Showing posts with label U.K. FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.K. FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE. Show all posts

Sunday, June 15, 2014

PRESS CONFERENCE: SUMMIT ON ENDING SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN CONFLICT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
ExCeL Conference Center
London, United Kingdom
June 13, 2014


FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, thank you very much. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for coming to this, the concluding press conference of the Summit on Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict. As you know, I’ve been co-chairing this this week with the Special Envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Angelina Jolie, and I’m also very, very grateful to the U.S. Secretary of State Secretary Kerry for taking such time and trouble to be here today, for making a formidable speech, an inspiring speech, to our summit.

I will recap in a moment very briefly on the conclusions of the summit, but Secretary Kerry and I have obviously also been discussing the extremely serious situation in Iraq. We have noted, of course, that fighting continues but that attacks have thankfully slowed in recent hours. And in the UK we think our focus should now be on three objectives: first of all, to stabilize the situation. This is primarily the responsibility of the Iraqi security forces working in cooperation with their civil authorities, including the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Second, for Iraq’s leadership to come together in a united response to this brutal aggression against their country. That requires their leaders to find ways immediately to put aside their differences, however strongly felt, and act together against the terrorism which threatens them all.

Third, the half a million or more displaced people in the north who have been forced to flee Mosul and the surrounding areas need urgent support so that the humanitarian situation does not deteriorate further.

In the UK, we are not planning a British military intervention, as you know, but we are looking urgently at other ways to help. For example, help with counterterrorist expertise. Work is underway on that now, and we will continue to liaise closely with our United States allies in particular on that. A British team of emergency aid experts from DFID arrived in Iraq early this morning and are looking urgently at what the UK might do to help on that front.

We’ll also continue to work urgently within the UN Security Council to help concert the wider international response. The UN special representative for Iraq was clear to the Council about the urgency, both of the humanitarian crisis and the need for Iraq’s politicians to address the immediate challenge. Clearly, ISIL represents a regional challenge. We’re thinking through very carefully the implications of that, and this attack shows the importance of a strong stand against extremists and that’s why we are giving our backing to moderate groups in Syria who are taking them on.

On the Global Summit, which has just ended, this has been an unprecedented event and a turning point in our campaign over the last two years. We’ve seen delegations from more than 123 countries. We’ve seen new support for survivors, new determination to tackle impunity, and a new international protocol, new support for affected countries, new commitments on women’s participation and conflict prevention and peace building, and we have raised awareness dramatically across the world of this issue and these crimes with what we’ve done in our 84-hour summit here and around the world this week.

We will be pursuing this effort with relentless dedication. The chair’s summary sets out what we believe we have achieved this week. And I’m very grateful, as I say, for the very strong support of Secretary Kerry and the United States and for everything that my cohost, Angelina Jolie, has done to make this possible.

And I’ll turn to her to make her remarks before we give the floor to Secretary Kerry. Thank you.
MS. JOLIE: Thank you so much. It’s an honor for me to be here with Secretary Hague and Secretary Kerry. It sends an extremely powerful message to the world that the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom and the United States are taking such a strong stand on this issue.
Among the 123 countries represented here over the last four days, one of the most heartening aspects of this summit has been to see so many male leaders from across the world prepared to confront the taboos surrounding sexual violence in conflict. Indeed, I believe that one of the outcomes of this summit is that this subject is now firmly on the top table of international diplomacy, and we will work to ensure that it stays there.

Warzone rape is not simply a women’s issue, it is not a humanitarian issue, it goes to the heart of international peace and security. Even more heartening is the fact that this summit has brought together leaders, survivors, and experts from around the world in an unprecedented way. I see this as a new and hopeful model for how we can begin to tackle vast global issues and strengthen the rule of law and justice internationally. I will work with William Hague and those who have joined us here for as long as it takes to prevail in the struggle against sexual violence in conflict.

All represented here, individuals, agencies, and nations have promised action, not just words. The test of whether this summit is a success will be whether or not we can truly make a difference in the lives of survivors of warzone rape around the world and take the steps that visibly shatter the culture of impunity. And I look forward to everyone who has taken part in this summit holding us to our promises, encouraging us to go further, and working with us in many different ways. And in my mind, the work we have begun here is very, very much linked to the violence against women in many other contexts, whether it is the kidnap of the schoolgirls in Nigeria or the recent appalling rape cases in India and Pakistan. My goal is that by treating sexual violence in conflict as a central issue and bearing down on impunity there, that we will be able to accelerate change in all these other areas, and that will be very much a part of my focus – I’m sure our focus – in the months and years to come. Thank you.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you very much indeed.

John – Secretary Kerry.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Foreign Secretary. It’s a privilege for me to be back in London and to join William Hague, Angelina Jolie, and so many others in the first-ever global summit on sexual violence. And I’ll say a few words about that in a moment, but like William Hague, I clearly want to say a few words about Iraq and the subject that we just talked about in our bilateral meeting, much on our minds.

President Obama met with his senior foreign policy team yesterday afternoon. We had a comprehensive meeting regarding the events in Iraq. We discussed a range of options, including military action to provide support for the Iraqi Government and to respond to their request at this difficult time. Iraq is facing a brutal enemy that also poses a threat to America’s interests and to the interests of our allies in Europe and in the region. Given the gravity of the situation, I would anticipate timely decisions from the President regarding the challenge. We’ve already taken some immediate steps, including providing enhanced aerial surveillance support to assist the Iraqis in this fight. We’ve also ramped up shipments of military aid to Iraq since the beginning of the year, and we have continued to ramp up efforts over the course of the last months leading up to the events of the last week. We’ve also expanded our training programs, both inside Iraq and in Jordan.

We are laser-focused on dealing with the crisis at hand, but just as important as any short-term action is our continuing effort to build the Iraqi Government’s ability to be able to sustain this fight itself. And we plan to intensify that effort in the coming hours, days, and weeks. Security is a priority, obviously, but make no mistake: This needs to be a real wake-up call for all of Iraq’s political leaders. Now is the time for Iraq’s leaders to come together and to show unity. Political division fueled by ethnic or sectarian differences simply cannot be allowed to steal from the Iraqi people what so many have given so much for over the course of these last years. This is a fight for a better future for all Iraqis. It’s a fight for a pluralistic, tolerant society. It’s a fight for a civil approach to governance. And it is a fight ultimately which winning will require all of Iraq’s leaders of all different stripes and persuasions to come together in order to put the national interest above their own and above any sectarian interest.

Our commitment to a better future for people is really what brings us to London this week, to direct international attention and focus on the critical issue of ending sexual violence in conflict. There are few leaders more committed, as I said earlier, to this cause than Foreign Secretary William Hague. And we are very, very grateful, both of us and all government individuals involved in this, for the participation of the UN Special Representative Angelina Jolie. We also appreciate Special Representative Bangura’s efforts, and I recall a conversation we had back in February. And I am pleased to join Secretary Hague and Angelina in trying to elevate this conversation today.

Too many of the places that I have visited as Secretary of State bear the scars of a time when rape has been used as a tactic of oppression and intimidation. Sexual violence in conflict is one of the most persistent and most neglected injustices imaginable, and ending this cycle of violence is not just a personal priority, it is a priority of President Obama, the Government of the United States, and our allies, as you can see. That’s why we’ve taken a number of steps that I enumerated earlier. I’m not going to go through them all again. But we’ve taken steps to try to empower people to create accountability and to try to make it clear that all governments have to join together in denying a safe haven to those who perpetrate these crimes. We are expanding initiatives that I described earlier, particularly the Safe from the Start initiative as well as the Accountability initiative, and also gender-based violence and emergency response and protection initiatives. Our goal is to make sure that survivors get the urgent assistance that they need in order to be able to recover and heal.

So we have a big agenda, and that’s appropriate. We need to make clear with a single loud voice, and I think that is coming out of London today, that we are – that we refuse to believe that this is too big to defeat, that it is somehow too deeply ingrained in human nature or society not to care about it. We are convinced that we can make a difference and that there is no place in the civilized world for sexual violence as a tool of war in conflict. So I thank Secretary Hague for his leadership and would be delighted to answer other questions along with him.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Okay. Thank you. Time for a few questions. Carl, my press secretary, will identify them. I think Adam Boulton is first.

QUESTION: Yeah, a question from Sky News: Which regional powers do you think are benefiting from what’s happening in northern Iraq with ISIS? What role do you see for Iran now? And in relation to the subject of this conference, do you have specific concerns about the use of sexual violence by ISIS?

SECRETARY KERRY: What was the first – I missed the first part of the question.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: The first part was which regional powers benefit.

QUESTION: Which regional powers do you think are benefiting from what’s happening?

SECRETARY KERRY: No regional power benefits from what is happening in Iraq today – no regional power. Iran is deeply concerned about this, Turkey is concerned, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, countries in the region. No country benefits by what is happening. ISIL is a terrorist organization. It is so extreme that even al-Qaida saw fit at one point to try to disassociate itself to some degree from it.

The bottom line is that ISIL is a threat not just to Iraq and to the entire region, but it is a threat to Europe, the United States, and other countries in the world, and obviously, with the number of foreign fighters that have been assembled in Syria, this remains a very significant issue. That is why President Obama has urgently convened a security team and that is why he is moving rapidly to a point of deciding what the next steps need to be. I might add that what this represents is not a free-standing terrorist entity, but a consequence of what is happening in Syria. We have been warning for months now that the increased number of jihadists attracted to Syria because of Assad’s behavior and because of the sectarian differences is creating a danger to the region in the spillover violence and the spillover humanitarian crisis.
So everybody in the region, every country that understands the importance of stability in the Middle East needs to be concerned about what is happening with ISIL in Iraq today, and that is why I am confident that the United States will move rapidly and effectively in order to join with our allies in dealing with this challenge.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: And on the question about sexual violence in Iraq, I don’t think we have evidence of that in these incidents – these events in the last few days. But we do, of course, have evidence of it on a huge scale in the Syria conflict. And indeed, we have deployed the UK team of experts to Syria’s borders to help to document these crimes and to support human rights activists in doing so.

Next question, I think, was going to the BBC.

QUESTION: James Robbins from the BBC. Secretary Kerry, you’ve talked about the brutality of ISIL or ISIS leading this uprising, but isn’t it really the case that it’s spread far beyond them now and has become a much more general Sunni uprising within Iraq? Is there a risk that if the President decides on military action in Iraq, he will be propping up a man, Nuri al-Maliki, who’s often seen by his critics as a sectarian leader, not one who necessarily deserves your support.
Can you tell us if it’s – your real overriding concern is the risk of what some have called transnational badlands, the formation of an extremist state straddling both Syria and Iraq?
Foreign Secretary, is it right for Britain to rule out military action in any circumstances? Because surely, what’s been characterized here is just the sort of threat ultimately to British nationals which might require military action. And aren’t you undermining the United States position by ruling it out so categorically?

And Ms. Jolie, if I could ask you what’s – what are your future plans on the themes of this summit? Do you hope, for instance, to make another feature film based around themes raised here?

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Right, three questions in one question. John, do you want to have --

SECRETARY KERRY: Why don’t we ask – why don’t we let Angelina begin and we’ll roll back.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Angelina.

MS. JOLIE: The easier question. (Laughter.) There are many different ways I will be attempting to work on this issue. I will be doing it through art and then through my work in the field, and meeting and working very much with survivors, doctors, lawyers, the task forces set out from PSVI, and of course any ways as an artist that I can bring attention to these issues. There is not a particular, specific piece of art, but I am of course very moved, and it means a great deal to me that a film that I made has – with these issues and felt nobody would see or pay any attention to was responded to by the foreign secretary and helped me to raise my voice even louder. Thank you.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: On the question to me, I mentioned in my opening statement that we are looking urgently at ways to assist, and I mentioned the example of counterterrorist expertise in Iraq. Secretary Kerry referred in his remarks to building Iraq’s ability to sustain the fight itself. And there will certainly be ways. There are ways and there will be ways in which the United Kingdom can assist with that, so we will work closely with the United States and all of our allies on that. That doesn’t mean, as I also mentioned, that we are planning a military intervention ourselves. But there will be many things we can do to work with our allies in trying to stabilize the situation in Iraq.
John.

SECRETARY KERRY: ISIL is a – clearly a common threat to the entire region, including Iran, but to the entire region. And people need to focus clearly on the fact that the rise in Iraq’s violence is primarily a result of the escalating war in Syria and its empowering effect on ISIL. That is what has happened here. But we need to make it very clear that there are other contributing factors. Prime Minister Maliki and all of Iraqi leaders need to do more to put sectarian differences aside and to come together in unity to begin to be more representative and inclusive. And part of what has created a dynamic in Iraq where it is less prepared with less political will than it might have had has been this persistent divisiveness and gridlock with respect to some of the unresolved political issues in Iraq itself.

So that’s a conversation that we are having now, real time, with the prime minister and with others in Iraq, but there is no entity, no government, no one broadly in the Iraqi population is looking forward to the presence of ISIL. ISIL terrorizes them. And there are many Sunnis who are taking cover, leaving the country, seeking refuge because of their fear of ISIL. ISIL is a fundamental, basic terrorist structure that seeks to do everything outside of any rule of law structure in order to dominate any territory location where it is. It’s frankly the enemy of civility, the enemy of rule of law, the enemy of pluralism, the enemy of decency, and we need to make it crystal clear, as we have, the United States views it as a threat to our interests as well as to the interests of our friends and allies in the region.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Okay. I think there’s just time for one more question, Carl.
QUESTION: Hi, thank you. Today in Iraq Shia clerics have called on Iraqis to fight the Sunni insurgency. Secretary Kerry, is the U.S. planning to strike – to launch airstrikes in Iraq to help the government? And can you discuss why it might do so now after declining to do so in Syria, and also potentially enter into a cooperation with Iran, which is also helping the Iraqi Government?
Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hague, why would additional help to Iraq now make a difference after both the U.S. and the UK spent the better part of the last decade trying to stabilize Iraq? Do you believe this is the start of a new years-long conflict in Iraq?

And Ms. Jolie, could you discuss a little bit how you personally became involved with the issue of sexual violence in conflict zones and how you plan to keep this – I know you discussed some of your projects are ongoing, but how you believe that this will remain a top-tier priority when there are so many other pressing priorities in the world? Thank you.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Right. Another three questions in one question. I think the answer to the, why would we do now what we haven’t done in recent months, is clearly the situation has changed. The situation has deteriorated seriously in Iraq. It’s therefore necessary to emphasize and assist with the things that we’ve set out, including stabilizing the situation. Both Secretary Kerry and I have stressed the importance of Iraq’s leadership coming together in a united response and the responsibility that rests on Iraq’s leaders, but in a situation that has deteriorated they are likely to have legitimate needs for assistance that are greater than before. So I think that is fairly clear.

John, do you want to take the other aspects of the Iraq question?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, there is a huge distinction between what ISIL represents and ISIL is doing versus the situation in Syria. It begins first and fundamentally that in Iraq there is a government that we have been deeply involved in, that we support, that we have a military relationship with, that we have a – ongoing Memorandum of Understanding regarding the military relationship, which has invited us, asked us for help. And under international law, the United Nations and other law, it is clear that when a legitimate nation makes a request for help, there is a legal basis for involvement in ways that are different.

Number two, the fact is that ISIL is a terrorist entity, as I have described, that has already expressed threats against the United States and the West and about which we have some indication has been plotting and looking for opportunities to take on the West. So there is a vital interest with respect to that.

Thirdly, there is a clarity that what has been lacking in these last weeks and months in Iraq is not a trained capacity of a military to respond, not an ability of the numbers of people, frankly, in the military in Iraq to be able to stand up to the several thousand in ISIL, but a lack of political will. And that political will and leadership is a critical component of what we have been working on now for several years to try to resolve unresolved differences in the governance of Iraq itself. And I think that has had a profound impact, and that’s what I said a moment ago. This has served as a wakeup call with respect to political leadership. And there are indications that they are quickly responding to that. And so this may be a moment where you can actually coalesce and bring the country together, recognizing that there is a threat to them as a whole.
So our sense is that there is an ability here to work with the existing government and the existing trained military forces to be able to have an impact in ways that have never been available or as clear with respect to Syria, not to mention there are other issues, many other issues, with respect to Syria. But Iraq is, as I’ve said, a country we’ve had a very direct relationship with, a very direct investment and engagement with, not to mention the lives of our soldiers who were lost there providing this opportunity to them. And I don’t think anybody in the region or in this Administration believes it is in the interest of the United States to turn our backs on that.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you. Angelina?

MS. JOLIE: I became involved in this particular issue because of the women and men that I’ve met in the field, first through my work with UNHCR. And I have sat with them and they were very emotional not only about what had been done to them physically, but most of all the injustice, the lack of prosecutions for those who had committed the crimes. One of the women that I met that was very, very young I met in Syria, who was an Iraqi refugee at the time fleeing from that war. She then fled the war in Syria to return back to Iraq. I don’t know where she is now or where she will go.

So these issues are all tied together. There is not one that is more important than the other. But we must address them all at once. Thank you.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Okay. Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY AND U.K. FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Hague
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office
London, United Kingdom
September 9, 2013

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It’s a great pleasure to host my great friend and colleague, John Kerry, here in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office once again.

Of course, we have spent most of our time discussing the crisis in Syria. But I want to begin by paying tribute to Secretary Kerry for his work on the Middle East peace process, which has now led to the resumption of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a reminder, amidst all the difficulties of the whole Middle Eastern region, of the progress that effective diplomacy can offer. And I will meet President Abbas here in London later today.

The UK will do all it can to provide support to this process. And I will remain in close touch, as we always do, with Secretary Kerry on this in the coming weeks. Achieving a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very, very high priority in foreign affairs, and John Kerry has placed it there and given enormous energy to this in the last few months.

We’ve discussed all aspects of the crisis in Syria. The position of the United Kingdom, following our parliamentary vote 10 days ago is well known, and the government – as you know, in the government, we fully respect the decision made by the House of Commons. But our objectives and efforts between the UK and the U.S. remain closely aligned in four areas in particular: first, working to create the conditions for a Geneva 2 peace process that can lead to a transitional government in Syria; secondly, addressing the desperate humanitarian situation; third, supporting the moderate Syrian opposition and saving lives on the ground; and fourth, mustering a strong international response to the use of chemical weapons.

Our government supports the objective of ensuring there can be no impunity for the first use of chemical warfare in the 21st century. As an international community, we must deter further attacks and hold those responsible for them accountable. We admire the leadership of President Obama and of Secretary Kerry, himself, in making his case so powerfully to the world. This week the European Union, the Arab League, and many of the countries of the G-20 have called for a strong international response. And it is to the credit of the United States that, once again, they are prepared to lead such efforts. They have the full diplomatic support of the United Kingdom. And I welcome the fact that an increasing number of countries have signed up to the joint statement on Syria adopted last week during the G-20 by 11 countries during the G-20, and I urge other countries to do the same.

Secretary Kerry and I share the same revulsion at the utter callousness of a regime that has presided over the deaths of more than 100,000 people and caused more than 2 million to become refugees, among them a million children. The Prime Minister announced an additional 52 million pounds in humanitarian assistance last week, bringing our total to 400 million pounds. The United Kingdom will be working intensively over the coming weeks, including at the UN, to try to secure unfettered access for aid inside Syria, and to address the aid shortfall, working closely with the United States, which is working, leading by example here, as in many other areas.

I briefed Secretary Kerry on the talks we held last week with the presidents and senior leadership of the Syrian National Coalition. There can’t be a political solution in Syria if the Assad regime is allowed to eradicate the moderate opposition. So we discussed ways in which we will continue to coordinate our assistance to them, and we reaffirmed our commitment to a Geneva 2 peace conference, which should create a transitional government leading to elections in Syria, and to continuing our diplomacy with Russia to try to bring about the necessary breakthrough.

At its heart, the U.S.-UK special relationship is an alliance of values, values of freedom, of maintaining international peace and security, of making sure that we live in a rules-based world. So the United Kingdom will continue to work closely with the United States, taking a highly active role in addressing the Syria crisis, and working with our closest ally over the coming weeks and months.

And, as well as addressing all these immediate challenges and crises, we continue to work together on a whole range of issues, from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, to Somalia, to my work on preventing sexual violence in conflict, which the Secretary has strongly supported, and, of course, deepening the economic ties that are indispensable to both nations.

So, John, you’re welcome, as always, in London here. And, please, will you say a few words, as well?

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, William. I’d be delighted to. And I begin by saying thank you to you for another generous welcome here in London. I’m very grateful to you and the government for all of your efforts. And I’m very pleased to be concluding this morning, before I go back to brief Congress this afternoon on the subject of Syria, to be concluding here in London a very productive and fairly quick trip to Europe over the last couple of days. Particularly grateful to you, William, always, for your great hospitality and your personal friendship. And I thank you for that.

The relationship – well, let me just say also last night I had dinner and a long meeting with President Abbas, whom the Secretary will be meeting with shortly. And it was a very productive and informative session as part of our ongoing efforts in the Middle East peace process. The negotiators are negotiating. We have said we’re not going to discuss the substance on an ongoing basis, and we’re not. But I am encouraged that even though there have been difficulties along the way on both sides in their countries – in their territory and in the country – nevertheless, they are staying at it, and they are not allowing what historically have been disruptions that might have interrupted them from doing so at this time. That encourages me, in terms of the determination and purpose. And so we will continue this process thoughtfully and, hopefully, quietly over the course of the next weeks and months.

The relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom has often been described as special, essential. And it has been described thusly, quite simply, because it is. It was before a vote the other day in parliament, and it will be for long afterwards after that vote. Our bond, as William has just said, is bigger than one vote; it’s bigger than one moment in history. It’s about values. It’s about rules of the road, rules by which human beings try to organize their societies and offer people maximum freedom and opportunity, respecting rights, and finding a balance in a very complicated world. And we have no better partner in that effort than Great Britain, and we are grateful for that.

Our bond really is a paradigm for international cooperation. And our work together on global issues to ensure peace, to ensure stability, to create economic prosperity, to help others to share in the values that we share, to engage in humanitarian initiatives around the world, and sometimes to stand together against the oppressive steps that tyrants take, all of those things are what tie us together, not just for our two nations, but for the entire world.

So just a few minutes ago, the Foreign Secretary and I spoke about the importance of our continued cooperation on a full range of issues, from climate change, to the pursuit of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, to our counterterrorism efforts, to our efforts to promote democracy on a global basis, and, of course, to our efforts to bring about an end to the civil war in Syria.

As I drove in here this morning, there were a group of people assembled outside the building, as is their right, and as people should assemble. And some of them – I heard them saying, “Keep your hands off Syria.” I certainly appreciate the feelings in our country, too, about people who have strong feelings about war and strong feelings about not going into yet some other engagement in another part of the world.

But I think it would be good to hear people saying to a dictator, “Keep your hands off chemical weapons that kill your own people. Protect your own people.” I think it’s important for us to stand up as nations for civility and against actions that challenge notions of humanity and decency and appropriate international behavior. And for almost 100 years, the world has stood together against the use of chemical weapons, and we need to hear an appropriate outcry as we think back on those moments of history when large numbers of people have been killed because the world was silent. The Holocaust, Rwanda, other moments are lessons to all of us today.

So let me be clear. The United States of America, President Obama, myself, others are in full agreement that the end of the conflict in Syria requires a political solution. There is no military solution. And we have no illusions about that. But a resolution to this has to come about because the parties are prepared to come and negotiate that political solution. And if one party believes that it can rub out countless numbers of his own citizens with impunity using chemicals that have been banned for nearly 100 years because of what Europe learned in World War I, if he can do that with impunity, he will never come to a negotiating table. A resolution will not be found on the battlefield, but at that negotiating table. But we have to get to that table.

And we’re in full agreement with our British friends that the humanitarian situation is obviously dire and growing worse: 5 million people displaced within Syria itself; numbers of refugees fleeing from that gas into Lebanon, into Jordan, providing an incredible burden to each of those countries and others in the region. This is a humanitarian catastrophe of global proportions. And the world needs to focus on it, pay attention to it, or we give license to other dictators or other groups in other parts of the world to engage in similar behavior, and just make things worse for everybody.

The United States is proud to say we’ve been the largest humanitarian donor. We recognize that responsibility. And we are also proud to say that we stand with our friends here in Great Britain, who are the second-largest donor. So, we don’t come to this with a sense that all we care about is some kind of a military response. We come to this with years now of effort – literally years of effort – to try to bring the parties to the table and create some kind of political solution, because that remains our top priority. I – our respective leaders made it clear in St. Petersburg that we believe a strong international response is necessary to ensure that atrocities like the one that Assad committed against hundreds of his own people are not going to happen again.

And our special relationship with the UK is not just about Syria, it’s not just about a response to this humanitarian crisis. It’s also about the future, in many ways, on climate change, and particularly on economic prosperity for all of our people. We’re not only – we are both committed to trying to move forward on a trade relationship to grow jobs for our people. And we are not only each other’s largest investors in each of our countries, one to the other, but the fact is that every day almost one million people go to work in America for British companies that are in the United States, just as more than one million people go to work here in Great Britain for American companies that are here. So we are enormously tied together, obviously. And we are committed to making both the U.S.-UK and the U.S.-EU relationships even stronger drivers of our prosperity.

Now, last month the United States held the first round of the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. And this is something where we will continue to work closely together, because we both believe that working with the UK and the rest of the EU to finalize an agreement is going to create new investments to add to those millions of people in both countries I just talked about. It’ll create new jobs and it will create growth on both sides of the Atlantic.

So, as Margaret Thatcher put it pretty bluntly, as she did, the UK and the U.S. are real and true friends. And our relationship, which is grounded in those values and traditions that we both referred to, remains as relevant today as it has been in the past. And we look forward to continuing to strengthen this relationship, and working hard to make real progress on the very many challenges that we face in an increasingly complicated and, in too many places, dangerous world. Thank you, William.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you very much indeed, John. Now we’re going to have a couple of questions from each side of the Atlantic. Carl, you’ll pick them out.

QUESTION: James Robbins from BBC News. Mr. Secretary, how seriously do you take the new threats from President Assad of retaliation, including by his allies, if the U.S. does strike? That risks, doesn’t it, dragging the United States further into the conflict?

And if Britain had said yes rather than no to strikes, the President would have ordered them by now, wouldn’t he? You’ve now adopted a different tactic, building a different sort of coalition using powerful moral arguments for action against inaction. The logic of that, surely, is that whatever the votes in Congress, the President will go ahead with strikes. The votes can’t change his moral position.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not surprised to find here a well-put question that basically tries to get me to answer something that the President hasn’t decided. So I just have to tell you that the President made a decision based on his gut and his best sense of what was best for the United States of America and our Congress and our democracy. And he knew it would be tough. He didn’t – there was no misinterpretation of the vote here. I think that’s why the President made a very courageous decision to go to the Congress, notwithstanding what happened here, recognizing that in our democracy it was important to ask for the Congress to also invest in this effort.

And I can’t tell you that if the vote had been different the President would have made a different decision at all. I think he was thinking about the best way to proceed, and he made his decision about the best way to proceed. I’m confident the Congress is going to listen very, very carefully. It is listening carefully. Members are doing their homework, their diligence here. There’ve been a lot of briefings in the course of the last week. We will have a full House briefing later today that I will take part in, a full Senate briefing tomorrow. I believe the President will then talk to the American people.

But what I think is important here – I met with a friend of mine, who is a member of the British parliament, who was telling me that even here, still, there are some people who question the evidence, who aren’t sure that, in the post-Iraq moment, we’re not going to be confronting a pre-Iraq presentation. And there’s a lot of fear of that. I understand that fear. I was in the Congress when we voted on Iraq. And I know the deficits of the intelligence back then. And that’s why we took our time very, very carefully. Secretary Chuck Hagel was Senator Hagel, as I was Senator Kerry. And both of us are determined now, as appointed officials of the Obama Administration, to do our utter best not to have history suggest that we were less than thorough with respect to this intelligence.

So we took more time. The President instructed that he wanted this story told as fully as was possible without compromising intelligence sources and methods. The intelligence community was instructed to release more information than we ever have previously in this kind of a situation. And so we declassified things that normally would not be declassified. And there’s a risk in that. But the risk of not having people understand the full measure of the evidence, I think, the President decided was greater.

So what have we put out to people? What do we know about this? Notwithstanding President Assad’s interview, which has not yet been made fully public, we know that his regime gave orders to prepare for a chemical attack. We know that they deployed forces and put them in the places where this took place. We know, by tracing it physically, where the rockets came from, and where they landed. And it is no accident that they all came from regime-controlled territory, and all landed in opposition-controlled or contested territory. We know this. We know that within moments of them landing in that territory, the social media exploded with videos that we also know could not be contrived. And we’ve done various means of ascertaining that through technology check-up. So we know that those are real, and we see people dying, children, young kids not old enough to even speak, heaving for breath, spasming, struggling. And we see all of that within instants of this happening in the very area that we traced that the rockets landed.

Then we hear and know the regime is issuing more instructions to stop the attack, and we know they issue instructions to their people that they’re worried about the UN inspectors finding out what was going on. And then they shell the area that was attacked for four days with four times – the – I can’t remember the exact number of shells that had occurred in the previous 10 days. And we also know, through confirmation through other technical means with other countries, acknowledgement this happened. Syria and Iran have admitted there was a chemical attack. They just try to blame it on people who have no scientific capacity to do this, and where there is no evidence that they have any of the weaponry to be able to do it. And, most importantly, just as a matter of logic, tell me how they would do it from the center of the regime-controlled area and put it into their own people. It defies logic. It defies common sense here.

So, the evidence is powerful. And the question for all of us is: What are we going to do about it? Turn our backs? Have a moment of silence, where a dictator can, with impunity, threaten the rest of the world that he’s going to retaliate for his own criminal activity because he’s being held accountable? We live in a dangerous world, as it is, folks. And that kind of threat is nothing different from the threat we face every single day. And if we don’t stand up to it, we’ll face it more, and they will think they can intimidate anybody. I don’t believe that we should shy from this moment. The risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting. And everybody needs to stop and think about that hard.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: And let me just add to that before the next question, and I think Secretary Kerry makes – I think the logic of what he says about the evidence is very, very compelling. But on the BBC’s question also about the latest remarks of President Assad, we mustn’t fall into the trap of attaching too much credibility to the words of a leader, President Assad, who has presided over so many war crimes and crimes against humanity, has shown such a murderous disregard for the welfare of his own people, often denied events that have happened, refused in the past to admit the existence of chemical weapons now acknowledged. So let’s not fall into the trap of believing every word that comes out of the mouth of such a man.

Next question?

MODERATOR: Margaret Brennan from CBS.

QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, in that CBS interview that you just referenced, Bashar al-Assad said that the presentation that you’ve made reminds him, quote, his words, “of the big lie that Colin Powell said in front of the world about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” He says you personally have presented no evidence of a chemical weapons attack, just your confidence and your convictions. And he disputes the argument you just laid out, his argument saying his government relies on reality, not social media, and says Russian intelligence contradicts this false evidence. What is your response?

And secondly, is there anything at this point that his government could do or offer that would stop an attack?

SECRETARY KERRY: Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.

But with respect to the credibility issue, look, I just answered that. I just gave you real evidence, evidence that, as a former prosecutor in the United States, I could tell you I can take into a courtroom and get admitted. And I believe this man – I mean, I’ve personally tried people who have gone away for long prison sentences or for life for less evidence than we have of this. So I’m confident about the state of the evidence.

You can go to whitehouse.gov, read the unclassified report, and make your own judgments. What does he offer? Words that are contradicted by facts. And he doesn’t have a very strong record with respect to this question of credibility, because I personally visited him once at the instruction of the White House to confront him on his transfer of Scud missiles to Hezbollah, which we knew had taken place and had all kinds of facts, and he sat there and simply denied it to my face, notwithstanding the evidence I presented and what we showed him.

So this is a man who has just killed, through his regime, over 1,000 of his own citizens. Over 100,000, or about 100,000, have been murdered over the course of the last months. He sent Scud missiles into schools. He sends airplanes to napalm children. Everybody has seen that. This is a man without credibility. And so I will happily stand anywhere in the world with the evidence that we have against his words and his deception and his acts.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Okay. Third question?

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, despite all of that evidence and all of the rhetoric you’ve deployed, the American voters, the British voters, and the French voters all opposed to military action in Syria. Why do you think that is? And what makes you think that you know better?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I would never claim personally to, quote, “know better.” There’s a certain arrogance in that that I learned long ago in American elected life is not – doesn’t serve you very well. But I would say that a lot of folks have a visceral reaction to public people presenting evidence post-Iraq, where they have serious doubts without sort of seeing all of the evidence, and not everybody has or does.

And also, there’s just an instant reaction by a lot of people to say, “Whoa, here we go again. This is going to be Iraq, this is going to be Afghanistan.” And I understand that. I am very sympathetic to that feeling. If I weren’t in the Administration and I didn’t have access to what I have, I’m sure I would have the exact same reaction. I’d probably be very questioning of public people. That’s why I’m standing up here today. That’s why I went to the European community. That’s why I will be briefing Congress, together with other members of the Administration. That’s why the President will talk to the American people. Because our responsibility is to share what we know, and to lead, and to try to bring people to a point where they can agree with us, hopefully.

Now, I believe that the aftermath of the Iraq experience and Afghanistan leave a lot of people saying, "We don’t want to see our young people coming back in a body bag," and so forth. But that’s not what we’re talking about. And what we have to do is make clear to people that this is – we’re not talking about war. We’re not going to war. We will not have people at risk in that way. We will be able to hold Bashar Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we’re talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.

Now, that has been engaged in previously on many different occasions. President Reagan had a – several hours or whatever effort to send a message to Qadhafi in the wake, I think, of Pan Am 103 and other terrorist activities. Other times people have engaged in making it clear that you’ve got to draw a line, and that there are consequences for actions when people step over those lines. If you don’t draw those lines, and the civilized world is not prepared to enforce those lines, you are giving complete license to people to do whatever they want and to feel that they can do so with impunity. If you want to send Iran and Hezbollah and Assad a congratulatory message, you guys can do what you want. You’d say – don’t do anything. We believe that’s dangerous. And we will face this down the road in some more significant way if we’re not prepared to take some kind of a stand now.

So that’s our argument. It’s not that I know better or someone knows better. It’s an argument that we believe is based on fact, on evidence, on history. And we ask people to take a close look at it and make their own judgments.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: One more question from the American media.

MODERATOR: Michael Gordon from The New York Times.

QUESTION: Yes, a question for Mr. Hague, the Foreign Secretary: Sir, now that the British parliament has decided against British participation in a potential military strike in Syria, is there any way in which your government might do more in Syria by, say, arming the opposition or upgrading nonlethal material assistance to the rebels? Or, in deference to public opinion at home and your parliament’s decision, is your government essentially relegated to standing on the sidelines and providing moral support?

And, sir, would you support military action by the Obama Administration, even if the American Congress does not vote for that action?

And then a question for Secretary Kerry: Sir, would the Obama Administration consider releasing still more intelligence, or perhaps some of the physical evidence of sarin use, which you have not yet provided, to counter Mr. Assad’s assertions? And is there any concrete intelligence that links Mr. Assad directly to the attack? Do you have such information or not? And do you think it matters if you don’t have such information? Thank you.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: On the first part of that question, you can gather from some of my opening remarks that the UK is heavily engaged in many other ways in trying to address the problems of the – thrown up by the crisis in Syria. The Prime Minister convened the meeting at the G-20 of nations and organizations looking at how we seriously ramp up the humanitarian assistance, renew diplomatic efforts on getting humanitarian access, which has been one of the great problems. This is a regime that actually tries to prevent humanitarian aid getting to its own people; in some cases, removes medical supplies or obstructs medical supplies from getting to the right place.

So, the Prime Minister convened that meeting with the strong support of the United States. We have led the way in the latest round of increased donations to the humanitarian effort with that extra 52 million pounds. So the UK is at the forefront, with the United States and others, of that piece of work. And it will become all the more important in the coming months.

We’re also doing a great deal to assist the stability of neighboring countries, and particularly Lebanon and Jordan, and the direct assistance we give to the Lebanese armed forces and to Jordan, including equipment to help the Jordanian armed forces cope on their border. We are heavily engaged at the United Nations and in all forums in the continuous efforts over recent months to bring about a Geneva 2 peace process.

And with the opposition with the Syrian National Coalition, who I met last week, and who I – who we can regard – who I – we can regard as a democratic, non-sectarian opposition, we do give them a great deal of practical, nonlethal assistance. That has included the delivery in recent days of equipment to protect against chemical attack, escape hoods, injections, detector paper that will help people to survive chemical attacks. We’re looking at doing more of that in the future.

And so, as you can see, the United Kingdom is, in very many ways, trying to bring about a – working with the United States and our other allies – trying to bring about a political solution in Syria and alleviate the suffering of the people there and prevent the spread of the crisis to other countries. So involving all of those ways, while fully respecting the vote in our parliament, on our attitude to a decision of the United States, that is for United States. We have our own constitution and parliamentary complications and rules. We will leave it to the United States to address their issues. These are two – the two great homes, two of the greatest homes of democracy in the world, and they each work in slightly different ways. And that – we each have to respect the way each other’s democracy works. And we do.

John?

SECRETARY KERRY: And we do. That’s for sure. I don’t know – honestly, I just don’t know whether the President will make a decision to release more, whether there is a consensus that more needs to be released. We have released an unprecedented amount of information. And obviously, there is a risk in some of this, because you can conceivably, in certain circumstances, compromise your ability to be able to intercept a plot or track what terrorists are thinking about and planning. And so you have to be very, very careful in those judgments, and that’s exactly what the intelligence community – that’s why it took a while to get to where we are.

But – and this is very, very important – but the elected representatives of the American people, members of Congress, have a right to go to the intelligence committees and to the intelligence community and be briefed. So it’s not being hidden from people. And they can be the judges of that additional intelligence that they see or don’t see, which is how a republic works.

With respect to Assad directly, et cetera, the chemical weapons in Syria we have tracked for some period of time now are controlled in a very tight manner by the Assad regime. And it is Bashar al-Assad and Maher al-Assad, his brother, and a general who are the three people who have control over the movement and use of chemical weapons. But under any circumstances, the Assad regime is the Assad regime. And the regime issues orders. And we have high-level regime that have been caught giving these instructions and engaging in these preparations with results going directly to President Assad. And we’re aware of that.

So we have no issue about the question here of responsibility. There is none. The Assad regime is the Assad regime. They control these weapons. They have a huge stock of these weapons, a very threatening level stock that remains. And that’s why this issue is of such consequence and so important. And there is no issue whatsoever in the mind of the intelligence community or the Administration, or certainly in the minds of all those people like Senator Feinstein, who is the head of the Intelligence Committee and Saxby Chambliss, the ranking member, and others who have come to a conclusion that the regime, in fact, engaged in this activity.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Friday, January 4, 2013

JOINT STATEMENT ON MEETINGS BETWEEN PRESIDENTS OF SUDAN AND SOUTH SUDAN

Sudan
South Sudan
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

Joint Statement by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, and United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague



Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
January 3, 2013


Following is the text of a joint statement by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, and United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Begin Text:

We welcome the news that the Presidents of Sudan and South Sudan are to meet in Addis Ababa on 4 January in a further effort to resolve outstanding issues between the two countries.

We applaud the progress made at their Presidential Summit held in Addis Ababa at the end of September 2012, which demonstrated that a durable and equitable settlement is within reach.

We commend the continuing valuable role of the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel led by former President Thabo Mbeki and the efforts of Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn.

We regret that progress in implementing the Agreements signed on 27 September has stalled and in particular that the agreed security arrangements at the border are not yet in place. We call on the two leaders now to address concretely all outstanding issues and ensure that the armed forces of the two countries immediately withdraw from the demilitarized zone and deploy the Joint Border and Verification and Monitoring Mechanism (JBVMM), in line with what has been agreed.

We stress the importance of making progress in parallel on other parts of the relationship between the two countries. Full implementation of all agreements on their own terms and without preconditions or linkages between them, will help build confidence and benefit the people of the two countries. The restart of oil production and export will be particularly valuable for both economies and should not be held up by negotiation on other issues.

We underline our support for the approach taken by the African Union to the question of Abyei. The proposal made by former President Mbeki is based on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, including the Abyei Protocol. The proposal, adopted by AUPSC on October 24, sets out a clear path towards determining Abyei’s final status in accordance with agreements already signed by both parties, while protecting the rights of all communities and ensuring Abyei can become a model for cross-border cooperation and coexistence. We note in particular that the proposal provides for Abyei’s continuing special status as a bridge between the two countries with guaranteed political and economic rights for both the Ngok Dinka and Misseriya, whatever the outcome of the referendum. We urge the two countries to meet to elaborate on these rights and to move toward agreement on Abyei’s final status.

We remind the leaders of Sudan and South Sudan that the international community is fully committed to a vision of two viable countries at peace with one another, and that we stand ready to support them in realizing that vision. We strongly urge them to seize the opportunity of the Summit meeting on 4 January to demonstrate their commitment to implement what they have agreed and make peaceful coexistence a reality.

Map Credits:  CIA World Factbook.


Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed