FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The Role of Youth, Women, Religious Groups, and Civil Society in Preventing Violent Extremism
Remarks
Robert Berschinski
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Remarks as Delivered at Central and South Asia Regional Conference on Countering Violent Extremism
Astana, Kazakhstan
June 30, 2015
Let me begin by thanking the Government of Kazakhstan for hosting this important conference and for your hospitality last night, and also thanking my fellow panelists for sharing your time and insights.
I'd like to take as my point of departure a few of the points raised by the U.S. head of delegation, Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske, in his opening remarks yesterday.
Given that we've heard a lot of panelists since yesterday morning, I'll offer a brief recap. Commissioner Kerlikowske said five things I think are worth repeating:
First, that as a life-long professional law enforcement officer, his perspective is that "real security is not about arrests and detention," but about "the way governments interact with their societies."
Second, that as we seek to prevent violent extremism, it is in governments' best interest to empower non-governmental organizations and other citizens--youth, women, faith leaders, and victims among them.
Third, that violations of religious freedom are one important driver of radicalization.
Fourth, that respect for human rights is a law enforcement best practice.
And fifth and finally, that corruption undermines society's faith in its government, which produces the kinds of alienation that can drive individuals toward the forms of violent extremism that we collectively seek to end.
One additional theme I've heard running through all the panels thus far is that the drivers of radicalization are complex, and thus we need to be as holistic and inclusive as possible in our response. It's clear that government alone cannot successfully address the issue. Non-governmental, community-based, and religious voices are essential.
I'd like to offer a few thoughts on each of these lessons.
First, as we heard in yesterday's panel on the uses and abuses of new media, we are all grappling with extremists' misuse of the internet to spread their message. And while there are certainly times in which calls for direct imminent violence by terrorist groups and their sympathizers should be taken offline, we should remember that peaceful expression and the free exchange of ideas are an essential part of the antidote to the appeal of violent extremist ideologies.
When we suppress peaceful and legitimate expression and ideas, even ones with which we disagree or even find abhorrent, we simply drive extremist voices underground, where they are harder to track and challenge, while in many cases enabling conspiracy theories to thrive. So engagement, rather than censorship, needs to be part of the solution.
Efforts to clamp down on freedom of expression lead me to my next point, which is that notwithstanding the many things that we don't know about the process of radicalization, one thing we do know is that one of the key drivers of political violence is that it is in part rooted in experiences of injustice—such as discrimination, corruption, and abuses by government authorities or security forces that are perpetuated with impunity.
This conference's analogue in Kenya just wrapped up last week, and one of the data points noted during that conference was that 65% of Shabaab members interviewed by a think tank said they joined the group as a reaction to the aggressive and discriminatory actions of local security forces, as well as ethnic profiling, arbitrary detentions, and police corruption.
Now we need to take each instance of radicalization within a local context, but there is a generalizable point to be made that populations that have access to transparent and non-corrupt governance, the rule of law, and the fundamental freedoms of expression, religious belief, association, and assembly tend to have fewer grievances and more outlets for what grievances they do have, and are thus more resistant to the call of violent extremism.
With respect to religious groups, we know that government efforts to control peaceful religious belief or practice, especially for so-called “non-traditional” religious actors, generates grievances and in some cases alienates communities -- the opposite of what we should seek to achieve from the perspective of countering violent extremist narratives of oppression and subjugation.
More broadly, reducing the space for civil society to operate--a trend that is unfortunately spreading across this region and around the world in parallel to the growth of groups like Al Qaeda and Daesh--harms governmental CVE efforts, as civil society actors are often those closest to vulnerable populations.
This is particularly true not only of religious groups, but also of women and youth. That's why, through the Global Counterterrorism Forum and other means, we must continue to develop best practices on incorporating women's views into CVE efforts, and conduct more study on what motivates women and girls toward radicalism.
A range of contextual challenges, including legal and institutional restrictions, safety concerns, and lack of resources and skills, often prevent full and effective participation of women and girls in CVE policy-making and programs. But women and girls are leaders, problem-solvers, inspirers, and teachers, as well as mothers, sisters, wives, and providers -- their input and efforts are imperative to batting back violent extremism.
Let me say in closing that we in government cannot do it alone. More broadly, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said recently while touring this region, curbing freedoms creates “an illusion of stability in the short-run” but ultimately fosters “a breeding ground for extremist ideologies" in the longer run.
As Ban said, “Around the world, the way to confront threats is not more repression, it is more openness. More human rights. The road to a stable future is by strengthening the rule of law. By fighting corruption. By ensuring an independent judiciary. By guaranteeing free media. By building just societies. By empowering citizens."
The United States fully supports these words from the UN Secretary General. Operating space for youth, women, religious groups, and civil society must be safeguarded—so that these populations can speak their minds, organize among themselves, and bring their experiences to bear on creating more peaceful, tolerant, and democratic societies.
Thank you.
Showing posts with label VIOLENT EXTREMISM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VIOLENT EXTREMISM. Show all posts
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
SARAH SEWALL'S REMARKS ON COMBATING TERRORISM
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Combating Terrorism: Looking Over the Horizon
Remarks
Sarah Sewall
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Geneva, Switzerland
June 15, 2015
(As Prepared for Delivery)
Good morning everyone. Thank you Dr. Mohamedou, and the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, for inviting me to address this accomplished group of scholars and practitioners on a topic that concerns much of the globe today: the threat of violent extremism. This threat takes many forms and appears throughout the world including: Neo-Nazi actors in the United States or Europe, violent radical Islamist movements in the Middle East and Africa, or extremist Buddhism operating in parts of Asia.
Violent extremism’s growth over the last decade is an extremely dangerous and destabilizing phenomenon. It is essential that the world mobilize against such backward-looking intolerance and cruelty, which threatens humanity’s moral, political, and economic progress. We know that terrorists must be defeated militarily, yet we also see them responding to military force by dispersing, rebranding, aligning and reforming – continuing to spread as new members join their ranks. This underscores the need to adopt a more preventive approach, one that halts the spread of violent extremist networks. This was a unified message from the February White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism.
Yet we remain challenged by the difficulty of understanding why individuals or communities would join such backward, violent extremist groups. Terror network recruits come from all walks of life: posh suburbs and forgotten slums; from countries rich and poor, repressive and free, stable and conflict-ridden.
They have many complex, overlapping and context-specific motives. This can be confounding for a global community eager to understand why violent extremism proliferates and how we can address it.
Even as our understanding remains incomplete, we have documented a range of grievances and motives that propel individuals, and in some cases, communities to join or align with terrorist actors.
Motives can be identified along what psychologist Abraham Maslow famously posited as a human hierarchy of needs.
Maslow argued that individuals have a range of needs that must be met – in priority order – before people attain their greatest self-realization.
At the bottom of the pyramid are needs critical to physical survival, such as food, shelter and safety.
Higher up the hierarchy of need, individuals look to find love and belonging, self-esteem, and purpose.
In my view, understanding Maslow’s schema usefully helps us disaggregate the reasons that individuals might be “pushed” or “pulled” toward violent extremism. What have been called push factors – the conditions that make individuals or communities vulnerable to extremist recruitment – prominently feature conditions like physical insecurity or the inability to provide for oneself or one’s family. But even where people’s lower-level needs are met, social and political marginalization can impact higher-order human needs such as a valued role or purpose.
The Hierarchy of Needs therefore helps us understand why dramatically different profiles of persons can be drawn to organizations antithetical to what we would identify as progress and humanity.
Any type of violent extremist group exploits human needs all along the spectrum.
From al-Shabab in Somalia to Da’esh in Syria, terror groups lure some with the promise of a paycheck –the undereducated youth with no prospect of employment or a future, or the father who can no longer provide for his family.
Others are motivated to join extremist ranks by higher-end needs – purpose, meaning, identity. The exclusivity of belonging to group that aligns itself against another may lure the racial supremacist -- whether a “Skinhead”, Bhuddist extremist, or other variety. Terrorist narratives and slick media-driven marketing make casting calls for heroic warriors, wives of a new nation, or spiritual martyrdom. By targeting of psychological needs, despite the realities behind the pitch, violent extremists entice local youth, girls from Europe, and wealthy engineers to their ranks.
Maslow’s hierarchy suggests that those with unmet basic needs, be it physical security or a paycheck, may be particularly vulnerable to terror organizations. But the hierarchy also points toward other vulnerabilities that terrorists exploit. In so doing, this schema of needs suggests a complementary – if complex – set of interventions that states and communities must pursue to protect the most vulnerable from the false claims of terrorist propaganda.
Because violent extremists prey on different grievances, from people’s immediate needs for security to their more abstract desires for empowerment, and identity, a ‘whole-of-society’ approach is the key to preventing the spread of violent extremism’s appeals.
We absolutely need our military, intelligence, and law enforcement tools to defeat terror networks. But as Al-Qa’ida was dispersed, new terror groups sprang up, and they have merged or made common cause with other actors – sometimes coopting political movements or non-theologically affiliated communities (such as Sunni communities in parts of Iraq). Tens of thousands of individuals from around the globe travel to join the epicenters of terror. Violent extremism continues to spread.
Therefore as an international community, we must continue to expand our approach to counter terrorism to include greater emphasis on prevention – protecting individuals and communities from violent extremism. As agreed at the February White House Summit, global counter-terrorism efforts must learn to build resilience and resistance within the most vulnerable communities, helping address the range of human needs we have just discussed.
This can mean pushing governments to ensure space for dissent and religious freedom to reduce perceptions of marginalization and enable communities to find their voices; training security forces to protect instead of profile their citizens; supporting civil society to engage youth through educational, service or mentoring programs; partnering with businesses to expand vocational training or economic opportunities in marginalized communities; and amplifying the voice of cultural or religious leaders to challenge violent extremist marketing and propaganda.
Given our limited resources, effective prevention means identifying priority regions and communities at greatest risk of radicalization to violence and working proactively to address the grievances and needs violent extremists are most likely to exploit.
As important as countering extremist narratives is, we must help communities and governments provide alternatives that are as credible, as visible, as empowering, and as broadly available as we can make them.
Local actors must lead this effort, for they have the greatest credibility, knowledge and long-term stake in implementing effective and at times, interrelated interventions.
Governments must also acknowledge their contributions to the grievances violent extremists exploit, like police abuse and corruption, and act swiftly to remedy them.
Our experience and observations since September 11th – the gains, and the missteps – show us that, while our considerable military, intelligence, and law enforcement tools can significantly diminish the capabilities of violent extremist groups, unless local actors address the underlying grievances that feed them, we become locked in managing the consequences of violent extremism without addressing key push factors.
Our experience also demonstrates how, once violent extremism has taken root, the conflict and instability associated with it make it far harder to address the conditions that enable its growth.
That is why we see focusing on prevention as a critical part of how we counter violent extremism and increase the likelihood of avoiding costly interventions later.
To realize the broad partnership required for this long-term and holistic strategy, the White House convened a summit last February of more than 300 participants from national and local governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations to launch a global movement to counter violent extremism.
Participants discussed the underlying drivers of violent extremism, distinguishing “push factors” that made individuals vulnerable from the “pull factors” that lured them to a particular organization. Summit participants developed an Action Agenda for collaborating on a number of priority areas, from researching the local drivers of violent extremism and empowering civil society, to expanding economic opportunities and amplifying local voices to counter violent extremist narratives.
In advance of a CVE leaders level meeting on the margins of the UN General Assembly, members of the international community have begun or are planning regional summits all over the world to broaden this movement and help partner governments develop national strategies tailored to their challenges with violent extremism.
I have participated in two regional summits thus far, and several more are on the horizon – while work is ongoing in capitals and in neighborhoods around the world. I encourage you all to learn more about this agenda by visiting www.cvesummit.org.
I am inspired by the energy around the prevention agenda, which increasingly extends beyond the “usual suspects” in the counterterrorism sphere. For example, Klaus Schwab has committed the World Economic Forum to engage deeply in this approach to countering violent extremism.
The United Nations has long emphasized the need for prevention in its longstanding counter terrorism strategy. At the White House Summit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon announced his commitment to develop a CVE plan of action to guide member states’ and the UN’s prevention efforts. As this expert audience knows well, violent extremism is a generational challenge.
Prevention too often receives short shrift in our debates and budgets. But the preventive aspects of CVE can harness a far broader array of actors and resources than we have to date. Foreign assistance – or overseas development assistance – has a critical role to play, as do the international and regional financial institutions and indeed the private sector. As we broaden this global campaign to counter and prevent violent extremism, we are forging new partnerships with the EU, WEF, IFIs and philanthropic organizations.
We are also strengthening our engagement with the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF) based right here in Geneva.
Recognizing the key role of local governments in this effort, we anticipate on the margins of the UN General Assembly a launch of a Strong Cities initiative for mayors and municipal leaders and practitioners all over the world to exchange their successes and challenges in countering violent extremism. We are also anticipating the launch of regional civil society networks that allow young activists working to build community-level cohesion and artists using the power of creative expression to counter extremist messaging not only to share best practices, but also to connect with potential private sector sponsors to scale their innovative, community-level CVE programs. A side conference in New York that brings together young researchers from around the world working to identify local drivers of violent extremism and what has worked to build community resilience against violent extremism, will lead to the launch of a global research network for those working in this field.
And, I hope this Center can play a role in this new network and more broadly by contributing its world-class scholarship to help illuminate where and why violent extremism is most likely to thrive, and by continuing this vital conversation about the benefits of preventive, whole-of-society approaches to this challenge.
Thank you all very much, and I look forward to your questions.
Combating Terrorism: Looking Over the Horizon
Remarks
Sarah Sewall
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Geneva, Switzerland
June 15, 2015
(As Prepared for Delivery)
Good morning everyone. Thank you Dr. Mohamedou, and the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, for inviting me to address this accomplished group of scholars and practitioners on a topic that concerns much of the globe today: the threat of violent extremism. This threat takes many forms and appears throughout the world including: Neo-Nazi actors in the United States or Europe, violent radical Islamist movements in the Middle East and Africa, or extremist Buddhism operating in parts of Asia.
Violent extremism’s growth over the last decade is an extremely dangerous and destabilizing phenomenon. It is essential that the world mobilize against such backward-looking intolerance and cruelty, which threatens humanity’s moral, political, and economic progress. We know that terrorists must be defeated militarily, yet we also see them responding to military force by dispersing, rebranding, aligning and reforming – continuing to spread as new members join their ranks. This underscores the need to adopt a more preventive approach, one that halts the spread of violent extremist networks. This was a unified message from the February White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism.
Yet we remain challenged by the difficulty of understanding why individuals or communities would join such backward, violent extremist groups. Terror network recruits come from all walks of life: posh suburbs and forgotten slums; from countries rich and poor, repressive and free, stable and conflict-ridden.
They have many complex, overlapping and context-specific motives. This can be confounding for a global community eager to understand why violent extremism proliferates and how we can address it.
Even as our understanding remains incomplete, we have documented a range of grievances and motives that propel individuals, and in some cases, communities to join or align with terrorist actors.
Motives can be identified along what psychologist Abraham Maslow famously posited as a human hierarchy of needs.
Maslow argued that individuals have a range of needs that must be met – in priority order – before people attain their greatest self-realization.
At the bottom of the pyramid are needs critical to physical survival, such as food, shelter and safety.
Higher up the hierarchy of need, individuals look to find love and belonging, self-esteem, and purpose.
In my view, understanding Maslow’s schema usefully helps us disaggregate the reasons that individuals might be “pushed” or “pulled” toward violent extremism. What have been called push factors – the conditions that make individuals or communities vulnerable to extremist recruitment – prominently feature conditions like physical insecurity or the inability to provide for oneself or one’s family. But even where people’s lower-level needs are met, social and political marginalization can impact higher-order human needs such as a valued role or purpose.
The Hierarchy of Needs therefore helps us understand why dramatically different profiles of persons can be drawn to organizations antithetical to what we would identify as progress and humanity.
Any type of violent extremist group exploits human needs all along the spectrum.
From al-Shabab in Somalia to Da’esh in Syria, terror groups lure some with the promise of a paycheck –the undereducated youth with no prospect of employment or a future, or the father who can no longer provide for his family.
Others are motivated to join extremist ranks by higher-end needs – purpose, meaning, identity. The exclusivity of belonging to group that aligns itself against another may lure the racial supremacist -- whether a “Skinhead”, Bhuddist extremist, or other variety. Terrorist narratives and slick media-driven marketing make casting calls for heroic warriors, wives of a new nation, or spiritual martyrdom. By targeting of psychological needs, despite the realities behind the pitch, violent extremists entice local youth, girls from Europe, and wealthy engineers to their ranks.
Maslow’s hierarchy suggests that those with unmet basic needs, be it physical security or a paycheck, may be particularly vulnerable to terror organizations. But the hierarchy also points toward other vulnerabilities that terrorists exploit. In so doing, this schema of needs suggests a complementary – if complex – set of interventions that states and communities must pursue to protect the most vulnerable from the false claims of terrorist propaganda.
Because violent extremists prey on different grievances, from people’s immediate needs for security to their more abstract desires for empowerment, and identity, a ‘whole-of-society’ approach is the key to preventing the spread of violent extremism’s appeals.
We absolutely need our military, intelligence, and law enforcement tools to defeat terror networks. But as Al-Qa’ida was dispersed, new terror groups sprang up, and they have merged or made common cause with other actors – sometimes coopting political movements or non-theologically affiliated communities (such as Sunni communities in parts of Iraq). Tens of thousands of individuals from around the globe travel to join the epicenters of terror. Violent extremism continues to spread.
Therefore as an international community, we must continue to expand our approach to counter terrorism to include greater emphasis on prevention – protecting individuals and communities from violent extremism. As agreed at the February White House Summit, global counter-terrorism efforts must learn to build resilience and resistance within the most vulnerable communities, helping address the range of human needs we have just discussed.
This can mean pushing governments to ensure space for dissent and religious freedom to reduce perceptions of marginalization and enable communities to find their voices; training security forces to protect instead of profile their citizens; supporting civil society to engage youth through educational, service or mentoring programs; partnering with businesses to expand vocational training or economic opportunities in marginalized communities; and amplifying the voice of cultural or religious leaders to challenge violent extremist marketing and propaganda.
Given our limited resources, effective prevention means identifying priority regions and communities at greatest risk of radicalization to violence and working proactively to address the grievances and needs violent extremists are most likely to exploit.
As important as countering extremist narratives is, we must help communities and governments provide alternatives that are as credible, as visible, as empowering, and as broadly available as we can make them.
Local actors must lead this effort, for they have the greatest credibility, knowledge and long-term stake in implementing effective and at times, interrelated interventions.
Governments must also acknowledge their contributions to the grievances violent extremists exploit, like police abuse and corruption, and act swiftly to remedy them.
Our experience and observations since September 11th – the gains, and the missteps – show us that, while our considerable military, intelligence, and law enforcement tools can significantly diminish the capabilities of violent extremist groups, unless local actors address the underlying grievances that feed them, we become locked in managing the consequences of violent extremism without addressing key push factors.
Our experience also demonstrates how, once violent extremism has taken root, the conflict and instability associated with it make it far harder to address the conditions that enable its growth.
That is why we see focusing on prevention as a critical part of how we counter violent extremism and increase the likelihood of avoiding costly interventions later.
To realize the broad partnership required for this long-term and holistic strategy, the White House convened a summit last February of more than 300 participants from national and local governments, civil society, the private sector and international organizations to launch a global movement to counter violent extremism.
Participants discussed the underlying drivers of violent extremism, distinguishing “push factors” that made individuals vulnerable from the “pull factors” that lured them to a particular organization. Summit participants developed an Action Agenda for collaborating on a number of priority areas, from researching the local drivers of violent extremism and empowering civil society, to expanding economic opportunities and amplifying local voices to counter violent extremist narratives.
In advance of a CVE leaders level meeting on the margins of the UN General Assembly, members of the international community have begun or are planning regional summits all over the world to broaden this movement and help partner governments develop national strategies tailored to their challenges with violent extremism.
I have participated in two regional summits thus far, and several more are on the horizon – while work is ongoing in capitals and in neighborhoods around the world. I encourage you all to learn more about this agenda by visiting www.cvesummit.org.
I am inspired by the energy around the prevention agenda, which increasingly extends beyond the “usual suspects” in the counterterrorism sphere. For example, Klaus Schwab has committed the World Economic Forum to engage deeply in this approach to countering violent extremism.
The United Nations has long emphasized the need for prevention in its longstanding counter terrorism strategy. At the White House Summit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon announced his commitment to develop a CVE plan of action to guide member states’ and the UN’s prevention efforts. As this expert audience knows well, violent extremism is a generational challenge.
Prevention too often receives short shrift in our debates and budgets. But the preventive aspects of CVE can harness a far broader array of actors and resources than we have to date. Foreign assistance – or overseas development assistance – has a critical role to play, as do the international and regional financial institutions and indeed the private sector. As we broaden this global campaign to counter and prevent violent extremism, we are forging new partnerships with the EU, WEF, IFIs and philanthropic organizations.
We are also strengthening our engagement with the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF) based right here in Geneva.
Recognizing the key role of local governments in this effort, we anticipate on the margins of the UN General Assembly a launch of a Strong Cities initiative for mayors and municipal leaders and practitioners all over the world to exchange their successes and challenges in countering violent extremism. We are also anticipating the launch of regional civil society networks that allow young activists working to build community-level cohesion and artists using the power of creative expression to counter extremist messaging not only to share best practices, but also to connect with potential private sector sponsors to scale their innovative, community-level CVE programs. A side conference in New York that brings together young researchers from around the world working to identify local drivers of violent extremism and what has worked to build community resilience against violent extremism, will lead to the launch of a global research network for those working in this field.
And, I hope this Center can play a role in this new network and more broadly by contributing its world-class scholarship to help illuminate where and why violent extremism is most likely to thrive, and by continuing this vital conversation about the benefits of preventive, whole-of-society approaches to this challenge.
Thank you all very much, and I look forward to your questions.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
TOM MALINOWSKI ON REMARKS IN MEXICO CITY ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Public Safety and Access to Justice
Remarks
Tom Malinowski
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Open Government Partnership Steering Committee Ministerial
Mexico City, Mexico
April 23, 2015
As prepared for delivery
Thank you all for having me here. This is a timely gathering. Public safety and access to justice are high priority issues in the minds of many civil society representatives in the United States and, I should say, in the minds of American citizens generally. It is no secret that the conduct of law enforcement has been a headline issue for us this last year. In the United States, we believe that an informed and engaged civil society is essential to ensuring that government faithfully discharges its duties to protect its citizens, to guarantee human rights, and to hold itself and its officials accountable for their actions. We know that we’re not perfect. But we are committed to improvement and to upholding institutions that allow us to address our shortcomings. In this spirit, we’re looking forward to sharing ideas and best practices so that we can all build, or restore, trust between people and their government.
Because in countries where citizens lack trust and confidence in their government, where they do not feel enfranchised in decisions affecting their lives, there are a range of costs. Some can be drawn to violent extremism, others to gangs and crime. Corruption is more likely to increase; police and judicial power more likely to be abused. Basic services are distributed unjustly. Innovation and entrepreneurship are stifled as elites focus their power on maintaining a status quo that enables their unjust enrichment. In such societies, the state may seem like it’s growing stronger at the expense of civil society, but in fact institutions that lose the trust of their people often turn out to be hollow. They are strong until the day they are not; they create turmoil and instability that affects their neighbors and the world.
OGP points the way to an alternative, to creating a space where government and civil society can work together – to build trust and to ensure transparent, accountable, citizen-enabled and innovation-powered governance. Last September, President Obama challenged us to support civil society at home and abroad. The strength and success of nations depends, the President has said, on allowing citizens to solve problems without government interference, and on robust engagement between governments and civil society to advance shared goals.
One of OGP’s grand challenges, around which participants are encouraged to develop commitments, is “Promoting Safer Communities.” This is the most undersubscribed of OGP’s grand challenges, yet it is one of the most critical challenges facing countries in every corner of the world, in part because civilian insecurity can express itself in so many different ways—in gang violence and organized crime, in violent extremism, or officials who are complicit in corruption and human rights violations. Across a range of countries and communities, the security and justice sectors may be simply inadequate in creating secure conditions, guaranteeing access to justice, and protecting against human rights abuses. This creates space for crime and extremism to flourish and limits the potential for individual opportunity and economic growth. And ultimately, the persistence of these conditions can undermine the stability of the political system itself.
There is growing interest among civil society organizations in increasing OGP’s focus on this challenge area, and related issues such as access to justice and the promotion and protection of human rights. Transparency International’s new initiative on Safer Communities in Latin America is one example of how civil society and governments can work toward common goals – and I hope Cecilia will be able to share some of the ideas of this groundbreaking effort. With such examples in mind, we are hoping to start a discussion to explore how OGP can help advance the community security challenge.
In my country, events of the past year have called us to take a fresh look at questions of public safety, access to justice, and the need to strengthen police-community relations. In Ferguson, Missouri, public demonstrations and civil society interventions drew the nation’s attention to the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown and to concerns about the practices of the Ferguson Police Department. In addition to opening civil and criminal investigations, our Department of Justice sent mediators to create a dialogue between police, city officials, and residents to reduce tension in the community. In addition, DOJ is involved in a voluntary, independent, and objective assessment of the St. Louis County Police Department, looking at training, use of force, handling of mass demonstrations, and other areas where reform may be needed.
As President Obama has said, “[t]he fact is, in too many parts of (the United States), a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color.” At the President’s request, the Attorney General convened roundtable discussions among law enforcement, elected officials, and community members in six cities in December 2014 and January 2015. The President also appointed a Task Force on 21st Century Policing, made up of governmental and civil society members, which engaged a wide range of state, local, and tribal officials; subject matter experts; and community and faith leaders to develop a series of recommendations on how to strengthen public trust and foster strong relationships between local law enforcement and the communities they protect.
As we continue to strive for what our founding fathers termed “a more perfect union,” we encourage you both to make suggestions to us on what has worked for you in addressing such challenges and to consider what in this example may work in your country contexts.
We also want to hear your thoughts on how this set of issues manifests in different regions and countries. How, in your experience, do open government initiatives strengthen public safety and access to justice? Are there ways for OGP to encourage more countries to commit to improvements in this area? And if we consider access to justice and promotion and protection of human rights core parts of the open government agenda, should we build more robust evaluations into the IRM assessment? Finally, we need to come out of this session with more than great thoughts. We invite your specific recommendations on how OGP can empower citizens to play a role in ensuring accountability in the security and justice sectors.
It’s a lot to think about so with that, I’d like to turn to Cecilia for her remarks before we open up the floor for discussion.
Public Safety and Access to Justice
Remarks
Tom Malinowski
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Open Government Partnership Steering Committee Ministerial
Mexico City, Mexico
April 23, 2015
As prepared for delivery
Thank you all for having me here. This is a timely gathering. Public safety and access to justice are high priority issues in the minds of many civil society representatives in the United States and, I should say, in the minds of American citizens generally. It is no secret that the conduct of law enforcement has been a headline issue for us this last year. In the United States, we believe that an informed and engaged civil society is essential to ensuring that government faithfully discharges its duties to protect its citizens, to guarantee human rights, and to hold itself and its officials accountable for their actions. We know that we’re not perfect. But we are committed to improvement and to upholding institutions that allow us to address our shortcomings. In this spirit, we’re looking forward to sharing ideas and best practices so that we can all build, or restore, trust between people and their government.
Because in countries where citizens lack trust and confidence in their government, where they do not feel enfranchised in decisions affecting their lives, there are a range of costs. Some can be drawn to violent extremism, others to gangs and crime. Corruption is more likely to increase; police and judicial power more likely to be abused. Basic services are distributed unjustly. Innovation and entrepreneurship are stifled as elites focus their power on maintaining a status quo that enables their unjust enrichment. In such societies, the state may seem like it’s growing stronger at the expense of civil society, but in fact institutions that lose the trust of their people often turn out to be hollow. They are strong until the day they are not; they create turmoil and instability that affects their neighbors and the world.
OGP points the way to an alternative, to creating a space where government and civil society can work together – to build trust and to ensure transparent, accountable, citizen-enabled and innovation-powered governance. Last September, President Obama challenged us to support civil society at home and abroad. The strength and success of nations depends, the President has said, on allowing citizens to solve problems without government interference, and on robust engagement between governments and civil society to advance shared goals.
One of OGP’s grand challenges, around which participants are encouraged to develop commitments, is “Promoting Safer Communities.” This is the most undersubscribed of OGP’s grand challenges, yet it is one of the most critical challenges facing countries in every corner of the world, in part because civilian insecurity can express itself in so many different ways—in gang violence and organized crime, in violent extremism, or officials who are complicit in corruption and human rights violations. Across a range of countries and communities, the security and justice sectors may be simply inadequate in creating secure conditions, guaranteeing access to justice, and protecting against human rights abuses. This creates space for crime and extremism to flourish and limits the potential for individual opportunity and economic growth. And ultimately, the persistence of these conditions can undermine the stability of the political system itself.
There is growing interest among civil society organizations in increasing OGP’s focus on this challenge area, and related issues such as access to justice and the promotion and protection of human rights. Transparency International’s new initiative on Safer Communities in Latin America is one example of how civil society and governments can work toward common goals – and I hope Cecilia will be able to share some of the ideas of this groundbreaking effort. With such examples in mind, we are hoping to start a discussion to explore how OGP can help advance the community security challenge.
In my country, events of the past year have called us to take a fresh look at questions of public safety, access to justice, and the need to strengthen police-community relations. In Ferguson, Missouri, public demonstrations and civil society interventions drew the nation’s attention to the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown and to concerns about the practices of the Ferguson Police Department. In addition to opening civil and criminal investigations, our Department of Justice sent mediators to create a dialogue between police, city officials, and residents to reduce tension in the community. In addition, DOJ is involved in a voluntary, independent, and objective assessment of the St. Louis County Police Department, looking at training, use of force, handling of mass demonstrations, and other areas where reform may be needed.
As President Obama has said, “[t]he fact is, in too many parts of (the United States), a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color.” At the President’s request, the Attorney General convened roundtable discussions among law enforcement, elected officials, and community members in six cities in December 2014 and January 2015. The President also appointed a Task Force on 21st Century Policing, made up of governmental and civil society members, which engaged a wide range of state, local, and tribal officials; subject matter experts; and community and faith leaders to develop a series of recommendations on how to strengthen public trust and foster strong relationships between local law enforcement and the communities they protect.
As we continue to strive for what our founding fathers termed “a more perfect union,” we encourage you both to make suggestions to us on what has worked for you in addressing such challenges and to consider what in this example may work in your country contexts.
We also want to hear your thoughts on how this set of issues manifests in different regions and countries. How, in your experience, do open government initiatives strengthen public safety and access to justice? Are there ways for OGP to encourage more countries to commit to improvements in this area? And if we consider access to justice and promotion and protection of human rights core parts of the open government agenda, should we build more robust evaluations into the IRM assessment? Finally, we need to come out of this session with more than great thoughts. We invite your specific recommendations on how OGP can empower citizens to play a role in ensuring accountability in the security and justice sectors.
It’s a lot to think about so with that, I’d like to turn to Cecilia for her remarks before we open up the floor for discussion.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT U.S. EMBASSY IN LONDON
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
02/21/2015 04:31 PM EST
Remarks at Press Availability
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy London
London, United Kingdom
February 21, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. Appreciate everybody’s patience. Well, good evening, everybody. It’s a pleasure for me to be back in London, and I’m very grateful to my friend Philip Hammond, foreign secretary of the U.K., not just for his hospitality but for his partnership in wrestling with some very difficult issues today.
The United States and the United Kingdom have a long tradition of great cooperation, and frankly, that tradition was reinforced today and it continues. Under President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron’s leadership, our two nations are helping to articulate the path forward in many areas of concern for the global community. And this evening I want to focus on a number of them that we discussed here today.
First, the foreign secretary and I reviewed the progress in degrading and ultimately defeating Daesh. Throughout our history, we have faced significant threats together – genocide, aggression, chaos, dictatorship, the battle against fascism and tyranny. Today we’re asked away to a new campaign against a new kind of enemy. The battlefield is very different and the weapons are different, so the strategies that we employ have to be different too in order to overcome that enemy.
I am confident that based on the choices we are making we will degrade and ultimately defeat Daesh. And in my judgment, there should be no question about that. Working together, we have brought together a coalition of more than 60 countries and it is growing still. We’ve seen progress in Iraq. Daesh was defeated at Kobani. Territory is now being taken back. The Iraqi army is beginning to stand up. Their communications, the communications of Daesh, have been disrupted. Their ability to be able to move in convoys has been disrupted. Their supply lines are being disrupted. The transportation networks they utilized are being disrupted.
And so we have started this great enterprise. We’re engaged and we’re coordinating. But obviously, there is a lot more to be done. We understand that, and that’s what we talked about today. Toward our common goal of unity and action, President Obama hosted a summit in Washington this week that brought together leading figures from local and national governments, from civil society and the private sector, people from all around the world who came together, including a robust U.K. delegation led by Home Secretary Theresa May. We’re very grateful for her contribution .
Our goal with the summit was really very simple: to expand the global conversation, and more importantly to listen to each other, share best practices, learn the lessons where things haven’t worked particularly well if they haven’t, and clarify an action agenda that identifies, shares, and deploys those best practices in preventing and countering violent extremism.
In this effort, frankly, we decided – and I think everybody agreed on this yesterday and the day before – there’s a role for every country. There’s something for everybody to be able to do in this.
Together, we committed to help countries that are at immediate risk to be able to grow stronger and to be able to fight back. And Philip Hammond and I discussed some of the things we could do to accomplish that today.
We also committed to interrupt financial flows so that the terrorist become as bankrupt in financial terms as they are in any kind of ideology or program or morality. We committed to stop the recruitment into the terrorist ranks and to work very hard in order to be able to deprive terrorists of the access that they have to those who are disillusioned or disconnected to their particular countries or societies.
We committed to help areas of the globe that are on the front lines or the ones that are next in line as targets, and particularly those that might be subject to the potential of terrorist infiltration. We also committed to work hard to create greater opportunity of positive role models for young people everywhere, and we committed to teach skills and work to improve the economies of many countries where there is a ready pool for the potential of terrorism in order to reduce the numbers of people who might be attracted to the misguided appeals that have brought, frankly, too many people to the battlefield.
Now, make no mistake: The rise of violent extremism remains a challenge for everyone, and it is particularly a challenge to global rule of law. Foreign Secretary Hammond and I agreed that we believe we have made the right initial choices, that we are on the right path, we are confident about the future, but we’re also realistic about those places where we still need to do more to meet the challenge. The reason we are confident is, frankly, because the terrorists have absolutely nothing positive to offer anyone and because nations are coming together across every boundary, every boundary – the boundaries of territory, the boundaries of creed, of religion, of ideology, of governance – in order to move forward in the name of decency, civility, and reason.
Foreign Secretary Hammond and I also discussed the egregious Russian and separatist violations of the February 12th Minsk agreement in Ukraine which embraced the September agreements and set forth a very clear path for what was needed to be done to be able to put a cease-fire in place and begin to live up to those agreements.
One of the most egregious violations is obviously the assault, the full-scale assault on the city of Debaltseve and the violations of the cease-fire in the resupply of the separatists by Russia. Let me be clear: We know to a certainty what Russia has been providing, and no amount of propaganda is capable of hiding these actions. And for anyone who wants to make gray areas out of black, let’s get very real. The Minsk implementation agreement is not open to interpretation. It’s not vague. It’s not optional. It’s called for a complete cease-fire that was to take effect on the night of February 15th with full OSCE access to the conflict zone, and the pullback of all heavy weapons from the line of contact.
So far, Russia and the separatists are only complying in a few areas selectively, not in Debaltseve, not outside Mariopol, and not in other key strategic areas. And that is simply unacceptable. If this failure continues, make no mistake: There will be further consequences, including consequences that would place added strains on Russia’s already troubled economy. We’re not going to sit back and allow this kind of cynical, craven behavior to continue at the expense of the sovereignty and integrity of another nation. And I am confident that the United States and the United Kingdom and others are prepared to stand up and take the measures necessary to add to the cost of these actions.
Foreign Secretary Hammond and I also discussed the concerns that we share about the continued viability of the Palestinian Authority if they do not receive funds soon. If the Palestinian Authority ceases or were to cease, security cooperation – or even decide to disband as a result of their economic predicament, and that could happen in the near future if they don’t receive additional revenues – then we would be faced with yet another crisis that could also greatly impact the security of both Palestinians and Israelis. And that would have the potential of serious ripple effects elsewhere in the region.
So we’re working hard to try to prevent that from happening, and that’s why we’ve been reaching out to key stakeholders in order to express these concerns but also to try to work together to be able to find a solution to this challenge.
Finally, Foreign Secretary Hammond and I discussed the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran. Our governments remain in lockstep with our international partners on the importance of cutting off Iran’s pathways to the potential of a nuclear weapon. And will travel to Geneva tomorrow to meet with Foreign Minister Zarif to see if we can make progress in these talks. A unified P5+1 has put on the table creative ideas to achieve our objective, and now we will find out whether or not Iran is able to match its words about its willingness to show that its program is fully peaceful with the verifiable actions and verifiable decisions that are necessary to accomplish that goal.
Finally, I meant to say a moment ago we also discussed Syria today. The challenge of the Assad regime, which continues to drop barrel bombs on innocent civilians, the challenge of a country that is continuing to be torn apart by this violence. The jihadis who are attracted to Syria because of Assad’s presence and the extraordinary spillover of impact on Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, the region, as a consequence of the numbers of refugees that continue to be created by this violence.
So it is our hope that with good effort over the course of the next weeks and months, we might even be able to find a way to have a greater impact on finding the negotiated path, which is the only ultimate path which will resolve the question of violence and restore stability and integrity to a potentially unified, secular, and stable Syria.
With that, I would be happy to take some questions.
MS. HARF: Great. The first question is for Rosiland Jordan of Al-Jazeera. I’m going to bring the microphone to you.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. First on Ukraine, you described in general terms what came out of your discussions with Foreign Minister Hammond. How likely is it, first, that more economic sanctions and travel bans are going to be imposed? How long is the U.S. willing to wait to see whether the Minsk cease-fire of the past week actually is going to take full effect? Why is it realistic to think that even more economic sanctions are going to persuade Vladimir Putin and his government to change course? Their economy has now been rated at junk bond status and they still seem to be intent on spreading their influence using separatists and Russian troops.
And finally on Ukraine, is it time to give the Ukrainian military lethal weapons so that they can better defend their own territory, especially given that there isn’t a NATO commitment to Ukraine’s security?
And then on the Iran nuclear talks --
SECRETARY KERRY: I’ve got to get a pencil here to write all those questions down. (Laughter.) I need a piece of paper, actually. You’ve got a few more questions there than (inaudible).
QUESTION: Regarding the talks, sir –
SECRETARY KERRY: On what now?
QUESTION: On Iran.
SECRETARY KERRY: We’re Iran now?
QUESTION: Yes, we’re on Iran. Will the U.S. and Iran actually achieve a political framework for a deal by March 31st? How urgent in your estimation is the sentiment on both sides to achieve this deal? Does the fact that the U.S. Energy Secretary Dr. Moniz and his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Salehi, to discuss the technical issues mean that the really tough stuff is getting worked out and that everyone is getting very close to this deal?
And then we have to look at the prospect of what you and the President have said in the past: “No deal is better than a bad deal.” If there is no deal by March 31st, is the U.S. willing to walk away from the table, leave behind the efforts of the JPOA, and essentially reestablish the status quo regarding Iran’s nuclear program?
SECRETARY KERRY: Okay. So let me begin with the last of the questions with respect to Ukraine and then I’ll deal with the other questions on Ukraine. With respect to lethal weapons, we’ve made it very, very clear that that is a discussion that it taking place in Washington both in the Congress as well as in the Administration. No decision has been made by the President at this point in time, and I think we have to see what happens in the next few days with respect to the events that are taking place now on the ground.
With respect to the events that are taking place now on the ground, I think I’ve spoken to them in the course of my opening comments very, very clearly. But the fact is that yes, sanctions are being considered because there are a number of more serious sanctions that yet remain available to the European Community and the United States and others who are sharing in the implementation of these sanctions.
And they are having an impact; there is no question about it. Now, it may not have yet succeeded in presenting President Putin with a choice that he’s been willing to make, but I am confident that in Russia generally there will be an increasing amount of questioning of the course that he is on should additional sanctions be implemented. And there are some yet very serious sanctions that can be taken which have a profound increased negative impact on the Russian economy.
I have said persistently, as President Obama has, that we’re not seeking to hurt the people of Russia, who regrettably pay a collateral price as a result of these sanctions, and we’ve tried to target them as effectively as possible to be able to have an impact on the decision making of those in government itself. But increasingly, there will be an inevitable broader impact as the sanctions ratchet up.
So in the next few days, I anticipate that President Obama will evaluate the choices that are in front of him and will make his decision as to what the next step will be. But there is serious discussion taking place between us and our European allies as to what those next sanction steps ought to be and when they perhaps ought to be implemented. And I am confident that some additional steps will be taken in response to the breaches of this cease-fire and to the process that had been agreed upon in Minsk.
QUESTION: And regarding the Iranian talks?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, regarding the Iranian talks, the presence of Secretary Ernie Moniz is a reflection of the fact that these talks are very technical, and because we are pushing to try to come to agreement on some very difficult issues, it was deemed necessary and appropriate to be able to have our technical people be able to sit with their technical people at the highest level in order to try to resolve any differences that may exist.
I would not read into it any indication whatsoever that something is about to be decided as a result of that. There are still significant gaps. There is still a distance to travel. And with respect to the end date that you asked about, President Obama has no inclination whatsoever to extend these talks beyond the period that has been set out with a feeling that it is imperative to be able to come to a fundamental political outline and agreement within the time span that we have left. And if that can’t be done, that it would be an indication that fundamental choices are not being made that are essential to doing that.
So our target remains, as the President has said, towards the end of March, and I am absolutely confident that President Obama is fully prepared to stop these talks if he feels that they’re not being met with the kind of productive decision making necessary to prove that a program is, in fact, peaceful.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: Great. Our final question is from Nick Childs of the BBC.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. In view of the Ukraine crisis, the issues of the broader relationship now with Russia, and in particular how NATO as an alliance responds to it, the United Kingdom is one of the few countries within NATO now that currently maintains the 2 percent minimum defense spending level, but at the moment the British Government has no formal commitment to sustain it beyond 2016. With the backdrop of everything that is going on, would you welcome a firmer commitment from the United Kingdom Government to sustain the 2 percent defense spending level into the future, perhaps to encourage others?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just say that I don’t want to inadvertently find myself getting in the way of – in any kind of domestic debate that may be going on with respect to an election that is not too far away. And so I’ll answer it in a way that is straightforward but nevertheless not, I think, different from where we’ve been in the past with respect to this issue.
It is standing policy of NATO, standing policy of the United States, which we have expressed through the years frequently and I have personally expressed recently in Brussels, the importance of all NATO members adhering to the 2 percent level. We’re not looking for some kind of reaffirmation or restatements that go well out into the future or something. What we’re looking for is this year’s budget, and that’s what’s important given what has happened in Ukraine, given the pressures on frontline states and the need to have a shared responsibility in order to meet the overall challenge of sustaining NATO as the vital alliance that it is and has been, and being able to send a message to anybody who were to challenge it that people are prepared to live up to their obligations and not just keep it strong but strengthen it at this particular moment. We’ve engaged in a very significant reassurance plan to a number of countries – the Baltics particularly, Poland, others – who are on the front lines. And I think it’s important for them to know that their fellow members of the NATO alliance are doing their share at the same time.
So we’re very pleased that Great Britain has been and remains a steadfast member and contributor to that alliance, one of the leaders of the alliance, in fact. And we have great respect for the armed force capacity and partnership that Great Britain provides with respect to its military obligations and efforts. And I’m confident that the prime minister and the current government will continue to do that. Thank you.
MS. HARF: Thank you, everyone.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, all. Appreciate it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
02/21/2015 04:31 PM EST
Remarks at Press Availability
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy London
London, United Kingdom
February 21, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. Appreciate everybody’s patience. Well, good evening, everybody. It’s a pleasure for me to be back in London, and I’m very grateful to my friend Philip Hammond, foreign secretary of the U.K., not just for his hospitality but for his partnership in wrestling with some very difficult issues today.
The United States and the United Kingdom have a long tradition of great cooperation, and frankly, that tradition was reinforced today and it continues. Under President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron’s leadership, our two nations are helping to articulate the path forward in many areas of concern for the global community. And this evening I want to focus on a number of them that we discussed here today.
First, the foreign secretary and I reviewed the progress in degrading and ultimately defeating Daesh. Throughout our history, we have faced significant threats together – genocide, aggression, chaos, dictatorship, the battle against fascism and tyranny. Today we’re asked away to a new campaign against a new kind of enemy. The battlefield is very different and the weapons are different, so the strategies that we employ have to be different too in order to overcome that enemy.
I am confident that based on the choices we are making we will degrade and ultimately defeat Daesh. And in my judgment, there should be no question about that. Working together, we have brought together a coalition of more than 60 countries and it is growing still. We’ve seen progress in Iraq. Daesh was defeated at Kobani. Territory is now being taken back. The Iraqi army is beginning to stand up. Their communications, the communications of Daesh, have been disrupted. Their ability to be able to move in convoys has been disrupted. Their supply lines are being disrupted. The transportation networks they utilized are being disrupted.
And so we have started this great enterprise. We’re engaged and we’re coordinating. But obviously, there is a lot more to be done. We understand that, and that’s what we talked about today. Toward our common goal of unity and action, President Obama hosted a summit in Washington this week that brought together leading figures from local and national governments, from civil society and the private sector, people from all around the world who came together, including a robust U.K. delegation led by Home Secretary Theresa May. We’re very grateful for her contribution .
Our goal with the summit was really very simple: to expand the global conversation, and more importantly to listen to each other, share best practices, learn the lessons where things haven’t worked particularly well if they haven’t, and clarify an action agenda that identifies, shares, and deploys those best practices in preventing and countering violent extremism.
In this effort, frankly, we decided – and I think everybody agreed on this yesterday and the day before – there’s a role for every country. There’s something for everybody to be able to do in this.
Together, we committed to help countries that are at immediate risk to be able to grow stronger and to be able to fight back. And Philip Hammond and I discussed some of the things we could do to accomplish that today.
We also committed to interrupt financial flows so that the terrorist become as bankrupt in financial terms as they are in any kind of ideology or program or morality. We committed to stop the recruitment into the terrorist ranks and to work very hard in order to be able to deprive terrorists of the access that they have to those who are disillusioned or disconnected to their particular countries or societies.
We committed to help areas of the globe that are on the front lines or the ones that are next in line as targets, and particularly those that might be subject to the potential of terrorist infiltration. We also committed to work hard to create greater opportunity of positive role models for young people everywhere, and we committed to teach skills and work to improve the economies of many countries where there is a ready pool for the potential of terrorism in order to reduce the numbers of people who might be attracted to the misguided appeals that have brought, frankly, too many people to the battlefield.
Now, make no mistake: The rise of violent extremism remains a challenge for everyone, and it is particularly a challenge to global rule of law. Foreign Secretary Hammond and I agreed that we believe we have made the right initial choices, that we are on the right path, we are confident about the future, but we’re also realistic about those places where we still need to do more to meet the challenge. The reason we are confident is, frankly, because the terrorists have absolutely nothing positive to offer anyone and because nations are coming together across every boundary, every boundary – the boundaries of territory, the boundaries of creed, of religion, of ideology, of governance – in order to move forward in the name of decency, civility, and reason.
Foreign Secretary Hammond and I also discussed the egregious Russian and separatist violations of the February 12th Minsk agreement in Ukraine which embraced the September agreements and set forth a very clear path for what was needed to be done to be able to put a cease-fire in place and begin to live up to those agreements.
One of the most egregious violations is obviously the assault, the full-scale assault on the city of Debaltseve and the violations of the cease-fire in the resupply of the separatists by Russia. Let me be clear: We know to a certainty what Russia has been providing, and no amount of propaganda is capable of hiding these actions. And for anyone who wants to make gray areas out of black, let’s get very real. The Minsk implementation agreement is not open to interpretation. It’s not vague. It’s not optional. It’s called for a complete cease-fire that was to take effect on the night of February 15th with full OSCE access to the conflict zone, and the pullback of all heavy weapons from the line of contact.
So far, Russia and the separatists are only complying in a few areas selectively, not in Debaltseve, not outside Mariopol, and not in other key strategic areas. And that is simply unacceptable. If this failure continues, make no mistake: There will be further consequences, including consequences that would place added strains on Russia’s already troubled economy. We’re not going to sit back and allow this kind of cynical, craven behavior to continue at the expense of the sovereignty and integrity of another nation. And I am confident that the United States and the United Kingdom and others are prepared to stand up and take the measures necessary to add to the cost of these actions.
Foreign Secretary Hammond and I also discussed the concerns that we share about the continued viability of the Palestinian Authority if they do not receive funds soon. If the Palestinian Authority ceases or were to cease, security cooperation – or even decide to disband as a result of their economic predicament, and that could happen in the near future if they don’t receive additional revenues – then we would be faced with yet another crisis that could also greatly impact the security of both Palestinians and Israelis. And that would have the potential of serious ripple effects elsewhere in the region.
So we’re working hard to try to prevent that from happening, and that’s why we’ve been reaching out to key stakeholders in order to express these concerns but also to try to work together to be able to find a solution to this challenge.
Finally, Foreign Secretary Hammond and I discussed the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran. Our governments remain in lockstep with our international partners on the importance of cutting off Iran’s pathways to the potential of a nuclear weapon. And will travel to Geneva tomorrow to meet with Foreign Minister Zarif to see if we can make progress in these talks. A unified P5+1 has put on the table creative ideas to achieve our objective, and now we will find out whether or not Iran is able to match its words about its willingness to show that its program is fully peaceful with the verifiable actions and verifiable decisions that are necessary to accomplish that goal.
Finally, I meant to say a moment ago we also discussed Syria today. The challenge of the Assad regime, which continues to drop barrel bombs on innocent civilians, the challenge of a country that is continuing to be torn apart by this violence. The jihadis who are attracted to Syria because of Assad’s presence and the extraordinary spillover of impact on Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, the region, as a consequence of the numbers of refugees that continue to be created by this violence.
So it is our hope that with good effort over the course of the next weeks and months, we might even be able to find a way to have a greater impact on finding the negotiated path, which is the only ultimate path which will resolve the question of violence and restore stability and integrity to a potentially unified, secular, and stable Syria.
With that, I would be happy to take some questions.
MS. HARF: Great. The first question is for Rosiland Jordan of Al-Jazeera. I’m going to bring the microphone to you.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. First on Ukraine, you described in general terms what came out of your discussions with Foreign Minister Hammond. How likely is it, first, that more economic sanctions and travel bans are going to be imposed? How long is the U.S. willing to wait to see whether the Minsk cease-fire of the past week actually is going to take full effect? Why is it realistic to think that even more economic sanctions are going to persuade Vladimir Putin and his government to change course? Their economy has now been rated at junk bond status and they still seem to be intent on spreading their influence using separatists and Russian troops.
And finally on Ukraine, is it time to give the Ukrainian military lethal weapons so that they can better defend their own territory, especially given that there isn’t a NATO commitment to Ukraine’s security?
And then on the Iran nuclear talks --
SECRETARY KERRY: I’ve got to get a pencil here to write all those questions down. (Laughter.) I need a piece of paper, actually. You’ve got a few more questions there than (inaudible).
QUESTION: Regarding the talks, sir –
SECRETARY KERRY: On what now?
QUESTION: On Iran.
SECRETARY KERRY: We’re Iran now?
QUESTION: Yes, we’re on Iran. Will the U.S. and Iran actually achieve a political framework for a deal by March 31st? How urgent in your estimation is the sentiment on both sides to achieve this deal? Does the fact that the U.S. Energy Secretary Dr. Moniz and his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Salehi, to discuss the technical issues mean that the really tough stuff is getting worked out and that everyone is getting very close to this deal?
And then we have to look at the prospect of what you and the President have said in the past: “No deal is better than a bad deal.” If there is no deal by March 31st, is the U.S. willing to walk away from the table, leave behind the efforts of the JPOA, and essentially reestablish the status quo regarding Iran’s nuclear program?
SECRETARY KERRY: Okay. So let me begin with the last of the questions with respect to Ukraine and then I’ll deal with the other questions on Ukraine. With respect to lethal weapons, we’ve made it very, very clear that that is a discussion that it taking place in Washington both in the Congress as well as in the Administration. No decision has been made by the President at this point in time, and I think we have to see what happens in the next few days with respect to the events that are taking place now on the ground.
With respect to the events that are taking place now on the ground, I think I’ve spoken to them in the course of my opening comments very, very clearly. But the fact is that yes, sanctions are being considered because there are a number of more serious sanctions that yet remain available to the European Community and the United States and others who are sharing in the implementation of these sanctions.
And they are having an impact; there is no question about it. Now, it may not have yet succeeded in presenting President Putin with a choice that he’s been willing to make, but I am confident that in Russia generally there will be an increasing amount of questioning of the course that he is on should additional sanctions be implemented. And there are some yet very serious sanctions that can be taken which have a profound increased negative impact on the Russian economy.
I have said persistently, as President Obama has, that we’re not seeking to hurt the people of Russia, who regrettably pay a collateral price as a result of these sanctions, and we’ve tried to target them as effectively as possible to be able to have an impact on the decision making of those in government itself. But increasingly, there will be an inevitable broader impact as the sanctions ratchet up.
So in the next few days, I anticipate that President Obama will evaluate the choices that are in front of him and will make his decision as to what the next step will be. But there is serious discussion taking place between us and our European allies as to what those next sanction steps ought to be and when they perhaps ought to be implemented. And I am confident that some additional steps will be taken in response to the breaches of this cease-fire and to the process that had been agreed upon in Minsk.
QUESTION: And regarding the Iranian talks?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, regarding the Iranian talks, the presence of Secretary Ernie Moniz is a reflection of the fact that these talks are very technical, and because we are pushing to try to come to agreement on some very difficult issues, it was deemed necessary and appropriate to be able to have our technical people be able to sit with their technical people at the highest level in order to try to resolve any differences that may exist.
I would not read into it any indication whatsoever that something is about to be decided as a result of that. There are still significant gaps. There is still a distance to travel. And with respect to the end date that you asked about, President Obama has no inclination whatsoever to extend these talks beyond the period that has been set out with a feeling that it is imperative to be able to come to a fundamental political outline and agreement within the time span that we have left. And if that can’t be done, that it would be an indication that fundamental choices are not being made that are essential to doing that.
So our target remains, as the President has said, towards the end of March, and I am absolutely confident that President Obama is fully prepared to stop these talks if he feels that they’re not being met with the kind of productive decision making necessary to prove that a program is, in fact, peaceful.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: Great. Our final question is from Nick Childs of the BBC.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. In view of the Ukraine crisis, the issues of the broader relationship now with Russia, and in particular how NATO as an alliance responds to it, the United Kingdom is one of the few countries within NATO now that currently maintains the 2 percent minimum defense spending level, but at the moment the British Government has no formal commitment to sustain it beyond 2016. With the backdrop of everything that is going on, would you welcome a firmer commitment from the United Kingdom Government to sustain the 2 percent defense spending level into the future, perhaps to encourage others?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just say that I don’t want to inadvertently find myself getting in the way of – in any kind of domestic debate that may be going on with respect to an election that is not too far away. And so I’ll answer it in a way that is straightforward but nevertheless not, I think, different from where we’ve been in the past with respect to this issue.
It is standing policy of NATO, standing policy of the United States, which we have expressed through the years frequently and I have personally expressed recently in Brussels, the importance of all NATO members adhering to the 2 percent level. We’re not looking for some kind of reaffirmation or restatements that go well out into the future or something. What we’re looking for is this year’s budget, and that’s what’s important given what has happened in Ukraine, given the pressures on frontline states and the need to have a shared responsibility in order to meet the overall challenge of sustaining NATO as the vital alliance that it is and has been, and being able to send a message to anybody who were to challenge it that people are prepared to live up to their obligations and not just keep it strong but strengthen it at this particular moment. We’ve engaged in a very significant reassurance plan to a number of countries – the Baltics particularly, Poland, others – who are on the front lines. And I think it’s important for them to know that their fellow members of the NATO alliance are doing their share at the same time.
So we’re very pleased that Great Britain has been and remains a steadfast member and contributor to that alliance, one of the leaders of the alliance, in fact. And we have great respect for the armed force capacity and partnership that Great Britain provides with respect to its military obligations and efforts. And I’m confident that the prime minister and the current government will continue to do that. Thank you.
MS. HARF: Thank you, everyone.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, all. Appreciate it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
Friday, February 20, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT SUMMIT ON COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Outlining an Action Agenda to Counter Violent Extremism
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism
Washington, DC
February 19, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: So good morning, all. That video very briefly are some of the images of terror and much of the rationale for our being here today. Nobody wants the good to die young, and we all have an enormous obligation, enormous responsibility to find the ways to meet this scourge.
This is the ministerial component of these several days here in Washington, and I want to thank everybody. I know that the schedule of any minister in government today is enormously challenging. So for all of you to come here and spend this much time is really a reflection of the deep commitment and concern about the challenges that we face.
And at the White House yesterday, local practitioners and civil society leaders from around the world gathered to highlight the community-led efforts that can prevent terrorist recruitment and infiltration. There’s been a silly debate in the media in the last days about sort of what you have to do. You have to do everything. You have to take the people off the battlefield who are there today, but you’re kind of stupid if all you do is do that and you don’t prevent more people from going to the battlefield. So we have a broad challenge here. And mostly it is to talk about facts and realities and to take those realities and put them into a real strategy that we all implement together. No one country, no one army, no one group is going to be able to respond to this adequately. And we see that in the numbers of countries that are now being touched by it.
So our goal today is to build on the discussions of the last two days by looking at ways both to address the most alarming threats that we face, but also to get practical, to strengthen the role of civil society – in particular women, youth, and victims – and to ensure that civil society has the space to be able to operate. We need to identify and amplify credible voices, expanding religious and other education that promotes tolerance and peace and respect for all religions; we need to address the social, economic, and political marginalization that is part of this challenge.
When I was recently in a country in northern Africa, the foreign minister there over a good dinner told me about the challenge of a certain portion of their population where young people are just proselytized and captured at a very young stage, paid money in some cases. And once their minds are full of this invective and this distortion, they don’t need to pay them anymore. But what was chilling was, this foreign minister said to me, they don’t have a five-year strategy; they have a 35-year strategy. And so we have to come together and say, “What’s our strategy? How are we going to respond?”;
Our goal today is to take this chance to think broadly about how to prevent violent ideologies from taking hold, and how to prevent terrorist networks such as ISIL or Boko Haram or any group of other names from linking up with aggrieved groups elsewhere, and how to prevent them from thereby expanding their influence.
This morning, I expect that the secretary-general and President Obama will urge us to push ahead as far and as fast as we can to work on the – to develop the work streams that we have already identified. And some of our efforts are going to take place in public gatherings such as this. But I think everybody here understands that much of this work is going to be done quietly, without fanfare, in classrooms, in community centers, in workplaces, in houses of worship, on urban street corners, and in village markets. In the months to come, we will have regional summits, and I’m sure we’ll have other events, which will gauge the progress and measure the next steps. And in New York this fall, our leaders will come together as a group. But between now and then, we must all contribute, and our collaboration and our cooperation must be constant.
Now, we need to remember that our adversaries don’t have to cope with distractions. They don’t have a broad set of responsibilities to fulfill. They don’t have the same institutional responsibilities that we do to meet the needs of our citizens. Terror is their obsession. It’s what they do. And if we let them, their singleness of purpose could actually wind up giving them a comparative advantage. But with the images of recent outbreaks fresh in our minds, everybody here knows we simply can’t let that happen. We have to match their commitment and we have to leave them with no advantage at all.
And this morning, we will begin with a session devoted to a single word: why. Why do people make what to many of us would seem to be an utterly wrongheaded choice and become the kind of terrorists that we’re seeing? It’s a question that we need to approach with humility, but also with determination, because you cannot defeat what you don’t understand. Certainly, there is no single answer.
In our era, poisonous ideas can come from almost anywhere – from parents, teachers, friends, preachers, politicians – from the pretty woman on a radical website who lures people or the man in the next cell who proselytizes while in prison. They might grow from pictures seen on the nightly news or from acts of discrimination or repression that you don’t think much about on the day of occurrence, but which come back to haunt. It could come from the desire to avenge the death of a loved one. In some cases, they may come from a lost job or from the contrast between one family’s empty dinner plate and a fancy restaurant’s lavish menu. The poison might even come from within, in the form of rebellion against anonymity, the desire to belong to a group, people who want a moment of visibility and identity, or the hunger for black and white answers to problems that are very complex in a remarkably more complicated world.
We can all understand the search for meaning and doubts about authority, because at one time or another, most of us have been there. But it’s a huge leap between personal disquiet and committing murder, mayhem. So let there be no confusion or doubt: Whatever one’s individual experience might be, there are no grounds of history, religion, ideology, psychology, politics or economic disadvantage, or personal ambition that will ever justify the killing of children, the kidnapping or rape of teenage girls, or the slaughter of unarmed civilians. These atrocities cannot be rationalized; they cannot be excused. They must be opposed and they must be stopped. Whether in classrooms or houses of worship or over the internet or on TV, our message is very straightforward. To anyone who’s in doubt, we can say with conviction to have no doubt there’s a better way to serve God, a better way to protect loved ones, a better way to defend a community, a better way to seek justice, a better way to become known, a better way to live than by embracing violent extremism. In fact, there is no worse way to do any of those things.
Our challenge then is not really one of marshaling facts, because the facts are wholly on our side. Our task is to encourage the most credible leaders and spokespersons to penetrate the barrier of terrorist lies and to do so over and over and over again. We have to support the right people saying the right things all the time. That also means that we have to be crystal clear in separating what we oppose from what we should always be eager to defend. We have to be steadfast advocates of religious freedom, supporters of the right to peaceful dissent, opponents of bigotry in every form, and builders of opportunity for all.
Friends, our arms are open. Our minds are open to the ideas. The partnership against violent extremism that we are assembling has room for anyone who is willing to respect the fundamental rights and dignity of other human beings. And so it is appropriate this morning that we will be privileged to hear from the secretary-general of the United Nations, an organization whose founding, purpose, is to encourage us all to practice tolerance and live together in peace. Through these – through its efforts at peacebuilding, conflict resolution, development, the UN has obviously been an invaluable contributor to the long-term battle against international terror and the global partnership that is represented here today. This effort is not something taking place outside of the UN; this is to support the UN resolution, respect to this, and is to support the efforts that we have all been part of for so long.
In 2006, Ban Ki-moon was chosen to lead the UN. Five years later he was reelected. He’s been a voice of healing and reconciliation. And despite the fact that the job of secretary-general is nearly impossible, Ban Ki-moon has become known across the globe for his energy and his commitment. And it’s my honor to present to you the Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon. (Applause.)
Outlining an Action Agenda to Counter Violent Extremism
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism
Washington, DC
February 19, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: So good morning, all. That video very briefly are some of the images of terror and much of the rationale for our being here today. Nobody wants the good to die young, and we all have an enormous obligation, enormous responsibility to find the ways to meet this scourge.
This is the ministerial component of these several days here in Washington, and I want to thank everybody. I know that the schedule of any minister in government today is enormously challenging. So for all of you to come here and spend this much time is really a reflection of the deep commitment and concern about the challenges that we face.
And at the White House yesterday, local practitioners and civil society leaders from around the world gathered to highlight the community-led efforts that can prevent terrorist recruitment and infiltration. There’s been a silly debate in the media in the last days about sort of what you have to do. You have to do everything. You have to take the people off the battlefield who are there today, but you’re kind of stupid if all you do is do that and you don’t prevent more people from going to the battlefield. So we have a broad challenge here. And mostly it is to talk about facts and realities and to take those realities and put them into a real strategy that we all implement together. No one country, no one army, no one group is going to be able to respond to this adequately. And we see that in the numbers of countries that are now being touched by it.
So our goal today is to build on the discussions of the last two days by looking at ways both to address the most alarming threats that we face, but also to get practical, to strengthen the role of civil society – in particular women, youth, and victims – and to ensure that civil society has the space to be able to operate. We need to identify and amplify credible voices, expanding religious and other education that promotes tolerance and peace and respect for all religions; we need to address the social, economic, and political marginalization that is part of this challenge.
When I was recently in a country in northern Africa, the foreign minister there over a good dinner told me about the challenge of a certain portion of their population where young people are just proselytized and captured at a very young stage, paid money in some cases. And once their minds are full of this invective and this distortion, they don’t need to pay them anymore. But what was chilling was, this foreign minister said to me, they don’t have a five-year strategy; they have a 35-year strategy. And so we have to come together and say, “What’s our strategy? How are we going to respond?”;
Our goal today is to take this chance to think broadly about how to prevent violent ideologies from taking hold, and how to prevent terrorist networks such as ISIL or Boko Haram or any group of other names from linking up with aggrieved groups elsewhere, and how to prevent them from thereby expanding their influence.
This morning, I expect that the secretary-general and President Obama will urge us to push ahead as far and as fast as we can to work on the – to develop the work streams that we have already identified. And some of our efforts are going to take place in public gatherings such as this. But I think everybody here understands that much of this work is going to be done quietly, without fanfare, in classrooms, in community centers, in workplaces, in houses of worship, on urban street corners, and in village markets. In the months to come, we will have regional summits, and I’m sure we’ll have other events, which will gauge the progress and measure the next steps. And in New York this fall, our leaders will come together as a group. But between now and then, we must all contribute, and our collaboration and our cooperation must be constant.
Now, we need to remember that our adversaries don’t have to cope with distractions. They don’t have a broad set of responsibilities to fulfill. They don’t have the same institutional responsibilities that we do to meet the needs of our citizens. Terror is their obsession. It’s what they do. And if we let them, their singleness of purpose could actually wind up giving them a comparative advantage. But with the images of recent outbreaks fresh in our minds, everybody here knows we simply can’t let that happen. We have to match their commitment and we have to leave them with no advantage at all.
And this morning, we will begin with a session devoted to a single word: why. Why do people make what to many of us would seem to be an utterly wrongheaded choice and become the kind of terrorists that we’re seeing? It’s a question that we need to approach with humility, but also with determination, because you cannot defeat what you don’t understand. Certainly, there is no single answer.
In our era, poisonous ideas can come from almost anywhere – from parents, teachers, friends, preachers, politicians – from the pretty woman on a radical website who lures people or the man in the next cell who proselytizes while in prison. They might grow from pictures seen on the nightly news or from acts of discrimination or repression that you don’t think much about on the day of occurrence, but which come back to haunt. It could come from the desire to avenge the death of a loved one. In some cases, they may come from a lost job or from the contrast between one family’s empty dinner plate and a fancy restaurant’s lavish menu. The poison might even come from within, in the form of rebellion against anonymity, the desire to belong to a group, people who want a moment of visibility and identity, or the hunger for black and white answers to problems that are very complex in a remarkably more complicated world.
We can all understand the search for meaning and doubts about authority, because at one time or another, most of us have been there. But it’s a huge leap between personal disquiet and committing murder, mayhem. So let there be no confusion or doubt: Whatever one’s individual experience might be, there are no grounds of history, religion, ideology, psychology, politics or economic disadvantage, or personal ambition that will ever justify the killing of children, the kidnapping or rape of teenage girls, or the slaughter of unarmed civilians. These atrocities cannot be rationalized; they cannot be excused. They must be opposed and they must be stopped. Whether in classrooms or houses of worship or over the internet or on TV, our message is very straightforward. To anyone who’s in doubt, we can say with conviction to have no doubt there’s a better way to serve God, a better way to protect loved ones, a better way to defend a community, a better way to seek justice, a better way to become known, a better way to live than by embracing violent extremism. In fact, there is no worse way to do any of those things.
Our challenge then is not really one of marshaling facts, because the facts are wholly on our side. Our task is to encourage the most credible leaders and spokespersons to penetrate the barrier of terrorist lies and to do so over and over and over again. We have to support the right people saying the right things all the time. That also means that we have to be crystal clear in separating what we oppose from what we should always be eager to defend. We have to be steadfast advocates of religious freedom, supporters of the right to peaceful dissent, opponents of bigotry in every form, and builders of opportunity for all.
Friends, our arms are open. Our minds are open to the ideas. The partnership against violent extremism that we are assembling has room for anyone who is willing to respect the fundamental rights and dignity of other human beings. And so it is appropriate this morning that we will be privileged to hear from the secretary-general of the United Nations, an organization whose founding, purpose, is to encourage us all to practice tolerance and live together in peace. Through these – through its efforts at peacebuilding, conflict resolution, development, the UN has obviously been an invaluable contributor to the long-term battle against international terror and the global partnership that is represented here today. This effort is not something taking place outside of the UN; this is to support the UN resolution, respect to this, and is to support the efforts that we have all been part of for so long.
In 2006, Ban Ki-moon was chosen to lead the UN. Five years later he was reelected. He’s been a voice of healing and reconciliation. And despite the fact that the job of secretary-general is nearly impossible, Ban Ki-moon has become known across the globe for his energy and his commitment. And it’s my honor to present to you the Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon. (Applause.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)