CEO, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BROKER-DEALER GIVEN PRISON SENTENCE FOR ROLES IN BRIBERY CASE

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, March 27, 2015
CEO and Managing Director Of US Broker-Dealer Sentenced for International Bribery Scheme

The former chief executive officer and former managing director of a U.S. broker-dealer (the Broker-Dealer), were sentenced to prison today for their roles in a scheme to pay bribes to a senior official in Venezuela’s state economic development bank, Banco de Desarrollo Económico y Social de Venezuela (Bandes), in return for trading business that generated more than $60 million in commissions.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York made the announcement.  The sentences were imposed by U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote of the Southern District of New York.

Benito Chinea, 48, of Manalapan, New Jersey, and Joseph DeMeneses, 45, of Fairfield, Connecticut, were each sentenced to four years in prison.  They were also ordered to pay $3,636,432 and $2,670,612 in forfeiture, respectively, which amounts represent their earnings from the bribery scheme.  On Dec. 17, 2014, both defendants pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Travel Act.

“These Wall Street executives orchestrated a massive bribery scheme with a corrupt official in Venezuela to illegally secure tens of millions of dollars in business for their firm,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell.  “The convictions and prison sentences of the CEO and Managing Director of a sophisticated Wall Street broker-dealer demonstrate that the Department of Justice will hold individuals accountable for violations of the FCPA and will pursue executives no matter where they are on the corporate ladder.”

“Benito Chinea and Joseph DeMeneses paid bribes to an officer of a state-run development bank in exchange for lucrative business she steered to their firm,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara.  “Chinea and DeMeneses profited for a time from the corrupt arrangement, but that profit has turned into prison and now they must forfeit their millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains as well as their liberty.”

Chinea, the chief executive officer, and DeMeneses, a managing director in the Broker-Dealer, admitted that they worked with others, to arrange bribe payments to the Bandes official, Maria De Los Angeles Gonzalez, in exchange for her directing Bandes’s financial trading business to the Broker-Dealer.  Previously, Gonzalez, along with two employees of the Broker-Dealer, Tomas Alberto Clarke Bethancourt (Clarke) and Jose Alejandro Hurtado (Hurtado), pleaded guilty for their involvement in this bribery scheme.  A managing director of the Broker-Dealer, Ernesto Lujan, also pleaded guilty for his role in the scheme.

Background on the Broker-Dealer and Bandes

According to court documents, and as admitted by Chinea and DeMeneses at their guilty pleas, the Broker-Dealer, which was headquartered in New York City and had offices in Miami, established a group called the Global Markets Group in 2008, which included DeMeneses, Lujan and Clarke, and which offered fixed income trading services to institutional clients.  One of the Broker-Dealer’s clients was Bandes, which operated under the direction of the Venezuelan Ministry of Finance.  The Venezuelan government had a majority ownership interest in Bandes and provided it with substantial funding.  Gonzalez was an official at Bandes and oversaw the development bank’s overseas trading activity.  At her direction, Bandes conducted substantial trading through the Broker-Dealer.  Most of the trades executed by the Broker-Dealer on behalf of Bandes involved fixed income investments for which the Broker-Dealer charged Bandes a mark-up on purchases and a mark-down on sales.

The Bribery Scheme

In pleading guilty, Chinea and DeMeneses admitted that, together with three Miami-based Broker-Dealer employees, Lujan, Clarke and Hurtado, they participated in a bribery scheme running from late 2008 through 2012, in which Gonzalez directed trading business to the Broker-Dealer, and in return, agents and employees of the Broker-Dealer split the revenue the Broker-Dealer generated from this trading business with Gonzalez.  During this time period, the Broker-Dealer generated over $60 million in commissions from trades with Bandes.

Chinea and DeMeneses also admitted that in order to conceal their conduct, they and their co-conspirators routed the payments to Gonzalez, frequently in six-figure amounts, through third-parties posing as “foreign finders” and into offshore bank accounts.  In several instances, Chinea personally signed checks worth millions of dollars that were made payable to one of these purported “foreign finders” and later deposited in a Swiss bank account.  Chinea and DeMeneses also admitted that they agreed to use Broker-Dealer funds to reimburse DeMeneses and Clarke for the approximately $1.5 million from their personal funds they used to bribe Gonzalez.  To conceal their true nature, Chinea and DeMeneses agreed to hide these reimbursements in the Broker-Dealer’s books as sham loans from the Broker-Dealer to corporate entities associated with DeMeneses and Clarke.

This case is being investigated by the FBI, and prosecuted by Senior Deputy Chief James Koukios and Trial Attorney Kevin R. Gingras of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Harry A. Chernoff and Jason H. Cowley of the Southern District of New York.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Carolina Fornos of the Southern District of New York is responsible for the forfeiture aspects of the case.  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also assisted with this investigation.

WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT ON VENEZUELA

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

March 09, 2015

Statement by the Press Secretary on Venezuela

Today President Obama issued a new Executive Order to implement and expand upon the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014.  Venezuelan officials past and present who violate the human rights of Venezuelan citizens and engage in acts of public corruption will not be welcome here, and we now have the tools to block their assets and their use of U.S. financial systems.

We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government’s efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents.  Venezuela’s problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent.  We have consistently called on the Venezuelan government to release those it has unjustly jailed as well as to improve the climate of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly.  These are essential to a functioning democracy, and the Venezuelan government has an obligation to protect these fundamental freedoms.  The Venezuelan government should release all political prisoners, including dozens of students, opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez and Mayors Daniel Ceballos and Antonio Ledezma.

The only way to solve Venezuela’s problems is through real dialogue – not detaining opponents and attempting to silence critics.  The Venezuelan people deserve a government that lives up to its commitment to democracy, as articulated in the OAS Charter, the Inter American Democratic Charter, and other fundamental instruments related to democracy and human rights.

We’ve seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela.  These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces.

It is unfortunate that during a time when we have opened up engagement with every nation in the Americas, Venezuela has opted to go in the opposite direction.  Despite the difficulties in our official relationship, the United States remains committed to maintaining our strong and lasting ties with the people of Venezuela and is open to improving our relationship with the Venezuelan government.

THE LARGEST CRYSTAL OF GOLD

Left:  Crystals and Hand.jpg -- Neutron diffraction data collected on the single-crystal diffraction (SCD) instrument at the Lujan Center, from the Venezuelan gold sample, indicate that the sample is a single crystal. Los Alamos National Laboratory photo.

FROM:  LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY 
World’s Largest Single Crystal of Gold Verified at Los Alamos
Lujan Center neutron diffraction team confirms structure

LOS ALAMOS, N.M., April 7, 2014—When geologist John Rakovan needed better tools to investigate whether a dazzling 217.78-gram piece of gold was in fact the world’s largest single-crystal specimen—a distinguishing factor that would not only drastically increase its market value but also provide a unique research opportunity—he traveled to Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Lujan Neutron Scattering Center to peer deep inside the mineral using neutron diffractometry. Neutrons, different from other probes such as X-rays and electrons, are able to penetrate many centimeters deep into most materials.

“The structure or atomic arrangement of gold crystals of this size has never been studied before, and we have a unique opportunity to do so,” the Miami University professor said.

Revealing the inner structure of a crystal without destroying the sample—imperative, as this one is worth an estimated $1.5 million—would allow Rakovan and Lujan Center collaborators to prove that this exquisite nugget, which seemed almost too perfect and too big to be real, was a single crystal and hence a creation of nature. Its owner, who lives in the United States, provided the samples to Rakovan to assess the crystallinity of four specimens, all of which had been found decades ago in Venezuela.

During the past Lujan Center user run cycle, Heinz Nakotte, New Mexico State University professor and lead scientist for the single-crystal diffraction (SCD) instrument, and Sven Vogel, instrument scientist for the high-pressure/preferred orientation (HIPPO) instrument, helped Rakovan probe the stunning pieces at Los Alamos. The authors are preparing a scientific report.

Three of the four samples turned out to be single-crystal pieces of gold, rather than the commonplace multiple-crystal type. Of particular interest was a golf-ball-shaped nugget that at one time was believed to be the world’s largest trapezohedral gold crystal. In 2006 the crystal had been rejected at auction over questions of authenticity, and indeed, the Los Alamos instruments confirmed that it was not a world-record trapezohedral crystal.

Further interpretation of the results will also provide an understanding of how the rare pieces may have formed before they were slightly deformed while being washed down in ancient stream sediments. The ability of the HIPPO instrument to also show how far away a specimen is from being a single crystal helps with these interpretations.

The SCD instrument is a neutron single crystal diffractometer used to determine the periodic atomic arrangement or crystal structure of single crystals, both natural and synthetic. While one of the workhorse-instruments at the Lujan Center, HIPPO is a general-purpose powder diffractometer that measures both the crystal structure and orientation distribution of crystals (or texture) making up a poly-crystalline material from the powder pattern of the crystals. It is the only time-of-flight neutron instrument in the world that routinely measures texture, with single crystals being the ultimate textured samples.

“The gold single crystals are so far the largest single crystals characterized on HIPPO,” Vogel said. HIPPO handles a wide range of materials including rocks, battery materials, alloys, and nuclear fuel mock-ups.
History of Rakovan and the Lujan Center

The big-crystal question is not the first mystery to be solved using the Lujan Center tools: In 2006, Rakovan had been given a collection of several dozen gold crystals to study with X-ray diffraction. One crystal out of the batch was puzzling, showing a single crystal pattern in one orientation but a polycrystalline nature in all other orientations. He hypothesized that weathering and erosion had altered the exterior of the nugget, but that the overall single crystal morphology was intact. “To test this we needed to look at the interiors of the crystals but without cutting them in half,” Rakovan said.

Twelve years before, Rakovan had used the SCD instrument at the Lujan Center to characterize OH ordering in natural apatite crystals. “…Through that experience I learned about other potential applications of neutrons in studying materials. Thus, it dawned on me that neutron diffraction would be ideal to ‘see’ the crystallinity of the interior of these samples without having to destroy them,” he recounted.

While using the SCD instrument for this problem, Nakotte and Rakovan realized that the HIPPO instrument, allowing for texture measurements among other applications, would be able to provide additional data on the gold samples. Several samples were also measured on the HIPPO beamline and the larger probed volume on this instrument indeed provided valuable additional information.

In 2009, the journal Rocks & Minerals published the study, which demonstrated neutron diffraction is the best non-destructive method to establish gold crystallinity of samples that have been formed under the most extreme conditions. At that time, they examined a selection of museum and private collection pieces, discerning which ones were frauds.

While these unusual gold studies open new avenues for geologists, the work underscores a proven capability relevant to other fields, too. Researchers looking to understand the properties of single crystals that are several cubic centimeters in size may need to establish first whether their sample is indeed a single crystal using neutron diffraction. Additionally, researchers that require understanding of single crystal growth procedures or who need single crystals for a specific application, such as scintillators, can find the answers using Lujan Center instruments and expertise.

NNSA funds the production of neutrons at Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE), and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science funded the Lujan Center user program.

SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S STATEMENT ON SITUATION IN VENEZUELA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Situation in Venezuela

Press Statement

John Kerry
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

February 21, 2014

---

I am watching with increasing concern the situation in Venezuela. Despite calls from that country’s democratic opposition and the international community, the Venezuelan government has confronted peaceful protesters with force and in some cases with armed vigilantes claiming to support the government. It has imprisoned students and a key opposition figure. It has limited the freedoms of expression and assembly necessary for legitimate political debate, and just today tightened restrictions on the media, revoking the credentials of CNN en Español reporters. This is not how democracies behave.

Every government has a duty to maintain public order, and all sides, including the opposition protestors, must refrain from violence. The government’s use of force and judicial intimidation against citizens and political figures, who are exercising a legitimate right to protest, is unacceptable and will only increase the likelihood of violence.

I call on the Venezuelan government to step back from its efforts to stifle dissent through force and respect basic human rights. The government should release incarcerated members of the opposition and initiate a process of genuine dialogue with the democratic opposition. The solution to Venezuela’s problems can only be found through dialogue with all Venezuelans, engaging in a free exchange of opinions in a climate of mutual respect.

U.S. STATEMENT ON EXPULSION OF U.S. OFFICIALS IN VENEZUELA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT  
Updated - Reports Regarding Expulsion of U.S. Officials in Venezuela
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
February 18, 2014
  Share

The Venezuelan Government has notified us on the afternoon of February 17 that they have declared three of our consular officers personae non gratae. They were given 48 hours to leave the country. In accordance with Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Article 23 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the United States is considering what actions to take.

We have seen many times that the Venezuelan Government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela. These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan Government to deal with the grave situation it faces.

The allegations against our diplomats by the Venezuelan government are baseless and false. Our Consular Officers were conducting normal outreach activities at universities on student visas, which is something we do around the world as a way to improve the accessibility and transparency of the visa process.

Venezuela’s political future is for the Venezuelan people to decide. We urge Venezuela's government to work to address its people’s grievances forthrightly through real, meaningful dialogue. The United States values its strong historic and cultural ties with the Venezuelan people, and remains committed to our relationship with them. With the OAS and our regional partners, we are working to urge calm and encourage a genuine dialogue among all Venezuelans. There is no room for violence by either side.

3 PLEAD GUILTY TO BRIBERY OF FOREIGN OFFICIALS, MONEY LAUNDERING AND CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Friday, August 30, 2013

Three Former Broker-dealer Employees Plead Guilty in Manhattan Federal Court to Bribery of Foreign Officials, Money Laundering and Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice

Three employees of a New York-based U.S. broker-dealer have pleaded guilty for their roles in bribery schemes involving two state economic development banks in Venezuela.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York and Assistant Director in Charge George Venizelos of the New York Office of the FBI made the announcement.

Ernesto Lujan, Jose Alejandro Hurtado and Tomas Alberto Clarke Bethancourt pleaded guilty in New York federal court to conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), to violate the Travel Act and to commit money laundering, as well as substantive counts of these offenses.  These charges relate to a scheme to bribe a foreign official named Maria de los Angeles Gonzalez de Hernandez at Banco de Desarrollo Económico y Social de Venezuela (BANDES), a state economic development bank in Venezuela, in exchange for receiving trading business from BANDES.  Lujan, Hurtado and Clarke each also pleaded guilty to an additional charge of conspiring to violate the FCPA in connection with a similar scheme to bribe a foreign official employed by Banfoandes (the “Banfoandes Foreign Official”), another state economic development bank in Venezuela, and to conspiring to obstruct an examination by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the New York-based broker-dealer (the “Broker-Dealer”) where all three defendants had worked, to conceal the true facts of the Broker-Dealer’s relationship with BANDES.

Lujan, 50, and Clarke, 43, entered their guilty pleas yesterday before U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, and Hurtado, 38, pleaded guilty today, also before Judge Francis. The men each pleaded guilty to the same six offenses and face a maximum penalty of five years in prison on each count except money laundering, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.  Sentencing for Lujan and Clarke is scheduled for Feb. 11, 2014, before U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe.  Hurtado is scheduled for sentencing before U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. on March 6, 2014.

According to the informations filed against Lujan, Hurtado and Clarke this week, the criminal complaints previously filed, and statements made during the plea proceedings, Lujan, Clarke and Hurtado worked or were associated with the Broker-Dealer, principally through its Miami offices.  In 2008, the Broker-Dealer established a group called the Global Markets Group, which included Lujan, Clarke and Hurtado, and which offered fixed income trading services to institutional clients.

One of the Broker-Dealer’s clients was BANDES, which operated under the direction of the Venezuelan Ministry of Finance.  The Venezuelan government had a majority ownership interest in BANDES and provided it with substantial funding.  Gonzalez was an official at BANDES and oversaw the development bank’s overseas trading activity.  At her direction, BANDES conducted substantial trading through the Broker-Dealer.  Most of the trades executed by the Broker-Dealer on behalf of BANDES involved fixed-income investments for which the Broker-Dealer charged the bank a mark-up on purchases and a mark-down on sales.

The Broker-Dealer also conducted business with Banfoandes, another state development bank in Venezuela that, along with its 2009 successor Banco Bicentenario, operated under the direction of the Venezuelan Ministry of Finance.  Banfoandes acted as a financial agent of the Venezuelan government in order to promote economic and social development by, among other things, offering credit to low-income Venezuelans.  The Banfoandes Foreign Official was responsible for some of Banfoandes’s foreign investments.

Court records state that from early 2009 through 2012, Lujan, Clarke and Hurtado participated in a bribery scheme in which Gonzalez allegedly directed trading business she controlled at BANDES to the Broker-Dealer, and in return, agents and employees of the Broker-Dealer split the revenue the Broker-Dealer generated from this trading business with Gonzalez.  During this time period, the Broker-Dealer generated over $60 million in mark-ups and mark-downs from trades with BANDES.  Agents and employees of the Broker-Dealer, including Lujan, Clarke and Hurtado, devised a split with Gonzalez of the commissions paid by BANDES to the Broker-Dealer.  Emails, account records and other documents collected from the Broker-Dealer and other sources reveal that Gonzalez allegedly received a substantial share of the revenue generated by the Broker-Dealer for BANDES-related trades.  Specifically, Gonzalez allegedly received kickbacks and payments from Broker-Dealer agents and employees that were frequently in six-figure amounts.

To further conceal the scheme, the kickbacks to Gonzalez were often paid using intermediary corporations and offshore accounts that she held in Switzerland, among other places.  For instance, Lujan, Clarke and Hurtado used accounts they controlled in Switzerland to transfer funds to an account Gonzalez allegedly controlled in Switzerland.  Additionally, Hurtado and his spouse received substantial compensation from the Broker-Dealer, portions of which Hurtado transferred to an account allegedly held by Gonzalez in Miami and to an account held by an associate of Gonzalez in Switzerland.  Hurtado also sought and allegedly received reimbursement from Gonzalez for the U.S. income taxes he had paid on money that he used to make kickback payments to Gonzalez.  Lujan and Clarke also derived substantial profit from their roles in the bribery scheme.
 
According to court records, beginning in or about November 2010, the SEC commenced a periodic examination of the Broker-Dealer, and from November 2010 through March 2011 the SEC’s examination staff made several visits to the Broker-Dealer’s offices in Manhattan.  In early 2011, Lujan, Clarke and Hurtado discussed their concern that the SEC was examining the Broker-Dealer’s relationship with BANDES and asking questions regarding certain emails and other information that the SEC examination staff had discovered.  Lujan, Clarke and Hurtado agreed that they would take steps to conceal the true facts of the Broker-Dealer’s relationship with BANDES, including deleting emails.  Lujan, Clarke and Hurtado then, in fact, deleted emails.  Additionally as part of this effort to obstruct the SEC examination, Clarke lied to SEC examination staff in response to an interview question about his relationship to an individual who had received purported foreign associate payments relating to BANDES.

In a related scheme, from 2008 through mid-2009, Lujan, Clarke and Hurtado paid bribes to the Banfoandes Foreign Official, who, in exchange, directed Banfoandes trading business to the Broker-Dealer.

Gonzalez was charged in a criminal complaint and arrested on May 3, 2013, in connection with the BANDES bribery scheme.  The charges against Gonzalez are merely accusations, and she is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

This ongoing investigation is being conducted by the FBI, with assistance from the SEC and the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs.

Assistant Chief James Koukios and Trial Attorneys Maria Gonzalez Calvet and Aisling O’Shea of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Harry A. Chernoff and Jason H. Cowley of the Southern District of New York’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force are in charge of the prosecution.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Carolina Fornos is responsible for the forfeiture aspects of the case.

SOUTHCOM COMMANDER SAYS EVENTS IN SOUTH AMERICAN NATIONS AFFECT NATIONAL SECURITY

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE 
Marines attached to a Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force guard an extraction point in the marshes of Santo Tomas, Guatemala, Dec. 6, 2011, as a part of Amphibious-Southern Partnership Station 2012, an annual deployment of U.S. military teams to the U.S. Southern Command region. Partnership is a cornerstone of U.S. military engagement in the Southern Command area of responsibility. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Isaiah Sellers III.  



Regional Challenges Drive Southcom's Agenda
By Donna Miles
MIAMI, June 18, 2012 - Air Force Gen. Douglas M. Fraser, commander of U.S. Southern Command, regularly tells members of Congress, audiences around the region and members of his command that events in South America, Central America and the Caribbean affect U.S. national security.

"The hemisphere is our shared home," Fraser noted in his Command Strategy 2020 "Partnership for the Americas" document issued in July.

"We are all Americans" in the region, he added.

While a mere glance at a map underscores the obvious physical connection among the hemisphere's nations, Fraser cited other bonds that cross economic, cultural, ideological and security lines.

"Latin America and the Caribbean are vitally important to the security and future of the United States," he said. "The nations of the region are inextricably linked, and we face common challenges to our security and stability."

With globalization unfolding at lightning speed over the past decade, transforming commerce, culture, trade and technology, it's had a profound impact on security as well, the general noted in his 2012 Southcom posture statement, released in March.

Fraser said he's particularly concerned about "the parallel globalization of organized crime, violence, murder and kidnapping related to illicit trafficking."

He noted that in many parts of the hemisphere, particularly in Central America, transnational organized crime has evolved to become a "volatile and potentially destabilizing threat to both citizen and regional security."

These sophisticated networks operate across national borders and dividing lines for U.S. geographic combatant commands, demanding an unprecedented level of cooperation among those attempting to counter them -- regionally, nationally and across U.S. agencies, he said.

"The challenge for United States Southern Command is to find creative ways to enhance the interagency, public-private and partner-nation cooperation as we plan, train and operate with regional military to address the predominant security concerns in the region," Fraser said.

Fraser recognized other persistent challenges facing the region, including poverty, crime, corruption, institutional weakness, illicit trafficking and terrorism. "These challenges complicate our collective efforts to secure the hemisphere," he stated in his 2020 command strategy. "At the same time, security helps provide the very means to address these issues."

He cited the vulnerability of much of Latin America and the Caribbean to humanitarian crises, mass migrations and natural disasters.

Southcom works closely with partner nations to strengthen their humanitarian assistance and disaster relief capabilities, Fraser told the House Armed Services Committee in May. "And we remain ready to respond should our assistance be requested," he added.

Meanwhile, Southcom watches for potential geopolitical turbulence that could affect U.S. citizens and military personnel in the region, he said in his posture statement. He cited Cuba, Haiti, Bolivia and Venezuela as areas of particular interest.

Frasier noted the yet-to-be-seen long-term effects of Cuba's market reforms under Raul Castro's leadership. Haiti, while making slow but steady progress, remains vulnerable to natural disasters and economic hardship, the general said.

Meanwhile, he added, public demonstrations in Bolivia related to low wages, high food prices and energy shortages are likely to continue until the Bolivian government addresses these issues. And in Venezuela, Fraser recognized continuing uncertainty about President Hugo Chavez' health, as well as continued economic instability and escalating violence that he said place increasing demands on that country's government.

Adding to the list of concerns, Fraser pointed to Hezbollah supporters operating throughout South America and the fact that the region has become home to a small number of violent extremist organizations.

"We remain vigilant for the potential radicalization of homegrown extremists," he said. Fraser noted that Sunni extremists, while small in number, are actively involved in radicalization efforts.

Jamaica's Shaykh Abdullah al-Faisal, for example, was convicted in the United Kingdom for inciting terrorism, he said. Al-Qaida senior operative Adnan el-Shukrijumah has held valid passports for the United States as well as Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, where he has family and associates. And despite recent convictions in the 2007 plot to attack the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, one of the alleged co-conspirators remains at large in Guyana.

Meanwhile, Fraser noted, Iran represents a troublesome influence in the region, attempting to circumvent international sanctions through ties with Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Cuba. "We take Iranian activity in the hemisphere seriously, and we monitor its activities closely," he said.

In presenting his command priorities, Fraser emphasized four major objectives:

-- Strengthen regional partnerships;
-- Increase partner capability;
-- Confront regional challenges; and
-- Support humanitarian and disaster response, as required.

Fraser called partnership-building "the cornerstone of our strategic approach." It ensures the forward defense of the United States, he said, by promoting capable regional militaries that share in the responsibility of hemispheric security and stability.

"What we focus on in the region is building partner capacity and security cooperation, collaboratively, with willing nations," Navy Vice Adm. Joseph D. Kernan, Southcom's military deputy commander, told American Forces Press Service at the command's headquarters here. "We endeavor to plan extensively with them, ensuring that our efforts to help build their security in ways they believe are helpful to them."

These efforts are coordinated closely with the State Department and with full respect for each partner nation's sovereignty, Kernan said.

"We truly want to be the security partner of choice," said Army Maj. Gen. Gerald W. Ketchum, director of the command's theater engagement directorate, who oversees many of the programs designed to build those partnerships. "And as we work to build them, we want those partnerships to be enduring."

In establishing new ties and strengthening existing ones, Kernan said, Southcom is demonstrating the deep U.S. commitment to the region.

"We have to pursue a persistent, welcomed presence with countries in the region," he said. "That is what builds lasting relations and mutual respect. We need to be able to stand alongside our partners and talk about collectively addressing common security problems."

Fraser said efforts to strengthen and enhance partner nations' ability to respond to domestic and regional threats -- individually and collectively -- will pay off in long-term security for the region.

"We envision a hemisphere characterized by nations working together to address the emerging security challenges of the coming decade," he said.

STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 19, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:

1:14 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. It’s a beautiful spring day. Hint, hint. I don’t have anything for you at the top, so I’ll take your questions.
QUESTION: Well, I’m presuming that since your two minutes turned into, what, ten minutes, that you were on the phone taking an urgent call from the Secretary’s traveling party. Is that correct?
MR. TONER: That’s not correct.
QUESTION: Then you don’t have an answer for me for the – (laughter) – you don’t have an answer for me.
MR. TONER: On the --
QUESTION: Yes. On --
MR. TONER: Your question has been relayed and I have no answer.
QUESTION: But do you – but you have no answer?
MR. TONER: No, not yet.
QUESTION: Is there anything --
MR. TONER: As we speak in code.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Got anything else?
QUESTION: We’re talking about the Flyers’ game last night. (Laughter.)
Do you know if – or do you have anything to say about the Argentina Repsol situation?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, I don’t have a great deal beyond what I said yesterday, no – that we’ve expressed our concerns to the Argentineans, the Argentine Government at the highest levels on numerous occasions, that these types of actions can adversely affect the investment climate for U.S. businesses, for other businesses, for other nations’ companies. So just along the lines of what I said yesterday, nothing new.
QUESTION: Okay. And you don’t – do you know if this subject was raised when the Secretary spoke with the Spanish foreign minister?
MR. TONER: Well, I don’t. I can’t confirm it was raised. I’ll try to get the information, some more information about that.
QUESTION: Yeah, I have something on that --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- because the foreign minister, after the meeting, spoke to press in Brussels, and he said that the Secretary had expressed a compromise to work with Spain on ways to pressure Argentina to change its decision, and that she also said that this was a violation of international law. Can you confirm any of that?
MR. TONER: I can’t confirm. I haven’t gotten the readout from that bilateral, and we’re not particularly forthcoming when we talk about the substance of our private diplomatic meetings.
QUESTION: Will there be a readout?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Will there be a readout today or --
MR. TONER: Again, I’ll see what I can get. That’s in line with what Matt was asking about, whether it came up in the meeting.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: But, yeah, publicly, again, we were very clear yesterday that we find these kinds of actions to be non-constructive in creating the kind of investment climate that we want to see countries like Argentina promote.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up: In you statement yesterday, you said that the United States has raised concerns like this with Argentina. Has this case specifically been raised with Argentina, or are you just talking more broadly about the investment climate?
MR. TONER: I think speaking more broadly, but I also think we’ve raised this particular case as well.
QUESTION: Since the decision was announced?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you know how it was raised?
MR. TONER: I do not.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Most likely through our bilateral Embassy contacts, but I don’t know.
QUESTION: I see.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you know – well, since you haven’t --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- been in touch with them, do you know if the Secretary has given her intervention yet in Paris at the meeting?
MR. TONER: She has, I believe.
QUESTION: She has? Okay. So I haven’t seen – I presume that that’s out? Can you talk about it?
MR. TONER: I can’t, really. I don’t have any details. I mean, obviously, on Syria today, the center of gravity is in – both in New York as well as in Paris. But haven’t – I think she just concluded.
QUESTION: Well, more broadly –
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- can you talk about what kind of options you’re looking at as it becomes increasingly clear that the ceasefire isn’t working?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think Ambassador Rice spoke a little bit about where we’re at, and of course, the Secretary as well. But where we’re at, when she walked – she just gave a presser, I believe, in New York a short while ago – concerns that, obviously that the ceasefire is eroding, as I mentioned yesterday, that we want to see a UN monitoring mission move forward, but as she said, many members expressed their concern that all the conditions had not met. We clearly want to see this monitoring mission move forward in an environment that is conducive to its success.
QUESTION: Right, but as – but as it is not, or as it doesn’t look like that’s happening, are you or are you not preparing options in terms of if and when it becomes clear that this mission has – or that this initiative has failed?
MR. TONER: And again, I think those are conversations that are ongoing in New York as well as in Paris, so I don’t want to get out ahead of that.
QUESTION: Right, but – well, are you or are you not?
MR. TONER: Well, I think we’re always looking – as I discussed more broadly yesterday, we’re working within the UN on Syria, but we’re also with the Friends of Syria, with other likeminded nations, on ways we can continue to apply pressure.
QUESTION: But – no, I mean in the specific event that the – that Kofi Annan’s plan doesn’t work.
MR. TONER: Again, I think we’re – we don’t want to prejudge the outcome of the plan. We want to see it implemented. The onus is obviously on Assad and – to live up to the commitments that his regime has made, but I don’t have any more details.
QUESTION: But would the – I mean, the next step on that on that would be a new resolution which would allow for an expanded monitoring operation, as is called for under the plan. Would the U.S. support that, given that Assad’s only partially complied with the ceasefire element?
MR. TONER: Again, I think Ambassador Rice addressed this to – in some fashion in New York, where she talked about the fact that we want to see a monitoring mission move forward, but one – but we also are concerned that not all the conditions have been met yet. So we need appropriate conditions on the ground for that mission to move forward. But again, let’s let them continue to talk about this in New York and in Paris.
Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: Yes, Mark. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the blame did not only fall on the regime itself, but also on those who support the regime. Is that – does that usher in, like, another period of tension with Russia?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we talked about this, and it was one of the outcomes of the previous Friends of Syria meeting that we are committed to holding those accountable --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: -- who are responsible for these crimes against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Right. But --
MR. TONER: I’m not sure. I think she was speaking more directly to those around Assad, his cronies, his colleagues who are carrying out or helping him commit these crimes against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Okay. So when she was saying that she was not pointing to any sort of outside group or --
MR. TONER: That was my interpretation. We’ve been clear that --
QUESTION: Like, it doesn’t mean, like, Russia or Iran or China?
MR. TONER: That’s what – again, that was – it was my interpretation, Said. I think she was speaking about those – those around Assad need to look long and hard in the mirror and decide what side they’re on.
QUESTION: Okay. So do you expect the kind of harmony that was shown in the last session to be shown again if the point comes up before the Security Council once more?
MR. TONER: Again, I think that with the Annan plan, we do have this kind of unity, that this is a way forward that can lead to the democratic transition, the end of violence that ultimately we all want to see happen in Syria.
QUESTION: And lastly, just to follow up --
MR. TONER: Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: -- on Matt’s points, you are not – at this point, at least, you’re not prepared to say that this mission is about to collapse or it’s really headed towards a brick wall, so to speak?
MR. TONER: I’m really going to defer to folks in New York and in Paris because this is fast-moving, that there’s – as I said, these centers of gravity are there rather than here this – today. But I don’t want to get out in front of the diplomacy.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Are you focusing more now on the idea of having buffer zones in Syria with Turkey?
MR. TONER: We’ve – our position on buffer zones hasn’t really changed from what I said the other day. Our focus, frankly, is on ways to increase humanitarian assistance to those in need. We think the Annan plan, if it were actually fulfilled, would provide that opportunity, but it hasn’t been. But there’s clear logistical challenges to any kind of buffer zone.
QUESTION: There’s a report today that the Administration is putting more focus now on taking this idea more seriously.
MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, I think that our focus is on humanitarian assistance. We’ve obviously focused funding for those kinds of efforts. But I can’t speak any more about any buffer zone.
QUESTION: Sorry, Mark.
MR. TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: If U.S. allies in the GCC, in the Gulf Cooperation Council, decide to sort of increase their involvement or their support of the opposition groups by arming them, does that in any way – are you concerned that this may actually lead to sort of a Sunni-Shia schism with polarization of Iran and its allies on the one side, and Saudi Arabia and its allies on the other?
MR. TONER: Well, without even addressing the crux of your question, I can say that we have been very concerned that Syria can slide into civil war. The Secretary said this. Others have said it. We still believe there’s time – a little time, but time – for a diplomatic solution to this, and that’s where we’re focusing our efforts.
QUESTION: So do you take pause when you are consulting with your allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council to back off a little bit from supporting these groups, especially by arms, once this happens?
MR. TONER: Well, the GCC has played a clear leadership role in trying to address the terrible violence that’s happening in Syria. We consult with them frequently through the Friends of Syria meetings and also bilaterally on the way forward in Syria. Obviously, they’re going to make their own sovereign decisions moving forward. We’ve said, for our part, that we don’t believe in a further militarization of what’s going – of Syria.
Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: North Korea. Congressman Mike Turner sent a letter to Secretary Clinton about new mobile missile shown at the military parade in Pyongyang, and he says that the photos of this new missile suggest cooperation and support from China. And he’s asking if such any cooperation would be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution, and if so, what the Administration is going to do. So what’s your response to that?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I’ve seen – I think there’s been some press reports out about this. China has provided repeated assurances that it is complying fully with both Resolution 1718 as well as 1874. We’re not presently aware of any UN probe into this matter, so I’d refer you to the UN.
Yes.
QUESTION: Has China specifically given assurances on this since the rocket launch?
MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware, no. But they have said – they’ve said in the past that they’ve been compliant with 1874 and 1718. I’m not aware that they’ve given any direct response to these reports.
QUESTION: Sure. And the U.S. is confident of that? The U.S. can take China at its word that there isn’t that type of cooperation?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we take them at their word. There is a UN mechanism. There’s a UN sanctions committee that exists to look into these allegations.
QUESTION: Sorry, just to make sure, you do believe them?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: Palestinian issue?
MR. TONER: Palestinian issue.
QUESTION: Did you clarify whether Mr. Hale received a copy of the letter?
MR. TONER: I did clarify. I don’t believe he has a copy. This is an internal document between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
QUESTION: But you – being the sort of the sponsor of these talks historically --
MR. TONER: I can’t imagine --
QUESTION: -- would either side have shared with you --
MR. TONER: I think the answer to your question, Said, I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t know the contents of such a letter. He’s obviously – and I can add here that he’s obviously engaged with the parties as they follow up from their meeting on April 17th. And in fact, I can note that he’s traveling to the region today to engage with the parties. He’s going to meet with senior Israeli and Palestinian officials, frankly, to discuss next steps out of this meeting.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry, where is he going specifically?
MR. TONER: I don’t have a detailed itinerary yet. He’s going to go to the region, and then he’s going to travel to the Gulf to brief senior officials there. I’ll try to get you a – I mean, do you want – kind of where he’s going to be, what day?
QUESTION: Well --
MR. TONER: Granularity?
QUESTION: Not necessarily that level of granularity, but, I mean, the region – when you say the region, doesn’t – usually that includes the Gulf. But the region you’re talking about – the very small region – meaning Israel and the Palestinian territories?
MR. TONER: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: But then he’s going to go to the Gulf as well?
MR. TONER: Correct. That is correct.
QUESTION: But he’s not going to go to, say, other countries in the region, like Syria?
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: Lebanon?
MR. TONER: I don’t know where he’s going in the Gulf.
QUESTION: Jordan?
MR. TONER: I’ll try to get better – I’ll try to get more clarity on that.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MR. TONER: I realize that it’s --
QUESTION: Why is he going to go to the Gulf?
MR. TONER: I think just a part of regular consultations.
QUESTION: He didn’t do this before.
MR. TONER: I wouldn’t read anything into it, Samir. But I’ll try to find out what countries – specific countries he’s visiting. It’s a fair question.
QUESTION: Will he also visit Jordan?
MR. TONER: I’m being sloppy in my geography. What?
QUESTION: Will Jordan be part of that region?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I can assume, but I don’t know what precise countries. I think that he’s going to the region, he’s going to go to the – then he’s going to consult with other Gulf countries. Sometimes these things are quite fluid. These meetings are set up on the fly, if you will. It’s the nature of the negotiations so I just don’t know specifics.
QUESTION: Do you have an inclination of what the focus of the discussion will be?
MR. TONER: Well, I think the focus is, as I said, next steps out of the April 17th meeting and with the ultimate aim of trying to get direct negotiations up and running again.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On another subject. On – India has now launched that ICBM, and I’m just wondering if you have anything more to say on that. Yesterday, it seemed as – though you essentially thought it was no worries.
MR. TONER: Well, I think, as I noted yesterday, I think, we urged all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding their nuclear and missile capabilities. But you’re right. They did launch the Agni-V ballistic missile earlier today. So I don’t have any further comment to what I said.
QUESTION: Does that mean – I mean, would you – when you urge restraint, does that include testing new long-range ballistic missiles? Do you think that that generally falls under the rubric of restraint?
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: And it would have been better --
MR. TONER: Go ahead. Go ahead finish your --
QUESTION: No, no.
QUESTION: Do you think that they heeded your admonition for restraint by launching this missile?
MR. TONER: Again, I just – India’s been very much engaged in the international community and nonproliferation issues. They’ve attended both the nuclear security summits, the one in D.C. and the one in Seoul. So we believe they’re – they have a solid nonproliferation record and that they’re playing a significant role internationally on the issue. I would just refer you to them. I think I’ll let my comments stand on --
QUESTION: Okay. One more --
QUESTION: Right. But the thing is that it’s not question of proliferation here. I mean, no one’s saying – no one’s suggesting that they’re going to give this missile away or sell it to anybody.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: The question is whether you – whether or not you think that they heeded your call for restraint in the nuclear and ballistic missile technologies by going ahead with the launch, and whether you have any concerns that it could affect the security and stability in a very volatile region of the world.
MR. TONER: Well, again – and I think that’s why I’d refer you to the --
QUESTION: Well, can you ask – get SCA to --
MR. TONER: -- very strong record on nonproliferation issues, but --
QUESTION: Well, that’s great.
MR. TONER: -- with regards to the --
QUESTION: This isn’t a question of proliferation.
MR. TONER: -- to the missile launch, I’ve said that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: Well, okay. So --
MR. TONER: I think my statement’s been clear.
QUESTION: I know it’s been cleared.
MR. TONER: Clear.
QUESTION: That’s probably why it says nothing, because – are you talking about when they say that they have a great record of nonproliferation, are you talking about in terms of giving or selling the technology away?
MR. TONER: Yes, I am. I am.
QUESTION: Because they seem to be doing a great job of self-proliferation. Right? Otherwise they wouldn’t be testing a new long-range missile.
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: So they are proliferating internally.
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: That doesn’t suggest a great record on nonproliferation.
MR. TONER: Again, Matt, I think I’m – I’ve said what I want to say.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you take – can you ask to see if there is – well, it’s significant. If you guys don’t think that it’s worthy of a comment – that the fact they launched this thing --
MR. TONER: I don’t. I think I --
QUESTION: -- it suggests that --
MR. TONER: -- answered the question with my comment, which is that we always urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: But does – the question is whether or not this launch is – fits in with your definition of exercising restraint. So – I mean, if, in fact, you choose to say nothing about the fact that they actually went ahead with the launch, that would suggest that you don’t think it’s that big of a deal, like what Andy said. But I just want to make sure that you’ve been given – this building or the Administration has been given the opportunity --
MR. TONER: We’ve been given the opportunity. We recognize that.
QUESTION: And you’re saying nothing.
MR. TONER: We recognize that we’ve been given the opportunity.
QUESTION: So it is not a big deal to you?
MR. TONER: I’ve said what I want to say.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Burma. Yesterday, Kurt Campbell mentioned that the Burmese foreign minister will be coming to the U.S. next month. And it’s a little ways ahead still, but I’m wondering if you have any details on that yet.
MR. TONER: I really don’t beyond, obviously, the confirming the visit. But, obviously, as we get closer, we’ll be able to provide more detail.
Yeah, Scott.
QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the U.S-Azerbaijani meeting yesterday, specifically on Afghanistan?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if I have any specific information on Afghanistan. I can say that we’re going to put out a Media Note later today on these meetings that have been taking place. I think they’re in the rubric of the U.S.-Azerbaijan Economic Partnership Commission. So this is a strategic dialogue that explores opportunities for economic and commercial cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan. I can say, looking at this, that we – they did discuss Afghanistan, but I don’t have any details.
QUESTION: Do you have any more to say on the question yesterday about the Yomiuri Shimbun report about North Korean refugees saying that China has suspended repatriation to North Korea? I’m sorry, that China has suspended --
MR. TONER: Right, right, right. Well, I think yesterday I expressed our concern about the repatriation of these refugees. We’ve been, obviously, clear on that in the past. The report itself – I’m sorry --
QUESTION: Sure. Saying that China has suspended repatriation of refugees to North Korea. The article was saying that this was in response to concerns over the rocket launch, the lack of consultation. But obviously, there are longstanding concerns about what actually happens to these refugees if they’re turned back.
MR. TONER: Right. Well, I mean, we obviously hope that the media reports are true. I don’t have much new information to add, though. But we’ve obviously raised in the past, as I just said, our concerns about alleged reports of North Koreans detained in China. So we consistently urge China to adhere to its international obligations as part of the UN Convention on Refugees.
Please.
QUESTION: Anything more or new to say on Guinea-Bissau? I mean, the World Bank and African Development Bank today suspended their aid. I looked at the website, and it looks like most of your aid, if not all of it, is humanitarian. So I’m wondering if that’s sort of in play or --
MR. TONER: There is. There was some – there was some IMET money, military training funds that have already been suspended, frankly, before the events of the last couple weeks. So we’re obviously looking at the broader aid package and, a la Mali, we’re going to look at what actually went to the Government of Guinea-Bissau. But that’s – that’ll take some more time. But --
QUESTION: Weeks, probably?
MR. TONER: Not necessarily weeks, but – anyway, but it’s about – there’s various programs and pots of money, but I just – there’s $10,000 that went to civil-military relations that was already suspended.
QUESTION: $10,000? Okay.
MR. TONER: Sorry. Just giving you the facts there.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: It’s a small country. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Iraq. With all the explosions and violence today, do you still think that this meeting proposed for the 23rd of May to follow on the Istanbul meeting can still be held in Baghdad?
MR. TONER: Oh, absolutely. We are – first of all, I want to strongly condemn today’s attacks. Targeting of innocent civilians is unacceptable; it’s cowardly. And we obviously offer our condolences to the victims. But we are – they just hosted a very successful Arab League summit, and we have every confidence that they can host this meeting.
Yes, Scott.
QUESTION: Venezuela – you took a question on that yesterday and deferred it to DOJ. Could you tell us if the United States Government provided the transport for Judge Aponte to leave Venezuela for Costa Rica?
MR. TONER: I can’t. At this point, I’m not – I don’t have that answer. I think Department of Justice would be better able to answer that question.
Anything else? Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Do you have anything for us on Sudan? President Bashir is threatening to topple the SPLM Government in the South.
MR. TONER: Yeah, I think I’ll let – I mean, you may or may not be aware, but we’re going to do a call with Princeton Lyman at 2 p.m.
QUESTION: In 20 minutes.
MR. TONER: In 20 minutes. So I don’t want to steal his thunder.
QUESTION: By invitation.
MR. TONER: What’s that?
QUESTION: By invitation.
MR. TONER: Well, I think we sent it out to the broader press corps.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: That’s it? Thanks.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: (Laughter.)

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Sure. Could I switch topics --

MR. TONER: Sure thing.

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

QUESTION: Do you know whom he met?

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

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

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

QUESTION: Follow on that, please.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.

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

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

QUESTION: Could I --

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead, Andy.

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

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

QUESTION: Different subject?

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR. TONER: Sure.

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

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

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

QUESTION: Well, wait.

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I can’t comment on that.

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

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


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

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

QUESTION: Oh okay. So --

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

QUESTION: -- when he showed up --

MR. TONER: Or those meetings.

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

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

QUESTION: Right.

MR. TONER: -- it was scheduled --

QUESTION: As a member of the Chinese --

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

QUESTION: -- Government? Or as an individual?

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

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

MR. TONER: A local government official, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I don’t know that.

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

MR. TONER: I don’t know.

QUESTION: You don’t know.

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I thought you were.

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

MR. TONER: Well, I’m not going to --

QUESTION: Is that correct? Do you not --

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

QUESTION: Mark, move back to Syria?

MR. TONER: We can go to Syria.

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: She did.

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

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

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

QUESTION: So I’m curious about --

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

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

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

PARTICIPANT: I mean, I think it’s --

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

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

QUESTION: Right.

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

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

QUESTION: Yeah.

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

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

MR. TONER: I think we’re --

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

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Well, it’ll be up to --

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

MR. TONER: Matt --


QUESTION: Am I right or am I wrong?

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

QUESTION: But I guess – my question is --

MR. TONER: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

QUESTION: New topic, (inaudible)?

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

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

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

MR. TONER: Right.

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Against Syria.

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

MR. TONER: Look, I think that --

QUESTION: Turkey wants to be in the EU.

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

QUESTION: Or at least they did.

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: No, let’s do Canada.

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Venezuela?

MR. TONER: Sure.

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

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

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

Yeah. Go ahead, Scott.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Palestinian issue?

MR. TONER: Sure.

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

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

Yeah, go ahead.

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

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

QUESTION: I have a couple of little ones.

MR. TONER: Sure.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Okay. And one other one --

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

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

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

QUESTION: Specific, credible, and what?

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I can’t at this – no.

QUESTION: Because --

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Like, so what you said?

MR. TONER: Yes. What I said.

QUESTION: Specific, credible, and non-counterable?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: On India (inaudible) --

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

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

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

QUESTION: India. The missile.

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

Yeah, go ahead, Scott.

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

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

QUESTION: The son of the president of Equatorial Guinea.

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

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

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

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

MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: But there is nothing newer than that?

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

QUESTION: Different topic?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Sure, sure.

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