FROM: STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal After Meeting With Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
King Khalid International Airport
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
January 5, 2014
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: I’d like first of all to welcome John and his colleagues for this visit. As you can see (inaudible) in Saudi Arabia (inaudible) that we have. And therefore, the meeting was an excellent meeting. It’s a meeting that lasted for three hours, a meeting that realized any bad (inaudible) about the relation that were expressed in many of the media lately. And we covered all of the subjects that we wanted to – or the Secretary wanted to cover from Syria to Lebanon to Yemen, all of the areas the bilateral relations are helping. And there is really no meeting that could have been smoother and more productive than this meeting.
So welcome again, John. I hope you have the same feeling about the meeting that we had. And we wish you God speed.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Your Royal Highness. I’m very appreciative to his Majesty King Abdullah for his generous welcome here today, for a meeting that he put on on very short notice. And I’m always grateful to the incredible hospitality of my friend Saud al-Faisal, whose friendship and counsel I value enormously.
I want to thank His Majesty for not just the length of the meeting, but for the quality of the meeting, for the fullness of the exchange of ideas, and particularly for his enthusiastic support for the efforts that are being made with respect to the peace process and the effort to try to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
As everybody knows, His Majesty King Abdullah took the initiative to put on the table, in 2002, a very courageous effort for peace, and it is known as the Arab Peace Initiative. That initiative has been part of the framework that we have been piecing together, both in inspiration and substance. And I’m grateful that the Arab League as a whole and Saudi Arabia individually have been significantly involved in helping to build support for this effort and in following through on their own initiative.
Today, His Majesty was not just encouraging, but supported our efforts and hopes that we can be successful in the days ahead and believes that this is important for the region and that there are great benefits that will come to everybody if we’re able to be successful. So I will let him and His Royal Highness speak for themselves, but we’re grateful.
And also we discussed Syria, the Geneva II meeting. We discussed Iran and our common interests in seeing Lebanon be able to be stable and unimpeded by the interference of Hezbollah in the conduct of the affairs of state and the ways in which the people of Lebanon would like to be able to live in peace.
So I’m very grateful for a very, very productive meeting and look forward to continuing our discussion when we meet with the Geneva – with the London 11 in Paris and also (inaudible) to the Follow-On Committee to the Arab Peace Initiative. And I thank you very, very much, my friend, for your generous welcome. Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: As you can see, we had a good meeting, and we have future meetings also to continue the exchange of views and various (inaudible) on the peace process. And His Majesty again reiterated the principles of the Arab Peace Plan and agreement (inaudible) come to respond to Palestinian national wishes to receive (inaudible) ultimately.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.
Showing posts with label SAUDI ARABIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SAUDI ARABIA. Show all posts
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
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.”
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.”
Friday, May 31, 2013
U.S., SAUDI ARABIA SIGN OPENS SKIES AGREEMENT
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
United States and Saudi Arabia Sign Open Skies Air Transport Agreement
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 28, 2013
Today in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, U.S. Ambassador James B. Smith and Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Director of the General Authority of Civil Aviation, Dr. Faisal bin Hamad Al-Sugair, signed an Open Skies air transport agreement.
The United States-Saudi Arabia Open Skies agreement will, following a transition period, permit unrestricted air service by the airlines of both countries between and beyond the other’s territory, eliminating restrictions on how often the carriers fly, the kind of aircraft they use and the prices they charge. This agreement will allow for the strengthening and expansion of our strong trade and tourism links with Saudi Arabia, benefitting U.S. and Saudi Arabian businesses and travelers by expanding opportunities for air services and encouraging vigorous price competition by airlines, while preserving our commitments to aviation safety and security. It has been applied on the basis of comity and reciprocity since it was initialed on April 18, 2011.
The United States has over 100 Open Skies agreements with partners around the world and at all levels of development.
United States and Saudi Arabia Sign Open Skies Air Transport Agreement
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 28, 2013
Today in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, U.S. Ambassador James B. Smith and Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Director of the General Authority of Civil Aviation, Dr. Faisal bin Hamad Al-Sugair, signed an Open Skies air transport agreement.
The United States-Saudi Arabia Open Skies agreement will, following a transition period, permit unrestricted air service by the airlines of both countries between and beyond the other’s territory, eliminating restrictions on how often the carriers fly, the kind of aircraft they use and the prices they charge. This agreement will allow for the strengthening and expansion of our strong trade and tourism links with Saudi Arabia, benefitting U.S. and Saudi Arabian businesses and travelers by expanding opportunities for air services and encouraging vigorous price competition by airlines, while preserving our commitments to aviation safety and security. It has been applied on the basis of comity and reciprocity since it was initialed on April 18, 2011.
The United States has over 100 Open Skies agreements with partners around the world and at all levels of development.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
DOD NEWS BRIEFING WITH DEFENSE SECRETARY PANETTA AND GENERAL DEMPSEY
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta and General Martin E. Dempsey, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
DoD News Briefing with Secretary Panetta and Gen. Dempsey from the Pentagon
SECRETARY LEON E. PANETTA: Good afternoon.
It's been an interesting few weeks since we last met, and I am sure you'll have some interesting questions, but before I do that, let me -- let me summarize some key points.
On Afghanistan, last week we held extensive consultations with Afghan Minister of Defense Wardak and Minister of Interior Mohammadi. With the two MOUs that we signed on detention operations and special operations, I believe this relationship is on the right path. And we are continuing to make progress on the strategic partnership agreement as well.
There will be challenges, continuing challenges, as we saw over the weekend, but our partnership remains strong, the Afghans are providing greater security, and the strategy that General Allen has put in place is succeeding.
On the Middle East, we hosted Prince Salman, the Saudi minister of defense. We had a productive discussion on security challenges emanating from the Middle East, where Iran's nuclear program remains a pressing concern and where in Syria, the Assad regime's violence is increasingly intolerable. And obviously, they continue to raise questions about their adherence to the cease-fire agreement.
On North Korea, we have been in very close contact with our counterparts in South Korea and Japan as we monitored the provocative, and ultimately unsuccessful, attempt by the North Korean government to conduct a missile launch. We will continue to be fully prepared for any future provocations should they occur. We hope that won't be the case, but we continue to be prepared in the event that that happens.
On NATO, I'm leaving tomorrow morning for a joint NATO ministerial with Secretary Clinton in Brussels, the last high-level meeting that will take place before the Chicago summit in May. We're at a pivotal point for the alliance as we build on the gains that have been made in Afghanistan and try to chart the course for the future in that -- in that area.
We'll also be working to ensure that NATO itself has the right military capabilities that will be needed for the future in order for NATO to assume the responsibilities that it must as we proceed.
But even as we deal with these global security challenges, we have another great challenge here at home, which is working with the Congress to implement our new defense strategy. Let me just give you a quick update on where I think things stand at this point.
Since the president's budget request was released on February 13th, the budget and strategy that we've developed have been subject to intense scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Chairman Dempsey and I went up to the Hill to testify five times before the key committees as many of you know. But there have been more than 50 additional congressional hearings with the service secretaries, the service chiefs, the combatant commanders and other senior civilian and military leaders. A lot of tough questions were asked, but I believe that both our strategy and our budget proposals have held up very well under this very intense scrutiny. As a result, we continue to strongly believe that this is the right strategy and the right budget to meet our responsibilities to a strong national security and to tough fiscal requirements.
Military and civilian leaders here at the department all stand unified behind our strategy and our budget because, I think, we believe we've developed that strategy and the budget together as a team. In a word, the key elements of the strategy -- I think they're familiar with -- to all of you -- but let me just quickly summarize those key points.
First, the force will be smaller and leaner, but it must be agile and flexible and deployable and technologically advanced. Second, we will rebalance our global posture, emphasizing the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. Third, we'll strengthen key alliances and partnerships through rotational deployments and other innovative ways to sustain our presence elsewhere.
Fourth, we'll ensure our military can confront aggression and defeat any opponent anytime, anywhere. And lastly, we will protect investments in new technologies such as ISR, space, cyberspace, global strike, special ops and the capacity to quickly mobilize.
Of course, in the end, it's up to Congress. In the coming weeks they will begin considering the defense authorization and appropriations bills. Our hope is that Congress will carefully consider the new defense strategy and the budget decisions that resulted from that strategy.
The key is that this is a zero-sum game. Because of the Budget Control Act, any change in any one area of the budget and force structure will inevitably require offsetting changes elsewhere. And that carries the real risk that this is -- if this is not done right, the result could be a hollow, unbalanced or weaker force. Our hope is that our strategy will not be picked apart piece by piece.
If, for example, we're prevented from carrying out all of the six major weapons terminations that we have proposed, the result will be a need to find as much as $9.6 billion in savings from other areas over five years. And that could mean less money to buy high-priority ships or acquire the next-generation aircraft. If Congress rejects all of the modest changes we've proposed in TRICARE fees and copays for retirees, than almost $13 billion in savings over the next five years will have to be found in other areas such as readiness, or we could be forced to further reduce our troop strength.
So the message we wanted to send Congress today is that there is very little margin for error with this package. That's the reality that all of us are living with. The strategy we developed will maintain, we believe, the strongest military in the world by every measure, and that's essential because of the nature of the security challenges that we're facing.
I believe we're at a critical point in our nation's history. We need to rise to meet the challenges that are facing us in this dangerous and uncertain world, and we can't afford to have the Congress resort to bitter partisanship or parochialism at this critical time.
We owe it to the American people to ensure that the right decisions are made to protect our nation and our national security from the full scope of modern threats, including the threat of our debt and our deficits.
Above all, we owe it to the American people to find a way to avoid sequester. The clock is ticking. It's been 121 days since the supercommittee failed, and Congress has yet to find a way to avoid the threat of sequester.
I still remain optimistic that we can hopefully find a way to avoid this disaster. But it's going to take Congress and all of us working together to find consensus and provide strong bipartisan leadership to protect our economy, our quality of life and our national security.
That's what the American people expect of their leaders. It's what we at the Department of Defense have made in an -- in an -- in the effort to do this with the defense strategy that we put in place for the future.
And let me just close by noting that in the spirit of that partnership between DOD and Congress, General Dempsey and I will be meeting tonight with members of Congress, the Caucus on Women in the Military and the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, to discuss the next series of steps that the department will be taking with regards to sexual assault.
As I've said before, sexual assault has no place in the military, and we have made it a top priority to combat this crime. We will continue to develop our strategies; we'll continue to devote our energy and our intention to enforcing our department's zero tolerance policy on sexual assault, and building a zero tolerance culture in the military for sexual assault.
My goal is to do everything possible -- I think our goal has been to do everything possible to open up the military to everyone who wants to serve this country. To do that, we must effectively deal with this kind of threat.
Marty.
GENERAL MARTIN E. DEMPSEY: Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
Good afternoon. Secretary Panetta rightly observes that the past several weeks have been pretty remarkable, actually. These last seven days alone remind us yet again that we live in an extraordinarily complex and increasingly competitive world.
In fact, today we face a security paradox: a time that may appear, on the surface, to be less dangerous but that underneath the surface is actually more dangerous. Levels of violence are by some accounts at an evolutionary low point. But destructive technologies are also proliferating down and out, to groups and individuals as well as formerly middleweight powers. As a consequence, there simply are more actors with more potential to do us harm.
This is not a time for comfort or complacency, which is why our nation's senior civilian and military leaders came together last year to develop a new strategy.
The strategy affirms our solemn duty to protect our country and its citizens. It's informed by a security environment that is changing in unprecedented ways. It applies the lessons of a decade of war. And it calls for a joint force that is ready to deter and defeat any threat along the spectrum of conflict.
As I've mentioned before, the fiscal year '13 budget is an essential first step toward Joint Force 2020. Our strategy and the budget constitute a carefully balanced set of choices. The decisions we made are not about doing more with less, or certainly not less with less. They are about making sure we have the right talent and the right tools to keep America immune from coercion. Put another way, we updated our strategy to responsibly meet the nation's security needs, nothing more and nothing less than that.
I'm confident that this approach honors our commitment to our military family and the American people.
Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.
Q: Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask both of you about the multipronged attacks in Afghanistan yesterday. Is it your assessment at this point that these attacks were organized and led by the Haqqani network? And if so, what does it say about the severity of the threat posed by the Haqqanis and about the inability of the Pakistani government to crack down on the Haqqanis?
SEC. PANETTA: The intelligence indicates that the Haqqanis were behind the attacks that took place. And we had received a great deal of intelligence indicating that the Haqqanis were planning these kinds of attacks. And obviously, we're always concerned about the attacks that take place. They reflect that the Taliban is resilient, that they remain determined.
And yet I think we're also confident that the Afghans have increased their capability to deal with these kinds of attacks.
There were no tactical gains here. These are isolated attacks that are done for symbolic purposes, and they have not regained any territory. They haven't been able to really conduct an organized attack since last year. And what it told us -- and I think General Allen pointed this out -- is that it confirms that the Afghan army and police did a great job of reacting to these attacks. They quickly restored order, they quickly restored security in those areas, and it gave us an indication that they really are improving in terms of their capability to provide security. Having said all of that, this is clearly the beginning of the spring offensive that the Taliban engages in, and we are, I think, fully confident that, combined with the Afghan army, we can confront that threat.
GEN. DEMPSEY: And I'll just add, Bob, that though the evidence leads us to believe that the Haqqani network was involved in this, it doesn't lead back into Pakistan at this time. The threat -- you know, the Haqqani network exists on both sides of the border. So I'm -- we're not prepared to suggest this emanated out of Pakistan. I mean, the evidence may at some point lead us there, but we're not there yet.
Secondly, you know, you ask, what does it mean? It means we're still in a fight, and I don't -- I don't think any of us have ever suggested there wouldn't be fighting to -- still needing to be done. In fact, we've been talking quite openly about the fact that we've got three more fighting seasons with which to both build the ANSF and diminish the capability of the Taliban and the associated movements.
Thirdly, as the secretary said, we did have intel. But it -- we weren't trying to protect a discrete moment like we were at the loya jirga.
And if you remember, when President Karzai called for the loya jirga, the security was remarkable. I mean, there wasn't a single incident that occurred around that, even though the ANSF was completely in the lead in that regard. And so this is a little bigger challenge, though, when you have kind of intelligence that is vague about timing and you have to, you know, keep you guard up constantly.
And the last thing is -- and I've worked, as you know, with both the Iraqi security forces and the Afghan security forces. And I'll tell you, the Afghan security forces perform their duties admirably when attacked, even though it was on very short notice over the last 48 hours.
Q: (Off mic) -- I want to follow up on what you had to say about the Afghan ministers here last week, the defense minister and the interior minister. The interior minister told us that he received assurances from you about training assistance and equipment assistance after 2014. And I wonder if you could just expand on those assurances. What do you think the U.S. role and mission will look like after 2014?
SEC. PANETTA: Well, we're going to be discussing that in Brussels and Chicago. And obviously, we'll want to work closely with our ISAF partners to determine what that enduring presence will look like. But clearly, it's -- it -- you know, any future presence will focus on areas like counterterrorism and focus also on training assistance and advice, as we've provided and probably will continue to provide in the future.
Q: Do you assume there'll be hundreds if not thousands of U.S. soldiers still on the ground in 2014?
SEC. PANETTA: I don't -- I don't think we ought to comment on what we're assuming at this point, mainly because we really want to engage in serious consultation with our partners as to what that presence ought to look like.
Q: But there will be some U.S. presence, correct?
SEC. PANETTA: That's -- I think that'll be the case.
Q: Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey, I wanted to follow up with -- on the attacks over the weekend. These kind of attacks are -- amount to something like guerrilla warfare. Couldn't that in itself be effective enough to undermine the confidence of the Afghan people, to undermine the effort to try to stabilize Afghanistan in the long run and for the Afghan security forces to be able to deal with these attacks if you're -- you know, every few months you have an attack like this in a major population area?
SEC. PANETTA: Well, look, you know, it's -- I -- as General Dempsey pointed out, we are in a war, and we are going to confront this enemy in these kinds of attacks. But I don't think any of this detracts from the fundamental conclusion that 2011 was, I think, a clear turning point. We did seriously weaken the Taliban. They have not been able since that time to put together any organized attack to regain any territory that was lost.
The Afghan people themselves, particularly in these areas that were once dominated by the Taliban, are rejecting the Taliban, and that's a very good point.
The Afghan army and police are becoming much more capable at engaging in operations and providing security. We have successfully been transitioning areas to Afghan governance and security. We're in the process of completing the second tranche of areas.
That will represent 50 percent of the Afghan people will be under Afghan security and governance. When we complete the third tranche, hopefully this year, we'll have 75 percent of the Afghan people under governance -- Afghan governance and Afghan security.
So significant progress is being made here. At the same time as we've gone through that, we continue to experience IEDs. We continue to experience, you know, periodic attacks by the Taliban. We're going to continue to see suicide attacks. We're going to continue to see efforts by them to try to undermine confidence in Afghanistan that we're headed in the right direction.
It hasn't worked in the past. I don't think it'll work in the present, mainly because it is clear that we are headed in the right direction right now. And I think the Afghan people believe that.
GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah, the only thing I'd add is, you know, it's never been our goal to drive attacks to zero and then hand over responsibility to the Afghan national security forces. The idea here has been to -- you know, to continue to assist them in becoming increasingly more and more capable of taking over the fight. And I think, you know, what you saw them -- how you saw them react today, with very, very -- or yesterday, with very little help from us, I think, is an indicator that that strategy is sound.
Q: Can you -- you said it required air power at the end to --
GEN. DEMPSEY: Not much. The French provided a couple of helicopters. We provided a couple of helicopters. But this was very much an Afghan show.
SEC. PANETTA: Yeah, over here.
Q: Mr. Secretary, when you have the kind of failed rocket launch we saw with North Korea, do you expect them to do something provocative to try to save face? And specifically, are you expecting a nuclear test in the weeks and months ahead?
SEC. PANETTA: You know, whether their launch was a success or a failure, the bottom line was that it was provocative and that they should not have taken that step because it violates the U.N. resolution and it was, you know, clearly something that they had been urged not to do by the international community.
They went ahead, did it; it failed. Our hope is that they will not engage in any further provocation. But I can assure you that we have -- we have taken all of the steps necessary to deal with any contingency. But, again, our hope is that they will not engage in provocation, but that they'll go back to the negotiating table and try to resolve these issues, as they should, on a diplomatic basis.
Q: (Off mic)
Q: Did you say a nuclear test?
Q: -- to detonate another nuclear warhead, as they've threatened to do or talked about doing?
SEC. PANETTA: I -- all we've ever -- I heard the same rumors you have. I haven't seen anything specifically.
Q: (Off mic) --
STAFF: Let me start here.
Q: We asked about sequestration. It was eight months ago, at your first press conference, you said you needed to better educate the Hill on -- to avoid the doomsday mechanism. Eight months later, there doesn't seem to be a lot of movement here. When does your optimism turn to just hard-eyed, cold -- this isn't going to work; we need to plan for it? And to both of you, what impact does the specter of sequestration have -- having on the defense industrial base, the contractors you depend on? You don't -- you don't talk much about that but -- (inaudible) --
SEC. PANETTA: Yeah -- (inaudible) --
Q: -- you need to plan for it.
SEC. PANETTA: -- I think, you know, the shadow of sequestration is there. And I don't think we're kidding anybody by saying that somehow, you know, it's not having some impact. Clearly in the -- you know, the industrial community is concerned about the potential for its impact. It continues to be a concern that we have as far as the possibility that that could happen.
But you know, I continue to urge the Congress. There isn't any member I've talked to that doesn't think that sequester is a disaster. There isn't any member who's said to me, you know, oh, it'll be great. All of them understand that it's the wrong way to go. And I just have to hope that ultimately, they will find the courage and leadership to be able to address that issue, de-trigger sequester, deal with the other challenges that are out there and try to do it as soon as possible because frankly, the longer this drags on, the more of an impact it has in terms of the planning process and in terms of the budget process. And frankly, even though we're not planning for sequester to take place because it is such a disastrous step if it occurs, it still has an impact within the department and outside the department for planning purposes.
Q: (Off mic) -- to talk a little bit --
GEN. DEMPSEY: Well, just if the past is prologue, you know, we were -- we confronted a new fiscal reality in late summer last year, and it took us every bit of energy we had to get from there to the budget submission in February. So I mean, I would anticipate that we would have to begin doing some planning in the mid to late summer if we have any chance at all of reacting to it should it trigger.
Q: Do you agree with that, Secretary Panetta? In mid to late summer you're going to have to start planning? Because that is not a strategy that --
SEC. PANETTA: Yeah, I would -- I would assume that OMB at that point would have to indicate, you know, to not just the Department of Defense, but to other agencies that we would have to begin to do some preliminary planning. Even though I think all of us believe that ultimately, this will not happen, we still have to take that precaution.
Yes.
Q: General Dempsey, how embarrassed should the U.S. military be that members of the U.S. military were potentially involved in whatever went on in Colombia surrounding the president's visit?
How concerned are you about this?
And Mr. Secretary, a quick follow-up. You've made a very impassioned plea so many times about the budget and spending. With respect, are you thinking about adjusting your own travel schedule out to California, since you have racked up -- pardon me -- assumed a tab of about a million dollars in -- close to a million dollars in taxpayer money? Understanding you require security and communications, sir, nonetheless, the question being the cost that it is to the taxpayer.
GEN. DEMPSEY: We are embarrassed. I mean, I can -- I can't -- you said how embarrassed is the military. I can -- I can speak for myself and my fellow chiefs. We're embarrassed by what occurred in Colombia, though we're not sure exactly what it is, but what we do know is that we distracted -- that several of our members distracted the issue from what was a very important regional engagement for our president. So we let the boss down, because nobody's talking about what went on in Colombia other than this incident. So to that extent, we let him down.
The investigation's ongoing. It'll chart a path for us. And we'll hold those accountable if it turns out that they violated orders or policies or laws.
SEC. PANETTA: Let me just, on that, say that you know, whether our -- whether our forces are in Colombia or any other country, or here in this country, we expect them to abide by the highest standard of behavior. That's a requirement. And for that reason, we will -- we are conducting a full investigation into this matter.
The Southern Command under General Fraser is doing that. And hopefully, we will determine exactly what took place here. I don't want to prejudge it, but obviously, if violations are determined to have been the case, then these individuals will be held accountable, and that's as it should be.
With regards to the other question, as you know, for 40 years that I've been in this town, I've gone home because my wife and family are there and because, frankly, I think it's healthy to get out of Washington periodically just to get your mind straight and your perspective straight.
But clearly, in this job, you know, I -- normally, I've flown home commercially; in this job, I'm obligated to be in touch with communications, and that -- I have to fly on a secure plane. I regret that it does -- you know, that it does add costs that the taxpayer has to pick up. The taxpayer would have to pick up those costs with any secretary of state -- or secretary of defense.
But having said that, I am trying to look at what are -- what are the alternatives here that I can look at that might possibly be able to save funds and at the same time be able to fulfill my responsibilities not only to my job, but to my family.
Q: Mr. Secretary --
GEN. DEMPSEY: Hey, let me -- Tony, let me help the boss here, because if I couldn't get a hold of him, we'd have a really different relationship. So I mean, there really is a legitimate reason for him to -- and by the way, he doesn't get much rest in California, based on the number of times I know that I'm in contact with him.
The other thing is I've noticed that he consistently finds another -- it's not just he flies from here to -- out to California. He'll go to visit Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines all in and around the United States. So it's not a -- out and back.
I'm -- you know, I just want you to know this is not about him just using that airplane to get himself back and forth to the West Coast every weekend.
SEC. PANETTA: Yes.
Q: Secretary Panetta, why have you decided to make sexual assault a top priority at this time? And can you comment on the size of the problem and the urgency in finding better prevention strategies? And also, you mentioned building a zero-tolerance culture. In your opinion, is there a culture of tolerance now? And what do you think is responsible for that?
SEC. PANETTA: Well, you know, I've been very concerned about the sexual assault issue because the reports we have indicate -- I think we just issued a report that indicates that there's about 3,000 reported incidents of sexual assault, but the fact is that there are a larger number of unreported incidents.
And I don't -- you know, I'm not kidding myself or anybody else. These are tough issues, tough to prove. But the reality is that when they take place and nothing happens, it really is the kind of indication that somehow, you know, we're not going to take the steps that we have to take when these criminal violations take place.
And for that reason, I think there's a series of steps -- we're going to discuss it with the Congress -- that we can take in order to make clear that we're going to go after that kind of violation, because, as I said, we're trying to open up -- the military should be available to all of those who want to serve this country, and if -- if sexual assault is one of those areas that is not being aggressively gone after and dealt with, then it sends a terrible signal to those that want to serve. And that's the reason I think General Dempsey and I want to move as aggressively as we feel necessary to deal with that issue.
STAFF: We'll take one or two more.
Q: General Dempsey, you mentioned you had advance intelligence about the attack yesterday.
Can you be a little more specific about that? Was the intelligence -- did it indicate multiple attacks around the country? Did it indicate attacks in Kabul? President Karzai has criticized NATO for not -- for the -- for failure to act on the intelligence. Can you respond to that?
GEN. DEMPSEY: Sure. Yeah, the -- there was intelligence suggesting that as the winter became the spring and the fighting season reopened on or about the 21st of March, you know, the beginning of the new year in some societies, that the Taliban wanted to make a statement that they were back. And so I mean, that was kind of one thread. And then the other thread was that the simultaneity of attacks across the country would, in their view, have -- you know, kind of attenuate or actually accent that. But there was no specificity regarding location or time. And so that's about as much as I can say about the intelligence.
SEC. PANETTA: Yes.
Q: On the attacks and the Haqqani network, Admiral Mullen said last year that the -- that these Haqqanis were essentially -- or basically a virtual arm of the -- of the Pakistani intelligence. Is that still the case? Or are you saying since they didn't -- since they can't be traced back to them this time, has that changed? Have they distanced themselves?
SEC. PANETTA: Well, you know, I think that there's no question that the Haqqanis have a base in Pakistan. But they also have, you know, moved across the border and have operated in enclaves in Afghanistan as well. But there is a concern that they continue to find safe haven back in Pakistan. And that's the kind of situation that has concerned us and that we have made very clear to the Pakistanis it's not tolerable.
GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah, I have nothing to add. They've been -- you know, they've been in Pakistan for 20 years.
Joe.
Q: Thank you. Thank you. I have a question on Syria.
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman, as you may know, I mean, before your meeting with Prince Salman, Saudi Arabia and even Qatar have both expressed their intentions to arm the Syrian rebels. I would like to know from you what's the Pentagon's position in regards to this matter? And one more thing -- if President Assad keeps in his violence, what's next in Syria?
GEN. DEMPSEY: I think, you know --
SEC. PANETTA: It's something that General Dempsey and I have testified on the Hill, will testify on Thursday, with regards to Syria as well. I think our view has been that, first of all, with the thousands of lives that have been lost there, that the government of Syria has lost its legitimacy and that Assad must step down. I mean, we continue to take that position. At the same time, I think, we believe that we have to continue to work with the international community to keep putting pressure on Assad.
Sanctions have been applied. The international community continues to work to try to do everything possible to try to resolve that terrible situation. And the pressure is continuing, and other countries are applying pressure as well.
I think that's the clear course we ought to continue on. We continue to plan for all alternatives. We -- we're -- we continue to be prepared to respond, should the president ask us to take any additional steps. But, at the present time, this is a diplomatic issue and an international issue, and that's where it should be in terms of trying to resolve this issue.
STAFF: Thank you, everyone.
Q: Secretary, (one) --
STAFF: All right, we're all -- (off mic). Thank you.
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta and General Martin E. Dempsey, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
DoD News Briefing with Secretary Panetta and Gen. Dempsey from the Pentagon
SECRETARY LEON E. PANETTA: Good afternoon.
It's been an interesting few weeks since we last met, and I am sure you'll have some interesting questions, but before I do that, let me -- let me summarize some key points.
On Afghanistan, last week we held extensive consultations with Afghan Minister of Defense Wardak and Minister of Interior Mohammadi. With the two MOUs that we signed on detention operations and special operations, I believe this relationship is on the right path. And we are continuing to make progress on the strategic partnership agreement as well.
There will be challenges, continuing challenges, as we saw over the weekend, but our partnership remains strong, the Afghans are providing greater security, and the strategy that General Allen has put in place is succeeding.
On the Middle East, we hosted Prince Salman, the Saudi minister of defense. We had a productive discussion on security challenges emanating from the Middle East, where Iran's nuclear program remains a pressing concern and where in Syria, the Assad regime's violence is increasingly intolerable. And obviously, they continue to raise questions about their adherence to the cease-fire agreement.
On North Korea, we have been in very close contact with our counterparts in South Korea and Japan as we monitored the provocative, and ultimately unsuccessful, attempt by the North Korean government to conduct a missile launch. We will continue to be fully prepared for any future provocations should they occur. We hope that won't be the case, but we continue to be prepared in the event that that happens.
On NATO, I'm leaving tomorrow morning for a joint NATO ministerial with Secretary Clinton in Brussels, the last high-level meeting that will take place before the Chicago summit in May. We're at a pivotal point for the alliance as we build on the gains that have been made in Afghanistan and try to chart the course for the future in that -- in that area.
We'll also be working to ensure that NATO itself has the right military capabilities that will be needed for the future in order for NATO to assume the responsibilities that it must as we proceed.
But even as we deal with these global security challenges, we have another great challenge here at home, which is working with the Congress to implement our new defense strategy. Let me just give you a quick update on where I think things stand at this point.
Since the president's budget request was released on February 13th, the budget and strategy that we've developed have been subject to intense scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Chairman Dempsey and I went up to the Hill to testify five times before the key committees as many of you know. But there have been more than 50 additional congressional hearings with the service secretaries, the service chiefs, the combatant commanders and other senior civilian and military leaders. A lot of tough questions were asked, but I believe that both our strategy and our budget proposals have held up very well under this very intense scrutiny. As a result, we continue to strongly believe that this is the right strategy and the right budget to meet our responsibilities to a strong national security and to tough fiscal requirements.
Military and civilian leaders here at the department all stand unified behind our strategy and our budget because, I think, we believe we've developed that strategy and the budget together as a team. In a word, the key elements of the strategy -- I think they're familiar with -- to all of you -- but let me just quickly summarize those key points.
First, the force will be smaller and leaner, but it must be agile and flexible and deployable and technologically advanced. Second, we will rebalance our global posture, emphasizing the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. Third, we'll strengthen key alliances and partnerships through rotational deployments and other innovative ways to sustain our presence elsewhere.
Fourth, we'll ensure our military can confront aggression and defeat any opponent anytime, anywhere. And lastly, we will protect investments in new technologies such as ISR, space, cyberspace, global strike, special ops and the capacity to quickly mobilize.
Of course, in the end, it's up to Congress. In the coming weeks they will begin considering the defense authorization and appropriations bills. Our hope is that Congress will carefully consider the new defense strategy and the budget decisions that resulted from that strategy.
The key is that this is a zero-sum game. Because of the Budget Control Act, any change in any one area of the budget and force structure will inevitably require offsetting changes elsewhere. And that carries the real risk that this is -- if this is not done right, the result could be a hollow, unbalanced or weaker force. Our hope is that our strategy will not be picked apart piece by piece.
If, for example, we're prevented from carrying out all of the six major weapons terminations that we have proposed, the result will be a need to find as much as $9.6 billion in savings from other areas over five years. And that could mean less money to buy high-priority ships or acquire the next-generation aircraft. If Congress rejects all of the modest changes we've proposed in TRICARE fees and copays for retirees, than almost $13 billion in savings over the next five years will have to be found in other areas such as readiness, or we could be forced to further reduce our troop strength.
So the message we wanted to send Congress today is that there is very little margin for error with this package. That's the reality that all of us are living with. The strategy we developed will maintain, we believe, the strongest military in the world by every measure, and that's essential because of the nature of the security challenges that we're facing.
I believe we're at a critical point in our nation's history. We need to rise to meet the challenges that are facing us in this dangerous and uncertain world, and we can't afford to have the Congress resort to bitter partisanship or parochialism at this critical time.
We owe it to the American people to ensure that the right decisions are made to protect our nation and our national security from the full scope of modern threats, including the threat of our debt and our deficits.
Above all, we owe it to the American people to find a way to avoid sequester. The clock is ticking. It's been 121 days since the supercommittee failed, and Congress has yet to find a way to avoid the threat of sequester.
I still remain optimistic that we can hopefully find a way to avoid this disaster. But it's going to take Congress and all of us working together to find consensus and provide strong bipartisan leadership to protect our economy, our quality of life and our national security.
That's what the American people expect of their leaders. It's what we at the Department of Defense have made in an -- in an -- in the effort to do this with the defense strategy that we put in place for the future.
And let me just close by noting that in the spirit of that partnership between DOD and Congress, General Dempsey and I will be meeting tonight with members of Congress, the Caucus on Women in the Military and the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Caucus, to discuss the next series of steps that the department will be taking with regards to sexual assault.
As I've said before, sexual assault has no place in the military, and we have made it a top priority to combat this crime. We will continue to develop our strategies; we'll continue to devote our energy and our intention to enforcing our department's zero tolerance policy on sexual assault, and building a zero tolerance culture in the military for sexual assault.
My goal is to do everything possible -- I think our goal has been to do everything possible to open up the military to everyone who wants to serve this country. To do that, we must effectively deal with this kind of threat.
Marty.
GENERAL MARTIN E. DEMPSEY: Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
Good afternoon. Secretary Panetta rightly observes that the past several weeks have been pretty remarkable, actually. These last seven days alone remind us yet again that we live in an extraordinarily complex and increasingly competitive world.
In fact, today we face a security paradox: a time that may appear, on the surface, to be less dangerous but that underneath the surface is actually more dangerous. Levels of violence are by some accounts at an evolutionary low point. But destructive technologies are also proliferating down and out, to groups and individuals as well as formerly middleweight powers. As a consequence, there simply are more actors with more potential to do us harm.
This is not a time for comfort or complacency, which is why our nation's senior civilian and military leaders came together last year to develop a new strategy.
The strategy affirms our solemn duty to protect our country and its citizens. It's informed by a security environment that is changing in unprecedented ways. It applies the lessons of a decade of war. And it calls for a joint force that is ready to deter and defeat any threat along the spectrum of conflict.
As I've mentioned before, the fiscal year '13 budget is an essential first step toward Joint Force 2020. Our strategy and the budget constitute a carefully balanced set of choices. The decisions we made are not about doing more with less, or certainly not less with less. They are about making sure we have the right talent and the right tools to keep America immune from coercion. Put another way, we updated our strategy to responsibly meet the nation's security needs, nothing more and nothing less than that.
I'm confident that this approach honors our commitment to our military family and the American people.
Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.
Q: Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask both of you about the multipronged attacks in Afghanistan yesterday. Is it your assessment at this point that these attacks were organized and led by the Haqqani network? And if so, what does it say about the severity of the threat posed by the Haqqanis and about the inability of the Pakistani government to crack down on the Haqqanis?
SEC. PANETTA: The intelligence indicates that the Haqqanis were behind the attacks that took place. And we had received a great deal of intelligence indicating that the Haqqanis were planning these kinds of attacks. And obviously, we're always concerned about the attacks that take place. They reflect that the Taliban is resilient, that they remain determined.
And yet I think we're also confident that the Afghans have increased their capability to deal with these kinds of attacks.
There were no tactical gains here. These are isolated attacks that are done for symbolic purposes, and they have not regained any territory. They haven't been able to really conduct an organized attack since last year. And what it told us -- and I think General Allen pointed this out -- is that it confirms that the Afghan army and police did a great job of reacting to these attacks. They quickly restored order, they quickly restored security in those areas, and it gave us an indication that they really are improving in terms of their capability to provide security. Having said all of that, this is clearly the beginning of the spring offensive that the Taliban engages in, and we are, I think, fully confident that, combined with the Afghan army, we can confront that threat.
GEN. DEMPSEY: And I'll just add, Bob, that though the evidence leads us to believe that the Haqqani network was involved in this, it doesn't lead back into Pakistan at this time. The threat -- you know, the Haqqani network exists on both sides of the border. So I'm -- we're not prepared to suggest this emanated out of Pakistan. I mean, the evidence may at some point lead us there, but we're not there yet.
Secondly, you know, you ask, what does it mean? It means we're still in a fight, and I don't -- I don't think any of us have ever suggested there wouldn't be fighting to -- still needing to be done. In fact, we've been talking quite openly about the fact that we've got three more fighting seasons with which to both build the ANSF and diminish the capability of the Taliban and the associated movements.
Thirdly, as the secretary said, we did have intel. But it -- we weren't trying to protect a discrete moment like we were at the loya jirga.
And if you remember, when President Karzai called for the loya jirga, the security was remarkable. I mean, there wasn't a single incident that occurred around that, even though the ANSF was completely in the lead in that regard. And so this is a little bigger challenge, though, when you have kind of intelligence that is vague about timing and you have to, you know, keep you guard up constantly.
And the last thing is -- and I've worked, as you know, with both the Iraqi security forces and the Afghan security forces. And I'll tell you, the Afghan security forces perform their duties admirably when attacked, even though it was on very short notice over the last 48 hours.
Q: (Off mic) -- I want to follow up on what you had to say about the Afghan ministers here last week, the defense minister and the interior minister. The interior minister told us that he received assurances from you about training assistance and equipment assistance after 2014. And I wonder if you could just expand on those assurances. What do you think the U.S. role and mission will look like after 2014?
SEC. PANETTA: Well, we're going to be discussing that in Brussels and Chicago. And obviously, we'll want to work closely with our ISAF partners to determine what that enduring presence will look like. But clearly, it's -- it -- you know, any future presence will focus on areas like counterterrorism and focus also on training assistance and advice, as we've provided and probably will continue to provide in the future.
Q: Do you assume there'll be hundreds if not thousands of U.S. soldiers still on the ground in 2014?
SEC. PANETTA: I don't -- I don't think we ought to comment on what we're assuming at this point, mainly because we really want to engage in serious consultation with our partners as to what that presence ought to look like.
Q: But there will be some U.S. presence, correct?
SEC. PANETTA: That's -- I think that'll be the case.
Q: Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey, I wanted to follow up with -- on the attacks over the weekend. These kind of attacks are -- amount to something like guerrilla warfare. Couldn't that in itself be effective enough to undermine the confidence of the Afghan people, to undermine the effort to try to stabilize Afghanistan in the long run and for the Afghan security forces to be able to deal with these attacks if you're -- you know, every few months you have an attack like this in a major population area?
SEC. PANETTA: Well, look, you know, it's -- I -- as General Dempsey pointed out, we are in a war, and we are going to confront this enemy in these kinds of attacks. But I don't think any of this detracts from the fundamental conclusion that 2011 was, I think, a clear turning point. We did seriously weaken the Taliban. They have not been able since that time to put together any organized attack to regain any territory that was lost.
The Afghan people themselves, particularly in these areas that were once dominated by the Taliban, are rejecting the Taliban, and that's a very good point.
The Afghan army and police are becoming much more capable at engaging in operations and providing security. We have successfully been transitioning areas to Afghan governance and security. We're in the process of completing the second tranche of areas.
That will represent 50 percent of the Afghan people will be under Afghan security and governance. When we complete the third tranche, hopefully this year, we'll have 75 percent of the Afghan people under governance -- Afghan governance and Afghan security.
So significant progress is being made here. At the same time as we've gone through that, we continue to experience IEDs. We continue to experience, you know, periodic attacks by the Taliban. We're going to continue to see suicide attacks. We're going to continue to see efforts by them to try to undermine confidence in Afghanistan that we're headed in the right direction.
It hasn't worked in the past. I don't think it'll work in the present, mainly because it is clear that we are headed in the right direction right now. And I think the Afghan people believe that.
GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah, the only thing I'd add is, you know, it's never been our goal to drive attacks to zero and then hand over responsibility to the Afghan national security forces. The idea here has been to -- you know, to continue to assist them in becoming increasingly more and more capable of taking over the fight. And I think, you know, what you saw them -- how you saw them react today, with very, very -- or yesterday, with very little help from us, I think, is an indicator that that strategy is sound.
Q: Can you -- you said it required air power at the end to --
GEN. DEMPSEY: Not much. The French provided a couple of helicopters. We provided a couple of helicopters. But this was very much an Afghan show.
SEC. PANETTA: Yeah, over here.
Q: Mr. Secretary, when you have the kind of failed rocket launch we saw with North Korea, do you expect them to do something provocative to try to save face? And specifically, are you expecting a nuclear test in the weeks and months ahead?
SEC. PANETTA: You know, whether their launch was a success or a failure, the bottom line was that it was provocative and that they should not have taken that step because it violates the U.N. resolution and it was, you know, clearly something that they had been urged not to do by the international community.
They went ahead, did it; it failed. Our hope is that they will not engage in any further provocation. But I can assure you that we have -- we have taken all of the steps necessary to deal with any contingency. But, again, our hope is that they will not engage in provocation, but that they'll go back to the negotiating table and try to resolve these issues, as they should, on a diplomatic basis.
Q: (Off mic)
Q: Did you say a nuclear test?
Q: -- to detonate another nuclear warhead, as they've threatened to do or talked about doing?
SEC. PANETTA: I -- all we've ever -- I heard the same rumors you have. I haven't seen anything specifically.
Q: (Off mic) --
STAFF: Let me start here.
Q: We asked about sequestration. It was eight months ago, at your first press conference, you said you needed to better educate the Hill on -- to avoid the doomsday mechanism. Eight months later, there doesn't seem to be a lot of movement here. When does your optimism turn to just hard-eyed, cold -- this isn't going to work; we need to plan for it? And to both of you, what impact does the specter of sequestration have -- having on the defense industrial base, the contractors you depend on? You don't -- you don't talk much about that but -- (inaudible) --
SEC. PANETTA: Yeah -- (inaudible) --
Q: -- you need to plan for it.
SEC. PANETTA: -- I think, you know, the shadow of sequestration is there. And I don't think we're kidding anybody by saying that somehow, you know, it's not having some impact. Clearly in the -- you know, the industrial community is concerned about the potential for its impact. It continues to be a concern that we have as far as the possibility that that could happen.
But you know, I continue to urge the Congress. There isn't any member I've talked to that doesn't think that sequester is a disaster. There isn't any member who's said to me, you know, oh, it'll be great. All of them understand that it's the wrong way to go. And I just have to hope that ultimately, they will find the courage and leadership to be able to address that issue, de-trigger sequester, deal with the other challenges that are out there and try to do it as soon as possible because frankly, the longer this drags on, the more of an impact it has in terms of the planning process and in terms of the budget process. And frankly, even though we're not planning for sequester to take place because it is such a disastrous step if it occurs, it still has an impact within the department and outside the department for planning purposes.
Q: (Off mic) -- to talk a little bit --
GEN. DEMPSEY: Well, just if the past is prologue, you know, we were -- we confronted a new fiscal reality in late summer last year, and it took us every bit of energy we had to get from there to the budget submission in February. So I mean, I would anticipate that we would have to begin doing some planning in the mid to late summer if we have any chance at all of reacting to it should it trigger.
Q: Do you agree with that, Secretary Panetta? In mid to late summer you're going to have to start planning? Because that is not a strategy that --
SEC. PANETTA: Yeah, I would -- I would assume that OMB at that point would have to indicate, you know, to not just the Department of Defense, but to other agencies that we would have to begin to do some preliminary planning. Even though I think all of us believe that ultimately, this will not happen, we still have to take that precaution.
Yes.
Q: General Dempsey, how embarrassed should the U.S. military be that members of the U.S. military were potentially involved in whatever went on in Colombia surrounding the president's visit?
How concerned are you about this?
And Mr. Secretary, a quick follow-up. You've made a very impassioned plea so many times about the budget and spending. With respect, are you thinking about adjusting your own travel schedule out to California, since you have racked up -- pardon me -- assumed a tab of about a million dollars in -- close to a million dollars in taxpayer money? Understanding you require security and communications, sir, nonetheless, the question being the cost that it is to the taxpayer.
GEN. DEMPSEY: We are embarrassed. I mean, I can -- I can't -- you said how embarrassed is the military. I can -- I can speak for myself and my fellow chiefs. We're embarrassed by what occurred in Colombia, though we're not sure exactly what it is, but what we do know is that we distracted -- that several of our members distracted the issue from what was a very important regional engagement for our president. So we let the boss down, because nobody's talking about what went on in Colombia other than this incident. So to that extent, we let him down.
The investigation's ongoing. It'll chart a path for us. And we'll hold those accountable if it turns out that they violated orders or policies or laws.
SEC. PANETTA: Let me just, on that, say that you know, whether our -- whether our forces are in Colombia or any other country, or here in this country, we expect them to abide by the highest standard of behavior. That's a requirement. And for that reason, we will -- we are conducting a full investigation into this matter.
The Southern Command under General Fraser is doing that. And hopefully, we will determine exactly what took place here. I don't want to prejudge it, but obviously, if violations are determined to have been the case, then these individuals will be held accountable, and that's as it should be.
With regards to the other question, as you know, for 40 years that I've been in this town, I've gone home because my wife and family are there and because, frankly, I think it's healthy to get out of Washington periodically just to get your mind straight and your perspective straight.
But clearly, in this job, you know, I -- normally, I've flown home commercially; in this job, I'm obligated to be in touch with communications, and that -- I have to fly on a secure plane. I regret that it does -- you know, that it does add costs that the taxpayer has to pick up. The taxpayer would have to pick up those costs with any secretary of state -- or secretary of defense.
But having said that, I am trying to look at what are -- what are the alternatives here that I can look at that might possibly be able to save funds and at the same time be able to fulfill my responsibilities not only to my job, but to my family.
Q: Mr. Secretary --
GEN. DEMPSEY: Hey, let me -- Tony, let me help the boss here, because if I couldn't get a hold of him, we'd have a really different relationship. So I mean, there really is a legitimate reason for him to -- and by the way, he doesn't get much rest in California, based on the number of times I know that I'm in contact with him.
The other thing is I've noticed that he consistently finds another -- it's not just he flies from here to -- out to California. He'll go to visit Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines all in and around the United States. So it's not a -- out and back.
I'm -- you know, I just want you to know this is not about him just using that airplane to get himself back and forth to the West Coast every weekend.
SEC. PANETTA: Yes.
Q: Secretary Panetta, why have you decided to make sexual assault a top priority at this time? And can you comment on the size of the problem and the urgency in finding better prevention strategies? And also, you mentioned building a zero-tolerance culture. In your opinion, is there a culture of tolerance now? And what do you think is responsible for that?
SEC. PANETTA: Well, you know, I've been very concerned about the sexual assault issue because the reports we have indicate -- I think we just issued a report that indicates that there's about 3,000 reported incidents of sexual assault, but the fact is that there are a larger number of unreported incidents.
And I don't -- you know, I'm not kidding myself or anybody else. These are tough issues, tough to prove. But the reality is that when they take place and nothing happens, it really is the kind of indication that somehow, you know, we're not going to take the steps that we have to take when these criminal violations take place.
And for that reason, I think there's a series of steps -- we're going to discuss it with the Congress -- that we can take in order to make clear that we're going to go after that kind of violation, because, as I said, we're trying to open up -- the military should be available to all of those who want to serve this country, and if -- if sexual assault is one of those areas that is not being aggressively gone after and dealt with, then it sends a terrible signal to those that want to serve. And that's the reason I think General Dempsey and I want to move as aggressively as we feel necessary to deal with that issue.
STAFF: We'll take one or two more.
Q: General Dempsey, you mentioned you had advance intelligence about the attack yesterday.
Can you be a little more specific about that? Was the intelligence -- did it indicate multiple attacks around the country? Did it indicate attacks in Kabul? President Karzai has criticized NATO for not -- for the -- for failure to act on the intelligence. Can you respond to that?
GEN. DEMPSEY: Sure. Yeah, the -- there was intelligence suggesting that as the winter became the spring and the fighting season reopened on or about the 21st of March, you know, the beginning of the new year in some societies, that the Taliban wanted to make a statement that they were back. And so I mean, that was kind of one thread. And then the other thread was that the simultaneity of attacks across the country would, in their view, have -- you know, kind of attenuate or actually accent that. But there was no specificity regarding location or time. And so that's about as much as I can say about the intelligence.
SEC. PANETTA: Yes.
Q: On the attacks and the Haqqani network, Admiral Mullen said last year that the -- that these Haqqanis were essentially -- or basically a virtual arm of the -- of the Pakistani intelligence. Is that still the case? Or are you saying since they didn't -- since they can't be traced back to them this time, has that changed? Have they distanced themselves?
SEC. PANETTA: Well, you know, I think that there's no question that the Haqqanis have a base in Pakistan. But they also have, you know, moved across the border and have operated in enclaves in Afghanistan as well. But there is a concern that they continue to find safe haven back in Pakistan. And that's the kind of situation that has concerned us and that we have made very clear to the Pakistanis it's not tolerable.
GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah, I have nothing to add. They've been -- you know, they've been in Pakistan for 20 years.
Joe.
Q: Thank you. Thank you. I have a question on Syria.
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman, as you may know, I mean, before your meeting with Prince Salman, Saudi Arabia and even Qatar have both expressed their intentions to arm the Syrian rebels. I would like to know from you what's the Pentagon's position in regards to this matter? And one more thing -- if President Assad keeps in his violence, what's next in Syria?
GEN. DEMPSEY: I think, you know --
SEC. PANETTA: It's something that General Dempsey and I have testified on the Hill, will testify on Thursday, with regards to Syria as well. I think our view has been that, first of all, with the thousands of lives that have been lost there, that the government of Syria has lost its legitimacy and that Assad must step down. I mean, we continue to take that position. At the same time, I think, we believe that we have to continue to work with the international community to keep putting pressure on Assad.
Sanctions have been applied. The international community continues to work to try to do everything possible to try to resolve that terrible situation. And the pressure is continuing, and other countries are applying pressure as well.
I think that's the clear course we ought to continue on. We continue to plan for all alternatives. We -- we're -- we continue to be prepared to respond, should the president ask us to take any additional steps. But, at the present time, this is a diplomatic issue and an international issue, and that's where it should be in terms of trying to resolve this issue.
STAFF: Thank you, everyone.
Q: Secretary, (one) --
STAFF: All right, we're all -- (off mic). Thank you.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 3, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:31 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: All right. Happy Tuesday, everyone. I have a brief statement on Mali at the top, and then we’ll go to what’s on your minds. And we will also be putting this statement out right after the briefing.
The United States remains deeply concerned about the ongoing political crisis in Mali. Mali’s territorial integrity is at stake, and its political institutions will be further weakened if Captain Amadou Sanogo and his supporters do not release their illegitimate grip on Mali and its people immediately. We commend the ongoing leadership of the ECOWAS group to restore full civilian and constitutional rule, and we echo ECOWAS’s call – that’s hard, echo ECOWAS’s call – on Captain Sanogo and his supporters to return to power – return power to the civilian leadership, consistent with Mali’s constitution.
At the same time, the United States urgently calls on all armed rebels in the north of Mali to cease military operations that compromise the Republic of Mali’s territorial integrity, and we exhort all parties in the north to ensure the safety and security of Mali’s northern populations. As civilian leadership is restored in Mali, we also urge all armed rebels to engage in dialogue with the civilian leaders in Bamako to find a nonviolent path forward for national elections and peaceful coexistence.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Well, just on that, before, when this was a – before the coup, weren’t you fully supportive of the fight against the Tuaregs? And now you’re saying they should talk to the – they should talk to whoever’s in control?
MS. NULAND: Well, the concern has been that as the security forces of Mali have split, some of them joining the junta leaders, some of them still supporting the elected government, they have stopped fighting the Tuaregs in the north. We’ve seen the result of that, that the Tuaregs have made a march not only on Gao but on Timbuktu, that the situation has become considerably worse. We have always said that the government in Mali needed not only to be fighting, but also to be providing an opportunity to address legitimate political grievances in the north.
So our call now is obviously not only for the civilian government to be restored, but for the Tuaregs to cease their violence, and once we get back to a civilian government, for that government and those with grievances in the north to engage in dialogue rather than to be trying to settle these issues by violence.
QUESTION: Did you ever figure out how much aid you suspended?
MS. NULAND: I have to say to you, Matt, that we are continuing to work through these programs one by one. It is relatively complicated because we want to continue the humanitarian aid while we cut off anything that provides support to the government. So we’re still continuing to work through that, but we are also looking at other ways we can bring pressure to bear on Captain Sanogo.
QUESTION: Well, okay. Like what?
MS. NULAND: We will have more to say about that in coming days.
QUESTION: The French, for instance, are saying that they think it’s time for the UN Security Council to get involved. Is that something the United States supports?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is that the Security Council is discussing Mali today, and in fact there may well be a presidency statement, whether it’s today or in coming days, and we would strongly support that.
QUESTION: Syria?
QUESTION: No. Wait a sec. Just – you said relatively complicated? I mean, okay, relatively complicated I can understand – one day, two day, three days, four days, maybe even five days. But it’s now been 10, at least. It’s that complicated? That would seem to be more than relatively complicated. That would seem to be a, I don’t know, a problem of such immense proportion that the entire building, or whoever’s in charge of it, is unable to come up with this in 10, 12 days.
MS. NULAND: Well, my understanding is that the agencies that manage these programs were given about a week to report exactly what they’re doing, what the programs, one by one, fund. So for about a week of this, we were waiting for accurate information to come in to Washington. Now we’re going through the policy and the legal review, and we also have to notify the Congress. So I’m frustrated, I know you’re frustrated, but that’s what’s happing.
Okay.
QUESTION: Just following up on that, ECOWAS, one of the things they’ve talked about is an embargo, an embargo on Mali in the wake of the coup. Is that something the United States supports, and is there anything the United States can do to make that a reality?
MS. NULAND: Well, my understanding is that ECOWAS, as you know, they had threatened sanctions about a week ago, that today they actually did impose their sanctions, including closing borders, suspending flights, those kinds of things. We very much support their efforts, as well, to pressure Captian Sanogo to relinquish power.
QUESTION: The AU also today imposed travel bans and various other sanctions --
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: -- on Sanogo and others. Is that something the United States supports and will follow, or --
MS. NULAND: Those are the kinds of things that we’re looking at.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: What would a presidential statement at this point do or achieve, from the Security Council?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we have to see the text, but usually a presidency statement is the first step in the council expressing its concern. Let’s see what the text says, but obviously, thereafter one can do more of a punitive nature.
Please.
QUESTION: Syria?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes. Today, the Foreign Minister Walid Muallem issued a statement that they are cooperating with the International Committee of the Red Cross and facilitating their access to all the areas that need to be accessed, and they are cooperating with them. Do you know anything about that?
MS. NULAND: Well, our understanding is that, throughout this crisis, the ICRC has had some limited access. You know that we had given an initial $10 million in humanitarian aid. We decided to increase our aid on the humanitarian side – we’re up to some 25 million – because we were seeing some of that aid flowing to the Syrian people in need. Our concern had been that the humanitarian organizations had not been getting to the areas in greatest need, particularly when they’re under assault. I would refer you to the ICRC for their view of how they are doing, but our understanding is their access if far from complete.
More importantly, however, as you know, the assertion to Kofi Annan was that Assad would start implementing his commitments immediately to withdraw from cities. I want to advise that we have seen no evidence today that he is implementing any of those commitments.
QUESTION: Although they did make a statement that they are, in fact, withdrawing from the cities. They’re taking their mechanized units from certain areas in Homs and Idlib and many other areas. You have no way of verifying that?
MS. NULAND: In fact, our information is the opposite - that nothing has changed.
QUESTION: So there has been more deployment into these areas, these crowded areas where the demonstrations are taking place?
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to whether there has been increased deployment, but certainly, through our own means, we have been able to verify no withdrawal of mechanized units, which is what he’s claiming credit for today.
QUESTION: So you don’t have confidence that the Syrian Government will fulfill its commitment to pull out by April 10th?
MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve said consistently, including again tomorrow at the Security – yesterday at the Security Council, we’re going to judge this by – this guy by his actions, not by his words.
QUESTION: One thing that came out yesterday in the discussion, the – Kofi Annan’s report to the Security Council was the Russian position, and Foreign Minister Lavrov has told Interfax that they now explicitly back the demand on Assad to take the first step in withdrawing his troops. Do you read that as a change in their position? And do you think that’s an important sign, as the international community tries to sort of get a coherent view on this?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’ll let the Russians speak for themselves as to whether their position has changed in the last 24 hours. I think you do know that we have been feeling convergence on the Security Council for some two weeks now. Certainly that was highlighted by the presidency statement that endorsed the Kofi Annan six-point plan. And everybody was together yesterday in agreeing that there needed to be this timeline, and that we were waiting for the regime to demonstrate its good faith.
Please.
QUESTION: But the plans to send 250 monitors after the – April 10th is still on. Are you – when are you going to decide to send this mission?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think as Ambassador Rice said yesterday in New York at her press
event, the DPKO, the peacekeeping arm of the UN, is preparing to be able to send monitors in the event that Assad keeps his word and we are able to get a ceasefire so that they could move immediately in and provide eyes and witness, et cetera, and give comfort to the people of Syria. So that – we’re at the preparatory stage with DPKO, but obviously they can’t deploy unless we have movement on the ending of the violence.
QUESTION: Could – just to follow up on your monitoring of the situation in Syria?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: With the embassy not there, with people like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch have no presence in Syria, and all the diplomatic missions have really lowered their presence almost to nil, nothing, how do you keep on top of the situation? How do you stay – let’s say – how do you get verifiable information on what’s going on?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we maintain broad contacts with folks inside Syria. Robert Ford, Fred Hof, speak to people in Syria every single day in different parts of the country. In addition, we work with our allies and partners who live in the same neighborhood and have their own contacts. And then, as you know, we have other means for evaluating things like troops movements.
QUESTION: What’s the title of Mr. Hof?
MS. NULAND: He’s special advisor to the Secretary for Syria. I’ll get the precise title, Samir. Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go to a different topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Burma, Myanmar.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Following up on your response to Andy’s question yesterday, is there a timeline for the United States to decide any further steps? Is the United States waiting, for example, for Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD supporters to actually enter parliament? Is there any timeline for when the U.S. could take further steps?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, as we said yesterday, we congratulate all who participated, and it does appear to be a big victory for the NLD in these elections. The – we have the preliminary results, and our statements were based on that. Our understanding is that over the next few days, those results will be confirmed in final. As we’ve said, we are prepared to match positive steps of reform in Burma with steps of our own. We are now looking at what might come next on the U.S. side. I don’t have anything to announce, but I would look for more movement from us on this in the coming weeks.
QUESTION: And is there something specific you’re waiting for, or is it just an internal process to --
MS. NULAND: No. We’re doing some internal work. We’re also consulting with partners in ASEAN, partners in the EU who may be making similar steps to coordinate them.
QUESTION: Change of topic?
QUESTION: A follow-up?
MS. NULAND: Still on Burma? Anybody? No?
QUESTION: Yeah. Let me just follow up.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Madam, this ruling party backed by the military government was shocked and surprised about the size of victory that Aung San Suu Kyi had in her party. Now, the situation is this time as it was in 1990, but her election in 1990 was annulled by the military government. Now, will – is she going to get some kind of place there so it will not be the situation of 1990? That’s what many Burmese are asking there and here.
MS. NULAND: Well, our expectation is that the government will honor the results as they are certified. As you know, the initial reporting is that she won her own seat, so she’ll be able to join the party. And then she has 42 other members of her party who appear to have won their seats. So our expectation is that these results will be honored and that the parliament will now reflect the results of these elections.
QUESTION: Is U.S. going to back or ask the ruling military party and government that they should have now – a kind of a free and fair general election, national election, so now she can have a place in – like as a prime minister or so?
MS. NULAND: Well, as the Secretary said – I think was on Sunday when we were in Istanbul – it’s now going to be critical for Burmese authorities to continue to work on reform of the electoral system so that it fully meets international standards, including transparency, and it expeditiously looks into any irregularities. But we are obviously hoping for a continuing evolution of the Burmese political system heading towards the next scheduled elections, which I think are 2015, right?
QUESTION: And finally, a quick one. Have you spoken – or any action or reaction from
India or China? Because they both were supporting the previous government in Burma.
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know Under Secretary Sherman is in India today. I don’t have a full report, but I’m expecting that she’s obviously talking to Indian authorities about Burma, among other subjects.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Was there a – Palestinian issue --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Ros.
QUESTION: Lashkar e-Tayyiba. The U.S. has put out a $10 million reward for the arrest and prosecution of Hafiz Saeed, who is the head of the affiliated charitable organization. He’s suspected of being the mastermind behind the Mumbai killings. Why now? That happened more than three years ago, and his organization, as well as Lashkar e-Tayyiba, have already been on this – the U.S.’s terrorist list.
MS. NULAND: Well, this effort to arrange a Rewards for Justice bounty, if you will, for Hafiz Mohammad Saeed and also for Abdul Rahman Makki has been in the works for quite a number of months. These things are somewhat complicated to work through all of the details. So the announcements were only able to be posted when the process was complete. But there was – we’ve been working on this for some time.
QUESTION: More than a few months? More, less than a year? Can you characterize?
MS. NULAND: I think less than a year but more than three or four months.
QUESTION: Can you explain exactly what it is about – what’s so complicated about offering money for some of – what – printing the posters? What is it that’s so complicated?
MS. NULAND: Well, there is a review process to determine, in the first instance, whether offering a bounty of this kind – in this case, it’s $10 million for Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, it’s $2 million for Abdul Rahman Makki – is likely to lead to any results in the case. So there has to be an intelligence evaluation, there has to be a policy evaluation, there has to be a discussion with Congress. This is a lot of money for the U.S. taxpayer to put up. And so that process takes some time. Things have to be correlated. There is an entire review process. There’s an interagency rewards committee that has to look through this. And then the Secretary has to approve it.
QUESTION: Right. But if it’s only started a couple months ago – Mumbai was quite a – when did the process begin?
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to whether, right after the bombing, we looked at this at that time. But I think sometimes what happens is intelligence and other information comes later with regards to whereabouts of individuals, which leads one to think that offering a reward might cause citizens who know where they are to come forward. And sometimes that isn’t evident right at the time of the crimes. So sometimes it comes up later. As you may know, one of these individuals has been appearing on television and has been quite brazen. So I think the sense has been over the last few months that this kind of a reward might hasten the judicial process, if you will.
QUESTION: So you’re saying --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) you know his television appearances, he did speak to Al Jazeera today about this bounty being placed on him. And he suggested that this is being done because he has been putting pressure on the government in Islamabad to not reopen the southern transport routes for supplies to NATO ISAF forces. Is there anything to that, or is this specifically because of his suspected involvement in the Mumbai attacks?
MS. NULAND: No, it has everything to do with Mumbai and his brazen flouting of the justice system.
QUESTION: Just to --
QUESTION: As he lives more or less openly in Pakistan, has there been communication with the Pakistani Government, the Pakistani authorities, seeking for his arrest?
MS. NULAND: Absolutely. We have been in communication with Pakistan on this issue.
QUESTION: And he is wanted --
QUESTION: Have they acceded to his placement on this list? Because there’s been some analysis suggesting that doing so could put even more strain on the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. And to follow up on that, is that something that Deputy Secretary Nides would be dealing with in his meetings in Islamabad on Wednesday?
MS. NULAND: Well, on the latter question, the full range of issues related to international terrorism, terrorist threats in Pakistan internationally, is obviously one of the subjects that Deputy Secretary Nides will be talking about. We have continued to impress on the Government of Pakistan that we believe it has a special responsibility to fully investigate and bring those to – those responsible to justice, to the extent that it can. The Government of Pakistan has regularly, in our conversations with them, pledged its cooperation in the investigations. We fully expect that it will follow through on those commitments. I would guess that this case probably will come up.
QUESTION: Is this reward has been – in the consultation of the Indian Government?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is that the primary work that is done before we offer these rewards is internal, that we do advise affected governments that we intend to do this, but it’s not a consultative process, per se.
QUESTION: Thank you, ma’am. Can we change topics?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: No. It’s – the reward is for information that leads to the conviction of – conviction where?
MS. NULAND: Wherever he can be found. It’s not specific in the way that it goes --
QUESTION: You’re trying to charge – has he been charged with the murder of the six Americans in Mumbai?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have any back --
QUESTION: I guess I’m just trying to find out, why is it for the United States to offer a reward for this guy? Is that the reason?
MS. NULAND: Well, it’s because we want to see him brought to justice. I believe that he has been charged, but I don’t have the – I’ll get you some more on that.
QUESTION: But do you – I mean, you want him brought to justice here? In India? In Pakistan? Where is it that – I mean, what – if I gave you information that he was on such street corner and he gets picked up and arrested, how do I –
MS. NULAND: My understanding --
QUESTION: -- where does he have to be convicted so I can get the money?
MS. NULAND: Okay. Let us get you some more information. But my understanding of
this – and I may have it wrong – is that he’s actually been charged in India --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. NULAND: -- in connection with this case, that he has been at large --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: -- and has not been able to be either arrested --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: -- or brought to trial.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: So the precise formulation in the Rewards for Justice announcement is $10 million for information leading to the arrest or the conviction of either – of this individual, $2 million for the other individual.
QUESTION: How much are the Indians offering for this?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know the answer to that.
QUESTION: Are they offering anything, do you know?
MS. NULAND: I do not.
QUESTION: I’m just curious as to why it’s the U.S. job to offer a reward for this guy when --
MS. NULAND: Well, we have Americans killed and it’s only cooperate --
QUESTION: I understand. Six Americans were killed.
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: But you also have Americans killed in other places where you’re not offering any rewards or --
MS. NULAND: Well this program, as you know, we have --
QUESTION: Well, it seems to be that the vast amount of damage that this guy and his group has done is to India, and I’m not aware that they’re offering any rewards. So I want to know why the U.S. taxpayer is offering a reward. That’s --
MS. NULAND: Well, I can’t speak to whether India has its own Rewards for Justice-type program. I’m going to refer you to the Indians with regard to that. This is a program that we’ve had for a long --
QUESTION: I understand that, but --
MS. NULAND: Can I finish my point? We’ve had for a long time, when we are concerned that people who have killed Americans overseas are not being able to be brought to justice. So again, this is a case that’s been going on for a long time. This is with regard to justice being served on people who have killed Americans --
QUESTION: Right. Can you --
MS. NULAND: -- so that there is no impunity for them anywhere in the world.
QUESTION: Can we – can you find out, though, where it is that this guy has to be convicted for the reward to be --
MS. NULAND: We will get you a little bit more information on that, Matt.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Okay.
QUESTION: One more about the overall program?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: It’s been noted that upwards of $100 million have been paid. Is there a breakdown by amounts, since I understand that there’s no revelation of the people who get the rewards? Is there a breakdown per case, how much was paid out, and when they were paid out?
MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that, Ros. As you know, to protect those who come forward, we don’t generally advertise these things. How much – whether we do an accounting of how much has been authorized under the program and for what cases, I’m not sure. So let me take it.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Okay?
Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian issue?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday, there was a meeting between Deputy Secretary Burns and a member of the PLO Executive Committee Hanan Ashrawi. Could you tell us what has transpired as a result of the meeting?
MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one too, Said. I don’t have a debrief on that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Okay. Please.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Members of the Freedom and Justice Party, which is the political arm of the Muslim Brothers, and one of them is a member of the parliament, are in town. It’s the first level – this level visit to Washington that will meet different people. Is there any meeting going on – to take place in this building or not?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know whether we’re meeting this delegation at any level in this building. Let me take that one as well. We’ll get back to you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Please, Scott.
QUESTION: Can you speak today on the release of the hostages in Colombia? And what the United States hopes happens next between the government and FARC?
MS. NULAND: Yes. And thank you for your patience yesterday. As you know, the operation was ongoing and we wanted to be careful vis-a-vis the Colombians and the Brazilians, to let them complete the operation.
So the United States is pleased that these Colombian officials, some of whom were unjustly held for up to 14 years by the FARC, are now free and that they’ve been reunited with their families. We commend the ICRC, the Government of Brazil, for the positive roles that they played in this release.
As you know, President Santos of Colombia has welcomed this release and has, in addition, again called for the FARC to renounce all violence and lawlessness and to release all remaining hostages as essential conditions to move forward with a durable peace. I think he used the term that this was positive but insufficient, and we certainly want to see further progress in this regard as well.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the FARC continues to have support from other governments in that region?
MS. NULAND: Well, you know that we’ve had historic concerns about this. I don’t think that those concerns have changed.
Anything else? Please.
QUESTION: On Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Two questions, quick. One, are you worried about ongoing violence, especially in Karachi? And second, Pakistan is now deporting three wives of Usama bin Ladin, two to Saudi Arabia, one to Yemen. If – you had access to them because they had vital information about Usama bin Ladin’s activities?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to speak to our intelligence relationship with Pakistan. I think it’s now an internal matter between Pakistan and those governments about the disposition of the wives.
Elise.
QUESTION: And violence – ongoing violence in Karachi?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything in particular on that. If we have anything to say,
we’ll let you know.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Elise.
QUESTION: There have been reports that North Korea is – in addition to the launch that you’re expecting, is also preparing even bigger, long-range missile tests, and there have been some reports that U.S. officials are quoted that it could be even more concerning than originally thought. Do you have anything on this?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything new on that. Any kind of missile launch of any kind is of great concern and would be a violation, in our view, of UN Security Council resolutions.
QUESTION: Iraq?
QUESTION: On the --
MS. NULAND: Yeah, Iraq.
QUESTION: On Iraq?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes. Massoud Barzani, the president of the northern region of Kurdistan, is in town. I asked Mark last week – he is to meet with Deputy Secretary Burns, I guess. Why is he not meeting with the Secretary of State?
MS. NULAND: Well, he’s being hosted, as you know, by the Vice President, so his senior interlocutor will be the Vice President, and then in this building, he’ll have a chance to talk with Deputy Secretary Burns.
Please.
QUESTION: Quick one on Iran, the Secretary in her comments at VMI today again references the expectation that there’ll be these talks next month. Do you have any clarity yet on this?
QUESTION: This month.
QUESTION: This month, sorry.
MS. NULAND: This month, it’s April, right?
QUESTION: Yes, we’re --
MS. NULAND: We’re – life is ticking by.
QUESTION: I’m just wondering if that’s actually been nailed down, when and where.
MS. NULAND: I think we are still where we were yesterday – that we have made a proposal, we think it’s an appropriate proposal, and we are awaiting Iranian confirmation.
QUESTION: On Russia?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: There was a new statement from a senior Russian official criticizing U.S. funding on democracy. Does the United – I mean, arguing that it distorts the Russian domestic process – does the United States have anything new to say to these charges leveled by the Russians?
MS. NULAND: Well, first, I would call your attention to the interview that the Secretary gave to Jill Dougherty of CNN over the weekend. I think we put out the transcript yesterday where she spoke very clearly about our support for Russians’ right to work and speak openly about their interest in more freedom, more democracy, more transparency, more openness.
We have, as the Secretary affirmed, proposed to Congress the creation of a new fund to empower Russian civil society, to protect human rights, to enhance a free and diverse information environment to work with NGOs to create the – increase the dialogue that they have with American NGOs to support the development of political leadership among young people. This would be a $50 million fund that would be drawn from liquidated assets from the former U.S.-Russia Investment Fund. We’re working with Congress on this.
And again, this is designed to support a vibrant civil society in Russia and to allow us to work with those Russian NGOs who want to work with us, to develop their skills and their voice and their ability to represent the aspirations of Russians to increasingly deepen and strengthen their democracy.
QUESTION: Quickly, going back to Iran P-5+1 --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- in your proposal, did you also include Istanbul as a --
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: -- venue?
MS. NULAND: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: Did you all take any position on the Palestinian bid for membership in the ICC?
MS. NULAND: With regard to the --
QUESTION: Criminal court – International Criminal Court.
MS. NULAND: To the criminal court? Well, I think – we’ve seen, obviously, the announcement by the prosecutor. This is within his mandate, obviously, to decide, so our focus is obviously, as it has been straight along, just to --
QUESTION: Oh, I know, but you know that countries take positions on things like this.
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we did not take any position.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Okay. All right. Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: I will now be off. Have a great holiday week. Mark will be on the podium tomorrow and Thursday.
QUESTION: Oh, yeah.
MS. NULAND: (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Have a great trip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)