U.S. CONCERNED ABOUT CEASE-FIRE VIOLATIONS IN UKRAINE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Cease-fire Violations in Ukraine
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
February 16, 2015

The United States is gravely concerned by the deteriorating situation in and around Debaltseve in eastern Ukraine. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission confirms that attacks continue in this area as well as other locations, including Sievierodonetsk, Luhansk, and Donetsk city. The Government of Ukraine reports that its forces have been fired on 129 times in the last 24 hours by Russia-backed separatists, killing 5 and wounding 25, including attacks on a convoy evacuating the wounded from Debaltseve. The separatists have publicly declared that they refuse to observe the cease-fire in Debaltseve, and OSCE monitors have not been provided security guarantees for access. These aggressive actions and statements by the Russia-backed separatists threaten the most recent cease-fire and jeopardize the planned withdrawal of heavy weapons, as called for in the February 12 Minsk packet of implementing measures. We are closely monitoring reports of a new column of Russian military equipment moving toward Debaltseve.

We call on Russia and the separatists it backs to halt all attacks immediately, engage with the OSCE to facilitate the cease-fire, and, as called for in the packet of measures agreed to on February 12, fully implement their September 5 and 19 Minsk commitments.

G-7 LEADERS MAKE STATEMENT ON UKRAINE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
February 13, 2015
G-7 Leaders Statement on Ukraine

We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission welcome the “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” adopted by their original signatories on 12th February 2015 in Minsk. Implementation of the “Minsk Package” offers a way forward to a comprehensive, sustainable, and peaceful resolution to the crisis in eastern Ukraine.

However, the G7 remains concerned about the situation in Ukraine, in particular in view of the fighting around Debaltseve where Russian-backed separatist militias are operating beyond the line of contact agreed upon in the Minsk agreements of September 2014, causing numerous civilian casualties. We urge all sides to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Package and to carry out its measures without delay, starting with a ceasefire on the 15th of February. All parties should refrain from actions in the coming days that would hinder the start of the ceasefire. The G7 stands ready to adopt appropriate measures against those who violate the “Minsk package” and therefore intensify the costs for them, in particular against those who do not observe the agreed comprehensive ceasefire and withdrawal of heavy weapons.

We again condemn Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea which is in violation of international law.

The G7 welcomes the agreement in principle reached on the 12th of February by the IMF and the government of Ukraine on a new economic reform program that will be supported by an IMF Extended Fund Facility. The G7 members look forward to prompt consideration of the program by the IMF Executive Board. We are providing financial assistance to support Ukraine. This international assistance will help Ukraine in the ambitious economic reforms it is undertaking to restore economic growth and improve the living standards of the Ukrainian people. We commend the government of Ukraine for its commitment to implement this ambitious reform agenda with regard to economic, rule-of-law, and democratic reforms.

SECRETARY KERRY'S STATEMENT ON UKRAINE CEASEFIRE

FROM:   U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Ukraine Ceasefire Agreement
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 12, 2015

The United States welcomes the news that the OSCE-led Trilateral Contact Group, supported by Chancellor Merkel and Presidents Hollande, Poroshenko, and Putin, reached agreement on a ceasefire and heavy weapons withdrawal in eastern Ukraine, and on the implementation of the September Minsk agreements. We particularly commend the diplomatic efforts of our European Allies, Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande, and their teams in making this agreement possible. Actions will be what matter now. The first test of this agreement and the prospects for a comprehensive settlement will be the full implementation of the ceasefire and the withdrawal of heavy weapons by all parties – by Ukraine, the separatists, and Russia. All the parties must show complete restraint in the run-up to the Sunday ceasefire, including an immediate halt to the Russian and separatist assault on Debaltseve and other Ukrainian towns.

The parties have a long road ahead before achieving peace and the full restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty. The United States stands ready to assist in coordination with our European Allies and partners. We will judge the commitment of Russia and the separatists by their actions, not their words. As we have long said, the United States is prepared to consider rolling back sanctions on Russia when the Minsk agreements of September 2014, and now this agreement, are fully implemented. That includes a full ceasefire, the withdrawal of all foreign troops and equipment from Ukraine, the full restoration of Ukrainian control of the international border, and the release of all hostages.

We also welcome the news that the Government of Ukraine and the IMF have reached an agreement that will allow the IMF to provide Ukraine with $17.5 billion in financial assistance in support of economic reforms. This agreement will enable Ukraine to continue implementing the reforms it needs to build a stronger, more prosperous, democratic future for the people of Ukraine.

WHITE HOUSE VIDEO: PRESIDENT OBAMA HOSTS CHANCELLOR MERKEL AT WHITE HOUSE

DOD VIDEO: HAGEL MEETS WITH NATO IN BELGIUM

READOUTS: SECRETARY HAGEL'S MEETINGS WITH GEORGIAN MINISTER OF DEFENSE AND ITALIAN DEFENSE MINISTER

FROM:  THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT S
Release No: NR-037-15
February 05, 2015
Readout of Secretary Hagel's meetings with the Georgian Minister of Defense Mindia Janelidze

Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby provided the following readout:
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met in Brussels today with Georgian Minister of Defense Mindia Janelidze. The meeting took place on the sidelines of the NATO Defense Ministerial conference being held here.

Secretary Hagel thanked the president for his leadership and for the contributions Georgia continues to make in Afghanistan and other peacekeeping missions, as well as to coalition efforts against ISIL in Iraq.

The secretary stressed the United States' commitment to helping improve Georgia's interoperability and readiness, a process that will be greatly enhanced by continued institutional reform in the Georgian government.

The two leaders also discussed the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. They reviewed efforts by allies and partners in the region to reinforce our international commitments and to continue to apply diplomatic and economic pressure on Moscow.

Secretary Hagel reaffirmed the importance of the U.S. partnership with Georgia, and pledged to continue our strong defense cooperation.


Release No: NR-038-15
February 05, 2015
Readout of Secretary Hagel's meeting with Italian Minister of Defense Roberta Pinotti.

Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby provided the following readout:
Secretary Hagel met in Brussels today with Italian Minister of Defense Roberta Pinotti. The meeting took place on the sidelines of the NATO Defense Ministerial conference being held here.

Secretary Hagel thanked Minister Pinotti for her leadership and for the contributions Italy continues to make to the alliance and in Afghanistan, as well as to coalition operations in Iraq.

He praised the minister's efforts to help our two militaries maintain a strong defense relationship, as well as Italy's efforts to work closely with other NATO allies across many missions and operations.

The two leaders also discussed a host of regional security issues, including Russia's continued aggression inside Ukraine, the threat posed by ISIL in the Middle East and recent instability in North Africa and the Levant.

Minister Pinotti thanked Secretary Hagel for his leadership as he prepares to leave office, and both leaders reaffirmed the importance of renewed focus by the NATO alliance to address both continental and global security challenges.

U.S. UNITED NATIONS AMBASSADOR POWER'S REMARKS ON UKRAINE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
01/26/2015 03:37 PM EST
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
New York, NY
January 26, 2015
AS DELIVERED 

Thank you, Mr. President for convening today’s urgent meeting. Under Secretary-General Feltman, we are grateful for your thorough briefing on such short notice.

Just five days ago, we met in this Council and denounced the devastating consequences of attacks by Russian-backed separatists on civilians in eastern Ukraine, and we appealed to Russia to stop supporting, training, and fighting alongside separatist forces. Members of this Council pressed Russia and the separatists not only to recommit themselves to the agreements they had made at Minsk, but actually to honor those commitments in their actions. Unfortunately, we are back here today because Russia and the separatists have once again flouted these commitments.

The targets are fresh ones, but Russia’s end goal remains the same: to seize more territory and move the line of Russian-controlled territory deeper and deeper into Ukraine.

This time, though, statements by the separatists are complicating Russia’s strategy. On Friday, January 23, the de factor leader of the Russian-backed separatists in Donetsk, Alexander Zakharchenko said, and I quote: “Today the offensive on Mariupol begins.” He also said, “There will be no more ceasefires.” He said the separatists would not stop their attacks until they had, “reached the borders of the former Donetsk region,” bragging that separatist forces were now “able to attack in three directions simultaneously.” The Representative of the Russian Federation today said that these are statements we have taken out of context. What context possibly justifies a massive offensive against a civilian populated town? I would note, also, that attacking in three directions, as the separatist leader said he now had the capability – his forces had the capability to do – takes a lot of weapons and forces. This capability reflects the difference made by the substantial, months-long influx of Russian personnel and heavy weapons.

We know that Zakharchenko said these things because he was filmed when he said them, and quoted by the official Russian news agency, TASS. On Saturday, Zakharchenko told people at a rally in Donetsk, “Today the attack on Mariupol began.” He added that, “In a few days we will encircle Debaltseve,” a city that is twelve kilometers outside the ceasefire line established at Minsk.

If only the separatist’s words had been empty bravado. Unfortunately, on Saturday, the world witnessed the horrors that resulted from the separatists’ attack on Mariupol, a city 25 kilometers outside of the Minsk line. On Saturday alone, more than 100 people were injured in rocket attacks on the city. Approximately 30 people were killed, including women, elderly, and children, one of whom was a four-year-old boy. Some 40 rounds of rockets struck the city, hitting a market, homes, and a school, among other civilian structures. The impartial OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine examined blast craters and concluded that they had been caused by Grad rockets fired from multi-rocket launcher systems in separatist-controlled areas.

Why do these locations matter to the Russians and the separatists? Mariupol is a port city, which would provide Russia with another means of supplying separatists. And controlling the city would be another step toward creating a land bridge to illegally-occupied Crimea. Debaltseve is a strategic rail and road hub, and serves as a key link between Donetsk and Luhansk regions. It is no accident that these strategic cities are in Russia’s sights.

When, on Saturday, members of the Council tried to issue a joint statement denouncing the civilian casualties and expressing concern about the separatist’s statements, as we’ve heard, Russia blocked it. No wonder, given that less than a day earlier Russia had been perfectly content disseminating Zakharchenko’s statements in its state-run media. It would be strange to be concerned about statements one had encouraged and publicized.

But when your state news agency circulates announcements relishing a new offensive and your diplomats refuse to express concern about them, you own not only the statements, but also the offensives.

Now sometimes, perhaps given the fog of this bloody war, the separatists are too explicit about their objectives. Indeed, after initially blasting around the separatists’ Mariupol ambitions in the news service, Russia began to see the same ghastly images and reports of the carnage that the rest of us saw. At that point, perhaps knowing the source of the weaponry used, Russia tried to deny any tie between the separatists and the attacks. The Russian news service, TASS, even tried to erase from official news stories all quotes from Zakharchenko speaking about the separatists’ attacks.

It is not hard to understand why Russia does not want the world to hear separatists’ statements. Last Wednesday, the Representative of the Russian Federation told this Council that, “the Russian Federation is ensuring full compliance with the Minsk accords.” On Saturday, though, Zakharchenko openly admitted his forces were violating those same accords. He appeared not to have gotten the Russian memo, which clearly calls for violating the accords while pretending you are not.

Despite Zakharchenko’s statements, Russia continues to try to play the international community for the fool, and blame the violence on the Ukrainians. As recently as yesterday, Foreign Minister Lavrov said, “The worsening situation in Ukraine was the result of constant attacks conducted by the Ukrainian government troops, which breached the Minsk agreements.” We heard the same here today from the Representative of the Russian Federation.

Zakharchenko’s statements are a problem for Russia because they are too straightforward. As members of this Council know – and as, increasingly, all the world can see – the separatists he claims to lead are trained and equipped by Russia, and fight with Russian forces by their side. So when Zakharchenko brags about seizing territory beyond the Minsk ceasefire line; when he announces at rallies that separatists will strike Ukrainian forces without provocation; when he says he is not interested in negotiating; he is not only speaking about the separatists’ intentions, but also about Russia’s intentions. This offensive is made in Moscow. It is waged by Russian-trained and Russian-funded separatists, who use Russian missiles and Russian tanks, who are backed up by Russian troops, and whose operations receive direct Russian assistance.

Since December, Russia has transferred hundreds of pieces of military equipment to pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, including tanks, armored vehicles, rocket systems, heavy artillery, and other military equipment. And in recent weeks, Russia has resupplied the separatists with hundreds of pieces of advanced weaponry, including additional rocket systems, heavy artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles.

In mid-to-late January, notwithstanding the shoot down of MH-17, Russia even deployed into eastern Ukraine advanced surface-to-air missile and antiaircraft systems, marking the highest level of Russian air defense presence in eastern Ukraine since September 2014. There is a direct correlation between the movement of heavy weapons, the surge in that movement across the border, and attempts by separatists to take more ground.

The horror wrought by this arsenal has been deadly. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, January 13th to the 21st was the deadliest period on record since the September 5th agreement was signed in Minsk. During this time, an average of 29 people were killed each day. More than 5,000 people have been killed and almost 11,000 maimed since the conflict began in April 2014. And today, this very day, the attacks continue on the civilian-populated areas over the Minsk Ceasefire lines – not only in Mariupol and Debaltseve, but also in Pisky and Stanychno-Lunhanske.

To the Russians, Mariupol and Debaltseve may just be strategic chess pieces in their effort to move the line of territory that they control. But these cities are also home to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians. Nearly 500,000 people live in Mariupol, the second biggest city in the Donetsk region, and more than 25,000 live in Debaltseve. Mariupol is home to 92 pre-schools, attended by 13,000 children.

We continue to believe that the only solution to this situation is a political solution, not a military solution. To that end, we continue to support the efforts of the Trilateral Contact Group, as well as the Normandy group of foreign ministers. We welcome the Normandy group’s agreement in Berlin, which recognizes the need for full, immediate implementation of the Minsk agreement.

If Russia is serious about peace, why doesn’t Russia condemn the statements by separatists that they will attack Ukrainians first and accept no more ceasefires, instead of trying to erase those statements from its state-run news services? If Russia is serious about peace, why doesn’t it pull its tanks and Grad missiles out of eastern Ukraine, instead of sending in more? If Russia is serious about peace, why doesn’t it withdraw its forces at least to the lines agreed upon at Minsk, rather than sending in a huge infusion of Russian heavy weapons so as to carve out new lines.

Only if Russia takes these steps will there be a chance for the political solution that is so desperately needed.

Thank you.

DOD NEWS REPORTS NATO FOCUSES ON RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

Right:  Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, left, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and German Chief of Defense Army Gen. Volker Wieker talk between NATO's Military Committee conference and the chiefs of defense quarterly meeting in Brussels, Jan. 21, 2015. DoD photo by D. Myles Cullen.  

NATO Focuses on Russian Violations of Ukraine's Sovereignty
By Lisa Ferdinando
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT, Jan. 22, 2015 – NATO is focused on strategies to deal with its two biggest threats -- Russian aggression to its east, and the threat of terrorism from its south, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said today.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey and other alliance defense chiefs today concluded two days of talks at NATO headquarters in Brussels.
Russian aggression, Dempsey said, has "changed sovereign borders with the use of coercion." And the recent terrorist attacks in Paris underscore the "very real threat of terrorism that comes up into NATO's southern flank."

There was consensus among the military chiefs that NATO must confront these threats, he said.

NATO Needs to Address Both Threats

"I thought this would be the most important meeting of its kind that I've had with NATO since I've been chairman, and in my judgment it proved to be just that," the chairman said in an interview on his plane back to Washington.
"We came to an agreement that NATO really does have to address both threats, and that NATO has the capability and the resources to address them both," Dempsey said. "We don't have to pick which threat is more serious."

While Dempsey declined to discuss details of the most recent allegations of Russia violating September’s Minsk ceasefire agreement, he did underscore the seriousness in which NATO views the Russian aggression.

"It is indicative of efforts on the part of Russia to support separatists in, frankly, violation of Ukrainian sovereignty," Dempsey said. "We're very concerned about it."

Eastern Europeans are very unsettled about the threats to the east, and the southern Europeans are very unsettled about the threats to the south, Dempsey said.

U.S. and European officials have expressed concern about the return of foreign fighters through NATO's southern flank, and the threat that those extremists pose to Europe.

NATO to Evolve Strategy to Address Threats

The defense chiefs also discussed the strategic concept, crafted in 2010, that informs NATO's defense planning. Global security has changed "pretty dramatically" in those four years, Dempsey said.

NATO will evolve its strategies to deal with the threats to its east and south, and the military chiefs will make recommendations on the way the NATO military arm is organized and resourced, he said.

Dempsey said it is important to demonstrate "our resolve and our reassurance" to NATO's Baltic and Eastern European allies through the Readiness Action Plan, NATO's response to the Russian aggression.

Alliance officials say the Readiness Action Plan will significantly enhance NATO’s readiness and responsiveness and ensure that NATO forces remain ready. In the interim, NATO has established a “very high readiness” joint task force coordinated by Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe.

NATO has bolstered its presence in Eastern Europe, while the United States has conducted a variety of reassurance measures to include airborne exercises in Poland and the Baltic nations.

"We have the very real requirement to reassure our allies, to increase the readiness of NATO's forces, and to adapt some of the organizations that provide NATO rapid response and the NATO command structures," Dempsey said.
The defense chiefs did "really big lifting" to address the near-term requirements on readiness and assurance, he added, and on the longer-term approach to the threats to east and south.

Pleased With Transition in Afghanistan

Dempsey said the defense chiefs were pleased with the successful transition from the combat International Security Assistance Force mission to the Resolute Support mission that trains, advises, assists and builds capacity.

Flexibility is needed in the strategy for Afghanistan, Dempsey said, encouraging the allies to "stay committed at the regional level through the fighting season of 2015." It is prudent to stay at the regional level militarily through the year, he added.

Dempsey, who said the alliance has a great ally in Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, said the strategy must consider both conditions on the ground and a timetable for progress.

"Milestones based on time are an important goal, so that you have something to reach for and to plan for and to resource for," he said. "It just seems to me that in these kinds of missions, it is useful to have both a timetable but then be willing to assess and reassess and assess again the conditions."

The United States has demonstrated flexibility, he said.

"Initially we were supposed to be at 9,800 [troops in Afghanistan] by the end of 2014, but our NATO allies had some challenges in resourcing, and so we've left an additional 1,000 there into the spring, to allow NATO to catch up with its resourcing challenges."

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH BULGARIAN FOREIGN MINISTER MITOV

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With Bulgarian Foreign Minister Daniel Mitov After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Sofia, Bulgaria
January 15, 2015

FOREIGN MINISTER MITOV: (Via interpreter) Dear Mr. Secretary, dear colleagues, for me it was an honor to host the official visit of the State Secretary of the United States John Kerry in Bulgaria. Today, we reaffirmed our strong strategic partnership between the two countries and we adopted the joint statement for the media, which is at your disposal already.

A few words on the achieved agreements. Strengthening our cooperation in the field of security and defense, energy security and diversification, rule of law, education, people-to-people ties, including by creating joint working groups, is a strong message for the strength and resilience of our relations. Our strategic partnership, our common democratic values, the high-level dialogue, and the excellent cooperation, Bulgaria treasures this highly.

In response to the challenges and changes in the geopolitical environment caused by the conflict in the Ukraine and the growing terrorist threat from the Middle East, we – our efforts in this area will contribute to improving the situation in the region and globally.

We also reaffirmed our efforts for expanding NATO, including the countries from the West Balkans in the NATO alliance, and Bulgaria will be the guarantor. The support of the U.S. in modernizing our military and the implementation of the NATO Readiness Action Plan will increase the security of the eastern borders of (inaudible) and the entire region.

Energy security is also of key importance. Our common goal is to attract investments to guarantee supply and distribution, as well as to build interconnectivity with neighboring countries.

Among the major areas in our collaboration is our effort to expand our trade and economic relations, including goods turnover and attracting new American investments in Bulgaria. Bulgaria’s potential in ICT, machine building, and other sectors will help her to attract more investments from the United States, especially in high-tech productions and in services with high added value. This topic is not only bilateral; it is also within the transatlantic relations. And here I ought to mention the TTIP and our support for the constructive negotiations between the EU and the United States on signing this agreement.

The connection – the ties between Bulgaria and law enforcement and security institutions and bodies are also on the rights, and then cooperation in combating human traffic, drug traffic, cyber crime, et cetera.

Bulgaria and the United States will also work on the people-to-people ties, on removing the visa regime for Bulgarian people. Mr. Secretary, I hope that your visit has shown you that Bulgaria is a good friend of – and a good ally of the United States, and we will continue our work for improving the situation in the region, in Europe, and globally.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Daniel, thank you very much. I’m appreciative to the foreign minister, to Minister Mitov, for his very warm welcome here at the foreign ministry. And I’m thankful to him for refueling me with a very good lunch.

I’m appreciative also for the good conversation that we had. I’m not going to repeat everything that I said earlier with the prime minister, and I’m not going to repeat everything that Daniel just said in an excellent summary of our discussion. So he has pretty fully described to all of you the breadth of our relationship and the importance of the United States-Bulgaria partnership and friendship. And it is a friendship, and it is a partnership.

And I want to emphasize that we had a broad discussion at the luncheon. I asked a lot of questions. I particularly was educated about the constitution, the constitutional process, the political process, and of course the judiciary, and the reform initiative, which this government is committed to, which is so important to the ability of Bulgaria to be able to attract capital investment and to be able to make the progress that everybody hopes for.

It’s obviously no secret that the transatlantic community is facing a lot of challenges at this point in time, and the job of creating a Europe that is whole and free and at peace is not a finished job at all. So we are focused on how to make the most progress as fast as possible in this important partnership in order to meet the challenges that we face head on. And it is clear that both the United States and Bulgaria are absolutely committed to investing in the sources of our strength, and that means in a strong, clean, and accountable judiciary, in democratic institutions, but also in our citizens, because in the end it’s the citizens who define a country.

We believe that, on energy security, particularly, there is a very important economic and security priority that we intend to follow up on in the serious ways that I talked about earlier. And we also are very committed to helping to protect Bulgaria’s very rich cultural heritage. The United States is already helping to restore the UNESCO World Heritage Site at Nessebar, and we’ve also increased the size of the Bulgarian Fulbright program for exchanges of students.

But one of the things that we talked about at lunch is the value of tourism and the newly created tourism bureau – or tourism ministry here in Bulgaria, which is an opportunity to really focus on an area that could provide enormous revenue increase, expand the economy, and also strengthen Bulgaria, as well as promote Bulgaria on an international basis.

So there’s a lot of homework to do. We’re particularly going to follow up on the economic front, on the energy front, and we laid out in a communique to everybody a pretty good summary of the new working groups and the new initiatives that we’re going to engage in.

So for me, this has been a very productive visit. I’m glad to have been able to come here, and I look forward to returning sometime in the future, when together we can announce specific progress on some of the plans that we laid today.

So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Foreign Minister, for your welcome. Thank you to the president and the prime minister. Thank you to the people of Bulgaria for their friendship and partnership. And thank you so much for the work that Bulgaria has done to help to deal with international crises from Afghanistan to Iraq to ISIL, and continuing to do in their own neighborhood. We appreciate it very much. It is the mark of a strong and important country when they are as engaged as Bulgaria is today.

Thank you very much.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT LOOKS BACK AT 2014

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
A Look Back at 2014
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
December 31, 2014

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

The holiday season and the end of the year is a chance to reflect on the past and look ahead to the New Year. The year 2014 opened with a set of terrible conflicts raging – including wars in Syria, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic. These civil wars are characterized by indiscriminate violence and attacks on innocent civilians, as combatants flout widely accepted norms and principles. In June, UNHCR announced that more people were forcibly displaced by the end of 2013 – as refugees, asylum-seekers, and internally displaced people – than at any time since World War II.

And then summer brought more bad news and a longer list of tragedies. ISIL’s attacks spread terror across Iraq. Bloody conflict in areas of southeastern Ukraine bordering Russia displaced hundreds of thousands of lives and left thousands dead. Fighting broke out between Hamas and Israel, unaccompanied Central American children arrived in record numbers at the United States’ southern border, and Africa faced the worst Ebola epidemic in history.

Despite this daunting list, humanitarians and supporters of humanitarian causes can take pride in what we have achieved. Aid groups that faced every conceivable obstacle – donor fatigue, staffing shortages, impassable roads, blockades and attacks –still found ways to keep millions of people alive. Humanitarians managed to stave off a man-made famine in South Sudan and to bring aid to besieged cities in Syria. Throughout the Middle East, a vaccination campaign that has reached 25 million children has helped contain the spread of polio.

The United States led the world’s humanitarian efforts by again serving as top donor. With the support of lawmakers from both parties, the State Department and USAID together provided more than $6 billion in humanitarian assistance this year. U.S. contributions powered the work of the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), the World Food Program, UNICEF, and other leading aid agencies. We also played a role in encouraging other nations to give, some made large donations to UN agencies for the first time. Kuwait organized a second international pledging conference for the Syria crisis that Secretary Kerry attended and gave generously itself. And Saudi Arabia stepped in at a critical moment with significant support for Iraq.

The leaders of UN and other humanitarian organizations called attention to the world’s crises and worked assiduously to mount and mobilize effective responses. Aid workers on the front lines showed professionalism and valor, even as they saw colleagues murdered by terrorists and felled by Ebola.

Countries that took in refugees deserve credit for keeping their borders open as the numbers of refugees climbed. Their hospitality saved countless lives and involved true acts of generosity. The massive influx of Syrian refugees in the Middle East is weighing heavily on communities where people are poor and housing and jobs scarce; there is widespread agreement that development dollars should be directed to helping societies that are coping with the arrivals of large numbers of refugees.

Even during challenging times, humanitarians must persevere. We must defend and rally support for humanitarian principles. We must attract new donors from across the globe, collaborate more, and seek new ways to respond nimbly and effectively. Our priorities and programs must evolve, along with refugees’ needs. Millions now crowd into cities, stay for years, and need ways to support themselves, so innovations such as electronic cash cards and mobile health clinics are essential. Because victims of conflict should thrive and not just survive, we must coordinate relief and development assistance. And we should also capitalize on the growing international momentum behind stopping all forms of violence against women or “gender based” violence. We know that women, girls, and children are particularly vulnerable during crisis, but abuses can be prevented and perpetrators held accountable.

This year we commemorated the 20th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development – called the “Cairo Conference.” We noted the tremendous progress that has been made around the world to reduce poverty and maternal and child mortality and send girls and boys to school. However, global progress has been unequal, often hampered by discrimination and inequality. John Kerry attended the Cairo Conference as a U.S. Senator, and now, as Secretary of State, he points to the clear evidence that human and reproductive rights, women’s empowerment, and economic development are closely intertwined. At a 20th anniversary celebration in September, the Secretary said:

“We all know that investing in women and youth isn’t just the right thing to do; it’s a strategic necessity. It’s how you create stability, foster sustainable societies, and promote shared prosperity, because societies where women and girls are safe, where women are empowered to exercise their rights and move their communities forward, these societies are more prosperous and more stable – not occasionally but always.”

I’ve also welcomed the growing interest in helping migrants. This year nearly five thousand migrants died in transit, more than double last year’s death toll. The majority perished at sea -- more than three thousand drowned in the Mediterranean. I recently attended a dialogue in Geneva on Protecting Migrants at Sea organized by UNHCR where experts from around the world agreed: whatever the political and logistical hurdles, our first priority must be saving lives. We also recognized that migrants need to be screened for particular vulnerabilities, e.g. in the case of unaccompanied kids, trafficking victims, or because they are fleeing violence or persecution.

In the United States, we can take pride in our program that helps refugees restart their lives here. In 2014, for the second year in a row, we resettled nearly 70,000 refugees of more than 65 nationalities who are now making their homes in cities and towns across our country. Once again, we ensured that they arrived at an even pace throughout the year to give them and their new communities the best possible chance at success. While we continued to admit large numbers of Iraqis, Burmese, Somalis, and Bhutanese, we also are starting to see growing numbers of Congolese and Syrians – two populations that will make up an increasing share of our resettled refugee population in coming years.

Fortunately, our bureau works with organizations that not only share our concerns, but also share our determination to find solutions to seemingly intractable problems. It is a privilege to engage on these issues alongside a host of the world’s best aid organizations. I realize that this letter serves as a reminder of a series of tragic events around the world, but I also write to remind you, our colleagues and friends, that much is being done every day to save lives, alleviate pain and suffering, and help some of the world’s most vulnerable to find safety. Thank you for your interest in and support for our work.

Best regards,


Anne C. Richard
Assistant Secretary
For Population, Refugees, & Migration

PRESIDENT OBAMA MAKES STATEMENT ON UKRAINE FREEDOM SUPPORT ACT

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT 
December 18, 2014
Statement by the President on the Ukraine Freedom Support Act

Today, I have signed H.R. 5859, the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, into law. Signing this legislation does not signal a change in the Administration’s sanctions policy, which we have carefully calibrated in accordance with developments on the ground and coordinated with our allies and partners.  At this time, the Administration does not intend to impose sanctions under this law, but the Act gives the Administration additional authorities that could be utilized, if circumstances warranted.

My Administration will continue to work closely with allies and partners in Europe and internationally to respond to developments in Ukraine and will continue to review and calibrate our sanctions to respond to Russia's actions. We again call on Russia to end its occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, cease support to separatists in eastern Ukraine, and implement the obligations it signed up to under the Minsk agreements.

As I have said many times, our goal is to promote a diplomatic solution that provides a lasting resolution to the conflict and helps to promote growth and stability in Ukraine and regionally, including in Russia.  In this context, we continue to call on Russia's leadership to implement the Minsk agreements and to reach a lasting and comprehensive resolution to the conflict which respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  We remain prepared to roll back sanctions should Russia take the necessary steps.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT OSCE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at OSCE Ministerial Plenary Session
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Basel, Switzerland
December 4, 2014

Thank you, President Burkhalter, for hosting us, and thanks to you and your team for chairing the OSCE during a very turbulent year. Your excellencies, when this ministerial last convened, tens of thousands of Ukrainian citizens were on the Maidan. And they were not intimidated by police violence, the threat of further repression, or the freezing weather. They were warmed by a simple desire: to live in a country with an honest government. The people of Ukraine continue to persevere. Through – tested by external aggression, they are casting off the shackles of repression and opening a new and promising chapter in their nation’s history. Twice in the past year, they have chosen new leaders through genuine democratic elections, and President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk have pledged to implement a robust agenda of reforms designed to make Ukraine more secure, just, inclusive, prosperous, and free.

As the people of Ukraine have fought for their country, the OSCE has played a pivotal role. The organization has proven to the world the value of collective security and human rights instruments that we have built there, and underlined how important it is that these tools be allowed to work. In Ukraine, the OSCE has deployed the Special Monitoring Mission and used the Vienna Document to send inspection teams. The High Commission on National Minorities and Representatives on Freedom of the Media have supported civil society, documented abuses, and defended the voiceless in Crimea and other parts of Ukraine. ODIHR and the Parliamentary Assembly organized the largest election observation effort in OSCE history, and the list goes on.

The international community is united in condemning the violence that has led to so much needless suffering in Ukraine, but the violence continues. Regrettably, Russia continues to supply new weapons and increase support for armed separatists. In doing so, it fails to meet its international and OSCE obligations and to live up to an agreement that it actually negotiated and signed. The result is damage to its credibility, and its own citizens wind up paying a steep economic and human price, including the price of hundreds of Russian soldiers who fight and die in a country where they had and have no right to be.

So let me emphasize: The United States and countries that support Ukraine’s sovereignty and rights do not seek confrontation. It is not our design or desire that we see a Russia isolated through its own actions. In fact, we are convinced that Moscow could rebuild trust and relationships if it simply helps to calm turbulent waters, if it takes steps now to implement the Minsk protocol in letter and spirit, end support for violence in eastern Ukraine, withdraw Russian weapons and fighters, use its influence on the separatists to release all hostages, guarantee safe and unfettered access for OSCE monitors, cooperate in securing and respecting the entire internationally-recognized Ukrainian-Russian border, and end the illegal occupation of Crimea. No one gains from this confrontation. The nations around this table have too much work to do, too many common challenges, from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to epidemic disease and climate change.

My friends, more broadly, the crisis that we have experienced in Europe this past year is not the fault of the international system. It stems from the unwillingness of individual actors to abide by the rules and the principles of that system. When rules are broken, they need to be enforced, not rewritten. Despite numerous violations of Helsinki this year, the timeless wisdom of the final act – that sustainable security can only be achieved when fundamental freedoms and human rights are protected – has been reaffirmed. To build a more secure OSCE area, we need to acknowledge the serious failure of some member states to live up to their responsibilities, and these failures affect us all. In too many of the countries gathered here, the space for independent civil society and media is shrinking, breeding abuses of power and corruption. Laws have been enacted that repress religious freedom and unfairly punish legitimate political dissent. We have seen a rising tide of intolerance across the OSCE region, including hate crimes targeting Roma, Jews, Muslims, the LGBT community, and others. This organization is at its best when it sheds light where there is darkness and when it stands up against repression and for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including internet freedom. It is at its best when it speaks out, when we speak out, when society and independent activists and journalists – wherever people’s rights are denied or in jeopardy.

In closing, I thank President Burkhalter once again for his stewardship, the people of Switzerland for their hospitality, and we look forward to working with Prime Minister Vucic and Foreign Minister Dacic during Serbia’s chairmanship next year. And you will be sure that you will have our support as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. Thank you.

READOUT: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CALL WITH EUROPEAN COUNCIL PRESIDENT TUSK

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
December 01, 2014
Readout of the President's Call with European Council President Donald Tusk

President Obama called President Donald Tusk today to congratulate him on his first day as President of the European Council.  President Obama underscored the importance of continued U.S.-EU cooperation and noted the need for policy action to strengthen European economic growth.  The two leaders affirmed their determination to achieve an ambitious and comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) agreement.  They also reiterated the U.S. and EU commitment to work with international financial institutions to provide the financial support Ukraine needs as it stabilizes its economy, implements necessary reforms, and seeks to resolve the conflict in the eastern part of the country.   They agreed that sanctions against Russia cannot be eased until Russia meets its commitments under the Minsk agreements, and reiterated the joint U.S. and EU condemnation of Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea.  The leaders assessed what further actions may be necessary in response to Russia’s destabilizing actions in eastern Ukraine and Crimea.  They also discussed combined efforts to support governments in western Africa as they seek to arrest the spread of Ebola, provide treatment to those infected, and partner on global health security. 

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS IN PARIS, FRANCE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Secretary of State John Kerry At a Solo Press Availability
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Paris, France
November 20, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon, everybody. As you know, I’ve spent the last couple of days in Europe, in London, and now in Paris. And during the course of that time, I’ve had very worthwhile meetings with Foreign Secretary Hammond of Great Britain, Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal here in Paris today, and of course, with Foreign Minister Fabius, and other meetings that I have had during that time.

During these meetings, we’ve discussed a range of the challenges that we face together as partners – obviously, Syria, ISIL, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, others, but particularly, as you can imagine, the focus has been on the nuclear negotiations with Iran. As all of us know, we are now a little less than a week away from the November 24th deadline for these negotiations. And none of us came to this process, I assure you, with anything except serious purpose and realism. We knew the stakes in getting into this, and we also knew the challenges.

But we’ve also – I want to make it clear – come a long way in a short period of time. After all, it was only last year when our nations first resumed high-level contact after decades of stalled relations, I think more than 35 years since we had even talked. It was only last year that President Obama spoke with President Rouhani by phone, and it was only last year when I sat down for the first time with Foreign Minister Zarif in New York at the United Nations.

Work also had to be done during that time with our European partners and the P5+1 partners and with the Iranians in order to be able to test seriously what might be possible at the negotiating table. These steps all together created an opening that we hadn’t seen or been able to possibly experience since the time or the advent of the Iranian nuclear program. As a result, last November we did conclude a Joint Plan of Action with Iran in which they agreed to freeze – effectively freeze their nuclear program while the P5+1 provided limited sanctions relief. And together, we set a frame for these negotiations on a comprehensive agreement.

And despite the skepticism that many expressed when we first reached the JPOA, as it was known – the Joint Plan of Action – the world is already safer because of it. And all sides have stuck to their commitments made under that agreement. Consequently, we are today closer to resolving the international concerns around Iran’s nuclear program through diplomatic means.

Now, we have the chance – and I underscore the word chance – to complete an agreement that would meet our strategic objectives, that would guarantee that Iran’s four pathways to fissile material for a nuclear weapon cannot be used, and thereby to be able to give the world the needed confidence that the Iranian program is exclusively and conclusively peaceful as Iran has said it is. And then at the same time, enable the Iranian people to be able to have the economic opportunities that they seek.

Clearly one can envision an agreement that is fair and possible. But it still will require difficult choices. Now, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again – Iran has continued to state it has no interest in obtaining a nuclear weapon. Ultimately, if you want to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your program is a peaceful one, that is not, from a technical perspective, very hard to do. We and our European and P5+1 partners are working to secure an agreement that accomplishes that goal. And in the days ahead, we’re going to try to work very, very hard to see if we can close the gaps and get to where we need to be.

I would emphasize both sides are taking this process seriously and both sides are trying to find the common ground. That doesn’t mean that we agree on everything. Obviously, there are gaps. We don’t yet. But it does mean that we have discussed in detail the full range of relevant issues that have to be part of a durable and comprehensive agreement, including infrastructure, stockpiles, research, equipment, timing, and sequencing.

And I would also emphasize that we all know our principles in this process, and our principles as a group are rock solid. As we have said every single step of this process, an agreement like the one we are seeking is not built on trust, as much as anybody might like it to be. It is built on verification. And no member of the P5+1 is prepared to or can accept any arrangements that we cannot verify or make any promises that cannot be kept.

In a few hours, I will head to Vienna. And now more than ever we believe that it’s critical that we not negotiate in public and that the ideas discussed among the negotiations remain among the negotiators so that misunderstandings are prevented and the integrity of the discussions is preserved. So you’re going to hear, I’m sure, a lot of rumors. There’ll be conflicting reports. The bottom line is nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and it’s the negotiators who have to speak for these negotiations. We intend to keep working hard to resolve the differences, to define the finish line, and do everything in our power to try to get across that line.

I thank you very much, and I’d be happy to take a couple questions.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Nicolas Revise from AFP.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. You just said at the (inaudible) that the P5+1 is united. But don’t you see some divisions, even minor divisions between the United States and France about how to get to an agreement on the nuclear program? And if so, did you manage to solve these disagreements with your French counterpart? Did you agree on everything, especially on the enrichment capacity? And don’t you fear, Mr. Secretary, that the French could repeat what they did in November 2013 when they spoiled the whole thing?

And speaking about divisions, if I may, did you raise with Laurent Fabius the issue of the warship Mistral? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, first, I just – I don’t agree with the assumptions that you’ve made in the course of that question, in many of them. And I think Laurent Fabius just spoke for France and said nous sommes en commun, we are in common. We are. He gave me a piece of paper – which we’ve had for some period of time – in which he lays out France’s four ideas about what they believe are important. I’m not going to go into them because I said we’re going to negotiate this privately. But we agree with every single one of them. We may have a minor difference here or there on a number of something or whatever, but not on the fundamental principles. We are in agreement that you have to be able to verify this, that there are limits. There has to be an acceptable level, and we’re confident about our unity as P5+1.

So I’m – we’ve had a terrific partner in France in this effort. France made a very courageous decision with respect to the Mistral, for example, which is not directly related to Iran, but it’s a courageous decision with respect to its impact, its economics, and other things. We have admiration for that kind of decision of principle. And believe me, I know people will try to find a division or create a division, but when we say the P5+1 is united, we mean it. And we’re going to work together as colleagues closely. I’ll be in close communication with Foreign Minister Fabius even today and into tomorrow and for the next few days. And we’re going to work as a team. It’s that simple.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Jonathan Allen of Reuters.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. I wanted to just ask you about Mr. Hammond’s remarks. He doesn’t seem very optimistic that you will make the deadline. So – and he thinks an extension will probably be necessary. So I wondered if you would talk a bit about what sort of extension might be palatable to you, how long this might drag out for.

SECRETARY KERRY: No. We’re not talking about an extension, not among ourselves. We have not talked about the ingredients of an extension or – we’re talking about getting an agreement. Now, I know that Secretary Hammond is concerned about the gaps. We all are. And I think he’s expressing his personal concerns about how to close those gaps over the next few days, and it’s very fair for him to have those concerns. But we are not discussing extension; we are negotiating to try to get an agreement. It’s that simple.

And look, if you get to the final hour and you’re in need of having to look at alternatives or something, we’ll look at them. I’m not telling you we’re not going to look at something. But we’re not looking at them, not now. This is – we’re driving towards what we believe is the outline of an agreement that we think we can have. And a lot of work has been done, including on annexes and other things, over the course of these last months by some very effective technical and expert people in the field of nuclear power and so forth. And we’re quite confident about the groundwork that’s been laid.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: That’s it?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, everyone. (Laughter.)

REMARKS AT CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: 2014 POLICY CONFERENCE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Remarks at the Center for American Progress' Making Progress: 2014 Policy Conference
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
Washington, DC
November 19, 2014


AS DELIVERED

Senator Tom Daschle, Moderator: Let me begin the conversation, if I could, by talking about America’s role. There’s a growing debate across the political spectrum, within really both political parties, about what America’s role in the world should be in this day and age; what sort of leadership we should play in foreign affairs. Over the years, especially in the last two decades in particular, we’ve experienced everything from unilateralism to coalitions of the willing to a reliance on our core alliance structure of leading from behind. But there are little consensus about the role of America today and how we should play it, and how best to advance American interests. U.S. leaders face – many U.S. leaders have called for retrenchment, and some have even called for isolation on both the right and the left. So, Ambassador Power, I’d like to start by asking you the question: is it up to America to be the lead actor in the world today? How should we look at that role? Is there a correct model as we look at the circumstances we’re facing worldwide?

Ambassador Power: Thank you, Tom. And thank you everybody for being here, and to CAP for putting on this conference and doing such important work. I mean, you put your finger on a key question for our times. I think that what we see today in the fall of 2014 is American leadership being used on key issues, whether climate, Ebola, ISIL, but whereby we don’t take simple ownership of the issue and decide that we’re going to bear the entire burden alone. We invest our resources, we lead the world, and we bring other coalitions to our side.

So, in the effort against ISIL, in Iraq, in order to support the Iraqi government forces as they try to fend off this monstrous movement, our use of airstrikes. And then we went around the world and said, “Okay, who wants to join on airstrikes? Who wants to join in providing training and equipment to these forces as they reconstitute? Who is going to take care of the humanitarian burden of all the millions of people who’ve been displaced as a result of ISIL’s explosive move across that region?” And now we have a coalition of 60 countries.

Ebola, equally dramatically; President Obama goes before the United Nations in September and says, “Look, here’s what I’m going to do. But if I do this,” and it’s a lot, “it’s not going to suffice.” And if we tackle the problem only in Liberia where the U.S. is deploying more than 2,000 troops and hundreds of CDC and USAID personnel, and aid workers and partnering with Doctors without Borders – but if we just do Liberia, and other countries don’t take the lead in Sierra Leone and Guinea, then our efforts in Liberia are going to be pyrrhic, because people can just cross the border and so forth.

So, you lead by articulating to the American people in the first instance, and to the world why it’s in your interest, and in the collective interest, to act. And then you mobilize other countries to make sure that you’re not bearing these huge burdens alone. And it’s not just even about burden-sharing and resources, which are major issues, but also just the very nature of these kinds of transnational threats, as you all know, are ones where, even if we had all the resources in the world and could bear every burden, you just, you can’t. You know, the foreign fighters in Syria, unless you get other countries to tighten their controls on their borders and prevent people from traveling, the United States, even if it wanted to, couldn’t deal with the foreign terrorist fighter problem alone. And so I think the mobilization of the world around what President Obama said way back when he was a candidate, are common security, common humanity.

Senator Daschle: This conference, as you know, is about making progress, and that applies both domestically as well as in our international efforts in our agenda. We talk at a lot at conferences like this about core progressive values. How would you say core progressive values align with American interests internationally today?

Ambassador Power: Well, I think probably people would define core progressive values in different ways. For me, it would start with regard for human dignity; the dignity of work, the dignity of a fair wage, the dignity to be treated with respect by your neighbors or respect for your own preferences in the way you live your life. And I think President Obama has really urged us to inject concern for human dignity in our policymaking, whether that’s being hugely generous in the face of ethnic violence in South Sudan, or in the face of the horrible displacement out of Syria, or wanting to close Guantanamo, recognizing again that that is – remains even – a recruitment tool and something that terrorist movements use a way of mobilizing their base and so forth.

But I think dignity is one piece of it. And then I think not only looking to make sure that you have domestic legal authority, but also being very conscientious and very dedicated to international norms and international law, while of course always pursuing U.S. interests. So, I think that those: dignity and recognizing that we live in a broad – we live on a planet where our interests also depend on having other people play by the rules, so we are stronger when we lead ourselves by playing by the rules of the road.

Senator Daschle: One of the important roles for the United States historically, and I think especially today, is bringing other countries together in multilateral forums. And there could be no one more sensitized to the need to do that and the importance of doing that, than you at the UN. But whether at the UN or as we saw with the ASEAN and G-20 forums last week, there are multilateral settings that offer opportunities for progress, but can also get bogged down, in part because –

Ambassador Power: I’ve noticed.

Senator Daschle: – of conflicting agendas, in part because you get into just a lot of talkathons that come with the very nature of groups wanting to make points. So how can America balance the importance of working with partners around the world, and the efficiency of our ability to pursue core interests on our own?

Ambassador Power: Well, I get to live a daily talkathon up in New York, so I feel I have a privileged positioned on which to talk. You know, there are a lot of inefficiencies in the international system. Just as within governments, we need to constantly try to streamline and simplify and enhance the interface that citizens have with governments as they regulate, you know, so too in the international system. If you imagine aggregating government habits across 193 governments, imagine what you end up with, right? I mean, that is not ideal. It’s not – if you were starting from scratch in 2014, you’d build a different, a different airplane, probably.

Having said that, if the United Nations didn’t exist, you would definitely build it, because you want a venue to come together. And even those countries with whom we are estranged or not cooperating in visible ways, it’s a channel for communication so you don’t have misunderstanding. It’s a way of pooling resources. You know, it is very, very obvious on the one hand, but also striking to live it where you see that the things that matter most to us, you know, may be very low on the mattering map for other countries. And so too the things that matter the most for them may not be in the top five for us. And so finding – but yet we need them to cooperate with us, let’s say on foreign terrorist fighters, where they think maybe that’s a distant problem compared to, you know, economic development or even climate change, and they need us of course to invest in their economic development and in their dignity, particularly in developing countries.

So we've tried to – I’ve certainly tried to mix it up in New York. And my impatience is the stuff of legend now, insofar as, “How are we still talking about this? I mean, what are you doing?” So, I think you’ve got to inject that spirit. You can’t accept that these institutions need to just be talkathons. We’re trying to do much more brainstorming, you know, much more – trying to bring countries together sort of staring out at a common problem and defining it as such, and then being in a position of, what could we do about it, rather than this sort of positional form of diplomacy that we’ve done, and where there’s certainly a place for that.

The one thing I’d just add finally is it’s tempting to sort of see bilateral dealings as somehow separate from or juxtaposed with the multilateral framework. But the fact of the matter is the way multilateralism works at its best is you start small, and then you expand the circle of consensus and the circle of problem-solving. But ultimately, successful multilateralism will turn also on the extent to which we have maintained, you know, stable and healthy partnerships with different countries around the world. Aggregating those friendships is what allows us to come together. And aggregating the sense of shared destiny and shared interest is what allows us to get a lot of countries to the table around shared threats.

Senator Daschle: So, how does our approach to multilateralism compare or contrast to other great powers, like China or Russia, or even allies like Britain or Japan? Similar or a lot different?

Ambassador Power: That’s an interesting question. I think that – we have embassies in just about every country in the world. And every minute of every day, we have a foreign policy of some kind with that country. And I think we view the multilateral system as a place to advance, whether human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, or economic prosperity or trade relationships, etc. So, we’re constantly looking to advance our very particular foreign policy objectives in particular countries.

So, for instance yesterday we had very important General Assembly votes on resolutions on the human rights horrors in Syria, those in the DPRK, and those in Iran. And these votes – you know, we treat each of those votes as if it’s a huge priority for the United States. We have our embassies fanning out around the world trying to make sure that countries in the Caribbean or countries in the Middle East are voting a certain way vis-à-vis DPRK, in order to send the strongest possible signal to the regime there that they’re going to be held accountable, particularly in light of the recent commission of inquiry, the horrible commission of inquiry report on the camps and the human rights conditions in DPRK.

That ambition, you know, that range, that ability to draw on those resources, I think, is distinct about the United States. And that belief that it is in our interest to go all out on the DPRK at the same time we go out on Iran at the same time. Most of the time with other countries you’ll see some subset of the larger global agenda prioritized and that kind of effort perhaps being brought to bear, although without the resources and the reach that we have. So, and even countries like China that are taking more and more assertive leadership roles within the UN system, including by increasing in a very helpful development, increasing their contributions to UN peacekeeping in a substantial way, sending doctors and other medical professionals to deal with Ebola. So, you’re seeing them begin to step up. But, still, that – what I just described in terms of campaigning around a discrete issue, whether on economic development, on climate, on human rights in any particular country – you wouldn’t see, again, that same kind of ground game or yet that prioritization of that set of issues, certainly with human rights issues, needless to say.

Senator Daschle: So, as I look at our options, is there a downside to bilateralism, like what we’ve just recently seen with our announcement on climate with China, versus taking the traditional multilateral approach?

Ambassador Power: You know, I think that when we do strike big deals and deepen partnerships in very visible ways, it’s a lot – the relations between countries are a lot like that between individuals. Like there’ll be someone over there saying, “What about me?” Like, “Why wasn't I a part of that?” And I think you see that a little bit here and there in the margins, but compared to the good it does – for instance, if you take the historic agreement, the CAP alone – that past and present CAP leader John Podesta, his leadership in helping negotiate that on the president’s behalf; hugely important agreement. And with China and the United States leading together and early, and constituting the two biggest economies and the two biggest emitters, that puts us in a position to lead the world. And the leverage associated with us doing that together, I think, vastly outweighs any momentary kind of sense of, “Oh, I wish that would’ve been a bigger multilateral framework.” And as I said earlier, that is the way you do multilateralism. You start and get key stakeholders to make agreements, and then you broaden out the circle. And that’s of course what our hope is to do on the climate.

Senator Daschle: So let me ask one more question on multilateral institutional infrastructure before I – I want to give to couple of other issues before we run out of time. A lot of the institutions created from multilateral cooperation were created after World War II. We had a big role to fill. Those institutions really haven’t changed much, whether it’s the UN Security Council, the IMF. To what extent do they reflect today and the world as we see it globally? And to what extent, if it’s not as reflective as they should be, is there a potential for reform as we look at making these institutions perhaps more reflective of the current lay of the land?

Ambassador Power: Well, let me separate a couple of different planes on which one can look at that question. I mean, I think you’ve seen over the life of the Obama administration a real emphasis on the G-20 as a hugely important global forum, not only to deal with economic issues, but as we just saw, the G-20 issued a very strong statement on Ebola. And we would view that group of countries as in the first instance the most likely group of countries to contribute health professionals, money, building materials, etc. in the context of Ebola. So, it’s a convenient proxy for those who should have resources that they’re prepared to invest in dealing with common threats and common challenges.

So, that, I think, shift and that emphasis has occurred over the life of the Obama administration. With the crisis in the Ukraine, of course, the G-7, now, has taken on new importance, particularly with regard again to that set of issues. That’s a very useful forum for that, and for a host of other things. So, again, that venue remains important, but the G-20 is of a different order than it would’ve been back even in 2008. And this was happening with the Bush administration toward the end, as well.

In the United Nations, Security Council reform has been something that many have aspired to, for many, many years, for the obvious reason which you state, which is surely 69 years after the founding of the UN, the dynamics, the power dynamics, the economic dynamics, and so forth in the world, the demographics, everything has changed and surely there should be some modernization. The challenge is that one of the reasons that we would, that one would wish to see an updated set of international institutions is to enhance legitimacy and effectiveness, and to enhance a sense of shared ownership over the entire United Nations, because there’s a sense of alienation by some of the powerful countries that have been doing more than their fair share, like Germany and Japan – you know, tremendous contributors to the UN over many years, but were not part of the regular decision-making body.

But having said that, and with that alienation, and with that aspiration to render it more effective, there is no more divisive issue in the UN membership. And so there just hasn’t been a proposal that has attracted a kind of plurality or a majority because everybody wants – at a moment when things are being revisited, everybody wants in. And so, just as I was describing earlier in the context of bilateral deals, so too this is something where people want UN Security Council reform, but they, again, have very different views as to how you would bring it about.

So, we remain open, you know, and as these debates play themselves out – they’re heating up now because it’s the 70th anniversary approaching. And the question it poses of course rightly being asked. But it’s not clear that there’s a pathway that could gather a critical mass. And, of course, we would remain very attached to our veto, which is a hugely important feature of our leadership within the UN system. So that’s not something we’d be prepared to give up. But on the membership, we certainly see the case.

Senator Daschle: Let me turn to a couple of very specific challenges that you’re very involved with. The first is Ebola. You just came back from Africa a couple of weeks ago.

Ambassador Power: I did. Thank you for giving me a hug earlier.

[Laughter]

Senator Daschle: Yeah, and I’d do it anytime. But I’m curious, as you explored the challenges we face, as you saw firsthand what we’re up against, and the progress or in some cases maybe the lack thereof, how would you characterize our biggest challenge today?

Ambassador Power: Well, we just still don’t have enough. There’s not enough that has been committed. Progress in – whether it’s funds, health workers, beds, as in beds in isolation units, ambulances, fuel. I mean, since again, President Obama went to the UN and stood with the Secretary General and made this appeal and we waged a full-court press around the world to get people to contribute, we have closed, we have narrowed, we say, a very large number of gaps.

But, again, particularly as you get out into the rural areas in the three countries, I mean you still have people who have never heard of Ebola. Our ambassador in Guinea was just out hiking in the countryside away from Conakry, the capital, and just went up to a group of women and said have you heard of Ebola, speaking to them in the local dialect and everything – we have a wonderful ambassador in Guinea. And so, just, social mobilization, basic, again things that money can buy: SIM cards for cellphones, cellphone coverage in parts of the country that doesn’t exist, and how that – and these are the kinds of things you can’t turn on a dime.

So, what is so gratifying is in my own experience in dealing with crises and foreign policy challenges, there’s something very unique about the anti-Ebola effort, in that you can really measure progress. You can – on my trip a couple of weeks ago, four days before I arrived, the rate of safe burial within 24 hours in Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, was only 30 percent. The British had come in, they revamped the command of control working with the Sierra Leone military and civilian authorities, and that safe burial rate, just in a four-day period, had gone up to 98 percent within 24 hours, which stands to play a really important role in infection control, because unsafe burial is a huge source of infection. Same in Monrovia, because of the U.S. effort.

The U.S. has deployed these mobile labs around Liberia. We visited one about an hour flight away from Monrovia, about an eight-hour drive in Bong Country, and there are these three Navy microbiologists who had just set up this lab two weeks before we arrived. One of them had decided to become a microbiologist 20 years ago because he read Hot Zone, the Preston book about Ebola. So he can’t believe his fortune that he’s sitting here looking at Ebola under a microscope to test local samples. Before this little three-person unit of microbiologists, contributed by the U.S. Navy, arrived, the testing in that area was taking as much as a week. The samples were being driven on motorcycle, and sometimes getting lost en route to Monrovia. There was only one lab in Monrovia, and everyone in the country had to wait in order to get their test results.

So, just by showing up, that one-week time has now been cut to between three and five hours. Now what does that mean? Tangibly, it means that before, people who were Ebola-positive and Ebola-negative but didn’t know it were cohabitating within Ebola treatment units for a week. That’s not good. That’s not isolation; that’s not what one would seek. Moreover, the beds were full. And now the testing results are coming back, and 70 percent don’t have Ebola; they may have malaria, they may have a cold. If you’re lucky, if there has been social mobilization, people will be coming forward. So, now those beds are being freed up, and you’re starting to see efficiencies.

But back to your original question, I am personally, I think we’ve done a very good job on the hardware, which is the Ebola treatment units, building the facilities where people can be isolated. The software, now, is what is needed: more healthcare workers in the here and now, but also if you look out four weeks or six weeks, that next tranche, who’s going to replace the people in-country today? And this is where us making clear as the American people just how much we value the work that American doctors and nurses are doing as they go over there. So, health workers and the social mobilization, getting the locals to do away with the stigma and the fear that pervades, so that the next time our ambassador goes hiking in the countryside, everyone you meet is telling you about Ebola, rather than again, it being perceived to be foisted upon the countryside by the center, which is a bit of a risk right now.

Senator Daschle: So let me ask you – it may be too early to be able to answer this with any clarity – but to what to what extent are there already lessons learned for the next Ebola, the next H1N1, the next SARS? What can we take from this experience that might help us prepare more proactively for the next one?

Ambassador Power: I think if you look at the funding request, the resource request that President Obama sent up a week or two ago to the Hill and that we are working very constructively with both parties now to refine, I think you see some of those lessons already put in place: making sure that every state has the capability to deal with infectious disease or viruses like this that may be foreign in the first instance, but where you have training protocols that are put in place very quickly. Research into vaccines, you know, investing more in the prevention side of things. In the countries in question, part also of our funding request is to make sure that we don’t invest billions of dollars here in dealing with Ebola, get to the back end of the crisis, and then the Ebola treatment units get dismantled because they’re just tents and bricks, and they’re not themselves sustainable structures, the white vehicles belonging to the international community all get put back on cargo ships. And then what’s left of the health infrastructure of these countries?

The reason that it spread so quickly, in addition to some of the issues related to where the outbreak first occurred, being in a border region and with travel and so forth, but is that the systems were too weak to deal with it – unlike Nigeria, which was able to draw on the expertise acquired in an anti-polio – a polio eradication campaign – a generation ago. That expertise was tapped to deal with the challenge in Nigeria. Nothing like that existed in these three countries. So in addition to the U.S. preparedness, which is very, very important in making sure it’s done at the relevant, with relevant health officials at the state level, really investing not only in these countries’ health infrastructure, by bringing the World Bank and others into that effort, but also looking across the continent. And this is what the President’s global health security agenda, which predated the Ebola crisis, is now, but now has new adherents in the international community because of what’s happened. Hopefully, that’ll be the venue in which some of these changes will take place.

Senator Daschle: We didn’t get to ISIS, we didn't get to Syria, we didn’t get to Iran. There is a whole list of things we didn’t get –

Ambassador Power: Sorry about that.

Senator Daschle: But your answers were terrific, and I just can’t thank you enough for taking time out of what I know is an incredibly busy schedule to be here.

Ambassador Power: My pleasure.

Senator Daschle: And I know I speak for every person in this room in thanking you for the incredible leadership you give us every day. Thank you.

Ambassador Power: Thank you. Thank you so much.

SECRETARY HAGEL SAYS RUSSIA'S ACTIONS "DANGEROUS AND IRRESPONSIBLE"

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Right:  Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel talks to U.S. Marines assigned to the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) on Camp LeJeune, N.C., Nov. 18. 2014. DoD Photo by U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Cassandra Flowers   

Secretary: Russia’s Actions ‘Dangerous And Irresponsible’
By Nick Simeone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18, 2014 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel today called Russia’s actions in Ukraine “dangerous and irresponsible” and said the tensions provoked by Moscow have probably done more to unify NATO than anything else in years.

“It has brought the world together in a way where they are isolating themselves by their actions,” Hagel said of Russia, as he took questions from Marines during a visit to North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune.

‘Very Dangerous’ Actions

One service member asked the defense secretary if he envisioned the United States becoming more involved in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Russia’s actions toward Ukraine, as well as stepped-up Russian military air flights over European airspace and plans for similar flights over the Gulf of Mexico are “very dangerous,” Hagel said.

“The violations of sovereignty and international law that the Russians have perpetuated continue to require responses,” the defense secretary said. The United States is working with NATO “in shifting our entire rotational rapid deployment focus,” he added.

U.S. European Command chief Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove , who is also NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe, has said Russian military equipment continues to flow across the border into Ukraine, something Russia denies.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT NATIONAL CENTER FOR ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION LUNCHEON

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at the National Center for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Luncheon
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Intercontinental Beijing
Beijing, China
November 8, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Scott, thank you. Thank you very much. I apologize for being a little bit late. And it’s an honor for me to be able to be here. I’m delighted to be here with everybody. I’m particularly happy to be here with my good friend and colleague, the Foreign Minister from the Philippines, Albert Del Rosario. Albert, always good to be with you, and thank you very much. Albert said to me he was deathly afraid he was going to be late and he was glad I was the guy who was. (Laughter.) Modern diplomacy.

Scott, I’m really grateful to you. Monica sort of described it in her introductory comments, but we’re really delighted with what you have done to make NC-APEC what it is at this moment at the 20th anniversary celebration. And I think nobody who knows Scott is going to be surprised by what he has been able to accomplish, congratulate you on your new and large role. But through programs like Direct Farm at Walmart, he’s made it his mission to balance the needs of customers with corporate social responsibility, and I think all of us are very grateful to him for the leadership that he has shown.

I also want to thank Monica. When you think about the progress that we have made in building a public-private partnership here in the Pacific, it’s fair to say that Monica has been there every single step of the way. And I’m delighted that she is able to be here with us this afternoon. I also want to acknowledge a few folks that are in the APEC Business Advisory Council. All of them contribute significantly. I had the pleasure to be starting a conversation last year in Bali. Particularly from an American point of view, I want to single out Bart Peterson of Eli Lily, Peggy Johnson of Microsoft, Ed Rapp of Caterpillar, and we’re delighted for all that they represent in terms of their corporate engagement and the ability of their companies.

When you consider the long list of challenges that we are discussing here at APEC, it’s interesting for me to note how APEC itself has been somewhat transformed not just into an economic forum, but frankly, it has also evolved so much and has become such a competent place of discussion of important issues, and it’s also security (inaudible). And I think it’s fair to say that in today’s world, a world with ISIL and Ebola, Ukraine, Syria, climate change, it’s impossible not to recognize the relatedness of a lot of the choices that we make economically with the choices that are also (inaudible) at the same time integrated into a security matrix.

Nowhere is the unprecedented set of challenges, but also opportunities more clear than here in Asia and throughout the Asia Pacific. And it is important for people to focus on the fact that even as there are the challenges that I listed, we are staring at a world with absolutely unprecedented opportunity. I think that’s part of the attraction in putting so many of the businesses here, not just to APEC, but to the region, and has brought so many more over the last years. We are literally building prosperity and stability in the long term, and that’s why, unabashedly, economic policy is at the center of President Obama’s rebalance to Asia.

This is my fourth trip right here just to Beijing, my multiple trips to the region over the course of the last year and a half that I have been Secretary. And it will be one of many trips of the President when he arrives here on Monday and spends not one day or two days, but I think about eight days going to the ASEAN meeting and to the G20 meeting, ultimately, in Brisbane. There is no doubt that how this region grows and how we engage the 2.7 billion customers who live here is going to shape the future of the global economy, and it will do much to define the 21st century.

The numbers themselves of the last years of development actually define this story. The fact is that more than half the world’s GDP is represented in this region. Fully half of America’s top 10 trading partners are APEC economies. And we send the majority of our exports here to the Asia Pacific. And outside of America over the next five years, this region is expected to grow as much as all other countries combined. Just think about that. So if we put it all together, it’s pretty obvious why we all have a huge stake in the choices that are made here.

But getting these choices right is not automatic. That means to have to develop even closer cooperation between the public and the private sectors. And what you sell, how you invest, how you operate – these are all major parts of the equation. Our ambassadors throughout the region, including our outstanding Ambassador to China, Max Baucus, are completely at the disposal of all businesses. And I have said since day one, when I became Secretary of State, that foreign policy is economic policy, and economic policy is foreign policy. We’re living in that much of a different world in many ways.

And I have directed all of our embassies, under the good stewardship of our Assistant Secretary of State Charlie Rivkin, who’s sitting over here, Assistant Secretary of State for Business Affairs, and our Assistant Secretary of State Danny Russel, who’s over here, for East Asia and Pacific, that I want all embassies and every official within our embassies to be economic officers. That’s how important it is for us today to be able to promote and help to marry businesses with opportunities.

President Obama has set the tone by saying again and again that the way to grow our economies is to grow our exports. And that’s exactly what’s happening. Since the President took office, U.S. exports have increased more than 50 percent, and the two-way trade between the United States and other APEC countries, economies has grown by nearly the same amount during that period of time. That’s five, six years now (inaudible) growth nearly 50 percent. Every single one of you here, almost all of you, have been involved here for decades, frankly. I know this. So you’ve seen with your own eyes how dramatic the transformation is. Many of you are the transformation. You understand it. And it’s been a remarkable transformation in the 25 years since APEC was founded.

Back when it was founded, real GDP was 15 trillion in the region. Now it’s doubled to 30 trillion. Back then, when it was founded, trade was around $3 trillion. Now it’s grown to nearly seven-fold more than 20 trillion and growing. Back then, the average tariffs were 17 percent. Now, they’re under 6 percent. And that is a fundamental of the kind of growth that has taken place. And today, the 1.1 trillion in U.S. foreign direct investment in other APEC economies is a tremendous vote of American confidence in the region. Investment coming the other way – from APEC economies into the United States – now tops some $660 billion and it has created tens of thousands of jobs throughout the region and in the United States. The mutual benefits are absolutely undeniable.

So we have made extraordinary progress. The question now is: What do we do with the next 25 years? How do we guarantee that what we can do together, the steps that we take together, are going to build an even more prosperous future for all of the APEC countries? Well, today, I’d argue that we have to organize ourselves fundamentally around four principles of growth: We need to grow openly and accountably. We need to grow green. We need to grow just. And we need to grow smart. Now let me tell you what I mean about each of those.

First, openly and accountably. As any business leader would agree, freer markets create more opportunity, more competition, more growth, and more innovation. And that means that we need to do everything we can to open up trade and investment in every single corner of the globe, particularly here in the Asia Pacific. And that’s why President Obama and I are laser-focused on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

The TPP represents a state-of-the-art, 21st century trade agreement that will connect more than 40 percent of the global GDP and one-third of global trade. But more than that, it doesn’t just connect it; it raises standards. It creates a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. And any of you who are wondering today about the security challenge of increased level with extremism, just look to those places where it is most taking hold, and you’ll find places that aren’t just racing to the bottom; they’ve been stuck at the bottom. And if you stay stuck at the bottom, your people are going to find something to latch on to that they will organize themselves around.

Governance is a critical component of being able to grow effectively and have this race to the top, where all people do better, and any one of you in business here in this part of the world understands the difference that moving to the top has made to the sense of quality of life and the opportunities that citizens have in the countries that are affected. And that’s true whether we’re talking about agriculture, manufacturing, or intellectual property, or the challenge of ensuring that state-owned enterprises compete fairly with privately owned companies. TPP will build prosperity and ensure prosperity and stability throughout the region, and it will do so based on shared principles and shared values. It is not just a technical trade agreement. It is a strategic opportunity for all of us, and we need to make sure we seize it. That’s why we need every single one of you here to make the case – with all of the leaders and all of the population that you come in contact with, particularly all the opinion leaders – make your case for TPP in every country and in every capital. This is a battle that we need to be prepared to make, and make no mistake, it is a battle that we absolutely must win, because if you don’t, the levels of unfairness and the shut doors will create inequities that will encourage corruption and begin to insidiously invade populations of countries that are affected.

Secondly, we need to grow green. That means stepping up our engagement on clean energy and oceans conservation. Cleaner energy means more sustainable sources of energy. It means reduced air pollution. Reduced air pollution means healthier populations. In America in the summertime, the greatest single cause of young kids being hospitalized is environmentally induced asthma. You want to reduce the cost of hospitalization, the cost of healthcare? Breathe cleaner air. Reduce the level of long-term illness that comes from carcinogens in the air that give people cancer.

There’s a long list of benefits – your healthier populations, your reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The latest UN panel report of just a week or so or two weeks ago is chilling, and I urge everybody here to read it. It’s not a political document. It’s a scientific document. And most of us learned at the elementary stages in school science has value. It’s not everything in life, but facts are facts. The latest report tells us that those who deny climate change are playing with fire. And all of the evidence that has been predicted for the last 20 or 30 years is not just coming back the way it was predicted; it’s coming back faster and it’s coming back with bigger consequences than were predicted.

For anybody in public life, the warning is clear. It means the precautionary principle has to be applied, and you need to take steps to deal with them. Scientists now predict that by the end of the century, the sea could rise by a full meter. Now a meter, 39 inches, may not seem like a lot to everybody here, but I got news for you: It is enough to displace hundreds of millions of people, and it is enough to throw a multi-billion dollar monkey wrench into the global economy.

That’s why we are promoting the use of electric cars throughout the APEC region, and that’s why more countries are reconsidering the wisdom of fossil fuel subsidies. And this week, I am proud to say that we are set – that we set the ambitious goal of doubling the share of renewables in the region’s energy by mid-2030. We’re also strengthening our partnership on oceans. Now oceans are affected by climate change. The amount of acidity in the ocean, which is affected fish populations, food, coral reefs, plankton, comes from greenhouse gases that dump into the ocean. And we are seeing significant increases in various parts of the planet. Scientists have even noticed that in the Antarctic, the ocean has regurgitated carbon mass out that it once upon a time could contain and now isn’t – another warning signal.

This fall, President Obama declared the world’s largest marine sanctuary in the Pacific, and that is critical. APEC Ocean Ministers have pledged to conserve at least 10 percent of coastal and marine areas by the end of this decade, and we’re improving the transparency of the reporting of subsidies that contribute to overfishing. I’ll tell you something: I’ve been chairman of the fisheries subcommittee for years in the United States Senate. I have major fisheries in New England. We no longer have the same cod fishing we used to have. Our fisherman are now in port most of the days of the year because of what’s happened to the stocks. And most of the fisheries of the world are overfished. There’s too much money chasing too few fish, and unless you fish in sustainable ways, unless you engage in sustainable agriculture on land, we are all going to be challenged by this onslaught coming at us.

I’ve got good news for you, though. The solution to climate change is really very simple and it’s staring us in the face, and it’s not something that’s somewhere down the road. It’s here now. The solution is energy policy. Make the right choices in your energy policy; you solve the problem of climate change. And guess what? It happens to be the biggest marketplace the world has ever seen. The market that drove America’s great wealth production of the 1990s – I don't know how many of you know know this – America got richer in the 1990s than we did in the 1920s when we had no income tax. Greater wealth was created in the 1990s for every single income-earner in America, every single quintile of American taxpayer went up in their income when we had a $1 trillion market with 1 billion users. It was the high-tech telecommunications computer revolution. Well, guess what? The energy market is a $6 trillion market with 4-5 billion users, and it’s going to grow to something like 9 billion in the next 30, 40 years. So there’s an enormous opportunity staring us in the face. We need to grab it.

The third thing we need to do is grow just, and that means avoiding bribery and corruption. Obviously, that has a terrible impact on the ability of businesses to do business. We’re all hurt by it, and we can’t level the playing field if there’s corruption. And I know that a number of countries around the world are increasingly focused on trying to eliminate corruption, and we have made that partnership very key in APEC.

And finally, we need to grow smart, and that means empowering women and promoting educational opportunities all across APEC economies. I’m very proud that the United States is contributing to the APEC Scholarships and Internships Initiative. We have commitments from Caterpillar, Eli Lilly, Microsoft, General Electric, EMD Merck Serono, as well as three universities: Colorado State University, the University of Colorado, and the University of Washington Evans School, and they’re making contributions that can help us bring more students back and forth.

Finally, let me just say that it is clear that APEC really has the ability to define the future here. There’s no business sector over here and government over there; it is really all one and the same now. We’re all connected. And it is absolutely vital that we create greater opportunities for this generation and the next. Twenty-five years of APEC, 20 years of the National Center have done an extraordinary job of really defining the possibilities for the future. That’s what’s happening here. And I’m excited by the notion that we’re going to recommit ourselves to making certain that we live up to our responsibilities but seize the opportunities at the same time, and that’s how APEC is actually going to help define the 21st century.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)