DEFENSE SECRETARY CARTER TESTIFIES ON PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION TU USE FORCE AGAINST ISIL

Above:  DOD video 
FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

Carter: Proposed Authorization Gives Flexibility to Fight ISIL
By Cheryl Pellerin
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, March 11, 2015 – President Barack Obama’s proposed authorization to use military force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is flexible enough to allow for the full range of military scenarios, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told a Senate panel this morning.
Carter testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee alongside Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey.

In reviewing the president’s proposed AUMF as secretary of defense, Carter said he asked himself two questions.

“First, does it provide the necessary authority and flexibility to wage our campaign, allowing for a full range of likely military scenarios?” Carter said.
Sending a Message

Second, he added, “will it send a message to the people I’m responsible for -- our brave men and women in uniform and civilian personnel who will wage this campaign -- that the country is behind them?”

Carter said he believes the AUMF accomplishes both, and urged Congress to pass the proposal.

Left:  Defense Secretary Ash Carter testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today alongside Secretary of State John Kerry and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. The topic was President Barack Obama’s proposed authorization for the use of military force. DoD file photo by Glenn Fawcett.


The proposed AUMF takes into account the reality that ISIL as an organization is likely to evolve strategically, he said, morphing, rebranding and associating with other terrorist groups as it continues to threaten the United States and its allies.

The AUMF wisely does not include geographical restrictions, Carter said, “because ISIL already shows signs of metastasizing outside of Syria and Iraq.”
Military Flexibility

The proposed AUMF provides flexibility in military means to prevail against ISIL, with one exception, the secretary added.

“The proposed AUMF does not authorize long-term, large-scale offensive ground combat operations like those we conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our strategy does not call for them,” he added. “Instead, local forces must provide the enduring presence needed for an enduring victory against ISIL.”

The proposed AUMF expires in three years, although no one knows if the campaign will be completed over that time, the secretary said, adding that he understands the reason for the proposed sunset provision.

“It derives from the important principle stemming from the Constitution that makes the grave matter of enacting an authorization for the use of military force a shared responsibility of the president and Congress,” Carter said.
A Chance to Assess Progress

The president’s proposed authorization gives the American people a chance to assess progress in three years’ time, he added, and gives the next president and the next Congress a chance, if they choose, to reauthorize the AUMF.

Carter said another key consideration for approving the AUMF is that it sends the right signals, most importantly to the troops, and also to partner nations.
“It will signal to our coalition partners and to our adversary that the United States government has come together to address a serious challenge,” he said.

Carter again urged Congress to pass the president’s AUMF because, he said, “it provides the necessary authority and flexibility to wage our current campaign. And because it will demonstrate to our men and women in uniform –- some of whom are in harm’s way right now –- that all of us stand unflinchingly behind them.”

SECRETARY KERRY URGES NEW AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY FORCE AGAINST ISIL

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 9, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Corker and all of my former colleagues, it really is a pleasure for me to be back before the Foreign Relations Committee. During my time here, I think we got some things right and we certainly wound up wishing we’d done some things differently. But I think most of us would agree – and I saw it during both parties’ chairmanships, including the years that Senator Lugar and I were here – that this committee works best and makes the greatest contribution to our foreign policy and our country when it addresses the most important issues in a strong bipartisan fashion.

And this is one of those issues. The chairman and the ranking member have both said that. This is one of the moments when a bipartisan approach really is critical.

As you know, the President is committed to engaging with the committee and all of your colleagues in the House and Senate regarding a new authorization for use of military force – as we call it in short, the AUMF – specifically against the terrorist group known as ISIL, though in the region is it called Daesh, and specifically because they believe very deeply it is not a state and it does not represent Islam.

So we are looking for this authorization with respect to efforts against Daesh and affiliated groups, and I want to thank Chairman Menendez and the entire committee for leading the effort in Congress and for all of the important work that you have already done on this complicated and challenging issue. It is important that this committee lead the Congress and the country, and I think you know I believe that.

Now, I realize we may not get there overnight. I’ve heard the ranking member’s comments just now, and we understand the clock. We certainly won’t resolve everything and get there this afternoon, in the next few hours. But I do think this discussion is important, and I think we all agree that this discussion has to conclude with a bipartisan vote that makes clear that this is not one party’s fight against Daesh, but rather that it reflects our united determination to degrade and ultimately defeat Daesh. And the world needs to understand that from the United States Congress, above all.

Our coalition partners need to know that from all of you, and the men and women of our armed forces deserve to know it from all of you. And Daesh’s cadre of killers and rapists and bigots need to absolutely understand it clearly. That’s why this matters.

Now toward that end, we ask you now to work closely with us on a bipartisan basis to develop language that provides a clear signal of support for our ongoing military operations against Daesh. Our position on the text is really pretty straightforward. The authorization, or AUMF, should give the President the clear mandate and flexibility he needs to successfully prosecute the armed conflict against Daesh and affiliated forces, but the authorization should also be limited and specific to the threat posed by that group and by forces associated with it.

Now, I’ll come back to the question of the AUMF in a minute. But we believe that as we embark on this important discussion context matters. All of us want to see the United States succeed and all of us want to see Daesh defeated, so we’re united on that. And I want to bring the committee up to date on precisely where our campaign now stands.

Mr. Chairman, less than three months ago – perhaps two and a half months, a little more – have passed since the international community came together in a coalition, whose purpose is to degrade and defeat Daesh. Two and a half months ago, it didn’t exist – not it, Daesh, but the coalition – and the 60 countries that assembled recently in Brussels. We organized, and I had the privilege of chairing the first ministerial-level meeting of the coalition last week in Brussels.

We heard Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi describe to us the effort that his leadership team is making to bring Iraqis together, strengthen their security forces, take the fight to Daesh, and improve and reform governance. We also heard General John Allen, our special envoy to the coalition, review the progress that is being made in the five lines of coalition effort: to shrink the territory controlled by Daesh, to cut off its financing, to block its recruitment of foreign fighters, to expose the hypocrisy of its absurd religious claims, and to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of its violence.

During the meeting, I have to tell you, I was particularly impressed by the leadership activism, and quite frankly, the anger towards Daesh that is being displayed by Arab and Muslim states. Governments that do not always agree on other issues are coming together in opposition to this profoundly anti-Islamic terrorist organization.

And now, to be clear, ISIL continues to commit serious vicious crimes and it still controls more territory than al-Qaida ever did. It will be years, not months, before it is defeated. We know that. But our coalition is measurably already making a difference.

To date, we have launched more than 1,150 today air strikes against Daesh. These operations have reduced its leadership, undermined its propaganda, squeezed its resources, damaged its logistical and operational capabilities, and compelled it to disperse its forces and change its tactics. It is becoming clear that the combination of coalition airstrikes and local ground partners is a potent one. In fact, virtually every time a local Iraqi force has worked in coordination with our air cover they have not only defeated Daesh, they have routed it.

In Iraq, progress also continues in the political arena. And this is no less important, frankly. Last week, after years of intensive efforts, the government in Baghdad reached an interim accord with the Kurdistan Regional Government on hydrocarbon exports and revenue sharing. That has been long sought after, and it’s a big deal that they got it. It’s good for the country’s economy, but it’s even better for its unity and stability and for the imprint of the direction that they’re moving in.

In addition, a new defense minister is a Sunni, whose appointment was an important step towards a more inclusive government. And with his leadership and that of the new interior minister, the process of reforming the nation’s security forces has a genuine chance for success.

Meanwhile, the prime minister is taking bold steps to improve relations with his country’s neighbors. And those neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey, have been responding. Now, I want to underscore it’s too early to declare a new era in regional relations, but countries that had been drifting apart or even in conflict with each other are now in the process of coming together and breaking down the barriers that were created. And that is helpful to our coalition and it is bad news for Daesh.

Beating back the threat that Daesh poses to Iraq is job number one for our Iraqi partners and for our coalition. But even if the government in Baghdad fulfills its responsibilities, it is still going to face a dire challenge because of the events in Syria.

Now, if you recall, the coalition’s decision to carry out airstrikes in Syria came in response to a request from Iraq for help in defending against Daesh’s brazen attack. To date, we and our Arab partners have conducted over 500 airstrikes in Syria, targeting areas where Daesh had concentrated its fighters, targeting on command and control nodes, finance centers, training camps, and oil refineries. Our objective is to further degrade Daesh’s capabilities and to deny it the freedom of movement and resupply that it has previously enjoyed.

At the same time, we will continue to build up the capabilities of the moderate opposition. And here I want to thank the members of this committee and many others in Congress who have supported these efforts and supported them very strongly. Our goal is to help the moderate forces stabilize areas under their control, defend civilians, empower them to go on the offensive against Daesh, and promote the conditions for a negotiated political transition, recognizing, as I think almost every person has said, there is no military solution.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we all know that Daesh is a threat to America’s security and interests. It poses an unacceptable danger to our personnel and facilities in Iraq and elsewhere. It seeks to destroy both the short and long-term stability of the broader Middle East. And it is exacerbating a refugee crisis that has placed extraordinary economic and political burden on our friends and allies in the region.

One thing is certain: Daesh will continue to spread until or unless it is stopped. So there should be no question that we, with our partners, have a moral duty and a profound international security interest and national security interest in stopping them.

That is where the fight against Daesh now stands. A coalition that two and a half months ago did not even exist is now taking the fight to the enemy. It was cobbled together by strong American leadership and by steady, intensive diplomacy with countries that disagree on many things but all share an aversion to extremism. Now I think all of you would agree we need to summon that same determination to find the common ground here in Washington.

That is why in the hours, days, and weeks to come, we’re determined to work with you, first and foremost to develop an approach that can generate broad bipartisan support, while ensuring that the President has the flexibility to successfully prosecute this effort. That’s the balance.

What do we envision, specifically regarding an AUMF? Importantly – and I think I will lay out today a very clear set of principles that I hope will be instructive – we do not think an AUMF should include a geographic limitation. We don’t anticipate conducting operations in countries other than Iraq or Syria; but to the extent that ISIL poses a threat to American interests and personnel in other countries, we would not want an AUMF to constrain our ability to use appropriate force against ISIL in those locations if necessary. In our view, it would be a mistake to advertise to ISIL that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq or Syria.

On the issue of combat operations, I know this is hotly debated, as it ought to be and as it is, with passionate and persuasive arguments on both sides. The President has been crystal-clear that his policy is that U.S. military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat operations against ISIL and that will be the responsibility of local forces, because that is what our local partners and allies want, that is what we learned works best in the context of our Iraq experience, that is what is best for preserving our coalition, and most importantly, it is in the best interest of the United States.

However, while we certainly believe that this is the soundest possible policy, and while the President has been clear he is open to clarifications on the use of U.S. combat troops to be outlined in an AUMF, it doesn’t mean we should preemptively bind the hands of the Commander-in-Chief or our commanders in the field in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee.

And finally, with respect to duration, we can be sure that this confrontation is not going to be over quickly, as the President and I have said many times. We understand, however, the desire of many to avoid a completely open-ended authorization. And I note that Chairman Menendez has suggested that a three-year limitation should be put into an AUMF. We support that proposal, but we support it subject to a provision that we should work through together that provides for extension in the event that circumstances require it. And we think it ought to be advertised as such upfront.

To sum up, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ask for your help in, above all, approving on a bipartisan basis – with the strongest vote possible, because everybody will read messages into that vote – an Authorization for Use of Military Force in connection with our campaign and that of our many partners in order to defeat a terrible, vicious, different kind of enemy.

Almost a quarter-century ago, when I here, then a 47-year-old senator with certainly a darker head of hair, President George H.W. Bush sent his Secretary of State James Baker to ask this committee for the authority to respond militarily to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The country was divided. Congress was divided. But this committee drafted an authorization and it passed the Congress with a majority that the New York Times described as “decisive and bipartisan.” And armed with that mandate, Secretary Baker built the coalition that won the First Gulf War.

Now, that was a different time and it was a different conflict and it called for a different response. But it was also this body – this committee and then the Senate – at its bipartisan best. And what we need from you today to strengthen and unify our own coalition is exactly that kind of cooperative effort. The world will be watching what we together are willing and able to do. And this is obviously not a partisan issue; it’s a leadership issue. It’s a test of our government’s ability and our nation’s ability to stand together. It’s a test of our generation’s resolve to build a safer and more secure world. And I know every single one of you wants to defeat ISIL. A bold, bipartisan mandate would strengthen our hand, and I hope that today you can move closer to that goal.

So thank you and I’m pleased to answer any questions.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS TO SENATE COMMITTEE ON DEFEATING ISIL

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Secretary's Remarks: Opening Remarks on the United States Strategy to Defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant

09/17/2014 04:42 PM EDT

Opening Remarks on the United States Strategy to Defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant

Testimony

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Washington, DC

September 17, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee, my friends and former colleagues, I really thank you for holding this hearing on an issue that is obviously fraught with all the high stakes that both the chairman and the ranking member have just described and all of the members of the committee understand deeply. And I really look forward to this opportunity to both define the threat that ISIL does pose, the ways in which it does, and of course, our strategy for defeating it. And all of that could not be more critical for the country.

During the years that I had the privilege of serving here and working with different administrations, it always struck me that American foreign policy works best and is strongest when there is a genuine discussion, a dialogue, a vetting of ideas back and forth, really a serious discussion – much more than an articulation of one set of ideas and then another, and they just oppose it each other and they sit out there and there’s no real effort to have a meeting of the minds. So I want to make sure that by the time we’re done here today I’ve heard from you, I know what you’re thinking; and you’ve heard from me and you know what we’re thinking, what the Administration is thinking; and that you have a clear understanding of what it is that we have done so far, of how we see this and how, hopefully, we can come to see it together, what we’re doing now and of where we go next.

And I state unequivocally, and it’s not a passing sentence, that I welcome the input, need the input of this committee because it is together that we’re going to be much stronger and much more effective in guaranteeing the success of this effort. And it’s a big effort in a lot of ways. It’s about ISIL in the immediacy; but as we will, I think, discuss today, it’s about a lot more than that.

So I want to underscore at the start – you know there’s some debates of the past 30 years, 29 of which I was privileged to serve in the Senate, that will undoubtedly fill up books and documentaries for a long time, and Iraq is certainly one of them. Iraq has caused some of the most heated debates and deepest divisions of the past decade, a series of difficult issues and difficult choices about which people can honestly disagree. But I didn’t come here today in the hope we don’t have to rehash those debates. The issue that confronts us today is one in which we all ought to be able to agree: ISIL must be defeated, period, end of story. And collectively, we are all going to be measured by how we carry out this mission.

As I came in here, obviously, we had some folks who spoke out, and I would start by saying that I understand dissent; I’ve lived it. That’s how I first testified in front of this country in 1971. And I spent two years protesting a policy, so I respect the right of Code Pink to protest and to use that right.

But you know what? I also know something about Code Pink. Code Pink was started by a woman and women who were opposed to war but who also thought that the government’s job was to take care of people and to give them healthcare and education and good jobs. And if that’s what you believe in – and I believe it is – then you ought to care about fighting ISIL, because ISIL is killing and raping and mutilating women, and they believe women shouldn’t have an education. They sell off girls to be sex slaves to jihadists. There is no negotiation with ISIL; there is nothing to negotiate. And they’re not offering anyone health care of any kind. They’re not offering education of any kind, for a whole philosophy or idea or cult, whatever you want to call it, that frankly comes out of the Stone Age. They’re cold-blooded killers marauding across the Middle East making a mockery of a peaceful religion.

And that’s precisely why we are building a coalition to try to stop them from denying the women and the girls and the people of Iraq the very future that they yearn for. And frankly, Code Pink and a lot of other people need to stop to think about how you stop them and deal with that.

So I --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: More invasions will not protect the homeland.

SECRETARY KERRY: I will --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: More invasions will not protect the homeland.

SECRETARY KERRY: Let me make a --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: More invasions will not protect the homeland.

SECRETARY KERRY: So it’s important for people to understand --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: More invasions will not protect the homeland.

SECRETARY KERRY: -- important for people to understand --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: More invasions will not protect the homeland.

SECRETARY KERRY: -- there’s no invasion. The invasion was ISIL into Iraq. The invasion is foreign fighters into Syria. That’s the invasion, and it is destructive to every possibility of building a state in that region. So even in a region that is virtually defined by division – and every member of this committee understands the degree to which these divisions are deep in that region – leaders who have viewed the last 11 years very differently have all come together for this cause. They may agree on very little in general, but they are more unified on this subject than anything that I’ve seen them unified on in my career.

So as President Obama described last week when he spoke directly to the American people, we do have a clear strategy to degrade, defeat, and destroy ISIL. And it’s not in its infancy. It has been well thought through and carefully articulated and now is being built in these coalition efforts that began with the meeting in Jeddah and moved to Paris and will move to the United Nations this week when I chair a UN Security Council meeting on Friday. The United States will not go it alone. That has been a fundamental principle on which President Obama has sought to organize this effort. And that is why we are building a coalition, a global coalition. There are more than 50 countries that already have agreed or are now doing something. Not every country will decide that their role is to have some kind of military engagement, but every country can do something. And we’ll show exactly what that means.

And as I traveled around the region and Europe in the last days, the question that foreign leaders were asking me was not whether they should join the coalition but how they can help. We’re also – and I emphasize this – we’re not starting from scratch. This is an effort that we have been building over time, both on our own and with the help of our international partners. Even before President Obama delivered his speech last week nearly 40 countries had joined in, contributing to the effort to strengthen the capacity of Iraq to be able to strengthen its military to train, to provide humanitarian assistance. We’ve been focused on ISIL since its inception as the successor to al-Qaida of Iraq in 2013. And back in January, realizing that, we ramped up our assistance to the Iraqi Security Forces, increasing our intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, or ISR, the flights that get a better picture of the battlefield. We expedited weapons like the Hellfire missiles for the Iraqis in order to bring their capacity to bear in this fight.

Early this summer the ISIL threat accelerated when it effectively erased the Iraq-Syria border and the Mosul Dam fell. The President acted immediately. Deliberately and decisively, we further surged the ISR missions immediately. We set up joint operations centers in Baghdad and Erbil immediately, and our special forces conducted a very detailed, in-depth assessment of Iraqi Security Forces and Kurdish forces. We did that purposefully, without jumping, as some people wanted us to, because we wanted to understand what is the capacity of the Iraqi army to fight? How many brigades, having seen what happened in Mosul, are still prepared to engage? Are we getting into something that, in fact, we don’t have the answers to with respect to who can do what?

And to date, we have launched – we have supported those Iraqi security forces that, by the way, helped in the liberating of Amirli, helped in the freedom of Sinjar Mountain. helped in taking back the Mosul Dam. And now we have launched more than 150 airstrikes, and it is because of the platforms that we put in place last January and even before that those strikes had been among the most precise strikes that we have ever taken. The percentage – I won’t go into it here, but I will tell you you’d be astonished if you heard openly now the accuracy of those efforts.

Those were put in place back in June, and those strikes have been extremely effective in breaking the sieges that I described and beginning to move confidence back into the Iraqi military. The judgment and assessments of our military that went over there to look at the Iraqi military came back with a judgment of a sufficient number of brigades capable of and ready to fight. And with the reconstitution of the military in a way that can bring the country together and not be divided along sectarian lines or viewed to be the army of one individual, it is entirely likely that there’ll be much greater and more rapid progress.

So that has given us time to put in place the two pillars of a comprehensive strategy against ISIL: an inclusive Iraqi Government, which was essential – there would be no capacity for success here if we had not been able to see the Iraqi Government come together; and secondly, the broad international coalition so the U.S. is not alone. We redoubled our efforts, frankly, to help move the Iraqi political process forward, and we were very clear-eyed about the fact that the strategy of ISIL would only succeed if we had a strong, inclusive government. And frankly, that required transformation in the government which the Iraqis themselves effected. With our support and several weeks of very complex negotiations, President Massoum nominated Haider al-Abadi to serve as prime minister. And shortly thereafter, Prime Minister al-Abadi – again, with our support and others’ – was able to form his cabinet and present it to the parliament, and last week that government was approved.

I have to tell you, it was quite astonishing to be in Jeddah the other day with the Saudis, Emiratis; the Bahrainis, the Jordanians, the Qataris, the Turks, the Lebanese, and Iraqis – Iraqis in Saudi Arabia. And everybody here in this committee knows what that relationship’s been like for the last years. And to hear the foreign minister of Iraq, who chaired the meeting, Saud al-Faisal say that they were prepared to open an immediate embassy in Baghdad – that’s transformative. The result is something also for Iraq that it’s never seen before in its history: an election deemed credible by the United Nations followed by a peaceful transition of power without any U.S. troops on the ground. I must say, I was sort of struck yesterday. The Wall Street Journal had an article talking about Arab divide, but above the Arab divide language is the Shia foreign minister of Iraq, the Kurd president of Iraq, and the Sunni foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, all in communication and jointly working as never before.

So I think people need to focus on what has been accomplished here. As you know, I went to Iraq last week. I traveled; I met with the leaders of Iraq. And throughout the entire process, we’ve been in touch with regional leaders to ensure that the new and inclusive government is going to receive support from the region. With this inclusive government in place, it is time for a defensive strategy that we and our international partners have pursued to get things together – get the inclusive government, know exactly where we’re going – to now transition to an offensive strategy, one that harnesses the capabilities of the entire world to eliminate the ISIL threat once and for all. President Obama outlined this strategy in detail. I’m not going to go through it in that detail, but I’ll just quickly say – I’ll be quick in walking through it.

At its core, our strategy is centered on a global coalition that will collaborate closely across a number of specific areas, including direct and indirect military support. Military assistance can come in a range of forms, from training and equipping to logistics and airlift, and countries from inside and outside of our region are already right now providing that support in these venues.

I’ve also no doubt whatsoever that we will have the capabilities and the resources we need to succeed militarily. And President Obama made clear that we will be expanding the military campaign to take on ISIL in Iraq, in Syria, wherever it is found. But this is not the Gulf war in 1991; it is not the Iraq war in 2003; and that’s true for a number of reasons.

Number one, U.S. ground troops will not be sent into combat in this conflict. From the last decade we know that a sustainable strategy is not U.S. ground forces; it is enabling local forces to do what they have to do for themselves and for their country. I want to be clear: The U.S. troops that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. Instead, they will support Iraq forces on the ground as they fight for their country against these terrorists. And in Syria, the on-the-ground combat will be done by the moderate opposition, which serves as the current best counterweight in Syria to extremists like ISIL. We know that ISIL – as it gets weaker, the moderate opposition will get stronger. And that will be critical in our efforts to bring about the political solution necessary to address the crisis in Syria once and for all. That is one of the reasons why it is so critical that Congress authorize the opposition train-and-equip mission when it comes to the floor. But it’s also critical that the opposition makes the most of the additional support, the kind of support that they’ve been requesting now for years. And they need to take this opportunity to prove to the world that they can become a viable alternative to the current regime.

Number two, this is more than just a military coalition, and I want to emphasize that. In some ways, some of the most important aspects of what we will be doing are not military. This mission isn’t just about taking out an enemy on the battlefield; it’s about taking out a network, decimating and discrediting a militant cult masquerading as a religious movement. It’s similar to what we’ve been doing to al-Qaida these last years. The bottom line is we will not be successful with a military campaign alone, and we know it. Nor are we asking every country to play a military role. We don’t need every country to engage in that kind of military action, and frankly, we’re not asking them and we don’t want every country to do that. Only a holistic campaign will accomplish our objectives.

In addition to the military campaign, it will be equally important for the global coalition to dry up ISIL’s illicit funding. And by the way, the Bahrainis at the meeting in Jeddah have offered to host a meeting – because they’ve been already engaged in this – that brings people together to focus on precisely the steps we can all take to do this. And that can positively have an impact not just on ISIL but on other flows of terrorism support.

We have to stop the foreign fighters who carry passports from countries around the world, including the United States, to continue to deliver. And we also need, obviously, to continue to deliver urgently needed humanitarian assistance

And finally, and this is really – you can’t overstate this. We must continue to repudiate the gross distortion of Islam that ISIL is spreading, put an end to the sermons by extremists that brainwash young men to join these movements and commit mass atrocities in the name of God. I was very encouraged to hear that Saudi Arabia’s top clerics came out and declared terrorism a heinous crime under Sharia law and that the perpetrators should be made an example of. And I think – I might just mention – I’ll wait till we get in the Q&A. I’ll come back to this, but a very important statement was made today by the top clerics in the region, and I want to come back to that because I think it’s critical.

But let me just emphasize that when we say global coalition, we mean it. And this is not – and Australia, other countries, the Far East, countries in Europe have all taken on already initial responsibilities.

So, my colleagues, we are committed to working with countries in every corner of the globe to match the campaign with the capabilities that we need to fight it. And I can tell you today that every single person I spoke to in Wales at the Wales summit, in Jeddah, in Paris – where we had more than 30 countries and entities – they all expressed strong support for our mission and a willingness to help in some way.

We had excellent meetings and our meetings in Baghdad and in Cairo and in Ankara also advanced the process. At the conference in Paris, we took another step towards the UNGA meetings this week. And the UNGA meetings, unlike the meetings we’ve had thus far, which have all been behind closed doors, the UNGA meetings – these countries will be speaking out publicly at the United Nations Security Council and the world will begin to see what each of these countries are prepared to do.

So we have a plan. We know the players. Our focus now is in determining what each country’s role will be and how to coordinate those activities for success. Later this week, we’re going to have more to say about our partners and the contributions, and we still fully expect this coalition to grow through UNGA and beyond. One of the things that I’m most pleased about is we’ve asked one of our most respected and experienced military leaders, General John Allen, to come to the State Department and oversee this effort. He came within 24 hours of being asked, was at his desk at seven in the morning, and is now already laying out the campaign from a diplomatic point of view for how we coordinate, what will be needed, for all of these other aspects beyond the military piece. And had a long meeting with him yesterday, again today, and I am confident that together with Ambassador Brett McGurk, who will serve as his deputy; and Assistant Secretary Anne Patterson, who was so much a part of our effort against al-Qaida when she was our ambassador to Pakistan, we have a very experienced group of people engaged in this effort.

The fact is if we do this right, then this effort could actually become a model for what we can do with respect to the individual terrorist groups in other places that continue to wreak havoc on the efforts of governments to build their states and provide for their people. And I’m confident that with our strategy in place and our international partners by our side we will have all that we need, and with the help of the Congress, we will be able to succeed in degrading and ultimately destroying this monstrous organization wherever it exists.

I know that was a little long, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to lay it out, and I appreciate your patience.

U.S. COUNTERS RUSSIAN INTERVENTION IN UKRAINE DOD OFFICIAL TELLS SENATE COMMITTEE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

DOD Works to Counter Russian Intervention in Ukraine

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 6, 2014 – The Defense Department is working with the State Department and NATO allies to provide reassurance, deterrence and support to Ukraine, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today.
The U.S. government’s response to Russia’s actions in the region is being done carefully and without taking actions that would escalate the crisis, Evelyn N. Farkas said.

“Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, followed by blatant and unconcealed efforts to eastern and southern Ukraine, signifies a paradigm shift in our relations with Russia,” she said. “Despite Russia’s efforts to portray the situation otherwise, this crisis is entirely one of its choosing. These actions represent a wholesale rejection of the idea of a Europe whole, free and at peace.”
Farkas listed the DOD contributions to Ukraine. Soon after Russia moved into Crimea, the department delivered 329,000 packaged meals to support forces in the field. DOD also has sent uniforms, medical supplies and other nonlethal equipment to Ukrainian armed forces and border guards.

All told, this adds up to about $18 million of aid to date, she said. “Looking ahead,” she added, “we will use all available tools to provide meaningful cost-effective support to Ukraine’s security institutions.”

DOD officials also continue to engage with their Ukrainian counterparts, Farkas said, noting that a high-level meeting is scheduled next month.

The United States has also taken prompt and high-profile steps to reassure NATO allies in light of Russian activity in Ukraine, Farkas said. These include a stepped up maritime presence in the Black Sea and the deployment of additional combat aircraft to the Baltic republics and to Poland.

“Last week, 600 paratroopers arrived in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to begin exercises requested by those nations,” she said. “These exercises are the first in a series of activities that will take place over the next few months and beyond.”

The United States is also taking steps to support non-NATO partners – such as Moldova and Georgia – that feel threatened by Russia’s actions, she said.
And the United States is not alone, Farkas told the panel.

“Since the start of this crisis, our NATO allies have acted with resolve. As we approach the NATO summit in Wales this fall, we will continue to urge all NATO allies to increase support to these reassurance measures, including by bolstering their individual commitments to allied security by robust defense investment.”
These measures represent a clear eastward shift of allied forces, she said, specifically intended to counter Russia’s aggressive actions.

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURNS GIVES TESTIMONY ON SYRIA, UKRAINE, MIDDLE EAST

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Syria Spillover: The Growing Threat of Terrorism and Sectarianism in the Middle East and Ukraine Update
Testimony
William J. Burns
Deputy Secretary of State
Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
March 6, 2014

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity. I’m pleased to be joined by Matt Olsen and Derek Chollet. I ask that my written testimony be entered into the record.
Before addressing the issue of extremism in the Levant, let me first offer a quick assessment of developments in Ukraine, as you requested.

Ukraine

A great deal is at stake in Ukraine today. Less than 48 hours ago in Kyiv, not far from the Shrine of the Fallen, Secretary Kerry made clear America’s deep and abiding commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, in the face of Russian aggression, and our determination to ensure that the people of Ukraine get to make their own choices about their future. That’s a bedrock conviction for the United States. On my own visit last week, I was profoundly moved by the bravery and selflessness of Ukrainians, and profoundly impressed by the commitment of the new interim government to reach across ethnic and regional lines and build a stable, democratic and inclusive Ukraine, with good relations with all of its neighbors, including Russia.

While we and our partners worked to support Ukraine’s transition, Russia worked actively to undermine it. Russia’s military intervention in Crimea is a brazen violation of its international obligations, and no amount of Russian posturing can obscure that fact.

Ukraine’s interim government, approved by 82 percent of the Rada, including most members of Yanukovich’s party, has shown admirable restraint in the face of massive provocation. They need and deserve our strong support. President Obama, Secretary Kerry and the entire Administration have been working hard, steadily and methodically, to build urgent international backing for Ukraine, counter-pressure against Russia, reassurance to other neighbors, and a path to de-escalation. Our strategy has four main elements, and we look forward to working with Congress on each of them.

First, immediate support for Ukraine as it deals with enormous economic challenges and prepares for critical national elections at the end of May. On Tuesday, Secretary Kerry announced our intent to seek a $1 billion loan guarantee. That will be part of a major international effort to build a strong economic support package for Ukraine as it undertakes reform. That effort includes the IMF and the EU, which laid out its own substantial assistance package yesterday. Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and his colleagues are committed partners, and understand that the Ukrainian government has difficult reform choices to make, after inheriting an economic mess from Yanukovich. Ukraine’s considerable economic potential has never been matched by its business environment or economic leadership, and now is the time to begin to get its financial house in order and realize its promise.

Second, deterring further encroachment on Ukrainian territory and pressing for an end to Russia’s occupation of Crimea. President Obama has led broad international condemnation of Russia’s intervention, with strong, unified statements from the G-7 and NATO, as well as the EU, whose leaders are meeting today in an emergency summit. We are sending international observers from the OSCE to Crimea and eastern Ukraine to bear witness to what is happening and make clear that minorities are not at risk. This was never a credible claim by Russia, nor a credible pretext for military intervention.

We are making clear that there are costs for what Russia has already done, and working with our partners to make clear that the costs will increase significantly if intervention expands. Today, the President signed an executive order authorizing sanctions – including asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and entities responsible for activities undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; threatening the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine; contributing to the misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine; or that purport to exercise authority over any part of Ukraine without authorization from the Ukrainian government in Kyiv. This E.O. will be used in a flexible way to designate those most directly involved in destabilizing Ukraine.

The State Department today also put in place visa restrictions on a number of officials and individuals. We continue to look at every aspect of our relationship with Russia, from suspension of preparations for the Sochi G-8 Summit to pausing key elements in our bilateral dialogue.

Third, bolstering Ukraine’s neighbors. We are moving immediately to reinforce our Washington Treaty commitments to our allies. As Secretary Hagel stressed yesterday, we are taking concrete steps to support NATO partners, through intensified joint training with our aviation detachment in Poland and enhanced participation in NATO’s air policing mission in the Baltics.

And fourth, Secretary Kerry is working intensively to de-escalate the crisis, in order to restore Ukraine’s sovereignty while creating a diplomatic off-ramp. We support direct dialogue between Kyiv and Moscow, facilitated by an international contact group. As the President and Secretary Kerry have emphasized, we do not seek confrontation with Russia. It is clearly in the interests of both Ukraine and Russia to have a healthy relationship, born of centuries of cultural, economic and social ties. The will for that exists among Ukraine’s new leaders. But it cannot happen if Russia continues down its current dangerous and irresponsible path. That will only bring greater isolation and mounting costs for Russia.

Our strategy, it seems to me, needs to be steady and determined, mindful of what’s at stake for Ukrainians as well as for international norms. We also need to be mindful of the enduring strengths of the United States and its partners, and the very real weaknesses sometimes obscured by Russian bluster. Most of all, President Putin underestimates the commitment of Ukrainians, across their country, to sovereignty and independence, and to writing their own future. No one should underestimate the power of patient and resolute counter-pressure, using all of the non-military means at our disposal, working with our allies, and leaving the door open to de-escalation and diplomacy if Russia is prepared to play by international rules.

Extremism in the Levant

Now let me turn very briefly to the Levant. The turbulence of the past three years has had many roots: rising aspirations for dignity, political participation and economic opportunity in a region in which too many people for too many years have been denied them; the ruthless reaction of some regimes; and the efforts of violent extremists to exploit the resulting chaos.

Nowhere have these trends converged more dangerously than in Syria. The conflict, and the Asad regime, have become a magnet for foreign fighters , many affiliated with terrorist groups from across the region and around the world. As Matt will describe, these fighters, mostly Sunni extremists, represent a long-term threat to U.S. national security interests. From the other side, Asad has recruited thousands of foreign fighters, mostly Shia, to defend the regime, with active Iranian support and facilitation. The hard reality is that the grinding Syrian civil war is now an incubator of extremism – on both sides of the sectarian divide.

We face a number of serious risks to our interests as a result: the risk to the homeland from global jihadist groups who seek to gain long-term safe havens; the risk to the stability of our regional partners, including Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq; the risk to Israel and other partners from the rise of Iranian-backed extremist groups, especially Lebanese Hizballah fighting in Syria; and the risk to the Syrian people, whose suffering constitutes the greatest humanitarian crisis of this new century.

These are enormous challenges. They require a steady, comprehensive American strategy, aimed at isolating extremists and bolstering moderates, both inside Syria and amongst our regional partners. I’d highlight four elements of our strategy:

First, we are working to isolate and degrade terrorist networks in Syria. That means stepping up efforts with other governments to stem the flow of foreign fighters into Syria, and cutting off financing and weapons to terrorist groups. It also means stepping up efforts to strengthen the moderate opposition, without which progress toward a negotiated transition of leadership through the Geneva process or any other diplomatic effort is impossible. Strengthened moderate forces are critical both to accelerate the demise of the Asad regime, and to help Syrians build a counterweight to the extremists who threaten both the present and the post-Asad future of Syria and the region. None of this is easy, but the stakes are very high.

Second, we are pushing hard against Iranian financing and material support to its proxy groups in Syria and elsewhere. We are also working intensively with partners in the Gulf and elsewhere to curb financing flows to extremists.

Third, we are increasing cooperation with Turkey, and intensifying our efforts to strengthen the capacity of Syria’s other endangered neighbors:

-- In Jordan, which I visited again last month, we are further enhancing the capacity of the Jordanian Armed Forces to police its borders and deepening intelligence cooperation on extremist threats. The staggering burden of supporting 600,000 Syrian refugees has put serious strain on Jordan’s resources. We deeply appreciate Congress’ continued support for significant U.S. assistance for Jordan, which has totalled about a billion dollars in each of the last couple years, complemented by substantial loan guarantees. I can think of no better investment in regional stability than our efforts in Jordan.

-- In Lebanon, we are supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces to deter spillover, better monitor the border with Syria, and help bolster the government’s policy of “dissociation” from the Syrian conflict. The formation of a new Cabinet last month provides a renewed opportunity for the United States to engage, and Secretary Kerry reaffirmed our strong commitment to Lebanon’s security and economic stability directly to President Sleiman and at the International Support Group for Lebanon ministerial meeting in Paris yesterday.

-- In Iraq, we are surging security assistance and information sharing to combat the rising threat from ISIL, while pressing Iraqi leaders to execute a comprehensive strategy – security, political and economic – to isolate extremists, especially in Anbar. That was one of the main purposes of my last visit to Baghdad at the end of January. I appreciate the close consultation we’ve had with you, Mr. Chairman, and with other members of the Committee on these crucial issues, and we look forward to continuing to address your concerns, which we share.

And finally, we are supporting global efforts to ease the humanitarian crisis in Syria, through the $1.7 billion we have already contributed. We are working hard to facilitate the delivery of cross-border aid, using the recently adopted UN Security Council resolution to expand humanitarian access. We are also providing substantial aid to refugee populations in neighboring countries.

Beyond the Levant, we continue to work with our Gulf partners to enhance security cooperation, blunt the extremist threat, and support sound economic development in transitioning countries. This will be an important focus of the President’s visit to Saudi Arabia later this month.

Mr. Chairman, the rise of extremism in the Levant poses an acute risk for the United States, and for our regional partners. It is essential that we intensify our efforts to isolate extremists in Syria, limit the flow of foreign fighters, bolster moderate opposition forces, ease the humanitarian crisis, and help key partners like Jordan defend against spillover. Thank you again for your focus on these vitally important challenges, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE DISABILITIES TREATY

FROM:  U.S.STATE DEPARTMENT 
Opening Remarks at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC
November 21, 2013

Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Corker and members of the committee, thanks very, very much for welcoming me here to talk about the Disabilities Treaty, which I’m very anxious to do.

I’m mindful of the comments of the Ranking Member just now. I’d just start off by saying we are 100 percent prepared, as we have been, to work through what are known as RUDs – the Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations – in order to pass this treaty. That’s our goal. And as – we begin with a place that makes it clear that we don’t believe this has impact, but we’re happy to restate and reassert the law in ways that makes senators feel comfortable, obviously. We want to pass this.

It’s not lost on any of us that only 11 months ago the Senate fell just five votes short of approving this treaty. So more than 60 senators have already resolved in their minds many of the questions that are re-raised again and again. And we can go into them today, as I’m sure we will.

Obviously, that day when we fell those five votes short with a number of people who had previously been going to vote for it and then changed, so it’s even closer, that was a rough day for a lot of us who support the treaty, including Senator McCain, who is hardly a newcomer to this issue and is one of the strongest and most eloquent voices for why we ought to be doing this, for why – to put it bluntly – this treaty is in America’s interests.

In the after-action conversations that I had with many senators, both Republicans and Democrats alike, including a number who had voted against the treaty – yourself, Senator Corker, and others – I even heard some real regret about what had transpired and the unintended message that the outcome sent to Americans with disabilities as well as to other people around the world. And I heard from many not just a willingness but a hope that they would have the chance in a new congress to take up the treaty again and to demonstrate the important truth that senators from both sides of the aisle care deeply about the rights of people with disabilities.

So thank you, Chairman Menendez, for your comments this morning, for your leadership in bringing the round – the first hearing and being willing to come back at this important treaty. And thank you, Ranking Member Corker, for joining with him in a bipartisan way to do exactly what both of you have talked about trying to do here. And that is with an eye to trying to make certain that we air all of the concerns so that every senator can make up their own judgment in an atmosphere that is not clouded with procedural questions, as we unfortunately were last year.

I think we all approach this renewed discussion – we in the Administration, I mean, listen very carefully to all of you. And we recognize that while many senators voted yes, some senators were dissatisfied with the process last year and that several are not prepared to support the treaty until they feel that certain concerns are addressed. So again I repeat: I’m absolutely committed – I’ve said this to the Chairman in private conversations – we will work with you on an appropriate reservation or understanding or declaration, as appropriate, in order to try to clarify something, if indeed it really is begging for clarification and we’re not able to show adequately through legal cases, through precedent, through the reality of the treaty itself, that it is already addressed.

Now, I still believe what I believed the first time we tried to do this when I was Chair, that the ratification of the Disabilities Treaty will advance core American values, it will expand opportunities for our citizens and our businesses, and it will strengthen American leadership. And I am still convinced that we give up nothing but we get everything in return. I’ll say that again: We give up nothing but we get everything in return. Our ratification does not require a single change to American law, and it isn’t going to add a penny to our budget. But it will provide the leverage, the hook, that we need in order to push other countries to pass laws or improve their laws or raise their standards for the protection of people with disabilities up to the standard that we have already adopted in the United States of America, up to the standard that prompted President George H.W. Bush and Republican Leader Dole to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act, and indeed to negotiate the treaty.

Now, I’m especially engaged now, obviously, as Secretary of State, because having traveled to a great number of countries these last nine months since you confirmed me, I have seen firsthand the need for this treaty in ways that I never had before. It’s not an abstract concept. This is not just a nice thing to do. It’s not something that’s sort of for the few. It really raises standards for the many. And there are countries where children with disabilities are warehoused from birth, denied even a birth certificate, not a real person, and treated as second-class citizens every single days of their life. The United States has the ability to impact that by the passage of this treaty. One hundred and thirty-eight countries have already signed up to this. In too many countries, what we did here at home with the Americans with Disabilities Act hasn’t even been remotely realized overseas. And in too many places, what we take for granted here hasn’t been granted at all.

Now, I’ll never forget my visit recently to a sport rehabilitation center for disabled veterans in Bogota a little while ago, a center that we support with funding from USAID. And I met police officers who were injured by grenades, soldiers wounded by IEDs, volunteers caught in the tragic shootouts that take place over their efforts to help us together to enforce global international narcotics objectives. These brave men and women have risked life and limb and they’ve lost friends in battle, and yet there’s a whole world that they are unable to access today because of their disabilities which they received as they undertook duties shared by our hopes and aspirations with respect to the enforcement of law.

Moments like this really clarify for me the work that we have to do to export our gold standard. The Americans with Disabilities Act is the global gold standard. We should be extraordinarily proud of it. We are. But I would hate to see us squander our credibility on this issue around the world because we’re unwilling to embrace what we actually began – this initiative. When I tell other countries that they ought to do what we’ve done, I’m often reminded that we haven’t done what we said we were going to do, we haven’t joined the treaty ourselves. It’s pretty hard to leverage people when you’re on the outside.

So those 138 parties to the treaty, when they convene, we miss out on the opportunity to use our expertise to leverage what we’ve done in America and put it on the table. We lose out on that. We’re not at the table. We can’t share our experience and use our experience to broaden theirs. When other countries come together to discuss issues like education, accessibility, and employment standards for people with disabilities, areas where the United States has developed the greatest expertise, we’ve been excluded because we’re not a party to the treaty. And the bottom line is that when we’re not there, other countries with a different and unfortunately often a lower standard, a lower threshold, wind up filling the void, and that’s the best that people get.

I don’t want to see us continue to take ourselves out of the game. No member of the Senate should want us to voluntarily take ourselves out of this. And remaining on the sidelines jeopardizes our role in shaping the future of disability rights in other countries, and we need to help push the door open for other countries to benefit, not just from our example but from our guidance and our expertise, our experience.

Joining the treaty is the most powerful step that we can take to gain all of those upsides. And don’t take my word for it. In a letter to this committee last month, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said it best. He wrote, “If the Senate does not approve this treaty, the United States will continue to be excluded from the most important global platform for the implementation of best practices in disability rights abroad.”

So this is about something very real. Look at the numbers of people who were here today and the numbers of groups represented behind me here today. Every one of them represents thousands more people for whom this is very real. It’s about things that you can see and you can touch and that make a difference to people’s lives. I’m talking about sidewalks without curb cuts – try managing that; public buildings with no accessible bathrooms; restaurants, stores, hotels, and universities without ramps or elevator access; buses without lifts, train platforms with tactile strips that keep you from going over onto the tracks. We can’t afford to ignore these barriers as problems that somehow affect other countries but don’t affect us. They’re present all over the world, including some of the top destinations for Americans traveling abroad for work or for study or for pleasure. And we’re not using all of our power and influence to change things for the better if we don’t join this treaty.

Now, I’d ask you just to think about what this treaty could mean. It means something for everybody with disabilities. But I do particularly want to ask you to think about what it means to our veterans with disabilities.

Last year I met a fellow named Dan Berschinski. He is a West Point graduate, a retired U.S. Army captain, and he’s an Afghanistan war veteran. Like many of us, Dan never thought that he’d one day have a disability or be an advocate for people with disabilities. But his life changed instantly when he stepped on the trigger of an IED and he lost both of his legs. Dan speaks in absolutely clear, searing, stark terms about the difficulty, the fear, the embarrassment of negotiating obstacles abroad as a person with a disability. And he experienced those obstacles firsthand when he traveled to South Africa. And he told me last year – he told all of us, because he shared his testimony with this committee – quote, “The advantages that we take for granted here at home that allow people like to me to live fulfilling, independent lives don’t exist in much of the rest of the world.”

Now let me tell you the good news. Dan is now a student at Stanford Business School and he wants to be able to take advantage of every possible opportunity. He can do that in the United States because of the ADA and other disability rights laws. But Dan will tell you – not me, he will tell you, as he said last year – as he experienced on a trip abroad, his opportunities in the increasingly important international marketplace are hindered by his disability, and it’s a disability that he acquired while fighting overseas on our behalf. He’s asking us now to fight for him and a lot of folks like him on their behalf.

There are an estimated 5.5 million disabled veterans just like Dan, and many of the veterans and their beneficiaries on the Post-9/11 GI Bill have a disability. And many of them are unable to study abroad because of poor accessibility standards at schools overseas. Now, I’ve met with recovering veterans at home in Massachusetts. I’ve met with them at Walter Reed. They want, very simply, a world where they can be independent, go out and fend for themselves, where they can travel abroad to work or study or vacation. And they should never have to worry about whether the disabilities sustained fighting on our behalf are going to prevent them from accessing the classroom, a workplace, a hotel, or transportation overseas. Like all people with disabilities, they deserve a world where they can fully participate in the global economy on equal terms without fear of discrimination or loss of dignity.

Joining the Disabilities Treaty will also expand opportunities for American students with disabilities, who need to be able to study abroad to prepare themselves to compete in the global economy. I want you to take the example of Anais Keenon. She is one of the outstanding interns at the State Department. She’s here today. Anais is a graduate student with dreams of a career in Foreign Affairs. She happens to also be deaf.

Two years ago, she traveled to Ghana. It was the opportunity of a lifetime, but the obstacles she faced, from the absence of written directions on how to proceed through customs at the airport, to the absence of fire alarms with flashing lights in public buildings made the demands of everyday life much more difficult for her to sustain. And she managed to travel, despite the obstacles in her way that would stop others from traveling at all.

Anais is exceptional, but it shouldn’t be the exception. It ought to be the rule. And America has more students with disabilities in higher education than ever before, partly by virtue of what we’ve accomplished with the ADA. So students with disabilities participate in study abroad programs, unfortunately, less than half as often as those without disabilities. And our joining this treaty will help change those numbers.

I just ask you – very quickly, and then I’ll wrap up – consider just a few concrete examples. We’re talking about joining a treaty that will strengthen our hand as we push for fire alarms with flashing lights so people who are deaf or hard of hearing will know when there’s emergency or when they need to evacuate. We’re talking about joining a treaty that gives us leverage to push for other countries to have sidewalks with those curb cuts so people who use wheelchairs can safely cross the street, or the tactile strip at the train platform so people who are blind don’t fall into danger. Our joining the treaty means that we will lead the way for other countries to raise their standards, and it means that we will lead the way for other countries to adopt our standards for all of these things – accessible bathrooms, tactile strips, fire alarms, flashing lights, all of the advancements that have made an enormous difference in the lives of Americans with disabilities.

Now, I will admit to you change is not going to just happen with the passage of the treaty. It’s not going to happen overnight. When we passed the ADA, sidewalks with these curb cuts and bathrooms that were accessible didn’t appear the next day, nor did all of the businesses that make accessible products that serve people with disabilities. But the Disabilities Treaty, just like the ADA, is a process. And our joining the treaty, followed by a very important ingredient – we pass this treaty, I will send a message to every embassy in the world, and we will begin to engage a protocol that will have our people reaching out to every country and every government, and we will use our presence in this treaty to leverage these changes in these other countries, to encourage these changes, to use the voice that you will give us by actually joining it, a voice that we’re not able to exercise today for our absence as a member.

If we join, we can ensure that vets like Dan Berschinski and a lot of others like him have the same opportunities abroad as other Americans. That’s why the American Legion, our nation’s largest wartime veteran service organization, which I’m proud to be a lifetime member, and the VFW likewise, and many other veterans groups support the ratification of this.

If we join – I ask you to think about this – why is the American Chamber of Commerce supporting this? Why are so many businesses – Coca-Cola, which is, I think, in something like 198, 200 countries plus – why do they support it? Because this will open new markets. It’ll level the playing field for our businesses, who already meet accessibility standards. As other countries rise to meet our standards and need our expertise, guess what? They’re going to look to American companies that already produce these goods, and we’ll be able to help them fill the needs, and this means jobs here at home. And that’s why IBM and the Consumer Electronics Association and many other businesses support ratification.

So I think this is the single most important step that we can take today to expand opportunities abroad for the more than 50 million Americans with disabilities. This treaty is not about changing America. This treaty is about America changing the world.

And I hope that each of you will put yourselves in the situation if you were disabled today. One of our colleagues, Mark Kirk, as we all know, supports this treaty, has unfortunately found himself fighting back against things that happen unexpectedly. And so while our circumstances might change, our rights and our opportunities should never change. And with the passage of this treaty, we have an opportunity to guarantee that for all Americans. And we also have an opportunity to change lives for the better for a lot of people in the world. That’s what America is all about, and I’ll hope we’ll ratify this treaty.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SECRETARY KERRY AND SECRETARY HAGEL ASK HOUSE PANEL TO SUPPORT STRIKES ON SYRIA

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DOD 
Kerry, Hagel Urge House Panel to Support Syria Strikes
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2013 - Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel today urged the House Foreign Affairs Committee to support President Barack Obama's plan to respond to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons against its own people.

Joined by Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the two Cabinet officials explained the president's position, as they did yesterday at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Hagel acknowledged the gravity of the issue, describing the U.S. commitment to the use of force as "the most difficult and important decision America's leaders can make."

"The Department of Defense – our leaders -- have spent days and days going over every option, every contingency," he said.

The primary responsibility, he emphasized, is to ask the "tough questions" before making any military commitment. "The American people must be assured that their leaders are acting according to U.S. national interests with well-defined military objectives and with an understanding of the risks and consequences involved."

To better make an informed decision, Kerry said, the president and his national security team gathered facts following the Aug. 21 sarin gas attack by President Bashar Assad's regime.

"Our evidence proves that they used sarin gas, and it proves that they used some of the world's most heinous weapons to kill more than 1,400 innocent people, including at least 426 children," he said. "The risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting."

Hagel said he shares Obama's sentiment that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only "an assault on humanity" but a serious threat to America's national security interests and allies.

The Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons poses grave risks to U.S. friends and partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq, the defense secretary said.

"If Assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorists groups like Hezbollah, which has forces fighting in Syria supporting the Assad regime, could acquire them and use them," he said, adding that the risk of chemical proliferation also creates a direct threat to U.S. personnel in the region.

"We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use these chemical weapons," Hagel said.

An emboldened Syrian regime, Hagel explained, portends possible erosion of the nearly century-old international norm against the use of chemical weapons, which has helped to protect U.S. forces and the homeland.

Weakening that norm could hearten other regimes to obtain or use chemical weapons, he said, citing North Korea's massive stockpile that threatens the South Korea, a treaty ally, and the 28,000 U.S. troops stationed there.

"Our allies throughout the world must be assured that the United States will fulfill its security commitments," Hagel said. "Given these threats to our national security, the United States must demonstrate through our actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable."

Key partners and allies such as France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have pledge support for U.S. action in the region, he said.

Military objectives are not to put U.S. military "boots on the ground," Hagel said, but involve actions tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons.

"We have made clear that we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in Syria through direct military force," Hagel said. "A political solution created by the Syrian people is the only way to ultimately end the violence in Syria."

Chemical weapons, Hagel warned, "make no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians and inflict the worst kind of indiscriminate suffering."

U.S. forces will be ready to act when the president gives the orders, Hagel told the House panel.

"The word of the United States must mean something," Hagel said. "It is vital currency in foreign relations and international and allied commitments."

Kerry urged the representative to support the president's plan.

"This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter. This is not the time to give permission to a dictator who has already used these weapons the unfettered ability to continue to use them because we stepped back," he said.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE ON SYRIA

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Hagel Urges Congress to Support Military Action Against Syria
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3, 2013 - Emphasizing the need to protect U.S. national security interests, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today he supports President Barack Obama's decision to seek congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria.

Hagel joined Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in making the administration's case for the use of force in response to a large-scale sarin gas assault which the administration says was carried out by the Syrian government against its own people.

Explaining the rationale behind what he acknowledged was a difficult decision for the national security team, Hagel urged Congress to consider not only "the risks and consequences of action," but also the consequences of inaction.

Hagel reiterated the president's assertion that Syria's use of chemical weapons represents "a serious threat to America's national security interests and those of our closest allies." It poses a grave risk to partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq, he said.

Even more concerning, he said, is the possibility that terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, which has forces in Syria supporting President Bashar Assad's regime, could acquire and use them.

"This risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends and partners and to U.S. personnel in the region," Hagel said. "We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons."

Syria's actions risk eroding the nearly century-old international norm against the use of chemical weapons that has helped to protect the U.S. homeland and U.S. forces operating across the globe, the secretary said. Weakening that norm, he said, could embolden other regimes, such as North Korea, to acquire or use chemical weapons.

"Given these threats to our national security, the United States must demonstrate through our actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable," Hagel said.

The military objectives in Syria would be "to hold the Assad regime accountable, degrade its ability to carry out these kinds of attacks and deter the regime from further use of chemical weapons," he said.

The Defense Department has developed military options to achieve these objectives and positioned U.S. assets throughout the region to successfully execute this mission, he reported. "We believe we can achieve them with a military action that would be limited in duration and scope," he told the Senate panel.

Hagel said he and Dempsey have assured Obama that U.S. forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order.

Meanwhile, officials are working with U.S. allies and partners, he said. "Key partners, including France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and [other] friends in the region have assured us of their strong support for U.S. action," he reported.

Hagel underscored that the military force would not be used to resolve the underlying conflict in Syria – an issue he said must be settled through a political solution by the Syrian people themselves. He noted that Kerry is leading international efforts to help the parties move toward a negotiated transition, and expressed a commitment to "doing more to assist the Syrian opposition."

Military actions being contemplated would be tailored specifically to the use of chemical weapons, he assured the panel. "Assad must be held accountable for using these weapons in defiance of the international community," he said.

In presenting the case for military action, Hagel urged the committee to recognize the consequences of not doing so.

"There are always risks in taking action, but there are also risks with inaction," he warned. "The Assad regime, under increasing pressure by the Syrian opposition, could feel empowered to carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attacks" that he recognized make no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians."

Refusing to act also would undermine the credibility of other U.S. security commitments, Hagel said, including Obama's commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
"The word of the United States must mean something," the secretary said. "It is vital currency in foreign relations and international and allied commitments."

Noting that he, Kerry and Dempsey all have served in uniform, Hagel said they have witnessed the "ugly realities" of conflict up close. "But we also understand that America must protect its people and its national interests," he said. "That is our highest responsibility."

Hagel called the decision to use military force "the most difficult decision America's leaders can make," and urged vigorous congressional debate on the issue.

"All of those who are privileged to serve our nation have a responsibility to ask tough questions before that commitment is made," he said. "The American people must be assured that their leaders are acting according to U.S. national interests, with well-defined military objectives, and with an understanding of the risks and consequences involved."

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON'S BENGHAZI STATEMENT TO SENATE

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Benghazi: The Attacks and the Lessons Learned
Testimony
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC
January 23, 2013

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, both older and new. I’m very grateful for this opportunity and I thank you very much for your patience to give me the chance to come and address these issues with you.

As both the Chairman and the Ranking Member have said, the terrorist attacks in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 that claimed the lives of four brave Americans – Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty – are part of a broader strategic challenge to the United States and our partners in North Africa. Today, I want briefly to offer some context for this challenge, share what we’ve learned, how we are protecting our people, and where we can work together to not only honor our fallen colleagues, but continue to champion America’s interests and values.

Any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with this sobering fact: Since 1988, there have been 19 Accountability Review Boards investigating attacks on American diplomats and their facilities. Benghazi joins a long list of tragedies for our Department, for other agencies, and for America: hostages taken in Tehran in 1979, our Embassy and Marine barracks bombed in Beirut in 1983, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in East Africa in 1998, consulate staff murdered in Jeddah in 2004, the Khost attack in 2009, and too many others. Since 1977, 65 American diplomatic personnel have been killed by terrorists.

Now of course, the list of attacks foiled, crises averted, and lives saved is even longer. We should never forget that our security professionals get it right more than 99 percent of the time, against difficult odds all over the world. That’s why, like my predecessors, I literally trust them with my life.

Let’s also remember that administrations of both parties, in partnership with Congress, have made concerted and good faith efforts to learn from these attacks and deaths to implement recommendations from the review boards, to seek the necessary resources, and to do better in protecting our people from what has become constantly evolving threats. That is the least that the men and women who serve our country deserve. It’s what, again, we are doing now with your help. As Secretary, I have no higher priority and no greater responsibility.

As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.

Now, taking responsibility meant moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond to the immediate crisis, but also to further protect our people and posts in high-threat areas across the region and the world. It meant launching an independent investigation to determine exactly what happened in Benghazi and to recommend steps for improvement. And it meant intensifying our efforts to combat terrorism and figure out effective ways to support the emerging democracies in North Africa and beyond.

Let me share some of the lessons we’ve learned, the steps we’ve taken, and the work we continue to do.

First, let’s start on the night of September 11th itself and those difficult early days. I directed our response from the State Department, stayed in close contact with officials from across our government and the Libyan Government. So I saw firsthand what Ambassador Pickering and former Chairman Mike Mullen called timely and exceptional coordination; no delays in decision making, no denials of support from Washington or from our military. And I want to echo the Review Board’s praise for the valor and courage of our people on the ground, especially the security professionals in Benghazi and Tripoli. The board said the response saved American lives in real time, and it did.

The very next morning, I told the American people that heavily armed militants assaulted our compound, and I vowed to bring them to justice. And I stood with President Obama in the Rose Garden as he spoke of an act of terror.

It’s also important to recall that in that same period, we were seeing violent attacks on our embassies in Cairo, Sana’a, Tunis, Khartoum, as well as large protests outside many other posts where thousands of our diplomats serve. So I immediately ordered a review of our security posture around the world, with particular scrutiny for high-threat posts. I asked the Department of Defense to join Interagency Security Assessment Teams and to dispatch hundreds of additional Marine Security Guards. I named the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for High Threat Posts so missions in dangerous places get the attention they need. And we reached out to Congress to help address physical vulnerabilities, including risk from fire, and to hire additional Diplomatic Security personnel.

Second, even as we took these steps, I hurried to appoint the Accountability Review Board led by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen so we could more fully understand from objective, independent examination what went wrong and how to fix it.

I have accepted every one of their recommendations. I asked the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources to lead a task force to ensure that all 29 of them are implemented quickly and completely, as well as pursuing additional steps above and beyond the recommendations.

I also pledged in my letter to you last month that implementation would begin, and it has. Our task force started by translating the recommendations into 64 specific action items. They were assigned to bureaus and offices with clear timelines for completion. Eighty-five percent are now on track to be completed by the end of March; a number are already completed. And we will use this opportunity to take a top-to-bottom look and rethink how we make decisions on where, when and whether people operate in high-threat areas, and then how we respond to threats and crises.

We are initiating an annual High Threat Post Review chaired by the Secretary of State, and ongoing reviews by the Deputy Secretaries, to ensure that pivotal questions about security do reach the highest levels. We will regularize protocols for sharing information with Congress. These are designed to increase the safety of our diplomats and development experts and reduce the chances of another Benghazi happening again.

We’ve also been moving forward on a third front: addressing the broader strategic challenge in North Africa and the wider region, because, after all, Benghazi did not happen in a vacuum. The Arab revolutions have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region. Instability in Mali has created an expanding safe haven for terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot further attacks of the kind we saw just last week in Algeria.

And let me offer our deepest condolences to the families of the Americans and all the people from many nations who were killed and injured in that recent hostage crisis. We are in close touch with the Government of Algeria. We stand ready to provide assistance. We are seeking to gain a fuller understanding of what took place so we can work together with Algerians and others to prevent such terrorist attacks in the future.

Concerns about terrorism and instability in North Africa are of course not new. They have been a top priority for the entire Administration’s national security team. But we have been facing a rapidly changing threat environment, and we have had to keep working at ways to increase pressure on al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and the other terrorist groups in the region.

In the first hours and days, I conferred with leaders – the President of Libya, Foreign Ministers of Tunisia and Morocco – and then I had a series of meetings at the United Nations General Assembly where there was a special meeting focused on Mali and the Sahel. In October, I flew to Algeria to discuss the fight against AQIM. In November, I sent Deputy Secretary Bill Burns to follow up in Algiers. And then in December, in my stead, he co-chaired an organization we started to respond to some of these threats: the Global Counterterrorism Forum, which was meeting in Abu Dhabi, as well as a meeting in Tunis of leaders working to build new democracies and reform security services.

We have focused on targeting al-Qaida’s syndicate of terror – closing safe havens, cutting off finances, countering extremist ideology, slowing the flow of new recruits. And we continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice. We are using our diplomatic and economic tools to support these emerging democracies and to strengthen security forces and help provide a path away from extremism.

But let me underscore the importance of the United States continuing to lead in the Middle East, in North Africa, and around the world. We’ve come a long way in the past four years, and we cannot afford to retreat now. When America is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. Extremism takes root; our interests suffer; our security at home is threatened.

That’s why I sent Chris Stevens to Benghazi in the first place. Nobody knew the dangers better than Chris, first during the revolution, then during the transition. A weak Libyan Government, marauding militias, terrorist groups; a bomb exploded in the parking lot of his hotel, but he did not waver. Because he understood it was critical for America to be represented there at that time.

Our men and women who serve overseas understand that we accept a level of risk to protect the country we love. And they represent the best traditions of a bold and generous nation. They cannot work in bunkers and do their jobs. So it is our responsibility to make sure they have the resources they need, and to do everything we can to reduce the risks.

For me, this is not just a matter of policy. It’s personal. I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers, the sons and daughters, and the wives left alone to raise their children.

It has been one of the great honors of my life to lead the men and women of the State Department and USAID. Nearly 70,000 serving here in Washington; more than 270 posts around the world. They get up and go to work every day, often in difficult and dangerous circumstances, because they believe, as we believe, the United States is the most extraordinary force for peace and progress the world has ever known.

And when we suffer tragedies overseas, as we have, the number of Americans applying to the Foreign Service actually increases. That tells us everything we need to know about what kind of patriots I’m talking about. They do ask what they can do for their country, and America is stronger for it.

So today, after four years in this job, traveling nearly a million miles, visiting 112 countries, my faith in our country and our future is stronger than ever. Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words "United States of America" touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor it is to represent the world’s indispensible nation. And I am confident that, with your help, we will keep the United States safe, strong, and exceptional.

So I want to thank this committee for your partnership and your support of diplomats and development experts. You know the importance of the work they do day in and day out. You know that America’s values and vital national security interests are at stake. And I appreciate what Ranking Member Corker just said: It is absolutely critical that this committee and the State Department, with your new Secretary and former Chairman, work together to really understand and address the resources, support, and changes that are needed to face what are increasingly complex threats.

I know you share my sense of responsibility and urgency, and while we all may not agree on everything, let’s stay focused on what really matters: protecting our people and the country we love. And thank you for the support you personally have given to me over the last four years.

MORE EFFORT NEEDED TO COUNTER IEDs, JIEDDO DIRECTOR TELLS SENATE

Sgt. Michael Quandt, an Afghan Local Police trainer with Company D, 1st Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, attached to 2nd Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, relays instructions through an interpreter to an ALP officer during an improvised explosive device training lane at Joint Combat Outpost Masaw, Afghanistan, Sept. 15, 2011. The lane focused on teaching the ALP about identifying and securing IEDs.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

More Effort Needed to Counter IEDs, General Says
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2012 – The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization has made progress against IEDs, "but it isn’t enough," Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Barbero told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday.

In Afghanistan, much of the fertilizer used in explosives comes from Pakistan, and Barbero, who directs JIEDDO, said he understands the importance of working with Pakistani officials.

"The U.S., led by the State Department, continues to seek a relationship with Pakistan that is constructive and advances both U.S. and Pakistani interests," the general told the Senate panel yesterday.

The importance of countering the threat posed by IEDs and of attacking threat networks cannot be overstated, Barbero said.

"Counter-IED is an area ripe for cooperation between the United States and Pakistan and I am also encouraged by the recent positive tone in our discussions with the government of Pakistan and the assurances from our Pakistani counterparts," he said.

But Barbero emphasized that Pakistan must do more. More than 60 percent of U.S. combat casualties in Afghanistan, both killed and wounded in action, are caused by IEDs. This year IEDs killed or wounded almost 1,900 Americans. Pakistanis have also suffered from these devices.

"It is in their interest to increase counter-IED cooperation with us and take effective actions against these networks," Barbero said.

Afghanistan has banned ammonium nitrate-based fertilizers. Yet these remain the main explosive used in IEDs. "Today more than 85 percent of the IEDs employed against coalition forces are homemade explosives," Barbero said. "And of those, about 70 percent are made with ammonium nitrate derived from the fertilizer calcium ammonium nitrate, referred to as CAN, a common agriculture fertilizer produced in and transited through Pakistan."

While the fertilizer is produced elsewhere, Pakistan is almost exclusively the source of the chemical compound used in IEDs, he said. Another chemical compound, potassium chlorate, is used in Pakistan’s textile and matchstick industries, and is also being used to make IEDs in Afghanistan.

"In concert with our Pakistani partners, we must address the continued flow of ammonium nitrate-based fertilizers and other IED materials into Afghanistan," the general told senators.

Coalition and Afghan forces seized 30 tons of fertilizer in 2009, compared to 440 tons so far in 2012. "The high number of IED incidents and the growing seizure rates highlight the continued lack of effective measures to impede the supply of IED materials into Afghanistan from Pakistan," he said.

Barbero said he is working with the Pakistani fertilizer producer to counter the illicit use of the product as an explosive. The general said he is also working with U.S. and international fertilizer organizations to put controls in place on fertilizers.

"While international and U.S. professional fertilizer associations are receptive and actively addressing these issues, the producers within Pakistan have been less than cooperative," he said. "Despite making minor packaging, tracking and marketing changes, they have not implemented any effective product security or stewardship efforts."

The Pakistani producers can and must do more, Barbero said.

"While the government of Pakistan has taken military actions to address the IED threat and go after these networks, these efforts remain focused on Pakistan’s domestic threat and have had no measurable effect on the number of IED events in Afghanistan, on the flow of precursor materials smuggled across the border, or on the threat of networks operating in Pakistan who attack our troops in Afghanistan," the general said.

He emphasized that the U.S.-Pakistan dialogue has been improving, but more still must be done.

"We must move from discussing cooperation to actual cooperation," Barbero said, noting Pakistan has passed legislation, but has done little to implement the laws.

Military cooperation also remains stalled, Barbero told committee members.

"We must move beyond talking about cooperation to developing a comprehensive framework and then work together to address the shared problems," he said.