REMARKS BY SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES ON NORTH KOREA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks to Press at Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Remarks
Glyn Davies
Special Representative for North Korea Policy 
Tokyo, Japan
November 25, 2013

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: What I would like to do very much – first of all, let me thank you all for coming out. I appreciate that very much. I would like to say something at the beginning since it’s been a long visit here to North Asia and I’ve had good talks in Tokyo. First of all, I want to thank Director General Ihara and Assistant Chief Cabinet Secretary Kanehara for giving me so much time today here in Tokyo. We had very in-depth and useful talks, and I believe that our visit here today and the talks I’ve had in Tokyo today demonstrate our close collaboration on North Korea.

We talked of course about the nuclear issue. Japan and the United States are in complete agreement, complete sync about that. We also talked about North Korean human rights – we’ll do more of that in a minute at lunch – and touched on the abductions issue. And we’ll again have more to say about that at lunch. I want to reiterate again, as I always do here in Tokyo, about how we in the United States share the pain and the suffering of abductee families and the Japanese people and pledge once again that we will work tirelessly in cooperation with Japan to try to resolve this important matter.

But as I wrap up a very productive week in the three key North Asian capitals – Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo – I want to report a strong convergence of views on North Korea. All of us are in quite close alignment, and I believe Russia, an essential partner in the Six-Party process, agrees that we will not accept North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. There are of course some differences among the five – but not at all among the three allies, who are in complete solidarity – but some differences over secondary issues such as the precise threshold or timing of talks, but there is unanimity on what North Korea must do: North Korea must abandon its nuclear weapons and agree to begin that process.

So we are looking for concrete indications from Pyongyang of its commitment to do that. This is because the core purpose of the Six-Party process is the complete, verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula on a clear and quick timetable.

North Korea, however, is moving in the opposite direction. They have made clear through words and actions that they reject that premise. We have heard them say repeatedly that instead they demand acceptance as a nuclear weapons state, that they demand prior lifting of sanctions, that they demand a weakening of the U.S.-ROK alliance, which has kept the peace on the Korean Peninsula now for 60 years. I’ve spoken – I did so in Beijing – about North Korea’s “Byungjin” policy of prioritizing nuclear weapons development, which I call a dead end.

I also want to underscore that Pyongyang’s attempts to engage in dialogue while keeping its program running are completely unacceptable. So it’s understandable, we believe, after so many broken promises, after the nuclear and missile tests, the threats against its neighbors and the United States, that not just its negotiating partners in the Six-Party process, but the international community writ large would have high standards of evidence to measure North Korean intentions.

That’s why the United States and its allies call on North Korea to make convincing indications, take concrete steps to demonstrate its seriousness of purpose. We will continue this process of joining with our partners – especially China, given its unique role – to keep the onus for action on North Korea.

With that, I’m very happy to take any questions that you have.

QUESTION: Could you be more specific about what is the concrete step you want North Korea to take?

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Well, this is now a matter of diplomatic discussion among the diplomatic partners in the five-party process, so I don’t want to go into a great deal of detail now. We’re talking about this between governments. We commend China for its tireless efforts to try to move forward on this discussion of what the appropriate threshold for Six-Party Talks would look like. My friend and colleague Ambassador Wu Dawei was just in Washington, some weeks ago, and we had the opportunity there to talk about it, and of course I followed up in Beijing on that same subject. And of course the discussions we had in Washington with separately the ROK and Japan, and then we had a trilateral session, and then again out here in the region – all are meant to define to our collective satisfaction what the threshold for talks should look like. So with your permission I do not plan at this stage to go into a great deal of detail about it.

The North Koreans know full well the kinds of things that we are looking for and talking about. We’ve been at this diplomacy now for a generation, through bilateral talks, trilateral talks, quadrilateral talks and Six-Party Talks, and we’ll keep it up.

QUESTION: Ambassador Davies, what is the U.S. currently doing to pull its citizen out of North Korea, and did you discuss it with the allies?

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Of course. This issue of the fate of American citizens who are in North Korean custody is one that we’ve raised – that I’ve raised at each stop, but particularly in Beijing, given their relationship with North Korea. I’m not going to get into, again, the specific discussion of the measures that we’re taking, but I will use this occasion to once again call on North Korea to make the right decision and to respect our concerns and let American citizens who are there go free. I also want to commend our Swedish protecting power. The Government of Sweden has been magnificent in trying every day to work on these issues in Pyongyang with the North Korean government, and that is very important. It is very important to us that this be resolved, that it be resolved quickly.

QUESTION: There have been reports that it is Mr. Newman who has been detained. Can you confirm that identity?

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: I’m not at liberty to do that. We have a law that we take very seriously in the United States called the Privacy Act, and because there is no signed Privacy Act waiver, I’m not in position to speak specifically about that issue, out of respect for the law.

QUESTION: Ambassador, your opening remark was very strong, and it comes obviously after the deal with Iran. Is the United States ready to deepen the sanctions, to make the sanctions more strict, to make them more effective?

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Well, look, I’m glad you raised that. I actually – since I knew you’d raise the issue of Iran, and this gives me an occasion to talk about it, so let me say some general things about that, since I know it’s the topic of the moment. Other than the nuclear denominator, the cases could not be more different, frankly, between Iran and North Korea. The two states, simply put, are on opposite sides of the nuclear weapons divide. I would point you to the remarks just made by Secretary of State Kerry. He pointed out that there is the very significant difference on the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons that, as I think many of you know, North Korea is the only nation on earth to have first signed that treaty and then renounced its signature. Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. Also North Korea has said repeatedly, with increasing frequency, has asserted that it is a nuclear weapons state. They have now placed provisions in their constitution to enshrine that. They’ve sought acceptance as a nuclear weapons state. Iran in contrast has pledged not to build nuclear weapons.

But the starkest contrast of all – and I think this is the most important point to make – is that in the 21st century, North Korea is the only nation on earth that has exploded nuclear devices. They’ve done it not once, not twice, but three times.

There are other differences between the two cases. North Korea walked away from its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, the agency where I spent several years representing the United States, that is now under the direction of Director General Yukiya Amano. Iran is and has always been a very active and engaged member of the IAEA although we have often had differences with them in the past. I would also remind that I’ve alluded to this before, that North Korea has elevated the pursuit of nuclear weapons to one of its two strategic priorities in its “Byungjin” policy that I spoke to a minute ago.

One way the cases are similar – and I think this is very important – is that pressure, particularly in the form of sanctions, do play a critical role. Sanctions helped convince Iran to agree to this interim deal that’s just been announced. We believe sanctions and pressure are key to sharpening the choices that Pyongyang faces. So given North Korea’s continued flouting of its international obligations and international law, given its testing of nuclear devices, given its repeated threats of nuclear attack, its elevation of its nuclear weapons program pursuit to its highest national priority, we will continue to keep pressure on North Korea, to keep the screws to North Korea.

But it’s pressure not for its own sake; it’s pressure with a purpose, and this is important because what we seek is a negotiated, diplomatic solution to this long-running problem. Here we believe we are making progress with our partners to define an appropriate threshold for resumed multilateral talks, and we will keep that up.

QUESTION: There have been many rumors that the two countries, Iran and North Korea, have been cooperating on nuclear programs. How do you address these concerns?

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Well, proliferation is a concern. It’s a big concern, and it’s something that we work on every day and about which we have conversations with our partners. I’m not going to get into what we do or don’t know about the state of affairs between North Korea and Iran. That would dip into intelligence matters which I can’t comment on, but this issue of proliferation of the spread of nuclear technologies, in particular from North Korea, remains an area of key concern to us, and of vigorous action.

QUESTION: Ambassador, regarding the sanctions, are you suggesting that we don’t have the right level or the right mix as we stand?

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Sanctions are always a work in progress. I mean, I think that there are always more sanctions we could put in place if needed. But what I want to put the emphasis on here is what I said at the end of my earlier remarks, that we want the sanctions to help clarify for Pyongyang the choices that they face. If they continue to defy the international community, pursue nuclear weapons and missile technologies, all they will do is continue to isolate themselves, quite frankly to impoverish their people, to keep North Korea outside the community of nations. So we’re saying to North Korea – and we’re doing this increasingly with one voice across not just the six parties, not just the northeast Asian region, but across the world – take a different approach; take a different decision; come in the direction of the concerns of the international community; give up your nuclear weapons; pledge to eliminate your nuclear program; stop this relentless pursuit of these technologies; stop threatening the outside world, testing weapons and declaring yourself at odds with the international community.

If you do that, there is hope going forward for diplomacy, but we’ve seen just the opposite. I’ve detailed that. I won’t go back into that. And that’s why we’re so concerned, that North Korea seems uninterested in meeting the concerns of the international community, and that’s where pressure and sanctions come into play. And so we will keep the pressure on North Korea, and if necessary if they cannot in the near term go in a different direction, we’ll have to ramp up that pressure in order to continue to try to bring home to them that this is a mistake, it’s not in their interest, and that if they wish a better relationship with the United States, their neighbors in the world, they have to give up the nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: What is the latest (inaudible)?

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: I’ve talked about this before. I actually talked about it at length in Beijing, and I don’t want to really repeat myself. What I said was that it remains a matter of some wonderment that they haven’t understood that if, as they say, they want a better relationship with the United States, one thing they could do is release these Americans and answer our calls to take seriously our concerns about the fate of those being held there. And you know Kenneth Bae has been there for over a year. He’s been in North Korean custody longer than any American in quite a while. His family is understandably concerned. We talk to them frequently. They are keeping their hope up, and I believe that’s the case with the family of the other individual concerned. And we want them to know that we’re with them, and we’re doing everything we can to convince North Korea to let these men go.

QUESTION: The current level of sanctions hasn’t quite persuaded North Korea to think as you suggested. Is it time for a different tactic?

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: Well, that time will come soon, but we’re not there yet. There’s still room for diplomacy. We’d like to get something going here, and that’s why the pace of diplomacy has increased, to see if we can’t agree on an appropriate threshold for Six-Party Talks. But at the same time, we keep up our pressure. We keep up our sanctions, and if we do not see signs of North Korean sincerity, if they do not act to demonstrate that they understand they must fulfill their obligations to give up their nuclear weapons, then there is more pressure that will be brought to bear on them.

QUESTION: Did you give them a deadline?

AMBASSADOR DAVIES: You know, I’m not in the business of giving deadlines. I’m not going to do that. Let me – if there’s one more question, I’m happy to take it, but I’ve been invited to lunch by Director General Ihara, and I would not like to be rude. I want to show up for that lunch, so any other questions here? No? Excellent. Thank you very much for coming here and listening to me. I really appreciate it. I look forward to seeing many of you in the near future either in Washington or back here in Tokyo. Thanks again. All the best.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AT 2+2 MEETING IN TOKYO

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at the Meeting of the U.S. - Japan Security Consultative Committee (2+2)
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Iikura Guest House
Tokyo, Japan
October 3, 2013

Well, thank you very much Foreign Minister Kishida and Defense Minister Onodera. We have very honored to be here, Secretary Hagel and I.

This is – as you have remarked, this is an historic meeting, the first time we’ve ever had this meeting in Japan, the 2+2. And it’s also critical because the framework that we will be discussing today will really lay out the security relationship between the United States and Japan for this region for the next 15 or 20 years.

This alliance, which we believe is the lynchpin alliance for the United States in the region, has not been updated since 1997. And as you said in your opening comments, a great deal has changed in this period of time. There are different threats and different kinds of threats. So it is important for us to recognize that this bilateral alliance remains a vital element of our respective national security strategies. And today, I am convinced, from the work our staffs have done and the groundwork that’s been done leading to today, we’re going to take a very important step forward to modernize that and to bring it up to date.

I’d just close by saying that for more than 60 years Japan has been one of the closest allies and one of our closest global partners, and most important partners. I want to thank you personally, Fumio, for your terrific support and help in New York during the General Assembly meeting on the subject of Syria. Japan has been playing an increasingly visible and important role on a number of different global crises, and we’re very grateful for Japan’s leadership with respect to that. And I’m confident that we’re going to have a very substantive and very productive discussion, so we look forward to getting to work.

Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY MEETS WITH STAFF AND FAMILIES AT EMBASSY IN TOKYO

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Meets with Staff and Families of Embassy Tokyo
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan
April 15, 2013

AMBASSADOR ROOS: Well, let me just briefly tell you how honored we are to have Secretary Kerry here. This is the end of a whirlwind, worldwide trip for the Secretary, and he’s getting on a plane to head back to Washington.

But let me just say one thing about the Secretary. I’ve had the honor and the privilege to have known him for years, and when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, every time I went back to Washington since I’ve been the Ambassador, I’ve spent time with him where he’s asked about what’s going on here in Japan and what you and the Embassy have been doing. And so when he became the Secretary of State, not only was he incredibly well-versed on the whole Asia Pacific area, but in particular, he has a real appreciation for what all of you do in Japan.

So it is really my distinct honor and privilege to turn the microphone over and introduce you to our great Secretary of State, John Kerry.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, John. (Applause.) It’s really wonderful to be here. I’m happy to see all the kids here. Hi, guys. How are you? Are these young – where, two, three, four, five? The rest are in school. Did you get out of school? (Laughter.) You did? I love it. Thank you. (Laughter.) That’s very smart of you. I’m glad you came by. Thank you very, very much.

Well, hello, and hello, Tokyo. And I gather we’ve got some consulates. Well, how are you guys? In fact, just one consulate? We have four other somewhere. (Laughter.) They’re not being shown, right – oh, there they are. Another one from (inaudible). Hi, guys. How are you? Thank you. Which consulate is that? That’s (inaudible), and where’s the other one?

PARTICIPANT: They’re not on.

SECRETARY KERRY: Okay. They’re not on. And three got lost, sorry. (Laughter.)

PARTICIPANT: Right here.

SECRETARY KERRY: There you are. (Laughter.) Yay, there they are. Give them a cheer, everybody in Embassy Tokyo. (Applause.) We’re cheering for the other ones too. Oh, hi. (Laughter.) Everybody’s included.

Thank you for the privilege of being here with all of you. I really appreciate it very, very much. It’s the last leg and last event before we go to the airport and take off and go home with a brief stop in Chicago, and then back to work tomorrow morning if I can find the Department. (Laughter.) But I really want to thank all of you. It’s a great privilege for me to be here.

First of all, let me just say a huge thank you to my friend, the Ambassador. John and I got to know each other really well when I was running for president in ’04. He was my Northern California chairman of that effort, believe it or not, and I never cease to tell him that if he had just worked a little harder, I would have been president. (Laughter.) And he did a worthy job. It wasn’t his life’s work and mission.

He certainly – as you know, he won an award for the quality of the work that you all did together under the most trying of circumstances after the tragedy of the East Japan earthquake, and I want to thank you for that, but I want everybody here to also thank the team. Susie is part of the team, a huge part of it. Susie, thank you, and John, thanks so much for your leadership. I really appreciate both of you enormously. (Applause.) You’re all so disciplined with this red wine here. (Laughter.) (Inaudible.) It’s too organized for me. (Laughter.)

Anyway, we’ll bring you on afterwards because I want to come by and have a chance to shake hands and say hello to everybody. But I really want to thank you. Look, I had the privilege of giving a speech today at Tokyo Tech, and talked about the Asia Pacific future and the possibilities of the future. And I really believe in them, and you all are part of what the – I get into trouble if I start separating embassies and pointing out the differences, but really, this is one of our most – it’s a flagship embassy, and you all know that.

It’s because the Japanese are such close friends, and Japan is such an important part of our Asia Pacific and global partnership. And Japan is playing in all sorts of remarkable ways today: helping with Afghanistan, helping with Syria, helping with the Mideast peace process. We actually talked about that today with Prime Minister Abe. I mean, there are really unbelievable ways when this partnership shows itself in various places.

And it’s still building. It’s still got unfulfilled possibilities. So you’re on the cutting edge of the President’s rebalancing and the whole focus of building a stronger future Pacific region. I laid out today the different kinds of growth that are really going to define that – the smart growth, the just growth, the strong growth, and fair growth and so forth. These are the keys, and all of you, every single one of you, on a daily basis, whether you are locally hired and a Japanese citizen working for the Embassy of the United States – we couldn’t do it without you; it’s (inaudible) – or whether you’re an American FSO or civil servant or part of one of the agencies that are all cross-fertilized in an embassy.

You are all ambassadors for the United States, because you’re the contact with the American Embassy. And in many cases, that's the only contact some people will ever have with the Government of the United States directly. So how you treat people, and how fast you get back to people, and what kind of experience they have in the Embassy, and what they hear from you is all part of our diplomacy, part of our effort to share our values and our hopes and our aspirations with people around the world. And the very practical things you also do, like help get a joint strike fighter agreement which actually creates jobs at home, even as you strengthen the relationship and strengthen our security here. Or the Tomodachi program, where you’re working with young kids and giving them an opportunity to be able to have a sense of leadership and a sense of the possibilities of the future. So every single part of these things are part of the web that is diplomacy.

Now, I mentioned earlier that I’m going to be stopping in Chicago on the way back. The reason I’m stopping in Chicago is to visit with the parents of Anne Smedinghoff, who we lost just, as you know, a few days ago. And this is a family. Everybody understands and feels that kind of a loss. A 25-year-old young woman, full of idealism, full of hopes, taking books to children in a school so they can learn, and wiped out by terrorism, by the worst kind of nihilistic nothing – violence that doesn’t stand for anything except killing people and stopping the future.

So we’re not going to be deterred. We’re going to be inspired. And we’re going to use Anne’s idealism as another motivation for the idealism that brings all of you to this effort in the first place. We can make this world better. We can strengthen other countries. We’ve seen it happen. I used the example earlier today of what we did only 10, 20 years ago: We were giving aid to the Republic of Korea, and it was still struggling and emerging. Today, Korea is giving aid to other countries, and it’s a strong nation with a vibrant democracy, and it’s a partner in these kinds of efforts. That’s what this is all about. Mongolia today, hosting a conference on democracy; who would have thought about that a number of years ago? Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi standing with the generals, a prisoner of 20 years, and working towards democracy. That’s what this is all about.

So I just want to say a profound thank you to all of you. As long as I’m Secretary of State, I promise you I will do everything in my power to cover your back. You cover mine, and we’ll be a good team together and we’ll get the job done.

Thank you all, and God bless. (Applause.)

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 17, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
TRANSCRIPT:

12:46 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Good afternoon.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
MR. TONER: Welcome. (Laughter.) I feel sometimes a little schoolmarm-ish up here when I – I don’t know why. It’s ridiculous. (Laughter.) Anyway, welcome to the State Department. Jill, Cami, good to see you guys, too. (Laughter.) Anyway, I have nothing for the top, so I’ll take your questions.
Jill.
QUESTION: Actually, I’m interested in North Korea.
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: North Korea is saying that the February – the Leap Day Agreement is over, no longer binding. So of course, what does that mean? Is there any reaction? Does it mean they’re paving the way for a nuclear test?
MR. TONER: Well, it’s difficult to say. I mean, in terms of what we’ve seen reported, the statements about these commitments that they made on Leap Day - it’s not surprising, given their recent behavior. We’ve been very clear, especially the presidential statement that was passed by the UN Security Council yesterday, that North Korea needs to comply with the Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874. And that includes abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs as well as no more nuclear tests, or abstaining from any nuclear tests. So – and it was also very clear that the Security Council was determined to take action in the event of any future launch or nuclear test.
QUESTION: Is there any indication the U.S., at this point, believes that they might be laying the groundwork for a nuclear test?
MR. TONER: I can’t, obviously, talk about any intelligence that we might have about this. And frankly, it’s very difficult to say; it’s a very opaque regime. We parse out their public comments. We also know that in the past, as we’ve said, there’s been this pattern of bad behavior, if you will. So we can’t preclude anything at this point – but again, very clearly reminding them of their obligations under existing UN Security Council resolutions and also very clearly conveying the fact that the Security Council would take appropriate actions.
QUESTION: What are the appropriate actions that could be taken, given the raft of sanctions that are already facing not just the North Korean Government but various individuals, including the new leader Kim Jong-un?
MR. TONER: Well, you are correct in saying that. I don’t think any other country, or very few countries in the world, have as strict or rigid a sanctions program against them as North Korea. They’re probably one of the most heavily sanctioned countries in the world. The presidential statement did speak yesterday about, though, going back to the UN Sanctions Committee to find out ways that those sanctions, existing sanctions, can be strengthened.
And I talked a little bit about this yesterday, that there’s sanctions that are on the books, and then the second part of making an effective sanctions regime is constantly adding to them but also seeking ways to make them stronger through the implementation. And that’s what they’ll be doing.
Yeah.
QUESTION: What’s the U.S. view on the Leap Year Agreement? Is it – obviously the U.S. part has been suspended with the nutritional assistance.
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: But does the U.S. still believe that it’s in force, that North Korea is bound to what it promised at that point?
MR. TONER: Well, indeed. I mean, we’ve – we believe that, again, it’s not just the commitments that North Korea made on Leap Day, but also existing Security Council resolutions that hold North Korea to the pledge not to conduct any nuclear tests.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just to make sure we understand, then, is the Leap Day Agreement null and void, or is it just that it still remains as a legal agreement which they have broken? Maybe it’s the same thing, but --
MR. TONER: Well, I don’t know if I would term it a legal agreement, but it was a pledge of commitment that North Korea took. We undertook a commitment to look at nutritional assistance at the same time. Given the fact that they’ve reneged on their commitments by launching this satellite, then we’ve suspended our side of the commitments.
QUESTION: Different issue?
MR. TONER: Different issue. Do you have another or --
QUESTION: No.
MR. TONER: Okay. Sure, Shaun.
QUESTION: Repsol – the issue in Argentina with the nationalization. I saw Secretary Clinton spoke a little bit about this, but didn’t really give much commentary on it. Does the U.S. want to stay out of this, or is there some viewpoint that you could give? The EU has --
MR. TONER: I think her comment reflected that we’re still studying the details of the case. She spoke about the need for diverse markets, and certainly that’s one of our core beliefs: diverse energy markets. But beyond that, we don’t have any comment.
Yeah. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MR. TONER: We can go to Syria.
QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday you made a couple comments, but right after that I think there was a comment made by the Secretary of State and by the representative of the United Nations. Both were not actually very helpful as far as the ceasefire is concerned. Could you care to comment on that?
MR. TONER: You’re saying that the Secretary nor the representative --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: Well, I think I spoke to it a little bit yesterday. By our accounts, based on sources inside the country, 26 people were killed in Syria yesterday. We also understand that violence continues with tank shelling in Homs and in another town in southern Syria, Busra al-Harir. And it’s – this – as I said yesterday, this erosion of the cessation of violence that we had in place – and we called it fragile from the start – is – this erosion is unacceptable. We need to see the Assad regime live up to its pledge, and the onus is on the Assad regime. So far, the Syrian opposition has held its fire and lived up to its side of the agreement.
QUESTION: Yeah. But there is also a back and forth going on with the amir of Qatar saying that it has a chance of 3 percent of success. I don’t know how he came up with that figure. But also today with Mr. Lavrov in Moscow saying that there are people – alluding to Qatar and Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf countries – who are trying to actually collapse the ceasefire. Do you concur with that assessment, with the Russians?
MR. TONER: I don’t think anybody wants to see the violence return to Syria. I can’t really say that because it hasn’t fully abated, but nobody wants to see the Syrian regime crank up its artillery assaults on civilians again to the degree that it had been in previous weeks. I think the GCC countries have played, obviously, a strong leadership role in trying to address this crisis. And it’s frustrating to see one small, fragile step forward, but then to see that eroding before our eyes.
So again, the onus is on Assad. The onus is on his regime. They need to live up to their side of the bargain. They need to fulfill all the points of the Annan plan – implement all the points of the Annan plan. To date, they have not. They barely fulfilled one. And so – and we do need to let these monitors get on the ground, establish themselves, and go out and actually report on what they see.
QUESTION: So you’re saying that the ceasefire, by itself, is not enough, right? There’s got to be also – the regime has to be forthcoming on all the other points.
MR. TONER: Absolutely.
QUESTION: What is your assessment of how the ongoing discussions in Paris about the economic sanctions aimed at Syria and efforts to toughen them? What’s the – this building’s read on what’s happening there?
MR. TONER: Well, the tougher the better. We’ve said all along that we want to see sanctions, political pressure, economic pressure increased on Assad, increased on his regime. We would have the message conveyed very clearly to those around Assad that the tide has turned, and they need to reconsider their options.
Yeah. Go ahead, Jill.
QUESTION: What are monitors doing exactly?
MR. TONER: They are – again, this is a very small group that arrived over the weekend. I believe just five monitors are on the ground – six monitors are on the ground. They’ve set up an office in an existing UN office, I would imagine in Damascus. They’ve also met with officials at the Syrian foreign ministry, and we expect the number of monitors to quickly increase to 25 or 30 in the next five to seven days. And as you probably saw from reporting out of UN, they’re still trying to establish – waiting for recommendations from the Secretary General on how large this mission will be.
QUESTION: How – what will you base your assessment on whether or not this initial monitoring effort is successful? I mean, what does it take? What do they have to do that they – that you all would then say that this is actually working?
MR. TONER: Well, first off, they need unlimited access to all parts of Syria, and I think that we’ve seen this come out in some of the discussions ongoing in New York. They need to be able to – as we talked about before with the Arab League, these monitors are only as good as the access that they’re provided. If they can get out, if they can see all areas of the country, then they can provide an objective and detailed assessment of the situation. So I think we’ll – as we move forward, we’ll see how – what kind of access they get, their ability to travel around, and then we’ll, obviously, wait for their report back to the UN.
QUESTION: I mean, you’re saying that that group could expand to up to 30 within seven days.
MR. TONER: That’s correct.
QUESTION: You think that within that seven-day period we’ll be able to judge whether or not this is --
MR. TONER: I honestly – I think it’s going to be a critical week as we see how this mission is implemented, and I think the Secretary alluded to that last night. I don’t know whether we’ll expect a full report, from them in that time. I just can’t say.
QUESTION: The Secretary General suggested in his comments today in Doha that perhaps even 250 monitors might not be enough, given the size of Syria and given the scope of the ongoing --
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: -- violence. And he also suggested, perhaps, providing helicopters and other means of travel to these monitors. Are we seeing a slow ratcheting up of some sort of outside intervention here?
MR. TONER: Ros, I think he’s just looking at – and I just spoke to this a little bit. He’s looking at what’s required for an effective monitoring mission. Indeed, Syria’s a very large country. And so they need access to all parts of the country in order to carry out an effective mission. So I believe that as we move forward in the next couple of days, the Secretary General will go back to the Security Council with his recommendations on the size and scope of the mission, and then we’ll move from there.
QUESTION: Is there any concern that the Assad regime could push back on aerial modes of transportation, to use a bureaucratic phrase, because of some concern that perhaps people could fire weapons out of those aircraft?
MR. TONER: Again, these are unarmed observers, so I don’t preclude any action, however absurd, by the Syrian Government. But it would be indeed absurd to assume that.
QUESTION: Mark, some Syria – I’m sorry, go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to clarify.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: With the monitors, and essentially, they’re talking with the foreign ministry, trying to establish how they’re going to go about this --
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: -- as opposed to actually carrying it out, right?
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: And then is – do you have any feedback in terms of how the Assad government is reacting, what they are saying? Are they cooperating?
MR. TONER: I really don’t at this point. Other than what we’ve seen in terms of the return of violence or the slow ratcheting up of violence in several areas of the country, I really don’t have an assessment about their meetings with the foreign ministry, at least yet.
QUESTION: The fact they’re saying that Secretary Clinton’s going to be in Paris on Thursday for the sort of – some Friends of Syria meeting. Are you able to confirm that?
MR. TONER: I can’t confirm at this point. She’s obviously up in the air. I’ve seen those same press reports. We’ve talked about – certainly, the Secretary is very willing to meet – to discuss this important issue, obviously. But I just can’t confirm at this point.
QUESTION: I wonder if I can get you to comment on something. Some old Syria hands in town are suggesting that perhaps the United States Government could share intelligence with the opposition groups and so on, saying that now there is a movement of tanks or now there’s a movement of military contingent moving towards this neighborhood or that neighborhood. Is that something that is being discussed, at least, in this building?
MR. TONER: Well, if it was being discussed, I wouldn’t be able to tell you about it.
QUESTION: But is it --
MR. TONER: No. I think what we’re working at is along the lines of what was decided at the last Friends of Syria meeting, which is non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, improve their communications. Again, you’ve seen some of the imagery also that’s appeared on Ambassador Ford’s Facebook site, and that, in effect, is a way to hold the Syrian regime accountable. You can actually see heavy weaponry surrounding some of these cities. So our focus right now: working with the opposition, trying to strengthen their cohesion, strengthen their unity, so as we move towards what we hope is an eventual transition, that they’re ready for that.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up to rephrase my question. So as part of that assistance in communications, would that be communicating to the opposition that they’re about to be attacked? Is that part of communication?
MR. TONER: My understanding is that this is communication that’s supposed to strengthen their own intra-communication, their ability to – and again, the Secretary spoke about when she met with members of the opposition during the last meeting in – Istanbul? Sorry, was it Istanbul or – okay, thank you – talked about meeting with a woman who talked about, during these bombardments in places like Homs, their inability to even know what’s going on in another part of the city. So we’re trying to look at ways that we can strengthen that kind of communication.
Yeah, in the back, Scott.
QUESTION: Sudan, please. Could you – what can you tell us about Ambassador Lyman’s efforts in Juba?
MR. TONER: Sure. I don’t have a lengthy readout for you, Scott. I can say that he is in Juba, as I mentioned yesterday, for meetings with the Government of South Sudan. He did meet with President Kiir yesterday. I think I said they’re looking at ways to deescalate the tension and end the current crisis. He is going to travel to Khartoum, I believe, later today or tomorrow for meetings with Sudanese officials to essentially stress the same message, which is that we need an immediate and unconditional cessation of violence, and we need both sides to get back to the AU process.
QUESTION: Does it continue to be your position that the SPLA troops need to withdraw from Heglig?
MR. TONER: It does.
QUESTION: Was that raised with President Kiir?
MR. TONER: I’m sure it was.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey blamed Pakistan-based Haqqani Network for the attacks in Kabul, and Secretary Clinton also talked to Foreign Minister Khar. So what – does the initial evidence lead to Pakistan at the moment? Was this coordinated by the Haqqani Network elements in Pakistan or in Afghanistan? What is your initial information?
MR. TONER: Right. I mean, the quick answer is we don’t know yet. It appeared to bear the hallmarks of the – an Haqqani Network-style attack. We’ve seen them obviously carry out one last fall that was coordinated in this kind of fashion, but beyond that, we’re still in the information-gathering stage. It’s still an investigation carried out by Afghan authorities. So we should know more.
QUESTION: And last year, we heard a lot about Haqqani Network that was – all sorts of – that went from communication with Pakistan. But that seemed to go in the background during the last few months when everything between Pakistan and U.S. seemed to be at a standstill. So was there any kind of communication on Haqqani Network, or are your concerns about the same? You thought Pakistan actually did take some action or they did nothing? What is your impression?
MR. TONER: Well, I think the Secretary spoke to this in her press availability yesterday in Brasilia, and she simply said that when she was in Pakistan in the fall, that she raised our concerns about the Haqqani Network, and frankly, our concerns that this is a shared threat. We all need to take action against this network. It’s a threat to Pakistanis, it’s a threat to Afghans, and it’s a threat to, obviously, Americans living in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
QUESTION: No, my question is that --
MR. TONER: Sorry.
QUESTION: -- you have been raising this concern with Pakistan over the last year or so. You have done that a number of times.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: Have you seen any improvement or you think the situation is actually deteriorating?
MR. TONER: Well, again, it’s – we’ve been going through a fairly difficult period with Pakistan that we’re now hopefully emerging from. And throughout that, our counterterrorism cooperation has continued, but we want to try to strengthen it. We recognize that we do face these shared threats, and we need to keep up the fight. We continue to make that case to the Pakistani Government, that this is a group that is killing Pakistanis as well as Americans as well as Afghans, so we need to put the pressure on them. I think I’ll just leave it there.
Yeah, Scott.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you think that this attack, and if Pakistan doesn’t take any action against Haqqani Network, as U.S. has been demanding, it could sabotage whatever efforts there are at the moment to bring this relationship back on track?
MR. TONER: We’re going forward. We have the parliamentary review process complete, but going forward, we’re going to have a strong and serious discussion on all the issues, including counterterrorism, including the Haqqani Network. The Secretary stated that yesterday. We take it very seriously.
QUESTION: There are Azerbaijani officials in town this week. Can you tell us about any talks they might be having in this building, and if any of those talks have included Afghanistan?
MR. TONER: Scott, I’ll take the question. I don’t have any details with me.
Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: Treasury today said it was easing some sanctions on Myanmar, certain sanctions that would allow nongovernmental organizations --
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: -- particularly to do their jobs. I’m wondering, is this the extent of the action for action that we can expect at this stage or are you contemplating further moves?
MR. TONER: No, I think the other – we talked about a number of actions on April 4th, I guess it was, which included naming an ambassador, opening a USAID office, establishing a normal country program for UNDP, facilitating travel for select government officials, and also easing restrictions on the export of U.S. financial services. And then also, one of these elements was, as you just mentioned, easing restrictions on nonprofit activities. So today, as you correctly noted, the Office of Foreign Assets Control did issue a general license easing financial restrictions for certain not-for-profit activities in Burma. These include health, education, good governance, and certain noncommercial development initiatives. And as I said, this is – I think you’ll see more steps as we implement what we laid out on April 4th. You’ll see additional measures.
QUESTION: Okay. So I mean, it isn’t that the Burmese have to do more now to get more, that --
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: I mean, these were our action for action, if you will, in response to what we viewed as very positive parliamentary elections.
Yeah, Jill.
QUESTION: Mark – Egypt. Some of the NGO people are now worried that they will be on an Interpol list and will not be able to travel internationally. Do you have any update on where their status is, what their status is?
MR. TONER: I don’t, and I’m somewhat limited to what we can say about Interpol matters. I’ll take the question, though, and see if we can get anything back for you.
QUESTION: All right. And you may have addressed this --
MR. TONER: But I mean, obviously, what we said previously, Jill, just to – we’ve been very clear that we think these are politically motivated charges and without merit, and so let me just reiterate that, that we don’t – there’s no reason for these individuals to be on any kind of list, international legal list.
QUESTION: All right. And just one quick one on – you may have addressed this this week, I could’ve missed it, but the level of concern here in this building about the Egyptian elections, in which a number of people have been –
MR. TONER: Yeah. I spoke a little bit about this yesterday. This is – obviously, Egyptians are following this process very closely, and rightly so. Our concern is that we want to see a fair and transparent process moving forward and a successful handover election and handover of power to a civilian government along the timeframe that the SCAF has already laid out. So they’ve already had successful parliamentary elections. We want to see that trend continue, and leading to a transfer of power.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Change topic? Palestinian-Israeli issue?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Okay. Last year, the Quartet, as part of its effort, requested that both the Palestinians and the Israelis submit their proposals for the borders and so on. The Palestinians did; the Israelis did not. Today there is a letter that is being submitted from Abbas to Netanyahu. Do you expect, as a result of this letter, that the Israelis will come forth with their own proposal of the borders, and will you support that?
MR. TONER: Well, what I can say is that, as you noted, the parties are set to meet today. I didn’t have confirmation coming down here that the actual – the meeting – actually the meeting was underway. But I can --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: They did already meet?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Yeah. No, and I – again, I was trying to get confirmation about that as well. But I do – I can say that the Palestinians did intend to deliver a letter addressed to Prime Minister Netanyahu and that we understand there’s a – there are plans for an Israeli reply. But I obviously can’t get into the substance of those.
Yes. Back here.
QUESTION: On Guinea-Bissau.
MR. TONER: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Following the coup in Mali, you supported the ECOWAS deal, which had the vice president come to power and the soldiers step back. The military, who’s now in control of Guinea-Bissau, says that they will have a similar transitional authority, but the soldiers will decide what civilians will take part in that. Is that acceptable?
MR. TONER: No – I did see that. Let’s be very clear that we support the ECOWAS-led efforts in the country as – and I believe it’s not just ECOWAS; it’s the community of Portuguese-language countries that are also involved in this. We certainly want to see a return to civilian power, but I can’t speculate on what’s being proposed by these mutineers except to say that we strongly support ECOWAS and CLP efforts to return the country to civilian rule.
QUESTION: Would it be acceptable to you that soldiers determine which civilians could take part in this transitional authority?
MR. TONER: Again, I mean, it’s somewhat speculative. I’ve heard those comments. I haven’t seen anything to back them up. I don’t know what – but I don’t know if they’re credible. I just have seen press reports at this point. ECOWAS is there on the ground. They’re working hard to – are there to mediate. We just want to see a return to civilian rule. But certainly, we would want to see something that is in keeping with democratic standards.
QUESTION: On Vietnam?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: I don’t know if you have anything to say about charges that have been filed against a number of journalists and bloggers, one Nguyen Van Hai. They’re accused of anti-state propaganda.
MR. TONER: Right. I mean, obviously, we’re watching these cases very closely. We’re very concerned and monitoring the charges. But I’ll take the question and see if we can get more details for you.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On South Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Lim Sung-nam is in town and is at the State Department today for meetings. And I’m wondering if you have any information about who he’ll be meeting with?
MR. TONER: He is. And I’m trying to – I hope I have this – I did have a readout – or not a readout but a preview. You’re talking about Special Representative Lim?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: He is going to be meeting with Glyn Davies, our Special Representative for North Korea, as well as Assistant Secretary Thomas Countryman. And, obviously, they’ll talk about the range of issues, probably first and foremost, North Korea, and next steps following yesterday’s presidential statement.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Yes. I have a question about Argentina and the oil company. The Spanish foreign minister has said he’s disappointed with Secretary Clinton reaction to the nationalization of the YPF company. I would like to know what should Spain expect from the U.S. Government? What position should Spain expect in this issue from the U.S.?
MR. TONER: Well, I think Secretary Clinton was simply – said that she was still looking at the case. She commented, as I mentioned to Shaun earlier, the importance that we subscribe to – or ascribe to diversity of energy resources. We believe that’s the best route to go. But beyond that, we’re still studying the implications.
QUESTION: A follow-up?
MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Does the United States, to be clear, condone or condemn this nationalization?
MR. TONER: I think we’re still trying to get the details of what’s happened and making an assessment. But speaking more generally, when it comes to energy markets, as I just said, we want to see more diversity, not less.
QUESTION: Yesterday, governor of Tokyo made a speech in D.C., saying that city of Tokyo will be purchasing Senkaku Islands. Do you have any reaction to this news?
MR. TONER: Nothing beyond our standard policy or position on the Senkaku Islands, which I can give to you chapter and verse, if you like. But I don’t have any specific comment on his speech, no. Yeah.
Anything else, guys? Great. Thank you.