Showing posts with label UN SECURITY COUNCIL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN SECURITY COUNCIL. Show all posts

Sunday, June 15, 2014

PRESS CONFERENCE: SUMMIT ON ENDING SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN CONFLICT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you very much indeed.

John – Secretary Kerry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Angelina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you. Angelina?

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

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

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

Sunday, May 25, 2014

U.S. EXPLANATION FOR UN VOTE ON SYRIA

 FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, On the Security Council Vote on Syria
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
New York, NY, United States
May 22, 2014

AS DELIVERED

Thank you. Today is about accountability for crimes so extensive, so deadly, that they have few equals in modern history. Today is about accountability for Syria. But it is also about accountability for this Security Council.

It is this Council’s responsibility to stop atrocities if we can and – at a minimum – to ensure that the perpetrators of atrocities are held accountable. It was toward that minimum that we sought to make progress today. My government applauds the vast majority of members of this Council who voted to support – and the some 64 countries who joined us in co-sponsoring – this effort to refer these atrocities to the International Criminal Court.

Sadly, because of the decision by the Russian Federation to back the Syrian regime no matter what it does, the Syrian people will not see justice today. They will see crime, but not punishment.

On April 15th, the members of this Council were briefed on a report that included 55,000 gruesome photos of the emaciated and tortured bodies of dead Syrians, who world-renowned international lawyers concluded had been methodically eliminated by a government killing machine. The pictures were reportedly provided by an individual – alias “Caesar” – who worked for 13 years as part of the Syrian military police. When the fighting began, he says that he was instructed to record the images of people starved, beaten, tortured, and executed by Syria’s security forces.

These photos shock and horrify, even after some of us wondered if there was anything the regime could do that would still shock. Syrian soldiers already had compelled doctors not to care for the wounded, dragged patients out of hospital beds, laid siege to whole neighborhoods, cut off access to desperately-needed supplies, and carried out chemical weapons attacks and barrel bomb attacks with the full confidence that meaningful action by this Council would be obstructed.

A judicial process does more than hold perpetrators accountable. It also allows victims to speak. The vetoes today have prevented the victims of atrocities from testifying at The Hague for now. But nonetheless it is important for us here today to hear the kind of testimony we might have heard if Russia and China had not raised their hands to oppose accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Because of the vetoes just cast, one of Assad’s victims, Qusai Zakariya, will not soon be called to testify before the International Criminal Court. But Qusai’s story of life in Moadamiya during the siege, as hard as it is to hear, must be heard. Qusai Zakariya is here with us today, and I’d like to ask him to stand.

Today I will tell Qusai’s story, as he told it to us. Qusai’s home, Moadamiya, just outside of Damascus, was one of the Assad regime's prime targets. During the August 2013 chemical weapons attacks, Quasi ran out to the street and tried to help his neighbors. He quickly lost his ability to breathe. His eyes afire, Qusai’s heart stopped and he was left for dead until a friend stumbled upon him and realized he had again begun breathing. Qusai recounts his bewilderment as he watched neighbors suffocate, friends panic, and families perish. He remembers the face of a 13 year old boy just a few feet from his home. He describes the boy as “so innocent.” He recalls, “He had done nothing.” Yet the expression on this 13 year old’s face was the most terrifying thing Qusai has ever seen, as white foam streamed from his mouth and death crept in.

If Qusai could testify, he might tell the story of his neighbor, Abu Mohammed, a waiter in Damascus while his wife and daughter lived in Moadamiya. Abu Mohammed’s daughter was 7 years old. She had a heart condition that required medication not available in besieged Moadamiya. So Abu Mohammed did what any father would do and attempted to bring her medicine from Damascus. He was captured by Assad’s mercenaries, tortured with acid, and ultimately killed. His body was thrown on Highway 40. And without medicine to treat her heart condition, Abu Mohammed’s 7 year old daughter died.

Qusai might also tell the story of Rana, an 18 month old baby girl. Rana’s dad ran a grocery store before the siege. After the siege, he watched as his daughter Rana died from malnutrition because she couldn’t get milk that used to sit on his store’s shelves.

Qusai has said that when he walks around the United States, he notices people in restaurants, getting on with day to day life. He notices the small leftovers we leave on our plates. And he remembers watching his neighbors desperation to get a small piece of rotten bread in Moadamiya.

Qusai’s account of his experiences in Moadamiya deserves to be heard. It deserves to be examined by an independent court. And if crimes are proven, those responsible deserve to be held accountable. The vetoes cast today prevent that from happening. Strikingly, the vetoes cast today also protect monstrous terrorist organizations operating in Syria. Those who would behead civilians and attack religious minorities will not soon be held accountable at the ICC either. For Russia and China’s vetoes today protect not only Assad and his henchmen, but also the radical Islamic terrorists who are pursuing a fundamentalist assault on the Syrian people that knows no decency or humanity. These vetoes have aided impunity not just for Assad, but for terrorist groups as well.

In the past, when extraordinary crimes have been carried out, the International Criminal Court has been able to act. Why is it that the people of Uganda, Darfur, Libya, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali, and Kenya deserve international, impartial justice, but the Syrian people do not? Why should the International Criminal Court pursue accountability for atrocities in Africa but none in Syria where the worst horrors of our time are being perpetrated? For those who have asked the Security Council this very reasonable question, today you have your answer: the Russian and Chinese vetoes.

Our grandchildren will ask us years from now how we could have failed to bring justice to people living in hell on earth. The history books may well depict photos taken by “Caesar” of emaciated, acid-scarred corpses juxtaposed next to a photo of the two members of this Council who prevented justice for victims like Qusai who long to see the end of such horrors.

Today is therefore about accountability, not just for the victims of Assad’s regime, not just for Qusai and his neighbors in Moadamiya, but for the members of this Security Council. Month after month, and year after year, we have each spoken about the importance of justice and the need for accountability in Syria. Victims and survivors have begged for action and cried for justice. The international community has supported ad hoc efforts to collect evidence, to record testimony. We’ve launched commissions of inquiry to find facts, and we’ve held meeting after meeting. But we have not, before today, brought forward a resolution to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. We have not done so because we were afraid that it would be vetoed.

But the victims of the Assad regimes’ industrial killing machine and the victims of terrorist attacks deserve more than to have more dead counted. They deserve to have each of us, the members of this Security Council, counted and held to account. They deserve to have history record those who stood with them, and those who were willing to raise their hands to deny them a chance at justice. While there may be no ICC accountability today for the horrific crimes being carried out against the Syrian people, there should be accountability for those members of this Council that have prevented accountability.

Now, the representatives from Syria, and perhaps Russia, may suggest that the resolution voted on today was biased. And I agree – it was biased in the direction of establishing facts; tilted, as well, in the direction of peace – the peace that comes from holding individuals – not whole groups, not “Allawites,” not “Sunni,” not “Kurds,” but individuals – accountable.

The outcome of today’s vote, disappointing as it is, will not end our pursuit of justice. My government will continue to work with so many other governments and organizations to encourage and facilitate the further gathering of evidence. There is no limit to our determination to see that the victims of atrocities in Syria, and their loved ones, receive answers in accordance with the majesty of law. In this quest, we will be guided by a fundamental principle of civilization, a principle that has truly stood the test of time. And I quote: “Those who are not wronged, no less than those who are wronged, must exert themselves to punish the wrongdoers,” end quote. So said Solon, the Athenian sage, more than 2500 years ago; and so affirmed the overwhelming majority of this Council today.

Thank you.

Friday, April 11, 2014

U.S. OFFICIAL'S BACKGROUND BRIEFING ON P5+1 TALKS

FROM:  THE STATE DEPARTMENT 

Background Briefing on P5+1 Talks
Special Briefing
Office of the Spokesperson
Senior U.S. Administration Official
Vienna, Austria
April 9, 2014


MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for your patience. Welcome to our backgrounder. I think most of you know the ground rules here, but just to remind people, you all know [Senior U.S. Administration Official] who will be doing this all on background as a Senior U.S. Administration Official. Please, let’s all keep it to that. [Senior U.S. Administration Official] will give a few brief opening remarks, and then as always, we’ll open it up for questions. And please, when I call on you, even though we know most of you, please give your name and your media outlet.

With that, I’ll turn it over.

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. Hello, everyone, and thank you for coming today for this backgrounder. It’s amazing to think that only a few months ago, many of us were in Geneva in the freezing cold finalizing the Joint Plan of Action at 4 in the morning. And today, we find ourselves at the halfway point in these comprehensive negotiations in a somewhat warmer and beautiful Vienna. Geneva was beautiful, just cold. (Laughter.)
In the past two days, we have continued our substantive discussions about all of the issues that will have to be part of a comprehensive agreement – every single issue you can imagine. These sessions have been in-depth and the conversations have given us important additional insights into where the biggest and most challenging gaps will be as we move forward.
At this point, we don’t know if we’ll be successful in bridging those gaps, but we are certainly committed, as everyone in the room is, to trying. One thing to keep in mind as we reach this midway mark is that all sides have kept all of the commitments they made in the Joint Plan of Action. That’s given all of us more confidence as we negotiate this even tougher comprehensive agreement.

In that vein today, we’ve just concluded a meeting of the Joint Commission that was announced when we implemented the Joint Plan of Action. Given it’s the halfway point, we thought it would be an appropriate time to check in on implementation progress, and as I said, the report out of that meeting which I just received is everyone acknowledged that everything was going well. This meeting took place at the experts level, not at the political directors level.
The next step in this process is to begin actually drafting text, which we have all said would happen after this round. This round and the last round was used to review all of the issues and understand each other’s positions at the beginning of this negotiation. I would caution everyone from thinking that a final agreement is imminent or that it will be easy. As we draft, I have no doubt this will be quite difficult at times. And as we’ve always been clear and as we said explicitly when we were negotiating the Joint Plan of Action – and it is even more so for the comprehensive agreement – we will not rush into a bad deal. We just won’t do it. No deal – as Secretary Kerry has said many times, as the President of the United States has said, no deal is better than a bad deal.

So now, we’ll move forward to begin drafting actual language. We’ll meet back here in Vienna at the political director level in May. As always, our experts and political directors will be working in the meantime on all of the technical issues that are a part of these talks. And we are all very focused on that special date, July 20th, because we believe that it should give us sufficient time to reach a comprehensive agreement if an agreement is indeed possible.
With that, I’m happy to take your questions.

MODERATOR: Great. Go ahead, Lou from Reuters. Kick us off.

QUESTION: Thanks. So just a couple questions here. When you said that every single issue you can imagine was discussed, did this include Iran’s ballistic missile program? And also, when the – the Iranians have just now said that you’ve got – Foreign Minister Zarif said that the deal is 50 to 60 percent agreed. And I know what you said in the conference call and what you said just now. How would you respond to that? And do you think that that’s an irrelevant comment?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In terms of your first question about ballistic missiles, the Joint Plan of Action covers, in one way or another, everything that needs to be in the comprehensive agreement, including resolution of concerns. It also discusses the UN Security Council resolutions must be addressed as part of any comprehensive agreement, and I think that you are well aware that one of the UN Security Council resolutions speaks of concerns regarding ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. So when I say that all concerns have been discussed, all concerns have been discussed.

On your second point, I take seriously everything that Minister Zarif says. My own view is that the only percentage that matters is the one when we either get a comprehensive agreement or we don’t. In all of this negotiation, it is indeed like a Rubik’s cube. All of the pieces have to fit together just so to reach a final agreement that will ensure that Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon and that the international community has the assurance it needs that Iran’s program will be exclusively peaceful.

Similarly, the Joint Plan of Action says that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. So one could agree to even 95 percent, and that last 5 percent might mean you’d never get to the agreement. So the only thing that matters at the end of the day is to get to the agreement, and that’s what we’re trying to do. And I think there are two principles that are important: Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and nothing is agreed until everyone agrees to it.

MODERATOR: Great. Yes, to the left of Lou.

QUESTION: Jay (inaudible) from Reuters. Would you say, though, that since the talks began in February that you have managed to narrow your decisions or narrow the gaps in (inaudible)?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What I would say is we understand each other a great deal, better than we did when we began, in terms of each other’s positions on the various issues of concern. It’s not that we didn’t know what each other’s positions were at the top lines, but a lot of this is quite technical, and the details matter enormously. And so we all have a much, much deeper understanding of each other’s positions. When one has that kind of understanding, you begin to see where there might be areas where one could reach agreement, you begin to see where the gaps are the largest, and where, in fact, you may indeed be close to an agreement. But again, until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed.

MODERATOR: Yes, here in the front.

QUESTION: Jonathan Tyrone with Bloomberg News. And just briefly, if you could characterize the Chinese envoy Wang’s comment about Russian participation as being, quote “utterly constructive,” and maybe give your side of that.

And then the broader question I’d like to pose is: There’s a lot of signaling, so the Iranian deputy foreign minister confirmed that Iran and Russia are, in fact, in trade talks about broadening trade, something that Mr. Kerry referred to specifically in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. It looks like – he also said that they’re not close to signing a deal. But it’s obvious that there are contingency plans being formulated in the event of a failure of this process.

My question to you is: Is there a danger that the signals from the contingency planning overcome the positive signals that you’re trying to project through the actual process of dialogue that’s going through July?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What I would say is that my [Russian colleagues] played the constructive, focused role that they usually do. And we have – [Sergei Ryabkov] has worked as part of the P5+1 all through the Joint Plan of Action and now through the comprehensive agreement. And he and his team are very useful and important participants in this process.

In terms of the trade talks that Iran and Russia may be having, we have been very direct to both parties that should they bring this day to closure and engage in activity that is sanctionable under our sanctions, we will take appropriate action. And we’ve urged both parties not to move forward, to preserve the negotiating process.

Now, events happen in the world. You may have noticed that. And we cannot control them all. You may have noticed that as well. And so we have to deal with what happens in the world in general. You all have asked time and again has Ukraine made a difference, which was the reason you asked – or someone asked Mr. Wang about Russia’s participation. So we take these issues on board and we all stay focused on what we’re trying to do here, but we will all have to take whatever appropriate action we need to take under the laws of our lands.

MODERATOR: Great. Laurence Norman with The Wall Street Journal.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for doing this. Can you – I have several short questions for you. First of all, the timing for the next round was announced on May the 13th, but there was no end date given. I mean, could they go on for five days, a week? Is there any sense of that?
And secondly, can you give any indication of what was discussed in the Joint Commission, issues that came up? And did you discuss the UN ambassador pick with (inaudible) yesterday?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Anything else?

QUESTION: Sure. (Laughter.) Can you rule out foreign ministers heading up to the next round – (laughter).

MODERATOR: I was wondering when that question would start getting asked.

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Every time we come to any of these rounds, even when we have announced it’s going to be two days or three days, we call come with the presumption we will stay for as long as we need to stay. Obviously, as one begins to get into drafting, it is even more possible that you’ll stay longer than you planned to stay, so I assume that is why neither the – Lady Ashton – the High Representative of the European Union – nor Minister Zarif and their teams gave an end date. We were all planning for the week to be here and we’ll do whatever is necessary.

I think for all of us involved in this between now and July 20th, we understand that there is no higher priority. The stakes here are quite high for all the reasons you all well know, because we are trying to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon and that their program is exclusively peaceful. And so everyone in the room has explicitly said they are ready to do whatever they need to do and change their schedules and their life to do what is necessary.
On the Joint Commission, it just concluded, but the agenda for that Joint Commission was really just to check in with each other – that’s why it’s at the expert level – have we kept all of our commitments on sanctions relief and other things that we needed to do, and is Iran keeping its commitments? I would note that secretary – Director General Amano made comments I saw in the press today affirming yet again that Iran has kept all of its commitments on their set of obligations. So it was just a check-in. It wasn’t a very long meeting, to tell you the truth, but a useful one, a very useful one.

In terms of the UN ambassador pick, what I would say is that you all have heard the comments from Jay Carney from the White House podium that we believe that this candidate, this possible nominee, is not viable from a U.S. perspective, and we have conveyed that directly to the Iranians through the channels that we have available to us. And I’m going to leave it there on that.

And as far as the foreign ministers flying in, that’s not planned, but --

QUESTION: Can I just check – so you’ve conveyed it through your channels, and maybe I’m not aware of what the U.S. diplomatic speak – I mean, does that mean – (laughter) – does that mean that you’ve conveyed it through the channel of being here and (inaudible)?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m not going to get into how that message got delivered to the Iranians.

MODERATOR: Great. In the back. Sorry, I can’t see you.

QUESTION: It’s George Jahn of the --

MODERATOR: Oh, hey, George. Sorry, continue.

QUESTION: George Jahn of the Associated Press. Assuming that any oil deal with Russia goes through, I think what you’re saying is that Russia could face potential sanctions. That would probably impact very, very hard on the talks, possibly resulting in less of the Russian cooperation that you’re talking about. But you are saying that the United States is going to take this step even if that happens, (inaudible).

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think the Secretary has been very clear about it, I’ve been very clear about it, others in our government have been very clear about it, that anyone who takes sanctionable action faces the potential for sanctions.
MODERATOR: Yes.

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: But let me add one thing: As you all have said yourselves, they are in talks. Nothing is consummated, nothing is executed, nothing is done. I think that both Iran and Russia understand the stakes here. I expect and suspect that they understand that the priority in the first instance is to try to reach a comprehensive agreement if we can reach one.

MODERATOR: Yes.

QUESTION: Kasra Naji from BBC Persian Television. On the issue of the money that was released to the Iranians, the Iranians are having trouble getting their hands on it. Did this issue come up either in the talks or in your bilateral? How far are we into this? Is this close to a resolution? You said the two sides are sticking to their commitments under the Geneva agreement. Is this causing trouble within that context? Any information on that, I will be grateful. And secondly, on your bilateral, anything of interest?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Anything of interest I’m going to discuss, or anything of interest at any rate? (Laughter.)

On whether Iran has access to the repatriated funds that were part of our obligation under the Joint Plan of Action, we and the European Union on all of the sanctions-related obligations have done everything that we committed to doing. And I think if you ask the Iranians, they would say that we have complied with our obligations under the Joint Plan of Action.

And I know there have been stories written, there have been all kinds of issues. All of these things are always complicated to make happen, but we have made them happen. And so I think you will find – and part of the Joint Commission today was to check in on all of those issues. All the appropriate colleagues were there on both sides, and the report I just got out right before I walked in here is that everybody was grateful for the work that had been done on both sides and that everyone had complied with their obligations.
QUESTION: So the money is being released?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The – everything that we were supposed to do and the tranches we were supposed to do it has been done.

QUESTION: So the Iranians are saying that we have got our hands on the money?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You’ll have to ask the Iranians.
As term – in terms of the bilateral, our bilateral was – as I’ve said to you now, it’s now normal. We met for about an hour and a half. We only talk about two things in the bilateral. One is nuclear negotiation. We make sure that Iran understands our perspective on all of the issues under discussion, and they’re able to tell us directly their views about our views. And the other thing we discuss and do so quite decidedly and in a focused way is our American citizens about which we are concerned – Mr. Hekmati, Pastor Abedini, and Robert Levinson – all of whom deserve to be home with their families.
MODERATOR: Yes, right here.

QUESTION: Thank you. (Inaudible) Television Network. Iranians have tweeted yesterday evening that Arak does not need to be converted to a light-water reactor. Can you please confirm about the decision because of the (inaudible)?

And my second question is: When you start drafting, you have to (inaudible) from all of the things that you have discussed till now. And is this going to work like a block by block, or can we expect everything being done is the next meeting, or are you going to say that, okay, let’s draft this part in what way and then come back? How will that (inaudible) work?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So I’m not going to get into the discussion of the mechanics of how we’re going to negotiate, because that’s also a subject of strategy in negotiations and that’s also a subject of the confidentiality of the negotiations in terms of how we’re going got proceed. Because then your next question will be, “Well, if you’re going to block by block, what will be the first issues you will discuss?” And I’m not going to get into that, because as I said to all of you, this is a negotiation with very high stakes, very crucial. We want to keep the details of the negotiation inside the room. And that answers your first question as well in the sense that all kinds of public comments are made. That usually happens in negotiations. They are meant to try to frame the negotiation. But the only thing that matters is what happens in the room, what gets agreed to among the parties in the room, and whether an agreement at the end of the day can be reached.

MODERATOR: Great. Yes, right here on the left.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) five weeks. Are you going to talk to them about the pace of this? Would you prefer that the next meeting to be sooner?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So you assume with that question that between now and when we come back here nothing is going on, and I can assure you that every single day work is being done on this negotiation. That happens in a variety of ways within capitals, among and between capitals, through our experts having meetings among themselves and with Iranian experts. There is not a day in my life now where I’m not spending at least some of my time, and I’m responsible for the whole world, but spending some of my time virtually every single day on this. And as we get further into this, it will be – it will take up most of my time and ultimately probably all of it.

MODERATOR: Yes, behind Laurence. Right there. Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. (Inaudible) do you expect this to be finished here in Vienna, if it is finished at all, of course? Or are you going to go back to Geneva for a kind of signing ceremony? (Laughter.)

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The reason that we’re in Vienna is because we wanted, when we started the comprehensive agreement, to sort of end a chapter and begin a new one, so we switched cities. But from the beginning, the Iranians wanted to have a meeting in a city where there were UN facilities. So in fact, this whole process is out of a mandate from the UN Security Council, so it is a UN-based mandate. And so that’s why we’re in Vienna, because the UN is here present in Vienna as well.

So we expect we will continue to do our negotiations here in Vienna. I suppose someone could suggest that would change, but right now that’s my expectation. And I want to thank you and your city for hosting us so well. We are very well taken care of here. People help us get through traffic. The food is delicious when I get to leave the hotel and have some. Most of our meals we all eat together in the hotel where we’re having the negotiation, but tonight I’m going to get to go out sometime very late tonight and try some of your cuisine, so I thank you very much.
MODERATOR: Who else? Yes, right here.

QUESTION: Yeah, we’ve been talking a lot about bridging gaps --

MODERATOR: Where are you from? Sorry.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. (Inaudible) from Radio France International.

MODERATOR: Thanks.

QUESTION: Could you just specify one sort of example of gaps that you managed to bridge so far (inaudible)? Can you tell us what percentage of the gaps you (inaudible) so far at the beginning to bridge? (Inaudible.)

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So you’re right; I’m not going to identify where we bridge things, where there are gaps, where we see possibilities of agreement, where we see challenges, because it won’t help the negotiation. And as much as I care about the press and feel a responsibility to let people know what’s going on, I feel a greater responsibility to make sure that the negotiation stays inside the room.

And as for percentages, as I said earlier, it – at the end of the day what matters is whether we get to an agreement or not get to an agreement. And we could agree on 95 percent of the things, and that last 5 percent, which will probably be the hardest set of issues or issue, means we do or don’t get an agreement.

QUESTION: Well, how far are you from the 95 percent?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: (Laughter.) I don’t think we can say. We used the first round of the comprehensive agreement to lay out a framework for negotiating. Then the second and third rounds were to go into great detail on each of the issues of concern, to set up an understanding to get to drafting. So we’re now finished those two rounds. We have covered every issue of concern both here in Vienna and through experts’ groups meetings that have taken place in between, and political director’s consultations which have taken place in between, and now we are set to start drafting. And quite frankly, until you get down to it, and you get down to the details, we don’t know whether we’ll be able to get to the end of this or not. I hope we do, but I don’t know.

QUESTION: Yes. Stephanie Bell with BBC News. The – Minister Wang came out and said that this round of negotiations has gained considerable momentum. Would you agree with that assessment?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What I would say is that all of these rounds have been productive, have been constructive, have been thoughtful, have been professional. But what I would say is that now we have to get down to it. And then we will know whether we’re headed in a direction where we can get to a comprehensive agreement or not. We all want to. We all believe we can. But none of us know until we really get to the drafting and the text and the detail whether it’s possible or not.

MODERATOR: Yes, right there.

QUESTION: Stefan Graham, Danish Broadcasting. I have question to your bilateral meetings. Did the Iranians acknowledge the presence of all three American citizens in Iran? And are they any closer to being released?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m not going to get into the details of our conversation, and I do that both for the protection of those three Americans and for the privacy consideration of their families. But what I can say is that we have important conversations about all three and try to do whatever I can to get them closer and ultimately bring them home.
MODERATOR: Yes, who else? In the back.

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me say just one thing. I meet with the families or people in the Department meet with the families, and it’s always terribly difficult. The Levinson family hasn’t seen Robert Levinson for seven years. Any of you – you all have family members, and just imagine what it’d be like if you hadn’t seen them for seven years and didn’t know where they were.

MODERATOR: Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) for (inaudible), the Russian news agency. The last time there were four topics that were specified and we’re extracting this from. This time, this thing, you have said all issues have been discussed, which presumably means that you have to return to those four issues that were discussed the last time. Is that the case, and if so, why was there any need to return to them?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: As I said, we were using these two rounds to make sure we covered all the issues. The issues that we did last time, we sent our experts away to do some work products. And so we wanted to get the results of those to try to move forward a little bit more if we could. Again, these are very technical discussions, and I’ve learned an awful lot about nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, but I’m not a technical expert. So we need to rely on them to do a lot of work and bring it back to the political level. And we also knew that since we were going to move to drafting after this that we wanted to have one last review of every issue before we left here.

MODERATOR: Great. I think we have time for maybe a few more if we’ve answered all your questions. Yes, George, go ahead again.

QUESTION: Thanks. How many issues are there? I mean, how many categories? As Andrei said, the last time four issues were mentioned, (inaudible). (Inaudible) issues separated by topics?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: George, there’s a totality of issues, but each one of the issues has a myriad of subsets to it. So I couldn’t give you a count. And all of the issues interact with each other. And as I’ve said before, some – on some issues, if you can move forward, you may open up trade space on another issue. When we’ve talked about enrichment before, that has many, many pieces to it – from stockpiles to facilities to enrichment levels to centrifuge production. I mean, it’s just a myriad of subsets. And that’s true of every issue. So it’s quite impossible to sort of give you a count because it also requires you to categorize at what conceptual level you’re having the discussion.

What I can say is that we laid out in the first negotiating round all of the issues of concern to both parties, to both sides, and we have discussed them all. And they will all have to be addressed in some way.

MODERATOR: Let’s do a few more. Yes, right here in the front.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) I just wonder: What do you think the positions? Is it more understanding or more accepting or more incentives or threatening, or what? Because it looks like still the Iranians are talking about redlines.

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: As I said, what I care about most, what we all care about most, is what’s happening in the room, that all kinds of things will be said in public, and we understand that. We listen to it. It’s very important information. But what matters is what happens in the room. And it’s about all of the things you say – not threatening so much. It’s a very professional discussion. But it is, of course, understanding each other better. It is seeing if there are some technical solutions to problems of concern, whether in fact there are incentives, disincentives perhaps as well, but not in the manner in which you were suggesting.

I think the largest disincentive for everyone is if we can’t reach an agreement, then diplomacy has not succeeded. And we all appreciate that the best way to solve this problem is through diplomacy.

MODERATOR: Great. Maybe just a couple more. Yes, Laurence, we’ll go to you and then --

QUESTION: Very quick (inaudible) it was that you conveyed the message, was it conveyed directly that the U.S. could deny them a visa (inaudible)?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m not going to get into either what message was conveyed or to whom or how. I think we should leave it where it is right now, which you heard from Jay Carney, the spokesperson from the White House, say that we do not believe this is a viable candidate.

MODERATOR: Last one.

QUESTION: This is Indira’s question.

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Indira’s question. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: Even when she’s not here, she’s here.

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Tell her hi.

QUESTION: She’s always here. Possible military dimensions – is it enough for the IAEA to weigh in and determine those questions have been answered within that body, or does evidence that it has been cleared also need to convince the P5+1, the UN Security Council? I mean, where does the criteria, I guess, fit in?

SENIOR U.S. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I’m not going to speak to specific criteria because that goes to where we are in the negotiation. What I can say to you is a couple of things that we’ve been very clear about. One, possible military dimensions is a central responsibility of what the IAEA is doing under its responsibilities. We want to support the IAEA and we want to encourage Iran to do everything they can to make substantive progress in the work they’re doing with the IAEA. And secondly, we have said that we will not be able to get to a comprehensive agreement without those issues being addressed.

MODERATOR: Great, thank you all for coming. Again, just as a reminder, this was on background. That means no names and no titles, just as a Senior U.S. Administration Official. And we will see all of you back here on May 13th. Thanks, guys.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

REMARKS ON ELIMINATION OF SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY PATTERSON

Statement for the Record - Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons

Remarks
Anne W. Patterson
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC
March 26, 2014


Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker and Members of the Committee, for inviting me today to discuss the crisis in Syria. I am well aware that many members of this Committee are not satisfied with our progress to date. Neither are we. Let me say that the Administration appreciates your concern and the support this committee has shown for efforts to address this challenge.

The Committee heard from Deputy Secretary Burns three weeks ago on the challenge of sectarian and extremist violence related to the conflict. Today I will supplement Deputy Secretary Burns’ remarks by describing the coordinated strategy that we are developing. I am pleased to be accompanied today by my colleague, Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation Tom Countryman, who will address the international community’s progress in the removal and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons.

The Crisis

The popular demands for economic and political reform sweeping the Middle East began three years ago in Syria as peaceful protests. Syria’s large youthful population sought an end to oppression and new opportunities. The Asad regime’s response to these demands has torn the nation apart, fueling extremism and inflaming regional tensions.

More than 146,000 people have been killed since the unrest and violence began. The number of conflict-affected civilians seeking refuge in neighboring countries has increased to more than 2.5 million people while, inside Syria, an additional 6.5 million people are displaced and at least 9.3 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance. The U.N. Security Council has condemned the denial of humanitarian access to civilians in need and has urged immediate steps to facilitate relief operations throughout the country, yet the regime has continued to obstruct humanitarian access. Again last week, the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on Syria reported on the continuing human rights violations being committed by the regime, as well as human rights abuses by the al-Qaeda linked groups and their offshoots that have taken root in the ungoverned spaces that Asad’s actions and atrocities have created.

Opposition to the Asad regime in Syria is broad and deep. Most Syrians who side with the opposition are moderates. In large areas of the country they have thrown off regime control, yet the situation on the ground is constantly in flux. In some areas, regime forces – with Hizballah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard support – have regained control of territory they had lost earlier in the conflict. Syrian troops are well armed with Iranian and Russian weapons, and also resort to barrel bombs or starvation to terrorize civilians. But peace will not come to Syria from a military victory. The only sustainable solution to the Syria crisis is a negotiated political settlement.

The United States is a leader of the ‘London 11’ contact group that has worked to move forward the Syrian transition, end the violence, and achieve a political solution. Although the U.N.-sponsored Geneva II negotiations have stalled due to regime intransigence aided by the tacit support of Russia, the process served to unify components of the Syrian opposition and to enable it to articulate its vision for a transitional government.

The continuing civil war has proved a magnet for foreign violent extremists – some with substantial combat experience – who are drawn to the ungoverned regions left by the deterioration of the Asad regime. Our colleagues at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have estimated that there are nearly 23,000 violent extremist fighters in Syria, including more than 7,000 foreign fighters. They represent a minority of the total rebel ranks inside Syria, which are estimated to be between 75,000 – 110,000 fighters. The violent extremist fighters belong to several groups but most notably al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria, Nusra Front, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), formerly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, whose new name indicates its growing ambitions. ISIL is responsible for most of the violence that has been taking place in Iraq’s Anbar province aimed at destabilizing Iraq. These groups offer weapons and money to Syrian men who oppose the regime, yet who might not otherwise be drawn to violent extremist causes but for the money and avenue for action against the regime they provide.

Bashar al-Asad bears responsibility for this metastasizing problem. His regime has released terrorists from its jails, allowed violent extremist bases to emerge, and invited other foreign terrorist organizations including Lebanese Hizballah, as well as Iranian-trained militia fighters from Iraq and Pakistan, to join the fight on its side.

Mr. Chairman, we are reviewing our policy and identifying priorities for coordinated action.

Countering Violent Extremist Activity

In Pakistan, we clearly saw the dangers that arise when terrorists are able to set up safe havens – and how difficult and costly in lives and money it becomes to dislodge or destroy them. For that reason, a top priority in the Syria crisis is preventing the establishment of a permanent terrorist safe-haven. In coordination with allies and partners, we are now better organizing ourselves to address the growing challenge of violent extremist fighters in Syria and the flow of these fighters into and out of the country. With our partners, we will apply tools, tactics, and best practices to mitigate potential threats and build upon existing lines of cooperation.

We are working with members of the opposition, Syria’s neighbors and other regional states to cut off their sources of funding and recruits. Saudi Arabia has criminalized participation in foreign conflicts by its citizens and is prosecuting individuals who have done so. Our allies in the Gulf increasingly, and correctly, see the flood of violent extremists from their countries as a threat to themselves. We have new initiatives to work with our allies to identify violent extremists who have travelled to the region.

We are also working to strengthen the moderate Syrian opposition, both inside and outside of Syria, because they are now facing a two-front war against both the Asad regime and the violent extremists.

Preventing Collapse and Nonlethal Support

In parts of Syria where the regime has been ousted, we want to prevent the wholesale collapse of Syria’s institutions and public services and keep regime hardliners and violent extremists from asserting control. As the fighting has continued, the regime has increasingly targeted civilian populations by denying basic services and cutting them off from food, fuel and medical care. But some provincial and local councils and civil society organizations continue struggling, against great odds, to maintain local government and continue critical services. We need to help them.

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee have been rightly concerned about the pace and effectiveness of support for the civilian opposition. Without a direct U.S. government presence inside the country – as well as control of many border entry points by al-Qaeda-linked groups or their offshoots – it has been difficult to increase our assistance to the Syrian opposition. Our strategy had been to use $260 million in non-lethal assistance to link the Syrian Coalition (SOC) to councils and NGOs inside the country, helping to unify and strengthen the opposition.
However, based on our experience on the ground over the past year, we have been refocusing our activity. Over the past few months the State Department and USAID have stepped up efforts to channel resources directly to local and provincial governments and civil society groups, as well as the SOC.

Our focus is increasingly on ways to help communities maintain basic security, keep the lights on, provide water, food and basic medical care – staving off the advances of extremist groups who seek to exploit peoples’ desperation. It allows these localities to maintain the basic public institutions that will be so critical in rebuilding a post-Asad Syria.

In towns and cities under opposition control, we are beginning to provide cash grants to pay local law enforcement and teachers. We continue to train local councils and civil society organizations in administration and local governance. And we are providing equipment and supplies to help them, including heavy equipment such as generators, cranes, trucks, and ambulances. In one major city, for example, we have helped reopen 17 schools serving 9,300 students. In another major city, we funded the refurbishment of 60 police stations and are providing non-lethal equipment and basic stipends to 1,300 policemen, who are struggling to maintain order. Paying stipends not only helps keep these people on the job, but it also helps deprive the extremist groups of the chance to fill the vacuum themselves.

Make no mistake: this is extremely difficult work and nobody is saying that this assistance will turn the tide against what remains an extremely serious and deteriorating situation. As we learned in Iraq – even with 160,000 American troops, ten years of effort, tens of thousands of schools refurbished, and hundreds of millions of dollars spent – it takes generations to restore stability in societies wrecked by decades of dictatorship and civil wars. We are determined, however, to stand with those struggling to rebuild and stabilize their local communities even in the most horrific circumstances imaginable. These brave individuals will be the future leaders of Syria; they deserve our support, and they will continue to receive it through the types of assistance I just described.

As part of this $260 million in non-lethal overall assistance, moreover, we are providing $80 million in support to the Supreme Military Command (SMC). Providing this support to groups engaged in a highly fluid battle zone has been challenging. In December, an SMC warehouse in Syria containing U.S. supplies was overrun by a faction of extremist fighters. We suspended SMC assistance until they could reestablish secure supply routes and storage facilities. By February, when the SMC regained control of its facility and accounted for its contents, we began sending supplies again – this time directly to trusted commanders.
In providing non-lethal assistance to the SMC, needs are identified by commanders and have included food rations, medical kits, and vehicles – as well as communications and other personal gear. These supplies not only fill gaps identified by opposition troops fighting both the regime and violent extremists, but they are tangible evidence of our support for the moderate opposition.

Although a leadership debate has opened up within the SMC – as the Syrian opposition discusses how to fight the regime more effectively – the dispute has not affected our ability to deliver non-lethal assistance to the moderate armed opposition through trusted commanders.
None of the non-lethal assistance we are providing will be determinative in defeating regime forces, nor will it, on its own, force Asad to change his calculus about trying to hold on to power. However, our assistance does provide needed equipment while sending a signal both to those inside and outside Syria of our strong support for the moderate opposition; help maintain basic administrative institutions; help prevent the formation of vacuums in services and security that extremists aggressively exploit; and create relationships with moderates who can, when this conflict is over, form the basis of a transitional government.

Eliminating the Threat of Chemical Weapons

The Asad regime used chemical weapons against its citizens, and its continued possession of chemical weapons material represents a sustained danger to Syria’s population and all of its neighbors, including Israel. Last year, the international community, led by the United States and Russia, united to defend a long-standing international norm against the use of chemical weapons. Under a Joint Mission organized by the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the international community is supporting the safe elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons program. U.S. assistance includes outfitting a vessel to neutralize Syria’s highest priority chemical precursors and agents.
We are making progress, but there is tough work ahead. To date, the Joint Mission has verified the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons-production equipment, the machines that mix the components, and the removal of nearly half of Syria’s declared stockpile. All of the sulfur mustard agent and some of the precursors for sarin, the highest priority declared chemicals, have now been removed. It is our goal to complete the removal of declared chemicals as soon as possible in April and the verified destruction of these chemical weapons and materials by June 30.

Protecting our Friends and Allies

We are committed to helping contain the conflict by bolstering the security and stability of Syria’s neighbors. Violence from the ongoing conflict has already spilled into Lebanon and Turkey, our NATO ally. Recently, Israel retaliated against Syrian army targets for an attack on an Israeli patrol on the Golan Heights. On Sunday, the Turkish Air Force shot down a Syrian plane that had encroached along the border. ISIL has used its position in Syria to pour extremist fighters and weapons into Iraq. Lebanon and Jordan are bearing an enormous burden as they work to secure their borders and meet the needs of more than 1.6 million refugees from Syria. We appreciate the support we have received from Congress as we work directly and with our international partners to support Syria’s neighbors:
  • We back the Lebanese government’s efforts to contain the Syrian conflict and strongly condemn Hizballah’s intervention on behalf of the Asad regime. The U.S. has provided additional support to the Lebanese Armed Forces and Internal Security Forces to help them secure Lebanon’s borders and address internal security threats. We are helping the Lebanese government care for nearly one million refugees from Syria and strengthen the communities that are hosting them. We have provided more than $340 million in humanitarian assistance to support the needs of these refugees and to reduce the burden on Lebanese communities. In addition, our ongoing bilateral assistance is helping to address deteriorating economic conditions and gaps in the delivery of important services, particularly in communities impacted by the crisis.
  • Many of you met with Jordan’s King Abdullah when he was here recently and can appreciate the contributions that Jordan is making to address this crisis. The United States is already working closely with the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF) to address threats emanating from Syria, including providing enhanced border security and counterterrorism capabilities. DOD funds also help to assist the JAF with providing humanitarian assistance to newly arriving Syrian refugees. Longstanding development programs help relieve the strains on water infrastructure, schools, and health facilities in Jordanian communities that support large numbers of Syrian refugees. We have provided $300 million in additional budget support over the last two years and will support a $1 billion loan guarantee for Jordan as well as the renewal of our bilateral assistance Memorandum of Understanding for an additional five years, as announced by the President last month.
  •  In regards to Turkey, we are most importantly working with Ankara on a variety of counter-terrorism issues to address the growing threat that Syria-based terrorists pose to Turkey and the challenge posed by foreign fighters. Additionally, Turkey hosts far more than the 641,000 officially registered refugees from Syria, in addition to significant parts of the Syrian opposition leadership. We are working to mitigate the Syrian conflict’s spillover on Turkey’s security and sovereignty, including through the deployment of two U.S. Patriot batteries in southern Turkey, which join four batteries from other NATO allies. U.S. contributions to the international humanitarian response help provide critical support to refugees hosted in Turkish camps and communities. In support of the U.N., Turkey is playing an important role in facilitating cross-border humanitarian assistance in northern Syria.
  • Iraq hosts more than 225,000 refugees from Syria, mostly in the Iraqi Kurdistan region. Since 2012, the United States has provided more than $90 million in humanitarian aid to international organizations and NGOs for Syrian refugees in Iraq. We are also working with the U.N. and the Iraqi government to ensure that the estimated 350,000 Iraqis displaced by the Anbar conflict are getting needed assistance and will be able to vote in Iraq’s upcoming elections, which ISIL seeks to disrupt. At the same time, we are in close contact with Iraq’s political leaders and security commanders to develop and execute a holistic campaign to isolate ISIL from the population, including through intensified information sharing and security assistance.
  • In Egypt, which hosts over 135,000 Syrian refugees, political instability and polarization has contributed to a difficult environment and increasing humanitarian needs for refugees. Recognizing the burden that refugee communities can pose on host countries, we are continuing to support humanitarian partners in Egypt and to engage the government to ensure that refugees receive needed support.
  • Israel has not been spared the effects of the conflict. Our governments coordinate closely to monitor violent extremist threats in Syria, and we support Israel’s right to defend itself from spillover violence. We applaud Israeli efforts to provide medical care to wounded Syrians seeking help. We are also concerned that Syria’s instability will continue to threaten the Golan.
Urgent Humanitarian Action

We are coordinating closely with the international community to alleviate the suffering caused by this crisis. The Government of Kuwait co-hosted a donor conference with the U.N. Secretary-General in January, which resulted in $2.6 billion in new pledges. The United States is the largest single donor to the Syria humanitarian response, providing more than $1.7 billion in humanitarian assistance. Our assistance supports U.N. and other international organizations as well as numerous NGOs assisting conflict-affected civilians inside the country and throughout the region. We are specifically directing some of our funds to alleviate the growing strain on host communities, infrastructure and public services in neighboring countries. Inside Syria, our assistance provides food, basic healthcare, water and sanitation services and desperately needed relief supplies.

The Asad regime continues to deliberately block humanitarian access in Syria, citing the uncertain security situation. Last week, the first U.N. convoy reached the residents of Qamishli in northern Syria via the Turkish border crossing at Nusaybin. Although some supplies will finally reach these people in desperate need, one day of U.N. aid convoys crossing one border point is not enough. These convoys prove that the Syrian army can allow humanitarian access when it chooses to do so. The Asad regime must approve all U.N. requests for access to areas in need immediately as called for by the U.N. Security Council.

Negotiations Transitioning to a Representative Government

Transitioning to a representative government that is responsive to the needs of the Syrian people is the only way to reduce the violence and alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. While the international community, including Russia, maintains that the conflict must end via a negotiated political agreement in line with the 2012 Geneva Communiqué, the regime has squandered every opportunity for a peaceful settlement. At the Geneva II talks, the regime’s negotiator insulted the opposition, U.N. Joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi and the international community while contributing nothing of substance to the discussion.

The United States and Russia share a common interest in a successful negotiation that fully implements the Geneva Communiqué and prevents the spread of instability and violent extremism beyond Syria’s borders. To date, this common interest has motivated Russia to continue its support to the OPCW mission. However, Russia has done nothing to move its Syrian allies forward in the Geneva II negotiations. Moreover, we have seen an increase in both the quantity and the quality of weapons Russia has provided to the Syrian regime in recent months. The stability that Russia seeks in Syria will not be achieved by providing planes, tanks, bombs, and guns for use against the Syrian people. We continue to review all options for changing President Putin's calculus away from Russia's support for the Asad regime. Ambassador Brahimi told the Security Council on March 13, that he recommends against a third round of talks unless the regime commits to discuss substantively all elements of the Geneva Communiqué. In the meantime, the United States and its partners will continue to expand our support to the Syrian opposition and ratchet up pressure on the regime.

On another matter, I know that the safety of Syria’s minority communities is a key concern for members of this committee, as it is for us. We are troubled by the plight of all civilians in Syria, including Christians and other religious minorities. Protecting the security and religious rights of these communities, as well as the rights of women, is an important element of our policy and will be essential to any future political settlement. We have sought and received assurances from the Syrian opposition leadership and moderate rebel leaders that they will protect the rights of women and minorities, and engage them in plans for building Syria’s future.
Next Steps
Mr. Chairman, we are actively engaged in trying to bring the Syria crisis to an end.
  • We are working with allies and partners to combat the growing threat of violent extremists;
  • We are working to prevent a catastrophic collapse of Syrian cities in opposition controlled areas;
  • We are providing nonlethal support to the armed opposition;
  • We are working with the international community to end the threat of Syria’s chemical weapons;
  • We are taking steps to protect and support our regional friends and allies;
  • We are contributing generously to the humanitarian response both inside Syria and among its neighbors; and
  • We are providing support to the Syrian opposition both directly and through the London 11.
Even as we pursue all the steps I have outlined today, we continue to examine what more we can do to defend U.S. interests in Syria and to achieve a political settlement. We appreciate the support of your Committee – most recently in your 10
March 14 letter – and will continue to work together with the Congress as we move forward.
The Syrian people reject violent extremism. They want to return home and rebuild their country – and we will help them. Thank you.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY ISSUES STATEMENT ON UKRAINE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Statement by the Press Secretary on Ukraine

The United States has steadfastly supported the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine since it declared its independence in 1991, and we reject the “referendum” that took place today in the Crimean region of Ukraine.  This referendum is contrary to Ukraine’s constitution, and the international community will not recognize the results of a poll administered under threats of violence and intimidation from a Russian military intervention that violates international law.
No decisions should be made about the future of Ukraine without the Ukrainian government.  Moreover, this vote was not necessary.  The Ukrainian government has made clear its willingness to discuss increased autonomy for Crimea, and the presidential elections planned for May 25 provide a legitimate opportunity for all Ukrainians to make their voices heard on the future of their country.
In addition, Ukraine, the United States, the EU, the OSCE, the UN, and others have called for Russia to allow international monitors into the Crimean peninsula to ensure that the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine are being upheld.  Russia has spurned those calls as well as outreach from the Ukrainian government and instead has escalated its military intervention into Crimea and initiated threatening military exercises on Ukraine’s eastern border.
Russia’s actions are dangerous and destabilizing.  The UN Security Council recognized this in a vote yesterday that only Russia opposed.  As the United States and our allies have made clear, military intervention and violation of international law will bring increasing costs for Russia – not only due to measures imposed by the United States and our allies but also as a direct result of Russia’s own destabilizing actions.
In this century, we are long past the days when the international community will stand quietly by while one country forcibly seizes the territory of another.  We call on all members of the international community to continue to condemn such actions, to take concrete steps to impose costs, and to stand together in support of the Ukrainian people and Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Monday, March 10, 2014

WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET: U.S. AND CHILE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
FACT SHEET: The United States and Chile

Today, Vice President Joe Biden is in Chile to attend the inauguration of President-Elect Michelle Bachelet. The Vice President’s visit will underscore the long-standing close ties between the United States and Chile, and highlight our cooperation in the following areas:

Free Trade Agreement: The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement continues to benefit both nations.  Bilateral trade in goods grew to $28 billion in 2013, which makes Chile our 29th largest goods trading partner overall and our fourth largest export partner in the Americas.  U.S. goods exports to Chile totaled $17.6 billion last year, representing an increase of 548 percent since the Agreement was signed in 2004.

Trans-Pacific Partnership: The United States and Chile are two of the twelve participants negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will be a comprehensive, high-standard, next-generation trade agreement.  Once concluded, the TPP will cover roughly 40 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP).  All of the participants stand to benefit from a successful and speedy conclusion of TPP negotiations.

Multilateral Issues: The United States looks forward to consulting closely with Chile as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council and member of the UN Human Rights Council.  President Obama and President-Elect Bachelet launched our Trilateral Development Cooperation initiative in 2009, and we’ve worked together in countries as diverse as El Salvador, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic on matters as diverse as agriculture, assisting at-risk youth, and security cooperation.

Visa Waiver Program: On February 28th, Chile was designated the 38th country to participate in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. Chile’s designation is a testament to our strong relations and its participation will have a tremendous impact in creating even stronger people-to-people ties between our countries.  It should also facilitate other potential initiatives to expedite trade and travel.  During his visit, the Vice President announced the implementation would be moved up from May 1st to March 31st.

100,000 Strong in the Americas: During his March 2011 visit to Chile, President Obama launched the “100,000 Strong in the Americas” initiative to increase educational exchange across the Americas.  Chile has already created three partnerships between U.S. and Chilean universities to increase student exchange. There are currently more than 3,000 U.S. students studying in Chile and more than 2,000 Chileans at American universities.  In January, the Vice President launched the initiative’s #InvestintheFuture campaign to start an online conversation between students, governments, and business about international education.


Saturday, February 22, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY'S STATEMENT ON SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON SYRIA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
UN Security Council Resolution on Syria
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 22, 2014

This could be a hinge-point in the tortured three years of a Syria crisis bereft of hope. This overdue resolution, if fully implemented, will ensure humanitarian aid reaches people in Syria whose very lives depend on it. This is all about saving innocent lives and relieving the burden on Syria's neighboring countries.

After three years of slaughter and savagery, people rightfully will question whether progress is possible, but this resolution holds the promise of something real. The proof is on paper. By naming the areas in Syria where sieges must be lifted, demanding that hospitals, schools and other places where civilians gather must be demilitarized, insisting that aid must be allowed to cross borders and follow the most direct routes to the suffering, and by underscoring that attacks against civilians, including barrel bombing, must end, the international community hasn't minced words. This is a resolution of concrete steps to answer the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today.

But these steps are only first steps. Just as shipments of humanitarian aid mean little without access to beleaguered areas, resolutions demanding access mean little without full implementation. The test is whether the words of the Security Council are matched with the life-saving actions the Syrian people so desperately and urgently need.

Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed