PROTECTING CIVILIANS IN LIBYA IN MARCH 2011

FROM:  U.S. AIR FORCE
A Qatari C-17 Globemaster III lands at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, to refuel in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn March 25, 2011. Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S. military forces supporting the international response to the unrest in Libya and enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. UNSCR 1973 authorized all necessary measures to protect civilians in Libya under threat of attack by Qadhafi regime forces. JTF Odyssey Dawn is commanded by U.S. Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Alexandre Montes

U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON'S REMARKS AT ISTANBUL PRESS ROUNDTABLE

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Istanbul Press RoundtableRemarks
Philip H. Gordon
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Istanbul, Turkey
July 30, 2012

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Thanks so much. Let me just start by saying it’s great to be back not just in Turkey, but in Istanbul.

I’ll just say a word about what I’m doing and maybe focusing on. It’s actually a quick trip to the region. I was last week in the Balkans, in Cyprus. I didn’t have a chance to visit Greece and wanted to pay a visit to Greece to see for the first time the new government there and to express to Greece our support for the difficult economic reforms that they’re undertaking. So I spent the end of last week in Greece, and then we have such a huge agenda with Turkey, I wanted to come, even if briefly, to Istanbul where I’ll have a chance to meet with senior Turkish officials during the day to cover the full range of issues that we deal with with Turkey, which, as always, is an enormous agenda. So I’ll do that throughout the day today. I’ll have a chance to visit the Halki Seminary this afternoon, and then for the first time to attend an iftar dinner tonight, which I very much look forward to.

When I say I’ll cover the full range of issues with our Turkish counterparts, as I say with Turkey that list is always very long and there’s never enough time, but we have a good and healthy discussion on all the critical issues of the day. Here I might just flag a few, and I would start with Syria given the dramatic situation unfolding there and the degree to which it’s a huge priority, both for Turkey and the United States, and I would simply say I think we are coordinating very well on the question of Syria. I think we have very similar interests -- both Turkey and the United States some time ago came to the conclusion that you could not have stability in Syria under the Assad regime, and that that regime needs to go. We are working very well together and with other members of the international community to increase pressure on the regime, to ensure a political transition, which is our objective, and to coordinate our efforts and assistance to the opposition so that when Assad does go -- and we’re confident that he will -- we can help ensure a stable and inclusive democratic Syria in its wake, and that’s one of our top priorities and something we’re coordinating very closely with the Turkish Government on.

I can also mention Iran, which has been another major area of coordination with Turkey. We appreciate the efforts Turkey has undertaken to enforce Security Council Resolution 1929 and other efforts to do what we believe is necessary to keep financial and diplomatic pressure on the Iranian regime until it meets its obligations to the international community on the nuclear issue. You know we support a dual track policy: we’re pursuing the pressure, but we’re also pursuing the talks, and we believe this can be resolved and should be resolved diplomatically. But I think again, it’s fair to say that we share an interest with Turkey in ensuring that Iran does meet its obligations to the international community and does not develop nuclear weapons.

I’ll express my strong support for Turkey on the question of the PKK, another common challenge. The United States stands strongly with Turkey and works very closely with Turkey on counterterrorism efforts and specifically the challenge from the PKK. We’ll discuss how best to do that.

We’ll talk about regional issues. I mentioned I was just last week in the Balkans and Cyprus -- these are also issues that we speak regularly about, coordinate closely on; the Caucasus as well; Turkish-Armenian normalization, which is something that we’re interested in seeing advance; Turkey-Greece, again I was just in Greece. Again, as always, Turkey plays a major role throughout the region and this will be an opportunity to cover some of those issues. I’ll be interested in hearing more about constitutional developments and discussions in Turkey, both with private sector people that I will see on this short visit and also with the government.

Finally, let me just mention the question of the economy. It’s been a priority for leaders, I think, in Ankara and in Washington, to expand economic and commercial ties. Turkey is obviously one of the more rapidly growing economies in the world -- it’s a big economy, it’s an important partner of the United States. We have a strong trading and investment relationship, but we’re convinced it could be even stronger, and I always try to take the opportunity, especially in Istanbul, to think about and talk to people about ways we might strengthen that relationship.

So you can see: a short visit but a big agenda, as always. I’m sure the day will end with me being aware that there’s so much more to be said, but that will just give me an excuse to come back, hopefully in the near future. Why don’t I stop with that, and I look forward to any questions you might have.

QUESTION: Let’s start with Syria. I think a lot of people are curious to know how the U.S. explains its inaction in Syria compared to Libya. When I say that, of course, I’m aware of the complexities in the region. But the public, the operation in Libya was explained as a humanitarian one, and I have Obama’s speech from March 2011 saying that the United States couldn’t watch because [inaudible] only 8,000 people; here in Syria we have 20,000 people killed so far. So what’s the explanation for the U.S. inaction?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I wouldn’t accept the notion that there’s been inaction. In fact, we have been very active in doing what I described as the two main things, which is increasing financial and diplomatic pressure on the regime and enhancing our support for the opposition.

You know you can -- Every situation is different, and to simply say the international community did one thing in Libya and therefore why isn’t it doing exactly the same thing in Syria, I mean, the President was clear about why and how we intervened in Libya, and if you recall that series of developments, you had Qadhafi threatening to go in and kill, to be blunt about it, large numbers of people; you had the Arab League calling for an intervention, a no-fly zone; you had the UN Security Council passing a Chapter 7 Resolution calling for all necessary measures; and you had a NATO consensus that using military force would be effective and necessary in order to implement that UN Security Council Resolution. So you had regional support, you had international law, and you had a military assessment that the most effective way to deal with the challenge was through a NATO intervention.

The situation in Syria is just different, and so we continue to study the best and most effective ways to achieve our objectives -- which include seeing a political transition to get rid of Assad -- but you just can’t extrapolate and say that if in one case you use NATO military force, or any sort of military force, that every other conflict in the world lends itself to the same sort of solution.

QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s almost exactly the same situation. Look at it, except for the UN and NATO support. And there the U.S. enabled that support to begin with. So --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: It’s not actually.

QUESTION: -- it’s almost exactly the same. You have –[inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Again, we don’t have the same view of whether it’s almost exactly the same. I think I’ve described a number of very significant differences ranging from the UN Security Council Resolution to the regional support to the military situation on the ground, to the assessment of military leaders as to what could be done at what cost. So again, I think it’s important not to assume that everything is exactly the same.

QUESTION: You just mentioned political transition in Syria. So what we understand is that the U.S. administration at the moment, as we speak, is not really considering a military action because of the conditions you just referred to, but more concentrating on assisting and strengthening the opposition.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Yes.

QUESTION: Last week there were important guests in Ankara, and we understand the modalities of how that transition will be is being discussed in several places around the world. Do you consider having elements of the Assad regime, now we see them as a way to form this transition, collating with SNC and the Free Syrian Army on the ground. Are you discussing this modality with the elements of the regime who just turned their faces to Assad?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: You mean elements of the regime who have left, not the ones --

QUESTION: Exactly.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON:
There are two aspects to the role of elements of the regime. As you recall in the Geneva Action Group meeting, which was May 30th or June 30th, it was the end of -- June 30th, right? We supported Kofi Annan’s proposal and conclusion -- and the countries that were around the table which is the permanent members of the Security Council and critical neighbors -- that a transitional body could include members of the regime, members of the opposition, but it would have to be agreed by mutual consent and it was clear to us that there would not be mutual consent -- for example, Mr. Assad himself and those closest to him -- so that aspect of including elements of the regime remains on the table. The United States and other members of the Action Group supported that, again with the clear proviso that anyone participating would have to be acceptable to the opposition.

Now that wasn’t directly addressing those who have turned on the regime -- former members of the regime who turned on it -- but I think the same principle might be kept in mind of mutual consent. If there are people whose participation would undermine the credibility and practicality and effectiveness of any transitional regime, then it’s difficult to see how their inclusion could be successful. But ultimately, you know this will be not something for the United States to decide but for members of the Syrian opposition to decide what’s most effective and viable for them.

QUESTION: You mentioned about the Annan plan and the diplomatic efforts. Do you think the Annan plan is still on the table?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: The Annan plan is still on the table. It’s no secret that we’re disappointed about the lack of implementation, the most critical point of which, of course, is the cease-fire and the government ceasing to use its heavy weapons in attacks on civilians and cities, and so long as that piece of it is not being implemented, obviously we’re not getting to where we need to be. But the Annan plan is on the table, and we still look to the regime and the parties to implement it.

QUESTION: Could we have another one related to Syria? Actually I would like to put this question, because you also mentioned PKK in the long list of important topics. The developments in Syria, especially in the north of Syria, we know that in five or six cities now the control is with the Kurds, they are controlling the areas. They are not really fighting, but we know that they have, they are actually a branch of PKK as we know [inaudible]. They are talking about autonomy, and they are talking about a model similar to the Northern Iraq example. We know that this has caused concern and disturbance on this side of the border. I’m sure you’re going to discuss it with the Turkish authorities, but what is the U.S. stance on the Kurdish issue inside Syria? Do you find their position on autonomy acceptable?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think the United States can be clear on several things regarding the Kurds. When we say that the Syrian opposition needs to be inclusive, needs to give a voice to all of the groups in Syria that have a legitimate voice and are fighting against -- for a political transition against -- the Assad regime, and that includes Kurds. There’s no question about that, and as we seek to work with and coordinate the opposition, that includes Kurdish voices.

But we are equally clear that we don’t see for the future of Syria an autonomous Kurdish area or territory; we want to see a Syria that remains united. We’ve been clear both with the Kurds of Syria and our counterparts in Turkey that we don’t support any movement towards autonomy or separatism, which we think would be a slippery slope. So we’re very clear about that.

QUESTION: We’ve had a lot of debate about the recent [inaudible] in American [inaudible] in Washington. We hear that [inaudible] is not very happy about some of the recent leaks in Wall Street Journal and lately Reuters last week. He is saying apparently that it’s deliberate.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: That it’s what?

QUESTION: That it’s deliberate [inaudible] in the Obama administration are not happy with them, and they keep saying they are negative. Is that realistic? Is that true? And is it a coincidence that we have three major leaks in [inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: As you might imagine, I don’t have any comments on leaks other than to say that we denounce them. To put it in context, who knows who these voices are -- when you read in the paper sometimes an administration official said this or that, what can we say? Who’s passing themselves off as an official, what the source is -- we don’t know anything about it. We do everything we can to prevent people from disclosing unauthorized things, but again, I would really encourage you not to take at face value some of the things you read because we just don’t know what the source is.

QUESTION: Yeah, but we had the Reuters article from the other day, we had the August 11th phone call between Obama and [inaudible] word by word almost. It has to be someone who is very familiar with the administration.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Again, I can’t give any credence to anything that you read based on these unofficial alleged sources -- again, it’s certainly not our policy -- we do everything we can to prevent it. I would encourage people not to take at face value everything that they read.

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up on that one, but not about the leaks, actually about the Turkish plane which was hit in the Mediterranean? There is still not really a clear picture of what happened. We know that there is an investigation going on on the Turkish side, and the Turkish side has confirmed that the American side has shared information, all the information that you have. They are in parallel with the Turkish view that what they received from your side and from the British side and the Russians are confirming what they had, I don’t know the technical term, but what is coming from the radars, different radars. But what she was actually referring to, that one of the stories was about a U.S. official talking about yes, we know what happened but we are not going to talk about it publicly. Can you confirm that line, that you shared information with the Turkish side but you are not sharing it with the Turkish public?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: No, I wouldn’t put it that way at all. I can confirm that we’ve shared information with the Turkish side -- of course when we have a NATO ally involved in something like this it’s important to us to share views and information. I won’t comment on leaks about what people say we have and haven’t done. I’ve seen such contradictory things cited in the press that it’s almost proof that you can’t believe everything you read.

We’ve been pretty clear about this incident. I think it was just two days after the incident that Secretary Clinton put out a statement with what our view is, which is we stand by our NATO ally in solidarity. We denounced this act of the Syrian regime of shooting a plane down and killing two Turkish pilots. That’s that.

QUESTION: And do you have -- When you denounce it, it’s a violent act from the Syrian side. This is what you confirm?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Everything we know is that it was a violent act from the Syrian side -- Look, we’re never probably going to have 100 percent information about exactly what happened in a situation like this. What we do understand to be the case is that without warning Syria shot down a Turkish plane. That much we’re pretty clear about. That would be one more example of the regime’s disregard for human life and willingness to kill, and that’s why we were so clear in our statement of support for Turkey.

QUESTION: I want to change the subject. There are some cases about [inaudible] in Turkey. You may know about them, the Ergenekon case and some other cases. In this issue, the officials from the European Union made clear statements against those people who are planning to overthrow the government. But from the American side, we didn’t hear any sharp statement for supporting the cases and for denouncing the other groups. Do you agree with this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I won’t comment on specific pending court cases. I would just say as a general rule that we’ve encouraged our partners in Turkey, as anywhere, to make sure there is due process and transparency and rule of law. These are difficult, complicated cases. We don’t have full information, so I would stick to those basic principles.

QUESTION: For the last, until [inaudible] coup there was a general view in Turkey that the United States supported the generals during the coup [inaudible], so without making any comments about the last [inaudible], this is strengthening the idea of the Turkish people that the United States is not supporting Turkish democracy rights. Supporting the other side [inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I’m not sure what you’re getting at with that, but again, we do strongly support Turkish democracy. Indeed, that was my very point: that we want to see transparency, accountability, rule of law, due process, and let the judicial system based on those principles, perform justice.

QUESTION: Every time there is the question of freedom of press in Turkey and [inaudible] we hear that Secretary Clinton is following very closely and that she is talking about it with her counterparts. What exactly is she saying? How exactly is the U.S. worried about the [inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: She is following it very closely and I think she addressed it pretty clearly even when she was in Turkey. She has said publicly that Turkey, like any country, can’t fulfill its democratic promise unless there is free flow of information, that countries are stronger when there’s free expression, and both for the media and for individuals, that’s what the United States system is based on. We don’t always fulfill all of these ideals, but those are the principles that we like to believe in, and we encourage others and we believe that democracies are most successful, economies are most successful, when there’s full and free expression for individuals, business people and the media, and I think she was very clear about that in Turkey. She’s clear about it in private with Turkish counterparts, and it’s a strong belief of the U.S. administration and the U.S. public.

QUESTION: I have a question more related to your hot agenda today about the Halki and your trip to Greece. You just said it was about visiting Greece after the elections for the first time and having detailed conversation with your counterparts. Also I’m just wondering what really is being [inaudible] about Halki these days? I don’t imagine that your visit is just a coincidence. We know the U.S., the firm U.S. stance on this one already. But coming from Greece, and we know Turkey has been working on different formulas to open Halki. But that was always the notion of reciprocity with Greece on opening Halki. So what is the latest on that one? And can we take your visit as a signal that something is going to happen soon?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I would say a couple of things. The answer to most of your questions will come from the Turkish government and the Patriarchate. It’s certainly not for me to say under what laws different options might be considered for reopening Halki and the timetable as well. I’d defer to Turkish authorities and the Patriarchate.

The U.S. position has been consistent for quite some time, we’ve long advocated the opening of Halki. My visit, in some ways, is a personal one. I’ve been following this issue, interested in this issue for a very long time. I worked in the Clinton White House when Bill Clinton was interested in working with Turkey to open Halki, and he visited Halki himself, and I was with him on the trip to Istanbul in 1999. After all that work and following the issue for so long, I’ve never personally had the opportunity to go, so I very much look forward myself on this beautiful day to actually see what I understand is a beautiful site. But I wouldn’t read into it any more than that. I had the opportunity coming to Istanbul; I’ve long been interested in doing it.

It is true that there seems to be increasing discussion of opening Halki in Turkey, which we welcome and encourage, and we very much hope to see that come to fulfillment after all these years -- it would be a real positive gesture on religious tolerance and inclusion. So I very much would reiterate what we’ve said many times: We would very much like to see the school reopened. But the details that you asked about, that’s not for us -- that’s for the Turkish Government.

QUESTION: I want to ask about Iran. There is an economic embargo against Iran but they are still doing something. There was a report in the Israeli papers yesterday, the papers about the attack plan to Iran. Do you know about that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I’ve read the papers, but I don’t have any comments on other alleged comments by different officials that, according to my reading of the papers the next day, were then retracted by some of the same people, so I really don’t have a comment on that.

I think I already addressed what our policy on Iran is, and it’s clear and it’s important, because we believe that Iran is in violation of UN Security Council resolutions and in violation of its commitments to the international community. We believe an Iranian nuclear weapon would be destabilizing for the region. We believe that Iran has been involved in international acts of terrorism that are destabilizing and that’s why we are so committed with the rest of the international community. This is not some unilateral U.S. thing, but look at the global support for increasing pressure on Iran because of its violations of its international commitments. We think this is having an effect, the EU oil embargo, the increasing international pressure. It’s really a vote by the international community that says Iran really needs to come into compliance. That pressure will continue until Iran does fulfill its obligations.

We believe that this increasing pressure is responsible for getting Iran back to the table to talk about nuclear issues and so that’s why we’re convinced it needs to continue and we welcome Turkey’s support for that approach.

QUESTION: We don’t seem to find an answer to this one. Is [inaudible] an American air base? Well, not an air base [inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I don’t have an answer for you.

QUESTION: [inaudible]

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Okay, thank you.

PRESS ROUNDTABLE IN ATHENS, GREECE WITH PHILIP H. GORDEN

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Press Roundtable in Athens, GreecePress Availability
Philip H. Gordon
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Athens, Greece
July 27, 2012

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Thank you. It’s very nice to be back in Athens. It’s nice to see some of you again. I think I’ve seen you on a number of occasions including in this very room.

I am here to express our support and solidarity of the Greek people, and the Greek government as it undertakes some very difficult but we think really important economic reforms. We’re following these developments very closely and have a great stake in the outcome, not just for the sake of our friends and partners in Greece, but for the sake of the entire European area and the U.S. economy and the world economy. So we have great interest and we admire what the government is doing in undertaking, again, what we consider to be essential reforms, not just to convince world markets and European lenders of the soundness of the Greek economy, but for the sake of the Greek economy itself. In other words, we think these reforms are worth undertaking because they will lead to a more prosperous and sound Greek economy, let alone stabilize the eurozone.

We also appreciate Greece’s continued partnership with the United States on a number of regional and global issues, notwithstanding the economic difficulties. I had a chance to meet with the Foreign Minister. I also met earlier today with some of the other party leaders in the coalition. The latter mostly to talk about the economic situation, but obviously with the Foreign Minister, not just the economic situation but regional and global affairs. And as we discussed, world events don’t -- you don’t get to hit the pause button while you deal with the economy. There are still a lot of issues between Greece and Turkey and the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, so we exchanged views on those and I expressed our appreciation for Greece’s partnership in dealing with those, even as it faces the economic difficulties.

So again, a big agenda. It’s very important to the United States, so I came here to try to get a better understanding of what’s going on in Greece and the region. I’ll be going on to Turkey from here. But as I began with, I also came to express support for what the government and the people of Greece are doing.

With that, I’ll be happy to take any questions.

QUESTION: One of the priorities of the new Greek government in foreign policy is to declare the exclusive economic zone. Do you believe it can go ahead with this or before that have an agreement or something like that with Turkey?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think it’s important to avoid unilateral steps. The United States recognizes countries’ rights to declare exclusive economic zones but these things aren’t done in a vacuum and you’d have to understand the full context. We don’t think it would be in Greece’s interest to do it without full cooperation with neighbors including Turkey.

Fortunately you have mechanisms in place, and over the past number of years have developed bilateral channels in which these things can be discussed and I know that they have already contributed to progress and we would strongly encourage Greece to use those channels to have these conversations so that any steps in this area are done cooperatively in the interests of all parties.

They’re complicated issues and it’s not as simple as being able to declare an EEZ or not being able to declare an EEZ, and that’s precisely why it should be done cooperatively.

QUESTION: In order to get the economy started, which is the big issue for Greece, it is crucial to attract more and more investment. What do you believe should be the main reforms that Greece has to make in order to attract investment?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: That’s a good question, because attracting investment is clearly a critical aspect to turning the Greek economy around. You need foreign investment. I think frankly over the years there has been a perception in Greece that it wasn’t friendly enough to foreign investment, that there were too many rules, too much bureaucracy, too slow approval rates, and investors need certainty and transparency. They want to be sure what the rules are, the regulations -- that they’re not going to be changing. So I think creating a more investor-friendly climate is critical.

There are other less direct measures, but are still important measures, and those are the ones that I think the government is already working on in strengthening the overall economy so that you get growth and buying power, purchasing power, so that it’s worth making the investments. But I would start with the question of bureaucracy, rules and regulations. I think you can look at, there are rankings of countries in terms of, for example, how quickly an investment can be approved and I think Greece needs to advance on that list.

QUESTION: I will stick to the economy because that’s what’s troubling us. I don’t know if you could say a few words about the meetings that you had with the other two governmental partners. And we had the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury a few days ago and I was wondering, the idea is, especially ahead of the American elections, there is this notion and I think it’s understandable that the United States is beginning to lose patience not with Greece, but the way the European leaders are handling the crisis since Greece and Ireland are not a problem right now. Nothing compares to what will happen if Spain or Italy fail or these growing costs continue.

So it would be great if you would give us your insight on this, and what is worrying the United States, and apart from declarations of support, which are good, or that you have to do something. If you have any other idea of how you could convince the European leaders to move on the next step and do something decisive.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Sure. As I said right from the start, we are following it extremely closely because we have such a great stake in the outcome. We have a great stake because we care about the hundreds of millions of people who live in Europe and their prosperity, but we also even have a more direct national interest at stake, our economy is so dependent on growth and stability and that of our largest trading and investment partner in the world by far. I think it’s accurate to say that some of the drag on the U.S. economy right now are questions about the eurozone, and so that’s why we’re so committed.

We acknowledge also that we don’t have a direct say in some of the key decisions to be made in Europe. The question of how big is the firewall or whether there are bailout funds or whether the ECB should be buying bonds at a certain level are not issues on which we get a vote. But because we are so engaged and so committed and so intertwined with Europe, we have views and we share those views and I can tell you at the highest levels, including our President there are regular conversations with European leaders about the way forward.

You mentioned American impatience. I wouldn’t describe it as impatience. I would acknowledge that --

QUESTION: Losing patience. I think it’s right.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: That’s different. Yes. We would like a comprehensive solution tomorrow or yesterday, but we also understand these are complicated decisions. They’re not easy. The reforms will take time. I think Angela Merkel but other leaders across Europe keep trying to explain that as well, that there is no magic bullet and there is no quick solution to this problem and we understand that. At the same time, we are urging leaders and I think have been for some time to be as decisive as possible as quickly as possible because the stakes are so great.

In terms of what -- you asked about my meetings with the party leaders and what needs to be done -- I would say I was encouraged from what I heard in the sense that the coalition members seemed determined to implement the agreements that have been reached. They seemed to have an appreciation that markets and governments need to see results and real efforts and structural reforms before they will respond positively. It goes back to the question that I was asked about investments.

Of course they took the opportunity to explain to me how difficult it was on the Greek people and the Greek economy, which we know and appreciate, but they also demonstrated a real understanding that only by taking these difficult measures will eurozone governments, the European Central Bank, and private investors be convinced that they can really put their money in Greece.

That’s what I encourage them to do as well, as quickly as possible and as decisively as possible, demonstrate in deed as well as in word, that there really is a new Greece, that Greece gets it, that it’s doing the things that are necessary to make clear that this is a place that you can really do business, and in this highly competitive globalized world there are a lot of places where you can send your money, as investors and hedge funds and others demonstrate every single day. And if they have the slightest doubts about a country’s ability to pay its debts or about what would be the fate of their investment, they’ll just go elsewhere.

That’s why it’s really incumbent on the country in question to take decisive, necessary measures. But as I say, from my meetings here I was convinced, I think it was in the first place encouraging to see the Greek people vote for parties that understood that, because the alternative would, in our humble estimation, really not serve Greece’s interests well. And it was encouraging to hear from those party leaders that they understand that and they’re determined to finish the job.

QUESTION: I would like to insist on the European economy matters. Are you worried about the possibility of a eurozone breakup and how possible do you find it? Because you see there were, even from German official, statements the past days about Greece leaving the eurozone, so --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I would say a couple of things. First, we’re confident that the eurozone will stay together, that the governments have the commitment and the means to keep it together, and we believe that’s in our common interest. So we don’t want to see a breakup of the eurozone.

I would add that we’re not alone in thinking that. I think it’s worth pointing out that notwithstanding all of the questions about the viability of the eurozone, all of the costs involved to certain countries in keeping it going, all of the real pressures on certain members including Greece to do difficult things to stay in, notwithstanding all of that, every single member of the eurozone and governments across the European Union remain committed to it. If you want to simplify, both the lender countries and the debtor countries, they still remain committed. Even in Greece where we know you’ve borne great costs to do the necessary things to stay in, the Greek government is committed to it, and the Greek people voted consciously for parties who are also committed to it, notwithstanding the costs. I think that shows a real recognition of the values of preserving the eurozone.

You point to German leaders speculating about a breakup. If you listen carefully -- first of all the main German leader, the Chancellor, has been absolutely clear that she wants to preserve the eurozone and I think you see that in her actions when Germany puts up money to keep everybody in the eurozone -- and so what you’ve had is a couple of leaders most recently say they’re no longer appalled by the notion of one country leaving the eurozone. That’s still a very long way from saying we should abandon the eurozone, it’s not in our interest. On the contrary, I think all evidence points to a real recognition that it’s in everybody’s interests.

Then take I think even just yesterday Mario Draghi, head of the ECB, saying we’ll do -- you can check the quote exactly -- but something along the lines of whatever it takes. So I think there’s a recognition among all key actors that as painful and difficult as it is, it is really worth preserving. That will in itself I think help support the eurozone.

QUESTION: I would like to ask two questions. One is [inaudible] be positive on an extension of the Greek adjustment program from two years to four years so that it’s easier for the people to accept it. The second is the situation in Syria seems to get out of control. The Obama administration has shown that any action that could possibly be taken should be in a collective manner. But do you believe that the only way to do this is through the UN Security Council? Or possibly if the situation gets even worse we should explore other possibilities like a coalition of the willing?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Thanks. Two separate things. First, on the question of an extension of the timetable for Greece’s program, that’s really between Greece and the Troika, which is the source of the original deal. It’s not for us to say what schedule it should be on.

That said, I would share my sense that the first thing Greece needs to do is demonstrate that it’s committed to the program and it is undertaking real reforms. I think, being perfectly frank, it’s too soon to start asking for an extension. Your election was what, less than two months ago. The government has started to undertake a number of important steps, but I think that receptivity in Europe to any talk of extensions now is premature. On what basis would they do that? So I don’t think it’s something that should be ruled out, but I think in terms of sequencing it should be first things first. Demonstrate over a period of time that you are genuinely committed to these difficult steps in implementing the program, and then on the basis of that effort I think the prospects for discussing timetables or flexibility would be much better than doing it in the other order.

As for Syria, we’re obviously very concerned about the situation in Syria. It has become clear to us for some time that there needs to be a political transition in Syria, that Syria will never be stable and peaceful under Assad who has used violence against his own people. And yes, we have gone to great efforts to work with the international community. This is not just a U.S. view. The international community, including most importantly all of Syria’s neighbors practically and the Arab League, are focused on a political transition as well.

Yes, our strong preference has been to work on it through the UN Security Council, that’s why we’ve been back to it three times for proposing different resolutions focused, as we say, on political transition. Unfortunately, every single time it didn’t pass in the Security Council because there was a veto by Russia and China, including most recently just two weeks ago, and, I might add, by nobody else. There were two abstentions and two vetoes. In the previous one it was 13 to 2. We regret that Russia and China have stood in the way of what clearly the rest of the international community believes to be the need for a resolution supporting political transition.

So yes, in that sense the Security Council route is blocked. We will continue to act with our international partners. There have been a number of meetings of the Friends of the Syrian People with participation of 40, 60, 80 countries and international entities, and we’ll continue to work through that channel and others to increase the pressure on the regime, change the balance on the ground, and support and coordinate the opposition so that when Assad does go, and he will, there is a better prospect for a more stable, inclusive government in Syria than otherwise. And we’re going to continue to work it. On that, we appreciate Greece’s support in those efforts.

QUESTION: Mr. Gordon, do you believe that the Greek-Turkish relations could be deteriorated, could be affected in some way because of the Syrian crisis and the complicated issues that emerge in the region with say the efforts of the Israeli and the [inaudible] to be more close to [inaudible], for example?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I don’t see any reason why the developments in Syria should be harmful to Greek-Turkish relations. In fact I think Greek and Turkish interests in Syria, and even policy in Syria, is aligned, which is aligned with the United States as well, to increase pressure on Assad and foster a political transition and support the opposition. There’s no reason that Turkish policy in Syria should be a problem for Greece or vice versa.

I’m encouraged that even with other complicated things going on in the region and even with political change in Greece, the Greek-Turkish relationship seems to continue to improve. That’s an important factor of stability throughout this region, especially at a time when unfortunately the Turkey-Israel relationship is not improving, it remains frozen at best for the past couple of years. Obviously relations between Turkey and Cyprus are complicated and potential tensions over energy. So this is a region that needs more progress in bilateral and trilateral and quadrilateral relationships and it’s all the more important for Greece and Turkey to be preserving their relationship.

QUESTION: Are you now more optimistic about Greece’s future in the eurozone than you were before coming to Athens? And I’m wondering, if you had a vote, you said the U.S. is not a member of the eurozone. If you have a vote, what would you say to the Germans? We all see there is a strong conflict between the U.S. and Germany.

QUESTION: You have a vote in the IMF.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: We do have a vote in the IMF, and that’s really the only sort of direct way that we have a role. But the IMF is only one-third of the troika and we’re only, I won’t say one vote because we are more than one vote in the IMF, but one voice within the IMF.

On the first part of your question about optimism, I would just repeat what I said. I was encouraged to hear from the party leaders I met with their commitment to the reforms that we think are necessary to stabilize the Greek economy and to persuade markets and governments to work with Greece moving forward. That’s most critical of all, because obviously the coalition was elected to do certain things and it needs to stick with its agreements, it needs to demonstrate that, and so to hear directly from those party leaders that they get it, that they’re committed to doing it, they know how difficult it is, but they are not wobbling under these pressures is critically important. In that sense I am optimistic.

I think it matters less what I think than what the markets think and I think markets are voting in favor as well. You’ve seen some money start to flow back to Greece, whereas there was great question, especially the run-up to the election, that you would see bank runs and see money start to flow out. I think since the election of the government some of the steps that they’ve taken, people are more confident that Greece really is on the right track. So that is reassuring.

As for the latter, I won’t speculate on -- you asked hypothetical membership in the European Union, but I think I’ve already said and the President and Secretary of Treasury and State have indicated the types of things that we think are necessary. We have urged more decisive action on the part of eurozone governments, I think we have stressed that while fiscal consolidation is critical, the entire weight of the reform effort can’t be borne by fiscal consolidation alone. You can’t just cut your way out of this crisis. I think that evidence over the past two years gives some credence to that notion, that there needs to be also an emphasis on growth, on liberalization and other structural reforms that will restore Europe to growth and competitiveness and jobs. I think that view is growing throughout the European Union, which we’re encouraged by.

We have urged that a substantial firewall be put in place not because we want it to be used, we don’t. The point of a firewall is precisely so that it will not have to be used and that you reassure markets that they can put their money somewhere and there’s less of a risk of default.

So I think in general while it’s not for us to give a precise prescription as to what Europeans should be doing, we’ve given general indications of what we think is the right direction. I think it’s fair to say that things have largely moved in that direction over time and they continue to do so, and if that balanced package continues to move forward, reforms and fiscal consolidation in the countries under pressure and solidarity and support from the countries in a position to do so, I think the future looks much more positive.

QUESTION: Are you worried about the moves of the Russian navy in the Eastern Mediterranean and the relation that [inaudible]has with Moscow ?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: On the first point, we’ve been very clear about the question of Russians arms deliveries to Cyprus -- Sorry, let me be clear, to Syria. I’m not breaking any news here. [Laughter].

QUESTION: [Inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Exactly. Russian arms deliveries to Syria which we think are only fueling a government that is using violence against its own people. And you heard Secretary Clinton talk about the attack helicopters that the Russians were planning to deliver. The Russians say they’re not signing new arms deals with Syria, just fulfilling old ones. Obviously we welcome that they’re not signing new ones but we regret that they’re fulfilling old ones because we think the last thing anyone needs is more arms in the hands of the Syrian government. So on that we’re clear.

Russia says it’s not taking sides, it wants to be balanced. But it’s hard for us to interpret arms deliveries to the Assad regime as anything else than supportive and lending legitimacy to a government that we think has clearly lost its legitimacy.

On Cyprus, I’m not sure if what you’re getting at is the loan question. We’re aware that Cyprus is considering a loan from Russia. It’s obviously up to the government of Cyprus where it gets its loans if it needs loans. We know they’re also obviously talking to the European Union and others. We would just hope that, there’s always a concern that financial dependency can lead to political dependency and that’s clearly something we wouldn’t want to see, but it’s really in the end a decision for the government of Cyprus if it wants to pursue a loan from some other sources.

QUESTION: Russians are concerned about the so-called Islamic bowl that emerged after Arab Spring in relations. How do you comment this [inaudible]?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: There are different aspects to it. You may be referring specifically to Egypt and the trend in Egypt, election of a Muslim Brotherhood government in the wake of the fall of the Mubarak regime.

I think the first thing to keep in mind on questions like this is a certain sense of humility about our own role in the future of this region. It’s not up to us. It wasn’t up to us whether Mubarak stayed in power or not. It wasn’t up to us who the Egyptians chose to represent them, and once Mubarak was gone we felt there should be free and fair elections and it’s up to the Egyptian people who to support and they supported a Muslim Brotherhood government, and we reached out to that government. Secretary Clinton was there within the past couple of weeks. And we’ll look forward to working with them.

So we stand by our principles in those terms. When it comes to what we want to see is rule of law, fair treatment of all citizens of the countries including women, minorities, transparent elections, peace with neighbors. And if a government is willing to abide by those principles, then it’s up to the people what government should be in place.

Russian concerns about extremism we share. That’s a difference that we have with them when it comes to Syria where they talk about the risks that if Assad goes you could have extremism and al-Qaeda. Obviously that’s something we’re concerned about as well, but in our view that’s all the more reason to accelerate the transition or put the opposition and strengthen those groups that support the principles that are dear to us, as opposed to either do nothing or support the Assad regime which we fear will just lead to ongoing violence, civil war, and precisely the extremism that they’re worried about.

Thanks everybody. It’s nice to talk to you.

QUESTION: You’re going to visit the Halki School?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I am.

QUESTION: It’s the first time American officers visit the Halki?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think our current Ambassador was there during his current tenure. President Clinton went to the Halki Seminary. So it’s not the first and it’s just a continued --

QUESTION: You’re going to press [inaudible].

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: That’s my point about it being consistent with our longstanding policy. We’re encouraged by what we’ve heard out of Turkey in terms of hopes to open it. It’s been our longstanding position that it should be open, so it’s just an opportunity to express our support for that.

DEFENSE BRIEFING ON THE MIDDLE EAST

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Defense Leaders Provide Middle East Update

By Cheryl Pellerin

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2012 - Steady progress is being made in dealing with challenges in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Pentagon reporters in a briefing here today.

Topics included the situation between U.S. ally Turkey and the internally embattled Syria, a rescheduled U.S.-Israeli military exercise, an upcoming DOD visit to Iraq, and continuing discussions with military leaders in Pakistan.

"We continue to be concerned about developments in Syria," Panetta said, referring to ongoing violence between the brutal authoritarian regime of Bashar Assad and determined opposition groups, and the movement of Turkish military assets to the Syrian border after the June 22 shootdown by Syrian forces of a Turkish Phantom F-4 fighter and its two-member aircrew.

The secretary said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is engaged in discussions with U.S. allies in the region, including Turkey.

"Turkey is one of our allies in that region," Panetta said. "We continue to be in close discussions with them with regard to how we best approach the situation in Syria."

Dempsey said he had a recent conversation with his Turkish counterpart, Chief of the General Staff Gen. Necdet Ozel, adding, "He's taking a very measured approach to the incident. ... He and I are staying in contact."

Also in the region, the chairman said the United States and Israel have rescheduled a joint military exercise called Austere Challenge.

Dempsey said a final decision on the exercise date will be determined during a current visit to Israel by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James N. Miller.

In Iraq, where the level of violence increased this month, Panetta said discussions continue with the Iraqis on the threat from al-Qaida terrorists.

"We've seen increased violence [and] ... we share the concern of the Iraqis with regard to that increased violence," the secretary said, adding, "We're going to continue to work with them to ... improve their ability to be able to deal with those kinds of threats."

Before leaving Iraq, he added, U.S. forces worked in great cooperation on this problem.

"We've continued to work with their security forces but we think it's really important now that we try to bring that cooperation even closer together to make sure that these kinds of threats are dealt with directly," Panetta said.

Dempsey said Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis, commander of U.S. Central Command, had high-level consultative talks with the Iraqis earlier this year and Panetta hosted a May 23 meeting at the Pentagon with Iraqi Acting Minister of Defense Saadoun al-Dulaymi.

"What we're doing is charting a way ahead, actually, on the potential for exercises, the things we talked about at the closing ceremony" in December 2011, the chairman said, adding that he plans a visit to Iraq later this year.

Discussions also continue between American and Pakistani officials over the reopening of Pakistan supply routes -- called ground lines of communication, or GLOCs -- into Afghanistan, and the breakup of Pakistan safe havens for militant groups like the Haqqani network, Panetta said.

"We continue to have a line of communication with the Pakistanis to try to see if we can take steps to reopen the GLOCs," Panetta said, adding, "The good news is that there continue to be those discussions."

Tough issues still need to be settled, the secretary said.

"I think the important thing right now is that both sides, in good faith, keep working to see if we can resolve this," he said.

Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, met recently with Pakistani Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the secretary said.

"I think [Allen] made clear that both the United States and Pakistan have to work together to deal with the threat from the Haqqanis," Panetta said, adding that Kayani seemed receptive to U.S. concerns.

"After all," the secretary said, "they, too, have been victims of terrorism. They lost 17 Pakistanis on a patrol to the [Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan] ... so we have a common enemy. It would make sense if we could work together to confront that common enemy."

TURKISH FIGHTER SHOOT-DOWN BY IRAN CONCERNS U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS 

SERVICE

Turkish Fighter Shootdown Concerns Panetta, Press Secretary Says

By Cheryl Pellerin

WASHINGTON, June 25, 2012 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta shares the State Department's deep concern over the June 22 shootdown by Syrian forces of a Turkish F-4 fighter and two Turkish pilots, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said today.

After speaking with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on June 24, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemned what she called a "brazen and unacceptable act."

"It is yet another reflection of the Syrian authorities' callous disregard for international norms, human life, and peace and security," Clinton said.

"The [Syrian] action speaks for itself," Little told reporters, "and we believe that it was, to use Secretary Clinton's words, a 'brazen act' ... and the Syrian regime needs to answer for it."

Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby said the Defense Department has seen nothing to indicate the shootdown wasn't deliberate.

After the shootdown, Little said, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke by phone with his Turkish counterpart, Chief of General Staff Gen. Necdet Ozelto, to express concern over the loss of the Turkish pilots.

Navy Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, also spoke with one of his Turkish counterparts, Little said, adding that Greenert traveled to Turkey June 19-22 to foster the relationship between U.S. and Turkish naval forces.

Turkey has called for a consultation of the North Atlantic Council under Article 4 of the NATO treaty. The meeting will take place tomorrow in Brussels. Under Article 4, any ally can request consultations whenever they believe their territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened.

The council includes ambassadors of all 28 NATO allies, and Little said the discussion will be led by the State Department, represented by Ambassador Ivo Daalder.

"We will be present at the discussions in Brussels with our NATO allies," the press secretary added, "and beyond that, it's really for our counterparts to discuss what may or may not happen."

The Defense Department maintains a very strong military relationship with its Turkish allies, Little said, and department officials will "continue to have discussions with them about the equipment they need to defend themselves."

The press secretary said Defense Department officials stand ready to assist the Turkish government in the rescue and recovery effort for the missing pilots "if they request such help."

SEC. OF STATE CLINTON EXPRESSES CONCERN OVER SYRIAN SHOOT-DOWN OF TURKISH FIGHTER JET

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Syrian Shoot-Down of Turkish Aircraft
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
June 24, 2012
I spoke with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu yesterday to convey our grave concern about the downing of a Turkish F-4 fighter jet by Syrian forces on June 22. I also told him that our thoughts and prayers are with the missing pilots and their loved ones. The Foreign Minister briefed me on the specifics of the incident, including that the Syrian military shot its plane down without warning. The United States condemns this brazen and unacceptable act in the strongest possible terms. It is yet another reflection of the Syrian authorities' callous disregard for international norms, human life, and peace and security.
The United States reaffirms its strong support for the Turkish Government and its solidarity with the Turkish people in the wake of this incident. We will maintain close contact with Turkish officials as they continue to investigate the incident and determine Turkey's response, including in the Security Council. We will work with Turkey and other partners to hold the Assad regime accountable.

Turkey has been a leader in the international community's effort to address the Syrian regime's violence against its own people. We will continue our close cooperation with Turkey as part of our broader efforts to promote a democratic transition in Syria. This work is urgent, and we will be consulting in New York with the Security Council, in Brussels with NATO and the EU, and in Geneva with Special Envoy Kofi Annan on next steps.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA'S REMARKS ON U.S.-TURKEY RELATIONS

Photo: File Sec. Of Defense  Leon Panetta.  Credit:  U.S. Defense Department.  
FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Panetta Praises U.S.-Turkish Alliance, Pledges More Support
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
WASHINGTON, June 12, 2012 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta delivered keynote remarks during the 31st Annual American Turkish Council Conference dinner here last night reaffirming the U.S.-Turkish alliance and pledging further support for shared security goals.

"As some of you may know, I've just returned ... from a nine-day trip to the Asia-Pacific region," Panetta said. "The main purpose of it was to explain the new defense strategy ... to our allies and to our partners throughout the region. In many ways, my appearance here tonight continues that mission."

The defense secretary reflected on the "historic" U.S.-Turkey alliance, and noted 2012 marks 60 years since Turkey joined NATO.

Through this alliance, and a bilateral military relationship, Turkey and the U.S. have built "strong cooperation and connections" across their armed services, Panetta said.
"Our troops fought alongside each other in the Korean War, our troops helped stem the bloodshed in the Balkans, and they worked together to protect the Libyan people as they stood up to a brutal dictator," Panetta noted.

"Just as critically, Turkey continues to make vital contributions in Afghanistan, where more than 1,200 Turkish forces are currently deployed," he said. "We deeply appreciate the determination and resolve of the Turkish people to assist the international military effort, even in the face of the challenges that we have to confront, and even in the face of tragedy."

Panetta said he was "deeply saddened" by news of a March 16 Turkish helicopter crash in Kabul, Afghanistan, which killed 12 Turkish soldiers.

"In the aftermath of that tragedy, Turkey stayed focused on the mission," he said. "In the lead-up to the Chicago Summit, Turkey played a leading role within NATO to ensure that we affirmed our enduring commitment to the security and stability of Afghanistan."
"Just as Turkey has shared in the effort to deny al-Qaida and its militant allies safe haven in Afghanistan, the United States has expressed its strong solidarity in Turkey with their fight against the PKK," he said.

Panetta assured attendees his discussions with his Turkish counterparts have been clear in the commitment to continue helping Turkey counter the PKK "threat." The Kurdistan Workers' Party, also known as the PKK, is a terrorist group that has been fighting the Turkish government since 1984.

"I've reiterated, obviously, our long-term view, that military force, alone, while important, cannot solve this problem," Panetta said. "There should be a political process involved as well. But let me be clear -- so long as the PKK threatens Turkey and threatens its people, we will continue to provide Turkey with the capabilities needed to counter that threat."

"Our shared commitment to these efforts reflects our shared aspiration for a peaceful, stable and prosperous future for our children, and our shared values as two democracies," he said.

Panetta said as some threats recede, more arise such as violent extremism, destabilizing behavior from Iran and North Korea, rising powers in the Asia-Pacific region, turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa, and challenges in the cyber domain.
Panetta said as the U.S. deals with these challenges and fiscal pressures requiring nearly half a trillion dollars in budget cuts over a decade, the Defense Department is putting forth a new defense strategy.

"[This] strategy recognizes 'yes' we're going to be smaller, we'll be leaner, but we have to be agile, we have to be flexible, we have to be quickly deployable, we have to be on the cutting edge of technology for the future," he said. "We recognize that the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East are where the most pressing security challenges lie, and we must increase our focus on these key areas."

Panetta said the strategy recognizes the need to maintain a U.S. presence throughout the world with "innovative rotational deployments that emphasize alliances" and new partnerships, and investments in the realms of cyberspace, unmanned systems, special operations forces, and the ability to mobilize quickly.

The defense secretary noted as part of this effort, the U.S. also wants to encourage nations like Turkey "whose values we share" to help advance peace and security in these regions.

"As part of a shared vision for security and stability in the Middle East, the United States strongly supports Turkey's growing and vital leadership role as a prosperous, democratic nation that is an anchor of security, and an engine of growth for the region's economy," Panetta said.

"Together, Turkey and the United States are working closely to support the historic wave of democratic change that is sweeping the Middle East and North Africa," he added.
Turkey and the United States, Panetta said, are confronting nations blocking change and destabilizing behavior in the region such as Syria and Iran.

The defense secretary said the U.S. and Turkey will continue to work together with the international community to bring pressure on Syria and Iran, because "there is no silver bullet here."

"We are more effective in achieving that objective when the international community stands together as one," Panetta said.

Panetta also stated he believes Turkey has an important leadership role in solving future security challenges as part of NATO Force 2020.

Through the decades, Panetta said, the partnership between the American and Turkish people has grown stronger, and the two nations have been made stronger and more prosperous because of it.

The challenges and threats both nations face today are complex, dangerous, and destabilizing, he said.

"But our two nations understand that in that kind of world, nations that have common values and are not afraid to lead will prevail," Panetta said.

STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 23, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING                                                                                                         
MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
1:15 p.m. EDT

MS. NULAND:  Happy Monday, everybody.  You were just treated to an hour of Professor Clinton up at Syracuse University, so we’ve covered a number of issues.  Let me do a couple of quick things at the top, and then we’ll go to what’s on your minds.

Today, the Chinese Government announced the fourth round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which will be held in Beijing May 3rd and 4th.  Secretary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Geithner will be joined for the dialogue by their Chinese co-chairs, Vice Premier Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.   The Chinese also announced the third round of the U.S.-China Consultations on People-to-People Exchanges, which will be held in the same time period in Beijing.

And then further to our daily highlighting of a human rights case, and particularly a journalistic freedom/press freedom case in the walkup to World Press Freedom Day on May 3rd, today’s case, if you’ve seen our website HumanRights.gov, is the case of Yoani Sanchez in Cuba.  Yoani Sanchez is a Cuban blogger who has attracted international following for her blog Generation Y, which gives readers unprecedented insight into life in Cuba.  The Cuban Government has repeatedly denied Ms. Sanchez’s request for travel some 19 times, most recently she was – when she was granted a visa to go to Brazil to attend the premieres of a documentary about media freedom.  So she is our person of the day, and we call your attention to our website, HumanRights.gov.

Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION:  Can I just start briefly with Syria?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Maybe not so briefly on others, but mine is only brief.  Are you okay with the limits, the restrictions that the Syrians want to put on the monitoring mission in terms of where monitors can come from, what countries they can come from, how they are able to travel?

MS. NULAND:  We are most emphatically not okay with restrictions on monitors.  We make clear in Resolution 2043 that we expect monitors to have full freedom of movement, to have full access to Syrians and parts of Syria that they think are important to monitor, and that we expect them to have complete freedom to communicate, to choose their personnel, et cetera.  So this is a matter of concern as these monitors begin to deploy.  And as the Syrian National Council put it in their own statement after Resolution 2043 was passed, this first deployment of monitors is really a litmus test for the Assad regime’s seriousness with regard to the six-point plan.

QUESTION:  And what about the other – about the – where the monitors come from?

MS. NULAND:  And of course, with the – it’s up to the United Nations to decide who should be chosen for the monitoring trip.

QUESTION:  So you would not be comfortable with a monitoring team made up of people from – made up of monitors from Iran, Belarus, Eritrea --

MS. NULAND:  It is not for the Government of Syria to decide who should be a UN monitor for this mission.  It’s up for the – to the United Nations to make those decisions.

QUESTION:  So have you – you’ve told that – you’re aware of what – where they want the people to come from, correct?

MS. NULAND:  We are.  We are.

QUESTION:  And you’ve raised your objections to them?

MS. NULAND:  We have.

QUESTION:  Okay.  That’s all.

QUESTION:  And you are comfortable that 300 monitors can actually do the job that is assigned to them?

MS. NULAND:  Well, again, we’ve only just started to have monitors deploy over the last week and a half.  We are only at double-digit strength, as you know, with more coming in.  The monitors, as you have probably seen through the press reporting, have been greeted warmly by crowds of Syrians wanting to express themselves peacefully wherever they have been able to go.  But I think the concern is, as in places like Hama and Homs, that the monitors come in, they are able to provide some space and some openness for opposition leaders to come out and make their views known.  They’re beginning to start to see people, and then no sooner do they leave town when the artillery resumes.  So this is a matter of concern and something that we will be watching day on day.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  I understand that they are greeted very well and people have probably waited for them to arrive.  But are they – will they be able to discharge their duties as they should?  I mean, keep track of what’s going on, have actual data so it can be vetted and determined and defined and so on?

MS. NULAND:  Well, these are the standards that we insist this monitoring team be able to have, so we just have to see, Said.  It’s really very early days, but as I said, it’s a litmus test for the seriousness of the regime.

QUESTION:  And just a quick follow-up to the discussion that took place here last Friday on the Plan B – your Plan B, so to speak – a great deal of discussion was talked about yesterday.   The Washington Post had an editorial saying that you don’t really have a Plan B, that basically your approach to this whole Syria crisis has been ad hoc.  Do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND:  Well, of course, we disagree with that.  As the Secretary made clear in Paris, even as these monitors deploy, the international pressure has to stay on the Syrian regime.  You saw the EU impose new sanctions today.  The United States imposed new sanctions today.  We are continuing to work with all of our international partners.  And as the Secretary made clear in Paris, if this Kofi Annan plan fails, if this monitoring mission fails, we’re going to be back in the UN Security Council, we’re going to be looking at Chapter VII and looking at other ways to increase the pressure.

QUESTION:  That’s once the 90-day period is over, correct?

MS. NULAND:  I’m not going to speak to the timetable.  I think we have to see how it goes, as I said, day on day.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MS. NULAND:  Please.

QUESTION:  And that within the 90 day, or after the 90 days, you’re going to go to the Security Council?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think Said just asked that question.  Obviously, Resolution 2043 gives this initial monitoring effort 90 days, but I think the question is, even within the 90 days, are we able to get folks in?  Are they able to do the job?  Is the zone of peace enlarging or is it shrinking as a result?  And we’re just going to have to watch and see.
Please, Jay.

QUESTION:  A question concerning China.  Just --

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.  Are we done – first of all, are we done with Syria?

QUESTION:  Oh, yeah.

MS. NULAND:  Yeah?  Okay.  Go ahead.  Go on to China.

QUESTION:  I know you guys aren’t getting into the give-and-take on the Bo Xilai case, but I’m trying to get sort of on a broader sense if the – if you could describe what the State Department’s, like, policy is towards walk-ins.  Are there sort of clear parameters that the State Department has always used or is using now in dealing with them, just on a general basis?  Because there have been cases in the past where, I guess during Tiananmen, we gave sanctuary to a dissident for, like, more than a year.  So I was just trying to see if there was any parameters you could outline.  And traditionally, is the White House involved in these decisions?

And the other question I just had is:  Is there any – do you know what the status is of Bo Xilai’s son is up in Boston as far as his legal status here?  I assume he came in as a student, on a student visa, but I don’t know if he’s – if there’s any sense on if he has to renew it or if the Chinese want him back.  I was trying to get an update on that.

MS. NULAND:  Well, first, on the latter question, there’s been broad press reporting that he is a student in good standing at Harvard.  We don’t speak to individual visa matters, as you know, but you can draw your own conclusions from that.  And obviously, student visas are, as a general matter, subject to the term of the educational opportunity that the person is here for.

With regard to walk-ins, every case is different.  People walk into U.S. embassies and consulates around the world for a broad variety of reasons and with a broad variety of requests.  There are some guiding regulations with regard to individual requests that might be made in the Foreign Affairs Manual.  We can get you those if you need, Jay, but in general cases have to be decided based on the circumstances, and they’re very much case by case, depending upon what the individual is seeking and what the circumstances are.

Please.  Still on this issue?  No.  Something else?

QUESTION:  Can I try Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND:  Why don’t we stay on China, first?  Yeah.  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  A question that’s much easier.  First, could you please talk to us about the focus of this, the fourth one of S&ED?

MS. NULAND:  I don’t have too much more detail than what was put out by the Chinese side.  As you know, this is a broad Strategic Dialogue that allows us to talk about the full range of bilateral issues, regional issues, and global issues.  On the Treasury side, they’ll speak to their issues, but you know that – all those things that we talk about on the economic and financial and currency side with the Chinese Government.  On the State Department side, it’s everything from our student exchange program, as you can imagine, to the regional issues that we talk about, like North Korea, to the global issues, like our work together on Iran, et cetera.  So I think it’ll be a rich and broad menu of issues.

QUESTION:  Will the South China Sea issue be addressed?  Because I’m wondering if you are following the dispute with (inaudible).  The Philippines now is seeking international support in the standoff with China.  So under what circumstance will the U.S. wade into this dispute?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think you know our position on these disputes in the South China Sea.  We want to see them resolved through dialogue; we want to see them resolved through consensual means.  In general, in all of the most recent meetings that Secretary Clinton has had with Chinese counterparts, whether they were here, whether they were in China, whether they were in multilateral fora, she has reiterated our interest in deepening and broadening mechanisms within ASEAN, within regional fora, and bilaterally for solving these things consensually, not by force, calling for restraint by all sides.  That’s where we are on this particular one and where I’m sure we’ll be in Beijing next week.

QUESTION:  So do you believe China and the ASEAN countries can solve this problem in a – through friendly diplomatic consultations?

MS. NULAND:  We do.  We have always thought that this needed to be resolved through dialogue, and we’ll continue to press that on everybody.

Andy.

QUESTION:  When was the last time you haven’t?

MS. NULAND:  Haven’t what?

QUESTION:  Thought that something should be resolved through dialogue?  (Laughter.)  When was the last time you said, “No, I think we really need war.”

MS. NULAND:  In the Libya context, dialogue failed and we had to call in NATO and call in other countries, as you’ll recall.  That’s probably the --

QUESTION:  On that same issue, I think you saw that Liberation Daily had a very strong piece over the weekend which essentially accused the United States of, in support of the Philippines, increasing the potential for military conflict in the South China Sea.  Do you have any response to that charge from a newspaper which is widely seen as the mouthpiece of the PLA?

MS. NULAND:  Well, again, our position has been consistent.  The Secretary’s position has been consistent on all of these skirmishes in the South China Sea and certainly with regard to this one, that this can only be solved diplomatically, that we want to see restraint on all sides, we want to see ASEAN play a helpful role in coming to a resolution.  And that’ll be the Secretary’s message again when she’s in Beijing next week.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Also --

MS. NULAND:  In the back.  Afghanistan?

QUESTION:  Can we try Afghanistan?  Thanks very much.  May I try two actually?  As you know, the Strategic Partnership Agreement is being inked now to take the United States relationship on beyond 2014.  And we’re hearing that $2.7 billion is going to go to Afghan security forces.  It’s a huge amount of money.  What more can you tell us about the inking of the Strategic Partnership Agreement, please?

MS. NULAND:  Well, let me start by saying that on April 22nd Ambassador Crocker and Afghan National Security Advisor Spanta initialed the text of the Strategic Partnership Agreement.  Let me stress this is an initialing.  This is not yet a signing.  After much work together, we’re pleased that our negotiating teams have come to a common text to recommend to their respective governments.  As is the case with all such agreements, both governments now have to review it, the text in interagency terms.  We have to, on our side, have consultations with our Congress and the President has to make a final review.  So that is still to be done.

With regard to dollar figures, I don’t have anything to announce yet.  I think you know that we have been talking to the Afghan Government, we’ve been talking to our allies and partners around the world about the need to ensure that as the Afghan national security forces take on lead responsibility for security around Afghanistan that they are fully funded, that they are fully equipped, and that we have the ability to continue to train them.  The Afghans themselves will contribute to those costs, but it’s going to take international support as well.  As the Secretary made clear when she was with Secretary Panetta at NATO last week, we’re talking to lots of countries about how they can help the Afghans foot the bill, and the United States also will pay its fair share, but I’m not going to get into numbers here today.

QUESTION:  Okay.  I’m going to just add one more, and that is:  What effect do you think the initialing of this document will have on peace talks with the Taliban?

MS. NULAND:  Well, frankly, at this stage, that is very much up to the Taliban.  Let me say that the Strategic Partnership document is primarily about the United States’ medium and long-term relationship with the Government of Afghanistan, with the Afghan people, and it sets out a blueprint for how we can move forward together on the political side, on the economic side, and continuing to provide appropriate security support, even as the Afghans manage their security increasingly self-reliantly.

As you know, in the context of the larger peace effort that the Afghan Government’s engaged in, we have very much supported the idea of Afghan-Afghan talks about political reconciliation.  We have tried to be helpful in that regard, but really the Taliban have a choice to make now.  They need to decide if they are ready to come to the table under the terms that we’ve all supported, led by the Afghan Government, starting with renouncing violence and expressing interest in these talks.  So ball’s very much in their court.

QUESTION:  Do you have anything to add to your statement from this morning on Sudan?

MS. NULAND:  Other than to say that our Special Envoy Princeton Lyman remains very much engaged with the parties, with the African Union, and that we very much welcome the fact that the South Sudanese did withdraw from Heglig and that it’s now time for the Government of Sudan to stop its aerial bombardment and for everybody to get back to the table.  That’s essentially where we are.  And just to remind again that neither one of these governments is going to be able to fully benefit from the resources of both countries, from peace, from integration with the international community, until the violence stops.  So they both – both sides have an interest in getting this violence stopped.

Said.

QUESTION:  Change of issue?

MS. NULAND:  Say again?

QUESTION:  Change topics?

MS. NULAND:  Yes.

QUESTION:  The Palestinian issue?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Yes.  There is an apparent estrangement between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.  And my question to you, in this kind of atmosphere, how do you conduct whatever talks or lack of talks, if you would, with both entities?  How do you conduct your business with them?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I’m not going to get into internal issues within the Palestinian Authority.  Obviously, we work with all the leading Palestinian figures.  We obviously work with President Abbas, who David Hale had the chance to sit with on Saturday.  We see Mr. Fayyad obviously, and David also works with Palestinian negotiator Erekat, who he anticipates seeing, I think it’s tomorrow.

So our goal is to continue to try to work with all parties on the Palestinian Authority side and with the Israelis to increase the opportunity for them to be in direct contact and to really get this conversation back to where it needs to be.

QUESTION:  And Mr. Hale discussed the content of the letter that Mahmoud Abbas submitted last week with him?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I would anticipate that he did, but I’m not going to get into the details of their discussion.

QUESTION:  Yeah.  This letter is really the point of contention between the two – between Fayyad and Abbas.

MS. NULAND:  From our perspective, the fact that the sides are in contact, whether it’s by letter – obviously we prefer face to face, but the fact that this conversation is continuing is important.  So we are trying to talk to all of the involved parties about how they can make the most of the time in front of them and the channels available to them.

QUESTION:  Are you aware of the misunderstanding between Abbas and Fayyad?

MS. NULAND:  I’m really not going to get into internal issues between members of the Palestinian Authority.

Please.

QUESTION:  There are some press reports that (inaudible) Turkey is blocking Israel’s participation to next NATO summit.  And the U.S. side is not happy with that.  It’s disappointed and trying to convince Turks not to block Israel to NATO.  Do you have any comment on that – on those reports?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think you know for quite some time now, we have been continuing to talk to both our ally Turkey and our ally Israel about the relationship that they have with each other, to encourage them to continue to get back to a place where can have conversation with each other, where they can work well together.  We think it’s important to both of them, and it’s certainly important to the region.

With regard to arrangements for the NATO summit and partnership events, as you know, Israel is one of NATO’s partners in the Mediterranean Dialogue.   I don’t have anything particular to announce on partnership planning at the moment.  Those discussions are continuing as we head towards the May summit in Chicago.

QUESTION:  So Israel may participate in some?

MS. NULAND:  Again, we’re still working on what the partnership arrangements are going to look like for the summit, so I’m not going to comment on them from here as those conversations continue.  There are many aspects of how the partners may or may not participate in the NATO summit that are still being worked on.

QUESTION:  Well, are you comfortable with the Turkish position?

MS. NULAND:  Again, I’m not going to comment on internal deliberations going on at NATO about arrangements for the summit from this --

QUESTION:  NATO operates by consensus, correct?

MS. NULAND:  Correct.

QUESTION:  As you well know.  So if one NATO member objected to Israel or any other country’s participation in a partnership dialogue, you wouldn’t be allowed to – that country wouldn’t be allowed to participate, correct?

MS. NULAND:  We need consensus at NATO.  And again, Israel is one of NATO’s partners, has participated over the years in many, many, many NATO activities, consultations, exercises, et cetera.  So we’re going to keep working on the arrangements for partnership at Chicago, but I don’t have anything particular to announce today.

QUESTION:  Well, would you be – would the Administration be comfortable if Israel did not participate?

MS. NULAND:  Again, there are many, many ways that these partnership activities may go forward.  They’ve been done in different ways at different summits.  So I’m not going to get into what we’re talking about, how it might work, who’s going to come.  We’re still working on all of that.

QUESTION:  The Administration won’t come out and say that it wants Israel to be at the – to participate at the summit in Chicago?

MS. NULAND:  We haven’t made any announcements about who --

QUESTION:  I know.

MS. NULAND:  -- among NATO’s 25-30 partners around the world we expect to invite to Chicago.  So I’m not going to comment on individual partners and whether they’re coming to Chicago.

QUESTION:  Well, you’re being asked about one specifically.

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Is it important to the United States for Israel to participate?

MS. NULAND:  It’s important that we come to a consensus agreement at NATO about a strong partnership aspect of this summit.  So we’re still working on that.

QUESTION:  So you’re saying that that could happen without Israel’s participation?

MS. NULAND:  I’m saying that there are 25-30 global partners of NATO.  Is it still under discussion at NATO what events there will be in the context of the summit that will highlight the partnership and which partners will be invited.  No decisions have been made.

QUESTION:  So you’re saying that some partners may not be invited?

MS. NULAND:  I’m saying that there have been NATO summits where no partners were invited --

QUESTION:  Toria, I’m trying to help you out here, because you’re going to get absolutely slammed.

MS. NULAND:  I understand.  Matt, there is no --

QUESTION:  You are.  If you can’t come out and say that the United States wants Israel to participate, its main ally in the Middle East and you won’t come out and say that the Administration wants them to participate in whatever event is going in Chicago, that’s – that is going to be seized on.

MS. NULAND:  Matt, at the last summit in Lisbon, there was zero partnership participation with the exception, I think, of ISAF partners.  At Lisbon there were some partnership events, and I don’t know whether all partners were included.  I think they were not.

QUESTION:  Well, as --

MS. NULAND:  So every summit is done on a case-by-case basis, and we haven’t made a decision about who’s going to be invited yet.

QUESTION:  Well, yeah, but isn’t the planning for at least most of these partnership – these partnerships to have some kind of meeting revolving around Chicago?

MS. NULAND:  NATO has, I think, five --

QUESTION:  Wasn’t there a meeting at heads of state level between NATO and the Russians in Lisbon?

MS. NULAND:  I think there was a NATO-Russia Council at Lisbon.  There will not be a NATO-Russia council meeting at Chicago.  So again, the point is that for each summit, NATO makes decisions by a consensus what the partnership geometry will be.  And that has not been decided.

QUESTION:  Fair enough.  But the Turks wouldn’t be objecting to Israel’s participation if someone hadn’t proposed that Israel participate.  And if you have proposed that they participate --

MS. NULAND:  Again --

QUESTION:  -- and you’re not willing to stick up for it, I don’t understand why.

MS. NULAND:  I’m not going to get into, here, what we have proposed and where we are in the internal dialogue at NATO until the issues are settled by consensus.  That’s not the way NATO works.  Okay?

Let’s move on.

QUESTION:  Can we go back to the Palestinian issue?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Is Ambassador Hale mediating between the Palestinians, or between the Palestinians and the Israelis?

MS. NULAND:  So David – let me just go through his schedule, if I can.  Special Envoy Hale met with President Abbas on Saturday, with Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sabah and other officials in Kuwait on April 22nd.  He arrived in Jerusalem today.  He will meet with Israeli negotiator Molho.

QUESTION:  I’m sorry.  Can you say that again?

MS. NULAND:  He’s in Jerusalem today.  He’ll meet with Israeli negotiator Molho, and then he’ll meet with Palestinian negotiator Erekat separately tonight and tomorrow.  I’m not sure in what order.  And then he will also, tomorrow, see Foreign Minister Judeh, I assume in Amman.  And then, as we said, he plans to go on to Saudi, to Qatar, to Egypt.  And then he’s probably going to go back to the region, but that hasn’t been decided yet.

QUESTION:  That means he’s not mediating between Abbas and Fayyad?

MS. NULAND:  Correct.  He is not getting involved in internal Palestinian Authority issues.

QUESTION:  And when did he see Fayyad?

MS. NULAND:  Say again?

QUESTION:  When did he see Fayyad, the prime minister?

MS. NULAND:  We had Fayyad here in Washington not too long ago.

QUESTION:  No, no.  Isn’t he supposed to meet with Fayyad in --

MS. NULAND:  I don’t have that on this list, but let me check with him whether he intends to see Mr. Fayyad on this trip.

QUESTION:  New topic.  On Myanmar, here seems to be a hiccup in this warming – warmth between Aung San Suu Kyi and the ruling party, the military-backed party, and that they disagree over the oath of office and Aung San Suu Kyi’s – and her NLD counterparts have declined to take their seats in parliament until this oath is changed.  Does that concern you at all?  Do you think that’s a setback?  And what’s your view on this – the oath itself?

MS. NULAND:  Well, as you’ve said, Andy, our understanding is the same as yours, that Aung San Suu Kyi and the members of her party from the National League of Democracy did not sit when parliament opened today because they were concerned about taking an oath requiring them to safeguard the constitution that was passed under military rule.  Our understanding is that the NLD is in discussion with the government and with other parties with regard to this issue and we are calling on everybody to try to work this through in a manner that will allow the NLD to take its seats.
QUESTION:  Would the action for action that the U.S. has promised to continue to implement be on hold pending them actually sitting in their seats in parliament?

MS. NULAND:  Well, I think the measures that we’ve already announced are obviously going forward.  We want to see the government and the opposition continue to work on their issues in a consensual manner through dialogue, and that is our understanding of what the NLD itself wants.  So I think we need to watch this and hope that in coming days, this can be settled.

QUESTION:  And do you have any position on the oath itself?  Do you think that the NLD is correct in its objections to the wording of the oath?

MS. NULAND:  I think we’re not going to get into the internal conversation that they’re having.  As you know, the NLD has concerns about a number of things, including the name of the country, that were adopted at a time when they were not able to participate in the political process.  So they’re going to have to work through these things together as part of the general opening in the reform process.

Please.

QUESTION:  On Iraq, KRG President Maliki criticized an arms sales which will be made by U.S. to Baghdad Government – about the F-16 sales.  And he said to freeze the sales until there will be a solution between KRG and Baghdad Government because he’s suspicious that the Maliki government can use this F-16 against KRG.  Do you have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND:  I’m sorry.  Who made these initial comments?

QUESTION:  President Barzani.

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  KRG president.

MS. NULAND:  I’m not going to get into the middle of intramural efforts between the various Iraqis.  I think you know where we are on this, that we want to see the disagreements that they have with each other also settled through dialogue and through a big roundtable process that they’ve all pledged to join but that still needs to get off the ground.

QUESTION:  Is that F-16 sales will go on?

MS. NULAND:  I don’t think there’s any change in our policy.

QUESTION:  About the – just a follow-up about an oil agreement made by Exxon-Mobil and KRG.  Since it’s an American company, the Exxon-Mobil, this agreement is excluding Baghdad Government’s role in the use of oil in KRG region.  Do you have any comment?  How do you see this agreement?  Is it threatening to unity of Iraq, or how do you see Exxon-Mobil and KRG oil agreement?

MS. NULAND:  We’ve talked about this issue many times.  Our position on it has not changed, that we think the lack of a comprehensive oil agreement is holding Iraq back, that we’ve called on all sides to continue to work through what is necessary to come up with a national oil policy.  And we also regularly counsel our companies, including Exxon, about the fact that there isn’t such an agreement.  So I think we’ll have a little bit more to say on the issues of Iraq and energy later today.  We’re going to have – we have the U.S.-Iraqi energy dialogue going on, and we’ll have some folks briefing later this afternoon on those things.

QUESTION:  Toria, just a quick follow-up to this, but Maliki had really harsh words for Turkey.  And now both of them are your allies, you have invested a great deal in Iraq.  I mean, they’re – he’s pushing the envelopes.  You don’t have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND:  We have, for almost a decade now, encouraged increased dialogue, increased direct contacts between Iraq and Turkey.  There are mechanisms for them to work through their issues together which we have endeavored to facilitate, and we encourage them to continue to use them to work through the issues that they have.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MS. NULAND:  Please.

QUESTION:  On North Korea?

MS. NULAND:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Different topic.  There are multiple reports that the North Koreans have threatened Seoul and South Korean President Lee’s government.  Do you have a reaction on those reports with military action?

MS. NULAND:  I don’t think our position on this is any different than it’s been before and after the satellite launch.  I think if you got a chance to see what the Secretary had to say when she was on Wolf Blitzer last Thursday, that’s the – obviously the most eloquent statement of where we are, that the DPRK needs to understand that it’s not going to achieve anything but further isolation and pressure by threats, by launches, by any of this.

And we call on the new North Korean leadership to change course; instead put their effort into moving their country into the modern world, into the 21st century, opening up the system and giving their people the right to live in dignity and with openness, well fed, et cetera.  And they’re just putting their energy in the wrong place.

Please.

QUESTION:  Any reaction to Iraqi prime minister’s visit to Iran?  And do you think – is it related to the P-5+1 meeting in Baghdad next month?

MS. NULAND:  I’m going to send you to both of those governments for comments on their bilateral visit.

Okay.  Thanks very much.