FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Remarks With Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Top of Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Great Hall of the People
Beijing, China
April 13, 2013
PRESIDENT XI: (Via interpreter) Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome you to China. It is a great pleasure to see you again. I remember your last visit to China was in your capacity as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee back in May of 2009, and we met during that visit.
I want to take this opportunity to express my congratulations to you on being appointed to this very important position. You are a senior political leader in the United States and you have been committed to enhancing the United States relations with China when you were a senator and now as the U.S. Secretary of State. I want to express my appreciation of your efforts.
Mr. Secretary, you are the second U.S. cabinet member that I met in one month as Chinese President, and not long ago I met with the visiting Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew. I believe these exchanges show we both recognize the importance of China-U.S. relations and pay high attention to the further growth of China-U.S. ties.
The current China-U.S. relationship is at a new historical stage and has got off to a good start. On the very day I was elected Chinese President, I talked on the phone with President Barack Obama, during which the two sides reaffirmed our commitment to developing the cooperative partnership and building a new type of major country relations between the two countries. And this has reaffirmed the strategic nature and the direction of development of China-U.S. relations.
I believe your visit to China this time will give a boost to the positive momentum of China-U.S. relations.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Mr. President, thank you very, very much. Thank you for receiving me. Thank you for the generous reception of your time. Minister Wang Yi and I had a very productive morning, and I’ll have a chance to meet with the Premier a little later, and then subsequently my friend Yang Jiechi and I will spend some time together this evening. So I thank you for your government’s representation.
If I can just answer your comments quickly by saying, first, President Obama sends his greetings, and he and I share the hope that this can be even a further definition of the model relationship which you have often talked about. And may I also extend to you from President Obama and the American people our congratulations to you on the assumption of your new responsibilities and your new government.
Mr. President, this is obviously a critical time with some very challenging issues, issues on the Korean peninsula, the challenge of Iran and nuclear weapons, Syria, the Middle East, and economies around the world that are in need of a boost. So I think that we’re meeting at a very, very key time, and I very much look forward to our discussion about how you see your vision of a stronger partnership with the United States taking shape. We are very anxious to fill that out and to have that discussion today, and I look forward through the rest of our afternoon to being able to really understand the roadmap ahead, the one that you envision and the one that hopefully we can contribute to.
So thank you for welcoming me here, and I appreciate the opportunity to have this kind of frank discussion with you.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
JUSTICE CHANGES INDIVIDUAL NAME DISCLOSURE RULES IN ANTITRUST CASES
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Friday, April 12, 2013
Statement of Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer on Changes to Antitrust Division’s Carve-Out Practice Regarding Corporate Plea Agreements
Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division issued the following statement today on changes to the division’s carve-out practice regarding corporate plea agreements:
"Over the years, the Antitrust Division’s efforts to investigate and prosecute price fixing and other cartel conduct have produced outstanding results in holding both corporations and individuals accountable for their wrongdoing. We are committed to continuing these efforts and to build on the division’s past successes.
"Going forward, we are making certain changes to the Antitrust Division’s approach to corporate plea agreements. In the past, the division’s corporate plea agreements have, in appropriate circumstances, included a provision offering non-prosecution protection to those employees of the corporation who cooperate with the investigation and whose conduct does not warrant prosecution. The division excluded, or carved out, employees who were believed to be culpable. In certain circumstances, it also carved out employees who refused to cooperate with the division’s investigation, employees against whom the division was still developing evidence and employees with potentially relevant information who could not be located. The names of all carved-out employees were included in the corporate plea agreements, which were publicly filed in the district courts where the charges were brought.
"As part of a thorough review of the division’s approach to corporate dispositions, we have decided to implement two changes. The division will continue to carve out employees who we have reason to believe were involved in criminal wrongdoing and who are potential targets of our investigation. However, we will no longer carve out employees for reasons unrelated to culpability.
"The division will not include the names of carved-out employees in the plea agreement itself. Those names will instead be listed in an appendix, and we will ask the court for leave to file the appendix under seal. Absent some significant justification, it is ordinarily not appropriate to publicly identify uncharged third-party wrongdoers.
"The Antitrust Division will continue to exclude from the non-prosecution protections of corporate plea agreements any employees whose conduct may warrant prosecution. The division will continue to make these decisions on an employee-by-employee basis consistent with the evidence and the Principles of Federal Prosecution. We will continue to demand the full cooperation of anyone who seeks to benefit from the non-prosecution protection of a corporate plea agreement, and will revoke that protection for anyone who does not fully and truthfully cooperate with division investigations."
Friday, April 12, 2013
Statement of Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer on Changes to Antitrust Division’s Carve-Out Practice Regarding Corporate Plea Agreements
Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division issued the following statement today on changes to the division’s carve-out practice regarding corporate plea agreements:
"Over the years, the Antitrust Division’s efforts to investigate and prosecute price fixing and other cartel conduct have produced outstanding results in holding both corporations and individuals accountable for their wrongdoing. We are committed to continuing these efforts and to build on the division’s past successes.
"Going forward, we are making certain changes to the Antitrust Division’s approach to corporate plea agreements. In the past, the division’s corporate plea agreements have, in appropriate circumstances, included a provision offering non-prosecution protection to those employees of the corporation who cooperate with the investigation and whose conduct does not warrant prosecution. The division excluded, or carved out, employees who were believed to be culpable. In certain circumstances, it also carved out employees who refused to cooperate with the division’s investigation, employees against whom the division was still developing evidence and employees with potentially relevant information who could not be located. The names of all carved-out employees were included in the corporate plea agreements, which were publicly filed in the district courts where the charges were brought.
"As part of a thorough review of the division’s approach to corporate dispositions, we have decided to implement two changes. The division will continue to carve out employees who we have reason to believe were involved in criminal wrongdoing and who are potential targets of our investigation. However, we will no longer carve out employees for reasons unrelated to culpability.
"The division will not include the names of carved-out employees in the plea agreement itself. Those names will instead be listed in an appendix, and we will ask the court for leave to file the appendix under seal. Absent some significant justification, it is ordinarily not appropriate to publicly identify uncharged third-party wrongdoers.
"The Antitrust Division will continue to exclude from the non-prosecution protections of corporate plea agreements any employees whose conduct may warrant prosecution. The division will continue to make these decisions on an employee-by-employee basis consistent with the evidence and the Principles of Federal Prosecution. We will continue to demand the full cooperation of anyone who seeks to benefit from the non-prosecution protection of a corporate plea agreement, and will revoke that protection for anyone who does not fully and truthfully cooperate with division investigations."
RESOURSE PARTNERS RECEIVE $19 MILLION FROM SBA FOR HURRICANE SANDY RECOVERY
 |
| Hurricane Sandy Cleanup. Credit: FEMA |
$19 Million in Grants to be Made to SBA Resource Partners to Support Hurricane Sandy Small Business Recovery
WASHINGTON— Small businesses rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy will get both immediate and long-term help laying a foundation for economic recovery and resiliency thanks to expanded services funded by a $19 million emergency appropriation.
Small businesses can take advantage of free expanded counseling, training and technical assistance from the U.S. Small Business Administration’s resource partners—the Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), SCORE, and Women’s Business Centers (WBCs).
"This is yet another example of placing proven, effective tools in the hands of America’s small business owners who are recovering from Hurricane Sandy," said SBA Administrator Karen Mills. "SBA’s extensive resource partner network continues to play a critical role in fostering economic development in those hard-hit areas, and I’m pleased those resources will be made accessible on a broader scale to help those who need it most."
Funding was made available as part of a package approved by Congress in January to meet the demand for SBA assistance. Through these funds, SCORE, SBDCs and WBCs can help provide long-term small business rebuilding strategies, as well as help small businesses through the SBA lending process.
In the first phase of counseling and technical assistance funding, $5.8 million is being distributed to SBA resource partners in 11 states--Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia--and Puerto Rico.
The SBDC and WBC funding awards are as follows:
Connecticut $527,000 Delaware $118,000
Massachusetts $76,000 Maryland $36,000
North Carolina $18,000 New Jersey $1,385,000
New York $2,394,000 Pennsylvania $410,000
Rhode Island $71,000 Virginia $7,000
West Virginia $46,000 Puerto Rico $19,000
SCORE will receive $704,000 to fund its chapters in the affected areas. During the second phase of funding, $13.1 million will be issued through these resource partners to provide long-term small business recovery and expansion, with a focus on building creative community-based partnerships.
SBA makes low-interest, taxpayer-backed disaster loans to homeowners, renters, businesses and non-profit organizations of all sizes.
As of April 11, the SBA has approved disaster loans totaling $1.8 billion to individuals, and $279 million to businesses and non-profit organizations recovering from Hurricane Sandy.
SBA’s resource partners provide counseling assistance to disaster survivors, including business advice for affected businesses and assistance in applying for an SBA disaster loan. In addition, they staff recovery centers and provide guidance to help with businesses recovery and disaster preparedness.
MEETING WITH IRAQI KURDISTAN REGION DELEGATION
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Readout of Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones' Meeting with Iraqi Kurdistan Region Delegation
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
April 12, 2013
Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones met with a senior delegation from the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq at the State Department today to discuss U.S.-Iraq relations, especially the longstanding ties we share with the Iraqi Kurdistan Region and its people.
Acting Assistant Secretary Jones welcomed the Kurdish delegation and expressed the strong U.S. commitment to supporting the development of a sound, vibrant, and inclusive Iraq. She underscored our commitment to the Strategic Framework Agreement, the basis for the United States’ partnership with a federal, democratic, and unified Iraq. She reiterated U.S. support for an Iraqi Kurdistan Region within the framework of Iraq’s constitution. Building on the Secretary’s recent trip to Iraq, the two sides discussed the importance of direct and continuous engagement by all of Iraq’s political parties to address outstanding issues, including appropriate division of authority between the central and regional government, equitable distribution of resources, and resolving internal boundary disputes pursuant to Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution.
To that end, the Acting Assistant Secretary noted she was encouraged that a Kurdish Alliance delegation arrived in Baghdad this week to discuss the importance of peaceful dialogue and partnership in resolving political disputes. She further emphasized Secretary Kerry’s message that the United States remains committed to the vision of Iraq as defined in the Iraqi constitution, and is prepared to help Iraqi leaders resolve their differences peacefully and in a manner that benefits all the Iraqi people.
Readout of Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones' Meeting with Iraqi Kurdistan Region Delegation
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
April 12, 2013
Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones met with a senior delegation from the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq at the State Department today to discuss U.S.-Iraq relations, especially the longstanding ties we share with the Iraqi Kurdistan Region and its people.
Acting Assistant Secretary Jones welcomed the Kurdish delegation and expressed the strong U.S. commitment to supporting the development of a sound, vibrant, and inclusive Iraq. She underscored our commitment to the Strategic Framework Agreement, the basis for the United States’ partnership with a federal, democratic, and unified Iraq. She reiterated U.S. support for an Iraqi Kurdistan Region within the framework of Iraq’s constitution. Building on the Secretary’s recent trip to Iraq, the two sides discussed the importance of direct and continuous engagement by all of Iraq’s political parties to address outstanding issues, including appropriate division of authority between the central and regional government, equitable distribution of resources, and resolving internal boundary disputes pursuant to Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution.
To that end, the Acting Assistant Secretary noted she was encouraged that a Kurdish Alliance delegation arrived in Baghdad this week to discuss the importance of peaceful dialogue and partnership in resolving political disputes. She further emphasized Secretary Kerry’s message that the United States remains committed to the vision of Iraq as defined in the Iraqi constitution, and is prepared to help Iraqi leaders resolve their differences peacefully and in a manner that benefits all the Iraqi people.
STATEMENT FROM G-8 FOREIGN MINISTER'S MEETING HELD APRIL 10-11
 |
| Photo: Big Ben. Credit: Wikimedia Commons |
G8 Foreign Ministers' Meeting Statement
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
April 11, 2013
Introduction
G8 Foreign Ministers met in London on 10-11 April. The G8 represents a group of nations with a broad range of global interests and with a collective responsibility and opportunity to use its influence to address some of the most pressing issues in the world.
Foreign Ministers addressed a number of international issues, challenges and opportunities that impact on global peace, security and prosperity. Beyond exchanging views and coordinating actions on the pressing foreign policy issues of the day, they made a number of commitments as set out below and in the separate Declaration on the Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict.
Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict
Foreign Ministers endorsed the Declaration on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. They called for urgent action to address comprehensively the culture of impunity and to hold perpetrators to account for acts of sexual violence committed in armed conflict. Ministers emphasised the need to promote justice and accountability for sexual violence in armed conflict by strengthening the existing framework for prosecution, and to provide more long-term support to prevent and respond to sexual violence in armed conflict, as part of broader development and humanitarian efforts. They confirmed that rape and other forms of serious sexual violence in armed conflict are war crimes and also constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions affecting large numbers of women and girls as well as men and boys. In addition to the physical and psychological trauma, sexual violence when used to deliberately target civilians or as a part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilian populations is a violation of international law, which can significantly exacerbate situations of armed conflict and may impede the restoration of peace and security. The G8 has an important role in advancing the implementation of the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security and Children and Armed Conflict, including by tackling conflict-related sexual violence and advancing the participation of women in peace building and transition processes, as Ministers acknowledged in Washington in April 2012.
Africa
G8 Foreign Ministers noted, as Africa commemorates the 50th Anniversary of the founding of the Organisation of African Unity (now the African Union), the sense of optimism in the light of progress in economic growth, political stability, and democratisation over recent years in many parts of the African continent. The African Union and African Regional organisations are increasingly resolved to intensify regional cooperation and to ensure peace and security on the continent.
Many African states have taken great strides in reducing poverty and generating sustainable development and long-term growth. G8 Ministers supported the aims of the fifth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD V), to take place in Yokohama in June. G8 Ministers supported the deepening and expansion of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.
North and West Africa
G8 Foreign Ministers stressed the importance of building resilience and good governance across North and West Africa in order to address deep-seated security, economic and development challenges, and in particular to address the needs of the Sahel region. They reaffirmed their commitment to promoting tolerance and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They welcomed the work of the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States in support of initiatives aimed at building economic opportunity and prosperity, and expressed the hope that this might take place in a co-ordinated fashion across the wider region, including North Africa. The Ministers emphasised the need for a co-ordinated response to address the immediate humanitarian challenges in the region. They also stressed the need to accelerate actions to build long-term resilience in the face of environmental challenges and endemic food insecurity, particularly in the Sahel. The Ministers encouraged the United Nations and International Financial Institutions to adopt coherent and co-ordinated policies to address the development needs and the resilience of the Sahel, and, in this regard, called for rapid progress to finalise and implement the UN Integrated Regional Strategy for the Sahel.
The Ministers specifically endorsed the need for a regional response to a wide range of security challenges, including: restricting the proliferation and illicit trafficking of conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons and MANPADS; stemming the flows of illicit finance generated by organised criminality; building capacity in security and justice sectors; improving aviation and border security; encouraging counter-terrorism partnerships, including on crisis response and counter-radicalisation; and building contingency planning capacity in the private sector.
The G8 Ministers commended the efforts undertaken at the conference on women’s leadership in the Sahel region (Brussels, 9 April) to advance gender equality and women’s leadership as a contribution to resolving the crisis in the Sahel.
Mali
G8 Foreign Ministers restated their support for the territorial integrity of Mali and their condemnation of the violence by separatist and terrorist groups. Ministers expressed their support for the efforts of France and its African partners to re-assert Malian state control over its territory. The Ministers emphasised the strong international consensus in the United Nations Security Council, the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States for this action. The Ministers agreed to support a successful handover of stabilisation activity to AFISMA which has now successfully deployed to Mali and, as soon as conditions permit, to a multi-dimensional UN Operation. The Ministers welcomed the establishment of the EU Training Mission to train the Malian Armed Forces. They emphasised the need for all actors in Mali to recognise their obligations under international law and their responsibilities to meet international human rights standards. They also called on the international community to support short-term humanitarian needs in Mali, as well as contribute towards resolving longer term development challenges.
The Ministers welcomed the decision of the Malian authorities in January 2013 to adopt the Road Map and Action Plan to transition to democracy and to hold elections in July 2013. The Ministers welcomed the Malian Government’s commitment and noted that meaningful progress must be made, in parallel with preparations for elections, on institutional reform, accountability, promotion and protection of human rights, including prosecution of human rights abuses in national courts, taking forward co-operation with the ICC and the UN Independent Expert on Mali, and dialogue and reconciliation. Ministers therefore welcomed the establishment by the Malian Government of the National Council for Dialogue and Reconciliation on 6 March 2013, and expressed their wish that the Malian authorities take forward the process of inclusive dialogue with the necessary urgency. They urged an end to the settling of disputes through violence, and called on all Malians to engage in dialogue as the only sustainable, long-term solution to instability.
Somalia
G8 Foreign Ministers welcomed the significant progress made in Somalia over the past 18 months on security, political transition and humanitarian conditions and recognised the considerable support provided by the AU Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), African Union strategic partners, Troop Contributing Countries, the United Nations, European Union and other international donors. G8 Ministers underlined the need for continued early international support to the new Somali Government. The G8 noted that the second Somalia Conference in London, to be co-hosted with the Somali Government in May, aims to endorse a series of Somali-led plans to rebuild the security forces, the judiciary, and public financial management systems. It will also support the Federal Government of Somalia in establishing effective federal structures for Somalia. The Special Conference on Somalia in the margins of the TICAD V in Japan in May will focus on the need for socio-economic development from the angle of human security. This will be followed in September by an EU conference seeking to encompass a broader set of Somali priorities for rebuilding the state and establishing a new political order. It will do so on the basis of a Compact, in line with the New Deal Principles for Fragile States. All three conferences will place the new Somali Government firmly in the lead on rebuilding Somalia.
Somalia: IFI re-engagement
Ministers agreed to provide high-level political support to the process of Somalia’s re-engagement with the World Bank, the African Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, while taking into account the policies and procedures of the International Financial Institutions with regard to countries in fragile situations, including security considerations. Ministers strongly encouraged the Somali Government in its efforts to this end. They recognised that the economic and institutional expertise and broader support these organisations can provide is necessary to help implement reforms that could promote macroeconomic stability, fiscal sustainability, the potential for inclusive economic growth, an enabling environment for Foreign Direct Investment, and the expansion of trade.
In parallel, Ministers urged the Somali Government to demonstrate particular political commitment to public financial management and to strengthening transparency and accountability in order to lay the foundations for IFI re-engagement. Ministers acknowledged that full IFI engagement and the rebuilding of Somalia was a long-term endeavour that would require sustained high-level political support.
Somalia: Counter-terrorism
Al Shabaab and foreign fighters present in Somalia remain a major terrorist threat to Somali and international interests. G8 Foreign Ministers stressed the importance of continued co-ordinated international assistance to develop the rule of law, Somalia’s security, financial and judicial systems (including on border security, anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing), in line with the Rabat principles on human rights. Foreign Ministers acknowledged the importance of the Somali Government’s work to promote reconciliation, de-mobilise and re-integrate those Al Shabaab fighters who have renounced violence, and pledged to support these efforts. They reiterated the importance of a comprehensive political settlement in Somalia, including clarity on relations between central and regional authorities, as a means of reducing the operating space for those who advocate violence and terror.
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
G8 Foreign Ministers expressed concern about the security and humanitarian situation in the East of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and were particularly concerned by reports of continuing killings of civilians, the forced recruitment of children into armed conflict, and sexual violence. They condemned such acts of violence and called on all parties to adhere to their obligations under international humanitarian law and respect human rights and human dignity. They called on all countries of the region to fight impunity and ensure that those suspected of serious violations be brought to justice, including through cooperation with the ICC.
Ministers welcomed the recent signature of the regional Peace, Security, and Cooperation Framework by the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda and other regional countries, as well as the signing by the African Union, the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, the Southern African Development Community, and the United Nations as guarantors. The Ministers urged all parties to the Framework to work together to implement their commitments, and to play a constructive role in building long term stability and prosperity in eastern DRC. This should involve addressing the underlying causes of conflict, and improving the lives of ordinary people there. The Ministers welcomed the appointment of the UN Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region of Africa to oversee the implementation of the Peace Security and Cooperation Framework and urged the Special Envoy to establish a comprehensive political process, building on the Framework, that includes all relevant stakeholders and addresses the underlying regional, security, economic, and governance issues.
The Ministers welcomed UNSCR 2098 which renews the mandate of the UN Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the DRC to enable it to better carry out its mandate to protect civilians, neutralise armed groups, and build peace in the region, including through the deployment of an intervention brigade.
Sudan and South Sudan
G8 Foreign Ministers noted the economic, security and human rights challenges that face Sudan and South Sudan, and underlined the need to implement the September 2012 Addis Ababa agreements, and meet the deadlines set out in March 2013. In particular, Ministers welcomed progress towards the establishment of the safe demilitarised border zone, deployment of the joint border verification and monitoring mechanism, a resumption of the production and export of oil from South Sudan, and called for a process to determine the final status of Abyei. Ministers noted the need for Sudan to improve respect for human rights while addressing the causes of its conflicts. They noted with concern that in Sudan, the conflict in Darfur has entered its tenth year, with insecurity continuing. They called for faster implementation of the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur, and called for all groups to engage in the peace process. Ministers expressed alarm at the humanitarian crisis caused by the conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. They called on the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North to enter into talks immediately to agree a ceasefire and full humanitarian access. Ministers commended and offered their continued support to the role of the African Union, in particular the work of the High-Level Implementation Panel.
Ministers regretted the loss of life of Indian peacekeepers and a number of civilians, in Jonglei, South Sudan, on 9 April and offered their condolences to the Governments of India and South Sudan.
The Middle East
Syria
G8 Foreign Ministers expressed deep concerns about the increasing human tragedy of the conflict in Syria. They were appalled that more than 70,000 people have been killed in the conflict and that there are now more than a million Syrian refugees registered by the UNHCR in neighbouring countries, and more than two million internally displaced persons in Syria. They acknowledged the importance of neighbouring countries’ efforts in hosting refugees, and stressed the need for the international community to help the most affected neighbouring countries. They called on all countries to join with them in maximising their contributions to the latest UN appeals and to provide them with direct support in order to help them face this challenging situation.
Against this desperate background, the Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to supporting a Syrian-led political transition, and the work of Joint UN and Arab League Special Representative Brahimi, based on the principles set out in the Geneva Communiqué. This transition should meet the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people and enable them to democratically and independently determine their own future. They called for the UN Security Council to remain seized of this matter. The Ministers condemned in the strongest possible terms all human rights violations and abuses in Syria and called on all sides to respect international humanitarian and human rights law, noting the particular responsibility of the Syrian authorities in this regard. They welcomed efforts to document all crimes for the purposes of future accountability.
The Ministers condemned the ongoing use of heavy weapons against residential areas and reaffirm their view that any use of chemical weapons would demand a serious international response. To this end, the Ministers reaffirmed the importance of safeguarding sites where any such weapons are held.
The humanitarian situation in Syria is deplorable and continues to worsen. The Ministers called for greater humanitarian assistance and for improved and safe access to the Syrian people by humanitarian agencies in co-ordination with all parties to the conflict.
Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)
G8 Foreign Ministers confirmed their commitment to a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. They agreed on the urgent need to make progress on the Middle East Peace Process towards this goal and underscored the need for a major international effort, involving all relevant parties, including the Quartet, to drive the peace process forward.
The Ministers welcomed President Obama’s visit to the region and his statement that peace between Israelis and Palestinians is necessary, just and possible. They urged both sides to show the bold political leadership needed to achieve peace, to take the necessary steps to build trust and to work towards the resumption of negotiations without preconditions.
The Ministers stressed that a long term solution to this conflict can be achieved only through direct negotiations, taking note of the 23 September 2011 statement of the Middle East Quartet. Ministers called on parties to refrain from unilateral actions and to create an atmosphere conducive to peace. They strongly reaffirmed that unilateral actions by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations.
Ministers expressed grave concerns about the poor state of the Palestinian economy, and the impact this has on Palestinian state-building efforts. Ministers affirmed their support for the Palestinian Authority and encouraged Arab countries, as well as emerging economies, to extend the fullest assistance possible to revitalising the Palestinian economy.
The Ministers welcomed the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire of 21 November 2012 which ended hostilities in Gaza and southern Israel, condemned rocket attacks in contravention of this and urged all sides to uphold their commitments.
Deauville Partnership with Arab Countries in Transition
The Deauville Partnership with Arab Countries in Transition has played an important role in bringing together Middle Eastern and North African countries in transition, regional partner countries, G8 members, and International Financial Institutions in an effective and pragmatic partnership to promote successful economic and political transition.
G8 Foreign Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to the six Deauville Partnership transition countries (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Libya and Yemen) recognising progress made since the start of the Arab Spring and noting the enduring partnership of the G8 in continuing to address the difficulties they continue to face. Deauville transition countries are encouraged to seek the broadest possible consensus on the political transition in their countries. Ministers reiterated their belief that democratic process, open societies and open economies were essential to create confidence, consolidate political reform and achieve inclusive economic growth. Ministers recalled the principles which are fundamental to the long term security and prosperity of the Middle East and North Africa, and underline our capacity to partner together toward shared goals. Those principles include the responsibilities to reject violence and protect all persons living within their territory regardless of faith, ethnicity, or gender; to promote tolerance and freedom of expression; freedom of religion and belief, including practicing the freedom of religion in safety; and to uphold the rule of law and security.
Ministers welcomed the continued focus of the Deauville Partnership in 2013 on open economies and inclusive economic growth, supporting job creation and increasing economic opportunities for youth and women, and recognised the important role of the International Financial Institutions in delivering this. Areas of focus will include promoting enhanced trade and investment, facilitating access to capital markets, progress on asset recovery, international exchanges and the fight against corruption. Ministers expressed support for the planned high-level conference in London in September, which will showcase investment opportunities in transition countries, and the steps being taken by governments to improve the investment climate. Supporting the growth of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the region will be central to economic development and growth. Implementation of SME Action Plans will take place in parallel with a new initiative to provide mentoring support to SMEs. The G8 will also promote a new focus on encouraging women’s participation in business and the economy. Ministers acknowledged the UK’s co-chairmanship of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), and encouraged efforts to engage Deauville Partnership countries in OGP activities.
Ministers welcomed the operationalisation of the Transition Fund and the initiation of the first tranche of high quality projects which will provide technical assistance to help strengthen public institutions and build capacity to advance country-led reforms. There was recognition of the high level of demand from the transition countries for further support of this kind, and Ministers encouraged partners to increase contributions to ensure the initial capitalisation of $250 million is met. Ministers showed support for the ongoing work of extending the geographical mandate of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in order to make available greater investment programmes in the region.
As stated in the last Ministerial meeting on the Deauville Partnership with Arab Countries in Transition (New York, 28th September), G8 members will build on the G8’s accountability efforts and report on progress achieved in the Partnership.
The Ministers welcomed the upcoming meeting on April 19th of Deauville Partnership Finance Ministers and look forward to continued work by their Finance counterparts and the International Financial Institutions to provide macroeconomic frameworks for bilateral and multilateral assistance.
Foreign Ministers underlined the critical role of independent civil society organisations in an inclusive political process that responds to the aspirations of the region’s citizens. Ministers reaffirmed the consensus Tunis Declaration reached at the 2012 Forum for the Future, which brings together governments, civil society and private sector leaders to engage in dialogue on social, political and economic reform. They welcomed the UK and Egyptian co-chairing of the process in 2013.
Yemen
G8 Foreign Ministers re-affirmed their strong support for the political transition process in Yemen, including the start of the National Dialogue Conference, as outlined in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Initiative and the UN Implementation Plan. They encouraged all Yemeni parties to contribute in a positive and meaningful way, and urged all parties to comply with UNSCRs 2014 and 2051. They welcomed the generous pledges made by the Friends of Yemen to underpin the transition and urged donors to deliver rapidly the $7.8bn pledged, which will benefit the lives of ordinary Yemenis.
Ministers recognised the stability of Yemen remains essential for the stability of the wider region, and the maintenance of international security. Ministers commended the Yemeni Government’s steps to advance security sector reform and ongoing efforts to counter the continued threat from AQ-AP and other violent extremists.
Non Proliferation and Disarmament
G8 Foreign Ministers agreed that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery continues to be a major threat to international peace and security. Addressing it is one of the G8’s top priorities. G8 countries are all committed to seeking a safer world for all and to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in a way that promotes international security, peace and undiminished security for all in accordance with the goals of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The illicit trade in conventional weapons also represents a serious challenge, causing great suffering and threatening regional stability.
Ministers welcomed the adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty by the United Nations General Assembly on 2 April. Efficient implementation of the Treaty will contribute to saving lives, reducing human suffering, protecting human rights, preventing the diversion of weapons to the illegal market and combating terrorism, while upholding the legitimate trade in arms, vital for national defence and security.
G8 Foreign Ministers continue their commitment to efforts that strengthen and enhance long-term sustainability, stability, safety, and security in outer space. G8 Foreign Ministers welcomed the statement agreed by the Non-Proliferation Directors’ Group and published today.
Ministers recalled the decision at the 2010 NPT Review Conference to hold a Conference on the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. They regretted that it was not convened in 2012. They strongly supported the continued efforts of the facilitator of the Conference and welcomed the commitment of the co-sponsors of the 1995 Resolution. The Ministers called upon all States concerned to make all efforts necessary for the preparation and convening of the Conference in the nearest future.
Iran
G8 Foreign Ministers expressed their deep concern regarding Iran’s continuing nuclear and ballistic missile activities in violation of numerous UN Security Council and IAEA Board of Governors resolutions.
Following the 5-6 April substantive round of negotiations in Almaty, Kazakhstan with Iran and the E3+3 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union High Representative), the Ministers reaffirmed their desire for a peaceful and negotiated resolution to the nuclear issue, noting that talks cannot continue indefinitely. They noted that the positions of the E3+3 and Iran remain far apart and called on Iran to engage urgently, actively and constructively in the diplomatic process with the E3+3, and to cooperate with the IAEA to resolve the serious concerns of the international community and to demonstrate that its nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful. Ministers further reaffirmed that, in line with the United Nations Security Council’s approved dual track approach, Iran has the ability to avoid further isolation and improve its situation only if it promptly addresses the concerns of the international community.
Ministers urged Iran to comply with international obligations to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, and end interference with the media, arbitrary executions, torture and other restrictions placed on rights and freedoms. They further urged Iran to cooperate constructively with all relevant UN human rights mechanisms. A visit by the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran would be a step in this direction.
Ministers also urged Iran to play a more constructive role in supporting regional security and to distance itself from all acts of terrorism and terrorist groups.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)
G8 Foreign Ministers condemned in the strongest possible terms the continued development of its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), including its uranium enrichment. This is in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1718, 1874, 2087 and 2094.
Ministers noted that the DPRK’s nuclear test on 12 February 2013 - the third since 2006 - and its launches using ballistic missile technology on 13 April 2012 and 12 December 2012 seriously undermine regional stability, jeopardise the prospects for lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula and threaten international peace and security. Ministers welcomed UNSCR 2094, adopted unanimously on 7 March 2013, to respond to the DPRK’s nuclear test and emphasized the importance of full implementation of the resolution by the international community. Ministers supported the commitment in the resolution to strengthen the current sanctions regime and take further significant measures in the event of a further launch or nuclear test by the DPRK. Ministers also expressed concern about the DPRK’s announcement that it intends to re-open its Yongbyon nuclear facility.
Ministers confirmed their commitment to the goal of lasting peace and the verifiable denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. They condemned DPRK’s current aggressive rhetoric and confirmed that this will only serve to further isolate the DPRK. They urged the DPRK to engage in credible and authentic multilateral talks on denuclearisation, abide by its obligations under all relevant UNSCRs and its commitments under the September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, and refrain from further provocative acts.
Ministers expressed concerns over the systematic and widespread human rights violations in the DPRK, highlighted the importance of improving inter-Korean relations and emphasised the need to address humanitarian issues including abductions and family reunions. They emphasized that the DPRK must address these issues and cooperate fully with all relevant UN mechanisms.
Burma/Myanmar
Ministers noted with satisfaction that since President Thein Sein took office in March 2011, the Government of Burma/Myanmar has, with the support of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, opposition groups and parliament, initiated a number of remarkable political and economic reforms toward strengthening democracy and the rule of law, improving human rights (including the release of political prisoners and freedom of the press), expanding economic activity and engaging with the international community. Ministers welcomed the progress that has been made on addressing national reconciliation and encouraged the Government of Burma/Myanmar and other actors, including ethnic groups, women and political parties, to continue on this path in particular in view of the complex situation in Kachin State and unresolved tensions in Rakhine State. They also called on the Burma/Myanmar Government to take further steps to end all violence, to respect the rights of ethnic and religious minorities and to pursue inclusive peace negotiations.
Ministers underlined their firm intention to continue to support ongoing political and economic reforms, to help the authorities tackle the important challenges that remain, and to work closely with other donors to ensure our assistance is used effectively to address the needs of the people of Burma/Myanmar in line with the Naypyitaw Accord for Effective Development Cooperation.
Ministers welcomed the resulting new opportunities for investment and development, as well as the prospects for greater transparency, accountability and prosperity. They believed that new investments and development programmes should operate consistently with international environmental, business, and human rights principles and guidelines with the goal of benefiting the people. They welcomed the Government’s commitment to responsible investment in Burma/Myanmar in line with the UN Global Compact and Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Afghanistan
G8 Foreign Ministers reaffirmed their collective commitment to support Afghanistan on the path to peace and stability as it enters the ‘transformation decade’. Ministers noted that Afghanistan would continue to face many challenges, including in the field of security, and reiterated international support to the Afghan Government in overcoming them.
They welcomed the pledges of long-term support to Afghanistan by the international community, including at the Bonn Conference, the NATO Chicago Summit meetings and the Tokyo Conference. They agreed that all must meet their commitments under the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. Ministers noted the importance of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, including religious freedom, particularly of women, children and minorities, and of expanding opportunities for them to contribute to Afghanistan’s future.
The Ministers noted progress made on transition of responsibility for security. Ministers looked forward to the ANSF taking the nationwide lead for security in mid-2013. Ministers encouraged the Afghan Government to make progress on its National Drug Control Strategy, which balances law enforcement action with capacity-building and the development of sustainable alternative livelihoods. Ministers endorsed the continuing need for an international response to tackling more effectively illicit drug production, trade, trafficking and dealing with the threat of terrorism. Money from the trafficking of narcotics continues to fund insurgent activity.
The Ministers welcomed the announcement of the date for Presidential and Provincial elections in Afghanistan. It is important that the Government of Afghanistan and relevant authorities continue to work with all stakeholders and international organisations to prepare for inclusive, credible and transparent elections.
The Ministers fully supported an inclusive Afghan-led peace and reconciliation process that is based on the principles of renunciation of violence, cutting ties with all terrorist groups and respect for the Afghan Constitution including its human rights provisions, notably on the rights of women, in line with the Kabul Communiqué and the Bonn Conference Conclusions. The Ministers welcome and support efforts to strengthen regional co-operation.
Transnational challenges and opportunities
Cyber
G8 Foreign Ministers agreed that a safe, open and accessible Internet is an essential tool for our societies and economies. They agreed that it promotes prosperity, freedom, democracy and human rights. They also acknowledged the importance of the Internet in helping all nations to benefit from the potential for economic growth and innovation. Ministers recognised that this potential is reliant on availability, trust and security – which are essential for developed and developing countries alike.
Ministers noted that, since the Deauville G8 Declaration on a Renewed Commitment for Freedom and Democracy in 2011, there had been a wide range of welcome initiatives in various international fora. They highlighted in particular the work of the UN Group of Governmental Experts on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (UNGGE). Ministers encouraged the UNGGE to reach consensus on substantive recommendations on norms of responsible state behaviour and confidence building measures, including capacity building, as an essential element of international stability.
Ministers affirmed that international law is relevant in the digital world as it is off-line. They further affirmed the need to take steps to promote transparency and confidence building measures in order to reduce the risk of misperceptions between states.
Ministers agreed on the importance of international capacity building efforts to enhance trust, strengthen the fight against cyber crime and improve the security of the global digital environment. They noted that capacity building required the full participation of governments, business and civil society. Ministers agreed to promote and advance international cyber security capacity building initiatives to encourage a wide range of partners, including industry, to deliver increased and more effective capacity building across the globe.
Ministers agreed that cyber security capacity-building in this area needs to be embedded in the wider context of the economic growth and social benefits derived from the global digital economy. They also agreed to ensure that these efforts are implemented in a way which promotes openness, trust and security, stability and the rule of law in the digital realm.
Ministers welcomed the efforts by the Roma-Lyon High Tech Crime Sub Group (HTCSG) to strengthen and expand the G8 24/7 Network of Contact Points, including through a sustained training initiative. Ministers encouraged all future Presidencies to continue these efforts.
Climate Change
Climate change remains a key global challenge which, if not controlled, would have dramatic consequences not only on the environment but also on economic prosperity. G8 Ministers recognised climate change as a contributing factor to increased economic and security risks globally. The G8 agreed to consider means to better respond to this challenge and its associated risks, recalling that international climate policy and sustainable economic development are mutually reinforcing. Officials from interested G8 countries will meet to consider the potential consequences of climate change and associated environmental and resource stresses as a contributing factor to increased security risks globally, and report to Foreign Ministers.
Ministers recognised the ambitious measures already undertaken to reduce greenhouse gases, noting that action needs to continue and intensify as a matter of urgency. Ministers remain committed to long term efforts with a view to limiting effectively the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, consistent with science. The G8 remain fully committed to the UNFCCC process; to achieving, by 2015, a new climate change agreement, applicable to all Parties, which will come into effect and be implemented from 2020; to increase mitigation ambition in the pre-2020 timeframe, including through international cooperative initiatives such as the Climate and Clean Air Coalition; and to the developed countries’ goal of mobilising jointly USD 100bn per year by 2020, from a wide variety of public and private sources, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation. Ministers stressed the importance of transparency in the UNFCCC process. Measurement, reporting and verification will play a key role with respect to mitigation, adaptation and international climate finance flows in order to measure progress towards the achievement of our goals.
Maritime Security
G8 Foreign Ministers recognised the importance of maritime security as a critical enabler of regional stability, economic development, trade and international prosperity. Maritime insecurity affects the international community as a whole and, as such, can only be effectively addressed through a comprehensive national and international approach. Ministers remain committed to the freedom of navigation, unimpeded lawful commerce, and the peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with applicable international law including UNCLOS.
Ministers, firmly condemning acts of piracy and other maritime crime, expressed their continued commitment to pursue international cooperation to combat these threats remaining consistent with international law and internationally recognised principles of jurisdiction in international waters. Ministers noted the importance of continuing work to develop and support regional maritime security capability, increase capacity to prosecute maritime crime, and maximise economic potential from the maritime domain through frameworks like the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, Friends of the Gulf of Guinea and Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia.
Human Rights
G8 Foreign Ministers emphasised the importance of promoting and protecting all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights of women, freedom of religion or belief, and the freedoms of expression and association.
Ministers reiterated the need to accelerate efforts to eliminate discrimination against women and girls in order to ensure their equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Ministers expressed concern for the continuing practice of early and forced marriage.
Counter Terrorism
G8 Foreign Ministers reiterated their absolute condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. They noted the evolving nature of the terrorist threat, which was increasingly fragmented and geographically diverse, and the increasing use in some areas of the world of kidnapping for ransom as a growing source of terrorist financing. Ministers remained concerned about the threat posed by al-Qaeda and affiliated groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and other countries, and noted the increased threat of terrorism in North and West Africa, as demonstrated by recent events in Algeria, Mali and Nigeria; they also noted new radicalisation trends and related terrorist risks; which will be examined in more detail by the G8 Roma-Lyon Group and its expert-level sub-groups dealing with transnational organised crime and terrorism.
Ministers reiterated the importance of continued international support for those countries facing a terrorist threat, including through assistance to build the capacity of their security and justice systems to identify, disrupt and prosecute terrorist activity, while respecting human rights and humanitarian law and ensuring safe operations of foreign investment which is a valuable source of growth for those countries. They noted the efforts of the United Nations and its Security Council, and of the Global Counterterrorism Forum, in this regard. They further emphasised the importance of regional co-operation in tackling terrorist groups that move across borders and exploit local and regional issues to their own ends. Ministers underlined the need for further implementation of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, based on the comprehensive approach to counter-terrorism combining security, diplomatic and development efforts to counter violent extremism and to deprive the terrorists of resources and support and to tackle the conditions and grievances that terrorists seek to exploit.
Illicit Drugs
G8 Foreign Ministers are concerned by the scale of the problem of illicit drug production, trade and trafficking and its harmful consequences for individuals, societies and States, as well as regional and international stability. They reiterated their commitment to the balanced and evidence based approach set out in the three United Nations conventions on the control of drugs (1961, 1971 and 1988). They recognised the need for increased political impetus and a stronger mobilisation of the international community within that legal framework and support further steps to implement the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the UN Convention against Corruption.
Ministers underlined the crucial importance of intensified cooperation among States on the basis of common and shared responsibility and a balanced comprehensive approach tackling both demand and supply of illicit drugs.
TARA SONENSHINE MAKES REMARKS AT MOSCOW AMERICAN CENTER
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at Moscow American Center
Remarks
Tara Sonenshine
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
Moscow, Russia
April 10, 2013
Privyet. I am delighted to join you this afternoon at the Moscow American Center, as we mark the 20th anniversary of the American Centers and Corners program in Russia. I also want to greet and acknowledge all the students and exchange program alumni here today.
This is an anniversary of a partnership that we consider very special. Before I continue, I would like to thank some people here today who have played – and continue to play – important roles in building and maintaining that partnership. Let me start with Ekaterina Yurievna Genieva, director of the Rudomino Library for Foreign Literature. Also, Kore Gleason, director of the Moscow American Center, and the staff of the Moscow American Center. Let’s give them all a warm Moscow welcome!
I look around this audience today, and I see all ages. The older ones – and you know who you are! – will remember 1993. It was a very critical year for the Russian Federation – and for its people. In the midst of that time of national definition, the Moscow American Center opened to offer the opportunity for Russian citizens to learn more about American society … and to practice their English by using an array of information resources and cultural programs.
The Center was the first of its kind in the world. Not just an embassy facility but an innovative partnership with a well known and respected Russian institution: the Rudomino Library for Foreign Literature.
What were the benefits of this partnership? Ekaterina Yurievna – you were there. You know. First of all, Rudomino Library helped the Center understand what people were interested in, and what they needed. And because people knew and trusted the Library, the partnership gave us credibility. And by working together in this way, we didn’t just build a relationship between two institutions. We built a new and special connection with the community – and in a larger sense between the American and the Russian people.
It was a very successful model – this Moscow American Center.
We called it an American Corner – and we saw just how well it connected people and cultures, and provided diverse, informed perspectives and information about the United States.
The idea of a cultural center, with the participation of both countries, quickly spread throughout Russia. It was so successful that it expanded throughout the world. Today, we have 800 such spaces, in neighborhoods, schools, and cultural institutions of all shapes and sizes.
They are called American Centers, American Corners, and Binational centers, depending on their different shapes, sizes and roles in the community. But one thing connects them all: they are two-way partnerships, with both countries having a stake in these spaces, that foster goodwill between nations.
As you can see, the Moscow American Center continues to be a vibrant meeting place and community center that brings local citizens and Americans together – to explore different aspects of American society.
In the past few days, for example, you could watch a Humphrey Bogart movie, attend lectures on the music of Leonard Bernstein and American jazz. Or find out about educational opportunities in community colleges in the U.S.
If you participate in our Red Square Dance Club, you know that the Moscow American Center is a place where you can learn about or even practice folk culture. You can learn business strategy, in classes on entrepreneurship taught by our exchange program alumni. Or through the Competitive College Club, students can prepare for higher education in the U.S. through an intensive program of presentations and community service activities.
Our American Corners – not only here but around the world – also provide opportunities to engage online. We are investing computing, networking, and videoconferencing resources, so we can support web chats, video production, and other tools that can enhance our connections around matters of common interest.
For example, here in our Moscow American Center, we have a program offered through the University of Maryland that can help you developing innovative ideas for new companies – through a virtual college class. And last December, on the occasion of Wildlife Conservation Day we hosted a live and online web chat program in all our American Corners throughout Russia and Belarus.
Thanks to technology, we could go beyond our four walls and engage Russians and Belarusians on a very important topic.
High school students and Russian environmental professionals and online participants everywhere discussed the challenges faced by Amur tigers, polar bears, hawks, and other species in Russia. It was a lively conversation between the expert speakers, audience members, and online viewers. And even though the hour was late for participants in Central and Eastern Russia, they stayed online to be a part of the discussion.
When we experience connections like these, we know how special they are. And it is our hope that we will continue into the foreseeable future. In this 20th year of our American Centers and Corners program in Russia, I want to congratulate our many partners throughout the country. And I want to thank them for their contributions to promoting cooperation and mutual understanding between the United States and Russia. Our Centers and Corners here are a success because of you.
But to keep this connection working and robust, we need to hear from you. So I would like to invite you to share your ideas for how we can help. What types of information can we provide about the U.S. that would be of most use? Which American thinkers, performers, or civic leaders would you most like to hear from, either in person or online? Are there other ways that you think we could support such activities as learning English, researching higher education opportunities, connecting you with others interested in similar topics for networking purposes? We are listening.
So thank you – congratulations to the Moscow American Center – and may this special connection between our people continue!
Remarks at Moscow American Center
Remarks
Tara Sonenshine
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
Moscow, Russia
April 10, 2013
Privyet. I am delighted to join you this afternoon at the Moscow American Center, as we mark the 20th anniversary of the American Centers and Corners program in Russia. I also want to greet and acknowledge all the students and exchange program alumni here today.
This is an anniversary of a partnership that we consider very special. Before I continue, I would like to thank some people here today who have played – and continue to play – important roles in building and maintaining that partnership. Let me start with Ekaterina Yurievna Genieva, director of the Rudomino Library for Foreign Literature. Also, Kore Gleason, director of the Moscow American Center, and the staff of the Moscow American Center. Let’s give them all a warm Moscow welcome!
I look around this audience today, and I see all ages. The older ones – and you know who you are! – will remember 1993. It was a very critical year for the Russian Federation – and for its people. In the midst of that time of national definition, the Moscow American Center opened to offer the opportunity for Russian citizens to learn more about American society … and to practice their English by using an array of information resources and cultural programs.
The Center was the first of its kind in the world. Not just an embassy facility but an innovative partnership with a well known and respected Russian institution: the Rudomino Library for Foreign Literature.
What were the benefits of this partnership? Ekaterina Yurievna – you were there. You know. First of all, Rudomino Library helped the Center understand what people were interested in, and what they needed. And because people knew and trusted the Library, the partnership gave us credibility. And by working together in this way, we didn’t just build a relationship between two institutions. We built a new and special connection with the community – and in a larger sense between the American and the Russian people.
It was a very successful model – this Moscow American Center.
We called it an American Corner – and we saw just how well it connected people and cultures, and provided diverse, informed perspectives and information about the United States.
The idea of a cultural center, with the participation of both countries, quickly spread throughout Russia. It was so successful that it expanded throughout the world. Today, we have 800 such spaces, in neighborhoods, schools, and cultural institutions of all shapes and sizes.
They are called American Centers, American Corners, and Binational centers, depending on their different shapes, sizes and roles in the community. But one thing connects them all: they are two-way partnerships, with both countries having a stake in these spaces, that foster goodwill between nations.
As you can see, the Moscow American Center continues to be a vibrant meeting place and community center that brings local citizens and Americans together – to explore different aspects of American society.
In the past few days, for example, you could watch a Humphrey Bogart movie, attend lectures on the music of Leonard Bernstein and American jazz. Or find out about educational opportunities in community colleges in the U.S.
If you participate in our Red Square Dance Club, you know that the Moscow American Center is a place where you can learn about or even practice folk culture. You can learn business strategy, in classes on entrepreneurship taught by our exchange program alumni. Or through the Competitive College Club, students can prepare for higher education in the U.S. through an intensive program of presentations and community service activities.
Our American Corners – not only here but around the world – also provide opportunities to engage online. We are investing computing, networking, and videoconferencing resources, so we can support web chats, video production, and other tools that can enhance our connections around matters of common interest.
For example, here in our Moscow American Center, we have a program offered through the University of Maryland that can help you developing innovative ideas for new companies – through a virtual college class. And last December, on the occasion of Wildlife Conservation Day we hosted a live and online web chat program in all our American Corners throughout Russia and Belarus.
Thanks to technology, we could go beyond our four walls and engage Russians and Belarusians on a very important topic.
High school students and Russian environmental professionals and online participants everywhere discussed the challenges faced by Amur tigers, polar bears, hawks, and other species in Russia. It was a lively conversation between the expert speakers, audience members, and online viewers. And even though the hour was late for participants in Central and Eastern Russia, they stayed online to be a part of the discussion.
When we experience connections like these, we know how special they are. And it is our hope that we will continue into the foreseeable future. In this 20th year of our American Centers and Corners program in Russia, I want to congratulate our many partners throughout the country. And I want to thank them for their contributions to promoting cooperation and mutual understanding between the United States and Russia. Our Centers and Corners here are a success because of you.
But to keep this connection working and robust, we need to hear from you. So I would like to invite you to share your ideas for how we can help. What types of information can we provide about the U.S. that would be of most use? Which American thinkers, performers, or civic leaders would you most like to hear from, either in person or online? Are there other ways that you think we could support such activities as learning English, researching higher education opportunities, connecting you with others interested in similar topics for networking purposes? We are listening.
So thank you – congratulations to the Moscow American Center – and may this special connection between our people continue!
THE SPACE SHUTTLE ERA BEGINS WITH LAUNCH OF COLUMBIA
FROM: NASA
A new era in space flight began on April 12, 1981, when Space Shuttle Columbia, or STS-1, soared into orbit from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Astronaut John Young, a veteran of four previous spaceflights including a walk on the moon in 1972, commanded the mission. Navy test pilot Bob Crippen piloted the mission and would go on to command three future shuttle missions. The shuttle was humankind's first re-usable spacecraft. The orbiter would launch like a rocket and land like a plane. The two solid rocket boosters that helped push them into space would also be re-used, after being recovered in the ocean. Only the massive external fuel tank would burn up as it fell back to Earth. It was all known as the Space Transportation System. Twenty years prior to the historic launch, on April 12, 1961, the era of human spaceflight began when Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit the Earth in his Vostock I spacecraft. The flight lasted 108 minutes. Pictured here: a timed exposure of STS-1, at Launch Pad A, Complex 39, turns the space vehicle and support facilities into a night- time fantasy of light. Structures to the left of the shuttle are the fixed and the rotating service structure. Image Credit: NASA
Saturday, April 13, 2013
MEDIA NOTE: U.S. OFFICIAL'S MEETING WITH IRAQI KURDISTAN REGIONAL DELEGATION
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Readout of Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones' Meeting with Iraqi Kurdistan Region Delegation
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
April 12, 2013
Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones met with a senior delegation from the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq at the State Department today to discuss U.S.-Iraq relations, especially the longstanding ties we share with the Iraqi Kurdistan Region and its people.
Acting Assistant Secretary Jones welcomed the Kurdish delegation and expressed the strong U.S. commitment to supporting the development of a sound, vibrant, and inclusive Iraq. She underscored our commitment to the Strategic Framework Agreement, the basis for the United States’ partnership with a federal, democratic, and unified Iraq. She reiterated U.S. support for an Iraqi Kurdistan Region within the framework of Iraq’s constitution. Building on the Secretary’s recent trip to Iraq, the two sides discussed the importance of direct and continuous engagement by all of Iraq’s political parties to address outstanding issues, including appropriate division of authority between the central and regional government, equitable distribution of resources, and resolving internal boundary disputes pursuant to Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution.
To that end, the Acting Assistant Secretary noted she was encouraged that a Kurdish Alliance delegation arrived in Baghdad this week to discuss the importance of peaceful dialogue and partnership in resolving political disputes. She further emphasized Secretary Kerry’s message that the United States remains committed to the vision of Iraq as defined in the Iraqi constitution, and is prepared to help Iraqi leaders resolve their differences peacefully and in a manner that benefits all the Iraqi people.
Readout of Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones' Meeting with Iraqi Kurdistan Region Delegation
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
April 12, 2013
Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones met with a senior delegation from the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq at the State Department today to discuss U.S.-Iraq relations, especially the longstanding ties we share with the Iraqi Kurdistan Region and its people.
Acting Assistant Secretary Jones welcomed the Kurdish delegation and expressed the strong U.S. commitment to supporting the development of a sound, vibrant, and inclusive Iraq. She underscored our commitment to the Strategic Framework Agreement, the basis for the United States’ partnership with a federal, democratic, and unified Iraq. She reiterated U.S. support for an Iraqi Kurdistan Region within the framework of Iraq’s constitution. Building on the Secretary’s recent trip to Iraq, the two sides discussed the importance of direct and continuous engagement by all of Iraq’s political parties to address outstanding issues, including appropriate division of authority between the central and regional government, equitable distribution of resources, and resolving internal boundary disputes pursuant to Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution.
To that end, the Acting Assistant Secretary noted she was encouraged that a Kurdish Alliance delegation arrived in Baghdad this week to discuss the importance of peaceful dialogue and partnership in resolving political disputes. She further emphasized Secretary Kerry’s message that the United States remains committed to the vision of Iraq as defined in the Iraqi constitution, and is prepared to help Iraqi leaders resolve their differences peacefully and in a manner that benefits all the Iraqi people.
SOLDIER INDICTED FOR FUEL THEFT CRIMES IN AFGHANISTAN
 |
| Photo: Iraq War. Credit: DOD. |
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Former Army Soldier Indicted on Bribery and Related Charges for Facilitating Thefts of Fuel in Afghanistan
Stephanie Charboneau, aka Stephanie Shankel, 34, of Fountain, Colo., formerly a Specialist in the United States Army, has been indicted in the District of Colorado for her alleged role in assisting the thefts of fuel in Afghanistan and laundering the proceeds of crime, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Criminal Division announced.
According to the indictment returned on April 9, 2013, and now filed publicly, Charboneau was assigned to Forward Operating Base (FOB) Fenty, in eastern Afghanistan, as part of the 704th Brigade Support Battalion. Her duties included overseeing the movement of fuel by private Afghan trucking companies from FOB Fenty to nearby military bases. The indictment alleges that Charboneau conspired with Sergeant Christopher Weaver, her supervisor, and Jonathan Hightower, a civilian employee of FLUOR Inc., to facilitate the theft of fuel for money. Charboneau and her co-conspirators allegedly received money from a representative of an Afghan trucking company to enable that company to steal truckloads of fuel. The conspirators allegedly authorized the movement of truckloads of fuel from FOB Fenty – ostensibly to nearby bases – knowing and intending that when the fuel left FOB Fenty it would never reach the designated base and would instead be stolen. These events occurred from approximately February 2010 through approximately May of 2010.
In addition, the indictment charges that when Charboneau returned to the United States, she engaged in a series of transactions with the bribe proceeds to avoid the currency transaction reporting requirements. Charboneau allegedly purchased an automobile for $33,179 in cash through a $5,000 down payment, two $9,900 cashier’s checks she funded but were in the name of two acquaintances, and an $8,379 cashier’s check in her name.
Charboneau was charged with conspiracy, bribery, theft, money laundering and structuring. If convicted, she faces penalties of 20 years in prison for money laundering, 15 for bribery, 10 for theft of government property, and five for conspiracy and structuring. She also faces fines of $250,000 per count.
Weaver and Hightower have each pleaded guilty to a bribery conspiracy scheme and are awaiting sentencing.
This case was investigated by former Fraud Section Trial Attorney Mark Pletcher, who is currently an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, and Special Trial Attorney Mark H. Dubester. The case was investigated by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Department of the Army, Criminal Investigations Division, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the FBI Denver field office.
SPECIAL BRIEFING ON THE SERGEI MAGNITSKY RULE OF LAW ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2012
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Brieing on the Administration's Implementation of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012
Special Briefing
Senior State Department Officials
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
April 12, 2013
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everybody, on this Friday afternoon. This call is on background. I have three Senior State Department Officials with me here. From here on, they will be attributed as Senior State Department Officials, but they are [Senior State Department Official One], [Senior State Department Official Two], and [Senior State Department Official Three]. So they will be Senior State Department Officials One, Two, and Three, respectively.
Having said that, I will now turn it over to Senior State Department Official Number One for some opening comments, followed by Q&A. Thank you very much.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Good afternoon, everyone. As you know by now, the State Department, consulting with the Treasury Department and other departments, has submitted to Congress the first list of persons under the Magnitsky Act who met the criteria described in that act. That list contains 18 people, 16 of whom were put on the list because of their association with the persecution and ultimately death of Sergei Magnitsky. There are two others on that list associated with other events: One was associated with the shooting in Vienna of Israilov, a Chechen; the other was associated with the murder of Paul Klebnikov.
Those 18 people were placed on the list following a thorough process of collecting information, including from NGOs, from Congress, and from our own sources, and then a process by which agencies of the U.S. Government, including especially OFAC from the Treasury Department, reviewed the information about them to determine whether we had met a reasonable standard to include them on this list.
As of today, the people on this list will have any assets in the United States blocked – that’s as of now – and they will not be able to receive a visa.
Putting a name on this list is a serious undertaking. It has legal ramifications. Whenever you are freezing the assets of individuals, you better know what you’re doing and why, and you better have a reasonable, demonstrable basis for doing so. We believe we have that basis. We think that the purposes of the Magnitsky Act are the support of human rights. We applaud those purposes. Human rights is part of our relationship with the Russians. It is sometimes a difficult part, but we have implemented this law in a fair spirit and diligently.
We have notified the Congress both in writing and in person. We are going to be notifying the Russians, although the list is now public and I’m sure the Russian blogosphere is lit up with discussion of the names.
The names include six persons who were placed there because of their position in the initial investigation and arrest of Magnitsky. They were senior investigators, supervisorial, and other personnel of the Interior Ministry; one from the General Prosecutors Office; four judges from the Tverskoy court; two prison officials, one from the Matrosskaya Tishina prison, the head of the pre-trial prison detention facility there, the other the head of the pre-trial detention facility at Butyrka prison; plus two heads of tax authority offices. They were associated – these people – with various stages of the campaign against Sergei Magnitsky.
The standard that applied to the review of these and the determination under the Magnitsky Act is the same standard that applies to other economic sanctions determinations of individuals. And for those of you interested, the relevant standard is spelled out in the Administrative Procedures Act. It is an across-the-government standard and it’s important that that standard be maintained.
There’ll be plenty of opportunity to take questions, but that is an overview of what has happened today. I’ll let my colleagues add, and then we’ll have some time for questions.
MODERATOR: Over to our second official. Do we have any other before going to Q&A?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think we’re good.
MODERATOR: Okay. Operator, we’re ready for Q&A.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating that you’ve been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. Once again, if you have a question, please press *1 at this time. And it will be just one moment.
And our first question comes from the line of Peter Baker with The New York Times. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks, guys, for doing the call. I appreciate it. A couple of questions: One, we were told there’s also a classified list of other people. Is that correct, and can we – even if we don’t know the names, can we get some sense of numbers and types of people on it? And then secondly, do we have any evidence any of the people, at least on the unclassified list, have any assets in the United States?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I can confirm that there was a classified list as provided under the law. I can say that we briefed congressional staff of both houses of Congress this morning and early this afternoon about both contents of that list and the reason why we believe that the people we put on that list belonged on that list under the Act’s standards. We went into some detail.
Because it’s classified, I’m not going to get into either numbers, names, except to say that we felt obligated to brief the Congress in detail, and we have done so.
QUESTION: And then the assets of at least publicly known people?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Peter, that question’s probably best directed to OFAC and Treasury, who are the experts. But I can tell you, in general in these cases what happens is they put out a notice to banks and other financial institutions and wait for them to report back.
QUESTION: So we don’t – we haven’t done that – so as far as you know we haven’t done that sort of research at this point.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We don’t normally do that in these cases.
QUESTION: Right.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO*: The procedure I described is OFAC’s standard operating procedure.
QUESTION: Right. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Operator, next question.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Desmond Butler with Associated Press. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you all for doing this call. Some of the folks up on the Hill are already complaining that the list was soft-pedaled, that some of the bigger names of Russian officials they wanted to see on the list were not on the list. Were there political considerations? Did you take into account the effect that this would have on relations with Russia?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Political considerations were not a factor. The principal factor was the stage of the information about these – about people and whether or not we felt the U.S. government’s standards for the freezing of assets of individuals were met. It is one thing to think of general political responsibility for human rights problems in Russia generally or in any country generally. It is quite another thing to target an individual for the freezing of personal assets. There are very good reasons why you want to follow the rule of law, particularly – I find it particularly ironic that in a case – the case of – involving Sergei Magnitsky, who was persecuted because he was blowing the whistle of confiscation of private assets and misuse of private assets, that there would be any question about following the rule of law and proper procedures for any such – for any freezing of private assets. And the people that are on the list are not – are of supervisorial rank. They are responsible officials – officials of a responsible rank. This is serious business. And I think that the list was put together with diligence and seriousness.
MODERATOR: Operator, next question.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Michele Kelemen with NPR. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, hi. Thanks for doing this. One, I’m curious how many of these people were already on the visa ban list, because I know there was a list that just was not made public before. How did you decide to add the Klebnikov and the Chechen case into this? And on the question of the classified list, does it really make sense to have a classified list? Doesn’t that really fuel suspicions in Russia more?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well – separate questions. The law provides – in fact the law calls on us to go beyond simply the case of Sergei Magnitsky. I’m pleased – I’m glad that we were able to do so in this initial list. It was important to do something more, and the basic criteria we had was: Do we have information about individuals involved in non-Magnitsky problems that will stand up and meet our standards? And the answer is yes, so we have done so. As I said, somebody from the Izrailov murder and somebody from the Klebnikov murder.
The classified list is something the Congress put in. There are various reasons why it would be in our interest to put people on that list. The standard was vital to the national security, we explained to the Congressional staff why the people on that list were there. You’re right, Michele; it may fuel speculation in Russia, but there – we expected, in any event, a strong Russian reaction.
By the way, I should point out that this is not a one-time only act. The law makes clear that additional names should be added as new information becomes available. The law also provides for an annual report to Congress about names that have been added, and we intend to follow the law.
QUESTION: Okay, and just one just clarification. The classified list is not – it’s not – it’s just for visa bans and not asset freezes or --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That is correct. You can’t do an asset freeze in secret. Therefore, if it’s – if there is someone on the classified list, the asset freeze does not apply. This was made very – during the discussions – in the drafting process of the Magnitsky Act, this was made clear to the Congress, that they put this in. So that’s what we’re dealing with.
QUESTION: Okay. And then how many of these people were on the previous visa bans, is my final question.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We don’t usually go public with people that are on that list, but let me say that there has been for some time a process of putting people on visa watch lists for reasons of human rights. And long before the Magnitsky Act was contemplated, the Russia desk and the Human Rights Bureau were working to put people on the list. And without saying who was and who wasn’t on it, that list was extensive and predated the Magnitsky list.
QUESTION: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Elise Labott from CNN. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: I think I’m good. I think my questions have already been asked. But I’m just wondering if you could – to drill down --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So happy, Elise. That’s great.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That’s great.
QUESTION: But about the classified, I just don’t – still don’t understand why it has – their names have to be classified.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The trouble that I find myself in is that if I were to explain it, I would also be explaining who they are. We did – all I can tell you is that we – when we were able to talk to the Congressional staff this morning, we could explain it fairly simply, fairly cleanly because we had simple and clean explanations. And although it’s dangerous to characterize a meeting of which you were only half, I didn’t sense a lot of pushback. I may be tempting fate, but we had easily, simply explained reasons that I can’t share with you because it’s, well, a classified list.
QUESTION: Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Sorry.
QUESTION: I mean, I think – isn’t it kind of – I mean, just to Michele’s point, the fact that these names are meant to show an example, right, of people that were human rights’ abusers? So doesn’t that kind of negate the fact that – isn’t that kind of besides the point?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I take that point. And there is in the human rights community, has been a discussion of exactly that point. Is the act advanced by having everybody public or having some people private? We discussed what the standard should be, that is how to interpret the standard that exists in the law. We came to a decision, and you have the advantage of me because you can ask anything you want, but I have to be careful about the answer. Sorry.
QUESTION: Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I know that’s inadequate but that’s because it is a classified list, and to explain the reasons would be to reveal who’s on it.
MODERATOR: Operator, we’ve got time for a couple more questions.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Paul Eckert with Reuters. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, and thank you. Turning to one of the initial responses from Moscow, a senior Russian lawmaker, the head of the State Duma’s international affairs committee, called the list minimal, and he said it showed that the Obama Administration did not want to heighten tensions between Washington and Moscow. How do you take that? Do you take that as acceptance of the U.S. – the list decision, or sort of, they’re not being chastened enough or – what does that – how do you respond to what – how they’re taking it there?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We will hear various things from the Russians. The – I’ve learned not to try to take action based on what you think the Russian reaction might be. You –it’s – I think it’s better to do what’s in the law and what’s right and what reflects American interests and American values. And on human rights, then you let the chips fall where they may. We’ve played this one straight; we haven’t tried to game it.
Of course we have a lot – we have a complicated relationship with Russia, strong areas of cooperation, strong areas of difference. Human rights is an area of difference, has been for some time. We – this is the first list to come out under the Magnitsky Act. I hope there is never an occasion for future lists, but we are prepared to do it, and we will be looking at the human rights situation in the future.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Nicole Gaouette with Bloomberg News. Please go ahead.
MODERATOR: Thanks, Operator.
QUESTION: Hi. Thanks for doing this. My question actually has already been asked as well, but I just wanted to ask one more about the classified list. And that is if you can tell us how many people are on it.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That’s a very reasonable question. I can’t answer it.
QUESTION: You can’t even be that reasonable?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I can’t be – even be that reasonable. I will let other – I’ll let people push that – push the boundaries of that one, but I can’t.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Sure.
MODERATOR: Operator, we have time for just one more question.
OPERATOR: Our last question comes from the line of Ali Weinberg with NBC News. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi there. And forgive me; I did not hear the last question, so if I’m being repetitive, I apologize. But if I understand correctly, it sounds like the classified list was included in your – in this action because it was required by the law. So if it had not been required by the law, is it fair to say that the classified list would not have been included or even made up?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, the law provided for a classified list. If it did not provide for a classified list, I suppose there wouldn’t have been a classified list. But it did provide for one. Now there is one. The previous question was how many people were on it, and Senior State Official Number One said: Fair question; can’t answer it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Okay.
MODERATOR: Thank you all for joining the call this afternoon, and have a good weekend. Bye-bye.
Background Brieing on the Administration's Implementation of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012
Special Briefing
Senior State Department Officials
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
April 12, 2013
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everybody, on this Friday afternoon. This call is on background. I have three Senior State Department Officials with me here. From here on, they will be attributed as Senior State Department Officials, but they are [Senior State Department Official One], [Senior State Department Official Two], and [Senior State Department Official Three]. So they will be Senior State Department Officials One, Two, and Three, respectively.
Having said that, I will now turn it over to Senior State Department Official Number One for some opening comments, followed by Q&A. Thank you very much.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Good afternoon, everyone. As you know by now, the State Department, consulting with the Treasury Department and other departments, has submitted to Congress the first list of persons under the Magnitsky Act who met the criteria described in that act. That list contains 18 people, 16 of whom were put on the list because of their association with the persecution and ultimately death of Sergei Magnitsky. There are two others on that list associated with other events: One was associated with the shooting in Vienna of Israilov, a Chechen; the other was associated with the murder of Paul Klebnikov.
Those 18 people were placed on the list following a thorough process of collecting information, including from NGOs, from Congress, and from our own sources, and then a process by which agencies of the U.S. Government, including especially OFAC from the Treasury Department, reviewed the information about them to determine whether we had met a reasonable standard to include them on this list.
As of today, the people on this list will have any assets in the United States blocked – that’s as of now – and they will not be able to receive a visa.
Putting a name on this list is a serious undertaking. It has legal ramifications. Whenever you are freezing the assets of individuals, you better know what you’re doing and why, and you better have a reasonable, demonstrable basis for doing so. We believe we have that basis. We think that the purposes of the Magnitsky Act are the support of human rights. We applaud those purposes. Human rights is part of our relationship with the Russians. It is sometimes a difficult part, but we have implemented this law in a fair spirit and diligently.
We have notified the Congress both in writing and in person. We are going to be notifying the Russians, although the list is now public and I’m sure the Russian blogosphere is lit up with discussion of the names.
The names include six persons who were placed there because of their position in the initial investigation and arrest of Magnitsky. They were senior investigators, supervisorial, and other personnel of the Interior Ministry; one from the General Prosecutors Office; four judges from the Tverskoy court; two prison officials, one from the Matrosskaya Tishina prison, the head of the pre-trial prison detention facility there, the other the head of the pre-trial detention facility at Butyrka prison; plus two heads of tax authority offices. They were associated – these people – with various stages of the campaign against Sergei Magnitsky.
The standard that applied to the review of these and the determination under the Magnitsky Act is the same standard that applies to other economic sanctions determinations of individuals. And for those of you interested, the relevant standard is spelled out in the Administrative Procedures Act. It is an across-the-government standard and it’s important that that standard be maintained.
There’ll be plenty of opportunity to take questions, but that is an overview of what has happened today. I’ll let my colleagues add, and then we’ll have some time for questions.
MODERATOR: Over to our second official. Do we have any other before going to Q&A?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think we’re good.
MODERATOR: Okay. Operator, we’re ready for Q&A.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating that you’ve been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. Once again, if you have a question, please press *1 at this time. And it will be just one moment.
And our first question comes from the line of Peter Baker with The New York Times. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks, guys, for doing the call. I appreciate it. A couple of questions: One, we were told there’s also a classified list of other people. Is that correct, and can we – even if we don’t know the names, can we get some sense of numbers and types of people on it? And then secondly, do we have any evidence any of the people, at least on the unclassified list, have any assets in the United States?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I can confirm that there was a classified list as provided under the law. I can say that we briefed congressional staff of both houses of Congress this morning and early this afternoon about both contents of that list and the reason why we believe that the people we put on that list belonged on that list under the Act’s standards. We went into some detail.
Because it’s classified, I’m not going to get into either numbers, names, except to say that we felt obligated to brief the Congress in detail, and we have done so.
QUESTION: And then the assets of at least publicly known people?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Peter, that question’s probably best directed to OFAC and Treasury, who are the experts. But I can tell you, in general in these cases what happens is they put out a notice to banks and other financial institutions and wait for them to report back.
QUESTION: So we don’t – we haven’t done that – so as far as you know we haven’t done that sort of research at this point.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We don’t normally do that in these cases.
QUESTION: Right.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO*: The procedure I described is OFAC’s standard operating procedure.
QUESTION: Right. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Operator, next question.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Desmond Butler with Associated Press. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you all for doing this call. Some of the folks up on the Hill are already complaining that the list was soft-pedaled, that some of the bigger names of Russian officials they wanted to see on the list were not on the list. Were there political considerations? Did you take into account the effect that this would have on relations with Russia?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Political considerations were not a factor. The principal factor was the stage of the information about these – about people and whether or not we felt the U.S. government’s standards for the freezing of assets of individuals were met. It is one thing to think of general political responsibility for human rights problems in Russia generally or in any country generally. It is quite another thing to target an individual for the freezing of personal assets. There are very good reasons why you want to follow the rule of law, particularly – I find it particularly ironic that in a case – the case of – involving Sergei Magnitsky, who was persecuted because he was blowing the whistle of confiscation of private assets and misuse of private assets, that there would be any question about following the rule of law and proper procedures for any such – for any freezing of private assets. And the people that are on the list are not – are of supervisorial rank. They are responsible officials – officials of a responsible rank. This is serious business. And I think that the list was put together with diligence and seriousness.
MODERATOR: Operator, next question.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Michele Kelemen with NPR. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, hi. Thanks for doing this. One, I’m curious how many of these people were already on the visa ban list, because I know there was a list that just was not made public before. How did you decide to add the Klebnikov and the Chechen case into this? And on the question of the classified list, does it really make sense to have a classified list? Doesn’t that really fuel suspicions in Russia more?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well – separate questions. The law provides – in fact the law calls on us to go beyond simply the case of Sergei Magnitsky. I’m pleased – I’m glad that we were able to do so in this initial list. It was important to do something more, and the basic criteria we had was: Do we have information about individuals involved in non-Magnitsky problems that will stand up and meet our standards? And the answer is yes, so we have done so. As I said, somebody from the Izrailov murder and somebody from the Klebnikov murder.
The classified list is something the Congress put in. There are various reasons why it would be in our interest to put people on that list. The standard was vital to the national security, we explained to the Congressional staff why the people on that list were there. You’re right, Michele; it may fuel speculation in Russia, but there – we expected, in any event, a strong Russian reaction.
By the way, I should point out that this is not a one-time only act. The law makes clear that additional names should be added as new information becomes available. The law also provides for an annual report to Congress about names that have been added, and we intend to follow the law.
QUESTION: Okay, and just one just clarification. The classified list is not – it’s not – it’s just for visa bans and not asset freezes or --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That is correct. You can’t do an asset freeze in secret. Therefore, if it’s – if there is someone on the classified list, the asset freeze does not apply. This was made very – during the discussions – in the drafting process of the Magnitsky Act, this was made clear to the Congress, that they put this in. So that’s what we’re dealing with.
QUESTION: Okay. And then how many of these people were on the previous visa bans, is my final question.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We don’t usually go public with people that are on that list, but let me say that there has been for some time a process of putting people on visa watch lists for reasons of human rights. And long before the Magnitsky Act was contemplated, the Russia desk and the Human Rights Bureau were working to put people on the list. And without saying who was and who wasn’t on it, that list was extensive and predated the Magnitsky list.
QUESTION: Thank you.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Elise Labott from CNN. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: I think I’m good. I think my questions have already been asked. But I’m just wondering if you could – to drill down --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So happy, Elise. That’s great.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That’s great.
QUESTION: But about the classified, I just don’t – still don’t understand why it has – their names have to be classified.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The trouble that I find myself in is that if I were to explain it, I would also be explaining who they are. We did – all I can tell you is that we – when we were able to talk to the Congressional staff this morning, we could explain it fairly simply, fairly cleanly because we had simple and clean explanations. And although it’s dangerous to characterize a meeting of which you were only half, I didn’t sense a lot of pushback. I may be tempting fate, but we had easily, simply explained reasons that I can’t share with you because it’s, well, a classified list.
QUESTION: Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Sorry.
QUESTION: I mean, I think – isn’t it kind of – I mean, just to Michele’s point, the fact that these names are meant to show an example, right, of people that were human rights’ abusers? So doesn’t that kind of negate the fact that – isn’t that kind of besides the point?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I take that point. And there is in the human rights community, has been a discussion of exactly that point. Is the act advanced by having everybody public or having some people private? We discussed what the standard should be, that is how to interpret the standard that exists in the law. We came to a decision, and you have the advantage of me because you can ask anything you want, but I have to be careful about the answer. Sorry.
QUESTION: Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I know that’s inadequate but that’s because it is a classified list, and to explain the reasons would be to reveal who’s on it.
MODERATOR: Operator, we’ve got time for a couple more questions.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Paul Eckert with Reuters. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, and thank you. Turning to one of the initial responses from Moscow, a senior Russian lawmaker, the head of the State Duma’s international affairs committee, called the list minimal, and he said it showed that the Obama Administration did not want to heighten tensions between Washington and Moscow. How do you take that? Do you take that as acceptance of the U.S. – the list decision, or sort of, they’re not being chastened enough or – what does that – how do you respond to what – how they’re taking it there?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We will hear various things from the Russians. The – I’ve learned not to try to take action based on what you think the Russian reaction might be. You –it’s – I think it’s better to do what’s in the law and what’s right and what reflects American interests and American values. And on human rights, then you let the chips fall where they may. We’ve played this one straight; we haven’t tried to game it.
Of course we have a lot – we have a complicated relationship with Russia, strong areas of cooperation, strong areas of difference. Human rights is an area of difference, has been for some time. We – this is the first list to come out under the Magnitsky Act. I hope there is never an occasion for future lists, but we are prepared to do it, and we will be looking at the human rights situation in the future.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Nicole Gaouette with Bloomberg News. Please go ahead.
MODERATOR: Thanks, Operator.
QUESTION: Hi. Thanks for doing this. My question actually has already been asked as well, but I just wanted to ask one more about the classified list. And that is if you can tell us how many people are on it.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That’s a very reasonable question. I can’t answer it.
QUESTION: You can’t even be that reasonable?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I can’t be – even be that reasonable. I will let other – I’ll let people push that – push the boundaries of that one, but I can’t.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Sure.
MODERATOR: Operator, we have time for just one more question.
OPERATOR: Our last question comes from the line of Ali Weinberg with NBC News. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi there. And forgive me; I did not hear the last question, so if I’m being repetitive, I apologize. But if I understand correctly, it sounds like the classified list was included in your – in this action because it was required by the law. So if it had not been required by the law, is it fair to say that the classified list would not have been included or even made up?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, the law provided for a classified list. If it did not provide for a classified list, I suppose there wouldn’t have been a classified list. But it did provide for one. Now there is one. The previous question was how many people were on it, and Senior State Official Number One said: Fair question; can’t answer it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Okay.
MODERATOR: Thank you all for joining the call this afternoon, and have a good weekend. Bye-bye.
EX-IM BANK SIGNS $5 BILLION DEAL WITH DUBI ECONOMIC COUNCIL
 |
| Photo: Dubai From Space. Credit: NASA. |
Ex-Im Bank and Dubai Economic Council Sign $5 Billion Agreement
Washington, D.C. – Fred P. Hochberg, chairman and president of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), and Hani Rashid Al Hamli, secretary general of the Dubai Economic Council (DEC), inked a $5 billion memorandum of understanding (MOU) Thursday at Ex-Im Bank's 38th Annual Conference here.
"The MOU underscores our continued cooperation with our partners in Dubai and helps ensure that American exporters are not disadvantaged by foreign companies relying upon state-driven capital," said Chairman Hochberg. "The more orders American exporters fill in Dubai, the more American jobs we can support."
According to the agreement, "DEC and Ex-Im Bank anticipate that as much as $5 billion in export-credit support may be approved to finance DEC’s members’ and customers’ procurement of U.S. goods and services for a variety of Dubai infrastructure projects."
Potential areas of cooperation include, but are not limited to, air-traffic control and airport infrastructure; railway, urban-metro, and port-development projects; power generation; oil, gas, and petrochemical projects; and water-treatment projects.
In FY 2012, Ex-Im Bank approved approximately $3.32 billion in U.A.E. authorizations.
AIR FORCE COMMANDER SAYS ACQUISITON OF NEW TANKER IS NUMBER ONE PRIORITY
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Commander Stresses Importance of New Air Refueling Tanker
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 11, 2013 - The commander of the Air Force's Air Mobility Command today stressed the high priority his service places on the KC-46A tanker aircraft program.
Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva discussed progress with the program and stressed its priority in a meeting with Defense Writers Group reporters.
Air Force officials announced award of a $3.5 billion engineering and manufacturing development contract to Boeing Co. for the new tanker in February 2011.
"I'm on the record saying that our No. 1 acquisition priority in AMC -- and it remains the Air Force's No. 1 priority -- is making sure the KC-46 tanker delivers on time, on cost," he said. "And because we have a firm fixed-price contract for the development of that airplane, if we allow ourselves to get into the position where we don't have the funds to pay for the initial development of the airplane, that contract gets reopened."
This would be a bad outcome for the Air Force and for the nation –- in reverse order, Selva said.
"We'll pay more for the airplane than we know we have to based on the existing contract," he added.
The general said an initial round of site surveys for where the aircraft will be based has taken place, and the critical final design review is scheduled in July.
"We're in source selection for the simulator training devices, which means we're already started into the process of developing the curriculum and deciding how we're going to train the crews that operate the airplane," Selva said.
Selva said a recent decision will enable the Air Force to reap the new tanker's benefits faster than earlier plans projected.
"About six months ago, we finalized a decision to change the crew ratio on the airplane from two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half crews per airplane," he said. "[This] will allow us to use the airplane in greater volume earlier in its lifetime, because it's so much more efficient than the KC-135."
The KC-135 Stratotanker has provided the Air Force's core aerial refueling capability for more than 50 years.
Commander Stresses Importance of New Air Refueling Tanker
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 11, 2013 - The commander of the Air Force's Air Mobility Command today stressed the high priority his service places on the KC-46A tanker aircraft program.
Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva discussed progress with the program and stressed its priority in a meeting with Defense Writers Group reporters.
Air Force officials announced award of a $3.5 billion engineering and manufacturing development contract to Boeing Co. for the new tanker in February 2011.
"I'm on the record saying that our No. 1 acquisition priority in AMC -- and it remains the Air Force's No. 1 priority -- is making sure the KC-46 tanker delivers on time, on cost," he said. "And because we have a firm fixed-price contract for the development of that airplane, if we allow ourselves to get into the position where we don't have the funds to pay for the initial development of the airplane, that contract gets reopened."
This would be a bad outcome for the Air Force and for the nation –- in reverse order, Selva said.
"We'll pay more for the airplane than we know we have to based on the existing contract," he added.
The general said an initial round of site surveys for where the aircraft will be based has taken place, and the critical final design review is scheduled in July.
"We're in source selection for the simulator training devices, which means we're already started into the process of developing the curriculum and deciding how we're going to train the crews that operate the airplane," Selva said.
Selva said a recent decision will enable the Air Force to reap the new tanker's benefits faster than earlier plans projected.
"About six months ago, we finalized a decision to change the crew ratio on the airplane from two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half crews per airplane," he said. "[This] will allow us to use the airplane in greater volume earlier in its lifetime, because it's so much more efficient than the KC-135."
The KC-135 Stratotanker has provided the Air Force's core aerial refueling capability for more than 50 years.
RECENT U.S. NAVY PHOTOS
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Sailors practice firefighting techniques during a general quarters drill aboard the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69). Dwight D. Eisenhower is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility promoting maritime security operations, theater security cooperation efforts and support missions as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Andrew Schneider (Released) 130409-N-XQ474-376
130409-N-XQ474-410 NORTH ARABIAN SEA (April 9, 2013) Sailors practice firefighting techniques during a general quarters drill aboard the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69). Dwight D. Eisenhower is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility promoting maritime security operations, theater security cooperation efforts and support missions as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Andrew Schneider/Released)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)