U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ON SITUATION IN VENEZUELA

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARMTNE
Background Briefing on the Situation in Venezuela
Special Briefing
Senior State Department Officials
Via Teleconference
March 6, 2013

　

MODERATOR: Hello, everyone, and thanks for joining us this afternoon. Today we have with us two senior State Department officials to discuss the situation in Venezuela. We have with us [Senior State Department Official One] and [Senior State Department Official Two]. Hereafter for the rest of the call, they will be Senior State Department Official One and Senior State Department Official Two. This call is on background, so for all attribution we will refer to them as Senior State Department Officials.

So without further ado, I’m going to turn it over to Senior State Department Official Number One for some opening remarks before we get to your questions. Go ahead, Senior Official One.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you very much, [Moderator], and thanks to everyone for being on the line. Good afternoon. Let me start off just with a couple of quick things and then we can go to questions.

Yesterday was obviously a very, very busy day on Venezuela. First we had the press conference by Vice President Maduro in which there were a lot of allegations made about the United States and two of our officials were expelled, or PNG’d; and then just hours later, Vice President Maduro, of course, announced President Chavez’s death. The White House has put out a statement on the death of President Chavez. We, of course, have also responded to inquiries.

It’s a very difficult time for Venezuela right now. We are aware of that, and we have conveyed our belief that as they look forward beyond the death of President Chavez there will be elections upcoming according to the Venezuelan constitution, and we are hopeful that those elections will go forward according to their constitution, according to the regional documents, the Inter-American documents on democratic practices that we’ve all signed up to, in the coming days and months.

Let me also just say a word about one other thing that we have obviously been paying some attention to over the last 24 hours, which is the security situation in Venezuela, both for our official Americans and for American citizens more generally. The situation is really very calm. We have had conversations with all of the Venezuelan various security services – police, military – and they have been very responsive to us. We have no concerns about our own security at this point. We did put out – our Embassy did put out a Warden Message last night for Americans, the kind of thing that we do pretty regularly when we think there are reasons for Americans to be cautious. So we put that out yesterday.

My understanding is that because of the national days of mourning, the schools are closed today. Our Embassy did not process visas this morning because they felt that it was better if they did not. So people who had not gotten the word that we were not going to do our visa appointments today were turned away this morning, but there were no problems with that. So I just want to make mention of the fact that we are very conscious of security issues but that everything seems to be going very well for now.

With that, I think I’ll stop unless Official Number Two has anything to add.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Nope, I don’t. Let’s go ahead.

MODERATOR: Operator, let’s go ahead to our Q&A session. Go ahead and get our first question.

OPERATOR: Certainly. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, please press * then 1 on your phone (inaudible). If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. Once again, any questions, please press * then 1 at this time.

And our first question will come from the line of Elise Labott with CNN. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks for doing this. Can you talk a little bit more about – I mean, this – the White House statement was kind of a little bit curt, didn’t necessarily offer condolences. We understand that Senior Official One put out a statement. If you could release that to the rest of the – of us, that would be great. It just seems as if you’re unsure how to respond in terms of showing condolences. The rhetoric coming not only from some of the Republicans on the Hill, talking about the fact that it’s good that he’s dead. I’m wondering, given what’s going on on both sides, what you see the prospect is for improved relations between the U.S. and Venezuela as you move forward.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, Elise. Let me start out by saying that I can’t really explain or otherwise characterize rhetoric that may be coming out from members of Congress or others. Let me say that I think it’s really important that I make clear that we definitely wanted to – we definitely understand that Venezuela is going through this incredibly difficult period. Their leader has died. We – and I don’t see any problem with making that available – and in the guidance that we’ve used have made clear that we expressed our sympathy to his family and to the Venezuelan people. I think frankly, the way I was raised, when someone dies, you always express condolences. So we’ve done that.

But it’s obviously been a pretty complicated relationship, and this announcement was preceded by a 90-minute press conference in which we were accused of some pretty awful things that were pretty outrageous. But I think that reflects to some extent just how difficult it’s been to try and have the positive relationship with Venezuela that we’d like. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of conflict over President Chavez’s death. He was the leader of Venezuela. There are a lot of people who are feeling the effects of that death, taking it quite personally. There is a family involved here. We sympathize with that.

Looking forward and how the relationship will go in the future, I think we’ve also been pretty clear that we would like a productive, more functional relationship with the Venezuelan Government. And we remain, perhaps because we’re Americans, optimistic that that can be the case. But we’ll have to see how that progresses going forward. Obviously, yesterday’s first press conference, if you will, the first address, was not encouraging in that respect. It disappointed us.

OPERATOR: And next in queue we’ll go to the line of Luis Alonso. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hello, everybody. Many thanks for doing this call. I have two quick questions. The first one is if the United States will reciprocate the expulsion of the two military officers in Caracas, will ask Venezuela to do something similar? And the second question is, after these accusations yesterday by Vice President Maduro, do you plan to have any direct contact with him like the November contact that there was? Is there any prospect, any plan for talks in the near future? Thank you.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, Luis. I think on the question of reciprocal action for the expulsion of our two officials, that’s something that we’re obviously reviewing right now and we’ll see where we go from here. It’s obviously always our right to take that action, and so we’re not ruling anything out at this point.

On the issue of contact with Vice President Maduro, [Senior State Department Official has] not had contact with him since November, but contact between others [in the State Department] have continued, not in a while now. We’ll see whether those can continue at this point.

Official Number Two, did you want to add anything to that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No, I think that’s right.

OPERATOR: And next we’ll go the line of Jo Biddle, AFP. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hello, my question was actually just answered, which was about the rhetoric and whether there’d be any reciprocal actions by the United States on – after the expulsion of these two Air Force officers. But perhaps going forward, maybe you could talk a little bit more about how you think you might be able to build your relationship with Venezuela perhaps once we get past the elections and where you would like to see that going in the future.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you. I think that we’ve – we’ve said from the beginning that we think the best way to move ahead in this relationship is twofold. One is to have conversations on things where I think there may be mutual interest in moving ahead, and there are clearly some areas in which we think that could be possible – counternarcotics, counterterrorism, economic or commercial issues including energy.

But the second part of this is – and we’ve always been clear on this as well, I think – that we are going to continue to speak out when we believe there are issues of democratic principle that need to be talked about, that need to be highlighted. Obviously, Venezuela will also speak out and speak its own mind on – the Venezuelan Government will speak its own mind on issues they think that they have to speak out about.

So I think that’s part of this equation, but there clearly are issues in which we have mutual interest, and I think that’s the way you start this. You start by talking about the things that matter to both of us and seeing if we can make progress on those issues on those functional areas, and then you move on to trying to build on that as you build confidence. So for us, it’s a step-by-step process during which we will continue to speak out and to defend democratic principles if that is the appropriate thing to do.

OPERATOR: And next in queue we’ll go directly to the line of Brad Clapper with Associated Press. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, yes. Thank you for doing the call. I just wanted to ask for your reaction to the late-night tweet by Venezuelan State Television saying that Defense Minister Molero was pledging military support for Maduro’s candidacy. Is that something that worries you, and do you see already these democratic principles that you have said you would speak out in favor of already being challenged?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, Brad. I actually had not seen that tweet, but I do think that it’s important that the elections be free and fair, that they be – that the democratic principles enshrined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter and other documents be respected. It seems to me that if government entities guaranteeing a free and fair election, then that’s one thing; if they are acting on behalf of an individual candidate, that would probably cause us some concern.

It’s important that, to the greatest extent possible, everybody have a level playing field and a clear field, whether that’s candidates or voters or political groups, to express themselves, to have a vote that is secret and counted and not influenced by those outside the electoral process. So we’ll obviously be taking a look at all of these things as we go forward.

Official Number Two?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The only thing I’d say in addition to that is, and this is not – Official Number One’s comments about how we respond to this, I think, is right on. This is no different from positions that have been taken by the armed forces in the past, including things – saying things like we’re married to the revolution, et cetera. And the fundamental point here is about – and the separation of powers and ensuring that institutions in the democratic structure have the independence that they need to function as designed.

OPERATOR: And next, we’ll go to the line of Lucia Leal with EFE News Service. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for making this call. I was wondering if you could comment on the specific process announced by Vice President Maduro up until the elections next month, because some analysts are saying that the constitution provides for Mr. Cabello and not him to head the interim government. So I just wanted to know what your views are on that. Thank you.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, Lucia. We’ve obviously seen lots of comments by analysts. It’s not going to be our place to interpret the Venezuelan constitution for Venezuelans, so I really – I’m not going to make a comment on whether that interpretation is accurate or not.

From what I understand – and then I’m going to turn it over to Official Number Two, who is a much better expert on the process going forward – but from what I understand, there – like any constitution, there are rules that are laid out, and then interpretations of the same. We’ve also seen reports that elections need to be held in 30 days, which is an incredibly short timeframe. Or there have been comments that elections need to be called within 30 days.

So all of this will have to be worked out going forward. I think the most important thing is that the rules be applicable across the board to everybody, and that there be an opportunity for Venezuelans to organize and to vote and to be independent in that vote. But beyond that, I’m not going to interpret Venezuela’s constitution.

[Senior State Department Official Two]?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. I mean, this is right. I mean, it’s a constitution like many constitutions. It’s subject to differential interpretations. For their part, the Venezuelans and the Venezuelan Supreme Court in the past – and they had the tradition of judicial review – the Venezuelan Supreme Court ruled that Maduro didn’t need to be inaugurated because there was a continuity of government. And as – the whole theory behind two-thirds of that article is that you would need to move the acting presidency to the president of the National Assembly because there was no inauguration.

So the point is, is that the judicial branch has kind of looked at this already. For our part, what’s important now is less that issue and more the conditions under which the election, which must be held, which Chavez, before he went to – back to Cuba said would be held, that that election take place in conditions that are demonstrably free and fair and that conform to the rules that the hemisphere had set up for itself with respect to democratic practice.

OPERATOR: And next we’ll go to the line of Karen DeYoung with The Washington Post. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: My question’s been asked and answered. Thank you.

OPERATOR: You’re welcome. Thank you. Next we’ll go to the line of Juan Lopez, CNN Espanol. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. So what happens now? Will the U.S. send a delegation for Friday? Who will be in that delegation? How do you take it from here? And how do you deal? You’re saying you want – there’s a moment of pause and waiting to see what could happen in the relationship, but for example, Cabello is – he’s still on the kingpin list. And how does that affect any possible change for the future?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, Juan Carlos. I’m going to start – let me start at the beginning, I think, if I can remember all the questions. You’ll let me know if I’ve missed some.

The question of what happens next, obviously, things are still pretty much in flux. It’s sort of early days. Whether a delegation will be sent for the funeral and ceremony that’s going to be held at the end of the week, I think on that all I would say is that’s a White House decision but I do expect that there will be a delegation. So, basically, stay tuned for that. I don’t want to preempt the White House on that.

In terms of moving forward, obviously we began a dialogue very initially with Vice President Maduro, and then with others beyond that, because we felt it was important to see if we could kind of reconstruct this relationship, starting with the issues where we have mutual interests. That’s been a little bit of a rocky road, obviously. And I think all of us know that electoral campaigns may not always be the best time to make – to break new ground on policy.

So we will continue to desire that positive relationship, to be open to having those conversations to try and move that ahead, while recognizing that it may take a little while before the Venezuelan Government that emerges from the elections that will be coming up is ready to have that conversation a bit more regularly and a bit more seriously.

But I think we’ve set out sort of a roadmap, if you will, of the way we’d like to do this, a sort of step-by-step process. And to some extent, it’s up to the Venezuelans to whether they want to head down that path and explore whether it’ll work.

Official Number Two, what am I missing of those questions? I can’t recall.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. What – there was another question at the end there. Can you repeat that question?

Apparently not. Locked out.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There was a question about Cabello, I think, at the end.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, the only – I mean, I heard – it may have gone to the constitution question, but one just point of fact is the questioner suggested that Cabello was on the kingpin list, which is not accurate. I mean, there are eight Venezuelans who are on the kingpin list, but he is not currently one of them.

MODERATOR: And next, we’ll go to the line of Lori Montenegro with Telemundo Network. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, good afternoon. Senator Marco Rubio, in his statement, was encouraging the Administration and others in what he called the democratic community to be aware and be vigilant of the security situation in Venezuela during the coming weeks and months. Is there – do you have any indication of – that there should be concern about the security situation in Venezuela and how that could affect security in the rest of the region?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you. I started with security in part to try and get at this issue, but I appreciate sort of coming back to it.

We have no indication right now that there is any threat to our personnel or Americans in Venezuela. Now obviously, after you have the kind of broadside, if you will, that Vice President Maduro launched against the United States yesterday, we obviously have security concerns, and we will remain very vigilant and review security issues regularly within our Embassy and here in Washington. And we’ll put out any additional notices to the public that we think necessary.

But at this point, I have to say, cooperation with the Venezuelan security services has been excellent, and we have no reason to think that there is any unusual threat against Americans or our personnel. And as far as I know, so far today, things have been very quiet and very peaceful, although obviously I think there are people out in the street in mourning, et cetera. So, so far, I think things have been quite quiet.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: If I could just add, just briefly here, is the only other thing is that all that is so, and we need to concern ourselves with the security of American citizens and of our mission. But let’s be clear; I mean, Venezuela is one of the most violent countries in the world with 20,000 murders, 19,000 murders annually being registered, a rate which is five times what it was in 1999. It’s inherently a violent place.

But there’s a distinction there between that sort of violence and then violence which might be – and it would appear that the comment of the senator was directed about sort of political violence. And Senior Official One’s comments were on point in that regard.

MODERATOR: And next we’ll go to the line of Ginger Thompson, New York Times. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, you all, and thanks for doing the call. I’m wondering if, [Senior State Department Official One], you could give us a few more details about what has happened specifically in the relationship between your – the time of that phone call with Vice President Maduro to yesterday’s press conference. I mean, there was the phone call. Have there been regular diplomatic communications between the two governments? Were there meetings planned? How did things begin to sort of unravel, if you will – not that they were ever fully together?

SENIOR STATE DEPATMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. I think, Ginger, what you’re asking for is a more logical progression than actually exists. (Laughter.) The phone calls took place at the end of November. There were some – a couple of follow-up meetings after that phone call. We laid out, if you will, what we thought was kind of a good plan and where we could start. And to be honest, we did not get much response. We didn’t really begin the substantive portion of those conversations. We were still kind of meeting to meet and laying out what we would talk about.

So we really hadn’t gotten very far and were not sure whether the Government of Venezuela wanted to continue down that road when yesterday occurred. I could not tell you that there was a lot of preparation or anticipation of what happened yesterday, or something that’s built up or that tensions were growing, and that’s why yesterday occurred. In fact, I don’t think that’s the case.

I think yesterday was a part of an election campaign, and therefore not necessarily directly related to the process we’ve had of trying to improve the relationship. But it is directly related, from our perspective, obviously, that is to say regardless of reasons for it, there were some outrageous charges leveled against the United States publicly yesterday. And that’s really unfortunate and we rejected those.

But I can’t tell you that those two events are linked – the process that we’ve had to try and improve to have a conversation on the functional issues, as I call them, and what happened yesterday.

OPERATOR: The next in queue, we’ll go directly to the line of Jay Newton-Small with Time Magazine. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. Yes, I wanted to know whether you see relations improving in the short or in the medium term now that Chavez is gone. Was he the biggest hurdle in this relationship, or are there other hurdles?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks. I’m going to start this one off and then I’m going to ask Official Two to continue a little bit.

I think one of the things that happens over 14 years in a government like Venezuela’s is it really did revolve around one man. So while I hesitate to say that a change in an individual or the passing of an individual completely changes the relationship, I do think your question, in a way, comes from an acknowledgement that he played an outsized role in that government, and therefore his absence can have an outsized implication, if you will.

But it’s very hard for me to tell. Obviously, there’s an election that’s going to take place in the coming weeks or months. And that campaign itself may raise issues; it may be a difficult campaign for many. We will no doubt continue to hear things about the United States that will not help improve this relationship. But it’s very hard for us to know right now whether the current government, as they preside over elections, or the government that comes out of those elections will, in fact, either accelerate or continue or stop the momentum towards a better relationship. [Senior State Department Official Two], you want to jump in?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The only thing I would add there is if you go back over time and look at how Hugo Chavez managed things politically in his country, one of the consistent elements was using us as a foil, using us as sort of a straw man that could be attacked.

And the regrettable part about this is that, notwithstanding his political needs, there are issues on which we’re really compelled to cooperate or at least talk to one another because there’s – they’re generally issues of mutual interest, where our interests coincide.

The speech yesterday, the first speech yesterday by Maduro, was very consistent with the way that this government has traditionally addressed these matters. And in that respect, it wasn’t very encouraging. On the other hand, it’s our obligation to see if there’s any space to work these things, and I think that if there’s space to do so on their side, then we’ll find out. But we can’t make these decisions for them, only they can.

MODERATOR: Operator, we’ve only got time for two more questions.

OPERATOR: Very good. We’ll go directly to the line of Keith Johnson with the Wall Street Journal. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks a lot for doing this call. The main question I had, just to broaden things out a little bit, I mean in recent years, despite all of the provocations – and [Senior State Department Official Two], you just mentioned his use of the U.S. as a foil constantly, but the U.S. had consistently sort of refused to take that bait. And I wonder, dealing with this post-Chavez transition and all the uncertainty there, if this is going to have any impact on the broader western hemisphere agenda that you’ve laid out, whether it’s energy cooperation, Connect 2020, democracy institutions, social inclusion. I mean, does this change your broader goals for relations with Latin America? Does this create any sort of openings or should it basically not alter the path you guys have already laid out?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. Let me start that one. I guess my own view is that, at least initially, I don't see this changing that much. What we said from the beginning was we’ve laid out, obviously, the issues that we think are important to move ahead on, includes defense of democracy, economic opportunity and social inclusion, moving on energy, including clean energy, citizen security issues, which obviously, as Official Number Two pointed out, are critical in Venezuela. But I don't see the overall goals in the hemisphere changing or being affected all that radically by these events.

That said, the other thing that we’ve done procedurally, if you will, since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the first term, is we’ve sought partnerships with countries that wish to partner with us, where we have things in common that we want to achieve. And we’ve tried to continue to say we want to have a positive relationship, even with countries that seem not to demonstrate much will to do so, to leave that door open, to make sure that they recognize that we’re ready to do so should things change.

Now, that’s what we’re hoping for Venezuela, that whether before, during President Chavez’s years, or now, that they’re ready to actually have that relationship that’s more productive around stuff that I think matters a lot to Venezuelans, not just to Americans, whether it’s working on citizen security issues, whether it’s talking about counternarcotics and the way it’s impacting both of our countries. I mean, this is the kind of discussion we want to have.

I don't know whether more space has opened up to have that discussion now. I do know that, as Official Number Two pointed out earlier, if you look at what’s affecting Venezuelans day to day, whether it’s the highest inflation rate in the hemisphere, or whether it’s number of homicides and other crimes, or whether we’re talking about shortages of foodstuffs on the shelves, Venezuelans are not, I don’t think, in a very good place right now. There’s a lot of things that they are demanding of their leaders that I’m not sure are being met. That’s not something that the United States can necessarily do for Venezuela. Those are things the Venezuelans have to decide to prioritize and their leaders have to decide to respond to.

But surely these are conversations throughout the hemisphere on common issues that Venezuela would benefit from greater engagement in, and that’s what we would hope. So I don't see changes in our policy, but I would love and be very encouraged if we found Venezuela joining those conversations more actively.

OPERATOR: And our final question at this time will come from the line of Margaret Warner, PBS NewsHour. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for doing this. Just back to the concerns about the coming election and your wish that it be – hope that it be free and fair, what is it in the conduct, if anything, of past elections, like the one in October, that would raise concerns on that score?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, thank you, Margaret. I think that we’ve been pretty clear that one of the ways that you ensure that elections really do qualify as free and fair is you invite in observers, international election observers. Election observers in this hemisphere have a particularly long and distinguished history. Election observers have been deployed most recently to Ecuador. Former President of Costa Rica Oscar Arias is heading an election observation mission right now in Paraguay to prepare for their elections.

Venezuela has not invited the OAS to observe its elections in at least certainly the October elections. I’m not sure much before that. [Senior State Department Official Two] may recall. But that would be one thing where the absence, frankly, often concerns us and the presence would be extremely helpful we think. There are lots of groups that do election observation, the OAS being one. The EU is another that does a good job. So it can be any of a number of organizations, but they haven’t been allowed to do so.

But we also think it’s really important that the playing field be as level as it can. The opposition, obviously, is looking to try and get its message across, just as the government is doing, but the government has resources that are used in that process. And it’s important that fairness and some kind of equal shot be given to all the participants. And so we think that would be pretty important. That hasn’t always been the case.


Most people that we talk to in Venezuela – and I think – let me mention about election observation – it is perhaps even more critical not just that international observers observe an election but that domestic observation groups in Venezuela be allowed to observe any and all electoral processes that they can. And I think that’s going to be critical moving forward, and that always – hasn’t always been as transparent as it should be.

On the day of election, in general terms, election observers in Venezuela have felt that things go pretty well. But it’s often in the preparations of elections that kind of the fairness and the evenness of the space gets laid, and I think that’s what we’ll be looking for as things move ahead.

[Senior State Department Official Two].

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think that that’s exactly right. I don't have anything to add to that.

MODERATOR: Thank you all for joining us this afternoon. That’s the conclusion of our call.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you all very much.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Thanks.

NEWS FROM AFGHANISTAN FOR MARCH 6, 2013

U.S. Army soldiers move down into the Chorah Valley in Chorah in the Tarin Kowt district of Afghanistan's Uruzgan province, Feb. 23, 2013. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Jessi Ann McCormick

FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Combined Force Kills Taliban CommanderFrom an International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Release

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 6, 2013 - An Afghan and coalition security force killed one insurgent and wounded two others, including a Taliban commander, during an operation in the Giro district of Afghanistan's Ghazni province yesterday, military officials reported.

The deceased Taliban commander had exercised operational control over insurgent fighters in the area and was responsible for improvised explosive device attacks against Afghan and coalition forces, officials said, as well as executing a campaign of fear and intimidation against local citizens.

In other Afghanistan operations yesterday:

-- A combined force killed a Taliban leader, Biragh, in the Marjeh district of Helmand province. Biragh was responsible for conducting IED and small-arms attacks against Afghan and coalition forces. He also commanded multiple fighters and played a crucial role in facilitating weapons to insurgents.

-- A combined force killed a Taliban IED expert, Mushtaq, in the Kunduz district of Kunduz province. Mushtaq, also known as Azizullah or Khalid, was heavily involved in IED operations throughout the province. He personally carried out multiple IED attacks against Afghan and coalition forces, and distributed IEDs to fellow insurgents.

DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL MEETS WITH ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER BARAK

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel meets with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the Pentagon, March 5, 2013. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Hagel, Barak Discuss Syria, Iran
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 5, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak held talks at the Pentagon today on issues including Syria and Iran, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said

It was Hagel's first meeting with a foreign counterpart since he took office as Secretary of Defense.

During today's meeting with Barak, Hagel expressed his strong commitment to Israel's security, including maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge and continued U.S. support for missile and rocket defense systems in spite of fiscal constraints, Little said.

Hagel and Barak agreed that the United States-Israeli defense relationship has never been stronger, Little said, and that both nations will continue their close cooperation.

The two leaders also discussed the range of shared security interests including the need for the Syrian regime to maintain control over chemical and biological weapons in their country, Little said, noting the leaders pledged to continue U.S.-Israel contingency planning to counter that potential threat.

Regarding Iran, Hagel told Barak that President Barack Obama is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, with all options on the table, Little said.

Little said Hagel also stated that the United States continues to believe there is still time to address this issue through diplomacy, but that the window is closing.

Hagel noted that he and the Israeli defense minister have had an outstanding working relationship, dating back to Barak's days as Israel's Prime Minister, Little said.

Hagel also thanked Barak for his kind words at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference, Little said.

And, Hagel expressed his desire to visit Israel soon and Barak stated that Israel looks forward to hosting him in the near future, Little said.

DEPUTY SECRETARY BURN'S MEETING WITH IRAQI NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR

Map:  Iraq.  Credit:  CIA World Factbook.

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns' Meeting With Iraqi National Security Advisor Faleh al-Fayyad
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 5, 2013

Deputy Secretary Burns met today with Iraqi National Security Advisor Faleh al-Fayyad at the Department of State to discuss bilateral and regional issues and our shared commitment towards a long-term partnership under the Strategic Framework Agreement. This follows a host of meetings with senior officials within the Department, including Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary Shapiro, and Assistant Secretary Countryman on our security relationship; Assistant Secretary Posner on human rights; Special Envoy Pascual on strategic energy policy; and Ambassador Ford on the situation in Syria. Deputy Secretary Burns noted that the full schedule of meetings NSA Fayyad had in Washington was indicative of the expanding U.S.-Iraq relationship as the two countries continue to strengthen their strategic partnership.

Deputy Secretary Burns offered continued U.S. support as Iraq strengthens its democratic institutions and brings greater stability and prosperity to its people. The two sides also discussed the importance of strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights in Iraq and the impact these issues will have on Iraq's democratic development. On Iraqi political issues, the two discussed the importance of resolving differences through dialogue and compromise and the need for all of Iraq’s political parties to show maximum flexibility to reach consensus on specific, constructive, and implementable measures to address the concerns of the Iraqi people. On Iraqi energy issues, a discussion took place on the role Iraq will play for decades to come as a major oil exporter and how we can work together to help Iraq realize its full potential.

On regional relations, Deputy Secretary Burns welcomed Iraq’s improving relations with Kuwait and Jordan and assured NSA Fayyad that the United States would continue to support Iraq in its effort to strengthen ties with its regional neighbors. The two sides shared a mutual concern about the rise of extremism in Syria and the targeting of innocent civilians. They also discussed the importance of closer consultations on issues pertaining to Syria and the urgent need to initiate a dialogue on ways we can cooperate to hasten a peaceful and democratic transition. Deputy Secretary Burns urged the Government of Iraq to ensure that no arms are transferred through Iraqi airspace or across Iraqi territory into Syria. The U.S. side agreed to send a delegation to Baghdad in the coming weeks to discuss the Syrian situation in greater detail, to include enhanced cooperation on border security.

Deputy Secretary Burns and NSA Fayyad agreed on the importance of continuing to engage on these issues in preparation for the Joint Coordination Committee on Political and Diplomatic Cooperation to be held in Washington later this spring under the auspices of the Strategic Framework Agreement which will focus on areas of mutual interest at the ministerial level.

MARINE CORPS GEN. MATTIS SAYS "AFGHAN CAIGN IS ON TRACK"

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Afghan Forces Set Conditions for Success, Mattis Says
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 5, 2013 - The chief of U.S. Central Command discussed progress in Afghanistan and the upcoming transition there and also outlined budget challenges triggered by sequestration during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee today.

"Our mission is succeeding," said Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis. "The Afghan campaign is on track. It is, obviously, a combination of progress and violence, but I would say when it comes down to the [Afghan] security forces, they are proving themselves capable.

"Obviously, when we were looking at the drawdown numbers, there was a certain amount of forecasting that the Afghan forces would be capable," Mattis added.

The general cited a casualty statistic to demonstrate Afghan forces have successfully transitioned to leading security in most of the country.

Since January 1, four U.S. troops have been lost in action, Mattis said, and in the same period, Afghan security forces have had 198 killed.

"There can no longer be any doubt," he said. "It's not an opinion, it's now a fact -- the Afghans are doing the bulk of the fighting. And they're doing it with our support."

With 352,000 Afghans serving in their security forces, the Afghans are improving daily and their end strength will not be reduced as previously proposed by NATO.

"We're seeing that these lads are willing to take it to the enemy," Mattis said. "I think the Taliban have very little reason for comfort right now.

"They are getting better each day," he continued, "and with 87 percent of the country now under their lead, and them proving themselves in combat ... I support it."

The current NATO mission in Afghanistan ends in December of next year. Although post 2014 troop levels have yet to be finalized, Mattis said he has recommended that 13,600 U.S troops remain in the country.

Discussing the Centcom region in general, Mattis noted there remains a "significant risk" to U.S. interests.

"Specifically, [there is] a perceived lack of an enduring U.S. commitment," he said. "To counter this misperception, we must clearly communicate our intent and demonstrate our support through tangible actions."

Mattis said the transition in Afghanistan has been "steady and deliberate."

The United States is among 50 nations fighting together in the country as part of the largest coalition in modern history, the general said.

"[We are] providing continued support of the Afghan security forces as they set conditions for their long-term success," he said.

Mattis said he will also need continued support from the Senate committee for military-to-military engagements, security cooperation efforts, military exercise programs, and information operations.

This includes, he said, innovative and flexible authorities, and the necessary funds to continue doing what is required to protect U.S. national security interests.

"As our nation confronts a period of fiscal austerity, our ability to adapt our ways and means to continue to meet our operational objectives is impacted by three key factors," Mattis said.

"Right now, I do not have any budget certainty. Second, my need for time to adapt to reduced budgets and take the cuts smartly."

Mattis said his third request is for flexibility to determine where to shift available funds in a manner that reduces risk and is consistent with the intent of Congress.

"And, of course, much of that flexibility must be granted to the service chiefs," he said.

Asked what he thought would assist in meeting these factors, Mattis called for an appropriations bill that would replace the continuing resolution currently in place.

"I believe that if we got some degree of budget certainty through an appropriations bill that provides us as much as the continuing resolution does ... we can make some wise choices," he said.

"And the flexibilities you're talking about for the service chiefs would be critical to those choices, obviously, consistent with congressional intent," Mattis said. "We need that."

"With your support and with the continued devotion to duty of our troops and the commitment of our military families, we will stand by our friends to maintain a measure of regional stability in defense of our values and our interests," Mattis said.

CDC WANTS IMMEDIATE ACTION TO CURB DEADLY INFECTIONS IN HOSPITALS

FROM: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
CDC: Action needed now to halt spread of deadly bacteria
Data show more inpatients suffering infections from bacteria resistant to all or nearly all antibiotics 


 A family of bacteria has become increasingly resistant to last-resort antibiotics during the past decade, and more hospitalized patients are getting lethal infections that, in some cases, are impossible to cure. The findings, published today in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
Vital Signs report, are a call to action for the entire health care community to work urgently – individually, regionally and nationally – to protect patients. During just the first half of 2012, almost 200 hospitals and long-term acute care facilities treated at least one patient infected with these bacteria.

The bacteria, Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), kill up to half of patients who get bloodstream infections from them. In addition to spreading among patients, often on the hands of health care personnel, CRE bacteria can transfer their resistance to other bacteria within their family. This type of spread can create additional life-threatening infections for patients in hospitals and potentially for otherwise healthy people. Currently, almost all CRE infections occur in people receiving significant medical care in hospitals, long-term acute care facilities, or nursing homes.

"CRE are nightmare bacteria. Our strongest antibiotics don’t work and patients are left with potentially untreatable infections," said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. "Doctors, hospital leaders, and public health, must work together now to implement CDC’s "detect and protect" strategy and stop these infections from spreading."

Enterobacteriaceae are a family of more than 70 bacteria including Klebsiella pneumoniae and E. coli that normally live in the digestive system. Over time, some of these bacteria have become resistant to a group of antibiotics known as carbapenems, often referred to as last-resort antibiotics. During the last decade, CDC has tracked one type of CRE from a single health care facility to health care facilities in at least 42 states. In some medical facilities, these bacteria already pose a routine challenge to health care professionals.

The Vital Signs report describes that although CRE bacteria are not yet common nationally, the percentage of Enterobacteriaceae that are CRE increased by fourfold in the past decade. One type of CRE, a resistant form of Klebsiella pneumoniae, has shown a sevenfold increase in the last decade. In the U.S., northeastern states report the most cases of CRE.

According to the report, during the first half of 2012, four percent of hospitals treated a patient with a CRE infection. About 18 percent of long-term acute care facilities treated a patient with a CRE infection during that time.

In 2012, CDC released a concise, practical CRE prevention toolkit with in-depth recommendations for hospitals, long-term acute care facilities, nursing homes and health departments. Key recommendations include:
enforcing use of infection control precautions (standard and contact precautions)
grouping patients with CRE together
dedicating staff, rooms and equipment to the care of patients with CRE, whenever possible
having facilities alert each other when patients with CRE transfer back and forth
asking patients whether they have recently received care somewhere else (including another country)
using antibiotics wisely
In addition, CDC recommends screening patients in certain scenarios to determine if they are carrying CRE. Because of the way CRE can be carried by patients from one health care setting to another, facilities are encouraged to work together regionally to implement CRE prevention programs.

These core prevention measures are critical and can significantly reduce the problem today and for the future. In addition, continued investment into research and technology, such as a testing approach called Advanced Molecular Detection (AMD), is critical to further prevent and more quickly identify CRE.

In some parts of the world, CRE appear to be more common, and evidence shows they can be controlled. Israel recently employed a coordinated effort in its 27 hospitals and dropped CRE rates by more than 70 percent. Several facilities and states in the U.S. have also seen similar reductions.

"We have seen in outbreak after outbreak that when facilities and regions follow CDC’s prevention guidelines, CRE can be controlled and even stopped," said Michael Bell, M.D., acting director of CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion. "As trusted health care providers, it is our responsibility to prevent further spread of these deadly bacteria."

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK COMMITTS $1.1 BILLION TO FINANCE AIRCRAFT SALES TO INDONESIAN COMPANY

Map:  Indonesia.  Credit:  CIA World Factbook.

FROM: U.S. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
Ex-Im Bank Approves $1.1 Billion in Financing for U.S.-Manufactured B737-900ER Aircraft to Indonesia’s Lion Air
Transaction To Support an Estimated 7,300 American Jobs

Washington, D.C. – The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) has approved a final commitment of $1.1 billion to finance the export of a fleet of Boeing 737-900ER (extended range) aircraft with CFM International aircraft engines to Lion Air, the largest privately owned airline in Indonesia. The aircraft will be delivered to Lion Air, Malindo Airways (Malaysia) and Batik Air (Indonesia).

The transaction will support an estimated 7,300 jobs at Boeing’s manufacturing facilities in Renton, Wash., and its suppliers in numerous states across the country.

"Ex-Im Bank is pleased to support part of Lion Air’s historic purchase order of Boeing extended-range aircraft. This is a tremendous opportunity for American exporters and will help to sustain thousands of jobs in the U.S. aerospace industry for years to come," said Ex-Im Bank Chairman and President Fred P. Hochberg.

The authorization is a final commitment of a preliminary offer of financing that the Bank approved in 2011. Ex-Im Bank is providing a guarantee of financing provided by Apple Bank for Savings in New York, N.Y. Additional funding may be provided by capital-markets investors via an Ex-Im Bank-guaranteed bond.

The financing will support a portion of Lion Air’s outstanding orders for B737-900ER aircraft, which includes 230 Boeing 737 aircraft ordered in November 2011 – the largest commercial aircraft order in aviation history.

"We’re proud that Lion Air has put its faith in the 737-900ER by being the launch customer and largest operator of the type," said Dinesh Keskar, senior vice president of Asia Pacific and India Sales, Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "Lion Air recognizes the business value and success that comes from investing in a quality, U.S.-built product. Ex-Im Bank’s financing support allows us to compete on the merits of our product and not be disadvantaged by financing offered by our competitors."

Headquartered in Jakarta, Lion Air provides passenger service throughout Indonesia and to other countries in Southeast Asia and Saudi Arabia. The region covered by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has more than 550 million people and is among the fastest-growing aviation markets in the world.

Lion Air President and CEO Rusdi Kirana noted, "This substantial final commitment reinforces the invaluable relationship that we enjoy with the U.S. Ex-Im Bank and positions the Lion Group and Transportation Partners for future growth across the ASEAN region."

Boeing Commercial Airplanes is headquartered in the Puget Sound region of Washington State, and has U.S. manufacturing facilities in Renton, Everett, Auburn and Fredrickson, Wash.; Charleston, S.C.; Portland, Ore.; and Salt Lake City, Utah. Boeing employs more than 80,000 U.S. workers in commercial aircraft manufacture and related operations.

THREE CONVICTED OF IMPORTING MILITARY WEAPONS INTO THE U.S.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Monday, March 4, 2013
Three Philippine Nationals Convicted in Los Angeles of Importing Military Grade Weapons

Three Philippine nationals were convicted today in Los Angeles of illegally importing military grade weapons into the United States after being caught in a sting operation that was conducted in the Philippines, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Bill Lewis, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office.

Sergio Syjuco, 26, Cesar Ubaldo, 27, and Arjyl Revereza, 26, each of the Philippines, were convicted after a four-week trial by a federal jury in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California of conspiring to illegally import the weapons into the United States, and aiding and abetting the importation of those weapons. The defendants were charged in an indictment filed on Jan. 12, 2012.

According to the evidence presented at trial, the defendants conspired to sell high-powered military and assault weapons to a buyer interested in bringing weapons into the United States to arm drug dealers in Mexican drug cartels and Mexican Mafia gang members. In November 2010, Ubaldo met with a prospective weapons buyer, who was actually an undercover FBI agent, and offered to introduce the agent to suppliers of high-powered firearms. Ubaldo subsequently introduced the undercover agent to Syjuco, who supplied the weapons, and Revereza, who was a police officer in the Philippines Bureau of Customs who facilitated the movement of the illegal weapons through Philippines customs and eventually into the United States. The weapons supplied included a rocket propelled grenade launcher, a mortar launcher, an M203 single-shot grenade launcher and 12 Bushmaster machine guns, as well as explosives including mortars and grenades. The trial evidence demonstrated that the defendants also illegally imported into the United States the highest level military body armor.

The weapons, which were tracked and safeguarded by the FBI during their shipment, landed in Long Beach, Calif., on June 7, 2011, where they were seized by the FBI.

At sentencing, which is scheduled for June 10, 2013, each defendant faces a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for conspiracy to import weapons into the United States, as well as 20 years in prison and a $1,000,000 fine for causing the importation of all of the weapons, excluding the 12 fully automatic Bushmaster firearms. In addition, defendants Syjuco and Revereza face a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $1,000,000 fine for causing the importation of all of the weapons in this case, and five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for causing the importation of the 12 fully automatic Bushmaster firearms in this case.

The investigation was conducted by agents and investigators of the FBI, the U.S. Secret Service and the Philippine National Bureau of Investigation. Deputy Chief Kim Dammers and Trial Attorney Margaret Vierbuchen of the Criminal Division’s Organized Crime and Gang Section prosecuted the case.

REMARKS WITH U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE KERRYQATARI PRIME MINISTER, QATARI FOREIGN MINISTER

Qatar.  Credit:  CIA World Factbook. 

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Remarks With Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Wajbah Palace Prime Minister's Quarters
Doha, Qatar
March 5, 2013

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: (Via interpreter) In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate, first of all, we’d like to welcome our friend Mr. John Kerry, the Secretary of State of the United States of America, on his visit to Qatar. This is not his first visit, but this is his first as Secretary of State.

(In English) Is it working?

SECRETARY KERRY: No, I didn’t – I didn’t get any of that.

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: Can you hear anything now? I speak in English.

INTERPRETER: Can you hear me now?

SECRETARY KERRY: Yes.

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: Okay.

INTERPRETER: Okay. Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: (Via interpreter) Is my Arabic up to standard?

SECRETARY KERRY: There’s a magic man somewhere. (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: (Via interpreter) I started by saying that our friend, Mr. John Kerry, you are welcome to Qatar. This is not your first visit, but it’s your first as the Secretary of State. We know you very well. We know your abilities to fulfill the demands of this position, and you will be representing your country in the best way. We congratulate you again for assuming the responsibilities of Secretary of State.

As for our meeting, we discussed some very important topics. We alluded to Syria. We discussed the latest developments of what is known now as the Arab Spring. We talked about what’s going on in our area. We talked about the peace process, which is at a standstill now, or maybe even dead, for all intents and purposes. We hope that there will be some real movement by the main sponsor, and that is the United States of America.

Once again, we welcome you. Please, if you want to have your say, go ahead, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister. It’s a great privilege for me to be here back in Qatar. As the Prime Minister said, I have had the privilege of being here previously, and I thank him and I thank the Amir, who I will be meeting with shortly, as well as I will be meeting with the Heir Apparent, Sheikh Tamim, in a short while. But I thank Qatar and the Prime Minister for their generous welcome always.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Thank you, Your Excellency. Hamed Habjee from Al Arab newspaper.

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, wait. Can I say a little more? I thought we were going to do a translation. I would just like to say a couple more things.

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: Please.

SECRETARY KERRY: Mr. Prime Minister, I want to thank you for the excellent partnership that we have, especially during this very challenging time of change in this part of the world. We intend to continue to work very, very closely with you in the days and months and years ahead. We had a great discussion, a frank discussion, about the critical issues that we’re facing. And on Syria, Qatar and the United States have worked very hard to strengthen international sanctions against the Assad regime, and to help the opposition build the unity and the effectiveness that they need in order to try to change President Assad’s calculation on the ground.

As we work to change that calculation, we need to ensure that our support strengthens the moderate opposition. And the Syrian people have suffered a long time now under President Assad, and we’ve seen a level of brutality that shocks anybody’s conscience – the Scuds shot against children, young students taking an exam, women and children – and we are proud to stand up with you against a man who has lost legitimacy in the leadership of his country and who clearly has decided he’s willing to destroy that country simply to hold onto power.

We also are standing against the Iranians who are helping him and Hezbollah and al-Qaida affiliates. Our goal is the same goal that the Syrian people share, and that is a free, democratic Syria where everyone is protected, and when we say everyone, we mean the Christians, the Alawi, the Shias, the Druze, the Kurds, the Sunni, the men and the women of Syria.

In Afghanistan, Qatar has been enormously helpful, and we are grateful. The United States supports the Qatari Government’s willingness to allow Taliban representation to come to Doha for the potential, potential negotiations with the High Peace Council. And we all hope that this step could ensure peace and security, ultimately, in Afghanistan. As we’ve said in the past, an Afghan-led peace, reconciliation is the surest way to be able to end the violence and to ensure peace and security for the long run.

And finally, with respect to the Middle East peace process, Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim is committed to try to help move that process forward, and I appreciate, and President Obama appreciates, Qatar’s leadership and willingness to be part of that initiative. We all share the same vision, and that is a vision for two states living side by side and in peace. So as the United States and Qatar face these future challenges, I know that we’re going to be able to do so together in a special partnership. And I thank the Prime Minister for his candor, for his friendship, and look forward to taking any questions you may have.

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: (Via interpreter) Thank you.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Your Excellency, you mentioned that the peace process is dead. How can we revive it? Secondly, there was a press conference held lately in Tehran between – by the Walid al-Muallem, the Syrian Foreign Minister, where he called for pressure on Qatar and America. And maybe another question if I may, please, for his Excellency the Secretary of State. The U.S. Administration did take some clear positions at the outset of the Arab revolution in defense of Arab peoples, why are you so hesitant towards Syria now?

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: Since you are the guest, you start.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much for your question. Let me make clear that President Obama and America are not hesitant at all. We are deeply committed to the freedom of the people of Syria, and from the beginning President Obama has moved in a clear way. He began with helping to put the sanctions in place so that we can prevent the money that fuels Assad’s war machine.

Secondly, he has worked very hard, as did Secretary Clinton, to try to identify the Syrian opposition that we were helping and to try to unify them, bring them together, so that they spoke with a unified force and that they had coordination between the Supreme Military Council and the Syrian Opposition Coalition. That is now happening with a clarity that was not there before.

Third, President Obama directed me to go to Rome to meet with the foreign ministers in Rome, which we did in a very successful meeting where there was unanimity, all parties agreeing that we have to change President Assad’s calculation about what is happening and what is going to happen. We have now, for the first time, under the President’s directive, directed assistance straight to the military council and straight to the Syrian opposition. That is not something we’ve done before.

Now, other countries have chosen to do other things. We support that. That is – I think you have to look at the approach to Syria as a whole, not as individual pieces. What we have made clear is that Bashar al-Assad has lost legitimacy in the governing of his people, and there is no way he will restore that. It is only through the Geneva communique where you bring a transitional government with full executive power with all parties agreeing to it – the opposition and the Assad government – and then you give the Syrian people the opportunity to choose the future. That’s what we’re committed to, and we will continue down this road in close consultations so that we continue to put the pressure on. Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: (Via interpreter) As for the two-tier question, first of all, the peace process undoubtedly has gone through a long period of trouble since the Madrid peace conference 20 years ago. On occasions, the feelings that (inaudible) something can happen, on other occasions we saw some time wasting. Now the peace process is just a process. It’s not a solution or a final solution for this crisis.

We felt optimistic when President Obama first came to power and his – when he insisted on the two-state solution and when he insisted on Palestine having full membership of the UN. This is something we both appreciate first, but we wait for it to be activated. But the problem is when Israel has a strong government they say it’s a strong government with popular support, we cannot do anything to (inaudible); a weak government comes to power, they say it’s a weak government, we can’t do anything about it, because they can’t do anything about it if there is any killing happening, you say we cannot do anything because some party is firing missiles into the other, either the Palestinians or the Israelis.

There is no agreement on a fixed timeline or timetable to put an end to this crisis. I think there will be problems, and we’ll lose hope. We felt really optimistic and you know me: I am frank in my views and blunt in my views. I think what Your Excellency has just said is very reasonable and rational, and we hope this dossier will be a priority now for the U.S. Administration and Your Excellency will take personal importance in this. And I know your capabilities and we know we are sure that you can do something. And on our part, as Qatar and Arab countries and as Arab community, we’ll do our best to help you to reach a just and durable solution for the Palestinian question.

As for what Walid Muallem, the Syrian Foreign Secretary, has said in Tehran, I don’t have any response to it except for one thing maybe. It reminds me of the kind of a friend who jokes with you, who says, "Mr. Walid is like a rug trader," and I don’t have any other answer to him but that. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: Nicolas Revise from AFP.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. This is a question on Bahrain. Could you tell us what you did say to your Bahraini counterpart regarding the human rights situation in this country? The last Human Rights Report from the Department of State in 2012 pointed out, I quote, "egregious human rights problems in 2011 in Bahrain, including the inability of citizens to peacefully change their government." Thank you very much.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We had a very good, constructive conversation about all of the issues of the region as well as the internal issues of Bahrain. And I expressed the concern of all people for the protection of the rights of everybody. And we talked about the dialogue. The Foreign Minister made it clear to me that they remain committed to the dialogue, that they are engaged right now in advancing it, they’re at some important stages within it, progress is being made. And what I did was encourage him to continue that dialogue and to reach a resolution with respect to some of these difficult issues.

He assured me that they are going to continue in good faith, and obviously, all of us encourage that and look forward to some positive results.

MODERATOR: (Inaudible) from Al-Jazeera, Arabic Channel.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Your Excellency, I have a question regarding the Syrian crisis. Is there full agreement with the American position vis-a-vis the Syrian question, or there’s still differences, especially when it regards the question of arming the rebels in Syria?

The question for Mr. Kerry is, first of all, yesterday, you called for guarantees before providing any weapons to the Syrian – moderate Syrian opposition. You didn’t specify what kind of guarantees. Can you please elaborate?

And also, Iran said that Assad should remain until 2014. This is a challenge to all the efforts of all parts who consider Assad as some president who lost legitimacy. Also, it’s not just that the United States is not doing much apart from saying much maybe, you just said President Obama considers Assad as someone who lost legitimacy. Away from rhetoric, what kind of practical steps is the administration and President Obama likely to take and in what timeline, please?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me begin by saying I’m not sure what guarantees you’re referring to. I never asked for or suggested any particular guarantees. What I did say is there are greater guarantees now that the weapons are being transferred to moderate and to – directly to Syrian opposition. There’s never a full guarantee, and I think I also said that when I was speaking.

But in addition, what I said – and I have no – I honestly have never suggested that Iran – that there’s a date associated with Iran’s support in 2014. So let me make it clear --

QUESTION: No, the Iranians, they said that --

QUESTION: No, no. The Iranians, they said that President Bashar Assad would remain in 2014.

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, then the translation – we lost something in the translation, and I apologize. Thank you very much. That’s helpful.

In that case, that may be the Iranian position, but I don’t believe it is the position of the people of Syria. And I think ultimately the people of Syria will speak on this. The Syrian opposition clearly is promising a future for all of the people of Syria. Bashar al-Assad is not, and what the Syrian opposition has said is that all people will be protected: Alawi, Druze, Shias, Sunni, Christian. All of the different people will be part of choosing the future of their government. Bashar al-Assad has made it clear that he is unwilling to sit down and provide the negotiation that was called for in Geneva last year. Instead he has responded with Scud missiles, with assassinations, with releasing his army, his air force dropping bombs, and trying to subjugate people much in the way that his father did years ago.

So we are clear and have been clear. There is a framework for a peaceful resolution. The Iranians can support it, the Russians can support it, and Bashar al-Assad can support it. And that formula is set out in the Geneva communique, which provides for a transition government with full executive authority chosen by mutual consent. That means President Assad can choose who will represent him, and the Syrian opposition can choose who will represent them, and then the Syrian people will choose who will represent them as a country. Now, that is a reasonable way to end the violence, a reasonable way to allow the people of the country to determine their future. And that’s what we are supporting.

Now, the Iranians can support that, and so can the Russians. And I believe in my conversations with Sergey Lavrov that he does support that, and he’s prepared to try to help make that happen. So this is really up to Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian opposition to determine if it will be a peaceful outcome or whether or not the Syrian opposition will continue to put the pressure on to try to bring him to the negotiating table. And that’s where we are.

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: (Via interpreter) As for the Syrian crisis, I think Mr. John Kerry has answered part of the question when he talked about arming the opposition. As you know, there is a change in the international position and the American position in this regard. They’re talking about weapons. We hope that this happened sometime ago before, because this would have maybe lessened the death and destruction that took place in Syria. But now everybody has reached a conclusion and a conviction that Assad has chosen his own way of ending this crisis. This is something that – which cannot be accepted by the international community when he rains Scud missiles on cities and towns in a manner reminiscent of World War II.

After the Rome meeting, I expressed optimism that the international community has started or maybe more than just started. It’s actually working in a way which we think will achieve victory for the Syrian people in a much quicker way, and we will minimize the time and the losses, because with each day that passes, more people are getting killed. We think this problem could have been solved much quicker, but Bashar al-Assad chose his own particular solution as we said.

As for the Geneva declaration, I was part of the committee which formulated that declaration, and the question was clear. We talked about authority should be transferred into a government with full powers to run the country and army. But after the meeting, I think it’s Article 9 in the Geneva declaration, there was differences over how to interpret that and especially on the power transfer question in particular. The understanding was that we talked about a transition period and any discussion will need to be confined to a certain timeline, because the Syrian regime has a way with any initiative; they never say no, but they take time, then they – to accept it, then they take time to interpret it, then time to deal with it, then to turn it into a failure.

And we remember initiative after initiative, this is a tactic to prolong the crisis until another crisis happens somewhere else, which will lessen the pressure on them or some change will happen or victory achieved on the ground. I’m sure none of the three things will happen for simple reason, because it’s not our demands and it’s not us who are fighting. These are the demands of the Syrian people, maybe the vast majority of the Syrian people.

MODERATOR: (Via interpreter) Last question maybe.

Michael Gordon from New York Times.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you mentioned at the Rome conference on Syria and again here today that when people try to assess what’s being done to help the Syrian Opposition Coalition that it’s important to look at the totality of the international effort, that different countries, different nations are helping in different ways. Has the United States reached an understanding with Saudi Arabia, with the U.A.E., and other states about what sort of weapons should be provided to the opposition and whom specifically, which groups they should be provided to? Or do you have concerns that states like Qatar are providing weapons to groups that you’re not entirely comfortable with?

And lastly, on the way over here, we heard that North Korea is threatening to abrogate the armistice. I wonder if you have any thoughts on that.

And to the Prime Minister, you mentioned that the international community seems to be more receptive to the question of arming the Syrian opposition. Have you had productive discussions with the Americans on who specifically in the opposition should be equipped with arms and what they should be equipped with? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, with respect to the arms and the transfer, we did discuss. We had a discussion about the types of weapons that are being transferred and by whom. We are aware of what people are doing. I don’t think the United States is engaged in a specific allotment process or designated process, but obviously we are aware. And it is that awareness that informs the President’s decision about what is needed and what the United States is prepared to do at this point in time. In addition, we did discuss the question of the ability to try to guarantee that it’s going to the right people and to the moderate Syrian Opposition Coalition. And I think it’s really in the last months that that has developed as a capacity that we have greater confidence in.

I think I said yesterday you can’t guarantee that one weapon or another may not fall, in that kind of a situation, into hands that you don’t want it in. But in terms of the fundamental balance of battlefield tactics and of effort, I think it’s pretty clear that the Prime Minister shares the belief in trying to do what we need to do rapidly, and to try to effect this most effectively through the Syrian Opposition Coalition, and that’s what we’re trying to do.

With respect to North Korea – and let me say one other thing on the thing – and partly in answer to the question before, too. The President’s purpose here, and I think everybody’s purpose, is to try to minimize the killing, is to try to end the killing, end the violence. And it’s the President’s judgment for the moment that we would like to see whether or not President Assad shares that view, and would like to, in fact, save this country and proceed through the Geneva communique to a peaceful process. There are lots of options that remain if, in days or weeks or whatever, that that opportunity is not taken advantage of.

So I think when you look at the whole of those countries that are engaged, the numbers of nations that have come to the table to stand for the Syrian people, there was a very significant amount of support for the Syrian coalition at this point in time.

With respect to North Korea, I think President Obama and the American people and the world would like to see the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, take responsible actions for peace and for responsible activity within the region, and rather than threaten to abrogate and threaten to move in some new direction, the world would be better served if he would direct his people and make the decision himself to engage in a legitimate dialogue, in legitimate negotiations in order to resolve not just American concerns, but the concerns of the Japanese, of the South Koreans, of the Russians, the Chinese, and South Korea – I think I said South Koreans – everybody in the region.

And so that’s our hope, and we will continue to do what is necessary to defend our nation and the region together with our allies. But our preference is not to brandish threats at each other; it is to get to the table and negotiate a peaceful resolution to that crisis also.

PRIME MINISTER HAMAD: I will speak in Arabic, so if you want to use your headphone. First of all, thanks God that North Korea is far away from here. (Laughter.) So you cannot blame us also for that.

(Via interpreter) As for the question of providing weapons, this kind of fame or reputation about Qatar came from the Libyan crisis when Qadhafi started killing people left, right, and center, and the international community was rushing in to providing weapons to the people who were resisting Qadhafi’s regime. Qatar was amongst the first countries to support the rebels with some equipment, and at that time and in that chaos, maybe some mistakes may have been committed.

But let’s look from a practical point of view to this question. Even if there is any party which is providing weapons and there are other parties which fell into the same problem, but they were not mentioned – only Qatar was mentioned because of a political difference and not a practical difference, the political difference between the brotherly countries of this area, who is helping who. They think we are supporting a certain party in Egypt, and of course, everybody’s right to choose who they support. And they have their right to, but who has more right to support is the peoples, whether the Egyptian, Libyan, or others.

The problem started here. Maybe something happened, but not at the magnitude that was portrayed, especially to Western countries, because Western countries, once people talk about terrorism, they pay attention, and I don’t blame them for that. Now, any western government or the United States will be – if people want to attract your attention, they talk about terrorism. We tried that in the past with our friends in the West.

As for Syria, I said in the beginning that if all worked with more diligence and seriousness, this regime would have gone by now. But everything which was provided by countries with the knowledge of other countries was provided through a certain regime, and everybody was keen that such help and support would go for self-defense and nothing more than self-defense or other than self-defense.

But the longer the crisis goes on, other parties will get involved. We don’t want that. We want the moderate parties to prevail and we want our support to go to the moderate factions. And therefore, it’s very important that this issue is not used by the Syrian regime because they know the West gets alarmed when they hear these stories, and maybe this was manipulated by some brotherly states in this region. And therefore, this thing was blown out of proportion and exaggerated.

And I’m not an expert on arms, but if there is some rocket-propelled grenades or RPGs or anything provided, this will not threaten the world order. And of course, we are against that approach anyway, but it is dangerous somewhat when there is a regime which shoots down civilian aircraft and what – the bombing of a nightclub in Germany, and what Qadhafi’s regime did to bring down the TWA aircraft or the French aircraft. You know how these regimes provided weapons to some extremist groups and factions. We want regimes to have a legal outlook. They respect their countries, they develop their countries, they fulfill the needs of their people, and not the kind of regimes to create chaos and destruction to gain their importance.

We are a small country who wants stability and peace with our neighbors, but we cannot tolerate injustices committed in the manner that is inflicted upon the Syrian people. So therefore, to say that terrorism, any terrorist now is Bashar. Bashar is the terrorist who started all of this. He is killing his own people.

Thank you very much. I thank you once again. I thank my friend, His Excellency, the Secretary of State. Thank you.

European Space Agency United Kingdom (EN) Update

European Space Agency United Kingdom (EN) Update

ACTING ASSOCIATE AG WEST SPEAKS AT "TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS" CAPITAL HILL BRIEFING

U.S. Capital.  Credit:  The White House.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Acting Associate Attorney General Tony West Speaks at the "Taking Care of Business" Capitol Hill Briefing
Washington, D.C. ~ Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Thank you, Congressman Davis. I’m very pleased to join you and all the dedicated and hard-working people here today.

Let me begin by commending you, Congressman, for your leadership on behalf of the people of Illinois’ Seventh District and for your commitment to building strong, healthy, and safe neighborhoods. As the third-ranking official at the Department of Justice, I want you to know that we are proud to be your partner in this important work.

This work is a top priority for this Administration because even though rates of violent crime have been falling for more than a decade, and even though our economy is on the mend, we know that in cities across the country, more than 11 million of our fellow Americans are struggling to climb out of neighborhoods of concentrated poverty and escape the snare of crime and violence.

They lack the resources so many others take for granted, and too often they are denied basic opportunities, like a decent education, adequate housing, and quality health care. And too often, they lack that most important resource – someone who cares.

And that is why the work that all of you do is so important. Your collaboration and cooperation across boundaries and disciplines to leverage resources and achieve problem-solving synergies is essential if we're to overcome the challenges we confront.

Persistent crime, failing schools, inadequate housing, and poor health -- these do not impact us one at a time, each separate from the other. These challenges coexist and reinforce one another. It's no coincidence that communities with high student drop-out or truancy rates also experience greater delinquency and more crime. And so our approach must be equally multi-faceted, equally comprehensive.

Now, we must acknowledge the realities of our current fiscal situation. Yet while sequestration poses real challenges and represents real limits on our financial resources, it does not limit our resolve or our commitment to strengthening our communities.

As President Obama described in his State of the Union address: ours must be a concerted effort across the federal government to build ladders of opportunity, so that all families’ hard work can lead to a decent living. The President knows that even though some cities have bounced back pretty quickly from the recession, there are neighborhoods that haven’t – and that were hurting for decades before.

And that’s why, as an Administration, we are going to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit communities in America to help get them back in the game. Across the Executive Branch, we’re going to work together to support these 20 Promise Zones, so they can again be neighborhoods where children and families thrive.

Now, we know that no one better understands the challenges of these neighborhoods than those residents who live there, which is why we are going to work in partnership with local leaders to help them achieve their goals – while asking them to target the resources at their disposal.

We’re going to continue our groundbreaking investments in school quality, with greater attention to early learning, so that when a child shows up for kindergarten, she’s ready to learn.

We’re going to help bring jobs and growth to hard-hit neighborhoods by giving tax breaks to business owners who invest and hire in those neighborhoods.

We’re going to replace run-down public housing that doesn’t offer much safety or hope with the safe, healthy housing that all families need.

And we're going to target neighborhoods that have endured cycles of violence through our Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation program at the Justice Department, and give them community-based tools that have been proven to reduce violence. We want to help local leaders who are coming together around a commitment to reducing violence – educators and enforcers; pastors and prosecutors; public health and social welfare workers – and make sure they have resource tools that have been tested successfully in other communities around the nation -- tools that we know work -- because our kids struggle to learn if they don’t feel safe; and businesses don't invest if the streets aren’t safe.

And because we know that not every community has the organization, infrastructure, or tools they need to access the help they deserve, a critical component of this effort is the support the Justice Department is providing challenged cities through its Building Neighborhood Capacity Program. That will help build the foundation some localities need in order to build structures of community success.

Before I close, I hope you’ll allow me to spend just a few moments touching on another area of mutual interest to many of you and the Department of Justice – the release and return of prison and jail inmates to our neighborhoods. At the heart of the Attorney General’s comprehensive Anti-Violence Strategy, led by our Nation’s U.S. Attorneys, to reduce and prevent crime is the "three-legged stool" of enforcement, prevention, and importantly, reentry.

Every year, some 700,000 people are released from America’s prisons, and millions more cycle through local jails. And if they’re not prepared, studies show they’re likely to re-offend and be re-arrested. In fact, the last major study of recidivism rates found that two out of every three released prisoners were re-arrested for a new offense, and about half were re-incarcerated. This has a profound impact on the communities to which these inmates return – and unfortunately, these communities often lack the resources needed to safely absorb former prisoners.

To help address this critical issue, under the Second Chance Act – which Congressman Davis has steadfastly championed— we’ve made more than 400 awards totaling over $300 million to support adult and juvenile reentry programs. These programs support substance abuse treatment, housing assistance, job training, family reunification, and a host of other services designed to help former inmates make the transition back into their communities.

We’re also addressing reentry and recidivism through a Federal Interagency Reentry Council chaired by the Attorney General. The heads of 20 agencies – including several Cabinet members – are actively involved, working to remove barriers to reentry so that motivated individuals can compete for employment, support their families, obtain stable housing, and contribute to their communities.

And all of this collaboration is paying off. Incarceration rates have begun to decline for the first time in nearly 40 years. More people are successfully completing parole and fewer are returning to prison for a new sentence or revocation. Crime rates are at their lowest levels in four decades. And some states are beginning to see reductions in their recidivism rates. So while we may not be there yet, there's no question we're moving in the right direction.

But ultimately, our success will come, not because the federal government removes red tape, or improves policy, or even provides more funding; no, our success will come because those with the greatest stake in the outcome – local leaders, community and faith groups, and citizens – they take action. Crime and economic displacement are not inevitable, but their defeat does require the vigilance that each of you has already shown – and must continue to show.

Because each time we bring opportunity to a community, we create safer streets; and with safer streets comes renewed hope; and with renewed hope comes changed lives.

Thank you for allowing me to share this day with you, and thank you for all you do on behalf of America’s communities.

Press Briefing | The White House

Press Briefing | The White House

FEMA MAKES DISASTER AID AVAILABLE FOR NAVAJO NATION AFTER SEVERE FROST

FROM: FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANGEMENT AGENCY
President Declares Major Disaster for the Navajo Nation
Release date:
March 5, 2013
Release Number:
HQ-13-019

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) today announced that federal disaster aid has been made available for the Navajo Nation and ordered federal aid to supplement the Tribe’s efforts in the area affected by a severe freeze during the period of December 15, 2012 to January 21, 2013.

Federal funding is available to the Navajo Nation and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe freeze.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures for the Tribe.

Mark A. Neveau has been named as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected area. Neveau said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the Tribe and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

 

NEWS FROM AFGHANISTAN FOR MARCH 5, 2013

U.S. Marines conduct a combat logistics patrol to support Operation Dynamic Partnership in the village of Shurakay in Afghanistan's Helmand province, Feb. 15, 2013. The Marines are assigned to Combat Logistics Regiment 2. Several units joined in the operation to retrograde all U.S. military equipment and personnel from the village. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alejandro Pena

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Combined Force Arrests Taliban Facilitator in Kandahar
From an International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Release

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 5, 2013 - An Afghan and coalition security force arrested a Taliban facilitator and detained two other insurgents during an operation in Kandahar City in Afghanistan's Kandahar province today, military officials reported.

The arrested Taliban facilitator is linked to directing suicide attacks against Afghan and coalition forces throughout the province, officials said. He's also linked to the deaths of Afghan civilians.

　
In Afghanistan operations yesterday:

-- A combined force arrested a Taliban facilitator and detained four other insurgents in the Panjwa'i district of Kandahar province. The arrested Taliban facilitator is accused of importing and distributing homemade explosive material and narcotics in the district, and securing funding for insurgent activity against Afghan and coalition forces.

-- In the Ghaziabad district of Kunar province, a combined force killed four insurgents and wounded three others during a security operation.