U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 18, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:17 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Everyone, welcome to the State Department. Just quickly at the top, I do want to note that World Press Freedom Day is approaching. I’m sure it’s something you all have a date on your calendars that you all have, given your profession. And UNESCO will be hosting its annual conference in Tunis beginning on May 3rd. I believe Assistant Secretary for International Organizations Esther Brimmer will be attending that on behalf of the United States and will deliver the keynote address on May 3rd.
But every year, the U.S. Government, as you know, we mark World Press Freedom Day. This year we’re trying something a little bit different in light of the large number of journalists who have been jailed, attacked, disappeared, or forced into exile or even murdered. As part of our Free the Press campaign, we’ll be highlighting some of these freedom of expression cases on our website, which is HumanRights.gov.
Today, for example, there’s a profile of the jailed Vietnamese blogger Dieu Cay. And as the – and continuing this run-up to World Press Freedom Day, we’ll continue to roll out cases from around the world that are emblematic of the problems facing your counterparts and colleagues as they try to do their job throughout the world.

I would also note if you’re really interested in a deeper dive on this subject, Under Secretary Sonenshine, as well as Assistant Secretary Posner, gave a press conference earlier today at the Foreign Press Center, and I’m sure there’ll be a transcript available of that.

Matt. By the way, I missed you yesterday. I apologize.

QUESTION: Well, thank you for – (laughter) – the apology. I’m not sure you’re really telling the truth that you miss me, but –

MR. TONER: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I actually don’t have anything that really warrants starting the briefing with, so I’ll defer to whoever.

MR. TONER: Okay. Shaun, you got anything?

QUESTION: Sure. Well, to begin with, in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, she’s going to be traveling for the first time overseas since her house arrest, to speak – going to be going to Norway and to the UK. I was wondering – presumably, the Secretary invited her during her trip last year. Are there any plans in the near future for Aung San Suu Kyi to come here?

MR. TONER: Well, Shaun, as you correctly noted, we – she certainly would always have an open invitation to carry on the dialogue that began when the Secretary was in Burma. I don’t know that there’s any plans at this time, but certainly we welcome, in fact, her ability to go out and travel to these countries and to engage in a dialogue with these governments; view it as a positive sign.

QUESTION: Sure. Could I switch topics --

MR. TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: -- to Sudan? Just want to see if you could have any update on Princeton Lyman’s visit there, and also a look at the developments now. President Bashir earlier today gave a speech where he was talking about the potential overthrow of the South Sudanese authorities. I think he referred to them as insects. Just what your read is on the situation and what Princeton Lyman’s been able to do, or not do?
MR. TONER: Well, as you noted, there’s a lot of unconstructive rhetoric being thrown around. We’ve also seen reports of new fighting along the Sudan-South Sudan border. Our central message is the same as it was yesterday. We continue to call for an immediate and unconditional cessation of violence by both parties, and that means we want to see the immediate withdrawal of South Sudanese forces from Heglig, and we want to see the – an immediate end to all aerial bombardments of South Sudan by the Sudanese armed forces.
Just – you asked about Princeton’s travels. He was, as you noted, in Khartoum. He has held high-level meetings with the Government of South Sudan, as I mentioned yesterday, including President Kiir, and he is in Khartoum today meeting with Sudanese officials.

QUESTION: Do you know whom he met?

MR. TONER: I don’t have a list of the officials with whom he met. I’ll try to get that for you.

QUESTION: Is he still there? Is he planning to continue his work, or is that --

MR. TONER: He’s still there for the time being. I don’t know where he’ll go from Khartoum.

QUESTION: Follow on that, please.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: In that rally, President al-Bashir said that his main target is now to liberate the people of Southern Sudan from the SPLM. Does that raise concerns about what you think Khartoum’s respect for that new border?

MR. TONER: Well, I mean, obviously, given the escalation of violence over the past few weeks, given the rhetoric that’s being thrown about, we’re very concerned. We continue to, as we’ve said, through Princeton on the ground as well as publicly here, call for both sides to get back to the AU process. The Secretary spoke about this a few weeks ago, where she said it’s absolutely in both sides’ interests to get back to the negotiating table to settle borders, to talk about resources, and sharing of those resources. The situation such as it is right now gains nothing for either side.

QUESTION: Could I --

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead, Andy.

QUESTION: Just another one on that because, I mean, you have been making this comment for quite a while now, and yet it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Is there any backup plan or second strategy that you guys might have to try to get these guys back to the negotiating table? I mean, it seems like the Thabo Mbeki initiative isn’t going anywhere. Princeton Lyman hasn’t been able to get them to do what everyone says they should do, which is pull back. Why – I mean, isn’t there anything else that the international community can do to get this together?

MR. TONER: Well, as you know, we’ve already – we still are – have sanctions in place against the Government of Sudan. I think part of this is trying to remind both parties what there is to gain to a peaceful resolution of this conflict and these contested areas. As I just said, there’s absolutely no military solution to the present situation. We’re going to continue with the on the ground diplomacy from Princeton. I know that Mbeki was in – at the UN, I believe, yesterday where he briefed the Security Council on the situation. People are concerned about the situation there. I think they’re concerned about the escalation and fighting, but we remain engaged with both sides.
Yeah. In the back.

QUESTION: Different subject?

MR. TONER: We can go ahead with a different subject.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from The Guardian. The story in The New York Times this morning about China and Bo Xilai. I know the State Department has said repeatedly it doesn’t discuss asylum-seeking requests, but The New York Timestoday – a few wrinkles that make it different. There’s discussion – why did the State Department or the consulate agree to cooperate with the authorities and hand him over to someone in Beijing rather than in Chengdu? Why was a discussion with the White House about the – whether this would impact on the visit with Biden?

Sorry, just a related thing. There’s also a report in the last few days suggesting that Bo Xilai’s son was taken from his apartment under escort. Was he taken into custody for his own protection or what?

MR. TONER: I’ll start with your second question first. I – we’ve had inquiries about his son. As far as we know, there’s nothing to those reports. I can recommend you contact local authorities, but as far as we know, there’s nothing to those reports. He remains at school at Harvard.

In response to your first question, I agree it was an interesting read based on anonymous sources within the U.S. Government. Obviously, I can’t speak to the credibility of any of their statements. I can only say that, as we’ve said previously, that Wang Lijun requested a meeting with U.S. Consulate General Chengdu officials in early February. That meeting was scheduled accordingly. He was there, I believe, on Monday, February 6th and Tuesday, February 7th, and left of his own volition. But I can’t talk about the contents of that meeting.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Wang Lijun – his current status and – are there any concerns about his status right now? He was taken into custody after --

MR. TONER: Well again, we don’t – we have no contact with him since his departure from the consulate. So I’d just have to refer you to the Chinese Government for any information.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a Canada question, if I may.

QUESTION: Well, wait.

MR. TONER: Sure. We can stay on this topic. We’ll stay. We always finish the topic and then --
QUESTION: Okay. Sure. Fantastic.

QUESTION: Sorry. What – you can’t speak to the credibility of colleagues of yours? You’re saying that they’re incredible?

MR. TONER: I said I can’t speak to quotes from anonymous sources in a newspaper article.

QUESTION: Well, let’s not talk about their quotes.

MR. TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Let’s talk about what they actually said. I mean, is it correct that he brought with him documents that were related to – or that you presume that the consulate employees presume to – or that he said had to do with corruption and investigation into --

MR. TONER: Again, I’m not going to get into the discussions that were held. I can only confirm that he was at the consulate in Chengdu on the dates that I just specified. I can’t get into the contents or what we discussed or --

QUESTION: There wasn’t any concern – well, there was no request for asylum?

MR. TONER: I couldn’t speak about it if it were.

QUESTION: There – is it correct that the U.S. Government does not like to give asylum to people with – who have somewhat checkered records?

MR. TONER: There’s no way for me to – I mean, asylum cases are all – follow a precise legal framework, and in fact, many of those – almost all asylum cases – speaking now globally or largely about the issue, all asylum cases, I believe, are carried out within the United States.

QUESTION: Did the Embassy actually make it – facilitate his phone call to officials in Beijing?

MR. TONER: I can’t comment on that.

QUESTION: You can’t comment because you don’t know or because you --

MR. TONER: I can’t comment on it because I don’t know --


QUESTION: Because that’s the purview of anonymous officials speaking in The New York Times.

MR. TONER: -- but it would also be within the purview of our diplomatic exchanges with another individual and a country. So we don’t need to --

QUESTION: Oh okay. So --

MR. TONER: -- talk about the substance of those conversations.

QUESTION: -- when he showed up --

MR. TONER: Or those meetings.

QUESTION: -- at the consulate, he was acting on behalf of the Chinese Government?

MR. TONER: Matt, I think I’ve gone about as far as I can on this. He came to the consulate, he requested a meeting --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. TONER: -- it was scheduled --

QUESTION: As a member of the Chinese --

MR. TONER: He was there on the dates --

QUESTION: -- Government? Or as an individual?

MR. TONER: It was in his capacity as vice mayor.

QUESTION: In his capacity as vice mayor. And you regard the vice mayor of Chengdu to be an official of the national --

MR. TONER: A local government official, yes.

QUESTION: A local government official, which is that --

MR. TONER: And again, those conversations would be confidential, absolutely.

QUESTION: Except when your colleagues speak about them to The New York Times.

MR. TONER: Again, I can’t speak to the veracity of any of the --

QUESTION: I’m just curious if you can’t speak to the veracity of them because you think that – because they’re not true, or you can’t speak to the veracity of them because you were told that you can’t speak to the veracity.

MR. TONER: Let’s try to end this line of conversation, because I don’t think it’s productive. I can’t speak to the veracity of any anonymous officials being quoted in newspapers.

QUESTION: You could speak to the veracity of what those people said, though.

MR. TONER: And I can’t speak to the substance of any of this issue – this story. I can’t talk about what was discussed in the meeting for reasons I just gave. I can only confirm there was a meeting. He left there on his own volition. We’ve not had contact with him since.

QUESTION: Did you understand that he left alone, as he came?

MR. TONER: I don’t know that.

QUESTION: Have you sought to make contact with him since then?

MR. TONER: I don’t know.

QUESTION: You don’t know.

QUESTION: Well, is it correct that the Administration believes that it has been put into a position that it was – in other words, put into a position that it doesn’t want to be in, involved in the middle of a power struggle in the Chinese Government, or the Chinese couldn’t --

MR. TONER: Well, again, that wouldn’t be – it wouldn’t be my position to comment on internal Chinese politics.

QUESTION: Well, no, I’m not asking you about internal Chinese politics. I’m asking about --

MR. TONER: I thought you were.

QUESTION: No, no. I’m saying is it correct – the statement in the story says that it’s pressed the Administration into a position that it doesn’t want to be in, that it really doesn’t want to have anything to do with power struggles and internal Chinese power struggles.

MR. TONER: Well, I’m not going to --

QUESTION: Is that correct? Do you not --

MR. TONER: To talk about some of the implications of this – that are discussed in this story would be to, I think, address the substance of the story, and I said I’m not going to get into that.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Mark, move back to Syria?

MR. TONER: We can go to Syria.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, France has pulled for tougher sanction and Secretary Clinton will be tomorrow in Paris. First, will she join the Friend of Syria meeting? Secondly, will she propose something new in light of the new escalation on the ground?

MR. TONER: Thank you. You stole my top line, but you already heard the Secretary from Brussels said she will be attending tomorrow, Thursday, the ad-hoc meeting taking place in Paris with a group of foreign ministers to discuss next steps on Syria. I think she spoke to this; Ambassador Rice spoke to it earlier in New York, of our concern that the ceasefire is showing signs of eroding, that the other conditions laid out in the Annan plan are not being fulfilled.

That said, the Secretary was clear that she didn’t want to prejudge the success of the monitoring mission. It is moving forward. There are more monitors on the ground and there will be more in the coming days. And we’re going to look to their reporting back, as well as, I believe the Secretary General himself is going to provide a report on the monitoring mission, the scope and the size of it in the coming days.

QUESTION: Mark, just wanted to – the Secretary also said that the international community’s response to Syria is at a critical point and that --

MR. TONER: She did.

QUESTION: -- Assad can either let the monitors do their job or squander his last chance. And the question is: Or what? Squander his last chance or what happens? More expressions of outrage, or is there actually a plan?

MR. TONER: Well, I think the plan going forward – there’s going to be this meeting. We’ve always had a two-track approach to this, as you well know. We’ve – well, actually three tracks. I mean, there’s been our unilateral sanctions against Assad, but there’s also been the UN track, which we saw bear fruit with the latest Security Council resolution. And we’ve also been pursuing this Friends of Syria track and working with likeminded countries and organizations around the world.

And that’s what the goal of tomorrow is, is that she’s going to be there talking about what possible next steps we can do, undertake, to put more pressure on Assad. I think the sanctions working group met yesterday in Paris and had the chance to talk about further coordination on – and sanctions. So our basic thrust here is the same. We’re going to continue to work to implement the Annan plan, while at the same time, we’re going to continue to look at ways we can add more sanctions, more pressure on Assad as we move forward.

QUESTION: So I’m curious about --

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- your choice of words. You said the ceasefire is showing signs of eroding. Really? Showing --
MR. TONER: Is that too much passive voice? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know. No, no. Not too much passive voice. I mean, just think it’s -

PARTICIPANT: I mean, I think it’s --

QUESTION: -- because seems like it’s a total mudslide. It’s not just showing signs of erosion. It’s like it didn’t – it’s a Grand Canyon-type erosion that we’re talking about here.

MR. TONER: Well, you are correct, Matt, that we have seen a lot of violence, almost to pre-ceasefire levels throughout the past 24 hours. I think I’ve seen that 70 people were killed in Syria yesterday and today, reports that at least 24 were killed.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. TONER: I don’t mean to downplay that at all.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, isn’t – this ceasefire seems to have been an increase fire, in fact, because it doesn’t look like – I mean, things have gotten worse rather than better since it happened. So I just don’t understand why you all have any confidence that adding an additional 30 or 25 monitors in the short term and then presumably, if the Syrians even agree to it, adding another 250 or 300 is actually going to do anything. It just seems to be, to use one of your words, Pollyanna-ish to think that that’s --
MR. TONER: One of my words?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. TONER: In any case, look, we aren’t under any illusions here. It is very clear that the violence is beginning to return. The Secretary, Ambassador Rice both spoke to the fact that the onus is on Assad. He needs to comply with the Annan plan. He needs to take steps to meet its conditions. He hasn’t done so. Even with the ceasefire, it wasn’t enough. There are other aspects to the plan, including the release of political prisoners and access for international media and international humanitarian assistance.
There’s been no progress on any of those fronts, so we’re going to continue, as I just said to Andy, to look at Plan B or Option B, which is ways to increase the pressure on Assad as we move forward. But that said, we’re not going to prejudge the outcome of the Annan plan and this monitoring mission. If we can get 250 monitors on the ground reporting back credible information about the situation there, then that’s valuable.

QUESTION: So you don’t think that it’s already failed?

MR. TONER: I think we’re --

QUESTION: Even though it’s shown no – even though nothing – none of the conditions have been met, and one of them, the ceasefire, has actually gotten worse, not better, you don’t think that’s a sign of abject failure?

MR. TONER: I think we’re going to wait to hear back from the monitoring mission, from the secretary general, and even from Kofi Annan, but we are very concerned.

QUESTION: Because somehow, they can tell you what you don’t know already?

MR. TONER: No, Matt, but just to understand and to appreciate --

QUESTION: Because – well, I – okay, I get that you want to hear back from the guy whose plan it is, but frankly, that’s not going to be for another four or five days, right? I mean, he’s not expected to report back until at least the weekend, right?

MR. TONER: Well, it’ll be up to --

QUESTION: So that’s another four or five days that people are going to get slaughtered.

MR. TONER: Matt --


QUESTION: Am I right or am I wrong?

MR. TONER: I don’t think I’m trying to couch this in any other terms than a realistic expectation here that the ceasefire plan, as I just said, is eroding. I mean, we are very concerned about the situation there. The Secretary is going to Paris talking about next steps.

QUESTION: But I guess – my question is --

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: My question is why not say this is --

MR. TONER: You’re saying why don’t we declare it --

QUESTION: Yeah, say, “All right, all right, we tried this one plan and it hasn’t worked. Clearly it hasn’t worked. And it’s now time to move to the next stage,” instead of waiting for another --
MR. TONER: Well, we’re not --

QUESTION: -- 150, 200 people to get killed?

MR. TONER: The bottom line is we’re not waiting. We’re going to continue to work with the Friends of Syria Group to put pressure on Assad. At the same time, we’re going to try to give the Annan plan more opportunity to work.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you get in touch with Moscow and exchange view with respect to this deterioration in the last 24 hours?

MR. TONER: I don’t believe the Secretary’s had any calls or contacts with Lavrov. Of course, I don’t know that – whether Ambassador Rice has spoken to her Russian counterpart in New York.
Yeah.

QUESTION: New topic, (inaudible)?

MR. TONER: Oh, sorry. Yeah, finish it (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I just – I was wondering – and I apologize if you addressed this last week, but there was this – that German ship that’s been towed to a port in Turkey --

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- suspected of taking Syrian arms – arms to Syria. Do you guys have anything on that?

MR. TONER: Well, we have seen these reports that you mentioned. It’s a Ukrainian charted ship that’s now in a Turkish port that is apparently or allegedly carrying munitions to Syria. If true, this would be a violation of the EU arms embargo on Syria, and any aid to the regime’s violent capacities supports the killing of innocent victims, so we want to see the – we want to see it stopped and sanctioned.

QUESTION: But you don’t have any independent reason to believe that this is (inaudible)?
MR. TONER: I don’t at this point.

QUESTION: Sorry. How is it a violation of the EU arms embargo?

MR. TONER: Against Syria.

QUESTION: I’m sorry; I don’t understand. Turkey is not in the EU and neither is Ukraine, at least the last time I checked. Why would this be a violation?

MR. TONER: Look, I think that --

QUESTION: Turkey wants to be in the EU.

MR. TONER: (Laughter.) I know that they want to be in the EU.

QUESTION: Or at least they did.

MR. TONER: I’m aware of their aspirations. I think that we are calling on all countries that are unified – and certainly, Turkey is with us on our stance against the situation in Syria – to comply with existing embargos. And we would seek in this case --
QUESTION: Well, my understanding is there is not an arms embargo on Syria, a UN arms embargo, so who is the – who would be – I mean, the Russians or whoever the Ukrainians can ship as – whatever they want without violating – I mean, EU – an EU arms embargo, to me, suggests that that means that EU countries cannot send weapons to Syria.

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think it’s a fair question. I’m not sure the legality or the – all the legal aspects to it. I think fundamentally, what we’re trying to say here is that countries like Turkey have played a leadership role in speaking out against Syria and taking action against the regime there, and what they’re carrying out should be willing to comply with this.

QUESTION: You think that the ship is owned by a German company?

MR. TONER: I think it’s owned by a German company, thank you. As you know, these – the ships also – often have a long pedigree.
QUESTION: Venezuela?

MR. TONER: No, let’s do Canada.

QUESTION: Very quickly, I’m just wondering what you can tell us about the request to transfer Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay to Canada, how that process will now move ahead, and why the U.S. is so anxious to get this transfer moving.

MR. TONER: Well, I can say that the U.S. Government and the Canadian Government continue to work closely to effectuate Omar Khadr’s application to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada, which was pursuant to his plea agreement. And the first step, as you know, in this process was completed last year, which was an exchange of diplomatic notes. And those notes continue to govern this transfer. We did recently approve the transfer of Khadr to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada, and we’ve been in regular contact with the Canadian Government on this case. We’ve worked diligently to take appropriate steps consistent with the treaty, but we’re not going to be able to give you a transfer timeline. But we’re working quickly and deliberately to close this process out.

I think your question was: Why are we working so quickly? Well, as you know, we’re working to close Guantanamo Bay, and as part of that process, we’re trying to find homes, if you will, for the remaining prisoners.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up: Is there any more action that the United States has to take in order for this to happen, or is it now entirely in the hands of Canada?

MR. TONER: That’s a good question. I think I’ll have to take that question, frankly. I’m not sure whether we have any more legal steps we need to take in this process.
QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Other than, obviously, the physical transfer.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Venezuela?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday the highest official in the Venezuelan Government – Eladio Aponte, supreme court – defected to the United States as serious accusations against the Chavez government – high military officials, the closest aides to Chavez on corruption and drug trafficking. How this changes the dynamic of the U.S. Government relations with Venezuela?

MR. TONER: Well, with regard to his current status and situation, I’d have to refer you to the DEA. As to the larger issue, I don’t really have any comment on the broader implications of his transfer.
QUESTION: Is there a concern about corruption and narco-traffic within the highest echelons of the Venezuelan Government?

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we talk about our concerns. We’ve talked about them before, about our concerns about drug trafficking and corruption, frankly, in the region and the negative effects of it. But as to this case, because of its legal ramifications, I can’t really talk about any more detail.

Yeah. Go ahead, Scott.

QUESTION: Have you finished studying Argentina’s proposed nationalization of YPF? Can you give us anything on that?

MR. TONER: Well, I can give you a little bit more today, yes. I can say that we’re very concerned about the Government of Argentina’s intent to nationalize Repsol YPF. Frankly, the more we look at this, we view it as a negative development along the lines of what the Secretary said the other day, in that these kinds of actions against foreign investors can ultimately have an adverse effect on the Argentine economy and could further dampen the investment climate in Argentina.

And just to add that we’ve raised this on numerous occasions and at the highest levels of the Government of Argentina; our concerns about these kinds of actions that can affect the investment climate in Argentina. And we would just urge Argentina to normalize its relationship with the international financial and investment community.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on that. The Spanish foreign minister today said that this issue not only affects Spain’s interests or the European Union interests, it affects the interests of the whole international community. Do you agree with that?

MR. TONER: Well, insofar as along the lines of what I just said insofar as that it creates a very negative investment climate. Yes.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Palestinian issue?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: According to press report, President Abbas, in his letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that he might go back to the United Nation or he might raise legal issue before the international justice. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. TONER: Well, as we talked yesterday, I am aware that the parties did meet yesterday. Obviously we’re encouraged by these face-to-face exchanges. There was a letter that was exchanged. To your broader question, our position hasn’t changed with regard to going to the UN or other organizations. It’s not productive and conducive to creating the kind of atmosphere that’s going to get both parties back to the negotiating table.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Did the U.S. get a copy from President Abbas of the letter he gave to the Israeli prime minister?

MR. TONER: I don’t know. Possibly. I don’t have confirmation. I haven’t spoken with David about that.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a couple of little ones.

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: The first is the Indian Government had plans – they’ve now postponed them, but they have plans to test this new missile. Apparently it can carry payloads deep into China or perhaps even as far as Europe. I was just wondering if you’d had any communication with that – on that subject with them.

MR. TONER: Well, look, you know that we’ve got a very strong strategic and security partnership with India, so we obviously have routine discussions about a wide range of topics, including their defense requirements. I’m not aware that we’ve specifically raised this issue with them. We’ve certainly seen the reports that between April 18th and 20th that they plan to test this ballistic missile. As I – I think I understand or saw in press reports that it was postponed.

Naturally, I just would say that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding nuclear capabilities. That said, India has a solid nonproliferation record. They’re engaged with the international community on nonproliferation issues. And Prime Minister Singh, I believe, has attended both the nuclear – both of the nuclear summit – security summits, the one in Washington and then Seoul.

QUESTION: So you wouldn’t have any specific concerns on it as a destabilizing factor in the region?
MR. TONER: I think I’ll just stay with – the fact that we always caution all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.

QUESTION: Okay. And one other one --

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: On a separate issue, the Embassy in Abuja put out this morning about Boko Haram and threats to attack hotels. And the Nigerian Government has reacted rather unhappily to this warning, saying that it just fans panic. Did you guys run this by the Nigerians before you put it out? What sort of information was it based on? Can you tell us?

MR. TONER: Yeah. In response to your question about whether we ran this by the Government of Nigeria, I don’t know that we would be obliged to do so. I don’t know if we did in this case. We did receive, however, information that Boko Haram may be planning attacks in Abuja, Nigeria, as you said, against hotels frequently visited by Westerners. We don’t have any additional information regarding the timing of these attacks. But as you know, in accordance with the Department’s no double standard policy, when we deem a threat to any U.S. citizen – safety – rather a threat to a U.S. citizen’s safety or security to be specific, credible, and non-counterable, we do issue these kinds of emergency messages.

QUESTION: Specific, credible, and what?

MR. TONER: Non-counterable, meaning we can’t find any evidence to refute it.

QUESTION: Or non-counterable, meaning it can’t be stopped?

MR. TONER: No. Non-counterable meaning we can’t find any readily available evidence to dispute it.

QUESTION: And you can’t be any more specific?

MR. TONER: I can’t at this – no.

QUESTION: Because --

MR. TONER: Because I don’t know that we have any other information beyond what I just said, which is that – attacks against hotels frequented by Westerners. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Well, no, I – the source of this information I think it was what the question was.

MR. TONER: I can’t. We don’t comment on the source of our threat information.

QUESTION: Well, do you regard it – you believe it to be specific and credible?

MR. TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Like, so what you said?

MR. TONER: Yes. What I said.

QUESTION: Specific, credible, and non-counterable?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: On India (inaudible) --

MR. TONER: And I also asked what non-counterable meant, and I think that’s the explanation I was given. If that’s wrong, I’ll let you guys know.

QUESTION: Doesn’t the development of an ICBM cross a certain line?

MR. TONER: I’m sorry. Where are we at again?

QUESTION: India. The missile.

MR. TONER: Look, there’s been no launch; it’s been postponed. I think I gave you all I’m going to say on that.

Yeah, go ahead, Scott.

QUESTION: The French Government has issued an international arrest warrant against the son of the president of Equatorial Guinea. This is the guy who the Justice Department went to court last week seeking to seize as much as $70 million of his assets. He’s a large property owner in California. Has there been any contact by the French Government to the United States Government about this arrest warrant?

MR. TONER: I’m sorry. This is – this individual is --

QUESTION: The son of the president of Equatorial Guinea.

MR. TONER: Okay. I’m not aware of it. I’ll just take the question, Scott.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. TONER: Yeah, let’s go in the back then.

QUESTION: Yeah. Can I just follow up on Omar Khadr?

MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: And – yeah. I was just wondering, what was part of the negotiation between the U.S. and Canada regarding – because we were being told that it was a deal – and if Canada was offered something in return.

MR. TONER: I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying – that whether there was some kind of quid pro quo or something or --

QUESTION: No. That there was that – because we were being told that there was a deal regarding his transfer.

MR. TONER: I don’t have anything to add other than that there was – and I would just point you in the direction of there were diplomatic notes exchanged last year that are publicly available that spell out the transfer and the rules that govern it.

QUESTION: But there is nothing newer than that?

MR. TONER: Certainly not that I’m aware of. No.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: North Korea. The Japanese newspaper, the Yomiuri Shimbun, reported today that China has suspended deportations to North Korea of refugees. The article was saying that this was partly in retaliation because North Korea didn’t consult China or inform China about its launch recently. But obviously, the U.S. has had long-standing concerns.

MR. TONER: We have had long-standing concerns. I’m frankly not aware of this particular report, but --

QUESTION: Just if there’s any information about whether those repatriations have actually been stopped.

MR. TONER: I don’t know. I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: Sure, sure.

MR. TONER: Is that it, everyone? Thanks guys.

INCREASE MILITARY ATTACKS BETWEEN SUDAN AND SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
On the Increased Military Attacks Between Sudan and South Sudan
Press Statement Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 11, 2012
The United States is deeply disturbed by the escalating hostilities between Sudan and South Sudan and condemns offensive military action by either side. We condemn South Sudan’s military involvement in the attack on and seizure of Heglig, an act which goes beyond self-defense and has increased tensions between Sudan and South Sudan to dangerous levels. We also condemn the continued aerial bombardment in South Sudan by the Sudanese Armed Forces. Both governments must agree to an immediate unconditional cessation of hostilities, withdraw all forces that are deployed across the January 1, 1956 border as recognized by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005, and cease all support to armed movements from the other state.

It is critical that both sides avoid unilateral offensive actions and that Sudanese and South Sudanese leadership exercise maximum restraint. We urge both parties to activate without delay the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism through UN Security Council Resolution 2024, authorizing the United Nations Interim Security for Abyei to assist Sudan and South Sudan with investigations and monitoring along the Sudan-South Sudan border.

The continued violence in Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, and along the border, as well as the continued deployment of Sudan Armed Forces and South Sudan Police Services in Abyei, undermines the progress made through the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel (AUHIP)-facilitated talks toward the creation of two viable states and weakens the prospects of reaching agreements on security, border, nationality, and oil issues. We urge both countries to return without delay to the negotiating table under the auspices of the AUHIP and use peaceful means, not military action, to resolve outstanding issues. We further urge the heads of state of both countries to meet in a summit as previously planned in order to advance negotiations on the issues that stand in the way of achieving true peace.

HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN SUDAN AND SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Humanitarian Situation in Sudan and South Sudan
Special Briefing Catherine Wiesner
   Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Princeton Lyman
   Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan USAID Deputy Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance Christa Capozzola
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
April 2, 2012

MR. VENTRELL: Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining us today. Today's conference call is on the record. With us we have Catherine Wiesner, who is a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration; Ambassador Princeton Lyman, U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan; and Christa Capozzola, who is from USAID, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance.
Right now, we're going to go ahead and have some opening remarks by Ms. Wiesner, and then we will turn it over to Q&A for all three of our speakers. So without further ado, over to Ms. Wiesner.

MS. WIESNER: Good morning, everybody, and thank you very much for your interest and for being on this call. As Patrick said, my name is Catherine Wiesner. I'm a new Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and I returned last week from a visit to South Sudan. What I'm going to do is give five to ten minutes of introductory remarks before we open it up for questions, and then we will also rely on my colleagues, Christa Capozzola from USAID, and Ambassador Lyman, the special envoy, to help answer whatever questions you may have.

The specific information that we would like to share with you today is about one aspect of the humanitarian situation in Sudan and South Sudan that has resulted from the ongoing conflict in the two areas, so to speak, along the border between Sudan and South Sudan. And I really have three main messages. The first and the reason for this call is to talk about 140,000 new refugees who have been created by the conflicts in South Kordofan and Blue Nile and who have fled from Sudan across the new international border to South Sudan as well as to Ethiopia and a few that have gone as far as Kenya.

Secondly, that the influx of these refugees from Sudan is occurring against a backdrop of very complex humanitarian needs in South Sudan that I think most of you are aware of, but includes hundreds of thousands of South Sudanese who are returning from the north and other neighboring countries as well as significant numbers of people who are internally displaced within the country.

And finally, that with this complex situation, it means that humanitarian needs are really expected to continue in both Sudan and South Sudan for some time to come.
So to set the stage, the fighting that erupted last year within the border states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile in Sudan not only threatens the possibility for resumption of direct conflict between the north and the south – that's really been the main concern – but also the violence has resulted in significant displacement and humanitarian need. So in addition to those who remain displaced and in need of assistance within South Kordofan and Blue Nile, 140,000 refugees from the two states have fled.

The arrival of 100,000 of these refugees to South Sudan, as I mentioned, occurs against this complex backdrop of humanitarian needs. According to UN OCHA, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, South Sudan is reportedly witnessing today the largest semi-peacetime movement of people since World War II in a country, and that includes those various populations that I mentioned previously. South Sudan is also a host to refugees from conflict and other surrounding states from the Democratic Republic of Congo, from the Central African Republic, and even Ethiopia. And lastly, there is chronic and rising food insecurity throughout the country, which exacerbates the situation.
WFP and FEWS NET or FAO, I think – Christa can correct me later – have predicted that 4.7 million people will be food insecure in South Sudan this year, of which at least 1 million are projected to be severely food insecure. So that's sort of the broader context by way of intro. And while I think you're all aware of reports – I know you're all aware of reports of clashes over the last week or so in Southern Kordofan state, the focus of my trip was actually the recent influx of refugees from Blue Nile state, where fighting also continues. And the vast majority of the refugees from the two areas have come from Blue Nile state, and it’s Upper Nile state in South Sudan that hosts the largest concentration of these refugees.

There are 86,000 refugees in Upper Nile from Blue Nile, and they’re located in two main sites, which are Doro and Jimam. UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, and IOM, the International Organization for Migration, are two key partners of the U.S. Government and of PRM, the bureau that I work for, and they receive a significant share of our humanitarian funding. They both issued emergency appeals last month for funds to finance their response operation. So having recently come onboard and with – Africa assistance is one of my areas of responsibility – I took the opportunity to make my first trip to Southern Sudan so that I could see the situation firsthand. And I traveled to Upper Nile state, which again, is on the border with Sudan and where the largest concentration of refugees are.

I had been told in advance that the recent influx had really stretched the response capacity, and – but that things were finally starting into place – to fall into place, and this is really what I found to be true. The area where the refugees are arriving is remote, it’s sparsely populated, and much of it rests in a flood zone that becomes inaccessible by road for much of the six-month rainy season. The rains are set to begin in a month or so, and so in this difficult context, the agencies are really in a race against time to get all the supplies in place, and the sheer pace of influx has really imposed enormous pressure.

In December, the number of refugees began to swell from about 25,000 in mid-December to over 80,000 by the end of February, and it was then that UNHCR initiated an emergency airlift of tents, plastic sheeting, and other relief supplies from Kenya and Dubai. Somewhat paradoxically, because it’s a flood zone, there are few existing clean water sources for hosting such a large population, so water, sanitation, hygiene are all top concerns. And whereas the accepted minimum standards for emergencies call for 15 liters of water a day person, refugees in Doro and Jimam are currently only receiving an average of between six and nine liters per person each day.

Drilling is ongoing. Locating clean water in sufficient quantities has been one of the major challenges. It has also delayed site planning, and it – which has left many refugees living under temporary plastic sheeting awaiting their relocation.

Food distribution was sporadic for several months, but in March, WFP was able to successfully establish a new pipeline by bringing – shipping emergency foodstuff to the port in Djibouti and bringing it in through Ethiopia, so now food supplies have become adequate.

And finally, health actors are bracing for and developing contingency plans against malaria and cholera outbreaks.

As I mentioned, it’s really a complex situation in South Sudan of various humanitarian crises, and Upper Nile is a good example of that. Before this latest refugee influx, it was already home to about 80,000 returnees who had been displaced during the long civil war. If you're aware of stories of returnees being stranded en route during their journey back, the riverside towns of Rank and Malakal along the Nile are in Upper Nile, and in addition, there are approximately 12,000 internally displaced South Sudanese in the state who have been displaced due to rebel militia activity.

So this means that agencies were present in Upper Nile and to some extent were prepared to mobilize quickly for the refugee response, but it also means that their capacity is not unlimited and the new emergency has them trying to cover multiple situations at once.
Maybe before I end, I can just share a few of my personal impressions. In – so, as I mentioned, the refugees are arriving into very remote areas, and that basically means that everything has to be established from scratch. So UNHCR and partners are fixing an airfield, they're building roads, they're drilling boreholes, as I mentioned. They were a bit lucky, because some years back, they had used the nearby town of Funj as a way station for returning refugees from Ethiopia. So they had like one old warehouse and a working borehole or two that they were able to use, but obviously the needs quickly outstripped that initial capacity.

The UN and NGO staff that I met were working flat-out every day. They'd been living out of tents themselves for several months, and their offices are basically a laptop with a plastic chair under a thatch shade in very searing heat.

The refugees themselves arrive exhausted from their journeys, sometimes in need of immediate medical attention, and in talking to refugees in the different camps, I found that most people were really quite relieved to finally be in a place of safety away from the bombings and grateful for the assistance they were receiving, but at the same time, they're definitely worried about loved ones with whom they had been separated and understandably anxious about their daily survival needs.

I had heard worrying reports before I went that people in Jimam Camp were eating leaves to survive, and as it turns out, there – certain wild leaves boiled with spices are, in fact, a traditional dish for some of these tribes. So it would be more appropriate to say that refugees like those who remain in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan have resorted to traditional coping mechanisms of eating various types of wild food, but it’s also obvious that boiled leaves of any kind are not enough for anybody to survive on.

However, perhaps because a month’s worth of food rations had recently been distributed when I arrived, when I spoke to groups of women in both camps their main concern was water. People are really desperate for water. I personally can’t imagine having only seven liters of water per day. I think I drink more than that, much less cook with it or wash with it.
But as I said, people are definitely, overall, most glad and thankful to be in a safe place. At the same, they are carrying their experiences of the last six months with them. Fighting broke out in Blue Nile in September of last year, and most of these people have been on the move since then, and only recently reached these refugee camps.

In Doro camp, for example, I watched – I went to an activities center and watched crowds of children who were playing soccer and jump rope and practicing traditional dances. These are the safe activities spaces that are set up for children so that they have a place to play in the crowded camps, and it’s one of the very important early child protection interventions with – together with schooling, that helps to normalize things. Even so, I was told by the volunteers working with the children that many of them have been digging foxholes for themselves even in the camps. So even though they’re told they are now safe, it makes them feel more secure to have hiding places.

I also met a young woman in the Jamam camp who agreed to show me her small shelter made out of thatch and plastic sheeting. And when we got there, I met her three children, including a very sweet little baby girl that she had given birth to on the way and named Dana, which she said meant “bomb” in her dialect. So the experience of violence and flight is still very close to these people.

I think, to sum up before we go into the questions and answers, clashes are continuing in both Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Humanitarian conditions are understood to be deteriorating in both conflict zones, and so additional arrivals are expected in the coming months. The number of refugees in Upper Nile has already exceeded UNHCR’s planning figure, which was for 75,000. They’ve revised that planning figure upwards to 150,000 by the end of 2012. And with these numbers, obviously, the agencies remain in a race against time.

The U.S. Government has provided 6.8 million of initial funding from our refugee assistance monies for the emergency response in both South Sudan and Ethiopia. Three million of this has gone to UNHCR, 2 million has gone to IOM, and 1.8 million to NGOs. The U.S. is currently looking at additional contributions to UNHCR’s $145 million emergency appeal as well as to NGO partners addressing critical gaps. The U.S. Government has also given – let me get this figure – 80.4 million to WFP for their emergency food operations throughout South Sudan that include assistance to the refugees in Upper Nile and Unity states. And USAID can provide information on their operations countrywide.

So I will leave my opening – rather long opening remarks there, and all three of us will be available to take your questions. Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press *1, and you will be prompted to record your first and your last name. Please un-mute your phone before recording your name. And to withdraw your question, press *2. One moment please.

Our first question comes from Shaun Tandon. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah. Hi. Thanks for doing this call. I wanted to ask you a little bit about the situation within Sudan. In South Kordofan and Blue Nile, there have lots of accounts that, due to bombing, there’s been a problem with the harvest, that there could be imminent food shortages. Are those things that you’re hearing now as well? And what do you think in terms of policy ramifications, what if anything the U.S. and other international actors can do to ensure sufficient food within Sudan?

MS. CAPOZZOLA: Hi. This is Christa Capozzola from AID. I can start off with an answer to your question. Thanks for that question. Yes. The conflicts that began last June in Southern Kordofan and in September in Blue Nile did disrupt the planting seasons quite significantly. In certain parts of Blue Nile, it’s estimated that only 15 percent was planted. It disrupted the commercial farming as well, which affects people’s incomes. So that creates a lot of concerns.

And yes, there is definitely rising food insecurity – a very serious level of food insecurity. Our FEWS NET analysts have now estimated that in Blue Nile, the area – the source of the refugees that Catherine’s been talking about, we will be reaching emergency level conditions by August. In Southern Kordofan, it’s actually worse. We are estimating that between 200- and 250,000 people are right now reaching emergency food security – insecurity conditions.

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: This is Princeton Lyman. Let me just add a little bit to that. Thanks, Christa. There is a proposal by the UN, the Africa Union, and the League of Arab States to launch humanitarian assistance into Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. That is still under discussion with the government in Khartoum. They haven’t yet okayed it. And we’ve pressed very, very hard for that. There are ways to get food in other ways, but they are not sufficient to the scope of the problem, as Christa has described. The UN envoy, Haile Menkerios, is in Khartoum right now pursuing negotiations with the government to get that humanitarian access approved. We think it’s vital, and we think it’s a very high priority.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, we’re ready for the next question.

OPERATOR: Yes. Our next question comes from Lalit Jha. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for doing this. India has just sent a special envoy to Sudan and South Sudan for protecting – for its energy interests. How do you view this, India sending its – also, you know China has sent it a few months ago to protect its oil interest. How do you view the interests of all – of these two countries in Sudan and South Sudan?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Hi. This is Princeton Lyman. We welcome that degree of interest. As you know, both China and India have significant investments in the oil sector. And as a result, they both have an interest in a stable and peaceful relationship between the two countries because, as you know, much of the oil is in the south, the infrastructure to export it in the north. So we have been in touch on many occasions with the Chinese, and then – and I’ve been in touch with the new Chinese envoy. I have not yet met the new envoy from India, but we’re delighted that they are taking part in diplomatic efforts to both help ease the tension and encourage the governments to reach an agreement on oil as well as other issues.

QUESTION: And as a follow-up – and what kind of role do you see for India? What kind of steps you want India to take in Sudan and South Sudan?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, I think for all of us in the international community, and that would – it would be true for India as well, that – to urge a resolution of the conflicts that are going on, because it’s hard to see the full implementation of an oil agreement if the two sides are fighting at the border or if there is continued unrest in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile that spills over between the two countries.
So I think for all of us in the international community, it’s important not only to encourage the governments to reach an agreement on oil, but to reach an agreement on the issues that are dividing them so sharply and creating so much conflict. So it – we all need to engage in a broad diplomatic effort, not just on one issue.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Ashish Sen. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you very much for doing this. I had two questions. My first was about the decision by the government in South Sudan to shut off oil, which is a major source of revenue. Can you talk a bit about how that’s put an additional burden on NGOs and organizations like USAID, especially when the south is now coping with this huge humanitarian crisis?

And the second is specifically for Ambassador Lyman. Ambassador, South Sudanese officials have complained that the African Union report to the UNSC portrays South Sudan as an aggressor in the recent hostilities. Do you share that assessment? Thank you.

MS. CAPOZZOLA: Princeton, do you want to go first or do you want me to take it first on impact on USAID? I’m happy to go first. Your question on impact on USAID – I mean, obviously, we’re still hopeful that the situation will be resolved, and the South Sudanese budget will not be severely affected over the long term. We are very concerned about growing humanitarian needs this year in South Sudan, even before we start to estimate how budget shortfalls will impact people in concrete ways.

The number of food insecure people in South Sudan is up this year compared to last year. It’s most recently been estimated at 4.7 million people. Last year, it was less than 2 million people. So this is really a major concern. As Catherine alluded to earlier, we’ve got a large number of South Sudanese returning from Sudan, which puts extra pressure on our partner-NGO capacity to provide assistance – initial assistance and support to communities who are absorbing all these people who are returning.

So we’ve been doing a number of things over the last year and a half to pre-position aid and capacity to deal with this, in particular in the northern states that border the two countries. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. WIESNER: This is Catherine Wiesner. I’ll just jump in with one anecdote. Obviously, the real concern with the shutdown are the budget shortfalls and the impact that it has on the Government of Southern Sudan’s ability to provide for its own people to the extent that it had planned to. An interesting anecdote that I learned when I traveled to Upper Nile was that the shutdown of the oil facilities has also had a direct impact on humanitarian operations, in that the oil companies had taken responsibility for maintaining much of the roads in the areas where they operated. And that regular maintenance is what’s required to keep some of those roads open to Malakal and other major towns in and around the camps during the rainy season. So this was an additional burden that was now falling on the humanitarian community to figure out how to keep those roads maintained so that relief services could continue.

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: This is Princeton Lyman to take your second question. I think it’s important to note after that UN Security Council meeting that the UN Security Council issued a unanimous statement that was quite balanced and represented a very good statement and a well-received statement by the UN Security Council. I think some of the issues that came up about that have been well addressed in the negotiations subsequently. I was a participant in the negotiations in Addis a couple of weeks ago and have been following the ones going on now.

And I think the Africa Union panel in the South African – South Sudan Government, as well as the Sudan Government, are engaged very well in that process indeed, right now today, even as we speak, a meeting is underway of the Joint Political and Security Mechanism, a very important military-to-military discussion between the two countries under the auspices of the Africa Union panel. So I think the panel is doing outstanding work, and I think both countries are working closely with it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Andrew Quinn. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. It’s Andrew Quinn from Reuters. A couple of quick questions for Ambassador Lyman. Firstly, Ambassador Lyman on the oil sector, I remember before South Sudan shut off – shut down the oil production, you were warning that if they did this for any extended period of time it could damage the infrastructure and it could be hard to get that whole oil machine up and running again. Given that it is now shut off and you have these reports of attacks on Southern Sudanese oil installations, what’s your assessment of the state of their oil industry and how quickly it could be brought back online if that was, sort of, politically feasible? And the second question is: I’m wondering if you can give us an update on what your expectations or hopes are for the Kiir-Bashir summit that has been delayed?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, I think the – South Sudan was very careful with the shutdown to avoid as much as possible damage. I defer to experts far greater than mine as to problems that will arise if the shutdown goes on for a very long period of time. But I think the general feeling is that it would take a little while to start up production, get it going again, getting the oil flowing. There may be some damage that has to be taken care of.

And I think in terms of the economic impact, it – there is a feeling that from the time of an oil agreement to the time that South Sudan begins to receive payment for oil could be as much as three to four months. So there is a significant time period that’s affected.
I don’t think the attacks in Unity state actually were on the oil installations in Unity state. Those attacks seem to be more related to border issues and closing of borders related to what the government in Khartoum feels is support to those fighting in Southern Kordofan. But I think it’s very important that both sides be extremely careful under the current tensions and fighting at the border, that neither crosses the line of attacking oil installations, because I think that would deepen the conflict very much.

The summit was, as you said, postponed. We’re hoping that out of the talks going on now in Addis and subsequent talks, that it will be rescheduled. And it’s very important because it will not only follow up on agreements that were reached a few weeks ago in Addis on nationalities and borders, but it will create, hopefully, a set of steps that will lead to better negotiations on the other issues, including oil. Because there needs to be serious negotiations on the oil sector, and new guidelines have to come from the presidents to facilitate that negotiation.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, do we have any further questions?

OPERATOR: Once again, to ask a question, please press * 1. I am showing no questions.

MR. VENTRELL: Okay.

OPERATOR: We did have a question come in.

MR. VENTRELL: Oh, we do? Okay. Go ahead.

OPERATOR: Ashish Sen, your line is open.

QUESTION: Thanks again. This is for Ambassador Lyman. Ambassador Lyman, in the past, U.S. officials have raised concerns with officials in South Sudan about accusations of them supporting rebels in Sudan, specifically in South Kordofan and in Unity state – and Blue Nile, sorry. Have you any indication that this support still continues? And accusations by the government in Khartoum that it was the South that provoked the recent attacks in Heglig – have you seen any indication to support those claims?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: This is Princeton Lyman. Thank you. Look, what’s right on the agenda in the meeting going on in Addis today are the issues that you raised, that is there are accusations from Khartoum that South Sudan is supporting the rebels in Southern Kordofan. There are also charges from Juba that the government in Khartoum supports militias destabilizing South Sudan. It’s very important that the two sides sit down and discuss these issues very candidly between them, because neither side should be trying to destabilize the other.

But it would also be a mistake to think that the troubles in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile are only because of possible support from the South. There are internal issues there, political issues, security issues leftover from the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that haven’t been addressed. And the Government of Sudan must address those issues with the people of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile to really end the conflict there.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: We had another question come in. Charlene Porter, your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes. Thank you for doing this. It’s Charlene Porter with the International News Service of the State Department. There’s – you all have mentioned many different aspects of this situation going on, but I’d ask you to step back for a moment and make an assessment about in the young life of this new nation. How do you figure it’s going? Is this better or worse than what you might have expected in the first year of the lifetime of South Sudan?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, this is Princeton Lyman. I’ll start and welcome Christa’s and Catherine’s thoughts as well. Look, this is a country that was absolutely devastated by war over 20 years, starting from a very, very difficult situation of limited infrastructure, loss of – great, great amounts of loss of life, lack of development, et cetera. So to judge it by a year or even by the autonomous period from 2005, one has to take that into account.

I think a lot of institutions have been developed. I think there’s been serious efforts to take on a lot of these issues. But frankly, the country faces an enormous number of challenges, some of which have been discussed already, major humanitarian needs, problems of returnees, of refugees. There are ethnic conflicts that have taken place in Jonglei and other parts of South Sudan. So this is really a country that has many, many challenges. And the crisis in the oil sector only makes that more difficult because 98 percent of South Sudan’s budget was coming from oil. So resolution of that problem is really quite urgent.

So I would say that, given the challenges, the country has put together its independence and moved forward reasonably well, but these are problems that are going to take years and years to address. And maybe AID and PRM would like to add some to that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. WIESNER: Princeton gave a great – Ambassador Lyman gave a great overview. Maybe I would just add a few things. From the refugee perspective, for example, this government, which has such little capacity to begin with following the years of war, at least one problem we don’t have is the granting of first asylum to refugees. I think based on the history of the war and the experiences that those in Southern Sudan had being refugees themselves in surrounding countries, they’ve been incredibly welcoming to refugees coming into their country, and that’s one positive.

Another related positive is that, as Ambassador Lyman mentioned, institutions have been developed. Capacity is low, but for better or for worse, you do have a number of government employees who have worked with the international community on emergency and humanitarian response over the course of the civil war and so do have some significant experience in that realm and are able to interact with the humanitarian community in a principled way on humanitarian response.

So I think overall this is not the direction we would have wanted the country to go in, in terms of the oil shutdown and the ongoing internal conflicts as well as conflicts along the border, but there are a few bright spots that we see, even in this context.

MS. CAPOZZOLA: This is Christa from USAID. I would just add very briefly that, as Ambassador Lyman said, we’re emerging out of half a century of conflict; it’s not surprising that we’re dealing with resolving layer upon layer of conflicts around these two nations right now. And connected to assistance, there are millions of people who were made vulnerable by these many, many years of conflict and displacement, and this is going to take a lot of time to sort out. And perhaps expectations that humanitarian needs would be over that – once a peace agreement and independence was achieved, was not really realistic. This is going to take years to normalize. Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Show no further questions.

MR. VENTRELL: Thank you all for joining the call, and have a good day.