SECURITY DISCUSSED BY GEN. DEMPSEY, AUSTRALIAN CHIEF OF DEFENSE FORCE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Dempsey, Australian Defense Chief Discuss Security Issues
By Lisa Ferdinando
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

SYDNEY, Feb. 23, 2015 – The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his Australian counterpart met here today to examine security challenges and find ways to further strengthen ties as the U.S. military rebalances to the Pacific.
The day-long meeting between Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey and the Australian chief of the Defense Force, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, was the second Defense Chiefs Strategic Dialogue held between the United States and Australia. The first DCSD was held in Washington in 2013.

A Complex Global Security Environment

Dempsey said the meeting was an important opportunity for both nations to discuss today’s complex global security environment. He cited diverse challenges including Iran, Russian aggression in Ukraine, and the campaign against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists.

"We really have to keep our eye on the future while dealing with the issues of the present," the chairman said at the meeting.

There needs to be talk about the long-term threat posed by violent extremists, Dempsey said. The terrorist attack in a café in Sydney in December in which two hostages were killed was a "terrible tragedy," the chairman said.

Australia is a strong U.S. partner and ally that has made incredible contributions to stability efforts in the Pacific and around the globe, said Dempsey's spokesman, Air Force Col. Ed Thomas.

"The United States and Australia have a shared worldview that is governed by international law that has been the foundation for peace and security in the region," Thomas said. "Today's dialogue and the commitment it represents are important as we continue to rebalance to the Pacific."

The defense chiefs, along with their senior staff, talked candidly about the challenges each nation faces and how their militaries can continue to strengthen relations and interoperability, the colonel said.

Expanding Security Partnership

A key aspect of the U.S.-Australian alliance is the expanding security relationship, supported by the Force Posture Agreement, which provides an "enduring foundation for regional security and complements the initiatives upon which the two governments have embarked since 2011," Thomas explained.
Currently, there’s a 1,150-member rotational presence of U.S. Marines in Darwin, Australia, he said. And the growing cooperation between the countries' air forces, he added, is a "tangible measure of the strength of the U.S.-Australia defense alliance and our shared vision for regional security.”

The basis of the military relationship between the United States and Australia is the 1951 Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty, or ANZUS Treaty, Thomas said.

Australia invoked the treaty once -- in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

FACT SHEET ON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AND PRIVACY, CIVIL RIGHTS

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
February 15, 2015
FACT SHEET: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Today the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum to promote economic competitiveness and innovation while safeguarding privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties in the domestic use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).

This Presidential Memorandum builds on efforts already underway to integrate UAS into the national airspace system (NAS).  The Federal Aviation Administration has authorized the testing of UAS at six sites around the country in December 2013 as part of its efforts to safely integrate UAS into the NAS, as required by the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

UAS are a potentially transformative technology in diverse fields such as agriculture, law enforcement, coastal security, military training, search and rescue, first responder medical support, critical infrastructure inspection, and many others.

The Administration is committed to promoting the responsible use of this technology, strengthening privacy safeguards and ensuring full protection of civil liberties.

The Presidential Memorandum released today ensures that the Federal Government’s use of UAS takes into account these important concerns and in service of them, promotes better accountability and transparent use of this technology, including through the following:

First, the Presidential Memorandum requires Federal agencies to ensure that their policies and procedures are consistent with limitations set forth in the Presidential Memorandum on the collection and use, retention, and dissemination, of information collected through UAS in the NAS.

Second, the Presidential Memorandum requires agencies to ensure that policies are in place to prohibit the collection, use, retention, or dissemination of data in any manner that would violate the First Amendment or in any manner that would discriminate against persons based upon their ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity, in violation of law.

Third, the Presidential Memorandum includes requirements to ensure effective oversight.

Fourth, the Presidential Memorandum includes provisions to promote transparency, including a requirement that agencies publish information within one year describing how to access their publicly available policies and procedures implementing the Presidential Memorandum.

Fifth, recognizing that technologies evolve over time, the Presidential Memorandum requires agencies to examine their UAS policies and procedures prior to the deployment of new UAS technology, and at least every three years, to ensure that protections and policies keep pace with developments.

Consistent with these objectives, the Presidential Memorandum additionally requires the Department of Commerce, through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and in consultation with other interested agencies, to initiate a multi-stakeholder engagement process within 90 days to develop a framework for privacy, accountability, and transparency issues concerning the commercial and private use of UAS in the NAS.

REMARKS BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROSE ON U.S.-JAPAN SPACE COOPERATION AND SECURITY IN ASIA-PACIFIC

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Security in the Asia Pacific Region and U.S.-Japan Space Cooperation
Remarks
Frank A. Rose
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University
Washington, DC
February 13, 2015

Panel Details

9:30 – 10:50 am
Session 1: “Security in the Asia Pacific Region and U.S.-Japan Space Cooperation”
Moderator: Victoria Samson, Secure World Foundation
Yasuaki Hashimoto, National Institute for Defense Studies
Yuichiro Nagai, University of Tokyo
Deputy Assistant Secretary Douglas Loverro, U.S. Department of Defense
Assistant Secretary Frank Rose, U.S. Department of State

Introduction

Thanks to you all for having me this morning. I’m so pleased to be up here with my Japanese colleagues as well as Doug Loverro from the Pentagon. I’d also like to thank the Elliot School and Scott Pace, as well as co-sponsors PARI at the University of Tokyo and the Mitsubishi Research Institute, for organizing this important discussion.

Security in the Asia Pacific

This morning’s panel is particularly well timed, as I’ve recently returned from Japan and will be heading back to the region in just over a week for the U.S.-Japan Space Security Dialogue in Tokyo.

Space cooperation between the United States and Japan has a long history, built on the extensive civil and scientific cooperation among NASA, NOAA, and other U.S. agencies and their Japanese counterparts.

And while U.S.-Japan space security cooperation is relatively new, Japan has taken a critical leadership role in those efforts.

Our discussions on these issues have grown into one of the most important relationships we have with our Allies and partners on outer space security issues.

My work in the region, particularly when it comes to outer space cooperation and security, has really shown me the increasing role Japan is playing to address both regional and global security challenges.

The rebalance in the Asia-Pacific region reflects our recognition that the United States must broaden and deepen our engagement there at all levels, including addressing emerging security challenges such as the long-term sustainability, stability, safety, and security of the space environment.

It’s been a lot of ground to cover in a short amount of time. But as Secretary Kerry will tell you, extraordinary transformations are the norm in the Asia-Pacific region today.

Strengthening the U.S.-Japan Alliance

The United States-Japan Alliance has long been the cornerstone of peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region.

Our partnership with Asia-Pacific nations not only enhances the national security of our respective countries, but also strengthens strategic stability in the region as well as international peace and security globally.

We recognize the need to enhance our Alliance with Japan in wide-ranging areas of common interest in order to address the changing security environment. Part of our effort to strengthen and modernize our Alliance is through enhanced space cooperation.

Cooperation on space security is now part of the Common Strategic Objectives of the Alliance, and bilateral cooperation on civil and security space was recognized in the outcomes of summits between President Obama and former Prime Minister Noda in 2012 and again with Prime Minister Abe in 2014.

Recognizing the need to confront emerging security challenges and update the alliance for the 21st century, we are currently working closely with Japan to ensure that space security cooperation is included for the first time in the U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines, which provide a general framework and policy direction for the roles and missions of the two countries and ways of cooperation and coordination.

Cooperation on space security has expanded alongside the President’s rebalance to Asia. What began as a discussion of threats and possibilities for collaboration has turned into a full-range of cooperative efforts bilaterally, regionally, and multilaterally.

Bilateral Space Cooperation

Recognizing the numerous opportunities for cooperation on space issues, the United States and Japan have held several space security dialogues in the last five years, in addition to ongoing civil space dialogues.

In fact, due to the success and robustness of our space security and civil space dialogues, our governments have also established a Comprehensive Dialogue on Space at the request of President Obama and former Prime Minister Noda, in order to address the bilateral relationship at a strategic level and to ensure a whole-of-government approach to space matters. We have held two Comprehensive Dialogues to date, with a third meeting to be held later this year in Japan.

Through these dialogues, we not only discuss possible avenues of cooperation and exchange space policies, we also have made tremendous progress in furthering our tangible space security cooperation.

In regards to improving our space situational awareness – specifically, improving our shared ability to rapidly detect, warn of, characterize, and attribute natural and man-made disturbances to space systems – in 2013 the United States signed a Space Situational Awareness (SSA) information sharing agreement with Japan.

Building on the foundation of that agreement, we are also exploring the possibility of establishing “two-way” SSA sharing with Japan. We hope that as our space surveillance capabilities improve, we will be able to notify satellite operators earlier and with greater accuracy in order to prevent collisions in space.

We are also looking at how we can expand cooperation on utilizing space systems for maritime domain awareness. To that end, the United States and Japan held the first “Use of Space for Maritime Domain Awareness” table top exercise last year.

We have also worked hard to expand our “people-to-people” cooperation. Between Japanese visits to Washington and my own visits to Tokyo, I find myself engaging with my Japanese counterparts nearly every other month.

Members of the Japanese Ministry of Defense attend U.S. Air Force space training out in Colorado Springs, and a member of my own team at AVC, along with a U.S. airman, has just finished a year-long study on space policy within the Japanese government.

Such cooperation has also produced great successes in the academic and NGO communities, such as the excellent work done here at the Space Policy Institute.

Multilateral Cooperation

We also work closely together to cooperate and to coordinate positions on multilateral space issues. We hold an annual trilateral space security dialogue with Australia and Japan to coordinate our positions on these space security issues.

Our joint efforts to advance the work of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) Working Group on Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities (LTS) continue to make progress.

Perhaps one of the most beneficial transparency and confidence-building measures, or TCBMs, for ensuring sustainability and security in space could be the adoption of an International Code of Conduct to prevent mishaps, misperceptions, and mistrust in space. A code would establish guidelines, or rules of the road, to reduce the risks of debris-generating events, including collisions.

The United States is working with the European Union and other spacefaring nations, like Japan, to advance such a Code and in the Asia-Pacific region. Both Japan and Australia have also endorsed its development.

Conclusion

In his State of the Union, President Obama spoke of the need to modernize our alliances in the Asia Pacific to meet common international challenges.

In his State of the Union, President Obama spoke of the need to modernize our alliances in the Asia Pacific to meet common international challenges.

With the Government of Japan as a strong partner in space security, we are working together to do just that. Thanks very much, and I look forward to the discussion.

REPORT: THREATS TO EUROPE SETTING STAGE FOR NATO MEETING

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
NATO Report Sets Stage for Defense Ministers Meeting
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4, 2015 – Last year was not a good year for European security, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said last week.

Stoltenberg called 2014 “a black year” for Europe as he presented NATO’s Annual Report, which sets the stage for the meeting of the alliance’s defense ministers in Brussels this week.

The secretary general discussed the threats to Europe and the North Atlantic Alliance and what NATO needs to do to counter these threats.

“Violent extremism is at our borders,” Stoltenberg said, “spreading turmoil across North Africa and the Middle East and fueling terrorism in our own streets.”

Russia is following a disturbing pattern, Stoltenberg noted, annexing Crimea, threatening the sovereignty of Ukraine, and continuing its efforts to intimidate its neighbors in disregard of international law.

“So our security environment has fundamentally changed,” he added.
Raising Readiness of NATO Forces

NATO already is moving to defend alliance nations, the secretary general said. “Last year, we held over 200 NATO and national exercises,” he added. “One exercise started every two days -- on the ground, at sea, and in the air. And they will continue. So we are raising the readiness of our forces.”

The exercises also serve to reassure allies, Stoltenberg said. “We are maintaining a continuous presence of our forces, by rotation, in the eastern part of our alliance,” he noted. In addition to reassuring allies, he said, that exercise also deters Russia, showing the entire alliance’s determination to defend member nations.

Stoltenberg stated that defense ministers will decide on the size and the composition of the alliance’s new Spearhead Force. They also will determine how to set up NATO command and control units in six of the Eastern NATO nations, turning the readiness action plan decided upon at the NATO summit in Wales into reality, the secretary general said. “This will be the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War,” he added.

Allied aircraft intercepted more than 400 Russian planes in 2014. More than 150 were intercepted by NATO aircraft participating in the alliance’s Baltic Air Policing Mission.

Prepared to Stand With Afghanistan’s Government

NATO has ended combat operations in Afghanistan, but is prepared to stand with the fledgling Afghan unity government as it faces the threats of the Taliban and other terror groups, Stoltenberg said.

The “352,000 Afghan soldiers and police that we have trained took full charge of their country’s security,” he said. “And we launched a new mission to train, advise and assist them.”

The secretary general also discussed money. Collectively, alliance nations spent $852 billion on defense in 2014. By this measurement alone, the alliance is the strongest in the world, he said.

But there has been a steady decline in European defense spending since 1990, Stoltenberg said, “and the decline continued last year.”

Alliance Must Spend More, Spend Better

Last year, the European allies spent about $250 billion on defense -- a reduction of $7 billion, or about 3 percent. But multiplying threats changed views in European capitals, and the NATO leaders pledged to spend 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense in the future.

“We need to spend more, and we need to spend better, to keep our forces ready to deal with any threat,” Stoltenberg said. “We have seen some steps in the right direction, but there is a long way to go.”

In 2014, the Euro-Atlantic order came under threat, the secretary general said. “But … NATO is adapting and looking forward,” he added. “We stand determined to protect our values and keep our nations safe.”

U.S. UN REP. POWER MAKES REMARKS ON NORTH KOREA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
New York, NY
December 22, 2014

AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you Assistant Secretary-General Simonovic and Assistant Secretary-General Zerihoun, for your informative and appropriately bleak briefings; and for the ongoing attention that your respective teams give to the situation in the DPRK, in spite of persistent obstacles put up by the North Korean government.

Today’s meeting reflects the growing consensus among Council members and UN Member States that the widespread and systematic human rights violations being committed by the North Korean government are not only deplorable in their own right, but also pose a threat to international peace and security.

A major impetus for the Security Council taking up this issue was the comprehensive report issued in February 2014 by the UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry. The Commission of Inquiry conducted more than 200 confidential interviews with victims, eyewitnesses, and former officials, and held public hearings in which more than 80 witnesses gave testimony. Witness accounts were corroborated by other forms of evidence, such as satellite imagery confirming the locations of prison camps.

North Korea denied the Commission access to the country, consistent with its policy of routinely denying access to independent human rights and humanitarian groups, including the Red Cross and UN special rapporteurs. And despite repeated requests, the DPRK refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

The main finding of the Commission’s thorough and objective report is that “systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” The Commission found that the evidence it gathered provided reasonable grounds to determine that, “crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, pursuant to policies established at the highest level of the State.”

If you have not watched any of the hours of victims’ testimony, or read from the hundreds of pages of transcripts from the Commission’s public hearings, I urge you to do so. They show North Korea for what it is: a living nightmare.

A former prisoner of Prison Camp 15, Kim Young-soon, said she and other prisoners were so famished they picked kernels of corn from the dung of cattle to eat. She said, “If there was a day that we were able to have mouse, that was a special diet for us. We had to eat everything alive, every type of meat we could find. Everything that flew, that crawled on the ground, any grass that grew in the field.”

Ahn Myong Chul, a former guard at Prison Camp 22, spoke of guards routinely raping prisoners. In one case in which a victim became pregnant and gave birth, the former guard reported that prison officials cooked her baby and fed it to their dogs. This sounds unbelievable and unthinkable; yet this is what a former guard told the Commission of Inquiry at a public hearing. His account fits a pattern across witnesses’ testimonies of sadistic punishments meted out to prisoners whose “crime” was being raped by officials.

The Commission estimates that between 80 and 120 thousand people are being held in prison camps like the ones where so many of these crimes occurred.

Many who testified before the Commission were tortured as punishment for trying to flee North Korea. One man who was sent back to the DPRK from China described being held in prison cells that were only around 50 centimeters high, just over a foot and a half. He said the guards told him that because the prisoners were animals, they would have to crawl like animals. A woman from the city of Musan told how her brother was caught after fleeing to China. When he was returned, North Korean security officials bound his hands and chained him to the back of a truck before dragging him roughly 45 kilometers, driving three loops around the city so everyone could see, his sister testified. “When he fell down, they kept on driving,” she said.

Nor are the horrors limited to prison camps or those who try to flee. The Commission found “an almost complete denial of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as of the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, information and association” in the DPRK.

On December 18th, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution expressing grave concern at the Commission’s findings, and roundly condemning the DPRK’s “widespread and gross violations of human rights.” One hundred and sixteen member States voted in favor, 20 against, and 53 abstained. The resolution also encouraged the Security Council to “take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible.”

The Security Council should demand the DPRK change its atrocious practices, which demonstrate a fundamental disregard for human rights and constitute a threat to international peace and security.

We should take this on for three reasons. First, the DPRK’s response to the Commission of Inquiry’s report – and even to the prospect of today’s session – shows that it is sensitive to criticism of its human rights record. Just look at all the different strategies North Korea has tried in the past several months to distract attention from the report, to delegitimize its findings, and to avoid scrutiny of its human rights record.

The DPRK ramped up its propaganda machine, publishing its own sham report on its human rights record, and claiming “the world’s most advantageous human rights system.” The DPRK tried to smear the reputations of hundreds of people who were brave enough to speak out about the heinous abuses they suffered, calling them “human scum bereft of even an iota of conscience.” This was in a statement North Korea sent to the Security Council today. And North Korea launched slurs against the Commission’s distinguished chairman, Justice Kirby.

The DPRK deployed threats, saying any effort to hold it more accountable for its atrocities would be met with “catastrophic consequences.”

All of North Korea’s responses – the threats, the smears, the cynical diversions – show that the government feels the need to defend its abysmal human rights record. And that is precisely why our attention is so important.

The second argument for exerting additional pressure is that when regimes warn of deadly reprisals against countries that condemn their atrocities, as the North Koreans have done, that is precisely the moment when we need stand up and not back down. Dictators who see threats are an effective tool for silencing the international community tend to be emboldened and not placated. And that holds true not only for the North Korean regime, but for human rights violators around the world who are watching how the Security Council responds to the DPRK’s threats.

The DPRK is already shockingly cavalier about dishing out threats of staging nuclear attacks, and has routinely flouted the prohibitions on proliferation imposed by the Security Council. In July, North Korea’s military threatened to launch nuclear weapons at the White House and the Pentagon, and in March 2013, it threatened to launch a pre-emptive strike on the United States, saying, “everything will be reduced to ashes and flames.”

In the most recent example of its recklessness, the DPRK carried out a significant cyber-attack on the United States in response to a Hollywood comedy portraying a farcical assassination plot. The attack destroyed systems and stole massive quantities of personal and commercial data from Sony Pictures Entertainment – not only damaging a private sector entity, but also affecting countless Americans who work for the company. The attackers also threatened Sony’s employees, actors in the film, movie theaters, and even people who dared to go to the theaters showing the movie, warning them to “Remember the 11th of September.” Not content with denying freedom of expression to its own people, the North Korean regime now seems intent on suppressing the exercise of this fundamental freedom in our nation.

North Korea also threatened the United States with “serious consequences” if our country did not conduct a joint investigation with the DPRK – into an attack that they carried out. This is absurd. Yet it is exactly the kind of behavior we have come to expect from a regime that threatened to take “merciless countermeasures” against the U.S. over a Hollywood comedy, and has no qualms about holding tens of thousands of people in harrowing gulags. We cannot give in to threats or intimidation of any kind.

Third, the international community does not need to choose between focusing on North Korea’s proliferation of nuclear weapons and focusing on its widespread and ongoing abuses against its own people. That is a false choice. We must do both. As we have seen throughout history, the way countries treat their own citizens – particularly those countries that systematically commit atrocities against their own people – tends to align closely with the way they treat other countries and the norms of our shared international system.

On November 23, a week after the UN’s Third Committee adopted its DPRK resolution, North Korea’s military said “all those involved in its adoption deserve a severe punishment” and warned, again, of “catastrophic consequences.” Now here, presumably, “all” would imply the more than 100 Member States who voted for the resolution. The military also that said if Japan “continued behaving as now, it will disappear from the world map.”

When a country threatens nuclear annihilation because it receives criticism of how it treats its own people, can there be any doubt regarding the connection between North Korea’s human rights record and international peace and security?

North Korea did not want us to meet today, and vociferously opposed the country’s human rights situation being added to the Security Council’s agenda. If the DPRK wants to be taken off the Security Council’s agenda, it can start by following the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations to: acknowledge the systematic violations it continues to commit; immediately dismantle political prison camps and release all political prisoners; allow free and unfettered access by independent human rights observers; and hold accountable those most responsible for its systematic violations.

Knowing the utter improbability of North Korea making those and a long list of other necessary changes, it is incumbent on the Security Council to consider the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation that the situation in North Korea be referred to the International Criminal Court and to consider other appropriate action on accountability – as 116 Member States have urged the Council to do.

In the meantime, the United States will support the efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to establish a field-based office to continue documenting the DPRK’s human rights violations, as mandated by the Human Rights Council, as well as support the work of the Special Rapporteur. Both should brief the Council on new developments in future sessions on this issue.

It is also crucial that all of DPRK’s neighbors abide by the principle of non-refoulement, given the horrific abuses to which North Koreans are subjected to upon return, and provide unfettered access to the UNHCR in their countries. The United States will continue to welcome North Korean refugees to our country, and help provide assistance to North Korean asylum seekers in other countries.

It is reasonable to debate the most effective strategy to end the nightmare of North Korea’s human rights crisis. What is unconscionable in the face of these widespread abuses – and dangerous, given the threat that the situation in the DPRK poses to international peace and security – is to stay silent. Silence will not make the North Korean government end its abuses. Silence will not make the international community safer.

Today, we have broken the Council’s silence. We have begun to shine a light, and what it has revealed is terrifying. We must continue to shine that light, for as long as these abuses persist. Today’s session is another important step – but far from the last – towards accountability for the crimes being perpetrated against the people of North Korea. The Council must come back to speak regularly about the DPRK’s human rights situation – and what we can do to change it – for as long as the crimes that brought us here today persist. That is the absolute minimum we can and must do.

Thank you, Mr. President.

STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S RECENT REMARKS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
U.S. Perspectives on the Opportunities and Challenges of Nuclear Disarmament
Remarks
Robert Wood
Special Representative to the Conference on Disarmament 
Geneva Center for Security Policy
Geneva, Switzerland
December 17, 2014

Professor Mohamedou, thank you for that gracious introduction, and for hosting this event. It is an honor to join the ranks of distinguished visitors who have spoken at GCSP venues. Ladies and gentlemen, I also appreciate your interest in American perspectives on the opportunities and challenges of nuclear disarmament.

Disarmament, arms control, and nonproliferation are the focus of my professional life here in Geneva, and nuclear disarmament is under particularly close scrutiny as we approach the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which we refer to in the shorthand of this business as the “NPT RevCon.” The last NPT RevCon, in 2010, generated a consensus Action Plan for all States Parties. We put great stock in that historic achievement, we are working on it, and want to see it through. Acknowledging that the pace of nuclear disarmament is under criticism in some quarters, I would underline that the United States remains firmly committed to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons – but I would also emphasize that there are no easy solutions to the challenge of advancing nuclear disarmament while also maintaining vital strategic stability and enhancing security for all.

So: Where are we now? And most important, where we are going?

As vital as those questions are, it can be easy to lose sight of the significant progress that has been made in this area. Indeed, in the forums in which I routinely work it is regrettably common for some participants to state flatly that “nothing has happened” or “nothing is happening” on nuclear disarmament. This is not the case.

How can such misperceptions persist? It is well known that global stocks of nuclear weapons are at their lowest level in over half a century, far below the levels existing when the NPT entered into force in 1970. This largely reflects very significant treaty-based arms reductions by the United States of America and the Russian Federation. The latest such bilateral arms control treaty, the New START Treaty, entered into force on February 5, 2011, and when it is fully implemented in 2018, New START will limit deployed strategic nuclear warheads to their lowest levels since the 1950s.

Behind these headlines is an ongoing, intense web of daily, practical implementation activities that support strategic stability and transparency, which are conducive to future progress in disarmament. For example, the United States and Russian Federation together continue to implement successfully the New START Treaty. The two sides have exchanged more than 7,700 New START Treaty notifications through the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers. These notifications include biannual New START Treaty data exchanges, which provide a detailed picture of U.S. and Russian strategic forces. In addition, the Treaty’s on-site inspections continue to enable each side to verify the validity of those data. These exchanges and inspections, together with detailed discussions in the Bilateral Consultative Commission, help build confidence, stability, and predictability. Historically, implementation of strategic arms control treaties with the former Soviet Union and Russia has proceeded without interruption even during the most challenging periods in the bilateral relationship.

The United States also has reduced the role of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy as outlined in the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Specifically, as outlined in the 2010 NPR, the United States will not develop new nuclear warheads, and life extension programs for existing weapons will not support new military capabilities or provide for new military capabilities. Additionally, as reflected in the NPR, the United States has strengthened the negative security assurances that it provides to non-nuclear weapon states who are party to the NPT, and made clear that the United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.

Proceeding further to the heart of the matter, we reported earlier this year that over the past two decades alone the United States has dismantled 9,952 nuclear warheads. That works out to dismantling an average of more than one warhead per day, every day, for 20 years. And the work continues. By the way, the dismantlement of just one nuclear warhead is not an easy process – it is extremely demanding work.

I hope that does not surprise you. But unfortunately, since taking up my duties as ambassador here four months ago, I have repeatedly heard the claim that, while non-nuclear weapons states have by and large honored their nonproliferation obligations, nuclear weapons states have abdicated their nuclear disarmament obligations.

I will let other Nuclear Weapons States speak for themselves. I think that the U.S. can be very proud of our own record. Please consider these facts:

• Over all, the United States has slashed its nuclear arsenal from its Cold War high by 85%. 85%. That is not a percentage pulled out of a hat. It is not fiction or fantasy. It is real!

• Before 1991, the U.S. eliminated an entire category of missiles, scrapping all of its intermediate-range and shorter-range ground-launched nuclear- and conventional-capable missiles and their associated launchers and equipment in accordance with the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

• And just since 1991, the United States has reduced its non-strategic nuclear arsenal by approximately 90%.

When we pledge to continue to pursue nuclear disarmament and to keep faith with our NPT Article VI disarmament obligations, those are not empty words. Our responsible approach to disarmament has borne fruit in the form of major reductions in nuclear weapons, fissile material stocks, and infrastructure. Our nuclear complex has been completely transformed from one built for the mass production of fissile material and warheads and the design and testing of new weapons to one dedicated to the maintenance of a steadily shrinking stockpile.

Underpinning all of our efforts, stretching back decades, has been our clear understanding and recognition of the severe consequences of the use of these weapons. That is the message the United States took to the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Vienna last week. We participated to reinforce the message that the practical step-by-step path we have followed so successfully remains the only realistic route to our shared goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. We cannot and will not support efforts to move to a nuclear weapons convention or the false hope of a fixed timeline for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. We cannot support and will oppose any effort to move to an international legal ban on nuclear weapons.

Looking ahead, it remains the policy of the United States to achieve the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. And we are facing new challenges as we consider how to responsibly eliminate the last 15% of those weapons. As we move to smaller and smaller numbers, leading to zero globally, we must in turn become rigorously more and more confident and trusting that all are fulfilling their commitments.

In considering future reductions, the United States believes that the focus must be on responsible measures that can be trusted and verified. We will learn from our past experience and continue to move ahead with each step building on the last. While there is no pre-determined sequence of steps, and indeed we should pursue progress on multiple paths, there is no way to skip to the end and forgo the hard work of preparing for the technical and political disarmament challenges that lie ahead. Patience and persistence are needed from all NPT parties both among and beyond the P5.

Earlier this month in Prague, Under Secretary Gottemoeller announced a new International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament Verification. We propose to work with nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states to better understand the challenges of verifying nuclear disarmament and to develop solutions to address those challenges.

This new partnership will draw on the talents of experts around the world, both inside and outside government. It will build on the pathbreaking efforts of the U.K.-Norway initiative, begun in 2007, to investigate ways to address nuclear disarmament verification challenges. The Nuclear Threat Initiative will be a prime partner in organizing this exciting new effort.

The United States is committed to a responsible approach to nuclear disarmament in accordance with our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The United States has made it clear that we are ready to engage Russia to discuss the full range of issues related to strategic stability, and that we should take real and important actions that can contribute to creating a more predictable and secure world. We hope that these negotiations will take place when the conditions become more favorable for constructive interaction.

Broadening the aperture, I would underline that NPT Parties have committed as a next step in the multilateral nuclear disarmament sphere to negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). This goal was embraced by all NPT Parties. Indeed, the 2010 NPT Action 15 notes that “All States agree that the Conference on Disarmament should . . . begin negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. . . .”

Achieving such a ban would support our collective Article VI obligations. The United States regrets that the CD remains in deadlock, unable to agree on a Program of Work that takes us forward and puts us on a path toward FMCT negotiations. It is clear that we still have our work cut out for us. And it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion, to set the stage for productive negotiations in the CD, without a better grasp of the facts, without recognition of what has been accomplished as well as the challenges that remain.

For the United States, the CD remains an essential multilateral institution for the negotiation of arms control and disarmament agreements. As a consensus-based body, it is the ideal venue to deal with the most sensitive national security issues multilaterally. While the United States and many other Member States are frustrated by the inability of the CD to get back to the business of negotiating, we need to find creative ways to energize it and put it back to work.

In conclusion, I would emphasize that it is a welcome fact that there remains strong support among governments and publics for nuclear disarmament. For the United States, the task at hand is to help to channel that support into constructive, effective measures that will strengthen international security while further reducing the number of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the United States has led the international community in responsibly reducing nuclear arsenals in a safe and practical step-by-step manner, and we remain firmly committed to our obligations under the NPT. We welcome contributions by all to this important task, but will firmly resist any efforts to oversimplify the path forward and ignore the real security challenges we face along that path. As President Obama has said, the path to zero will require patience and persistence. It requires a broad strategy aimed at strengthening the nonproliferation regime, preventing nuclear terrorism, and pursuing concrete steps that build a foundation for future progress and lead in the direction of nuclear disarmament. Thank you for your attention.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REACTION TO SENATE REPORT ON TORTURE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Release of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 9, 2014

Release of this report affirms again that one of America's strengths is our democratic system’s ability to recognize and wrestle with our own history, acknowledge mistakes, and correct course. This marks a coda to a chapter in our history. President Obama turned the page on these policies when he took office and during week one banned the use of torture and closed the detention and interrogation program. It was right to end these practices for a simple but powerful reason: they were at odds with our values. They are not who we are, and they're not who or what we had to become, because the most powerful country on earth doesn't have to choose between protecting our security and promoting our values.

Now this report sheds light on this period that's more than five years behind us, so we can discuss and debate our history – and then look again to the future.

As that debate is joined, I want to underscore that while it's uncomfortable and unpleasant to reexamine this period, it's important that this period not define the intelligence community in anyone's minds. Every single day, the State Department and our diplomats and their families are safer because of the men and women of the CIA and the Intelligence Community. They sign up to serve their country the same way our diplomats and our military do. They risk their lives to keep us safe and strengthen America's foreign policy and national security. The awful facts of this report do not represent who they are, period. That context is also important to how we understand history.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS IN BEIJING, CHINA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Press Availability in Beijing, China
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
China National Convention Center
Beijing, China
November 8, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. I want to begin by thanking our Chinese hosts for their very, very warm welcome and for the depth and breadth of the discussions that we’ve been able to have at APEC this year.

This is my ninth trip to Asia and the Asia Pacific in the 21 months since I have served as Secretary of State. And I have returned again and again to this region for one simple reason: The United States is a Pacific nation, and we take our enduring interests here very seriously, our responsibilities likewise. We know that America’s security and prosperity are closely linked to the Asia Pacific, and that is why President Obama began the rebalance to Asia in 2009. It’s why he has asked me to redouble my own efforts in the region over the course of the next two years.

I’ve had a number of very productive bilateral meetings in the course of the last day here on the sidelines of the APEC conference with Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China and other Asia Pacific allies and partners, including Australia, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand. And both the Japanese and Chinese foreign ministers briefed me on the progress that they announced in their bilateral relations, and we, the United States, very much welcomed the reduction in tension between Asia’s two largest economies. I look forward to continuing these discussions and to deepening our partnerships with APEC economies when President Obama arrives on Monday for the APEC Leaders’ meetings here in Beijing. Excuse me.

To ensure that the partnerships that we talk about here at APEC are able to endure, it is really essential that we reach agreement on the rules of the road. And we need to do so through multilateral institutions where all voices can be heard. APEC is essential to upholding the rules-based system throughout the Asia Pacific. It is the best way to ensure that all of our economies, big and small economies, have a voice. And I am very pleased with the progress that we made this year on the regional economic integration and on strengthening connectivity and infrastructure development. The United States is very committed to working with our APEC partners in order to build stable regional economic order based on rules and norms that are reinforced by institutions. Our goal is to remove barriers to trade and investment so that businesses in all APEC economies can grow and create jobs and compete with other companies and other countries on an equal basis. APEC has and will continue to play a critical role in guaranteeing that.

Today, we also made important progress with China and other APEC economies on promoting women’s economic empowerment, combating corruption, supporting educational opportunities across borders, and advancing our commitment to clean energy. First, we launched the APEC Women and the Economy Dashboard. The dashboard will be a measure of progress across APEC economies on key issues for women’s economic empowerment. And it will allow us the ability to be able to measure education, leadership positions, opportunities for employment, all the different things that contribute to the ability to increase women’s empowerment in the economy. We also launched a Women’s Entrepreneurship in APEC Network. And that will link women entrepreneurs and business owners to each other and to supply chains all across the region. Frankly, that is good for business, it is good for workers, and it is good for all of our economies.

Second, we deepened our partnership with APEC economies on combating corruption. The principles that we adopted are clear and they are compelling. We are determined to prevent, detect, and effectively prosecute foreign bribery. We’re providing guidance to our businesses on how they could help prevent and detect corruption. And we are enhancing our law enforcement cooperation and we’re promoting the adoption of APEC business codes of ethics for small and medium enterprises. And we believe that this cooperation is a major step forward. Corruption not only creates an unfair playing field, it not only distorts economic relationships, but corruption also steals from the people of every country the belief that the system can work for everybody. So it is important that systems are transparent and accountable, and ultimately, that people at every level have an ability to have confidence that that system is working for everybody with the same set of rules.

We also made progress in education and clean energy. We launched an APEC scholarship, an internship initiative, to provide more educational opportunities for students in all APEC economies. We committed to doubling the share of renewables in the region’s energy banks by the year 2030. And we reaffirmed our commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. I can’t emphasize enough how critical it is for APEC to lead the way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We at last have an opportunity to put ourselves on the path to a clean energy future, and that is a path that is more essential than ever because of the urgent threat of global climate change. The solution to climate change is good energy policy. And we believe today, we helped in APEC to move APEC economies to a commitment in that direction.

These efforts complement and reinforce one another. Curtailing corruption makes our marketplace more efficient and more fair. Cutting fossil fuel subsidies creates a cleaner environment and a stronger economy. Enhanced opportunities for women affect and advance the cause of social justice and prosperity. And these are all separate fronts, but actually, all of them support a single, important goal: securing an equitable and sustainable future for all of our countries.

Finally, we also discussed a broad array of challenges, global challenges – from Daesh or ISIL, from the turmoil of the Middle East, from Ebola, to climate change, to the threat of terrorism in many different places. We all understand that Ebola is a global threat requiring global action, and I particularly want to thank Japan for providing an additional $100 million for treatment, prevention, and broader efforts that will promote stability in the hardest-hit countries. Over the last weeks under President Obama’s leadership, many countries have been coming together in an effort to try to create a greater response on Ebola. Many countries have responded remarkably and they’re contributing healthcare workers, they’re contributing construction materials, medical supplies, doctors, nurses, experts, technicians, laboratories, beds, hospital equipment. Every country has an ability to do something, and we are grateful for those that are, but we need more countries to still do more.

And I want to emphasize, across the board, as a planet, all of us on this globe are not yet doing enough to be able to curb and eradicate the threat of Ebola. There are hundreds of new cases each week, and the UN has identified $1 billion in urgent needs. In my meetings over the past two days, I urged all of our APEC partners to help to meet that need with specific efforts along the lines that I just described. So we hope the response will grow, and obviously, out of that can come an enormous example of the ability of countries to come together. What we do against Ebola can actually be a model for what we can do against any other future challenge of similar kind. So this is not a one-time lost moment; this is something that can serve all of us to build a long-term infrastructure to deal with the potential of any communicable disease that can move across boundaries and borders at any time.

With that, I would be happy to answer a few questions.

MS. HARF: Our first question is from Carol Morello of The Washington Post, and there is a microphone for you too, if you’ll just hold on one second.

QUESTION: Could you provide some more details on your discussions this morning with Mr. Lavrov, specifically about Ukraine and Iran? Did he provide any assurances that Russia is committed to upholding the Minsk agreement, particularly when it comes to sending troops and tanks into Luhansk? And if there is credible evidence to the contrary, how would the U.S. respond? New sanctions or something else?

On Iran, did he assess what he considers the prospects for a November 24th agreement? And what is your sense, given the correspondence between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei, that Iran is prepared to make a deal given they – the fact they still refuse to be transparent regarding current and past use of nuclear materials?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov was a very in-depth meeting in which we discussed a number of different crises in the following context: Obviously, the United States and Russia have some clear differences and some clear disagreements about certain policies at this point in time. And we discussed, obviously, those disagreements. But we also know that we need to find the places where we can agree and cooperate because it is important for the world to do so.

With respect to Iran, Russia has been a constructive, engaged, serious partner in the effort to try to find a solution to a problem that is not – that shouldn’t lend itself to other disagreements, but which has enormous impact for everybody and which is strategically important not just to the United States or the P5+1, but to all countries, and which can have a profound impact on nonproliferation for the long term. So Russia has been working as a constructive participant in the P5+1 process. They have made various suggestions that have helped to move the process along. And we are hopeful that over the course of the next weeks, it will be possible to close real gaps that still exist in order to be able to reach an agreement, but I’m not going to stand here and predict at this point in time what the odds of that are.

I also want to make this very, very clear: No one, to my knowledge, has confirmed or denied whether or not there is a letter or was a letter, and I’m not going to comment on what the President of the United States and a leader of another country may or may not communicate – may or may not communicate privately. I will tell you this, though: No conversation, no agreement, no exchange, nothing has created any kind of a deal or agreement with respect to any of the events that are at stake in the Middle East. There is no linkage whatsoever of the nuclear discussions with any other issue, and I want to make that absolutely clear. The nuclear negotiations are on their own, they are standing separate from anything else, and no discussion has ever taken place about linking one thing to another, one involvement with another, that I am aware of. And I’m confident I am aware of what the President has been doing and saying with respect to this issue.

The issue of Ukraine we discussed, obviously, at length, but we also discussed Syria, we discussed the Middle East peace process, we discussed other issues of concern. Suffice it to say that we do have some disagreements about some of the facts on the ground with respect to Ukraine. We have agreed to exchange some information between us regarding that. And we have also agreed that this is a dialogue that will continue. But the issue of sanctions or other issues obviously have been made clear, are that the choices Russia makes will decide what happens with respect to sanctions in the long run here.

And our hope is still that the process of the Minsk agreements can go forward, that they will be implemented, and that it will be possible over time, with their implementation, to see the border sealed, to see the troops withdrawn, and to see stability restored in a way that allows everybody to move down a path of de-escalation. But it really is up to the events over the course of the next weeks to determine whether or not that happens.

MS. HARF: Great. Our final question is from Hu Ling of Phoenix TV. The mike is coming.

QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary. I come from Hong Kong, Phoenix TV. My question --

SECRETARY KERRY: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, sorry. My question concern about the China and Japan relationship. You have also mentioned about a little bit in your final (inaudible) speech, and I wonder how you – what’s your comment on the agreement reached by China and Japan, and that they finally made the top leader meeting during the APEC time? And also, do you think it’s come to a release – relief for U.S. and also other Asia country? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: What was the last part of the question? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Sorry, I do wonder, the meeting – the top leader meeting welcomes to relief for U.S. and also other neighboring country in Asia? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: The top leader meeting in – between --

QUESTION: Yeah, between China and Japan.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I discussed this new agreement with both Foreign Minister Wang Yi and also with Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan. And both of them explained to me what they believe they have achieved in the four points with respect to the agreement between them. I want to be clear that the United States welcomes this initiative. We think that any steps that the two countries can take to improve the relationship and reduce the tensions is helpful not just to those two countries, but it’s helpful to the region.

And I think it’s entirely appropriate that that particular discussion took place here at APEC, which frankly is becoming not just a place to discuss economic ideas, but also to reflect on the fact that today, the ability of economics to work requires stability and a peaceful process in place. So I think that security issues are also automatically on the table. So to have this emerge from this meeting, I think, is important.

Now this agreement is a beginning; it’s not an end. It’s the outline of steps that now need to be taken in order to really define how certain tensions are going to really be resolved. So it will be over time that this will be given a little more meat on the bones. But we absolutely appreciate the initial effort, we think it’s very constructive, and we have hopes that it can lead to a greater definition and to a reduction further of any conflict or tension in the region.

MS. HARF: Great. Thank you all very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Thank you.

U.S. AMBASSADOR PRESSMAN'S REMARKS TO UN ON SITUATION IN JERUSALEM

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks by Ambassador David Pressman, U. S . Alternate Representative to the United Nations for Special Political Affairs, at a Security Council Open Debate on the Middle East, October 29, 2014

Ambassador David Pressman

Alternate Representative to the UN for Special Political Affairs 

New York, NY

October 29, 2014

AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Under-Secretary-General Feltman for your briefing.

We are deeply concerned by the deteriorating situation in Jerusalem, especially over the last two weeks. We are living in a time of tremendous turmoil in the Middle East. It is a time that requires brave leadership. A time that requires hard choices – choices that advance peace; choices that advance stability; choices that advance security.

This is a time that calls for responsible decisions by leaders and people of both sides, as well as the international community, to advance the goals of security and peace.

The current situation is only made more difficult by actions that pollute the atmosphere for peace and further undermine trust on both sides. We continue to urge all to refrain from actions, including settlement activity and unhelpful rhetoric by either side, that will only further escalate tensions.

The deterioration of the situation in Jerusalem, at a time when so many are eager for signs of progress towards peace, is deeply troubling.

It’s hard to imagine sites more sensitive than those in Jerusalem and, today, we are very concerned by recent tensions surrounding the Temple Mount / Haram al-Sharif. It is absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve the historical status quo on the Temple Mount / Haram al-Sharif – in word and in practice.

That’s why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent statements expressing his commitment to maintain the status quo there and not to make any changes at the site are so important. We welcome the Prime Minister’s comments.

The continued commitment by Israelis, Palestinians, and Jordanians to preserve the historic status quo at the holy site is critical. Any decisions or actions to change it would be both provocative and dangerous. We urge the leaders of all three parties to exercise decisive leadership and work cooperatively together to lower tensions and discourage violence, alleviate restrictions on Muslim worshipers, and reinvigorate long-standing coordination mechanisms and relationships that have served over the decades to preserve the historic status quo as it pertains to religious observance and access to the site. These arrangements are essential for maintaining calm at this important and holy site.

Israel’s recently announced plans to advance a project to construct more than 1,000 housing units in East Jerusalem are deeply concerning. Beyond these recent developments, we have also seen reports that Israeli authorities met today and discussed the approval of dozens of projects aimed to expand settlement infrastructure in the West Bank – including water projects, electricity grid expansion, and road construction – along with so-called “legalization” of outposts the Israeli government itself considers illegal. The United States is deeply concerned by these developments. We urge all parties to refrain from provocative actions, including settlement activity by Israeli authorities. Settlement activity will only further escalate tensions at a time that is already tense enough.

The United States views settlement activity as illegitimate. And we have made unambiguously clear our opposition to unilateral steps that may prejudge the future of Jerusalem, just as we have made clear our opposition to any unilateral attempts to make end-runs around the hard work of negotiations.

Against this backdrop, the cycle of violence continues. The unconscionable attack at the Jerusalem tram stop last week that killed a young baby who was a United States citizen is unconscionable. We condemn it in the strongest possible terms. We express our deepest condolences to the family of the child who was killed and the second victim, who succumbed to her wounds. We also express our sympathies to those injured in the attack and hope for their full recovery.

The United States also expresses its deepest condolences to the family of the 14 year-old American citizen who was killed by Israeli Defense Forces during the clashes in Silwad on October 24th. We have called on the Israeli authorities to conduct an expeditious and transparent investigation into this incident and we expect them to do so.

In this especially fraught environment, it is critical that all parties restore calm and that hard choices are made to de-escalate tensions and re-engage in the hard work of negotiations. Unilateral actions and short-cuts are no substitute for the difficult work that peace will require.

Our goal must be to lay the groundwork for a negotiated agreement that will lead to two states living side-by-side in peace and security. As we have said before, the two-state solution is the only viable way forward and negotiations are the means by which this conflict will ultimately be resolved. If the parties are willing and committed to go down this path – in both words and in deeds – then we stand ready to support them every step of the way.

Thank you, Madam President.

UNDER SECRETARY GOTTEMOELLER'S SPEECH TO UN ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

69th United Nations General Assembly First Committee General Debate

Speech

Rose Gottemoeller

Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security 

New York, NY

October 7, 2014

As Delivered

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, Ambassador Courtenay Rattray, on your election as Chair of the First Committee during its 69th session. The United States pledges to support your leadership and the work of this committee. We are sure that together we can make this a session that puts us on the right path for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference (RevCon).

As we begin our work, it is important to remember why we are here. We are, as I have said many times, travelling on a long and difficult road. We are facing obstacles – today more clearly than in years past – that slow the pace of progress. We press ahead, because we know that only by continuing our committed, serious work on reducing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction can we achieve safety and security for generations to come.

That is what motivates and guides U.S. policy. That is the sentiment behind President Obama’s 2009 speech in Prague. That is what we sincerely hope guides the path of every nation represented here. While we have accomplished much over the past five years, we have no intention of diverting from our efforts to reduce the role and numbers of nuclear weapons, increase confidence and transparency, strengthen nonproliferation, and address compliance challenges.

Mr. Chairman, on this last point, let me stress that compliance with global agreements is an essential part of international peace and security. That is why the United States is once again sponsoring its triennial resolution on “Compliance with nonproliferation, arms limitation and disarmament agreements and commitments,” which seeks to strengthen the global consensus on this topic. We welcome maximum co-sponsorship and support, and hope that it will be adopted without a vote.

Mr. Chairman, we should view the challenges that face us today as a potent reminder that our work is more important than ever. First and foremost, we must all provide unyielding support for the cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime, the NPT.

Achieving a successful RevCon in 2015 is a priority for the United States. We encourage all parties to join with the United States to advance realistic and achievable objectives. The NPT binds nations to a common interest in preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons use. The challenges to the NPT are real, but the treaty is far too important to fail or be held hostage to impractical demands or political agendas that will not command consensus.

Some question U.S. support for nuclear disarmament. This is a mistake. We remain firmly committed to Article VI of the NPT and to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. The United States has made clear our readiness to discuss further nuclear reductions with the Russian Federation, but progress requires a willing partner and good environment.

The United States will continue to make it clear that arms control regimes and their corresponding nuclear reductions have served the world well for more than 40 years. The United States and Russia, of course, have special responsibilities to protect and preserve those regimes, as our countries still possess over 90% of the global nuclear stockpile.

A critical part of this regime is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). The United States is deeply concerned about Russia’s violation of its obligations under this landmark treaty. We believe that the INF Treaty benefits the security of the United States, our allies, and Russia. For that reason, we urge Russia to resolve our concerns, return to compliance, and ensure the continued viability of the Treaty.

Now is the time to move forward, not back to postures reminiscent of the Cold War. Despite these challenges, the United States and Russia continue to implement the New START Treaty successfully. When we complete implementation, deployed nuclear weapons will be at their lowest levels since the 1950s. This translates to an 85% reduction to the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile from its Cold War peak. That is indisputable progress in disarmament.

As we consider future reductions, our focus must be on responsible measures that can be trusted and verified. We will learn from our past experience – successes and disappointments – and continue to move ahead with each step building on the last. Actually, perhaps we do ourselves a disservice when we think about disarmament as a metaphorical ladder – one that must be climbed in a linear fashion. Perhaps we are better off thinking in terms of how creeks and streams connect to form rivers. Over time, those mighty rivers are irreversible; they cut through massive and seemingly impenetrable stone on the way to their final destination. In those terms, one can see how the myriad of tasks in front of us will connect to each other and steadily but surely form an irreversible path towards disarmament.

There is no way to skip to the end and forgo the hard work of preparing for the technical and political disarmament challenges that lie ahead. For example, we can all acknowledge that verification will become increasingly complex at lower numbers of nuclear weapons, while requirements for effectiveness will increase. All of us – every nation here – should be devoting ample time and energy to address this challenge right now. As a start, I recommend reviewing the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s recent research on future verification mechanisms, and encourage everyone to attend our October 14 side event on the topic.

Mr. Chairman, the United States is continuing its engagement with the P5 on the issue of disarmament. Collectively, we have created a consensus NPT Reporting Framework, first demonstrated at this year’s NPT PrepCom, and we continue to work on a P5 Glossary that will increase mutual understanding. Ongoing P5 work on critical Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) inspection techniques will help enhance that Treaty’s verification regime.

The United States is pleased that the United Kingdom will host the sixth annual P5 conference early next year. I want to stress that speed is less important than results in this process. The regular interactions and cooperation that are happening now is the foundation on which future P5 multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament will stand.

Patience and persistence is needed from all parties both among and beyond the P5. That is why the United States is interested in engaging non-nuclear weapon states in order to increase transparency and engagement in the disarmament process. Such collaboration can help us ensure the nearly 70-year record of non-use of nuclear weapons continues forever.

As we consider the agenda for the 2015 RevCon, it is important to focus on all three pillars of the NPT. The United States will seek a balanced review that addresses each.

Ensuring NPT safeguards are upheld and nuclear energy remains in peaceful use are no less important to disarmament as future nuclear reductions. Treaty violations should never be tolerated and demand our attention. That is because NPT pillars are mutually reinforcing and implementation of each is a shared responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, as we approach the 2015 RevCon, the United States will be focusing its efforts on a number of other issues. We will be supporting legally binding assurances against use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in the context of Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty Protocols. We were pleased to sign the Protocol to the Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in May. We will continue to work with ASEAN toward signature of the Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty Protocol. Bringing into force the protocols of all five regional zones is a top priority.

Along with our P5+1 partners, the United States will continue to seek concrete, verifiable steps to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.

The United States is eager to launch negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) – an agreement recognized to be a vital and necessary step in multilateral nuclear disarmament. Nations that continue to block these negotiations should consider how their actions increase nuclear dangers and impede nuclear disarmament.

This year, through a resolution from this body, and under Canada’s leadership, a UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on FMCT was convened. It is our hope that the GGE and its final report will finally break this impasse and allow us to proceed with the negotiation of this important treaty.

The United States will continue to create the conditions that will help us ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz have both recently emphasized the need for this Treaty to finally enter into force.

While we are focused on CTBT ratification in the United States, we call on the seven other Annex 2 States to complete their ratification processes without delay. The time for action is now. The United States asks that all CTBT Signatories continue their commitment to support an effective, operational, and sustainable verification system for the Treaty. We also look forward to participating in the upcoming CTBT Integrated Field Exercise in Jordan.

Mr. Chairman, the United States is also focusing on the long-term sustainability of space. We believe irresponsible behavior in space, such as the testing or use of debris-generating ASAT systems, threatens the security, safety, economic well-being, and space science activities of all nations. We are pleased that the report from the UN GGE on Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures for outer space activities was endorsed by consensus by the United Nations General Assembly. It provides a valuable roadmap for practical, near-term solutions, such as an International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities.

On the subject of conventional arms control and disarmament, the United States recently announced that we will not use anti-personnel landmines (APL) outside the Korean Peninsula, nor will we assist, encourage, or induce anyone outside the Korean Peninsula to engage in activity prohibited by the Ottawa Convention. We will also undertake to destroy APL stockpiles not required for the defense of the Republic of Korea. The United States will continue our diligent efforts to pursue solutions that would be compliant with and ultimately allow us to join the Ottawa Convention. At the same time, we are proud to be the world’s single largest financial supporter of humanitarian mine action.

We are also pleased that the Arms Trade Treaty will enter-into-force before the end of this year. As a signatory, we are working with Mexico and other interested States in pursuit of a successful first Conference of States Parties that will lay the groundwork for a Treaty that lives up to all of our expectations.

I would like to thank all those here who aided in the effort to remove chemical weapons from Syria. Through an unprecedented collaboration of nations and international organizations, we collected, removed, and ultimately destroyed 1,300 tons of chemical weapons and precursors from Syria. Very serious issues with Syria still must be resolved, including the reports of systematic use of chlorine gas in opposition areas. The fact remains that through cooperation, the international community was able to significantly reduce the threat posed by chemical weapons in the region. The framework we developed can serve as a guide for future WMD nonproliferation cooperation.

In sum, it is not enough to have the will to pursue nonproliferation and disarmament; we have to have a way to pursue nonproliferation and disarmament. We will require all the tools we have available: diplomacy, law, science, technology, economic cooperation, and more. We will have to eschew needless arguments, vanity, and political games. We will need the courage and the tenacity to keep chipping away at this problem, day after day, month after month, year after year.

It will not be easy. Just as there is no single solution to our global fight against violent extremism, no single initiative, no matter how noble or well-intentioned, can end the threat from weapons of mass destruction by itself. In both cases, we must commit ourselves to active and engaged cooperation, and, most importantly, we must seek the cooperation and support of people outside of these walls, and outside of our capitals. The global public must both understand the significant humanitarian impacts of weapons of mass destruction and the achievable way we can reduce and then eliminate them.

We are under no illusions – we know there is disagreement on the right path ahead. Instead of focusing on what divides us, I would again ask everyone to remember why we are here and what we are charged with doing. We can and must reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction. By focusing on our mutual commitments to the NPT and other established international agreements, we can succeed.

Mr. Chairman, we must succeed and the United States is ready to do its part.

Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT ON AIRSTRIKES WITHIN SYRIA

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

September 23, 2014

Statement by the President on Airstrikes in Syria

South Lawn

10:11 A.M. EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.  God bless our troops.  God bless America.

END

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S LETTER TO SENATE ON WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REGARDING CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

FROM:   THE WHITE HOUSE 

September 11, 2014

Letter from the President -- War Powers Resolution Regarding the Central African Republic

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

On September 10, 2014, approximately 20 U.S. Armed Forces personnel deployed to the Central African Republic to support the resumption of the activities of the U.S. Embassy in Bangui.

This force was deployed along with U.S. Department of State Diplomatic Security personnel for the purpose of protecting U.S. Embassy personnel and property.  This force is expected to remain in the Central African Republic until it is replaced by an augmented U.S. Marine Security Guard Detachment and additional U.S. Department of State civilian security personnel as the security situation allows.

This action has been directed consistent with my responsibility to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148).  I appreciate the support of the Congress in these actions.

WHITE HOUSE VIDEO: PRESIDENT OBAMA ADDRESSES THE NATION ON THE ISIL THREAT

WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY TO COUNTER ISIL

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

FACT SHEET: Strategy to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) poses a clear threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and to the broader Middle East, as well as U.S. persons, allies and interests in the region.  Left unchecked, ISIL could pose a growing threat beyond the region, including to the U.S. homeland.

The United States is meeting this threat with strength and resolve. In recent weeks, we have increased intelligence resources devoted to the threat and sent U.S. personnel to assess the situation on the ground.  We have responded with immediate action to protect Americans in Iraq and to prevent large-scale humanitarian catastrophes, including by conducting over 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq.  These strikes have kept our personnel and facilities in Baghdad and Erbil safe, killed ISIL fighters, destroyed ISIL equipment, protected Iraqi critical infrastructure, and broken ISIL sieges against an Iraqi city and civilians trapped on a mountain.  Along with dozens of international partners, we have provided material support for Iraqi forces to support their fight against ISIL.  Our strikes and resupply efforts have enabled Iraqi forces to take the fight to ISIL on the ground, reclaim key territory, and saved thousands of innocent lives.

Our goal is clear: to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy so that it’s no longer a threat to Iraq, the region, the United States, and our partners.  To achieve this goal, our strategy will be underpinned by a strong coalition of regional and international partners who are willing to commit resources and will to this long-term endeavor. Dozens of countries are already contributing in Iraq – from military to humanitarian support – and in coming days and weeks we will work to strengthen and expand that coalition.

In concert with our coalition partners, the United States will carry out a comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIL and deny them safe-haven. That strategy harnesses all elements of national power and features the following core elements:

Supporting Effective Governance in Iraq: We have made clear that additional U.S. action depended on Iraq forming an inclusive government, because only a united Iraq -- with a government in Baghdad that has support from all of Iraq’s communities -- can defeat ISIL. A new Iraqi government was formally sworn in on September 8 and we will support it in efforts to govern inclusively and to take significant, concrete steps to address the legitimate grievances and needs of all Iraqis.

Denying ISIL Safe-Haven: The Iraqi Government is taking the fight to ISIL, and will ultimately be the one to defeat it in Iraq. But our Iraqi and regional partners need our support and unique capabilities to blunt ISIL’s advance.  The President announced that we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. The President also made clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. The President will not hesitate to take direct military action against ISIL terrorists in Syria and in Iraq.  We will degrade ISIL’s leadership, logistical and operational capability, and deny it sanctuary and resources to plan, prepare and execute attacks. Simply put, ISIL will find no safe-haven.

Building Partner Capacity: We will build the capability and capacity of our partners in the region to sustain an effective long-term campaign against ISIL. The President announced that he will send an additional 475 U.S. service members to Iraq to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. In addition to providing weapons, ammunition and equipment, U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) will train and advise Iraqi forces, including Kurdish forces, improving their ability to plan, lead and conduct operations against ISIL. Further, the new Iraqi government has asked for help forming National Guard units that would be recruited locally and be responsible for protecting their own communities and securing areas freed from ISIL's control - a step that, along with long overdue political reforms, can drive a wedge between ISIL and Sunnis who have been alienated by their central government.

The President is also calling on Congress to provide additional authorities and resources to train and equip Syrian opposition fighters in the Continuing Resolution they are debating this work period, so they can defend themselves and their neighborhoods against ISIL incursions and ultimately push back on ISIL forces and the Assad regime. We will strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.

The growing and evolving nature of the ISIL threat underscores the importance of the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF).  The CTPF request for $5 billion would allow us to train, build capacity, and facilitate support for partner countries on the front lines of countering shared terrorist threats, both in the region and beyond.  The CTPF includes $500 million for a Department of Defense program to train and equip the Syrian opposition as described above and $1 billion to build resiliency in the states neighboring Syria to ensure they can continue to counter threats to their internal stability and to support communities that are contending with refugees.

Enhancing Intelligence Collection on ISIL:  Continuing to gain more fidelity on ISIL’s capabilities, plans, and intentions is central to our strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy the group.  Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance flights and other important efforts will strengthen our ability to understand this threat, as well as to share vital information with our Iraqi and other regional partners to enable them to effectively counter ISIL.  

Disrupting ISIL’s Finances:  ISIL’s expansion over the past year has given it access to significant and diverse sources of funding.  The U.N. Security Council resolution that passed unanimously in August demonstrated the broad international consensus to disrupt ISIL’s finances.   We are already working aggressively with our partners on a coordinated approach that includes:  reducing ISIL’s revenue from oil and assets it has plundered; limiting ISIL’s ability to extort local populations; stemming ISIL’s gains from kidnapping for ransom; and disrupting the flow of external donations to the group.  Our domestic laws also provide additional tools in this effort, enabling us to sanction or prosecute those who fund ISIL’s activities.

Exposing ISIL’s True Nature: Clerics around the world have spoken up in recent weeks to highlight ISIL’s hypocrisy, condemning the group’s barbarity and criticizing its self- proclaimed “caliphate.” We will work with our partners throughout the Muslim world to highlight ISIL’s hypocrisy and counter its false claim to be acting in the name of religion.

Disrupting the Flow of Foreign Fighters:  Foreign terrorist fighters are ISIL’s lifeblood, and a global security threat—with citizens of nearly 80 countries filling its ranks.  Over 100 foreign fighters from the United States have traveled or attempted to travel to the conflict.  On September 24, the United States will convene an historic Summit-level meeting of the UN Security Council, focused on this issue.

Protecting the Homeland: We will continue to use the criminal justice system as a critical tool in our counterterrorism toolbox.  Federal criminal laws provide a sound basis to prosecute those who provide material support to ISIL or who conspire with ISIL to plot attacks at home or abroad.   With respect to aviation security, we will work with air carriers to implement responsible threat-based security and screening requirements, and provide additional screening to individuals suspected of affiliation with ISIL.  Finally, we will counter violent extremism here at home, including tailored domestic programs to prevent violent extremism and radicalization in order to intervene with at-risk individuals before they become radicalized toward violence and decide to travel abroad to Syria and Iraq to join ISIL.

Humanitarian Support:  We and our partners will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the displaced and vulnerable in Iraq and Syria. We will also continue to work with host governments to mitigate the humanitarian and economic effects of the conflict in neighboring countries, recognizing that the refugee crisis calls on our common humanity and presents a significant challenge to regional stability.  As ISIL seeks to destroy the diversity of the territories it terrorizes, we will continue to work to help prevent mass atrocities, particularly against vulnerable religious and ethnic minorities.

SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER EUROPE SAYS NATO TRYING TO REASSURE MEMBERS REGARDING RUSSIA

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Breedlove Discusses Russian Threats in Europe

By Jim Garamone

DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18, 2014 – NATO is examining additional ways it can reassure alliance members who feel threatened by Russia’s on-going actions in Ukraine, including positioning forces in new locations, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe told a German newspaper.

In an interview with Die Welt, Air Force Gen. Phillip Breedlove called Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula a new type of warfare, labelling it the DIME model: diplomatic, informational, military, economic. “In this new hybrid warfare, we see Russia applying all of the elements of national power in a coercive way to affect change in other sovereign nations,” he said.

In February, Russia deployed a large force on its border with Ukraine and the Russian army conducted what were described as exercises near Crimea.

“Let’s just look at eastern Ukraine right now. In a diplomatic sense, the Russians are trying to build these international arguments that it is Ukraine that is causing the problem,” and that Russia needs to step in.

However, Breedlove said Russia continues to threaten Ukraine’s sovereignty and he said NATO allies in Eastern and Central Europe feel threatened by this new warfare as well.

A number of reassurance measures have been put in place including bolstering air policing in the Baltics, added ship visits to the Black Sea, increased infantry exercises in the Baltic Republics as well as the deployment of additional NATO air assets as well as infantry exercises in Poland.

“We’re going to look at … specifically the NATO Response Force,” he said. “We’re going to look at how to … be more prepared in a command and control stance to react to Article 5 defense.”

NATO will also station forces “in the right locations to be able to rapidly respond to this new form of warfare that we see being used,” Breedlove said.

NATO nations must develop the police and military capabilities to deal with this new form of war. “How do we now train, organize, equip the police forces and the military forces of nations to be able to deal with this?” he asked. “It is important … to remember that if we see these actions taking place in a NATO nation and we are able to attribute them to an aggressor nation that is Article 5, and it is a military response.”