U.S. GIVES SUPPORT TO ANTI-LRA FORCES

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

U.S. Supports Pushback Against Lord's Resistance Army

By Karen Parrish

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2012 - The United States is part of a successful effort to help counter the Lord's Resistance Army in Central Africa, but a four-pillared approach to neutralizing the terrorist group must continue, senior defense, diplomatic and aid officials told senators here yesterday.

That approach, officials explained, includes increasing protection for civilians in LRA-affected areas, apprehending and removing Joseph Kony and other LRA leaders, disarming, demobilizing and reintegrating remaining LRA fighters, and sustaining humanitarian relief to affected areas.

Amanda J. Dory, deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for African affairs, joined Donald Yamamoto, principal deputy assistant Secretary of State for African affairs, and Earl Gast, U.S. Agency for International Development assistant administrator for Africa, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's African Affairs Subcommittee yesterday.

The LRA is composed mostly of kidnapped children forced to conduct Kony's terrorist tactics over the past 20 years, administration officials have said. Tens of thousands of people have been murdered and as many as 1.8 million have been displaced by the LRA, they said.

President Barack Obama announced April 23 that a U.S. military advise-and-assist mission to Central Africa, begun in October, will remain in place with periodic review.

"Our advisers will continue their efforts to bring this madman to justice and to save lives," the president said in announcing the mission's extension.

The 100-member U.S. team of trainers is working to help nations affected by the LRA to "help realize a future where no African child is stolen from their family and no girl is raped and no boy is turned into a child soldier," Obama said.

Dory described U.S. contributions to the effort, which include training local forces and assisting in intelligence and logistics coordination.

"The militaries of Uganda, the Central African Republic, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in collaboration with the African Union, continue to pursue the LRA and seek to protect local populations," she said. "They are leading this effort."

U.S. advisors in Uganda synchronize and oversee the department's counter-LRA efforts and coordinate with Ugandan forces, she said, while other U.S. service members work in field locations with forces from Uganda, the Central African Republic and South Sudan.

"U.S. advisors have helped to set up operations fusion centers to enable daily coordination, information sharing and tactical coordination," she said. "[They] are also integrating local civilian leaders into the work of the partner forces to improve the effectiveness of the civil-military relations."

Yamamoto said the State Department's role in the counter-LRA mission largely involves multinational coordination.

"We are coordinating closely with the United Nations peacekeeping missions in the region, especially to promote civilian protection," he said. "We have encouraged the U.N. to scale up its efforts when possible. We are also working very closely with the African Union to increase its efforts to address the LRA."

Gast said USAID has worked in Africa since the late 1980s to help communities build security, to reintegrate children formerly abducted by the LRA, and to strengthen economic development in affected areas.

"As the conflict first began to exact severe economic losses, cause mass displacement and weaken governance in Northern Uganda, USAID focused on providing lifesaving assistance to those affected by the conflict," Gast said. "When the LRA was finally driven out of Northern Uganda, our programs shifted from relief to recovery and then to longer-term development, which is taking place now."

Dory noted the LRA operates in a remote and rugged zone that includes parts of several countries. U.S. forces have effectively only been in the area since December and January, she said, but they have seen results from their efforts.

"We believe the U.S. military advisors have established a good foundation and made initial progress, especially considering the complexity of the operating environment, the number of partners involved and the remoteness of the operational areas," Dory said. "We will continue to monitor the situation closely with our interagency partners to ensure our support is having the intended impact."
 

AMBASSADOR DONALD YAMAMOTO STATEMENT ON THE LORD'S RESISTANCE ARMY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Testimony for Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs
“Countering the Lord’s Resistance Army”
Ambassador Donald Yamamoto,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to update the committee about
our ongoing efforts to help end the threat posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army
(LRA).  Over the last several years, the governments of the region have made
progress dispersing the LRA and reducing its numbers.  However, despite this
progress, the LRA continues to abduct, terrorize, and uproot communities across
three countries – the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (DRC), and South Sudan.  The LRA is a weakened force, but its
humanitarian impact remains disproportionate.  The UN Office of Coordination for
Humanitarian Affairs estimated that more than 465,000 people were displaced or
living as refugees during 2011 as a result of the LRA threat.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the LRA’s actions are an affront to human
dignity and a threat to regional stability.  Joseph Kony and the LRA’s top leaders
should be brought to justice.

We appreciate Congress’ strong interest and longstanding concern about the
LRA, especially the attention given by this Committee over the years.  We view
Congress as a critical partner in our ongoing efforts.  The United States has worked
for many years to help address the suffering caused by the LRA.  Consistent with
the legislation passed in 2010, we continue to pursue a multi-faceted strategy to
help the governments and people of this region in their efforts to end the threat
posed by the LRA and address the human consequences of the LRA’s atrocities.  
Let me stress that the governments of Uganda, CAR, DRC, and South Sudan
are in the lead.  Their troops are making the most important sacrifices, and their
people are confronting the LRA’s terror.  These governments are the ones that are
ultimately responsible for ending this threat and protecting local communities.  The
United States is trying to help them fulfill that responsibility.  We have a strong
interest in enhancing the capacity and cooperation of our partners in Africa to
address threats to peace and security, such as the LRA, and to better protect their
citizens.

Continued leadership and cooperation by these governments is essential to
keep the pressure on the LRA.  As we have seen in the past, the LRA can exploit
any reduction in military or diplomatic pressure to regroup and rebuild its forces.
Over recent years, the State Department has provided support to enable counterLRA operations by our regional partners.  Since 2008, we have obligated
approximately $50 million in logistical support to help the Ugandan military
sustain its operations and increase its mobility.  We continue to provide this
support.

In the DRC, the State Department funded training and equipment for a light
infantry battalion of the Congolese army that is now operating in LRA-affected
areas of the DRC.  This battalion is engaged in targeted military operations against
the LRA in coordination with the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the
DRC (MONUSCO).  The State Department continues to fund two mentors who are
working with this battalion.  We are also engaging with the militaries of CAR and
South Sudan as they increase their efforts to counter the LRA and protect their
populations.

Mr. Chairman, we continue to look at ways that we can improve our security
assistance and enhance the capacity of these militaries to succeed in their mission.
Last October, President Obama authorized the deployment of a small number of
U.S. military forces to serve as advisors to the national military forces pursuing the
LRA and seeking to protect local populations.  The President announced yesterday
that the United States will continue the deployment.  My colleague from the
Department of Defense will go into more detail on the work of these advisors.  We
believe they are helping the partner forces to enhance their cooperation,
intelligence-sharing and fusion, and operational planning.
The U.S. military advisors are coordinating closely with the UN
peacekeeping missions in the region, especially to promote civilian protection.

MONUSCO, in particular, has stepped up its efforts to address the LRA in the
DRC.  MONUSCO conducts targeted military operations unilaterally as well as
jointly with the Congolese military to help protect civilians.  We have encouraged
the UN to scale up its efforts, when possible, to help address the LRA threat in
CAR and South Sudan.  The new UN Regional Office for Central Africa is
overseeing the developing of a regional UN strategy for addressing the LRA,
which will be presented to the UN Security Council next month.  We have been
working with the UN to develop this strategy and look forward to helping the UN
implement it.

We are also working closely with the African Union as it increases its efforts
to address the LRA.  Last month, the AU officially launched its Regional 3
Cooperation Initiative for the Elimination of the LRA.  Although many operational
details are still being worked out, we believe the AU’s involvement can strengthen
coordination, information-sharing, and trust among the four militaries pursuing the
LRA.  We also believe the AU can help the governments in the region to develop a
common approach to encouraging LRA defections and ensuring effective
repatriation and reintegration of those who defect.  Our military advisors in the
field are coordinating with the AU staff as they stand up this initiative on the
ground, and our embassies are working closely with the AU’s Special Envoy on
the LRA issue, Francisco Madeira.

These new initiatives, united together, offer real promise.  However, as
Chairman Kerry wrote in The Huffington Post earlier this month, we have to level
with the American public that ending the LRA threat is not an easy mission.  The
LRA operates in very small groups across vast territory roughly the size of
California, much of it densely-forested.  Regional forces have had success in
tracking down LRA groups, but the LRA’s leaders are savvy.  They exploit
communal conflicts and attack remote communities, which lack basic road,
telecommunications and governance infrastructure.  Moreover, the governments in
this region have limited capabilities and numerous security challenges.
Mr. Chairman, effectively ending the LRA threat requires simultaneously
removing the top leadership from the battlefield and addressing the conditions that
leave communities so vulnerable to predatory groups such as the LRA.  This is
precisely why the United States is seeking to pursue a multi-faceted strategy to
enhance both military and civilian capacity in the region.   In partnership with
USAID, the State Department is supporting projects to increase civilian protection,
enhance early warning capabilities, deliver humanitarian relief, and strengthen the
overall resiliency of communities.  We also continue to encourage other
international donors to increase their efforts in these areas.  As we have seen in
northern Uganda and parts of South Sudan, development can play a critical role in
pushing out the LRA and keeping it from returning.

We also believe that targeted efforts, in coordination with increased military
pressure, to encourage LRA fighters to peacefully surrender can have a great effect
on reducing the LRA’s numbers.  Since 2000, more than 12,000 fighters and
abductees have left the group and been reintegrated and reunited with their families
through Uganda’s Amnesty Commission.  The successful rehabilitation and
reintegration of those who leave the LRA creates a positive feedback cycle that
encourages others to defect.

MONUSCO is undertaking critical efforts in the DRC to encourage LRA
defections, including by setting up assembly points where LRA fighters and
associated persons can safely surrender.  The Mission is publicizing the locations
of these assembly points through targeted radio broadcasts and leaflets.  We
strongly support these efforts and have encouraged the UN to initiate similar,
coordinated activities in CAR and South Sudan.  We are also looking at ways that
we can augment these activities through our programs and presence on the ground.
The State Department has deployed a civilian officer to the region who is working
with our military advisors and embassies to identify critical gaps and opportunities
for further U.S. support.  We plan to deploy a second officer soon.

Mr. Chairman, we believe there is an opportunity for further U.S. support to
the counter-LRA effort using the State Department’s War Crimes Rewards
Program.  This program allows the Secretary of State to publicize and pay rewards
for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of targeted war criminals.
This program has been very effective in bringing fugitives to justice, but the
present statutory authority is limited to fugitives indicted by the International
Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the Special Court
for Sierra Leone.

We welcome legislation that would expand the authority for the War Crimes
Reward Program so it could be used to target foreign nationals accused of war
crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide by any international criminal
tribunal, including hybrid or mixed courts.  This would shift the program from
being court-specific to crime-specific.  Fugitives would only be added to the
program after careful review and approval by an interagency committee, and
ultimately the Secretary of State.

Under this expanded authority, we could use the program to target Joseph
Kony and other top LRA commanders.  We could publicize rewards for
information about LRA leaders using leaflets, radio broadcasts, and other
communications mechanisms.  We believe, and our colleagues at the Defense
Department agree, that this would provide an important tool to generate
information about the whereabouts of top LRA leaders, especially to encourage
non-indicted LRA fighters to defect and provide such information.
In closing, let me reiterate that it is our partners in the region – governments and
civil society organizations – who are in the lead in countering the LRA threat and
its impacts.  But the United States can provide critical capabilities and support to help them succeed in their efforts.  We believe doing so puts us on the right side of
history, on the right side of our values, and on the right side of our strategic
interests.   We appreciate Congress’ strong commitment to countering the LRA,
and we look forward to working with you in the months ahead.

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

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

QUESTION: One clarification still on this, please.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks, everybody.

PRESIDENT OBAMA STRENGTHENS U.S. ABILITY TO DEAL WITH GENOCIDE AND MASS ATROCITIES

FROM AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Obama Announces Strategy to Counter Atrocities

By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 23, 2012 - President Barack Obama today announced a strategy to strengthen the U.S. government's ability to foresee, prevent, and respond to genocide and mass atrocities, and extended U.S. troops' efforts to do just that in Central Africa.

During a visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum here, Obama said preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility for the United States.

"That does not mean that we intervene militarily every time there's an injustice in the world," the president said. "We cannot and should not. It does mean we possess many tools, diplomatic and political and economic and financial and intelligence and law enforcement, and our moral suasion."

Obama's strategy calls for the Defense Department to develop doctrine and increase training and planning efforts emphasizing mass atrocity prevention and response.

Obama announced the creation of the Atrocities Prevention Board, which will include Defense Department representatives as well as those from the departments of State, Treasury, Justice, and Homeland Security; the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, the office of the director of National Intelligence, the CIA, and the office of the vice president, according to White House officials.

The board will help identify and address atrocity threats, and will oversee institutional changes to make the U.S. government "more nimble and effective" is response to such threats, administration officials said.

The strategy also increases diplomatic and intelligence efforts to identify and respond to atrocities, they said.

Obama said the United States over the past three years has helped to counter mass atrocities in Libya, South Sudan and Cote d'Ivoire.

The military mission to help counter the Lord's Resistance Army, a terrorist group in central Africa led by Joseph Kony, demonstrated how U.S. forces can support national and international efforts to quell atrocities, Obama said.

About a hundred U.S. military advisors, mostly from the Army's Special Forces, have been working since October with the militaries of Uganda, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan to capture or kill Kony and other LRA commanders under an Obama executive order.

When he announced that mission, the president directed the National Security Council to review its progress after 150 days.

Today, Obama said, "I can announce that our advisers will continue their efforts to bring this madman to justice and to save lives. It is part of our regional strategy ... to end the scourge that is the LRA and help realize a future where no African child is stolen from their family and no girl is raped and no boy is turned into a child soldier."

The LRA is composed mostly of kidnapped children forced to execute Kony's terrorist tactics over the past 20 years, administration officials have said. Tens of thousands of people have been murdered and as many as 1.8 million have been displaced by the LRA, they said.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby told reporters today the U.S. advisors in central Africa have had "a significant impact ... improving the capabilities of indigenous forces there to put pressure on the LRA."

The advisors' role, Kirby emphasized, is training and assistance, not combat. He added that the U.S. assistance is helping.

"We've seen indications that [Kony] and his followers are less active and less effective," he said.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING, APRIL 20, 2012

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 20, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

1:06 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Happy Friday, everybody. I am sorry to be late. We had a lot more material than I expected and a more jetlagged me than I expected. Welcome, first and foremost, to American University students in the International Communications Program. We recently got a chance to talk over at AU. Happy to have you.

We have a couple things at the top before we get started. A nice, thin crowd. Looks like a lot of people have taken Friday off. Excellent.

QUESTION: We’re working on our figures here.

MS. NULAND: You’re working on our figures?

QUESTION: Our figures. Yes.

MS. NULAND: Yes?

QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Never mind. (Laughter.) I notice that – so only one of you is working on your figure, or both of you? (Laughter.) I couldn’t help myself. (Laughter.) All right.
First, let me just advise that at the Syria Human Rights Forum in Geneva, Switzerland today, the U.S. Department of State and AID announced an additional $8 million in funding for those suffering from violence in Syria, bringing our total humanitarian assistance for Syria to nearly $33 million. And we will have a Fact Sheet later in the day or Monday on the totality of our humanitarian assistance to date.
Also I know that Mark briefed one of the days this week about our efforts in the walk-up to May 3rd UNESCO World Press Freedom Day that we are, every day between now and May 3rd, highlighting an individual human rights case on ourhumanrights.gov website.

Today’s case is the case of Dhondup Wangchen, who is a Tibetan filmmaker who was detained by Chinese authorities on March 8th on charges related to the production of his 25-minute documentary film titled, “Leaving Fear Behind.” He was reportedly beaten, deprived of food and sleep during his interrogation, and held incommunicado for a full year. You can see his full story on our website.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Can we start with that Syrian aid? What is this money going toward? And then maybe afterwards you can explain what of that 33 million has gotten into Syria, how you get it in there, what challenges you’re facing.

MS. NULAND: Right. Well, Brad, let me say, first off, that when we release this Fact Sheet, which will update the one that we have currently on our website, it’ll be a little bit clearer with more details, including all of the organizations that we fund.

But just to remind that all of the U.S. humanitarian assistance goes through UN humanitarian organizations or NGOs. It funds food, medicine, shelter for those refugees and IDPs who we can get to, particularly those who are currently in Turkey, in Jordan, et cetera. But we’ll give you the whole rundown when you see the sheet; and if it’s still not clear, we’ll arrange a briefing.

QUESTION: So is this 33 million – this is separate from any communications, medical, and non-lethal aid?
MS. NULAND: Correct. Correct. There are two pots of support. The first is the humanitarian assistance that the Secretary has been talking about. The interesting thing was when we first started to think about humanitarian assistance for Syria, the question was: Could we get to the people in need? And we have very much been able to get to the people in need, both those who have already escaped Syria, but the international humanitarian organizations, to the extent that they have been able to operate in Syria, have already run through a lot of their money, which is why we keep giving more, because they continue to appeal for more. There is also a severe food shortage in parts of Syria, as we’ve talked about before, so we’re also supporting their effort to get high-nutritional items into Syria through the Red Crescent, et cetera.

QUESTION: And is there a monetary value on the non-lethal side?

MS. NULAND: We’ve talked a little bit about it. I think at the moment, we’re not prepared to break it down monetarily for a whole bunch of reasons, or to say more about it besides what the Secretary and Secretary Panetta and others have already said, that it’s primarily communications support, it is logistical support. And the reason for that is the one that we’ve stated before: We don’t want to endanger those who it goes to; we don’t want to make it easier to disrupt for those who don’t want to see it go in.

QUESTION: Well, fine, regarding the details of how it gets in and who it goes to. But why won’t you provide just kind of a ballpark figure so that we know the scale of this assistance?

MS. NULAND: Well, it’s been growing over time, and frankly, we are working with Congress as well on the totality of the program. So why don’t I pledge to get back to you a little bit next week as we can scope it a little bit better for you. Okay?
QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: On the aid question, the humanitarian aid, I’m wondering if you have any sense of how much of the aid that you’re providing through these various UN and NGO organizations is actually getting into Syria itself. Is there a percentage that you are able to identify, like say 30 or 40 percent of it is actually reaching Syrians in Syria?

MS. NULAND: I think we do have those numbers handy, and I think they are going to be represented in this material that we’re going to put forward.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: And if not, we will seek to do it. But I think it’s somewhere in the ballpark of half, I think.
QUESTION: Really?

MS. NULAND: But we’ll get you more.
Yeah.

QUESTION: Toria, you’re saying that not all this aid goes through the United Nations, correct? You’re saying some goes through some sort of NGOs?

MS. NULAND: Most of it goes through UN organizations. You’ll see it when we give you the outline.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: It’s very – the factsheet very carefully outlines what’s through ICRC, what’s through the World Food Program, et cetera.

QUESTION: And is it all in cash or in money or is it in material?

MS. NULAND: It goes in a number of ways. Either we provide financial support to UN funds that purchase things that we agree on, or there is often excess supply that we give.

QUESTION: And finally on this issue regarding the aid, how do you vet – how do you – what kind of vetting process are the NGOs subject to? How do you know that they are not going to take this aid and sort of turn it around somehow, illicitly provide arms?

MS. NULAND: When you see the list, you will recognize every single name on there as a major international – internationally recognized organization. We’re not giving this to Uncle Joe who’s playing around.
Please.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton also, I believe, talk about the option of a humanitarian corridor. Is this one of the option how some of the aid will be delivered in Syria?

MS. NULAND: Secretary Clinton has not talked about that in particular. I think another foreign minister talked about that yesterday.

QUESTION: So that – it’s not -- so it’s not another option – this creating humanitarian corridor?

MS. NULAND: Our humanitarian support is either being, as I said, given to those who have already left Syria, or it is getting in through organizations that have been able to work in Syria.

QUESTION: After – week after the truce, today shelling is going on in Homs and it has been going on. And according to SANA regime – news agency – it’s about 18 regime soldiers also got killed in the south of Syria.
My question is: How do you assess today, a week later, how the ceasefire is holding up?

MS. NULAND: Well, the Secretary spoke to this quite clearly in Brussels on Wednesday, again in Paris yesterday. And the situation has not improved since she expressed our grave concerns about the ongoing violence, and made clear that we put the onus of the burden on the Assad regime to silence its guns, which clearly it has not done in Homs, in Idlib, and in other parts of Syria.

Please.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on the monitors, if I may.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.

QUESTION: The monitors now – today, there has been only, what, six monitors so far?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have today’s count. I think there were about six yesterday. The expectation was that over the next few days, the full advance team, which was about 25, would get in. And as you know, there is work ongoing in New York about getting in the full complement of 250-300.

QUESTION: So what is the holdup, because there is, if one listens to the Russian writers, for instance, they are putting the blame so to speak on the UN that is not dispatching the monitors quick enough.

MS. NULAND: Well, with regard to the 20-25 who have to get in, as you remember, this came up quite suddenly. They’re having to find and recruit monitors from other UN missions. They are working on that. I frankly can’t speak to the delta between those who’ve gotten in and the rest of the advanced team. I would send you to New York on that.
But with regard to the full team, as you know, there has to be another – here he is – another UN Security Council resolution. So they’re talking about that in New York.

QUESTION: And on that subject --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- I mean, there have been – Ambassador Rice yesterday noted that several Security Council members have reservations given the lack of full compliance by the Assad – with the various points of the Annan plan. But would the U.S. be ready to back such a resolution given that the Assad regime has not fully fulfilled its obligations there?

MS. NULAND: Well, we are working with our colleagues on the Security Council today on an appropriate resolution. You heard the Secretary yesterday in Paris make clear that we want to see monitors be able to get in, but they’ve got to be able to do so in the permissive conditions that Assad signed up to when he signed up to the Kofi plan. And we have extreme concerns about the situation on the ground now, and we also have to ensure that as and when the full group gets in, they’ve got to have freedom of movement, freedom of communication, freedom of access, freedom of reporting. It’s got to be a true independent, international monitoring effort under UN auspices and not regime controlled. So – and it also has to be able to monitor not simply the silencing of the guns, but all aspects of the six-point plan, the pull back, the situation with political prisoners, it’s got to be able to interview anybody it wants.

So as we work in New York to make clear what it will take to get this mission in, we are also making clear that the burden is on the Assad regime to live up to its promises and allow it in. But what we’ve also seen is in those parts of the country where the monitors, the few monitors who’ve already gotten in – have been able to get in – they’ve been met with joyous crowds. They’ve provided space for more peaceful demonstration. So that’s the goal that we’re looking for here.

QUESTION: Okay. But just to sort of shrink it down, it sounds as though what you’re saying – correct me if I’m wrong – is that the U.S. wouldn’t be able to support this resolution if the situation in Syria remains as it is right now.

MS. NULAND: Brad, there were – Andy, they’re working now on a resolution which is going to spell out exactly how this needs to happen and the terms, even as the international community puts more pressure on Assad to make the conditions appropriate for the monitors under the scheme that he agreed to when he agreed to the Annan plan.
Okay? Please. Still on Syria? Yeah.

QUESTION: How was the experience of our six monitors have had in Syria? What’s your assessment? Did they have full freedom and all the other conditions you have been describing?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m going to refer you to the report that was given by Kofi Annan’s deputy in New York yesterday. I think it’s a mixed picture. He made clear in that report that where they have been able to get out and about, they’ve been met with enormous crowds, they’ve been met with enormous support from people looking to express themselves peacefully to their government. But there are only a few of them there, and the terms are still being negotiated with the government.

QUESTION: So next Friends of Syria meeting will be in Washington, and is – the date is clear, yeah?
MS. NULAND: No, the meeting in Washington is the next meeting of the sanctions group, the sub-group on sanctions. My understanding is the next Friends of the Syrian People meeting has not yet been set either in time or space.
Please. Still on Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah. On Syria.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Moroccan colonel who’s leading the UN team there now has been quoted that he’s not going to take his team out on Fridays. He doesn’t want to be used politically. There’s a quote to that effect. And I’m just wondering, since it seems that one of the purposes of the observer mission is to allow people to protest, and that’s a big day they want to protest, what would the U.S. think of that?

And also, I wanted to ask you one other question on this idea of freedom of movement. Some people are saying that for the U.S. to be so focused on this absolute freedom of movement in Syria while it’s about to vote for a resolution on Western Sahara, which basically acknowledges that the Moroccan Government has been limiting and surveilling the peacekeepers in Western Sahara, is somehow inconsistent. And I wonder if you have an explanation of the different approaches.

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, I haven’t seen the comments of the Moroccan lead. As I said, all of the modalities for these peacekeepers are being reviewed based on the experience of the initial group, and they have to be worked out through a new Security Council resolution, and obviously, we have to see how it goes on the ground.

With regard to Morocco versus Syria, the situation is different, the history is different. In the case of Syria, what we have seen all over the country is an effort at peaceful protest that has been met with regime violence. And so we need to ensure that we are not just covering – able to cover some parts of the country or some affected populations; that if this is going to be a true monitoring mission, the mission is going to have the ability to make its own decisions about where it can – where it needs to monitor, where it – and how it needs to be able to move around the country.

QUESTION: Just one follow-up.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask this about this idea of a resolution. It’s said now – I’ve already – I’ve heard that Russia has actually now introduced a resolution for the 300 peacekeepers, sort of jumped the gun or beaten you to – and that France is saying it’s going to introduce one for 500. And I just wondered, can you confirm the Russian draft has been circulated? And between the two, which one would the U.S. prefer?

MS. NULAND: I understood from my colleagues in New York, at U.S. Mission to the United Nations, that they were all now working off a single draft, but I’m going to send you up to them for the work that’s ongoing up there.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. Did something just happen where they’ve been jumped to peacekeepers from monitors?

MS. NULAND: No, monitors.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MS. NULAND: Monitors, monitors, monitors, observers.

QUESTION: Can I – I apologize if you covered this already. I missed most of it, but I did hear your intriguing reference to Uncle Joe. Maybe Uncle Vanya would have been a better choice, no, given your background? No?

Is the U.S. – is the Administration thinking now, planning for the eventual possible failure of the Annan mission and what would happen next, or – and at the same time, is it encouraging other members of the Friends of Syria, like the ones who were represented at the meeting yesterday with the Secretary, to do that, i.e. plan for the possible failure of this mission?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think if you look at what the Secretary had to say, first in Brussels, where she called this a crucial turning point, and then again in Paris yesterday, where she talked first about our hopes and expectations for the monitors but then also about increased pressure, obviously, we’re planning for both scenarios. We’re planning for a scenario where the monitors will be able to get in and do their job and will be able to push and encourage increasing space for peaceful protests, for political transition, and for Assad to live up to his – all the rest of the obligations under the six-point plan.

But she made very clear yesterday in her Paris discussion with the colleagues at the ad hoc meeting that, even as we plan for the best, we also have to be prepared, if this is not successful, to increase the pressure. She talked quite explicitly about what that could look like, specifically a new UN Security Council resolution under Chapter 7, which would increase sanctions, increase travel restrictions, increase financial squeezing, an arms embargo, these kinds of things, and other measures that we would be looking to push forward.

QUESTION: Right. Well, given the fact that – I mean, or not the fact, but the 99 percent possibility which – that that will be vetoed, that that kind of a resolution won’t go through, what are those other things? Do they include kicking more Syrian diplomats out? Do they – what else do they include?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get ahead of the precise sanctions, but I will tell you that in the context of the meeting that this ad hoc group had yesterday and the many consultations on Syria that the Secretary had while she was at NATO headquarters, both bilaterally in the dinner among NATO allies as well as her bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, she has been ventilating a variety of ideas, some of which were reflected in her intervention about what we’re going to have to do if Assad does not live up to his commitments.

QUESTION: Has – do you know, has she raised, rhetorically perhaps, the question of how can we continue to do nothing but supply humanitarian aid while one side is – while one side to – one party to this conflict is using nothing but brutal violence? How – has she raised that? Has she said that the United States is reconsidering its year-long opposition to military assistance?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you saw in her statement yesterday, she again reiterated our commitment to providing nonlethal support to civilian groups who are trying to prepare for a transition, trying to express their interest and their rights in a transition. There are other countries in the Friends of Syria Group who have other ideas about how to support and help the opposition. As she said --

QUESTION: No, that’s (inaudible) talking about. Has she told them that the United States is reconsidering everything regarding its policy towards Syria? Has she used – has she talked about the obduracy of the Assad regime?

MS. NULAND: Well, you can see what she had to say about the obduracy of the Assad regime in her statement yesterday, which was put out for all of you to look at. With regard to military assistance, our policy with regard to our own posture has not changed.

QUESTION: No, no. But as she said that you’re – that it’s being reconsidered. Has she told people that the United States is reconsidering --

MS. NULAND: No.

QUESTION: -- everything?

MS. NULAND: No.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: How much pressure has she put – has she levied, as it were, against others in the
Administration, when you consider that the Pentagon has been actively looking at the White House’s request for possible ways of providing military assistance or intervention in Syria?

MS. NULAND: Ros, I’m definitely not going to talk about internal Administration deliberations. I think Secretary Panetta talked to where we are with regard to the responsibilities of his building quite clearly yesterday on the Hill.

QUESTION: Toria, did you say – when is the sanctions meeting is taking place in Washington?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have the date, but we’ll get it for you, Said.

QUESTION: Are these issues to be discussed there? What kind of – you talked about more – tightening the sanctions more --

MS. NULAND: Right.

QUESTION: -- the financial aspect and so on.

MS. NULAND: Right.

QUESTION: Do you have very specific ideas on what you will do in case it fails, as has been suggested?

MS. NULAND: We do. We’ve talked about this a little bit, Said, in the context of the Friends of the Syrian People meeting that we had in Istanbul, where this group was established. The group, as you know, met in Paris earlier this week. It’ll meet in Washington next.

We’re talking about a variety of things – first of all, tighter, more precise implementation of those sanctions that are already on the books; closing the loopholes; helping countries to really monitor and know what’s going on – similar to work we’ve done with regard to North Korea sanctions, Iran sanctions around the world; but also consulting among ourselves about other pressure points that we haven’t considered that might increase the pressure, as I said, on the Assad regime, on the people around him, whether they are military leaders, whether they are business folks, et cetera, to try to get their attention.
Please.

QUESTION: The Embassy is Damascus posted a photo on the Facebook page this morning.

MS. NULAND: The – our U.S. Embassy?

QUESTION: Yes. And I was wondering if you had any more information. There wasn’t a blurb, but I’m
guessing it’s one of the declassified aerial photos that they’ve put up before.
MS. NULAND: This was something on Ambassador Ford’s website?
QUESTION: Right, on Facebook.

MS. NULAND: I haven’t seen it. But as you know, we’ve been putting a regular stream of aerial photography up on his website to make the case that although the Assad regime continues to claim that all the violence is the result of terrorists and bandits, you can very clearly see from this imagery that these are regime forces using very heavy weapons on civilians.

Please.

QUESTION: After reading Secretary Clinton’s statements and meetings in Paris, some argued that U.S. doesn’t have Plan B after the Annan – his plan – if the Annan plan fails. And most of the people actually agreed with this assessment, and you hear this from other – across the capitals that the U.S. basically doesn’t have Plan B when people come and ask if these Annan plan fails, what’s going to happen.
MS. NULAND: I think --

QUESTION: Can you tell us confidently that U.S. has Plan B right now if this Annan plan fails soon?

MS. NULAND: I think that’s where we started with this Syria conversation. Plan A is for the Annan plan and the monitors to be successful. Plan B is increasing, unrelenting pressure from all quarters.
Please. Still Syria?

QUESTION: No. It’s not Syria. It’s a new topic.

MS. NULAND: Hold on a sec. Andy, did you have Syria? No? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Mali.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any further details on the six Americans who were killed in Bamako in the car crash today – three service members, three civilians?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have it at all. So let me take that. Let me take that.

QUESTION: Okay. There was a statement from AFRICOM that three service members and three civilians were killed in a car crash. And then a follow-up to that --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- after you take it. Since you’ve suspended military aid in Mali, the statement says that the service members were there helping the Embassy. If you could just give more information as to what they were doing.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. I mean, they may well have been Marine security guards for our mission. But let me – frankly, I haven’t seen the AFRICOM statement, and we’ll see if we have anything further to say. I would guess that AFRICOM’s probably closest to this situation, but we’ll see what we have.
Please, Andy.

QUESTION: Another topic. On these reported connections between China and this North Korean missile program, Secretary Panetta yesterday in testimony said that it appeared that there had been Chinese help in certain elements of the North Korean program. We mentioned this with Mark yesterday, but I’m wondering if you can tell us if you’ve raised this with the Chinese. I mean, have these – do these concerns amount to something that you would actually talk to Beijing about?

MS. NULAND: We have. We have raised these alleged assistance of the Chinese Government as part of our ongoing discussions on North Korea.

QUESTION: And have you – have they provided you with any clarification, or what’s been their response?
MS. NULAND: I think we are continuing to talk about the full range of issues with regard to North Korea, including these.

QUESTION: North Korea, too?

MS. NULAND: Yes, please.

QUESTION: North Korea has mentioned yesterday in Pyongyang, North Korea will have – conduct another missile launch soon. What is your comment if there were another missile launch?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know where we are on this; that it is a very bad idea, that it is a violation of international law, that it is a provocation, and that it’s the wrong way to go.
I want to call your attention to the interview that the Secretary had on – Wednesday or Thursday? What’s today? Friday. Wednesday with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, and he asked her what her message would be to the new Korean leader. And she gives a very full answer about her hopes that he will change course and that he will really begin caring for his people, opening the country, and reforming it in a way that would allow us to reintegrate North Korea into the family of nations, and that he has a choice to make.
Please.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) about UNESCO? You mentioned that today was UNESCO World Press Day and you spoke about it in a positive term. Does that mean that the United States now – everything is okay between the U.S. and UNESCO?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know --

QUESTION: Is there no longer about – no more bad feelings?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve never had bad feelings. We’ve had, as a matter of U.S. law, the requirement to suspend U.S. assistance to UNESCO. This is a situation we very much regret. It’s a situation we wanted to avoid, but we had no choice.
Please.

QUESTION: On Bahrain, some British leaders today said that Grand Prix over the weekend should be canceled. What’s your assessment? Do you think Bahrain is safe this weekend for such a big organization?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything in particular with regard to the travel situation in Bahrain. I would look – suggest that you look on our website where we post our various travel notifications. I will say that we are concerned by the increase in violence in Bahrain, especially leading up to the Formula One race which starts today and goes on through the 22nd. We condemn violence in all of its forms. These are unproductive, unhelpful acts in building the kind of meaningful trust and reconciliation that is needed in Bahrain, and we’re calling for, again, Bahraini Government respect for universal human rights and demonstrators’ restraint in ensuring that they are peaceful.

QUESTION: On the actual event, you don’t think there’s any problems with it going forward and all this international participation in a country that still has kind of serious unresolved questions related to violence, possible human rights violations, et cetera?

MS. NULAND: Well, with regard to the safety and security of the race itself and people’s participation, to my understanding, we have not expressed any new or additional concerns.

QUESTION: I’m asking --

MS. NULAND: With regard to individuals’ decisions whether or not to travel to Bahrain, that’s obviously an individual decision to make.

Please.

QUESTION: In light of the controversy over whether Bahrain is doing enough to comply with the terms of
the independent commission’s report, should it have gone ahead with the F1 race this weekend?

MS. NULAND: That’s obviously a decision for the Bahraini Government to make. You know that we have expressed our support for a large number of measures that the Bahraini Government has taken to implement the independent commission’s investigation, but we’ve also been quite clear about the work that remains to be done.

QUESTION: Well, isn’t it also a decision for the Formula One people?

MS. NULAND: Absolutely. Absolutely.

QUESTION: Right. So – but you’re – what you’re saying is that you didn’t get in touch with them to register an opinion one way or another?

MS. NULAND: We did not. We did not.

QUESTION: Then you’re not aware of any – if there are American drivers or crew participating in this race, you’re not aware of any warning or alert or advice that was given especially to them?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we did not issue anything specific with regard to the Formula One.
Please.

QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Campbell returned from his Asian trip – tour yesterday, and I’m
wondering if you have a readout of his meetings there or if he’s debriefed you at all.

MS. NULAND: I haven’t actually seen Assistant Secretary Campbell today, so let us get us – get you a debrief on his trip. Usually, he speaks to the press on each stop. Did he not do that this time?

QUESTION: Usually, he does. Yeah.

MS. NULAND: All right.

QUESTION: Off and on.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Well, we will see what we can get you.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can we go to other travelers?

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: David Hale?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did he have meetings today? Where is he?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. He remains in the region. He remains engaged with the parties. That’s funny; I don’t have dates here. I think today he met with Israeli negotiator Yitzhak Molho. Yeah. And he’s also going to have dinner with UN Special Coordinator Robert Serry this evening. And tomorrow, he will see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and he will see Prime Minister Fayyad.

Thereafter, he’s going to go on next week to Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Those consultations will be primarily to exchange views about the Palestinian Authority’s ongoing institution-building efforts and to encourage everybody to continue to --

QUESTION: And the fact that that they have no money?

MS. NULAND: -- support that. Right.

QUESTION: So, what, in Jordan as well? I mean, the Jordanians still have the money --

MS. NULAND: He’s going to be briefing in – as you know, the Jordanians, under the leadership of the king and Foreign Minister Judeh have been very much involved in the peace process.

QUESTION: Right. So can – is – are you guys trying to restart the Jordan talks or is it, at this point, any talks anywhere would be welcome?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, any talks anywhere would be welcome, as after the January rounds, the Jordanian role continued in terms of the discussions that they have, that the foreign minister has, that the king has with the parties. So they are continuing to use their good offices. They are continuing to make clear that if the parties want to come back to Amman, they would welcome that. But as the Quartet said – what, was it a week ago – we favor any contacts. And there have been – there has been a contact by letter, there may be other kinds of written communication, and these are the kinds of things that David Hale is trying to encourage, as are the Jordanians.

QUESTION: Do you know – have you weighed in on what you think about the Palestinian letter?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into what David Hale’s message is one way or the other. We are trying to use any kind of contact that these parties are able to have, including their work together on stabilization and institution building in the Palestinian Authority as a way to keep the process going, to encourage them to get back to direct dialogue.

QUESTION: No, I wasn’t asking what his message was. I’m just wondering if you have – I’m not asking even what – if you have, what you have said. I’m just asking, have you proffered an opinion as to what the Palestinians proposed in the letter?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m confident that one of the subjects of the discussion has been the letter – before, during, and after – but I’m not going to get --

QUESTION: So is that a yes?

MS. NULAND: That is a yes.

QUESTION: Do you have a – you have a – okay.
MS. NULAND: But I’m not going to get into the substance of it.
Yeah.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. I mean, we had proximity talks, direct talks, sub-proximity talks in Jordan and so on. Why doesn’t the State Department or the United States of America take the initiative and have – actually call for direct talks, bring in the parties, and go on from where they stopped? Why not?

MS. NULAND: Well, the parties were together in Jordan, and we were very much supportive of that effort. We were talking to both sides, we were being debriefed by both sides, and we continue to encourage that and we continue to be open to any role that the parties think will be helpful. But at the end of the day, they’ve got to sit with each other and they got to work this through.

QUESTION: So, I mean, why do you need the good offices of Jordanians, for instance? I mean, what is the United States doing to actually get this thing in motion?

MS. NULAND: Besides having our envoy in the region for three weeks? Besides having a Quartet meeting at the ministerial level three weeks ago? Obviously, we can continue to facilitate support, et cetera, but these parties have to make the hard decisions, as you know, Said.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. He’s in the region, and he’s going to be there for three weeks?

MS. NULAND: Yeah, he will. He’s there now. He’s then doing this tour next week, and then he’s going to go back and see the Israelis and Palestinians after he’s been in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Whether it’s three weeks or two and a half, it’s --

QUESTION: Not much of a spring break.

MS. NULAND: He’s taking a lot of shirts. Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m sorry? So he’s – after he does the Gulf, he’s going back to Israel and the Palestinian --
MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And then is he coming back, or then is he – or is it no?

MS. NULAND: It always is – he basically calls it as he sees it, wherever he can be most helpful.
Please.

QUESTION: Sure, a couple questions. One is about Heglig, where it’s – the South Sudanese army has said that it’s pulling out of this disputed town that it went into. Sudan is claiming that they threw them out, and I guess President Kiir has said that he’s pulling back voluntarily based on calls from a variety of parties, including the U.S. What’s the U.S. understanding? Are they leaving? And are they leaving voluntarily, or have they been ejected?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me start with pronunciation. My guys are saying Heglig. You think Heglig?

QUESTION: That’s how the Sudanese are saying it.

MS. NULAND: Interesting. And is there a difference between the way the South Sudanese and --

QUESTION: There’s actually a whole ‘nother town for the South – a whole ‘nother name that the South Sudanese give it, which begins with a P. But --

MS. NULAND: All right. Heglig. Guys, Heglig.

QUESTION: Sorry. Heglig. Either way.

MS. NULAND: All right. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. NULAND: It sounded – yeah.

QUESTION: That’s how the Sudanese --

MS. NULAND: Interesting.

QUESTION: -- ambassador says Heglig.

MS. NULAND: Well, we welcome the announcement from South Sudan that they will withdraw their forces from Heglig. We urge them to completely and fully withdraw all Sudanese forces from Heglig. In parallel, we’re also calling on the Government of Sudan, as we have regularly, to halt their own cross-border attacks, particularly the provocative aerial bombardments that – so that we can get back to a place where these two sides are working together and using mechanisms like the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism to work through their issues.

As you know, our special envoy, Princeton Lyman, has been there all week. I think he briefed some of you yesterday by telephone. He had a very productive series of meetings in Juba and in Khartoum. And yesterday he made clear that it’s not just the United States; it’s the entire international community that’s working together to get this violence ended.

QUESTION: Is he going to stay in the region, do you know? I mean, he mentioned a couple of – an AU and an Arab League meetings which are going to be about this issue early next week. Do you think, is he going to stick around for those?

MS. NULAND: It wasn’t clear to me if he’s coming home and going back, or whether somebody else is representing us at those other meetings. We’ll get some more for you next week.

QUESTION: Yeah, so (inaudible) that the situation may not be now on the verge of war, as the ambassador had suggested or implied in his conversation yesterday with reporters?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think as he made clear yesterday, he’s been trying to walk both sides back from the brink, as has the African Union. And the concern was that this Heglig situation was very much a flash point that could sort of explode into a much larger conflagration. So there again, it is good news that we have an announcement from the South that they’re going to pull back. They now have to implement that, and the North has got to – and Sudan has got to stop what it’s doing as well.

QUESTION: What about the situations in Abyei and South Kordofan and in Blue Nile? Have there been any steps of progress made in those areas? Because those have been some of his concerns earlier in the year.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the problem is that whenever there is violence anywhere, it makes it more difficult for these parties to do what they need to do to finalize arrangements anywhere else. So Abyei, Blue Nile, et cetera, always suffer when there’s violence and they can’t get back to basic work to implement the CPA, et cetera. So we had had some progress in Abyei, but I think everything’s sort of on hold while this situation gets settled, is my understanding.

All right, everybody. One last one in the back? Yeah.

QUESTION: I hope I didn’t introduce the wrong pronunciation of this Heglig. I’ll check it out, but --

MS. NULAND: Well, now I’m in it with you guys. We’re going to find out.

QUESTION: Yeah. No, this is something totally different.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Today the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is in. He came to D.C. , and among the things that he said is that he wants people to tweet @BarackObama to have him go the Rio + 20 summit in June. So I wanted to know, one, what your thinking is both about the President going and about the summit. There was a finance ministers meeting at the IMF – or the World Bank on this topic, except Geithner didn’t – Secretary Geithner didn’t go. Somebody else went. But what is – what’s the U.S. position on Rio + 20, and will the President go?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know that we’re strongly supportive of the Rio + 20 efforts, With regard to whether the President’s going to go, I’m going to send you to the White House on that one. And I had not seen Ban Ki-moon’s tweets, but I think it’s interesting.

QUESTION: He tweets at people.

MS. NULAND: He tweets at people. Tweets at people. I barely know how to do that. Thank you. All right. Happy weekend, everyone.