REMARKS AT JOINT PRESS RELEASE ON AUSTRALIA-UNITED STATES MINISTERIAL MEETING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks at Joint Press Availability With Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, and Australian Defence Minister David Johnston
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
November 20, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon. I’m delighted to welcome Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston to Washington for what has been a very productive Australia-United States Ministerial meeting, or AUSMIN as we call it for short.

I think everybody understands that the relationship between the United States and Australia is really extraordinary, and though we live in different hemispheres and at opposite ends of the globe, the relationship between us really is as close as a relationship can get. To start with, Australia is a vital partner as we strengthen U.S. engagement throughout the Asia-Pacific, and together we are growing closer and closer to finalizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That will create jobs and investment on both of our shores, and it will also raise the standards of business transactions within that region and raise them to a higher level which we all aspire to. In addition, it will create, we think, a significant strengthening of the infrastructure between us, promoting democracy and good government and supporting gender equality throughout Southeast Asia.

As we meet today, the United States and Australia are working very closely on the emergency assistance efforts with respect to the Philippines, and we are together bringing significant relief to many, many Filipinos as a consequence of the super-typhoon that caused unspeakable devastation a few days ago.

We also work very closely to address the region’s security challenges, including the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and we spent some period of time discussing that today.

Just a few minutes ago, as you witnessed, my colleagues and I signed a nonbinding Statement of Principles that will help to guide us as we move to put together a force posture agreement which will strengthen further the U.S. and Australia relationship over the course of the years to come. And we are trying to see if we can accelerate those negotiations and complete that agreement as rapidly as possible.

Our partnership, important to note, extends well beyond Asia-Pacific. In September, I sat in the chamber of the UN Security Council to join the global community in putting an end to the appalling use of chemical weapons in Syria. Australia held the rotating presidency of the Security Council that particular month, and as we signed that resolution, I was particularly proud to look to my left and see where Ambassador Gary Quinlan was sitting to be able to thank Australia for its leadership of the Security Council during that important period of time.

Today, we discussed our shared efforts to reach a political solution with respect to the conflict in Syria. We both share the goal of realizing a peaceful resolution not just for the Syrian conflict through the Geneva discussions, but also for the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and our efforts – all of us – to try to reach a constructive and acceptable agreement with respect to the threat of a nuclear weapon in Iran. We agreed on each of these that diplomacy is always the preferred approach and that it’s important to exhaust the remedies and possibilities of diplomacy.

We have the best chance we’ve had in a decade, we believe, to halt progress and roll back Iran’s program. And I made clear to our friends from Australia, as I have made clear to my former colleagues in meetings on Capitol Hill over this last week, we will not allow this agreement, should it be reached – and I say “should it be reached” – to buy time or to allow for the acceptance of an agreement that does not properly address our core fundamental concerns.

In the Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and around the world, the U.S.-Australia partnership contributes significantly to our mutual goal of our search for peace and stability and security on a broader basis. This is, I think for all of us, our first AUSMIN, certainly my first as Secretary of State. I’ve had the really good fortune to work with our friends from Australia over the years as a United States Senator, as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I worked very closely with our Australian counterparts on a wide range of issues over that period of time. And when Secretary Hagel and I served in Vietnam, the both of us remember well that we fought alongside our Australian brothers. In fact, American and Australian men and women have fought together in every major conflict since World War I. And this morning, Secretary Hagel and I joined Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston for a moving ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. There we honored together the enormous sacrifice that our nations have endured together and in our – and we also paid tribute to our shared efforts now in Afghanistan and elsewhere to promote democracy and peace.

These sacrifices between our countries continue even to this day, and now we honor the remarkable service of all of our men and women in uniform and we reconfirm and restate our commitment to completing the transfer of security responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces by the end of 2014. I’m pleased to say that in a series of conversations with President Karzai in the course of this morning, even interrupting some of our conversations, that we reached an agreement as to the final language of the Bilateral Security Agreement that will be placed before the Loya Jirga tomorrow.

Now, when we open up trade and when we work on our mutual investment throughout the Asia-Pacific, I’m pleased to underscore that the United States and Australia work hand in hand, as closely as possible. When we’re providing relief to nations in need, our two nations are side by side. And when we’re taking historic steps to ensure that the world’s most heinous weapons are never used again, we are sitting and working side by side. And when we’re on the battlefield fighting to protect our shared values, we are standing side by side.

The United States could ask for no better friend and no closer ally than Australia. And it’s been a great pleasure for Secretary Hagel and me to host the Australian delegation, and we really look forward to continuing our work side-by-side over the years to come. Thank you.

Minister Bishop.

MINISTER BISHOP: First I’d like to thank Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel for their gracious hospitality and for hosting this AUSMIN meeting here in Washington. Both Senator Johnston and I were deeply moved by the arrangements that were made to hold a ceremony at Arlington this morning as we paid tribute to the memories of those who have died in service of your country and reflecting on the fact that, as you say, Mr. Secretary, our forces have fought side-by-side in every conflict in which we have been engaged.

Senator Johnston and I took this opportunity to reaffirm the Australian Government’s commitment to the bilateral relationship and the ANZUS alliance, which is the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy. But as our wide-ranging discussion today made clear, our relationship is much more than just defense cooperation. We engage on every level, whether it be in education or scientific and research collaboration, whether it be tourism, whether it be the new frontiers of space, whether it be trade and investment.

Indeed, I’m reminded that when you take trade and investment together, the United States is Australia’s most important economic partner. And the considerable investment that we see from the United States in Australia and from Australia in the United States means that our economies are stronger, the job opportunities are greater, as our two countries work closely together on economic matters.

We took the opportunity today to discuss a range of issues regarding our region in particular, the Indian Ocean Asia-Pacific. We looked at the challenges – economic, security, strategic – that face the region. We support wholeheartedly the United States rebalance to our region. And it’s most certainly the case that countries in our region look forward to more United States leadership in the region, not less. We also focused on the Indian Ocean and the countries of the Indian Ocean, as well as the Pacific Ocean. We spoke more generally about global issues – about the Middle East, Syria, Egypt, Iran. We talked about the need for denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.

Specifically, we spoke about our joint force posture initiatives, and I’ll ask Senator Johnston to say a little more about that. And we also recognize that the joint membership we have of the regional architecture, the global architecture, including the East Asia Summit, APEC, the G20, means that not only do we work bilaterally, but we also work regionally and globally as partners.

There is no doubt that the relationship we have, the friendship we have, the partnership, the alliance makes us both stronger countries. And I thank our American hosts for having us here. It has been our first AUSMIN. It certainly, I hope, will not be our last.

SECRETARY HAGEL: Secretary Kerry, thank you. Good afternoon. I very much appreciated the opportunity to host, with Secretary Kerry, our friends from Australia, Minister Bishop, Minister Johnston. For me, it also was a personal privilege. As Secretary Kerry noted, we – John and I served together in Vietnam with many Australians. I – as John served in the United States Senate and worked closely with our friends in Australia during those times and visited Australian a number of times. My father served in the South Pacific, including Australia, during World War II. And I celebrated my 22nd birthday in Sydney, Australia. So I am particularly personally grateful for this opportunity to participate in our consultations today.

AUSMIN, as has been noted, is really quite a unique forum, that demonstrates how much the United States values its close relationship with Australia and the continued vitality of this important alliance. Today’s meeting reflected not only the breadth of cooperation between our two countries, two old and good friends, but also the deep bonds we share – bonds of shared values, shared interests, and shared history. We were reminded of these common bonds earlier today as Secretary Kerry, Minister Bishop has noted, at the Arlington National Cemetery. Australians and Americans have fought side by side in every major conflict over the last 100 years and over this last decade. Australia has been the largest non-NATO troop contributor to the war in Afghanistan. The American people are grateful to the Australians for Australia’s continued commitment to that effort. And we deeply respect the great sacrifices made by the Australian defense forces.

Today we discussed America’s force posture initiative with Australia. That force posture was announced during President Obama’s trip to Canberra two years ago. These initiatives remain on track. Two companies of Marines have rotated through Darwin. And we have increased exercises between our air forces. Next year, our Marine rotational force near Darwin will expand to 1,100 Marines. We reaffirm plans for this rotating force to grow. These ongoing rotational deployments to Australia are important to making the U.S. military presence in Asia-Pacific more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and also politically sustainable.

Our relationships in the South Pacific are historic. The rebalance to this – to the Pacific Asia area that the President announced two years ago are based on our common interests with the nations of Asia-Pacific: trade, commerce, culture, education, stability, security. They’ll also help strengthen our capacity and the capacity of our partners in the region, like humanitarian assistance disaster relief efforts currently underway, as Secretary Kerry noted, in the Philippines. The United States and Australia are working side by side in support of the people of the Philippines.

As we continue to implement our force posture initiatives with Australia, we also agreed today on a Statement of Principles that we just signed that will ensure these efforts are closely aligned with both our nations’ shared regional security objectives and our future. Negotiations will begin next month on a binding agreement that will govern these force posture initiatives and further defense cooperation. As we adapt our alliance to an evolving security environment, we are also focused on new challenges, including those in space and cyber. We will continue to work closely together on the full range of cyber threats.

We also are continuing to implement previous agreements to expand our situational awareness in space. Earlier today, Defence Minister Johnston and I signed an agreement to relocate a unique advanced space surveillance telescope to western Australia. This telescope provides highly accurate detection, tracking, and identification of deep space objects, and will further strengthen our existing space cooperation.

All of these steps are helping strengthen our alliance as we continue to work together to face the challenges and opportunities of this new century. It has been an honor, again, to join Secretary Kerry in hosting Foreign Minister Bishop and Defence Minister Johnston and the Australian delegation. And we thank the delegation – their ambassador to Washington D.C.; their former ambassador, General Hurley; and the rest of their very distinguished delegation. I look forward to continue working with all of them to advance our common interests, as I do with our partners in the Pacific Asia region. And I know I speak for General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Locklear was here with us this morning, as other leaders of the defense institution. We look forward to advancing our common interests in our friendships, and a more secure and prosperous future for both our nations. Thank you very much.

MINISTER JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Can I adopt and support the remarks of my Foreign Minister Julie Bishop? Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel, today is the third occasion I’ve had the opportunity to discuss Australia’s defense relationship with the United States with Secretary Hagel. And I thank him for his leadership and his friendship on this very important subject to my country.

I also thanked him during the course of the meetings for not just his leadership, but for the leadership of his senior commanders – General Dempsey; General Breedlove, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; General Dunford, ISAF Commander; and of course, in the Pacific, Admiral Locklear. The leadership that is shown by the United States here and more broadly in our engagements across the world – and obviously, Afghanistan is a very important engagement for Australia – is simply splendid. And I thank him and I thank the United States for that.

This is, of course, the first AUSMIN for all of us. It has been, may I say, a very successful exchange. And I trust that Secretary Hagel feels as I do, that he can ring me at any time on any subject as a friend, and we can discuss important relationship matters as we bring Marines to Darwin, as we further explore interrelationships, interoperability, and of the vast number of contacts and technical operations we conduct together into the future.

This is Australia’s most important strategic alliance. The friendship and the demeanor by which we have conducted this has been a very effective, productive, and also a very happy relationship in frankly discussing all of the issues that we both consider to be very important. I want to thank Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel for their hospitality, and it has been a delight to be here. I thank you again.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Jill Dougherty of CNN.

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, thank you. I wanted to – now that you’ve mentioned that you’ve reached agreement on the final language for the BSA, the security agreement between the United States and Australia, I wanted to ask if you could clear up some of the confusion about this issue of a letter to be issued by the United States. We believe that that was your idea, and perhaps you can enlighten us. Some of the words that have been used are “appropriate assurances,” “express regret.” Susan Rice says there’s no apology. So is this – if it’s not an apology to the Afghans, what is it? Who would sign such a letter? And why is it necessary?

And then also, if there’s anything that you could add about details of this agreement, how long – especially how long U.S. forces would remain in Afghanistan. Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Jill, thank you. First of all, let me comment that I can’t help but look out from this table with the four of us sitting here and see our two delegations facing each other, and I feel like we’re judges looking at a tag-team wrestling match or a dance contest or something. (Laughter.) General Dempsey versus General Hurley now. (Laughter.) We’ll score you. A diversion.

I don’t know where this idea – I honestly don’t know where the idea of an apology started, because I think someone in the chain of press or something said something to somebody over there, not here. But let me be clear: President Karzai didn’t ask for an apology. There was no discussion of an apology. There will be – there is no – I mean, it’s just not even on the table. He didn’t ask for it. We’re not discussing it. And that is not the subject that we have been talking about.

What we’ve been talking about are the terms of the BSA itself, which provide the outline of the structure, the process by which ISAF, international forces, the United States forces themselves would be engaged going forward. As I think you know, it is a very limited role. It is entirely train, equip, and assist. There is no combat role for United States forces. And the Bilateral Security Agreement is an effort to try to clarify for Afghans and for United States military forces exactly what the rules are with respect to that ongoing relationship.

It’s very important for President Karzai to know that issues that he’s raised with us for many years have been properly addressed, and it’s very important for us to know that issues we have raised with him for a number of years are properly addressed. The agreement will speak for itself when the agreement is approved. And as we sit here tonight, we have agreed on the language that would be submitted to a Loya Jirga, but they have to pass it. So I think it’s inappropriate for me to comment at all on any of the details. It’s up to the people of Afghanistan.

When I left Kabul that late night when President Karzai and I had finished the major part of the negotiation, we both said it has to go to the Loya Jirga. There were some people who may have questioned or doubted whether that was going to happen. Well, it’s happening tomorrow, and it’s happening tomorrow with agreed-upon language between us. And I think it’s up to President Karzai to speak to the Loya Jirga, its process, and how it will work and what the results will be, and it’s up to President Obama and the White House to address any issues with respect to any possible communication between the President or President Karzai. So let’s see where we are.

But the important thing for people to understand is there has never been a discussion of or the word “apology” used in our discussions whatsoever.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Nick O’Malley of the Sydney Morning Herald.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, I was wondering, after the revelations that the NSA had conducted surveillance of the German leadership, the response from America was to seek to placate and reassure Germany.

SECRETARY KERRY: Sorry, I couldn’t hear your last – the response?

QUESTION: The response from America was to seek to placate German leadership. Do you think that would be a useful approach for Australia to be taking after revelations of Australian espionage against Indonesia?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just say, fundamentally, each situation is its own situation. We have great respect, obviously, for the work we do together with our friends in Australia, as we’ve said here today. We have an unbreakable and a critical working relationship, and we have worked together in counterterrorism and many activities on a global basis, and will continue to.

Likewise, we have great respect and affection for Indonesia, we work with our friends in Indonesia on many different issues, and we will continue to do that. But whatever has been or not been released or being discussed in the papers, I believe – as I think our friends in Australia do – is a matter of intelligence and intelligence procedures, and we don’t discuss intelligence procedures in any sort of public way at this point in time, certainly, unless the President indicates otherwise. But that’s where we are.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Scott Stearns of VOA.

QUESTION: A question for Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Bishop: We understand where the international community is on Iran’s right to enrich uranium regarding the NPT. But can you foresee a resolution to this standoff that includes Iran in any way enriching uranium? Or does access to a civilian nuclear program on the part of Iran mean that it needs to access that uranium elsewhere? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, given that there is no stated right within the NPT, which we have reaffirmed again and again with respect to enrichment, whatever a country decides or doesn’t decide to do or is allowed to do and permitted under the rules depends on a negotiation, depends on a process. We’re not in that – we’re at the initial stage of determining whether or not there is a first step that can be taken. And that certainly will not be resolved in any first step, I can assure you.

So the President has said many times Iran, like other nations that are signatories to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, have a right to peaceful nuclear energy. Now, what that contains depends on the standing of that particular nation with respect to NPT requirements and the international community.

So that’s what the negotiation is about, and I’m not going to predetermine its outcome except to say to you that no right is recognized or granted within anything that I’ve seen in the early discussions. It is a subject of negotiation. It would have to be resolved in negotiation and subject to extraordinary standards and scrutiny and process, which is the heart of the negotiation. So there’s no way to suggest anything but that it’s important to get to a negotiation and see what can or cannot be reached.

MINISTER BISHOP: Australia is monitoring the P5+1 scenario very closely, and I’m grateful to Secretary Kerry for keeping us informed in the context of this AUSMIN meeting as to where the proposed negotiations are, where they’re likely to head. But we also reiterate that should a nation require nuclear aspects for the purposes of civilian purpose – for civilian uses, peaceful purposes, then of course, it’s subject to international safeguards, it’s subject to a range of protocols, and that would apply in this case. But we’re not at that stage. We’re not at a stage where Iran has convinced us that its use is for peaceful civilian purposes. Should it get to that point, then of course, the appropriate international safeguards and protocols would apply, as they would to any other country in that situation.

MS. PSAKI: The final question will be from Jane Cowan of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Bishop, given the furor now over the revelations of Australian spying on Indonesia, have you registered Australia’s displeasure with those security lapses that gave rise to the Snowden leaks that have now caused so much discord in that relationship?

And Secretary Kerry, can you confirm that the spying was done at the request of the U.S.?

MINISTER BISHOP: As I have said on numerous occasions, and as the Prime Minister has said, we do not discuss intelligence matters, certainly not allegations. We do not discuss them publicly, and we will not do so. The Prime Minister has made two statements to the Parliament now on this issue, and I would refer you to those statements.

In regard to our discussions today, we had a very wide-ranging discussion about a whole raft of issues that affect our bilateral relationship, very productive and very fruitful discussions. And long may they continue.

SECRETARY KERRY: As Prime Minister Abbott has said and the comments that he has addressed, and as Minister Bishop has said here today and on many occasions, and as I have said in my previous comments, we just don’t talk about intelligence matters in public and we’re not about to begin now.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S OP-ED REGARDING STARVATION IN SYRIA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Assad's War of Starvation
Op-Ed
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Foreign Policy
October 28, 2013

The world already knows that Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons, indiscriminate bombing, arbitrary detentions, rape, and torture against his own citizens. What is far less well known, and equally intolerable, is the systematic denial of medical assistance, food supplies, and other humanitarian aid to huge portions of the population. This denial of the most basic human rights must end before the war's death toll -- now surpassing 100,000 -- reaches even more catastrophic levels.

Reports of severe malnutrition across vast swaths of Syria suffering under regime blockades prompted the United Nations Security Council to issue a presidential statement calling for immediate access to humanitarian assistance. To bolster the U.N.'s position, every nation needs to demand action on the ground -- right now. That includes governments that have allowed their Syrian allies to block or undermine vital relief efforts mandated by international humanitarian law.

Simply put, the world must act quickly and decisively to get life-saving assistance to the innocent civilians who are bearing the brunt of the civil war. To do anything less risks a "lost generation" of Syrian children traumatized, orphaned, and starved by this barbaric war.

The desperation can be eased significantly, even amid the fighting. Working through the regime, with assistance from Russia and others, inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are proving every day that professionals can still carry out essential work where there is political will. If weapons inspectors can carry out their crucial mission to ensure Syria's chemical weapons can never be used again, then we can also find a way for aid workers on a no less vital mission to deliver food and medical treatment to men, women, and children suffering through no fault of their own.

The U.S. government has undertaken significant efforts to alleviate the suffering. Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the United States has led international donors in contributing nearly $1.4 billion for humanitarian assistance. Aid has been distributed to every section of Syria by leading international agencies, including the U.N. Refugee Agency, the World Food Program, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, and top-notch non-governmental groups.

Most of these aid workers are courageous Syrians who risk their safety to cross shifting battle lines for the good of others. They have performed miracles and saved thousands of lives. In return, they have been subjected to a catalog of horrors. They have been harassed, kidnapped, killed, and stopped at every turn from reaching the innocent civilians desperately clinging to life.

The obstacles exist on both sides of the war. Outside observers from the U.N. and non-governmental organizations have chronicled the ways in which extremist opposition fighters have prevented aid from reaching those in need, diverting supplies and violating the human rights of the people trying to deliver them.

But it is the regime's policies that threaten to take a humanitarian disaster into the abyss. The Assad government is refusing to register legitimate aid agencies. It is blocking assistance at its borders. It is requiring U.N. convoys to travel circuitous routes through scores of checkpoints to reach people in need. The regime has systematically blocked food shipments to strategically located districts, leading to a rising toll of death and misery.

The U.N. statement earlier this month calls on all parties to respect obligations under international humanitarian law. It sets out a series of steps that, if followed, would go a long way in protecting and helping the Syrian people. Convoys carrying aid need to be expedited. Efforts to provide medical care to the wounded and the sick must be granted safe passage. And attacks against medical facilities and personnel must stop.

Merely expecting a regime like Assad's to live up to the spirit, let alone letter, of the Security Council statement without concerted international pressure is sadly unrealistic. A regime that gassed its own people and systematically denies them food and medicine will bow only to our pressure, not to our hopes. Assad's allies who have influence over his calculations must demand that he and his backers adhere to international standards. With winter approaching quickly, and the rolls of the starving and sick growing daily, we can waste no time. Aid workers must have full access to do their jobs now. The world cannot sit by watching innocents die.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S PRESS STATEMENT ON SAUDI ARABIA AND THE UN CENTRE ON COUNTERTERRORISM

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Saudi Arabia's Contribution to the UN Centre on Counterterrorism
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
August 8, 2013

We welcome and applaud today’s $100 million donation by His Majesty King Abdullah, on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to the UN Centre on Counterterrorism (UNCCT).

His Majesty’s generous donation, on the occasion of Eid al Fitr, demonstrates once again the Kingdom’s commitment to supporting multilateral institutions and strengthening international cooperation on counterterrorism.

With these funds, we hope that the UN Counterterrorism Implementation Task Force (UNCTITF), of which the Centre is a critical component, can intensify its work to provide countries with the long-term capacity building support they need to implement the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy.

UN PUBLISHES AFGHANISTAN OPINUM REPORTS

Opium Field In Afghanistan.  Credit:  U.S. Marine Corps

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Afghanistan Opium Survey and Opium Risk Assessment

Fact Sheet
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
May 6, 2013

The Afghanistan Opium Survey and Afghanistan Opium Risk Assessment (ORAS) are two distinct reports that aid the Afghan government in policy development and the U.S. Government and other donors in foreign assistance planning. Both reports are joint publications by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics. The United States, as well as a number of other international donors, provides funding for these important tools.
The 2012 UNODC Afghanistan Opium Survey, which covers the 2012 opium poppy crop, was published on May 6. This is a final report that builds on the 2012 UNODC Afghanistan Opium Survey Summary findings which were published on November 20, 2012. The UNODC Afghanistan Opium Survey is a comprehensive, quantitative estimate of actual poppy cultivation and opium production each year in Afghanistan based on an extensive and rigorous public methodology. It is completed after the end of the poppy harvest season and relies on satellite imagery analysis of the poppy crop during its peak growth period.
The 2013 Opium Risk Assessment (ORAS), which covers the 2013 opium poppy crop, was published on April 15, 2013. The ORAS is an informal, qualitative prediction of poppy cultivation trends over the upcoming year, based on interviews with village leaders during the planting season. Unlike the annual Opium Survey estimate, ORAS interviews are not cross-verified with satellite imagery as the opium poppy crop cannot be detected remotely until much later in the plant’s growth cycle. This report is meant to provide an early indication of broad cultivation trends in each province to help policymakers adjust delivery of counternarcotics and development assistance prior to the poppy harvest.
The U.S. Government also produces a quantitative estimate of opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan each year. The UNODC and U.S. surveys differ in methodology and their estimates do not always align, although trend lines are generally similar at the national level. The U.S. Government does not produce a qualitative forecast of cultivation trends similar to the Opium Risk Assessment (ORAS).

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HOLDS MEETING RELATED TO SYRIA



Credit:  The White House

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Biden, in Munich, Holds Syria-related Meetings
From a White House News Release

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2, 2013 - Vice President Joe Biden, attending the Munich Security conference, today met with United Nations and Arab League Joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi on the conference's margins.

Biden thanked Brahimi for his steadfast work to resolve the ongoing crisis in Syria and pledged that the United States would continue to support his efforts, officials said. The vice president and Brahimi discussed the dire humanitarian situation inside Syria and the regional implications of the crisis, officials said.

Biden also met separately on the margins of the conference with Syrian Opposition Coalition President Moaz al-Khatib. The vice president praised al-Khatib's personal courage and leadership of the coalition, the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, officials said.

Biden urged al-Khatib to continue his efforts to maintain unity among the coalition's leadership, officials said, and to isolate extremist elements within the broader opposition. The vice president also encouraged the coalition president to reach out to, and be inclusive of, a broad range of communities inside Syria, including Alawites, Christians and Kurds.

Officials said during the meeting, Biden reaffirmed the U.S. call for an end to the Assad regime and a transition that leads to a peaceful, inclusive and democratic Syria, where the rights of all Syrians are protected. The vice president also commended al-Khatib's recent statements, including in Munich, expressing openness, under certain circumstances, to the possibility of negotiations to bring the Syrian people the leadership they deserve, officials said.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS ON SITUATION IN THE CONGO

Map:  Democratic Republic Of The Congo.  Credit:  CIA World Factbook.

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

The Devastating Crisis in Eastern Congo
Testimony
Johnnie Carson
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs
As Prepared
Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights
Washington, DC
December 11, 2012

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to testify before the Subcommittee on the crisis unfolding in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, or D.R.C.

As you know, the security and humanitarian situation in the Congo is the most volatile in Africa today. An estimated five million people have died in the years since the second regional war began in 1998, and millions more have been forced to flee their homes. The D.R.C. is also the site of one of the world’s longest-running and most expensive peacekeeping operations, having hosted a UN peacekeeping presence for several years after its independence in 1960, in addition to the more recent UN missions starting in the late 1990s. The people of North and South Kivu provinces in particular have faced repeated cycles of conflict, atrocities, and displacement. An unthinkable number of women, men, and children have experienced sexual violence or rape at the hands of soldiers and armed groups.

The November 20 fall of Goma to the M23 rebel group provided a stark reminder that, even as the international community has made major investments in humanitarian aid and peacekeeping, the underlying causes of the recurring conflicts in eastern D.R.C. remain unresolved. The Congolese Government has failed to provide effective security, governance, and services in the eastern provinces, and political and economic tensions persist between the D.R.C. and its eastern neighbors, particularly Rwanda. The current crisis has been fueled and exacerbated by outside support to rebel groups operating in the Kivu provinces.

The M23 is one of many armed groups operating in the eastern D.R.C. Most of its officers were at one time nominally integrated into the Congolese army, a concession they extracted after nearly capturing Goma as part of a precursor insurgency in 2008. Once integrated, these officers operated in a parallel chain of command and enjoyed impunity for their human rights abuses and illegal exploitation of the country’s mineral wealth. When the Congolese Government appeared poised earlier this year to challenge these arrangements, several of these officers mutinied and constituted themselves under a new name, the M23. The commanders of the M23 represent a "who’s who" of notorious human rights abusers in the eastern D.R.C. They include Bosco Ntaganda, who faces an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for sexual violence and other crimes against humanity and continues to play an active role in the militia.

Since the M23 rebellion erupted last spring, the United States has worked closely with international and regional partners to mobilize a comprehensive response aimed at preventing a further deterioration of the situation, securing an end to hostilities, and maintaining humanitarian assistance. In September, Secretary Clinton met with Congolese President Kabila and Rwandan President Kagame at the UN General Assembly to urge them to engage in a more constructive dialogue. In the UN Security Council, we proposed and supported new actions to ensure that five of the M23’s top commanders are now under targeted sanctions. We have also stressed the need to hold accountable all of those who commit human rights abuses. Ambassador Rice has remained directly engaged with senior UN officials throughout the crisis, as we believe it is critical that the UN continue to play a key mediating role. In early November, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman traveled to the region to meet with key heads of state to urge a rapid and peaceful resolution to this crisis.

In response to the M23’s offensive on Goma last month, I traveled to Kinshasa, Kigali, and Kampala between November 24 and 28 with my British and French counterparts. During meetings with senior Ugandan, Rwandan, and Congolese officials, we delivered a clear and common message: as agreed in the November 21 and 24 Kampala communiqués, there must be an immediate cessation of hostilities and M23 must withdraw from Goma; the Congolese, Rwandan, and Ugandan Governments should ensure the implementation of these commitments; and any outside support to the M23 is unacceptable and must stop. We also urged top officials in the Congolese, Rwandan, and Ugandan Governments to work together toward a sustainable resolution of underlying issues. All three governments reiterated to us their commitment to these goals. So far, the cessation of hostilities between Congolese forces and the M23 appears to be holding. Most M23 forces appear to have withdrawn from Goma, though many remain much closer to the city than the Kampala agreements called for.

We also stressed that, while the D.R.C. Government has agreed to hear the political grievances of the M23, there should be no impunity for senior M23 leaders who are under ICC indictment or international sanctions for human rights violations.

The M23 would not be the threat it is today without external support, and we will continue to discourage outside parties from providing any assistance to the M23. There is a credible body of evidence that corroborates key findings of the Group of Experts’ reports – including evidence of significant military and logistical support, as well as operational and political guidance, from the Rwandan government to the M23. The British Government has recently indicated that it shares this assessment. We do not have a similar body of evidence that Uganda has a government-wide policy of support to the M23.

Based on this evidence, we continue to press Rwanda to halt and prevent any and all forms of support to Congolese armed groups. As required by law, the Department suspended Foreign Military Financing funds to Rwanda this year. Looking forward, we expect all parties, including Rwanda, to cease any support to M23 and other armed groups, abide by the November 21 and 24 agreements, and to work constructively with neighbors and the international community and take affirmative steps to end impunity for M23 commanders responsible for human rights abuses in order to reach an acceptable political agreement. We ask the Government of Uganda to ensure that supplies to the M23 do not originate in or transit through Ugandan territory, including from individual officials that may be acting on their own. The Department continues to closely monitor reports of external support and we will continue to respond appropriately, including by reviewing our assistance, to deter this support as the situation develops.

We are taking a number of other steps, in concert with our international partners, as part of our comprehensive response to the current crisis.

First and foremost, we are monitoring humanitarian needs and mobilizing a response. The humanitarian situation in the eastern Congo remains deplorable, as it has been for years, with more than two million Congolese currently displaced internally or to neighboring countries. The recent attacks by M23 and other armed groups have displaced some 500,000 more. The reopening of the Goma airport on December 5 was an important step toward ensuring that vulnerable populations receive the emergency assistance they need. UN officials report that humanitarian organizations currently maintain sufficient capacity to respond to immediate humanitarian needs in and around Goma, but some areas of North and South Kivu are still not accessible to humanitarians because of insecurity. The United States provided more than $110 million in humanitarian assistance for Congolese refugees, internally displaced persons, and conflict-affected civilians in Fiscal Year 2012, including a $5 million supplemental contribution for the increased needs in the D.R.C., Uganda, and Rwanda as a result of displacements caused by the M23 rebellion. At the UN, we have urged donors to respond to the UN’s consolidated appeal for the D.R.C.

Second, the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, or ICGLR, the African Union, and the Security Council have all demanded that the M23 refrain from further offensives and stay out of Goma. In the ICGLR talks, the Congolese Government agreed to hear the grievances of the M23. We are calling on the D.R.C., neighboring governments, and the broader international community to ensure accountability for M23 leaders who have committed serious human rights abuses. And we will continue to speak out against the forcible recruitment of children and the other crimes the M23 continues to commit against Congolese civilians. We also call on governments to enforce the terms of the travel ban and asset freeze imposed by UN sanctions.

Third, we believe that Presidents Kabila, Kagame, and Museveni must continue to engage in direct talks to address the underlying causes of instability in the region. These include conflict over land, tensions in areas where refugees have returned or may seek to return, armed rebel groups and their support networks, and the illegal exploitation of natural resources. The Governments of the D.R.C., Rwanda, and Uganda also have opportunities to discuss potential drivers of progress, including new agreements and concrete initiatives on economic integration and peace and security issues. We encourage the UN Secretary-General to appoint a UN Special Envoy to engage on a sustained basis to facilitate ongoing discussions toward a long-term solution of these long-standing problems. We need such a high-level Special Envoy to be dedicated to the hard work of helping develop this long-term solution with all of the relevant stakeholders and to ensure that the solution is implemented over the long run, especially when the world’s attention turns to the next crisis. We intend to continue working with our European, African, and UN partners to support this dialogue. We will work to ensure that any agreement is transparent, sustainable, and enjoys the support and commitment of the region, including Congolese civil society and civilian communities.

Fourth, we appreciate the brave service of peacekeepers from several dozen countries operating in very difficult, often dangerous conditions. Yet more must be done to protect civilians in the eastern D.R.C. We and our fellow Security Council members and troop contributing countries are reviewing options for improving the UN’s ability to protect civilians and help implement defined aspects of a potential regional political settlement. We must remain realistic about what MONUSCO can be expected to achieve to protect civilians across a large expanse of D.R.C. territory. We are also following the regional Great Lakes proposal to develop an effective regional fighting force in the Kivus that would confront the M23 and other armed groups. We are strongly encouraging our partners to ensure these efforts are coordinated with, and perhaps even integrated into, UN peacekeeping efforts.

Fifth, the D.R.C. Government has the primary responsibility for protecting its territory and all its citizens. We are urging President Kabila to undertake a credible effort to professionalize and reform the Congolese security forces. This will take time, but the Congolese Government needs to take clear and bold measures to ensure that its soldiers are professionally trained, adequately paid and supported, and respectful of international human rights norms. We also find very disturbing, and recognize the need to address, the abuses committed by the Congolese military, including recent reports of rapes and looting in North Kivu. At the same time, we are making clear that the Congolese Government must accelerate its efforts to deploy and strengthen state institutions and provide needed public services in the Kivus. The extension of effective governance, combined with legitimate provincial elections, is necessary for a lasting peace.

We believe that the time has come for the region’s leaders and the international community to break the cycle of violence and impunity in the region. We, and most importantly, the region’s political leaders, must ensure that the national security and territorial integrity of the D.R.C., Rwanda, and Uganda are protected; must help build a future for people who have seen more conflict than peace over the last two decades that is rooted in strong and credible institutions, the transparent and legitimate use of the East’s vast mineral wealth for economic development and not personal gain, and respect for human rights; and must establish nonviolent means of addressing their differences. It is for this reason that even as we tackle the immediacy of the current crisis, we are also focused on the equally urgent need for a long-term and lasting solution.

As Secretary Clinton noted when she visited Goma in 2009, the Congolese people are courageous and resilient. There are reasons for hope in the D.R.C. The Congolese army has begun implementing a program to pay its soldiers through electronic and mobile banking and has committed to removing the last vestiges of the use of child soldiers. Thousands of combatants and dependents from the génocidaire militias have been demobilized and returned to civilian society. And for the first time, a horrific mass rape in January 2011 was followed with swift criminal justice for the perpetrators and the officers who directed them.

We need to build on these steps, which have been gravely set back by the M23 rebellion and the violence committed by other armed groups. The decisions taken now will set the trajectory of the next several years. Other abusive militias in the Kivus are watching to see if violent behavior is an effective path to power and influence. Reformers who are promoting a conflict-free trade in mineral resources are watching to see if insecurity will be allowed to continue and prolong the conditions favorable to illegal smuggling. The FDLR militia is still active in the Kivus. The vicious Lord’s Resistance Army of Joseph Kony, which operates hundreds of miles away on the D.R.C.’s northern borders, is watching to see if insecurity in the Kivus will undermine regional efforts to deny it a safe haven. And the world is watching to see whether the eastern Congo can transcend its history as a theater for proxy conflict and finally have the chance to move toward peace.

If we are to stop the recurring lethal violence, rape, humanitarian emergencies, and cross-border conflict in the eastern D.R.C. that have cost millions of lives and billions of dollars, we must move beyond short-term fixes. Today’s crisis is a tragedy, but it also offers a real opportunity to help the Congolese people set a more sustainable course toward peace. The framework for action at the national, regional, and international levels that I have outlined today could help enable the peoples of the region to escape the recurring cycles of conflict.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions.

U.S. TOUTS ACCOMPLISHMENTS ON UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Credit:  Wikimedia. 

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

U.S. Accomplishments During Its First Term on the UN Human Rights Council
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 12, 2012

The United States is pleased and proud of its reelection to the UN Human Rights Council earlier today. Since joining the Council in 2009, the United States has ardently worked to help the Council realize its full potential. Our efforts to reform the Council from within have resulted in historic and concrete actions against human rights violators around the world. While much work remains to be done at the Council, in particular ending its excessive and unbalanced focus on Israel, with U.S. leadership the Council has spoken up for those who are suffering major human rights violations and are living under the grip of the world’s cruelest regimes. The Council also has taken action to promote accountability for violations and expand human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide. Today’s vote will allow us to further strengthen the Council and build on what we have already accomplished at the Council by working together with our international partners.

As we prepare for another three years of close collaboration with partners from all corners of the globe to address the many human rights challenges remaining before us, we reflect on the Council’s key accomplishments during our first term, including:

Robust Response to Country-Specific Situations:

Syria: The Human Rights Council has been an active, vocal body in condemning the atrocities in Syria, holding four special sessions and establishing an independent International Commission of Inquiry, as well as a Special Rapporteur to follow up on the work of the Commission of Inquiry once its mandate expires. The Council has adopted eight resolutions on Syria since 2011, all of which the United States co-sponsored, sharply and repeatedly criticizing and illuminating the conduct of the Syrian government.

Libya: Similarly, in 2011 the Council took assertive action to address the dire human rights situation in Libya, establishing a Commission of Inquiry mandated, among other things, to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law in Libya and to make recommendations on accountability measures. With the support of the United States and on the recommendation of the Council, the UN General Assembly took unprecedented action in March 2011 to suspend Libya’s membership rights on the Council helping to catalyze broader UN action to prevent the slaughter of civilians in Libya.

Iran: In 2011, the United States led the Council in adopting a resolution that re-instituted the mandate of a Special Rapporteur on Iran to highlight Iran’s deteriorating human rights situation. Today, the Special Rapporteur is speaking out on behalf of those Iranians who have suffered egregious human rights violations by the Iranian government.

Belarus: In 2012, the United States co-sponsored a resolution at the Council that established a Special Rapporteur to highlight human rights abuses in Belarus. In doing so, the Council re-instituted a mandate that the Council eliminated in 2006, when the United States was not a member.

Sri Lanka: In 2012, the United States led the Council in adopting a resolution on Sri Lanka, which sent a strong signal that Sri Lanka still needs to address outstanding issues of reconciliation and accountability.

Cote d’Ivoire: When the political and human rights environment in Cote d’Ivoire deteriorated in 2011, the Council acted quickly to establish a Commission of Inquiry to investigate human rights abuses. The Council later created an Independent Expert on human rights in Cote d’Ivoire, with a mandate to follow up on the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations and assist the Government of Cote d’Ivoire in combating impunity.

Burma: Since joining the Council in 2009, the United States supported the adoption of four resolutions addressing the human rights situation in Burma. The most recent resolution extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights for another year. In doing so, the Council took into account the many recent positive changes in Burma, including the Government of Burma’s stated commitment to democratization and the reconciliation process as well as the Government’s engagement with Aung San Suu Kyi and opposition parties.

Promoting Universal Human Rights:

Advancing the Rights of LGBT Persons: In June 2011 the Council adopted the first-ever UN resolution on the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons. This resolution commissioned a groundbreaking UN report on the human rights abuses that LGBT persons face around the globe, and has opened a broader international discussion on how to best promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons. As a co-sponsor of this resolution, the United States demonstrated its commitment to an active role in ensuring fair treatment and equality for all people.

Promoting Freedom of Assembly and Association: Since 2010, the United States has led a cross-regional core group of countries in successfully presenting two landmark resolutions on the protection and promotion of freedom of assembly and association. The first resolution created the first new special rapporteur focused on fundamental freedoms in 17 years, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. The second resolution underscores the important role that civil society plays in the promotion and protection of human rights.

Highlighting Internet Freedom: In July 2012, the United States co-sponsored a landmark resolution, that underscores that all individuals are entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms online as they are offline, including the freedom of expression, and that all governments must protect those rights regardless of the medium.

Underscoring the Right to Nationality: In 2012 the United States successfully introduced a landmark resolution addressing the right to a nationality, with a specific focus on women and children. The equal right to a nationality for women, including the ability to acquire and retain nationality and confer it on their children, reduces the likelihood that women and children will become stateless and vulnerable to serious harm.

Reinforcing Freedom of Expression in the Context of Religious Intolerance: The United States worked with a wide range of partners, including the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, to secure adoption in 2011 of the "Combating Discrimination and Violence" resolution, also known as resolution 16/18, which calls on states to take a range of positive actions to combat discrimination, violence, and intolerance on the basis of religion or belief without violating the freedom of expression. This resolution marked a sea change in the global dialogue on countering offensive and hateful speech based upon religion or belief.

U.S.-CANADA RELATIONS

Map Credit:  U.S. State Department

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

U.S. Relations With Canada

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

Fact Sheet

June 29, 2012 

U.S.-CANADA RELATIONS

The United States and Canada share two borders and their bilateral relationship is among the closest and most extensive in the world. It is reflected in the high volume of bilateral trade--the equivalent of $1.6 billion a day in goods--as well as in people-to-people contact. About 300,000 people cross between the countries every day by all modes of transport. In fields ranging from security and law enforcement to environmental protection to free trade, the two countries work closely on multiple levels from federal to local.

U.S. defense arrangements with Canada are more extensive than with any other country. The Permanent Joint Board on Defense provides policy-level consultation on bilateral defense matters and the United States and Canada share North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mutual security commitments. U.S. and Canadian military forces cooperate on continental defense within the framework of the binational North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

The Beyond the Border initiative outlines a vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness whereby the United States and Canada work in partnerships within, at, and away from our borders to achieve enhanced security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people, goods, and services between our two countries. The United States has several successful joint law enforcement programs with Canada such as the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBET), Border Enforcement Security Taskforces (BEST), and the ShipRider Integrated Cross Border Maritime Law Enforcement program. Senior leadership engages in these efforts through fora such as the Cross Border Crime Forum (CBCF), which is chaired by the U.S. Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security with their Canadian counterparts. As part of the Beyond the Border Action Plan, U.S. and Canadian officials are enhancing cross-border law enforcement radio interoperability and building on the successes of programs such as IBET, BEST, and ShipRider to develop the next generation of integrated cross-border law enforcement.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) conducts preclearance operations at eight Canadian airports, allowing air travelers to arrive at domestic terminals in the United States by screening and making admissibility decisions about U.S.-bound travelers and their accompanying goods or baggage prior to departure. The United States and Canada intend to enhance preclearance operations and expand them to also cover land, rail, and ferry/cruise travel as part of the Beyond the Border Action Plan.

The United States and Canada work together to resolve and manage transboundary environmental and water issues. A principal instrument of this cooperation is the International Joint Commission established under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. Under the Columbia River Treaty, Canada and the United States jointly regulate and manage the Columbia River as it flows from British Columbia into the United States. The two countries cooperate on a range of bilateral fisheries issues and international high seas governance initiatives, and are both founding members of the Arctic Council.

The bilateral Clean Energy Dialogue is charged with expanding clean energy research and development; developing and deploying clean energy technology; and building a more efficient electricity grid based on clean and renewable energy in order to reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change in both countries. Canada is an ally of the United States in international climate change negotiations. Canada participates in the U.S.-led Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate; the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which aims to accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies in major industrial sectors; and the International Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, which researches effective ways to capture and store carbon dioxide.

U.S. Assistance to Canada

The United States provides no foreign assistance to Canada.

Bilateral Economic Relations

The United States and Canada share the world's largest and most comprehensive trading relationship, which supports millions of jobs in each country. Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of energy to the United States. Recognition of the commercial viability of Canada's oil sands has made it the world's third largest holder of oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and is the only non-OPEC member in the top five. Canada and the United States operate an integrated electricity grid that meets jointly developed reliability standards, and they provide all of each other's electricity imports. Canadian uranium helps fuel U.S. nuclear power plants.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among the United States, Canada, and Mexico aims to reduce trade barriers and establish agreed upon trade rules. It has resolved long-standing bilateral irritants and liberalized rules in several areas, including agriculture, services, energy, financial services, investment, and government procurement. The Regulatory Cooperation Council seeks to further stimulate trade by increasing regulatory transparency and cooperation between the United States and Canada and eliminating unnecessary regulatory differences and duplicative actions that hinder cross-border trade and investment.

Canada and the United States have one of the world's largest investment relationships. The United States is Canada's largest foreign investor, and Canada is the fifth-largest foreign investor in the United States. U.S. investment is primarily in Canada's mining and smelting industries, petroleum, chemicals, the manufacture of machinery and transportation equipment, and finance. Canadian investment in the United States is concentrated in finance and insurance, manufacturing, banking, information and retail trade, and other services.

Bilateral trade disputes are managed through bilateral consultative forums or referral to NAFTA or World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute resolution procedures. Canada has challenged U.S. trade remedy law in NAFTA and WTO dispute settlement mechanisms. The two countries negotiated the application to Canadian goods of "Buy American" provisions for state and local procurement under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The United States has encouraged Canada to strengthen its intellectual property laws and enforcement. Canada passed an important copyright law on June 28, 2012.

Canada's Membership in International Organizations

In addition to their close bilateral ties, Canada and the United States cooperate in multilateral fora, including international efforts to combat terrorist financing and money laundering. The two countries belong to a number of the same international organizations, including the United Nations, NATO, WTO, G8, G20, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Organization of American States, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Canada accepted an invitation to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership regional trade agreement being negotiated among the United States and other countries.

U.S.-UNITED ARAB EMIRATES RELATIONS

Map Credit:  U.S. State Department.
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Relations With United Arab Emirates
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Fact Sheet
June 29, 2012
U.S.-UNITED ARAB EMIRATES RELATIONS
The United States has had friendly relations with the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) since 1971, following its formation and independence from the United Kingdom. The two countries established formal diplomatic relations in 1972. The U.A.E. plays an influential role in the Middle East, and is a key partner for the United States. The United States and the U.A.E. enjoy strong bilateral cooperation on a full range of issues including defense, non-proliferation, trade, law enforcement, energy policy, and cultural exchange. The two countries work together to promote peace and security, support economic growth, and improve educational opportunities in the region and around the world. U.A.E. ports host more U.S. Navy ships than any port outside the United States.

U.S. Assistance to the United Arab Emirates
The United States provides no foreign assistance to the U.A.E.

Bilateral Economic Relations
The prosperity of the U.A.E. is based in large part on the country's vast oil and gas reserves, and it is one of the United States’ single largest export markets in the Middle East and North Africa region. More than 750 U.S. firms operate in the country. Many U.S. companies, drawn by strong logistics and transport industries, use the U.A.E. as a regional headquarters from which to conduct business throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia. The U.S. and U.A.E. have entered into a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, establishing a formal dialogue to promote increased trade and investment between the two countries.

The United Arab Emirates' Membership in International Organizations
The U.A.E. and the United States belong to a number of the same international organizations, including the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization.

U.S. DAILY STATE DEPARTMENT MEETING

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

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

MS. NULAND: Excellent.

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

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

Please, Andy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Which is that?

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: No, no. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Yeah, yeah. I am.

Go ahead. Please.North Korea?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: A question on North Korea.

MS. NULAND: Please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.

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

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

QUESTION: Did you have an update on David Hale?

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

QUESTION: Oh. Was he not in Saudi?

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

QUESTION: So --

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

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

MS. NULAND: Correct, correct.

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

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

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: The which issue?

QUESTION: The gas.

QUESTION: Gas.

QUESTION: Natural gas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: And this is a day-long trip?

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

QUESTION: And he’s also going to Afghanistan?

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

QUESTION: He’s going back to D.C.?

MS. NULAND: Correct, yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just briefly on that?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

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

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

Yeah, please.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: I have a question on South America --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Correct.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: What did happen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: I understand that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: FAM stands for foreign manual?

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: On Japan?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

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

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

QUESTION: Toria?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: One more, on Burma.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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