SEC ALLEGES FORMER EXECUTIVE AT ENGINEERING FIRM BRIBED FOREIGN OFFICIAL

FROM:  U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Charges Former Executive at Tampa-Based Engineering Firm With FCPA Violations
01/22/2015 10:40 AM EST

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a former officer at a Tampa, Fla.-based engineering and construction firm with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by offering and authorizing bribes and employment to foreign officials to secure Qatari government contracts.

The SEC also announced a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with The PBSJ Corporation that defers FCPA charges for a period of two years and requires the company to comply with certain undertakings.  PBSJ must immediately pay $3.4 million in financial remedies as part of the agreement, which reflects the company’s significant cooperation with the SEC investigation.   PBSJ is now known as The Atkins North America Holdings Corporation and no longer offers public stock in the U.S.

An SEC investigation found that Walid Hatoum, who has agreed to settle the SEC’s charges, offered to funnel funds to a local company owned and controlled by a foreign official in order to secure two multi-million Qatari government contracts for PBSJ in 2009.  The foreign official subsequently provided Hatoum and PBSJ’s international subsidiary with access to confidential sealed-bid and pricing information that enabled the PBSJ subsidiary to tender winning bids for a hotel resort development project in Morocco and a light rail transit project in Qatar.

“Hatoum offered and authorized nearly $1.4 million in bribes disguised as ‘agency fees’ intended for a foreign official who used an alias to communicate confidential information that assisted PBSJ,” said Kara Brockmeyer, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit.  “PBSJ ignored multiple red flags that should have enabled other officers and employees to uncover the bribery scheme at an earlier stage.  But once discovered, the company self-reported the potential FCPA violations and cooperated substantially.”

According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding against Hatoum, he also offered employment to a second foreign official in return for assistance as the bribery scheme began to unravel and PBSJ lost the hotel resort contract.  Even though the bribes themselves were not consummated before the scheme was uncovered by the company, PBSJ earned approximately $2.9 million in illicit profits because it continued work on the light rail project until a replacement company could be found.

Under the DPA, PBSJ agreed to pay disgorgement and interest of $3,032,875 and a penalty of $375,000.  PBSJ took quick steps to end the misconduct after self-reporting to the SEC, and the company voluntarily made witnesses available for interviews and provided factual chronologies, timelines, internal summaries, and full forensic images to cooperate with the SEC’s investigation.

The SEC’s order against Hatoum finds that he violated the anti-bribery, internal accounting controls, books and records, and false records provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Without admitting or denying the findings, Hatoum agreed to pay a penalty of $50,000.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by FCPA Unit members Tracy L. Price and Jim Valentino.  The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Justice Department’s Fraud Section and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

STATE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCES GOOD NEWS IN HUANG CASE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
On the Case of Matthew and Grace Huang
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 2, 2014

The Attorney General of the State of Qatar has informed the U.S. Embassy in Qatar that no further appeal will be filed in the case of Matthew and Grace Huang. At the opening of business on Wednesday December 3, the travel ban will be lifted and Mr. and Mrs. Huang will be free to travel. The United States applauds this decision, and we look forward to seeing the Huangs reunited with their children at home.

DOD SECRETARY MEETS WITH SAUD ARABIA'S MINISTER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD

FROM:  U.S. DEFESNE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel Meets with Saudi, Qatari Ministers
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21, 2014 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel met here today with Saudi Arabia's Minister of the National Guard Prince Mitib bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Qatar's Minister of State for Defense Affairs Maj. Gen. Hamad bin Ali al-Attiyah.

Pentagon Spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby summarized the meetings in a statement released today, calling Saudi Arabia and Qatar “integral to ongoing coalition efforts against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.”

In separate meetings with the two ministers, Kirby said, Hagel “expressed appreciation for the strategic partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and thanked the ministers for their countries' support in the fight against the ISIL.”

Hagel highlighted Saudi and Qatari participation in coalition airstrikes as well as their support to train and equip the moderate Syrian opposition, Kirby said. Hagel and the two ministers, he added, “underscored their desire to continue working closely to confront ISIL and other security challenges in the region.”

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT ON AIRSTRIKES WITHIN SYRIA

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

September 23, 2014

Statement by the President on Airstrikes in Syria

South Lawn

10:11 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.  Last night, on my orders, America’s armed forces began strikes against ISIL targets in Syria.  Today, the American people give thanks for the extraordinary service of our men and women in uniform, including the pilots who flew these missions with the courage and professionalism that we've come to expect from the finest military that the world has ever known.

Earlier this month, I outlined for the American people our strategy to confront the threat posed by the terrorist group known as ISIL.  I made clear that as part of this campaign the United States would take action against targets in both Iraq and Syria so that these terrorists can't find safe haven anywhere.  I also made clear that America would act as part of a broad coalition.  And that's exactly what we've done.

We were joined in this action by our friends and partners -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain, and Qatar.  America is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations on behalf of our common security.

The strength of this coalition makes it clear to the world that this is not America’s fight alone.  Above all, the people and governments in the Middle East are rejecting ISIL and standing up for the peace and security that the people of the region and the world deserve.

Meanwhile, we will move forward with our plans, supported by bipartisan majorities in Congress, to ramp up our effort to train and equip the Syrian opposition, who are the best counterweight to ISIL and the Assad regime.  And more broadly, over 40 nations have offered to help in this comprehensive effort to confront this terrorist threat -- to take out terrorist targets; to train and equip Iraqi and Syrian opposition fighters who are going up against ISIL on the ground; to cut off ISIL’s financing; to counter its hateful ideology; and to stop the flow of fighters into and out of the region.

Last night, we also took strikes to disrupt plotting against the United States and our allies by seasoned al Qaeda operatives in Syria who are known as the Khorasan Group.  And once again, it must be clear to anyone who would plot against America and try to do Americans harm that we will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists who threaten our people.

I've spoken to leaders in Congress and I'm pleased that there is bipartisan support for the actions we are taking.  America is always stronger when we stand united, and that unity sends a powerful message to the world that we will do what’s necessary to defend our country.

Over the next several days I will have the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Abadi of Iraq, and with friends and allies at the United Nations to continue building support for the coalition that is confronting this serious threat to our peace and security.  The overall effort will take time.  There will be challenges ahead.  But we're going to do what’s necessary to take the fight to this terrorist group, for the security of the country and the region and for the entire world.

Thanks.  God bless our troops.  God bless America.

END

SECRETARY HAGEL ANNOUNCES RELEASE OF ARMY SGT. BOWE BERGDAHL

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Hagel Announces Release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl by Afghan Captors

By Cheryl Pellerin

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 31, 2014 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel today announced that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s Afghan captors have released him to the U.S. military after taking him prisoner nearly five years ago while he was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

Bergdahl, at the time a private first class, went missing from his post in Afghanistan on June 30, 2009. He was the only U.S. service member known to be held captive there.

The now 28-year-old soldier was thought captured by the Haqqani network. He appeared in a proof-of-life video that surfaced last January and military officials said at the time they believed the video to be recently made.

“A few hours ago, the family of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was informed by President [Barack] Obama that their long wait for his return will soon be over,” Hagel said in today’s statement.

“We will give him all the support he needs to help him recover from this ordeal,” the secretary added, “and we are grateful that he will soon be reunited with his family.”

Also today, Hagel said he informed Congress of the decision to transfer five detainees from Guantánamo Bay to Qatar.

“The United States has coordinated closely with Qatar to ensure that security measures are in place and the national security of the United States will not be compromised,” Hagel said.

“I appreciate the efforts of the Emir of Qatar to put these measures in place and I want to thank him for his instrumental role in facilitating the return of Sgt. Bergdahl,” the secretary acknowledged.

One of Hagel’s first acts upon taking office in February 2013 was to call the Bergdahl family about their son’s situation, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said during a January press conference.

In June 2011 the Army announced that it had promoted Bergdahl to the rank of sergeant. Bergdahl, now 27, is assigned to the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division at Fort Richardson, now Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, in Alaska.

That was Bergdahl’s second promotion since he was listed as Missing-Captured on June 30, 2009. He was promoted to the rank of specialist in June 2010.
“Sgt. Bergdahl's return is a powerful reminder of the enduring, sacred commitment our nation makes to all those who serve in uniform,” Hagel said in his statement today.

The U.S. government never forgot Sgt. Bergdahl, he added, and the Defense Department and other federal agencies never stopped working to bring him back.
“I am grateful to all the military and civilian professionals -­ from DOD and our interagency partners -­ who helped make this moment possible, and to all those Americans who stood vigil with the Bergdahl family,” the secretary said.
Hagel issued the announcement while on a 12-day international trip to countries in Asia and Europe.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey also commented on Bergdahl's return today. The chairman said in a written statement, "It is our ethos that we never leave a fallen comrade. Today we have back in our ranks the only remaining captured soldier from our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Welcome home, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

SECRETARY KERRY'S COMMENTS ON THE RETURN OF U.S. POW BOWE BERGDAHL

FROM:  

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl

Press Statement

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

May 31, 2014

---

The responsibility to make sure all of our men and women in uniform return from battle, especially those taken prisoner and held during war, is deeply personal to me as someone who has worn the uniform of my country – and as someone who was deeply involved in those efforts with respect to the unfinished business of the war in which I fought. Our nation has a sober and solemn duty to ensure that every single American who signs up to serve our country comes home. The cost of years of captivity to Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and his family is immeasurable. Today, we are heartened that Sergeant Bergdahl will soon by reunited with his family and friends, from whom he has been apart for far too long.

I extend my personal gratitude to the Government of Qatar – and especially to the Amir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani – who played such an instrumental role in returning Sergeant Bergdahl home. We work every day with Qatar on a range of critical foreign policy priorities. This effort – one that was personally so close to our hearts here – exemplifies how vital our partnership with Qatar is and will remain.

I spoke today with Afghan President Karzai to brief him on this development and to discuss President Obama’s announcement this week about our efforts there. As we look to the future in Afghanistan, the United States will continue to support steps that improve the climate for conversations between Afghans about how to end the bloodshed in their country through an Afghan-led reconciliation process. As we’ve said, we look forward to working with the next President of Afghanistan and to standing side-by-side with the Afghan Government and the Afghan people as they build a secure, stable, sovereign, and unified country.

DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL ENTERS JORDAN ON NEXT LEG OF TRIP

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Hagel Continues Middle East Trip in Jordan
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service

AMMAN, Jordan, May 14, 2014 – Following what he called a “successful” ministerial conference with the U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel left Saudi Arabia today to continue his multiday trip to the Middle East here.

Hagel will meet here with Jordanian Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lt. Gen. Mashal Mohammad Al-Zaben and his senior advisor, Prince Faisal bin Al Hussein, to discuss Eager Lion, an annual combined military exercise that involves 6,000 U.S. personnel, as well as a variety of security challenges facing the region, a senior defense official said.

“Also, it’s an opportunity to hear from the general directly about the threats they’re facing from Syria, the humanitarian situation in Jordan … and the security implications of the Syria crisis on Jordan,” the official said.
More than 1,000 U.S. personnel are stationed in Jordan as part of a Patriot detachment, an F-16 deployment and a U.S. Central Command forward planning element.

Before leaving Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Hagel met with defense ministers from all six member nations of the GCC -- Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The strong bilateral relationships the United States maintains with its Gulf partners reflect the nation’s commitment to the region’s security, the defense secretary said.

“But the security challenges facing this region threaten the region as a whole, and no one nation can address them alone,” he added.

The United States offered several proposals at the ministerial, all intended to further develop regional cooperation, the defense secretary said.

“Following today’s productive discussions, the ministers have agreed to meet in the region on a regular basis,” he said. In addition, the vice ministers will meet in Washington before the end of the year, a meeting that is expected to become a twice-yearly event, a defense official said.

Council attendees reaffirmed their commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Hagel said. “While we noted that Iran’s diplomatic engagement has been a positive development,” he added, “we continue to share deep concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities throughout the region.”

The defense leaders also pledged to deepen their cooperation in support of the Syrian opposition, the defense secretary said.

“We agreed that our assistance must be complimentary -- and that it must be carefully directed to the moderate opposition,” Hagel noted.

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS TAKING STEPS TO COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING

FROM:  DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
DOD Raises Awareness of Human Trafficking
By Terri Moon Cronk
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15, 2014 – Defense Department officials have a zero-tolerance level for human trafficking and have stepped up awareness and education efforts to curb the crime overseas.

In an interview with American Forces Press Service and the Pentagon Channel, Brian Chin -- a program manager for the department’s effort to combat human trafficking, said DOD is broadening its training for those who work in contracting, acquisition and law enforcement, and that a yearly general course on how to recognize human trafficking has been mandatory for DOD civilians since 2005.
Chin works out of Qatar and oversees the program in Southwest Asia and the U.S. Central Command area of operations.

DOD defines human trafficking as the use of force, fraud or coercion to recruit, harbor, transport or obtain a person for commercial sex or labor services, Chin explained.

Combating human trafficking is not a war waged alone within DOD, he noted.
“The response to human trafficking requires a collaborative approach within all of DOD’s components and services,” Chin said, as well as working with agencies, such as the departments of State and Homeland Security to put a stop to the crimes of slavery and prostitution.

“A lot of our training is designed to sensitize our folks to realize that [a victim] is not just someone who’s serving our food, cleaning the barracks or picking up refuse around the bases that could be someone who’s there against their will and is being held in circumstances that fit [DOD’s] criteria for human slavery,” he said.
Victims of human trafficking can be difficult to identify, Chin said, because usually no physical indicators of coercion exist, and human traffickers are adept at influencing their victims to hide their victimization.

Commanders, other military leaders and all DOD components at all levels are “striving very hard to implement changes to federal laws and DOD-wide policies to push requirements for awareness programs, training for targeted audiences and reporting [cases] to the DOD [inspector general],” he said.

Chin called overseas human trafficking “widespread,” but acknowledged that the number of victims is difficult to quantify. Victims usually are lured from rural areas with promises of working in good-paying jobs, he said.

“A classic sign of human trafficking is indentured servitude, where the victims pay large fees in a very competitive arena to secure jobs,” he said, adding that the high pay they’re promised is just a lure.

The fees to secure jobs become loans, and victims find themselves working as indentured servants to work off what they owe, and they can’t return home because their passports are taken away, Chin said. Victims’ homes often are held as collateral for their employment, he added.

In many instances, victims are misled about where they’re going, he noted.
“One of the classic cases you see is beauticians and barbers [who are] told they’re going to a Gulf nation to work in a salon for a very good salary, and [when] they get off a plane, they’re actually in Afghanistan, working on a forward-operating base under completely different circumstances,” Chin said.

DOD’s efforts to train its personnel to recognize and report human trafficking are paying off, he said.

“Our awareness programs are having a tremendous effect on sensitizing all of our [personnel], and everybody understands what human trafficking is,” he said. “They’re starting to understand it’s not just a sex crime off our bases, especially in Afghanistan. … It’s also a labor crime.”

REMARKS WITH QATARI FOREIGN MINISTER, SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY

FROM:  STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks With Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid bin Muhammad al-Atiyah

Remarks

John Kerry
Secretary of State

Chief of Mission Residence

Paris, France

January 12, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good evening and welcome, and thank you very, very much for your patience in a long afternoon between the London 11 meeting that (inaudible) and now a long meeting here with the Follow-on Committee of the Arab Peace Initiative.

I am particularly grateful to Foreign Minister al-Atiyah for his leadership and for the work that he has been doing to try to keep this debate active and engaged in this important effort. And I also thank Secretary General Elaraby of the Arab League for his commitment and for the depth of the conversation that we had today. And I appreciate his willingness to convene people on short notice. But I think it’s fair to say that this is one of the more important meetings that we had, because we’re getting to a point where there’s more substance and a great deal more direction, and therefore more to talk about.

Before I touch on the vital efforts that we discussed here this afternoon, I want to commend the very critical and significant step today taken towards reaching a verifiable resolution that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This afternoon, this evening, we concluded negotiations constructively and positively so that on January 20^th, in just a few short days, we will begin implementation of the Joint Plan of Action that we and our partners agreed to with respect to Iran in Geneva. As of that day, January 20^th, for the first time in almost a decade, Iran’s nuclear program will not be able to advance – in fact, parts of it will be rolled back – while we start negotiating a comprehensive agreement to address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

As the United States has made clear many times, our absolute top priority in these negotiations is preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Translated: Making absolutely clear, beyond any doubt, that Iran’s program is a peaceful program. We have been clear all along. President Obama initiated this effort with the belief that diplomacy is our preferred path, because other options carry much greater costs and risks and are less likely to provide a lasting solution. As this agreement takes effect, we will be extraordinarily vigilant in our verification and monitoring of Iran’s actions. And that is an effort that will be led by the International Atomic Energy administration – Agency.

While implementation of this Joint Plan of Action is obviously an important step, we are very clear-eyed about the even greater challenges that we face in negotiating a comprehensive agreement. We understand it’s going to be a tough negotiation, and we are very clear about what will be required in order to be able to guarantee to the international community that this is a peaceful program. The negotiations will be very difficult, but they are the best chance that we have to be able to resolve this critical national security issue peacefully and durably. And we have an obligation to give our diplomats and our experts every opportunity to be able to succeed.

So, as you can see, the United States is engaged and leading on several fronts, and we are working with our partners for a region that is more secure and more prosperous. There is a lot of very difficult work ahead; there is no question about that. But on each of these critical issues, I can tell you unequivocally, the President and I are absolutely determined to lead and to succeed.

Our meeting here today was the fifth with the Arab Peace Initiative Follow-up Committee, and it is part of a regular process of the negotiation consultations on the final negotiation process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is a promise that I made to Secretary General Elaraby and to Chairman al-Atiyah when they requested to be kept apprised of what we were doing, because their stakes in this are significant. They have been enormously helpful and constructive in this effort, and I want to thank them for that. We’ve always known that peace is a very long and complicated, difficult road. But we remain committed to this process because we understand that the benefits of peace are dramatic and they are well worth fighting for.
The Arab Peace Initiative holds out the possibility – excuse me – the Arab Peace Initiative holds out the possibility of normalizing relations with Israel and strengthening security for all of the countries throughout the region. I’m very grateful to the Arab League for their willingness to help to build support for this effort. It’s very hard to overstate the importance of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, Bahrain – all of the countries that are taking part in this effort – in order to bring the Arab world to the table saying a simple thing: We are prepared to make peace now in 2014.

As I made clear in my discussions with the Arab foreign ministers today, we really are at a critical point, as Palestinians and Israeli leaders grapple with difficult and challenging decisions that lie ahead. Through the course of the last five months, President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu have both demonstrated courageous and determined leadership. They’ve made tough choices, and they are contemplating even tougher choices in the weeks ahead. The Arab foreign ministers made clear to me that they support Israeli and Palestinian leaders’ efforts to take the next bold, courageous steps of agreeing to a framework for permanent status negotiations.

The leaders here today understand what’s at stake, and they remain committed to peace, not just between Israel and Palestinians, but to the prospect of peace between Israel and 57 nations – 35 Muslim nations, and 22 Arab nations. That is the vision that summons us. That is the vision that guides us. And we will need the continued support and engagement of the Arab League in order to achieve it.

Let me also say a brief word about the London 11 ministerial today. We came together this morning, and we are planning for a Geneva II conference next week for a simple reason: because there is no military solution to the violence that has displaced millions and taken more than 130,000 lives. There is no other alternative to ending this violence and saving the state of Syria than to find a negotiated, peaceful outcome.

The conference on January 22^nd is the best opportunity to bring both the regime and the opposition to the table to begin a process of ending the Syrian conflict through a negotiated transition and a full implementation of the Geneva communique. Ultimately, it is the Syrians themselves who will have to come to agreement on a political path to end the bloodshed and to chart a future that can be shared, not by one group or another, not by one sector or another, but by all of the people in Syria. Our job and the job of the London 11 is to support efforts to help get them there.

My counterparts and I also discussed the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. There is an urgent need for the Syrian regime to implement its obligations under the UN Security Council Presidential Statement. There is an urgent need for the Assad regime to deliver on the humanitarian assistance that is necessary to the people of Syria. And that includes the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta, whose 160,000 citizens are effectively being held hostage by regime forces. Let me make clear that last year, the Deputy Foreign Minister Mekdad said in New York that Syria would allow any access, anywhere, at any time. Well, the citizens of Ghouta are still waiting. Almost a year now, they have been denied access to any of that humanitarian assistance, and that is absolutely unacceptable.

We believe that it is possible for the regime to put in place before Geneva a ceasefire – local ceasefires if necessary – a ceasefire with respect to Aleppo, and send the signal that they are prepared to set a different mood, a different climate, a different stage for the possibility of success in Geneva. They have the power to do that. And the opposition has pledged that if they will do that, the opposition will live by it.

In addition to that, they have said that they’re prepared to provide for the possibility of prisoner exchanges, and they are preparing for that possibility in the event that the regime would take the steps in order to engage in that kind of humanitarian gesture.

The disregard for the most basic human rights – whether through aerial bombing, barrel bombs, targeted against civilians, the starvation of Syrian men, women and children – is a barbaric act and it is just as barbaric as it is lethal. And it is unacceptable by any standard. The pictures and the dramatic demonstrations of what has happened to young children and to men and women, the practices that have been engaged in, are abhorrent. They’re a challenge to the conscience of every person on this planet. And it is important for all of us to begin to call greater attention to the level of violence that we are trying to prevent.

The international community has to be diligent in drawing much more attention to the horrible costs of this conflict, and we need to put the necessary pressure to bring an end to it. That’s why the foreign minister, Foreign Minister Atiyah, and I are here. That’s why our counterparts from the London 11 are here. And that’s why we will continue pressing for a diplomatic solution with all of our international partners. We’ll press forward with the Syrian coalition leadership, with the Joint Special Representative Brahimi, and with the Russians as we prepare to go to Montreux on January 22^nd.

Tomorrow, I will be meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov. I will meet again with President Jarba and the Syrian opposition, and I will meet with Special Envoy of the UN Lakhdar Brahimi as we engage in further discussions about how we can change this dynamic and begin the process of building for Geneva II.

None of us have an expectation. No one should write cynically about Geneva II somehow failing if it doesn’t come out on day one or day two or day three with a full agreement. We don’t expect that. What we do expect is to begin to get the parties at the table convened and negotiating and beginning a process of waging an even stronger effort to provide for this political solution. It’ll take a little bit of time, but I’m confident that it needs that forum; it needs all the players at the table; it needs the umbrella of the United Nations; it needs the good faith of people coming to that table in order to begin to focus the world on the way forward to prevent this catastrophe from growing even worse. And that’s what we are engaged in and that’s what we’re determined to try to achieve.

Mr. Minister, thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) (Inaudible) the nuclear – it’s nuclear program. We hope that this would be a first step to making the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction. Today, the ministerial committee for the Follow-up Committee of the Arab Peace Initiative has held its first – is meeting to discuss the Palestinian issue.

And I would like to thank my friend Kerry for his efforts with respect to the peace process and ending the conflict. He has – John responded to several – or addressed several of our concerns and questions on the part of the foreign ministers and members of the committee. I would also like to take the opportunity to also thank His Excellency President Abbas and President Haniyeh for their successes in achieving strides towards the implementation of the Doha Agreement and reaching reconciliation.

We have also renewed, in our – in this meeting, we have renewed our positions concerning the peace process, and also on addressing all the issues, foremost among which are the issue of the border, Jerusalem settlements, security, and the release of Palestinian prisoners. We have also asserted that the peace process is the shortest and most effective way to achieving stability in the region.

The – resolving the Palestinian question is the key to peace and security in the Middle East region and it cannot be implemented except with the full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state with full sovereignty, with Jerusalem as its capital.

We would also like to stress the Arab commitment to lasting peace. There is no doubt that there are difficulties and obstacles facing us. And the Israeli Government should therefore stop all settlement activities and should also give the peace efforts a chance to succeed so – in order to reach a lasting settlement. We also warn against the repercussions of continued Israeli practices that would hinder such progress.

The ultimate goal of everyone is to reach a comprehensive peace and a lasting peace that would achieve peace. This is the initiative that we have launched, and these are the Arab principles for ending this conflict.

And our friend John Kerry has exerted great effort over the last few days. He has visited the region 11 times, as I believe, or 10 times. And we appreciate the American role in these mediation efforts. Our friends are not parties that relay information between two parties; they are mediators in this process. And we hope that we can reach a settlement that would satisfy the Palestinian people and would be fair to them.
Thank you very much.

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

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you. Secretary Kerry, in the meetings today with the London 11, did you receive any commitment or even any indication from President al-Jarba that he would be able to deliver the coalition to next week’s meetings? Also, if the coalition does not attend, what sort of consequences might it face from the United States in terms of credibility, support, or aid? And lastly, what assurances have you so far received from representatives of the regime that it will attend?

SECRETARY KERRY: The – I’m confident – personally, I am confident that the Syrian opposition will come to Geneva. We had some discussions today. He is working through certain issues that – President Jarba is – that he needs to work through and he needs to have the opportunity to have the space to do that.

But I’m meeting with him again tomorrow. He met yesterday with Foreign Minister Atiyah and others, with Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, among others. And they had a very constructive meeting, a very positive meeting. We had a very constructive meeting today. He’s had very constructive comments to make about it. And I am confident that he and others will be in Geneva in order to pursue this negotiation.

And with respect to the Assad regime, we have been told that from day one they allegedly are prepared to negotiate. And Foreign Minister Lavrov on several occasions has told me they’re prepared to be there. So I am counting on both parties, as well as the 30 or so plus other nations, to come together in an effort to try to end this violence, as I described earlier.
QUESTION: And could you speak to what consequences --

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to – we’ve had private conversations, and I think they understand the stakes. But I’m not going to get into consequences, other than to say that it’s a test of the credibility of everybody. And that’s why I’m confident that they’ll be there, because I think they understand that.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Randa Takieddine from Al-Hayat.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, you spoke about Iran. Are you willing to speak with Iran on – for changing their policies in Syria and Lebanon?

And second, for Mr. al-Atiyah, we were told today that ministers and the 11 asked you to pressure your friends in the Syrian opposition to be more cohesive with the (inaudible). Is – are you going to do these efforts to push for more unity in the coalition?
SECRETARY KERRY: Do you want to go first?

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: No. Please, go ahead.

SECRETARY KERRY: With respect to Iran and Hezbollah, let me make it clear: Hezbollah has been designated by the United States, by Europe and others as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They have engaged in extraterritorial assassinations, they have engaged in terrorist activities, and they are currently engaged across international lines in fighting in another country, overtly, in ways that challenge people’s sense of decency and propriety with respect to even war. So in the process of that, they have also engaged in activities in Lebanon that are further destabilizing Lebanon.

So nobody should have any illusions about how completely unacceptable the activities of Hezbollah are, how prohibited they are by international law and norms and standards. And we would call on Iran or anyone else supporting them in whatever way they may be – by refuge, by money, by supplies, by weapons – to cease it and to recognize the damaging impact that Hezbollah is having on the security and stability of the region.

We discussed today – and our communique address it very directly – the London 11 today directed comments specifically at Hezbollah and called on countries to engage in more significant efforts to deal with their finances and to deal with their international activities.
Now, we would engage anywhere with respect to any country that wants to have a constructive impact on that. And if Iran wants to exert its influence – which is enormous, significant, because it’s perhaps the larges patron of Hezbollah – Iran could have a profound impact on helping to change the dynamics of what is happening in Syria. If Iran would simply accept the Geneva I premise, Iran could obviously make a constructive contribution to the Geneva conference itself. And the acceptance of the Geneva I communique would be a very welcome step.

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) With respect to the coalition, the truth is it is recognized by the Friends of Syria, more than 120 countries. It also has a seat on the Arab League, based on a decision by Arab leaders. And therefore, it represents the – it’s the only representative of the Syrian people. There is no one friend in the coalition that is under the influence of one country or the other. All of us in Friends of Syria, we deal with the coalition as the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people. And therefore, we feel that we – it’s imperative on us to support the coalition. We have our own point of view as members of the Friends of Syria coalition, and we all support their decisions. And in the end, it’s a Syrian decision, a pure Syrian decision.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.

QUESTION: I have a question for the Foreign Minister and then for Secretary Kerry. For the Foreign Minister, we’ve been in a number of these Arab Peace Initiative sessions, and it’s not clear that there’s been any substantial progress in the Middle East peace process during that period. Indeed, the current focus is not so much on getting a comprehensive agreement in nine months, but on an agreed framework. How do you assess the status of these talks? Do you think they’re making progress in the peace process? And what are the advantages and disadvantages of seeking a framework at this juncture, instead of pushing all the way for a comprehensive peace agreement?

And then what I – a second one for you, sir. I’d just like your view, whether you think the United States and other western powers are doing enough to help the Syrian opposition, given that the regime is being armed by Russia and Iran.

And for Secretary Kerry, a question. The – at the last London 11 meeting we attended, in the communique that was issued then, one of the points was that the participants vowed to build up and increase their material support to the Syrian opposition group you’re backing. Instead, you’ve cut off the nonlethal aid to the Syrian opposition, reflecting concerns that some of it may be diverted into the wrong hands. Do you intend to restore this aid prior to Geneva II and provide more of a carrot or incentive for the opposition to go into this meeting?

And I’d like to – I think also think just – sir, on the previous question, do you think there would be value in trying to talk to Iran about any of these regional issues, instead of just issuing calls for them to do this or that? Have you, in any of your discussions, asked them to constrain their support to Syria? Would you plan to raise this in any of your negotiating sessions? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead.

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) With respect to the peace process and the vision – and the Palestinian vision and Arab position, they are constant. There are usurped rights, and they’re clear to us. And the Palestinians are demanding these rights. There is also Israeli intransigence in granting these rights, but we cannot say that the peace process is experiencing obstacles of any sort. We should give the American mediator, represented by Mr. John Kerry, an opportunity to end – to proceed in what they have started.

And I would like to also stress on the steps that John Kerry has described. There is progress, but the final vision has yet to be proposed. Therefore, the chance is still wide open and time has run out. And it’s premature for us to judge that negotiations have failed or succeeded.
With respect to Syria, the truth is it’s not the U.S. that should be blamed in not providing sufficient support to the Syrian people. I believe all the Friends of Syria, we have not moved enough to save the Syrian people until we reached a very advanced stage. We can summarize everything that’s happening in Syria as terrorism being exercised by the regime. This is, in fact, not true. We are not doing justice to the Syrian people or the rebels.

So if there’s any real shortcoming, it’s been done by all members of the Friends of Syria, and we cannot really pinpoint the blame, even though it’s being said that the United States is a superpower and therefore it should shoulder greater responsibilities than the rest. So I hope that I have responded to the question.

SECRETARY KERRY: Michael, even with the suspension of the nonlethal aid to the north, it’s fair to say that the United States is doing more to help the Syrian opposition than it has done at any point in time, and it is very significant. In addition to which, I am leaving, as you know, on Wednesday, attending a conference in Kuwait, a donors conference, where we will make a further commitment with respect to the humanitarian crisis.

The best solution to the humanitarian crises is to get a political solution and end the creation of more refugees. And there’s a certain endlessness to this notion that we’re going to keep upping our contribution to more millions of people who have been displaced. You’ve got about eight million people displaced, over two million refugees. It’s one of the largest refugee, displaced person catastrophes on the face of this planet today, and it needs to stop. And we are not looking for a policy of simply increased assistance to refugees; we’re looking for a policy that saves Syria and provides them an ability to go home and rebuild their lives. And that is our goal.

Now with respect to the cutoff you mentioned in the north, yes, our warehouse was raided by one of the extremist groups in the north, and we decided that it was a risk to be providing that assistance if it’s going to the extremists. And we have consistently said we are not going to supply extremists. We’re not going to see them be supported; they shouldn’t be.
That has paid off. Today, the most extremist group is on the run and being taken on by some others in the opposition. And we’re anxious to see how that turns out, obviously. But even before that happened, we have been considering the renewal of that assistance to the opposition. We know it’s important, we know they need it, and we’re beginning to believe we may be in a place where that can now resume, and we would obviously want to get back to where we were. That’s why we put it there in the first place.

With respect to trying to talk to Iran with respect to Syria, the answer is yes, I have raised the subject to Iran. But we’ve been so focused and so intent on the nuclear file that we really have not dug into it in any appreciably substantive way at this time, because we both realize the real priority for the moment was – when I say both, Foreign Minister Zarif and myself – that the real focus was to get the nuclear agreement in the place that it now is.

I have said many times, publicly and privately, I would welcome any initiative Iran wishes to take, if they do, to try to provide a resolution to the crisis of Syria. The first thing they can do is accept the Geneva communique, which was adopted even by Russia, who is supporting Assad, and try to help make this peaceful resolution move forward.

But next time I see him I certainly will re-raise the issue, as we have in the past. I don’t sit around and wait with bated breath or any high expectations that there is going to be a sudden shift of heart on that. But it is obviously arguably a basic fundamental tenet of diplomacy that you leave the door open for people to make a reasonable offer of one kind or another and make your judgments about it. And we will certainly leave the door open.

MS. PSAKI: The last question will be from Stacy Meichtry of The Wall Street Journal.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Atiyah, a moment ago Secretary Kerry said that if Iran accepted the Geneva I communique they would be in a position to make a contribution to the Geneva process and perhaps to the upcoming talks. Do you agree with that assessment, that Iran has a positive role to play in the negotiations?

And secondly, I was wondering if I could get your reaction to the announcement about the nuclear deal, the implementation of the interim accord. Do you feel that it goes far enough in preventing Tehran from building a nuclear bomb? Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) Thank you. In fact, Iran is able to do more, a lot, even before Geneva II. It’s able, or it can press Hezbollah and urge it to leave Syria. There are good-faith steps that would start with Hezbollah’s departure and some other militias from Syria. But inviting any party – it’s not up to me to decide who should be invited. It is up to Mr. el-Brahimi and also the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. They are the ones who decide who gets to attend Geneva and who doesn’t.

QUESTION: And on the nuclear accord?

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (In English) Can you repeat the question please?

QUESTION: Sure. The announcement today about the implementation of the interim nuclear accord – do you feel that it – that this is a positive step in preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?

FOREIGN MINISTER ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) I welcomed at the beginning of my statement about the agreement that the United States reached with Iran concerning the nuclear file. What we hope is for the articles of this agreement to be implemented and to even take further steps to make the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. This is what we hope for.
Thank you.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL FINISHES VISITS WITH TROOPS, NATIONS

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel Concludes Six-day Troop, Partner Nation Visits
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

DOHA, Qatar, Dec. 10, 2013 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wrapped up a dual-purpose six-day trip to the Middle East and Southwest Asia here today.
As the secretary told troops at his last stop here, “The first priority and the real reason I was out here and spent time was to thank our troops, thank our men and women who do so much for all of us.”

Hagel also spent time engaging with allies and partners to assure them of the United States’ commitment to the region. He delivered a speech on the U.S. regional force posture in Manama, Bahrain. Hagel also spent two days in Afghanistan talking with Afghan military leaders and U.S. troops and ground commanders. And, he attended high-level meetings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and here.

The secretary’s day in Qatar started at a palace and concluded at a semi-secret military facility. In the interim, Hagel and Qatari Defense Minister Maj. Gen. Hamad bin Ali Al Attiyah formally renewed the U.S.-Qatar Defense Cooperation Agreement. The agreement governs training, exercises and other cooperative interactions between U.S. and Qatari forces.

“This agreement promotes cooperation and is a testament to the longstanding security partnership enjoyed by the United States and Qatar,” Assistant Pentagon Press Secretary Carl Woog said in a written statement.

Woog added that the accord “underscores the close partnership between the United States and its [Gulf Cooperation Council] partners, which Secretary Hagel highlighted in his remarks at the Manama Dialogue this past weekend.”
The secretary’s first stop today was the Sea Palace, where he met with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, Qatar’s emir. He then moved on to the signing ceremony at Qatar’s government headquarters, and then paid a visit to U.S. and coalition forces at the Combined Air and Space Operations Center, located at Al Udeid Airbase, a Qatari base that hosts the U.S. command-and-control facility.

Addressing service members there -- his fourth troop talk this week -- Hagel thanked them and their families, offering his and President Barack Obama’s best wishes for the holiday season.

“I know occasionally you’re stuck in remote places and you wonder if anybody even knows where you are or who you are or what you’re doing,” the secretary said. “Let me assure you, we do.”

The center where they work coordinates military air operations in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility by integrating nearly 30 nations’ capabilities into a complete, real-time overview of mission execution. Hagel told troops that multinational approach is “where the world’s going.”

A senior defense official traveling with the secretary told reporters on background that the center might be unique in the degree of talent it brings together.
“[There’s] probably no other facility where you can go and see so many partners operating together at once,” the official said. “So that’s a story that is important, to reassure our allies and our partners.”

The official added that the center, which military leaders have in the past been reluctant to publicize because of regional sensitivities, makes it “visible to the world that we’re working together on common defense.”

Hagel told the airmen, sailors, soldiers and Marines at Al Udeid that the experience and training Gulf nation representatives receive there, along with integrated allied participation from the United Kingdom and Canada, furthers U.S. aims to build partner capacity.

“Our partners are going to be as important, and probably more so, than they’ve ever been, for our own national security [and] for their national security,” the secretary said, emphasizing a message he has delivered throughout his time in office.

“The more we can understand each other [and] work with each other, the better the world is going to be,” Hagel told the troops. “I’m particularly impressed with that part of what you’re doing here.”

The secretary began his trip telling delegates to the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain that the United States will maintain its troop posture in the region and that it seeks to strengthen coalitions there. He repeated that message today.
“We’re not going to get disconnected from our allies in this region,” he told reporters traveling with him before boarding the plane for Washington. “Our common interests are very clear here.”

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL SAYS AFGHAN GOVERNMENT IS KEY

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel responds during a question-and-answer session with students from the University of Nebraska-Omaha in Omaha, Neb., June 19, 2013. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo


FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Afghan Government Key to Transition, Hagel Stresses
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 20, 2013 - Milestone 2013, which happened June 18 and marked Afghan forces' assumption of the lead in security responsibility for their country, is an unprecedented achievement for the Afghan people, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said yesterday.

During a speech in Omaha, Neb., at his alma mater, the University of Nebraska-Omaha, Hagel said the milestone
"keeps us on track to responsibly end the war next year in Afghanistan and allows us to transition to a far more limited, noncombat mission to assist the Afghan government as it takes full responsibility for the country's future."

The secretary noted the United States and other nations will continue to engage in Afghanistan and will work with Afghanistan, Pakistan and India "to advance security in that critically important region in the world."

After his speech, Hagel responded to a question about the role of the Taliban in Afghanistan's future. The group has opened an office in Qatar, he noted, and the United States supports that initiative.

"We've always supported a peaceful resolution to the end of the bloodshed in the war in Afghanistan," Hagel said, noting that acceptable conditions are in place for the United States to accept the possibility of a next set of meetings between Taliban and Afghan government representatives.

He cautioned, however, that the Taliban would have to "agree to certain things" before meetings would involve the United States.

"I think it's worth the risk," he added. "But it can't be done without President [Hamid] Karzai, without the government of Afghanistan."

Hagel pointed out that NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen attended the Milestone 2013 ceremony in the Afghan capital of Kabul, representing the 50 member nations of NATO's International Security Assistance Force. Both NATO and U.S. forces have worked to establish stability in Afghanistan for more than a decade, he noted.

"This is really about the people, or it should be -- giving the people of Afghanistan ... rights and freedom to make their own lives," Hagel said.

The secretary noted that as a senator, he was part of the first congressional delegation to travel to Afghanistan after 9/11. "I've dealt with President Karzai right from the beginning," he said. "I've known him since 2001 and have a very good relationship with him. But he represents his government, his people. He needs to do what he thinks is right."

Hagel acknowledged the process is a bit frustrating. "But we have to continue to work at it," he added, and we will continue to work at it."

Afghanistan's future depends largely on a political situation based on peace, Hagel said. If a politically negotiated settlement is possible, he asked, "Isn't it smarter, isn't it worth some risk, if the terms are right, to try to facilitate some agreement here that would ... give the poor people of Afghanistan some opportunity to not to have to live in constant war that they've had to live in for decades?"

U.S. and NATO leaders are cleared-eyed about the possible obstacles to political settlement, the secretary said.

"But I think we have to continue to work it," he added. "And it can't be done without the government of Afghanistan."

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.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING APRIL 24, 2012

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 24, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:59 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: All right. Happy Tuesday, everybody. Further to our Free the Press daily highlight as we walk up to World Press Freedom Day, today’s highlighted journalist is Dilmurod Sayid, an independent Uzbek journalist. He wrote for opposition websites including The Voice of Freedom and was a member of the Ezgulik Human Rights Society. He was a particularly staunch critic of corruption in Uzbekistan, and he was convicted in a closed trial that did not meet international standards. So we take this opportunity to again call on the Government of Uzbekistan to release him, and we call your attention to his case on HUMANRIGHTS.GOV.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one thing about this, the human rights?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Was there a call that was sent out to embassies to kind of come up with people that you’re going to highlight, or how do these – how were these people chosen?
MS. NULAND: Our Human Rights Bureau, working with embassies and working with our Annual Human Rights Report, came up with the list of journalists that we’re particularly highlighting. Do you have somebody in particular you want to add to the list?
QUESTION: Well, I was going to add me. (Laughter.) No --
MS. NULAND: We all have concerns about your human rights – (laughter) – and about our human rights at your hand. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I’m sure that’s the case. No, I was just curious as to – I mean, how many are there going to be total?
MS. NULAND: We started this about a week ago and we’re doing it up through May 3rd, which is International Press Freedom Day.
QUESTION: Have you seen any kind of – has there been any response to this that you’re aware of yet?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’re seeing quite a bit of coverage in the various regions that these individuals are from.
QUESTION: But any actual action from the governments who are involved?
MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one. I don’t think that we’ve had any formal responses to these, but sometimes these things take time. And sometimes when we shout out these cases, it emboldens folks in the region or in the host country to do more on their behalf.
QUESTION: Okay. Moving on to the issue of the day, or at least one of them, the situation in Sudan seems to be really deteriorating, even though there was a hopeful – possibly hopeful sign earlier in the week. It’s gotten worse. I’m wondering what your take on that is. What have the contacts been with both North and South? Where is Princeton Lyman now? Is he back? Is he still out there?
QUESTION: He was in the cafeteria about 20 minutes ago.
QUESTION: Thank you. Well, then I don’t need to – you don’t have to answer the last one.
MS. NULAND: Excellent. Well, as we said yesterday, we had the good news of South Sudan withdrawing from Heglig; but rather than responding in kind, we’ve had Sudan increase its aerial bombardment over the last 24 hours. And so these reprehensible bombings are targeting civilians. They are causing casualties all over the place. And they are obviously gross violations of international law, and we continue to call for an immediate cessation.
As the Secretary has been saying over the last week in particular, these countries have to work together if they are each going to succeed. They have got to come back to the table and settle these issues. So I think the concern that we had was, after the trip that Princeton Lyman made where he was in both Juba and Khartoum, where he worked with the parties, where the – we – working with the AU and others, we convinced the South to pull out of Heglig. Rather than that pulling both sides back to the table, the Sudanese seem to have taken negative advantage of it. So it’s very, very concerning. You saw the President’s statement of a week ago.
Ambassador Lyman is here, but he remains in contact with the parties and he remains in contact with a variety of international partners on a daily basis.
QUESTION: And what is the Administration doing, if anything, at the moment, directly with the two sides? Is there – other than Ambassador Lyman’s, I guess now, phone calls, is there anything else?
MS. NULAND: Well, in addition to the presidential statement of the weekend and his direct appeal to the sides, we’re also working with the AU on a package of increased pressure if we can’t get these --
QUESTION: And the UN?
MS. NULAND: And the UN, of course. Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go to Israel?
QUESTION: And the West Bank?
QUESTION: Please.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Hold on. Sudan, just for a second?
MS. NULAND: Why don’t we stay with Shaun and then come to you.
QUESTION: Sure. Just President Kiir was in Beijing.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: I just wanted to see if you had an assessment of China’s role. China traditionally has been quite close to Khartoum, has received some criticism for that. How do you perceive China’s role in this?
MS. NULAND: Well, China has played a role in both Sudan and South Sudan. We actually have been in very close touch with the Chinese. The Secretary has raised the issue of Sudan with Foreign Minister Yang. Princeton Lyman has been in contact with Ambassador Zhang here. He’s traveled to Beijing. So our hope is that Beijing will play a constructive role. They have in the past in trying to encourage the sides to come back to the negotiating table. China has investments throughout the area and also benefits from stability, so we have been working to enlist Beijing and to work together on a common message.
QUESTION: Victoria, just a quick follow-up. Would you say that the withdrawal of the Southern forces is a direct result of the involvement of Ambassador Lyman? And if so, what did he get in return from the North? I mean, he went to both Juba and Khartoum.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is a process of trying to work with both sides and get them back to the table. He works, as you know, in extremely close partnership with the African Union, with the UN peacekeeping forces on the ground. But his own personal relationships and his own diplomacy have been very important to this process.
So I think this is the issue of concern, that Sudan wanted to see the withdrawals from Heglig. Those happened. And the response was – instead of being a response in kind, was a violent response. So that’s extremely concerning.
QUESTION: But the rhetoric today from al-Bashir, the president, is quite belligerent. Is anyone in contact with him from this Administration at the present time?
MS. NULAND: No, of course. And Ambassador Lyman is in regular contact with him, but so are others. And we will continue to be.
QUESTION: Hold on a second. Really? With President Bashir himself? I thought there was a kind of de facto ban on direct contacts between U.S. officials and President Bashir because of his status with the ICC.
MS. NULAND: I think that Princeton has been in contact with him directly. But if that’s not the case, I’ll get back to you.[1]
Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Change of topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just one more on that?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Jill.
QUESTION: This is the immediate problem, the fighting.
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: But there are underlying issues that are fueling this, such as borders. Is there any attempt at this point to even begin to sort that out?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, as part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that created the two states that led to the velvet divorce creating South Sudan, there were unresolved issues of borders and resources and other things that had to be settled. There is a process that is internationally managed that the AU supervises for their negotiators to come to the table and work on these things. But every time we have serious flare-ups of violence, those talks break down, stall, get off the rail. So this is the problem, that they can’t move past the immediate difficulties to get to the underlying settlement of the remaining underlying issues.
And as the Secretary has said again and again, as the President said over the weekend, unless they can settle these issues, neither one of them is going to benefit from the potential to be reintegrated with the international community, to benefit from the resources, and to really invest in their people who are so long-suffering.
QUESTION: Is there a feeling that the AU is not putting enough pressure on either side, or specifically Sudan?
MS. NULAND: I think we’re all looking once again, as we have so many times in this process, at what pressure we can bring to bear – economic pressure, political pressure – but frankly, the AU has done a superb job speaking for the region on these issues. And we continue to work very closely with them on a daily basis.
QUESTION: Just one more on this. And I have to admit that I am not a Sudan expert, but – and this phrase “velvet divorce” is new to me. Is this – but given this – the incidents or the developments, is this --
MS. NULAND: No, of course, of course. I mean there was so much violence.
QUESTION: -- doesn’t really seem to be so much velvet --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- left to it.
MS. NULAND: Well, suffice to say that it was the result of a negotiated settlement, so it was not – the violence, obviously, was the backdrop, but ultimately they came to the table and decided how they were going to divide themselves. So --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Sorry.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Yeah, please, please, please.
QUESTION: Are you coordinating with the Arab League on the issue of Sudan?
MS. NULAND: We are.
QUESTION: I know you have coordinated on Syria, but are you --
MS. NULAND: We are, and we have Arab League meeting, I think, later this week, where we expect that Sudan will be on the agenda as well.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So there are reports out of Israel that the Israeli Government has legalized three so-called settlement outposts. I think it’s the U.S. Government position that such outposts are illegal, but what is your – A, what is your view on Israel’s decision to, quote, “legalize these three outposts,” close quote? And B, how does that affect your efforts to bring the parties back into a direct negotiation?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you’re talking about the reports that there has been a request for a stay of court decisions with regard to the settlements. Is that what you’re referring to?
QUESTION: I – and I’m sorry I don’t have – although I tried to email it to myself --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- I don’t have it in front of me.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: My understanding was that it was not just a request for a stay, but rather a determination that had been made. But maybe I misunderstood.
MS. NULAND: No, I think it’s a request for a court decision. We are, obviously, concerned by the reports that we’ve seen. We have raised this with the Israeli Government and we are seeking clarification. You know where we are on settlements. We don’t think this is helpful to the process and we don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.
QUESTION: And when you say we have raised this, you’ve raised this with them since these reports emerged? In other words --
MS. NULAND: My understanding is we raised it in Tel Aviv today. That’s my understanding.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up, three settlements – Bruchin, Rechelim, and Sansana, and they are on privately owned Palestinian land, they have for 15 years or 16 years – have been declared illegal. And a lot of people are interpreting it as a response to Abbas’s letter. Do you see it that way?
MS. NULAND: Again, we’re seeking clarification from the Israeli Government as to their intentions and making our own views very clear about this.
QUESTION: Yeah, but the office of the prime minister issued a statement that they are legal, that they have been deemed from this point on forward as legal settlements.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, you know where we stand on this. And as I said, we are raising it.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I know where you stand, but what measures are you willing to take in case that the Israeli Government goes forward with this?
MS. NULAND: Again, Said, you know where we are on these things. We make this case every time we have an incident like this that it is not helpful to the process; it doesn’t get us where we need to go. We will continue to raise it, as we have.
QUESTION: Well, beside raising the issue with the Israeli Government, what measures is the United States Government willing to take?
MS. NULAND: Well --
QUESTION: You have constantly taken measures when similar activities are taken by other governments. What measures are you willing to take in this particular case?
MS. NULAND: Again, my understanding is that we have a government statement with regard to its intentions. We are seeking to clarify that. So I’m not going to predict what further response there might be on our side.
QUESTION: Do you know --
QUESTION: Do you feel that the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage efforts by David Hale?
MS. NULAND: David Hale has been in the region all week trying to work on the issues involved here and bring the parties back to the table. I don’t think that we would characterize that at all – the situation at all the way you just have.
QUESTION: And finally, do you see this as boding really ill to Palestinian landowners whose land is shrinking from underneath them?
MS. NULAND: I missed the beginning of your sentence, Said.
QUESTION: I mean, this new decision by the Israeli Government bodes very ill for Israeli landowners, how – for Palestinian landowners, however, that land is shrinking, so to speak.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is the backdrop for the statements that we always make about this kind of activity, but we want to get some more clarification from the Israelis.
QUESTION: So in this case, why wouldn’t the United States Government support an initiative by the United Nations to term the settlements, or these at least illegal outposts, as illegal?
MS. NULAND: Said, you know where we are on these things, and we are going to continue to talk to the Israelis about these issues.
Jill.
QUESTION: Can you just update – you mentioned David Hale. Can you update us on some of his --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah. So he was in Jerusalem yesterday. He met with his Israeli counterpart, the Israeli negotiator Mr. Molho. Today he met with Palestinian negotiator Erekat and with Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh. He also now plans to go on to Qatar and Egypt. And thereafter, his travel plans are up in the air.
QUESTION: Did he meet them separately, with Erekat and Foreign Minister Judeh?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah. I think he went to Amman to see Foreign Minister Judeh.
QUESTION: And so do you know if – was this an issue? Had it happened yet by the – had this government announcement happened by the time he had had his meetings? Do you know if he raised it, or when you say it was raised in Tel Aviv, was it raised by someone else?
MS. NULAND: He was in Jerusalem yesterday. He was with the Palestinians today. So my understanding is this announcement was sometime today, was this morning. So my – what I had was that the Embassy had raised it with the Israelis. If that is not --
QUESTION: Do you know if it was the ambassador or someone else?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have that.
QUESTION: And hadn’t he originally planned to go to Saudi, too? Is that now off the itinerary?
MS. NULAND: I think – no, he was in Riyadh at the beginning of the – oh, sorry. I’ve got it here at the very beginning. Yeah, he’s also in Riyadh today, currently in Riyadh for meetings with the senior Saudi officials. Jerusalem yesterday. Something’s not right here. Riyadh’s on this agenda; I don’t know when, though, because I also have that he is today with the Jordanians and with the Palestinians, but Riyadh is still on the agenda.
QUESTION: Okay. And his – and post – his post-Gulf – you had mentioned earlier that after the Gulf, he was probably going to go back to Israel and the PA. Is that – you said that’s now up in the air. It is because – is that because of this announcement?
MS. NULAND: No, I don’t think it has anything to do with that. I think he just wants to see where he is and whether there’s a need for him to come back to Washington and report first.
Please, Goyal.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: India.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: A number of education ministers from different Indian states were or are in the U.S. studying the U.S. community colleges system and the U.S. education system, and planning to open maybe hundreds of community colleges in India with the U.S. education system help, which Prime Minister Singh and President Obama and knowledge initiative was signed between the two leaders. What role do you think State Department playing in this role?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we support this initiative. We have been working with the Indian side to flesh out the initiative that was agreed between the President and the prime minister through our Education Bureau here. And obviously, we are responsible for the visa issuance for the various folks studying in the United States.
QUESTION: And as far as Indian students now, over 125,000, I believe, in the U.S. What will be their status when these community college will be open in India? Because right now, when they graduate from an Indian university or colleges and their degrees are not really accepted or agreed to here in the U.S.
MS. NULAND: I guess I don’t understand the question, Goyal. You’re asking if they had graduate from Indian college, are those degrees accepted in the United States?
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: I think it’s a case-by-case issue depending upon where they graduate from and where they’re looking to get accredited from, and et cetera. So obviously, if there’s a sister university relationship, sometimes those accreditations can be recognized, but it just depends on what they want to do. I don’t think there’s a blanket way of looking at that.
QUESTION: And finally --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. As far as the U.S. visa for the Indian students coming to higher study in the U.S., is there a change now? Because some feel that the requirements are more or higher than after this incident took place at the various (inaudible) universities, so-called, in the California area.
MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’ve changed our policy with regard to the way we interview applicants. I think what we are doing is making sure that the sponsoring organizations truly are what they say they are in the United States; that if they say that they are bringing students over to educate them, that they intend to educate them, not put them to work, et cetera, so – yeah.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please, Ros.
QUESTION: In the WikiLeaks case, the judge in the Bradley Manning case this morning ordered the State Department, among other agencies, to turn over some of their documents to the defense in order to help the Manning team better prepare its case. Is the State Department going to turn over those documents? And my follow-up is: Does the U.S. still see a negative impact on its relations with other countries in diplomacy because of what happened in the alleged leaking of these documents?
MS. NULAND: Let me take the last part first. I think our view of the entire WikiLeaks incident has not changed at all in terms of the negative effects. With regard to what the court has ordered, Ros, I haven’t seen it, so let me take it and see what we know about what’s been requested of us and what our response is.
Jill.
QUESTION: Russia?
MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The Russian ambassador here in Washington is concerned about legislation that is moving forward, the Magnitsky legislation. And he’s saying essentially that this is just a way of – if you get rid of Jackson-Vanik, this is just another way of punishing Russia. He’s quite concerned about it. I know the State Department has been talking with Congress. Do we know what the status of Magnitsky is? Is the State Department encouraging, discouraging this legislation? What’s the view?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we do support the goals of the legislation. We have programs already in place to ensure that we are sanctioning those who are responsible for human rights abuses, and we are continuing our dialogue with the Congress about how we can appropriately make the views of the Congress and the American people known; at the same time, that we strongly favor the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik legislation, as really being a relic of the past that doesn’t apply to today’s situation. So this is an ongoing conversation that we’re having with the Hill.
QUESTION: Why is Magnitsky needed if the State Department really does have the ability right now legally to refuse visas to people who have been involved in crime, or at least, I guess, maybe alleged – I’m not quite sure how we can define that. But don’t you have the tools already to exclude people and not give them a visa?
MS. NULAND: We do have many of the tools in this legislation. I think it’s a matter of – from the Congress’s point of view, obviously, I would refer you to them. But our understanding in the conversations that we’ve had is that there’s a desire and an interest to make this a matter of law; and particularly, if we are going to make the point with members of Congress that the days are over for the kinds of sanctions that we had under Jackson-Vanik, but that we still have other human rights concerns that need to be taken into account.
So I think there are – there’s a feeling on the Hill that putting this in legislation will create a systemic, routine way of dealing with it and a clear set of guidelines that the Congress and the Administration agree to and understand and that are clear on the Russian side. So let’s see where this legislation goes as it goes through the Congress.
Please.
QUESTION: Thank you. On North Korea, they reported that North Korea is almost ready for the nuclear test. And so I would like to know, what’s the assessment from the U.S. Government?
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think our position on any of this has changed: No launching, no testing, no nothing if you want to have a better relationship with the international community. All of these are provocations, all of them take the DPRK in the wrong direction, so our message on all of this hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: But they say if the U.S. agree in a peace treaty with them, they may abandon the nuclear test. What’s your reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: Starting with the Leap Day deal that the North Koreans have abrogated, we were beginning a conversation again about a step-by-step process that could convince the Six Parties, could convince the international community that this new North Korean leadership was interested in coming back into compliance with its international obligations. Those – was a small first step, and unfortunately now we’re going backwards. So it’s really up to the DPRK to demonstrate that it wants a better relationship with all of us and that it wants to put its energy into peace and stability and taking care of its people rather than expensive weapons.
QUESTION: And last question --
QUESTION: Haven’t they already done that? Haven’t they demonstrated their interest already?
MS. NULAND: Demonstrated their interest?
QUESTION: Or lack of interest?
MS. NULAND: Unfortunately, they are demonstrating a lack of interest, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And then can you just (inaudible), you said no launching, no testing no nothing. I mean, what is that – no nothing? They can’t do anything? (Laughter.) I mean, what if they decide they’re going to free all political prisoners and have democratic elections tomorrow? I mean, is that – that’s bad, too?
MS. NULAND: What they can and should do is take care of their people, open their country, begin to reform the system, and demonstrate to the international community that they’re prepared to meet their international obligations. And they haven’t done any of those things. So what I meant by “no nothing” was no provocative nuclear actions of any kind.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up.
MS. NULAND: Keeping me on my toes.
QUESTION: On this – at the coming U.S.-China S and ED, what’s the U.S. expectation from China on North Korea issue, specifically?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we said very clearly that we have encouraged China to continue to use all of its influence with the DPRK and particularly with the new young leader to encourage a positive course and to discourage the negative course. So I’m sure that we will be exchanging views on North Korea and getting a better sense of how the Chinese side analyzes the situation, what messages they’ve been willing to send, able to send, and what pressure they think they can bring to bear, because it’s absolutely essential we all work together here.
Please, Michel.
QUESTION: On Iran? Iran has warned today that the new U.S. sanctions targeting its access to surveillance technology were negative and could affect its crucial talks next month with the P-5+1 in Baghdad. Do you have any reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that the sanctions that the President announced yesterday were designed to address a different set of concerns that we have with regard to Iran’s behavior, and that’s Iran’s behavior with regard to their own citizens, with regard to the dignity, human rights, standard of living for their own citizens. So frankly, putting sanctions on companies that help Iran spy on their own citizens and having complaints about that begs the question as to why the Government of Iran thinks it needs to spy on its own citizens and block their access to the internet in the first place. So these – this is a set of sanctions that are designed to support the humans rights, freedoms, dignity of the Iranian people.
QUESTION: But do you expect these sanctions to affect the upcoming negotiations in Baghdad – or talks?
MS. NULAND: Well, our hope is that we will have a productive round in Baghdad. We discussed very clearly in Istanbul what it’s going to take to continue to move forward. So it’s really up to Iran. But frankly, what we have done with the President – the sanctions that the President announced yesterday, don’t even have anything to do with the nuclear file. They have to do with our separate concerns about the human rights situation.
QUESTION: Can I just ask a question on these sanctions? The net effect – I mean, one could argue about the effect of these sanctions, whether they actual do anything, whether these companies or institutions actually have any assets that can be blocked, or whether any Americans were doing business in the first place, but that’s not – well, my question is: With the exception of one, the internet provider in Iran, all of these entities and the one individual in Iran and Syria were already under numerous layers of other sanctions that did exactly the same thing. So I’m just wondering, there was no net effect on the IRGC, on the intelligence ministries, on the head of the Syrian intelligence directorate, was there?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think --
QUESTION: I mean, it didn’t do anything new to them. They were already under sanctions that did exactly what these sanctions do.
MS. NULAND: Frankly, I’m not sure that your premise is right, Matt, that there was no – nothing new, that this was an additional layer and all of these same folks and entities had already been sanctioned. I think the larger point here, though, is to express our concern about the circumvention, the importing of foreign technology to be used against your own citizens to deny them access to the internet, to deny them the ability communicate freely.
So regardless of whether it’s an additional layer on top of the same people and entities, the political point here is to express our concern about what these governments, whether they’re Syrian – the Syrian Government or the Iranian Government, are doing to block access to the internet, to block the ability of their people to communicate, to chill the environment for civil discourse and for civil society.
QUESTION: Doesn’t that happen in quite a few countries? In Equatorial Guinea, in Zimbabwe, in --
MS. NULAND: It happens in a number of countries and the Secretary --
QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.
MS. NULAND: -- there are number of countries that as we – as the Secretary has spoken out on many, many times, that seek to limit the right of their citizens to free speech, to free association, to the internet, and we will continue to speak out. But there are particular governments who are now in the business of acquiring the most sophisticated Western technology they can find and targeting it back on their own citizens and squeezing them, in human rights terms, with it. So this is an area of increasing concern.
QUESTION: So that would be the standard then for which countries would in the future those sanctions would apply to, whether they’re acquiring (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think we’re going to take this on a case-by-case basis. But in this case, the President was making the point, and we were making the point more broadly that these two governments are particularly egregious in this area as, if you will, state-sponsors of censorship.
QUESTION: Victoria, could you explain something regarding the board – the atrocity prevention board that the President announced on the sanctions?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Now, is it -- how is the State Department involved? I mean, since we know that Samantha Power is going to lead that effort. Who’s from the State Department? Who will sit on that board?
MS. NULAND: The State Department representative on the board is Under Secretary of State Maria Otero.
QUESTION: Maria Otero. Okay.
MS. NULAND: And the first meeting of the board was yesterday.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: And the board is designed to get together this group of very experienced people to look at how we can, as a government, do more to support accountability and to stop atrocities.
QUESTION: Okay. And one related issue: Last week it was announced – the Open Government Initiative?
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: Is that in any way connected to this – there’s going to be a center of – a connection with this board?
MS. NULAND: Well, some of the people who work on the Open Government Partnership are the same people who work on this atrocities board – as you said, Samantha Power, Under Secretary Otero. But the initiatives are not linked.
What I would say is that when we announced at the Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Istanbul that we were standing up this atrocities clearinghouse for Syria, that’s an example of the kind of initiative that this group of people on the atrocities board brought to bear. They were the sort of idea factory for that idea, and it’s the kind of thing that, assuming that it works well in a Syrian context, we can replicate in other contexts.
Yeah.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Do you have – does the State Department have any additional information on the two Cuban actors who were granted temporary visas and have since disappeared?
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge – and frankly, this is yesterday information and I didn’t have an update from today, so if it’s not right, we’ll get back to you – but neither we nor the film festival has any further information about where the two actors are.
QUESTION: So that hasn’t changed, then, --
MS. NULAND: I do not believe that has changed since yesterday. Okay.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Pakistan. As far as Secretary Grossman’s visit to Pakistan is concerned, and also last week Secretary Panetta told the Pentagon press that the Haqqani Network is the most dangerous, and is also now going back and forth from Pakistan to Afghanistan, Afghanistan to Pakistan. Is that going to be a topic? Because this is the main concern or main issue between the two countries and the security in Afghanistan is concerned.
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have any travel to announce today, Goyal, but I think you know that we’ve been pretty clear. Secretary was clear, Secretary Panetta was clear last week, that we have concerns about the Haqqani Network in – with regard to the most recent incident in Afghanistan. And as the Secretary said in Brussels, we will continue to try to work with Pakistan because this is a threat to both of us.
QUESTION: And finally, are you planning to include Haqqani Network in the Reward for Justice or any other sanctions against this network?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we have sanctions on individual members of the Haqqani Network, and we’re continuing to look at what more we can do there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: A follow-up on Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday, State Department announced Grossman – Marc Grossman visit to three different countries, but Pakistan is not included. And there are some media reports in Pakistan that Pakistani official are getting ready to meet with him, and talk about all issues, including reopening of a NATO supply line. And they also talk about the trilateral core group meeting, including Afghanistan. So do you have any update of his visit? Is he going to Islamabad? Do you confirm that?
MS. NULAND: I think I just said that I don’t have any travel to announce today, but as you know, both Afghanistan and Pakistan fall within his purview. But I don’t have anything to announce today.
Okay?
QUESTION: No. I just want --
MS. NULAND: Sorry.
QUESTION: -- to go back to the WikiLeaks question. When you said that your position had not changed as to whether this – whether the release of these documents have done damage to the national security, what – can you be more – what does that mean? You say that it did damage?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you be more explicit about how it did damage?
MS. NULAND: I think we were quite explicit at the time, and I’m not going to come back to it today.
QUESTION: Well, no, at – well, at the time, you said that it had the potential – well, not you personally; it was your predecessor – but had the potential to do damage and that there was the concern in the – in this building in particular that ambassadors or embassies would be less than forthcoming about what they wrote in cables coming back, knowing that they had been – that it had been compromised.
Has there been any evidence? Is this building concerned or is there evidence that shows that this building is not getting full accounting, full reporting, honest, candid reporting from its embassies abroad in the wake of WikiLeaks?
MS. NULAND: Our embassies abroad continue to do a superb job of working with governments and societies where they are accredited and giving us a good, strong picture of what’s going on. That doesn’t change the fact that there was enormous turbulence in many of our bilateral relationships when this happened, and that there have been impacts on individuals. As you know, we’ve talked about that at the time.
QUESTION: Right. But when you say enormous turbulence in bilateral relationships, has – what has – what can you – what is there that --
MS. NULAND: I don’t think I’m going to go any further than we went at the time. We had concerns from many of our interlocutors.
QUESTION: Well, I know you had concerns --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- but that – but concern is – that does not that mean that there’s – that something has been damaged?
MS. NULAND: I think we’ve got an ongoing lawsuit, and I’m not going to go any further right now.
QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious, though. If the – do you see – has the U.S. ability to conduct its foreign relations been compromised or damaged because of WikiLeaks? Can you point to one or two examples of how that – of how this has done harm to the U.S. national security or U.S. --
MS. NULAND: Matt --
QUESTION: -- ability to conduct diplomacy?
MS. NULAND: -- given the fact that we have an ongoing legal case, I don’t think I’m going to comment any further on this set of issues today.
QUESTION: Well, fair enough, but --
MS. NULAND: Michel, did you have something else?
QUESTION: -- you do understand this is exactly what you’re being asked to produce in court.
MS. NULAND: I understand. And --
QUESTION: And if you’re saying that, “Yes, it did damage, but I’m sorry, I can’t tell you what the damage is because it’s a secret,” that’s what – is that what you’re saying?
MS. NULAND: What I’m saying is there’s ongoing legal work now, and if there are legal responsibilities of this building, we’ll do it in a court of law, not here.
QUESTION: Well, but in terms of the one thing that you did answer, you – there isn’t any evidence that this has affected embassies’ ability or – to report back honestly and accurately about what’s going on in their host countries. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to give a grade to our embassies. We expressed our concern at the time. Those concerns were very clearly stated. I’m not going to get into evaluating, from this podium, what’s come back, what hasn’t come back. We’ve got an ongoing legal case.
Michel.

QUESTION: One clarification still on this, please.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I thought the concern was less that embassies would not report stuff back in cables but that their interlocutors would not tell them stuff in the first place because they no longer had faith that the U.S. Government could keep their conversations or communications private, given the vast leak of cables. So I think the question might be better posed as: Has the State Department discerned a diminution in the candor of its foreign interlocutors as a result of this gross breach of confidentiality?

MS. NULAND: Again, we said what we wanted to say at the time on this case. We now have this case in the courts, and I just don’t think it’s appropriate for me to be commenting any further.
Michael, did you have something else? Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. Any new assessment about the UN observers’ work in Syria?

MS. NULAND: As I said yesterday, we’re continuing to watch this day by day. I think the concern remains that we only have a small number of monitors in, which means that they can stay in some of these towns for only a short time. They were in Zabadani; they were in parts of Hama and Homs in the last couple of days, but we don’t have enough yet to be able to leave them there. And there are concerns that no sooner do they leave when violence restarts. So this is something we’re just going to have to watch going forward.
Please.

QUESTION: There was a bomb that exploded today in Marjeh, which is a densely populated area within Damascus. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND: Well, we were just getting reporting on this as I was coming down. Obviously, any acts of violence of that kind are reprehensible.
Please.

QUESTION: Does the State Department have any comment on Egypt’s decision not to register, I think it’s eight NGOs, pro-democracy NGOs, including the Carter Foundation?

MS. NULAND: I have to say that we are – we don’t have a full picture of what has happened and what hasn’t happened with regard to these NGOs. So we are in the process of trying to figure it out, and we’re seeking clarification from the Egyptian side.
QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks, everybody.