yeah?
MR. TONER: I’ll check. I believe so.
QUESTION: On Turkey? Just one.
MR. TONER: Actually, maybe Patrick. No? No.
QUESTION: There is no embassy. There is no consulate in Cartagena.
MR. TONER: No consulate.
QUESTION: Why not?
MR. TONER: I have no idea.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, you’re opening them the middle of nowhere Brazil all of the sudden. Why not --
MR. TONER: I mean, very often consulates are based on reciprocity, so it probably has something to do with the number of consulates that we would have in any country would be based on the number of consulates and embassies that that country – given country would have in the United States. That’s often the way it works.
QUESTION: Okay. I --
MR. TONER: But you stumped me on Cartagena, so --
QUESTION: Colombia doesn’t --
MR. TONER: -- you can give me that smug smile. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Colombia has fewer than two consulates in the United States? Somehow I find that hard to believe.
MR. TONER: I don’t know.
QUESTION: Different issue?
QUESTION: Can I follow on that, Mark?
MR. TONER: Sure. Yeah, go ahead. Finish.
QUESTION: Well, just that you’re aware, I’m sure, the Secretary was photographed out having fun in Cartagena. Does – what’s your comment? Some have criticized her for doing that in light of this scandal investigation, that she’s out appearing to be partying. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. TONER: I can confirm that she indeed did have a very good time and was just enjoying some of the nightlife in Cartagena with colleagues. And it’s a – it’s kind of a dog-bite-man story. There’s no – there’s nothing to it.
Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, you had your hand raised.
QUESTION: On Argentina, it has been announced in the past couple of hours that the Argentinean Government is taking over the country’s top oil producer. It’s controlled by Spain. It’s a privately held company in Spain but there is also American investment in the company, and the Argentinean Government is taking over 51 percent of the company. The European Union has filed complaints, public complaints. And it has been said during the weekend that the American Government was planning to file a complaint against – in front of the World Trade Organization if this happens, so I wanted to ask you about that.
MR. TONER: And I’ll have to take the question. I’m not aware that – of the – in fact that – of the story, so I’ll have to look into that, and we’ll get back to you.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MR. TONER: Egypt.
QUESTION: I wonder if you have any comment on the panel striking out three candidates? Omar Suleiman, who fell short (inaudible) by 31 out of 30,000 – 31 votes out 30,000 addition – whatever – and Khairat el-Shater and Salah Abu Ismail. Do you have a comment on that?
MR. TONER: Well, this is obviously a very hot issue, if you will, in Egypt. We’ve been very clear all along, as this process moves forward through parliamentary elections, through the constitution writing, and now into the presidential race, our only concern is that this is a free and fair and transparent process, that it move forward in a way that meets the aspirations of the Egyptian people. But it’s not for us to comment on the political process itself.
QUESTION: Do you have a first-hand exposure as to the process that they have used to weed out applicants?
MR. TONER: I do not.
QUESTION: You don’t – I mean, the U.S. Government, I’m saying – that --
MR. TONER: You’re talking about --
QUESTION: I’m talking about the vetting process to who qualifies and who does not qualify as a candidate. Does the U.S. in any way through its nongovernment organizations or directly have an exposure or have a window onto this process?
MR. TONER: On to that vetting process or whatever? Yeah, I mean, look, they’ve come out publicly with their explanation for their decisions. Again, our interest is only seeing that this process move forward towards presidential elections in June in a way that’s perceived by the Egyptian people as free and fair and democratic. But in terms of a window onto their process, I don’t have anything particularly to add to that. And you mentioned NGOs, so I’ll just say we do believe that nongovernment organizations can play a very objective, but important, role in these kinds of political processes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Different topic?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Sudan?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I just wanted to see your assessment about how things stand right now. Obviously, there’s the reported incursion by the south (inaudible) area.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: And then following that, the parliament in Khartoum today declared that South Sudan is considered an enemy, an enemy state. What’s your assessment of how things stand now, and is there a risk of all-out war?
MR. TONER: Well, we strongly condemn the bombing by the Sudan armed forces of the UN Mission in South Sudan. They had a community support base in Mayom Unity State, which is located in South Sudan. And of course, we denounce the continued aerial bombardment by the Sudanese armed forces of South Sudan, which includes civilian areas. As we said last week, we strongly condemn the offensive military incursion into Sudan by the SPLA and the seizure of Heglig and we want to see South Sudan to withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally from Heglig.
So I mean, we want to see bottom line an immediate and unconditional cessation of hostilities. South Sudan needs to withdraw from Heglig and Sudan needs to stop its aerial bombardments, and both sides need to get back to the AU mechanism for resolving these outstanding issues. The tensions are far too high, the fighting has to cease, and humanitarian access has to be granted.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up on that.
MR. TONER: And just a note – I’m sorry, just to – sorry. I do want to note that our Special Envoy, Princeton Lyman, did meet with South Sudan President Salva Kiir earlier today in Juba and they had a meaningful dialogue about how to deescalate the tensions.
QUESTION: When Sudan has their – during that meeting, were there any discussions about what might happen if they don’t withdraw from Heglig?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, I think our very strong urging here is for both sides to recognize the fact that this is really a no-win situation and the only way to resolve these differences is to get back to the high-level implementation panel process overseen by the AU. I mean, that’s how you’re going to resolve these territorial issues, these border issues, as well as issues of equity in terms of resources.
Right now, both sides are losing as a result of this fighting.
QUESTION: But the U.S. is one of the primary funders of the new Government of South Sudan. So does the U.S. not have undue influence on --
MR. TONER: Well, again, what we’re trying to do here is to move forward. We’ve seen the CPA process stall or break down. We’ve seen a return to fighting. So we need to get both countries back on track.
QUESTION: That was the process I was thinking of earlier – the one that was a success.
MR. TONER: Well --
QUESTION: Yeah. Where’s it gotten you now?
MR. TONER: I mean, we’re still getting through it. But anyway.
QUESTION: Brief follow-up. President Kiir of the South, China has invited him to come to Beijing. China, of course, in the past has faced criticism, particularly on Capitol Hill, over its relationship to Khartoum. Do you have an assessment of the invitation? Is this a positive step? Is it – what role could the Chinese play in this?
MR. TONER: Well, obviously, we would want to see them convey the very same message in this regard, that it’s to no one’s gain to continue to fighting. Both sides need to step back and return to the table.
QUESTION: But you don’t think that the Chinese invitation has everything to do with the fact that they’re not getting any oil out of South Sudan because they’re not pumping any of it?
MR. TONER: Well, again, regardless of their motives, what’s important here is --
QUESTION: So you don’t care if the Chinese are acting purely out of self-interest here?
MR. TONER: What is important here is that – the fact that there is no agreement on sharing these resources is hurting both Sudan and South Sudan.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Yeah, on Pakistan?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Pakistani parliament has approved its recommendation to reset U.S.-Pakistan relation and looks like they’re willing to restore NATO supply line. But it seems like Islamabad is very clear about telling Washington first stop drone attacks, apology on NATO strike on November 24th. So what is your response on this? It seems like they are very clear about these conditions. So where we go from here now?
MR. TONER: Well, first of all, I think the parliamentary review process, while it has in fact left – parliament is still – has not been approved by the cabinet, I can, I think, confirm that Secretary Clinton spoke with Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar a few hours ago, and they did discuss next steps in the U.S.-Pakistani dialogue in light of the conclusion of this parliamentary review. They also, of course, discussed yesterday’s attacks in Afghanistan. But they did raise the parliamentary review process and our willingness to engage in a dialogue with Pakistan.
QUESTION: Speaking of Afghanistan, I know that the Secretary spoke with Ambassador Crocker on Sunday.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: And then we have this criticism from President Karzai that essentially it was NATO intelligence failures that led to this sustained attack. I thought the Afghans were in charge of security for Kabul.
MR. TONER: Well, first of all, you’re right that the Secretary did speak to Ambassador Crocker yesterday. Obviously, we condemn the terrible attacks that took place yesterday in Kabul. And we also offer our deepest condolences to all the victims and their families. And I think one of the positive stories, if you can term it that way, out of yesterday’s attacks is a quick response and professionalism of the Afghan security forces. I know General Allen noted that in his statement. They did respond quickly. They required, frankly, little or no ISAF support. So it really showed how far they’ve come in increasing their capabilities and their professionalism.
QUESTION: But doesn’t it beg the question that you have someone such as the Afghan president basically blaming the West for the second sort of attack of this nature in the last six months when he’s been insisting, “My people should be able to take control”?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think the response of the Afghan security forces showed that they have made great strides in being able to respond to these kinds of attacks. Bottom line, Ros, is that intelligence is great. But you’re never going to be able to prevent every attack. And I think that the fact that they were able to respond so quickly, that they were able to minimize the casualties from this attack and basically thwart the Taliban’s actions very quickly and effectively speaks volumes.
QUESTION: But it does beg the question, though. I mean, these attacks took place in supposedly the safest area of Kabul, where the U.S. and other Western countries have their embassies.
MR. TONER: But again, also --
QUESTION: And for the amount of infiltration that’s alleged to have happened in the past week leading up to Sunday’s attack does raise some questions about whether or not the Afghans can be trusted to actually protect the foreign diplomats and others --
MR. TONER: Look --
QUESTION: -- who were there trying to work with them.
MR. TONER: Sure. I mean, there’s no place that’s immune to the type of attack that took place in Kabul. We’ve seen that in our own country. We can speak to the fact that a lone terrorist or a small group of terrorists hell-bent on violence can attack almost anywhere. What I think is important is that security forces are able to respond quickly, effectively, and to squelch it before it becomes something more deadly than it already has been.
QUESTION: Can I just go back to Pakistan for a moment?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You mentioned that Secretary Clinton’s expressed willingness to discuss the issues with Foreign Minister Khar. What – how specific did it get? I mean, is – I mean, some of the demands that have been issued by the Pakistani parliament include an end to drone attacks, an apology. Did they get into the specifics? Did the Secretary say she’s willing talk about these --
MR. TONER: I can’t get into the specifics of whether they discussed the specifics. I think – look, our posture right now is we recognize that this has been a long and difficult road for Pakistan. It speaks, frankly, to the strength of the – of Pakistan’s democratic institutions that this parliamentary review has taken place, that the civilian government has taken the lead on this issue, has owned it, and has come up with a series of recommendations. I think it’s incumbent on us now to engage with them in a discussion about some of those recommendations.
QUESTION: On the Secretary’s call with Foreign Minister Khar, that was from Brazil?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Not from the plane?
MR. TONER: I don’t know, Matt. I’ll find out. I think it was from – no, it was from Brazil, because she’s on the ground in Brazil. Yeah. If that’s different, I’ll let you know. But I’m almost positive it was from Brazil.
QUESTION: And was there any other – was there anything else discussed, other than the attacks on Afghanistan and the parliamentary review?
MR. TONER: The parliamentary review and the attacks on Afghanistan.
QUESTION: That was it? What did the Secretary tell the foreign minister about what the U.S. thinks of the parliamentary review, other than that you respect it and think that the Pakistanis can --
MR. TONER: Well, again, I can’t get into the exact details of the conversation. Frankly, I didn’t get a readout.
QUESTION: Well, we went through this a little bit on Thursday so --
MR. TONER: Sure. What did we get in --
QUESTION: Is everything on – is everything that the Pakistanis raised something that you’re willing to talk about?
MR. TONER: I’m not going to say that we’re going to address every issue on that list. I think, as I said, our posture regarding this review is that we’re willing to listen to the concerns and try to address them as best we can.
QUESTION: Are you willing to listen to their concerns on every issue?
MR. TONER: And again, I know where you’re leaning or getting at on this, and I can’t talk about that.
QUESTION: I’m leaning towards nothing, really.
MR. TONER: Okay. I mean, I think we’re willing to listen, to hear them out on --
QUESTION: So nothing is off the table, right?
MR. TONER: -- all the issues that are – I think we’re willing to listen and to hear them out on all the issues that were raised in this review that are of concern to them. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. So nothing is off the table?
MR. TONER: Okay. If that --
QUESTION: Anything that they want to talk about, you’ll talk about?
MR. TONER: No, I think we said that it’s in the parliamentary review. I don’t think we’re going to ask them about --
QUESTION: No, that’s what I mean. Anything in the – no, I’m not expecting you to raise some issue that’s unrelated or them to raise some issue like, I don’t know, Canada about – but everything that they have in the review --
MR. TONER: I think we’re --
QUESTION: -- you’re willing to talk --
MR. TONER: I think we’re willing to listen to their concerns that were raised in the parliamentary review. However, I’m not going to --
QUESTION: Are you willing to do anything about them?
MR. TONER: Again, I think we’re going to listen to them and we’re going to engage in them as any bilateral relationship would, and talk about – talk through these issues.
QUESTION: Is it problematic when the Pakistani parliament publicly – and the cabinet start debating and talking about something that you’re not allowed to talk about because it’s classified; yet everybody and their mother is aware that it’s going on, and it happens virtually every day?
MR. TONER: It’s not problematic, because I’m not going to address it.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Ambassador Sherry Rehman just returned from Islamabad. Is she going to meet some State Department official to present those recommendation?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. Ambassador?
QUESTION: Sherry Rehman, the Pakistan ambassador.
MR. TONER: Oh, sure. Okay.
QUESTION: She’s just --
MR. TONER: Right. I don’t know, frankly. I don’t know if she has any meetings planned. I’ll look into it.
QUESTION: Are any U.S. diplomats traveling to Pakistan or anybody --
MR. TONER: Nothing to announce. That it? Thanks, guys.