REMARKS ON UKRAINE BY AMBASSADOR PRESSMAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Ambassador David Pressman
Alternate Representative to the UN for Special Political Affairs
New York, NY
February 24, 2015
AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to welcome the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Minister Dacic, to the Security Council and thank you for your briefing on OSCE activities under Serbia’s leadership. The partnership between the OSCE and the United Nations is critically important and we welcome the opportunity to hear about the OSCE's priorities.

Mr. President, the OSCE has taken on a very difficult and very important set of responsibilities in Ukraine, and we strongly endorse the Chairman-in-Office’s continued focus on brokering peace in Ukraine and serving as an impartial observer to the September 2014 agreements and February 2015 implementation package signed in Minsk. Of course, OSCE engagement and focus cannot alone turn commitments on the many papers that have been signed in Minsk into tangible realities on the ground, though the OSCE can uniquely shed light on those who undermine the path to peace. So it should come as no surprise that – in addition to repeated attacks on Ukrainian positions well past the agreed line of contact, repeated failure to withdraw foreign fighters and military equipment, and repeated failure to pull back heavy weaponry – Russian-backed separatists have also repeatedly frustrated the access of OSCE observers to the very places they have pledged to ensure such access.

This must end. It is imperative that OSCE observers be allowed to operate safely and be granted unfettered access to all areas in order to effectively monitor the terms of the ceasefire and the subsequent withdrawal of heavy weaponry, foreign troops, and mercenaries in accordance with the Minsk agreements and Security Council Resolution 2202, which we just adopted last week.

Under the terms of the Minsk Memorandum, OSCE observers are supposed to be allowed to monitor and verify the ceasefire, monitor and verify security zones in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Under the terms of the Minsk Protocol, OSCE observers are supposed to be allowed to monitor the ceasefire, monitor the withdrawal of heavy weapons, and monitor the withdrawal of all foreign militarized formations, military equipment, militants and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine. Under the terms of the Minsk Implementation Package, OSCE observers are supposed to facilitate the withdrawal of heavy weapons and monitor and verify the ceasefire regime and withdrawal of heavy weapons, from day one.

And, yet, six months after the signing of the Minsk Memorandum and Protocol and almost two weeks after the signing of the Minsk Implementation Package, OSCE observers have yet to receive full access from the separatists to all areas to monitor and verify the ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons and foreign fighters, or security along the border.

Even today, after laying ruthless and deadly siege to the city of Debaltseve last week, approximately 30 to 40 kilometers beyond lines established by the September Minsk Agreements, separatists have yet to allow the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission unrestricted and unfettered access to that city to observe the situation on the ground. So if we are serious about improving cooperation between regional organizations and the United Nations, let’s start with this: Let’s recognize that the work of the OSCE is critical to making the agreed ceasefire and any effort at de-escalation stick, as agreed by all 57 OSCE participating States. And let’s take whatever action is necessary to ensure that all actors uphold their commitment to provide unfettered access to the OSCE in eastern Ukraine, and that all parties respect the neutrality of its mission and its monitors.

Protecting their access is important because the reports of the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine have been a key source for timely and impartial information on the situation in the Donbas area, and notably, on incidents like the downing of the MH17 plane; the appearance of weapons, troops, and support flowing from Russia into Ukraine; and the shelling of civilian targets in eastern Ukraine.

Mr. Chairman, we commend the OSCE’s efforts thus far and encourage your continued dedication to monitoring the ceasefire and ensuring all commitments made in Minsk are upheld, despite the very difficult conditions in which the mission works. You have the full backing of the United States and with the adoption of Resolution 2202, the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council to implement the Minsk Agreements.

Mr. President, the United States strongly endorses the Chairman-in-Office’s focus on bolstering OSCE field missions and independent institutions, like the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the High Commissioner for National Minorities, and the Representative on Freedom of the Media. The OSCE’s field missions contribute to our collective respect for human rights, and the institutionalization of rule of law.

We also welcome the passage by the OSCE Ministerial Council in December of 2014 of two decisions on Countering the Phenomenon of Foreign Fighters and Countering Kidnapping for Ransom. We support your efforts as Chairperson-in-Office to encourage implementation of these important decisions and to continue the work of OSCE field missions in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Balkans on counterterrorism issues, including countering violent extremism. We welcome more OSCE awareness-raising and capacity building efforts, which promote a multi-dimensional approach to countering violent extremism, and we encourage collaboration amongst stakeholders, particularly in the areas of youth/civil society, gender, community-policing, and human rights compliant approaches to addressing terrorism and violent extremism. We also thank the Chairman-in-Office for planning to host a regional “expert-level” summit in June to follow-up on all of these efforts.

Mr. President, lastly but importantly, in recent months, we have seen what should be an alarming display of anti-Semitism in Europe. From the shootings at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, to the horrific anti-Semitic attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris, to the recent wide scale desecration of a Jewish cemetery. Just as anti-Semitism in Europe is rising, so too, must our will to combat it and defeat it. For any organization that has a role in the maintenance of security and peace, it must also confront the kind of hate that undermines both – and anti-Semitism, as history has shown time and time again, is certainly that. As such, it is all the more important that the OSCE has undertaken the important work that it has to address anti-Semitism and intolerance, including its Declaration to Enhance Efforts to Combat Anti-Semitism adopted at the Basel Ministerial as a follow-up to the commemoration in November of the 10th anniversary of the OSCE Anti-Semitism Conference in Berlin. And yet, despite all that has been unfolding across Europe, at this 10-year anniversary meeting of the historic inaugural session, a third fewer countries showed up at the 2014 conference.

Of course, meetings and declarations will never alone crush hate, but they are important to focus our collective efforts, galvanize our collective will, and force our collective action.

Mr. Chair, the United States urges you to continue the OSCE’s critical work on this issue and we encourage OSCE participating States to help uphold the commitments enshrined in the Declaration.

The United States, as an active member of the OSCE, remains fully committed to the important work of the organization. A strong OSCE is a good partner for the United Nations, and it is a good partner in our cause of championing fairness, security, justice, and peace.

Thank you, Mr. President.

SAMANTHA POWER'S EXPLANATION OF U.S. VOTE ON UKRAINE

FROM  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
February 17, 2015
AS DELIVERED

Thank you. We’ve gotten used to living in an upside-down world with respect to Ukraine. Russia speaks of peace, and then fuels conflict. Russia signs agreements, and then does everything within its power to undermine them. Russia champions the sovereignty of nations, and then acts as if a neighbor’s borders do not exist. Yet even for those of us growing accustomed to living in an upside-down world, the idea that Russia – which manufactured and continues to escalate the violence in Ukraine – has tabled a resolution today calling for the conflict’s peaceful solution, is ironic, to say the least. Bitterly ironic, given that this Council has dedicated some thirty meetings to calling on Russia to stop escalating the very same conflict, and given the human consequences that are growing daily.

Even as Russia puts forward this resolution, separatists that Russia has trained, armed and that it fights alongside are laying ruthless and deadly siege to the Ukrainian-held city of Debaltseve, approximately 30 to 40 kilometers beyond lines established by the September Minsk agreements. Throughout the day, we’ve heard conflicting reports as to whether Debaltseve has fallen. According to press reports, the so-called “road of life” leading out of Debaltseve has become a “road of death,” littered with the bodies of Ukrainian soldiers. At just the time this Council is calling for the cease-fire that was supposed to take effect Saturday night at midnight, Russia is backing an all-out assault.

We do not know how many civilians are left in Debaltseve, because Russia and the separatists it supports have refused to guarantee the safety of impartial OSCE monitors who have been trying for days to enter the area – a commitment that, in this upside-down world, Russia and the separatists made on February 12th at Minsk.

But we know from credible press reports that thousands of civilians in Debaltseve and neighboring villages have been sheltering from heavy shelling in dank basements, often without running water, food, electricity, or basic medical supplies. We know that many of the civilians left, who are enduring the terror of this relentless assault, are the elderly and small children – people who could not evacuate on their own.

And even with such limited information, we know with certainty that at the same time that Russia signs onto yet another agreement committing itself to de-escalation and peace, forces that Russia trains, equips, and joins on the battlefield have only escalated this fighting, grabbing more territory and killing the Ukrainian soldiers who stand in their way.

We are caught in a deadly feedback loop. International leaders engage in rigorous, exhaustive negotiations to get Russia to commit to peace – in Geneva, in Normandy, in September in Minsk, in Berlin in February, and then again in Minsk on February 12th when the implementations were signed; and now in New York. Yet Russia’s commitments have no bearing on the actions of its soldiers and the separatists they back on the ground.

Mr. President, the United States has maintained the same position across thirty meetings before this Council with respect to Ukraine. Let me reiterate that position. We are for peace in Ukraine. We are for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity. We are for ending the violence in eastern Ukraine that has taken more than 5,600 lives since last April, and displaced already approximately one million people. We are for all of the signatories to the agreements signed in Minsk in September 2014 – particularly Russia and the separatists they back – fulfilling the commitments that they have made. And we are for the “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” of September 5 and September 19th, the package of measures endorsed last week by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France. To be clear, the February 12th implementation package is a roadmap to fulfilling commitments made by these same signatories in the September Minsk Agreements.

President Hollande, President Poroschenko, Chancellor Merkel, and President Putin each made this clear when they endorsed the implementation package on February 12th and issued their joint declaration that they “remain committed to the implementation of the Minsk Agreements.” The “Minsk Agreements” in the title – plural – refer to those signed on September 5 and September 19 by the same signatories, while the “measures for implementation” in the title make clear that the February 12th package was designed to begin carrying out the September agreements, and not to supplant them, as Russia has now begun to argue.

The United States rejects any interpretation of this resolution that would abrogate the parties’ earlier commitments. All parties must implement all of the commitments made in the September Minsk agreements. The implementation steps agreed upon in the February 12th package include a comprehensive cease-fire; the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the September line of contact; the release of all hostages; and the eventual restoration of Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and control of its international border.

Too often, debates in this Council occur in a vacuum, removed from the real world. In the real world, a man named Aleksei Kravchenko, a 73-year-old in the Ukrainian held-town of Svitlodarsk, near Debaltseve, recently told a reporter that he had spent nights huddled together with his grandchildren in a bomb shelter on his property as shelling continued through the night. Aleksei told the reporter that his grandchildren said to him in the shelter, “Grandpa, I don’t want to die young.” He said, “I held my grandchildren, and they were shaking, and I looked in their eyes, and they were afraid.” With the February 12th agreement, Aleksei said, “Now we are hoping.” The fighting, unfortunately, has in fact increased dramatically near Aleksei’s home.

But we call on Russia to translate hope into real action; to translate hope into real results, and to do so urgently.

Today’s Council session is an effort to throw the Council’s weight behind an agreement already jeopardized by statements by the separatists dismissing the full cease-fire, by their continued attacks on Debaltseve, and by the separatists’ refusal – together with Russia’s – to allow access to the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission. We are looking to Russia, which manufactured and fueled this conflict, to leave the upside-down world it has created and to honor the resolution it tabled today supporting efforts to end it. Thank you.

U.S. EXPLANATION OF UN SECURITY COUNCIL VOTE ON YEMEN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Explanation of Vote at a Security Council Session on Yemen
02/15/2015 05:09 PM EST
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
February 15, 2015


AS DELIVERED

The United States is pleased to support the adoption of a Security Council resolution that sends a clear message: all parties in Yemen, especially the Houthi, must commit to resolving the country’s political crisis by consensus through a peaceful and inclusive dialogue. Today, this Council deplores unilateral attempts by the Houthi to take over government institutions and to dissolve parliament by force. And this Council reaffirms the roadmap for implementing Yemen’s transition provided by the Gulf Cooperation Council Initiative and its Implementation Mechanism and the outcomes of the comprehensive National Dialogue conference. The people of Yemen deserve a clear path back to the political transition process and a legitimate government based on these agreements and the resolutions of this Council, with a publicly-announced timeline and specific dates for the completion of a new constitution, a constitutional referendum, and national elections.

We continue to strongly support UN Special Adviser Jamal Benomar’s efforts to mediate a consensus solution to this political crisis—a process vital to defusing tensions on the ground. We also underscore the Security Council’s demand for the Houthi to release President Hadi, Prime Minister Bahah, and other members of the Cabinet from house arrest immediately. Their continued detention is unacceptable, and they must be granted full freedom of movement. We strongly condemn the use of force against peaceful protesters in Ibb on February 14th.

The United States will continue supporting all Yemenis who are working toward a peaceful, prosperous, and unified Yemen.

Thank you.

U.N. REPRESENTATIVE POWER'S REMARKS ON DARFUR VOTE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
February 12, 2015
AS DELIVERED

Thank you. In November, this Council was confronted with reports of an alleged mass rape in Thabit – a town in North Darfur, Sudan. The UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur attempted to investigate, but was systematically denied meaningful access. The one time the peacekeepers were permitted to reach Thabit, Sudanese military and intelligence officials refused to let them interview alleged rape victims in private, and in some cases recorded the interviews. To this day, the Government of Sudan has shamefully denied the UN the ability to properly investigate this incident, despite this Council’s mandate for UNAMID to do precisely that.

Yesterday, a report released by Human Rights Watch alleged that at least 221 women and girls were raped in an organized attack on Thabit, over a period of thirty-six harrowing hours beginning on October 30, 2014. According to the report, Sudanese soldiers went door to door – looting, beating, and raping inhabitants. Over 50 current and former residents provided testimony corroborating the crimes, as did two reported army defectors who separately told Human Rights Watch that their superiors had ordered them to rape women. Because the Government of Sudan denied the UN a proper investigation, we have to rely on organizations such as Human Rights Watch to gather witness and perpetrator testimony and to shine a light on what happened.

One woman told Human Rights Watch that soldiers entered her home and said, “You killed our man. We are going to show you true hell.” Then, she said, “They started beating us. They raped my three daughters and me. Some of them were holding the girl down while another one was raping her. They did it one by one.” Two of her daughters were younger than 11-years-old, she said. Many of the witnesses interviewed told Human Rights Watch that government officials had threatened to kill them if they told anybody what happened.

Nearly ten years after the Security Council first adopted Resolution 1591 with the aim of protecting civilians in Darfur and stopping the violence there, the horror of Thabit is just one attack, in one place, out of too many to count.

In 2014 alone, more than 450,000 additional people were displaced in Darfur – the highest number of new IDPs in any year since 2004 – adding to the approximately two million people already displaced. In the first six weeks of this year, humanitarian organizations estimate an additional 36,000 people have been driven from their homes in North Darfur State.

People living in areas afflicted by violence are in desperate need of humanitarian aid, yet obstruction, harassment, and direct attacks by the Sudanese government have made them increasingly hard to reach. Two weeks ago, Medecins Sans Frontieres shut down its operations in three states in Sudan – including two in Darfur – citing the “government’s systematic denial of access” to communities in the greatest need.

In one example MSF cited, the Government of Sudan prevented its emergency workers from traveling to the IDP camp in El Sereif, in Darfur, where the organization said residents did not have enough drinking water to survive. MSF also suspended operations in South Kordofan State, where its hospital was bombed by a Sudanese Air Force jet.

Today we renewed the mandate of an important UN panel that monitors the sanctions imposed by this Council – sanctions the government of Sudan continues to flout. The government and armed groups it supports routinely violate the arms embargo – a fact that they openly acknowledge. They continue to launch deliberate attacks on civilians, as well as on UNAMID peacekeepers; between December 2013 to April 2014 alone, 3,324 villages were destroyed in Darfur, according to the Panel of Experts. And the Sudanese government continues to allow individuals subject to sanctions to travel and access their finances.

Today we renewed a sanctions monitoring panel that has provided thorough, independent monitoring of the Government of Sudan and other armed groups in Darfur, with a resolution that is more forward-leaning than its predecessors.

But even as we take this important step, we are reminded that the sanctions regime is impotent when the Sudanese government systematically violates it, and the Council cannot agree to impose sanctions on those responsible for the violence and the abuses.

Nonetheless, today’s resolution matters. It speaks to our deep concern with these ongoing violations, it presses the Government of Sudan to take the long-overdue steps necessary to protect the people of Darfur and stop the violence. For the first time, it condemns the violence perpetrated by the government-backed Rapid Support Forces, the heirs to the Janjaweed. And, for the first time, it urges the Sudanese government to account for the situation of civilian populations, who are suffering from devastating waves of attacks in North Darfur, like the reported mass rapes at Thabit.

Yet encouraging as it is to see some very modest improvements to today’s renewals resolution, the most important measure of our efforts will be our ability to alleviate the immeasurable suffering of the people of Darfur. And on that front, this Council – and the international community – has failed. Our complacency is deadly for the people of Darfur. So perhaps today, with a slightly more robust sanctions resolution, we can reignite this Council’s engagement on this continuing crisis.

People’s lives depend on it, and so too does the credibility of this Council – because our ability to promote international peace and security depends on our ability to keep our word, and implement the measures that we impose. And we need to do it because for every Thabit we know about, there are so many more villages that have been the victims of unspeakable atrocities over the past decade in Darfur. They demand we find a way to stop this, and we must.

Thank you.

U.S. AMBASSADOR POWER'S REMARKS IN PORT-AU PRINCE, HAITI

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
Port-au-Prince, Haiti
January 23, 2015


Thank you. I am Samantha Power, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, and co-lead of this trip with my colleague, the Chilean Ambassador, Cristián Barros.

Each of the 15 individuals standing here have the privilege of representing countries on the UN Security Council and the privilege, in that role, of trying to support the Haitian people in their journey toward stability, prosperity and democracy.

The United Nations, as a community of nations and as MINUSTAH, and the 15 counties here each have stood with the Haitian people through good times and bad times.

Haiti has experienced many challenges throughout its long and rich and vibrant history. What always defines the Haitian people’s response is the spirit of resilience and determination.

We have just had a very important meeting with President Martelly and his Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Over the next two days we will meet with civil society, with opposition parties, with senators and with Haitians outside of Port-au-Prince in Cap-Haitien and here as well, in the capital.

In our meeting with President Martelly, we expressed our collective appreciation for his efforts before the Parliament lapsed to try to (inaudible) consensus in order to maintain the functioning of the Parliament and to pass electoral legislation.

This Council also expressed to President Martelly and his ministers the same disappointment that the Haitian people probably feel, that these efforts to seek consensus and to find a path forward did not prevent the Parliament from lapsing and did not produce the necessary compromise.

We support the President in his efforts to find a solution to the political stalemate and his efforts to ensure fair, transparent and inclusive elections in 2015.

Haiti has made tremendous progress in recent years in terms of health and education, and the President described much of that progress and more, in terms of the development of his country.

The democratic contract between the government and the governed is a critical part of Haiti’s development and we, on the UN Security Council, want to offer Haiti all of the support we can to ensure that elections take place, as they need to, in 2015, and to ensure that all Haitians are invested in the democracy and in the economy and in the development of this rich country.

We are very encouraged by the effort at consultation with the opposition, with civil society, that the President has made, and out of this meeting, even more encouraged by his determination to continue those consultations even after the lapsing of the Parliament.

And it is clear that even as this political stalemate frustrates people in this country, it is not getting in the way of the government continuing to focus on health, on the economy and on the other functions that the Haitian people count on the President and his ministers to advance.

And my last point is simply that we are very pleased that the Provisional Election Council[i] has been formed, which is of course a critical and necessary step to the holding of elections and we hope it is just the beginning of the kinds of mechanisms that can evolve here in this untraditional period where the Parliament is not functioning.

(Of mic)

Simply to say that we…were pleased by the creation of the Provisional Election --

(Of mic)

It is an example of the kind of compromise among civil society, the opposition and the government that will create a path forward.

And lastly, you have our full support on behalf, again, of the broader international community. We are privileged to be here to see what more the United Nations and each of our nations can do to help the Haitian people through another difficult chapter, but one we are confident that they will come out stronger for having been through on the other side. Mèrci.

U.S. OFFICIAL'S EXPLANATION OF U.S VOTE AT UN ON ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN RESOLUTION .

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
New York, NY
December 30, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thank you Mr. President,


In recent years, no government has invested more in the effort to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace than the United States. Peace – however difficult it may be to forge – is too important to give up on. As we were reminded this summer in Gaza, and as we’ve been reminded too painfully recently in Jerusalem and the West Bank, the human consequences of ensuing cycles of violence are too grave. The United States every day searches for new ways to take constructive steps to support the parties in making progress toward achieving a negotiated settlement.

The Security Council resolution put before us today is not one of those constructive steps; it would undermine efforts to get back to an atmosphere that makes it possible to achieve two states for two people.

Regrettably, instead of giving voice to the aspirations of both Palestinians and Israelis, this text addresses the concerns of only one side. It is deeply imbalanced and contains many elements that are not conducive to negotiations between the parties, including unconstructive deadlines that take no account of Israel’s legitimate security concerns. In addition, this resolution was put to a vote without a discussion or due consideration among Council members, which is highly unusual, especially considering the gravity of the matter at hand. We must proceed responsibly, not take actions that would risk a downward spiral.

We voted against this resolution not because we are comfortable with the status quo. We voted against it because we know what everyone here knows, as well – peace will come from hard choices and compromises that must be made at the negotiating table. Today’s staged confrontation in the UN Security Council will not bring the parties closer to achieving a two-state solution.

We voted against this resolution not because we are indifferent to the daily hardships or the security threats endured by Palestinians and Israelis, but because we know that those hardships will not cease and those threats will not subside until the parties reach a comprehensive settlement achieved through negotiations. This resolution sets the stage for more division – not for compromise. It could well serve to provoke the very confrontation it purports to address.

For decades, the United States has worked to try to help achieve a comprehensive end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we remain committed to achieving the peace that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve: two states for two peoples, with a sovereign, viable, and independent Palestine living side-by-side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel.

The United States does not just acknowledge the tremendous frustrations and disappointments on both sides over the years in pursuit of peace; we share them. And we understand the immense challenges the parties need to overcome to make peace a reality. Yet at the same time, we firmly believe the status quo between Israelis and Palestinians is unsustainable.


The United States recognizes the role that this Council has played before in advancing a sustainable end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including through resolutions 242, 338, and 1515, which calls for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with both states “living side-by-side within secure and recognized borders.” In a May 2011 speech, President Obama elaborated further that “the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine…based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” He made clear that the “Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

The United States will continue reaching out to the parties in an effort to find a way forward, and we are ready to engage and support them when they are ready to return to the table. And we will continue to oppose actions by both sides that we view as detrimental to the cause of peace, whether those actions come in the form of settlement activity or imbalanced draft resolutions in this Council. The parties have a responsibility to negotiate and to own the hard choices that will be needed if they are to bring real and long-overdue change to their region to benefit their people.

Today’s vote should not be interpreted as a victory for an unsustainable status quo. Instead, it should serve as a wake-up call to catalyze all interested parties to take constructive, responsible steps to achieve a two-state solution, which remains the only way to bring an end to the ongoing cycle of violence and suffering. We hope that those who share our vision for peace between two states – Israel and Palestine, both secure, democratic, and prosperous – will join us in redoubling efforts to find a path forward that can rally international consensus, advance future negotiations, and provide a horizon of hope for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Thank you.

SAMANTHA POWER'S REMARKS ON TERRORIST GROUPS AND TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
New York, NY
December 19, 2014

AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Foreign Minister Faki. And thank you again for being here with us in person. The United States greatly appreciates Chad’s leadership and its work to focus the Council on the nexus between terrorism and transnational organized crime. Thank you, also, Foreign Minister Wali and Minister Asselborn for your presence here today underscoring the critical importance of these issues. I particularly appreciated Luxembourg’s attention to the impact these issues have on the welfare of children – an issue that Luxembourg insistently raises with regard to all the challenges we face and a critical part of Luxembourg’s legacy on this Council. The United States is very eager to support Nigeria, and Chad, and the other multinational partners in the effort against Boko Haram – a monstrous movement.

While the motivations of terrorists and transnational criminal organizations may differ, their use of brutal violence, and the insecurity, fear, and suffering that they cause, are often remarkably similar. Terrorists and transnational criminal organizations are increasingly learning from one another’s sophisticated tactics to raise funds, to move people and arms, and to spread the fear that is a critical source of their power.

We see this cross-pollination between terrorist groups and transnational organized crime all around us. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram, the al-Nusra Front, and numerous other terrorist organizations raise tens of millions of dollars annually through kidnapping for ransom. In Somalia, al-Shabaab has filled its coffers through illegal and environmentally devastating charcoal exports; of the $250 million worth of charcoal estimated to have been exported from Somalia in 2013 and 2014, 30 percent is estimated to have gone to al-Shabaab. AQIM and other terrorist groups regularly obtain arms through Maghreb and Sahel trafficking networks, relying on the same trade routes as transnational smugglers. And extremist groups raise cash through a variety of other criminal activities that cross borders – from selling drugs to stealing natural resources.

ISIL is another example of the increasingly similar modus operandi between these groups. While continuing to carry out deadly attacks propelled by its sadistic ideology, ISIL is also increasingly operating like a profit-driven criminal organization. Using fear, threats, and attacks, ISIL extorts money from local businesses and traders, and robs from banks and households alike. Working through long-established regional smuggling networks, ISIL transports oil across borders, netting roughly $1 million a day through black-market oil sales. And there are credible reports that ISIL is profiting from the sale of Syrian and Iraqi so-called "blood antiquities,” sold by criminal middlemen to unscrupulous or unknowing buyers worldwide. These new sources of financing allow extremist groups to diversify their revenue streams and reduce risk of disruption of the funds that they need to carry out their horrific attacks.

As terrorists’ criminal activities become more entrepreneurial and business-minded, the Security Council needs to better understand their tactics. And we must develop and deploy a set of sophisticated tools to disrupt these expanding networks, and cut off the funds that they are generating. To this end, the Council should prioritize three tasks.

First, the Council should build greater international cooperation needed to fight the interrelated problems of terrorism and organized crime. We have taken steps to address this urgent need in previous resolutions, including Resolution 2170 on ISIL, and Resolution 2178 on Foreign Terrorist Fighters. And we have established a robust international legal framework under the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, the UN Convention Against Corruption, and the three UN drug control conventions that, taken together and implemented effectively, provide common parameters and tools for recognizing and responding to different forms of transnational crime.

Building on this work, the Council should encourage member states to do more to collectively address transnational threats. For example, greater international cooperation should facilitate the exchange of information and analysis about terrorist and crime networks. For its part, the United States has effectively used the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime as the basis for international legal and law enforcement cooperation against transnational organized crime with more than 55 countries. And our use of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and bilateral treaties has led to the return of nearly 30 fugitives to face prosecution in the United States. Greater cooperation is needed both among and within governments, so we can bring together experts from the law enforcement, military, diplomatic and intelligence communities. This is why today the Council called on Member States to work together to secure their borders, counter illicit financing and money laundering, and implement international best practices and existing conventions.

Second, the Security Council should acknowledge that weak governance both encourages and is exacerbated by terrorist use of crime. Terrorist groups and criminals gravitate towards places with rampant corruption and impunity. For this reason, strengthening criminal justice systems in vulnerable countries is one of the most effective ways to fight transnational organized crime. Since our collective security is only as strong as our weakest link, we have a shared interest in building stronger, more transparent governance and justice institutions beyond our own borders. Military measures alone will not be enough.

Third, the Security Council should call on states to provide assistance to those states most affected by these terrible threats. Tackling these challenges requires deploying all the tools we have, from innovative law enforcement and criminal justice tools, to financial measures and sanctions. Yet all states do not currently have the same ability to take these steps. Member states should therefore identify areas where targeted assistance is most needed, and focus support in those places. We particularly welcome the role of the UN's counterterrorism bodies – particularly the al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee’s Monitoring Team, the Counterterrorism Executive Directorate and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime – in identifying threat and capacity gaps.

We have come through a horrific week, as others have mentioned, of terrorist attacks. On Tuesday, the Pakistani Taliban killed 145 people – 132 of them kids, age 5 to 17. It was an appalling attack on a school. A young student named Zeeshan told a reporter: “I saw militants walking past rows of students, shooting them in the head.” On Wednesday, more than 230 bodies of people believed to have been executed by ISIL were found in a mass grave in Syria’s Deir al-Zor province. And yesterday, we learned that more than 100 women and children were kidnapped, and 35 people killed, during a weekend raid in the northeastern Nigerian village of Gumsuri, believed to have been carried out by Boko Haram.

We know that we must do more to prevent these attacks – not only in Pakistan, Syria, and Nigeria, but in all of our countries. We must dismantle the groups that threaten our collective security. But we cannot achieve that goal without tackling the organized criminal networks that extremists increasingly rely upon to fuel their terror. That is the work before us and we must succeed.

Thank you.

AMBASSADOR PRESSMAN'S REMARKS ON IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Ambassador David Pressman
Alternate Representative to the UN for Special Political Affairs 
New York, NY
December 18, 2014
AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Ambassador Quinlan, for your briefing and your leadership of this Committee over the last two years. Because of your diligence and commitment, this Committee's work has been energized. You and your team have done a great job helping the Committee carry out its mandate, improve the transparency of its work and tighten relationships with other international bodies. Please accept the United States’ deep appreciation of your efforts.

Mr. President, the Security Council established this Committee eight years ago this month, back in 2006 because the international community had serious doubts about the peaceful intentions of Iran's nuclear program. Since then, the Committee's work has been an integral element to our broader diplomatic strategy. This Committee has helped many countries implement the increasingly robust UN sanctions. This Committee, with the support of its Panel of Experts, has investigated serious sanctions violations and developed an impressive understanding of Iran's proliferation networks. This Committee has also helped crack down on Iran's arms smuggling, stemming the flow of weapons to a volatile region.

Yet today, several years later, the international community still does not have confidence in Iran's nuclear program. To resolve these issues, Iran is now in a serious dialogue with the P-5+1 countries. To give these negotiations the best chance of success, last month we decided to extend them for an additional seven months. While we continue to believe that the best way to achieve our goals is through diplomacy, we are not going to sit at the negotiating table forever. As we have said many times, we don't want just any agreement – we want the right agreement. Plainly and simply, these negotiations must find ways to ensure that Iran does not, and cannot, acquire a nuclear weapon.

As these talks continue, we should consider how the Security Council's Iran Sanctions Committee can best support them. Our advice to the Committee is simple: keep doing what you're doing. During this period, the Committee must absolutely continue its vital work monitoring and improving enforcement of these critical sanctions. Similarly, the Panel of Experts should continue its work investigating violations and reaching out to Member States. Unless or until the Security Council modifies these sanctions, the pace and intensity of this work should remain robust.

Recent reporting from the Panel of Experts reminds us why this is so important. We know that Iran is still trying to procure sensitive nuclear technology. We know Iran is still smuggling arms in violation of resolution 1747. And we know that Iran's leaders forthrightly reject this Council's resolutions, speaking publicly about their destabilizing arms shipments to Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iraq.

Responding effectively to these violations is at the core of the Committee's mandate. Any breach of the sanctions is a serious matter, as it is dangerous, violates international law, and undermines the Security Council's credibility. In the coming weeks and months, we will continue to work with Committee members to ensure that the Security Council's resolutions are not violated with impunity. The Committee's outreach work in advising Member States and answering questions about these sanctions is critically important. The Committee and the Panel must continue to remind Member States of the need to sustain full and robust implementation of these sanctions.

Our determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon remains clear and we are committed to resolving this issue peacefully, through diplomacy. Sanctions are critical to that effort and we intend to ensure that this important body is able to carry out its mandate effectively.

Thank you, Mr. President.

U.S. UNITED NATIONS REPRESENTATIVE POWERS MAKES REMARKS ON UN RESOLUTIONS CONDEMNING ISRAEL

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
New York, NY
November 25, 2014
AS DELIVERED

Like everyone in this assembly hall, we are deeply concerned about the volatile situation in the Middle East. The United States has made an enormous effort, especially over the last year and a half, to work with the parties in trying to pave the road towards achieving a negotiated final-status agreement allowing two states to live side-by-side in peace and security.

In this context, the United States remains profoundly troubled by the repetitive and disproportionate number of one-sided General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel – a total of 18 this year. This grossly one-sided approach damages the prospects for peace by undermining trust between parties and damaging the kind of international support critical to achieving peace. All parties to the conflict have direct responsibilities for ending it, and we are disappointed that UN Members continually single out Israel without acknowledging the responsibilities and difficult steps that must be taken on all sides. These unbalanced, one-sided resolutions set back our collective efforts to advance a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East, and they damage the institutional credibility of the United Nations.

Of these annual resolutions, which unfairly single out one country and consistently lack balance, three are particularly troubling to the United States: the “Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat;” the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People;” and the “Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.” These resolutions renew mandates for UN bodies established decades ago, wasting valuable resources and reinforcing the perception of systematic UN bias against Israel. All member states should evaluate the effectiveness of supporting and funding these bodies.

I do want to add that our continued opposition to the resolution on “Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the Occupied Golan,” which will come up for a vote in this Assembly next month, should not be understood to mean that we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms Israeli settlements in territories occupied in 1967. Settlements are illegitimate, and they damage Israel’s security and the hopes for peace.

Continued settlement activity is contrary to Israel’s stated goal of negotiating a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians and is inconsistent with Israel’s international commitments.

During the past year, we have been deeply concerned by Israel’s advancement of plans for thousands of additional housing units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. We have made clear that such action only draws condemnation from the international community, poisons the atmosphere not only with the Palestinians but also with the very Arab governments with which the Israeli government says it wants to build relations, and undermines the prospect for a peaceful negotiated agreement with the Palestinians.

Both sides took unhelpful steps that undercut the most recent round of final status negotiations. The scale and timing of Israel’s settlement activities contributed significantly to the erosion of trust between the parties.

The United States is in full agreement about the urgent need to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, based on the two-state solution and an agreement that establishes a viable, independent, and contiguous state of Palestine, once and for all. We’ve invested a tremendous amount of effort and resources in pursuit of this shared goal, and we firmly believe that the parties need to resolve the conflict through direct negotiations. If the parties are willing and ready to take that step, we stand ready to support them and to continue our efforts to advance the cause of peace.

In closing, while the United States unequivocally rejects Israeli settlements in territories occupied in 1967, they do not justify the repetitive, disproportionate, and one-sided General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel, which do not advance our collective efforts to advance a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Thank you.

SAMANTHA POWER'S REMARKS AT SAVE THE CHILDREN ILLUMINATION GALA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Remarks at the Save the Children Illumination Gala
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 
New York, NY
November 20, 2014

AS DELIVERED

Thank you so much, Jennifer, and please know that the other 192 countries have nothing on my five-year old and my two-year old, [Laughter] for the record. And thank you Carolyn and everybody who has spoken up here. Thank you, especially—there’s a lot of fancy people here—but thank you especially, Lily—Lily! Let’s give it up for Lily! [Applause]

Before the year 2004 when the Red Sox—from Boston—[laughter] won the first of three World Series championships this decade [applause] it may have been tempting to believe that Ben Affleck cared about the underdog because of his own personal suffering. [Laughter] But now we know that there must be something else going on.

Back in February, Ben testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the ongoing civil war and atrocities being carried out in Congo. At the outset, he told the Committee, “I am, to state the obvious, not a Congo expert. I am an American working to do my part for a country and a people I believe in and care deeply about.” But then Ben proceeded to lay out an in depth analysis of the evolving situation in a place he has traveled to 14 times in the last decade – touching on complex issues like the disarmament of rebel groups and the specifics around the renewal of the mandate for UN peacekeepers. He wrapped up with a set of extremely targeted policy recommendations and this was the furthest thing from amateur testimony.

For anyone who has ever talked to Ben about the Congo, you know that this is how he rolls. On the one hand, he is utterly humble and self-effacing about his role and his knowledge, on the other he is wholly dedicated to helping a region and a people who have suffered the most horrific violence imaginable.

The way Ben has learned – or as he would say, has “done his homework” on Congo – is by asking questions. Lots and lots of rigorous, drilling down, precise, never let go, never let up, always a follow up, questions. And that’s whether he’s talking to high-level policymakers or local human rights defenders, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, victims of atrocities, or perpetrators, Ben probes for answers. Why has the campaign to disarm that rebel group fallen short? How can we empower and protect girl victims of rape so that they are less afraid to report it. Questions aimed at understanding what is broken, and how to fix it. And Ben is a sponge; he soaks up all the facts and arguments and then turns them around for his advocacy and the service that his organization provides.

Ben has been asking these questions for nearly a decade about a place that far too few ask any questions about – a region where, in some parts, two out of three women and girls have been sexually assaulted; where nearly half of the people in the region know someone who has been a child soldier; in a country where nearly three million people have been internally displaced by violence.

Yet, where many people saw a region that would always be divided by war, just because it had been for so very long, Ben saw a reason for hope for the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo. His homework taught him that, empowered with the right tools, people in Congo can and are rebuilding their families and communities.

In a world where aid too often comes from the top down, and treats beneficiaries as passive victims who need outside saviors, the organization Ben founded does the opposite. The Eastern Congo Initiative finds partners in communities who can build change from the grassroots up, and gives them the tools that they need to do it. Women lawyers who bring the perpetrators of unspeakable sexual crimes to justice; educators who give former child soldiers an accelerated primary education so that they can catch up with their peers; birth attendants who can consult and can prevent maternal deaths. ECI recognizes that these local actors – teaming up with the actors – make the most effective change agents. And while they are willing to fight alone, they shouldn’t have to.

The impact of the support that ECI provides – and Ben’s effort to convince other governments and organizations to lend similar support – has been profound. It has given people who want to change their country, who want to be better for themselves, for their families, for their kids, the means to do it.

So, as much as Ben may say he’s not an expert, this much is certain: he is making an outsize impact in a region and for a people he believes in, and he is making other people believe, too.

For that reason, it is an honor to present Ben Affleck with the Save the Children’s Global Child Advocate Award. Congratulations, Ben.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS IN PARIS, FRANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: That’s it?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

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

REMARKS AT CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: 2014 POLICY CONFERENCE

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


AS DELIVERED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambassador Power: I’ve noticed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laughter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambassador Power: Sorry about that.

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

Ambassador Power: My pleasure.

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

Ambassador Power: Thank you. Thank you so much.

NSC STATEMENT ON SEPARATIST ELECTIONS IN EASTERN UKRAINE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

October 31, 2014

Statement by NSC Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan on Anticipated Separatist “Elections” in Eastern Ukraine

We deplore the intent of separatists in parts of eastern Ukraine to hold illegitimate so-called local “elections” on Sunday, November 2. If held, these “elections” would contravene Ukraine’s constitution and laws and the September 5 Minsk Protocol. As President Obama said on October 27, “the United States will not recognize any election held in separatist-held areas that does not comport with Ukrainian law and is not held with the express consent and under the authority of the Ukrainian government.” The only legitimate local election in eastern Ukraine will be held on December 7, as prescribed by the Special Status Law signed by President Poroshenko for parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, and in keeping with the Protocol that the separatists signed with Ukraine and Russia in Minsk, Belarus, on September 5.

As a signatory of the Minsk Protocol, we call on Russia to join the Secretary General of the United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the international community in condemning the illegitimate vote planned for this weekend. The United States will not recognize any results announced from this so-called election, and we call on all members of the international community to do the same. We also caution Russia against using any such illegitimate vote as a pretext to insert additional troops and military equipment into Ukraine, particularly in light of recent indications that the Russian military is moving forces back to the border along separatist controlled areas of eastern Ukraine. We once more urge Russia and its separatist proxies to fulfill all of their commitments under the Minsk Protocol of September 5, and the Minsk Memorandum of September 19.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO UN MAKES REMARKS IN ACCRA, GHANA ON EBOLA

FROM:  THE STATE DEPARTMENT 

Samantha Power

U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations 

Accra, Ghana

October 29, 2014

AS DELIVERED

Special Representative Banbury: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Tony Banbury and I am the Head of the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response. Myself and all of my colleagues are delighted to welcome Ambassador Samantha Power, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, to our headquarters here in Accra. I’d like to just make a couple of brief comments and then hand it over to her. First of all, the picture we are seeing now on Ebola in the three most infected countries is a very mixed one. We still have a very serious crisis on our hands; there are people dying every day; there are people who are becoming newly infected every day; and there are still some serious requirements to put in place the necessary capabilities to bring the crisis to an end. On the other hand, we are seeing a lot of progress. Work by national governments, NGOs, UN Agencies, bilateral partners like the United States and UNMEER as well, and we are starting to see the impact of all these efforts. There has been a very significant mobilization of international personnel, resources, capabilities, to work side-by-side with the governments and those efforts are starting to pay off.

What we need are three basic things to get this crisis under control. To add to the effort we need people, especially trained medical personnel, people who can operate clinics, Ebola treatment clinics, community care centers. We need material and we need money.

The United Nations, UNMEER , myself, we’re very grateful to the United States who has been a leader in providing all of those things. They are putting their people on the ground; civilian and military, USAID civilian teams, DART teams; they are providing a lot of supplies; and they are proving a lot of money. So we hope that others will also, like the United States, contribute in such a generous way.

UNMEER – we are doing everything possible working side by side with the United States and other partners, national governments, to achieve the results that have been set for – the objectives that have been set of 70% of new cases under treatment, and 70% of burials being done safely. If we can do that, we can turn this crisis around. That’s our objective and we are working very, very hard to achieve it, and I am confident that all of the international community working with the national governments will make it. So with that I’d like to hand it over please to Ambassador Power.

Ambassador Power Thank you, Tony; and thank you to all the people who work with you, both here in Accra and in the broader region, in Ebola-affected countries away from their families. They are doing God’s work. It is the most important work anybody can be doing on Earth today. The second thank you I would like to offer is to Ghana, to the people of Ghana, to the generosity of the leadership of Ghana and the communities here. Ebola is a virus that has generated a lot of fear and a fair amount of misinformation and misunderstanding; and it is extremely important that Ghana has recognized that this is a virus that does not see borders, that is an equal opportunity demon. If we cannot stop it at its source, it will spread. And UNMEER, which has set up its headquarters here in Ghana –again thanks to the Ghanaian people and the government here – is a critical weapon in the battle to stop Ebola at its source so it doesn’t come to Ghana, so it doesn’t spread further on the continent of Africa, and so it is contained and defeated.

The curve of infections in the three affected countries is something that has alarmed people near and far, including here in this country, and Tony and I and others in the international community have been speaking now for many months about the need to bend the curve of infections. There is a need for far more commitments and far more deliveries upon commitments in order to bend the curve. There is a need for more beds; there is a need for more bleach, more cash in order to pay community mobilizers or people who pick up bodies so as to do safe burial. The list goes on and on, and UNMEER, and each of the three affected countries, are the keepers of those lists, and we in the United States and in the broader international community need to be responsive to those demands and to the specifics of what is on those lists, and that is what we are trying to do.

I will say that out of my trip to the region and having visited all three affected countries and now having toured the UNMEER response headquarters, I think we need to be very clear that our goal is not simply to bend the curve; it is to end the curve. And this is something, because of the commitments that have been made, because of the mobilization that is being done, that we are confident will result – because it must result – in the outstanding gaps being filled. We can see the day when those gaps are filled and when the curve is not simply bent, but is ended. And when that day is achieved, people will thank the people of Ghana and the government of Ghana for your role in being part of ending the stigma of Ebola, ending the fear, and focusing on the most important thing, which is the response.

There are – one of the things one experiences here in this warehouse is a recognition that there are a lot of supplies out there in the world. This is just one example of a place where you’re surrounded by supplies. What we need to do is to get quicker in moving supplies in warehouses like this into the affected countries. And warehouses like this don’t just exist here in UNMEER headquarters; they exist all around world.

We have the capabilities in all of our countries to end the curve, and the question is how do we take supplies that exist in warehouses like this around the world and get them where they’re needed, where people are desperate for our help, and when doing so will protect not only the people in the affected countries, but also people in our own countries.

So that is the enterprise that we are part of. I am very, very encouraged by some of the steps that have been taken, particularly in the last couple of weeks, in terms of the governments’ leadership in the affected countries and in terms of the international community’s ability to get supplies into places of need. But the main message, again, for the world is: fill the gaps so we can bend and end the curve. Thanks.

Moderator: Thank you, Ambassador. Folks, the Ambassador has a plane to catch very shortly, so time is short. A reminder: one question per person. Also, wait for the microphone to come to you. We have time for, maybe, four questions. To begin with, Metro TV, please.

And please let us know who the question is for: the Ambassador or for Mr. Banbury.

Reporter: I want to find out what you’re doing to make sure that countries who have not contracted the disease do not contract it? Thank you.

Ambassador Power: Thank you for the question. I know it is a question on the minds of many here in Ghana but also in places like the United States where we have seen several cases come into the United States from the region, and so screening procedures are extremely important. I came this morning from the country of Liberia, from the airport in Monrovia, and I and my delegation had our temperatures taken three times between the time we arrived at the airport and the time that we boarded the plane. While we were in the affected countries, we internalized the habits, now, of people in those countries, which is to avoid physical contact as much as possible. Every place we entered in the three countries involved washing our hands with bleach, washing our shoes. These are precautions taken out of an abundance of caution, and out of a recognition that in order to be able to concentrate our efforts on the places that are most affected, we need to ensure that in so doing we don’t bring the virus to other countries and we contain it where it is, and then slay it where it is.

The three affected countries have been extremely aggressive in recent weeks and months in stepping up those screening procedures. And the country of Ghana, when we arrived, also was extremely vigilant in taking our temperature, asking us questions about whether we had had contact with Ebola-infected patients, and so forth. And they will take measures accordingly on the basis of whether someone has come to the country has had contact or not. I want to stress that the vast majority of people in the affected countries who are contributing to the Ebola response are not themselves in physical contact with people who have Ebola. So, for instance, most of the people who comprise the UN Mission here –maybe even all – all, I am told—are people who do not have that kind of contact and are not wearing PPEs and then taking them off when they come back to Ghana. That’s not what this is. This is a logistic operation and so, again, the likelihood of Ebola being brought into one of the neighboring countries by the international support network is extremely, extremely narrow. These individuals do everything in their power to eliminate that risk all together again by these precautions.

Moderator: Next question – Reuters in the front row.

Reporter: Hi, Michelle Nichols from Reuters. You both mentioned the need for more beds, and yet we’re seeing in Liberia that there are empty beds. What’s the explanation for that? Is this a sign of progress or are there concerns that people are staying away from treatment centers?

Special Representative Banbury: The need for beds – we’re estimating under worst case scenario planning that we need a total of, for instance, 53 Ebola Treatment Units. And in terms of the ones that are now built, or in process, we have a gap of about 20. For community care centers, which are absolutely critical to all this, we are planning about 329 and we have a gap of about 300. So there is a very serious need for beds.

We have to make sure, though, that the beds are placed at the right locations, and that depends on good information on exactly where the disease is. And it’s very hard to get accurate epidemiological information of what exactly are the new cases, where are they, what are the causes of transmission. And to properly fight this disease, that information is critical so that we can allocate scarce resources, whether they’re beds or burial teams or community mobilizers, against those critical needs.

Reporter: Are you trying to suggest, then, there’s more than enough beds (inaudible)?

Special Representative Banbury: No, no, I’m definitely not saying there are more than enough ETUs, because we don’t know where we’re going to be in four weeks’ time. And we’re not just worried about what the situation is today; we’re planning for the worst. We’re hoping for much better; were planning for the worst. And by planning for it we will avoid it. By bringing in all this capability, it means we’ll bend the curve earlier and, as Ambassador Power said, we will end the curve earlier. All this extra capability means saved lives. And for the United Nations, for UNMEER – I’m sure for all our partners – it’s all about saving lives. Empty beds is a great sign, but right now we know that there are people dying in all three countries outside of Ebola Treatment Units who should not be dying. Just about two weeks ago, I was – after I traveled to all three countries – I was able to brief the Security Council and Ambassador Power was there and I said we’re in a race against Ebola and Ebola is winning the race. Well, we’re starting to catch up – the international community, all of us – by putting everything we have into this – we are accelerating, we’re starting to catch up. But, we’re not there yet; and every day we’re not there means people are dying unnecessarily. So we have to build more beds, get more foreign medical teams in place, build more community care centers, have more safe burial teams, more community mobilization. We need to do all of it, and the faster we do it the more lives we’ll save.

Moderator: Folks, we have time for two more questions. That man in the third row. Wait for the microphone.

Reporter: I am (inaudible) TV3. I want to find out what is the major prevailing challenge between facing and reducing the threat of Ebola?

Ambassador Power: It’s hard to choose one prevailing challenge as Tony just indicated, and I’d ask him also to respond.

The challenge you think you had yesterday is something that may be a different form of that challenge tomorrow. And so, just to give you one example in light of the previous discussion about beds: at the start of this crisis, when the presence of epidemiologists out in the countryside – particularly the very remote areas that are very hard to get to, or there are very bad roads, or no paved roads – the knowledge of what was happening in some of those communities was not so great, but the knowledge in certain communities was very great and we were able – working with the CDC and the WHO and with the affected country governments – to come up with some projections about where the virus was going and how many beds you would need, as Tony has described.

As the international presence has ramped up, and as some road repair has occurred, and as people have been given mobile phones with SIM cards and are able to call in sort of what they are experiencing, we are learning about pockets of need that we may not have been aware of before. And as a result, in addition to the question of the number of beds, a core question now is the geographic distribution of beds. And so you know you need a ton of beds because you know you need to isolate 70% of the patients in order to bend and then end the curve. But, the more we know, the more we will adapt where those beds go, accordingly.

In addition, to give you two bright spots, in both Freetown and Monrovia in the last, really, week, we have seen extraordinary improvements in the rate of safe burial within 24 hours. In Sierra Leone, in Freetown, the estimate is that the safe burial rate has gone from somewhere between 30 and 40 percent being safe to around 98 percent. If fewer infections are occurring by virtue of unsafe burial, that over time is going to change the number of beds that are needed in a particular community or in a particular part of the country.

And so these kinds of adaptations, because Sierra Leone and Liberia did such a great job, the people of those countries – comprising these burial teams, you know, donning the PPE, taking the risk, going out into the communities, managing that risk – they’re not getting infected now that they’ve been trained in the protocols. They performed a critical intervention that then has implications for how UNMEER and the governments in question think about allocating resources. So that is just in terms of how the challenge has evolved.

But I guess I would still say the number one – I’d say there are two core challenges that remain. The first is the gaps that are still profound, whether it’s something as basic as soap or whether it’s the underfunded UN appeals, whether it’s the number of helicopters that can get people into the remote areas, there are huge gaps. And countries that have not stepped up at this point have to step up. They can be part of a winning enterprise. They can be part of ending Ebola, or not. And so that is an opportunity, you might say, in the face of this tragedy.

The second prevailing challenge, and arguably the most important, particularly in the long term, is fear. Fear that causes people to stigmatize people who’ve survived the epidemic, who have a huge amount to offer in actually being a part of treatment and care. Fear and confusion about how the epidemic has spread and will spread, that causes countries to take measures that ultimately will deter the infusion of health workers, potentially, and others who can be part of the solution. And so, as President Obama said yesterday in his remarks, we need to conquer our fear so that we can conquer this epidemic.

Moderator: Guys, we have time for one more question, please. I think, Chris Stein. Chris Stein, AFP.

Reporter: For Ambassador Power: Given the enormity of the outbreak in West Africa, how do you see the U.S. reaction – given the enormity of the outbreak in West Africa, how do you see the reaction at home to the relatively few cases that have occurred in the U.S.?

Ambassador Power: I’m going to give Tony the last word because I think he’d have a very important response to the prior question, but, I would say first of all that the part of the U.S. response that is getting attention now is the fear that recent infections have generated in the broader public. And as people in Africa know, when Ebola comes to your country or your region it is frightening and it’s going to take people time to get educated about how the virus is spread. And so we are in a phase of self-education, understanding how this works.

The fact that certainly the nurses who were infected in Dallas have now both been released from their treatment and have survived and indeed are thriving – they’re great messengers for the nobility of the health workers who are part of the overall solution to this crisis. So when people talk about the response in the United States – I believe in your question you are talking about, again, some of the concerns that have been generated – but I think the most important feature of the American response to this epidemic is that we are not running away from the epidemic. We as a nation, under President Obama’s leadership and thanks to the selflessness of our aid workers, our military, and health workers who have no official affiliation with the U.S. government – we are running toward it, deploying our men and women in uniform, infusing the region with all kinds of supplies and resources that are urgently needed, and embracing both the challenge and the responsibility of helping this region come out of, you know, a terrible time. And we do so because we have a humanitarian solidarity and great empathy for people who are going through something this trying and this horrific, particularly the countries that are affected – particularly Liberia and Sierra Leone, that have made such strides and have come so far. We want to stand with the people in those countries and help them get through this. But we also recognize, in coming toward the epidemic, running into the burning building as it were, that it is in our national security interest to do this. And so the United States is with the people of Africa, it’s with the people of Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, and it is in this for the long haul until we bend and end the curve.

Tony, last word?

Special Representative Banbury: Thank you, Ambassador Power. Just a remark on the earlier question about the most significant challenge. For UNMEER, from an operational perspective, the most difficult thing is that we have to put in place every part of the response; we have to put it in place everywhere; and we need to do it super fast. If there is a gap anywhere in the operational response, it leaves a place for this virus to continue to spread, infect people, kill people, destroy families and communities. And that’s a big responsibility. But we are working very, very hard together with partners, such as the United States, all the UN Family, NGOs, and national governments, to make sure we put that response capability in place everywhere so that there are no gaps in the response and so we can bring this crisis to a close, and it’s thanks to partnerships like – with the United States, who is running into the burning building, as well as the presidents of the three most affected countries, other partners who are contributing in very serious ways, as well as President Mahama and his leadership, to show that working together as an international community, focusing on the very serious challenges, that we can bring this crisis to a close. And we will, we’ll get it done. The only question is how long does it take and how many people are going to die. We’re going to try to make it as fast as possible and save as many lives as possible.

I’d just like to close by, again, thanking Ambassador Power and her delegation for visiting us and for all the fantastic support from the United States Government and the people of the United States for our efforts. Together we’ll make it happen. Thank you.