VIETNAM WAR HERO WILL RECEIVE POSTHUMOUS MEDAL OF HONOR

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE 
Army Spc. 4 Leslie H. Sabo Jr., who served with Company B, 3rd Battalion, 506th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division. Sabo will receive the Medal of Honor posthumously in a May 16, 2012, White House ceremony for his valor in the Vietnam War. Photo courtesy of George Sabo  
Vietnam War Hero to Receive Posthumous Medal of Honor
Army News Service


WASHINGTON, April 17, 2012 - Army Spc. 4 Leslie H. Sabo Jr., a rifleman with the 101st Airborne Division during the Vietnam War, will posthumously receive the Medal of Honor in a May 16 ceremony, White House officials announced yesterday.
Sabo is credited with saving the lives of several of his comrades in Company B, 3rd Battalion, 506th Infantry, when his platoon was ambushed near the Se San River in eastern Cambodia on May 10, 1970. Sabo shielded a comrade from an enemy grenade and silenced a machine-gun bunker before he was killed.

Sabo's widow, Rose Mary Sabo-Brown, and his brother, George Sabo, have been invited to the White House for the ceremony. President Barack Obama recently telephoned Sabo-Brown to inform her that her late husband would receive the nation's highest award for valor.

"It was a very emotional day -- a very, very emotional day," she said. I couldn't even sleep that night. And ... when I did fall asleep finally and I woke up the next morning, I went, 'Now wait a minute, did I dream this? Is it really real?' I couldn't be more proud of him.
In her home near New Castle, Pa., Sabo-Brown has set up a museum of sorts in tribute to her late husband and his comrades who were killed in Cambodia.

When his platoon was ambushed from all sides by a large enemy force, Sabo charged the enemy position, killing several enemy soldiers. He then assaulted an enemy flanking force, successfully drawing their fire away from friendly soldiers and ultimately forcing the enemy to retreat. While the platoon was securing a re-supply of ammunition, an enemy grenade landed nearby. Sabo picked it up, threw it, and shielded a wounded comrade with his own body -- absorbing the brunt of the blast and saving his comrade's life.
Although wounded by the grenade blast, Sabo continued to charge the enemy's bunker. After receiving several serious wounds from automatic weapons fire, he crawled toward the enemy emplacement and, when in position, threw a grenade into the bunker. The resulting explosion silenced the enemy fire, but also ended Sabo's life.

Sabo's unit nominated him for the Medal of Honor, but the paperwork was lost until Tony Mabb, a Vietnam veteran of the 101st Airborne Division and a writer for the Screaming Eagle Association magazine, came across a thick file on Sabo while on a research trip to the National Archives military repository in College Park, Md.

Mabb contacted his congresswoman, who recommended that the Defense Department reconsider a medal of valor for Sabo. Mabb also made contact with Sabo's widow.
"The Leslie I know would give his life to anybody," she said. "He would. He would give you the shirt off his back. That's the kind of man he was."
(From a White House news release, with additional reporting by Elizabeth M. Collins of Soldiers magazine.)

2013 DEFENSE DEPARTMENT BUDGET "ALIGNS SCIENCE WITH STRATEGY"

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Budget Request Aligns Science With Strategy, Official Says

By Lisa Daniel

WASHINGTON, April 18, 2012 - The Defense Department's fiscal 2013 budget request maintains science and technology spending in accordance with President Barack Obama's strategic guidance for a smaller, leaner, more flexible and agile military, the Pentagon's head of research and engineering told a Senate subcommittee yesterday.

The department's fiscal 2013 request of $11.9 billion, down from $12.2 billion this year, maintains $2.1 billion for basic research; $2.8 billion to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to develop strategic concepts; $1 billion for countering weapons of mass destruction; and maintains science and technology funding in each of the military departments at about $2 billion, Zachary J. Lemnios, assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, told the Senate Armed Services Committee's emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee.

"I can assure this committee that we are all mindful of the budget pressures facing our nation," Lemnios said in a prepared statement. "We have made a collective commitment to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars provided to the department's [science and technology] enterprise are invested wisely with a laser-like focus on needed capabilities for our national security."

The budget request adds $700 million to enhance the services' ability to operate jointly across all domains, Lemnios said. The funding would initiate an Air Force hypersonic cruise missile capability demonstration, accelerate the development of advanced electronic warfare concepts, accelerate technology development for the long range anti-ship missile program, and launch technology development efforts in anti-jam precision-guided munitions, he said.

Adjustments were made to increase funding in the priority areas of cyber, electronic warfare, robotics and advanced manufacturing by realigning funding in lower-priority areas, Lemnios said. The request also would increase investments in a next-generation, high-efficiency turbine engine, the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology, he said.

Lemnios and representatives from each of the services also spoke of the importance of maintaining a highly capable workforce in DOD and service laboratories. "Most critical to the success of the laboratories and their ability to support the department's mission is the workforce," he said.

Of the tens of thousands of lab employees – military, civilian, and contracted – 9 percent hold doctorate degrees and 26 percent hold a master's degree, Lemnios said. Special hiring authorities have allowed the department to maintain the high standard, he said, as well as build tomorrow's workforce with the SMART internship program and support for students pursuing science, technology, engineering and math degrees.

Marilyn Freeman, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for research and technology, said that by maintaining the Army's 22 labs and their 19,000-plus employees, the service can ensure it can address the specific challenges of soldiers.

"I hear often from the soldiers themselves that technology saved their lives and was critical to their remarkable accomplishments," Freeman said. Such feedback motivates Army scientists and engineers to research, develop and add maturity to everything from armor to combat casualty care to air and ground vehicles to food and uniforms, she added.

"They apply their accumulated knowledge and expertise, experimental data, and innovative products to solve problems, enhance performance, provide new desired capabilities, and forecast what capabilities are within the realm of the possible for our Army," she said.

U.S. OFFICIAL TESTIFIES BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL TRADE I

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The Asia Pacific: Trade Opportunities for Agriculture and Food Producers from the Great Plains to the Pacific Northwest Northwest
Testimony Robert D. Hormats
Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Statement Before the Senate Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness
Washington, DC
April 18, 2012
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, thank you for inviting me to testify today.

It is my pleasure to be here with my colleagues, Deputy Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service Darci Vetter, and USTR Chief Agricultural Negotiator Ambassador Isi Siddiqui. State works closely with our USDA and USTR colleagues to facilitate trade worldwide.

I’m also pleased to be here together with the very impressive private sector panel to follow. Cooperation with the U.S. agricultural community is an essential part of our efforts to serve the interests of the American people – since many millions of jobs depend directly on agriculture and many more depend on it indirectly.
The State Department aims to improve our bilateral and multilateral relationships with foreign countries. This supports foreign trade and enhances U.S. competitiveness abroad. Secretary Clinton has emphasized the importance of economic statecraft in order to further strengthen these ties. As the Secretary stated in Hong Kong last year, “economic progress depends on strong diplomatic ties and diplomatic progress depends on stronger economic ties.”

Nowhere is this reality more important than in the Asia Pacific, and much of our foreign policy strategy therefore focuses on building stronger relations with the countries of the region, applying diplomacy, negotiation, and multilateral outreach to promote trade and security in the Asia Pacific. An Asia Pacific that is prosperous and integrated into the global economy is good for American growth, jobs, and competitiveness.
This is particularly true for the American agricultural sector which literally produces food for the world. While we are fortunate to live in a country that is food secure, by globalizing our agricultural sector, we are able to tap into larger markets and grow our exports. The U.S. agricultural sector will continue to benefit from Asia’s economic growth, as a new generation of consumers comes of age in the region.
What makes the State Department’s contribution to this goal unique is our team of ambassadors and nearly 1,000 economic officers, located in almost every country in the world. Through this presence, we work directly with host government officials to improve our bilateral and multilateral economic relationships. I’d like to take this opportunity to tell you about some of our work in the Asia Pacific region, specifically to open new markets and remove barriers to U.S. agricultural exports.

Centrality of the Asia Pacific Region
An Asia Pacific that is prosperous and integrated into the global economy – on the basis of agreed rules, norms, and values – is good for American growth, jobs, and competitiveness. This is particularly true for the U.S. agricultural sector, which will continue to benefit from Asia’s economic growth, as a new generation of consumers comes of age, and dramatically grows in size, in the region.

As Secretary Clinton said during a speech at the East-West Center in Honolulu in January 2010, “America’s future is linked to the future of the Asia Pacific region.”
Three initiatives, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), are critical to advancing U.S. economic interests and benefiting U.S. agricultural exporters in the region. I want to touch briefly on each one.

APEC
Seven of America’s top 15 trading partners are APEC members, and several APEC members have key emerging agricultural markets, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. As host of APEC in 2011, the United States sought to strengthen regional economic integration by advancing common trade and investment practices in the region.
We’ve had considerable success. For example, after high level engagement with State Department officials last year, the Indonesian government established a science-based regulatory system and embraced the potential of agricultural biotechnology. There are currently multiple crops undergoing field trials in Indonesia, with the first expected commercialization to occur later this year.

Similarly, State is working with other government agencies to help Vietnam establish a biotech regulatory framework by building the capacity of Vietnamese authorities to administer a sciencebased system. Just last week, the State Department, USDA, and EPA hosted a group of Vietnamese scientists who are preparing to issue the first environmental risk assessments for genetically engineered crops in their country’s history. We hope to see the first Vietnamese crops approved for commercialization in 2012 or 2013. In addition to facilitating market access for U.S. agricultural producers, these actions will help Vietnam to increase its food security.

Russia hosts APEC this year, and is expected to become a WTO member this summer. This could provide an enormous opportunity for American agriculture. But to seize on that opportunity, American farmers need the help of Congress – specifically to enact the necessary legislation to terminate Jackson-Vanik with regard to Russia. If not, U.S. exporters will not get the full benefits of Russia’s WTO membership, but our competitors will. Unlike other WTO members, the United States will not be able to turn to the WTO dispute settlement procedures to ensure compliance with trade rules.

For example, when Russia becomes a WTO Member, it will be required to comply with the WTO’s Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, including obligations related to the use of science-based international standards. However, Russia would only be required to apply these rules to U.S. exports of meat, poultry, dairy, and other agricultural products if Congress terminates the application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia. Make no mistake, Russia will join the WTO, but action is required from Congress to ensure that American agriculture fully reaps the benefits.

KORUS
In line with the objective of opening markets in Asia, we worked with Congress and our interagency colleagues to advance the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), which entered into force on March 15.
KORUS is a clear example of the kind of high quality FTA we want to promote. Specifically, KORUS will provide America’s farmers, ranchers, and food processors with improved access to Korea’s $1 trillion economy and 49 million consumers. Tariff reductions will benefit both U.S. suppliers and Korea’s consumers, and will help the United States compete against other world competitors that have increased their presence in Korea’s $15 billion agriculture market.

For example, KORUS will directly benefit Pacific Northwest food producers. Korean tariffs of 24 percent on U.S. fresh cherries will be eliminated immediately. Tariffs of 15% on wine also will be eliminated immediately. And with our diplomatic presence in Korea, U.S. State Department officials will monitor first hand Korea’s implementation of the agreement, assuring full compliance. What we negotiate, we aim to enforce.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
Looking ahead to the next generation of trade agreements, the United States, along with Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam, are aiming at crafting a high-standard agreement that addresses new and emerging trade issues and challenges, including those in agricultural market access and regulations affecting agriculture, such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures, transparency, and science-based risk analysis. Our objective in the TPP is to avoid unwarranted trade barriers affecting U.S. agricultural exports by ensuring that measures to protect public, animal and plant health are transparent and science-based. Achieving this will enable U.S. companies to operate more seamlessly in TPP markets and help small- and medium-sized enterprises – a special focus of TPP – to participate more actively in international trade.

The United States also is working to ensure TPP reflects shared values, including worker rights and environmental protection. Our goal for TPP is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe the TPP needs to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. The TPP aims to ensure fair competition, including competitive neutrality among the state-owned and private enterprises.

Deploying State Department Resources
The State Department actively deploys its resources to promote U.S. agricultural trade. Our ambassadors raise stalled high-profile issues and use a variety of tools to resolve them. Ambassadors host agricultural trade missions to highlight U.S. agriculture and put exporters in touch with buyers. We also continue to raise our concerns on impediments to market access, noting that we expect countries to live up to their multilateral and bilateral trade obligations.

For example, in Russia, Ambassador McFaul has already met with high level officials several times to ensure that when Russia fully accedes to the WTO, the Russian market will be open to U.S. chicken exports. In China, the State Department raises intellectual property enforcement rights for U.S. seed companies. Unscrupulous sellers in China will bag their low-performing seeds in counterfeit bags purporting to be high-quality U.S.-developed seeds. State Department economic officers and USDA agricultural attachés regularly address issues like this – as well as issues pertaining to market access for U.S. agricultural products or the ability to build food processing and storage facilities – with their Chinese counterparts at the highest levels.

The absence of transparent, science-based regulations has the potential to halt U.S. agricultural exports. For example, differential approval rates (known as asynchronous approvals), the lowlevel presence (LLP) of biotech products approved in the country of export but not yet in the country of import, and the lack of consistent and harmonized rules can potentially result in billions of dollars of losses. The State Department works in a variety of fora to proactively encourage economic and regulatory systems that will address these issues. For example, in APEC’s High Level Policy Dialogue on Agricultural Biotechnology, the State Department promotes the adoption of transparent, science-based regulations in Asia for the review of agricultural products produced through modern biotechnology.

Specifically, asynchronous approvals are an issue with China. The Chinese regulatory process does not allow for review of genetically engineered products developed in the United States until after they are approved by U.S. regulators. The asynchronous approval by Chinese authorities adds 18-24 months to the commercialization process, as U.S. producers are reluctant to plant crops that could be held or delayed in Chinese ports, as has happened on a few occasions in the past. The State Department, USTR, and USDA are working vigorously and regularly with our counterparts in relevant Chinese ministries to shorten and/or eliminate the approval timeframe.

The State Department also sponsors outreach programs in Asia and elsewhere to enable officials and other interested parties to be able to separate myth and misinformation from science and facts regarding agricultural biotechnology. In 2011, the State Department sponsored these programs in some 30 countries, allowing foreign audiences to hear of the contributions agricultural biotechnology can make to food security and environmental sustainability.

In addition, the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) brings rising global leaders to the United States to see our agricultural systems in action. For example, in the past year a group from China met with shrimp industry representatives in Texas to learn about our seafood industry’s safety techniques and regulatory compliance; a group from Japan came to Iowa to learn more about our veterinary practices and safeguards for food safety and animal health; and a group from Thailand visited New York to gain a better understanding of the effect of trade agreements on port operations. Some of our IVLP alumni already have risen to the vice minister level in their home countries, and we are seeing new agricultural policies that are consistent with international standards and U.S. policy goals, thus further opening markets to U.S. agricultural exports.

Laying Down the Framework for Global Trade in the Multilateral Context
This brings me to my final point: the State Department is active in multilateral fora in creating global conditions favorable to agricultural trade.

We work with our USDA and USTR colleagues at the World Trade Organization in Geneva in its various committees. In the most recent Committee on Agriculture meeting, for example, our joint delegation raised Egypt’s ban on cotton imports and Indonesia’s closure of a Jakarta port to fruits and vegetables. This is a regular part of State Department diplomacy at the bilateral level.

When I speak to people working for U.S. agriculture, many tell me that the most prevalent barrier to trade is arbitrary or non-science-based government regulations. There is a role for regulations to protect consumers and support commerce, but in order to facilitate trade, we support harmonizing our standards as much as possible and ensuring sound, science-based regulations that will ensure that other countries will recognize our certifications.

Multilateral diplomacy is crucial to creating those international standards and reinforcing good practices. Using international bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius, the UN body responsible for setting food safety standards, the United States is able to establish worldwide standards based on the recommendations of expert panels.

For example, the State Department has taken the lead internationally on the issue of Codex Alimantarius’s maximum residue limits in meat for ractopamine, a veterinary drug used for more efficient production of beef and pork in the United States and other countries. Our embassy personnel have and will continue to build coalitions among like-minded countries to support the establishment of Codex standards for ractopamine that are science-based and unbiased. The United States also continues to encourage Codex to adopt pesticide standards for larger product groupings instead of one standard for each fruit and vegetable, which would be a win for our Pacific Northwest producers of cherries, apples, and other specialty crops.

And building on work at APEC, and in cooperation with the private sector, the State Department has collaborated with USTR and USAID to support the Global Food Safety Partnership, a multidonor trust fund managed by the World Bank. In this innovative partnership, which first was announced at APEC, a wide-range of stakeholders creates training programs designed to enhance food safety and to facilitate trade.

Conclusion
I would like to close by emphasizing that American economic leadership in Asia is critical to our overall engagement there. We must continue to deepen our political and economic ties with the region, pressing for rule of law and trade enforcement, and supporting the global economic network that underpins the world’s economic recovery. Doing so is good for American agriculture and is good for America.
I appreciate the committee’s interest in this important topic, I thank you for inviting me here, and I look forward to your questions.

JUSTICE ARTICLE ABOUT COMBATING HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE U.S. AND OTHER COUNTRIES

FROM:  U.S. DEEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Combating Human Trafficking at Home and Abroad
April 16th, 2012 Posted by Tracy Russo
 Last week Deputy Attorney General James Cole spoke at a symposium on how the Department of Justice is continuing to fight human trafficking, both nationally and abroad. The symposium, titled “A Global Perspective on Human Trafficking,” was held at Yale Law School and sponsored by David B. Fein, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and the FBI. A panel presentation titled “Expanding our Reach: Law Enforcement and NGO Partnerships” was also held during the event. During the panel discussion representatives from law enforcement, victim service groups and non-governmental organizations discussed the critical need to establish support networks for the rescue of and transition services for these vulnerable victims of human trafficking.
At the event, Deputy Attorney General Cole spoke about the scourge of human trafficking and the department’s deep commitment to stopping it:

It seems almost unfathomable that today in the 21st Century, we still live in a world where human trafficking persists.   And yet it exists and is often hiding in plain and painful sight. It’s the young woman who comes to America for the promise of a new life but finds herself enslaved and sold for sex.   Or the child who grew up here in America but ran away from home only to find herself the victim of her desperate acceptance of help from the wrong person.   Or the migrant worker who is deprived of identification, transportation, and access to money in order to ensure his total dependence on his employer. The Department of Justice is resolutely committed to preventing and combating human trafficking in all its forms. For Attorney General Holder and I, this is a deeply held conviction.

Within the Department of Justice, there are an array of components that work to combat human trafficking, including the U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the Civil Rights Division’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit, the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and the FBI. Additionally, the Office of Justice Programs provides critical funding and grants to states across the country, which help to combat human trafficking nationally and assist victim service organizations in local communities.
Vital partnerships with other federal authorities are also crucial to our efforts to combat human trafficking. These partnerships between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, international authorities, and non-governmental organizations have all been critical in combating instances of human trafficking nationally and worldwide.

Such programs and partnerships are proving to be effective. Last year, the Department of Justice charged a record number of defendants in human trafficking cases. Over the last three years, there has been a 30 percent increase in the number of charges. But we are not content to rest on these achievements. We are determined to continue to increase the impact of our efforts.

Last year, the Deputy Attorney General announced the Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team (ACTeam) Initiative, an interagency collaboration among the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and Labor to further streamline investigations and prosecutions for human trafficking offenses. These ACTeams are now fully operational and are providing enhanced strategic coordination among agencies and federal prosecutors.
We know that pursuing justice within our borders is not enough. That’s why our efforts are also worldwide, echoing the Deputy Attorney General’s commitment today to fighting human trafficking globally. Through our International Criminal Investigation Training Assistance Program (ICITAP), Department officials have helped to train hundreds of prosecutors, investigators and law enforcement officials in seven partner countries spanning three continents.

We also continue to work with the State Department to engage more international partners on human trafficking issues, ensuring that they are also pursuing aggressive enforcement efforts against traffickers and have the tools to do so. Forging these partnerships across borders helps us continue to focus on prevention of trafficking rings while also making sure that victims, who have been irreparably harmed by human trafficking, have the appropriate services and resources at their disposal.
At the Department of Justice, we are committed to continuing to build strategic partnerships across international borders, all with the goal of fighting human trafficking. While we are encouraged by our recent achievements, there is still much work to be done. We will continue to strive for prevention but also justice on behalf of victims of human trafficking.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON E. PANETTA REPORTED TO BE DISAPPOINTED WITH CONDUCT SHOWN IN 2010 PHOTOS

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Panetta Rejects Conduct Shown in 2010 Troop Photos

By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 18, 2012 - Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta strongly rejects the conduct depicted in 2010 photos of soldiers posing with corpses of insurgent suicide bombers in Afghanistan, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said today.

"These images by no means represent the values or professionalism of the vast majority of U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan today," he added.

Little, who is in Brussels with Panetta for a conference of NATO defense and foreign ministers, said in a statement that an investigation is under way that could lead to disciplinary measures. "Anyone found responsible for this inhuman conduct will be held accountable in accordance with our military justice system," he said.

According to the Los Angeles Times story that accompanied publication of the photos, a soldier who had served in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne's 4th Brigade Combat Team from Fort Bragg, N.C., anonymously provided 18 such photographs taken over several months because he believed they represented a breakdown in leadership and discipline that compromised troop safety.

Little said Panetta was disappointed that the newspaper published the photos despite a Pentagon request not to do so.

"The danger is that this material could be used by the enemy to incite violence against U.S. and Afghan service members in Afghanistan," he explained. U.S. forces there are taking security measures to guard against that, he added.

In Afghanistan's capital of Kabul, Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, issued a statement strongly condemning the actions depicted in the photos.

"The actions of the individuals photographed do not represent the policies of ISAF or the U.S. Army," Allen said. "This behavior and these images are entirely inconsistent with the values of ISAF and all service members of the 50 ISAF countries serving in Afghanistan."

Allen said ISAF continues to work with its Afghan and international partners to resolve any issues related to improper treatment of remains.

"This incident is being thoroughly investigated by U.S. national authorities," he said, adding that ISAF has a strict policy for the handling of enemy remains and dictates they be processed as humanely as possible.

"The incident depicted in the LA Times' photographs represents a serious error in judgment by several soldiers who have acted out of ignorance and unfamiliarity with U.S. Army values," the general said. Such actions, he added, "undermine the daily sacrifices of thousands of ISAF troops who continue to serve honorably in Afghanistan."

Allen said ISAF will collaborate with Afghan authorities to examine the facts and circumstances shown in the photos.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: (Laughter.)

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Sure. Could I switch topics --

MR. TONER: Sure thing.

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

QUESTION: Do you know whom he met?

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

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

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

QUESTION: Follow on that, please.

MR. TONER: Yeah. Sure.

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

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

QUESTION: Could I --

MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead, Andy.

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

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

QUESTION: Different subject?

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR. TONER: Sure.

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

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

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

QUESTION: Well, wait.

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I can’t comment on that.

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

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


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

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

QUESTION: Oh okay. So --

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

QUESTION: -- when he showed up --

MR. TONER: Or those meetings.

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

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

QUESTION: Right.

MR. TONER: -- it was scheduled --

QUESTION: As a member of the Chinese --

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

QUESTION: -- Government? Or as an individual?

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

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

MR. TONER: A local government official, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I don’t know that.

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

MR. TONER: I don’t know.

QUESTION: You don’t know.

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I thought you were.

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

MR. TONER: Well, I’m not going to --

QUESTION: Is that correct? Do you not --

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

QUESTION: Mark, move back to Syria?

MR. TONER: We can go to Syria.

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: She did.

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

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

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

QUESTION: So I’m curious about --

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

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

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

PARTICIPANT: I mean, I think it’s --

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

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

QUESTION: Right.

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

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

QUESTION: Yeah.

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

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

MR. TONER: I think we’re --

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

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Well, it’ll be up to --

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

MR. TONER: Matt --


QUESTION: Am I right or am I wrong?

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

QUESTION: But I guess – my question is --

MR. TONER: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah.

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

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

QUESTION: New topic, (inaudible)?

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

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

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

MR. TONER: Right.

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Against Syria.

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

MR. TONER: Look, I think that --

QUESTION: Turkey wants to be in the EU.

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

QUESTION: Or at least they did.

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: No, let’s do Canada.

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Venezuela?

MR. TONER: Sure.

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

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

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

Yeah. Go ahead, Scott.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Palestinian issue?

MR. TONER: Sure.

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

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

Yeah, go ahead.

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

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

QUESTION: I have a couple of little ones.

MR. TONER: Sure.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Okay. And one other one --

MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

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

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

QUESTION: Specific, credible, and what?

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: I can’t at this – no.

QUESTION: Because --

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

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

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

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

MR. TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Like, so what you said?

MR. TONER: Yes. What I said.

QUESTION: Specific, credible, and non-counterable?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: On India (inaudible) --

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

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

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

QUESTION: India. The missile.

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

Yeah, go ahead, Scott.

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

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

QUESTION: The son of the president of Equatorial Guinea.

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

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

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

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

MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: But there is nothing newer than that?

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

QUESTION: Different topic?

MR. TONER: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Sure, sure.

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

U.S. DEFENSE AND STATE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIES EXPRESS COMMITMENT TO AFGHAN STABILITY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State NATO Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
April 18, 2012 

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. I’m very pleased to join Secretary Panetta and our defense and foreign minister colleagues here in Brussels for this meeting, the joint ministerial of NATO, to prepare for the upcoming NATO summit in my birthplace, Chicago. The main focus of our conversations today was Afghanistan, which I will focus on tomorrow at the meeting of our ISAF partners. But let me say how grateful the United States is for the solidarity and steadfastness of our NATO allies and ISAF partners.

As difficult a week as this has been in Kabul and other parts of Afghanistan, the big picture is clear. The transition is on track, the Afghans are increasingly standing up for their own security and future, and NATO remains united in our support for the Lisbon timetable, and an enduring commitment to Afghanistan. The attacks in Kabul this week show us that while the threat remains real, the transition can work. The response by the Afghan National Security forces were fast and effective, and the attacks failed. Not long ago, this kind of response by Afghans themselves would not have been possible. So the Afghans are proving themselves increasingly ready to take control of their own future.

Now by their nature, transitions of any kind are challenging. There will be setbacks and hard days. But clear progress is happening, and today, NATO reaffirmed our commitment to stand with the Afghans to defend stability and security, to protect the gains of the last decade, and to prevent there ever being a return of al-Qaida or other extremists operating out of the Afghan territory.

Both Secretary Panetta and I were impressed by how united the NATO allies are in supporting the Lisbon timetable. We are on track to meet the December 2014 deadline for completing the security transition. Already 50 percent of the Afghan people are secured primarily by Afghan forces, and by this spring, it will be 75 percent. Today, we worked on the three initiatives for the Chicago summit next month.

First, we will agree on the next phase of transition to support our 2014 goals. Second, we want to be ready to define NATO’s enduring relationship with Afghanistan after 2014. And third, we are prepared to work with the Afghans to ensure that the Afghan National Security force is fully funded. NATO is united behind all these goals, so we are looking forward to a very productive summit in Chicago.

But let’s keep in mind that the transition and NATO’s mission are part of a larger enterprise, one that also has political and economic dimensions. Afghanistan’s neighbors have a central role to play in that larger enterprise along with the international community. Our common approach was sharpened when the international community met in Istanbul and Bonn last year, and will be carried forward when we meet again in Chicago, Kabul, and Tokyo this year.

So beyond NATO, many nations are invested in Afghanistan’s future and are providing support for the Afghans to attain self reliance, stability, and further their democratic future. They have to protect, however, as they go through this transition, their hard-fought political and economic and human rights progress. Incidents like the one we heard of yesterday when 150 Afghan girls became sick after the water at their school was poisoned, reminds us that there are people who would destroy Afghanistan’s long-term future in order to restrict the rights of women and girls. Human rights protections for religious and ethnic minorities are also still fragile. Universal human rights are critical to Afghanistan’s security and prosperity, and we will continue to make them a priority.

While NATO has worked very hard to assist the people of Afghanistan, NATO has also been changed by this experience. The alliance is now a leading force for security, not just in the Atlantic region, but globally. We are steadily deepening and broadening the partnerships NATO has with dozens of countries around the world, and our partners are adding valuable capability, legitimacy, and political support to NATO’s operations and missions from the Mediterranean and Libya to Kosovo and Afghanistan.

So we believe we are building a stronger, more flexible, more dynamic alliance enriched by partners from every continent and prepared to meet the security challenges of our time. With that, let me turn the floor to Secretary Panetta.

SECRETARY PANETTA: Thank you. Good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to join Secretary Clinton here in Brussels. We had a very good series of meetings today with our NATO defense and foreign minister counterparts. Much of our discussion focused on our shared effort in Afghanistan, and what came out of these meetings was a strong commitment to sticking to the plan and the strategy that has been laid out by General Allen, and finishing the job in Afghanistan. Allies and partners have a very clear vision and a very clear message. Our strategy is right, our strategy is working, and if we stick to it, we can achieve the mission of establishing an Afghanistan that can secure and govern itself, and never again become a safe haven for terrorists to plan attacks on our country or any other country.

All of us are committed to the goals that were set out in the Lisbon framework, including continuing the transition to full Afghan security leadership by the end of 2014. We know there will be continuing challenges, and we saw some of those challenges over this last weekend. This is a war. There will be losses, there will be casualties, there will be incidents of the kind that we have seen in the last few days. But we must not allow any of that to undermine our commitment to our strategy.

The fact is, with regards to the events that took place over the weekend, we saw Afghan security forces do what we have trained them to do. They responded quickly, professionally, and with great courage, rendering ineffective those largely symbolic attacks that we saw in and around Kabul.

General Allen said he visited an Afghan special operations commando who had been wounded in the insurgent attacks and asked him if he could do anything for him. The Afghan commando’s response was, and I quote, “I just want to get back out there with my brother soldiers,” unquote. That short phrase speaks volumes. As General Allen has made clear, history proves that insurgencies are best and ultimately defeated not by foreign troops but by indigenous security forces, forces that know the ground, that know the territory, that know the culture, that know the neighborhood. When the Afghans do their job, we are doing our job. When the Afghans win, we win.

And the Afghans are making progress. They are in the lead now in areas that encompass more than 50 percent of the population in Afghanistan. When the third tranche of areas are transferred, we will have 75 percent of the population under Afghan governance and security. They have been in the lead for counterterrorism night operations since December. And now, thanks to a memorandum of understanding that was recently signed, all of these operations will fall under the authority of Afghan law. In less than six months’ time, Afghan security forces will take full leadership of detention operations, thanks again to another agreement that was signed recognizing Afghan sovereignty.

As I’ve said, 2011 was a real turning point. It was the first time in five years that we saw a drop in the number of enemy attacks. Over the past 12 weeks, enemy attacks continue to decrease compared to the same period in 2011. Taliban has been weakened, Afghan army operations are progressing, and the reality is that the transition to Afghan security and governance is continuing and progressing.

We see other signs that we are seriously degrading the insurgency. By January 2011, 600 Taliban had integrated into the society. This month, that number topped 4,000. We intend to build on this success. We’re committed to an enduring presence in Afghanistan post-2014 and a continuing effort to train, advise, and assist the ANSF in protecting the Afghan people and denying terrorists a safe haven. We cannot and we will not abandon Afghanistan. The key to our enduring partnership is continued international support. We cannot shortchange the security that must be provided by the Afghan forces now and in the future.

Today, I will also discuss with my NATO counterparts the steps needed to ensure that the alliance has the right military capabilities for the future. Across the board, allies are making important commitments to smart defense, with opportunities for new capabilities in ISR, missile defense, and air-to-air refueling. While significant progress has been made, important work lies ahead. The NATO we build is not only the force of today; it must be the force of 2020.

I’m pleased to announce that earlier today, along with Czech Defense Minister Vondra, I signed the Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement with the Czech Republic. The agreement reaffirms the importance and vitality of the U.S.-Czech defense relationship and enhances our cooperative security relationship. And as you know, this is the last high-level meeting before the Chicago summit in May. I think Secretary Clinton and I will take back to President Obama the results of these discussions. And I believe we have helped lay the groundwork for a very successful summit, and most importantly, for a strong and enduring NATO alliance.

MS. NULAND: We’ll take three today. Let’s start with Reuters. Arshad Mohammed, please.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, I’m sure that you will have seen that the violence – the government violence continues in Syria. Homs continues to be shelled, I think almost every day since the ceasefire ostensibly took effect. And the Syrian foreign minister has pushed back against the kind of mission that Kofi Annan would like to insert, saying that it should be no more than 250 monitors, they don’t need their own helicopters and mobility, and they should be from friendly countries.

Given this, is it now time for the United States to look harder at whatever kinds of pressure can be brought to bear against the Assad government? And specifically, are you giving any more thought to rethinking your previous opposition to others arming the rebels? And are you giving any more thought to trying to get the Arabs to impose a more forceful sanctions regime on Syria?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Arshad, first of all, Syria was a subject of conversation among many of our allies today. Every country in NATO is watching the situation with concern. I don’t want to prejudge what does or does not happen with the observers. The first tranche of the UN monitors is just beginning to deploy. It is, obviously, quite concerning that while we are deploying these monitors pursuant to a Security Council resolution that confirms our commitment to Kofi Annan’s six-point plan, the guns of the Assad regime are once again firing in Homs, Idlib, and elsewhere, and Syrians continue to die. So we are certainly cognizant of the very challenging road ahead. We are all here, united in favor of Kofi Annan’s plan and his urgent call for a robust monitoring force.

But we are at a crucial turning point. Either we succeed in pushing forward with Kofi Annan’s plan in accordance with the Security Council direction, with the help of monitors steadily broadening and deepening a zone of non-conflict and peace, or we see Assad squandering his last chance before additional measures have to be considered.

Now, we will continue to increase the pressure on Assad. I spoke with several ministers about the need to tighten sanctions, tighten pressure on the regime, on those who support the regime. And we also are going to continue pressing for a political solution, which remains the goal of Kofi Annan’s plan and the understandable goal of anyone who wants to see a peaceful transition occur in Syria.

I also would add that I’ve only spoken for the United States. The United States is not providing lethal arms, but as I’ve said before, the United States is providing communications and logistics and other support for the opposition. And we will continue to do everything we can to assist the opposition to be perceived as – and in reality become – the alternative voice for the Syrian people’s future.

And make no mistake about it; this conflict is taking place right on NATO’s border. We saw, just last week, the shelling across the borders into Turkey and into Lebanon. Our NATO ally, Turkey, has already suffered the effects of not only the influx of refugees that it is very generously housing, but also having two people killed on their side of the border because of Syrian artillery.

So we will remain in very close touch as events unfold. I look forward to continuing our consultations tomorrow at the ad-hoc group meeting that will be hosted by Foreign Minister Juppe in Paris.

But as I have reiterated, we will judge the Assad regime by their actions, not their words. We have been working to try to reach consensus in the Security Council, which we did in support of Kofi Annan’s six-point plan. The burden has shifted, not only to the Assad regime, but to those who support it to be forced to explain why, after time and time again stating that they will end the violence, the violence continues. So obviously, this is going to be a very high priority for all of us going forward.

QUESTION: Is it okay for others to arm any rebels?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not speaking for anyone but the United States of America.

MODERATOR: The next question will be from Anne Gearan of the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Yes. To both of you, please, could I ask you to comment on publication today of photos purportedly showing U.S. troops posing with the corpses of Taliban militants? What did you think when you heard about this? What did you think when you saw the photos? And doesn’t this sort of undermine all the progress that you claim and the strategy you laid out just a moment ago?

Secondly, if I could ask each of you to respond to President Karzai’s remark yesterday that he would like a firm written commitment of 2 billion a year from the United States for security forces. Should he be concerned that you’re going to renege on that promise? And why doesn’t he just take your word for it?

SECRETARY PANETTA: With regards to the photos, I strongly condemned what we see in those photos, as has General Allen. That behavior that was depicted in those photos absolutely violates both our regulations, and more importantly, our core values. This is not who we are, and it’s certainly not who we represent when it comes to the great majority of men and women in uniform who are serving there.

I expect that the matter will be fully investigated. That investigation has already begun. This is a matter that goes back, I believe, to 2010, but it needs to be fully investigated, and that investigation, as I understand, is already underway. And wherever those facts lead, we will take the appropriate action. If rules and regulations were found to have been violated, then those individuals will be held accountable.

Let me also say this: This is war. And I know that war is ugly and it’s violent. And I know that young people sometimes caught up in the moment make some very foolish decisions. I am not excusing that. That’s – I’m not excusing that behavior. But neither do I want these images to bring further injury to our people or to our relationship with the Afghan people. We had urged the L.A. Times not to run those photos, and the reason for that is those kinds of photos are used by the enemy to incite violence, and lives have been lost as a result of the publication of similar photos in the past, so we regret that they were published. But having said that, again, that behavior is unacceptable, and it will be fully investigated.

With regards to President Karzai’s comment, we – as both the Secretary of State and I know from our own experience, you have to deal with Congress when it comes to what funds are going to be provided. And we don’t, nor do – we do not have the power to lock in money for the Afghans or anybody else.

QUESTION: Did you apologize on behalf of the United States for those photos or the actions depicted in them in your meetings today?

SECRETARY PANETTA: I was not asked about it, but obviously, my apology is on behalf of the Department of Defense and the U.S. Government.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: And the final question will come from Petro Dekurning of NRC Handelsblad, a Dutch newspaper.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, the secretary general told us that some allies already came up with contributions for the Afghan army after 2014. Are you satisfied with this? And while this was not a pledging conference, what do you expect? What amounts do you expect from the allies to come up with? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we were very encouraged by the commitment from the NATO allies to the funding of the Afghan National Security Forces. We believe that we are on the path to ensuring that these security forces, which, as Leon has just said, made such progress because of our training and mentoring over the last few years, will have the resources necessary to protect the Afghan state and the Afghan people. So I’m going to let individual countries make their own announcements.

But as we move forward toward the NATO summit, one of the goals is to ensure that NATO has an enduring relationship with Afghanistan, and in many ways, not just in terms of financial commitments, but in other ways as well. A lot of the member countries are stepping up and talking about what they intend to do. And similarly, tomorrow, we expect to hear from a number of our ISAF partners about their continuing commitment as well. So I think both Leon and I were encouraged and believe we’re making progress.

MS. NULAND: Thank you very much.

Joint Press Briefing

Joint Press Briefing