BNP PARIBAS SENTENCED FOR VIOLATING TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONMIC POWERS ACT

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, May 1, 2015
BNP Paribas Sentenced for Conspiring to Violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act

BNP Paribas S.A. (BNPP), a global financial institution headquartered in Paris, was sentenced today for conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) by processing billions of dollars of transactions through the U.S. financial system on behalf of Sudanese, Iranian and Cuban entities subject to U.S. economic sanctions.  BNPP was sentenced to a five-year term of probation, and ordered to forfeit $8,833,600,000 to the United States and to pay a $140,000,000 fine.  Today’s sentencing is the first time a financial institution has been convicted and sentenced for violations of U.S. economic sanctions, and the total financial penalty—including the forfeiture and criminal fine—is the largest financial penalty ever imposed in a criminal case.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York, Assistant Director in Charge Diego Rodriguez of the FBI’s New York Field Office and Chief Richard Weber of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) made the announcement.  U.S. District Court Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the Southern District of New York imposed the sentence.

“BNP Paribas flouted U.S. sanctions laws to an unprecedented extreme, concealed its tracks, and then chose not to fully cooperate with U.S. law enforcement, leading to a criminal guilty plea and nearly $9 billion penalty” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell.  “BNPP deliberately disregarded the law and provided rogue nations, and Sudan in particular, with vital access to the global financial system, helping that country’s lawless government to harbor and support terrorists and to persecute its own people.  Today’s sentence demonstrates that financial institutions will be punished severely but appropriately for violating sanctions laws and risking our national security interests.”

“BNPP, the world's fourth largest bank, has now been sentenced to pay a record penalty of almost $9 billion for sanctions violations that unlawfully opened the U.S. financial markets to Sudan, Iran, and Cuba,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara.  “BNPP provided access to billions of dollars to these sanctioned countries, and did so deliberately and secretly, in ways designed to evade detection by the U.S. authorities.  The sentence imposed today is appropriate for BNPP’s years-long and wide-ranging criminal conduct.”

“The sentencing of BNP Paribas Bank and the $9 Billion monetary penalty should sound the alarm to international financial institutions thinking of perpetrating these crimes,” said Chief Weber.  “The ability of IRS-CI and our partners to expose blatant violations of U.S. embargos and sanctions has changed the way financial matters are handled worldwide. We will continue to use our financial expertise to uncover these types of violations, as well as methodical and deliberate actions to conceal prohibited transactions from U.S. regulators and law enforcement.”

In connection with its guilty plea on July 9, 2014, BNPP admitted that from at least 2004 through 2012, it knowingly and willfully moved over $8.8 billion through the U.S. financial system on behalf of Sudanese, Iranian and Cuban sanctioned entities, in violation of U.S. economic sanctions.  The majority of illegal payments were made on behalf of sanctioned entities in Sudan, which was subject to U.S. embargo based on the Sudanese government’s role in facilitating terrorism and committing human rights abuses.  BNPP processed approximately $6.4 billion through the United States on behalf of Sudanese sanctioned entities from July 2006 through June 2007, including approximately $4 billion on behalf of a financial institution owned by the government of Sudan, even as internal emails showed BNPP employees expressing concern about the bank’s assisting the Sudanese government in light of its role in supporting international terrorism and committing human rights abuses during the same time period.  Indeed, in March 2007, a senior compliance officer at BNPP wrote to other high-level BNPP compliance and legal employees reminding them that certain Sudanese banks with which BNPP dealt “play a pivotal part in the support of the Sudanese government which . . . has hosted Osama Bin Laden and refuses the United Nations intervention in Darfur.”

Similarly, from October 2004 through early 2010, BNPP knowingly and willfully processed approximately $1.74 billion on behalf of Cuban sanctioned entities.  BNPP admitted that it continued to do U.S. dollar business with Cuba long after it was clear that such business was illegal.  BNPP further admitted that its conduct with regard to the Cuban embargo was both “cavalier” and “criminal.”

BNPP also engaged in more than $650 million of transactions involving entities tied to Iran, and this conduct continued into 2012—nearly two years after the bank had commenced an internal investigation into its sanctions compliance and pledged to cooperate with the government.  The illicit Iranian transactions included transactions for a petroleum company based in Dubai that was effectively a front for an Iranian petroleum company and an Iranian oil company.

In accepting BNPP’s guilty plea, Judge Schofield stated that BNPP’s actions “not only flouted U.S. foreign policy but also provided support to governments that threaten both our regional and national security and, in the case of Sudan, a government that has committed flagrant human rights abuses and has known links to terrorism.”  Judge Schofield further stated that the forfeiture of over $8 billion will “surely have a deterrent effect on others that may be tempted to engage in similar conduct, all of whom should be aware that no financial institution is immune from the rule of law.”

The Justice Department is exploring ways to use the forfeited funds to compensate individuals who may have been harmed by the sanctioned regimes of Sudan, Iran and Cuba.  As a preliminary step in this process, the Justice Department is inviting such individuals or their representatives to provide information describing the nature and value of the harm they suffered.  Beginning today (May 1, 2015), interested persons can learn more about this process and submit their information at www.usvbnpp.com [external link], or call 888-272-5632 (within North America) or 317-324-0382 (internationally).

In addition to its federal criminal conviction, BNPP pleaded guilty in New York State Supreme Court to falsifying business records and conspiring to falsify business records.  BNPP also agreed to a cease and desist order and to pay a civil monetary penalty of $508 million to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  The New York State Department of Financial Services announced that BNPP agreed to, among other things, terminate or separate from the bank 13 employees, including the Group Chief Operating Officer and other senior executives; suspend U.S. dollar clearing operations through its New York Branch and other affiliates for one year for business lines on which the misconduct centered; extend for two years a monitorship put in place in 2013; and pay a monetary penalty of $2.24 billion.  In satisfying its criminal forfeiture penalty, BNPP will receive credit for payments it made in connection with its resolution of these related state and regulatory matters.  The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control also levied a fine of $963 million, which will be satisfied by payments made to the Justice Department.

This case was investigated by the IRS-CI’s Washington Field Office and FBI’s New York Field Office.  This case was prosecuted by Deputy Chief Craig Timm and Trial Attorney Jennifer E. Ambuehl of the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrew D. Goldstein, Martin S. Bell, Christine I. Magdo and Micah W.J. Smith of the Southern District of New York.

The New York County District Attorney’s Office conducted its own investigation alongside the Justice Department in this case.  The Justice Department expressed its gratitude to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the New York State Department of Financial Services and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control for their assistance with this matter.

READOUT: DRL DEPUTY ASSITANT SECRETARY FELDSTEIN'S TRIP TO SUDAN

FROM:   U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor: Readout of DRL Deputy Assistant Secretary Feldstein Trip to Sudan
02/28/2015 11:33 AM EST

Readout of DRL Deputy Assistant Secretary Feldstein Trip to Sudan

Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
February 28, 2015

During his February 22-26 visit to Sudan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Steve Feldstein met with Sudanese government leaders, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and civil society activists, including representatives of Sudan’s religious communities, journalists, and humanitarian groups and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Blue Nile State. His visit highlights the importance of advancing democracy and human rights in Sudan and resolving the ongoing conflicts in Darfur and the Two Areas. He also reiterated U.S. support for an inclusive and comprehensive National Dialogue to resolve Sudan’s conflicts. Deputy Assistant Secretary Feldstein said the United States will continue to emphasize key democracy and human rights priorities in Sudan. He underscored the importance of ending human rights abuses especially in Darfur and the Two Areas, increasing space for civil society, opposition political parties, activists, and journalists, and addressing concerns about religious freedom.

In meetings with Sudanese government officials Deputy Assistant Secretary Feldstein expressed his concern about targeted attacks against civilians in Darfur and the Two Areas, including aerial bombardments of civilian targets, and attacks on aid workers. He called upon the Government of Sudan to fully investigate and hold perpetrators of these acts accountable as a necessary step towards peace. Feldstein urged the government to allow the UN to investigate the allegations of mass rape in the town of Tabit, and bring the perpetrators to justice. Feldstein further called on the government to create a conducive environment for National Dialogue and pressed for the release of political prisoners including Farouq Abu Eissa, Amin Mekki Medani, and Farah Agar.

Members of Sudan’s human rights community and civil society highlighted a range of concerns, including harassment, intimidation, detention, government restrictions on their ability to operate, and severe violations of religious freedom.‎ Deputy Assistant Secretary Feldstein expressed concern that the Sudanese government had confiscated at least 15 newspaper print runs and stressed that respect for press freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of association would demonstrate the government's commitment to National Dialogue.

In Blue Nile State Deputy Assistant Secretary Feldstein noted that the situation continues to deteriorate, hundreds of thousands remain displaced from their homes, and restrictions on access continue to limit the ability of humanitarian organizations to reach people in need. In meetings with local officials he raised allegations of human rights abuses, including those involving rape, beatings, assault, and restrictions of movement for displaced persons.

DAS Feldstein said the United States remains committed to the Sudanese people and pledged to continue our efforts to advance respect for human rights for the Sudanese people.

DAS Feldstein’s engagement with nongovernment representatives and government officials reinforces the United States’ belief that a comprehensive and inclusive national dialogue to address the deteriorating environment for human rights and civil liberties is urgent. The United States in the coming weeks will be working closely with international partners to encourage and support an inclusive political dialogue, including by continuing to press for a cessation of hostilities in all conflict areas. Finally, the United States will continue to condition development of its bilateral relationship with Sudan on the Sudanese government improving its respect for human rights and democratic principles.

U.N. REPRESENTATIVE POWER'S REMARKS ON DARFUR VOTE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
February 12, 2015
AS DELIVERED

Thank you. In November, this Council was confronted with reports of an alleged mass rape in Thabit – a town in North Darfur, Sudan. The UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur attempted to investigate, but was systematically denied meaningful access. The one time the peacekeepers were permitted to reach Thabit, Sudanese military and intelligence officials refused to let them interview alleged rape victims in private, and in some cases recorded the interviews. To this day, the Government of Sudan has shamefully denied the UN the ability to properly investigate this incident, despite this Council’s mandate for UNAMID to do precisely that.

Yesterday, a report released by Human Rights Watch alleged that at least 221 women and girls were raped in an organized attack on Thabit, over a period of thirty-six harrowing hours beginning on October 30, 2014. According to the report, Sudanese soldiers went door to door – looting, beating, and raping inhabitants. Over 50 current and former residents provided testimony corroborating the crimes, as did two reported army defectors who separately told Human Rights Watch that their superiors had ordered them to rape women. Because the Government of Sudan denied the UN a proper investigation, we have to rely on organizations such as Human Rights Watch to gather witness and perpetrator testimony and to shine a light on what happened.

One woman told Human Rights Watch that soldiers entered her home and said, “You killed our man. We are going to show you true hell.” Then, she said, “They started beating us. They raped my three daughters and me. Some of them were holding the girl down while another one was raping her. They did it one by one.” Two of her daughters were younger than 11-years-old, she said. Many of the witnesses interviewed told Human Rights Watch that government officials had threatened to kill them if they told anybody what happened.

Nearly ten years after the Security Council first adopted Resolution 1591 with the aim of protecting civilians in Darfur and stopping the violence there, the horror of Thabit is just one attack, in one place, out of too many to count.

In 2014 alone, more than 450,000 additional people were displaced in Darfur – the highest number of new IDPs in any year since 2004 – adding to the approximately two million people already displaced. In the first six weeks of this year, humanitarian organizations estimate an additional 36,000 people have been driven from their homes in North Darfur State.

People living in areas afflicted by violence are in desperate need of humanitarian aid, yet obstruction, harassment, and direct attacks by the Sudanese government have made them increasingly hard to reach. Two weeks ago, Medecins Sans Frontieres shut down its operations in three states in Sudan – including two in Darfur – citing the “government’s systematic denial of access” to communities in the greatest need.

In one example MSF cited, the Government of Sudan prevented its emergency workers from traveling to the IDP camp in El Sereif, in Darfur, where the organization said residents did not have enough drinking water to survive. MSF also suspended operations in South Kordofan State, where its hospital was bombed by a Sudanese Air Force jet.

Today we renewed the mandate of an important UN panel that monitors the sanctions imposed by this Council – sanctions the government of Sudan continues to flout. The government and armed groups it supports routinely violate the arms embargo – a fact that they openly acknowledge. They continue to launch deliberate attacks on civilians, as well as on UNAMID peacekeepers; between December 2013 to April 2014 alone, 3,324 villages were destroyed in Darfur, according to the Panel of Experts. And the Sudanese government continues to allow individuals subject to sanctions to travel and access their finances.

Today we renewed a sanctions monitoring panel that has provided thorough, independent monitoring of the Government of Sudan and other armed groups in Darfur, with a resolution that is more forward-leaning than its predecessors.

But even as we take this important step, we are reminded that the sanctions regime is impotent when the Sudanese government systematically violates it, and the Council cannot agree to impose sanctions on those responsible for the violence and the abuses.

Nonetheless, today’s resolution matters. It speaks to our deep concern with these ongoing violations, it presses the Government of Sudan to take the long-overdue steps necessary to protect the people of Darfur and stop the violence. For the first time, it condemns the violence perpetrated by the government-backed Rapid Support Forces, the heirs to the Janjaweed. And, for the first time, it urges the Sudanese government to account for the situation of civilian populations, who are suffering from devastating waves of attacks in North Darfur, like the reported mass rapes at Thabit.

Yet encouraging as it is to see some very modest improvements to today’s renewals resolution, the most important measure of our efforts will be our ability to alleviate the immeasurable suffering of the people of Darfur. And on that front, this Council – and the international community – has failed. Our complacency is deadly for the people of Darfur. So perhaps today, with a slightly more robust sanctions resolution, we can reignite this Council’s engagement on this continuing crisis.

People’s lives depend on it, and so too does the credibility of this Council – because our ability to promote international peace and security depends on our ability to keep our word, and implement the measures that we impose. And we need to do it because for every Thabit we know about, there are so many more villages that have been the victims of unspeakable atrocities over the past decade in Darfur. They demand we find a way to stop this, and we must.

Thank you.

AMBASSADOR PRESSMAN'S REMARKS ON PEACE-BUILDING AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Remarks at a Security Council Briefing on Post-Conflict Peace-building
01/14/2015 01:30 PM EST
Ambassador David Pressman
Alternate Representative to the UN for Special Political Affairs 
New York, NY
January 14, 2015
AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Mr. President. And let me begin by thanking the Deputy Secretary General and Ambassador Patriota for your leadership on this issue and for your briefings this morning, and to you, Foreign Minister Muñoz, for your presence here today, and to Chile for convening this important discussion.

Mr. President, preventing relapse into conflict was the primary objective for the creation of the Peacebuilding Architecture in 2005. And a decade later, it remains an urgent undertaking.

It has been said by others and we know that war is not like the weather – it doesn’t just happen; it is not inevitable. And it can be stopped. But we also know that countries that have experienced conflict once have heightened risk for relapsing into conflict again, and again. And we have seen the devastating consequences of that deadly cycle of conflict, from South Sudan to the Central African Republic.

But while war or conflict should never be deemed inevitable, too often, too many adopt a cynical passivity to emerging signs of tension or indicators of potential conflict – a passivity that assumes the futility of efforts to prevent potential conflict from metastasizing into actual conflict; and a cynicism that assumes, essentially, that certain places are just destined to fight it out.

The Peacebuilding Architecture is a living challenge to that dangerous cynicism and deadly passivity. It is a challenge for us to turn expressions of concern into coordinated actions -- actions to ensure that societies recovering from conflict do not relapse back into it. And it is a commitment to the idea that our past can indeed be put behind us and that our shared future can be built, together and in peace.

We know that when the international community mobilizes in concert with national authorities, together we can change behavior and assumptions and we can stop that which may have been written off by some as “inevitable.” Peace is built through hard work and, as the Secretary-General notes in his report, we have made “significant gains” in places and countries as diverse as Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Tunisia in efforts to consolidate peace.

In Sierra Leone, the integrated work of successive UN missions and the country team, as well as the engagement of the Peacebuilding Commission, has been critical to breaking the cycle of violence – providing space for a country and a people hungry for peace to turn their focus from war to prosperity; from conflict to electoral contests; from isolation to sustainable development. Sierra Leone has held three peaceful, credible elections since the end of the civil war in 2002, and new institutions, supported by the international community, are finding their place in society and contributing to the important work of building a government that is responsive to its citizens. Support from the United Nations has been critical to this transition.

For instance, United Nations support for institutions such as the All Political Parties Women’s Association, with a target of 30% female participation in all political parties, has increased women’s participation in Sierra Leone’s elections, building public trust in the elections process. And we know that the full and equal participation of women – whether in forging peace agreements, electing leaders, or leading post-conflict reconstruction – is absolutely critical to sustainable peace and stability. We cannot build peace for half of a society and expect it to be meaningful or lasting.

That is why the work of entities like the United Nations Peace Fund for Nepal, which has designated 30% of their funding for projects addressing the needs of women and girls -- including projects in the domain of land reform, conflict prevention, the rule of law, and the reintegration of child soldiers -- is so important. A project on land issues ensured extensive women’s participation in consultations on land use planning, a domain from which women had traditionally been excluded. Developments in Nepal demonstrate that appreciable progress can be made with targeted funding, leadership, and capacities for gender-responsive programming.

As the Deputy Secretary General noted, in Guinea, the creation of a “Women’s Situation Room” to support a network of local women’s organizations during the 2013 parliamentary elections not only increased women’s participation in the elections, it enabled them to actively participate as elections monitors and helped build confidence in the entire electoral system. The creation of community-led, early childhood development centers in Cote d’Ivoire enhanced social cohesion by bringing together women of diverse backgrounds focused on the well-being of children.

Kyrgyz women, with training from UN Women and United Nations Development Program, have formed women’s peace committees and have become important actors in monitoring tensions and government response within their community -- again, building social cohesion as well as trust between local populations and authorities in regions affected by conflict.

Full and equal inclusion of women and girls is not something that is just “just”; it is essential to build the peace of which we speak. Yet still, the participation of women in peacebuilding receives too little attention, is too often underfunded, and is too often thought of as an “effort to be inclusive” rather than a recognition that the full participation of women is a precondition of lasting peace. We must change this mindset and, in the process, change minds. And we must build our peacebuilding efforts to ensure they are inclusive, and in doing so we will make them more effective.

The recent outbreak of Ebola presented a new kind of threat to international peace and security that has indeed demanded an unprecedented response. We commend the United Nations’ critical efforts to mobilize human, financial, and technical resources to deliver an integrated response in the post-conflict countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. The Peacebuilding Commission can play an important role in bringing together key partners to coordinate assistance efforts and maximize the impact of the international community on the ground.

Unfortunately, international efforts have been less successful in producing results towards ending the enduring and daily threat to international peace and security presented in places like South Sudan. Despite a hard-won independence, South Sudan has erupted into deadly and devastating conflict, exacerbating ethnic tensions, eroding hope, and provoking a dire and man-made humanitarian crisis. Despite one of the most comprehensive UN peacekeeping mandates ever adopted by the Council and despite historic levels of international support, and despite almost infinite goodwill from international partners, political leaders in South Sudan have prioritized political power and conflict over peace and stability. Their actions have exacerbated tensions, have brought about tens of thousands of deaths, have displaced nearly 2 million innocent people, and are bringing this young nation – the United Nations’ newest member state – to the threshold of state failure. We cannot give up and we cannot allow the parties in South Sudan to abandon their people’s aspirations and right to live in peace and prosperity. And in standing with the people of South Sudan, we must be unified in our demand for the violence to end and that those responsible for this carnage be held to account.

Until recently, successive conflicts in the Central African Republic, received too little attention from the international community. A lack of vision for national reform, limited political will from the international community, and successive weak UN presences with little capacity to help develop state institutions further destabilized the country’s weak governance structure and undermined social cohesion. Our action last year in authorizing an integrated peacekeeping mission to protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian access, and support the state as it seeks to re-establish governance was a necessary action to stop the ensuing bloodshed. Bolstered by the contribution of troops from member-states from several regional organizations and humanitarian donations from around the globe, these collective actions represent the most comprehensive level of international engagement in the Central African Republic to date.

Mr. President, we must reflect on these lessons as we undertake the five-year review of the UN Peacebuilding Architecture. We have learned that peacebuilding requires the sustained, not sporadic, and coordinated commitment of national, regional, and international actors. It requires inclusivity – meaning women and girls are at the forefront and at the table, not an afterthought or excluded. It means the international community holds political actors accountable to the agreements they undertake and agreed frameworks to which they subscribe. And it means that addressing human rights abusers, hate, and discrimination head-on is the path to sustainable peace, not a diversion from it or an obstacle to it.

We hope that the Peacebuilding Architecture Review’s Advisory Group of Experts will heed these lessons and develop concrete recommendations to enhance the Peacebuilding Commission’s relevance and real-world impact by focusing on achieving results through its core competencies of coordination, resource mobilization, and advocacy.

2015, as others have noted, will also see the Secretary-General’s High Level Review of UN Peace Operations, as well as the Global Study of Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. We must challenge ourselves not to think about these issues only in silos. Peacekeepers are essential in setting the stable foundation for peace and development and peacekeepers are increasingly and appropriately being called upon to protect civilians in dire need of protection. Protecting civilians is not only an essential element of creating space for peace, it is vital for the credibility of the United Nations in the eyes of local populations and around the world. As such, it is essential for UN peacekeepers to carry out their protection of civilian mandates robustly and in a way that gives people confidence that we mean what we say.

And in this vein, let’s mean what we say when we sit at this table and recommit ourselves to the work of the Peacebuilding Architecture. Let’s translate our commitment to the inclusion of women into the actual inclusion of women. And let’s translate our hope for peace into the hard work required of building it.

Thank you, Mr. President.

SECRETARY KERRY'S STATEMENT ON MERIAM ISHAG AND FAMILY'S ARRIVAL IN ROME

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

On Meriam Ishag and Family

Press Statement

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

July 25, 2014

---

Around the world, supporters of religious freedom celebrate the arrival of Meriam Ishag and her family in Rome. I am grateful to the Government of Italy for its role in working with the Government of Sudan to enable Ms. Ishag and her family to depart Sudan.

I want to acknowledge the many individuals in the United States and the international community who expressed their concern at Ms. Ishag’s plight. Their concerns were our cause. I am especially proud that our diplomatic efforts through the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum helped secure Ms. Ishag’s and her family’s release. The United States will continue to be an unwavering advocate for the right to freedom of religion worldwide.

I extend my personal best wishes to Ms. Ishag and her family as they rebuild their lives and restore hope for a future where all people can live their faiths fully and freely.

U.S. STATEMENT ON SUDAN'S COURT DECISION TO FREE MERIAM YAHYA IBRAHIM ISHAG

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

U.S. Welcomes Court Ruling to Free Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag

Press Statement

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

June 23, 2014

---

We obviously welcome the decision by the Sudanese Appeals Court to order the release of Ms. Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag. Her case has rightly drawn the attention of the world and has been of deep concern to the United States Government and many of our citizens and their representatives in Congress.

Nothing can bring the lost moments back to a mother and her children, but today we celebrate the reunification of this family. From this step, we would hope that the Government of Sudan could take further strides toward a different and more hopeful future for the people of Sudan.
We continue to urge Sudan to repeal its laws that are inconsistent with its 2005 Interim Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These actions would help demonstrate to the Sudanese people that their government intends to respect their fundamental freedoms and universal human rights.

SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS STATEMENT ON WORLD REFUGEE DAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Commemorating World Refugee Day

Press Statement

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

June 20, 2014

---

World Refugee Day is more than a moment marked on a calendar. It is a time to honor the strength and resilience of refugees around the world and renew our determination to support them as they rebuild their lives and communities. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees now counts the number of refugees, asylum-seekers, and internally displaced persons at 51 million. That number is staggering by any measure. It represents children, women, and men from Syria, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and now Iraq, who face death, destruction, and dislocation. For them, daily survival is a gamble.

The dreams refugees harbor have special meaning for Americans. Even before our land was a nation, America was a haven for those seeking freedom from persecution, hunger, oppression and war. Today, refugees continue to look to America for relief and opportunity. These refugees, many of whom arrive having lost everything, become some of the most resilient, entrepreneurial, and devoted citizens we have.

When I visited the UN’s Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan last year, I saw firsthand the value and importance of our work. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians – many women and children – live there in suspended animation, waiting for the opportunity to rebuild their lives. I met with some of the camp’s many residents. Their needs were simple: food, shelter, stability. But most of all, they want to live their lives with the dignity and respect that all people deserve.

That’s why I’m proud that the United States is the largest donor to humanitarian relief worldwide. Our humanitarian assistance has saved lives and eased suffering for 4.7 million people inside Syria and more than 2.8 million refugees in neighboring countries. We have also recently announced nearly $300 million in additional humanitarian assistance to help the people affected by the conflict in South Sudan. Beyond just dollars and programs, our efforts are assisting millions who have fled conflict and persecution in the Central African Republic, Burma, Afghanistan, and many other places around the world.

World Refugee Day is more than a moment marked on a calendar. It is a time to honor the strength and resilience of refugees around the world and renew our determination to support them as they rebuild their lives and communities. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees now counts the number of refugees, asylum-seekers, and internally displaced persons at 51 million. That number is staggering by any measure. It represents children, women, and men from Syria, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and now Iraq, who face death, destruction, and dislocation. For them, daily survival is a gamble.

The dreams refugees harbor have special meaning for Americans. Even before our land was a nation, America was a haven for those seeking freedom from persecution, hunger, oppression and war. Today, refugees continue to look to America for relief and opportunity. These refugees, many of whom arrive having lost everything, become some of the most resilient, entrepreneurial, and devoted citizens we have.

When I visited the UN’s Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan last year, I saw firsthand the value and importance of our work. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians – many women and children – live there in suspended animation, waiting for the opportunity to rebuild their lives. I met with some of the camp’s many residents. Their needs were simple: food, shelter, stability. But most of all, they want to live their lives with the dignity and respect that all people deserve.

That’s why I’m proud that the United States is the largest donor to humanitarian relief worldwide. Our humanitarian assistance has saved lives and eased suffering for 4.7 million people inside Syria and more than 2.8 million refugees in neighboring countries. We have also recently announced nearly $300 million in additional humanitarian assistance to help the people affected by the conflict in South Sudan. Beyond just dollars and programs, our efforts are assisting millions who have fled conflict and persecution in the Central African Republic, Burma, Afghanistan, and many other places around the world.

I’m especially proud that the United States welcomes the most refugees to our shores every year. Nearly 70,000 refugees from 65 nations found a new home in in the United States last year. We expect to admit just as many in 2014.

The losses refugees suffer, the journeys they make, and the commitment they put into rebuilding their lives are remarkable. Today of all days, we salute their courage and resilience. We pay tribute to the generosity of countries that give them refuge. And we applaud the compassion of communities and organizations the world over that lend a helping hand.

I’m especially proud that the United States welcomes the most refugees to our shores every year. Nearly 70,000 refugees from 65 nations found a new home in in the United States last year. We expect to admit just as many in 2014.

The losses refugees suffer, the journeys they make, and the commitment they put into rebuilding their lives are remarkable. Today of all days, we salute their courage and resilience. We pay tribute to the generosity of countries that give them refuge. And we applaud the compassion of communities and organizations the world over that lend a helping hand.

U.S. CONDEMNS IMPRISONMENT OF MERIAM ISHAG

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

U.S. Condemns Sudanese Conviction and Continued Imprisonment of Meriam Ishag

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

June 12, 2014

---

 

The United States remains deeply concerned about the conviction and continued imprisonment of Ms. Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag.

 

Sudan’s journey has long been a struggle, and back when I was still a United States Senator, I traveled to the region many times to help find greater understanding and hope for a different kind of future. As Secretary, I remain deeply committed to the country and its people. That is one of the reasons we are all so concerned about the travails of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag.

 

Ms. Ishag is the mother of two young children. She and the children should be reunited at home with her family rather than held in prison on charges of apostasy. I urge the Sudanese judiciary and government to respect Ms. Ishag’s fundamental right to freedom of religion. I also urge Sudan to repeal its laws that are inconsistent with its 2005 Interim Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Such actions would help to demonstrate to the Sudanese people that their government intends to respect their fundamental freedoms and universal human rights.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AFTER MEETING WITH SECRETARY OF STATE OF HOLY SEE

FROM:  STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks After Meeting With Secretary of State of the Holy See Pietro Parolin
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Villa Richardson
Rome, Italy
January 14, 2014

Well, let me just say that it was a privilege for me as the first Catholic Secretary of State in about 32 or 33 years to have the privilege of going to the Vatican today to talk with the new secretary of state there about the broad array of issues that we face together across the world. And on a personal level, it was a thrill for me to be able to do that, as an altar boy, as a young kid, I would never have imagined that I would have been crossing the threshold of the Vatican to meet, as Secretary of State, with the Secretary of State of the Holy See.

And it was a very comprehensive, very, very interesting conversation. We touched on just about every major issue that we are both working on, that are issues of concern to all of us. First of all, we talked at great length about Syria, and I was particularly appreciative for the Archbishop’s raising this issue, and equally grateful for the Holy Father’s comments – the Pope’s comments yesterday regarding his support for the Geneva II process. We welcome that support. It is very important to have broad support, and I know that the Pope is particularly concerned about the massive numbers of displaced human beings and the violence that has taken over 130,000 lives.

In addition, the Secretary – Archbishop Parolin asked me for a solid briefing with respect to the Middle East peace process. Pope Francis will be going to Israel and the Palestinian territories and to Jordan in May, and so we agreed, after I gave a briefing, that we would stay in touch in order to keep him abreast of what we’re doing and then what progress there may be in the peace process. But obviously, there are issues of enormous concern to the Holy See, not just about peace, but also about the freedom of access for religious worship in Jerusalem for all religions and appropriate resolution with respect to Jerusalem that respects that going forward.

We also talked about Africa, the challenge of Sudan, where there are particular interests. There is a large Catholic population in South Sudan. President Kiir, himself, is Catholic, and I think that our efforts over the last days could be augmented by the efforts of the Holy See with respect to trying to end the violence and bring about a peaceful resolution. I think the Secretary of State of the Holy See was very interested in what he and they could do in order to try to assist in that process.

We talked also about Cuba and the need for respect for freedom of religion and freedom of – and respect for human rights. I raised the issue of Alan Gross and his captivity, and we hope very much that there might be able to be assistance with respect to that issue. And similarly, the Holy Father yesterday in his speech raised the responsibility that we all have for the climate, for responsibility for planet Earth, which is our common home, as he said. And we share the responsibilities with respect to that.

We talked about the common interest of Pope Francis and President Obama in addressing poverty and extreme poverty on a global basis. The United States of America is deeply involved in efforts in Africa and in other parts of the world – in Asia, South Central Asia – to address this poverty, as is the Catholic Church. And so we have a huge common interest in dealing with this issue of poverty, which in many cases is the root cause of terrorism or even the root cause of the disenfranchisement of millions of people on this planet.

So this was as comprehensive a conversation as I’ve had with any secretary of state or foreign minister in the course of my tenure, and I think, happily, we agreed on an enormous amount of things that we can cooperate on. That’s what’s important. We need to find all of the voices that are prepared to fight for anti-poverty or peace or for reconciliation among peoples, to bring religions together, to bring people together, and to make peace. I am very mindful of the fact that in his first Urbi et Orbi speech or address, the Holy Father did speak about the importance of peace and the importance of all people on Earth being peacemakers.

So I’m grateful for the conversation we had today. I know that the Holy Father is anticipating the visit of President Obama here, and the President is looking forward to coming here to meet with him. So much was agreed on as a mutual agenda this morning, and I’m particularly pleased to know that the Holy Father and the Secretary of State in the Holy See will continue to speak out about peace in the Middle East, continue to try to bring the parties together, continue to help address some of the most pressing concerns that are challenging failed states and failing states in too many parts of the world.

It is good to know that we will have this common enterprise together, and I was very grateful to the archbishop who I had the pleasure of congratulating on his elevation to cardinal, which will take place in February. So it was an all-in-all very helpful meeting, and I’m confident that the groundwork and agreement that we reached with respect to the peace process, as well as a number of other urgent priorities, will help us as we go forward in the next days and months.

Thank you very much.

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.

CONTINUATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY REGARDING SUDAN

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
Message to the Congress -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Sudan
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within the 90-day period prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the Sudan emergency is to continue in effect beyond November 3, 2013.

The crisis constituted by the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan that led to the declaration of a national emergency in Executive Order 13067 of November 3, 1997, and the expansion of that emergency in Executive Order 13400 of April 26, 2006, and with respect to which additional steps were taken in Executive Order 13412 of October 13, 2006, has not been resolved. These actions and policies are hostile to U.S. interests and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Sudan and maintain in force the sanctions against Sudan to respond to this threat.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT SAYS SECURITY DETERIORATING IN NORTH DARFUR

Map:  Sudan (Darfur and Jebel Marra).  Credit:  CIA World Factbook. 

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Rapid and Significant Deterioration in Security in North Darfur and Jebel Marra
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
February 8, 2013
　



The United States is profoundly concerned by violent clashes between heavily armed tribal militias in North Darfur and between Sudanese government forces and rebels in Jebel Marra. Recent violence has resulted in civilian deaths and displaced some 100,000 people in need of humanitarian assistance.

In just the first month of 2013, more civilians have been newly displaced by violence in Darfur than in all of 2012. To meet the humanitarian needs of those affected by these clashes, we call on the Sudanese government to grant UN agencies unrestricted access to all areas of Darfur, and to work closely with UN agencies, humanitarian actors, and the African Union - United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur (UNAMID) to deliver assistance.

We urge the Sudanese government to urgently disarm militias in Darfur, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1556; to cease aerial bombardments; and to implement the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur as the basis for a more inclusive and effective peace process.

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. SANCTIONS AGAINST SUDAN RENEWED

Credit:  CIA World Factbook 

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Renewal of Sudan National Emergency
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 2, 2012

Yesterday the President renewed the national emergency in Executive Order 13067, on the basis of which the United States has imposed economic sanctions with respect to Sudan since 1997. U.S. law requires that a decision be made regarding the renewal of the national emergency each year by the anniversary of the national emergency.

In recent years, Sudan has made progress in resolving a number of outstanding issues with South Sudan, which contributes significantly to the prospects for peace between the two countries. However, the ongoing conflict in Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, and Darfur continue to threaten regional stability, and the human rights and humanitarian crises there – including the lack of humanitarian access – are very serious. Outstanding issues with South Sudan, such as the final status of Abyei, also pose such a threat. Addressing these concerns is necessary for a peaceful Sudan and would enable the United States and Sudan to move towards a normalized relationship.

We will continue our dialogue with the Government of Sudan on the steps that are necessary to improve our bilateral relationship.

Locator Map Credit:  CIA World Factbook

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM CIA WORLD FACTBOOK

Military regimes favoring Islamic-oriented governments have dominated national politics since independence from the UK in 1956. Sudan was embroiled in two prolonged civil wars during most of the remainder of the 20th century. These conflicts were rooted in northern economic, political, and social domination of largely non-Muslim, non-Arab southern Sudanese. The first civil war ended in 1972 but broke out again in 1983. The second war and famine-related effects resulted in more than four million people displaced and, according to rebel estimates, more than two million deaths over a period of two decades. Peace talks gained momentum in 2002-04 with the signing of several accords. The final North/South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed in January 2005, granted the southern rebels autonomy for six years followed by a referendum on independence for Southern Sudan. The referendum was held in January 2011 and indicated overwhelming support for independence. South Sudan became independent on 9 July 2011. Since southern independence Sudan has been combating rebels from the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. A separate conflict, which broke out in the western region of Darfur in 2003, has displaced nearly two million people and caused an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 deaths. The UN took command of the Darfur peacekeeping operation from the African Union in December 2007. Peacekeeping troops have struggled to stabilize the situation, which has become increasingly regional in scope and has brought instability to eastern Chad. Sudan also has faced large refugee influxes from neighboring countries primarily Ethiopia and Chad. Armed conflict, poor transport infrastructure, and lack of government support have chronically obstructed the provision of humanitarian assistance to affected populations.

REMARKS BY AMBASSADOR SUSAN E. RICE ON SYRIA, DARFUR, SUDAN AND SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, at the Security Council Stakeout, April 24, 2012
Susan E. Rice
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations New York, NY April 24, 2012
AS DELIVERED
What a full day. I have a press statement to read and then I will provide a readout of our discussions on Sudan and South Sudan, as well as on Syria, and take a few questions, obviously this morning we had a full discussion in the Council with Under-Secretary-General Bachelet and Under-Secretary-General Ladsous on women peace and security, our semi-annual discussion of that topic, and I won’t dwell on that since you heard their briefings in the open chamber. Let me begin with the press statement.

The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the attack on an African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) patrol in West Darfur on 20 April, in which four peacekeepers were wounded, one of whom subsequently died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack.

The members of the Security Council expressed their condolences to the family of the peacekeeper killed in the attack, as well as to the Government of Togo. They called on the Government of Sudan to bring the perpetrators to justice and stressed that there must be an end to impunity for those who attack peacekeepers.

The members of the Security Council reiterated their full support for UNAMID and called on all parties in Darfur to co-operate with the mission.

Turning now to Sudan and South Sudan. We heard a briefing from Under-Secretary-General Ladsous, Special Envoy Menkerios, and SRSG Hilde Johnson on the deteriorating situation on the border between Sudan and South Sudan.

They noted that the withdrawal of the SPLA from Heglig was initially encouraging but has since resulted in increased bombing by Sudanese Armed Forces into South Sudanese territory.

UNMISS confirmed that at least 16 civilians have been killed and 34 injured in Unity State from aerial bombardments, in addition to significant damage to infrastructure. We were told there have also been SAF incursions into Unity State.

Council members welcomed the withdrawal from Heglig by the SPLA, demanded an immediate halt to aerial bombardments by the Sudanese Armed Forces, and urged an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table. This is a general characterization of the national comments that were made.

Many delegations expressed concern about reports of extensive damage to oil infrastructure in Heglig. They also acknowledged the constructive contribution of the African Union Peace and Security Council and its communiqué adopted earlier today, which will of course inform our consultations on further action.

Finally, several members of the Council mentioned the importance of Sudan and the SPLM-North engaging in a political solution to the problem in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile and the need for urgent humanitarian assistance there.

In my national capacity, let me just reiterate that the United States welcomes the withdrawal of the SPLA from Heglig. We strongly condemn Sudan’s incursion into South Sudan and in particular its heavy aerial bombardments of civilian areas and infrastructure and we call for the immediate cessation of hostilities. We recognize the right of South Sudan to defend itself and urge South Sudan to exercise maximal restraint in its reaction to Sudan’s attacks.

Turning now finally to Syria. The Security Council received a briefing, as you know, via video teleconference, from Joint Special Envoy Annan and an in-person briefing by Under-Secretary-General Ladsous earlier this afternoon. Mr. Annan stated that the situation in Syria, and I quote, “continues to be unacceptable.”

Mr. Annan expressed his concerns at reports that attacks have resumed in locations directly following the departure of members of the observer team, calling them, and I quote, “unacceptable and reprehensible, if true.” Mr. Annan emphasized that, and I quote again, “the only promises that count are the promises that are kept.”
Under-Secretary-General Ladsous confirmed that to date there are 11 military observers in Syria, two of whom are stationed in Homs and two at present in Hama. Under-Secretary-General Ladsous relayed that the chief military observer will be deployed by the end of the week at which time UNSMIS will be operational and the Advance Team will have concluded its work. Thirty observers, he predicted, will be in country by April 30th, and 100 total observers within a month.

Mr. Ladsous reported that the Syrian Government has refused at least one observer based on his nationality, and that Syrian authorities have stated they will not accept UNSMIS staff members from any nations that are members of the Friends of Democratic Syria. He underscored that from the UN’s point of view this is entirely unacceptable.

Several Council members expressed their skepticism of the Syrian Government’s intentions and the veracity of statements contained in the Syrian Foreign Minister’s recent letter to the Joint Special Envoy. All Council members underscored the need for more rapid deployment of observers and stressed the importance of full and immediate implementation of all aspects of the Six-Point Plan.
I’m happy to take a few questions.

Reporter: Madame President, in the words of Mr. Kofi Annan, the situation continues to be “unacceptable.” Yet the Security Council is going ahead with the deployment, as we understand, of the observers. If it’s unacceptable, I mean, how – how can you – my words fail me here. If the situation is unacceptable, why is the Security Council going ahead with the deployment?

Ambassador Rice: I believe – the Security Council voted on Saturday to give the Secretary General the authority to dispatch the full complement of monitors. On the basis of his recommendation and that of Joint Special Envoy Annan. I believe the underlying logic of that recommendation was that the presence of monitors as sought and desired to a substantial extent by the Syrian people themselves; even though they are not in a position to prevent violence, can by their presence not only provide better information and reporting on what’s happening on the ground, but have, at least in the time that they’re present in a place, the salutary impact of a diminution of violence. And we have in fact seen that in Homs and Hama and elsewhere. The problem is, and this is what Joint Special Envoy in part was referring to, is that, once they have left, their violence and number of instances has resumed. Now, the way they have tried to deal with that is to leave observers in Homs now and again now in Hama. The problem is, obviously there’re not sufficient observers deployed at present to leave in everyplace that the observer team might visit after which there may be, if the pattern holds, an intensification of violence. Hence, the Council’s very unanimous and strong view, that having made the decision to deploy these monitors, let’s get them out as swiftly as possible.

Reporter: According to one of your colleagues on Council, he said that it appears that the Syrians are playing a cat-and-mouse game with the Council on this. And he also thought it was an unacceptable situation, in your national capacity, how long do you think this can go on? Because you can have, like, a hundred observers for the next two, three months—at what point will the Council decide to say, you know, this is really unacceptable and it’s sort of is going against what you voted for.

Ambassador Rice: Well, I will speak for the United States, as I have been saying over the course of the last several days—our patience is exhausted. The fact that the violence continues despite the so-called ceasefire of April 12, is in our view, not only unacceptable, but reprehensible. And we’ve been very clear in supporting the dispatch of the balance of the monitoring mission, that the onus remains on the Syrian government to halt the violence. And then subsequently on both sides to maintain a cessation of violence and allow the observers to move freely and do their work without any obstruction. If that does not occur, we have said that we’re prepared to work towards consequences for the Syrian government, and further action out of the Security Council. I’ve said that repeatedly. You heard Secretary Clinton’s statements in Paris. So there’s no ambiguity or secret about that. But obviously, we need to get the beginnings of a critical mass of observers on the ground to be able to test the proposition as to whether they can in fact have, if not a perfect impact, then a beneficial impact that we decide is worth maintaining.

Reporter: On Sudan, this PSC Communiqué seems to ask the Security Council to endorse at least parts of it under Chapter VII. I wonder, I mean, I guess as the U.S.—what do you think of the Communiqué? Is that something that you support? And it’s—some are wondering whether, even though it’s Chapter VII, this would require the prior approval of Khartoum and Juba or could be—you know—could be endorsed by the Council without their approval—and some, one member at least was talking about some either reparations or in some way compensation to Sudan for the damage to Heglig—what does the U.S. think of that?

Ambassador Rice: Well first of all, we think that the African Union statement, speaking for the United States, is a positive and constructive contribution. We are obviously going to study it carefully in Washington. I think most members of the Council saw it for the first time as we were sitting there in consultations, and have not had the opportunity to get reactions from their capital. But I can say from the U.S. point of view, that we view it as a constructive contribution, and we’ll be consulting with Council members about their readiness and willingness to contemplate next steps that reflect the thrust of the AU Communiqué. I can’t prejudge what other Council members will come back with.
With respect to whether the Council could act under Chapter VII without the agreement of either of both capitals, of course the answer to that is yes, at least in theory, whether—if Council members choose to do so. There’s nothing from a legal point of view that prevents that. And with respect to Heglig, I think most Council members expressed, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, concern about the damage that has occurred in the Heglig oil area. We asked this question of the UN’s personnel, and while some people are quick to say reparations, it’s hardly clear how that damage occurred. It’s not clear whether it was a result of the fighting on the ground, aerial bombardment, sabotage by the SPLA or retreating forces as some in Khartoum have alleged—we just don’t know. And obviously, there are many who will be interested in the answer to that question—but until there’s an independent assessment of what actually happened, its premature to talk about compensation or responsibility.

Reporter: One on Syria, I saw that General Mood seemed to at least, go into the—at the beginning of the meeting, Major General Robert Mood, is he the Chief Military Observer or did he stay for the meeting, and if so, in what capacity?

Ambassador Rice: He was in the room. He didn’t speak. And I can’t get ahead of what the Secretary-General is going to decide. Nothing has been announced to my knowledge.

Reporter: Madame President, given that Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Chief of Al-Qaeda, has given order to his men go and fight in Syria, how concerned are you that Syria will not develop into another Iraq in the region especially if you are curbing the authority of the Syrian government?

Ambassador Rice: Well, I’m not aware of the statement you’re referring to, but obviously, the thrust of what is happening in Syria is that a popular uprising that began very peacefully has been met with brutal force by the Assad government and the aspirations, the legitimate aspirations, of the Syrian people to determine their own future, had been thwarted with massive bloodshed. And now, many on the opposition side have taken up arms in self-defense. And we have what is a widening conflict. Obviously, in that region, anytime you have a conflict situation, one has reason to be concerned that it may provide some fertile ground for extremists to take advantage of. But, I’m not prepared to predict that that will be the fate of Syria. I think what we’re dealing with, first and foremost, are a people who have been repressed, who need and deserve to choose their own future, and that’s what this is about. Thank you.

UN SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS ATTACK ON AFRICAN UNION-UN PATROL IN DARFUR

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
UN Security Council Press Statement on the Attack on UNAMID
Susan E. Rice
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations New York, NYApril 24, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the attack on an African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) patrol in West Darfur on 20 April, in which four peacekeepers were wounded, one of whom subsequently died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack.

The members of the Security Council expressed their condolences to the family of the peacekeeper killed in the attack, as well as to the Government of Togo. They called on the Government of Sudan to bring the perpetrators to justice and stressed that there must be an end to impunity for those who attack peacekeepers.

The members of the Security Council reiterated their full support for UNAMID and called on all parties in Darfur to co-operate with the mission.

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.