DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS BRIEFING

FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DOD News Briefing with George Little
            GEORGE LITTLE:  Good afternoon.  I have no announcements to make today, so I will go straight to your questions.
            Yes, sir.  
            Q:  Yes.  Thank you.
            Or, Bob --
            Q:  No, no, please.
            Q:  OK.  Thank you.  
            MR. LITTLE:  You all can vie for your place, if you want.
            Q:  My question is as far as opening the doors of Pakistan's -- the supply route to Afghanistan for the U.S., Secretary Panetta also spoke very clearly about this, that Pakistan is now sending a mixed signal rather than a clear policy or clear -- what they want.  
            But what Pakistan is saying -- that really that if the civilian government opens the route for the U.S. for supply and they have threats from the religious organizations and terrorist organizations that if they -- if the civilian government opens the route, then they will march to Islamabad -- and so what's happening?  What's going on?
            And also, ongoing violence in Karachi also is a threat to the stability in Pakistan.
            MR. LITTLE:  Well, let me break apart that question into a couple of answers, if I may.  First, with respect to the ground supply routes into Afghanistan, we remain hopeful that those routes will be reopened in the near future, and discussions with the Pakistanis continue on a range of issues.  General Allen and General Mattis had a very good session with General Kayani and other Pakistani officials recently, and we look forward to future discussions.  
            As I've said on repeated occasion to all of you, the relationship with Pakistan remains very important to the United States and we're always looking for ways to explore further cooperation.  And it's important to recognize that cooperation does continue on a variety of fronts, and that includes the issue of counterterrorism and also coordination along the border with Afghanistan.
            So we think that we are -- the relationship is settling and, even though we've been through a rocky period, we can get through it.
            On the issue of terrorism, the Pakistanis have been the victims of very devastating violence inflicted by terrorists, so we share a common cause in thwarting al-Qaida and other terrorist groups that are operating in the region, and we're going to continue to try to work closely with our Pakistani counterparts to prevent terrorist attacks against Pakistani interests, against American interests and those of our allies.
            Q:  (Off mic) -- quickly, that if Secretary Panetta has said that Pakistan think or Pakistanis told him that India's a threat to Pakistan.  That's why maybe this problem is going on.
            MR. LITTLE:  I'm not quite sure --
            Q:  If Secretary Panetta has said in his interviews or in his remarks, I believe, that Pakistanis told him that India is a threat to Pakistan.
            MR. LITTLE:  I'm not going to get into private discussions that the secretary may or may not have had at various points.  But everyone recognizes that there have been tensions in that region for some time. We recognize those, and we believe that -- and to the extent that we can do so, we will -- we'll try to forge our greater cooperation to prevent unintended consequences of historic tensions from creating greater conflict.
            Barbara.
            Q:  George, why -- can you walk us through why the coalition and the United States is negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government right now governing how night raids are conducted in the war in Afghanistan?  Why are you doing it?  Why is it important?  And then I want to ask you a follow-up, since you brought up the Allen-Mattis meeting.
            MR. LITTLE:  OK.  Well, first, on the issue of night raids, this has been a concern of the Afghan government for some time.  We recognize that.  We recognize the effectiveness as well that night operations have had over time.  And that's why we're working through an agreement with our Afghan partners.  We believe we're making progress in heading toward an agreement on this and a broad range of other issues.
            It's important to recognize too, Barbara that at this point in time we're working hand in hand -- ISAF forces are working hand in hand with our Afghan partners on night operations, and they are highly effective.  And many of them don't take place with a shot being fired.
            So we're working closely with our Afghan partners.  We're making progress.  And that's reflective, I think, of the progress we're making overall.
            Q:  Right, but what I don't understand, and maybe you can explain, is why do you -- if they're working and they're effective, why do you need an agreement?  What is the -- if you can't say what's in it, which I'm assuming you can't, what is the scope of it?
            What it is intended to address?
            MR. LITTLE:  I wouldn't get into the scope of a prospective agreement and get out ahead of what actually may come out on paper at the end of the day.  
            But there are agreements that we make with our Afghan partners and our -- and other partners around the world all the time when there are concerns expressed, when they want to determine how particular operations are going to move forward into the future.  And it's important to realize that this will be, at the end of the day, something that they're responsible for -- when we move toward an enduring presence as part of our -- the transition process, and codifying that, we think, could benefit Afghanistan, the United States and our coalition partners.
            Q:  I'm sorry -- (inaudible).
            MR. LITTLE:  It makes sense.
            Q:  This is -- this is post-2014, or would it go into effect --
            MR. LITTLE:  I'm not going to get into timing at this stage.  I'm merely pointing out the fact that creating a template for giving the Afghans more responsibility for their own security, to include in certain operations, is, we think, something that is a sign of progress.  And again, without getting into timing, that cooperation is essential, and we're going to work with them to try to help move the transition process forward.
Q:  Do you expect U.S. forces to maintain a role in night operations?
            MR. LITTLE:  I'm not going to get out ahead of what may or may not be in an agreement.
            Jim.
            Q:  You mentioned early on that you're doing these night operations -- (inaudible) -- with the Afghan allies.  Do you have a percentage?  Do you happen to know how many of these operations are done with Afghans participating?
            MR. LITTLE:  Jim, it's not an insignificant number.  I don't have the precise number for you, but I can definitely assure you that we're working hand in hand with our Afghan partners on this and a wide range of other operations, and they are having an effect.
            Q:  Do you think it's more than half?
            MR. LITTLE:  We'll get back to you on that since I don't have a precise number, but I think it's in the ballpark.
            Q:  OK.  Great.  Thanks.
            Q:  (Inaudible.)  Regarding North Korean planned missile launch, what do you assess could be the worst-case scenario?  And what can the Pentagon do to prevent that worst- case scenario?
            MR. LITTLE:  Well, I'm not going to get into speculation on scenarios. The important thing, we believe, is to emphasize with our partners around the world that the North Koreans should not violate their international obligations by conducting a missile launch, which they have announced they might do.  So the focus at this point is on reinforcing to the North Koreans that this is something that the international community objects to.
            Q:  Can I follow on that, George?  There's reports out of South Korea that the North Koreans are working on an even bigger missile than the Taepo Dong II, there are suggestions that there's satellite imagery out there, and that this bigger missile could have a range that could reach the U.S.  
            Do you have any evidence that they're working on such a missile, and any comment no that?
            MR. LITTLE:  I'll have to take a look at those press reports coming out of the region, but I would just merely say that this is something we're working with our partners on.  The secretary had a very good phone call with his Japanese counterpart this morning.  And this is, you know, an issue of importance, we realize, to the United States, to our partners in the region.  And the main point, again, is to try to emphasize very clearly to the North Koreans that they have international obligations that they must uphold.
            Q:  At this point, what is your assessment of their longest range in terms of their missile?
            MR. LITTLE:  Yeah, so I'm not going to get into those specifics, Justin.  But you know, again, we're monitoring all of this very closely.
            Q:  Quick follow-up?
            Q:  What specifically is the U.S. military doing to prepare for this rocket launch?  Are you moving any assets into the region?
            MR. LITTLE:  I'm not going to get into specifics.  But we, along with our partners in the region, are monitoring developments very closely.  And that's where I'll leave it.
            Q:  And does the U.S. -- (inaudible) -- provide food aid to the North Korea even if the missile launching?
            MR. LITTLE:  On the issue of food aid, I would ask that you touch base with the State Department.  But without commenting specifically on food aid, I would say that, you know, North Korea, you know, must do the right thing.  And that's what we're calling on them to do.  And we are asking that they not move forward with a violation of their international obligations.  And that's something that we just -- we can't countenance.
            Q:  (Off mic.)
            MR. LITTLE:  Yes, ma'am.
            Q:  (Inaudible.)
            MR. LITTLE:  OK.  
            Q:  Yeah, South Korean long-range missile went 1,000 kilometers. U.S. and South Korea do compromise -- did that issue?
            MR. LITTLE:  I'm sorry.  Say that again.
            Q:  The Koreans with the missile -- long-range missile distance, 1,000 kilometers, upgraded to South Korean missile range.
            MR. LITTLE:  Uh-huh.  Well, we're -- I'm not going to get into the -- into specifics on that.  But obviously, we are, you know, in constant dialogue with our Republic of Korea allies on ways of shoring up their capabilities.  And we continue to work closely with them.  We have an unwavering commitment to the defense of South Korea, and we are going to continue to work closely with our allies.
            Yeah.  OK, yeah.
            Q:  Yeah, I'd -- George, I wanted to see if you could comment on reports coming out of Canada regarding the Joint Strike Fighter program.
            Apparently, there was an audit general report saying that costs were basically under assumed, I guess, and there is now reconsideration of the country's participation in the effort.  One, yeah, can you comment on the report?  And two, what would the effect be if Canada would have if it were to leave the program?
            MR. LITTLE:  The secretary had a very positive meeting recently in Ottawa, as you know, trilateral discussions with our Canadian allies and the government of Mexico as well.  And you probably saw Minister MacKay speak publicly to this issue and represent the government of Canada's views on the F-35.
            I'm not going to speak for our Canadian allies, obviously, but what I can say is that we are strongly committed to the F-35.  We believe the design is showing great potential and that it can deliver the needed advanced capability for the U.S. and for our international partners.  We remain focused on completing development and testing so that we can put the aircraft in service, and for a long time.
            We believe we're making significant strides on the F-35.  Yes, there have been issues in the past with respect to development and testing and with respect to cost.  And it's been a priority of this secretary and his leadership team to advance development and testing as well as control costs.  And we believe that we're doing that.
            I would also say that we're pleased with the emerging appearance of stability in the manufacturing flow at Lockheed-Martin, Pratt & Whitney and in their supplier teams.  Building test aircraft has given way now to beginning deliveries of a low-rate initial production jets. And that's a sign of progress.
            Q:  George --
            Q:  That said -- but with the trouble that Canadians are having, the British are considering dropping their buys of the program.  What does that say to the international partners for the program?  I mean, it seems like they're running into a lot of difficulties, aside from the difficulties that have been going on: on the U.S. side.
            MR. LITTLE:  Again, without speaking to or about or for other countries, we realize that there are certain pressures right now, including budget pressures, in certain parts of the world.  But the important issue remains that this is a fifth-generation advanced strike fighter.  And it's important, we believe, not only to the security of the United States, but to the capabilities of our partners as well.  And we are committed to this program.
            And we have made progress.  It has had issues from time to time. But we are -- believe that we will get over the goal line with F-35. We're moving into production, and this is a clear sign that even though there have been issues in the past, that we can move beyond them.
            Tony .
            Q:  Just to follow up, the program office -- (inaudible) --
            MR. LITTLE:  You would never have an F-35 question.  
            Q:  I might have a Kentucky question.
            MR. LITTLE:  OK.  All right.    I'll go for that one.
            Q:  Yeah.  (Inaudible) -- almost didn't cover the spread, but --   On the F-35, the program manager on Friday acknowledged that there is about 9 percent growth in the overall program from 1.3 trillion (dollars), which is a hell of a lot, to 1.51 trillion (dollars), which is a lot.  Nine percent, in relative terms, that's a lot of money for that program.  But is it -- are you -- is the DOD concerned at that amount of growth at this point?  Or are you looking at that as, hey, it could have been worse, and this is -- this shows some signs of stability?
            MR. LITTLE:  We do believe that we're achieving stability over time with respect to development and testing and with respect to cost.
            We continue to address the issue of the large overlap of testing and production, and -- you know, and the concurrency issue.  And making critical changes to aircraft after accepting the cost burden -- you know, for instance, that is challenging.
            As you know, there's a new lot, Lot 5, that begins a business arrangement that shares this burden with industry in future years -- will continue until discovery from testing recedes.  So I think this is something that we have to get our arms around, where we're serious about cost control.  The secretary has asked very emphatically that we try to tighten up, especially as we look to a constrained defense budget going forward.  And he believes that we're settling down, I think.
            Q:  This recent cost increase of 9 percent, while not great -- you're not seeing it -- there's not -- that's not cause for alarm within OSD?
            MR. LITTLE:  I think that -- look, we don't like to see cost increases.  But no, we're committed to this program.  And we're committed to cost controls.  And we are not -- we are not running to the exits on F-35.  On the contrary, we are running with enthusiasm toward the prospect of putting this airplane into full production, again, for us and for our partners.
            Q:  You're not saying this is a slam dunk, though, at this point, are you?
            MR. LITTLE:  I am -- I'm a very happy man these days.  If you're going to use a basketball analogy, given that my team won last night -- a great game, for all you Kansas fans -- don't want to cause problems in the ranks.
            Q:  George, Ambassador Crocker recently made some comments that suggested there was a greater danger of al-Qaida using Afghanistan to launch 9/11-style attacks on other Western cities.  Have you seen a rise in the number of al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan, or has it remained relatively steady?
            MR. LITTLE:  I'm not going to get into specific numbers, Chris, on fighters associated with al-Qaida.  I mean, the important thing to remember about al-Qaida is that even they may -- even though they may be smaller than some other groups in the region, it's about their objectives.  And one of their objectives -- even though they are damaged from serious pressure that's been brought to bear against them, one of their objectives remains to attack the United States and our allies.  So we have to keep the pressure up.  We have to make sure that they don't have the ability to strike us again.
            And look, if you take their raw numbers, whatever that number may be, they're part of a bad stew of militant groups in the region, and they continue to try to forge relationships with those groups.  Now, some of those relationships have been disrupted, and that's a good thing, obviously.  So we have to -- but we have to keep our eye on the ball.  And we can't continue to -- or we can't let up the pressure.
            Q:  Well, just -- NATO officials put the number at about a hundred.  But I wasn't asking you for a specific number.  I was saying, has the number remained relatively steady, or have you seen a rise in the number of suspected al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan?
            MR. LITTLE:  I would probably, you know, ask that you touch base with my colleagues in Afghanistan.  I'm unaware of a steep rise in the number of al-Qaida.  But again, this is about a group that has attacked the United States, and we need to continue to do everything we can to keep up the pressure.  This is -- this is a continuing problem, and again, not just because of al-Qaida, but because of their relationships.
            And that's why on the Afghan side of the border, we need to continue to put pressure on them and their militant allies, and on the Pakistani side of the border we need to work closely with the Pakistanis to ramp up efforts against them.
            Q:  George, have ISAF and the Afghans come to an agreement on a number for the ANSF post the 352,000 surge?  And if not, when do you expect an announcement on that number?  And what -- you know, obviously it's going to be lower.  Can you give us a range of anything -- or a specific number?
            MR. LITTLE:  It's a good question.  I don't have a specific number to provide today.  We are in discussions with our Afghan partners about what the enduring number of ANSF personnel will be and what the funding will be.  I don't have any announcements to make today.
            What I would say about the ANSF more broadly is that, you know, there's been a lot of discussion recently, and rightfully so, about some tragic and recent incidents, but this is one of the untold success stories, I think, or it's a story that hasn't been told enough, and that's the success of the ANSF.  They are now in the 330,000 range, maybe even higher now, in number, and they're doing great work, on their own and with us and with our allies.
            And I think that's -- you know, even though we have seen recent incidents that have been problematic, there's an arc of -- over- arching progress that continues to expand.  And this is a testament to our Afghan allies' commitment to taking the fight on themselves, providing for their own security, and we're going to continue to stick with them to try to enhance their capabilities.  This is important.
            Now, to your question, Justin, will the number be lower at some point?  Maybe.  But that's something for us to work out with the Afghans.  Again, I'm not going to get into the -- into specifics.  We need to have an enduring and sustainable ANSF that can again provide for the security of the Afghan people.  This is about giving the Afghan people responsibility for governing their own country and for providing security for their own citizens.
            Q:  Do commanders in the field dictate that number?  Or does funding ultimately dictate that final number?
            MR. LITTLE:  There are a number of factors that go into discussions of this sort.  I'm not going to get into what's part of the calculus, but the important thing is to be able to ensure that the Afghans have a number of ANSF personnel, army and local police, that can sustain the gains that they have made working closely with ISAF forces.  And that's going to be the -- that's going to be the key factor, I think.
            Are there resource discussions to be had?  Of course.  You can't field a force of hundreds of thousands, potentially, and not look at the resource equation.  So that's going to have to be part of the discussion.
            But the important principle here is to get the ANSF to where it needs to be, and we think they're moving in absolutely the right direction.  They have worked closely with us, even in the aftermath of recent incidents, and that's something that we're very grateful for and is a sign of the progress they're making.
Yes, in the back.
            Q:  George, is it the position of the department that the aid that was agreed on Syria, the aid that was agreed to last week, that is totally a State Department function?
            Because it appears that some of the equipment that the opposition will be getting is night-vision equipment, military night-vision equipment. Does the U.S. military have any involvement in that?
            MR. LITTLE:  This is a State Department-led effort.  The, I think, $25 million in humanitarian assistance is something that the State Department is managing.  The secretary of state, I believe yesterday, spoke at some length about the nature of this assistance and, I believe, used the word "nonmilitary" at one point.  So I would refer you to her comments.
            On Syria writ large, we remain very concerned about continuing violence in that country.  We're working closely with our partners in the region to try to determine what can be done.  And again, we believe that -- I would just reiterate the policy of this administration, and that is that President Assad needs to step aside.
            Yes.
            Q:  George, the recent commitment of President Obama, President Calderon and Prime Minister Harper in regards to fighting the organized crime implies a new strategy or more resources or training for Mexico and all the countries affected by this tragedy ?
            MR. LITTLE:  I'm not sure that I have any specific agreements or accords or other instruments of international law to point to.  But what I can say, that it was a remarkably productive discussion, a historic dialogue, the first of its kind to discuss hemispheric security issues, to include narco-trafficking, trafficking in illicit goods and a range of other issues.  So we hope that this dialogue can continue in the future.  We look forward to working with our Canadian and Mexican counterparts to try to set up future forums such as this.
            And we're always looking for ways to explore deeper cooperation with our allies to the north and south.
            Courtney.
            Q:  On the Quran burning incident, has -- there obviously hasn't been a investigation publicly released.  Has Secretary Panetta been briefed on any findings yet?  Or can you update us on where the U.S. and/or the U.S. joint Afghan investigation stands?
            MR. LITTLE:  The -- this is an incident that we obviously have taken very seriously and have undertaken a deliberate process to investigate.  As I understand it, the investigation is not yet complete, but we're working toward completion.  And beyond that, I don't have anything to report at this stage.  But I'll certainly keep you posted.
            Q:  So Secretary Panetta has not been updated at all on the progress or any findings or anything like that on this investigation after all this time still?
            MR. LITTLE:  He has taken, for obvious reasons, a strong interest in the progress of the investigation and where it stands.  I'm not going to get out ahead, though, of what the investigation might yield. Again, this is something that needs to come from Afghanistan first, from our commanders, General Allen there, and then we'll move forward. The -- we understand the concerns that this issue or incident raised, and we're committed to addressing it, and General Allen has in Afghanistan.
            Q:  But just to be clear, when you say that the investigation is not yet complete, do you mean, though, the U.S.-Afghan joint one, or do you mean the U.S. -- wasn't there a U.S. one -- as well like at 15-6 investigation?
            MR. LITTLE:  We're obviously taking a look at this ourselves. And to my knowledge, that investigation has not been completed.  The -- as far as the joint investigation goes, I'll have to get back to you on that.
            All right, couple more questions, and then I'll take -- I'll take leave.
            Q:  Can I follow up on Pakistan?
            MR. LITTLE:  OK.
            Q:  The U.S. had a 10 million (dollar) bounty on Lashkar-e-Taiba leader Hafiz Saeed.  And Hafiz Saeed is blamed for having some sort of support from Pakistani intelligence.  Don't you think it will affect those ongoing efforts being made by intelligence officials from both sides to improve the strained relationship?
            MR. LITTLE:  I'm not going to comment on reported ties between the -- elements of the Pakistani government and certain groups inside Pakistan.  The LET, from the U.S. perspective, is a very dangerous group that has mounted operations externally and continues to plot attacks.  This is a very serious issue for us, and I think that's why you saw this announcement.  You know, we believe that this group remains a threat, remains a threat to people in the region and to us.
            Q:  Can I follow up on this quickly?
            MR. LITTLE:  OK.
            Q:  The U.S. military says that it has good contacts with the Pakistani military.  The generals were here a couple -- a few days ago.  So what is the feedback that you are getting from the Pakistani military on this issue?  Because this man, who has killed dozens of Indians and six American citizens, is roaming free in Pakistan.  So what is the feedback that you are getting from your military counterparts?
            MR. LITTLE:  I'm not going to get into the specifics of our discussions with our foreign counterparts.  The focus with the military in Pakistan right now is continuing to look for ways to cooperate.
            That's an essential part of the relationship, to cooperate on a number of levels, political being one and of course military being another, and there are other means of cooperation as well.
            So I think the government of Pakistan understands our long- standing concerns about LET and I'll -- I think I'll leave it there.
            Final question.  Yes.
            Q:  Your briefing already mentioned about that this morning for Secretary Panetta and the Japanese defense minister's meeting -- I mean the telephone conference.  Could you just give us a little more detailed information about that?  And did they talk anything about other than North Korea missile launch?
            MR. LITTLE:  As you know -- well, I'm not going to get into specifics of their conversation, but they did address the prospect of a North Korean missile launch and both expressed concern about the possibility of that occurring in the near future.  And of course we both hope that it doesn't.
            The United States has regular dialogue and the secretary thoroughly enjoys speaking on a relatively frequent basis with his Japanese counterparts.  And so they discuss a wide range of issues.
            We understand the concerns that our Japanese allies have about this prospective launch, the potential impact on the security of the region, and this was a call to share common concerns over the North Korean missile launch, among other reasons.
            Q:  George -- I mean, the reality is, while everyone's concerned, what does the U.S. do about it, other than sit back and take it when it happens, to see what -- where it all lands? I mean, isn't that really the reality here?
            MR. LITTLE:  I think I said "last question," but I'll make this one -- the last.
            MR. LITTLE:  And I'm really not going to get into speculation on it, Barbara.  I mean, this is something that we take very seriously, the prospect of a North Korean missile launch.  What we may or may not do is something that I'll leave to others to hypothesize on.
            All right?  Thank you, everyone.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 3, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:31 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: All right. Happy Tuesday, everyone. I have a brief statement on Mali at the top, and then we’ll go to what’s on your minds. And we will also be putting this statement out right after the briefing.

The United States remains deeply concerned about the ongoing political crisis in Mali. Mali’s territorial integrity is at stake, and its political institutions will be further weakened if Captain Amadou Sanogo and his supporters do not release their illegitimate grip on Mali and its people immediately. We commend the ongoing leadership of the ECOWAS group to restore full civilian and constitutional rule, and we echo ECOWAS’s call – that’s hard, echo ECOWAS’s call – on Captain Sanogo and his supporters to return to power – return power to the civilian leadership, consistent with Mali’s constitution.

At the same time, the United States urgently calls on all armed rebels in the north of Mali to cease military operations that compromise the Republic of Mali’s territorial integrity, and we exhort all parties in the north to ensure the safety and security of Mali’s northern populations. As civilian leadership is restored in Mali, we also urge all armed rebels to engage in dialogue with the civilian leaders in Bamako to find a nonviolent path forward for national elections and peaceful coexistence.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.

QUESTION: Well, just on that, before, when this was a – before the coup, weren’t you fully supportive of the fight against the Tuaregs? And now you’re saying they should talk to the – they should talk to whoever’s in control?

MS. NULAND: Well, the concern has been that as the security forces of Mali have split, some of them joining the junta leaders, some of them still supporting the elected government, they have stopped fighting the Tuaregs in the north. We’ve seen the result of that, that the Tuaregs have made a march not only on Gao but on Timbuktu, that the situation has become considerably worse. We have always said that the government in Mali needed not only to be fighting, but also to be providing an opportunity to address legitimate political grievances in the north.

So our call now is obviously not only for the civilian government to be restored, but for the Tuaregs to cease their violence, and once we get back to a civilian government, for that government and those with grievances in the north to engage in dialogue rather than to be trying to settle these issues by violence.

QUESTION: Did you ever figure out how much aid you suspended?

MS. NULAND: I have to say to you, Matt, that we are continuing to work through these programs one by one. It is relatively complicated because we want to continue the humanitarian aid while we cut off anything that provides support to the government. So we’re still continuing to work through that, but we are also looking at other ways we can bring pressure to bear on Captain Sanogo.

QUESTION: Well, okay. Like what?

MS. NULAND: We will have more to say about that in coming days.

QUESTION: The French, for instance, are saying that they think it’s time for the UN Security Council to get involved. Is that something the United States supports?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is that the Security Council is discussing Mali today, and in fact there may well be a presidency statement, whether it’s today or in coming days, and we would strongly support that.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: No. Wait a sec. Just – you said relatively complicated? I mean, okay, relatively complicated I can understand – one day, two day, three days, four days, maybe even five days. But it’s now been 10, at least. It’s that complicated? That would seem to be more than relatively complicated. That would seem to be a, I don’t know, a problem of such immense proportion that the entire building, or whoever’s in charge of it, is unable to come up with this in 10, 12 days.

MS. NULAND: Well, my understanding is that the agencies that manage these programs were given about a week to report exactly what they’re doing, what the programs, one by one, fund. So for about a week of this, we were waiting for accurate information to come in to Washington. Now we’re going through the policy and the legal review, and we also have to notify the Congress. So I’m frustrated, I know you’re frustrated, but that’s what’s happing.
Okay.

QUESTION: Just following up on that, ECOWAS, one of the things they’ve talked about is an embargo, an embargo on Mali in the wake of the coup. Is that something the United States supports, and is there anything the United States can do to make that a reality?

MS. NULAND: Well, my understanding is that ECOWAS, as you know, they had threatened sanctions about a week ago, that today they actually did impose their sanctions, including closing borders, suspending flights, those kinds of things. We very much support their efforts, as well, to pressure Captian Sanogo to relinquish power.

QUESTION: The AU also today imposed travel bans and various other sanctions --

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: -- on Sanogo and others. Is that something the United States supports and will follow, or --

MS. NULAND: Those are the kinds of things that we’re looking at.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: What would a presidential statement at this point do or achieve, from the Security Council?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think we have to see the text, but usually a presidency statement is the first step in the council expressing its concern. Let’s see what the text says, but obviously, thereafter one can do more of a punitive nature.
Please.

QUESTION: Syria?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. Today, the Foreign Minister Walid Muallem issued a statement that they are cooperating with the International Committee of the Red Cross and facilitating their access to all the areas that need to be accessed, and they are cooperating with them. Do you know anything about that?

MS. NULAND: Well, our understanding is that, throughout this crisis, the ICRC has had some limited access. You know that we had given an initial $10 million in humanitarian aid. We decided to increase our aid on the humanitarian side – we’re up to some 25 million – because we were seeing some of that aid flowing to the Syrian people in need. Our concern had been that the humanitarian organizations had not been getting to the areas in greatest need, particularly when they’re under assault. I would refer you to the ICRC for their view of how they are doing, but our understanding is their access if far from complete.

More importantly, however, as you know, the assertion to Kofi Annan was that Assad would start implementing his commitments immediately to withdraw from cities. I want to advise that we have seen no evidence today that he is implementing any of those commitments.

QUESTION: Although they did make a statement that they are, in fact, withdrawing from the cities. They’re taking their mechanized units from certain areas in Homs and Idlib and many other areas. You have no way of verifying that?

MS. NULAND: In fact, our information is the opposite - that nothing has changed.
QUESTION: So there has been more deployment into these areas, these crowded areas where the demonstrations are taking place?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to whether there has been increased deployment, but certainly, through our own means, we have been able to verify no withdrawal of mechanized units, which is what he’s claiming credit for today.

QUESTION: So you don’t have confidence that the Syrian Government will fulfill its commitment to pull out by April 10th?

MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve said consistently, including again tomorrow at the Security – yesterday at the Security Council, we’re going to judge this by – this guy by his actions, not by his words.

QUESTION: One thing that came out yesterday in the discussion, the – Kofi Annan’s report to the Security Council was the Russian position, and Foreign Minister Lavrov has told Interfax that they now explicitly back the demand on Assad to take the first step in withdrawing his troops. Do you read that as a change in their position? And do you think that’s an important sign, as the international community tries to sort of get a coherent view on this?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’ll let the Russians speak for themselves as to whether their position has changed in the last 24 hours. I think you do know that we have been feeling convergence on the Security Council for some two weeks now. Certainly that was highlighted by the presidency statement that endorsed the Kofi Annan six-point plan. And everybody was together yesterday in agreeing that there needed to be this timeline, and that we were waiting for the regime to demonstrate its good faith.
Please.

QUESTION: But the plans to send 250 monitors after the – April 10th is still on. Are you – when are you going to decide to send this mission?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think as Ambassador Rice said yesterday in New York at her press
event, the DPKO, the peacekeeping arm of the UN, is preparing to be able to send monitors in the event that Assad keeps his word and we are able to get a ceasefire so that they could move immediately in and provide eyes and witness, et cetera, and give comfort to the people of Syria. So that – we’re at the preparatory stage with DPKO, but obviously they can’t deploy unless we have movement on the ending of the violence.

QUESTION: Could – just to follow up on your monitoring of the situation in Syria?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: With the embassy not there, with people like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch have no presence in Syria, and all the diplomatic missions have really lowered their presence almost to nil, nothing, how do you keep on top of the situation? How do you stay – let’s say – how do you get verifiable information on what’s going on?

MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we maintain broad contacts with folks inside Syria. Robert Ford, Fred Hof, speak to people in Syria every single day in different parts of the country. In addition, we work with our allies and partners who live in the same neighborhood and have their own contacts. And then, as you know, we have other means for evaluating things like troops movements.

QUESTION: What’s the title of Mr. Hof?

MS. NULAND: He’s special advisor to the Secretary for Syria. I’ll get the precise title, Samir. Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to a different topic?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.

QUESTION: Burma, Myanmar.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Following up on your response to Andy’s question yesterday, is there a timeline for the United States to decide any further steps? Is the United States waiting, for example, for Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD supporters to actually enter parliament? Is there any timeline for when the U.S. could take further steps?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, as we said yesterday, we congratulate all who participated, and it does appear to be a big victory for the NLD in these elections. The – we have the preliminary results, and our statements were based on that. Our understanding is that over the next few days, those results will be confirmed in final. As we’ve said, we are prepared to match positive steps of reform in Burma with steps of our own. We are now looking at what might come next on the U.S. side. I don’t have anything to announce, but I would look for more movement from us on this in the coming weeks.

QUESTION: And is there something specific you’re waiting for, or is it just an internal process to --

MS. NULAND: No. We’re doing some internal work. We’re also consulting with partners in ASEAN, partners in the EU who may be making similar steps to coordinate them.

QUESTION: Change of topic?

QUESTION: A follow-up?

MS. NULAND: Still on Burma? Anybody? No?

QUESTION: Yeah. Let me just follow up.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madam, this ruling party backed by the military government was shocked and surprised about the size of victory that Aung San Suu Kyi had in her party. Now, the situation is this time as it was in 1990, but her election in 1990 was annulled by the military government. Now, will – is she going to get some kind of place there so it will not be the situation of 1990? That’s what many Burmese are asking there and here.

MS. NULAND: Well, our expectation is that the government will honor the results as they are certified. As you know, the initial reporting is that she won her own seat, so she’ll be able to join the party. And then she has 42 other members of her party who appear to have won their seats. So our expectation is that these results will be honored and that the parliament will now reflect the results of these elections.

QUESTION: Is U.S. going to back or ask the ruling military party and government that they should have now – a kind of a free and fair general election, national election, so now she can have a place in – like as a prime minister or so?

MS. NULAND: Well, as the Secretary said – I think was on Sunday when we were in Istanbul – it’s now going to be critical for Burmese authorities to continue to work on reform of the electoral system so that it fully meets international standards, including transparency, and it expeditiously looks into any irregularities. But we are obviously hoping for a continuing evolution of the Burmese political system heading towards the next scheduled elections, which I think are 2015, right?

QUESTION: And finally, a quick one. Have you spoken – or any action or reaction from
India or China? Because they both were supporting the previous government in Burma.

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know Under Secretary Sherman is in India today. I don’t have a full report, but I’m expecting that she’s obviously talking to Indian authorities about Burma, among other subjects.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Was there a – Palestinian issue --

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Ros.

QUESTION: Lashkar e-Tayyiba. The U.S. has put out a $10 million reward for the arrest and prosecution of Hafiz Saeed, who is the head of the affiliated charitable organization. He’s suspected of being the mastermind behind the Mumbai killings. Why now? That happened more than three years ago, and his organization, as well as Lashkar e-Tayyiba, have already been on this – the U.S.’s terrorist list.

MS. NULAND: Well, this effort to arrange a Rewards for Justice bounty, if you will, for Hafiz Mohammad Saeed and also for Abdul Rahman Makki has been in the works for quite a number of months. These things are somewhat complicated to work through all of the details. So the announcements were only able to be posted when the process was complete. But there was – we’ve been working on this for some time.

QUESTION: More than a few months? More, less than a year? Can you characterize?

MS. NULAND: I think less than a year but more than three or four months.


QUESTION: Can you explain exactly what it is about – what’s so complicated about offering money for some of – what – printing the posters? What is it that’s so complicated?

MS. NULAND: Well, there is a review process to determine, in the first instance, whether offering a bounty of this kind – in this case, it’s $10 million for Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, it’s $2 million for Abdul Rahman Makki – is likely to lead to any results in the case. So there has to be an intelligence evaluation, there has to be a policy evaluation, there has to be a discussion with Congress. This is a lot of money for the U.S. taxpayer to put up. And so that process takes some time. Things have to be correlated. There is an entire review process. There’s an interagency rewards committee that has to look through this. And then the Secretary has to approve it.

QUESTION: Right. But if it’s only started a couple months ago – Mumbai was quite a – when did the process begin?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to whether, right after the bombing, we looked at this at that time. But I think sometimes what happens is intelligence and other information comes later with regards to whereabouts of individuals, which leads one to think that offering a reward might cause citizens who know where they are to come forward. And sometimes that isn’t evident right at the time of the crimes. So sometimes it comes up later. As you may know, one of these individuals has been appearing on television and has been quite brazen. So I think the sense has been over the last few months that this kind of a reward might hasten the judicial process, if you will.

QUESTION: So you’re saying --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) you know his television appearances, he did speak to Al Jazeera today about this bounty being placed on him. And he suggested that this is being done because he has been putting pressure on the government in Islamabad to not reopen the southern transport routes for supplies to NATO ISAF forces. Is there anything to that, or is this specifically because of his suspected involvement in the Mumbai attacks?

MS. NULAND: No, it has everything to do with Mumbai and his brazen flouting of the justice system.

QUESTION: Just to --


QUESTION: As he lives more or less openly in Pakistan, has there been communication with the Pakistani Government, the Pakistani authorities, seeking for his arrest?

MS. NULAND: Absolutely. We have been in communication with Pakistan on this issue.

QUESTION: And he is wanted --

QUESTION: Have they acceded to his placement on this list? Because there’s been some analysis suggesting that doing so could put even more strain on the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. And to follow up on that, is that something that Deputy Secretary Nides would be dealing with in his meetings in Islamabad on Wednesday?

MS. NULAND: Well, on the latter question, the full range of issues related to international terrorism, terrorist threats in Pakistan internationally, is obviously one of the subjects that Deputy Secretary Nides will be talking about. We have continued to impress on the Government of Pakistan that we believe it has a special responsibility to fully investigate and bring those to – those responsible to justice, to the extent that it can. The Government of Pakistan has regularly, in our conversations with them, pledged its cooperation in the investigations. We fully expect that it will follow through on those commitments. I would guess that this case probably will come up.

QUESTION: Is this reward has been – in the consultation of the Indian Government?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is that the primary work that is done before we offer these rewards is internal, that we do advise affected governments that we intend to do this, but it’s not a consultative process, per se.
QUESTION: Thank you, ma’am. Can we change topics?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: No. It’s – the reward is for information that leads to the conviction of – conviction where?

MS. NULAND: Wherever he can be found. It’s not specific in the way that it goes --

QUESTION: You’re trying to charge – has he been charged with the murder of the six Americans in Mumbai?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have any back --

QUESTION: I guess I’m just trying to find out, why is it for the United States to offer a reward for this guy? Is that the reason?

MS. NULAND: Well, it’s because we want to see him brought to justice. I believe that he has been charged, but I don’t have the – I’ll get you some more on that.

QUESTION: But do you – I mean, you want him brought to justice here? In India? In Pakistan? Where is it that – I mean, what – if I gave you information that he was on such street corner and he gets picked up and arrested, how do I –

MS. NULAND: My understanding --

QUESTION: -- where does he have to be convicted so I can get the money?

MS. NULAND: Okay. Let us get you some more information. But my understanding of
this – and I may have it wrong – is that he’s actually been charged in India --

QUESTION: Yeah.


MS. NULAND: -- in connection with this case, that he has been at large --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: -- and has not been able to be either arrested --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: -- or brought to trial.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: So the precise formulation in the Rewards for Justice announcement is $10 million for information leading to the arrest or the conviction of either – of this individual, $2 million for the other individual.

QUESTION: How much are the Indians offering for this?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know the answer to that.

QUESTION: Are they offering anything, do you know?
MS. NULAND: I do not.

QUESTION: I’m just curious as to why it’s the U.S. job to offer a reward for this guy when --

MS. NULAND: Well, we have Americans killed and it’s only cooperate --

QUESTION: I understand. Six Americans were killed.

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: But you also have Americans killed in other places where you’re not offering any rewards or --

MS. NULAND: Well this program, as you know, we have --

QUESTION: Well, it seems to be that the vast amount of damage that this guy and his group has done is to India, and I’m not aware that they’re offering any rewards. So I want to know why the U.S. taxpayer is offering a reward. That’s --

MS. NULAND: Well, I can’t speak to whether India has its own Rewards for Justice-type program. I’m going to refer you to the Indians with regard to that. This is a program that we’ve had for a long --

QUESTION: I understand that, but --

MS. NULAND: Can I finish my point? We’ve had for a long time, when we are concerned that people who have killed Americans overseas are not being able to be brought to justice. So again, this is a case that’s been going on for a long time. This is with regard to justice being served on people who have killed Americans --

QUESTION: Right. Can you --

MS. NULAND: -- so that there is no impunity for them anywhere in the world.

QUESTION: Can we – can you find out, though, where it is that this guy has to be convicted for the reward to be --

MS. NULAND: We will get you a little bit more information on that, Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Okay.

QUESTION: One more about the overall program?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: It’s been noted that upwards of $100 million have been paid. Is there a breakdown by amounts, since I understand that there’s no revelation of the people who get the rewards? Is there a breakdown per case, how much was paid out, and when they were paid out?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that, Ros. As you know, to protect those who come forward, we don’t generally advertise these things. How much – whether we do an accounting of how much has been authorized under the program and for what cases, I’m not sure. So let me take it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay?
Said.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian issue?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday, there was a meeting between Deputy Secretary Burns and a member of the PLO Executive Committee Hanan Ashrawi. Could you tell us what has transpired as a result of the meeting?

MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one too, Said. I don’t have a debrief on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Please.

QUESTION: Egypt?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Members of the Freedom and Justice Party, which is the political arm of the Muslim Brothers, and one of them is a member of the parliament, are in town. It’s the first level – this level visit to Washington that will meet different people. Is there any meeting going on – to take place in this building or not?

MS. NULAND: I don’t know whether we’re meeting this delegation at any level in this building. Let me take that one as well. We’ll get back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Please, Scott.

QUESTION: Can you speak today on the release of the hostages in Colombia? And what the United States hopes happens next between the government and FARC?

MS. NULAND: Yes. And thank you for your patience yesterday. As you know, the operation was ongoing and we wanted to be careful vis-a-vis the Colombians and the Brazilians, to let them complete the operation.

So the United States is pleased that these Colombian officials, some of whom were unjustly held for up to 14 years by the FARC, are now free and that they’ve been reunited with their families. We commend the ICRC, the Government of Brazil, for the positive roles that they played in this release.

As you know, President Santos of Colombia has welcomed this release and has, in addition, again called for the FARC to renounce all violence and lawlessness and to release all remaining hostages as essential conditions to move forward with a durable peace. I think he used the term that this was positive but insufficient, and we certainly want to see further progress in this regard as well.

QUESTION: Do you believe that the FARC continues to have support from other governments in that region?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know that we’ve had historic concerns about this. I don’t think that those concerns have changed.
Anything else? Please.

QUESTION: On Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Two questions, quick. One, are you worried about ongoing violence, especially in Karachi? And second, Pakistan is now deporting three wives of Usama bin Ladin, two to Saudi Arabia, one to Yemen. If – you had access to them because they had vital information about Usama bin Ladin’s activities?

MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to speak to our intelligence relationship with Pakistan. I think it’s now an internal matter between Pakistan and those governments about the disposition of the wives.
Elise.

QUESTION: And violence – ongoing violence in Karachi?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything in particular on that. If we have anything to say,
we’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Elise.

QUESTION: There have been reports that North Korea is – in addition to the launch that you’re expecting, is also preparing even bigger, long-range missile tests, and there have been some reports that U.S. officials are quoted that it could be even more concerning than originally thought. Do you have anything on this?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything new on that. Any kind of missile launch of any kind is of great concern and would be a violation, in our view, of UN Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: On the --

MS. NULAND: Yeah, Iraq.

QUESTION: On Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. Massoud Barzani, the president of the northern region of Kurdistan, is in town. I asked Mark last week – he is to meet with Deputy Secretary Burns, I guess. Why is he not meeting with the Secretary of State?

MS. NULAND: Well, he’s being hosted, as you know, by the Vice President, so his senior interlocutor will be the Vice President, and then in this building, he’ll have a chance to talk with Deputy Secretary Burns.

Please.

QUESTION: Quick one on Iran, the Secretary in her comments at VMI today again references the expectation that there’ll be these talks next month. Do you have any clarity yet on this?

QUESTION: This month.

QUESTION: This month, sorry.

MS. NULAND: This month, it’s April, right?

QUESTION: Yes, we’re --

MS. NULAND: We’re – life is ticking by.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if that’s actually been nailed down, when and where.

MS. NULAND: I think we are still where we were yesterday – that we have made a proposal, we think it’s an appropriate proposal, and we are awaiting Iranian confirmation.
QUESTION: On Russia?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: There was a new statement from a senior Russian official criticizing U.S. funding on democracy. Does the United – I mean, arguing that it distorts the Russian domestic process – does the United States have anything new to say to these charges leveled by the Russians?

MS. NULAND: Well, first, I would call your attention to the interview that the Secretary gave to Jill Dougherty of CNN over the weekend. I think we put out the transcript yesterday where she spoke very clearly about our support for Russians’ right to work and speak openly about their interest in more freedom, more democracy, more transparency, more openness.

We have, as the Secretary affirmed, proposed to Congress the creation of a new fund to empower Russian civil society, to protect human rights, to enhance a free and diverse information environment to work with NGOs to create the – increase the dialogue that they have with American NGOs to support the development of political leadership among young people. This would be a $50 million fund that would be drawn from liquidated assets from the former U.S.-Russia Investment Fund. We’re working with Congress on this.

And again, this is designed to support a vibrant civil society in Russia and to allow us to work with those Russian NGOs who want to work with us, to develop their skills and their voice and their ability to represent the aspirations of Russians to increasingly deepen and strengthen their democracy.

QUESTION: Quickly, going back to Iran P-5+1 --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- in your proposal, did you also include Istanbul as a --

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: -- venue?

MS. NULAND: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: Did you all take any position on the Palestinian bid for membership in the ICC?

MS. NULAND: With regard to the --

QUESTION: Criminal court – International Criminal Court.

MS. NULAND: To the criminal court? Well, I think – we’ve seen, obviously, the announcement by the prosecutor. This is within his mandate, obviously, to decide, so our focus is obviously, as it has been straight along, just to --

QUESTION: Oh, I know, but you know that countries take positions on things like this.

MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we did not take any position.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay. All right. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: I will now be off. Have a great holiday week. Mark will be on the podium tomorrow and Thursday.
QUESTION: Oh, yeah.

MS. NULAND: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Have a great trip.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINT'ON'S INTERVIEW WITH CLARISSA WARD OF CBS

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Interview With Clarissa Ward of CBS News
Interview Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Istanbul Congress Center
Istanbul, Turkey
April 1, 2012 

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, thank you so much for --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: -- taking the time to talk with us. I wanted to begin by talking about former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s six-point plan. During the week since Bashar al-Assad claimed to accept the plan, there’s been no let-up in the violence, and I just wanted to ask you, at what point do we say that this plan has been a failure? What is the deadline?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Clarissa – excuse me, let me start over again – Clarissa, let me say that the plan is a good plan. It’s getting it implemented, as you point out, which is the real challenge. And we’re going to hear from Kofi Annan to the Security Council tomorrow, so we’ll get a firsthand report. But as you saw coming out of this conference, there does need to be a timeline. We cannot permit Assad and his regime and his allies to allow what is a good faith negotiating process by a very expert, experienced negotiator to be used as an excuse for continuing the killing. We think Assad must go. The killing must stop. The sooner we get into a process that ends up there, the better. And I think former Secretary General Annan understands that.

QUESTION: But how do you enforce that timeline?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it’s self-enforced. I think he has to be the one who says, within a relatively short period of time, we’re not getting any results, I was given promises, they’re not kept. Because then we would go back to the Security Council. Now, what will Russia and China say? Kofi Annan has gone to Moscow, he’s gone to Beijing, he’s met with them. They support his plan. They have urged publicly that Assad follow the plan. So if we have to go back to the Security Council to get authority that would enable us to do more to help the Syrians really withstand this kind of terrible assault and get the aid that they need to get the humanitarian assistance they require, I think we’ll be in a stronger position than we would if he hadn’t had a chance to go and try to negotiate.

QUESTION: So one of the primary functions of the Friends of Syria is to provide support for the opposition, but up to this point, we still don’t see any real coordination and communication among the different both armed and political opposition groups inside Syria. How much of a frustration is that for you as you go through this process?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m encouraged by what we heard today, and I met privately with representatives of the Syrian National Council. They are making progress. They have unified around a compact, a national pact, about what they want to see in a new Syria, which is important, because then that sets the parameters for the kind of opposition that will be under their umbrella. They have reached out and included a much more diverse group of Syrians than when I met with them in Tunis or the first time in Geneva. They’re making progress. This is quite difficult, but I am encouraged.

What they need is what we are now offering. We are offering assistance to them, and it’s a variety of different sorts of assistance. The United States will be offering – in addition to significant humanitarian aid – will be offering technical and logistical support. You mentioned communications. They have a great deal of difficulty communicating inside Syria. You were there. You know how hard it is. We think we have some assets that we can get in there which we would try to do that will enable them to have better communication. So everyone’s looking to see what they can provide that is value-added for the opposition.

QUESTION: But no clear leader has emerged who can articulate what the opposition’s political vision for their country is.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that leaders have emerged who have played a very important role, and I thought the presentation by Professor Ghalioun was good today in how he set forth what their objectives were. But in this kind of fast-moving event, more people will come to the forefront. I met a very impressive young woman who just left Homs who is now active in the Syrian National Council. She looks to me to be an up-and-coming leader.

So I don’t think we can sit here today and say who is the leader, but by assisting the Syrian National Council, we are assisting the leadership, and there will be leaders within the civilian side of that, and there will be leaders within the military side.

QUESTION: We were recently inside Syria in the north in the city of Idlib, and the rebels who we were staying with now tell us that they have no ammunition left, they have no money left, and that their only recourse for self defense is to build IEDs or bombs. Obviously, there is a host of very complex issues associated with arming the opposition, or rebel groups specifically, but are you not concerned that if no support comes from the outside, that this could really devolve into a very bloody, ugly insurgency, and that if we aren’t the ones to provide that help, other non-state actors like extremist groups such as al-Qaida might be the ones to fill that void?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that’s why you heard today that a group of nations will be providing assistance for the fighters, and that is a decision that is being welcomed by the Syrian National Council. The United States will be doing other kinds of assistance. Other countries will as well. So we have evolved from trying to get our arms around what is an incredibly complex issue with a just nascent opposition that has now become much more solidified with a lot of doubts inside Syria itself from people who were either afraid of the Assad regime or afraid of what might come after to a much clearer picture, where we are now, I think, proceeding on a path that is going to have some positive returns.

QUESTION: Do you see any signs that Bashar al-Assad is starting to crack, that his regime is starting to feel the pressure, that conferences like this one are really having some kind of an impact?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, today, we heard from a deputy oil minister who defected, and certainly, his presentation to the large group suggested that, because the pressure that is being put on those who are still allied with the regime from outside and inside is increasing – the sanctions, the travel bans, the kinds of reputational loss, the fears that people are having, because as you are engaged in this kind of terrible authoritarian crackdown, people get paranoid and they start worrying about the guy sitting next to them. We do see those kinds of cracks. We think that the defections from the military are in the thousands. We know that there are perhaps two dozen high officers --

QUESTION: But there haven’t been more defections in the way that we saw in Libya from Assad’s inner circle.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, partly because when there were a couple of defections, the regime has cracked down and was basically holding families hostage. In fact, the man who spoke to us today, his family had gotten out ahead in Jordan, so he was free to leave. But that is an unsustainable position. You cannot turn the whole country into a giant prison. People are not going to put up with that after a while. So we think that there are cracks. I can’t put a timeframe on it, but we think that that is beginning to happen.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, thank you so much for your time.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Great to talk to you.

QUESTION: Likewise.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Be safe.

WHITE HOUSE EASTER POSTER COMPETITION

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
The White House held a poster competition and invited elementary and middle school students nationwide to submit poster designs for the 2012 Easter Egg Roll. Students from over 20 states submitted entries. First Lady Michelle Obama selected winning designs for the 2012 Official Easter Egg Roll program cover and 2012 Official Easter Egg Roll Poster. Posters will be handed out as a prize to children who win the Easter Egg Roll or Egg Hunt.

The program cover artwork was created by Breonna Bailey, a 7th grader from Macfarland Middle School in Washington DC. Breonna is 13 years old, and her favorite subject is reading. Her favorite book is Diary of a Whimpy Kid by Jeff Kinney.

Reed Preston Lindsey, a nine-year-old attending Anderson Elementary in Booneville, Mississippi, was the co-winner of the contest. His artwork was chosen as the 2012 Official Easter Egg Roll Poster. Reed won first place in the Mississippi Public Broadcasting writing contest two years in a row for writing and illustrating Roscoe Wants a Red Feather and Troy’s Next Stop........Mars! respectively.

NEW SEXUAL RESPONSE TO SEXUAL ASSAULTS IN THE MILITARY

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

DOD Implements New Changes to Sexual Assault Response

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
WASHINGTON, April 2, 2012 - The Defense Department has refined new methods to aid sexual assault victims whether reporting a crime or seeking assistance as they transition from service, the director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office said here March 30.

"We have several new options for victims of sexual assault," said Air Force Maj. Gen. Mary Kay Hertog. "First, if you've been a victim of sexual assault in the military you now have the option of requesting an expedited transfer. We signed that into effect in December."

"If you find it untenable or unbearable in the organization that you're at ... you can request to be transferred," she added.

Hertog said a service member's local commander has 72 hours to respond to the request for transfer, and if denied there is an option to take it to the first flag or general officer in the chain of command who also has 72 hours to respond.

"We also have a new document retention initiative," she said. "We heard loud and clear from our veterans that present themselves at the [Department of Veterans Affairs] years later that there was no documentation that they had ever been sexually assaulted [during] their military service."

The issue arose, Hertog said, because varying standards of retention had existed among all of the services but has since been resolved.

"We now have one standard of retention so those individuals that file unrestricted reports will have their documents retained for 50 years," she said.

"And those that file restricted reports will have their documents retained for five years," Hertog said. "And of course our victims of sexual assault who file restricted reports have that option to convert over to unrestricted reports at any time and then we will retain their documents for that 50-year period."

The director also discussed other innovations such as expanding legal assistance to encourage victims to participate in the military justice system "in order to hold that perpetrator accountable."

And as of January, DOD civilians and contractors deployed abroad, and military dependents over 18 years old are now eligible to access sexual assault response services, Hertog said.

Hertog noted other changes implemented include new training for investigators of sexual assault crimes within the services.

"Some of our new training initiatives concern our investigators such as our [Naval Criminal Investigative Service] agents, Air Force [Office of Special Investigations], and Army [Criminal Investigation Division]," she said. "We think we have found the gold standard course ... to send many of the agents to, to build a sexual assault subject expertise cadre of our agents to get them very familiar with these cases."

Hertog said training frequency will increase, more seats will be offered and the training has expanded to include Judge Advocate Generals "because these are some of the toughest cases to investigate as well as prosecute."

Perhaps the most useful option has been established for about a year, Hertog noted.

"You have the option of contacting our DOD Safe helpline," she said. "We stood up a 24/7 crisis hotline -- it's operated by RAINN, the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network -- who have been trained by us so they're very familiar with military terminology."

"If you don't want to go through your chain of command you can contact them and they will tell you where your nearest rape crisis center is in your community outside your installation gates," Hertog said.

Hertog said the hotline has been "extremely successful" with about 30,000 unique visits to the site and about 2,500 referrals for counseling services.

She emphasized the Defense Department's commitment to "eradicating" sexual assault in the military "from the Secretary [of Defense] on down.

"We have to eliminate this problem from our ranks," Hertog added. "The American public gives us what's most dear to them and that's their sons and daughters. And they trust us that we're going to take care of them [which] is a commander's job."
 

HUMAN RIGHTS SHOULD BE OBSERVED WHERE RESOURCES ARE EXTRACTED

The following excerpt is from the Department of State website:
New Organization Will Strengthen Human Rights Protection Efforts in Extractive Industries
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
March 30, 2012
Over the last 12 years, governments, major multinational corporations, and non-governmental organizations have worked together to make sure that when companies extract resources in some of the most difficult places on earth, they take tangible steps to minimize the risk of human rights abuses in the surrounding communities.

On March 27-28, 2012, in Ottawa, the Government of Canada hosted the annual meeting of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, an initiative that provides human rights guidance to oil, mining, and gas companies in their engagement with public and private security providers. During the meeting, participants approved the creation of a formal non-profit organization for the initiative, based in The Hague, Netherlands. Along with the approval of governance rules in 2011, this transforms the Voluntary Principles from an ad hoc collaboration to a stable, structured initiative as it starts its second decade. This is a key step in cementing the relationship between governments, industry, and civil society in finding solutions to human rights problems that none could solve alone.

The Voluntary Principles initiative consists of 20 oil, mining, and gas companies; seven governments; and 10 non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In Ottawa, the Voluntary Principles welcomed the French oil and gas giant Total, S.A., as a new participant, and the International Finance Corporation and Democratic Control of Armed Forces, as observers. Participants discussed best practices and challenges on human rights and security issues, and strategies for engaging the governments of other countries where oil, gas, and mining companies are headquartered or operate. During the meeting, 13 participating companies led a conversation on the status of their pilot project to develop key performance indicators, which will guide and validate the ways that companies fulfill the commitments they make under the Voluntary Principles. These companies will integrate the indicators into their systems this year. This important step will help companies maintain high standards while they do business in these difficult areas of the world.

SUBSIDENCE BENEATH THE MISSISSIPPI DELTA

FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
PHOTOS CREDIT: NOAA
Scientists Find Slow Subsidence of Earth's Crust Beneath the Mississippi Delta
April 2, 2012
The Earth's crust beneath the Mississippi Delta sinks at a much slower rate than what had been assumed.
That's one of the results geoscientists report today in a paper published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
The researchers arrived at their conclusions by comparing detailed sea-level reconstructions from different portions of coastal Louisiana.
"The findings demonstrate the value of research on different facets of Earth system dynamics over long time periods," says Thomas Baerwald, geography and spatial sciences program director at the National Science Foundation (NSF).
NSF's Directorates for Geosciences and for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences funded the research.

"The results provide valuable new insights about the factors that affect shorelines and other locations in the Gulf Coast area now and into the future," says Baerwald.
"Our study shows that the basement underneath key portions of the Mississippi Delta, including the New Orleans area, has subsided less than one inch per century faster over the past 7,000 years than the more stable area of southwest Louisiana," says paper co-author Torbjörn Törnqvist of Tulane University.

The difference is much lower than previously believed.
"Other studies have assumed that a large portion of the Earth's crust underneath the Mississippi Delta subsided at least 30 times faster due to the weight of rapidly accumulating sediments in the delta," says Törnqvist.

The paper, co-authored by Tulane scientists Shi-Yong Yu and Ping Hu, reveals some good news for residents of the New Orleans area.
Large structures such as coastal defense systems could be relatively stable, provided they are anchored in the basement at a depth of 60-80 feet below the land surface.
Shallower, water-rich deposits subside much more rapidly.
However, the study also provides more sobering news.
"These subsidence rates are small compared to the rate of present-day sea-level rise from the Florida panhandle to east Texas," says Törnqvist.

"The rate of sea-level rise in the 20th century in this region has been five times higher compared to the pre-industrial millennium as a result of human-induced climate change."
Sea level has risen more than eight inches during the past century.
"Looking forward 100 years, our main concern is the continued acceleration of sea-level rise due to global warming, which may amount to as much as three to five feet," says Törnqvist.

"We can now show that sea-level rise has already been a larger factor in the loss of coastal wetlands than was previously believed."

HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN SUDAN AND SOUTH SUDAN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Humanitarian Situation in Sudan and South Sudan
Special Briefing Catherine Wiesner
   Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Princeton Lyman
   Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan USAID Deputy Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance Christa Capozzola
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
April 2, 2012

MR. VENTRELL: Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining us today. Today's conference call is on the record. With us we have Catherine Wiesner, who is a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration; Ambassador Princeton Lyman, U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan; and Christa Capozzola, who is from USAID, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance.
Right now, we're going to go ahead and have some opening remarks by Ms. Wiesner, and then we will turn it over to Q&A for all three of our speakers. So without further ado, over to Ms. Wiesner.

MS. WIESNER: Good morning, everybody, and thank you very much for your interest and for being on this call. As Patrick said, my name is Catherine Wiesner. I'm a new Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and I returned last week from a visit to South Sudan. What I'm going to do is give five to ten minutes of introductory remarks before we open it up for questions, and then we will also rely on my colleagues, Christa Capozzola from USAID, and Ambassador Lyman, the special envoy, to help answer whatever questions you may have.

The specific information that we would like to share with you today is about one aspect of the humanitarian situation in Sudan and South Sudan that has resulted from the ongoing conflict in the two areas, so to speak, along the border between Sudan and South Sudan. And I really have three main messages. The first and the reason for this call is to talk about 140,000 new refugees who have been created by the conflicts in South Kordofan and Blue Nile and who have fled from Sudan across the new international border to South Sudan as well as to Ethiopia and a few that have gone as far as Kenya.

Secondly, that the influx of these refugees from Sudan is occurring against a backdrop of very complex humanitarian needs in South Sudan that I think most of you are aware of, but includes hundreds of thousands of South Sudanese who are returning from the north and other neighboring countries as well as significant numbers of people who are internally displaced within the country.

And finally, that with this complex situation, it means that humanitarian needs are really expected to continue in both Sudan and South Sudan for some time to come.
So to set the stage, the fighting that erupted last year within the border states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile in Sudan not only threatens the possibility for resumption of direct conflict between the north and the south – that's really been the main concern – but also the violence has resulted in significant displacement and humanitarian need. So in addition to those who remain displaced and in need of assistance within South Kordofan and Blue Nile, 140,000 refugees from the two states have fled.

The arrival of 100,000 of these refugees to South Sudan, as I mentioned, occurs against this complex backdrop of humanitarian needs. According to UN OCHA, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, South Sudan is reportedly witnessing today the largest semi-peacetime movement of people since World War II in a country, and that includes those various populations that I mentioned previously. South Sudan is also a host to refugees from conflict and other surrounding states from the Democratic Republic of Congo, from the Central African Republic, and even Ethiopia. And lastly, there is chronic and rising food insecurity throughout the country, which exacerbates the situation.
WFP and FEWS NET or FAO, I think – Christa can correct me later – have predicted that 4.7 million people will be food insecure in South Sudan this year, of which at least 1 million are projected to be severely food insecure. So that's sort of the broader context by way of intro. And while I think you're all aware of reports – I know you're all aware of reports of clashes over the last week or so in Southern Kordofan state, the focus of my trip was actually the recent influx of refugees from Blue Nile state, where fighting also continues. And the vast majority of the refugees from the two areas have come from Blue Nile state, and it’s Upper Nile state in South Sudan that hosts the largest concentration of these refugees.

There are 86,000 refugees in Upper Nile from Blue Nile, and they’re located in two main sites, which are Doro and Jimam. UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, and IOM, the International Organization for Migration, are two key partners of the U.S. Government and of PRM, the bureau that I work for, and they receive a significant share of our humanitarian funding. They both issued emergency appeals last month for funds to finance their response operation. So having recently come onboard and with – Africa assistance is one of my areas of responsibility – I took the opportunity to make my first trip to Southern Sudan so that I could see the situation firsthand. And I traveled to Upper Nile state, which again, is on the border with Sudan and where the largest concentration of refugees are.

I had been told in advance that the recent influx had really stretched the response capacity, and – but that things were finally starting into place – to fall into place, and this is really what I found to be true. The area where the refugees are arriving is remote, it’s sparsely populated, and much of it rests in a flood zone that becomes inaccessible by road for much of the six-month rainy season. The rains are set to begin in a month or so, and so in this difficult context, the agencies are really in a race against time to get all the supplies in place, and the sheer pace of influx has really imposed enormous pressure.

In December, the number of refugees began to swell from about 25,000 in mid-December to over 80,000 by the end of February, and it was then that UNHCR initiated an emergency airlift of tents, plastic sheeting, and other relief supplies from Kenya and Dubai. Somewhat paradoxically, because it’s a flood zone, there are few existing clean water sources for hosting such a large population, so water, sanitation, hygiene are all top concerns. And whereas the accepted minimum standards for emergencies call for 15 liters of water a day person, refugees in Doro and Jimam are currently only receiving an average of between six and nine liters per person each day.

Drilling is ongoing. Locating clean water in sufficient quantities has been one of the major challenges. It has also delayed site planning, and it – which has left many refugees living under temporary plastic sheeting awaiting their relocation.

Food distribution was sporadic for several months, but in March, WFP was able to successfully establish a new pipeline by bringing – shipping emergency foodstuff to the port in Djibouti and bringing it in through Ethiopia, so now food supplies have become adequate.

And finally, health actors are bracing for and developing contingency plans against malaria and cholera outbreaks.

As I mentioned, it’s really a complex situation in South Sudan of various humanitarian crises, and Upper Nile is a good example of that. Before this latest refugee influx, it was already home to about 80,000 returnees who had been displaced during the long civil war. If you're aware of stories of returnees being stranded en route during their journey back, the riverside towns of Rank and Malakal along the Nile are in Upper Nile, and in addition, there are approximately 12,000 internally displaced South Sudanese in the state who have been displaced due to rebel militia activity.

So this means that agencies were present in Upper Nile and to some extent were prepared to mobilize quickly for the refugee response, but it also means that their capacity is not unlimited and the new emergency has them trying to cover multiple situations at once.
Maybe before I end, I can just share a few of my personal impressions. In – so, as I mentioned, the refugees are arriving into very remote areas, and that basically means that everything has to be established from scratch. So UNHCR and partners are fixing an airfield, they're building roads, they're drilling boreholes, as I mentioned. They were a bit lucky, because some years back, they had used the nearby town of Funj as a way station for returning refugees from Ethiopia. So they had like one old warehouse and a working borehole or two that they were able to use, but obviously the needs quickly outstripped that initial capacity.

The UN and NGO staff that I met were working flat-out every day. They'd been living out of tents themselves for several months, and their offices are basically a laptop with a plastic chair under a thatch shade in very searing heat.

The refugees themselves arrive exhausted from their journeys, sometimes in need of immediate medical attention, and in talking to refugees in the different camps, I found that most people were really quite relieved to finally be in a place of safety away from the bombings and grateful for the assistance they were receiving, but at the same time, they're definitely worried about loved ones with whom they had been separated and understandably anxious about their daily survival needs.

I had heard worrying reports before I went that people in Jimam Camp were eating leaves to survive, and as it turns out, there – certain wild leaves boiled with spices are, in fact, a traditional dish for some of these tribes. So it would be more appropriate to say that refugees like those who remain in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan have resorted to traditional coping mechanisms of eating various types of wild food, but it’s also obvious that boiled leaves of any kind are not enough for anybody to survive on.

However, perhaps because a month’s worth of food rations had recently been distributed when I arrived, when I spoke to groups of women in both camps their main concern was water. People are really desperate for water. I personally can’t imagine having only seven liters of water per day. I think I drink more than that, much less cook with it or wash with it.
But as I said, people are definitely, overall, most glad and thankful to be in a safe place. At the same, they are carrying their experiences of the last six months with them. Fighting broke out in Blue Nile in September of last year, and most of these people have been on the move since then, and only recently reached these refugee camps.

In Doro camp, for example, I watched – I went to an activities center and watched crowds of children who were playing soccer and jump rope and practicing traditional dances. These are the safe activities spaces that are set up for children so that they have a place to play in the crowded camps, and it’s one of the very important early child protection interventions with – together with schooling, that helps to normalize things. Even so, I was told by the volunteers working with the children that many of them have been digging foxholes for themselves even in the camps. So even though they’re told they are now safe, it makes them feel more secure to have hiding places.

I also met a young woman in the Jamam camp who agreed to show me her small shelter made out of thatch and plastic sheeting. And when we got there, I met her three children, including a very sweet little baby girl that she had given birth to on the way and named Dana, which she said meant “bomb” in her dialect. So the experience of violence and flight is still very close to these people.

I think, to sum up before we go into the questions and answers, clashes are continuing in both Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Humanitarian conditions are understood to be deteriorating in both conflict zones, and so additional arrivals are expected in the coming months. The number of refugees in Upper Nile has already exceeded UNHCR’s planning figure, which was for 75,000. They’ve revised that planning figure upwards to 150,000 by the end of 2012. And with these numbers, obviously, the agencies remain in a race against time.

The U.S. Government has provided 6.8 million of initial funding from our refugee assistance monies for the emergency response in both South Sudan and Ethiopia. Three million of this has gone to UNHCR, 2 million has gone to IOM, and 1.8 million to NGOs. The U.S. is currently looking at additional contributions to UNHCR’s $145 million emergency appeal as well as to NGO partners addressing critical gaps. The U.S. Government has also given – let me get this figure – 80.4 million to WFP for their emergency food operations throughout South Sudan that include assistance to the refugees in Upper Nile and Unity states. And USAID can provide information on their operations countrywide.

So I will leave my opening – rather long opening remarks there, and all three of us will be available to take your questions. Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press *1, and you will be prompted to record your first and your last name. Please un-mute your phone before recording your name. And to withdraw your question, press *2. One moment please.

Our first question comes from Shaun Tandon. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah. Hi. Thanks for doing this call. I wanted to ask you a little bit about the situation within Sudan. In South Kordofan and Blue Nile, there have lots of accounts that, due to bombing, there’s been a problem with the harvest, that there could be imminent food shortages. Are those things that you’re hearing now as well? And what do you think in terms of policy ramifications, what if anything the U.S. and other international actors can do to ensure sufficient food within Sudan?

MS. CAPOZZOLA: Hi. This is Christa Capozzola from AID. I can start off with an answer to your question. Thanks for that question. Yes. The conflicts that began last June in Southern Kordofan and in September in Blue Nile did disrupt the planting seasons quite significantly. In certain parts of Blue Nile, it’s estimated that only 15 percent was planted. It disrupted the commercial farming as well, which affects people’s incomes. So that creates a lot of concerns.

And yes, there is definitely rising food insecurity – a very serious level of food insecurity. Our FEWS NET analysts have now estimated that in Blue Nile, the area – the source of the refugees that Catherine’s been talking about, we will be reaching emergency level conditions by August. In Southern Kordofan, it’s actually worse. We are estimating that between 200- and 250,000 people are right now reaching emergency food security – insecurity conditions.

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: This is Princeton Lyman. Let me just add a little bit to that. Thanks, Christa. There is a proposal by the UN, the Africa Union, and the League of Arab States to launch humanitarian assistance into Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. That is still under discussion with the government in Khartoum. They haven’t yet okayed it. And we’ve pressed very, very hard for that. There are ways to get food in other ways, but they are not sufficient to the scope of the problem, as Christa has described. The UN envoy, Haile Menkerios, is in Khartoum right now pursuing negotiations with the government to get that humanitarian access approved. We think it’s vital, and we think it’s a very high priority.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, we’re ready for the next question.

OPERATOR: Yes. Our next question comes from Lalit Jha. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for doing this. India has just sent a special envoy to Sudan and South Sudan for protecting – for its energy interests. How do you view this, India sending its – also, you know China has sent it a few months ago to protect its oil interest. How do you view the interests of all – of these two countries in Sudan and South Sudan?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Hi. This is Princeton Lyman. We welcome that degree of interest. As you know, both China and India have significant investments in the oil sector. And as a result, they both have an interest in a stable and peaceful relationship between the two countries because, as you know, much of the oil is in the south, the infrastructure to export it in the north. So we have been in touch on many occasions with the Chinese, and then – and I’ve been in touch with the new Chinese envoy. I have not yet met the new envoy from India, but we’re delighted that they are taking part in diplomatic efforts to both help ease the tension and encourage the governments to reach an agreement on oil as well as other issues.

QUESTION: And as a follow-up – and what kind of role do you see for India? What kind of steps you want India to take in Sudan and South Sudan?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, I think for all of us in the international community, and that would – it would be true for India as well, that – to urge a resolution of the conflicts that are going on, because it’s hard to see the full implementation of an oil agreement if the two sides are fighting at the border or if there is continued unrest in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile that spills over between the two countries.
So I think for all of us in the international community, it’s important not only to encourage the governments to reach an agreement on oil, but to reach an agreement on the issues that are dividing them so sharply and creating so much conflict. So it – we all need to engage in a broad diplomatic effort, not just on one issue.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Ashish Sen. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you very much for doing this. I had two questions. My first was about the decision by the government in South Sudan to shut off oil, which is a major source of revenue. Can you talk a bit about how that’s put an additional burden on NGOs and organizations like USAID, especially when the south is now coping with this huge humanitarian crisis?

And the second is specifically for Ambassador Lyman. Ambassador, South Sudanese officials have complained that the African Union report to the UNSC portrays South Sudan as an aggressor in the recent hostilities. Do you share that assessment? Thank you.

MS. CAPOZZOLA: Princeton, do you want to go first or do you want me to take it first on impact on USAID? I’m happy to go first. Your question on impact on USAID – I mean, obviously, we’re still hopeful that the situation will be resolved, and the South Sudanese budget will not be severely affected over the long term. We are very concerned about growing humanitarian needs this year in South Sudan, even before we start to estimate how budget shortfalls will impact people in concrete ways.

The number of food insecure people in South Sudan is up this year compared to last year. It’s most recently been estimated at 4.7 million people. Last year, it was less than 2 million people. So this is really a major concern. As Catherine alluded to earlier, we’ve got a large number of South Sudanese returning from Sudan, which puts extra pressure on our partner-NGO capacity to provide assistance – initial assistance and support to communities who are absorbing all these people who are returning.

So we’ve been doing a number of things over the last year and a half to pre-position aid and capacity to deal with this, in particular in the northern states that border the two countries. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. WIESNER: This is Catherine Wiesner. I’ll just jump in with one anecdote. Obviously, the real concern with the shutdown are the budget shortfalls and the impact that it has on the Government of Southern Sudan’s ability to provide for its own people to the extent that it had planned to. An interesting anecdote that I learned when I traveled to Upper Nile was that the shutdown of the oil facilities has also had a direct impact on humanitarian operations, in that the oil companies had taken responsibility for maintaining much of the roads in the areas where they operated. And that regular maintenance is what’s required to keep some of those roads open to Malakal and other major towns in and around the camps during the rainy season. So this was an additional burden that was now falling on the humanitarian community to figure out how to keep those roads maintained so that relief services could continue.

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: This is Princeton Lyman to take your second question. I think it’s important to note after that UN Security Council meeting that the UN Security Council issued a unanimous statement that was quite balanced and represented a very good statement and a well-received statement by the UN Security Council. I think some of the issues that came up about that have been well addressed in the negotiations subsequently. I was a participant in the negotiations in Addis a couple of weeks ago and have been following the ones going on now.

And I think the Africa Union panel in the South African – South Sudan Government, as well as the Sudan Government, are engaged very well in that process indeed, right now today, even as we speak, a meeting is underway of the Joint Political and Security Mechanism, a very important military-to-military discussion between the two countries under the auspices of the Africa Union panel. So I think the panel is doing outstanding work, and I think both countries are working closely with it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Andrew Quinn. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. It’s Andrew Quinn from Reuters. A couple of quick questions for Ambassador Lyman. Firstly, Ambassador Lyman on the oil sector, I remember before South Sudan shut off – shut down the oil production, you were warning that if they did this for any extended period of time it could damage the infrastructure and it could be hard to get that whole oil machine up and running again. Given that it is now shut off and you have these reports of attacks on Southern Sudanese oil installations, what’s your assessment of the state of their oil industry and how quickly it could be brought back online if that was, sort of, politically feasible? And the second question is: I’m wondering if you can give us an update on what your expectations or hopes are for the Kiir-Bashir summit that has been delayed?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, I think the – South Sudan was very careful with the shutdown to avoid as much as possible damage. I defer to experts far greater than mine as to problems that will arise if the shutdown goes on for a very long period of time. But I think the general feeling is that it would take a little while to start up production, get it going again, getting the oil flowing. There may be some damage that has to be taken care of.

And I think in terms of the economic impact, it – there is a feeling that from the time of an oil agreement to the time that South Sudan begins to receive payment for oil could be as much as three to four months. So there is a significant time period that’s affected.
I don’t think the attacks in Unity state actually were on the oil installations in Unity state. Those attacks seem to be more related to border issues and closing of borders related to what the government in Khartoum feels is support to those fighting in Southern Kordofan. But I think it’s very important that both sides be extremely careful under the current tensions and fighting at the border, that neither crosses the line of attacking oil installations, because I think that would deepen the conflict very much.

The summit was, as you said, postponed. We’re hoping that out of the talks going on now in Addis and subsequent talks, that it will be rescheduled. And it’s very important because it will not only follow up on agreements that were reached a few weeks ago in Addis on nationalities and borders, but it will create, hopefully, a set of steps that will lead to better negotiations on the other issues, including oil. Because there needs to be serious negotiations on the oil sector, and new guidelines have to come from the presidents to facilitate that negotiation.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, do we have any further questions?

OPERATOR: Once again, to ask a question, please press * 1. I am showing no questions.

MR. VENTRELL: Okay.

OPERATOR: We did have a question come in.

MR. VENTRELL: Oh, we do? Okay. Go ahead.

OPERATOR: Ashish Sen, your line is open.

QUESTION: Thanks again. This is for Ambassador Lyman. Ambassador Lyman, in the past, U.S. officials have raised concerns with officials in South Sudan about accusations of them supporting rebels in Sudan, specifically in South Kordofan and in Unity state – and Blue Nile, sorry. Have you any indication that this support still continues? And accusations by the government in Khartoum that it was the South that provoked the recent attacks in Heglig – have you seen any indication to support those claims?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: This is Princeton Lyman. Thank you. Look, what’s right on the agenda in the meeting going on in Addis today are the issues that you raised, that is there are accusations from Khartoum that South Sudan is supporting the rebels in Southern Kordofan. There are also charges from Juba that the government in Khartoum supports militias destabilizing South Sudan. It’s very important that the two sides sit down and discuss these issues very candidly between them, because neither side should be trying to destabilize the other.

But it would also be a mistake to think that the troubles in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile are only because of possible support from the South. There are internal issues there, political issues, security issues leftover from the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that haven’t been addressed. And the Government of Sudan must address those issues with the people of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile to really end the conflict there.

QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: We had another question come in. Charlene Porter, your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes. Thank you for doing this. It’s Charlene Porter with the International News Service of the State Department. There’s – you all have mentioned many different aspects of this situation going on, but I’d ask you to step back for a moment and make an assessment about in the young life of this new nation. How do you figure it’s going? Is this better or worse than what you might have expected in the first year of the lifetime of South Sudan?

AMBASSADOR LYMAN: Well, this is Princeton Lyman. I’ll start and welcome Christa’s and Catherine’s thoughts as well. Look, this is a country that was absolutely devastated by war over 20 years, starting from a very, very difficult situation of limited infrastructure, loss of – great, great amounts of loss of life, lack of development, et cetera. So to judge it by a year or even by the autonomous period from 2005, one has to take that into account.

I think a lot of institutions have been developed. I think there’s been serious efforts to take on a lot of these issues. But frankly, the country faces an enormous number of challenges, some of which have been discussed already, major humanitarian needs, problems of returnees, of refugees. There are ethnic conflicts that have taken place in Jonglei and other parts of South Sudan. So this is really a country that has many, many challenges. And the crisis in the oil sector only makes that more difficult because 98 percent of South Sudan’s budget was coming from oil. So resolution of that problem is really quite urgent.

So I would say that, given the challenges, the country has put together its independence and moved forward reasonably well, but these are problems that are going to take years and years to address. And maybe AID and PRM would like to add some to that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. WIESNER: Princeton gave a great – Ambassador Lyman gave a great overview. Maybe I would just add a few things. From the refugee perspective, for example, this government, which has such little capacity to begin with following the years of war, at least one problem we don’t have is the granting of first asylum to refugees. I think based on the history of the war and the experiences that those in Southern Sudan had being refugees themselves in surrounding countries, they’ve been incredibly welcoming to refugees coming into their country, and that’s one positive.

Another related positive is that, as Ambassador Lyman mentioned, institutions have been developed. Capacity is low, but for better or for worse, you do have a number of government employees who have worked with the international community on emergency and humanitarian response over the course of the civil war and so do have some significant experience in that realm and are able to interact with the humanitarian community in a principled way on humanitarian response.

So I think overall this is not the direction we would have wanted the country to go in, in terms of the oil shutdown and the ongoing internal conflicts as well as conflicts along the border, but there are a few bright spots that we see, even in this context.

MS. CAPOZZOLA: This is Christa from USAID. I would just add very briefly that, as Ambassador Lyman said, we’re emerging out of half a century of conflict; it’s not surprising that we’re dealing with resolving layer upon layer of conflicts around these two nations right now. And connected to assistance, there are millions of people who were made vulnerable by these many, many years of conflict and displacement, and this is going to take a lot of time to sort out. And perhaps expectations that humanitarian needs would be over that – once a peace agreement and independence was achieved, was not really realistic. This is going to take years to normalize. Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Show no further questions.

MR. VENTRELL: Thank you all for joining the call, and have a good day.