SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH BULGARIAN FOREIGN MINISTER MITOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

SEAGRASSES AS A SUPER CARBON WAREHOUSE

Photo:  Seagrass.  Credit:  Wikimedia.
FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
May 21, 2012
Seagrasses are a vital part of the solution to climate change and, per unit area, seagrass meadows can store up to twice as much carbon as the world's temperate and tropical forests.

So report researchers publishing a paper this week in the journal Nature Geoscience.
The paper, "Seagrass Ecosystems as a Globally Significant Carbon Stock," is the first global analysis of carbon stored in seagrasses.

The results demonstrate that coastal seagrass beds store up to 83,000 metric tons of carbon per square kilometer, mostly in the soils beneath them.

As a comparison, a typical terrestrial forest stores about 30,000 metric tons per square kilometer, most of which is in the form of wood.

The research also estimates that, although seagrass meadows occupy less than 0.2 percent of the world's oceans, they are responsible for more than 10 percent of all carbon buried annually in the sea.

"Seagrasses only take up a small percentage of global coastal area, but this assessment shows that they're a dynamic ecosystem for carbon transformation," said James Fourqurean, the lead author of the paper and a scientist at Florida International University and the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Florida Coastal Everglades Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site.

The Florida Coastal Everglades LTER site is one of 26 such NSF LTER sites around the world in ecosystems from forests to tundra, coral reefs to barrier islands.
"Seagrasses have the unique ability to continue to store carbon in their roots and soil in coastal seas," said Fourqurean. "We found places where seagrass beds have been storing carbon for thousands of years."

The research was led by Fourqurean in partnership with scientists at the Spanish High Council for Scientific Investigation, the Oceans Institute at the University of Western Australia, Bangor University in the United Kingdom, the University of Southern Denmark, the Hellenic Center for Marine Research in Greece, Aarhus University in Denmark and the University of Virginia.

Seagrass meadows, the researchers found, store ninety percent of their carbon in the soil--and continue to build on it for centuries.

In the Mediterranean, the geographic region with the greatest concentration of carbon found in the study, seagrass meadows store carbon in deposits many meters deep.
Seagrasses are among the world's most threatened ecosystems. Some 29 percent of all historic seagrass meadows have been destroyed, mainly due to dredging and degradation of water quality. At least 1.5 percent of Earth's seagrass meadows are lost every year.

The study estimates that emissions from destruction of seagrass meadows can potentially emit up to 25 percent as much carbon as those from terrestrial deforestation.

"One remarkable thing about seagrass meadows is that, if restored, they can effectively and rapidly sequester carbon and reestablish lost carbon sinks," said paper co-author Karen McGlathery, a scientist at the University of Virginia and NSF's Virginia Coast Reserve LTER site.

The Virginia Coast Reserve and Florida Coastal Everglades LTER sites are known for their extensive seagrass beds.

Seagrasses have long been recognized for their many ecosystem benefits: they filter sediment from the oceans; protect coastlines against floods and storms; and serve as habitats for fish and other marine life.

The new results, say the scientists, emphasize that conserving and restoring seagrass meadows may reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon stores--while delivering important "ecosystem services" to coastal communities.

The research is part of the Blue Carbon Initiative, a collaborative effort of Conservation International, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO.

U.S. DAILY STATE DEPARTMENT MEETING

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

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

MS. NULAND: Excellent.

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

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

Please, Andy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Which is that?

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: No, no. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Yeah, yeah. I am.

Go ahead. Please.North Korea?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: A question on North Korea.

MS. NULAND: Please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.

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

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

QUESTION: Did you have an update on David Hale?

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

QUESTION: Oh. Was he not in Saudi?

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

QUESTION: So --

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

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

MS. NULAND: Correct, correct.

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

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

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: The which issue?

QUESTION: The gas.

QUESTION: Gas.

QUESTION: Natural gas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: And this is a day-long trip?

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

QUESTION: And he’s also going to Afghanistan?

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

QUESTION: He’s going back to D.C.?

MS. NULAND: Correct, yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just briefly on that?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

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

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

Yeah, please.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: I have a question on South America --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: Correct.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: What did happen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. NULAND: I understand that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: FAM stands for foreign manual?

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: On Japan?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

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

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

QUESTION: Toria?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: One more, on Burma.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

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

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

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

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING, APRIL 20, 2012

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 20, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

1:06 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Happy Friday, everybody. I am sorry to be late. We had a lot more material than I expected and a more jetlagged me than I expected. Welcome, first and foremost, to American University students in the International Communications Program. We recently got a chance to talk over at AU. Happy to have you.

We have a couple things at the top before we get started. A nice, thin crowd. Looks like a lot of people have taken Friday off. Excellent.

QUESTION: We’re working on our figures here.

MS. NULAND: You’re working on our figures?

QUESTION: Our figures. Yes.

MS. NULAND: Yes?

QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.)

MS. NULAND: Never mind. (Laughter.) I notice that – so only one of you is working on your figure, or both of you? (Laughter.) I couldn’t help myself. (Laughter.) All right.
First, let me just advise that at the Syria Human Rights Forum in Geneva, Switzerland today, the U.S. Department of State and AID announced an additional $8 million in funding for those suffering from violence in Syria, bringing our total humanitarian assistance for Syria to nearly $33 million. And we will have a Fact Sheet later in the day or Monday on the totality of our humanitarian assistance to date.
Also I know that Mark briefed one of the days this week about our efforts in the walk-up to May 3rd UNESCO World Press Freedom Day that we are, every day between now and May 3rd, highlighting an individual human rights case on ourhumanrights.gov website.

Today’s case is the case of Dhondup Wangchen, who is a Tibetan filmmaker who was detained by Chinese authorities on March 8th on charges related to the production of his 25-minute documentary film titled, “Leaving Fear Behind.” He was reportedly beaten, deprived of food and sleep during his interrogation, and held incommunicado for a full year. You can see his full story on our website.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Can we start with that Syrian aid? What is this money going toward? And then maybe afterwards you can explain what of that 33 million has gotten into Syria, how you get it in there, what challenges you’re facing.

MS. NULAND: Right. Well, Brad, let me say, first off, that when we release this Fact Sheet, which will update the one that we have currently on our website, it’ll be a little bit clearer with more details, including all of the organizations that we fund.

But just to remind that all of the U.S. humanitarian assistance goes through UN humanitarian organizations or NGOs. It funds food, medicine, shelter for those refugees and IDPs who we can get to, particularly those who are currently in Turkey, in Jordan, et cetera. But we’ll give you the whole rundown when you see the sheet; and if it’s still not clear, we’ll arrange a briefing.

QUESTION: So is this 33 million – this is separate from any communications, medical, and non-lethal aid?
MS. NULAND: Correct. Correct. There are two pots of support. The first is the humanitarian assistance that the Secretary has been talking about. The interesting thing was when we first started to think about humanitarian assistance for Syria, the question was: Could we get to the people in need? And we have very much been able to get to the people in need, both those who have already escaped Syria, but the international humanitarian organizations, to the extent that they have been able to operate in Syria, have already run through a lot of their money, which is why we keep giving more, because they continue to appeal for more. There is also a severe food shortage in parts of Syria, as we’ve talked about before, so we’re also supporting their effort to get high-nutritional items into Syria through the Red Crescent, et cetera.

QUESTION: And is there a monetary value on the non-lethal side?

MS. NULAND: We’ve talked a little bit about it. I think at the moment, we’re not prepared to break it down monetarily for a whole bunch of reasons, or to say more about it besides what the Secretary and Secretary Panetta and others have already said, that it’s primarily communications support, it is logistical support. And the reason for that is the one that we’ve stated before: We don’t want to endanger those who it goes to; we don’t want to make it easier to disrupt for those who don’t want to see it go in.

QUESTION: Well, fine, regarding the details of how it gets in and who it goes to. But why won’t you provide just kind of a ballpark figure so that we know the scale of this assistance?

MS. NULAND: Well, it’s been growing over time, and frankly, we are working with Congress as well on the totality of the program. So why don’t I pledge to get back to you a little bit next week as we can scope it a little bit better for you. Okay?
QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: On the aid question, the humanitarian aid, I’m wondering if you have any sense of how much of the aid that you’re providing through these various UN and NGO organizations is actually getting into Syria itself. Is there a percentage that you are able to identify, like say 30 or 40 percent of it is actually reaching Syrians in Syria?

MS. NULAND: I think we do have those numbers handy, and I think they are going to be represented in this material that we’re going to put forward.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: And if not, we will seek to do it. But I think it’s somewhere in the ballpark of half, I think.
QUESTION: Really?

MS. NULAND: But we’ll get you more.
Yeah.

QUESTION: Toria, you’re saying that not all this aid goes through the United Nations, correct? You’re saying some goes through some sort of NGOs?

MS. NULAND: Most of it goes through UN organizations. You’ll see it when we give you the outline.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: It’s very – the factsheet very carefully outlines what’s through ICRC, what’s through the World Food Program, et cetera.

QUESTION: And is it all in cash or in money or is it in material?

MS. NULAND: It goes in a number of ways. Either we provide financial support to UN funds that purchase things that we agree on, or there is often excess supply that we give.

QUESTION: And finally on this issue regarding the aid, how do you vet – how do you – what kind of vetting process are the NGOs subject to? How do you know that they are not going to take this aid and sort of turn it around somehow, illicitly provide arms?

MS. NULAND: When you see the list, you will recognize every single name on there as a major international – internationally recognized organization. We’re not giving this to Uncle Joe who’s playing around.
Please.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton also, I believe, talk about the option of a humanitarian corridor. Is this one of the option how some of the aid will be delivered in Syria?

MS. NULAND: Secretary Clinton has not talked about that in particular. I think another foreign minister talked about that yesterday.

QUESTION: So that – it’s not -- so it’s not another option – this creating humanitarian corridor?

MS. NULAND: Our humanitarian support is either being, as I said, given to those who have already left Syria, or it is getting in through organizations that have been able to work in Syria.

QUESTION: After – week after the truce, today shelling is going on in Homs and it has been going on. And according to SANA regime – news agency – it’s about 18 regime soldiers also got killed in the south of Syria.
My question is: How do you assess today, a week later, how the ceasefire is holding up?

MS. NULAND: Well, the Secretary spoke to this quite clearly in Brussels on Wednesday, again in Paris yesterday. And the situation has not improved since she expressed our grave concerns about the ongoing violence, and made clear that we put the onus of the burden on the Assad regime to silence its guns, which clearly it has not done in Homs, in Idlib, and in other parts of Syria.

Please.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on the monitors, if I may.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.

QUESTION: The monitors now – today, there has been only, what, six monitors so far?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have today’s count. I think there were about six yesterday. The expectation was that over the next few days, the full advance team, which was about 25, would get in. And as you know, there is work ongoing in New York about getting in the full complement of 250-300.

QUESTION: So what is the holdup, because there is, if one listens to the Russian writers, for instance, they are putting the blame so to speak on the UN that is not dispatching the monitors quick enough.

MS. NULAND: Well, with regard to the 20-25 who have to get in, as you remember, this came up quite suddenly. They’re having to find and recruit monitors from other UN missions. They are working on that. I frankly can’t speak to the delta between those who’ve gotten in and the rest of the advanced team. I would send you to New York on that.
But with regard to the full team, as you know, there has to be another – here he is – another UN Security Council resolution. So they’re talking about that in New York.

QUESTION: And on that subject --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- I mean, there have been – Ambassador Rice yesterday noted that several Security Council members have reservations given the lack of full compliance by the Assad – with the various points of the Annan plan. But would the U.S. be ready to back such a resolution given that the Assad regime has not fully fulfilled its obligations there?

MS. NULAND: Well, we are working with our colleagues on the Security Council today on an appropriate resolution. You heard the Secretary yesterday in Paris make clear that we want to see monitors be able to get in, but they’ve got to be able to do so in the permissive conditions that Assad signed up to when he signed up to the Kofi plan. And we have extreme concerns about the situation on the ground now, and we also have to ensure that as and when the full group gets in, they’ve got to have freedom of movement, freedom of communication, freedom of access, freedom of reporting. It’s got to be a true independent, international monitoring effort under UN auspices and not regime controlled. So – and it also has to be able to monitor not simply the silencing of the guns, but all aspects of the six-point plan, the pull back, the situation with political prisoners, it’s got to be able to interview anybody it wants.

So as we work in New York to make clear what it will take to get this mission in, we are also making clear that the burden is on the Assad regime to live up to its promises and allow it in. But what we’ve also seen is in those parts of the country where the monitors, the few monitors who’ve already gotten in – have been able to get in – they’ve been met with joyous crowds. They’ve provided space for more peaceful demonstration. So that’s the goal that we’re looking for here.

QUESTION: Okay. But just to sort of shrink it down, it sounds as though what you’re saying – correct me if I’m wrong – is that the U.S. wouldn’t be able to support this resolution if the situation in Syria remains as it is right now.

MS. NULAND: Brad, there were – Andy, they’re working now on a resolution which is going to spell out exactly how this needs to happen and the terms, even as the international community puts more pressure on Assad to make the conditions appropriate for the monitors under the scheme that he agreed to when he agreed to the Annan plan.
Okay? Please. Still on Syria? Yeah.

QUESTION: How was the experience of our six monitors have had in Syria? What’s your assessment? Did they have full freedom and all the other conditions you have been describing?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m going to refer you to the report that was given by Kofi Annan’s deputy in New York yesterday. I think it’s a mixed picture. He made clear in that report that where they have been able to get out and about, they’ve been met with enormous crowds, they’ve been met with enormous support from people looking to express themselves peacefully to their government. But there are only a few of them there, and the terms are still being negotiated with the government.

QUESTION: So next Friends of Syria meeting will be in Washington, and is – the date is clear, yeah?
MS. NULAND: No, the meeting in Washington is the next meeting of the sanctions group, the sub-group on sanctions. My understanding is the next Friends of the Syrian People meeting has not yet been set either in time or space.
Please. Still on Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah. On Syria.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Moroccan colonel who’s leading the UN team there now has been quoted that he’s not going to take his team out on Fridays. He doesn’t want to be used politically. There’s a quote to that effect. And I’m just wondering, since it seems that one of the purposes of the observer mission is to allow people to protest, and that’s a big day they want to protest, what would the U.S. think of that?

And also, I wanted to ask you one other question on this idea of freedom of movement. Some people are saying that for the U.S. to be so focused on this absolute freedom of movement in Syria while it’s about to vote for a resolution on Western Sahara, which basically acknowledges that the Moroccan Government has been limiting and surveilling the peacekeepers in Western Sahara, is somehow inconsistent. And I wonder if you have an explanation of the different approaches.

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, I haven’t seen the comments of the Moroccan lead. As I said, all of the modalities for these peacekeepers are being reviewed based on the experience of the initial group, and they have to be worked out through a new Security Council resolution, and obviously, we have to see how it goes on the ground.

With regard to Morocco versus Syria, the situation is different, the history is different. In the case of Syria, what we have seen all over the country is an effort at peaceful protest that has been met with regime violence. And so we need to ensure that we are not just covering – able to cover some parts of the country or some affected populations; that if this is going to be a true monitoring mission, the mission is going to have the ability to make its own decisions about where it can – where it needs to monitor, where it – and how it needs to be able to move around the country.

QUESTION: Just one follow-up.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask this about this idea of a resolution. It’s said now – I’ve already – I’ve heard that Russia has actually now introduced a resolution for the 300 peacekeepers, sort of jumped the gun or beaten you to – and that France is saying it’s going to introduce one for 500. And I just wondered, can you confirm the Russian draft has been circulated? And between the two, which one would the U.S. prefer?

MS. NULAND: I understood from my colleagues in New York, at U.S. Mission to the United Nations, that they were all now working off a single draft, but I’m going to send you up to them for the work that’s ongoing up there.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. Did something just happen where they’ve been jumped to peacekeepers from monitors?

MS. NULAND: No, monitors.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MS. NULAND: Monitors, monitors, monitors, observers.

QUESTION: Can I – I apologize if you covered this already. I missed most of it, but I did hear your intriguing reference to Uncle Joe. Maybe Uncle Vanya would have been a better choice, no, given your background? No?

Is the U.S. – is the Administration thinking now, planning for the eventual possible failure of the Annan mission and what would happen next, or – and at the same time, is it encouraging other members of the Friends of Syria, like the ones who were represented at the meeting yesterday with the Secretary, to do that, i.e. plan for the possible failure of this mission?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think if you look at what the Secretary had to say, first in Brussels, where she called this a crucial turning point, and then again in Paris yesterday, where she talked first about our hopes and expectations for the monitors but then also about increased pressure, obviously, we’re planning for both scenarios. We’re planning for a scenario where the monitors will be able to get in and do their job and will be able to push and encourage increasing space for peaceful protests, for political transition, and for Assad to live up to his – all the rest of the obligations under the six-point plan.

But she made very clear yesterday in her Paris discussion with the colleagues at the ad hoc meeting that, even as we plan for the best, we also have to be prepared, if this is not successful, to increase the pressure. She talked quite explicitly about what that could look like, specifically a new UN Security Council resolution under Chapter 7, which would increase sanctions, increase travel restrictions, increase financial squeezing, an arms embargo, these kinds of things, and other measures that we would be looking to push forward.

QUESTION: Right. Well, given the fact that – I mean, or not the fact, but the 99 percent possibility which – that that will be vetoed, that that kind of a resolution won’t go through, what are those other things? Do they include kicking more Syrian diplomats out? Do they – what else do they include?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get ahead of the precise sanctions, but I will tell you that in the context of the meeting that this ad hoc group had yesterday and the many consultations on Syria that the Secretary had while she was at NATO headquarters, both bilaterally in the dinner among NATO allies as well as her bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, she has been ventilating a variety of ideas, some of which were reflected in her intervention about what we’re going to have to do if Assad does not live up to his commitments.

QUESTION: Has – do you know, has she raised, rhetorically perhaps, the question of how can we continue to do nothing but supply humanitarian aid while one side is – while one side to – one party to this conflict is using nothing but brutal violence? How – has she raised that? Has she said that the United States is reconsidering its year-long opposition to military assistance?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you saw in her statement yesterday, she again reiterated our commitment to providing nonlethal support to civilian groups who are trying to prepare for a transition, trying to express their interest and their rights in a transition. There are other countries in the Friends of Syria Group who have other ideas about how to support and help the opposition. As she said --

QUESTION: No, that’s (inaudible) talking about. Has she told them that the United States is reconsidering everything regarding its policy towards Syria? Has she used – has she talked about the obduracy of the Assad regime?

MS. NULAND: Well, you can see what she had to say about the obduracy of the Assad regime in her statement yesterday, which was put out for all of you to look at. With regard to military assistance, our policy with regard to our own posture has not changed.

QUESTION: No, no. But as she said that you’re – that it’s being reconsidered. Has she told people that the United States is reconsidering --

MS. NULAND: No.

QUESTION: -- everything?

MS. NULAND: No.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: How much pressure has she put – has she levied, as it were, against others in the
Administration, when you consider that the Pentagon has been actively looking at the White House’s request for possible ways of providing military assistance or intervention in Syria?

MS. NULAND: Ros, I’m definitely not going to talk about internal Administration deliberations. I think Secretary Panetta talked to where we are with regard to the responsibilities of his building quite clearly yesterday on the Hill.

QUESTION: Toria, did you say – when is the sanctions meeting is taking place in Washington?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have the date, but we’ll get it for you, Said.

QUESTION: Are these issues to be discussed there? What kind of – you talked about more – tightening the sanctions more --

MS. NULAND: Right.

QUESTION: -- the financial aspect and so on.

MS. NULAND: Right.

QUESTION: Do you have very specific ideas on what you will do in case it fails, as has been suggested?

MS. NULAND: We do. We’ve talked about this a little bit, Said, in the context of the Friends of the Syrian People meeting that we had in Istanbul, where this group was established. The group, as you know, met in Paris earlier this week. It’ll meet in Washington next.

We’re talking about a variety of things – first of all, tighter, more precise implementation of those sanctions that are already on the books; closing the loopholes; helping countries to really monitor and know what’s going on – similar to work we’ve done with regard to North Korea sanctions, Iran sanctions around the world; but also consulting among ourselves about other pressure points that we haven’t considered that might increase the pressure, as I said, on the Assad regime, on the people around him, whether they are military leaders, whether they are business folks, et cetera, to try to get their attention.
Please.

QUESTION: The Embassy is Damascus posted a photo on the Facebook page this morning.

MS. NULAND: The – our U.S. Embassy?

QUESTION: Yes. And I was wondering if you had any more information. There wasn’t a blurb, but I’m
guessing it’s one of the declassified aerial photos that they’ve put up before.
MS. NULAND: This was something on Ambassador Ford’s website?
QUESTION: Right, on Facebook.

MS. NULAND: I haven’t seen it. But as you know, we’ve been putting a regular stream of aerial photography up on his website to make the case that although the Assad regime continues to claim that all the violence is the result of terrorists and bandits, you can very clearly see from this imagery that these are regime forces using very heavy weapons on civilians.

Please.

QUESTION: After reading Secretary Clinton’s statements and meetings in Paris, some argued that U.S. doesn’t have Plan B after the Annan – his plan – if the Annan plan fails. And most of the people actually agreed with this assessment, and you hear this from other – across the capitals that the U.S. basically doesn’t have Plan B when people come and ask if these Annan plan fails, what’s going to happen.
MS. NULAND: I think --

QUESTION: Can you tell us confidently that U.S. has Plan B right now if this Annan plan fails soon?

MS. NULAND: I think that’s where we started with this Syria conversation. Plan A is for the Annan plan and the monitors to be successful. Plan B is increasing, unrelenting pressure from all quarters.
Please. Still Syria?

QUESTION: No. It’s not Syria. It’s a new topic.

MS. NULAND: Hold on a sec. Andy, did you have Syria? No? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Mali.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any further details on the six Americans who were killed in Bamako in the car crash today – three service members, three civilians?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have it at all. So let me take that. Let me take that.

QUESTION: Okay. There was a statement from AFRICOM that three service members and three civilians were killed in a car crash. And then a follow-up to that --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- after you take it. Since you’ve suspended military aid in Mali, the statement says that the service members were there helping the Embassy. If you could just give more information as to what they were doing.

MS. NULAND: Yeah. I mean, they may well have been Marine security guards for our mission. But let me – frankly, I haven’t seen the AFRICOM statement, and we’ll see if we have anything further to say. I would guess that AFRICOM’s probably closest to this situation, but we’ll see what we have.
Please, Andy.

QUESTION: Another topic. On these reported connections between China and this North Korean missile program, Secretary Panetta yesterday in testimony said that it appeared that there had been Chinese help in certain elements of the North Korean program. We mentioned this with Mark yesterday, but I’m wondering if you can tell us if you’ve raised this with the Chinese. I mean, have these – do these concerns amount to something that you would actually talk to Beijing about?

MS. NULAND: We have. We have raised these alleged assistance of the Chinese Government as part of our ongoing discussions on North Korea.

QUESTION: And have you – have they provided you with any clarification, or what’s been their response?
MS. NULAND: I think we are continuing to talk about the full range of issues with regard to North Korea, including these.

QUESTION: North Korea, too?

MS. NULAND: Yes, please.

QUESTION: North Korea has mentioned yesterday in Pyongyang, North Korea will have – conduct another missile launch soon. What is your comment if there were another missile launch?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know where we are on this; that it is a very bad idea, that it is a violation of international law, that it is a provocation, and that it’s the wrong way to go.
I want to call your attention to the interview that the Secretary had on – Wednesday or Thursday? What’s today? Friday. Wednesday with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, and he asked her what her message would be to the new Korean leader. And she gives a very full answer about her hopes that he will change course and that he will really begin caring for his people, opening the country, and reforming it in a way that would allow us to reintegrate North Korea into the family of nations, and that he has a choice to make.
Please.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) about UNESCO? You mentioned that today was UNESCO World Press Day and you spoke about it in a positive term. Does that mean that the United States now – everything is okay between the U.S. and UNESCO?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know --

QUESTION: Is there no longer about – no more bad feelings?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve never had bad feelings. We’ve had, as a matter of U.S. law, the requirement to suspend U.S. assistance to UNESCO. This is a situation we very much regret. It’s a situation we wanted to avoid, but we had no choice.
Please.

QUESTION: On Bahrain, some British leaders today said that Grand Prix over the weekend should be canceled. What’s your assessment? Do you think Bahrain is safe this weekend for such a big organization?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything in particular with regard to the travel situation in Bahrain. I would look – suggest that you look on our website where we post our various travel notifications. I will say that we are concerned by the increase in violence in Bahrain, especially leading up to the Formula One race which starts today and goes on through the 22nd. We condemn violence in all of its forms. These are unproductive, unhelpful acts in building the kind of meaningful trust and reconciliation that is needed in Bahrain, and we’re calling for, again, Bahraini Government respect for universal human rights and demonstrators’ restraint in ensuring that they are peaceful.

QUESTION: On the actual event, you don’t think there’s any problems with it going forward and all this international participation in a country that still has kind of serious unresolved questions related to violence, possible human rights violations, et cetera?

MS. NULAND: Well, with regard to the safety and security of the race itself and people’s participation, to my understanding, we have not expressed any new or additional concerns.

QUESTION: I’m asking --

MS. NULAND: With regard to individuals’ decisions whether or not to travel to Bahrain, that’s obviously an individual decision to make.

Please.

QUESTION: In light of the controversy over whether Bahrain is doing enough to comply with the terms of
the independent commission’s report, should it have gone ahead with the F1 race this weekend?

MS. NULAND: That’s obviously a decision for the Bahraini Government to make. You know that we have expressed our support for a large number of measures that the Bahraini Government has taken to implement the independent commission’s investigation, but we’ve also been quite clear about the work that remains to be done.

QUESTION: Well, isn’t it also a decision for the Formula One people?

MS. NULAND: Absolutely. Absolutely.

QUESTION: Right. So – but you’re – what you’re saying is that you didn’t get in touch with them to register an opinion one way or another?

MS. NULAND: We did not. We did not.

QUESTION: Then you’re not aware of any – if there are American drivers or crew participating in this race, you’re not aware of any warning or alert or advice that was given especially to them?

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we did not issue anything specific with regard to the Formula One.
Please.

QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Campbell returned from his Asian trip – tour yesterday, and I’m
wondering if you have a readout of his meetings there or if he’s debriefed you at all.

MS. NULAND: I haven’t actually seen Assistant Secretary Campbell today, so let us get us – get you a debrief on his trip. Usually, he speaks to the press on each stop. Did he not do that this time?

QUESTION: Usually, he does. Yeah.

MS. NULAND: All right.

QUESTION: Off and on.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Well, we will see what we can get you.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can we go to other travelers?

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: David Hale?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Did he have meetings today? Where is he?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. He remains in the region. He remains engaged with the parties. That’s funny; I don’t have dates here. I think today he met with Israeli negotiator Yitzhak Molho. Yeah. And he’s also going to have dinner with UN Special Coordinator Robert Serry this evening. And tomorrow, he will see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and he will see Prime Minister Fayyad.

Thereafter, he’s going to go on next week to Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Those consultations will be primarily to exchange views about the Palestinian Authority’s ongoing institution-building efforts and to encourage everybody to continue to --

QUESTION: And the fact that that they have no money?

MS. NULAND: -- support that. Right.

QUESTION: So, what, in Jordan as well? I mean, the Jordanians still have the money --

MS. NULAND: He’s going to be briefing in – as you know, the Jordanians, under the leadership of the king and Foreign Minister Judeh have been very much involved in the peace process.

QUESTION: Right. So can – is – are you guys trying to restart the Jordan talks or is it, at this point, any talks anywhere would be welcome?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, any talks anywhere would be welcome, as after the January rounds, the Jordanian role continued in terms of the discussions that they have, that the foreign minister has, that the king has with the parties. So they are continuing to use their good offices. They are continuing to make clear that if the parties want to come back to Amman, they would welcome that. But as the Quartet said – what, was it a week ago – we favor any contacts. And there have been – there has been a contact by letter, there may be other kinds of written communication, and these are the kinds of things that David Hale is trying to encourage, as are the Jordanians.

QUESTION: Do you know – have you weighed in on what you think about the Palestinian letter?

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into what David Hale’s message is one way or the other. We are trying to use any kind of contact that these parties are able to have, including their work together on stabilization and institution building in the Palestinian Authority as a way to keep the process going, to encourage them to get back to direct dialogue.

QUESTION: No, I wasn’t asking what his message was. I’m just wondering if you have – I’m not asking even what – if you have, what you have said. I’m just asking, have you proffered an opinion as to what the Palestinians proposed in the letter?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m confident that one of the subjects of the discussion has been the letter – before, during, and after – but I’m not going to get --

QUESTION: So is that a yes?

MS. NULAND: That is a yes.

QUESTION: Do you have a – you have a – okay.
MS. NULAND: But I’m not going to get into the substance of it.
Yeah.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. I mean, we had proximity talks, direct talks, sub-proximity talks in Jordan and so on. Why doesn’t the State Department or the United States of America take the initiative and have – actually call for direct talks, bring in the parties, and go on from where they stopped? Why not?

MS. NULAND: Well, the parties were together in Jordan, and we were very much supportive of that effort. We were talking to both sides, we were being debriefed by both sides, and we continue to encourage that and we continue to be open to any role that the parties think will be helpful. But at the end of the day, they’ve got to sit with each other and they got to work this through.

QUESTION: So, I mean, why do you need the good offices of Jordanians, for instance? I mean, what is the United States doing to actually get this thing in motion?

MS. NULAND: Besides having our envoy in the region for three weeks? Besides having a Quartet meeting at the ministerial level three weeks ago? Obviously, we can continue to facilitate support, et cetera, but these parties have to make the hard decisions, as you know, Said.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. He’s in the region, and he’s going to be there for three weeks?

MS. NULAND: Yeah, he will. He’s there now. He’s then doing this tour next week, and then he’s going to go back and see the Israelis and Palestinians after he’s been in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Whether it’s three weeks or two and a half, it’s --

QUESTION: Not much of a spring break.

MS. NULAND: He’s taking a lot of shirts. Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m sorry? So he’s – after he does the Gulf, he’s going back to Israel and the Palestinian --
MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And then is he coming back, or then is he – or is it no?

MS. NULAND: It always is – he basically calls it as he sees it, wherever he can be most helpful.
Please.

QUESTION: Sure, a couple questions. One is about Heglig, where it’s – the South Sudanese army has said that it’s pulling out of this disputed town that it went into. Sudan is claiming that they threw them out, and I guess President Kiir has said that he’s pulling back voluntarily based on calls from a variety of parties, including the U.S. What’s the U.S. understanding? Are they leaving? And are they leaving voluntarily, or have they been ejected?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me start with pronunciation. My guys are saying Heglig. You think Heglig?

QUESTION: That’s how the Sudanese are saying it.

MS. NULAND: Interesting. And is there a difference between the way the South Sudanese and --

QUESTION: There’s actually a whole ‘nother town for the South – a whole ‘nother name that the South Sudanese give it, which begins with a P. But --

MS. NULAND: All right. Heglig. Guys, Heglig.

QUESTION: Sorry. Heglig. Either way.

MS. NULAND: All right. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. NULAND: It sounded – yeah.

QUESTION: That’s how the Sudanese --

MS. NULAND: Interesting.

QUESTION: -- ambassador says Heglig.

MS. NULAND: Well, we welcome the announcement from South Sudan that they will withdraw their forces from Heglig. We urge them to completely and fully withdraw all Sudanese forces from Heglig. In parallel, we’re also calling on the Government of Sudan, as we have regularly, to halt their own cross-border attacks, particularly the provocative aerial bombardments that – so that we can get back to a place where these two sides are working together and using mechanisms like the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism to work through their issues.

As you know, our special envoy, Princeton Lyman, has been there all week. I think he briefed some of you yesterday by telephone. He had a very productive series of meetings in Juba and in Khartoum. And yesterday he made clear that it’s not just the United States; it’s the entire international community that’s working together to get this violence ended.

QUESTION: Is he going to stay in the region, do you know? I mean, he mentioned a couple of – an AU and an Arab League meetings which are going to be about this issue early next week. Do you think, is he going to stick around for those?

MS. NULAND: It wasn’t clear to me if he’s coming home and going back, or whether somebody else is representing us at those other meetings. We’ll get some more for you next week.

QUESTION: Yeah, so (inaudible) that the situation may not be now on the verge of war, as the ambassador had suggested or implied in his conversation yesterday with reporters?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think as he made clear yesterday, he’s been trying to walk both sides back from the brink, as has the African Union. And the concern was that this Heglig situation was very much a flash point that could sort of explode into a much larger conflagration. So there again, it is good news that we have an announcement from the South that they’re going to pull back. They now have to implement that, and the North has got to – and Sudan has got to stop what it’s doing as well.

QUESTION: What about the situations in Abyei and South Kordofan and in Blue Nile? Have there been any steps of progress made in those areas? Because those have been some of his concerns earlier in the year.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the problem is that whenever there is violence anywhere, it makes it more difficult for these parties to do what they need to do to finalize arrangements anywhere else. So Abyei, Blue Nile, et cetera, always suffer when there’s violence and they can’t get back to basic work to implement the CPA, et cetera. So we had had some progress in Abyei, but I think everything’s sort of on hold while this situation gets settled, is my understanding.

All right, everybody. One last one in the back? Yeah.

QUESTION: I hope I didn’t introduce the wrong pronunciation of this Heglig. I’ll check it out, but --

MS. NULAND: Well, now I’m in it with you guys. We’re going to find out.

QUESTION: Yeah. No, this is something totally different.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Today the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is in. He came to D.C. , and among the things that he said is that he wants people to tweet @BarackObama to have him go the Rio + 20 summit in June. So I wanted to know, one, what your thinking is both about the President going and about the summit. There was a finance ministers meeting at the IMF – or the World Bank on this topic, except Geithner didn’t – Secretary Geithner didn’t go. Somebody else went. But what is – what’s the U.S. position on Rio + 20, and will the President go?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know that we’re strongly supportive of the Rio + 20 efforts, With regard to whether the President’s going to go, I’m going to send you to the White House on that one. And I had not seen Ban Ki-moon’s tweets, but I think it’s interesting.

QUESTION: He tweets at people.

MS. NULAND: He tweets at people. Tweets at people. I barely know how to do that. Thank you. All right. Happy weekend, everyone.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 18, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:17 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Everyone, welcome to the State Department. Just quickly at the top, I do want to note that World Press Freedom Day is approaching. I’m sure it’s something you all have a date on your calendars that you all have, given your profession. And UNESCO will be hosting its annual conference in Tunis beginning on May 3rd. I believe Assistant Secretary for International Organizations Esther Brimmer will be attending that on behalf of the United States and will deliver the keynote address on May 3rd.
But every year, the U.S. Government, as you know, we mark World Press Freedom Day. This year we’re trying something a little bit different in light of the large number of journalists who have been jailed, attacked, disappeared, or forced into exile or even murdered. As part of our Free the Press campaign, we’ll be highlighting some of these freedom of expression cases on our website, which is HumanRights.gov.
Today, for example, there’s a profile of the jailed Vietnamese blogger Dieu Cay. And as the – and continuing this run-up to World Press Freedom Day, we’ll continue to roll out cases from around the world that are emblematic of the problems facing your counterparts and colleagues as they try to do their job throughout the world.

I would also note if you’re really interested in a deeper dive on this subject, Under Secretary Sonenshine, as well as Assistant Secretary Posner, gave a press conference earlier today at the Foreign Press Center, and I’m sure there’ll be a transcript available of that.

Matt. By the way, I missed you yesterday. I apologize.

QUESTION: Well, thank you for – (laughter) – the apology. I’m not sure you’re really telling the truth that you miss me, but –

MR. TONER: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I actually don’t have anything that really warrants starting the briefing with, so I’ll defer to whoever.

MR. TONER: Okay. Shaun, you got anything?

QUESTION: Sure. Well, to begin with, in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, she’s going to be traveling for the first time overseas since her house arrest, to speak – going to be going to Norway and to the UK. I was wondering – presumably, the Secretary invited her during her trip last year. Are there any plans in the near future for Aung San Suu Kyi to come here?

MR. TONER: Well, Shaun, as you correctly noted, we – she certainly would always have an open invitation to carry on the dialogue that began when the Secretary was in Burma. I don’t know that there’s any plans at this time, but certainly we welcome, in fact, her ability to go out and travel to these countries and to engage in a dialogue with these governments; view it as a positive sign.

QUESTION: Sure. Could I switch topics --

MR. TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: -- to Sudan? Just want to see if you could have any update on Princeton Lyman’s visit there, and also a look at the developments now. President Bashir earlier today gave a speech where he was talking about the potential overthrow of the South Sudanese authorities. I think he referred to them as insects. Just what your read is on the situation and what Princeton Lyman’s been able to do, or not do?
MR. TONER: Well, as you noted, there’s a lot of unconstructive rhetoric being thrown around. We’ve also seen reports of new fighting along the Sudan-South Sudan border. Our central message is the same as it was yesterday. We continue to call for an immediate and unconditional cessation of violence by both parties, and that means we want to see the immediate withdrawal of South Sudanese forces from Heglig, and we want to see the – an immediate end to all aerial bombardments of South Sudan by the Sudanese armed forces.
Just – you asked about Princeton’s travels. He was, as you noted, in Khartoum. He has held high-level meetings with the Government of South Sudan, as I mentioned yesterday, including President Kiir, and he is in Khartoum today meeting with Sudanese officials.

QUESTION: Do you know whom he met?

MR. TONER: I don’t have a list of the officials with whom he met. I’ll try to get that for you.

QUESTION: Is he still there? Is he planning to continue his work, or is that --

MR. TONER: He’s still there for the time being. I don’t know where he’ll go from Khartoum.

QUESTION: Follow on that, please.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: In that rally, President al-Bashir said that his main target is now to liberate the people of Southern Sudan from the SPLM. Does that raise concerns about what you think Khartoum’s respect for that new border?

MR. TONER: Well, I mean, obviously, given the escalation of violence over the past few weeks, given the rhetoric that’s being thrown about, we’re very concerned. We continue to, as we’ve said, through Princeton on the ground as well as publicly here, call for both sides to get back to the AU process. The Secretary spoke about this a few weeks ago, where she said it’s absolutely in both sides’ interests to get back to the negotiating table to settle borders, to talk about resources, and sharing of those resources. The situation such as it is right now gains nothing for either side.

QUESTION: Could I --

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead, Andy.

QUESTION: Just another one on that because, I mean, you have been making this comment for quite a while now, and yet it seems to be falling on deaf ears. Is there any backup plan or second strategy that you guys might have to try to get these guys back to the negotiating table? I mean, it seems like the Thabo Mbeki initiative isn’t going anywhere. Princeton Lyman hasn’t been able to get them to do what everyone says they should do, which is pull back. Why – I mean, isn’t there anything else that the international community can do to get this together?

MR. TONER: Well, as you know, we’ve already – we still are – have sanctions in place against the Government of Sudan. I think part of this is trying to remind both parties what there is to gain to a peaceful resolution of this conflict and these contested areas. As I just said, there’s absolutely no military solution to the present situation. We’re going to continue with the on the ground diplomacy from Princeton. I know that Mbeki was in – at the UN, I believe, yesterday where he briefed the Security Council on the situation. People are concerned about the situation there. I think they’re concerned about the escalation and fighting, but we remain engaged with both sides.
Yeah. In the back.

QUESTION: Different subject?

MR. TONER: We can go ahead with a different subject.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from The Guardian. The story in The New York Times this morning about China and Bo Xilai. I know the State Department has said repeatedly it doesn’t discuss asylum-seeking requests, but The New York Timestoday – a few wrinkles that make it different. There’s discussion – why did the State Department or the consulate agree to cooperate with the authorities and hand him over to someone in Beijing rather than in Chengdu? Why was a discussion with the White House about the – whether this would impact on the visit with Biden?

Sorry, just a related thing. There’s also a report in the last few days suggesting that Bo Xilai’s son was taken from his apartment under escort. Was he taken into custody for his own protection or what?

MR. TONER: I’ll start with your second question first. I – we’ve had inquiries about his son. As far as we know, there’s nothing to those reports. I can recommend you contact local authorities, but as far as we know, there’s nothing to those reports. He remains at school at Harvard.

In response to your first question, I agree it was an interesting read based on anonymous sources within the U.S. Government. Obviously, I can’t speak to the credibility of any of their statements. I can only say that, as we’ve said previously, that Wang Lijun requested a meeting with U.S. Consulate General Chengdu officials in early February. That meeting was scheduled accordingly. He was there, I believe, on Monday, February 6th and Tuesday, February 7th, and left of his own volition. But I can’t talk about the contents of that meeting.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Wang Lijun – his current status and – are there any concerns about his status right now? He was taken into custody after --

MR. TONER: Well again, we don’t – we have no contact with him since his departure from the consulate. So I’d just have to refer you to the Chinese Government for any information.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a Canada question, if I may.

QUESTION: Well, wait.

MR. TONER: Sure. We can stay on this topic. We’ll stay. We always finish the topic and then --
QUESTION: Okay. Sure. Fantastic.

QUESTION: Sorry. What – you can’t speak to the credibility of colleagues of yours? You’re saying that they’re incredible?

MR. TONER: I said I can’t speak to quotes from anonymous sources in a newspaper article.

QUESTION: Well, let’s not talk about their quotes.

MR. TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Let’s talk about what they actually said. I mean, is it correct that he brought with him documents that were related to – or that you presume that the consulate employees presume to – or that he said had to do with corruption and investigation into --

MR. TONER: Again, I’m not going to get into the discussions that were held. I can only confirm that he was at the consulate in Chengdu on the dates that I just specified. I can’t get into the contents or what we discussed or --

QUESTION: There wasn’t any concern – well, there was no request for asylum?

MR. TONER: I couldn’t speak about it if it were.

QUESTION: There – is it correct that the U.S. Government does not like to give asylum to people with – who have somewhat checkered records?

MR. TONER: There’s no way for me to – I mean, asylum cases are all – follow a precise legal framework, and in fact, many of those – almost all asylum cases – speaking now globally or largely about the issue, all asylum cases, I believe, are carried out within the United States.

QUESTION: Did the Embassy actually make it – facilitate his phone call to officials in Beijing?

MR. TONER: I can’t comment on that.

QUESTION: You can’t comment because you don’t know or because you --

MR. TONER: I can’t comment on it because I don’t know --


QUESTION: Because that’s the purview of anonymous officials speaking in The New York Times.

MR. TONER: -- but it would also be within the purview of our diplomatic exchanges with another individual and a country. So we don’t need to --

QUESTION: Oh okay. So --

MR. TONER: -- talk about the substance of those conversations.

QUESTION: -- when he showed up --

MR. TONER: Or those meetings.

QUESTION: -- at the consulate, he was acting on behalf of the Chinese Government?

MR. TONER: Matt, I think I’ve gone about as far as I can on this. He came to the consulate, he requested a meeting --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. TONER: -- it was scheduled --

QUESTION: As a member of the Chinese --

MR. TONER: He was there on the dates --

QUESTION: -- Government? Or as an individual?

MR. TONER: It was in his capacity as vice mayor.

QUESTION: In his capacity as vice mayor. And you regard the vice mayor of Chengdu to be an official of the national --

MR. TONER: A local government official, yes.

QUESTION: A local government official, which is that --

MR. TONER: And again, those conversations would be confidential, absolutely.

QUESTION: Except when your colleagues speak about them to The New York Times.

MR. TONER: Again, I can’t speak to the veracity of any of the --

QUESTION: I’m just curious if you can’t speak to the veracity of them because you think that – because they’re not true, or you can’t speak to the veracity of them because you were told that you can’t speak to the veracity.

MR. TONER: Let’s try to end this line of conversation, because I don’t think it’s productive. I can’t speak to the veracity of any anonymous officials being quoted in newspapers.

QUESTION: You could speak to the veracity of what those people said, though.

MR. TONER: And I can’t speak to the substance of any of this issue – this story. I can’t talk about what was discussed in the meeting for reasons I just gave. I can only confirm there was a meeting. He left there on his own volition. We’ve not had contact with him since.

QUESTION: Did you understand that he left alone, as he came?

MR. TONER: I don’t know that.

QUESTION: Have you sought to make contact with him since then?

MR. TONER: I don’t know.

QUESTION: You don’t know.

QUESTION: Well, is it correct that the Administration believes that it has been put into a position that it was – in other words, put into a position that it doesn’t want to be in, involved in the middle of a power struggle in the Chinese Government, or the Chinese couldn’t --

MR. TONER: Well, again, that wouldn’t be – it wouldn’t be my position to comment on internal Chinese politics.

QUESTION: Well, no, I’m not asking you about internal Chinese politics. I’m asking about --

MR. TONER: I thought you were.

QUESTION: No, no. I’m saying is it correct – the statement in the story says that it’s pressed the Administration into a position that it doesn’t want to be in, that it really doesn’t want to have anything to do with power struggles and internal Chinese power struggles.

MR. TONER: Well, I’m not going to --

QUESTION: Is that correct? Do you not --

MR. TONER: To talk about some of the implications of this – that are discussed in this story would be to, I think, address the substance of the story, and I said I’m not going to get into that.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Mark, move back to Syria?

MR. TONER: We can go to Syria.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, France has pulled for tougher sanction and Secretary Clinton will be tomorrow in Paris. First, will she join the Friend of Syria meeting? Secondly, will she propose something new in light of the new escalation on the ground?

MR. TONER: Thank you. You stole my top line, but you already heard the Secretary from Brussels said she will be attending tomorrow, Thursday, the ad-hoc meeting taking place in Paris with a group of foreign ministers to discuss next steps on Syria. I think she spoke to this; Ambassador Rice spoke to it earlier in New York, of our concern that the ceasefire is showing signs of eroding, that the other conditions laid out in the Annan plan are not being fulfilled.

That said, the Secretary was clear that she didn’t want to prejudge the success of the monitoring mission. It is moving forward. There are more monitors on the ground and there will be more in the coming days. And we’re going to look to their reporting back, as well as, I believe the Secretary General himself is going to provide a report on the monitoring mission, the scope and the size of it in the coming days.

QUESTION: Mark, just wanted to – the Secretary also said that the international community’s response to Syria is at a critical point and that --

MR. TONER: She did.

QUESTION: -- Assad can either let the monitors do their job or squander his last chance. And the question is: Or what? Squander his last chance or what happens? More expressions of outrage, or is there actually a plan?

MR. TONER: Well, I think the plan going forward – there’s going to be this meeting. We’ve always had a two-track approach to this, as you well know. We’ve – well, actually three tracks. I mean, there’s been our unilateral sanctions against Assad, but there’s also been the UN track, which we saw bear fruit with the latest Security Council resolution. And we’ve also been pursuing this Friends of Syria track and working with likeminded countries and organizations around the world.

And that’s what the goal of tomorrow is, is that she’s going to be there talking about what possible next steps we can do, undertake, to put more pressure on Assad. I think the sanctions working group met yesterday in Paris and had the chance to talk about further coordination on – and sanctions. So our basic thrust here is the same. We’re going to continue to work to implement the Annan plan, while at the same time, we’re going to continue to look at ways we can add more sanctions, more pressure on Assad as we move forward.

QUESTION: So I’m curious about --

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- your choice of words. You said the ceasefire is showing signs of eroding. Really? Showing --
MR. TONER: Is that too much passive voice? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know. No, no. Not too much passive voice. I mean, just think it’s -

PARTICIPANT: I mean, I think it’s --

QUESTION: -- because seems like it’s a total mudslide. It’s not just showing signs of erosion. It’s like it didn’t – it’s a Grand Canyon-type erosion that we’re talking about here.

MR. TONER: Well, you are correct, Matt, that we have seen a lot of violence, almost to pre-ceasefire levels throughout the past 24 hours. I think I’ve seen that 70 people were killed in Syria yesterday and today, reports that at least 24 were killed.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. TONER: I don’t mean to downplay that at all.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, isn’t – this ceasefire seems to have been an increase fire, in fact, because it doesn’t look like – I mean, things have gotten worse rather than better since it happened. So I just don’t understand why you all have any confidence that adding an additional 30 or 25 monitors in the short term and then presumably, if the Syrians even agree to it, adding another 250 or 300 is actually going to do anything. It just seems to be, to use one of your words, Pollyanna-ish to think that that’s --
MR. TONER: One of my words?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. TONER: In any case, look, we aren’t under any illusions here. It is very clear that the violence is beginning to return. The Secretary, Ambassador Rice both spoke to the fact that the onus is on Assad. He needs to comply with the Annan plan. He needs to take steps to meet its conditions. He hasn’t done so. Even with the ceasefire, it wasn’t enough. There are other aspects to the plan, including the release of political prisoners and access for international media and international humanitarian assistance.
There’s been no progress on any of those fronts, so we’re going to continue, as I just said to Andy, to look at Plan B or Option B, which is ways to increase the pressure on Assad as we move forward. But that said, we’re not going to prejudge the outcome of the Annan plan and this monitoring mission. If we can get 250 monitors on the ground reporting back credible information about the situation there, then that’s valuable.

QUESTION: So you don’t think that it’s already failed?

MR. TONER: I think we’re --

QUESTION: Even though it’s shown no – even though nothing – none of the conditions have been met, and one of them, the ceasefire, has actually gotten worse, not better, you don’t think that’s a sign of abject failure?

MR. TONER: I think we’re going to wait to hear back from the monitoring mission, from the secretary general, and even from Kofi Annan, but we are very concerned.

QUESTION: Because somehow, they can tell you what you don’t know already?

MR. TONER: No, Matt, but just to understand and to appreciate --

QUESTION: Because – well, I – okay, I get that you want to hear back from the guy whose plan it is, but frankly, that’s not going to be for another four or five days, right? I mean, he’s not expected to report back until at least the weekend, right?

MR. TONER: Well, it’ll be up to --

QUESTION: So that’s another four or five days that people are going to get slaughtered.

MR. TONER: Matt --


QUESTION: Am I right or am I wrong?

MR. TONER: I don’t think I’m trying to couch this in any other terms than a realistic expectation here that the ceasefire plan, as I just said, is eroding. I mean, we are very concerned about the situation there. The Secretary is going to Paris talking about next steps.

QUESTION: But I guess – my question is --

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: My question is why not say this is --

MR. TONER: You’re saying why don’t we declare it --

QUESTION: Yeah, say, “All right, all right, we tried this one plan and it hasn’t worked. Clearly it hasn’t worked. And it’s now time to move to the next stage,” instead of waiting for another --
MR. TONER: Well, we’re not --

QUESTION: -- 150, 200 people to get killed?

MR. TONER: The bottom line is we’re not waiting. We’re going to continue to work with the Friends of Syria Group to put pressure on Assad. At the same time, we’re going to try to give the Annan plan more opportunity to work.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you get in touch with Moscow and exchange view with respect to this deterioration in the last 24 hours?

MR. TONER: I don’t believe the Secretary’s had any calls or contacts with Lavrov. Of course, I don’t know that – whether Ambassador Rice has spoken to her Russian counterpart in New York.
Yeah.

QUESTION: New topic, (inaudible)?

MR. TONER: Oh, sorry. Yeah, finish it (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I just – I was wondering – and I apologize if you addressed this last week, but there was this – that German ship that’s been towed to a port in Turkey --

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- suspected of taking Syrian arms – arms to Syria. Do you guys have anything on that?

MR. TONER: Well, we have seen these reports that you mentioned. It’s a Ukrainian charted ship that’s now in a Turkish port that is apparently or allegedly carrying munitions to Syria. If true, this would be a violation of the EU arms embargo on Syria, and any aid to the regime’s violent capacities supports the killing of innocent victims, so we want to see the – we want to see it stopped and sanctioned.

QUESTION: But you don’t have any independent reason to believe that this is (inaudible)?
MR. TONER: I don’t at this point.

QUESTION: Sorry. How is it a violation of the EU arms embargo?

MR. TONER: Against Syria.

QUESTION: I’m sorry; I don’t understand. Turkey is not in the EU and neither is Ukraine, at least the last time I checked. Why would this be a violation?

MR. TONER: Look, I think that --

QUESTION: Turkey wants to be in the EU.

MR. TONER: (Laughter.) I know that they want to be in the EU.

QUESTION: Or at least they did.

MR. TONER: I’m aware of their aspirations. I think that we are calling on all countries that are unified – and certainly, Turkey is with us on our stance against the situation in Syria – to comply with existing embargos. And we would seek in this case --
QUESTION: Well, my understanding is there is not an arms embargo on Syria, a UN arms embargo, so who is the – who would be – I mean, the Russians or whoever the Ukrainians can ship as – whatever they want without violating – I mean, EU – an EU arms embargo, to me, suggests that that means that EU countries cannot send weapons to Syria.

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think it’s a fair question. I’m not sure the legality or the – all the legal aspects to it. I think fundamentally, what we’re trying to say here is that countries like Turkey have played a leadership role in speaking out against Syria and taking action against the regime there, and what they’re carrying out should be willing to comply with this.

QUESTION: You think that the ship is owned by a German company?

MR. TONER: I think it’s owned by a German company, thank you. As you know, these – the ships also – often have a long pedigree.
QUESTION: Venezuela?

MR. TONER: No, let’s do Canada.

QUESTION: Very quickly, I’m just wondering what you can tell us about the request to transfer Omar Khadr from Guantanamo Bay to Canada, how that process will now move ahead, and why the U.S. is so anxious to get this transfer moving.

MR. TONER: Well, I can say that the U.S. Government and the Canadian Government continue to work closely to effectuate Omar Khadr’s application to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada, which was pursuant to his plea agreement. And the first step, as you know, in this process was completed last year, which was an exchange of diplomatic notes. And those notes continue to govern this transfer. We did recently approve the transfer of Khadr to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada, and we’ve been in regular contact with the Canadian Government on this case. We’ve worked diligently to take appropriate steps consistent with the treaty, but we’re not going to be able to give you a transfer timeline. But we’re working quickly and deliberately to close this process out.

I think your question was: Why are we working so quickly? Well, as you know, we’re working to close Guantanamo Bay, and as part of that process, we’re trying to find homes, if you will, for the remaining prisoners.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up: Is there any more action that the United States has to take in order for this to happen, or is it now entirely in the hands of Canada?

MR. TONER: That’s a good question. I think I’ll have to take that question, frankly. I’m not sure whether we have any more legal steps we need to take in this process.
QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Other than, obviously, the physical transfer.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Venezuela?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday the highest official in the Venezuelan Government – Eladio Aponte, supreme court – defected to the United States as serious accusations against the Chavez government – high military officials, the closest aides to Chavez on corruption and drug trafficking. How this changes the dynamic of the U.S. Government relations with Venezuela?

MR. TONER: Well, with regard to his current status and situation, I’d have to refer you to the DEA. As to the larger issue, I don’t really have any comment on the broader implications of his transfer.
QUESTION: Is there a concern about corruption and narco-traffic within the highest echelons of the Venezuelan Government?

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we talk about our concerns. We’ve talked about them before, about our concerns about drug trafficking and corruption, frankly, in the region and the negative effects of it. But as to this case, because of its legal ramifications, I can’t really talk about any more detail.

Yeah. Go ahead, Scott.

QUESTION: Have you finished studying Argentina’s proposed nationalization of YPF? Can you give us anything on that?

MR. TONER: Well, I can give you a little bit more today, yes. I can say that we’re very concerned about the Government of Argentina’s intent to nationalize Repsol YPF. Frankly, the more we look at this, we view it as a negative development along the lines of what the Secretary said the other day, in that these kinds of actions against foreign investors can ultimately have an adverse effect on the Argentine economy and could further dampen the investment climate in Argentina.

And just to add that we’ve raised this on numerous occasions and at the highest levels of the Government of Argentina; our concerns about these kinds of actions that can affect the investment climate in Argentina. And we would just urge Argentina to normalize its relationship with the international financial and investment community.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on that. The Spanish foreign minister today said that this issue not only affects Spain’s interests or the European Union interests, it affects the interests of the whole international community. Do you agree with that?

MR. TONER: Well, insofar as along the lines of what I just said insofar as that it creates a very negative investment climate. Yes.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Palestinian issue?

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: According to press report, President Abbas, in his letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu warned that he might go back to the United Nation or he might raise legal issue before the international justice. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. TONER: Well, as we talked yesterday, I am aware that the parties did meet yesterday. Obviously we’re encouraged by these face-to-face exchanges. There was a letter that was exchanged. To your broader question, our position hasn’t changed with regard to going to the UN or other organizations. It’s not productive and conducive to creating the kind of atmosphere that’s going to get both parties back to the negotiating table.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Did the U.S. get a copy from President Abbas of the letter he gave to the Israeli prime minister?

MR. TONER: I don’t know. Possibly. I don’t have confirmation. I haven’t spoken with David about that.
Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a couple of little ones.

MR. TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: The first is the Indian Government had plans – they’ve now postponed them, but they have plans to test this new missile. Apparently it can carry payloads deep into China or perhaps even as far as Europe. I was just wondering if you’d had any communication with that – on that subject with them.

MR. TONER: Well, look, you know that we’ve got a very strong strategic and security partnership with India, so we obviously have routine discussions about a wide range of topics, including their defense requirements. I’m not aware that we’ve specifically raised this issue with them. We’ve certainly seen the reports that between April 18th and 20th that they plan to test this ballistic missile. As I – I think I understand or saw in press reports that it was postponed.

Naturally, I just would say that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding nuclear capabilities. That said, India has a solid nonproliferation record. They’re engaged with the international community on nonproliferation issues. And Prime Minister Singh, I believe, has attended both the nuclear – both of the nuclear summit – security summits, the one in Washington and then Seoul.

QUESTION: So you wouldn’t have any specific concerns on it as a destabilizing factor in the region?
MR. TONER: I think I’ll just stay with – the fact that we always caution all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.

QUESTION: Okay. And one other one --

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: On a separate issue, the Embassy in Abuja put out this morning about Boko Haram and threats to attack hotels. And the Nigerian Government has reacted rather unhappily to this warning, saying that it just fans panic. Did you guys run this by the Nigerians before you put it out? What sort of information was it based on? Can you tell us?

MR. TONER: Yeah. In response to your question about whether we ran this by the Government of Nigeria, I don’t know that we would be obliged to do so. I don’t know if we did in this case. We did receive, however, information that Boko Haram may be planning attacks in Abuja, Nigeria, as you said, against hotels frequently visited by Westerners. We don’t have any additional information regarding the timing of these attacks. But as you know, in accordance with the Department’s no double standard policy, when we deem a threat to any U.S. citizen – safety – rather a threat to a U.S. citizen’s safety or security to be specific, credible, and non-counterable, we do issue these kinds of emergency messages.

QUESTION: Specific, credible, and what?

MR. TONER: Non-counterable, meaning we can’t find any evidence to refute it.

QUESTION: Or non-counterable, meaning it can’t be stopped?

MR. TONER: No. Non-counterable meaning we can’t find any readily available evidence to dispute it.

QUESTION: And you can’t be any more specific?

MR. TONER: I can’t at this – no.

QUESTION: Because --

MR. TONER: Because I don’t know that we have any other information beyond what I just said, which is that – attacks against hotels frequented by Westerners. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Well, no, I – the source of this information I think it was what the question was.

MR. TONER: I can’t. We don’t comment on the source of our threat information.

QUESTION: Well, do you regard it – you believe it to be specific and credible?

MR. TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Like, so what you said?

MR. TONER: Yes. What I said.

QUESTION: Specific, credible, and non-counterable?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: On India (inaudible) --

MR. TONER: And I also asked what non-counterable meant, and I think that’s the explanation I was given. If that’s wrong, I’ll let you guys know.

QUESTION: Doesn’t the development of an ICBM cross a certain line?

MR. TONER: I’m sorry. Where are we at again?

QUESTION: India. The missile.

MR. TONER: Look, there’s been no launch; it’s been postponed. I think I gave you all I’m going to say on that.

Yeah, go ahead, Scott.

QUESTION: The French Government has issued an international arrest warrant against the son of the president of Equatorial Guinea. This is the guy who the Justice Department went to court last week seeking to seize as much as $70 million of his assets. He’s a large property owner in California. Has there been any contact by the French Government to the United States Government about this arrest warrant?

MR. TONER: I’m sorry. This is – this individual is --

QUESTION: The son of the president of Equatorial Guinea.

MR. TONER: Okay. I’m not aware of it. I’ll just take the question, Scott.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. TONER: Yeah, let’s go in the back then.

QUESTION: Yeah. Can I just follow up on Omar Khadr?

MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: And – yeah. I was just wondering, what was part of the negotiation between the U.S. and Canada regarding – because we were being told that it was a deal – and if Canada was offered something in return.

MR. TONER: I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying – that whether there was some kind of quid pro quo or something or --

QUESTION: No. That there was that – because we were being told that there was a deal regarding his transfer.

MR. TONER: I don’t have anything to add other than that there was – and I would just point you in the direction of there were diplomatic notes exchanged last year that are publicly available that spell out the transfer and the rules that govern it.

QUESTION: But there is nothing newer than that?

MR. TONER: Certainly not that I’m aware of. No.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: North Korea. The Japanese newspaper, the Yomiuri Shimbun, reported today that China has suspended deportations to North Korea of refugees. The article was saying that this was partly in retaliation because North Korea didn’t consult China or inform China about its launch recently. But obviously, the U.S. has had long-standing concerns.

MR. TONER: We have had long-standing concerns. I’m frankly not aware of this particular report, but --

QUESTION: Just if there’s any information about whether those repatriations have actually been stopped.

MR. TONER: I don’t know. I’ll take the question.

QUESTION: Sure, sure.

MR. TONER: Is that it, everyone? Thanks guys.