INTERNET FREEDOM AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS LAW

Photo:  Statue of Liberty and Coast Guard patrol.  Credit:  Wikimedia. 
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Two Cases for Internet Freedom
Remarks Philip L. Verveer
Coordinator for International Communications & Information Policy Winnik Telecom and Internet Forum
Hogan Lovells, Washington, DC
May 12, 2012
 I am very grateful to Hogan Lovells and to my friends in its communications practice for the invitation to deliver these remarks.
I first met Joel Winnik nearly 35 years ago when we both worked at the Federal Communications Commission. Joel’s many outstanding qualities are well known to his colleagues in the communications bar. But beyond those qualities, there is one thing about him that has always marked him apart for me. Joel was the first lawyer I ever met who specialized in international communications law.

In this, he was prescient. When he began practicing international communications law, the sector almost universally consisted of state-owned monopolies. There were perhaps one billion telephone connections in world. And here “telephone” is a material qualification, because apart from telex services, voice connections were about the only thing available for international communications. Some international calls went by undersea cables, some by satellite, and some by high frequency radio.

The international regulatory concerns of the day involved such things as AT&T’s preferred use of undersea cables in which it had an ownership interest rather than communications satellites in which it did not; the consequences of the Congressional decision to appoint the Communications Satellite Corporation as the chosen instrument for our participation in International satellite communications; and disputes between Western Union and the International Record Carriers, who were the international suppliers of what we now would now call ultra slow speed data service.

Although Joel died too young, he lived long enough—and he contributed to—a great transformation in international telecommunications. Today there are almost no true monopolies in telecommunications—thanks to changes in public policy around the world and to wireless technology. There are approximately eight billion connections—an astounding increase that has contributed immeasurably to the well being of the world’s population. New institutions of great significance—ICANN, IETF, the Internet Society, and the World Wide Web Consortium, among others—have come into existence. And, most remarkably, the increase in the amount of information accessible almost instantaneously to anyone with an Internet connection anywhere in the world ranges well beyond anything anyone could have imagined when Joel began practicing international communications law.

Joel’s work as a government and private attorney contributed to all of these developments. It represents a very tangible accomplishment in which Joel’s family, friends, and professional colleagues can and should take pride.

These developments continue to produce changes so fundamental in economics, politics, culture, and social relationships that we cannot hope to understand them in any comprehensive way. As Hegel said, “The owl of Minerva flies only at dusk,” and we are much closer to sunrise than to sunset.

But we do know some things. One of them—a very important thing about which we can feel very secure—is that the Internet is a great enabler of human expression, association, and assembly; and another thing—about which we can feel equally confident—is that the Internet is a great enabler of increases in material well being. One of the most important responsibilities confronting us today is assuring that these Internet-related opportunities are not impaired. This is a responsibility not just to ourselves and our descendants, but to people like Joel whose life’s work helped to provide the opportunities.

At the State Department, one aspect of this responsibility involves Internet Freedom. This is what I propose to elaborate upon.

A great deal has been and continues to be written and debated about Internet Freedom. Most of it, understandably, involves the extent of the Internet’s intrinsic utility in addressing and solving the very acute geopolitical problems of the day. One prominent example: the disputes involving the significance of the Internet in the Middle Eastern and North African political upheavals of the last eighteen months. Or, closer to home, of the never ending effort to find the optimal balance between the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the broader society in the use of the Internet. An example: the extraordinarily contentious disputes about proposed approaches to the protection of intellectual property in cyberspace. The recent books of Evgeny Morozov and Rebecca MacKinnon, among many others, provide examples.

I will prescind from these important immediate and practical concerns. Instead, I will very briefly offer my thoughts on the fundamental case for Internet freedom. Or, to say it differently, on the proposition that—explicitly or implicitly—we hold out when we address governments on the subject of Internet Freedom.

That case, of course, is not entirely divorced from considerations of utility. But, as we shall see, the assertions associated with principle are more fully developed than the assertions associated with material advantage.

The interest of Secretary Clinton and of the State Department as an institution in Internet Freedom falls squarely within the traditional functions of diplomacy. Diplomacy is conventionally said to involve three things—security, prosperity, and values. Internet Freedom addresses values and prosperity in a direct way and, we believe, through them, security.

This suggests that Internet Freedom relies on two bases—rights, specifically human rights, and economics. Both of these foster security.

Secretary Clinton has addressed Internet Freedom on several occasions. Her remarks have been wide-ranging, but they begin with the premise that freedom of expression, of association, and of assembly are fundamental human rights. They are innate. Each human being is entitled to them by virtue of being human, not by virtue of a grant from a governing authority. These rights are reflected—again, not granted, but acknowledged—in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Championed by Eleanor Roosevelt, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, with eight abstentions but without dissent, in 1948. Article 19 holds that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” is the embodiment of the rights-based case for Internet Freedom, articulated some two decades before the concepts that, reduced to practice, became the Internet.

The Uniform Declaration is just that, a declaration. While it enjoys great moral authority, it is not binding, in the sense of international law. But the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, derived from the Universal Declaration, is. Adopted by the General Assembly in 1966, but also signed and ratified by most nations, with some notable exceptions, it is a binding, multilateral treaty. Article 19.2 mirrors the Universal Declaration in holding that:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

From a juridical perspective, then, there is a compelling case for Internet Freedom grounded in human rights. The problem, of course, is that it is not enough to persuade countries that have strong reasons to interfere with Internet Freedom.

This is why the economics case for Internet Freedom—the case appealing to more immediate self-interest—is very important. And, as I am about to describe, that case is not as well developed as the rights-based case.

The economic case for Internet Freedom is grounded on at least two propositions. The first is that interfering with the use of the Internet as a commercial channel inevitably will impose costs. We might think of this as the transactional case. This raises the question of whether it is possible to interfere with the Internet as a transmitter of political and related ideas while maintaining it at full, or at least acceptable, efficiency for economic purposes. The second proposition is more fundamental. It is based on the intuition that serious reductions in the free flow of ideas will harm a society’s ability to engage in innovation and thus ultimately will handicap economic growth. We might think of this as the cultural/psychological case in the sense the effects of censorship and repression on culture and behavior.

Secretary Clinton addressed both of these matters in her second Internet Freedom speech:
Walls that divide the internet, that block political content, or ban broad categories of expression, or allow certain forms of peaceful assembly but prohibit others, or intimidate people from expressing their ideas are far easier to erect than to maintain. Not just because people using human ingenuity find ways around them and through them but because there isn’t an economic internet and a social internet and a political internet: there’s just the internet. And maintaining barriers that attempt to change this reality entails a variety of costs—moral, political, and economic. Countries may be able to absorb these costs for a time, but we believe they are unsustainable in the long run. There are opportunity costs for trying to be open for business but closed for free expression—costs to a nation’s education system, its political stability, its social mobility, and its economic potential.

In both of these propositions, we are involved in an assessment of costs and benefits. If a government’s highest priority is regime preservation, it may be willing to pay any cost to secure it. History gives us too many examples of this, but we do not need to go beyond the present case of North Korea to appreciate both that the phenomenon exists and that the willingness to pay any cost is appalling in terms of its consequences.

Fortunately, we do not have many contemporaneous examples of countries that approach the regime stability-economic growth equation with the ferocity of North Korea, but we do have many that are making a bet that they can secure the Internet’s economic benefits without incurring unacceptable costs. They do this through censorship—in the modern way through technology and in the time-tested way through intimidation.
To dilate on the use of technology, the problems for governments attempting to rely on filtering and firewalls to keep out unwanted ideas involve both effectiveness and overbreadth. The more fully the screening of information, the more certain it is that the screens will catch too much. They will exclude information that would be valuable for commercial purposes, impair marketing and sales, and complicate supply chain cooperation. It is not hard to imagine why these kinds of problems are certain to arise. If a country is intent on keeping its citizens in ignorance about matters that might seem politically unsettling, it must constantly adjust what is acceptable and what is not. Given news cycles that have been compressed to minutes by the Internet, censorship requires literally constant judgments. And if the individuals responsible for censorship face greater sanctions for errors of omission than of commission, it is inevitable that economically valuable material will be excluded.

So this is the transactional case. What of the second proposition involving culture and psychology?

There is a strong and widely held belief that Internet Freedom produces economic benefits in fundamental ways, separate and apart from its transactional value. But at least as far as I am aware, this hasn’t yet been the object of extensive scholarship. What might confirm this intuition of deeper economic benefit?

This obviously is related to the far larger matter of the prerequisites for economic growth. As it happens, we have a reasonably clear sense of what they are. Sustained economic growth requires a stable level of security where citizens have protection from violence from both internal and external sources. So a state is necessary, but so are appropriate and effective institutions. The state must be what Professors Acemoglu and Robinson in their recent book Why Nations Failcall inclusive and non-extractive. Opportunities to amass wealth must be widely available rather than limited to a small, politically powerful segment of the population. And those with governing authority must not make excessive extractions of the society’s wealth. They must not be rent seekers, pursuing the accumulation of wealth for themselves, their families, and their retainers, a phenomenon that continues to be all too prevalent in our world.

The ideal, then, involves the creation of a legal and regulatory milieu that is conducive to investment. This prototypically consists of a stable, reliable rule of law that, among other things, assures that contractual commitments are honored. The ideal also involves an autonomous judiciary for purposes of arbitration of disputes and to oversee those matters that warrant the imposition of social controls.

We need these institutional arrangements for purposes of economic growth, but there remains the interesting possibility that Internet Freedom has a critical connection to innovation—a connection that involves respect for and encouragement of personal autonomy. At the risk of intruding on the prerogatives of the tenured, I would like to propose one approach to the question based on an historical analogy. This follows the suggestion of Thomas Spavins, a valued colleague who has been providing his expert advice on all things related to the Internet.

Economic historians have addressed the question of why over the last five centuries Western Europe has experienced a great increase in wealth. One of the most prominent academicians, Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University, has produced very important insights. Professor Mokyr identifies several relevant factors. One is especially intriguing for present purposes. It involves the freedom of individuals to pursue their ideas as they wished, free from the strictures of authority. To quote Professor Mokyr, it is:
the Enlightenment notion of freedom of expression. In our age, we think of technological change as natural and obvious; indeed, we consider its absence a source of concern. Not so in the past: inventors were seen as disrespectful, rebelling against the existing order, threatening the stability of the regime and the Church, and jeopardizing employment. In the eighteenth century, this notion slowly began to give way to tolerance, to the belief that those with odd notions should be allowed to subject them to a market test. … Words like “heretic” to describe innovators began to disappear.

This insight, it seems to me, provides an entirely plausible basis for the belief that Internet Freedom leads to innovation and economic growth. Or, stated differently, that the absence of Internet Freedom diminishes a society’s economic growth. In any event, scholars would perform a material service to all of us interested in information and communications technologies if they would take up the study of Internet Freedom, either in the manner of Professor Mokyr or otherwise.

There is one more thing to consider. The Enlightenment experience had another feature that is self-evidently relevant to the Age of the Internet and the freedom to spread of its benefits. To quote Professor Mokyr again:

To bring about the progress that they envisioned—to solve pragmatic problems of industry, agriculture, medicine, and navigation—European scientists realized that they needed to accumulate a solid body of knowledge and that this required, above all, reliable communications. They churned out encyclopedias, compendiums, dictionaries, and technical volumes—the search engines of their day—in which useful knowledge was organized, cataloged, classified, and made as available as possible. … The age of Enlightenment was also the age of the “Republic of Science,” a transnational, informal community in which European scientists relied on an epistolary network to read, critique, translate, and sometimes plagiarize one another’s ideas and work. Nationality mattered little, it seemed, compared with the shared goal of human progress.
“The shared goal of human progress” seems like an appropriate place to end my speculations.

There are, then, two pillars on which Internet Freedom rests. Internet Freedom is right and it is useful. In a better world, it would be sufficient that it is right. But until human nature and this world experience improvement, it matters that Internet Freedom is useful.

I don’t have any difficulty accepting Internet Freedom’s value in the generation of wealth. But for purposes of persuading the present and future leaders of Administrations that may be less sure of this, the attention of the academy to this matter would be entirely welcome.
Thank you.

BELARUS RELEASES TWO POLITICAL PRISONERS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Release of Political Prisoners in Belarus
Press Statement Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 16, 2012
The United States notes the release of former Belarusian presidential candidate Andrei Sannikau and his campaign manager Zmitser Bandarenka. This, coupled with previous releases, represents a significant step. We urge the Government of Belarus to immediately and unconditionally free all remaining political prisoners and ensure the full restoration of their civil and political rights. Enhanced respect for democracy and human rights remains central to improving relations between the United States and Belarus.

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 13, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

12:57 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. Just a brief statement at the top, and then perhaps can answer some of your questions about the situation in Guinea-Bissau.
We strongly condemn the attempt by certain elements of the military to undermine the legitimate civilian leadership of Guinea-Bissau. We regret that they have chosen to disrupt the democratic process, which already was challenged by the opposition’s call to boycott the second round of presidential elections. We urge all parties to put down their weapons, release government leaders immediately, and restore legitimate civilian leadership. And we’re clearly deeply concerned about the safety of all those in Bissau today, and we’re going to continue to work with our partners in the region and beyond as we monitor developments.
Matt.
QUESTION: That’s it?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: To say – have you decided – no decision has been made about – on aid or anything like that?
MR. TONER: No. I mean it’s – look. It’s – we’ve got a situation that’s still developing, events still unfolding. But as I mentioned, since the evening of April 12th, it looks like military forces have taken control of radio and television stations. They remain off the air, as well as seized the headquarters of the ruling party for the independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde party and are attempting to restrict movement. So we obviously strongly condemn this attempt to undermine the civilian authority there. We want it restored as soon as possible.
QUESTION: Right. Okay. Well, then, in the interest of saving time on a beautiful Friday afternoon --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- I’ve got three really quick ones.
MR. TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: One, two, three. You can just – do you have anything new to say about North Korea that hasn’t been said by the Secretary – what is she – the White House Secretary or Susan Rice at the UN?
Two, do you anything new to say about the Pakistani parliament and the rules of engagement, or whatever they’re calling them, that wasn’t said in Toria’s statement of last night?
And three, do you have anything new to say about the P-5+1 talks tomorrow?
MR. TONER: No, no, and no. (Laughter.) But I think I’ll still get the questions. I don’t think everyone’s as single-minded as you are. But thanks, Matt. I appreciate that, actually. Any other questions you want to –
QUESTION: I have one on North Korea? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just about the IAEA --
MR. TONER: I couldn’t resist.
QUESTION: -- monitors. Yeah. Is this – does the U.S. still support sending IAEA monitors into North Korea after the launch?
MR. TONER: It’s a fair question. I mean, obviously, that’s something for you to ask the IAEA. I know – I don’t – I’m not aware of where they’re at, frankly, on deliberations about that monitoring mission. I mean, obviously, what we’ve seen in the past week or so since – or two weeks or so since North Korea announced its intention and then moved ahead with this launch has been the same old, same old with North Korea. And we’re obviously very concerned about the situation there, so – yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just two, like a short one and a kind of longer.
MR. TONER: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: First, on the food aid. Will – nothing had been delivered, right? There was no --
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: So is there any technical thing that we have to look at in terms of food aid? Do you just stop it? Nothing happens? There’s nothing in the pipeline floating around Asia that might has to be – have to be pulled back, or anything like that?
MR. TONER: I don’t believe so. My understanding where we were at shortly after the Leap Day agreement or statement was that they – a team tried to finalize some of the arrangements to be made on food assistance. But then when we had the announcement by North Korea that it was moving ahead with this satellite launch, then we suspended that program.
QUESTION: And then a longer format question.
MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just in terms of the approach and the policy of the United States right now, I mean, where does engagement go? Is this – we just turn our backs and say you have done what the world didn’t want you to do, and we don’t talk? Because the President did leave open the door, still, of engagement. But realistically, what happens?
MR. TONER: Well, you are correct that the White House statement yesterday did note that the door does remain open for engagement, or that we’re prepared to engage constructively with North Korea. But as we’ve said many times, we’re not going to reward bad behavior with engagement. And in fact – and we don’t, as you’ve often heard us say, don’t want to engage in talks for talks’ sake.
And so as we move forward – you talked about where we’re at diplomatically. I mean, I think first, we’re in intensive consultations with all our Six-Party colleagues. And in fact, the Secretary has already spoken today, I believe, with China – Chinese Foreign Minister Yang, and then yesterday with South Korea’s Foreign Minister Kim, and of course, with the G-8 here, she also had the opportunity to speak intensively on this matter with Foreign Minister Lavrov, as well as -- where am I forgetting, who else she spoke with --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Sorry?
QUESTION: (Off-mike).
MR. TONER: But anyway, these consultations continue intensively, and moving forward, we’re going to continue to talk with them as we talk about next steps. Obviously, discussions are ongoing today, and Ambassador Rice just gave a readout, in fact, of the Security Council meeting on North Korea’s launch. But I think it’s going to be – I guess if I was trying to characterize it, we’re going to consult, we’re going to move together in a unified manner, and we’re going to – when we do take action, we’re going to do so in a deliberate way.
QUESTION: And just one other thing. The Secretary indicated, and I think Toria in her previous briefing, said often actions from North Korea come in twos or threes. So the obvious next step would be for them to move toward some type of nuclear testing. Is the U.S. picking up any indications from them that they are – I’m not talking about even spies, but – or that type of intelligence, but are you picking up any indication that they are now going to move to that?
MR. TONER: Well, first of all, my do-over. When I was talking about Foreign Minister Lavrov and then, of course, had my brain freeze – that’s what a week in Florida will do to you – I meant Foreign Minister Gemba to add as well. So she’s had a chance to consult with the Japanese, with the Russians, and now reached out subsequently after the launch with South Korea and China.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Thank you. Anyway, to answer your – your question was about talk about a nuclear test. I mean, obviously, I can’t talk about intelligence matters from the podium. In the past we’ve seen a pattern, if you will, to North Korea’s bad behavior, but I can’t talk, obviously, about any intelligence matters. So –
QUESTION: On North Korea, did you – what the Chinese are saying – what kind of a role they have played or – in this process or as far as missile launch is concerned?
MR. TONER: Just rewinding Goyal, the first part of your question was who?
QUESTION: What role you think Chinese played in this process with North Korea as far as missile launch?
MR. TONER: Well, the Secretary, as I just said, had a good opportunity – or an opportunity to have a good conversation with the Chinese foreign minister this morning. One of the things that she stressed was the need to obviously consult closely with other members of the Six-Party team, if you will, and that we move together in a deliberate and unified way to speak out and condemn this action. So we’re cooperating closely, consulting closely with China. And obviously they’ve got a very important role.
Sorry, to just finish up --
QUESTION: Sorry.
MR. TONER: They’ve – we’re asking them to use their relationship with North Korea to convey our concern about their recent actions.
QUESTION: And finally, what are you telling the regional nations like South Korea and Japan and others now, because they were angry before that they will take action? And where do we stand now as far as regional nations are concerned of the threat in the region?
MR. TONER: Where do we stand now with other – well, as I said, I think the international community is rightly concerned, as I said, given North Korea’s launch yesterday but also its behavior in the past, this pattern of bad behavior. And so we’re going to consult very closely with other Six-Party colleagues as we move forward and speak out in a unified voice.
QUESTION: Could I follow up on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just with the food aid, the nutritional assistance.
MR. TONER: Sure. Thank you.
QUESTION: As far as the U.S. is concerned, is this completely null and void, the Leap Year agreement and everything, in light of what North Korea has done? Or could food aid potentially – if their behavior changes in the weeks and months to come, could food aid be resumed or the plan for food aid be resumed, or is this completely over at this point?
MR. TONER: I guess I would answer that by saying that North Korea’s behavior to date since we signed this agreement has – as we’ve discussed several times, has raised doubts about their ability to live up to their obligations and their commitments. And so given their willingness to flout international obligations and move ahead with a launch that was clearly in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, that we don’t feel we can move forward at any level, including at the nutritional assistance level, because we don’t feel that we can frankly trust the North Koreans that this will end up in appropriate hands.
QUESTION: Is that – I mean, in your view, is that linking politics with the humanitarian situation? I mean, are there still concerns about – I mean, aid groups --
MR. TONER: I think it’s – I think it’s simply acknowledging that if you can’t trust the government to live up to its commitments on – in one aspect of – then you can certainly not expect it to live up to its commitments on another aspect. And so these – as we’ve talked about all along, nutritional assistance needs to be credibly monitored. We need to ensure that it goes in the hands of the people who need it and who it’s designed for. And so if we can’t trust North Korea to live up to its commitments in terms of its activities and launch of ballistic missiles, then we feel that we can’t trust it on the nutritional assistance that it will get to the appropriate people.
QUESTION: And just – the February 29th agreement as a whole, is the United States still looking for North Korea to comply with that, or is that – as far as you’re concerned, that’s just – that’s over, that’s (inaudible)?
MR. TONER: I would say – I mean, the word I’d say is “suspended” given the current state of –
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Another subject?
QUESTION: Pakistan, please?
QUESTION: Still on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Let’s go – yeah, you had your hand up for Pakistan.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Are we done with North Korea?
QUESTION: No. Still on North Korea.
MR. TONER: North Korea. Sorry. Tomoko, finish up with that.
QUESTION: Would you say one of the reason that they failed the launch is the current sanction on North Korea?
MR. TONER: Look, you’re asking me to – I have absolutely no idea. I would point you in the direction of NORAD or NORTHCOM, who can provide you with a detailed technical analysis of the launch, or to the Government of North Korea, which I think acknowledged the launch’s failure.
Yeah. Go – oh, are you still on North Korea?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Sure. Sorry. I will get to Pakistan. Sorry.
QUESTION: You’ve been referring to the missile launch activity as “deal breaker.” And I remember you using the word “abrogation” as well. But you just said the White House statement still leaves some room open for some talk. Has your position changed? Is the Leap deal agreement effective as of today?
MR. TONER: I just – the White House statement, I think, simply said that we’re prepared to engage constructively with North Korea, but only a North Korea that wants to engage constructively with the rest of the world. And until we see that type of pattern of behavior, then that’s not going to be possible.
QUESTION: So is a deal – was a deal breaker? Did it break the deal? Is the deal still effective?
MR. TONER: We think it was a deal breaker. Yeah.
Yeah, go ahead. Now Pakistan.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you, Mark. These rules of engagement, these are actually recommendations from the Pakistani parliament to negotiate a future relationship with the United States. So do you plan to reengage them? Do you plan to discuss a future relationship with them? Do you have any schedule in mind – future meetings, visits? Are you looking for a midway for building a new relationship particularly on the issue of drones and other issues that they have raised?
MR. TONER: I mean, I – it’s a very good question. I mean, I don’t have any announcements to make today about upcoming trips or travel. I do --
QUESTION: You’ve got someone pretty senior there right now.
MR. TONER: Well, I was going to – I was getting there. I was going to say that our USAID Administrator Raj Shah is on the ground right now in Pakistan. And I think that speaks to what we talked about a little bit in the past weeks, is that we’ve already seen in the past weeks and month or so a reengagement at a high level both with the President’s conversation with President Zardari and then subsequent visits by Deputy Secretary Nides and others. We’ve been reengaging already with – at a high level with the Pakistani Government.
But nothing to announce in terms of next steps or next – or upcoming trips or travel, beyond the fact that what we said yesterday, which is that we are ready to engage with the Pakistani Government on this parliamentary review and on the issues that it has raised. We want to build a very constructive relationship with Pakistan and one that is based on mutual understanding.
QUESTION: Are you looking for a meeting point? I mean, they have come up with certain demands, and you would probably have something --
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear your question. Are we looking for --
QUESTION: A meeting point for a future relationship. I mean, you probably would go with some of your points, some of your demands. And so do you think – how would you build up this relationship? What will be the basis for this?
MR. TONER: I do think we’re ready to have – as we’ve said many times, we’re awaiting the end of this parliamentary review. And my understanding, in fact, is that this still has to be – obviously, there’s still a little bit left in this political process. It still has to be approved by the cabinet, is my understanding.
But as we move forward, we definitely want to engage, to talk about the breadth of issues that have been raised in this parliamentary review and to come to a better understanding of our relationship.
QUESTION: Did they tell you that these are not binding on the government?
MR. TONER: Did they --
QUESTION: Did they tell you that these recommendations are not binding on the government; the government does not have to follow them in letter and spirit?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we’re – we’ve talked a lot about this parliamentary review. We’re going to engage with the Pakistani Government in a way that listens to their concerns, recognizes their needs in the relationship, recognizes that this is a shared relationship and a shared commitment, and move forward.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Who is Shah seeing while he’s there, and will he be discussing any of the things that are in the Pakistani demands, list of demands?
MR. TONER: He did actually meet with Foreign Minister Khar today, and that is all I have just from – I’m not sure – was he supposed to meet with President Zardarai? Thank you. Yes. But I’m not sure when that meeting is taking place.
QUESTION: Do you know if they’ll be talking about any of --
MR. TONER: Not to my understanding. No, he’s – I mean, he’s there to talk about our civil assistance – civilian assistance, rather.
QUESTION: Is there – and what about that? Is there some --
MR. TONER: Well, that’s been --
QUESTION: What are the issues with that?
MR. TONER: I mean, that has continued throughout this parliamentary review and throughout the turmoil, if you will, in the relationship post November 26. So that’s been ongoing. That has not stopped. So he’s there to review those programs.
QUESTION: Mark, there are four major demands. One, are you ready to apologize? They’re asking for the 24 Pakistani soldiers who were killed. Two, stop all the drone and other attacks. And three, that Pakistani should be treated just like you treat India. And fourth, finally, that Pakistan should be a given a nuclear – civil nuclear just like to India.
MR. TONER: Goyal, those are a nice try to get me to negotiate and talk about that ongoing relationship from the podium, but let’s let us sit down with our senior officials, sit down with Pakistan’s senior officials, and discuss it.
QUESTION: No, this is what --
MR. TONER: Sure, Goyal.
QUESTION: Sorry. This is what I am saying that this is what has been going on in the media in Pakistan every day and in discussions among those politicians and all that. That’s --
MR. TONER: No, I think we’re aware of some of the concerns that the parliamentary review raised. And they’re – frankly, some of them are not new to us, so we’re going to engage.
QUESTION: You said that you’d talk about the breadth of the whole thing, correct? That would be every subject that you’re willing to talk about with them?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if we would talk about every subject under the sun. We’d talk about --
QUESTION: No, no. Every subject that they raised, you’re willing to talk about, including --
MR. TONER: Well, we’re going to talk to them about our civilian cooperation as well as our counterterrorism cooperation, security cooperation --
QUESTION: So you’re willing to talk with them about the drone strikes?
MR. TONER: You know I can’t talk about any intelligence matters.
QUESTION: You can’t talk about it with us. Can you talk about it with them?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we have very robust counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, is this something – they put this on the table. Are you – is this something that’s on the table for the U.S.?
MR. TONER: I’ll just say that we’re going to talk about aspects – all aspects of our relationship moving forward.
QUESTION: You’re going to talk about all aspects of what they raised?
MR. TONER: Including counterterrorism cooperation, but you know --
QUESTION: Does that include – is that your understanding? Does that include drone strikes?
MR. TONER: I cannot address that point.
QUESTION: But wait – forget about the word – the two words “drone” and “strike.” You are willing – the U.S. is going to talk to them about everything that’s in this review?
MR. TONER: I think we’re willing to address their concerns moving forward and find a middle ground.
QUESTION: Well, without naming them, are there some issues that you’re not willing to talk about?
MR. TONER: Again, let’s let these conversations move forward until – and I’m not going to – we’re not going to take anything off the table or put anything on the table.
QUESTION: Can I talk about India-Pakistan relations going on now at the --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- especially at the Atari border, a lot of activities are going on between India and Pakistan people-to-people and trades, and they want to open the borders and cultures and trade relations and opening. As far as Mr. Shah, sir, being in Pakistan today, is he discussing any of these things or that as far as opening of the – a lot of things that people-to-people between the two countries after especially the President Zardari’s visit to India?
MR. TONER: It’s a fair question, Goyal. I can’t tell you specifically whether it’s being raised in his conversations. Of course, you know where we stand. We support improved relations, better dialogue, more people-to-people exchanges. Everything you essentially just ran through we view as a very positive development. But I can’t preclude that he’s – it’s going to be raised in some of his conversations.
Yeah. In the back. Sorry.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Staying in the region --
QUESTION: Can we stay on Pakistan, please?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Pakistani Finance Minister Hafeez Shaikh is coming to town this week – weekend. Is he meeting anyone in this building next week?
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: India’s movie star Shah Rukh Khan was detained at a New York airport yesterday. Do you know why he was detained for the second time in two years, and what are the reasons? Is there something pending against him? Do you suspect something against him?
MR. TONER: Well, I can say we are certainly aware, as you stated, that he was temporarily delayed before admission at the White Plains, New York airport. He was – or is apparently, or was apparently traveling to an event at Yale University. And we have, obviously, the utmost respect for Mr. Khan and his work both as an artist and a humanitarian. And we offer our apologies for any discomfort or inconvenience he may have suffered as a result of this incident.
QUESTION: What were the reasons for delay, and how long was the delay?
MR. TONER: Well, I’d refer you to the TSA for any specific questions about the incident.
QUESTION: Have you received any official communication from Indian Government?
MR. TONER: We have. Both the Indian Ministry of External Affairs as well as the Indian Embassy in Washington have expressed their concern.
QUESTION: This for the second time that he was detained or delayed at the airport in U.S. And first time after he was detained, you had said this will not be repeated again. So what happened this time?
MR. TONER: Well, again, my understanding – you used the word “detained.” I’ve been told he was simply delayed. But in any case, I wouldn’t necessarily look at this as some sort of pattern but rather two separate incidents. Obviously, we’ve expressed our regret about the incident and recognize him – that he’s a very renowned artist and humanitarian. Obviously, he was going to Yale, I think, to receive a prestigious award there. And we apologize.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry. You said – I’m not sure – quite sure I understand the --
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- nuance of delay. Was he delayed in handcuffs in a cell? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: No. No.
QUESTION: Well, what does that mean?
MR. TONER: Now my understanding, he was delayed actually --
QUESTION: Delayed – I mean, delay is what happened when there’s bad weather.
MR. TONER: -- actually disembarking from the airplane. There was a delay of an hour or so from him getting off the airplane.
QUESTION: Well, what does that mean?
MR. TONER: He wasn’t – that it wasn’t --
QUESTION: What, he couldn’t physically get off the plane?
MR. TONER: It wasn’t – that is not detention. That is a delay.
QUESTION: Well, was it delay because --
QUESTION: Was it tied to him?
MR. TONER: Sorry?
QUESTION: I mean, was the delay personally tied to him, or was it an airport thing?
MR. TONER: Again, I’d refer you to the TSA, but no, I don’t – they believe it was airplane related. But again, he wasn’t – but he wasn’t detained. He was simply delayed getting – disembarking.
QUESTION: Well, were all the other passengers on the plane delayed?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I don’t think so.
QUESTION: Is that because --
QUESTION: Well, then this is not a delay. I’m sorry. I mean, if he was yanked off the plane – he was held on the plane?
MR. TONER: That is my understanding.
QUESTION: And he was not allowed to leave the plane?
MR. TONER: Again, I would refer you to the TSA for details of the incident.
QUESTION: This is really Orwellian. That’s a delay?
MR. TONER: That’s a delay.
QUESTION: Was he on some type of –
QUESTION: Is that because his name is Khan? That’s number one. And number two, in India, what discussions are going on now, Mark, that this is not the only one first incident only with Mr. Khan or a famous film star but also many other incidents took place with the high-class Indians. They named all of them and they were really concerned why it is happening, only somebody with a turban but he is in the Prime Minister Manmohan’s government and a high class and other – among other businessmen and so forth. So what can you assure them in the future what should be done or what can be done between these problems?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, actually there is a program whereby travelers can alert – identify their status before they depart via the Embassy. And that’s one approach or avenue to take.
In answer to your first question, look, I really would have to refer you to the TSA in terms of their screening procedures, why this individual, why two times. Again, I don’t know. I don’t have the answers.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on Goyal’s question, I think that the allegation that the Indians are making was that it was racial profiling, that – because he has a Muslim name. Is that --
MR. TONER: I mean, I think we all know that that’s clearly not the case. The fact of the matter is tens of thousands of Muslims travel to and from the United States every day and are not detained or delayed. (Laughter.) And --
QUESTION: Well, this one was.
MR. TONER: And so when something obviously goes wrong, we hear about it, but we don’t hear about the vast majority when – and it all goes smoothly. So no.
QUESTION: Sorry. One last thing on that.
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: So you said that this is something that the TSA is sort of in charge of?
MR. TONER: Well, they’re responsible for airport screening, so I don’t know – I don’t have – they probably have a very detailed report about the incident. I don’t know. I don’t know why he was delayed.
QUESTION: But it’s not something that you then work with them on, especially after an Embassy and the foreign ministry calls the State Department to ask them about that. I mean, how – what kind of communication does the State Department and the TSA have on issues like this?
MR. TONER: Well, we respect very much that they have an important job in keeping passengers safe and keeping Americans safe and keeping all airline passengers who are traveling or transiting the United States safe. And so we’re very respectful of the important role that they play. Certainly, we’re always seeking – I don’t know, in this particular case, what the follow-up might be. I can certainly look into it. But I know in the past, we’ve certainly talked with them about procedures, but again, mindful of the fact that they’ve got – they have a job to do.
QUESTION: Just a clarification?
MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: You said that the incident happened, the apology has been given, but you said to stop it in future --
MR. TONER: And he went on to --
QUESTION: To inform the Embassy --
MR. TONER: -- to Yale, where he received his award.
QUESTION: No, no. To – yeah, but in future, to stop such things to happen, you said to inform the Embassy. What exactly is that, the details? Have you talked to the Indian ministry?
MR. TONER: I’d refer you to the Embassy in New Delhi, but it’s a program that they have where they can identify their status before they depart to address any difficulties that they may experience.
QUESTION: And finally, as far as the U.S. new ambassador, Madam Nancy Powell, is concerned, and she must be going through all this, facing all these questions when she arrives in Delhi. She must be briefed all this.
MR. TONER: Look, I’m – it’s a – as I think I’ve said, it’s an unfortunate incident. We’ve apologized. I don’t know what more there is to say beyond the fact that he went on and had a very fruitful visit and, I believe, made the – helped or encouraged – there’s a YouTube video, somebody told me, of him dancing with the director of admissions at Yale as though they were in a Bollywood musical. So all’s well that ends well.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: On another subject if they’re all done?
MR. TONER: It’s still – I’m sorry, are we still --
QUESTION: Was an apology issued to Mr. Kahn, or was it issued through the Indian Embassy – the Embassy of the U.S. and India?
MR. TONER: Well, I offered my sincere apologies that he may have experienced – I’m not sure that it was done on a personal level. I don’t have that information.
QUESTION: I just wondered, when might the advance team go to Syria ahead of or as part of this monitoring mission? And do you have to wait until you get some kind of clearance in New York, or what’s --
MR. TONER: It’s all being – yeah. I mean, that’s exactly what’s going on right now in New York. And obviously, they met this morning. Ambassador Rice emerged – talked about the conversation that they had deploring North Korea’s actions, and then went back in. The second part of the meeting, I think, is going to focus on Syria and next steps.
You heard the Secretary yesterday talk about a very robust monitoring mission is what we want to see, and we want to see that advance team out there. What we saw in the last day or so was a very fragile truce emerge, a very fragile first step. So now it’s important to get this advance team out there and to get a monitoring mission on the ground.
QUESTION: So right now you’re still waiting for some agreement in New York on that? You’re not thinking about just going ahead?
MR. TONER: That’s what they’re discussing. I mean, obviously, this is in support of Kofi Annan’s process here, and so it’s appropriate that that’s done through the council.
Yeah. Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: When you -- just on that, I mean, would you expect to be part of a monitoring mission?
MR. TONER: You know what? I don’t know if that’s – again, I don’t know if the composition’s been discussed or debated.
QUESTION: Do you think that the Syrians would welcome an American presence?
MR. TONER: I’m very doubtful, but the Secretary’s very clear that she wants to see as robust a mission as possible.
QUESTION: And you’re not going to barge your way in? You’re not going to just barge your way in and say hi, we’re here to monitor the ceasefire?
MR. TONER: We never barge.
QUESTION: Oh? I’ll remember to tell that to the Iraqis. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: To follow up, I mean, what’s your assessment of how the truce is holding? It’s been a day. There’s been some reports from human rights groups of deaths. I mean, what’s the assessment?
MR. TONER: Sure. I’ve heard there’s – sure – from – we do hear from these LCCs, these local coordination committees that sporadic fighting continues in parts of Syria. I’ve heard estimates of seven to ten people killed today. So again, this is – at best can only be described as fragile. But it is a first step; we want to try to build on it.
And obviously, as the Secretary was very clear about yesterday, as – there are still other elements to the Annan plan that need to be implemented by the Syrian Government. This is not a menu; this is a set of obligations, so we need to see them move forward on all of the elements of the plan, which is an inclusive, Syrian-led political dialogue and transition, a cessation of all forms of violence, humanitarian assistance, access to all areas and populations in need, the release of all political prisoners, and the freedom of movement, access for media and journalists, as well as freedom of assembly.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary discuss Syria yesterday with the Saudi defense minister?
MR. TONER: I promise you I will try to get you a readout. You, of course, saw that they walked out and did a – brief comments at the top of their meeting. I did not get a full readout of their meeting. I can certainly imagine that they discussed in some detail Syria.
QUESTION: Is the Reward for Justice – one, is it working as far as – and second, one person, Jubair Ahmad from Woodbridge, Virginia, a Pakistani citizen, he pled guilty that he was providing information and material support to the LET in Pakistan.
MR. TONER: Right. Geez, I left talking about that, and I come back a week later and still talking about it. Anyway, this will take some time, Goyal. These programs often do. They do have a very high success rate overall, which is why we use them, frankly. So let’s wait and see.
And in terms of your second question, I’m not familiar with the case, so I would refer you to the other – Department of Justice or local authorities.
QUESTION: Just a brief one. The health minister of Myanmar, Burma is here. I was just wondering if there was anything specific that the U.S. wanted to discuss or wanted to promote in the country during his visit.
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, obviously we’ve got the reopening of a USAID office in Burma, which is a positive first step. I can imagine many of the programs – again, I don’t have a detailed list or assessment in front of me, but many of our programs touch upon health matters – preventative health care, childhood communicable diseases, that kind of stuff. So – but I don’t know what – specifically who he’s meeting with.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: Oh, Samir, anything else? Are we done?
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the demonstrations in Egypt today against the military rule and the people from the Mubarak era not to run for the presidency?
MR. TONER: I don’t, beyond that it’s up to the Egyptian people to set the parameters of their political process and democratic transition moving forward, and they certainly have the right to peaceful assembly.
Thank you.

STATE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCES FUNDING NGO PROGRAMS BENEFITING DISPLACED SYRIANS IN JORDAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
FY 2012 Funding Opportunity Announcement for NGO programs benefiting displaced Syrians in Jordan and Lebanon
Democracy, Human Rights, Refugees: FY 2012 Funding Opportunity Announcement for NGO programs benefiting displaced Syrians in Jordan and Lebanon
Funding Opportunity Announcement
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
April 9, 2012

Funding Opportunity Number: PRM-ANE-12-CA-001-NEA-040912-Syrians.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number:
19.519 - Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Near East and South Asia
Announcement issuance date: April 9, 2012

Proposal submission deadline: April 23, 2012 at 12:00 p.m. (noon) EDT. Proposals submitted after this deadline will not be considered.

ADVISORY: PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to allow time to address any difficulties that may arise.

Proposed Program Start Dates: Proposed new projects may begin between June 1, 2012 and June 15, 2012.

Duration of Activity: No more than 12 months. In funding a project one year, PRM makes no representations that it will continue to fund the project in successive years and encourages applicants to seek a wide array of donors to ensure long-term funding possibilities.

Current Funding Priorities for Displaced Syrians in Jordan and Lebanon: PRM will prioritize funding for proposed NGO activities that fall within the UN Regional Response Plan and meet the Bureau’s priorities for displaced Syrians as identified below.

NGOs submitting proposals in response to this funding announcement must be a part of the UN Regional Response Plan and be registered to operate in each of the countries of the proposed activities by the program start date. Within the body of the proposal, NGOs should clearly state their role within the UN Regional Response Plan and their ability to operate in the proposed areas and include documentation providing verification of their registration status as an attachment.

(a) Because of PRM’s mandate to provide protection, assistance, and durable solutions for refugees and conflict victims, PRM will only consider funding projects that include a direct beneficiary base of at least 50 percent displaced Syrians. PRM will consider proposals for activities in a single country as well as programs operating in both Jordan and Lebanon.

(b) Proposals for programs should focus on health, psychosocial support, protection, and/or education. Proposals should include detailed information on planned coordination with and referral mechanisms to both local and international organizations.

Programs must focus on one or more of the following sectors (not listed by priority):
· Health care, including health education and preventative health care, reproductive health services, with a focus on capacity building for local service providers, mainstreaming into local health care infrastructure, and clinical management of rape and other forms of gender-based violence. Proposals should demonstrate how clinical services for survivors of gender-based violence, including men, boys, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals, are incorporated into the project.

· Mental health and psychosocial programs offering individual as well as family/group counseling and/or therapy. Proposals should adhere to the IASC Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings and articulate how beneficiaries are identified; previous coordination with other mental health providers, including training; efforts to improve local capacity to provide adequate mental healthcare; the extent to which the NGO is able to utilize local organizations/resources to meet the mental healthcare needs of its beneficiaries; and an overview of the most prevalent mental health needs among the displaced Syrian population that the NGO intends to address. Proposals should demonstrate how clinical services for survivors of gender-based violence are incorporated into the project and should adhere to the IASC Guidelines on Gender-Based Violence.

· Humanitarian assistance and protection, including: non-food items; gender-based violence prevention and response programs, including services for both female and male survivors; programs aimed at addressing the interrelated assistance and protection needs of vulnerable beneficiaries by providing services and referral networks; and other emergency assistance to extremely vulnerable individuals. Proposals should indicate how this assistance is filling an identified gap, including how the gap and the beneficiaries were identified.

· Education, including remedial education and non-formal education programs, with special attention to adolescents, particularly those at risk of losing educational opportunities due to their interrupted educational career due to displacement, the need to generate income, or to their lack of documentation of prior education in Syria. Proposals should address how the educational assistance will assist with integration into local educational structures. Education programs should adhere to the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) minimum Standards.

(c) All program design should take into account the following guidance:
· Programs are encouraged to prioritize the needs of women and girls in a way that strengthens their roles in families and in the broader community. Programs should also target the needs of the most vulnerable groups among the Syrian refugee population (e.g., female-headed households; disabled or isolated refugees; GBV survivors; LGBTI individuals; separated or unaccompanied children; the elderly, etc.). Younger single men are also considered a vulnerable group for which PRM would consider targeted programming. Programs are encouraged to demonstrate how they will train their staff to meet the specific protection and assistance needs of these vulnerable groups effectively. Programs should be accessible to physically disabled persons.

· NGOs should demonstrate the application of lessons learned in previous programming and changes necessitated by the dynamic social and economic situation of Syrians and Iraqis in the region. NGOs should assess the continuing effectiveness of the humanitarian assistance they currently provide, highlighting best practices developed and any programmatic adjustments that should be made in follow-on activities.
· Proposals should include a realistic and detailed assessment of the sustainability of the project after PRM funding ends.

· As all NGOs will be operating within the UN Regional Response Plan, they will participate in UNHCR-designed and -managed refugee assistance information systems.
(d) PRM will accept proposals only from NGOs included in the UN Regional Response Plan and will give priority to proposals that demonstrate the capability to be operational immediately using PRM funding as well as:
· A proven track record in providing proposed assistance both in the sector and specified location;
· A concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and reliable, time-bound and trackable (SMART), have established baselines, and include at least one outcome or impact indicator per objective; objectives should be clearly linked to the sectors in the RFP;
· Projects, if feasible, must include strong transition plans in their proposals that detail specific benchmarks and/or a timeline for turning over the project to local organizations, governmental authorities, or development organizations;
· A budget that is appropriate for meeting the objectives and demonstrates co-funding by non-U.S. government sources;
· Adherence to relevant international standards for humanitarian assistance. See PRM’s General NGO Guidelines for a complete list of sector-specific standards.

International Organizations
International Organizations (IOs) that are engaged in programs relevant to the assistance addressed by this PRM funding announcement should ensure that these programs are made known to PRM on or before the closing date of this funding announcement so that PRM can evaluate all IO and NGO programs for funding consideration.

Funding Limits:
PRM will consider project proposals up to $1.5 million. Project proposals with solid and compelling budget justifications will be considered. Budgets based on a realistic and well-articulated assessment of needs and expenses will be noted favorably.
Budgets for regional projects should be broken down by country. As much as possible, all budgets should be broken down by objective, as per the revised budget template.
As stated in the General NGO Guidelines, PRM looks favorably on cost-sharing efforts and seeks to support projects with a diverse donor base and/or resources from the submitting organization.

Proposal Submission Requirements:
See “How to Apply” (http://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements, and note the following highlights:
· Proposals must be submitted via Grants.gov. Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the deadline as it can take up to two weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to get the required registration numbers). To register with Grants.gov, organizations must first receive a DUNS number and register with the Central Contract Registry (CCR) which can take weeks and sometimes months. See “Applicant FAQs” section on Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/help/applicant_faqs.jsp#applying) for complete details on registering.

· If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at support@grants.gov or by calling 1-800-518-4726. Applicants who are unable to submit applications via Grants.gov due to Grants.gov technical difficulties and who have reported the problem(s) to the Grants.gov help desk and received a case number and had a service request opened to research the problem(s), should contact PRM Program Officer Jennifer Williams at (202) 453-9202 or WilliamsJL4@state.gov to determine whether an alternative method of submission is appropriate.
· Do not wait until the last minute to submit your application on Grants.gov. Applicants who have done so in the past and experienced technical difficulties were not able to meet the deadline.

PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to avoid submission delays. We recommend that organizations submit applications via Grants.gov as soon as possible to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered.
· Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) at the applicant organization. Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems.

· Pursuant to U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001, stated on OMB Standard Form 424 (SF-424), Department of State is authorized to consolidate the certifications and assurances required by Federal law or regulations for its federal assistance programs. The list of certifications and assurances can be found at: http://fa.statebuy.state.gov/content.asp?content_id=161&menu_id=68 )
Proposal Content, Formatting and Template:
Please refer to the “Proposal Submission and Review Process” section in PRM’s General NGO Guidelines. PRM strongly encourages organizations applying for PRM funding to use the PRM recommended proposal and budget templates. Templates can be requested by sending an email to PRM's NGO Coordinator. You must type “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line to receive an automated reply containing the template.

PLEASE TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE PRM’s NGO GUIDELINES:
This announcement is designed to accompany PRM’s General NGO Guidelines, which contain additional administrative information and explain in detail PRM’s NGO funding strategy and priorities. Please use both the General NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities and that your proposal submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements. Proposal submissions that do not meet all of the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered. PRM recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available upon email request from PRM's NGO Coordinator. Please send an email, with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line, to PRM's NGO Coordinator.
· Proposals should outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding. If an organization believes that publicly acknowledging the receipt of USG funding for a particular PRM-funded project could potentially endanger the lives of the beneficiaries and/or the organization staff, invite suspicion about the organization's motives, or alienate the organization from the population it is trying to help, it must provide a brief explanation in its proposal as to why it should be exempted from this requirement.
· Focus on outcome or impact indicators as much as possible. At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome or impact indicator. Wherever possible, baselines should be established before the start of the project.

· To increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding, include specific information on locations of projects and beneficiaries. Any project involving the building or maintenance of physical infrastructure must include coordinates of site locations (place name, P-Code, latitude and longitude coordinates).
· Budget must include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization. PRM strongly encourages multi-lateral support for humanitarian programs.

Reports and Reporting Requirements:
Program reporting: PRM requires quarterly and final program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement. It is highly suggested that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended program report template. To request this template, send an email with the phrase “PRM NGO templates” in the subject line to PRM's NGO Coordinator.

Financial Reports: Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement; a final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within ninety (90) days after the expiration date of the agreement.
For more details regarding reporting requirements please see PRM’s General NGO Guidelines.

Proposal Review Process:

PRM will conduct a formal competitive review of all proposals submitted in response to this funding announcement. A review panel will evaluate submissions based on the above-referenced proposal evaluation criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding.
PRM may request revised proposals and/or budgets based on feedback from the panel. PRM will provide formal notifications to NGOs of final decisions taken by Bureau management.
PRM Points of Contact:
Should NGOs have technical questions related to this announcement, they should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to proposal submission. (Note: Responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.)
PRM Program Officer Jennifer Williams (WilliamsJL4@state.gov, 202-453-9202), Washington, D.C.
Regional Refugee Assistance Coordinator Rebecca Fong (FongRA2@state.gov), U.S. Embassy, Amman, Jordan.