FUTURES TRADER CHARGED FOR ROLE IN MAY 2010 MARKET 'FLASH CRASH'

FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Futures Trader Charged with Illegally Manipulating Stock Market, Contributing to the May 2010 Market ‘Flash Crash’

A futures trader was arrested in the United Kingdom today on U.S. wire fraud and commodities fraud and manipulation charges in connection with his alleged role in the May 2010 “Flash Crash,” when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 600 points in five minutes, announced Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Special Agent in Charge Robert J. Holley of the FBI’s Chicago Division.

Navinder Singh Sarao, 36, of Hounslow, United Kingdom, was arrested today in the United Kingdom, and the United States is requesting his extradition.  Sarao was charged in a federal criminal complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 11, 2015,  with one count of wire fraud, 10 counts of commodities fraud, 10 counts of commodities manipulation, and one count of “spoofing,” a practice of bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution.

According to allegations in the complaint, which was unsealed today, Sarao allegedly used an automated trading program to manipulate the market for E-Mini S&P 500 futures contracts (E-Minis) on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME).  E-Minis are stock market index futures contracts based on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.  Sarao’s alleged manipulation earned him significant profits and contributed to a major drop in the U.S. stock market on May 6, 2010, that came to be known as the “Flash Crash.”  On that date, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by approximately 600 points in a five-minute span, following a drop in the price of E-Minis.

According to the complaint, Sarao allegedly employed a “dynamic layering” scheme to affect the price of E-Minis.  By allegedly placing multiple, simultaneous, large-volume sell orders at different price points—a technique known as “layering”—Sarao created the appearance of substantial supply in the market.  As part of the scheme, Sarao allegedly modified these orders frequently so that they remained close to the market price, and typically canceled the orders without executing them.  When prices fell as a result of this activity, Sarao allegedly sold futures contracts only to buy them back at a lower price.  Conversely, when the market moved back upward as the market activity ceased, Sarao allegedly bought contracts only to sell them at a higher price.

The charges contained in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

This case is being investigated by the FBI’s Chicago Division.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant Chief Brent S. Wible and Trial Attorney Michael T. O’Neill of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, with assistance provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs and the International Assistance Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service of London, United Kingdom.  The Department of Justice appreciates the substantial assistance of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Division of Enforcement, which referred this matter to the department.

HAROON ASWAT, ABU HAMZA CO-CONSPIRATOR PLEADS GUILTY TO TERRORISM

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, March 30, 2015
Haroon Aswat, Abu Hamza Co-Conspirator, Pleads Guilty to Terrorism Charges in Federal Court

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York announced that Haroon Aswat pleaded guilty in the Southern District of New York to terrorism charges related to Aswat’s efforts to establish a terrorist training camp in the United States.  Aswat was arrested in Zambia in July 2005, and in August 2005, Aswat was deported from Zambia to the United Kingdom, where he was arrested pursuant to a provisional arrest warrant that was issued in response to a request by the U.S. government in connection with this case.  Aswat was extradited to the United States from the United Kingdom on Oct. 21, 2014.  Aswat pleaded guilty today to one count of conspiring to provide material support to al Qaeda, and one count of providing material support to al Qaeda.

“With this guilty plea, Haroon Aswat is being held accountable for his provision of material support to al Qaeda and his role in a plot to establish a terrorist training camp on American soil,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin.  “Aswat was arrested almost 10 years ago, and his guilty plea is a testament to our determination to bring to justice all those who wish to harm the United States, whether at home or abroad, no matter how long it takes.  I would like to extend my gratitude to all of the many agents, analysts and prosecutors whose dedication and persistence made possible the guilty plea in this case.”

“Haroon Aswat fought his extradition to the United States for almost 10 years,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara.  “He then pled guilty to material support charges within just six months of arriving here, showing again our legal system’s capacity for swift justice.  For providing support to al Qaeda, Aswat now comes face-to-face with justice and faces up to 20 years in prison, and after the completion of his term he will be deported.”

According to the allegations contained in the indictment, statements made at related court proceedings including today’s guilty plea, and evidence presented at prior trials:

In late 1999, Aswat, along with co-defendants Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, aka Abu Hamza, Ouassama Kassir and Earnest James Ujaama, attempted to create a terrorist training camp in the United States to support al Qaeda, which has been designated by the U.S. Department of State as a foreign terrorist organization.  Aswat conspired with Abu Hamza, Kassir and Ujaama to establish the terrorist training camp on a rural parcel of property located in Bly, Oregon.  The purpose of the Bly camp was for Muslims to receive various types of training – including military-style jihad training – in preparation to fight jihad in Afghanistan.  As used by the conspirators in this case, the term “jihad” meant defending Islam against purported enemies through violence and armed aggression, including, by using murder to rid Muslim holy lands of non-believers in Islam.

In a letter faxed from Ujaama, who was in the United States, to Abu Hamza in the United Kingdom, the property in Bly was described as a place that “looks just like Afghanistan,” and the letter noted that the men at Bly were “stock-piling weapons and ammunition.”  In late 1999, after transmission of the faxed letter, Abu Hamza directed Aswat and Kassir, both of whom resided in London and attended Abu Hamza’s mosque there, to travel to Oregon to assist in establishing the camp.  On Nov. 26, 1999, Aswat and Kassir arrived in New York, and then traveled to Bly.

Aswat and Kassir traveled to Bly for the purpose of training men to fight jihad.  Kassir told witnesses that he supported Usama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and that he had previously received jihad training in Pakistan.  Kassir also possessed a compact disc that contained instructions on how to make bombs and poisons.  After leaving Bly, Aswat and Kassir traveled to Seattle, where they resided at a mosque for approximately two months.  While in Seattle, Kassir, in Aswat’s presence, provided men from the mosque with additional terrorist training lessons – including instructions on different types of weapons, how to construct a homemade silencer for a firearm, how to assemble and disassemble an AK-47 and how an AK-47 could be altered to be fully automatic and to launch a grenade.  On another occasion, with Aswat sitting by his side, Kassir announced to the men in Seattle that he had come to the United States for martyrdom and to destroy, and he informed his audience that some of them could die or get hurt.

A ledger recovered in September 2002 from an al Qaeda safe house in Karachi, Pakistan, listed a number of individuals associated with al Qaeda, including ASWAT.  The al Qaeda safe house was used by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al Qaeda’s chief operational planner and the alleged planner of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

*                              *                             *

Aswat pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and one count of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, each of which carries a maximum term of 10 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.

Abu Hamza and Kassir were previously convicted for their roles in attempting to establish a terrorist training camp in the United States.  On May 12, 2009, after a four-week jury trial in the Southern District of New York, Kassir was found guilty of charges relating to his efforts to establish the terrorist training camp in Bly and his operation of several terrorist websites.  On Sept. 15, 2009, U.S. District Judge John F. Keenan of the Southern District of New York sentenced Kassir to life in prison.

On May 19, 2014, after a four-week jury trial in the Southern District of New York, Abu Hamza was found guilty of charges relating to his role in the conspiracy to establish the terrorist training camp in Bly, as well as his role in a hostage-taking in Yemen in 1998 that resulted in four deaths and his support of violent jihad in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.  On Jan. 9, 2015, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of New York sentenced Abu Hamza to life in prison.

Assistant Attorney General Carlin joins U.S. Attorney Bharara in praising the outstanding efforts of the FBI’s Manhattan-based Joint Terrorism Task Force, which principally consists of agents of the FBI and detectives of the New York City Police Department, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Metropolitan Police Department of London.  Assistant Attorney General Carlin and U.S. Attorney Bharara also thanked the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs for their ongoing assistance.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys John P. Cronan, Ian McGinley and Shane T. Stansbury of the Southern District of New York, and Trial Attorney Erin Creegan of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET ON U.S.-U.K. CYBERSECURITY COOPERATION

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
January 16, 2015
FACT SHEET: U.S.-United Kingdom Cybersecurity Cooperation

The United States and the United Kingdom agree that the cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges that our nations face.  Every day foreign governments, criminals, and hackers are attempting to probe, intrude into, and attack government and private sector systems in both of our countries.  President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron have both made clear that domestic cybersecurity requires cooperation between governments and the private sector.  Both leaders additionally recognized that the inherently international nature of cyber threats requires that governments around the world work together to confront those threats.

During their bilateral meetings in Washington, D.C. this week, President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron agreed to further strengthen and deepen the already extensive cybersecurity cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom.  Both leaders agreed to bolster efforts to enhance the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure in both countries, strengthen threat information sharing and intelligence cooperation on cyber issues, and support new educational exchanges between U.S. and British cybersecurity scholars and researchers.

Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity

The United States and United Kingdom are committed to our ongoing efforts to improve the cybersecurity of our critical infrastructure and respond to cyber incidents.  Both governments have agreed to bolster our efforts to increase threat information sharing and conduct joint cybersecurity and network defense exercises to enhance our combined ability to respond to malicious cyber activity.  Our initial joint exercise will focus on the financial sector, with a program running over the coming year.  Further, we will work with industry to promote and align our cybersecurity best practices and standards, to include the U.S. Cybersecurity Framework and the United Kingdom’s Cyber Essentials scheme.

Strengthening Cooperation on Cyber Defense

The United States and the United Kingdom work closely on a range of cybersecurity and cyber defense matters.  For example, the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) and CERT-UK collaborate on computer network defense and sharing information to address cyber threats and manage cyber incidents.  To deepen this collaboration in other areas, the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and Security Service (MI5) are working with their U.S. partners – the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation – to further strengthen U.S.-UK collaboration on cybersecurity by establishing a joint cyber cell, with an operating presence in each country.  The cell, which will allow staff from each agency to be co-located, will focus on specific cyber defense topics and enable cyber threat information and data to be shared at pace and at greater scale.

Supporting Academic Research on Cybersecurity Issues

The governments of both the United States and the United Kingdom have agreed to provide funding to support a new Fulbright Cyber Security Award.  This program will provide an opportunity for some of the brightest scholars in both countries to conduct cybersecurity research for up to six months.  The first cohort is expected to start in the 2016-17 academic year, and the U.S.-UK Fulbright Commission will seek applications for this cohort later this year.

In addition, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (located in Cambridge, MA) has invited the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom to take part in a “Cambridge vs. Cambridge” cybersecurity contest.  This competition is intended to be the first of many international university cybersecurity competitions.  The aim is to enhance cybersecurity research at the highest academic level within both countries to bolster our cyber defenses.

SECRETARY KERRY MAKES REMARKS WITH UK FOREIGN SECRETARY HAMMOND

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks With UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Wind Technology Testing Center

Boston,, Massachusetts

October 9, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. First of all, there is nothing better than being home in Boston on a beautiful October day. The only thing that is missing, the Red Sox are not in the playoffs, not this time. Foreign Secretary Hammond, I want to share with you the four most important words in Boston sports are, “Just wait till next year.” (Laughter.) We’ll be back.

It’s very special for me to be back here for a lot of different reasons, and Deval, our superb governor, just hit on some of them. But since I’ve been privileged to be Secretary of State, I’ve now had occasion to travel and be either in the trail of or in the company of Deval Patrick. And we went to Panama together for the inauguration of the new president, and the reason Deval was there is he has been totally focused on jobs and opportunities for Massachusetts and for the United States, and he’s been a terrific ambassador in that cause. And I’m not at all surprised to hear that he has just come back from a clean energy conference in London, because as governor, he has made absolutely certain that Massachusetts is leading the way with respect to clean energy, future energy, renewable alternative, and together, with states like California, we really are setting the trend.

I might also point out the fact, which I’m very proud of as a Massachusetts citizen, that the governor has set the next big step of helping to move us forward by setting the goal for ending all reliance on conventional coal generation in the next four years, and that is something I don’t believe any other sitting governor in the United States has had the foresight to do. So Governor, thank you very, very much for that. (Applause.)

I also want to thank Massachusetts’s terrific Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Maeve Bartlett for her great work to help make Massachusetts more energy-efficient and the most energy-efficient state in the nation. As the governor just mentioned, not once, not twice, but for the third straight year in a row, we are leading the nation in energy efficiency, and I’m proud of that. I also want to brag on her brother for a minute. Those of you who don’t know it, but Maeve is the youngest sister of one of my oldest friends in politics and life, and a great citizen of our state, Tommy Vallely, and we will not hold that against you, Maeve. (Laughter.)

I want to also thank Alicia Barton, the CEO of the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, and Rahul Yarala, executive director of the Wind Technology Testing Center, for showing us this remarkable facility here today. And most of all, I want to express a very warm Massachusetts welcome to our guest, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. We’re really happy to have you here today. We’re grateful for your leadership, and I’ll say a little more about that, but thanks so much for being with us here. And Mr. Ambassador, Madam Consul General, thank you for being here with us too.

It was in a time of war and a time of challenge when exactly 70 years ago this year, Sir Winston Churchill first talked about the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain. And his deep conviction expressed then that unless we always kept the United States and the United Kingdom together in that special relationship untold destruction would be the result. Well, seven decades later, our two countries are confronting real danger together, taking it on, stopping it, and ultimately, we will defeat it – not just on the battlefield against ISIL, but we’re also together confronting what is a “gathering storm” of this century. The gathering storm that Sir Winston also warned about. And there is no element of that gathering storm more critical than climate change.

Together, both of our countries recognize that never before has a threat like climate change found in its solution such a level of opportunity – the opportunity to unleash the clean-energy economy that will get us out of this mess but also take us forward towards a safer, more sustainable future.

Now I know that climate change to some people can just seem like a very distant, future prospect, maybe even a future challenge. That’s dangerous, falling prey to that perception, because it’s not. And it would be very dangerous to lull ourselves into believing that you can wait with respect to any of the things that we need to do to meet this challenge.

Climate change is already impacting the world in very real and significant ways. This past August was the hottest August the planet has ever seen in recorded history. And each year of the last ten years, a decade, has been measured as being hotter than the last with one or two variations of which year followed which, but as a decade the hottest in our recorded history.

There are now – right now – serious food shortages taking place in places like Central America because regions are battling the worst droughts in decades, not 100-year events in terms of floods, in terms of fires, in terms of droughts – 500-year events, something unheard of in our measurement of weather.

Scientists now predict that with glaciers and melting of the ice at the current rates, the sea could rise now a full meter in this century. A meter might not seem like a whole lot, but let me tell you, think about it just in terms of Boston. It would mean about $100 billion worth of damage to buildings, to emergency costs, and so on.

And thinking about climate change as some distant challenge is dangerous for other reasons too. We still have in our hands a window of opportunity to be able to make the difference. We don’t have to face a future in which we’re unable to talk about anything except adaptation or mitigation, already present in our planning. But the window is closing quickly. That’s not a threat; that’s a fact. If all of us around the world do not move to push back against the current trend line of what is happening in climate change, we will literally lose any chance of staving off this threat.

The good news is that we actually know exactly how to do it. This is not a challenge which has no solution. This is not a challenge that’s out of our reach. The solution is staring us in the face. It’s very simple: clean energy. The solution to climate change is energy policy. And the best news of all is that investing in clean-energy economy doesn’t just mitigate the impacts of climate change and make our communities cleaner and healthier. It actually also reinvigorates our economies and creates millions of good jobs around the world.

Let me just share with you something. We in Massachusetts ought to be particularly tuned into this. In the 1990s, America created more wealth than at any other time in our history, more even than the famous 1920s and ’30s, when people read about the history of the Carnegies and the Mellons and the Rockefellers and the Fricks and so forth. We created greater wealth in the 1990s in America than we did when we had no income tax in the 1920s.

And the truth is that that came about as a $1 trillion market with 1 billion users – remember the one for one – in technology, in personal computers, in communications. And guess what? Every single quintile of income earner in America saw their incomes go up. Everybody did better. Well, the energy market that we are looking at today, in a nation that doesn’t even have a national grid, a nation that has an east coast grid, a west coast grid, a Texas grid, and a line that goes from Chicago out into the west towards Dakotas – that’s it. We have a huge, gaping hole in the middle of America. We can’t take energy from solar thermal in the Four Corners down there by New Mexico and Colorado and California and bring it to the northeast where we need it. We can’t take energy from those wind farms of Minnesota or Wisconsin or Iowa and sell it south, or our wind ultimately from Cape Wind because we don’t have a transmission system.

Guess what? $1 billion of investment in infrastructure is somewhere between 27,000 and 35,000 jobs. And if we were to do what we know we need to do to build the energy future of this country, we’ll put millions of people to work, and here’s the kicker: The market we’re looking at is a $6 trillion market with four to five billion users today, climbing to a potential 9 billion users by the year 2050. It is literally the mother of all markets. Governor Patrick understands that. Massachusetts has understood that. But we have not yet been able to translate that into our national policy.

So once again, I’m proud Massachusetts is setting the trend. Massachusetts is leading by example. And that’s why many in the United States and the UK who are leading by example. And as the governor said, we’re a little behind them in terms of some of the things we ought to be doing, behind Europe in some respects. But in the United States we’re now targeting emissions from transportation and power sources, which are 60 percent of dangerous greenhouse gases. And at the same time, we bumped our solar energy production on a national basis by ten times and we’ve upped our wind energy production on a national basis by more than threefold thanks in large part to facilities just like this one.

So because of the steps that we’re now taking, we’re in a position to put twice as many people to work in the energy sector, nearly double the amount of people currently employed by oil and gas industry. This is the future. It’s already a $10 billion chunk of the Massachusetts economy and growing; 90,000 – almost 100,000 – people employed here in Massachusetts; 6,000 companies statewide are defining this future. And the Massachusetts wind testing center that we’re in now helps ensure that the global wind power industry is deploying the most effective land-based offshore wind turbine technologies to be used around the world.

This is global, what’s happening here, and that’s why Philip Hammond and I wanted to come here today, to underscore not just to Massachusetts but to America and to the world what these possibilities are. And the fact is that there is a lab not unlike this, a Narec blade testing facility in the United Kingdom city of Blyth. So we share this vision in very real ways.

I’d just say to all of you here that people need to feel the pressure from you. You all know what politics is about. I’m not in it now, but I’m dependent on it to help make the right decisions so that we move in the right direction. A clean energy future is not a fantasy. Changing course and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change is not a fantasy. And supporting healthier communities and ecosystems and driving economic growth and job creation – none of that is a fantasy. And for those people who still stand in the way, for those people who even still today want to try to question whether or not their science is effective or not, I’d just ask you – ask a simple question: If we’re wrong about this future, what’s the worst that could happen to us for making these choices?

The worst that could happen to us is we create a whole lot of new jobs, we kick our economies into gear, we have healthier people, healthier children because we have cleaner air, we live up to our environmental responsibility, we become truly energy independent, and our security is stronger and greater and sustainable as a result. That’s the worst that happens to us.

What happens if they’re wrong? (Applause.) If they’re wrong – catastrophe. Life as you know it on Earth ends. Seven degrees increase Fahrenheit, and we can’t sustain crops, water, life under those circumstances.

So I know, with Philip Hammond and I and President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron and a whole bunch of leaders around the world know, we need to go to Lima, Peru this year and we need to push forward on an agreement, and next year in Paris we need to reach an agreement where we live up to our responsibility to future generations and make all the difference in the world.

I am proud that we have a great colleague to help us in this fight, an individual who understands the security connection of this better than most because he just finished serving as the Secretary for Defense in Great Britain and was transferred into this role as the Foreign Secretary for Great Britain.

So will you please welcome a terrific partner, a great colleague in this endeavor, Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain. (Applause.)

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAMMOND: Well, thank you, John, for that introduction, and one of the great things about having just been Secretary of State for Defense is that I’m quite used to speaking in aircraft hangars, which have vaguely similar acoustics to this room today. John, it’s a huge privilege to be here, to be invited to visit your hometown. Thank you for that. Thank you for the things that you’ve shown me today. And thank you to our hosts for hosting this event in this world class facility. It’s a fascinating snapshot of the degree of global collaboration that is going on as the green energy business develops on a worldwide basis.

I know that we’re looking at a facility here that is testing blades made in Europe, in China, in Brazil, as well as in North America. And nothing could more encapsulate the global nature of the challenge and the global nature of the response to that challenge. This is a city with a worldwide reputation not only as a seat of learning, but also as a hub for cutting-edge technology, and it’s been a great pleasure to see some of that here today.

Those of you who are working in the low-carbon energy sector know that you are generating jobs and investment for the long term. But above all, you know that you’re in the front line in the battle against climate change. Secretary Kerry, the governor, and I are in complete agreement that this is a battle that we have to win for the sake of our long-term security. When we think about keeping our nation safe, we have to plan for the worst-case scenarios, and Secretary Kerry just spelled out in very, very graphic terms how that equation works. We have to take the precautionary principle, we have to plan for the worst possible outcome, and we have to protect future generations from the impacts of those.

In the case of unchecked climate change, even the most likely scenario could have catastrophic consequences: a rise in global temperature similar to the difference between the last ice age and today, leading to rising sea levels, huge movements of people fueling conflict and instability around the world, pressure on resources, and a multitude of new risks to global public health. The worst case is even more severe: a drastic change in our environment that could see heat stress in some areas surpass the limits of human tolerance, leaving as the legacy of our generation an unimaginably different and more dangerous world for our children and our grandchildren.

So we have to act on climate change, but by doing so we will not just protect the future from the worst effects of climate change; we will bring tangible benefits to our people here and now. We’ll get cleaner air, more efficient transport, better cities, better health. And more than that, the technological transformation that is required will provide a greater stimulus than the space program did 50 years ago, generating massive new opportunities for innovation, jobs, and economic growth.

For too long this debate has been dominated by purists and idealists, people who are happy with the notion that we would have to sacrifice economic growth to meet the climate challenge. I think you’ve heard from all three of us on this platform this morning that we reject that choice. We do not accept that we have to choose between our prosperity and the future of our planet. Indeed, we are demonstrating across the world – here in Massachusetts, in the UK – we are demonstrating that the response to climate change can be a generator of economic growth, innovation, and quality jobs.

In the UK, 92 percent of business leaders think that green growth is an opportunity for their own businesses. Demand for green goods and services is growing faster both here and in Europe than the general economy is growing. Globally, as Secretary Kerry has said, the green economy will be worth over $6 trillion by 2030, and it’s expanding all the time.

But the full range of benefits is beyond our ability to estimate. The dividends of technology are often unpredicted and unpredictable. The potential is immense. And by seizing the initiative now, we can take first-mover advantage.

Moreover, in addition to creating jobs and growth, embracing green technology increases our energy security. At a time of international turbulence, this is an advantage we should not underestimate. And we in Europe, facing Russian energy bullying on a grand scale as we approach the winter, understand that better than most people. ISIL’s assault on Iraq poses another serious threat to our energy security, which could have knock-on effects in global energy markets and the prices that we pay at the pump.

Here in the U.S., the shale revolution has eased worries about dependence on overseas oil and gas, and in the UK we are committed to exploiting the potential of shale as part of our energy mix. But over the longer term, renewable energy sources, like those being developed and tested here, will be critical to reducing our vulnerability to energy supply shocks.

So the benefits of addressing climate change are multiple, but it will not happen by itself. It requires leadership, leadership that is now, some would say, at last beginning to take shape. Britain is leading by enacting into our domestic law the most demanding emissions targets in the industrialized world. We’ve already reduced emissions by more than a quarter, putting us on track for an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050. We have the world’s leading carbon-trading center in London, and we’ve established the world’s first green investment bank.

Here on this side of the Atlantic, Boston is leading with its innovative technology. Northeastern states collectively are leading with their Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Other states, from Iowa to Texas to California, are leading in their separate ways. And John, if I may say so, you are leading with your tireless diplomacy on this issue.

The U.S. has begun to take on the leadership role, which, as the world’s biggest economy, is essential if we are going to make progress globally. And there are signs that these efforts are inspiring others to follow, with positive steps from China, from India, from Brazil. This is a momentum that we have to harness and increase if we are to secure an effective global climate deal in Paris next year. And I look forward to working with Secretary Kerry and our partners in the European Union in order to bring that about.

But it isn’t just about governments and diplomacy. Scientists and universities are shaping the debate. Ordinary people and civil society are helping to keep this issue in the spotlight through actions like the Climate March a few weeks ago, but also through their own individual choices as consumers, which in turn drives the vital role that businesses have to play, shaping their investment, channeling innovation to support the fight against climate change.

Both here and – in the U.S. and in the UK, business is at the heart of our approach. We will get this job done by going with the grain, by using the power of the market, by creating the necessary incentives and structures to mobilize the creativity of private businesses to respond to the challenges of climate change. It is a complex task, but as Secretary Kerry said, it is not rocket science; it is something that we know how to do, we just have to put our shoulders to the wheel and get it done.

Fifty years ago, the U.S. showed us how a strategic challenge – putting a man on the moon – could guarantee innovation through economy-transforming investments. Today, we have an opportunity to do that again in response to the challenge of climate change. If we are to achieve our common goal of limiting climate to two degrees Celsius, we need everyone to play their part. It is clear that we have no time to lose.

Secretary Kerry just repeated his oft-repeated remark, that the window of time is still open for us to be able to manage this threat. But as he, himself, observed, that window is fast beginning to close.

To counter the threat and to seize the opportunity that rising to the challenge of climate change represents we have to act now. And by acting now, we will not only maximize our changes of avoiding catastrophic climate change, we will increase our resilience and create huge new opportunities for growth and innovation in all our economies. That is what I call a true win-win situation. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA MAKES STATEMENT ON SCOTTISH ELECTION RESULTS

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Statement by the President on the Results of the Scottish Referendum
We welcome the result of yesterday’s referendum on Scottish independence and congratulate the people of Scotland for their full and energetic exercise of democracy. Through debate, discussion, and passionate yet peaceful deliberations, they reminded the world of Scotland's enormous contributions to the UK and the world, and have spoken in favor of keeping Scotland within the United Kingdom.  We have no closer ally than the United Kingdom, and we look forward to continuing our strong and special relationship with all the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we address the challenges facing the world today.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS ON BUILDING ANTI-ISIL COALITION

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks at Top of Meeting on Building an Anti-ISIL Coalition Co-Chaired by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, U.K. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, and U.K. Defense Secretary Michael Fallon

Remarks

John Kerry

Secretary of State

Celtic Manor

Wales, United Kingdom

September 5, 2014

Good morning, everybody. We are very appreciative for everyone who made the time to get here early (inaudible) in order to start the day with another meeting, with an extra meeting. But we thought it was really critical given the urgency of (inaudible) with respect to ISIL (inaudible) everybody together in order to try to get on the same page and talk through the margins of the NATO summit what we can do over the course of the next days.

We’re operating under a little bit of a time constraint. I promised Philip – and we’re very grateful, Philip, for your willingness to cohost this effort and provide facilities, and thank you, again, for the stewardship of this NATO summit. There’s a flyby taking place at 7:45 (inaudible). Okay, (inaudible). The – yeah. And we’re going to try – we’re absolutely going to (inaudible) time so that we can get up there and (inaudible).

Everybody here understands what ISIL is and the challenge that it represents. I would say to all of you, including those of you – the defense ministers who are now with us, but we had a very provocative conversation last night among the foreign ministers regarding some of the overall challenges we all face, the number of failed states and the challenges of disorder in so many countries. In many ways, I believe ISIL presents us with an opportunity. And it’s an opportunity to prove that we have the ability to come together, that our capacities for defense are not so frozen in an old model that we can’t’ respond to something like ISIL, that we can’t pull ourselves together and effect the coalition of clearly the willing and the capable to be able to deal with ISIL.

Contrary to what you sort of heard in the politics of our country, the President is totally committed; there is a strategy that is clear, becoming more clear by the day. And it really relies on a holistic approach to ISIL. That is to say that we need to do kinetic, we need to attack them in ways that prevent them from taking over territory, that bolster the Iraqi security forces, others in the region who are prepared to take them on, without committing troops of our own, obviously. I think that’s a redline for everybody here, no boots on the ground. Nevertheless, there are many ways in which we can train, advise, assist, and equip. There are kinetic operations we can run in direct support of Iraqi security forces.

And we’ve proven the model in the last weeks – breaking the siege on Sinjar Mountain, breaking the siege of Amirli, breaking of momentum that was moving towards Erbil, and in effect picking up enough intel to understand that the minute we hit them, these guys are not 10 feet tall. They’re not as disciplined as everybody thinks. They’re not as organized as everybody thinks. And we have the technology, we have the know-how. What we need is obviously the willpower to make certain that we are steady and stay at this.

There is no contain policy for ISIL. They’re an ambitious, avowed genocidal, territorial-grabbing, Caliphate-desiring, quasi state within a regular army. And leaving them in some capacity intact anywhere would leave a cancer in place that will ultimately come back to haunt us. So there is no issue in our minds about our determination to build this coalition, go after this. I’ll give you a quick take at what we are looking for and what we’re going to do.

When we say holistic, we mean every aspect of this group, and I think this could become conceivably a model that can help us with Boko Haram, could help us with Shabaab, with other groups if we can do this successfully. And NATO needs to think of it that way as we consider sort of our role in this new world we’re living in. We need to go after their financing mechanisms and sources, and we need to elicit broad-based support within the world of (inaudible) as well as in the world of normal banking and cover entities, businesses and so forth. Which means our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are going to need to coordinate and work together that have a clear part of an agenda within this framework.

We need a major humanitarian component that needs to be coordinated with the economic component, which will be real, to help Iraq get on its feet. We need a foreign fighter component. President Obama is going to be leading a National Security Council meeting in New York in the course of UNGA. We want – hope everybody will take part in that and help us lay down a critical agenda with respect to how we deal, all of us, with foreign fighters, which is a challenge to every country here, which is partly why we are all here.

In addition, we need an all-military aspect. Some people will not be comfortable doing kinetic. We understand that. Or some people don’t have the capacity to do kinetic. But everybody can do something. People can contribute either ammunition or weapons or technical know-how or intel capacity. People can contribute advisors. We’ve just put another 350 people on the ground in an effort to build up our advisor capacity. We’re building up our ISR platform and intel capacity. We also are building up the kinetic capacity, and that will be a clear part of this.

We very much hope that people will be as declarative as some of our friends around the table have been in order to be clear about what they’re willing to commit, because we must be able to have a plan together by the time we come to UNGA, we need to have this coalesce. We need a clarity to the strategy, and a clarity to what everybody is going to undertake.

So we’re convinced that in the days ahead we have the ability to destroy ISIL. It may take a year, it may take two years, it may take three years. But we’re determined it has to happen. There are obviously implications about Syria in this, and we can talk about that if we want in the course of the morning. But let me turn to Philip, and then I’d – after the defense secretaries have each had a chance to say something, I’d like to get our friends from France and Australia to weigh in, because we’ve already been able to have some conversations. And in that order if we can, and then we’ll just move very quickly around the room.

So Philip, thank you.

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS REGARDING U.S.-GREAT BRITAIN COOPERATION REGARDING USES OF ATOMIC ENERGY FOR DEFENSE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Message to the Congress -- Amendment Between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

I am pleased to transmit to the Congress, pursuant to section 123 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the text of an amendment (the "Amendment") to the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes of July 3, 1958, as amended (the "1958 Agreement").  I am also pleased to transmit my written approval, authorization, and determination concerning the Amendment.  The joint unclassified letter submitted to me by the Secretaries of Defense and Energy providing a summary position on the unclassified portions of the Amendment is also enclosed. The joint classified letter and classified portions of the Amendment are being transmitted separately via appropriate channels.

The Amendment extends for 10 years (until December 31, 2024), provisions of the 1958 Agreement that permit the transfer between the United States and the United Kingdom of classified information concerning atomic weapons; nuclear technology and controlled nuclear information; material and equipment for the development of defense plans; training of personnel; evaluation of potential enemy capability; development of delivery systems; and the research, development, and design of military reactors.  Additional revisions to portions of the Amendment and Annexes have been made to ensure consistency with current United States and United Kingdom policies and practice regarding nuclear threat reduction, naval nuclear propulsion, and personnel security.

In my judgment, the Amendment meets all statutory requirements.  The United Kingdom intends to continue to maintain viable nuclear forces into the foreseeable future. Based on our previous close cooperation, and the fact that the United Kingdom continues to commit its nuclear forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, I have concluded it is in the United States national interest to continue to assist the United Kingdom in maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent.

I have approved the Amendment, authorized its execution, and urge that the Congress give it favorable consideration.

BARACK OBAMA

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY TAKES QUESTIONS FROM PRESS IN LONDON

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Press Availability in London

Press Availability

Foreign Commonwealth Office

London, United Kingdom

May 15, 2014

---

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. First of all, let me just thank Foreign Secretary William Hague for his terrific hosting today, convening all of us together to be able to talk about a number of challenging issues that we’re facing together, and I think after today, with an even better sense of direction.

We gathered here, I think it’s safe to say, frankly more united than we have been in some time. And we, all of us, unanimously, remain committed to changing the dynamics on the ground in Syria.

Since we last met, the opposition has itself taken some significant steps forward to expand their leadership, to expand their reach into Syria, to become more effective. And we know, as you know, we just hosted President Jarba and his delegation in Washington for a number of days and a series of meetings, including meetings with the State Department, the White House, and the President.

The truth is we all know that the grave humanitarian crisis is growing more dire by the day, notwithstanding the best efforts of people to date. And the bloodshed and the suffering of the Syrian people have not stopped. So today in one unified voice we made it clear that we remain committed, even more so, to taking steps that could in fact make a difference. Most importantly we start in one unified voice with rejecting any notion whatsoever that the elections that the Assad regime has called somehow have any legitimacy whatsoever. There is no way for this illegitimate effort, for this impossible set of circumstances for an election to somehow give legitimacy where there is none. Together we are unified in saying that Assad’s staged elections are a farce, they’re an insult; they are a fraud on democracy, on the Syrian people, and on the world.

And the fact is that the cynical political theater that he is engaged in will not change one thing the day after it happens. His status in the world, his position with respect to future leadership in Syria, and in fact, the potential of any resolution will be exactly where they were the day before the election – although perhaps even slightly worse because of the fraud of this effort. It just – I mean, ask yourself: How do you have a legitimate election when half the people in your country are displaced and not able to vote? How do you have a legitimate election when another several million people are in refugee camps unable to vote? How do you have it when hundreds of thousands of people, literally – almost a million perhaps – are scattered in various countries in the region, seeking safety from Assad? It is just impossible to believe that under those circumstances, where people are hunkered down in their homes, intimidated and afraid to be able to come out, afraid of being forced to do one vote or another – you just have no climate, no framework within which you can talk about legitimacy.

We also agreed today that we have to redouble our efforts, all of us, in support of the moderate opposition in order to bring about a peaceful resolution that the people of Syria want. And that requires the full support of the international community, and that was really the focus of our discussions today. I’m sure your question would be: So what’s different today? Well, look at the length of the communique. It’s short and it’s purposefully short. It purposefully points to the election and then to the renewed efforts, and the most important sentence, I think, is the last sentence in which it points out that our teams are going to come together in very short order now to lay out a specific set of steps that we can and will take together in order to have a greater impact here.

There isn’t anybody who didn’t come together today with the realization that there have been hurdles over the course of the last year, from the time when Foreign Minister Lavrov and I announced the possibility of a Geneva conference in Moscow last year – about a month earlier than now. Things changed on the ground. Hezbollah entered the fight. IRGC – Iranian forces entered the fight on the ground. And more terrorists were attracted to the fight against Assad, regrettably, thereby creating a framework where some of the opposition was fighting the terrorists, not Assad.

So that is a very clear and simple reality of what has taken place over the course of the year. That has changed. And now I think there’s a greater level of coordination, a greater level of unity, a greater level of understanding of purpose, and over the next days as those teams meet, there will be a serious definition of steps that can be taken in order to have a greater impact. The United States is committed to doing our part. Each country today sat there and sort of discussed what they felt they could do to grow the effort. And that is what is different.
Just last week, we announced that the Syrian Opposition Coalition representative offices are now foreign missions. And we’re also working to provide new nonlethal assistance and to speed up the delivery of assistance to the Free Syrian Army. The Treasury Department has imposed new sanctions and restrictions against members of the regime, and we will continue to strengthen our ties with the Syrian opposition, as I think you’ve seen firsthand in the visit to Washington this past week.

On behalf of the United States, I want to extend our deep concern for the two British journalists who were shot and who were beaten while trying to share with the world the real story of what is happening in Syria. And this is not the first time that courageous reporters have been part of the heartbreaking story of Syria. Far too many journalists and innocent civilians have been hurt, killed, or held hostage in Syria. And just two days ago in Washington, we met with one of the families – with many of the families, actually – of those being held in Syria. And we’re keeping up a very focused effort to try to secure their release. We reiterate our respect and our admiration for the reporters who put their lives and their liberties on the line to tell the stories to the world that otherwise people would never learn.

Let me also say a quick word about two other issues that we touched on this week, here, today, in the early part of our meeting this morning: that is Ukraine and Libya. We had a very good discussion this morning with the British, French, German, Italian foreign ministers, our counterparts – on Ukraine. We welcome the successful National Dialogue roundtable in Kyiv that took place yesterday and the very good conversation there on decentralization, constitutional reform, and the protection of minority rights. And we hope that the separatists, we hope the Russians, we hope that others who are disgruntled by what has taken place will take note of a legitimate effort to try to reach out, bring people to the table, and find political compromise.

We are absolutely committed to the notion that there must be a protection of these minority rights, and we support the government in Kyiv’s efforts to reach out with serious, concrete plans for increased autonomy and decentralization. I would note that the level of decentralization and autonomy that Prime Minister Yatsenyuk has articulated far exceeds any level of autonomy or decentralization that exists anywhere in Russia. And I think it’s important for everybody to note that.

We believe that the process of the roundtables coupled with the election provides the people with Ukraine with an opportunity to be able to heal the divide. And that will now be encouraged through a second meeting of a roundtable that will take place in eastern Ukraine in a few days.
This morning, we also underscored the vital importance of a free and fair presidential election across Ukraine on May 25^th, including, importantly, the eastern provinces. And we’re also working with the Ukrainians and the OSCE to protect the rights of all Ukrainian citizens and to make their voices heard through the ballot box in a legitimate election.

We call on the separatists and Russians to respect this election process, to help to make it happen, even; to encourage Ukrainians to be able to define their future. That’s the best way to de-escalate this situation.

We believe that this effort to legitimize an election and move to have a broad-based election according to the constitutional process of Ukraine is in stark contrast to the agenda of the pro-Russian separatists and their supporters, who are literally sowing mayhem in communities like Slovyansk. Far from defending the rights of the people in the east, they are seeking to speak for everybody through the barrel of a gun and through their own narrow sense of what they want for an outcome.

We agreed this morning that if Russia or its proxies disrupt the election, the United States and those countries represented here today in the European Union will impose sectoral economic sanctions as a result. Our message is really quite simple: Let Ukraine vote. Let the Ukrainian people choose their future and let them do so in a fair, open, free, accessible election.
Finally on Libya, the United States and our quintet of partners reiterated today our shared commitment to the stability and security for the Libyan people and for the region. We agreed that we need to do more, and we understood that there is this challenging moment in Libya. We need to try to accelerate the effort to bring about stability and security and the governance that is necessary to provide the time and the space for Libyan authorities to be able to confront the threat from extremism and the challenges that their country faces of just providing governance to their people.

In that light and in support of the Libyan Government, we are working collectively through a number of different envoys. The Arab League has an envoy, the – Great Britain has an envoy, we have an envoy – we will work in concert, and we task them, literally, to be working as one entity – not as individuals out there in opposite directions. And we’re going to do all we can to help the Libyans in these next days to try to be able to gain control over their revenues and begin to forge the kind of coalition that can actually begin to build the offices of governance that are necessary. This is a small country – six and a half million people – smaller than the state that I represented in the Senate – privileged to represent for almost 29 years. I know something about what you can provide when you want to. Libya is a country rich in resources, rich in people with talent and capacity. And we hope that in the days ahead we’re going to be able to tap into that and find a way to help the Libyan people to move forward to have the kind of stability and peaceful governance that they aspire to.

So with that I thank you, and I’d be happy to take a couple questions quickly.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Karen DeYoung of The Washington Post.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. On Syria, I think you correctly put your finger on what the question is, which is: What’s different after today? In terms of U.S. policy, could you tell us whether the United States is prepared to do what Britain has done, which is to change the way its aid is sent into Syria and start sending it through NGOs or other means instead of through the United Nations?

And also on the expanded aid that you’ve talked about to both the military and political sides of the opposition, President Jarba has publicly called for increased weapons assistance, specifically portable surface-to-air missiles to stop the Syrian Government’s air attacks against civilians, including the barrel bombs that you personally have denounced. Are you now prepared to take this step or allow your allies to take this step? And if not, why not?
And finally on Syria, Foreign Minister Fabius said in Washington this week that France has seen credible evidence of at least 14 chemical attacks by the Syrian Government since October. Secretary Hagel said in Saudi Arabia yesterday that the United States has seen no such evidence. Is this because you haven’t seen what the French have seen, or that you’ve seen it and don’t find it conclusive? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me take them one, two, three. We are open to the idea of providing aid through any means that will get to the people who need it. And while the decision has not been categorically made, I’d just repeat: We are open to anything that will get the aid to the people, and we are very frustrated with the current process. It is not getting to people. It’s going through one gate, one entryway, and it’s going through Damascus and/or controlled by the Assad regime. That’s unacceptable. We need to be able to get aid more directly and we’re going to work to do that. That’s a certainty.

We are in addition that, Karen, we are going to in the United Nations Security Council challenge the appropriate level of follow-through that is necessary to be able to fulfill what was passed in the resolution previously a few months ago in order to guarantee the delivery of aid. It is not being fulfilled. It has to be fulfilled and our patience is gone. We’re going to join with other countries in an effort to try to guarantee accountability through the UN in making that happen. We are determined that people will be able to get aid.

The people who left Homs, for instance, did so because they were literally under siege. They were being starved to death – civilians and others. And that is against the laws of war – not to mention anybody’s fundamental values and decency, but obviously not Assad’s. So we intend to press this issue in every way possible in the days ahead.

On the issue of weapons, I’m not going to discuss what specific weapons, what country may or may not be providing or not providing – as you know, we’re providing nonlethal aid. But I will say that out of today’s meeting every facet of what can be done is going to be ramped up. Every facet, and that includes political effort. It includes the aid to the opposition. It includes economic efforts, sanctions. Today we announced, as I told you, additional sanction. There will be ramped up effort to make it clear that despite the fact that Assad may think today he’s doing better and this process is somehow going to come to a close with him sitting pretty, the answer is: no. It’s not going to suddenly – we’re not going away. The opposition is not going away.

We are determined to reach a political settlement that protects all of the people of Syria, and I want to make it clear: Alawite, other minority, all can be protected here. Assad’s just protecting himself. The fact is that he, in doing so, he is making partnership with terrorist elements, attracting terrorists, engaging in terrorist activities against his own people, and I don’t think that anybody today felt deterred one iota in the notion that there might be a better route, another route, other than a political settlement, which can only be brought about when he is prepared to negotiate.

As everybody looks at Lakhdar Brahimi’s resignation and makes a judgment about it, it’s not that – I mean, he performed valiantly against great odds. But if the parties aren’t prepared to perform according to the standards that they have accepted to negotiate on, there’s nothing that a negotiator or an intermediary can do. So we remain committed to try to find that solution and I’m not going to discuss specific weapon systems or otherwise except to say that every possible avenue that is available is going to be pursued by one country or another.
One the third issue – the issue of evidence, I suspect – I haven’t talked with Secretary Hagel about what was in his mind or what he was referring to with respect to that. Chlorine is not listed on the list of prohibited items by itself freestanding under the Chemical Weapons Convention. But chlorine, when used and mixed in a way that is used as a chemical weapon in the conduct of war, is against the chemical weapons treaty. And I have seen evidence, I don’t know how verified it is – it’s not verified yet – it’s hasn’t been confirmed, but I’ve seen the raw data that suggests there may have been, as France has suggested, a number of instances in which chlorine has been used in the conduct of war. And if it has, and if it could be proven, then that would be against the agreements of the chemical weapons treaty and against the weapons convention that Syria has signed up to.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Mina Al-Oraibi.

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, to follow up on your last point, if it is proven that chlorine was used as a chemical in war, which is prohibited, what will the Syrian Government face? What steps can be taken?

And I want to go back to the point of military aid. I know you won’t go into details of the assistance, however, what I’d like to ask you is: are you more confident now in the Free Syrian Army and after the meetings you’ve had with the Syrian opposition linked to the use of weaponry by the FSA and the SNC in general.

SECRETARY KERRY: I think the Free Syrian Army – I’m going to give you the second part first. The Free Syrian Army has clearly improved. It has clearly gained in its capacity. It has gained in its command and control. It is also now being supported in a more coordinated way than it was over the last year as one country or another may have been supporting one group or another, now that is much more concentrated.

So we think that they’re making progress. Are they a trained army in the context of nation-states that we measure things by in many places? No, not yet. But they are improving and under very difficult circumstances holding their own, in fact making gains in certain parts of the country. Now, we have – we are committed to continue to be helpful to them and give them greater capacity in many different respects. And everybody there today shared in that commitment.
With respect to the CW and what the consequences are, it has been made clear by President Obama and others that use would result in consequences. We’re not going to pin ourselves down to a precise time, date, manner of action, but there will be consequences if it were to be proven, including, I might say, things that are way beyond our control and have nothing to do with us. But the International Criminal Court and others are free to hold him accountable. And as you know, we have a resolution that will be in front of the United Nations with respect to culpability for crimes against humanity, atrocities in the course of this conflict. So one way or the other, there will be accountability.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Indira Lakshmanan from Bloomberg.

QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you just told us that you and the four EU foreign ministers agreed today that sectoral sanctions will be imposed on Russia if Russia or its proxies disrupt the May 25^th elections. Foreign Minister Hague earlier referred specifically to Russia’s specific interference. So I want to know – Russia has denied Western reports of supplying weapons, personnel, and coordination to the separatists. Will Russia be held accountable and responsible for actions of the separatists even if they cannot be proved as a link to Russia itself, or what’s the criteria that you and the EU and are going to use?

And second part of that question: We understand that the approach for sanctions is going to be a scalpel, not a hammer. So does that mean it won’t be Iran-style bans on entire sectors of commerce, and does that mean that it’ll be a ban on future deals with an exemption for existing contracts?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to get into announcing today what the precise sanctions are except to say to you we have completed our work. We know what they are. We’re ready. And last week we had State Department and Treasury personnel here in Europe working with our European allies in order to define precisely what that road ahead should be. And indeed, our hope – I’m not going to get into characterizations of scalpel or sledgehammer or whatever except to say to you that they’re effective, and if they have to go into effect they will have an impact.

Now, obviously, the purpose of it is to have a greater impact on the target than it is on the people imposing it, and so we will be thoughtful and we are being thoughtful and we’re being very, I think, deliberative in trying to make determinations about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate.

Let me emphasize our hope is not to do this. Our hope is not that we have to go to a next stage. I say to the Russians and everybody our hope is to de-escalate. We appreciate that President Putin made a statement about the elections and sort of acknowledging that they would take place and probably a good thing, I think was his language. We acknowledge that he said that the referendum should be stopped but didn’t stop the referendum.

And so what we need to make certain is that people aren’t trying to have everything both ways. William Hague a few moments ago told you that it’s in the attitude and behavior that you make this judgment about what is being done. And I’m not going to start laying out the whole series of definitions except to say to you that it is clear what proxies mean. If Russia or its proxies disrupt the elections, stand in the way of the Ukrainian people being able to exercise their vote, that is when and if there would be additional sanctions.

But our hope is that Russia will join in to encouraging the vote, that Russia will encourage pro-Russian separatists to say that they should work through the process that has now been opened up that Russia has helped insist on, that that process now be given a chance to work through the OSCE and otherwise. That’s our preference. That is what we want to have happen here. And our hope is that in the eight days, between now and the election, there can be a concerted effort to try to put the confrontation behind us and put the effort to build Ukraine in front of us and to try to do it together. That makes a lot more sense and that would be our hoped-for direction.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, all. Appreciate it.

BRITISH, U.S. DEFENSE LEADERS MEET OVER CRIMEA-UKRAINE SITUATION

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
U.S., British Defense Leaders Discuss Ukraine, NATO
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2014 – U.S. and United Kingdom defense leaders today reiterated that there must be consequences for Russia following President Vladimir Putin’s forced annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel hosted British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond at the Pentagon. The two discussed a range of subjects, but the main focus was Ukraine, Hagel said at a news conference with Hammond after their meeting.
“I thanked Secretary Hammond for the U.K.'s steadfast support of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and for the U.K.’s important contributions to NATO,” Hagel said. “We reaffirmed the strong commitment of both our countries to NATO's collective defenses, as President Obama has emphasized throughout his trip to Europe.”

Economic and diplomatic sanctions that have been imposed against Russia by the European Union and the United States will further isolate Russia, Hagel noted. “As the leaders of both our countries and the other G-7 nations affirmed this week in the Netherlands, we will continue to coordinate closely on future actions and sanctions we may take against Russia,” he added.

Hammond said Russia’s action was completely unacceptable, and he called the Russian occupation of Crimea “illegal annexation of a sovereign territory.”
The United Kingdom stands with the United States and the rest of NATO in opposing the Russian action and supports “wide-ranging economic and diplomatic sanctions to force President Putin to stop his bullying behavior,” Hammond said.
“The Russian government should be in no doubt that should there be further acts of aggression, there will be further consequences for Russia,” he added.
Hammond confirmed that in addition to the offer of Royal Air Force Typhoon combat jets to bolster the Baltic air policing mission, the United Kingdom is working with its allies and partners to scope options for additional measures of reassurance to Eastern European and Baltic allies.

Hammond stated that evidence suggests that the Russian agenda is being run by Putin personally. “Other Russian players, including [Defense] Minister [Sergei] Shoigu, may express views, but it's a moot point, and we cannot know, we do not know, to what extent all of those people are really inside the inner circle in which President Putin is planning this exercise,” the British leader said.

The situation in Ukraine demonstrates the continued need for NATO, Hagel said. “The essential character and commitment of this alliance, of its 28 members to one another, remains unchanged, but we will look for new ways to collaborate and improve the alliance’s capabilities and readiness,” the secretary said. “That means we will make continued necessary investments in defense.”

The two men and their staffs also discussed the progress of the campaign in Afghanistan.

Both countries are grappling with budget constraints, and both leaders look on this as an opportunity to explore new areas of cooperation. Hammond said the United States and United Kingdom could work together in nuclear deterrence, special operations forces, intelligence, unmanned aerial vehicles, surveillance aircraft and carrier strike regeneration.

NSC SPOKESPERSON MAKES STATEMENT ON UK SHIFT TOWARD CLEANER ENERGY

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on UK Announcement on Clean Energy

We are delighted that the United Kingdom is joining the United States in shifting public financing toward cleaner energy sources.  This is an important component of President Obama's Climate Action Plan, and we look forward to working with the UK to encourage other countries to implement similar polices.

The President’s Climate Action Plan calls for an end to U.S. support for public financing of new coal-fired power plants overseas except for plants deploying carbon capture and sequestration technologies or in the world’s poorest countries, and encourages other countries to adopt similar policies.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS WITH UAE FOREIGN MINISTER ABDULLAH BIN ZAYED

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 
Remarks With United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
London, United Kingdom
August 2, 2013

SECRETARY KERRY: Welcome, everybody. I’ll say a couple – do you want to say anything? Let me just say it’s a great pleasure for me to meet with Sheikh Abdullah, the Foreign Minister of the Arab Emirates. And I’m really grateful for his enormous efforts over the last weeks to try to help resolve the crisis in Egypt.

Yesterday, I made a few comments about sort of the intent of the July 30th movement, and what I want to make clear – I think His Highness Sheikh Abdullah would join me in this – is that all of the parties involved have a responsibility to be inclusive, to work towards a peaceful resolution. The last thing that we want is more violence. The temporary government has a responsibility with respect to demonstrators to give them the space to be able to demonstrate in peace. But at the same time, the demonstrators have a responsibility not to stop everything from proceeding in Egypt.

Egypt needs to get back to a new normal. It needs to begin to restore stability to be able to attract business and good people to work. And that’s a high priority. And we will work very, very hard, together and with others, in order to bring parties together to find a peaceful resolution that grows the democracy and respects the rights of everybody. That’s what we’re engaged in and that’s part of what we will talk about – not all but part of what we’ll talk about today.

Your Highness.

FOREIGN MINISTER ABDULLAH: Well, first of all, Secretary, I have to thank you for meeting with me today. And I think it’s extremely important to see the U.S. leadership not only in helping calm the situation in Egypt, but also your efforts in putting new life in the peace process. We saw that huge effort that United States and yourself is doing at the moment. And of course, you’ll find all support from our end, from the Arab side.


But just to go back to Egypt for a second, Egypt is an extremely important country, not only for the Arab countries but for the region as well. And here we think we have to look forward. We have to make sure that this interim government can be successful, can be successful in leading Egypt to a better future. And the UAE, with the United States and others, is doing its very best to give this government the support it needs, but also to encourage all the other parties to reach to a position where it can negotiate with this government – here I’m talking about the previous government.

We’d like to see the situation go normal in Egypt, because normalcy is the only way for a successful Egypt. We don’t want to see anybody stopping Egypt from the way it should go, but that’s only going to happen by all parties being in an inclusive dialogue. And I think here the UAE and the United States do agree.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

PRESS CONFERENCE WITH U.S.DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL AND U.K. DEFENSE SECRETARY HAMMOND

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, left, poses with British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond at the Pentagon, May 2, 2013. DOD photo by U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Aaron Hostutler.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom Philip Hammond May 02, 2013

Joint Press Conference with Secretary Hagel and Secretary Hammond from the Pentagon

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL: Good afternoon.

Secretary Hammond and I just completed a productive session regarding our two countries' continued common interests. I'd like to thank Secretary Hammond for the U.K.'s strong partnership with the United States and his friendship.

In March, I had the opportunity to meet with the U.S.-U.K. combined chiefs' conference at Fort McNair. At that meeting, that was recreated as a gathering of the American-British uniformed military leadership during World War II, much discussion revolved around our continued relationship and partnership.

Our history of being allied in defense of common interests and common values continues to strengthen the relationship of our two militaries. The discussion Secretary Hammond and I have had today, which we will continue this evening, reflect our shared desire to deepen our defense cooperation in the face of very complex and unpredictable global security.

I discussed with Secretary Hammond my recent trip to the Middle East, which highlighted the many challenges to our shared interest in that combustible region of the world, including Iran and Syria.

I also expressed appreciation for the significant contribution and sacrifices of British forces to international efforts in Afghanistan. I would also like to express my deepest condolences to the people of the United Kingdom for the three British soldiers killed this week in Helmand Province.

As the transition to Afghan security control continues, the United Kingdom will continue to play an important role in helping field strong and effective Afghan national security forces. As we emerge from more than a decade of war of shared sacrifice, our discussions also focused on preparing this alliance for the future.

Yesterday, Secretary Hammond had the opportunity to visit the Naval Air Station Pax River to observe ongoing testing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The United Kingdom's continued commitment to this program and our growing cooperation in new priority areas like cyber, is helping ensure this alliance has the kind of cutting age -- cutting edge capabilities needed for the future.

Over these past few weeks, the U.S. and U.K. also commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Polaris Sales Agreement, a commitment that has been the cornerstone of our cooperation and shared contribution to strategic deterrence.

I congratulate Secretary Hammond on the Royal Navy's steadfast maintenance of its submarine-based nuclear forces and their continuing round-the-clock patrols. I strongly support the United Kingdom's decision to maintain an independent, strategic deterrence. Strong alliances and partnerships are becoming even more critical, more critical because both the United States and United Kingdom face the challenge of meeting global threats in a new era of constrained resources.

As our department undergoes the Strategic Choices and Management Review here, Secretary Hammond and I discussed the United Kingdom's defense strategy and ongoing efforts to rebalance its forces. DoD has gained many useful insights from recent British experiences, and our staffs continue to coordinate closely on strategy and defense planning.

We'll also continue to work closely together to ensure the NATO alliance has the capabilities needed for the future, which will be a focus of the NATO defense ministerial next month in Brussels, where we will both attend.

I look forward to seeing Secretary Hammond there and continuing our discussions today, again tonight, as to how we continue to build an effective working partnership around the world. Again, thank you, Secretary Hammond, and welcome. We're glad you're here.

SECRETARY OF DEFENCE PHILIP HAMMOND: Thank you very much. And good afternoon, everybody. I'm delighted to be here this afternoon, and I'd like to thank Secretary Hagel for his warm welcome.

As you know, I enjoyed a very close relationship with your predecessor, and I'm delighted that we've been able to pick up exactly where I left off in my discussions with Secretary Panetta.

Secretary Hagel and I have had detailed discussions about the common security challenges we face, focused, of course, upon Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran. On Afghanistan, despite the tragic news that three British fatalities in Helmand province occurred yesterday, we remain determined to see through our vital task of preventing Afghanistan once again from becoming a safe haven for international terrorists.

The events of the last few days have shown us that both our militaries continue to take risks as they carry out their dangerous tasks there, but the mission remains on track, and the increasingly capable Afghan security forces now lead on providing security for nearly 90 percent of the Afghan population and lead roughly 80 percent of all security operations. Their capability will continue to grow as International Security Assistance Force[ISAF]forces draw down towards the conclusion of our combat mission by the end of next year.

On Syria, Secretary Hagel and I reaffirmed our shared view that the Syrian regime must end the violence, stop the slaughter of its own people, and recognize that it is no longer the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. We continue to believe that a diplomatic solution is needed to end the bloodshed and that Assad and his close associates can have no place in the future of Syria. We in the U.K. are stepping up our support to the national coalition and remind the regime that nothing has been taken off the table in the light of the continuing bloodshed.

We remain increasingly concerned at the emerging evidence of the use of chemical weapons, and we demand that the regime allow the U.N. to investigate these allegations. Assad should be in no doubt that the world is watching and will hold him to account -- him and anyone else to account who is found responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

As we face up to these security challenges and those posed by Iran, we also face significant budget constraints, both in London and in Washington. Secretary Hagel and I have addressed the issue of defense reform and how we can get more bang for our buck on both sides of the Atlantic. Greater military cooperation is at the heart of this, and we also need to look at how we can encourage our partner countries within European NATO to reform their forces to take on more of the security challenge with more effective and deployable forces.

Of course, the U.K. and the U.S. already enjoy a very high level of cooperation and interoperability, but we have agreed to explore what more we can do in our armed forces to drive greater efficiencies through collaboration together.

Yesterday, as Secretary Hagel has commented already, I went out to Pax River and saw one of the fruits of our collaboration, a British pilot flying an F-35V in vertical take -- vertical landing mode. And I'm delighted about the progress that we are making in this project, and in others, such as the common missile compartment, for our next generation of nuclear-armed ballistic submarines.

The U.K. and the U.S. remain in lockstep on these projects, and as we take them forward, we will ensure the continuity of those vital capabilities.

The British-American defense relationship is strong and far reaching. It will remain the bedrock of Britain's defense policy, and will continue to be at the heart of our special relationship for decades to come.

Secretary Hagel, I look forward to working with you to maintain and strengthen that relationship in the coming months and years.

Thank you.

SEC. HAGEL: Thank you.

GEORGE LITTLE: Thank you very much. (Off-mike)

Q: For both of you, but Secretary Hagel, beginning with you, if you could be as concrete as possible here, now that we know the White House is rethinking its opposition to arming the rebels in Syria, why are you in agreement with that fresh look at rearming the rebels, since General Dempsey, your top military adviser, has already said he's very skeptical about that?

My second question, very specifically, why have you -- since the emergence of the chemical weapons intelligence -- stepped up or put new intensity into looking at what might be done in Syria?

And the bottom line for both of you gentlemen, Mr. Hammond, you've said all options are on the table, but there is a good deal of legitimate skepticism about that. Why, with respect, should anyone believe any of this is other than political window dressing by both governments? It seems -- there seems to be no indication that either government is going to exercise any option.

SEC. HAGEL: Well, first, as to your question regarding rethinking options.

Q: Rethinking arming the rebels, sir.

SEC. HAGEL: Arming the rebels. That's an option.

(CROSSTALK)

SEC. HAGEL: That's an option. I think Secretary Hammond framed it rather clearly when he talked about what is the objective for both our countries, certainly the United States. Stopping the violence; stability in the region, and a transitioning -- helping be part of that transitioning Syria to a democracy.

Now, those are objectives. You're always, any country, any power, any international coalition in partnership is going to continue to look at options, how best to accomplish those objectives. This is not a static situation. A lot of players are involved.

And so we must continue to look at options and present those options based on all contingencies, with the focus that we all have, I think, in the international community to achieve the objectives the best way we can.

So we're constantly evaluating. I think the president noted it a couple of days ago in his press conference, talking about rethinking options. Of course we do.

Q: So you are rethinking -- the administration is rethinking its opposition to arming the rebels?

SEC. HAGEL: Yes.

Q: And may I ask why? What has changed in your mind? And does this put you respectfully at odds with the U.S. military, General Dempsey, who said it's not a good idea in his view? Why are you rethinking arming the rebels?

SEC. HAGEL: You look at and rethink all options. It doesn't mean you do or you will. These are options that must be considered with partners, with the international community, what is possible, what can help accomplish these objectives. We have a responsibility -- and I think General Dempsey would say the same thing -- to continue to evaluate options. It doesn't mean that the -- the president has decided on anything. But...

Q: Are you in favor of arming the rebels now?

SEC. HAGEL: I'm in favor of exploring options and see what the is -- is the best option in coordination with our international partners.

Q: Have you come to a conclusion yet?

SEC. HAGEL: No.

Q: Even after all -- respectfully, even after all these weeks? You have no conclusion -- respectfully?

SEC. HAGEL: Conclusion about what options we would use?

Q: Conclusion about -- you said that your -- your think -- the administration, yes, is rethinking arming the rebels. You said, "yes." You have no conclusion yet about whether you support that rearming -- arming the rebels, sir?

SEC. HAGEL: We are exploring all options to achieve the objectives that I just talked about. These are not static situations. And you must always look at different options based on the reality on the ground, based on what you want to achieve, based on the future, based on our international partners. We talked about -- Secretary Hammond and I -- many options. We talked about relationships. When I was in the Middle East last week, I was in five countries, as you know -- discussed Syria in all five countries.

Q: Secretary -- Mr. Hammond, if I could.

SEC. HAMMOND: Yeah, I -- I -- I won't repeat everything that Secretary Hagel has already said, but I -- I agree with what he has said. It is not a static situation; it's a rapidly changing situation. We've kept all our options open. We have not thus far provided any arms to the rebels, but we have never said it's something we will not do.

But the word that hasn't come out so far in this discussion is legality. Both of our nations will only do what we legally can do. Certainly in our case, for the U.K., we have been subject to an E.U. ban on supplying armaments to the rebels. We will look at the situation when that ban expires in a few weeks' time. We will continue to keep that situation under review. But we will do what we are able to do within the bounds of legality, and we regard that as very important.

STAFF: Toby Harnden?

Q: Toby Harnden, Sunday Times. Can I ask both of you, how confident are you that the Assad regime is in control of its chemical weapons? And how confident are you that the U.S. and the U.K. knows where those weapons are?

And a second part. If a red line is determined to have been crossed, will any military action be targeted against chemical weapon sites and proportional? Or is it more likely to be a broader attempt to change the strategic equation in Syria and overthrow the Assad regime?

SEC. HAMMOND: Thank you for that. I think the -- the evidence that we have is that the regime is largely in control of its chemical weapons, principal chemical weapons sites. That is not the same as saying that we are able to account for every last unit of chemical stocks, but there is no evidence that the regime has lost control of significant chemical weapon sites yet.

In terms of the location of weapons, I think we have a great deal of knowledge of location of chemical weapons. That is not the same as saying that I can put my hand on my heart and say we know where every last item is.

In terms of any possible response, I wouldn't want to close off any options. It really follows on from the answer to the previous question. We should keep our range of options open and under continuous consideration. We should look at the evolving situation on the ground and look at the range of options that would be appropriate and legal in any given situation.

Q: But if -- if the regime has only used chemical weapons tactically and on a small scale, would you consider it legal and proportional to do a broader strategy of arming the rebels in order to overthrow the regime?

SEC. HAMMOND: Well, I -- I don't want to make legal judgments on the hoof. Before we made any decision, we would expect to have detailed legal advice from the attorney general about whether a proposed course of action was legal and proportionate in the circumstances that then prevailed. And I think, having defined it that way, we need to keep our options as broad as possible within the bounds of legality and proportionality.

MR. LITTLE: We'll turn to Phil Stewart of Reuters.

Q: And another question on Syria. Secretary Hammond, then I'd welcome your comments, as well, Secretary Hagel. You seemed to indicate this morning that in order to establish chain of custody, the international community will likely need to wait for another attack to gain the right -- to gain the right kind of evidence. Is that correct? And have initial samples and evidence trails collected by both countries degraded over time?

SEC. HAMMOND: I think the point that I was making this morning was that the fact that we have set out our intention to establish evidence of the nature and caliber that would be acceptable in a court of law, sends a very clear message to the regime that any use of chemical weapons in the future -- which by definition generates the potential to collect that evidence -- has a price. And I hope we're sending a message that will have a deterrent effect.

I'm not a technical expert, but I don't think you need to be a technical expert to know that after any use of a chemical agent there will be a degradation over time of the evidence that can be collected, and from the point of view of constructing a chain of custody of that evidence, clearly the longer the period that is elapsed between the use of such an agent, and the point where you acquire a sample, the less strong that chain of custody will be.

Q: So you would need a new -- a new attack?

SEC. HAMMOND: Not necessarily would need, but clearly, if there were future use of chemical agents, that would generate new opportunities for us to establish a clear evidence of use to -- to a -- a legal standard of evidence.

Q: Secretary Hagel, are you confident that, given the evidence that you already have or evidence that could be collected from past attacks, you would be able to work with that or would you need a -- a new attack to be able to...

SEC. HAGEL: No, I think Secretary Hammond said it exactly right. And I really wouldn't add much to what he -- to what he said. I would say again, what the secretary has already noted, there is a legal issue here as well. And, that's why evidence is so critically important here.

Q: So you need to be able to link the -- the sarin to the Assad regime...

SEC. HAGEL: Well, you need the evidence. If you're going to exercise certain options, a range of those options, that evidence is particularly important.

SEC. HAMMOND: Perhaps I can just add something from a U.K. perspective. U.K. public opinion remembers the evidence we were presented with in 2003 around Iraq, which turned out not to be valid. There is a very strong view that we have to have very clear, very high-quality evidence before we make plans and act on that evidence.

Q: Two questions, if I may -- one on Syria; one on Afghanistan.

On Syria, to both of you. This is just a kind of minor detail in a way, but when you reach your -- when you're looking at these samples, are Britain and America working the same source material or separate samples? The White House said in a conference call the other day that "Britain had its own investigation," quote-unquote. I just want to be clear, are you looking at the same material or different material?

And on Afghanistan, Mr. Hammond, the prime minister said the other day that it's -- that Britain should encourage Afghan interpreters to stay in their country. The deputy prime minister said it's morally indefensible that interpreters would be left to their own fate in Afghanistan. Are we sending mixed messages to the 600 people who've risked their lives working for British forces in Afghanistan?

SEC. HAMMOND: Okay, well let me deal with the first point first. I can't comment on the evidence or the sources of intelligence that we are looking at, for obvious reasons. But we are working in close collaboration to establish a robust -- robustness to the analysis.

On the question of interpreters, we may be sending a mixed message through what's written in the media, but that's not our intention.

I think we're all clear that we will not abandon those who have served us in Afghanistan. But we're also clear that, to the extent that these are people who have an important contribution to make to the future of Afghanistan, educated people, by definition, English-speaking people, it is our wish, if we can, to construct an offer to them which attracts them to stay in Afghanistan and be part of Afghanistan's future.

That is clearly the wish of the Afghan government to see as many of these people as possible make their future in Afghanistan. And we think that it sends an important message about our confidence in the future of Afghanistan that we're seeking to work to allow these people to build a future in Afghanistan, rather than simply abandoning the country.

SEC. HAGEL: As to your question regarding the intelligence pursuit, each country, certainly the United States, uses its -- its own intelligence agencies and institutions, and makes its own efforts. But we also collaborate, in this case with the United Kingdom and other allies to share intelligence. So it's both.

MR. LITTLE: That's all the time we have today. Thank you very much.