WHITE HOUSE READOUT: PRESIDENT OBAMA MEETS WITH UAE CROWN PRINCE AL NAHYAN

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
April 20, 2015
Readout of the President’s Meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates

During their meeting today at the White House, President Obama and the UAE's Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan discussed a range of regional and bilateral issues, and consulted on how best to deepen our cooperation in areas of shared interest.  They underscored the strong partnership between our two countries, and reaffirmed their mutual commitment to close defense and security cooperation, including in counterterrorism, in particular against ISIL and Al Qaeda.  The President and Crown Prince also reviewed the expanding ties between the United States and the UAE in areas ranging from trade and commerce to clean energy.

The President and the Crown Prince also discussed a range of regional challenges, including the ongoing conflicts in Yemen, Libya, Iraq and Syria; and efforts to reach a long-term, comprehensive deal between the P5+1 and Iran to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.  The President and Crown Prince also discussed the upcoming May meetings at the White House and Camp David with Gulf Cooperation Council leaders as an important opportunity to deepen cooperation between the U.S. and GCC partners.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY ROSE'S REMARKS ON MISSILE DEFENSE AND GULF SECURITY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Gulf Cooperation Council and Ballistic Missile Defense

Remarks

Frank A. Rose

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance

Peter Huessy Breakfast Series; Capitol Hill Club

Washington, DC

May 14, 2014

---

Thank you, Peter, for that kind introduction and for hosting me again at this series.
I’m very happy to be with you today to address our efforts in working with Gulf Cooperation Council to enhance Ballistic Missile Defense cooperation in the region, as I have just recently returned from the Middle East Missile & Air Defense Symposium in Abu Dhabi.
In my remarks this morning, I’d like to accomplish two things. First, I’d like to share with you a bit about my most recent discussions on missile defense with our partners in the Gulf. Second, I’d like to outline the key takeaways from my latest trip to the region, chief among them is the progress that has been made in developing regional missile defenses with the Gulf Cooperation Council. After that, I’m happy to take your questions.

U.S. Commitment to Gulf Security, Including Missile Defense

As you know, this is a time of profound change in that region. We are experiencing perhaps an unprecedented moment of engagement and dialogue with nations around the world. At the same time, we are also acutely aware of the daily threats and anxieties felt throughout the Gulf.
As you also know, security cooperation has long stood at the core of the U.S.-Gulf partnership. The United States is not only committed to enhancing U.S.-GCC missile defense cooperation – we see it as a strategic imperative.

As stated in the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, a key objective of U.S. strategy is to expand international efforts and cooperation on ballistic missile defense. BMD cooperation contributes to regional stability by deterring regional actors, principally by eliminating their confidence in the effectiveness of their systems, and assuring allies and partners both of the U.S. commitments and by enhancing their ability to defend against these threats should they become necessary.

The message I delivered in the region was clear: the United States remains firmly committed to developing and deploying advanced missile defense capabilities around the world to protect our homeland, our deployed forces, as well as our friends and allies who depend on us for security.

It’s worth mentioning that U.S.-GCC security cooperation extends well beyond the topic of today’s discussion, or BMD. Maritime security is an important focus, given the massive commercial and energy resources that traverse the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. And U.S. and Gulf experts are now meeting as a group to exchange best practices on counterterrorism and border security, within which cyber security is becoming an increasingly prominent topic. Stated plainly, we are committed to working with our GCC partners to strengthen multilateral defense cooperation as an important complement to our strong bilateral partnerships in the region. To help reach that goal, in December 2013 President Obama designated the GCC eligible for Foreign Military Sales. Among other benefits, this designation helps lay the groundwork for the GCC states to address regional ballistic missile defense through multilateral procurement.
That’s the same designation we’ve given NATO, allowing the GCC to invest in shared systems for mutual defense, even as the United States continues a strong bilateral defense partnership with each individual GCC member state. And it demonstrates our commitment to the U.S.-Gulf Partnership, and our ultimate commitment to see the Gulf become a stronger, more capable partner in confronting the many challenges to our shared interests in the region. Earlier today, Secretary Hagel met with his Gulf counterparts in Jeddah for the first ever U.S.-GCC Defense Ministerial, which likewise signals U.S. intent to strengthen and deepen our bilateral and multilateral ties in this critical region.

Progress on Regional Missile Defense

The President’s address at the United Nations General Assembly last fall reaffirmed our continued commitment to Gulf security. Indeed, my principal takeaway from the trip was that our security commitments and partnerships in the Gulf are more extensive today than ever before.
As I discussed several weeks ago in Abu Dhabi, the March 2012 launch of the U.S.-GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum, or SCF, has enhanced our partnership on policies that advance shared political, security, military, and economic objectives in the Gulf, including intensified efforts on ballistic missile defense cooperation.

At his first Forum last September, Secretary of State John Kerry, my boss, made clear that a top U.S.-GCC priority would continue to be enhancing ballistic missile defense cooperation, including the eventual development of Gulf-wide coordinated missile defense architecture. And we can expect BMD to have been a primary focus at today’s inaugural U.S.-GCC Defense Ministerial.

Burden Sharing

It was clear from my discussions with our partners in the region that the GCC shares our goal of building an effective regional defense against the threat of ballistic missiles, and is willing and ready to defend its own security future.
Several of our Gulf state partners expressed an interest in buying missile defense systems, and some have already done so. For example, the United Arab Emirates has contracted to buy two THAAD batteries that, when operational, will enhance the U.A.E.’s security as well as regional stability. The U.A.E. also has taken delivery of its Patriot PAC-3 batteries, which provide a lower-tier, point defense of critical national assets.

Saudi Arabia is in the process of upgrading its existing Patriot PAC-2 batteries to the PAC-3 configuration. Kuwait also is upgrading its existing batteries to PAC-3, and in December 2013 signed an offer for two additional PAC-3 batteries.

These procurements demonstrate our GCC partners’ determination to provide for their own defense, and when combined with our regional BMD capabilities, represent a significant contribution to regional stability at a time when our own defense spending is under fiscal pressure.

Our GCC partners are investing billions of dollars in missile defense purchases. In today’s austere budget environment, these investments can help achieve greater economies of scale.

Military and Diplomatic Coordination

And I’ll close by looking ahead towards next steps on BMD in the region.
Effective ballistic missile defense is not based on military might alone. Advanced, interoperable systems to intercept and destroy attacking missiles must be combined with diplomatic cooperation and coordination.

Ballistic missiles can destabilize and weaken a region due to their short flight times and potentially devastating consequences. WMD armed missiles in particular can have broad consequences not only within a targeted country but within a region, as the effects of a successful attack are not always limited to that country. And even conventionally armed missiles can be a significant military threat.

But ballistic missiles are also a weapon of choice for an adversary that wants to gain political influence over its regional neighbors. We have seen ballistic missile test firings used as a tool to intimidate, blackmail, or coerce a country’s neighbors.

The nature of the ballistic missile threat means that the United States, and the GCC, must be prepared both diplomatically and militarily well before the first missile is launched.

The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense work as active partners in the Strategic Cooperation Forum to emphasize the need for planning, both diplomatic and military, when it comes to ballistic missile defense.

In fact, our dialogues within the SCF include representatives from the Defense Department and U.S. Air Forces Central Command for one clear reason: because ballistic missile defense requires a whole-of-government approach.

To facilitate further a dialogue with our Gulf partners on BMD issues, President Obama obtained authority from Congress expanding the authority of the U.S. Air Force to conduct integrated air and missile defense training at the U.S.-U.A.E. Integrated Air and Missile Defense Center, which is located in the United Arab Emirates. These integrated defense trainings are uniquely positioned to play a key role in advancing regional BMD policies, procedures, and cooperation.

At a strategic level, we must continue to encourage better planning and preparation among both our military leaders and our senior diplomats. It should also be our shared task with the Gulf to develop strategic communications plans and ensure close and effective consultations with regional partners to advance our joint security and prosperity.

The U.S.-Gulf partnership can therefore bring together the strength of our combined forces with the skill of our strategic planning. We will be much more successful in advancing our shared interests by working together than by going it alone.

Missile Defense Cooperation with Israel

And finally, I want to note that our cooperation with the GCC states will in no way detract from the separate, robust U.S.-Israel BMD cooperation program. Since 2003, the Department of Defense, with the help of Congress, has provided nearly $2.5 billion to Israel to help develop a number of missile defense systems including Iron Dome, Arrow, and David's Sling. This includes $440 million in FY 13 alone. Throughout the development of these systems, our goal has been to ensure there are no shortages in these important systems and that U.S. investments meet Israel's security needs and production capacity.

The President's budget requests $96.8 million in FY15 for Arrow and David’s Sling, and $176 million for Iron Dome. By the end of FY15, the United States will have provided over $875 million in funding for Iron Dome.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ballistic missile defense issues cross military and, most importantly for us at the State Department, diplomatic equities. Moving forward, we hope to encourage deepened understanding and engagement in the Gulf on the need to combine diplomatic and military knowledge and expertise to address the full range of issues on effective missile defenses and strengthen the larger strategic deterrent architecture.

The United States will continue to work closely with each of our partners in the GCC to help them strengthen their capacity. Enhanced missile defense capabilities among the GCC not only protect our partners from the growing regional threat, but strengthened regional deterrence architecture ultimately keeps our interests, and our homeland, secure.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.

NSA ADVISOR RICE IN UAE AND DJIBOUTI

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
Readout of National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice’s Travel to the United Arab Emirates and Djibouti

National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice traveled to the United Arab Emirates and Djibouti from March 6-8.  In the UAE, she held highly productive bilateral discussions with Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed and other senior Emirati officials, including the Foreign Minister and Deputy Chief of National Security.  They exchanged views on a wide range of regional issues, including Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Middle East Peace, as well as U.S. partnership with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.  Ambassador Rice visited the new campus of NYU Abu Dhabi, one of the three major U.S.-UAE long-term legacy partnership projects.  She met with a diverse and talented group of American, Emirati and international students from NYU Abu Dhabi and the Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Scholarship Program and expressed support for the major investments the UAE has made in world class liberal arts and STEM higher education programs.

In Djibouti, Ambassador Rice met with senior leaders and U.S. troops from the Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) at Camp Lemonnier to discuss CJTF operations in the region.  She thanked the troops for their extraordinary work to build counterpart capacity in the region, conduct crisis response, and execute vital counter-terror operations that help keep the American people safe.  Ambassador Rice met with Djiboutian President Guelleh to renew our robust strategic partnership with the government and people of Djibouti.  She thanked him for Djiboutian leadership on a range of issues, including countering terrorism and piracy, and responding to humanitarian emergencies.  In her meeting with President Guelleh and with Foreign Minister Youssouf and a delegation of senior Djiboutian ministers and officials, she discussed ways to deepen and enhance our bilateral cooperation, including in ways that will tangibly benefit the economic well-being of the Djiboutian people and address shared security challenges.  They discussed ways that Camp Lemonnier and the U.S. military presence in Djibouti can have a more direct and positive impact on the local economy, and ways that American assistance can lead to further sustainable development and improved regional security.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY MAKES REMARKS WITH EMIRATI FOREIGN MINISTER AL NUHAYYAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With Emirati Foreign Minister Abdallah bin Zayid Al Nuhayyan After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
November 11, 2013

FOREIGN MINISTER ABDALLAH: (Via interpreter) Good morning. May peace be upon you. I’d like to start by welcoming His Excellency, U.S. Secretary of State and close friend John Kerry. There’s no doubt that the visit of the U.S. Secretary of State to the United Arab Emirates at this time and under these conditions, especially following the meetings in Geneva, was a very strong message to the extent of the closeness of U.S.-UAE relations.

And I believe that it was a fruitful visit, a successful visit, especially the visit with Crown Prince yesterday, in which we exchanged several points of view on several issues, whether the discussions in Geneva or the situation in Syria or developments in – the positive developments in Egypt. And undoubtedly the visit of our close friend, John Kerry, to Cairo was a very positive message and it reveals the extent of international support and the U.S. support and encouragement to the roadmap in Egypt.

And lastly, we also had the opportunity to discuss the developments in the peace process, which the Secretary of State has been exerting great efforts in. And I would also like to say that it is the most important and most forceful effort on the part of a U.S. Administration to push the peace process forward. My friend, John Kerry, thank you very much, and you’re most welcome.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good morning, and a special thank you to you Your Highness. (Inaudible) I thank you also (inaudible) Foreign Minister Abdallah bin Zayid Al Nuhayyan (inaudible) people who had (inaudible).

I also want to thank His Highness Muhammad bin Zayid for the depth of the conversation we had last night, as well as a very good dinner and a long walk together and some time to really dig into the issues of the region and create better understanding of our mutual efforts and interests with respect to those.

It’s wonderful to be back in Abu Dhabi. My visits, regrettably, wind up being sort of much too brief, and I’ve been invited to come back and spend a little time sometime when I can really get to share some of the life of the city and the region and I intend to do that.

His Highness and I spoke today about the strong, enduring relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates, and this is a relationship that is based on a joint commitment to security and to stability in the region. Today we talked about our shared efforts to end the war, the violence in Syria, to address the humanitarian crisis and bring about a peaceful resolution to the civil war in Syria, which has cost way too many lives of so many Syrians and which is breeding increasing extremism, radical religious extremism and terrorists who are a threat to all of us, to the region and to the peace and security and stability of Syria itself.

We appreciate the UAE’s leadership in supporting the Syrian Opposition Coalition and its commitment alongside our international partners to convening the Geneva 2 conference as soon as possible. And both of us are encouraged and pleased to be able to take note of the fact that yesterday the opposition voted to go to Geneva 2. This is a big step forward and a significant one, and we will continue to work on the humanitarian and other issues that are of such immediate crisis. A negotiated solution is the best way to increase the stability throughout the entire region, and it is the only way to end the bloodshed as soon as possible and give the Syrian people the future that they deserve.

His Highness and I also discussed the developments in Egypt. I was pleased to be there at the beginning of this journey, and we discussed our belief that Egypt’s transition to a stable, inclusive, and ultimately democratic, civilian-led government that respects the rights and freedoms of all Egyptians is critical not only for that country but for the entire region. We agreed last night in our discussions with His Highness Muhammad bin Zayid as well as today in our discussions to work together not down the road, not figuratively, not in the future but now, immediately, to work together in order to create specific efforts that we can jointly work on as well as with the Saudi Arabians and others in order to transform economically and politically the Egypt that needs to emerge. We share a belief in the importance of Egypt to the region and we want to make sure that the interim government does succeed.

We also agreed that as it succeeds, part of the definition of that success is the need to implement reforms and to protect universal rights and transition to an inclusive election process that respects the rights of the people of Egypt.

Finally, I’m also provided an update of the meeting of the P5+1 in Geneva, and I made it clear that while we made progress – good progress, very significant progress in narrowing the gaps between our partners in the P5+1 and Iran – this is not a race to complete just any agreement. No deal is better than a bad deal I have said many times, as has President Obama. But through diplomacy, we have an absolute responsibility to pursue an agreement. The sanctions were put in place to bring about negotiations. How irresponsible it would be to the concept of diplomacy, as well as the potential of any future use of force, if we have just put the sanctions on and then ignore the opportunity to have a negotiation. Having a negotiation does not mean you’ve given up anything. It means you will put to test what is possible and what is needed and whether or not Iran is prepared to do what is necessary to prove that its program can only be a peaceful program

As President Obama has said clearly since day 1, he will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, that the United States is committed to protecting our security and the security of our allies from the unthinkable consequence of what would happen were they to secure such a weapon. We also are well aware, more than conscious, of the instability that would be triggered in this region were that program to continue and not be peaceful.

It’s also worth asking everybody what would happen if we don’t find a diplomatic path forward. Obviously, Iran will continue to ramp up enrichment activities and advance on the plutonium track, while we would risk losing the international coalition that has been built up to keep Iran isolated. That also is a risk of not pursuing the negotiation.

I want to emphasize this very, very strongly to my friend, Sheik Abdallah, as well as to all people in this region, and that is that we have a strong strategic relationship that has been built up over many years. It is also a friendship and the United States will do nothing in negotiating with Iran that will change that relationship. I want to make that clear.

I thank His Highness again for welcoming me to Dubai. I emphasize that the President has said publicly at the United Nations that United States of America will into the future, as long as he is president, make certain that we will stand up for and defend our allies in this region against any kind of external threat or attack.

So this is a strong strategic relationship, and I look forward to continuing our important dialogue on many issues of regional concern and to strengthening the relationship that the United States value very deeply. Thank you.

MODERATOR: So due to time restrictions, we’ll be taking two questions only – one from the local media and one from the international media. The person in the second row? Third row.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from Gulf News. In spite of the American assurances, there are fears at the popular and government levels in the Gulf Cooperation Council concerning improved relations with Iran, which would weaken strategic relations with the U.S. These fears are still standing and the assurances are also there. But they change between – from time to time. At the local level, local companies have paid a heavy price for their adherence to the sanctions on Iran. What are the American assurances in this area, that the sanctions, when lifted, will not be selective and vary from place to place? Thank you.

MODERATOR: John, do you want to take that question?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you. Thank you for the question. And in many ways I think I tried to address that question in the course of my comments a moment ago, but I’m happy to reemphasize and to repeat as strongly as I can. President Obama is a man of his word. When he ran for president, he said that he would do whatever was necessary to go after al-Qaida and Usama bin Laden. And when somebody asked him, “Does that mean that you’d be prepared to cross into Pakistan and even chase him there, would you do that?” And he said, “I will do whatever is necessary if I have information that protects the security of the United States.” He was criticized for that. His opposition said you’re naive and you don’t understand. But guess what? The President of the United States got that information and he acted on that information and he did what was necessary. And so today Usama bin Laden is no long with us and most of the leadership and most of the core of al-Qaida within Pakistan is gone – most of it.

Now there’s still threats in other parts of the world, and the President is continuing to address those threats. Currently, working with Saudi Arabia with respect to the challenge in Yemen. Working with Somalia and has made great gains with respect to the transformation taking place in Somalia. The President remains committed and has just asked me to negotiate a bilateral security agreement with the President of Afghanistan, which will mean there will be a sustained American presence if the Loya Jirga accepts is. There will be a sustained international security force presence in Afghanistan to secure what has been worked for so hard over so many years.

The President kept his word. The President said we would wind down the war in Iraq and he wound down the war in Iraq. The President said we would hold Qadhafi accountable and not permit him to be able to attack civilians in Benghazi, and he did it. The President made a decision that he would go in and attack in Syria in order to hold Assad accountable to not use his chemical weapons. And before he had to finally pull that trigger or make that decision, he made his decision, but before he had to actually execute, we were able to strike an agreement to get all of the weapons out, which has actually goes further than would have achieved otherwise.

So every time the President has said I’m going to do something he has done it. He is stating clearly: Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. That is a centerpiece of his foreign policy and he will not bluff. As he said to me point blank when I became Secretary of State, I asked him about it. He said, “I don’t bluff.” This is our policy.

Now he also has said his first choice is diplomacy. It should be any responsible leader’s first choice. Nobody should rush to war. I fought in a war. I know what war is like. Nobody should rush to war. War should be the last resort. War should be only the failure of diplomacy. But the President is prepared to defend the notion that it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapons program, because we all know what happens if that happens. It is a threat to Israel, it’s a threat to the region, it is the threat here, and we will see other countries that chase a weapon. And that will make a more dangerous world.

Now Iran has said that its program is peaceful. The Supreme Leader says he has issued a Fatwa, the highest form of Islamic prohibition against some activity, and he said that is to prohibit from Iran from ever seeking a nuclear weapon. What we are seeking to do is transform that Fatwa into a legal code that universally is acceptable so that we can in fact prove that the program is peaceful. And I have said to you today on behalf of the President of the United States, and the President has said for himself in his speech at the United Nations, that he will continue to defend his friends and allies in this region, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, others. He will defend them against external attack. That is the promise of the President of the United States, and as I stand here as Secretary of State, as long as I am Secretary of State, that is also our policy, my policy, the policy of the State Department, representing the President of the United States in executing it. So these aren’t just words.

In international diplomacy, you don’t just stand up and say something and it’s meaningless. This is a policy from a powerful nation and a friend of this region and friend of the United Arab Emirates. And when I come here to say that this is the President’s policy, it is the President’s policy and he will stand by it.

So we will continue to work on this and with respect to the sanctions, we know that the United Arab Emirates and others have paid a great price. Just today in our conversation I learned that it has gone from some $23 billion of business down to $4 billion. That’s a huge sacrifice. So we have real partners in the United Arab Emirates with respect to the sanctions, and that’s something that the United States Congress and others need to take note of as we think about where we are going in the future.

We will continue the sanctions regime – our hope is that in the next months we can find an agreement that meets everybody’s standard.

Now I want to say one word – you didn’t ask this – but I want to say one word about it, because I’m reading the press that tries to – has been indicating some sort of lack of agreement among the P5+1 or something to that effect. That’s just not correct. The P5+1 was unified on Sunday when we – on Saturday – when we presented a proposal to the Iranians. And the French signed off on it, we signed off on it, everybody agreed this was a fair proposal. There was unity. But Iran couldn’t take it at that particular moment; they weren’t able to accept that particular agreement.

So hard work was done, progress was made. The P5+1 was united. There is a gap still between what language may be appropriate that they’re prepared to accept, but the concept that we are all working on we have absolute unity on, that we cannot have a weapons program and we must have guarantees that we’re being clear enough in what is required so that this is not if and not possible and not speculative, but absolutely certain that we know the road ahead is well defined and can protect the interests of everybody.

FOREIGN MINISTER ABDALLAH: (Via interpreter) About the course of the negotiations (inaudible) with the size and the speed of the consultation between us and the United States and the rest of the P5+1 concerning the conduct of these negotiations or the previous round of negotiations. Not just the conduct of the negotiations, but also with respect to the discussion on the future of these discussions and how they can be developed further.

There is no doubt that this is a very difficult period in the negotiations, but we are aware and believe that the best solution to the nuclear file in Iran is through political and diplomatic discussions, and we hope that Iran would be able to reach soon the vision or develop the – soon the vision that there is no option but to be clear and transparent concerning its nuclear weapons program – not just with the P5+1 but also with the IAEA. We feel there are positive indications, but there is work and effort – significant work and effort that the Iranians would still have to expend.

I believe we only have one more question left.

MODERATOR: The gentleman in the third row with the blue shirt.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, the Prime Minister of Israel as you know is calling world leaders to marshal opposition to an interim deal with Iran. Other Israeli leaders are rallying Jewish groups who oppose it, and you’re returning to Washington tonight to face a restive Congress. Are you concerned that in this 10-day pause before you reconvene in Geneva that enough opposition will build up that may scuttle the progress you made and make an interim deal impossible?

And to the Minister, you expressed confidence with the consultation and encouraged the P5 to continue pushing toward a deal. Would you support a deal that granted Iran the right to enrich uranium? And as a follow-up, on Syria if I may, at the beginning of this trip in Saudi Arabia, your neighbor expressed – this is to the Minister – strong concerns about U.S. policy in Syria. Did you hear anything from the Secretary today that assuaged your own concerns about U.S. policy in Syria?

And then lastly for the Secretary, are you concerned, sir, that the Saudis and the Emiratis may simply go their own way with Syria, leading to potentially dangerous results that the U.S. would then have to deal with. Thank you both.

SECRETARY KERRY: Let me deal with the last question first, because I want to get that off. No, I am not concerned. I believe we have a very clear understanding with respect to the goals, what we’re trying to achieve. The United States continues to support the opposition in many different ways. We are providing significant assistance. We want to coordinate as closely as possible with our friends, the Saudis and the Emiratis and others. I think we both agree that we need to get a couple of other actors in the region – not us actually – but others to be unified.

But the Saudis, Emirates, the United States, Jordanians, are very clear about what groups ought to be receiving support, how we ought to proceed, what we ought to be doing, and we all agree that we see no way that Assad has an legitimacy to be able to continue to actually bring the country together and lead it with any kind of legitimacy whatsoever. So we’re very much, I think, in agreement with respect to that and the direction.

With respect to Prime Minister Netanyahu and his position, yesterday, Under Secretary Wendy Sherman went directly to Israel in order to brief the Israelis in full on precisely what the negotiation is entailing, what the terms are. My hope is – look, I’ve worked very closely with the Prime Minister Netanyahu particularly in these last months. He has been very constructive in working on the things we’re trying to do with respect to Middle East peace. I have enormous respect for his political acumen and his deep concerns about the security of his country. We share those concerns.

For 29 years, just a little shy, I spent in the United States Senate, I have a 100 percent voting record of defending Israel. And I’m not about to change my feelings about what we need to do to provide security for Israel going forward, even as I work on this process. But I believe the Prime Minister needs to recognize that no agreement has been reached about the end game here. That’s the subject of the negotiation. The sanctions were put in place in order to bring about a negotiation, because the first order of business of any super power is to exercise its power thoughtfully and respectfully. And if we had to turn to a military option because we are left no other option, we must show the world we have exhausted every possible remedy and opportunity.

Nothing is given up in a first step that freezes the program and even sets it back. While you begin to negotiate to see what is possible with respect to the proving of a peaceful nuclear program. That is the tough negotiation. And Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia and all other countries – particularly the P5+1 partners – will be sharing and working that information and process if we get there in an effort to find an agreement that everybody could feel comfortable with. So the time to oppose it is when you see what it is, not to oppose the effort to find out what is possible.

And I would just say very respectfully that what we need to do here is recognize that we’re very knowledgeable about nuclear programs and nuclear possibilities. We share intelligence very closely with the Israelis on this topic. We’ve been meeting constantly with the Israelis to understand exactly Iran is today in its program. And we are confident that what we are doing can actually protect Israel more effectively and provide greater security to Israel. And we look forward to having an ongoing dialogue and conversation in a very civil and appropriate way with the Prime Minister, with our allies and deep friends, the Israelis, in an effort to try to see what can be achieved here.

There is no existing right to enrich for anybody. The NPT does not grant a right and it does not prohibit a right. Therefore, whatever might or might not happen in the future is subject to the negotiation and subject to what is possible in terms of limits, scope, verification, complete and total transparency and accountability for what might or might not happen. We don’t know yet what those possibilities are.

So that is why you need to have a negotiation. No one should ever fear a negotiation, because it takes two parties or more, if there are more, to say yes. And until they say yes, there’s no agreement and nothing to fear. So I would say to everybody the President has been clear, there is no rush to a deal, and no deal is better than a bad deal. That is our governing principle. And there may be a difference of opinion in certain people in the end as to what’s bad and what’s good, but this is subject to enormous global scrutiny.

Experts all over the world will look at these judgments and they will decide is this real or is it not real? Does this put somebody at risk or does it not put them at risk. And we much at least trust the process enough to put it to the test. That’s all we are trying to do.

FOREIGN MINISTER ABDALLAH: I believe that there are – there is exaggeration, that the U.S. and its allies in the region and its relationships is subject to some tensions. There might be difference in opinion or about some steps, but there are no differences over the comprehensive strategy concerning issues in the region. Regardless, irrespective of the nature of these issues, there might be differences in opinion or tactics, and this happens between states. So let us be clear: I believe that the media or at least some leaks in the media have made these differences in opinions as though they are differences over strategy between the U.S. and the – its regional allies.

I would like to assure you on this issue that the relationship is in its best shape between the U.S. and the UAE and the visit by my friend Secretary of State to the Emirates is the best proof to the strength of this relationship. And what we heard today confirms that.

With respect to enrichment, and I would like to talk about the nuclear programs in general, the UAE has a very transparent nuclear program and we believe that the UAE nuclear program is the standard according to which regional countries should abide by. This standard represents, first of all, we in the UAE have accepted not to enrich first of all. Second of all, we have also agreed not to retreat after once the uranium is extracted. With respect to these two standards, the two elements of our strategy we believe that possession of a nuclear weapons – weapons program that is peaceful is something attainable by everyone and is open to everyone if these countries are willing to abide by the NPT and also with the additional protocol.

So in this case, there is no fear. Everybody benefits. And the best proof is that the UAE program is today witnessing not just international acceptance but also in partnership with international parties and it is one of the programs that most attracts other countries to sign agreements with UAE. When a friendly country like the U.S. comes to us and agrees – reaches an agreements with the UAE – and makes it as a golden standard for its agreements with other countries. This is another proof that we are following the right path.

So if we can see such an approach spread in the region, I’m sure this fear will not be there.

(Inaudible), thank you very much for your support and your friendship.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you for coming.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL SPEAKS AT 2013 SOREF SYMPOSIUM

 

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel speaks at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's 2013 Soref Symposium in Washington, D.C., May 9, 2013. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Hagel Stresses Regional Cooperation on Middle East Issues
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 9, 2013 - The United States faces "astounding challenges" surrounding its strategic interests in the Middle East, but is working with allies and partners to comprehensively address the political, economic and security uncertainty, and the threats of extremism and proliferation, that beset the region, America's defense chief said today.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel traveled to Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates in late April. Tonight he offered an audience his views on the issues he discussed with those countries' leaders. During a speech at the 2013 Soref Symposium, an event hosted by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Hagel said America's Middle East strategy is founded on and framed around its commitment to Israel.

"Israel is America's closest friend and ally in the Middle East," Hagel said, noting that he attended a series of meetings in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with Israeli President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon.

During those meetings, "I conveyed our continued commitment to enhancing defense cooperation with Israel - which has reached unprecedented levels in recent years," Hagel said.

A core principle of U.S.-Israel security cooperation is America's commitment to or what Hagel called "its capacity to defeat any threat or combination of threats from state or non-state actors."

The Defense Department works closely with Isreal's Ministry of Defense to develop and field the versatile range of advanced capabilities Israel needs to defend its people and interests, Hagel said. The rocket and missile defense efforts Iron Dome, Arrow, and David's Sling demonstrate the department's involvement, he said, but DOD has also worked for more than a year to increase Israel's options against to a range of other threats.

"These efforts culminated in our announcement last month that the United States has agreed to release a package of advanced new capabilities, including anti-radiation missiles and more effective radars for [Israel's] fleet of fighter jets, KC-135 refueling aircraft and the V-22 Osprey," Hagel said. "Along with Israel's status as the only Mid-Eastern nation participating in the Joint Strike Fighter program, this new capabilities package will significantly upgrade their qualitative military edge."

Hagel noted Israel's security, like America's, also relies on strong U.S. partnerships with other regional countries from Jordan and Egypt to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In meeting with those countries' leaders, he said, he frequently discussed two other factors he termed central to current U.S. Middle East strategy: ongoing turmoil in Syria and Iran's destabilizing influence in the region.

"Syria's civil war is putting its stockpiles of chemical weapons and advanced conventional weapons at risk, and the escalation of violence threatens to spill across its borders," Hagel said.

Hagel said that while he was in Jordan, which borders Syria, "I reassured the Jordanians that the United States is committed to the stability of Jordan, and to deepening our close defense cooperation and joint contingency planning with the Jordanian military."

The civil war in Syria was a focus of his discussions in Amman, the secretary said. Hagel summarized U.S. involvement: organizing and applying sanctions against the Assad regime; providing humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, which now totals nearly $510 million; and giving non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition.

"We are also urging Russia and China to do more to help resolve this conflict, because it is also clearly in their interests to end the war," he said.

Hagel noted that Secretary of State John Kerry, in Moscow this week, announced along with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that "they will seek to convene an international conference, with representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition, to determine how to implement a political transition in Syria."

Using the full range of tools, he said, the United States will continue to work toward achieving its goal of ending the violence and helping the Syrian people transition to a post-Assad authority.

"This will help restore stability, peace, and hope for all Syrian people," he said. "That goal is shared by our allies in the region - not only those bordering Syria, but also our partners in the Gulf."

In Saudi Arabia and UAE, he said, "Concerns over Iran's support for the Assad regime, its destabilizing activities, and its nuclear program were at the top of the agenda."

The secretary noted President Barack Obama has stated U.S. policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

"I stressed that point during my discussions in the Gulf," Hagel noted, adding that "building a cooperative defense network" is a key pillar of U.S. efforts against Iranian threats -- "raising the military capabilities of our partners in the Gulf who share our commitment to regional security and our concerns about Iran and violent extremism on the Arabian Peninsula."

Agreements finalized during his stops in Saudi Arabia and UAE will give those nations "access to significant new capabilities," Hagel noted: Saudi Arabia will buy 84 Boeing F-15SA fighter aircraft, and the UAE plans to purchase 25 F-16 Desert Falcons.

"Along with other common efforts with Gulf States in areas such as missile defense, this new arrangement ensures that we are coordinating effectively against Iran and other shared security challenges," Hagel said.

The secretary emphasized that U.S. strategy sees the Middle East as critical to its security interests, and a robust presence will remain.

"We have made a determined effort to position high-end air, missile defense, and naval assets to deter Iranian aggression and respond to other contingencies," he said, noting U.S. F-22 fighters, ballistic missile defense ships and sophisticated radars, mine countermeasure assets, and advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft are all part of the nation's regional presence.

"Even as we put our presence on a more sustainable long-term footing, our capabilities in the region will far exceed those that were in place September 11, 2001," he said. "Our defense relationships are also much stronger and far more robust."

The Middle East, made up of very different nations, faces a number of common challenges from Iran, Syria, and the continuing threat of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, he said.

"These common challenges must be met through the force of coalitions of common interests, which include Israel and our other allies in the region," Hagel added. The most enduring and effective solutions to the challenges facing the region are political, not military, he said, and America's role is to influence and shape the course of events through diplomatic, economic, humanitarian, intelligence and security tools "in coordination with all of our allies."

During his travels in the region, Hagel said, "I thought about what's possible ... if these democratic transitions in the Middle East can succeed, and if a sustainable and comprehensive peace between Israel and the Palestinians is ultimately achieved."

That would bring new possibilities to an old region, the secretary noted.

The best hope for Middle Eastern stability is for countries like Egypt, Libya and Syria to transition to democratic rule, supported by institutions and legal frameworks that respect human life and liberties, he said.

"To assist these nations in achieving these goals, the United States will remain engaged in helping shape the new order, but we must engage wisely," Hagel said. "This will require a clear understanding of our national interests, our limitations, and an appreciation for the complexities of this unpredictable, contradictory, yet hopeful region of the world."

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK FINANCES U.A.E. POWER PLANT FOR $2 BILLION

FROM:  U.S. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
Ex-Im Approves $2 Billion in Financing for Nuclear Power Plant in U.A.E.;
Project will Support 5,000 U.S. Jobs in 17 States
Washington, D.C. – In a decision that will support thousands of American jobs, the board of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) has authorized a $2 billion direct loan to the Barakah One Company of the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) to underwrite the export of American equipment and service-expertise for the construction of a nuclear power plant in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.

According to estimates derived from U.S. Census Bureau statistics, the line of credit will support approximately 5,000 American jobs across 17 states.

The transaction will finance the construction of the first nuclear power plant on the Arabian Peninsula, which upon completion will number among the the largest nuclear-generating facilities in the world. Additionally, the loan ranks as Ex-Im Bank’s largest transaction in the U.A.E. to date and counts as Ex-Im Bank’s first greenfield nuclear-plant financing since the late 1990s.

"The 5,000 American jobs figure speaks volumes about the importance of the transaction to the U.S. economy," said Ex-Im Bank Chairman and President Fred P. Hochberg. "But in addition to bolstering American jobs, Ex-Im Bank will make history by backing the construction of the first nuclear power plant on the Arabian Peninsula."

The National Security Council and the Departments of State and Energy all support the transaction. Moreover, the U.S. and U.A.E. co-signed "U.S. – U.A.E. 123 Agreement for Peaceful Civilian Nuclear Energy Cooperation" in 2009 and the "Arrangement Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the U.S. and the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation of the United Arab Emirates For the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety and Security Matters" in 2010.

Barakah One Company plans to erect four nuclear reactor power-generating units on a coastal strip along the Arabian Gulf approximately 220 kilometers from the city of Abu Dhabi, a site chosen in light of seismic, socio-economic, and environmental factors. The reactors, supplied by the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) and based on the state-of-the-art APR 1400 design, will come online at one-year intervals effective 2017 and yield an aggregate capacity of 5,600 megawatts gross electricity.

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, a Pittsburgh, Pa.-based group company of Toshiba Corporation, is the largest exporter involved in the transaction and will provide the reactor coolant pumps, reactor components, controls, engineering services, and training. Employing approximately 9,000 people in the United States, the company retails fuel, technology, plant design, and equipment to customers in the nuclear power industry. Westinghouse nuclear power plants are currently under construction in China and the United States, among others.

"Westinghouse is delighted that the financing for Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation four-unit Barakah project has been approved by the Bank’s Board of Directors, and we remain dedicated to ensuring an effective implementation of the project and related loan," said Ric Perez, the president and chief operating officer of Westinghouse Electric Company. "This work will create and sustain U.S. jobs in California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and other states home to Westinghouse sub-suppliers. Within Westinghouse alone, the Barakah project will allow us to maintain about 600 U.S. jobs. In addition, the Bank’s support will sustain hundreds of well-paying jobs at Westinghouse’s U.S. sub-suppliers and indirect jobs in the service industry."

Ex-Im Bank, in conjunction with various U.S. and U.A.E. governmental agencies, has conducted a detailed and extensive risk assessment of the project. The U.A.E. invited the Integrated Regulatory Review Service of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to examine the nation’s nuclear regulatory framework. Likewise, the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation of the U.A.E. established an internal task force to address the safety implications and lessons-learned of the Fukushima accident and to establish a process of outreach to the IAEA and other nuclear regulatory bodies throughout the world.

Along the same lines, the U.A.E. has entered into a number of important treaties and conventions pertaining to the nuclear sector and has signed bilateral agreements on the same subject with the U.S., Korea, France, and Japan, among others.


As of the end of FY 2011, the U.A.E. accounted for approximately $3.7 billion of the Bank’s worldwide credit exposure, and in the same year the Bank approved a total of $415 million in authorizations to support American exports bound for the country.

U.S. DAILY STATE DEPARTMENT MEETING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 25, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:06 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Good afternoon, everybody. In keeping with our Free the Press campaign heading up to May 3rd, our journalist of the day is from Eritrea. And he is Dawit Isaak, who’s an independent Eritrean journalist. He co-owned the first Eritrean independent newspaper, which often reported on alleged abuses of regime power. He was arrested in 2001 without any formal charges or a trial, and he has since been held incommunicado by the Government of Eritrea. And we take this opportunity to call on the government to release him immediately. And you can learn more about him at our website humanrights.gov.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: I don’t have anything that’s significant enough to begin with, so --

MS. NULAND: Excellent.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) with the Free the Press campaign.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you aware that the Palestinian Authority blocked something like eight websites that are critical of Mahmoud Abbas? And if you are, do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND: I do have something on this. We have seen these reports, and we are concerned about any uses of technology that would restrict access to information. We are raising these concerns with the Palestinian Authority. You know that we’ve had these concerns in other parts of the world, and we wouldn’t want to see the PA going in the direction that some of those regimes have gone in. You know how strongly we advocate freedom of expression, freedom of information. So we will raise these things and endeavor to figure out what’s going on.

QUESTION: Are any of these news agencies and websites U.S.-financed?

MS. NULAND: Said, we started to do a little investigation of that. None of them is funded by the State Department programs under MEPI. I don’t have a full picture of the USAID programs yet. As soon as we do, we’ll get something back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

Please, Andy.

QUESTION: I have a related – slightly related question. In an interview with CNN yesterday, President – Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he supported the idea of a contiguous Palestinian state – which commentators said seemed to be a new line from him – that it wouldn’t look like Swiss cheese under any future arrangement. Is that – do you see that as progress? Is that something that is – marks a step forward?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know that our goal remains a comprehensive peace that creates and allows for a secure Israel and a prosperous and contiguous Palestinian state. But as we’ve always said, we can’t do this through press announcements. We can only do this when the parties sit down together and do the negotiating they have to do.

QUESTION: But I guess my question is: Is Netanyahu’s statement a – does this mark a new – an advance in Israel’s position toward this goal that you’re referring to, contiguous state being now --
MS. NULAND: Well, we ourselves have always called for a contiguous state, so that’s a good thing. But what’s most important is that these parties really roll up their sleeves and work together.
Shaun.

QUESTION: On a somewhat related note, the head of the Israeli military, Lieutenant General Gantz, made some remarks about Iran, saying that he considers the Iranians to be – the Iranian leadership to be rational, and hinting that pressure can work in terms of making them refrain from a bomb. What is your – do you have a reaction to his remarks, an assessment?

MS. NULAND: I don’t, Shaun. I really don’t. I mean, you know where we are. We are working on this approach of pressure and talks in the hope that we can make progress on this. But I think it’s really only Iranian behavior that’s going to tell the true story of what their intentions are.

QUESTION: Also on Iran? There’s the report that apparently, according to the Iranian ambassador to Russia, that the country is now thinking about giving up its nuclear program in order to avoid the looming EU sanctions. Does the U.S know about this? What can you say about it? If this is indeed true, is this a positive development?

MS. NULAND: Well, frankly, these issues have to be negotiated at the table that we have now created and restarted with the P-5+1 process. So the ambassador of Iran to Russia is not a central player in those, and frankly, what’s most important is what Iran says and does at the negotiating table.

QUESTION: But the fact that he is indicating that they are seriously looking at the long-term impact – we believe – ostensibly – on the Iranian economy, is that perhaps a leverage point for the P-5+1 process?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think that we consider it new that the sanctions are biting on the Iranian economy, and that it is a direct result of the international pressure that we’ve been able to bring to bear – more sanctions than we’ve ever been able to muster against Iran – that has brought them back to the negotiating table. But now, what’s most important is that they actually roll up their sleeves and work with us and come clean on their program.

QUESTION: Have there been any conversations with the Embassy in Moscow to see if indeed this was directly communicated, perhaps, to the Russian Government to actually see whether this is just speculation in the press or there might be some sort of signal coming out of this?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think you’re taking this far more seriously than we are. What matters to us is what happens in the room.
Please.

QUESTION: If I can go back to Andy’s question for a second?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you see – does the prime minister’s statement present you with an opportunity to drive the point home about settlement and outposts and so on, the fact that he acknowledged the need for a contiguous contiguity for a possible Palestinian state?

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think there’s any lack of emphasis on our part with regard to how we feel about settlements. I mentioned yesterday that we had been in to talk to the Israelis about this latest move, just to confirm that our Ambassador Shapiro did speak to Israeli negotiator Molho on this issue. So I don’t think there’s any lack of attention to that matter.

QUESTION: Yeah. But up to this point, there has been either a dismissal on the part of the Israelis or they just flat out snub your call to stop the settlements and so on. Now the prime minister himself has spoke of the need for contiguity. Don’t you think that this is a good opportunity to sort of emphatically make the point once more?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve been emphatically making the point all week long, but thanks, Said.
Please.

QUESTION: What was the Israeli response when Shapiro went in to --

MS. NULAND: The Israelis have made their views known on this publicly as well as privately. I don’t think that what they said to us privately differed all that much from what they’ve said privately[1]. But I’ll let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: Which is that?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to let them speak for themselves.

QUESTION: Well, what’s your – I want to get – find out what your – is your understanding that they have legalized these outposts?

MS. NULAND: I am not going to get into what happened in the room with them. I’m going to let them characterize their own views. But they’ve been pretty clear publicly --

QUESTION: Well, forget about that. What’s your understanding? I don’t know what they’ve said. I’m asking you: What have they said? What is your understanding of what their position is?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to send you to them on their position.

QUESTION: No, no. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Yeah, yeah. I am.

Go ahead. Please.North Korea?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: No. I need to stay with the Palestinian for a second.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Right. You can ask the Israelis about their own views
.
QUESTION: Yeah. This has to do with a determination that was in today’s Federal Register signed by Bill Burns, who I believe is a U.S. official, right?

It says – and I’m not going to read the whole thing, but it says: “I hereby determine and certify that the Palestinians have not, since the date of the enactment of that act -- ” which refers to the appropriations bill – “obtained in the UN or any specialized agency thereof the same standing as member-states or full membership as a state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians and waive the provisions of Section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Basically what this means is that the Palestinians can still have a waiver to have an office here. Now, I’ve got a couple of questions about this. One, I’m not aware – and maybe I’m wrong, but I am not aware that the Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2012 has actually been enacted yet.
So one, is that correct? And two, how is possible that you’re waiving this if they got membership in UNESCO in November?

MS. NULAND: Well, I haven’t seen this citation that you’re reading from, so why don’t I take it from you and why don’t we endeavor to come back to you with answers on both of those.
Okay.

QUESTION: A question on North Korea.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: The Chinese vice foreign minister today appeared to make a veiled warning to North Korea not to carry out this supposed or possible nuclear test. I was curious if you had seen or had a reaction to those comments from the Chinese vice foreign minister, and if there’s – what the thinking is, if China is doing enough with their leverage with North Korea to put off a possible nuclear test.

MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve said all through this period, we have been working closely with the Chinese, encouraging them to use all of the political and other kinds of leverage that they have with the DPRK to encourage it to change course. So obviously, public statements of this kind are most welcome. And we look forward to consulting with the Chinese on what more they think can and should be done when we go to – when the Secretary and Secretary Geithner are in Beijing for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue next week.
Please, in the back.

QUESTION: A question to Iran again. They – Iran reported that there was a cyber attack on its oil industry last week. The implications were that the West was behind it, although the United States weren’t named specifically. Have you any idea what might be behind those attacks, who might be, or can you even confirm that these attacks occurred?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have any information on that one way or the other. I refer you to the Iranians.

QUESTION: Former negotiator Larijani said today that this is a really good time for the negotiations to go on between Iran and the West. Do you feel that this is really a propitious time for Iran to go forward with --

MS. NULAND: Well, I think it’s going to be a matter of what these talks produce. So we are obviously committed to working hard. As we said at the time, we believe the first meeting in Istanbul was worth having. We’re going to have another meeting in Baghdad. But I think we’re now getting down to concrete proposals. If there are real steps, we’ll be prepared to respond, but we need to now see some real steps.

QUESTION: So your feeling is that the meeting on May 23rd in Baghdad will be far more substantive than the meeting in Istanbul, which basically set the date of the meeting?

MS. NULAND: I think we’ve sort of set the table at Istanbul. Now we need to start seeing what the meal’s going to look like.

QUESTION: And when you say concrete proposal, do you expect Iran to submit like a – to open up its facilities and to submit to whatever it needs from the West to aid it in a civilian program?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know all of the issues of concern to us with regard to Iran’s program. They’re clearly outlined in the repeated IAEA reports. So we had a chance to have that opening meeting of this round of talks and to talk about all the issues that we care about, and now we have to do some more technical exchanges between now and Baghdad, and then we have to see whether at the Baghdad round we can really get down to what the Iranians are prepared to do and what steps we might be willing to take to respond if the steps are real.

Okay.

QUESTION: And finally, is the feeling in this town that the sanctions are so biting that Iran is beginning to approach these talks seriously?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, we’ve said that we believe that the sanctions are biting, as I said at the top of the briefing. We think that that has led to their decision to come back to the table, and we hope that it’ll continue to contribute to working through this issue diplomatically, because that’s obviously the best way to get this done.
Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you have an update on David Hale?

MS. NULAND: I did, especially after I mangled it yesterday.

QUESTION: Oh. Was he not in Saudi?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. He actually went to Saudi last night. He had a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister bin Abdullah today in Riyadh. He then went on to Cairo this evening. In Cairo, he’s going to meet with Egyptian officials. But he’s also going to meet with Qatari Prime Minister Al Thani, who is also going to be in Cairo at the same time.

QUESTION: So --

MS. NULAND: And then he is coming back to Washington on the weekend.

QUESTION: So he’s not going to Qatar, he’s --

MS. NULAND: Correct, correct.

QUESTION: And wasn’t there another one that he was going to – wasn’t he going to go to the UAE or something like that? Maybe --

MS. NULAND: Net on this trip: He will have been in Jerusalem, Jericho, Amman, Riyadh – I think he was in Kuwait at the front end, I can’t remember – Saudi, et cetera.

QUESTION: All right. And so he decided that it’s not worth his while, it’s not worth his time to go back to Israel and the PA after Cairo?

MS. NULAND: I think he – that he wants to come home and report and consult here before he makes another trip. That’s the current planning.

QUESTION: When he is in Cairo, isn’t he going to bring up the gas issue between Egypt and Israel?

MS. NULAND: The which issue?

QUESTION: The gas.

QUESTION: Gas.

QUESTION: Natural gas.

MS. NULAND: I’m sure that’ll be one of the subjects that he discusses, yes.

QUESTION: Any message he will bring to Cairo in this regard?

MS. NULAND: I think we’ll let him have his consultations in Cairo and we see what we want to read out on those.
Please.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout on Ambassador Grossman’s travel to Copenhagen, Ankara, and Abu Dhabi?

MS. NULAND: I do have some info on Ambassador Grossman’s travels.
First, on his European stops, as you know, he was primarily focused on support for the Afghan National Security Forces in line with the Chicago summit agenda that the Secretary laid out when she was in Brussels last week. He also was yesterday in Turkey for the same purposes, in Ankara. Today, he is in Abu Dhabi, and he – there was also a meeting of the International Contact Group on Afghanistan in the UAE.
And he is going on tonight to Islamabad, where he will be having bilateral conversations, and he will also be taking part in a core group meeting – this is Afghanistan, U.S., and Pakistan – that’ll be attended for the Pakistanis by Foreign Secretary Jilani, and by the Afghans by Deputy Foreign Minister Ludin.

QUESTION: So when he visits Islamabad and meets the foreign ministers, is he carrying any message from Secretary Clinton on --

MS. NULAND: When he goes to Pakistan?
QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Well, this is, as you know, in the context of the parliament concluding its review. We have begun our process of reengaging with the Pakistani Government to work through the issues that have come up during the review. So this will be an effort to really take up those issues one at a time and to see how we work through them.

QUESTION: So has Pakistan formally informed you about the parliamentary review or the conditions that they have announced publicly?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we mentioned a week ago that the Secretary had spoken to Foreign Minister Khar, so she gave some views on this, and it was agreed at that time that Ambassador Grossman would make a trip to Pakistan to deepen and broaden the conversation that we’ve been having. I think you know that we had also had Deputy Secretary Nides in Pakistan, I think it was two weeks ago. And we had
USAID Administrator Shah there, we had Generals Allen and Dempsey there. So you can see us working hard now with the Pakistanis to work through the issues.

QUESTION: And this is a day-long trip?

MS. NULAND: He will be there – he’s arriving this evening. I think he will be there through Friday is my understanding, because the core group meeting is on Friday.

QUESTION: And he’s also going to Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND: He’s not going to Afghanistan on this trip.

QUESTION: He’s going back to D.C.?

MS. NULAND: Correct, yeah.

QUESTION: As part of the deepening of the relationship, did Pakistan inform the U.S. that it was going to conduct this missile test in the last 24 hours?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know what kind of advanced information we have – we had. I assume we had some, because I do know that they did have contact with the Indian Government before they proceeded with this.

QUESTION: Any reaction to that, to the missile test, to this – obviously it comes after the Indian test.

MS. NULAND: Well, we – obviously, the same message that we gave at the time of the Indian test, that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding nuclear and missile capabilities. We understand that this was a planned launch. The Pakistanis have said it wasn’t a direct response to the Indian test. But what’s most important is that they do seem to have taken steps to inform the Indians, and we, as you know, are quite intent on those two countries continuing to work together and improve their dialogue.

QUESTION: Sorry, just on Grossman’s meetings with the Pakistanis, not the core group --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: So Ambassador Grossman is prepared to discuss everything that’s on the list of Pakistani concerns?

MS. NULAND: I think he’s open to working through the results of the parliamentary review with the Pakistani Government. I don’t want to prejudge or preempt how those conversations will go or what agenda the Pakistani side will bring, but as we said, we had been waiting for that review to be concluded before we could fully reengage. So this is our opportunity to do that.

QUESTION: But do you see the results of that review as something that can be negotiated, or is it something that you’re just going to accept flat out or --

MS. NULAND: I think we want to hear the Pakistani Government’s presentation of where it thinks the bilateral relationship needs to go, and then we will present our views and work through the issues, as partners do. That’s the expectation, so --

QUESTION: So it is something that you see as a negotiation process?

MS. NULAND: This is a conversation. This is a bilateral consultation about how we can improve our relationship along all of the lines that have been difficult. So I don’t want to prejudge what he’s going to hear or where we’re going to go in response. But as you know, we had said that we really needed them to complete their internal work and then come back to us, give us a sense of what they think this ought to lead to, and then we can talk. So that’s – this is the talk.

QUESTION: Does he have the authority to – or the authorization to discuss things like drone strikes, which are very high on the Pakistanis’ list? Well, I mean, at the top of the Pakistanis’ list.

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you can imagine that (a) I’m not going to get into intelligence issues and how we talk about them or don’t talk about them; and I’m certainly not going to get into the precise instructions of our fully empowered special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

QUESTION: So he is? He can negotiate with the Pakistanis on this and any other issue?

MS. NULAND: I am not using the “n” word and I’m not going to get into his instructions.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just briefly on that?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you when the last time he was in Pakistan, when his last visit was to Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: I do not have that. I will take it for you.

Yeah, please.

QUESTION: In the same region, Afghanistan. Congressman Rohrabacher has been giving interviews talking about his co-del he was on where he did not end up going to Afghanistan. He said he had a conversation with the Secretary, who, basically, what he is saying is told her it would be best if he did not go to Afghanistan. I was curious if you had any comment on that situation and whether the Secretary might have had any conversations with President Karzai about letting Congressman Rohrabacher come to Afghanistan as part of that co-del.

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think we can improve on what Congressman Rohrabacher himself has said, so why don’t we just leave it there.

QUESTION: Any reason why we would support President Karzai’s wishes over a U.S. congressman going on this trip?

MS. NULAND: I think you know whenever any American travels, including members of Congress, members of the Executive Branch, traditionally there’s a visa process engaged there. In this case, sometimes when they fly in, it’s sort of handled more administratively. We were advised, as Congressman Rohrabacher made clear, that the sovereign government didn’t think this visit was timely. So it was in that context that he made his decision after our advice.
Okay, please.

QUESTION: I have a question on South America --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- for what Americans might consider the ongoing soap opera involving the Secret Service, except this doesn’t involve the Secret Service. We’re talking about three U.S. Marines who apparently have been punished as well as an employee of the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia who apparently were implicated in tossing a prostitute out of a moving car sometime last year. And I wanted to find out, since we know that the Marines have been punished, who was the employee of the Embassy? Was this person an American? Was this person a local hire? What can you say about a pending lawsuit now, apparently, against the Embassy?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, your report of the incident in question is not accurate in terms of what actually happened. Second, this is something that happened back in December. There was a State Department employee involved. The – we did cooperate fully with the appropriate Brazilian authorities, including with the civil police. None of the Americans involved in the incident are still in Brazil. The civil police, as I understand it, are still working on their case, and no charges have been brought by the Brazilian authorities.

QUESTION: When you say that none of the people involved are still in Brazil, does that imply that the Embassy employee is an American?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And does that person still work for the U.S. Government?

MS. NULAND: I do not have the answer to that. I believe so. But as you know, we don’t talk about our personnel for privacy reasons.

QUESTION: What is the policy? Much has been made about the Secret Service reviewing its standards of behavior for its employees when they’re detailed overseas. What is the standard for the State Department and its employees and how they’re expected to behave, conform to local laws overseas?

MS. NULAND: We have a zero-tolerance policy for any kind of conduct of the kind that was of – that involves prostitution or anything of that nature. I can give you the Foreign Affairs Manual regulations, if that’s helpful to you.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS. NULAND: Not only for the reasons of morality and local law, but also because any kind of conduct of that kind exposes our employees to blackmail and other things.

QUESTION: Even though that a country like Colombia may have legalized activity in this (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: Just a couple things on that. What about the description that you were read of the incident isn’t correct?

MS. NULAND: Well, Ros talked about somebody being thrown out of a car and this kind of thing. That is not what happened in this case.

QUESTION: What did happen?

QUESTION: Because that’s the description that the Secretary of Defense offered to reporters who were traveling with him. So --

MS. NULAND: Our information is that after four Embassy personnel left the club, the – a woman involved in this incident attempted to open a car door and get into a closed and moving vehicle. She was not able to do so. She fell and she injured herself. All of the Embassy personnel involved in this incident were interviewed by the Brazilian civil police. We have also conducted our own investigation into the incident, and we’ve taken all the appropriate steps regarding the individuals involved consistent with our laws and our regulations.

QUESTION: Did these – did any of these – in particular, the Embassy employee, did they violate any rule?

MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, they haven’t been charged by Brazilian authorities.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean any of the FAM rules.

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into the precise adjudication of the case for reasons of privacy with regard to our employee.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you said that none of the people are still in the country.
MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: But someone can be moved without being punished. I mean, you could be transferred just simply because this person – for another reason. So do you know if there was any – was there any reprimand or punishment handed out, and was there any reason to? Did they – did these people do anything wrong?

MS. NULAND: Again, my information is that we conducted our own investigation of this issue, and we took the appropriate steps. What I’m not at liberty to get into is what steps those might have been, given the privacy issues involving the employee. And that’s our policy that we don’t talk about disciplinary steps taken with employees.

QUESTION: Well, the Secret Service didn’t either until just recently.

MS. NULAND: I understand that.

QUESTION: Well, that’s why it’s important to know whether they actually did something wrong or they were just transferred or moved to – or demoted or whatever. I mean, maybe – I mean, the description that you just read, it sounds like it could be perfectly plausible that these people didn’t do anything wrong at all. So that’s --

MS. NULAND: And it may well be. I just don’t have information with regard to the case beyond what I’ve just given you.

QUESTION: Well, I would suggest that the Department might want to come clean on this, considering the interest in the – in that. The other thing is that in the FAM, it talks about – it said “notorious behavior” or something like that. But it only talks about that being a problem if it were to become publicly known.

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have the FAM in front of me. I think I should get it for you.

QUESTION: So I’m not sure I – okay. But I’m not – I’m curious as to – you say it’s a zero-tolerance policy, but it’s not clear to me that it is, in fact, zero tolerance if the only way it gets you into trouble is if other people find out about it.

MS. NULAND: But the problem – but this is the problem. This is why you have to have a zero-tolerance policy, because at any given time, if you open yourself up to such behavior, it could become known. And you can’t, as somebody engaged in behavior of that kind, predict when that might happen. And so you’re immediately vulnerable, and so is the U.S. Government. So that’s why we have the regulations that we have.
QUESTION: Okay. Can we --

QUESTION: Is there a lawsuit pending against the U.S. Government?

MS. NULAND: As I said, we have – I have information to indicate that there have been no charges filed by the – in Brazil.

QUESTION: FAM stands for foreign manual?

QUESTION: Wait, wait. I just want to make sure that you understand that – what I’m trying to get. I want – basically, I want to know if the people involved in this violated that FAM regulation.

MS. NULAND: I understand that, and I – my expectation is that we are not going to talk about an individual personnel case from the podium.

QUESTION: I’m just curious as to what FAM stands for.

MS. NULAND: Sorry. Foreign Affairs Manual, which are our published rules and regulations for ourselves. But anybody who’s interested in those, we’ll get them for you. I did have them a couple of days ago. I don’t have them here.
Please.

QUESTION: On Japan?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: There are reports that a U.S.-Japan joint announcement on the realignment of the U.S. forces in Japan scheduled on Wednesday, today, has been delayed because there are some senators have been criticizing it. I am curious if it’s really a reason – if you – do you think you can make an announcement before Japan’s prime minister visit to D.C. at this – at the end of this April?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me say that we have made progress in these negotiations. As you know, and as members of Congress have made clear, we have obligations to consult and to brief. And there are implications, including budgetary implications, that the Congress has to be happy with. So we are having those consultations. I’m not prepared to predict right now when we’ll go public with where we are, but everybody has their internal procedures, and we’re working through those now.

QUESTION: Toria?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I wonder if you’re aware, but the head of the Syrian National Council, Burhan Ghalioun, cancelled his trip to Washington. Are you aware of that, or do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND: I am. I frankly don’t have any back story. He’s a pretty busy guy, so maybe he had things to --

QUESTION: Okay. So it was not done at the suggestion, let’s say, of Washington?

MS. NULAND: No, not at all. Not at all. Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you find yourself in a position where the options towards Syria are actually – they range from bad to worse?

MS. NULAND: Well, the Secretary talked about this quite a bit yesterday. She made clear that we’re at a crossroads, and we’re at a very difficult crossroads as these monitors are starting to come in, are trying to do their job. In some cases, they are able to provide space and bear witness to what is going on, but in other cases, either they’ve had difficulty getting where they need to go, they’ve had difficulty in getting agreement with regard to the makeup of the personnel, and they have – as we talked about yesterday, we’ve had at least one incident where they went into a town, they were able to interview people, and then there were reprisals afterwards, which is just deplorable.

QUESTION: To follow up on my question that I raised a couple days ago on the number of monitors: Are you comfortable that 300 will be able to do their jobs, considering that there are so many flashpoints and there are so many places and villages and hamlets that they need to be at?

MS. NULAND: Well, frankly, we’re – right now we’re at 12, so let us get this scaled up and let us see what a mission of 300 that’s truly able to operate freely, truly able to do what it thinks is necessary in terms of interviewing people, in terms of gathering information, moving around, and then we’ll go from there. But at the moment, we’re at 12, and that’s not enough.

QUESTION: Okay. Going back to the Balkans experience, I mean, we – they had, like, thousands of monitors to be able to do the job. Do you see a point in time where this actually needs to be done?

MS. NULAND: Said, I think we have to take this one step at a time. We’ve seen what just a handful have been able to do in the towns where they’ve been – they’ve shown up. We’ve had outpourings of Syrian civilians thanking them, able to express themselves, so let’s see what we can do with 300. The most important thing now is to get them in and get them deployed and get them deployed freely.
Ros.

QUESTION: The French foreign minister, Mr. Juppe, suggested today that even if we let the full complement of monitors try to do its work in Syria, that it may well be time for the world to start looking at some sort of military intervention. Is he jumping the gun? Pardon the pun.

MS. NULAND: I think the Secretary made clear again yesterday, as she had in Paris, that even as we do our best to get these monitors in and doing their job, we also have to look at increased pressure in case this Annan plan doesn’t succeed. With regard to external military forces, our position on that has not changed, Ros.
Please.

QUESTION: Was the Secretary intending to meet with Burhan Ghalioun?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’d gotten that far in the planning of his schedule. She has met with him, I think, three times now. She – and most recently when we were in Istanbul some three weeks ago. So I think one of the issues was whether he was going to be here when she was here, but yeah.

QUESTION: A U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh from Illinois has written a letter to Secretary Clinton on reviewing a U.S. decision of 2005 not to issue a visa to the Gujarat chief minister in India, Narendra Modi. Is Secretary Clinton responding to the letter? And are you reviewing the U.S. position on that issue?

MS. NULAND: I haven’t seen the letter. I think you know that our position on the visa issue hasn’t changed at all, so I would guess that if we do respond, it’ll be along familiar lines.
I’m getting the high sign here because we have --

QUESTION: One more, on Burma.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Nine NGOs have – in a statement, have expressed concern on Secretary’s decision to ease sanctions on Burma. They are saying this is not going to be fruitful as far as Burma is concerned. How do you address their concerns?

MS. NULAND: If you’re referring – you’re referring to the letter from the American NGOs, right?
QUESTION: Yes.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Well, as you know, we are not at the step with Burma yet that the NGOs are concerned about. We do have a very strong, vibrant dialogue with our own NGOs, with Burmese NGOs, as we develop this action for action policy, and we’ll continue to do that.
Thanks, everybody.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING

FROM U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 5, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

1:04 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. You guys are the only thing between me and a long weekend. No, I’m just kidding. (Laughter.) I love being here. I look forward to these constructive exchanges with the members of the press corps.
Matt.
QUESTION: You have nothing to start with?
MR. TONER: I have nothing to start with.
QUESTION: How goes your search for a venue to meet the Iranians?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we talked about this a little bit – well, actually, not a little bit – at length yesterday. And that’s a question best directed to High Representative Ashton’s office. They are our point of contact on these discussions, and, as I at least attempted to make the case yesterday, it’s very important, we feel, when we’ve got four other members of the – or five other members of the P-5+1 as well as Iran, as we’ve noted yesterday, speaking with many voices on this issue, that there just be two points of contact on it.
QUESTION: Yeah, but it’s – now it’s eight days away.
MR. TONER: We are --
QUESTION: If this – is the date in question now because the venue hasn’t been decided, or is it still your --
MR. TONER: I would say that we are still expecting this to take place next week, but there’s certainly some degree of urgency.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I mean, is it the U.S. position – does – is the U.S. position still what the Secretary said it was over the weekend, that this meeting will be on the 13th in Istanbul?
MR. TONER: That’s what I said. It’s still our expectation, but I agree we need to nail down the venue.
QUESTION: So – but it is still the U.S. position that the meeting will be in Istanbul on the 13th?
MR. TONER: It is – that was our expectation when the Secretary spoke those words. It was our expectation up until we heard some other venues tossed about by the Iranians.
QUESTION: But it does not remain --
MR. TONER: High Representative Ashton’s office is trying to clarify and nail down the venue, but the dates – we’re still expecting to meet the Iranians on the 13th and 14th.
QUESTION: In?
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: So in other words, it’s --
MR. TONER: -- we were ready to meet in Istanbul. We’re trying to clarify that right now.
QUESTION: So it’s no longer your expectation that it will be – that it will necessarily be in Istanbul on the 13th?
MR. TONER: Again, let’s let High Representative Ashton deal with the Iranians and nail that down.
QUESTION: Are you happy? I mean, does it – it doesn’t have to be in Istanbul as far as you’re concerned? I mean, it does – some of these proposals for wherever, Baghdad or Beijing, I mean, if the point of these is to sit down and talk with them, why not sit down and talk with them wherever they want to do it?
MR. TONER: Agree. Again, we talked about this at length yesterday. We’re just one part of this group, the P-5+1, so there’s logistical aspects to this that go without saying, really, on any one of these venues or locations. As we noted, it was our expectation that this was going to be in Istanbul. It’s not for us to say one place over another, but it’s important that we start to nail this down, working through Catherine Ashton, so that we do have a place to meet next week.
Yeah. Go ahead, Jill.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: The $10 million man? (Laughter.) I just wanted to see. I know you went into it at great length yesterday, but --
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- has he actually been indicted?
MR. TONER: Has he been indicted in a U.S. court?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. TONER: I’m not sure of that. I’ll take the question. I don’t believe he has, but we certainly want to see him brought to justice. I mean, as everyone and their mother know at this point, he’s hiding in plain sight in Pakistan, so what we’re – again, just to clarify what we talked about yesterday, which is that we’re not seeking his whereabouts. We certainly know that. But we’re seeking information that can be used to prosecute him.
QUESTION: But the Pakistanis would say there really is no evidence. Let’s say that he hasn’t been indicted. Then it’s really just an allegation, correct?
MR. TONER: An allegation based on our conviction that he is, in fact, guilty of these crimes, but again – we talked a little bit about this yesterday; obviously, can’t get into the detail – we’re – our belief is based on intelligence. But what we’re looking for is evidence that can be used to prosecute him in a court of law in Pakistan or elsewhere, and the $10 million is that sweetener, if you will, to encourage people to come forward.
QUESTION: But doesn’t this appear to have been backfired, really, when you look at it? Because here’s the United States putting a reward on a man’s head and he’s now a celebrity, he’s on talk shows, he’s having a news conference, and thumbing his nose at the United States.
MR. TONER: Well, Jill, I think he can do what he wants to, certainly, and he’s clearly trying to bask in the media attention. We just hope that and reiterate that our offer is very real, that if anybody knows or can produce evidence that ties him to the Mumbai bombings and other terrorist attacks that they step forward.
Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: In the back and then over to you.
QUESTION: First question, President Zardari is due to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh next week in India, and there are now conservative groups in Pakistan, like the Defy Pakistan Council, that have asked him not to visit India at all. Do you feel that by issuing this notice at this time, it may have had an adverse effect on India-Pakistan relations?
MR. TONER: Well, look, we’ve talked about this upcoming visit. We’ve talked about the fact that we’ve had some high-level U.S. officials in Pakistan, Deputy Secretary Nides, for example. And I was very clear that none of this is related to any of those visits, any of those interactions. As I tried to clarify yesterday, our Rewards for Justice program is a separate process, if you will, and takes place in our Diplomatic Security channels and that it is indeed a long process to evaluate these individuals and indeed designate them. So there’s no relation here. We certainly don’t want it to impact on his visit to India. We think his visit to India actually is very constructive, and we’re all for it.
QUESTION: I have a follow question. By issuing this notice, are you trying to create a split in the Lashkar-e Tayyiba again, as well, by asking someone to come forward? And you just mentioned – you said 26 – the Mumbai attacks and other terrorist attacks. Can you specify what other attacks that the U.S. believes Lashkar-e Tayyiba is responsible for in India or other parts of the world?
MR. TONER: Well, there’s numerous incidents in the region. They are, obviously, an active terrorist organization. In terms of your first question, it’s a – we’re not – we’re asking for an individual to step forward, who can have evidence – who can produce evidence that ties into these attacks. Whether that we’re trying – we’re not playing some sort of strategic game here. We’re just trying to prosecute this individual.
QUESTION: Follow up. As far as (inaudible) are concerned, India had charged him. Have you asked India for the evidence against him, since he had open press conferences and all that? Everybody knows where he is who he is, including the Pakistan Government. Is India with you on the evidence?
MR. TONER: You’re asking if – you’re asking me to – about the Indian evidence against him? Again, that’s a question for the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan to answer.
QUESTION: The kind of evidence you are seeking, are you in touch with the Indian Government?
MR. TONER: We’re in very close contact with the Indian Government on this, yes.
QUESTION: And second, as far as – what kind of message are you sending to Pakistan, one because of this – just to follow what Yuma said – is this some kind of message that you are sending to Pakistan as far as this $10 million bounty is concerned? And also at the same time, you’re asking Pakistan to open their doors of U.S.-Pakistan relations as far as supply route to Afghanistan is concerned.
MR. TONER: Goyal, I talked about this yesterday. There’s no connection here, whatsoever. In answer to your first question, we’re trying to give the Pakistani authorities the information, the evidence that they can use to prosecute this individual.
In terms of your second question, Deputy Secretary Nides is concluding a very productive visit to Pakistan. He’s had high-level contacts during his time there. It’s been very productive, very constructive. And we’re obviously waiting for the end of the parliamentary review process so that we can engage with Pakistan on our way forward.
QUESTION: And finally, Mr. Zardari’s – President Zardari’s visit to India. This is the first visit, I understand, official visit to India. What role do you think U.S. is playing as far as India-U.S. relations are concerned in connection with his visit?
MR. TONER: What role is --
QUESTION: U.S. playing. Any role U.S. playing?
MR. TONER: On whose visit?
QUESTION: About his visit to India. And U.S. – Pakistan --
MR. TONER: No role. I just said, in answer to a previous question, we’re certainly – we want to see – to us, it’s a win-win situation when Pakistan and India are engaging in dialogue, are talking to each other, and are building better cooperation.
I did want to – I’m sorry, I did want to get back to you on that. I know I had it somewhere, which is why I was leafing through my paper as I was answering Goyal. But there’s several attacks that Lashkar-e Tayyiba has claimed responsibility for, been implicated in. January 2010 attack on Srinagar airport that killed five Indians; December 2001 attack on the Indian parliament building; the July 2006 train attack in Mumbai; and a February 2010 attack against hotels in Kabul that we’re all aware of that killed nine Indians, four Afghans, and one French citizens.
QUESTION: And through all --
MR. TONER: Sorry.
QUESTION: And through all this, the Indian Government hasn’t seen fit to offer a reward for any information, so it’s up to the U.S. taxpayer to foot the bill, correct?
MR. TONER: Matt, I don’t know what they’ve offered.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. TONER: I’d refer you to the Indian Government.
QUESTION: Okay. Just a quick – just a couple --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- things on this. I mean, you say, yes, this is a separate process, the Rewards for Justice, but it certainly doesn’t operate in a vacuum. And with all the things going on this week – Under Secretary Sherman’s visit to India, Deputy Secretary Nides’ visit to Pakistan, the Zardari visit to India – if you didn’t want to have an impact on any of these things, you sure really picked a bad time to do this. Because whether you want it to impact these things or not, it does, particularly in the Pakistani public’s view.
So can you take the question as to whether anyone at DS or who was involved in this actually paid attention to the schedules of things that were coming up diplomatically when they decided to put this out on late Monday night – apparently accidently put onto the website late Monday night before it was announced here formally the next day?
MR. TONER: Well, the process was completed. This was – look, these kind – this kind of counterterrorism cooperation --
QUESTION: If it took – it’s been more than three years. The thing took months to do. Why did you pick this week, when it had the best chance of screwing up diplomacy, to put it out?
MR. TONER: All right. I would argue against the fact that it screwed up any --
QUESTION: Well, can you take the question.
MR. TONER: -- diplomacy. In fact, Deputy Secretary Nides had very effective discussions --
QUESTION: Right. That was the second part of my question.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Prove it. What was so productive --
MR. TONER: Prove it?
QUESTION: -- and what was so constructive about Deputy Secretary Nides’--
MR. TONER: Well, first of all they were --
QUESTION: -- visit to Pakistan?
MR. TONER: He engaged at a very senior level. He met with Prime Minister Gillani, President Zardari, Foreign Minister Carr, Finance Minister Shaikh, as well as Pakistani business leaders. And I would refer you to Foreign Minister Carr’s press release about his visit that’s very positive in tone. They had real substantive discussions, and overall the message was that – and of course, I can refer you to Deputy Secretary Nides’ public remarks – is that we value our relationship with Pakistan and we respect their parliamentary process and we’re looking, once that’s completed, to engage with them.
QUESTION: That’s it?
MR. TONER: But we believe the visit --
QUESTION: I mean, one could go and have a ton of meetings --
MR. TONER: Matt.
QUESTION: -- with a ton of people --
QUESTION: And that --
QUESTION: And they say no to everything you ask for.
MR. TONER: And I’m – I think I’m --
QUESTION: And I wouldn’t say that that’s very constructive or productive.
MR. TONER: -- implying without getting into the substance of our private diplomatic exchanges, that these were constructive in material.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you say what’s different now about the U.S.-Pakistan relationship than it was before Deputy Secretary Nides visited?
MR. TONER: Well, I think we have seen a pivot in the last weeks that is tangible, that we are trying to move behind the very tragic events --
QUESTION: I thought everything was hold until – after the parliamentary review?
MR. TONER: Again, Matt, I’m talking about diplomatic engagement, and it’s not about making widgets necessarily and having a product to display at the end of the day. It’s about the hard spadework of engaging with a key ally in the region and rebuilding the relationship that was seriously damaged November 26th.
QUESTION: I’m – right. But didn’t the President meet with --
MR. TONER: He did.
QUESTION: -- the head – yeah. Well, wasn’t that, like, last week or 10 days ago?
MR. TONER: I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I think I’ve addressed your question. Any other questions?
QUESTION: I’d just like to know why you think that Deputy Secretary Nides’ trip was so productive and so constructive if you can’t point to anything that’s resulted from it. I mean, you could say he had a great trip because he had a nice meeting and enjoyed tea with whoever he met with and they were all cordial and shook hands and smiled at each other, but that doesn’t necessarily – that’s not necessarily productive and constructive. So I want to know why you’re using those two terms.
MR. TONER: Well, Matt, I think I answered your question in the sense that he had high-level meetings – senior Pakistani officials. He delivered our message that we value this relationship and that we want to see us move forward in the relationship. Again, I’d refer you to Foreign Minister Khar’s press release that she put out that also called these substantive and constructive discussions.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: And I can’t --
QUESTION: So your argument is the very fact that the meetings happened is what makes it --
MR. TONER: That’s not what I’m saying at all. Anyway, next question.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Syria?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I know there was a lot of activity at the UN today, but I mean, in listening to the speeches at the UN, it seems like everyone’s as pessimistic as ever. I mean, realistically, what hope does the U.S. have that Assad is going to abide by this deadline?
MR. TONER: Well, you’re right, Cami. The 10th is approaching and you saw, of course, the UN released its presidential statement today that once again called on the Syrian Government to adhere to the commitments it has agreed to. And you are also correct in that, thus far, we haven’t seen, either from press reports or activists on the ground, any suggestions that the regime is carrying out any withdrawal from these city centers and retreating to barracks as the Annan plan calls for them to do.
So it’s not surprising; certainly discouraging. It is clear that the Assad regime appears to be using this window to continue to carry out its horrible assault on the Syrian people. And in the event, as I think Ambassador Rice has said, that we don’t – that he does not comply by April 10th, then we’re going to be consulting with the Security Council on next steps.
QUESTION: Was the U.S. satisfied with the strength of the presidential statement coming out of the Security Council? I mean, it’s urging them; it’s not – it didn’t have any demands in it.
MR. TONER: Well, look, it’s very clear what Assad needs to do. So it was a strong message of unity on this issue. And I don’t think it’s a message that we can convey enough to Assad and his regime that time is running out. They need to comply with the April 10th deadline.
QUESTION: Are you guys confident that that unity will continue when and if it becomes a discussion of whether he’s – how much he’s complying with this? You have a non-spokesperson saying that the Syrian Government has told them that they’re withdrawing forces from several cities and saying that this is going to be verified but not saying how. Are you persuaded that the Security Council, as a body, will have the same information, will all agree that either it’s happening or it won’t – it isn’t happening?
MR. TONER: I mean, that’s really a question for Kofi Annan to answer, or his spokesperson, which is how we’re going to coordinate to verify any withdrawal. So far, we’re getting out ahead of ourselves. We haven’t seen any signs that that’s happening.
QUESTION: Can you say anything about the U.S. assistance, the non-lethal assistance?
MR. TONER: You’re talking about the --
QUESTION: The status of that. Right.
MR. TONER: – the humanitarian assistance or --
QUESTION: Is it being delivered? The assistance that you couldn’t say what it was?
MR. TONER: Oh. I don’t have any updates for you. I’ll try to get it. You’re talking about the – to the Syrian opposition.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR. TONER: Yeah. No, I don’t have any updates for you on that. I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: How about the Syrian Government’s reported agreement to allow the ICRC access? Is that an important step? Or do you think that’s a serious step?
MR. TONER: Well, it certainly is, and we saw press reports, and indeed the ICRC confirmed that one of the two main Syrian/Arab Red Crescents warehouse facilities containing stocked goods intended for distribution to people in need was destroyed on April 4th. And some distributions have been canceled as a result. So obviously, that underscores the urgent need for safe and secure access for these humanitarian organizations.
QUESTION: Mark, I just want to make sure I got this right. You said that if Assad doesn’t comply by the April 10thdeadline, the U.S. – you guys and your allies are going to consult –
MR. TONER: We’re going to consult on next steps, yeah.
QUESTION: I’m sure he’s shaking in his boots. That’s really what the “or else” is? You do this or else we’re going to consult?
MR. TONER: Matt, our approach to Syria is on several fronts. We have the Friends of Syria group that, as you saw over the weekend, took additional steps to provide support to the opposition, as well as increase humanitarian assistance to people in need in Syria. We’ve got this sanctions group that’s look at how to more effectively implement sanctions against Assad. We’re – this is something we’re working on multiple fronts. We’re going to continue to use the UN where we believe it’s going to be effective. We’re going to go back and consult on next steps.
QUESTION: So does that mean that if he does comply with – by April 10th – if he does comply with this, that those sanctions will be lifted? You won’t be going for any more sanctions?
MR. TONER: It does not mean that.
QUESTION: So – I’m sorry. What does he get out of this deal?
MR. TONER: Again, it’s not so much what he gets out of this deal except that what there needs to be, first and foremost in Syria, is an end to the violence. This is a country that, as we said, is going down a very dangerous path.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. TONER: We have the opposition, or members of the opposition, now defending themselves, as we’ve talked about. The violence is expanding, and we need to stop that.
QUESTION: Why is not an accurate assessment – because I’m sure you’ll say it’s not an accurate assessment – that there is no reward for compliance and there’s no punishment for non-compliance? How does that work?
MR. TONER: Punishment for noncompliance – the punishment for non-compliance --
QUESTION: Yes. The punishment is that you’re going to consult.
MR. TONER: The punishment for noncompliance is going to be increased pressure on Assad, on his regime, and a clear message to those around him that they’re on the wrong side of history.
Yeah, Jill.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Let me – one more on Syria?
MR. TONER: Sure. Finish up Syria.
QUESTION: So what kind of strong consequences Secretary Clinton talk about if he doesn’t --
MR. TONER: I think I just talked about that. We’ve – this is not just about the Security Council, just about the UN. We’ve said before that we’re going to consult with the Security Council on next steps when appropriate. But we’re also applying pressure through sanctions, political pressure through the Friends of Syria group.
Yeah, go ahead, Jill.
QUESTION: In Egypt, there now are reports that the Obama Administration is asking Interpol to turn down, deny that request for the arrest of the American NGO people. Can you tell us – give us some more details about that?
MR. TONER: I can’t. I mean, first of all, it would be a Department of Justice issue. But secondly --
QUESTION: I think the State Department actually is involved.
MR. TONER: -- we don’t really talk about Interpol arrest warrants.
QUESTION: Right. But we do have State Department --
MR. TONER: I mean, what I can tell – what I can say to you, Jill, is what we’re – what we would convey both privately and publicly, which is that we’re making this message very clear in every available forum that we believe these charges against these individuals are politically motivated and therefore without any legal merit.
QUESTION: But tangential to that, there is apparently an Egyptian request for you to notify the people who have been charged that they – there is a court date coming up, and that they are expected to attend. Considering that you fronted the bail – or not fronted it, you actually paid it – are you going to comply with the Egyptians’ request, which I understand is your – is a treaty obligation for you to do so, and notify these people whether or not they go or not? Are you going to tell them that they are expected to pass on the – are you going to pass on the Egyptians’ notice to them that they are expected to appear in court, or are you really forfeiting the taxpayers’ $5 million in bail?
MR. TONER: You are correct that it’s these individuals’ own decision to make whether they’re going to return. I’ll – I mean, I – we’re in communication, obviously, with their lawyers. I don’t know if we’ve conveyed anything on the part of the Egyptian Government.
QUESTION: But will you pass on that, as you are obligated to do?
MR. TONER: I’ll take the question, but --
QUESTION: Similar to that, also on Egypt, just – I was wondering if there is a fuller readout of the meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, in particular about the substance of meetings, whether there’s any talk about democratic principles, types of things that might be raised as concerns, if there is a fuller readout of the meetings that you had.
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, I think – I’ll try to get one for you, but certainly, the deputy secretary met with members of this Carnegie Group that’s visiting that included a broad range of individuals from across the – not just Egypt, but obviously in other countries, Tunisia and elsewhere. I can’t get into the substance of his private discussions. I’m sure they talked about the transitions going on in all of their countries, and certainly the challenges in those democratic transitions.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. So who from the Muslim Brotherhood was in this delegation?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if we’ve got a – we don’t have a strict list of --
QUESTION: Are you sure that there was anyone from --
MR. TONER: Yeah. I’ll get you the information.
QUESTION: Well, can you – can I – and is it now – it’s now your stand, or it’s now your position that any conversation that a State Department official has, even if it’s in a private – even if it’s to a private citizen, i.e. not another government official, that that is – that’s somehow secret now?
MR. TONER: I didn’t say it was secret.
QUESTION: Well, you said we’re not going to get into the private discussion.
MR. TONER: Yeah, but I didn’t say it was secret.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Well --
MR. TONER: I mean, what do you – I mean, I just said we’re not going to --
QUESTION: Well, I’m just saying – so everything that is said --
MR. TONER: Yes, I’m not going to – I mean, I will give you an appropriate readout, but I’m not going to detail every x, y, and z of the conversation.
QUESTION: But you said you would look into this, but my suspicion is that you are going to come back to show the readout that you get is going to be that they talked about matters of mutual interest and regional concern. Would be that an appropriate readout for the most transparent administration since – in the history of the United States?
MR. TONER: Matt, don’t prejudge.
QUESTION: I’ll wait.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: What’s your position --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. TONER: Oh. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: So even if the Egyptians’ request to Interpol were to through, the U.S. would not be obligated to arrest anyone on U.S. soil if they were subjects of the Red Notice. We were just referring to what Jill was talking about, my report from --
MR. TONER: Right. I’m sorry. The first part of your question that --
QUESTION: The U.S. would not necessarily be obligated to – would not be obligated to arrest anyone who’s subject to a Red Notice under Interpol on their soil, but are you concerned that the Egyptians might follow up with extradition papers? And what’s the recourse for U.S. if that’s the case?
MR. TONER: You’re getting way out in front on this. I’m not going to talk about this legal process, what it may turn into two or three steps down the road. We’re very clear that we believe these are politically motivated charges.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: I’m sorry. You did actually ask first.
QUESTION: Yeah. What’s your position on the possible IAEA mission to Yongbyon? Do you think that IAEA should decline the invitation from North Koreans if they go ahead with missile launch? Have you discussed this matter with IAEA?
MR. TONER: Well, I’m sure we have discussed it with the IAEA. I can tell you on the part of the U.S. that we have no intention on observing the launch. But I’ll have to refer you to the --
QUESTION: No. Not talking about observing the launch, but did North Koreans send an invitation to IAEA about monitoring?
MR. TONER: Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were talking about invitations. They have been sending out invitations to --
QUESTION: Yeah, but about monitoring facilities, nuclear facilities in Yongbyon, as after the --
MR. TONER: We are consulting with them on this. I’d refer you to them for what their position is.
QUESTION: So just to follow up on that, you said the U.S. has no intention of observing the launch, which doesn’t surprise me.
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: But has there been a formal communication or was there a formal invitation? Has there been a communication with Pyongyang?
MR. TONER: I was told shortly before coming down here that it would go to NASA apparently – that we have not received any invitation.
QUESTION: Have not?
MR. TONER: Have not.
QUESTION: Do you know if NASA has? Obviously, that’s --
MR. TONER: That’s what I meant. I said we’d check with NASA. I’m aware – so yeah, no.
QUESTION: That they have not sent anything to NASA?
QUESTION: Announcement in – North Korea has announced yesterday if the United States sanctions against North Korea, then North Korea would held to another nuclear test soon. How do you respond, sir?
MR. TONER: My response is: What we said very clearly is that we don’t want to see the satellite launch. I’m not going to speculate down the road. We believe that this satellite launch would be in violation of UN Security – existing UN Security Council resolutions, so let’s deal with the issue at hand here.
Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: I don’t know if this subject came under discussion. Can you tell us something about Nides’ visit to Pakistan and what kind of economic cooperation -
MR. TONER: Did you just come here, or did you just arrive?
QUESTION: I’m – I had --
MR. TONER: I apologize. Let me give you a readout afterwards. I don’t want to rankle Matt again.
QUESTION: And –
QUESTION: On Ambassador David Hale’s visit to the Middle East, there’s a report the Jordanian hosted a meeting yesterday for the Palestinians and the Israeli negotiators?
MR. TONER: Yeah. He was obviously – it was in Ramallah yesterday. He met with Prime Minister Fayyad and President Abbas, and then he was meeting with his Israeli counterparts today. I don’t have a readout from those meetings. But obviously, all of this is done as – in preparation for leading up to next week’s Quartet meeting.
QUESTION: Tibet?
MR. TONER: Tibet?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Are you concerned about ongoing violence in Tibet? And one after another, they are putting themselves on fire or (inaudible). What they are saying is that China is destroying their culture and history and their livelihoods, and now time has come for the international community to intervene.
MR. TONER: Well, certainly we’ve been very vocal. And I would refer you to the numerous public statements we’ve made about our concerns about increasing these self-immolations and China’s actions vis-a-vis Tibet.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Sure. On Mali?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: There was a statement just a short while ago by the Foreign Minister Burkina Faso saying that Captain Sanogo, the coup leader, has a proper attitude, a right attitude, and as a result of that he thinks that the sanctions should be lifted, the sanctions that were just imposed. I mean, does the U.S. see any progress in Mali so far? Any progress that would warrant that type of thing?
MR. TONER: We know that the ECOWAS chiefs of defense are meeting in Abidjan today, and they’re in fact discussing next steps concerning the situation in Mali. And they have issued these sanctions. We do expect them to have a strong impact. But the choice is clear, that Sanogo and his compatriots need to reinstitute civilian rule with an eye towards near-term elections.
QUESTION: So, and then maybe --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Maybe it’s just something that came out from Burkina Faso, but do you think it would be a premature step to ease the pressure?
MR. TONER: Not at all. I mean, we’ve seen very little in the way – on the part of the --
QUESTION: The question was --
QUESTION: To ease the pressure.
QUESTION: To ease the pressure, and you said not at all. You mean to --
MR. TONER: I mean --
QUESTION: Sorry I mumbled.
QUESTION: You shouldn’t ease the pressure.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: That’s what you --
MR. TONER: Clearly. We’re not easing sanctions on Mali, not at all. We’re not looking to ease sanctions in any way on Mali right now.
QUESTION: And just --
MR. TONER: We want to keep the pressure up.
QUESTION: Just briefly on that, just to follow up from the question yesterday – but the talks Assistant Secretary Carson had in Algeria, is there anything more on that, just particularly as it relates to Mali?
MR. TONER: Yes, I do. He was in, indeed, Algeria, so thanks for calling that to my attention. He was there, obviously, with General Ham of AFRICOM, and they did meet with President Bouteflika as well as Algeria’s African affairs minister yesterday and precisely there to discuss the situation in Mali, as well as our concerns about the Sahel and the activities of AQIM.
QUESTION: Is there anything specific you’d like to see from Algeria on Mali as a neighboring country?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, obviously we’re looking to cooperate closely with them. This is an issue that touches their borders, and so it’s of great concern to them. So – and especially, as I said, the activities of AQIM in the region and the fact that they are, as al-Qaida often does, trying to exploit the current situation.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any updates on any potential ongoing communication or diplomacy with the Emirates about the NDI case? Have that – has that – I mean, I know the Secretary remarked on it over the weekend, but has there been anything more on that? And there’s also a report that a couple of NDI folks have been prevented from leaving, although one was later allowed to leave. Can you confirm that? Do you have any --
MR. TONER: Right. My understanding to your second question is that they were – there were two individuals briefly detained and then released. One was allowed to, in fact – or I think departed the country and the other remains. But I – and the Secretary obviously spoke to this over the weekend. And we continue to be in close contact with the Government of the UAE, trying to find a resolution to this.
QUESTION: Did the State Department – was the State Department involved at all in discussions with them while these two folks were being held, particularly the American citizen?
MR. TONER: You know what? I’m not – I don’t know, frankly. I don’t know how long the detention was, but --
QUESTION: Are you saying --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- one of them was an American citizen?
MR. TONER: I believe so.
QUESTION: I didn’t hear that and --
MR. TONER: I’ll double check, Matt.
QUESTION: --what you said. That is your understanding, though, yeah?
MR. TONER: I believe so.
That it? Great. Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:37 p.m.)