SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S STATEMENT ON NEW MILITARY OFFENSIVES IN SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

U.S. Condemns New Military Offensives in South Sudan

Press Statement

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

May 5, 2014

---

Three years ago, I was in Juba to witness the birth of the world’s newest nation, and last week as I returned to South Sudan I saw how fragile the future can be when old grudges degenerate into violence. The United States condemns in the strongest terms recent offensives by South Sudanese government forces against opposition-held positions in Nassir, Bentiu, and elsewhere in Unity and Jonglei states.

These attacks blatantly violate the January 23 Cessation of Hostilities agreement and contradict commitments President Kiir has made in recent days. We call on all parties to re-dedicate themselves to the agreement, not just in words, but in actions, and to halt all military offensives. The government and opposition forces also must cooperate fully with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development’s Monitoring and Verification Mechanism, and we look forward to the Mechanism’s report on these incidents.

The government and opposition must resolve their differences at the negotiating table, rather than through military action. The United States reiterates our continued support for the IGAD-led talks, and our disappointment with the government delegation’s unwillingness to engage constructively in recent rounds of talks. We call on President Kiir and former Vice President Riek Machar to follow through on their commitments to meet directly in the coming days to end the conflict and initiate discussions on an inclusive political transition.

We again call on both sides of the conflict to ensure humanitarian access for UN agencies and others who are trying to provide life-saving assistance to all in need, and to respect and support the UN Mission in South Sudan as it carries out its mandate to protect civilians.

SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY REMARKS IN JUBA, SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Press Availability in South Sudan

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Embassy Juba

Juba, South Sudan

May 2, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon. I just completed an in-depth, very frank, and thorough discussion with President Kiir. And throughout the meeting, I think it’s fair to say that both of us spoke very candidly, very directly, and we got to the issues that I came here to discuss. Throughout the meeting, I made it clear to him that he needs to do everything in his power to end the violence, and also to begin a process of national dialogue, a process by which there is the beginning of discussions – real discussions – about a transition government that can bring peace to the country.

It’s fair to say that President Kiir was very open and very thoughtful and had thought even before this meeting about these issues, because we have talked about them on the phone in recent days, and because our special envoy and others have had conversations with him about it. So he committed very clearly his intention to do exactly that: take forceful steps in order to begin to move to end the violence and implement the cessation of hostilities agreement, and to begin to engage on a discussion with respect to a transition government.

I just spoke a few minutes ago to Prime Minister Hailemariam of Ethiopia to convey to him President Kiir’s willingness to travel to Addis Ababa in the near term, sometime early next week hopefully, in order to engage in a discussion with Prime Minister Hailemariam, and hopefully with Riek Machar, who had previously indicated to the prime minister a willingness to do so. And I hope to talk to him sometime later in the course of today to encourage him to do so.

This meeting of Riek Machar and President Kiir is critical to the ability to be able to really engage in a serious way as to how the cessation of hostilities agreement will now once and for all really be implemented, and how that can be augmented by the discussions regarding a transition government and meeting the needs of the people of Sudan. President Kiir and I have spoken about this many times over the course of the last months. We particularly spoke almost every day during the period from December 15^th through the Christmas period. In fact, I even talked to him on Christmas Day, and was particularly pleased today to be able to return to Juba in order to sit down and discuss these issues face to face.

I’ve told President Kiir that the choices that both he and the opposition face are stark and clear, and that the unspeakable human costs that we have seen over the course of the last months, and which could even grow if they fail to sit down, are unacceptable to the global community. Before the promise of South Sudan’s future is soaked in more blood, President Kiir and the opposition must work immediately for a cessation of hostilities, and to move towards an understanding about future governance of the country.

I might also say that we do not put any kind of equivalency into the relationship between the sitting president, constitutionally elected and duly elected by the people of the country, and a rebel force that is engaged in use of arms in order to seek political power or to provide a transition. Already, thousands of innocent people have been killed and more than a million people have been displaced. And it is possible – as we’ve seen the warnings, because people have not been able to plant their crops – that there could be major famine in the course of the months ahead if things don’t change.

Both sides are now reportedly recruiting child soldiers and there are appalling accounts of sexual violence in the conflict. The reports of Radio Bentiu broadcasting hate speech and encouraging ethnic killings are a deep concern to all of us. The United States could not be any clearer in its condemnation of the murder of the civilians in Bentiu or in Bor and all acts of violence, including those that use ethnicity or nationality as justification are simply abhorrent and unacceptable.

If both sides do not take steps in order to reduce or end the violence, they literally put their entire country in danger. And they will completely destroy what they are fighting to inherit.
The people of South Sudan – and I’m talking about all the people of South Sudan – all of them have suffered and sacrificed far too much to travel down this dangerous road that the country is on today. That is why both sides must take steps immediately to put an end to the violence and the cycle of brutal attacks against innocent people.

Both sides have to do more to facilitate the work of those people who are providing humanitarian assistance, whether from the UN or from the UN mission or any organization that is responding to increasingly dire needs of citizens. Both sides need to facilitate access for humanitarian workers, for goods, for cash in order to pay salaries, and they need to provide this access to South Sudan’s roads, to its waterways, including to opposition-held areas. And we talked about this very directly this morning with President Kiir and his cabinet members.
It is important that both sides also act to ensure the safety and the security of the humanitarian workers themselves, and both sides must stop dangerous verbal attacks on people who are bravely providing relief to the South Sudanese people. It’s unconscionable that people who have come here not with weapons but with assistance are being attacked by both sides, and nothing will do more to deter the international community and ultimately to wind up in an even worse confrontation in the country itself.

Both President Kiir and Riek Machar must honor the agreement that they made with one another to cease hostilities, and they need to remember as leaders their responsibilities to the people of the country. The fate of this nation, the future of its children must not be held the hostage of personal rivalry.

Yesterday in Addis I spoke with representatives from the African Union and South Sudan’s neighbors about how we can coordinate and restore peace and accountability. We support the AU’s Commission of Inquiry in South Sudan, and I met this morning with the leader of that commission and listened to their early reports of their work. And we support the IGAD’s monitoring and verification mechanisms. The United States is also prepared in short order to put sanctions in place against those who target innocent people, who wage a campaign of ethnic violence, or who disrupt the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

Even as we come here in this moment of conflict in an effort to try to find the road that has been obscured, I can’t help but remember – as I drove to meet with the president and as I came back here to our Embassy, having traveled here and been here a number of times – but particularly at the moment of self-determination for this country, it is important to remember what the people of South Sudan achieved for themselves recently. Through their efforts, through their commitment, through their patience, they helped to move this country to independence, to the creation of a nation, through peaceful, democratic, and prosperous future, and the opportunity to be able to try to achieve that. And they came together to create a new nation in that effort.
I remember walking in one community and watching people vote and talking to somebody who was standing out in the hot sun and who’d been there for hours. And I walked up to them and said, “Look, I hope you’re not going to get impatient. Don’t leave. You need to wait to vote.” And that person to me said, “Don’t worry” – I was then a senator – “Don’t worry, Senator, I’ve waited 50 years for this moment. I’m not going anywhere until I’ve voted.” The dedication that I saw, the commitment of people to try to create this nation deserves to be fully supported and the aspirations of those people deserve to be met by our efforts, all of us, to try to bring peace, and mostly by the leaders to fulfill the promise that made them leaders in the first place.

It is absolutely critical that to prevent that moment of historic promise from becoming a modern-day catastrophe, we all need to work harder to support the hopes of the people and to restore those hopes. We have to be steady in our commitment to the people of South Sudan. And I was encouraged yesterday in Addis Ababa by the unanimous commitment of the neighbors, of IGAD, of the foreign ministers I met with from Kenya, from Uganda, from Ethiopia, all of whom are committed and dedicated to helping to pull South Sudan back from this precipice and help to implement the cessation of hostilities agreement, and most importantly, help South Sudan to negotiate its way through this transition government that can restore the voice of the people in a way that can give confidence to the South Sudanese people, that their future is indeed being spoken for and that the best efforts are being made to meet it.

So with that, I’d be delighted to take any questions.

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

QUESTION: (Inaudible) you’ve described some of the political and military steps that you would like to see unfold – expect to see unfold in the next weeks. If neither side honors their commitments, how specifically do you plan to hold them accountable? And how long do you plan to wait before holding them accountable? There’s been some concern in the Congress and by groups like Oxfam that the United States has moved too slowly on this. And are you prepared to sanction the president and Riek Machar themselves?

And lastly, yesterday, you spoke publicly about your interest in deploying African troops to create a more robust peacekeeping force here. How many troops do you think should – will be deployed? When do you think this will happen? Will there be – will it be necessary to secure a new UN Security Council mandate to make this happen? Basically, how real is this? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, it’s real. Each of the countries I just listed are all committed. And I met yesterday with the foreign ministers who say they are absolutely prepared to move with troops from those countries almost immediately. But yes, we do need to secure an additional United Nations Security Council mandate. I believe that can be done quickly. I hope it can be done quickly. And it’s very, very important to begin to deploy those troops as rapidly as possible.

How rapidly? Hopefully within the next weeks, and we’re talking about an initial deployment of somewhere in the vicinity of 2,500 troops. Well, I think 5,500 have been talked about, and it may be that there are even – it may be that, depending on the situation, more may have to be contemplated. But for the moment, that’s the limit, that’s what’s being talked about.
With respect to the hopes on the – what was the first part? The --

QUESTION: How long do you plan to wait before (inaudible)?

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, okay. Let me just say – you asked about the – sort of what might follow if people don’t implement these steps. And the answer, very, very directly, is the global community will then make moves in order to have accountability. There is a commission of inquiry already underway. I met this morning with the head of the commission of inquiry and listened to former Nigerian President Obasanjo’s observations about his initial start of that effort. We support that effort; the global community supports that effort. That will obviously be ongoing.

I think the single best way for leaders and people in positions of responsibility to avoid the worst consequences is to take steps now, the kind of steps that we heard promised this morning. We are not going to wait. However, there will be accountability in the days ahead where it is appropriate. And the United States is doing its due diligence with respect to the power the President already has with respect to the implementation of sanctions, and I think that could come very quickly in certain quarters where there is accountability and responsibility that is clear and delineated.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Memoska Lesoba from Eye Radio.

QUESTION: You said that President --

SECRETARY KERRY: Can you hold it up real close?

QUESTION: You said President Salva Kiir has agreed to transitional government. What kind of a transitional government? Can you delve more into that? And I would want to know what kind of sanctions would be imposed if (inaudible) way of (inaudible) resolve the crisis, and what impact will it have.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, with respect to the transition government, ultimately it is up to the people of South Sudan. And it is up to an inclusive process which brings the civil society to the table and reaches out to political opposition and to all of the different stakeholders in South Sudan to shape that. What is important is that President Kiir is prepared to engage in that process in a formal way, to reach out, to work with IGAD, to work with the community, in order to make certain that that process is real, it’s transparent, it’s accountable.

Now, how that unfolds will be part of the discussions that we hope will take place between Prime Minister Hailemariam as the mediator and two of the principle antagonists in this conflict, President Kiir representing government and Riek Machar. But there are other players, lots of them. As you know, 11 detainees have now been released. And each of those detainees has – have had voices and roles to play in the politics of South Sudan.

With respect to sanctions, we are – there are different kinds of sanctions, obviously – sanctions on assets, sanctions on visas, sanctions on wealth and travel and so forth. All of those options are available, among others. But in addition to that, with the commission of inquiry and other standards that are applied. There have been atrocities committed and people need to be held accountable for those kinds of atrocities. And there are methods by which the international committee undertakes to do that. So I think the real test is what happens in these next days, what kind of bona fide legitimate steps are taken by people to prove they want to move in a different direction. And that will be a significant guide as to what may or may not be pursued by members of the international community in the days ahead.
MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Lara Jakes of AP.

QUESTION: Thank you. Just to clarify, in this transitional government, do you see a place for either President Kiir or Riek Machar to be holding office in the future for this country? And then also, as you head to Congo tomorrow, what are you looking to hear regarding the prosecution of troops who were given amnesty and then returned to M23? And is the United States satisfied with the deep mobilization plan for all armed troops in eastern Congo, including Hutu troops – I’m sorry, groups? And then one last one. Could you comment on the new charges against Gerry Adams? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: I don’t have any comment on the charges issue. I’ve heard about it, I’m not familiar with all of the details of it. And he’s presented himself. He maintains his innocence. And we need to let the process in Northern Ireland work its way.

With respect to the Central African Republic – excuse me, the D.R.C. – we are hopeful that the terms that have been put in place, the Kampala Accords, are going to be implemented properly. But I’m going to wait to comment more fully on that until I meet up with Special Envoy Feingold, who will meet us there when we arrive there. And I think I would rather get the latest briefing up to date before I summarize it, because I may be outdated and I just would rather do that.

On the first part of your question --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY KERRY: Whether or not they can be part of in the future – that’s not a decision for the United States of America to make or to comment on. That’s for South Sudanese to decide. It’s for the process to decide. I think that certainly people will judge carefully, I think, what happens in these next days, which could have a great deal to do with respect to future legitimacy of any player engaged in this, not just President Kiir or Riek Machar, but anybody who is engaged. If there is a legitimate, open, transparent, accountable, and real process by which people are listened to and people come together, then the people of South Sudan will have an opportunity to make that kind of decision and it won’t be necessary for us to comment on it.

If it doesn’t go in that direction, it may be that the United States and other interested parties who have helped so significantly to assist South Sudan in this journey to independence and nationhood, it may be that they will be then more inclined to speak out about what’s happened with leadership here or not, but at the moment I don’t think it’s appropriate to do that.

MS. PSAKI: The final question will be from Gabriel Shada from Radio Miraya.

QUESTION: Thank you. The background to the conflict in South Sudan refers to a disagreements, disgruntlements inside the SPLM ruling party on the modalities of election and selection of leaders. So reaching an agreement that does not resolve the SPLM leadership issues is like suspending the real issues, which means they will rise again in the nearest future. So how can the U.S. Administration help the SPLM sort out its problems.
Second question is about the U.S.A. promising a lot to help South Sudan in the past, and even now. But one of the promises was building the – an institutional capacity for South Sudan, and observers can see that institutional capacity in South Sudan is still very, very weak. What are the reasons for this failure, especially when building the capacity of the army and other institutions? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Very good questions. Very, very good questions. With respect to the first question, you’re absolutely correct: There are internal issues within the SPLM that need to be resolved. But it’s not up to the United States to resolve them. It’s up to the leaders and the members of the SPLM to do so, recognizing that their validity and credibility as a leading party to be the governing party of the country is at stake in how they do that.

And so it is – there’s already a process in place where they’re doing some meetings and evaluations, and will do that. What is important is that they recognize that the negotiations over a transitional government ultimately, in terms of what role they play or how that plays out, will depend to some measure on how they resolve those kinds of internal issues. And the credibility of the civil society, the credibility of the people of South Sudan, with respect to their leadership will depend, obviously, on their ability to do that.

So that’s part of the road ahead. And they know that work is in front of them. They understand that. They discussed it with us here today, and I’m confident that that’s very much in their minds as they think about the future structure of any kind of transition and future.

But it’s also related, I may say, to the second part of your question. Yes, the United States committed to do certain kinds of things, as did the international community. And for a certain period of time, many of those things were attempted to be done, but the truth is that there’s been a difficulty, as I think most people understand, in the governing process that gave people pause and made people stand back a little bit. And that’s been part of the problem. And that’s why this transitional government’s effort is so important, because it is the key to being able to open up the kind of direct help and input that would be then meaningful and not wasted and not lost. And it’s very important that there be a process in place where people have confidence that the way forward is clear and that assistance can be put to the use that it’s meant to be put to.
So I would say to you that that’s part of the reason why this transitioning effort is so critical, because it really is what can restore the legitimacy so that going forward all those people who care, and there are many who do – in Africa, in Europe, in America, elsewhere – would be able to hopefully help in the capacity building for the country. That’s really where all of South Sudan’s energy ought to be going, not into killing each other but into building a government that can serve the needs of the people. And our hope is that that is what can get restored out of this terrible conflict that has interrupted that path.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all. Appreciate it.

REMARKS: SECRETARY KERRY, AFRICAN FOREIGN MINISTERS MAKE REMARKS ON SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks With Ethiopian Foreign Minister Tedros Adhanom, Kenyan Foreign Minister Amina Chawahir Mohamed, And Ugandan Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa After Their Meeting

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

May 1, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, folks. We just had a very positive meeting, laid out a strong agenda which we all agreed on which we’ll talk about later in the day when we have a little more time. But I think it’s clear that everybody is in agreement the killing must stop; that humanitarian access needs to be delivered; most importantly, a legitimate force that has an ability to help make peace needs to get on the ground as rapidly as possible. And we agreed on both the terms and timing and manner and size, and we need to go to work to make sure that happens. I think that’s a quick summary.

FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Anybody else?

FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: Thank you. I think I agree with him. One thing that we have stressed is the deployment – as Secretary Kerry said, the deployment of the force as soon as possible. And I think with that, many of the other interests can be addressed. And I would like to use this opportunity, actually, on behalf of my colleagues and myself to thank Secretary Kerry, who is here today with us. But since the crisis started, he has been in contact regularly, frequent phone calls and good support, and we hope that support will continue, especially from him and the U.S. Government, and we really appreciate the support.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: But there is an agreement now that we have to really be as aggressive as possible in order to have an impact on the ground in South Sudan, in order to (inaudible). Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, Tedros.

FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: Merci.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER TEDROS: Thank you. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Sam, thank you.

WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT ON FIGHTING IN SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Statement by the Press Secretary on South Sudan

Four years ago, some four million South Sudanese voted to break with the past and usher in a new period of peace and prosperity.  They expected their leaders to act with courage and conviction, to put the interests of the people first, and to be statesmen, not strongmen.  Months of fighting between the Government of South Sudan and forces loyal to rebel leader Riek Machar run counter to that vision and threaten to tear the young nation apart.  Thousands have been killed.  Nearly one million innocent civilians have been driven from their homes.  Despite a ceasefire agreement, the cycle of violence and conflict continues.

The United States will not stand by as those entrusted with South Sudan’s future put their own interests above those of their people.  The Executive Order signed by President Obama today sends a clear message:  those who threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan, obstruct the peace process, target U.N. peacekeepers, or are responsible for human rights abuses and atrocities will not have a friend in the United States and run the risk of sanctions.  Both the Government of South Sudan and Riek Machar’s rebels must immediately engage in and follow through on the inclusive peace process led by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and resolve this conflict.  They must end military actions and hold accountable those responsible for violence against civilians.  The people of South Sudan are calling for peace.  There is no room for excuses or delay.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS FROM JERUSALEM

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at Solo Press Availability
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
David Citadel Hotel
Jerusalem
January 5, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Good morning to everybody. This has been a productive couple of days with very, very intensive talks. And though we’re not done yet obviously, I want to catch you up on the most recent negotiations to give you a sense of where we are.

But before we do, I really want to say a brief word about the situation in South Sudan. For the last several weeks, all of us at the upper levels of the Obama Administration have been working together and constantly talking to the leaders in South Sudan, working with our special envoy Ambassador Don Booth, working with our Ambassador Susan Page, and working with all of our colleague countries who are engaged in trying to prevent the violence of South Sudan.

And the United States remains deeply committed to supporting the efforts that will bring this violence to an end. We’ve been involved in this for a long time. We were involved in the birth of this nation, and I personally know the leaders. I’ve been there many – a number of times. And so I think all of us feel a very personal stake in trying to avert tribal warfare and ethnic confrontation on the ground, as well as any kind of resolution of political differences by force.

The beginning of direct talks between the parties, as announced by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, is a very important step. But make no mistake: it is only a first step and there is a lot more to do.

Both parties need to put the interests of South Sudan above their own, and that has been a message we have consistently delivered to those engaged in this conflict. Negotiations have to be serious. They cannot be a delay gimmick in order to continue the fighting and try to find advantage on the ground at the expense of the people of South Sudan. They have to be credible talks, and both parties need to approach the talks with courage and with resolve, with the clear intent of trying to find a political solution.

So we call on the parties to listen to the region and to the international community in finding a peaceful way forward to resolve this conflict.

As we’ve said before, the United States will support those who seek peace, but we will deny support and we will work to apply international pressure to any elements that attempt to use force to seize power. That is not acceptable. The talks in Addis Ababa, we believe, are absolutely the best way forward, and the world is going to be watching very closely to see that a halt to the fighting on the ground takes place and to test the good faith of leaders of any group, and particularly the two most critical players here, President Kiir and former Vice President Machar. Both of them need to push their people to come to the table here. The fighting must end, and we seek tangible progress towards peace on the ground.

Obviously, it is this effort to try to make peace that has brought back here again to Israel, to Jerusalem. And I want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu and I want to thank President Abbas for the significant amount of time and for the effort and energy that they have expended in order to engage in very serious conversations about the way forward.

Over the past few days, I’ve had two lengthy rounds with each leader and with their teams, and we have had very positive, but I have to say very serious, very intensive conversations. These issues are not easy. As I’ve said before, if this was easy, this would have been resolved a long time ago. It is not easy. These are complicated issues that involve the survival and the future of peoples. And this is a conflict that has gone on for too long, so positions are hardened. Mistrust obviously exists at a very high level. And so you have to work through that and around that and over that, and every step is a step that is to try to point to the path forward and the ways in which each side can build a relationship and trust over a period of time.

Today, I am leaving Jerusalem in order to go to Jordan and consult with His Majesty King Abdullah and his team, and from there I will leave to go to Saudi Arabia to consult with His Majesty King Abdullah of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who is, of course, the author of the Arab Peace Initiative and has a very significant interest and stake in this process. I will then return here to Jerusalem tonight.

We will continue discussions at staff level for a period of time, and at some point I do need to go back to Washington, obviously, this week for the work that we have there. But as our teams flesh out some of the concepts that are on the table, as necessary, I will return.

I want to be very clear about something that I have said before, but it bears repeating at this juncture: both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas have already made important decisions and courageous decisions, difficult decisions. You can see in the press and you see in the public debate that the choices they’re making elicit strong responses from their people. And I understand that very, very well.

We’re at the table today because of the determination to try to resolve this issue, and both of them have made the tough choices to stay at that table. We are now at a point where the choices narrow down and the choices are obviously real and difficult. And so we – the United States, President Obama, myself – will do everything in our power to help the parties be able to see the road ahead in ways that will meet the interests of both of their peoples.

The security of Israel is always paramount – in my mind, in our mind. For 29 years I had the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, and I am proud to say I had a 100 percent voting record with respect to those issues of concern to Israel, and I don’t intend to change that now. Israel’s security is critical, and the United States relationship is ironclad.

But so is our concern for the people of Palestine and for the Palestinians and their future. And I can guarantee all parties that President Obama and I are committed to putting forward ideas that are fair, that are balanced, and that improve the security of all of the people of this region.

Now, obviously, I can’t go into the details. I’m not going to start breaking now the agreements that I made with the parties and that I set forth as the rules here. We are not going to negotiate this in public. We are not going to lay out the substance of these core issues. But I can tell everybody all of the core issues are on the table. The difficult issues of security, of territory, borders, the future of the refugee issue, the status ultimately of the city of Jerusalem, and the end of conflict and of claims. How you arrive at a fair resolution of all of these complicated issues is obviously at the core of what we are talking about.

I want to share something that I shared with both of the leaders in my meetings, and that is now is not the time to get trapped in the sort of up and down of the day-to-day challenges. This does not lend itself to a daily tick-tock. We don’t have the luxury of dwelling on the obstacles that we all know could distract us from our goal. What we need to do is lift our sights and look ahead and keep in mind the vision of what can come if we can move forward.

I want to reiterate – we are not working on an interim agreement. We are working on a framework for negotiations that will guide and create the clear, detailed, accepted roadmap for the guidelines for the permanent status negotiations, and can help those negotiations move faster and more effectively.


The agreed framework will address all of the core issues that we’ve been discussing, and I think that’s the most that I would like to say about that at this point in time.

I do want to be clear: I know there are those out there who on both sides question whether or not peace is possible. I know there is a high level of cynicism, reservation about the possibilities. But it is clear to me that we can work to bride the remaining gaps that do exist and we can achieve a final status agreement that results in two states for two peoples if we stay focused and if we keep in mind the benefits of our doing so.

The benefits for both sides are really enormous, and people don’t talk about it enough or think about it enough. One of the reasons I’m going to Saudi Arabia is that Saudi Arabia’s initiative holds out the prospect that if the parties could arrive at a peaceful resolution, you could instantaneously have peace between the 22 Arab nations and 35 Muslim nations, all of whom have said they will recognize Israel if peace is achieved.

Imagine how that changes the dynamics of travel, of business, of education, of opportunity in this region, of stability. Imagine what peace could mean for trade and tourism, what it could mean for developing technology and talent, for job opportunities for the younger generation, for generations in all of these countries.

Imagine what peace could mean for an Israel where schoolchildren, some of whom I’ve seen in the course of my many visits here, so that they could actually run around a playground without the threat that a rocket might come from Gaza or from Lebanon and have to seek shelter during the course of the day.

Imagine what peace could mean for Palestinian children, who could grow up living in the dignity of their own sovereign country with an understanding that they can do what anybody in the world might be able to aspire to do, free from hatred and free from the fear that accompanies their daily existence, and obviously free to embrace all of the opportunities of young people anywhere else in the world.

The ancient and historic city of Jerusalem where long ago the words were written that have great meaning today: the scripture tells us that “the Lord will give strength to His people; and the Lord will bless His people with peace.” And as men and women of peace I think in this region, we continue to believe in that possibility.


So we stand behind these negotiations that can lead not just to two states for two peoples, but a shared prosperity that benefits the peoples of all of this region. The stakes here are much bigger than just Israel and Palestine. This is a conflict that is felt around the world. It is a conflict that has implications with every leader I have met anywhere in the world as Secretary of State or a senator. They all ask about the conflict of the Middle East and whether or not it can be resolved.

So these are high stakes, high stakes for the leaders and high stakes for everybody else. And President Obama is determined that the United States of America and his Administration will do everything in our power to exhaust the possibilities of finding that peace.

On that note, I’d be happy to open it up to any questions.

MODERATOR: Deb.

QUESTION: There have been 20 rounds of negotiations for the --

SECRETARY KERRY: Who’s counting?

QUESTION: Who’s counting, yes. The negotiations seem to be hung up on some pretty serious roadblocks. I mean, Israel, for example, is balking at the ‘67 lines, and that’s a pretty big hurdle.

SECRETARY KERRY: Israel is doing what?

QUESTION: Balking at the ’67 lines.

SECRETARY KERRY: You’re telling me things that I don’t know that I’m not commenting on. So I mean, I don’t know where you – honestly, I don’t know where you know that from. I’m not going to talk about who’s balking, not balking. But don’t believe what you hear.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY KERRY: What we’re doing right now is working through those issues.

QUESTION: Okay. I know you don’t want to talk about specifics, but can you give the American public, the Israelis, the Palestinians even one example of something even generally in terms of progress that you’ve been able to make in your 10 trips here?

And when the framework is agreed upon, if it’s agreed upon, how detailed will it be? Will it include some sort of a deadline or framework – frame – timeframe for finishing a final status agreement?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me share with you as best I can sort of how this is working and why I am not going to go into the details. I have shared with you that we are talking about all of the core issues, and you know that. You all have traveled out here many times. And you know that the core issues involve territory and the core issues involve security, and they involve refugees and they involve the question of recognition for both peoples and involves, obviously, ultimately, questions about Jerusalem and how you resolve all claims and the conflict itself.

Now, this is deeply steeped in history, and each side has a narrative about their rights and their journey and the conflict itself. And in the end, all of these different core issues actually fit together like a mosaic. It’s a puzzle, and you can’t separate out one piece or another. Because what a leader might be willing to do with respect to a compromise on one particular piece is dependent on what the other leader might be willing to do with respect to a different particular piece. And there’s always a tension as to when you put your card on the table as to which piece you’re willing to do, when, and how. So it has to move with its particular pace and its particular privacy, frankly. And that’s why it’s so important not to be laying out any one particular component of it at any given moment of time, because it actually makes it more difficult for those decisions to be made or for those compromises to be arrived at, or for one of the leaders to have the freedom to be able to do what they need to do in order to figure out the political path ahead, which is obviously real for both.

So the answer is I’m not going to lay out one particular example or another, except to say to you that the path is becoming clearer, the puzzle is becoming more defined, and it is becoming much more apparent to everybody what the remaining tough choices are and what the options are with respect to those choices.

But it takes time to work through these things, and that’s why I have refused to ever set a particular timetable. But I feel comfortable that those major choices are now on the table and that the leaders are grappling with these options, otherwise I wouldn’t be going to talk to other stakeholders in this process the way I am today. But I cannot tell you when particularly the last pieces may decide to fall into place or may fall on the floor and leave the puzzle unfinished. That’s exactly what makes this such a challenge, and also so interesting at the same time.

With respect to – I think you had --

QUESTION: What about the – how detailed will the framework be if it’s --

SECRETARY KERRY: I’m not going to go into – again, we’ll let the framework speak for itself when and if it is achieved and --

QUESTION: But are you seeking some sort of deadline? In other words, it does become kind of --

SECRETARY KERRY: Am I thinking of some sort of deadline?

QUESTION: Is --

SECRETARY KERRY: Sure I am.

QUESTION: Is there a discussion about a deadline so that it doesn’t just (inaudible) a long and --

SECRETARY KERRY: Yes. The answer is yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY KERRY: I have a deadline in mind.

QUESTION: Okay.

MODERATOR: Michael Gordon.

QUESTION: On another Middle East subject, Mr. Secretary. A significant number of American military personnel died to take Fallujah from al-Qaida in Iraq, and now two years after the American forces were withdrawn from Iraq, much of that city has been taken back by an al-Qaida affiliate.

The 75 Hellfire missiles that the Administration is selling to Iraq and the ScanEagle drones it plans to deliver by March don’t appear to be sufficient to prevent this al-Qaida affiliate from controlling much of Anbar and other parts of Iraq. And yesterday, your State Department issued a statement saying that American officials had been in touch with Iraqi tribal leaders and that the U.S. was working with the Iraqi Government to “support those tribes in every possible way.”

My question is: What specific steps is the Administration prepared to take to help the Iraqi tribes or the Iraqi Government roll back the al-Qaida advance in western and northern Iraq? Nobody is suggesting the U.S. send ground troops, but would the United States be willing to carry out drone strikes from bases outside Iraq? Would you provide arms to the tribes? The leader of this al-Qaida affiliate has been designed a global terrorist by the State Department. What specific steps are you prepared to take?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Michael, I’m not going to go into all of the specifics. Let me just say in general terms a couple of things. First of all, we are following the events in Anbar province very, very closely, obviously. We’re very, very concerned by the efforts of al-Qaida and the Islamic State of Iraq in the Levant, which is affiliated with al-Qaida, who are trying to assert their authority not just in Iraq but in Syria.

These are the most dangerous players in that region. Their barbarism against the civilians of Ramadi and Fallujah and against Iraqi security forces is on display for everybody in the world to see. Their brutality is something we have seen before. And we will stand with the Government of Iraq and with others who will push back against their efforts to destabilize and to bring back, to wreak havoc on the region and on the democratic process that is taking hold in Iraq.

Now, we’re going to do everything that is possible to help them, and I will not go into the details except to say that we’re in contact with tribal leaders from Anbar province whom we know who are showing great courage in standing up against this as they reject terrorist groups from their cities. And this is a fight that belongs to the Iraqis. That is exactly what the President and the world decided some time ago when we left Iraq. So we are not, obviously, contemplating returning. We’re not contemplating putting boots on the ground. This is their fight, but we’re going to help them in their fight.

And yes, we have an interest. We have an interest in helping the legitimate and elected government be able to push back against the terrorists. This is a fight that is bigger than just Iraq. This is part of the reason why the Geneva conference is so critical, because the rise of these terrorists in the region and particularly in Syria and through the fighting in Syria is part of what is unleashing this instability in the rest of the region. That’s why everybody has a stake. All of the Gulf states, all of the regional actors, Russia, the United States, and a lot of players elsewhere in the world have a stake in pushing back against violent extremist terrorists who respect no law, who have no goal other than to take over power and disrupt lives by force.

And the United States intends to continue to remain in close contact with all of the Iraq political leaders to see how we can continue to support their efforts in the days ahead. But it is their fight; that is what we determined some time ago, that we can’t want peace and we can’t want democracy and we can’t want an orderly government and stability more than the people in a particular area, in a particular country or a particular region. And so we will help them in their fight; but this fight, in the end they will have to win, and I am confident they can.

MODERATOR: Anne Gearan.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the Geneva II conference a moment ago. You’re less than two weeks out from that event now, and the question as to whether Iran will be invited is still open. What is your current position? Do you want to see Iran included? And even if they don’t sign up to all of the principles of Geneva I, isn’t it better to have them working alongside you than potentially (inaudible)?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Iran could participate very easily if they would simply accept publicly the Geneva I premise on which Geneva II is based. We are not going to Geneva to just have a discussion. We are going with the purpose of implementing Geneva I. That was the premise originally that Foreign Minister Lavrov and I announced in Moscow. That has been the premise of organizing this. That will be the premise of the invitation that is sent out by the secretary general of the United Nations. We are going to implement Geneva I, which calls for a transition government by mutual consent with full executive authority; and if Iran doesn’t support that, it’s very difficult to see how they’re going to be “a ministerial partner” in the process.

Now, could they contribute from the sidelines? Are there ways for them conceivably to weigh in? Can their mission that is already in Geneva be there in order to help the process? It may be that there are ways that that could happen. But that has to be determined by the secretary general and it has to be determined by Iranian intentions themselves. But in terms of a formal invitation or participation, that is for those who support the Geneva I implementation, and that’s the purpose of the Geneva conference.

QUESTION: Would you like to see Foreign Minister Zarif attend on the sidelines then at the invitation of the secretary general --

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I think I just spoke to it. I think that we’re happy to have Iran be helpful. Everybody is happy to have Iran be helpful. But we have a huge piece of business on the table with Iran right now to complete the task of the implementation language and get moving with respect to the negotiations on their own nuclear program and the challenge of that particular relationship.

So Iran knows exactly what it has to do with respect to the nuclear program as well as with respect to Geneva II. And it’s very simple: come join the community of nations and do what all of us are committed to doing, which is try to bring about a peaceful resolution in Syria by virtue of the implementation of Geneva I.

MODERATOR: Thanks, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all. Appreciate it.

DOD PHOTOS OF U.S. PERSONNEL EVACUATION IN SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

U.S. Army Sgt. John T. Kelly, left, calls in a status update during an evacuation of personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Juba, South Sudan, Jan. 3, 2014. Kelly is a radio operator assigned to the Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Robert L. Fisher II.

U.S. Marines and sailors help U.S. citizens into a Marine Corps KC-130J Hercules airplane in Juba, South Sudan, during an evacuation of personnel from the U.S. Embassy, Jan. 3, 2014. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Robert L. Fisher III.

U.S. EXPRESSES CONCERN REGARDING SOUTH SUDAN CONFLICT

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
U.S. ‘Deeply Concerned’ About South Sudan Situation

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 1, 2014 – The United States “remains deeply concerned” about the situation in South Sudan and calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities there to stabilize the situation and permit full humanitarian access to civilians who remain in dire need of assistance, according to a statement issued yesterday by National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden.
The U.S. also welcomes slated upcoming meetings in Ethiopia, where representatives from South Sudan have agreed to conduct mediated discussions, the statement said.

The text of Hayden’s statement reads as follows:

“The United States remains deeply concerned by the fragile situation in South Sudan. We continue to urge President Salva Kiir and former Vice President Riek Machar to take immediate steps to end the current conflict, and we welcome their agreement to send representatives to Addis Ababa for talks mediated by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in the coming days. We continue to call for an immediate cessation of hostilities to stabilize the situation and permit full humanitarian access to civilian populations, which remain in dire need of assistance. The United States will deny support and work to apply international pressure to any elements that use force to seize power. At the same time, we will hold leaders responsible for the conduct of their forces and work to ensure accountability for atrocities and war crimes.

“We also strongly support the vital work of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS). We are working closely with the UN and other partners to help further strengthen the mission and its efforts to protect civilians, and we call on all parties to the current conflict to allow UNMISS to carry out its mandate without obstruction.

“Finally, the United States is deeply concerned by the continuing reports of serious human rights abuses being committed in various regions of South Sudan, allegedly by government forces and militias that have taken up arms against the government. Human rights abuses against the civilian population are unacceptable under any circumstances, and every new human rights abuse makes South Sudan’s path toward reconciliation more difficult. It is vital that all South Sudanese reject these acts of violence -- and that all South Sudanese leaders call upon their forces to protect civilians -- and that there be accountability for those who fail to heed these calls.”

AFRICA COMMAND REPOSITIONS FORCES

U.S. soldiers and East Africa Response Force soldiers depart a U.S. Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft in Juba, Sudan, Dec. 18, 2013. The U.S. State Department requested the assistance of U.S. military forces in evacuating personnel from the embassy in Juba to Nairobi, Kenya, amid political and ethnic violence in South Sudan. DOD photo by Tech. Sgt. Micah Theurich, U.S. Air Force  

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT  
Africa Command Repositions Forces to Increase Flexibility
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Dec. 23, 2013 – The commander of U.S. Africa Command is repositioning forces in East Africa in an effort to attain maximum flexibility to respond to State Department requests, Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren told reporters here today.

Warren also told reporters that three of the four U.S. personnel who were wounded Dec. 21 when they attempted to evacuate Americans from the town of Bor, South Sudan, will be evacuated to Landstuhl Army Hospital in Germany. The fourth will be evacuated when his condition stabilizes.

The four injured U.S. service members are currently in a hospital in Nairobi, the Kenyan capital. They were hit by small-arms fire when their Osprey aircraft attempted to land in Bor.

Based on the current situation in South Sudan, Army Gen. David M. Rodriguez, the commander of Africom, moved elements from the Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response from Moron, Spain, to Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti.

“By positioning these forces forward, we are able to more quickly respond to crisis in the region, if required,” a defense official said. The Djiboutian government fully agrees with the movement.

The moves are precautionary, and there is risk associated with this or any other military operation, the colonel said.

“As everyone would expect, the combatant commander is repositioning forces in the region in an effort to give himself the maximum flexibility to respond to any follow-on request from the Department of State,” Warren said.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has been following the situation very closely, and is in nearly continuous communication with the combatant commander, the official said.

There has been no discussion about the U.S. military helping reposition United Nations forces, Warren said.

Defense Department and other government contracted aircraft have evacuated more than 300 personnel out of South Sudan’s capital of Juba including about 100 yesterday.

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS REGARDING WAR POWERS RESOLUTION INVOLVING SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
Message to the Congress -- War Powers Resolution Regarding South Sudan
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
December 22, 2013

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

In my report to the Congress of December 19, 2013, I provided information on the deployment of U.S. forces to support the security of U.S. personnel and our Embassy in South Sudan. I am providing this additional report, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), to help ensure that the Congress is kept fully informed on U.S. military activities in South Sudan.

On December 21, 2013, approximately 46 additional U.S. military personnel deployed by military aircraft to the area of Bor, South Sudan, to conduct an operation to evacuate U.S. citizens and personnel. After the aircraft came under fire as they approached Bor, the operation was curtailed due to security considerations, and the aircraft and all military personnel onboard departed South Sudan without completing the evacuation.

The purpose of this operation was to protect U.S. citizens, personnel, and property. As I monitor the situation in South Sudan, I may take further action to support the security of U.S. citizens, personnel, and property, including our Embassy, in South Sudan.

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

I appreciate the support of the Congress in these actions.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

4 SERVICE MEMBERS INJURED AFTER COMING UNDER FIRE IN SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SOUTH SUDAN 
Ground Fire Injures 4 U.S. Troops in South Sudan
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21, 2013 – Four U.S. service members were injured today when their aircraft came under ground fire in South Sudan during a mission to evacuate American citizens in Bor, according to a statement issued by U.S. Africa Command.

The updated Africom statement reads as follows:
“At the request of the Department of State, the United States Africa Command, utilizing forces from Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA), attempted to evacuate U.S. citizens from the town of Bor, South Sudan, today.
“As the aircraft, three CV-22 Ospreys, were approaching the town they were fired on by small-arms fire by unknown forces. All three aircraft sustained damage during the engagement. Four service members onboard the aircraft were wounded during the engagement.

“The damaged aircraft diverted to Entebbe, Uganda, where the wounded were transferred onboard a U.S. Air Force C-17 and flown to Nairobi, Kenya, for medical treatment.

“All four service members were treated and are in stable condition.”
In Hawaii, President Barack Obama was updated on the status of the injured U.S. service members, according to a White House news release issued today. Obama directed his national security team to ensure the safety of U.S. military personnel in the region and to continue to work with the United Nations to evacuate American citizens from Bor.

This morning, following a meeting of his national security principals that was led by National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Obama participated in a secure call with Rice, Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, and Senior Director for African Affairs Grant Harris to update him on the situation in South Sudan, according to the White House release. The president, the release said, was briefed on the status of U.S. military personnel and the safety of U.S. citizens in Bor and U.S. personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Juba, South Sudan.

The president was pleased that the injured U.S. service members are in stable condition and he reaffirmed the importance of continuing to work with the United Nations to secure U.S. citizens in Bor, according to the White House release.
Obama underscored that South Sudan's leaders have a responsibility to support U.S. efforts to secure its personnel and citizens in Juba and Bor, the release said.
More broadly, Obama underscored the urgency of helping to support efforts to resolve the differences within South Sudan through dialogue, according to the White House release. South Sudan's leaders, the president said in the release, must know that continued violence will endanger the people of South Sudan and the hard-earned progress of independence. This conflict can only be resolved peacefully through negotiations. Any effort to seize power through the use of military force, the release said, will result in the end of longstanding support from the United States and the international community.

Obama expressed his deep appreciation for the work of U.S. military members and civilians who are operating in difficult circumstances in South Sudan and directed his team to continue to update him going forward, the White House release said.
South Sudan is currently experiencing turmoil that’s pitting the government against armed rebel groups. Secretary of State John F. Kerry said in a statement issued yesterday that it’s time “for South Sudan’s leaders to rein-in armed groups under their control, immediately cease attacks on civilians, and end the chain of retributive violence between different ethnic and political groups. The violence must stop, the dialogue must intensify.”

To help facilitate that effort, Kerry added, U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, Ambassador Donald E. Booth, has been dispatched to the region.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is keeping a close watch on the situation in South Sudan and is reviewing options, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Adm. John Kirby said. Whatever action the Pentagon takes, it will be conducted in coordination with the State Department, Kirby added.

The United States recognized South Sudan as a sovereign, independent state on July 9, 2011 following its secession from Sudan, according to the U.S. State Department’s website. The United States played a key role in helping create the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that laid the groundwork for the 2011 independence referendum and secession.

Several disputes between Sudan and South Sudan remain unresolved post-independence, including the management of oil resources and the status of the Abyei region, according to the State Department website. The United States supports the efforts of the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel to help the parties work through these issues.

On Dec. 18, about 45 U.S. service members deployed to South Sudan to support the security of U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy, according to a Dec. 19 letter President Barack Obama wrote to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

The text of the president’s letter reads as follows:
“On December 18, 2013, approximately 45 U.S. Armed Forces personnel deployed to South Sudan to support the security of U.S. personnel and our Embassy. Although equipped for combat, this force was deployed for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property. This force will remain in South Sudan until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed.

“This action has been directed consistent with my responsibility to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
“I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in these actions.”

In recent years, South Sudan “has made great progress toward breaking the cycle of violence that characterized much of its history,” Obama said in a separate statement issued Dec. 19.

Today, however, South Sudan’s “future is at risk,” Obama added. South Sudan, he said, now “stands at the precipice,” with recent fighting there threatening to plunge the country “back into the dark days of its past.”

Obama continued: “But it doesn’t have to be that way. South Sudan has a choice. Its leaders can end the violence and work to resolve tensions peacefully and democratically. Fighting to settle political scores or to destabilize the government must stop immediately. Inflammatory rhetoric and targeted violence must cease. All sides must listen to the wise counsel of their neighbors, commit to dialogue and take immediate steps to urge calm and support reconciliation.”
South Sudan’s leaders must “recognize that compromise with one’s political enemy is difficult, but recovering from unchecked violence and unleashed hatred will prove much harder,” the president said.

“Too much blood has been spilled and too many lives have been lost to allow South Sudan’s moment of hope and opportunity to slip from its grasp,” Obama said. “Now is the time for South Sudan’s leaders to show courage and leadership, to reaffirm their commitment to peace, to unity, and to a better future for their people. The United States will remain a steady partner of the South Sudanese people as they seek the security and prosperity they deserve.”

South Sudan is located on the eastern border of the Central African Republic. The United States established diplomatic relations with the Central African Republic in 1960, following its independence from France, according to Africom’s website. The C.A.R. is one of the world’s least developed nations, and has experienced several periods of political instability since independence.

The United States is deeply concerned about “the shocking and horrific atrocities that have been committed by government-affiliated armed groups and independent militias against innocent civilians in the Central African Republic” in recent weeks, a Pentagon spokesman told reporters Dec. 11.

In an audio message released Dec. 9, Obama called on the transitional C.A.R. government to arrest those who are committing crimes.

“Individuals who are engaging in violence must be held accountable -- in accordance with the law. Meanwhile, as forces from other African countries and France work to restore security, the United States will support their efforts to protect civilians,” Obama said.

On Dec. 10, the president authorized the State Department to use up to $60 million in defense services and articles for countries that contribute forces to the African Union-led International Support Mission in the Central African Republic. The assistance could include logistical support -- including strategic airlift and aerial refueling -- and training for French and African forces deploying to the Central African Republic.

VIOLENCE IN SOUTH SUDAN: SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Violence in South Sudan
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 20, 2013

The international community is laser-focused on the deeply alarming violence in South Sudan. We are all determined to continue standing for the aspirations of a people who have endured far too many years of conflict and sacrificed far too much to allow their young country to plunge back into turmoil. With the world watching and South Sudan’s people yearning for a country marked by peace and prosperity not conflict and division, peace is the only option.

Last night, I called South Sudanese President Kiir and urged him, as president of all of South Sudan, to protect all South Sudanese citizens and work toward reconciliation. We recalled the difficult decisions that led to the remarkable moment when so many stood in long lines for a referendum to give birth to South Sudan, knowing all too well that the toughest decisions were still to come. Now is the time for leadership that makes those decisions through dialogue.

Now is the time for South Sudan’s leaders to rein in armed groups under their control, immediately cease attacks on civilians, and end the chain of retributive violence between different ethnic and political groups. The violence must stop, the dialogue must intensify.

To help facilitate this process, we have asked our U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, Ambassador Donald Booth, to travel to the region and support regional efforts already underway. He will be departing today.

The United States strongly condemns yesterday’s attacks on the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) base in Akobo County in Jonglei State, South Sudan. We offer our condolences to the UN and victims of this attack. We call on all parties to respect UNMISS, to refrain from any attacks on its personnel, and to help facilitate its mission to protect civilians who have sought shelter from the turmoil secure the delivery of humanitarian assistance to all those in need.

The United States and other partners are committed to the realization of South Sudan’s full political, social, and economic potential, but make no mistake: these cooperative efforts will be undermined if political disputes drag the country back into senseless conflict and strife. Moreover, any armed attack on the capital will be seen as an attempt to achieve an unlawful usurpation of power, which would be universally condemned. Those who seek to take or hold power by violence or division of South Sudanese along ethnic lines will not have our support. Violence today will not pave the way for a more stable or prosperous tomorrow.

REMARKS ON MALAYSIA BECOMING FIRST INITIATIVE PARTNER TO REACH FULL TRAINING CAPABILITY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT  
Presentation at Malaysia's Full Training Capacity Ceremony
Remarks
Tom Kelly
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
December 13, 2013

Thank you General Datuk (DAH-toe) Raja Mohamed Effandi bin Raja Mohamed Noor, Chief of Army. It’s a pleasure to be here in Port Dickinson for this important event. As the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, it is my honor to be here on behalf of the U.S. Department of State and the Office of the Global Peace Operations Initiative. This program, which is lead by the U.S. Department of State and supported by the U.S. Department of Defense, has helped train and equip more than 225,000 peacekeeping personnel worldwide, including many right here in Malaysia.

The United States is very honored to celebrate Malaysia’s significant achievement as the first Global Peace Operations Initiative partner country to reach Full Training Capability. What this means, what this ceremony today celebrates, is that Malaysia is the first of our partner nations to become fully self-sufficient in training their military peacekeepers to deploy to UN peace operations. That is indeed an accomplishment to celebrate.

Malaysia has a long history as a valued partner in global peace and security operations. The first Malaysian deployment began in 1960 in the present day Democratic Republic of the Congo. Malaysia’s contributions have since expanded, with over 900 Malaysian troops currently deployed on missions around the world. Malaysian peacekeepers are serving in the Democratic Republic of the Congo along with Lebanon, Sudan, South Sudan and Western Sahara. We in the United States are grateful for the thousands of Malaysians who have served on over 13 different United Nations peacekeeping missions in the past. Most importantly, we must also recognize, and never forget, the 29 Malaysian peacekeepers who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country, the United Nations, and the world pursuing international peace and security.

I would like to express the United States’ particular appreciation for Malaysia’s service and sacrifice alongside U.S. forces in Somalia. Twenty years ago last October, two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters were shot down over Mogadishu, leaving U.S. service members trapped in hostile territory. Malaysian forces helped rescue the American troops. Nine Malaysians were injured. One lost his life. Their bravery is an inspiration to each of us here today.

Malaysia’s deployment to Afghanistan, although not strictly a peacekeeping mission, was very successful in helping the Afghan people recover and rebuild from years of violence by providing medical assistance and access to clean drinking water. The United States was proud to work with Malaysia in support of that mission.

I would also like recognize Malaysia’s effectiveness, superior conduct and professionalism in United Nations peace operations. Your high-quality peacekeepers reflect the training caliber at the Malaysian Peacekeeping Centre, the first of its kind in Southeast Asia. This training center demonstrates Malaysia’s role as a provider of peacekeepers, a training supplier, and an important regional partner.

Malaysia has consistently committed to building Southeast Asia’s capacity to deploy on peace operations. Malaysia provides instructors to regional training courses organized by the United States Pacific Command. The Malaysian Peacekeeping Centre here at Port Dickson also hosts a number of international events relating to gender, protection of civilians, civil-military coordination and child protection. Training courses in these areas make a critical contribution to international peace operations and build effectiveness of United Nations peacekeepers from other troop contributing countries. The United States has been pleased to stand with Malaysia in these efforts.

The United States applauds Malaysia’s innovative approach to building regional capacity by incorporating other regional partners’ peacekeeping forces with their own units, as Malaysia has done with Brunei. We encourage continued national investment in these “attached unit” opportunities that enable other countries to contribute troops to international peacekeeping missions and foster regional collaboration.

We also commend your efforts to integrate women into the peacekeeping deployment cycle. Malaysian women are part of the battalion in Lebanon and one of the Malaysian female peacekeepers serves as an expert on mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Female peacekeepers play an important role by improving access and support for local women, and helping to reduce conflict and confrontation. We encourage Malaysia to continue its efforts in this regard.

We are proud that the United States has contributed more than $3 million to Malaysia’s success in obtaining self-sufficient capabilities in peace operations training. The United States looks forward to continuing to work with Malaysia in their future contributions to international peace operations. Achieving full training capability is not the end of the partnership between our two countries; it simply marks the creation of a new framework for our partnership, which we look forward to jointly developing.

Through our new partnership framework, the United States will continue to work with Malaysia in other areas of defense cooperation. We look forward to every opportunity to discuss not only our continued cooperation on international peace operations, but other areas of defense cooperation of mutual interest to our two nations.

In closing, I would like to again give our congratulations Malaysia for its significant achievement as the first Global Peace Operations Initiative partner country to reach full training capability. The United States applauds Malaysia’s enduring leadership in peace operations and looks forward to continuing our defense cooperation partnership with the Government of Malaysia. Thank you very much.

SUPPORTING JUSTICE IN SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:   U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
INL Support to South Sudan's Justice Sector
Fact Sheet
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
September 4, 2013

INL has been committed to supporting justice in South Sudan since before its in-dependence. Working in close coordination with the donor community in South Sudan, INL’s focus is on effective community polic-ing and building the capac-ity of the criminal justice system through support and training to judges, prosecutors, and correc-tions officials.

Police: INL, in partnership with the Department of Jus-tice, provides training in Information Led Policing (ILP) in the state capitals of Bor, Wau, and Torit. ILP focuses on community outreach, tracking basic crime information, analysis, and deployment of resources. INL also partici-pates in the development of a Livestock Patrol Unit (LPU) in Jonglei State. The LPU, a specialized police unit, ad-dresses cattle raiding as a critical threat to stability. Fi-nally, INL’s Highway Patrol Unit (HPU) established the first police presence on the vital Juba-Nimule highway; eventually INL trained HPU will be in place on all national highways.

Rule of Law: INL, through implementer IDLO, provides institutional and training support to the Judiciary of South Sudan, South Sudanese lawyers, and the University of Juba School of Law. INL, in partnership with Norway, funds a UNDP project for construction of the Law School com-plex. An INL grant supports Pact, a non-governmental organization, in a project to provide rural access to justice in remote counties of Eastern Equatoria, Upper Nile and Jonglei states. The pro-gram encompasses the training of paralegals, local legal aid clinics, integration of traditional judges, and public education programs on legal rights directed at citizens historically outside the reach of the formal justice system. The INL Juvenile Justice program works to assure the protec-tion of the rights of juveniles in conflict with the law and encourage alternatives to incarceration when appropriate. INL also provides a Rule of Law Advisor in support of the nascent South Su-dan and South Sudan Women’s Bar Associations.

Corrections: The INL program focuses on improved management of prisons through support to the National Prison Services’ (NPS) Lologo Training Academy, including funding for construc-tion of dormitories, an administration complex, and provision of a planning specialist to assist the NPS in setting forth a long term plan for the Academy.

UN: INL provides police and corrections advisors in support of the UN in South Sudan. INL-provided advisors are stationed throughout South Sudan in places such as Juba, Wau, Bor, and Malakal. They mentor and train their South Sudanese counter-parts as well as serve in leadership positions in UNPOL. INL will add several new advisors in 2013, including additional assistance to the management of the Prison Academy.

U.S. Institute of Peace: INL funds USIP’s work with focus groups on conflict resolution in small communities and the creation of a policy institute for South Sudanese academics to evaluate critical issues for the National Assembly, Council of Ministers and others.

U.S. CONCERNED OVER DELAYS IN IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SUDAN AND SOUTH SUDAN





Maps:  Sudan Left, South Sudan Right.  Credit:  CIA World Factbook
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Delayed Implementation of Agreements by Sudan and South Sudan

Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson,
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 19, 2012The United States is increasingly concerned about the delays in implementation of the historic agreements signed in Addis Ababa by Sudan and South Sudan on September 27. The Sudanese and South Sudanese people deserve swift and complete implementation of these agreements, as called for in the October 24 African Union Peace and Security Council communique.

The creation of the safe demilitarized border zone between the two countries is vital to ensure that both countries honor their commitments to cease support to proxies and, most importantly, prevent inter-state conflict. We are concerned that no progress was made at the November 6-7 Joint Political and Security Mechanism meeting between the two parties, and we call on Sudan and South Sudan to immediately reconvene and recommit themselves to the September 27 agreements. Allowing this unresolved issue to impede implementation of the other agreements threatens the stability of both countries.

We are also disappointed by delays in the resumption of oil production. This denies much needed revenue to both economies, and we urge both parties to resume production while they work to resolve other bilateral issues and, along with the African Union, urgently stand-up the Petroleum Monitoring Committee.

U.S. CONCERNED ABOUT EXPULSION OF UN HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICER FROM SOUTH SUDAN

Sudan.  Map Credit:  CIA World Factbook. 

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Expulsion of U.N. Human Rights Investigator in South Sudan

Press Statement
Mark C. Toner
Acting Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 6, 2012

We are deeply concerned about the Republic of South Sudan’s decision to order a Human Rights Officer working for the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) to depart the country within 48 hours.

The United States fully supports UNMISS and its efforts to strengthen government institutions, to provide humanitarian relief, and to monitor, mitigate, and prevent conflict throughout South Sudan. Human rights monitoring, investigation and reporting are core elements of the UNMISS mandate. It is important that the Mission’s Human Rights Officers be allowed to carry out this work without fear of reprisal or expulsion. Fostering deeper respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights will strengthen South Sudan’s democratic, civic, and national identity, and we encourage further progress in that regard.


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM CIA WORLD FACTBOOK

Egypt attempted to colonize the region of southern Sudan by establishing the province of Equatoria in the 1870s. Islamic Mahdist revolutionaries overran the region in 1885, but in 1898 a British force was able to overthrow the Mahdist regime. An Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was established the following year with Equatoria being the southernmost of its eight provinces. The isolated region was largely left to itself over the following decades, but Christian missionaries converted much of the population and facilitated the spread of English. When Sudan gained its independence in 1956, it was with the understanding that the southerners would be able to participate fully in the political system. When the Arab Khartoum government reneged on its promises, a mutiny began that led to two prolonged periods of conflict (1955-1972 and 1983-2005) in which perhaps 2.5 million people died - mostly civilians - due to starvation and drought. Ongoing peace talks finally resulted in a Comprehensive Peace Agreement, signed in January 2005. As part of this agreement the south was granted a six-year period of autonomy to be followed by a referendum on final status. The result of this referendum, held in January 2011, was a vote of 98% in favor of secession. Independence was attained on 9 July 2011.

MILITARY COOPERATION IN AFRICA

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Army Major General David R. Hogg , center, commander of U.S. Army Africa, and Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces Lt. Col. A.B. Conteh inspect Sierra Leone troops during a deployment ceremony, May 20, 2012. U.S. Army Africa photo.   

Signs of Military Professionalism, Cooperation On Rise in Africa
By Donna Miles
STUTTGART, Germany, June 26, 2012 – Dotting the African continent are promising examples of the capable, professional military forces U.S. Africa Command is working to promote.

As Tunisia spawned what became known as the Arab Spring in December 2010, its military opposed then-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s order to use force against the pro-democracy protesters who ultimately brought down his regime.

The Ugandan army has become a professional force and plays a key role in advancing regional peace and security, conducting humanitarian operations at home while contributing thousands of troops to counterterrorism and peacekeeping efforts in neighboring Somalia.

Uganda is also among four African nations -- also including South Sudan, Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo -- that have come together to fight the Lord’s Resistance Army, one of Africa’s most violent and persistent rebel groups which has brutalized civilians in the region for a quarter-century.

Meanwhile, Uganda, Burundi and Djibouti are contributing forces under the banner of the African Union Mission in Somalia, or AMISOM, to help Somalia deal with the al-Shabab terrorist organization that threatens its transitional government.

And in Liberia -- a nation long wracked by civil war and instability -- the military once discredited as the puppet of former president and convicted war criminal Charles Taylor has become a respected organization under the direction of the democratically elected civilian leadership.

Officials at Africom, the United States’ newest combatant command focused on Africa, see these and other developments as a sign of positive trends they’re helping to shape on the continent.

Strengthening the defense capabilities of African countries and encouraging them to work together to confront common security threats and challenges has been a cornerstone of Africom’s work since its standup in 2008.

Africom has been instrumental in supporting other promising developments, Army Maj. Gen. Charles J. Hooper, Africom’s director of strategy, plans and programs, told American Forces Press Service. “We see increasing trends toward democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights,” he said. “And I think Africom has played a very positive role in supporting those trends.”

Hooper pointed to the role U.S. military advisors and mentors have played in rebuilding the Armed Forces of Liberia through a five-year, State-Department funded Africom program known as Operation Onward Liberty. For the past two years, Marine Forces Africa has led the joint Marine-Army-Air Force effort aimed at helping professionalize the Liberian military and ensuring it's able to defend the country’s borders and come to the aid of its neighbors if needed.

“This small training and education mission [is] focused on developing a cohesive Liberian armed force,” said Hooper. “I saw our Operation Onward Liberty mentors assisting them in everything from [establishing] a fair military justice system and teaching the military police to serve, to working in the clinics, all the way to assisting the young soldiers in the Liberian army who volunteered and started an elementary school on their base,” he said.

Particularly encouraging, he said, was the Liberian military’s new focus on internal development. Engineering units, for example, were using their equipment to build roads and rebuild infrastructure ravaged during years of civil war.

Hooper said he was impressed by the Liberian force that has emerged. “What I saw there was a Liberian military that had a renewed faith in itself, a renewed enthusiasm about being a force for good in its country and serving the people,” he said.
Michael Casciaro, Africom’s security cooperation programs division chief, reported similar promise in Uganda, where the command is providing training and equipment to build capability and capacity.

Casciaro said he received favorable feedback about the transformation taking place in the Ugandan military from the unlikeliest of sources: an opposition leader. “What he told us was, ‘I see the difference in Americans operating in my country… I see the impact of Americans working with the Ugandans because now they … go out and do humanitarian things for their own country, and are being used in a different way,’” Casciaro said.

In 2007, Uganda stepped up to support the African Union peacekeeping mission in Somalia, followed by Burundi; both remain today as the primary troop-contributing nations. “A major objective of ours has been to prepare Africans to go into Somalia to create stability,” Casciaro said. “And [the African militaries] have been instrumental in clearing a prominent terrorist group out of Mogadishu,” a first step toward expanding the effort north to regain control of the country.

Army Brig. Gen. Arnold Gordon-Bray, Africom’s deputy operations director, called the mission in Somalia “one of the best examples of Africans helping themselves that we are involved in.”

The African Union established its African Union Mission to Somalia with a clear vision that a failed Somalia would impact the entire continent, Bray said.

“This collective grouping is epitomizing what Africom is able to do, working with the State Department, working with other international partners, working by, with and through African partners to bring stability,” he said. “It is a great mission. It is symbolic of all the great things we are trying to do.”

A full range of peacekeeping training and instruction falls under the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance, a program funded and managed by the U.S. State Department. It is designed to improve African militaries’ capabilities by providing selected training and equipment required to execute multinational peace support operations. U.S. military trainers play a supporting role, providing mentorship and specialized instruction in areas such as bomb detection or deployment logistics.

Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, the Africom commander, told Congress earlier this year he’s also encouraged by “an increasingly collaborative approach” among African nations standing together against al-Shabab. As they rallied to Somalia’s aid, the U.S. State Department responded to their requests for help in training and equipping those forces so they would be able to deploy to conduct their operations.

Ham called this effort a model of what U.S. Africa Command is all about: a command able to tap into the full range of U.S. government capabilities to help African nations better provide for their own security.

“And it is starting now to have significant benefit… We are seeing those African forces being more and more successful against al-Shabab each and every day,” he said. “This is one example of how building partner capacity really yields a decisive result in Africa,” he said.

Ham cited similar success in helping Africans in their fight against the Lord’s Resistance Army.

U.S. Special Forces advisors working with the four nations on the ground “are having a very positive effect,” he told the House Armed Services Committee in February. “We’re assisting in intelligence fusion, in facilitating long-range communications, logistics operations to sustain forces in the field for long periods of time and increased intelligence collection.”

“So I’m optimistic,” he told the House panel. “But I’m not yet to the point where we see the end in sight.”

The result, Ham said, is fulfillment of Africom’s goal of enabling Africans to solve African problems.

“If that is successful -- and I believe the trend line is pretty good right now -- that means that’s an area where the United States would not have to commit sizable forces to address a security situation,” Ham told the House panel. “And that’s really what we’re trying to do. That’s the essence of building partner capability in this collaborative approach with state and defense.”