FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks with Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Riyadh Air Base
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
November 4, 2013
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. It’s my pleasure to welcome Secretary John Kerry and his delegation in Saudi Arabia. The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques received Secretary Kerry this afternoon. In the meeting, they discussed bilateral relations and the developments in the region.
I’d like to take this opportunity to address the recent media reports about Saudi-U.S. relations, which went so far as to describe them as dramatically deteriorating. The fact of the matter is that the historic relationship between the two countries has always been based on independence, mutual respect, common interest, and constructive cooperation on regional and international issues to serve global peace and security.
A true relationship between friends is based on sincerity, candor, and frankness rather than mere courtesy. Within this perspective, it’s only natural that our policies and views might see agreement in some areas and disagreement in others. That’s perfectly normal in any serious relationship that spans a wide range of issues.
I’d also like to point out that the Kingdom’s declination of membership in the Security Council in no way, shape, or form amounts to withdrawing from the United Nations. The Kingdom appreciates the efforts of the UN’s various humanitarian, developmental, economic and health organizations, among others.
The problem, however, lies in the UN’s failure to deal with political issues, crises, especially those in the Middle East. The reason is the Security Council’s apparent inability to handle them. It should be remembered that the Security Council wasn’t established just to manage international crises, but to solve them once and for all, and thus to maintain international peace and security. This failure is obvious in the Palestinian issue, which went nowhere in more than 60 years. Also, reducing the Syrian crisis to merely destroying chemical weapons – which is but a small aspect of it – won’t help put an end to one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in our times. And then there’s the international community’s failure to be decisive in making the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, which kept the region living in fear of this ticking bomb that could go off at any time. This time bomb cannot be defused by only dealing with its ramifications or maneuvering around it.
These and many other issues and unrest in the region and its various countries are and always have been of utmost concern to the Kingdom and the focus of its efforts. They have always been a point of discussion with the U.S. and all other international players, at both bilateral and multilateral levels. International legitimacy, agreements, treaties, and international law should help put an end to these crises without having to resort to political maneuvers and bargaining, which is exactly the reason why many of these issues left the UN’s realm to seek solutions elsewhere.
The Kingdom fully realizes the importance of negotiations in resolving any given crisis. Yet, negotiations shouldn’t just go on indefinitely, taking into account that we are facing some grave crises for which partial solutions just won’t do. These grave issues desperately need decisive and resolute intervention that should put an end to the human tragedies they produced. Nowhere is this clearer than the international community’s failure to stop the war against the Syrian people, even though the moral choice between war and peace is clear-cut, with no room to second-guess a choice between stopping the bloodshed and looking the other way.
Finally, I’d like to underline the fact that our two friendly countries are extremely busy in dealing with these issues in all seriousness and transparency. There is no room for emotion or anger here, but rather, for policies of common sense and levelheadedness based on mutual trust. That is how we solve any problem.
Again, I welcome Secretary Kerry, and he now has the floor.
SECRETARY KERRY: Your Royal Highness, thank you very much. (Inaudible.) I’m very honored to be here and I’m very grateful to you and to His Majesty particularly for the very generous, very warm welcome, but also importantly, for the very candid and friendly discussion that we have had regarding issues of enormous importance to our countries, to the region, and even to the world. It’s a privilege for me to be here again in Saudi Arabia and particularly to be with my good friend Prince Saud al-Faisal. We have gotten to know each other better and better, and we’ve spent a lot of time talking in these last weeks, and I am always impressed by his judgment and his wisdom about the region and the good counsel that he shares with me and with President Obama.
The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is many things, and I am particularly grateful for the comments that His Royal Highness has just made about some media speculation versus the reality of the friendship that we share. Our relationship is strategic, it is enduring, and it covers a wide range of bilateral and regional issues. I want to remind everyone of President Obama’s statement at the United Nations. The President said that he will use all elements of U.S. power, including force, to secure the core interests of the United States in the Middle East. He said the United States will confront external aggression against our partners, as we did for Kuwait in the Gulf War. We will ensure the free flow of energy from this region to the world. We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. We will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. These are core U.S. interests, and we share these interests with Saudi Arabia, and we intend to work on these with Saudi Arabia.
We also pursue together – Saudi Arabia and the United States have an incredible deep relationship. It goes way beyond one or two countries and one or two efforts. We do joint work in military planning; in enhancing renewable energy supplies; in energy stability and security; in counterterrorism; in critical infrastructure protection; in trade and investment; in science and technology; in enhancing and dealing with and addressing the medical attention to health pandemics; in agriculture and food security; in education and student exchanges. This is a deep relationship and it has endured now for more than 70 years and it will endure well into the future.
Time and again, Saudi Arabia has proven to be an indispensable partner, but an indispensable partner that obviously has independent and important views of its own, and we respect that. We look forward to continuing this collaboration to advance our shared security and our shared prosperity.
Today, in addition to our bilateral agenda, His Royal Highness and I discussed a number of these regional concerns, and I have just heard the views of His Majesty King Abdullah, who was very clear to me about the importance of many of these issues – Syria, Egypt, Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Middle East peace process.
First, on Syria, the United States appreciates Saudi Arabia’s leadership supporting the Syrian Opposition Coalition and its strong commitment to achieving a political solution to the crisis, which, as we have always said, really has only one solution, and that is a negotiated political solution. This crisis will not end through military force, in our judgment. A negotiated political settlement as laid out in the Geneva communique, we believe is the best way to end the bloodshed, respond to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, to counter the violent extremist groups that we both agree are growing in their threat to all of us and which must be stopped, and also to recognize the full challenge of the humanitarian disaster that we all see. Together, we believe we must avert further instability. That’s why it is imperative that we hold the Geneva 2 conference as soon as possible so the representatives of the people of Syria can work towards a transition to a new Syria.
We also believe very strongly that we must continue to consult with Saudi Arabia as well as with the Syrian coalition leadership and our international partners, including Special Representative Brahimi and the Government of Russia in order to prepare for the Geneva conference. But I will make it clear: We will continue to support the opposition in the meantime and we will not stand idly by while Assad continues to use weapons enormously disproportionate to those in the possession of the opposition in order to kill innocent men, women, and children.
We appreciate the strong Arab League communique that was issued last night, encouraging the Syrian Opposition Coalition to go to Geneva to negotiate. And I want to underscore the importance that we, and all of our regional partners, feel about continuing our very close coordination on our common objectives in Syria. There is no difference about our mutually agreed upon objective in Syria. As I have said many times before, Assad has lost all legitimacy and Assad must go. There must be a new transitional governing body in Syria in order to permit the possibility of peace and an end to the human suffering, and we do not believe that there is a way or see how that war can end or that suffering will be ended as long as Assad is there.
I’ve come to Riyadh from Cairo. Yesterday, I met with Egypt’s interim leaders and importantly with other leaders, too, of the civil society. The United States is committed to supporting Egypt as it moves forward with its democratic transition. We encourage credible progress on Egypt’s political roadmap as set forth and efforts to address the Egyptian people’s political aspirations to establish the conditions for a stronger and more prosperous economy in Egypt. The Egyptian people desperately need economic transformation, and we have agreed, with our friends in Saudi Arabia and with others, to work as hard as we can to help effect this economic transformation so that a difference in the quality of life can quickly, hopefully come to the people of Egypt. We want to see Egypt pursue a transition to a stable, inclusive, and democratic civilian-led government that respects and protects the rights and freedoms of all Egyptians.
Regarding Yemen, we discussed the importance of concluding the national dialogue now, and to moving the constitutional drafting process where regional issues can be addressed. On Lebanon, we also discussed the importance of our strong support for responsible moderates who will still work for government formation without Hezbollah intimidation, and we think it’s important that Hezbollah not be allowed to define that future.
In addition, we talked about Iraq and the increased violence in Iraq, and the absolute imperative with Prime Minister Maliki, whom we just met with in Washington, that he reach out to all people in Iraq and help to end the sectarian violence and provide opportunity for all Iraqis.
Finally, on Iran, let me reiterate the position that President Obama has made clear many times: The United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. That policy has not changed. President Obama has stated again and again that our preference is to resolve this challenge peacefully, through diplomacy, and we are committed to giving diplomacy a real chance to succeed. And while this window is open, while we are testing whether Iran is willing to take the steps required to satisfy the international community’s concerns, the burden remains squarely on Iran to demonstrate through credible and verifiable action that its nuclear program is indeed, in fact, peaceful and only peaceful.
We state clearly: Words will not satisfy this. It’s only actions that will speak to our concerns. We believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. That won’t change. And I want to emphasize, President Obama will not take any option off the table in this process, but we do seek to put to test the reality of the possibility of a diplomatic solution.
So again, I believe on the issues of most importance to Saudi Arabia and the United States in this region and elsewhere that we are in close agreement. I believe that we have the ability to cooperate together; we have for many, many years. And when we may differ once or twice on a tactic here or there, the bonds of our friends are much stronger than any of those differences at that moment in time.
I want to thank His Majesty King Abdullah for the significant amount of time that he gave to this discussion today, for the strength of the and quality of the conversation that we had. I will relate to President Obama that he can count on the fact that he has a strong and supportive and candid friend in King Abdullah, and that we, as two countries, have the ability to accomplish a lot in the days ahead together and we look forward to continuing to work in a cooperative way.
And finally, my profound gratitude to His Royal Highness Prince Saud al-Faisal for his continued friendship and for his wonderful hospitality. Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.
QUESTION: I have a question for the Foreign Minister and for Secretary Kerry. For the Foreign Minister: Yesterday in Cairo, Secretary Kerry acknowledged, as he did today, that there are tactical differences, as he put it, between the Obama Administration and Saudi Arabia on how to end the war in Syria and bring about a transitional government without Bashar al-Assad, and how to negotiate with Iran, and how best to respond to events in Egypt.
Sir, how would you explain – since you think the media has been exaggerating these issues, how would you explain to us the nature of these differences on Syria, Iran, and Egypt? And what progress, if any, have you made in resolving these differences today?
And to Secretary Kerry: In Cairo yesterday, you made the point that the United States is deeply engaged in the Middle East peace process. There have been reports in the Israeli and Palestinian press that the United States has informed both sides that if progress is not made in the next two months, the United States will present its own plan in January on how to deal with the core issues. Is the Obama Administration prepared to present its own plan for advancing the talks if no progress is made? And when would you do that? And since you said that violence in Syria is unacceptable – and clearly, the framework agreement and the chemical weapons initiative hasn’t stopped that – what specific steps are you now proposing to end the violence and reduce it there beyond the peace conference?
Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: I would answer that these differences have two different kind of differences – differences in objective and differences in tactic. Some of these differences are in objective, very few. Most of the differences are in tactics. On Syria, for instance, we both agree that the Geneva 2 has the sole purpose of implementing Geneva 1. That’s a clear agreement on objective. We both agree that Bashar al-Assad has no role to play. That’s a key decision. We agree that the representative of the Syrian people are the coalition. That’s a clear objective.
Now, the tactic we had differences on, but differences that don’t go beyond what they are – tactical differences. The United States thinks it’s best to do that through the strengthening the coalition and working for their success in Syria. So the differences you mentioned are mostly differences in tactics, I would say. We don’t have any differences in objective.
In Iran, we both want a region free of atomic weapons. In the Middle East, unfortunately, every time a weapon has been introduced to it, it has been used, and that is a threat that it exists under. So we both agree that this region, important as it is to the world economy, if we can have it free of atomic weapons, it would be good. And we accept the assurance of the Secretary that they will not allow the development of weapons – of atomic weapons in Iran.
SECRETARY KERRY: Michael, with respect to the question of whatever rumor or whatever speculation this article has been written off, let me categorically dispel any notion that there is anything other than the track that is formally engaged in between Israel and the Palestinians. And the only plan we have at this point in time is to pursue that discussion and the discussion track that we’ve always talked about, which is the leaders track, which is the discussions between President Obama, myself, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and President Abbas. So it’s just incorrect. There is no other plan at this point in time.
With respect to the violence in Syria, we believe that the sooner we can get to Geneva and engage the international community in the possibilities of peace, the sooner we try to get nations coming together around the common goal of implementing Geneva 1. The Geneva 1 communique sets out a transition government requirement with full executive authority by mutual consent of the parties.
That means both parties actually have a veto, which makes it complicated. It means both parties are going to have to find people respected by all who will protect the rights of Syrians while they transition to an election to choose their future leadership. And that is the way you can most rapidly, most effectively end the violence. Absent a negotiated solution, we don’t see a lot of ways to end the violence, certainly, that are implementable or palatable to us because we don’t have the legal authority or the justification or the desire at this point to get in the middle of a civil war. And I think that’s been made very clear.
So our hope is that we can bring the parties together. It won’t be the first very complicated conflict where very emotional, highly separated entities are brought together by the international community and ultimately find a way forward. Obviously, the Balkans – Kosovo is an example. Serbia, the Dayton Accords. There are other examples through history, and that’s what international multilateral organizations are meant to do. I share Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal’s and Saudi Arabia’s frustration sometimes that the efforts to get an entity like the Security Council of the United Nations that is supposed to be non-ideological and separated from global politics and urge solution to these things has been stymied over the last few years by more – by a kind of polarization that has entered into that entity.
And so our hope is that we can find and summon the will at the international level to try to make peace here. And I think there is among a lot of parties a readiness for it and a willingness for it. And what will happen in Geneva, if we get there, is that will will be put to the test of good faith under the international spotlight for all to see. And it will quickly become evident who is serious about seeking a solution and who isn’t, and that in itself can create its own dynamic that can begin to change the order of things.
So that is our plan, that’s our strategy, that’s what we’re pursuing. We know it’s not easy. We have no illusions about the complications in the road ahead of us, which is why we will continue to support the moderate opposition in the meantime in its efforts to be able to defend the interests of the vast majority of the people of Syria.
MODERATOR: Mr. Talay.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Hassan Talay, Al Arabiya. My first question is to Mr. Kerry. During your visit, did you give any reassurances to Saudi Arabia concerning what’s going on between EU and Iran, whether openly or behind closed doors?
The other question is for both sides concerning Iran’s intervention in the region. Does it include the 5+1? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: I don’t understand the question about intervention. Does it include the 5+1? Oh, you’re talking – I understand what you mean. Does the 5+1 refer to or involve any of Iran’s other activities? Is that the question?
QUESTION: Yes.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, first question – did I give some assurances with respect to Iran? Yes, absolutely. Of course I did. We talked about Iran, and I shared with His Majesty King Abdullah, as well as with Prince Saud al-Faisal on a number of occasions, precisely what the American view is with respect to the P5+1 approach. And it is a shared view.
Nothing that we are doing with respect to this negotiation will alter or upset or get in the way the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and the relationship in this region, which is why President Obama asked me to reaffirm, while I am here, the statement that he made at the United Nations regarding his willingness, and the United States’, to defend our friends in this region from any external attack and to continue to work with Saudi Arabia and others in the way that we have in our military-to-military and intelligence cooperation. So nothing will interfere with that, number one.
Number two: We made it clear that we enter this negotiation in the P5+1 with very open eyes, with a strong understanding – as I said in my opening comments a few minutes ago – that words will not satisfy us. It is only specific actions on which countries will be able to measure an outcome, and the outcome must be one that allows all of us to know that every day that we wake up we know that what is happening in Iran is a peaceful program and not one where they can be secretly moving towards a weapon that could threaten the stability of this region.
Now, Iran has insisted that its program is peaceful, and we will work closely in the process of negotiations to make certain that that can be done, laid out, and proven in a transparent, accountable manner. We have said publicly – and I reassured the – His Majesty and Prince Faisal – that no deal is better than a bad deal. A bad deal could allow you to have hidden efforts go on. A good deal lets you know what’s happening. And so we will continue to cooperate. We made it clear we will consult and we will reach out and engage in ongoing deliberation and discussion. And we will very much brief our friends here on a regular basis so that there are no surprises and there is a clarity to the road ahead. And I think that, hopefully, is a welcome process.
With respect to the question of Iran’s interests in the region, et cetera, the first topic is nuclear. We are well aware of Iran’s activities in the region. Obviously, we Americans have never forgotten what happened with Khobar Towers. We know that there were plots involving the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the United States. We are well aware of other activities, and they concern us. It concerns us that Iran has personnel on the ground in Syria. It concerns us that Hezbollah is active in conjunction with Iran’s support. But the first step is the nuclear step, which we hope will open the door to the possibility to be able to deal with those. And that can happen over the next months, because none of this is going to happen, obviously, very quickly. But one of the things we’ve made clear to our friends in the region is we’re not going to do this in a vacuum. We’re going to do this in cooperation with our friends in ways that everybody has an understanding of exactly what is being discussed and so people have confidence that the outcome will not have negative impacts in ways that are unanticipated or are surprising. And we think that’s a very important part of our relationship.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) Actually, it’s an important question because it ties into the negotiations, the 5+1 negotiations. It points to intentions, and the 5+1 negotiations are based on good intentions, and they – good will is that – it means that you are doing things that are positive for the negotiations. I believe that it will bolster the proposal of the 5+1 towards Iran. If it includes Iran’s presence in Syria, that’s conclusive proof of the intentions of Iran’s neighboring countries.
I consider Syria an occupied land. Iran’s forces did not come in to protect Syria from an external occupation. They went there to help the regime hurt the Syrian people. How can a neighboring country that’s supposed to uphold good relationships, to go – to get involved into a civil war and help one side over the other? That’s – if there is no law to – it’s necessary to have – to have law against that in the international laws. Iran’s good intentions are being tested right now, and right now the most important step it can take to prove its good intentions is to get out of Syria and get its ally, its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, out of there too.
MS. PSAKI: Lesley Wroughton from Reuters.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. This is a question for His Highness. I was wondering: Saudi – you’ve spoken about your frustration with regard to the Security Council actions on Syria. You’ve heard Secretary Kerry say that the U.S. does not have a desire to get in the middle of the civil war, wants peaceful – unless it’s through peace talks. What is it that you are doing and that you are – or there have been reports that you’re increasing your support for the opposition militarily. Is that true? And how much further are you prepared to go to ensure that the civil war is ended? Also, what is the redline with regard to Iraq’s participation in the peace talks?
And for Secretary Kerry, on Pakistan: Pakistan believes, while recognizing that you won’t discuss the CIA drone strikes, that the killing recently of the Taliban leader Mehsud was an attempt to thwart the peace talks. And again, they’re threatening to close the supply routes into Afghanistan. I was wondering what you can say to Pakistan’s government to convince them that this was not an attempt to get in the middle of those peace talks with the Taliban. And just a follow-up: I was wondering what your take is on women driving in Saudi Arabia.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: Why didn’t you ask me that question? (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead.
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: The – what the Iranians can do and cannot do in Syria is a very intriguing question. Syria has now more than 140,000 casualties, more than two million refugees. It is the largest calamity that has befallen the world in the present millennium. If that isn’t reason enough to intervene, to stop the bloodshed, I don’t know what is. If one is choosing a moral choice between – to intervene or not to intervene, what is that choice going to be? Do I let this fighting continue, or do I help if I can? And the people are not dying only of weapons, all kind of weapons – weapons of mass destruction like the chemical weapons and weapons of high destructive capability like the ballistic missiles that have been used against cities of Syria.
Aside from the human loss and the tragedy of the human loss, Syria is part of the cultural history of the world. It has been a city it has (inaudible) the city, Damascus. For longer than any other city in the world, it has been considered a city, and resided by people of culture, by people of education. It is being destroyed by carpet bombing. If that isn’t a disregard of human values, I don’t know what is.
Now the United Nations is supposed to be an organization established after the destructiveness of the Second World War to prevent such destructiveness to happen again. Three years now, almost three years, they have been looking at this tragedy with apparent unconcern. How can this be? Is this the role of the Security Council? It is not that this is happening in Syria, which is an Arab country. If it is happening anywhere in the world, it would be a great tragedy. If we can’t face tragedy of this sort, how can we say that we want to be – to establish a civilization based on social equality and justice? We can’t assume these high moral values if we don’t do something about Syria. We can’t really say that we are taking the high road and establishing our humanity if we let this tragedy continue unabated.
SECRETARY KERRY: You didn’t ask me, but let me just – I want to associate myself with the strong comments of Prince Saud al-Faisal regarding the tragedy and the level of devastation in Syria, and the need for the international community to respond, which is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard now to get to the table, but also why the United States has brought this issue to the Security Council on several occasions, only to be stymied in deadlock. So we certainly agree that we need to respond to it.
Now with respect to Hakimullah Mehsud in Pakistan, without commenting on what may or may not have happened, obviously he has been reported to have been killed. And I will just say very clearly that this is a man who absolutely is known to have targeted and killed many Americans, many Afghans, and many Pakistanis. A huge number of Pakistanis have died at the hands of Hakimullah Mehsud and his terrorist organization. And the Tehrik-e Taliban has been devastating Pakistan in terms of its stability and opportunities to be able to respond to many needs of its people.
Obviously, the relationship between us and Pakistan is a very important one. We just had Nawaz Sharif in Washington for a period of time. We work very, very closely. We’re closely engaged with the government in Pakistan. We have a strong ongoing dialogue with them regarding all aspects of our bilateral relationship, and we have very important shared interests, and we intend to continue to work together with them through the Strategic Dialogue that we have established, in order to work through these kinds of challenges.
But I think it’s very, very clear that Pakistan has been deeply threatened by this insurgency in Pakistan. I think somewhere upwards of 50,000 troops and civilians have died in the last few years at the hands of the insurgency in Pakistan, and this man is one of those insurgents. So while we will welcome any discussions, we are sensitive to the concerns of the country, and we look forward to working very closely with the Government of Pakistan.
With respect to the issue of women driving here in Saudi Arabia, it’s no secret that in the United States of America we embrace equality for everybody, regardless of gender, race, or any other qualification. But it’s up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure choices and timing for whatever events. I know there’s a debate. We actually talked about this at lunch. There’s a healthy debate in Saudi Arabia about this issue, but I think that debate is best left to Saudi Arabia, the people engaged in it, all of whom know exactly where we in the United States of America stand on this issue.
QUESTION: I am Hamad from Herat newspaper. Your Highness, now that we know that there is enthusiasm for having – holding Geneva 2, and yet there’s a refusal by the fighting forces in Syria to hold a Geneva 2, how can you – how can the conference be held when the fighters on the ground refuse to hold it?
FOREIGN MINISTER SAUD: (Via interpreter) It’s not as clear-cut as you said. There is talk and there are people talking about this. One is saying we have to go, the other is saying we shouldn’t go. And yet there – and really, there is a dialogue going on among Syrians over the benefit of attending Geneva 2. The fact of the matter is that the decision at the end is going to be – for these people, the coalition, because they are the ones who represent Syria, and they are the ones who will decide whether or not to attend.
If they don’t attend, it’s not going to go anywhere. But I think they will accurately evaluate the situation because their presence in Geneva 2 will reinforce that they are – the fact that they are the representatives of the Syrian people, and will make the world understand that they are the ones who have given a chance to peace. And they will make the world understand that they did not refuse at any time to hold a hand of peace in negotiations. So in the end, they are the ones who will decide, and their desire is – whether to attend or not – is what will decide. I don’t think the Geneva 2 will happen without their presence.
We thank you for your attendance. The Secretary is going to go to Poland, and I’m going to go home and have dinner. (Laughter.)
Monday, November 4, 2013
2013 COMMODITY LOAN DISBURSEMENTS RESUME
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Farm Service Agency Announces the Resumption of 2013 Crop Commodity Loan Disbursements
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 2013 — U.S Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) Administrator Juan Garcia announced today that the processing and disbursement of 2013 crop commodity loans has resumed.The commodity loan programs provide interim financing to producers for agricultural commodities stored after harvest and then sold throughout the year. Crop year 2013 commodity loan-making was suspended Oct. 1, 2013, to make changes necessary to accommodate the automatic funding reductions known as sequester. Sequestration is mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
“We must comply with the laws established by Congress in accordance with sequestration policy,” said Garcia. “We regret the delay this has created in USDA issuing marketing assistance loans because we know how critical the loans are to farmers’ cash flows at this time of year.”
Producers requesting 2013 crop commodity loans on their harvested commodities will have a 5.1 percent reduction to the loan amount upon its disbursement, due to the sequestration. Commodity loans issued by marketing associations and loan servicing agents are also subject to the sequestration reduction.
During the period that loan-making was suspended, producers were still able to submit loan applications to their county FSA offices, marketing associations and loan servicing agents.
Farm Service Agency Announces the Resumption of 2013 Crop Commodity Loan Disbursements
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1, 2013 — U.S Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) Administrator Juan Garcia announced today that the processing and disbursement of 2013 crop commodity loans has resumed.The commodity loan programs provide interim financing to producers for agricultural commodities stored after harvest and then sold throughout the year. Crop year 2013 commodity loan-making was suspended Oct. 1, 2013, to make changes necessary to accommodate the automatic funding reductions known as sequester. Sequestration is mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
“We must comply with the laws established by Congress in accordance with sequestration policy,” said Garcia. “We regret the delay this has created in USDA issuing marketing assistance loans because we know how critical the loans are to farmers’ cash flows at this time of year.”
Producers requesting 2013 crop commodity loans on their harvested commodities will have a 5.1 percent reduction to the loan amount upon its disbursement, due to the sequestration. Commodity loans issued by marketing associations and loan servicing agents are also subject to the sequestration reduction.
During the period that loan-making was suspended, producers were still able to submit loan applications to their county FSA offices, marketing associations and loan servicing agents.
JUDICIAL REFORMS IN PANAMA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Amid Challenges, INL Helps Judicial Reform in Panama Take Hold
In 2011, with assistance from INL and the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative’s “Culture of Lawfulness” program, Panama began a phased transition to a U.S.-style accusatory justice system, to accelerate case processing and enhance transparency. Prior to the transition, Panama operated an inquisitorial criminal justice system based on a Napoleonic procedural code. To date, Panama has implemented the new system in four of its nine provinces.
Panamanian police, prosecutors, and judges are generally united in their support for the new accusatory system, with some calling the transition an unqualified success in improving speed and transparency in the criminal justice system. According to prosecutors, the changeover to public oral hearings has resulted in a substantially faster turnover of cases. Moreover, judges are saying that “the only way anyone can oppose the system is because they don’t know anything about it.” Meanwhile, police officers are calling the new system the “future of the country.”
In addition to being popular among justice sector professionals and civil society activists, the transition has sped up the cumbersome process to access justice. Pre-trial detention rates are dropping, and case processing times have been reduced by 85 percent, with 95 percent of new cases being resolved before trial through mediation, alternative sentencing, and plea bargaining. Judges are granting pre-trial release on bond for approximately two thirds of new defendants. Under the prior system, virtually all defendants were held in preventive detention for the duration of their case processing, often up to two years.
The reform process still has significant challenges to overcome. Nearly 70 percent of prisoners in Panamanian jails are in pre-trial detention. Panamanian justice sector institutions suffer from underfunding, resulting in personnel shortages, uncompetitive pay, and inadequate facilities. Some judicial institutions have less than half of the funding they need to run effectively. Due to funding and other concerns, the reform effort’s expansion to Panama’s remaining provinces – originally planned to be completed by spring 2014 – has been pushed back to 2016. Implementation of the new legal system in these high-population, high-crime provinces will be challenging and costly, but the reforms will yield concrete improvements to the Panamanian criminal justice system providing more rapid access to justice for Panamanians.
Amid Challenges, INL Helps Judicial Reform in Panama Take Hold
In 2011, with assistance from INL and the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative’s “Culture of Lawfulness” program, Panama began a phased transition to a U.S.-style accusatory justice system, to accelerate case processing and enhance transparency. Prior to the transition, Panama operated an inquisitorial criminal justice system based on a Napoleonic procedural code. To date, Panama has implemented the new system in four of its nine provinces.
Panamanian police, prosecutors, and judges are generally united in their support for the new accusatory system, with some calling the transition an unqualified success in improving speed and transparency in the criminal justice system. According to prosecutors, the changeover to public oral hearings has resulted in a substantially faster turnover of cases. Moreover, judges are saying that “the only way anyone can oppose the system is because they don’t know anything about it.” Meanwhile, police officers are calling the new system the “future of the country.”
In addition to being popular among justice sector professionals and civil society activists, the transition has sped up the cumbersome process to access justice. Pre-trial detention rates are dropping, and case processing times have been reduced by 85 percent, with 95 percent of new cases being resolved before trial through mediation, alternative sentencing, and plea bargaining. Judges are granting pre-trial release on bond for approximately two thirds of new defendants. Under the prior system, virtually all defendants were held in preventive detention for the duration of their case processing, often up to two years.
The reform process still has significant challenges to overcome. Nearly 70 percent of prisoners in Panamanian jails are in pre-trial detention. Panamanian justice sector institutions suffer from underfunding, resulting in personnel shortages, uncompetitive pay, and inadequate facilities. Some judicial institutions have less than half of the funding they need to run effectively. Due to funding and other concerns, the reform effort’s expansion to Panama’s remaining provinces – originally planned to be completed by spring 2014 – has been pushed back to 2016. Implementation of the new legal system in these high-population, high-crime provinces will be challenging and costly, but the reforms will yield concrete improvements to the Panamanian criminal justice system providing more rapid access to justice for Panamanians.
OSHA CITES ETHANOL COMPANY AFTER WORKER ENGULFED IN CORN BIN
FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
US Labor Department's OSHA cites United Ethanol for 15 violations after
worker fatally engulfed in corn bin at Milton, Wis., ethanol facility
Company placed in Severe Violator Enforcement Program
MILTON, Wis. – United Ethanol LLC has been cited for 15 health and safety violations by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration after a worker was fatally engulfed in corn inside a grain storage bin on April 19 at the Milton ethanol manufacturing facility.
"This was a terrible, preventable tragedy that underscores the importance of safety compliance," said Kim Stille, OSHA's area director in Madison. "Engulfment is one of the six major hazards present in grain bin handling facilities. Employers are responsible for identifying hazards and ensuring workers follow proper procedures to prevent injury or death."
The worker entered the grain bin in an attempt to unclog the floor chute and became engulfed when corn began to flow. The commercial grain bin held about 140,000 bushels of corn at the time of the incident.
One willful violation was cited under OSHA's grain handling regulations for failing to lockout conveyors used to empty grain bins, which exposed the now-deceased worker to the engulfment hazard. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for, or plain indifference to, employee safety and health.
Five serious violations of OSHA's grain handling standards include failing to guard floor chute openings; prevent exposure to moving grain hazards; prevent workers from entering bins when engulfment hazards exist; and failure to have an observer oversee entry procedures and to certify that all bin entry requirements had been implemented.
In 2010, following the deaths of at least 26 U.S. workers in grain bin entrapments-the highest number on record-OSHA focused its enforcement efforts on the grain and feed industry's six major danger areas. These include engulfment, falls, auger entanglement, struck-by, combustible dust and electrocution hazards. OSHA area offices in 25 states, including Wisconsin, have developed a local emphasis program dealing with grain.
US Labor Department's OSHA cites United Ethanol for 15 violations after
worker fatally engulfed in corn bin at Milton, Wis., ethanol facility
Company placed in Severe Violator Enforcement Program
MILTON, Wis. – United Ethanol LLC has been cited for 15 health and safety violations by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration after a worker was fatally engulfed in corn inside a grain storage bin on April 19 at the Milton ethanol manufacturing facility.
"This was a terrible, preventable tragedy that underscores the importance of safety compliance," said Kim Stille, OSHA's area director in Madison. "Engulfment is one of the six major hazards present in grain bin handling facilities. Employers are responsible for identifying hazards and ensuring workers follow proper procedures to prevent injury or death."
The worker entered the grain bin in an attempt to unclog the floor chute and became engulfed when corn began to flow. The commercial grain bin held about 140,000 bushels of corn at the time of the incident.
One willful violation was cited under OSHA's grain handling regulations for failing to lockout conveyors used to empty grain bins, which exposed the now-deceased worker to the engulfment hazard. A willful violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for, or plain indifference to, employee safety and health.
Five serious violations of OSHA's grain handling standards include failing to guard floor chute openings; prevent exposure to moving grain hazards; prevent workers from entering bins when engulfment hazards exist; and failure to have an observer oversee entry procedures and to certify that all bin entry requirements had been implemented.
In 2010, following the deaths of at least 26 U.S. workers in grain bin entrapments-the highest number on record-OSHA focused its enforcement efforts on the grain and feed industry's six major danger areas. These include engulfment, falls, auger entanglement, struck-by, combustible dust and electrocution hazards. OSHA area offices in 25 states, including Wisconsin, have developed a local emphasis program dealing with grain.
DISA CONSOLIDATES DATA CENTER OPERATIONS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) closed data center operations at Dayton, Ohio, and Chambersburg, Pa., and transferred the functions of these centers to other Defense Enterprise Computing Centers (DECCs) Oct. 1.
The reallocation of operations from Dayton and Chambersburg enables the agency to consolidate and converge existing information technology infrastructures to gain financial and operational efficiencies across the enterprise. It also supports the adoption of the Joint Information Environment (JIE), a major Department of Defense (DoD) initiative to provide a consolidated, collaborative, and secure JIE that enables end-to-end information sharing and interdependent enterprise services across the department. JIE will enable secure, seamless access to information regardless of computing device or location.
DISA and the military departments are aggressively consolidating their data centers and information technology infrastructure. This consolidation will establish a core computing infrastructure that provides assured and ubiquitous access to vital enterprise services and aggregates computing services and infrastructure requirements to gain economic efficiencies of scale.
About 30 civilian employees were affected by these closures. All were reassigned to other positions within DoD or elected to retire from federal service.
Through a diverse portfolio of information technology capabilities, DISA's DECCs provide a common platform that enhances operational effectiveness and facilitates increased collaboration for the DoD.
DISA remains focused on providing standardized, robustly interconnected data centers that are available to support the combatant commands, military services, and agency requirements as needed. DISA is also committed to providing cutting-edge, secure, and globally accessible technologies in support of mission partners, regardless of agency or military service affiliation.
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) closed data center operations at Dayton, Ohio, and Chambersburg, Pa., and transferred the functions of these centers to other Defense Enterprise Computing Centers (DECCs) Oct. 1.
The reallocation of operations from Dayton and Chambersburg enables the agency to consolidate and converge existing information technology infrastructures to gain financial and operational efficiencies across the enterprise. It also supports the adoption of the Joint Information Environment (JIE), a major Department of Defense (DoD) initiative to provide a consolidated, collaborative, and secure JIE that enables end-to-end information sharing and interdependent enterprise services across the department. JIE will enable secure, seamless access to information regardless of computing device or location.
DISA and the military departments are aggressively consolidating their data centers and information technology infrastructure. This consolidation will establish a core computing infrastructure that provides assured and ubiquitous access to vital enterprise services and aggregates computing services and infrastructure requirements to gain economic efficiencies of scale.
About 30 civilian employees were affected by these closures. All were reassigned to other positions within DoD or elected to retire from federal service.
Through a diverse portfolio of information technology capabilities, DISA's DECCs provide a common platform that enhances operational effectiveness and facilitates increased collaboration for the DoD.
DISA remains focused on providing standardized, robustly interconnected data centers that are available to support the combatant commands, military services, and agency requirements as needed. DISA is also committed to providing cutting-edge, secure, and globally accessible technologies in support of mission partners, regardless of agency or military service affiliation.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
RECENT DOD PHOTOS FROM AFGHANISTAN
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Above: U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Andrew J. Savoie provides aerial security over Helmand province, Afghanistan, Oct. 28, 2013. Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 462 supported Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, during an interdiction operation in Gurjat village. Savoie, a crew chief, is assigned to the squadron. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Gabriela Garcia
U.S.+Marine+Corps+photo+by+Sgt.+Bobby+J.+Yarbrough.jpg)
Right: U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Steve Schmid runs the 26.2-mile course for the Marine Corps Marathon Forward on Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan's Helmand province, Oct. 27, 2013. Schmid finished first overall with a time of 2:41:36. The event coincides with the Marine Corps Marathon in Washington, D.C. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Bobby J. Yarbrough.
Above: U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Andrew J. Savoie provides aerial security over Helmand province, Afghanistan, Oct. 28, 2013. Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 462 supported Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, during an interdiction operation in Gurjat village. Savoie, a crew chief, is assigned to the squadron. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Gabriela Garcia
U.S.+Marine+Corps+photo+by+Sgt.+Bobby+J.+Yarbrough.jpg)
Right: U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Steve Schmid runs the 26.2-mile course for the Marine Corps Marathon Forward on Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan's Helmand province, Oct. 27, 2013. Schmid finished first overall with a time of 2:41:36. The event coincides with the Marine Corps Marathon in Washington, D.C. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Bobby J. Yarbrough.
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY MAKES REMARKS WITH EGYPTIAN FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Cairo, Egypt
November 3, 2013
FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: (Via interpreter) Good evening, Mr. Secretary. In the beginning, I would like to extend my thanks and welcome to you here in Egypt, especially at a time when the Middle East is witnessing very sensitive developments and when there is a need for international harmony and communications. With regards to the U.S.-Egyptian relations, we believe that they are very important to Egypt and we would like to further enhance this relationship in the interest of both countries based on the priorities of each country.
This afternoon, Mr. Secretary, you’re due to meet with President Adly Mansour and General Sisi. And for our part here at the Foreign Ministry, we held very constructive, frank, and detailed discussion of various issues, and we also discussed how to move things forward in the interest of both countries. And I affirmed to the Secretary Egypt’s desire to have good and positive relationship with the United States based on our own priorities.
Now I will give you, Mr. Secretary, the chance to speak, and after that we will be taking questions from the press.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, Minister Fahmy, thank you very, very much. Thank you for your welcome back here in Egypt in Cairo. It’s a pleasure for me to be back here. You and I have talked frequently on the telephone and we know each other – and in New York – and we’ve worked hard to try to make sure that the positions of both of our countries and the interests of our countries are clear and that we try to work through what have obviously been some difficult challenges.
I have come here at this moment of challenge on behalf of President Obama really to speak about the future of the Middle East and the future of the relationship between the United States and Egypt, which is a very important relationship. I wanted to first express to the Egyptian people as clearly and as forcefully as I can, in no uncertain terms, the United States is a friend of the people of Egypt, of the country of Egypt, and we are a partner to your country.
The United States wants Egypt to succeed and we want to contribute to your success. Egypt’s political and economic success is important, of course, not only for Egyptians, but it’s important for the region, for the United States, and the international community. As I told Minister Fahmy in our meeting this morning, Egypt is a vital partner to America in this region. As a home – as the home to a quarter of the Arab world, Egypt plays a crucial role in the political, cultural, and the economic leadership of the Middle East and of North Africa.
So let’s be clear: What happens here is profoundly important to the region and it is in the interest of the United States. I’ve been here many times, and we have assisted in some economic issues, and each time I have come here I have said that we support the people of Egypt and we want the people of Egypt and Egypt as a nation, with all of its amazing history, to be able to continue to lead in the region and in the world.
It is no secret that this has been a difficult time and these have been a turbulent couple of years. But the Egyptian people have shown the world how strong they are. They have really demonstrated a significant resolve as they work to see their transition to meet their aspirations as they’ve tried to make that work. We know full well – and President Obama is completely committed to the idea – that the path forward is ultimately in the hands of the Egyptian people, and we are confident that they will overcome the challenges that are facing them.
As President Obama has said, we are committed to work with and we will continue our cooperation with the interim government. We have much to work on, and the Minister and I this morning discussed very candidly the issues and the challenges that we face together, but we think that there is agreement on many of these things even as we need to keep faith with the roadmap and the path ahead to continue the march to democracy. And we look forward to working together, to cooperating to meet those challenges in the road ahead.
One thing I can’t stress strongly enough, and that is the link between Egypt’s progress in its democratic transition and its overall economic success. History has demonstrated again and again that democracy is more stable, more viable, more prosperous than any alternative. And clearly, the future for young people and old people alike in Egypt will be defined by the combination of stability and economic growth that flows quickly in this country and in the region.
One thing is certain, that domestic and foreign investors alike seek the predictability that stability provides, and in a democracy, government institutions play an important role in implementing the reforms that encourage economic growth. With stability comes tourism and investment, and with both come jobs for the Egyptian people. The United States believes that the U.S. and Egypt partnership is going to be strongest when Egypt is represented by an inclusive, democratically elected, civilian government based on the rule of law, fundamental freedoms, and an open and competitive economy.
And in our meeting today, I welcomed Minister Fahmy’s restatement of the interim government’s commitment to the roadmap that will move Egypt forward on an inclusive path to democracy and to economic stability. We also talked about the importance of how it is in everyone’s interest that Egypt see a transition, live a transition, that results in a constitution that protects the rights of all Egyptians, including freedom of expression and assembly, the ability to participate in civil society, as well as in religious freedom.
Nothing will help bring the people of Egypt together more or provide more economic stability or provide more confidence in the future than an Egypt that is participating in a democratically elected government that is brought about through inclusive, free, and fair elections. And we will support the interim government and the Egyptian people in that end.
Minister Fahmy and I agreed on the need to ensure that Egyptians are afforded due process with fair and transparent trials, civilians tried in a civilian court. And we discussed the need for all violence to end. All acts of terror in Egypt must come to an end – all acts – for Egyptians to be able to exercise restraint and the need for accountability for those acts of violence.
I mentioned to the Minister that, obviously, part of the roadmap and part of the process of strengthening Egypt’s linkages to the rest of the world will be measured in the way in which the people of Egypt are sustained in their ability to have the right to assemble, the right to express themselves. But even as they do that, we also agreed no one should be allowed to practice violence with impunity.
And so we – I want to say very, very clearly the United States condemns all acts of violence. We have condemned the acts of violence against churches, against worshipers, and we also condemn the acts of violence on security forces in the Sinai, and we condemn the acts of violence in the streets of any community in Egypt, and particularly attacks on police and on those elements of authority in the state.
Finally, let me say that we also discussed very briefly – I want you to know we did not spend a lot of time on it – and that was the question of the recent decisions regarding U.S. assistance. Both Minister Fahmy and I agreed that the U.S.-Egypt relationship should not be defined by assistance. There are much bigger issues that matter to us, that concern us, that define the relationship.
But I want to make it clear that the United States will continue to provide support that directly benefits the Egyptian people in health, in scholarships, and private-sector development, and we are continuing assistance to help secure Egypt’s borders, to work with the military, to work on counterterrorism and proliferation, and to ensure the security in the Sinai. And I reaffirmed to the Minister that the United States will work very closely with Egypt in the months ahead and with our own Congress on our bilateral assistance.
President Mansour wrote to President Obama some time ago suggesting a strategic dialogue between our countries, and I am pleased on behalf of President Obama to say to you today that we accept that invitation. We believe it is important, and we will enter into that discussion of a strategic dialogue. Egypt has been a leader in this region for longer than the United States has existed, and we believe now it has an opportunity to be an example of how a democracy can evolve out of the wishes of the people and how it can thrive in the Middle East and beyond.
So Mr. Minister, I close by saying to you that we very much look forward to working with you and the interim government. We thank you for your courtesy in helping arrange this visit, and we look forward to helping this transition to an economically vibrant democracy that the Egyptian people want and deserve. And we look forward to being part of that journey with you.
FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: (Via interpreter) I would like to thank Mr. Secretary for his statement, which reflects the depth of the dialogue that took place between us and that also included the situation in Syria. It also addressed the bilateral relationship in a very positive manner, and this was a great opportunity for us to state and explain the Egyptian position and vision for the future of the democratic transition, and also the aspirations of the Egyptian people towards democracy. Egypt has witnessed two revolutions in less than two and a half months, but the people and the government are very committed to moving forward.
And now we’ll take two questions from the audience.
Madam Suzy (inaudible).
QUESTION: This is a question from Suzy el Geneidy, Al Ahram Al Arabi magazine, and my question – first question to Minister Kerry: Mr. Kerry, thank you for your words about Egypt and Egyptian people, but a lot of Egyptians see the U.S. position as negative, unfortunately. They say that the U.S. is trying to pressure and punish Egypt going to the path to democracy because of the continued holding the delivery of some aids, continue holding the delivery of some aids to Egypt. Don’t you think this will affect not only the public – the official relations, but also the public relations on the (inaudible)?
And the second point is concerning the peace process. Do you think there will be positive results from the negotiations, especially that Israel is continuing settlement policy?
And my question to our Minister, please: How do you view the Egyptian-American relations now, and what do you expect from this (inaudible)? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just answer it by saying to you that, of course, we understood that the decision with respect to some aid, which has been held back for a period of time, we knew that in some places, obviously, that wouldn’t be well received. But it’s not a punishment. It’s a reflection of a policy in the United States under our law. We have a law passed by the United States Congress regarding how certain events unfold with respect to the change of a government in a country, and we’re bound by that.
President Obama has actually worked very, very hard to be able to make certain that we’re not disrupting the relationship with Egypt. That’s why I just said that the President is continuing any assistance that goes directly to the Egyptian people to help the Egyptian people with education, with healthcare, with building and in certain things that have an impact directly on the people. And we have worked for years to invest in Egypt and to help in Egypt.
I believe the government – the interim government has made very important statements about the roadmap and now is engaged in a constitutional assembly and a very important debate about what shape the constitution of Egypt will take in the future. That debate is important in and of itself. It’s a reflection of the democracy and of the democratic process. And in December, hopefully, as that constitutional assembly reports, the interim government will continue as they have promised us they are going to do – not for us, but for the Egyptian people. They have made this promise that they intend to continue to move down that road. We believe that is the foundation of the continued cooperation between our countries, which, as I said, is a very important relationship for all of us.
So I know there have been some communications and some questions. Let me make it clear here today: President Obama and the American people support the people of Egypt. We believe this is a vital relationship. I am here today at the instructions of President Obama in order to specifically say to the people of Egypt: We support you in this tremendous transformation that you are undergoing. We know it’s difficult. We want to help. We’re prepared to do so. And the way it will unfold is the democracy is rekindled in its strength; and as the people of Egypt make their choices in the future, I am confident the United States of America will be able to stand with you and do even more.
So this aid issue is a very small issue between us, and the Government of Egypt, I think, has handled it very thoughtfully and sensitively. Our hope is that we can make the progress we need on democracy, the rights of people, the protections of people, the ability of the country to have its civil society strengthened and restored, and then we will march together hand in hand into the future with Egypt playing the vital role that it has traditionally played in this region.
With respect to the peace process, I remain hopeful, and we will make every effort in the United States to move the process forward in a fair-mannered way, in a balanced way that reflects the complexity of these issues. There is no doubt – and I have said this to the Prime Minister of Israel – that the settlements have disturbed people’s perceptions of whether or not people are serious and we’re moving in the right direction. And I know there have been tensions at the Haram al-Sharif, and I know that doesn’t sit well in the community.
The Prime Minister, to his credit – the Prime Minister of Israel is working to try to make sure that the rules and the understandings are applied in the appropriate way, and we all need to try to give this negotiation the space that it needs for the leaders to be able to make some very difficult decisions.
What I commit to you is the United States, President Obama are very committed to this effort. I’m going to Israel. I’ll be meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority. While I am there, I will meet also with King Abdullah of Jordan, and we will try to move the process forward.
And I am hopeful that in the next months we can make progress, and I ask people everywhere to keep their minds open, to speak the language of peace, not hatred, not war, not continued division, but the possibilities of what peace can bring to everybody. And I will be visiting with His Majesty King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia tomorrow. He has made one of the most significant contributions to this effort through the Arab Peace Initiative. The Arab League will be meeting here, I think, tonight. They have made very, very significant statements in the last months. So I believe there is an ability to move forward, but we have to remain calm and dedicated and committed to a quiet process by which difficult decisions can be discussed.
FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: (Via interpreter) The response to the question – and I will be very brief – I have mentioned a few days ago that the U.S.-Egyptian relations are witnessing some tension, but today in my close discussion with the Secretary, and also what Secretary Kerry has mentioned here today, I believe that the U.S. support for Egypt and the roadmap are all very positive indications, and we all seek to resume this relationship in a positive manner. And also what you mentioned about a launch of the strategic dialogue with – between the two countries is very, very helpful.
We have a question here from an American journalist.
QUESTION: Kim Ghattas from the BBC. Mr. Kerry, a question for you first.
SECRETARY KERRY: Can you pull up –
QUESTION: In July, in Pakistan –
SECRETARY KERRY: Pull the mike up.
QUESTION: In July, in Pakistan, you said that Egypt’s generals were restoring democracy. Much has happened since then. I understand there is a roadmap at the moment, but are you still of that view? Is it really this clear-cut?
And the second question: You’re embarking on a regional tour starting here in Egypt, which will take you to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region at a time when your allies – Egypt and Saudi Arabia – are pushing back against your influence. Does the U.S. still have anything to say about what is going on in the region?
And for Minister Fahmy, you have spoken about a roadmap towards democracy indeed, but in the meantime, there seems to be a lot of cheering in Egypt for the army’s actions. Is that something that you, as a civilian leader, believe is the right way forward for Egypt? Are you being inclusive enough of all of Egypt’s different communities?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, with respect to – do you want a translation on that or not?
INTERPRETER: I’ll be very brief.
SECRETARY KERRY: I mean, I don’t know if you’re (inaudible). Okay, we can go ahead.
With respect to Pakistan, the comment that I made in Pakistan was really me describing what the state of mind and the intent of the generals were at that time and what they had said they were intending to do. And thus far, there are indications that that is what they are intending to do. The roadmap is being carried out to the best of our perception. There are questions we have here and there about one thing or another, but Foreign Minister Fahmy has reemphasized to me again and again that they have every intent and they are determined to fulfill that particular decision and that track.
And as I said, the constitutional assembly is up and working, a robust debate is taking place. We will have to wait to see what product comes out. Clearly, they are listening. There was a demonstration law that was floated some few days ago, and when there was a public push-back against it, the government listened and the government responded. And now heading into December, there will be the setting of dates for elections, both parliamentary elections as well as for a presidential election. So all of that is, in fact, moving down the roadmap in the direction that everybody has been hoping for and concerned about. So the answer is: The proof will be in the pudding, as the old saying goes, as we go forward in the next days.
But Minister Fahmy mentioned to me something about good faith in relationships when we were talking, and I think it’s important for all of us, until proven otherwise, to accept that this is the track Egypt is on and to work to help it to be able to achieve that. Now, I happen to have a believe shared, needless to say, with President Obama and others that all of Egypt’s future will be defined not only by the way the roadmap is implemented and the way the constitution is formed, what is in it, but by the economic choices and the economic opportunities that are created over these next weeks and months. Because if the people of Egypt don’t begin to see the economy take hold and improve, it will be hard for any government to provide for the kinds of improvements that people are looking for in the quality of their lives. And I think the government fully understands that, and they’re working very, very hard to implement new programs and policies to move in that direction.
So we will continue to work with the interim government, as I’ve said. As long as they are continuing to move down (inaudible), I have no doubt about our ability to improve this relationship and to continue to work to restore the full measure of the relationship that has existed previously.
Now with respect to the question you asked – does the United States have anything to say, are there some differences – look, we can have a difference on a policy, on the tactics of the policy. For instance, there are some countries in the region that wanted the United States to do one thing with respect to Syria, and we have done something else. Those differences on an individual tactic on a policy do not create a difference on the fundamental goal of the policy. We all share the same goal that we have discussed; that is, the salvation of the state of Syria and a transition government put in place under Geneva 1 that can give the people of Syria the opportunity to choose their future. And we also believe that Assad, by virtue of his loss of moral authority, cannot be part of that because of the difficulties of his ever representing all of the people of Syria. It’s just a – and nobody can answer how you could actually end the war as long as Assad is there.
So there may be some differences on a tactic here and there, but let me be crystal clear. The United States of America is deeply engaged in the Middle East peace process, and we are essential to the ability of that peace process to be able to be resolved for a number of different reasons. The United States is deeply involved in supporting the defensive capacity and – of many countries in the region, and the United States – the President made it clear in his speech at UNGA – will be there for the defense of our friends and our allies. We will be there for Saudi Arabia, for the Emirates, for the Qataris, for the Jordanians, for the Egyptians and others. We will not allow those countries to be attacked from outside. We will stand with them. So we have a major defensive relationship in the region.
In addition, the United States is the principal interlocutor with respect to the efforts to try to hold the group together in terms of the sanctions and the approach to Iran. And the United States is deeply engaged with the P5+1, in the guarantees that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. That is a promise by the President of the United States.
So almost everywhere where you look in the region, the United States has a critical role to play, is playing a critical role, is helping nations to be able to defend themselves. The United States is deeply involved in helping the Lebanese army, their armed forces be able to have sufficient support, and we are deeply engaged in the humanitarian effort. The United States is the largest single donor to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, and the United States was a leader, obviously, in working with Russia to try to remove chemical weapons from Syria.
So the question, frankly, I think is without any foundation whatsoever in basis of fact with respect to what is actually happening in our relationships in the region and the efforts that we make with all of the countries in the region.
FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: In response to the question I was asked – and I will answer in English to save time – the Egyptian military responded twice in two and half years to the call of the people to change their president because they wanted to participate in determining their own future. So it’s quite natural that the people will be cheering for the military for the support they’ve had. And I would add to that that as the security situation goes up and down, needless to say, they look towards the security forces, be that the police or the military, to respond to that.
But let’s not misunderstand this or misinterpret this. The Egyptian people are aspiring for a democratic system with a civilian government, which will be – which will function according to the norms of a global democracy irrespective of the fact that we may have some cultural variations here and there in terms of our traditions. The norms of democracy will be respected, and it will be a civilian government. That’s why we had two revolutions in two and a half years.
Thank you very much. I’m sorry we have to run.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: I’m sorry. We have to run. The President is waiting, and I have to – thank you.
Remarks With Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Cairo, Egypt
November 3, 2013
FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: (Via interpreter) Good evening, Mr. Secretary. In the beginning, I would like to extend my thanks and welcome to you here in Egypt, especially at a time when the Middle East is witnessing very sensitive developments and when there is a need for international harmony and communications. With regards to the U.S.-Egyptian relations, we believe that they are very important to Egypt and we would like to further enhance this relationship in the interest of both countries based on the priorities of each country.
This afternoon, Mr. Secretary, you’re due to meet with President Adly Mansour and General Sisi. And for our part here at the Foreign Ministry, we held very constructive, frank, and detailed discussion of various issues, and we also discussed how to move things forward in the interest of both countries. And I affirmed to the Secretary Egypt’s desire to have good and positive relationship with the United States based on our own priorities.
Now I will give you, Mr. Secretary, the chance to speak, and after that we will be taking questions from the press.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, Minister Fahmy, thank you very, very much. Thank you for your welcome back here in Egypt in Cairo. It’s a pleasure for me to be back here. You and I have talked frequently on the telephone and we know each other – and in New York – and we’ve worked hard to try to make sure that the positions of both of our countries and the interests of our countries are clear and that we try to work through what have obviously been some difficult challenges.
I have come here at this moment of challenge on behalf of President Obama really to speak about the future of the Middle East and the future of the relationship between the United States and Egypt, which is a very important relationship. I wanted to first express to the Egyptian people as clearly and as forcefully as I can, in no uncertain terms, the United States is a friend of the people of Egypt, of the country of Egypt, and we are a partner to your country.
The United States wants Egypt to succeed and we want to contribute to your success. Egypt’s political and economic success is important, of course, not only for Egyptians, but it’s important for the region, for the United States, and the international community. As I told Minister Fahmy in our meeting this morning, Egypt is a vital partner to America in this region. As a home – as the home to a quarter of the Arab world, Egypt plays a crucial role in the political, cultural, and the economic leadership of the Middle East and of North Africa.
So let’s be clear: What happens here is profoundly important to the region and it is in the interest of the United States. I’ve been here many times, and we have assisted in some economic issues, and each time I have come here I have said that we support the people of Egypt and we want the people of Egypt and Egypt as a nation, with all of its amazing history, to be able to continue to lead in the region and in the world.
It is no secret that this has been a difficult time and these have been a turbulent couple of years. But the Egyptian people have shown the world how strong they are. They have really demonstrated a significant resolve as they work to see their transition to meet their aspirations as they’ve tried to make that work. We know full well – and President Obama is completely committed to the idea – that the path forward is ultimately in the hands of the Egyptian people, and we are confident that they will overcome the challenges that are facing them.
As President Obama has said, we are committed to work with and we will continue our cooperation with the interim government. We have much to work on, and the Minister and I this morning discussed very candidly the issues and the challenges that we face together, but we think that there is agreement on many of these things even as we need to keep faith with the roadmap and the path ahead to continue the march to democracy. And we look forward to working together, to cooperating to meet those challenges in the road ahead.
One thing I can’t stress strongly enough, and that is the link between Egypt’s progress in its democratic transition and its overall economic success. History has demonstrated again and again that democracy is more stable, more viable, more prosperous than any alternative. And clearly, the future for young people and old people alike in Egypt will be defined by the combination of stability and economic growth that flows quickly in this country and in the region.
One thing is certain, that domestic and foreign investors alike seek the predictability that stability provides, and in a democracy, government institutions play an important role in implementing the reforms that encourage economic growth. With stability comes tourism and investment, and with both come jobs for the Egyptian people. The United States believes that the U.S. and Egypt partnership is going to be strongest when Egypt is represented by an inclusive, democratically elected, civilian government based on the rule of law, fundamental freedoms, and an open and competitive economy.
And in our meeting today, I welcomed Minister Fahmy’s restatement of the interim government’s commitment to the roadmap that will move Egypt forward on an inclusive path to democracy and to economic stability. We also talked about the importance of how it is in everyone’s interest that Egypt see a transition, live a transition, that results in a constitution that protects the rights of all Egyptians, including freedom of expression and assembly, the ability to participate in civil society, as well as in religious freedom.
Nothing will help bring the people of Egypt together more or provide more economic stability or provide more confidence in the future than an Egypt that is participating in a democratically elected government that is brought about through inclusive, free, and fair elections. And we will support the interim government and the Egyptian people in that end.
Minister Fahmy and I agreed on the need to ensure that Egyptians are afforded due process with fair and transparent trials, civilians tried in a civilian court. And we discussed the need for all violence to end. All acts of terror in Egypt must come to an end – all acts – for Egyptians to be able to exercise restraint and the need for accountability for those acts of violence.
I mentioned to the Minister that, obviously, part of the roadmap and part of the process of strengthening Egypt’s linkages to the rest of the world will be measured in the way in which the people of Egypt are sustained in their ability to have the right to assemble, the right to express themselves. But even as they do that, we also agreed no one should be allowed to practice violence with impunity.
And so we – I want to say very, very clearly the United States condemns all acts of violence. We have condemned the acts of violence against churches, against worshipers, and we also condemn the acts of violence on security forces in the Sinai, and we condemn the acts of violence in the streets of any community in Egypt, and particularly attacks on police and on those elements of authority in the state.
Finally, let me say that we also discussed very briefly – I want you to know we did not spend a lot of time on it – and that was the question of the recent decisions regarding U.S. assistance. Both Minister Fahmy and I agreed that the U.S.-Egypt relationship should not be defined by assistance. There are much bigger issues that matter to us, that concern us, that define the relationship.
But I want to make it clear that the United States will continue to provide support that directly benefits the Egyptian people in health, in scholarships, and private-sector development, and we are continuing assistance to help secure Egypt’s borders, to work with the military, to work on counterterrorism and proliferation, and to ensure the security in the Sinai. And I reaffirmed to the Minister that the United States will work very closely with Egypt in the months ahead and with our own Congress on our bilateral assistance.
President Mansour wrote to President Obama some time ago suggesting a strategic dialogue between our countries, and I am pleased on behalf of President Obama to say to you today that we accept that invitation. We believe it is important, and we will enter into that discussion of a strategic dialogue. Egypt has been a leader in this region for longer than the United States has existed, and we believe now it has an opportunity to be an example of how a democracy can evolve out of the wishes of the people and how it can thrive in the Middle East and beyond.
So Mr. Minister, I close by saying to you that we very much look forward to working with you and the interim government. We thank you for your courtesy in helping arrange this visit, and we look forward to helping this transition to an economically vibrant democracy that the Egyptian people want and deserve. And we look forward to being part of that journey with you.
FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: (Via interpreter) I would like to thank Mr. Secretary for his statement, which reflects the depth of the dialogue that took place between us and that also included the situation in Syria. It also addressed the bilateral relationship in a very positive manner, and this was a great opportunity for us to state and explain the Egyptian position and vision for the future of the democratic transition, and also the aspirations of the Egyptian people towards democracy. Egypt has witnessed two revolutions in less than two and a half months, but the people and the government are very committed to moving forward.
And now we’ll take two questions from the audience.
Madam Suzy (inaudible).
QUESTION: This is a question from Suzy el Geneidy, Al Ahram Al Arabi magazine, and my question – first question to Minister Kerry: Mr. Kerry, thank you for your words about Egypt and Egyptian people, but a lot of Egyptians see the U.S. position as negative, unfortunately. They say that the U.S. is trying to pressure and punish Egypt going to the path to democracy because of the continued holding the delivery of some aids, continue holding the delivery of some aids to Egypt. Don’t you think this will affect not only the public – the official relations, but also the public relations on the (inaudible)?
And the second point is concerning the peace process. Do you think there will be positive results from the negotiations, especially that Israel is continuing settlement policy?
And my question to our Minister, please: How do you view the Egyptian-American relations now, and what do you expect from this (inaudible)? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just answer it by saying to you that, of course, we understood that the decision with respect to some aid, which has been held back for a period of time, we knew that in some places, obviously, that wouldn’t be well received. But it’s not a punishment. It’s a reflection of a policy in the United States under our law. We have a law passed by the United States Congress regarding how certain events unfold with respect to the change of a government in a country, and we’re bound by that.
President Obama has actually worked very, very hard to be able to make certain that we’re not disrupting the relationship with Egypt. That’s why I just said that the President is continuing any assistance that goes directly to the Egyptian people to help the Egyptian people with education, with healthcare, with building and in certain things that have an impact directly on the people. And we have worked for years to invest in Egypt and to help in Egypt.
I believe the government – the interim government has made very important statements about the roadmap and now is engaged in a constitutional assembly and a very important debate about what shape the constitution of Egypt will take in the future. That debate is important in and of itself. It’s a reflection of the democracy and of the democratic process. And in December, hopefully, as that constitutional assembly reports, the interim government will continue as they have promised us they are going to do – not for us, but for the Egyptian people. They have made this promise that they intend to continue to move down that road. We believe that is the foundation of the continued cooperation between our countries, which, as I said, is a very important relationship for all of us.
So I know there have been some communications and some questions. Let me make it clear here today: President Obama and the American people support the people of Egypt. We believe this is a vital relationship. I am here today at the instructions of President Obama in order to specifically say to the people of Egypt: We support you in this tremendous transformation that you are undergoing. We know it’s difficult. We want to help. We’re prepared to do so. And the way it will unfold is the democracy is rekindled in its strength; and as the people of Egypt make their choices in the future, I am confident the United States of America will be able to stand with you and do even more.
So this aid issue is a very small issue between us, and the Government of Egypt, I think, has handled it very thoughtfully and sensitively. Our hope is that we can make the progress we need on democracy, the rights of people, the protections of people, the ability of the country to have its civil society strengthened and restored, and then we will march together hand in hand into the future with Egypt playing the vital role that it has traditionally played in this region.
With respect to the peace process, I remain hopeful, and we will make every effort in the United States to move the process forward in a fair-mannered way, in a balanced way that reflects the complexity of these issues. There is no doubt – and I have said this to the Prime Minister of Israel – that the settlements have disturbed people’s perceptions of whether or not people are serious and we’re moving in the right direction. And I know there have been tensions at the Haram al-Sharif, and I know that doesn’t sit well in the community.
The Prime Minister, to his credit – the Prime Minister of Israel is working to try to make sure that the rules and the understandings are applied in the appropriate way, and we all need to try to give this negotiation the space that it needs for the leaders to be able to make some very difficult decisions.
What I commit to you is the United States, President Obama are very committed to this effort. I’m going to Israel. I’ll be meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority. While I am there, I will meet also with King Abdullah of Jordan, and we will try to move the process forward.
And I am hopeful that in the next months we can make progress, and I ask people everywhere to keep their minds open, to speak the language of peace, not hatred, not war, not continued division, but the possibilities of what peace can bring to everybody. And I will be visiting with His Majesty King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia tomorrow. He has made one of the most significant contributions to this effort through the Arab Peace Initiative. The Arab League will be meeting here, I think, tonight. They have made very, very significant statements in the last months. So I believe there is an ability to move forward, but we have to remain calm and dedicated and committed to a quiet process by which difficult decisions can be discussed.
FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: (Via interpreter) The response to the question – and I will be very brief – I have mentioned a few days ago that the U.S.-Egyptian relations are witnessing some tension, but today in my close discussion with the Secretary, and also what Secretary Kerry has mentioned here today, I believe that the U.S. support for Egypt and the roadmap are all very positive indications, and we all seek to resume this relationship in a positive manner. And also what you mentioned about a launch of the strategic dialogue with – between the two countries is very, very helpful.
We have a question here from an American journalist.
QUESTION: Kim Ghattas from the BBC. Mr. Kerry, a question for you first.
SECRETARY KERRY: Can you pull up –
QUESTION: In July, in Pakistan –
SECRETARY KERRY: Pull the mike up.
QUESTION: In July, in Pakistan, you said that Egypt’s generals were restoring democracy. Much has happened since then. I understand there is a roadmap at the moment, but are you still of that view? Is it really this clear-cut?
And the second question: You’re embarking on a regional tour starting here in Egypt, which will take you to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region at a time when your allies – Egypt and Saudi Arabia – are pushing back against your influence. Does the U.S. still have anything to say about what is going on in the region?
And for Minister Fahmy, you have spoken about a roadmap towards democracy indeed, but in the meantime, there seems to be a lot of cheering in Egypt for the army’s actions. Is that something that you, as a civilian leader, believe is the right way forward for Egypt? Are you being inclusive enough of all of Egypt’s different communities?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, with respect to – do you want a translation on that or not?
INTERPRETER: I’ll be very brief.
SECRETARY KERRY: I mean, I don’t know if you’re (inaudible). Okay, we can go ahead.
With respect to Pakistan, the comment that I made in Pakistan was really me describing what the state of mind and the intent of the generals were at that time and what they had said they were intending to do. And thus far, there are indications that that is what they are intending to do. The roadmap is being carried out to the best of our perception. There are questions we have here and there about one thing or another, but Foreign Minister Fahmy has reemphasized to me again and again that they have every intent and they are determined to fulfill that particular decision and that track.
And as I said, the constitutional assembly is up and working, a robust debate is taking place. We will have to wait to see what product comes out. Clearly, they are listening. There was a demonstration law that was floated some few days ago, and when there was a public push-back against it, the government listened and the government responded. And now heading into December, there will be the setting of dates for elections, both parliamentary elections as well as for a presidential election. So all of that is, in fact, moving down the roadmap in the direction that everybody has been hoping for and concerned about. So the answer is: The proof will be in the pudding, as the old saying goes, as we go forward in the next days.
But Minister Fahmy mentioned to me something about good faith in relationships when we were talking, and I think it’s important for all of us, until proven otherwise, to accept that this is the track Egypt is on and to work to help it to be able to achieve that. Now, I happen to have a believe shared, needless to say, with President Obama and others that all of Egypt’s future will be defined not only by the way the roadmap is implemented and the way the constitution is formed, what is in it, but by the economic choices and the economic opportunities that are created over these next weeks and months. Because if the people of Egypt don’t begin to see the economy take hold and improve, it will be hard for any government to provide for the kinds of improvements that people are looking for in the quality of their lives. And I think the government fully understands that, and they’re working very, very hard to implement new programs and policies to move in that direction.
So we will continue to work with the interim government, as I’ve said. As long as they are continuing to move down (inaudible), I have no doubt about our ability to improve this relationship and to continue to work to restore the full measure of the relationship that has existed previously.
Now with respect to the question you asked – does the United States have anything to say, are there some differences – look, we can have a difference on a policy, on the tactics of the policy. For instance, there are some countries in the region that wanted the United States to do one thing with respect to Syria, and we have done something else. Those differences on an individual tactic on a policy do not create a difference on the fundamental goal of the policy. We all share the same goal that we have discussed; that is, the salvation of the state of Syria and a transition government put in place under Geneva 1 that can give the people of Syria the opportunity to choose their future. And we also believe that Assad, by virtue of his loss of moral authority, cannot be part of that because of the difficulties of his ever representing all of the people of Syria. It’s just a – and nobody can answer how you could actually end the war as long as Assad is there.
So there may be some differences on a tactic here and there, but let me be crystal clear. The United States of America is deeply engaged in the Middle East peace process, and we are essential to the ability of that peace process to be able to be resolved for a number of different reasons. The United States is deeply involved in supporting the defensive capacity and – of many countries in the region, and the United States – the President made it clear in his speech at UNGA – will be there for the defense of our friends and our allies. We will be there for Saudi Arabia, for the Emirates, for the Qataris, for the Jordanians, for the Egyptians and others. We will not allow those countries to be attacked from outside. We will stand with them. So we have a major defensive relationship in the region.
In addition, the United States is the principal interlocutor with respect to the efforts to try to hold the group together in terms of the sanctions and the approach to Iran. And the United States is deeply engaged with the P5+1, in the guarantees that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. That is a promise by the President of the United States.
So almost everywhere where you look in the region, the United States has a critical role to play, is playing a critical role, is helping nations to be able to defend themselves. The United States is deeply involved in helping the Lebanese army, their armed forces be able to have sufficient support, and we are deeply engaged in the humanitarian effort. The United States is the largest single donor to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, and the United States was a leader, obviously, in working with Russia to try to remove chemical weapons from Syria.
So the question, frankly, I think is without any foundation whatsoever in basis of fact with respect to what is actually happening in our relationships in the region and the efforts that we make with all of the countries in the region.
FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: In response to the question I was asked – and I will answer in English to save time – the Egyptian military responded twice in two and half years to the call of the people to change their president because they wanted to participate in determining their own future. So it’s quite natural that the people will be cheering for the military for the support they’ve had. And I would add to that that as the security situation goes up and down, needless to say, they look towards the security forces, be that the police or the military, to respond to that.
But let’s not misunderstand this or misinterpret this. The Egyptian people are aspiring for a democratic system with a civilian government, which will be – which will function according to the norms of a global democracy irrespective of the fact that we may have some cultural variations here and there in terms of our traditions. The norms of democracy will be respected, and it will be a civilian government. That’s why we had two revolutions in two and a half years.
Thank you very much. I’m sorry we have to run.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
FOREIGN MINISTER FAHMY: I’m sorry. We have to run. The President is waiting, and I have to – thank you.
LABOR DEPARTMENT CITES ROLE AFTER HURRICANE SANDY
 |
| Hurricane Sandy Aftermath. Credit: U.S. Air Force. |
On Oct. 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy wrought serious destruction along the East Coast. Over the past year, the Department of Labor has played a key role in the Obama administration's Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. We talked with the department's Northeast Regional Representative, Robert Asaro-Angelo, for an update on the department's work.
Can you tell us about efforts to keep workers safe during the recovery and rebuilding efforts? Hurricane cleanup and recovery work can be dangerous. Immediately after the storm, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration deployed personnel throughout the region to ensure workers engaged in storm response and recovery work were protected properly against health and safety hazards. OSHA educated employers and workers through extensive outreach, and conducted thousands of field interventions that protected or removed workers from unsafe conditions. Additionally, it awarded more than a million dollars in training grants for small employers and vulnerable workers.
A storm's damage isn't only physical, but also economic. Can you tell us how the Labor Department has been able to help in that area? Providing financial help to the region and protecting the incomes of workers has been vital for recovery. To that end, the department has issued millions of dollars in recovery grants to communities and unemployment assistance for individuals, engaged in outreach on wage and hour laws, and recovered more than $700,000 in back wages for workers. In addition, we've worked hard to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity for a job in the rebuilding effort.
What work remains to be done? The long-term rebuilding is only just beginning. We are working closely with our federal partners to help communities rebuild in a way that makes them stronger, more economically competitive and better able to withstand future storms. Also, we will continue to ensure an equal opportunity for jobs, that workers receive the pay and benefits they've earned and return home safely at the end of the day.
CO-FOUNDER OF DIGITAL CURRENCY SERVICE PLEADS GUILTY TO MONEY LAUNDERING
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Co-founder of Liberty Reserve Pleads Guilty to Money Laundering in Manhattan Federal Court
Vladimir Kats, 41, of Brooklyn, N.Y., pleaded guilty today in federal court before U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote to money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. The charges stem from his role in running Liberty Reserve, a company that operated one of the world’s most widely used digital currency services and allegedly laundered more than $6 billion in suspected proceeds of crimes.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York made the announcement.
“Vladimir Kats, by his own admission, helped to create and operate an anonymous digital currency system that provided cybercriminals and others with the means to launder criminal proceeds on an unprecedented scale,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman. “His conviction reinforces what we said when Liberty Reserve was first brought down: banking systems that allow criminals to conduct illegal transactions anonymously will not be allowed to stand, and professional money launderers will be brought to justice.”
“As a co-founder and operator of Liberty Reserve, Vladimir Kats served as a global banker for criminals, giving them an anonymous, online forum to hide the proceeds of their illegal and dangerous activities,” said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. “With his guilty plea today, we take a significant step toward punishing those responsible for creating and running this international den of cybercrime.”
According to court records, Liberty Reserve was incorporated in Costa Rica in 2006 and billed itself as the Internet’s “largest payment processor and money transfer system.” Liberty Reserve allegedly was created and structured, and operated, to help users conduct illegal transactions anonymously and launder the proceeds of their crimes, and it emerged as one of the principal money transfer agents used by cybercriminals around the world to distribute, store, and launder the proceeds of their illegal activity. Liberty Reserve allegedly was used extensively for illegal purposes, functioning as the bank of choice for the criminal underworld because it provided an infrastructure that enabled cybercriminals to conduct anonymous and untraceable financial transactions.
According to the indictment, before being shut down by the government in May 2013, Liberty Reserve had more than one million users worldwide, including more than 200,000 users in the United States, who conducted approximately 55 million transactions through its system and allegedly laundered more than $6 billion in suspected proceeds of crimes, including credit card fraud, identity theft, investment fraud, computer hacking, child pornography, and narcotics trafficking. Kats co-founded Liberty Reserve and helped operate the company until in or about 2009.
Kats was arrested in Brooklyn in May 2013 and pleaded guilty today to one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of receiving child pornography, which carries a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison; and one count of marriage fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. A sentencing date has not yet been scheduled.
This case is being investigated by the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, with assistance from the Secret Service’s New York Electronic Crimes Task Force. The Judicial Investigation Organization in Costa Rica; the National High Tech Crime Unit in the Netherlands, the Financial and Economic Crime Unit of the Spanish National Police; the Cyber Crime Unit at the Swedish National Bureau of Investigation; and the Swiss Federal Prosecutor’s Office also provided assistance.
This case is being prosecuted jointly by the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Complex Frauds Unit and Asset Forfeiture Unit in the Southern District of New York, with assistance from the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs and Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section.
Trial Attorney Kevin Mosely of AFMLS and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Serrin Turner and Andrew Goldstein of the Southern District of New York are in charge of the prosecution, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Magdo is in charge of the forfeiture aspects of the case.
The charges in the indictment against Kats’s co-defendants remain pending and are merely accusations. Those defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Co-founder of Liberty Reserve Pleads Guilty to Money Laundering in Manhattan Federal Court
Vladimir Kats, 41, of Brooklyn, N.Y., pleaded guilty today in federal court before U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote to money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. The charges stem from his role in running Liberty Reserve, a company that operated one of the world’s most widely used digital currency services and allegedly laundered more than $6 billion in suspected proceeds of crimes.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York made the announcement.
“Vladimir Kats, by his own admission, helped to create and operate an anonymous digital currency system that provided cybercriminals and others with the means to launder criminal proceeds on an unprecedented scale,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman. “His conviction reinforces what we said when Liberty Reserve was first brought down: banking systems that allow criminals to conduct illegal transactions anonymously will not be allowed to stand, and professional money launderers will be brought to justice.”
“As a co-founder and operator of Liberty Reserve, Vladimir Kats served as a global banker for criminals, giving them an anonymous, online forum to hide the proceeds of their illegal and dangerous activities,” said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. “With his guilty plea today, we take a significant step toward punishing those responsible for creating and running this international den of cybercrime.”
According to court records, Liberty Reserve was incorporated in Costa Rica in 2006 and billed itself as the Internet’s “largest payment processor and money transfer system.” Liberty Reserve allegedly was created and structured, and operated, to help users conduct illegal transactions anonymously and launder the proceeds of their crimes, and it emerged as one of the principal money transfer agents used by cybercriminals around the world to distribute, store, and launder the proceeds of their illegal activity. Liberty Reserve allegedly was used extensively for illegal purposes, functioning as the bank of choice for the criminal underworld because it provided an infrastructure that enabled cybercriminals to conduct anonymous and untraceable financial transactions.
According to the indictment, before being shut down by the government in May 2013, Liberty Reserve had more than one million users worldwide, including more than 200,000 users in the United States, who conducted approximately 55 million transactions through its system and allegedly laundered more than $6 billion in suspected proceeds of crimes, including credit card fraud, identity theft, investment fraud, computer hacking, child pornography, and narcotics trafficking. Kats co-founded Liberty Reserve and helped operate the company until in or about 2009.
Kats was arrested in Brooklyn in May 2013 and pleaded guilty today to one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of receiving child pornography, which carries a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison; and one count of marriage fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. A sentencing date has not yet been scheduled.
This case is being investigated by the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, with assistance from the Secret Service’s New York Electronic Crimes Task Force. The Judicial Investigation Organization in Costa Rica; the National High Tech Crime Unit in the Netherlands, the Financial and Economic Crime Unit of the Spanish National Police; the Cyber Crime Unit at the Swedish National Bureau of Investigation; and the Swiss Federal Prosecutor’s Office also provided assistance.
This case is being prosecuted jointly by the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Complex Frauds Unit and Asset Forfeiture Unit in the Southern District of New York, with assistance from the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs and Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section.
Trial Attorney Kevin Mosely of AFMLS and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Serrin Turner and Andrew Goldstein of the Southern District of New York are in charge of the prosecution, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Magdo is in charge of the forfeiture aspects of the case.
The charges in the indictment against Kats’s co-defendants remain pending and are merely accusations. Those defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS TO OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP SUMMIT
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks to Open Government Partnership Annual Summit
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
October 31, 2013
MODERATOR: Wonderful. Thank you very much. I’m delighted to say that we are now joined by the Honorable John F. Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, in a live link to Washington.
It’s good to have you, Secretary of State. How are you?
SECRETARY KERRY: I’m fine, thank you. I’m glad to be with you.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much. We were just beginning with William Hague talking about the commitment to OGP on behalf of the British Government. Could you tell us in terms of your own reflections on why OGP is so important an initiative?
SECRETARY KERRY: Sure, and I’d be happy to. But let me just begin by saying hello to William and what a pleasure it is to be with him and with all of you. And I want him to know that he persuaded me. I was sitting here listening to him and it sounded great.
Do you want me just to share some thoughts with you?
MODERATOR: Yeah, why not?
SECRETARY KERRY: Way to go, William. Thank you. (Laughter.)
MODERATOR: Yeah. Go ahead.
SECRETARY KERRY: All right. Well, first of all, let me just start by saying that there are about 20 reasons why I wish I could be there with you in London right now, and those are all of my meetings here today. But obviously, I’m not. I’m glad we’re represented there at the meeting. But I just want to start by thanking Foreign Secretary Hague for the British Government’s tremendous leadership on this front. I mean, really, between the G8 and the U.S. process on the post-2015 development agenda, as well as in the Open Government Partnership, our friends in Great Britain have really been extraordinary leaders on this.
And so from the President on down including (inaudible) Ambassador Power at the UN and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and myself, we are deeply committed to the mission of the OGP. And for us, I think, much as William was describing to everybody a moment ago, the reasons for our support ought to be – and embrace of everything that this stands for, ought to be self-evident. It’s very hard to overstate the impact that civil society has had on our structure of government and who we are and what we do.
The fact is that in the United States, in Great Britain, in countries like ours, people have the freedom to assemble, the freedom to speak out, the freedom to organize, to call for government change. And in our countries, both of our countries, the media holds extraordinary power and extraordinary freedom and ability to be able to shape thinking, and people. Individual people, through their own individual organizing efforts or through the nongovernmental organizations that they choose to become part of, all have this freedom to be able to shape the media – to have an impact through the media.
So here in our country, I’ll tell you that’s something I grew up with starting in my early years in college, and even before President Kennedy was elected in 1960 – his first political event I took part in. I’ve watched these forces shape our lives. We had the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s when we were all students. We had the Women’s Rights Movement that struck out for women’s equality and has really transformed our nation. We had the labor movement. Almost every single movement towards progress – the peace movement – all of these have had a profound impact and they’ve all been grassroots homegrown because we have this ability to throw our ideas on the table.
And I think – I spent a couple of years when I came back from being involved in the war in Vietnam, and I spent a couple of years organizing and working to end the war. And one of the lessons that came out to me through that was, therefore, how important it is for government to be accountable. That was a period of time when government regrettably lied to the people it represented. And those lies saw us involved in a war that was wrongful and inappropriate.
So I also took part in the first ever Earth Day here in the United States, and I was an organizer in Massachusetts at the grassroots level. And we had 20 million people come out of their homes free to make their feelings heard, and they had a profound impact on our country because after the 1970 movement that brought those 20 million people out, they didn’t stop there. They translated that into political activity that targeted the worst votes in Congress and organized to defeat them. And they did defeat seven of the 12 so-called “dirty dozen” worst votes on the environment. And that ignited a legislative response that produced the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and actually created the Environmental Protection Agency that we have in the United States today that is busy trying to deal with climate change and other pressing issues.
So the bottom line is very simple, that those of us who came out of that period – Vice President Biden, myself, and others – believe very strongly that this kind of effort, the civil society effort, is what creates a farm system for future leadership. And you can see it with Lech Walesa, you can see with Vaclav Havel, you can see it even with Barack Obama, President of the United States, who was himself a community organizer at the beginning of his public engagement.
So look, we think that it’s a remarkable achievement that in the two years since the OGP was founded, the initial list of eight participating countries has now grown to include more than 60 countries. And from Brazil to Turkey to Liberia, more and more countries are passing laws that are guaranteeing citizens the right to information. And at the State Department, we are using our ongoing strategic dialogue with civil society to bring new ideas to the table. And we have a new Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives, and that’s a direct result of an idea that came out of that dialogue.
And so our hope is that through this work of the OGP, we can all maximize this notion that we live in this globalized, interconnected world. And President Obama issued a challenge at the UN recently to commit to spending the next 12 months working together to make concrete progress in these areas.
So I don’t want to go on and on. I know you want to have a little more of a dialogue here.
MODERATOR: We do. Yep.
SECRETARY KERRY: But I just wanted to emphasize how committed we are to this. We all – as President Obama said, as other countries back down, we have a responsibility to step up and we need to do it together. And I think that’s what’s important.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much indeed, Secretary of State, for your time. I know you’re very busy, but we enjoyed having your inputs here and raised some very important points.
I’d like to go to Aruna Roy next, because as John Kerry was mentioning there, the importance of civil society groups working at a grassroots level is incredibly important, and that’s what you do in rural India. There is the perception somehow that in places like rural India, the whole idea of open government is not important. Is that the case?
MS. ROY: Well, we’ve had a lot of humor to begin with this evening, so I’d like to say that when we went to civil service institution, some colleagues of mine and I, and we were presented as civil society members, many of them were deeply upset and they said, “Do you think we are uncivil?” (Laughter.) So I think civil society itself has to be unpacked. And the people who live in rural India are intelligent people. Like Urmo said, ordinary people are intelligent. They are bright. We don’t listen to them. And we have Gandhi. Gandhi traveled all of India, listened to people, and that’s how the national movement for independence really originated, and civil disobedience (inaudible). Listening to human beings whom we dismiss as ordinary is part of the Indian culture.
So Indian – rural India, which really suffers the worst of the worst of Indian democracy, is where democracy is most alive. That’s where they want to set it right. They don’t want – they do protest, they do struggle. And those photographs we saw on the screen are, of course, typical photographs, but it doesn’t end there. They protest to create something, to make something, to make – they don’t want violence, they don’t want to beat up somebody. But they do want their bread. They do want their health services. So it was through that – this kind of protest that the right to information campaign was actually born. And we do think that their voices were really very strong. And they created the kind of discomfort that’s necessary that we talked about this morning. There was a lot of discomfort, there were many people who thought it was terrible, but the dialogue began, which has ended here in a sense.
So the dialogue began between people, the civil servants, and the politicians. And it’s in that dialogue, through the course of the dialogue, and the dialectic, that there was protest and advocacy, that the concept of a free, transparent, working environment grew.
MODERATOR: Just very quickly to you first, William. And then also if you’d like, Secretary of State, how important – because one of the themes of OGP is about supporting or creating the space for civil society groups to function, because it is under threat. You look all around the world, whether it’s freedom of expression, freedom of the media – how important is that? You go first, William, and then if you’d like to comment afterwards, Secretary of State.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, it is – it’s hugely important, and I think that means it matters a great deal what example we set in our own countries. After all, we cannot change everything that happens in other countries in the world. But we can set a good example ourselves. We’ve learned to do that here in the UK with our own open government action plan, and my colleague Francis Maude, who’s done the most fantastic job in pursuing this whole agenda nationally and internationally. But the first time we did an open government action plan, I think civil society told us we hadn’t included civil society in it – quite forcefully, actually, I think. And so the second time we did it, they are very much part of the plan and part of the input into it.
So it’s very, very important in a country like ours, an extraordinarily free and open country. And I think if we set that example and we do so in other European countries and in America, well, then it leaves fewer excuses for other people in the world where it is – it can be even more important.
MODERATOR: Secretary of State?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I agree with that and I think the simple reality is that in a democracy, and particularly with the vibrancy of the social media today, you really have to be open. I mean, it seems to me we’re seeing a new accountability in a lot of places. What happened in Tahrir Square, the pace at which information moves and events unfold, is different from ever before.
I heard a story the other day. I was in Asia at the Asian summit, and one of the stories going around there was about how in one country – I’ll leave it unnamed – but in one country an official was caught on social media with a sort of white spot where his tan line was on his watch. And so there was no watch, but somebody realized he had been wearing one. So they went back and found some pictures and they found him with a different watch almost every day of the week, much more expensive than he could afford on his government salary. (Laughter.) And boom, they found, as a result, corruption and he lost his job among other things.
But so there’s a new policeman on the block, very different from the past, and that is this broad accountability to the people. But before that even existed, one of the fundamentals of our notions of how you govern is you’ve got to listen to people. And the White House has recently developed a new means of trying to tap into this, which is an online petition platform called “We the People.” And just in the last two years, more than 10 million users have generated more than 260,000 petitions on topics ranging from gun violence to how you unlock a cell phone. (Laughter.) It’s pretty amazing.
And one of the virtues of this – and I think William will agree with me – is those of us in government in positions like I have, we come and we go. I’m here, if I don’t screw up, for another few years. (Laughter.) But there are a lot of groups out there that have a lifetime expertise built up advocating for the environment, or for children, or for one thing or another. And we need that input because they will have much better information in many cases in a more grassroots people-based view than somebody who may come in and out of government. And the whole purpose really is to listen to people and build on that experience. So it’s invaluable. Absolutely invaluable.
MODERATOR: We like your honestly, Secretary of State. I wish I could tease out the name of the country that – of the story you were saying earlier. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I think if you Googled it, you’ll find it. (Laughter.)
MODERATOR: I’d like to come to Mo Ibrahim, if I may. And Mo, you and the Mo Ibrahim Foundation have been very involved at looking at good governance and exceptional leadership in Africa, well-known for your work and the work of the foundation on that. I want to talk about two things: business, and the importance of business and business leadership in this whole issue of OGP, and particularly in terms of transparency. And what does the Open Government Partnership need to do in order to continue raising the bar in terms of commitments and on towards sustaining its progress?
MR. IBRAHIM: Right, just two tough questions.
MODERATOR: Two quick questions, I know.
MR. IBRAHIM: Right. And I’m really amazed by the absence of the business people from our group here. Businesses have a stake in open government. It’s important for the business, and business is also coming under extreme pressure from so many sides now. So we need to clean up their acts, and we have seen so many really sad incidents. Every day I open the newspaper, a bank has been fined a billion dollar, somebody been – it’s really tough what is going there.
So it’s time for business to show us really that they are good citizens. And that is something important for business to be here. There is no business people really joining our (inaudible) part of civil society, and open government is important for the business. And we really need to invite the business people. It’s not like they should be invited; they should knock at the door, actually. That’s as far as business.
As far as commitments, it’s too early yet. We only had two years now. We managed to produce the first reports on the – for the (inaudible) countries. I’m concerned about a number of things. First, for the credibility of this body, we need to produce really credible reports – country reports. And to produce country reports, we’ll have to hire research teams in each country to producing the reporting on each country commitment. That’s if we are serious about this. That was --
MODERATOR: That’s the independent reporting mechanism –
MR. IBRAHIM: That’s (inaudible) whatever of the – yes, of partnership. That needs money. It needs funding. And I’m very concerned about the state of the funding. The last time I looked at our account was a few days ago. I found something very strange. Civil society – actually four foundations – funded over $4 million. Sixty governments funded $1.6 million. And I can – to Secretary of State there, I’m not going to include you there because Britain done very well. You’ve done half of this 1.6. You are okay. (Laughter.)
But United States, I mean, contributed only $200,000. This compared with, I mean, $800,000 -- $600,000 from UK. I mean, UK hasn’t got three times the GDP of the United States. I mean, we know there’s some –
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: (Inaudible) when they started. (Laughter.)
MR. IBRAHIM: We know there have been issues – the Congress and the budget – but I think you’ve got some budget now. And you saved the ticket because you didn’t come here today to the meeting. (Laughter.) So you saved the ticket. So you really need – (laughter and applause).
SECRETARY KERRY: That might get you an additional 5,000. (Laughter.)
MR. IBRAHIM: Because, seriously--
SECRETARY KERRY: I don’t think that’s the – I don’t think that’s going to (inaudible) my ticket does. (Laughter.) But let me announce something, if you will, because we’re very engaged in many, many parts of the world. I’m very proud. We may not give to every single entity that asks, but we’re giving literally hundreds of millions of dollars in these kinds of efforts, and I’m proud to say that no country in the world is putting as much money into developmental issues as we are every single year. So I don’t feel defensive about it.
But I am happy to tell you today that the United States – we’re announcing right here at this moment that we’re putting $2.5 million into a pilot anti-corruption project in West Africa. And it’s designed to facilitate collaboration between governments. So I think we are prepared to put the money up, but I’ll have to check into why the OGP isn’t getting more and I’ll find out. (Applause.)
MR. IBRAHIM: And actually – and really in fairness, I think about United States because I have the Secretary here and I love him, I’m a fan of him. (Laughter.) But really the truth has – we have to be frank. Friends have to be frank with each other. But many governments really do not cough up. And this is not a free ride, and it’s unfair for civil society to bear the brunt of this and governments to have a free ride. So commitment means commitment, and we need you to do that in order for us to produce really credible reports and to really go forward. So that’s a big challenge for us, actually.
MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you very much. I wish we could go on and on, actually, but I know that William’s got a very tight deadline. Secretary of State, thank you very much indeed for joining us and giving us your time.
SECRETARY KERRY: It’s good to be with you.
MODERATOR: Much appreciated. (Applause.)
MS. ROY: I just want to ask him a question.
MODERATOR: Wait one second, we’ve got one more question from Aruna, Secretary of State.
MS. ROY: I just have a question which I want to ask both of you. The world has become much better place, there’s more transparency in governments, there’s more accountability. And at the same time, there are more restrictive laws being passed by all governments today than ever before, and there is an attempt at surveillance by my government and your governments. Why is this happening? I want to know. Because if we are going to become an open society, we should always trust each other, and we don’t have to spy or suspect or believe that the other one’s bad. (Applause.)
I trust you. I trust you. I believe that there is a social contract between the two of you and all of us that we will work in the interests of each other. It’s such a delicate balance that when it gets disrupted that it takes a lot of time to set it right. I’m not being critical negatively, but I really want the world to be a better place. And we’ve been building this trust – we call talk of trust deficits. We’ve been building it with so much care – me with my government, all my friends here with their governments. We want it to prosper.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: John, that’s one for you, there. (Laughter and applause.)
MODERATOR: That wasn’t me. That was William. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: I don’t know, William. Does that mean that you guys have never or do never – no, I’m not going there. (Laughter.)
Can I just say to you – look, I’ll just answer you very quickly and I’ll answer you very directly. There is no question that the President and I and others in government have actually learned of some things that had been happening, in many ways, on an automatic pilot because the technology is there, the ability has been there, over the course of a long period of time, really going back to World War II and to the very difficult years of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, and then, of course, 9/11. The attack on the United States and the rise of radical extremism in the world that is hell-bent and determined to try to kill people and blow people up and attack governments – not just us, but the Tokyo subway, London train station, Madrid. Many, many, many parts of the world have been subject to these terrorist attacks. And in response to them, the United States and others came together – others, I emphasize to you – and realized that we’re dealing in a new world where people are willing to blow themselves up. I mean, walk into a building, or trucks, they’re willing to be filled with fertilizer and plant it outside a building and blow it up, no matter who’s in it.
And there are countless examples of this. Look at Nairobi the other day, where al-Shabaab goes into the Westgate mall and kills dozens, almost a hundred – more than a hundred, more than a hundred people innocently killed doing their shopping.
So what if you were able to intercept that and stop it before it happens? We have actually prevented airplanes from going down, buildings from being blown up, and people from being assassinated because we’ve been able to learn ahead of time of the plans. I assure you innocent people are not being abused in this process, but there’s an effort to try to gather information. And yes, in some cases, it has reached too far inappropriately. And the President, our President, is determined to try to clarify and make clear for people and is now doing a thorough review in order that nobody will have the sense of abuse.
But I want to assure you that (inaudible). Just the other day it was – there was news in the papers of 70 million people being listened to. No, they weren’t. It didn’t happen. There’s an enormous amount of exaggeration in this reporting from some reporters out there. What we’re trying to do is in a random way find ways of trying to learn if, in fact, there is a threat that we need to respond to. And in some cases, I acknowledge to you, as has the President, that some of these actions have reached too far, and we are going to make sure that does not happen in the future.
MS. ROY: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Secretary, thank you very much, indeed, for your time. Appreciate it very much. (Applause.) Thank you also to Foreign Secretary William Hague and to Aruna Roy and to Mo Ibrahim. Thank you very much.
Remarks to Open Government Partnership Annual Summit
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
October 31, 2013
MODERATOR: Wonderful. Thank you very much. I’m delighted to say that we are now joined by the Honorable John F. Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, in a live link to Washington.
It’s good to have you, Secretary of State. How are you?
SECRETARY KERRY: I’m fine, thank you. I’m glad to be with you.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much. We were just beginning with William Hague talking about the commitment to OGP on behalf of the British Government. Could you tell us in terms of your own reflections on why OGP is so important an initiative?
SECRETARY KERRY: Sure, and I’d be happy to. But let me just begin by saying hello to William and what a pleasure it is to be with him and with all of you. And I want him to know that he persuaded me. I was sitting here listening to him and it sounded great.
Do you want me just to share some thoughts with you?
MODERATOR: Yeah, why not?
SECRETARY KERRY: Way to go, William. Thank you. (Laughter.)
MODERATOR: Yeah. Go ahead.
SECRETARY KERRY: All right. Well, first of all, let me just start by saying that there are about 20 reasons why I wish I could be there with you in London right now, and those are all of my meetings here today. But obviously, I’m not. I’m glad we’re represented there at the meeting. But I just want to start by thanking Foreign Secretary Hague for the British Government’s tremendous leadership on this front. I mean, really, between the G8 and the U.S. process on the post-2015 development agenda, as well as in the Open Government Partnership, our friends in Great Britain have really been extraordinary leaders on this.
And so from the President on down including (inaudible) Ambassador Power at the UN and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and myself, we are deeply committed to the mission of the OGP. And for us, I think, much as William was describing to everybody a moment ago, the reasons for our support ought to be – and embrace of everything that this stands for, ought to be self-evident. It’s very hard to overstate the impact that civil society has had on our structure of government and who we are and what we do.
The fact is that in the United States, in Great Britain, in countries like ours, people have the freedom to assemble, the freedom to speak out, the freedom to organize, to call for government change. And in our countries, both of our countries, the media holds extraordinary power and extraordinary freedom and ability to be able to shape thinking, and people. Individual people, through their own individual organizing efforts or through the nongovernmental organizations that they choose to become part of, all have this freedom to be able to shape the media – to have an impact through the media.
So here in our country, I’ll tell you that’s something I grew up with starting in my early years in college, and even before President Kennedy was elected in 1960 – his first political event I took part in. I’ve watched these forces shape our lives. We had the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s when we were all students. We had the Women’s Rights Movement that struck out for women’s equality and has really transformed our nation. We had the labor movement. Almost every single movement towards progress – the peace movement – all of these have had a profound impact and they’ve all been grassroots homegrown because we have this ability to throw our ideas on the table.
And I think – I spent a couple of years when I came back from being involved in the war in Vietnam, and I spent a couple of years organizing and working to end the war. And one of the lessons that came out to me through that was, therefore, how important it is for government to be accountable. That was a period of time when government regrettably lied to the people it represented. And those lies saw us involved in a war that was wrongful and inappropriate.
So I also took part in the first ever Earth Day here in the United States, and I was an organizer in Massachusetts at the grassroots level. And we had 20 million people come out of their homes free to make their feelings heard, and they had a profound impact on our country because after the 1970 movement that brought those 20 million people out, they didn’t stop there. They translated that into political activity that targeted the worst votes in Congress and organized to defeat them. And they did defeat seven of the 12 so-called “dirty dozen” worst votes on the environment. And that ignited a legislative response that produced the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and actually created the Environmental Protection Agency that we have in the United States today that is busy trying to deal with climate change and other pressing issues.
So the bottom line is very simple, that those of us who came out of that period – Vice President Biden, myself, and others – believe very strongly that this kind of effort, the civil society effort, is what creates a farm system for future leadership. And you can see it with Lech Walesa, you can see with Vaclav Havel, you can see it even with Barack Obama, President of the United States, who was himself a community organizer at the beginning of his public engagement.
So look, we think that it’s a remarkable achievement that in the two years since the OGP was founded, the initial list of eight participating countries has now grown to include more than 60 countries. And from Brazil to Turkey to Liberia, more and more countries are passing laws that are guaranteeing citizens the right to information. And at the State Department, we are using our ongoing strategic dialogue with civil society to bring new ideas to the table. And we have a new Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives, and that’s a direct result of an idea that came out of that dialogue.
And so our hope is that through this work of the OGP, we can all maximize this notion that we live in this globalized, interconnected world. And President Obama issued a challenge at the UN recently to commit to spending the next 12 months working together to make concrete progress in these areas.
So I don’t want to go on and on. I know you want to have a little more of a dialogue here.
MODERATOR: We do. Yep.
SECRETARY KERRY: But I just wanted to emphasize how committed we are to this. We all – as President Obama said, as other countries back down, we have a responsibility to step up and we need to do it together. And I think that’s what’s important.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much indeed, Secretary of State, for your time. I know you’re very busy, but we enjoyed having your inputs here and raised some very important points.
I’d like to go to Aruna Roy next, because as John Kerry was mentioning there, the importance of civil society groups working at a grassroots level is incredibly important, and that’s what you do in rural India. There is the perception somehow that in places like rural India, the whole idea of open government is not important. Is that the case?
MS. ROY: Well, we’ve had a lot of humor to begin with this evening, so I’d like to say that when we went to civil service institution, some colleagues of mine and I, and we were presented as civil society members, many of them were deeply upset and they said, “Do you think we are uncivil?” (Laughter.) So I think civil society itself has to be unpacked. And the people who live in rural India are intelligent people. Like Urmo said, ordinary people are intelligent. They are bright. We don’t listen to them. And we have Gandhi. Gandhi traveled all of India, listened to people, and that’s how the national movement for independence really originated, and civil disobedience (inaudible). Listening to human beings whom we dismiss as ordinary is part of the Indian culture.
So Indian – rural India, which really suffers the worst of the worst of Indian democracy, is where democracy is most alive. That’s where they want to set it right. They don’t want – they do protest, they do struggle. And those photographs we saw on the screen are, of course, typical photographs, but it doesn’t end there. They protest to create something, to make something, to make – they don’t want violence, they don’t want to beat up somebody. But they do want their bread. They do want their health services. So it was through that – this kind of protest that the right to information campaign was actually born. And we do think that their voices were really very strong. And they created the kind of discomfort that’s necessary that we talked about this morning. There was a lot of discomfort, there were many people who thought it was terrible, but the dialogue began, which has ended here in a sense.
So the dialogue began between people, the civil servants, and the politicians. And it’s in that dialogue, through the course of the dialogue, and the dialectic, that there was protest and advocacy, that the concept of a free, transparent, working environment grew.
MODERATOR: Just very quickly to you first, William. And then also if you’d like, Secretary of State, how important – because one of the themes of OGP is about supporting or creating the space for civil society groups to function, because it is under threat. You look all around the world, whether it’s freedom of expression, freedom of the media – how important is that? You go first, William, and then if you’d like to comment afterwards, Secretary of State.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, it is – it’s hugely important, and I think that means it matters a great deal what example we set in our own countries. After all, we cannot change everything that happens in other countries in the world. But we can set a good example ourselves. We’ve learned to do that here in the UK with our own open government action plan, and my colleague Francis Maude, who’s done the most fantastic job in pursuing this whole agenda nationally and internationally. But the first time we did an open government action plan, I think civil society told us we hadn’t included civil society in it – quite forcefully, actually, I think. And so the second time we did it, they are very much part of the plan and part of the input into it.
So it’s very, very important in a country like ours, an extraordinarily free and open country. And I think if we set that example and we do so in other European countries and in America, well, then it leaves fewer excuses for other people in the world where it is – it can be even more important.
MODERATOR: Secretary of State?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I agree with that and I think the simple reality is that in a democracy, and particularly with the vibrancy of the social media today, you really have to be open. I mean, it seems to me we’re seeing a new accountability in a lot of places. What happened in Tahrir Square, the pace at which information moves and events unfold, is different from ever before.
I heard a story the other day. I was in Asia at the Asian summit, and one of the stories going around there was about how in one country – I’ll leave it unnamed – but in one country an official was caught on social media with a sort of white spot where his tan line was on his watch. And so there was no watch, but somebody realized he had been wearing one. So they went back and found some pictures and they found him with a different watch almost every day of the week, much more expensive than he could afford on his government salary. (Laughter.) And boom, they found, as a result, corruption and he lost his job among other things.
But so there’s a new policeman on the block, very different from the past, and that is this broad accountability to the people. But before that even existed, one of the fundamentals of our notions of how you govern is you’ve got to listen to people. And the White House has recently developed a new means of trying to tap into this, which is an online petition platform called “We the People.” And just in the last two years, more than 10 million users have generated more than 260,000 petitions on topics ranging from gun violence to how you unlock a cell phone. (Laughter.) It’s pretty amazing.
And one of the virtues of this – and I think William will agree with me – is those of us in government in positions like I have, we come and we go. I’m here, if I don’t screw up, for another few years. (Laughter.) But there are a lot of groups out there that have a lifetime expertise built up advocating for the environment, or for children, or for one thing or another. And we need that input because they will have much better information in many cases in a more grassroots people-based view than somebody who may come in and out of government. And the whole purpose really is to listen to people and build on that experience. So it’s invaluable. Absolutely invaluable.
MODERATOR: We like your honestly, Secretary of State. I wish I could tease out the name of the country that – of the story you were saying earlier. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I think if you Googled it, you’ll find it. (Laughter.)
MODERATOR: I’d like to come to Mo Ibrahim, if I may. And Mo, you and the Mo Ibrahim Foundation have been very involved at looking at good governance and exceptional leadership in Africa, well-known for your work and the work of the foundation on that. I want to talk about two things: business, and the importance of business and business leadership in this whole issue of OGP, and particularly in terms of transparency. And what does the Open Government Partnership need to do in order to continue raising the bar in terms of commitments and on towards sustaining its progress?
MR. IBRAHIM: Right, just two tough questions.
MODERATOR: Two quick questions, I know.
MR. IBRAHIM: Right. And I’m really amazed by the absence of the business people from our group here. Businesses have a stake in open government. It’s important for the business, and business is also coming under extreme pressure from so many sides now. So we need to clean up their acts, and we have seen so many really sad incidents. Every day I open the newspaper, a bank has been fined a billion dollar, somebody been – it’s really tough what is going there.
So it’s time for business to show us really that they are good citizens. And that is something important for business to be here. There is no business people really joining our (inaudible) part of civil society, and open government is important for the business. And we really need to invite the business people. It’s not like they should be invited; they should knock at the door, actually. That’s as far as business.
As far as commitments, it’s too early yet. We only had two years now. We managed to produce the first reports on the – for the (inaudible) countries. I’m concerned about a number of things. First, for the credibility of this body, we need to produce really credible reports – country reports. And to produce country reports, we’ll have to hire research teams in each country to producing the reporting on each country commitment. That’s if we are serious about this. That was --
MODERATOR: That’s the independent reporting mechanism –
MR. IBRAHIM: That’s (inaudible) whatever of the – yes, of partnership. That needs money. It needs funding. And I’m very concerned about the state of the funding. The last time I looked at our account was a few days ago. I found something very strange. Civil society – actually four foundations – funded over $4 million. Sixty governments funded $1.6 million. And I can – to Secretary of State there, I’m not going to include you there because Britain done very well. You’ve done half of this 1.6. You are okay. (Laughter.)
But United States, I mean, contributed only $200,000. This compared with, I mean, $800,000 -- $600,000 from UK. I mean, UK hasn’t got three times the GDP of the United States. I mean, we know there’s some –
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: (Inaudible) when they started. (Laughter.)
MR. IBRAHIM: We know there have been issues – the Congress and the budget – but I think you’ve got some budget now. And you saved the ticket because you didn’t come here today to the meeting. (Laughter.) So you saved the ticket. So you really need – (laughter and applause).
SECRETARY KERRY: That might get you an additional 5,000. (Laughter.)
MR. IBRAHIM: Because, seriously--
SECRETARY KERRY: I don’t think that’s the – I don’t think that’s going to (inaudible) my ticket does. (Laughter.) But let me announce something, if you will, because we’re very engaged in many, many parts of the world. I’m very proud. We may not give to every single entity that asks, but we’re giving literally hundreds of millions of dollars in these kinds of efforts, and I’m proud to say that no country in the world is putting as much money into developmental issues as we are every single year. So I don’t feel defensive about it.
But I am happy to tell you today that the United States – we’re announcing right here at this moment that we’re putting $2.5 million into a pilot anti-corruption project in West Africa. And it’s designed to facilitate collaboration between governments. So I think we are prepared to put the money up, but I’ll have to check into why the OGP isn’t getting more and I’ll find out. (Applause.)
MR. IBRAHIM: And actually – and really in fairness, I think about United States because I have the Secretary here and I love him, I’m a fan of him. (Laughter.) But really the truth has – we have to be frank. Friends have to be frank with each other. But many governments really do not cough up. And this is not a free ride, and it’s unfair for civil society to bear the brunt of this and governments to have a free ride. So commitment means commitment, and we need you to do that in order for us to produce really credible reports and to really go forward. So that’s a big challenge for us, actually.
MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you very much. I wish we could go on and on, actually, but I know that William’s got a very tight deadline. Secretary of State, thank you very much indeed for joining us and giving us your time.
SECRETARY KERRY: It’s good to be with you.
MODERATOR: Much appreciated. (Applause.)
MS. ROY: I just want to ask him a question.
MODERATOR: Wait one second, we’ve got one more question from Aruna, Secretary of State.
MS. ROY: I just have a question which I want to ask both of you. The world has become much better place, there’s more transparency in governments, there’s more accountability. And at the same time, there are more restrictive laws being passed by all governments today than ever before, and there is an attempt at surveillance by my government and your governments. Why is this happening? I want to know. Because if we are going to become an open society, we should always trust each other, and we don’t have to spy or suspect or believe that the other one’s bad. (Applause.)
I trust you. I trust you. I believe that there is a social contract between the two of you and all of us that we will work in the interests of each other. It’s such a delicate balance that when it gets disrupted that it takes a lot of time to set it right. I’m not being critical negatively, but I really want the world to be a better place. And we’ve been building this trust – we call talk of trust deficits. We’ve been building it with so much care – me with my government, all my friends here with their governments. We want it to prosper.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: John, that’s one for you, there. (Laughter and applause.)
MODERATOR: That wasn’t me. That was William. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: I don’t know, William. Does that mean that you guys have never or do never – no, I’m not going there. (Laughter.)
Can I just say to you – look, I’ll just answer you very quickly and I’ll answer you very directly. There is no question that the President and I and others in government have actually learned of some things that had been happening, in many ways, on an automatic pilot because the technology is there, the ability has been there, over the course of a long period of time, really going back to World War II and to the very difficult years of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, and then, of course, 9/11. The attack on the United States and the rise of radical extremism in the world that is hell-bent and determined to try to kill people and blow people up and attack governments – not just us, but the Tokyo subway, London train station, Madrid. Many, many, many parts of the world have been subject to these terrorist attacks. And in response to them, the United States and others came together – others, I emphasize to you – and realized that we’re dealing in a new world where people are willing to blow themselves up. I mean, walk into a building, or trucks, they’re willing to be filled with fertilizer and plant it outside a building and blow it up, no matter who’s in it.
And there are countless examples of this. Look at Nairobi the other day, where al-Shabaab goes into the Westgate mall and kills dozens, almost a hundred – more than a hundred, more than a hundred people innocently killed doing their shopping.
So what if you were able to intercept that and stop it before it happens? We have actually prevented airplanes from going down, buildings from being blown up, and people from being assassinated because we’ve been able to learn ahead of time of the plans. I assure you innocent people are not being abused in this process, but there’s an effort to try to gather information. And yes, in some cases, it has reached too far inappropriately. And the President, our President, is determined to try to clarify and make clear for people and is now doing a thorough review in order that nobody will have the sense of abuse.
But I want to assure you that (inaudible). Just the other day it was – there was news in the papers of 70 million people being listened to. No, they weren’t. It didn’t happen. There’s an enormous amount of exaggeration in this reporting from some reporters out there. What we’re trying to do is in a random way find ways of trying to learn if, in fact, there is a threat that we need to respond to. And in some cases, I acknowledge to you, as has the President, that some of these actions have reached too far, and we are going to make sure that does not happen in the future.
MS. ROY: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Secretary, thank you very much, indeed, for your time. Appreciate it very much. (Applause.) Thank you also to Foreign Secretary William Hague and to Aruna Roy and to Mo Ibrahim. Thank you very much.
FDA APPROVES GAZYVA FOR TREATING CHRONIC LYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA
FROM: U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
FDA approves Gazyva for chronic lymphocytic leukemia
Drug is first with breakthrough therapy designation to receive FDA approval
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Gazyva (obinutuzumab) for use in combination with chlorambucil to treat patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
CLL is a blood and bone marrow disease that usually gets worse slowly. According to the National Cancer Institute, 15,680 Americans will be diagnosed and 4,580 will die from the disease this year.
Gazyva works by helping certain cells in the immune system attack cancer cells. Gazyva is intended to be used with chlorambucil, another drug used to treat patients with CLL.
Gazyva is the first drug with breakthrough therapy designation to receive FDA approval. This designation was requested by the sponsor and granted soon after the biologic license application to support marketing approval was submitted to the FDA. The FDA can designate a drug a breakthrough therapy at the request of the sponsor if preliminary clinical evidence indicates the drug may offer a substantial improvement over available therapies for patients with serious or life-threatening diseases.
The FDA also granted Gazyva priority review because the drug demonstrated the potential to be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment of a serious condition. And the FDA granted Gazyva orphan product designation because it is intended to treat a rare disease.
“Today’s approval represents an important new addition to the treatments for patients with CLL,” said Richard Pazdur, M.D., director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “This approval reflects the promise of the Breakthrough Therapy Designation program, allowing us to work collaboratively with companies to expedite the development, review and availability of important new drugs.”
Gazyva’s approval for CLL is based on a study of 356 participants in a randomized open-label multicenter trial comparing Gazyva in combination with chlorambucil to chlorambucil alone in participants with previously untreated CLL. Participants receiving Gazyva in combination with chlorambucil demonstrated a significant improvement in progression free survival: an average of 23 months compared with 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone.
The most common side effects observed in participants receiving Gazyva in combination with chlorambucil were infusion-related reactions, a decrease in infection-fighting white blood cells (neutropenia), a low level of platelets in the blood (thrombocytopenia), low red blood cells (anemia), pain in the muscles and bones (musculoskeletal pain), and fever (pyrexia).
Gazyva is being approved with a boxed warning regarding Hepatitis B virus reactivation and a rare disorder that damages the material that covers and protects nerves in the white matter of the brain (progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy). These are known risks with other monoclonal antibodies in this class and rare cases were identified in participants on other trials of Gazyva. Patients should be advised of these risks and assessed for Hepatitis B virus and reactivation risk.
Gazyva is marketed by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, based in South San Francisco, Calif.
FDA approves Gazyva for chronic lymphocytic leukemia
Drug is first with breakthrough therapy designation to receive FDA approval
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Gazyva (obinutuzumab) for use in combination with chlorambucil to treat patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
CLL is a blood and bone marrow disease that usually gets worse slowly. According to the National Cancer Institute, 15,680 Americans will be diagnosed and 4,580 will die from the disease this year.
Gazyva works by helping certain cells in the immune system attack cancer cells. Gazyva is intended to be used with chlorambucil, another drug used to treat patients with CLL.
Gazyva is the first drug with breakthrough therapy designation to receive FDA approval. This designation was requested by the sponsor and granted soon after the biologic license application to support marketing approval was submitted to the FDA. The FDA can designate a drug a breakthrough therapy at the request of the sponsor if preliminary clinical evidence indicates the drug may offer a substantial improvement over available therapies for patients with serious or life-threatening diseases.
The FDA also granted Gazyva priority review because the drug demonstrated the potential to be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness in the treatment of a serious condition. And the FDA granted Gazyva orphan product designation because it is intended to treat a rare disease.
“Today’s approval represents an important new addition to the treatments for patients with CLL,” said Richard Pazdur, M.D., director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “This approval reflects the promise of the Breakthrough Therapy Designation program, allowing us to work collaboratively with companies to expedite the development, review and availability of important new drugs.”
Gazyva’s approval for CLL is based on a study of 356 participants in a randomized open-label multicenter trial comparing Gazyva in combination with chlorambucil to chlorambucil alone in participants with previously untreated CLL. Participants receiving Gazyva in combination with chlorambucil demonstrated a significant improvement in progression free survival: an average of 23 months compared with 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone.
The most common side effects observed in participants receiving Gazyva in combination with chlorambucil were infusion-related reactions, a decrease in infection-fighting white blood cells (neutropenia), a low level of platelets in the blood (thrombocytopenia), low red blood cells (anemia), pain in the muscles and bones (musculoskeletal pain), and fever (pyrexia).
Gazyva is being approved with a boxed warning regarding Hepatitis B virus reactivation and a rare disorder that damages the material that covers and protects nerves in the white matter of the brain (progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy). These are known risks with other monoclonal antibodies in this class and rare cases were identified in participants on other trials of Gazyva. Patients should be advised of these risks and assessed for Hepatitis B virus and reactivation risk.
Gazyva is marketed by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, based in South San Francisco, Calif.
REMARKS BY ROSE GOTTEMOELLER AT 2013 MULTINATIONAL BMD CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at the 2013 Multinational BMD Conference and Exhibition
Remarks
Rose Gottemoeller
Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Warsaw, Poland
October 31, 2013
As Delivered
Thank you so much for inviting me to speak here and thank you for your kind introduction, Nancy. It is always a pleasure to visit Warsaw. The United States greatly values its relationship with Poland and looks forward to further strengthening our cooperation.
As you have all heard from my colleagues, Under Secretary Miller and Admiral Syring, the global threat from ballistic missiles is very serious. Missile defense is an important part of how we combat this threat. In our increasingly-connected and fiscally-strained world, efforts and collaboration of allies and partners on missile defense are more important than ever. The United States will continue to do its part in this regard and today, I would like to focus on the broader picture about how missile defenses fit into our larger strategy to respond to the threat, including the defense of the United States, our Allies and friends.
Comprehensive Tools
The United States has a large number of tools available to it to prevent the threat from growing. We are active participants in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which serves as the global standard for controlling the transfer of equipment, software, and technology that could make a contribution to the development of WMD-capable missile and unmanned aerial vehicle delivery systems.
We are also working through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and other counter-proliferation activities to help partners improve their ability to stop shipments of missiles or missile parts. My last visit to Warsaw was for the PSI 10th anniversary in the spring. We made some real progress on that occasion in expanding the reach and depth of the PSI, and thank you again to Poland for hosting such an effective meeting. We have worked directly with specific governments to convince them to renounce their missile programs. For example, in 2003, Libya committed to eliminate its long-range ballistic missile programs, which led to the elimination of their 800-km range SCUD missiles. These are just some of our ongoing efforts to tackle the missile threat and prevent missile proliferation. While much of this work is performed quietly, the impact of all of these efforts is of crucial importance to international peace and security.
At the same time, we are realistic that these programs cannot completely halt missile proliferation and that other steps are needed to dissuade countries from acquiring or developing ballistic missiles. That is why missile defense is an important part of our efforts to strengthen regional security. The missile defense systems that we deploy are critical to reassuring our allies. They signal that, in the face of threats from countries like Iran and North Korea, we will meet our defense commitments. As you heard yesterday, missile threats exist around the globe and have been used in recent and current conflicts. In both the Libyan and Syrian conflicts, ballistic missiles were used.
As Iran and North Korea conduct more ballistic missile tests, our defense systems make it more likely that our allies will embrace our diplomatic efforts, whether it is engagement or sanctions, knowing that missile defenses are doing their part to defend against a regional threat. That assurance is critical as we seek regional cooperation to persuade some states to abandon their nuclear programs and stop the proliferation of nuclear material.
Where we can, we seek to integrate our missile defense systems into a broader system of defenses deployed by our allies and friends. We are better off where we can leverage the capabilities of our allies and combine that with a flexible, capable cost effective system. The Obama Administration is improving these regional security architectures by deploying and improving regional missile defenses. These deployments are tailored to the unique requirements of the regional threat. We do not purchase more than what is required and we are very transparent about what we do purchase. Let me discuss some of our efforts around the world related to these efforts.
Cooperation in Europe
First, in Europe, the United States remains firmly committed to defending NATO Europe against ballistic missile threats to populations, territory and forces. We are deploying the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), which will provide protection to all NATO European territory in the 2018 timeframe. We are making great progress on EPAA, most recently with Monday’s Phase 2 site ground-breaking in Romania, in which Under Secretary Miller and Admiral Syring participated, as well as my colleague DAS Frank Rose. That site will be operational in the 2015 timeframe. We will also forward-base four BMD-capable Aegis warships to Rota, Spain in the 2015 timeframe to support the EPAA. Our commitment to deploy Phase 3 in Poland is ironclad, and preparations are currently on-time and on-budget for the establishment of the Phase 3 interceptor site at Redzikowo. It will be operational in the 2018 timeframe.
Although not related to EPAA, the Dutch, German and United States deployment of Patriot missile defense units to Turkey this year in response to a Turkish request to NATO for defense against potential Syrian ballistic missile threats is an excellent example of how missile defense can provide reassurance to Allies and deter potential adversaries.
Cooperation in the Middle East
The United States continues its robust BMD partnership with Israel. This cooperation includes the Arrow 2 interceptor, the more advanced Arrow 3, and the David’s Sling Weapon system. And the United States and Israel worked closely together to deploy an AN/TPY-2 radar to Israel in 2008. This powerful radar is linked to U.S. early warning satellites, and intended to enhance Israel’s missile detection and defense capabilities.
In the Gulf, the United States has had a continuous missile defense presence and seeks to strengthen cooperation with its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). We have begun an initiative, launched at the U.S.-GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum in March 2012, to strengthen missile defense cooperation.
At the September 26 meeting of the U.S.-GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum, Ministers resolved to work together to continue to work towards enhanced U.S.-GCC coordination on Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), including the eventual development of a Gulf-wide coordinated missile defense architecture built around interoperable U.S. and GCC forces that would serve as an integrated system to defend the territory and assets of the GCC states against the threat of ballistic missiles. A number of states in the region already deploy PATRIOT batteries and are exploring purchases of some missile defense capabilities under the auspices of the foreign military sales (FMS) program. To build a coordinated architecture, it is critical that our partners select systems that are fully interoperable.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) continues to be a leader in the field of ballistic missile defense. On December 25, 2011, the UAE became the first international partner to purchase the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or “THAAD,” system from the United States. This robust area defense capability, in conjunction with the UAE’s acquisition of PAC-3 point defense systems, will provide the UAE with a layered missile defense capability, ensure interoperability with U.S. forces, and contribute to regional stability. These purchases highlight the strong ties and common strategic interests between the United States and the UAE.
As our partners acquire greater missile defense capabilities, the United States will work to promote interoperability and information sharing among the GCC states. This will allow for more efficient missile defenses and greater security cooperation in the region.
Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
In the Asia-Pacific region, we have robust missile defense cooperation with Japan and are increasing this cooperation. Japan is one of our closest allies, a leader in missile defense within the region, and one of the United States’ closest BMD partners. The United States and Japan have made significant strides in interoperability. The United States and Japan regularly train together, and our forces have successfully executed cooperative BMD operations.
Japan has acquired a layered integrated BMD system that includes Aegis BMD ships with Standard Missile 3 interceptors, Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) fire units, early warning radars, and a command and control system. We also worked cooperatively to deploy a forward-based X-band radar in Japan. At their October 3, 2013, “2+2 meeting, U.S. and Japanese foreign and defense ministers confirmed their intention to designate the Air Self-Defense Force base at Kyogamisaki as the deployment site for a second AN/TPY-2 radar (X-band radar) system that will further enhance the defense of our two countries.
One of our most significant cooperative efforts is the co-development of a next-generation SM-3 interceptor, called the Block IIA. This co-development program represents not only an area of significant technical cooperation but also the basis for enhanced operational cooperation to strengthen regional security. The Republic of Korea (ROK) is another key U.S. ally and with the increasing North Korean missile threat, the United States stands ready to work with the ROK to strengthen its BMD capabilities. We are working together to define possible future ROK BMD requirements and the United States looks forward to taking further steps to build upon this ongoing missile defense relationship.
Defense Against Regional Threats
As we work with partners abroad, the Obama Administration is enhancing our homeland missile defenses; a development which will also provide reassurance to our Allies. On March 15, Secretary of Defense Hagel announced an increase in the number of ground-based interceptors to ensure that the United States remains well hedged against a North Korean ICBM threat. This change in our missile defenses will also provide the United States with additional defenses against an Iranian ICBM capability should that threat emerge.
We also strengthened our defenses of U.S. territory through deployment of a THAAD battery to Guam during the tensions with North Korea earlier this year. Homeland missile defenses ensure that the United States reduces the risks that come with helping to defend our Allies and allows our Allies to be confident that the United States will meet its Treaty and security commitments.
Strategic Stability
As we move forward with our programs, I want to be very clear - our missile defense deployments are not directed at Russia or China. We are committed to maintaining strategic stability with these nations. U.S. missile defenses are not designed to intercept Russian ICBMs or SLBMs, nor are they technically capable of intercepting Russian ICBMs or SLBMs. As stated in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, our homeland missile defenses are to defend against the threat of limited ballistic missile attack.
Russia and China both field advanced ICBMs and SLBMs. In addition, with just 44 ground-based interceptors scheduled to be deployed, both Russia and China’s nuclear arsenals far exceed the number of interceptors we have; thus clearly establishing that we are talking about – to use an American phrase – apples and oranges when it comes to how U.S. missile defenses impact strategic stability with those nations. There is therefore no way that U.S. missile defenses could undermine the effectiveness of Russia’s or China’s strategic nuclear forces.
Dialogue with Russia
We remain convinced that increased predictability on missile defense between the United States and Russia (and between NATO and Russia) is in the national security interests of all countries involved. For that reason, missile defense cooperation with Russia remains a priority for President Obama, as it has been for nearly 20 years with both Democratic and Republican Presidents.
As such, the United States has had discussions with the Russian Federation on increasing predictability on missile defense. Secretary of Defense Hagel and Russian Defense Minister Shoygu agreed in March to reconvene missile defense discussions between Under Secretary of Defense Jim Miller and Deputy Defense Minister Antonov. I also had discussions with my Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs counterpart, Sergei Ryabkov, on strategic stability issues, including missile defense. We are committed to a dialogue on missile defense, both bilaterally and in the NATO-Russia Council, and stand ready to begin practical discussions.
While we seek to develop ways to cooperate with Russia on missile defense, it is important to remember that in keeping with its collective security obligations, NATO alone bears responsibility for defending the Alliance from ballistic missile threats. Just as Russia must ensure the defense of Russian territory, NATO must ensure the defense of NATO territory. NATO cannot and will not outsource its Article 5 commitments. Russia continues to request legal guarantees that could create limitations on our ability to develop and deploy future missile defense systems against regional ballistic missile threats such as those presented by Iran and North Korea. We have made clear that we cannot and will not accept limitations on our ability to defend ourselves, our allies, and our partners, including where we deploy our BMD-capable Aegis ships.
The United States believes that through cooperation and transparency, Russia will see firsthand that this system is designed to respond to ballistic missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area, and that NATO missile defense systems will not undermine Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent. Cooperation would also send a strong message to proliferators that the United States, NATO, and Russia are working together to counter their efforts.
Dialogue with China
We are in the beginning stages of holding dialogues with China on these issues that span both governments’ interagencies. In May, I traveled to Beijing to hold a Security Dialogue with my Chinese counterpart. On the State Department side, there are a number of fora in which we discuss important issues, including the Strategic and Economic Dialogue led by Secretaries Kerry and Lew and the Strategic Security Dialogue led by the Deputy Secretary of State. The Defense Department also has a number of important dialogues with the Chinese, including the U.S.-China Defense Consultative Talks. General Dempsey and other senior defense officials have also met with their Chinese counterparts this year. These mechanisms and opportunities for deep discussion are important for strengthening our strategic stability with China.
Looking Ahead
Looking ahead, the United States knows that we have a lot more work to do on creating opportunities for missile defense cooperation and on defending against ballistic missile proliferation, but that is why forums like these are so important. The discussions, debates and ideas that develop here can help us move to a safer, more secure world.
Thank you.
Remarks at the 2013 Multinational BMD Conference and Exhibition
Remarks
Rose Gottemoeller
Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Warsaw, Poland
October 31, 2013
As Delivered
Thank you so much for inviting me to speak here and thank you for your kind introduction, Nancy. It is always a pleasure to visit Warsaw. The United States greatly values its relationship with Poland and looks forward to further strengthening our cooperation.
As you have all heard from my colleagues, Under Secretary Miller and Admiral Syring, the global threat from ballistic missiles is very serious. Missile defense is an important part of how we combat this threat. In our increasingly-connected and fiscally-strained world, efforts and collaboration of allies and partners on missile defense are more important than ever. The United States will continue to do its part in this regard and today, I would like to focus on the broader picture about how missile defenses fit into our larger strategy to respond to the threat, including the defense of the United States, our Allies and friends.
Comprehensive Tools
The United States has a large number of tools available to it to prevent the threat from growing. We are active participants in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which serves as the global standard for controlling the transfer of equipment, software, and technology that could make a contribution to the development of WMD-capable missile and unmanned aerial vehicle delivery systems.
We are also working through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and other counter-proliferation activities to help partners improve their ability to stop shipments of missiles or missile parts. My last visit to Warsaw was for the PSI 10th anniversary in the spring. We made some real progress on that occasion in expanding the reach and depth of the PSI, and thank you again to Poland for hosting such an effective meeting. We have worked directly with specific governments to convince them to renounce their missile programs. For example, in 2003, Libya committed to eliminate its long-range ballistic missile programs, which led to the elimination of their 800-km range SCUD missiles. These are just some of our ongoing efforts to tackle the missile threat and prevent missile proliferation. While much of this work is performed quietly, the impact of all of these efforts is of crucial importance to international peace and security.
At the same time, we are realistic that these programs cannot completely halt missile proliferation and that other steps are needed to dissuade countries from acquiring or developing ballistic missiles. That is why missile defense is an important part of our efforts to strengthen regional security. The missile defense systems that we deploy are critical to reassuring our allies. They signal that, in the face of threats from countries like Iran and North Korea, we will meet our defense commitments. As you heard yesterday, missile threats exist around the globe and have been used in recent and current conflicts. In both the Libyan and Syrian conflicts, ballistic missiles were used.
As Iran and North Korea conduct more ballistic missile tests, our defense systems make it more likely that our allies will embrace our diplomatic efforts, whether it is engagement or sanctions, knowing that missile defenses are doing their part to defend against a regional threat. That assurance is critical as we seek regional cooperation to persuade some states to abandon their nuclear programs and stop the proliferation of nuclear material.
Where we can, we seek to integrate our missile defense systems into a broader system of defenses deployed by our allies and friends. We are better off where we can leverage the capabilities of our allies and combine that with a flexible, capable cost effective system. The Obama Administration is improving these regional security architectures by deploying and improving regional missile defenses. These deployments are tailored to the unique requirements of the regional threat. We do not purchase more than what is required and we are very transparent about what we do purchase. Let me discuss some of our efforts around the world related to these efforts.
Cooperation in Europe
First, in Europe, the United States remains firmly committed to defending NATO Europe against ballistic missile threats to populations, territory and forces. We are deploying the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), which will provide protection to all NATO European territory in the 2018 timeframe. We are making great progress on EPAA, most recently with Monday’s Phase 2 site ground-breaking in Romania, in which Under Secretary Miller and Admiral Syring participated, as well as my colleague DAS Frank Rose. That site will be operational in the 2015 timeframe. We will also forward-base four BMD-capable Aegis warships to Rota, Spain in the 2015 timeframe to support the EPAA. Our commitment to deploy Phase 3 in Poland is ironclad, and preparations are currently on-time and on-budget for the establishment of the Phase 3 interceptor site at Redzikowo. It will be operational in the 2018 timeframe.
Although not related to EPAA, the Dutch, German and United States deployment of Patriot missile defense units to Turkey this year in response to a Turkish request to NATO for defense against potential Syrian ballistic missile threats is an excellent example of how missile defense can provide reassurance to Allies and deter potential adversaries.
Cooperation in the Middle East
The United States continues its robust BMD partnership with Israel. This cooperation includes the Arrow 2 interceptor, the more advanced Arrow 3, and the David’s Sling Weapon system. And the United States and Israel worked closely together to deploy an AN/TPY-2 radar to Israel in 2008. This powerful radar is linked to U.S. early warning satellites, and intended to enhance Israel’s missile detection and defense capabilities.
In the Gulf, the United States has had a continuous missile defense presence and seeks to strengthen cooperation with its partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). We have begun an initiative, launched at the U.S.-GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum in March 2012, to strengthen missile defense cooperation.
At the September 26 meeting of the U.S.-GCC Strategic Cooperation Forum, Ministers resolved to work together to continue to work towards enhanced U.S.-GCC coordination on Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), including the eventual development of a Gulf-wide coordinated missile defense architecture built around interoperable U.S. and GCC forces that would serve as an integrated system to defend the territory and assets of the GCC states against the threat of ballistic missiles. A number of states in the region already deploy PATRIOT batteries and are exploring purchases of some missile defense capabilities under the auspices of the foreign military sales (FMS) program. To build a coordinated architecture, it is critical that our partners select systems that are fully interoperable.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) continues to be a leader in the field of ballistic missile defense. On December 25, 2011, the UAE became the first international partner to purchase the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or “THAAD,” system from the United States. This robust area defense capability, in conjunction with the UAE’s acquisition of PAC-3 point defense systems, will provide the UAE with a layered missile defense capability, ensure interoperability with U.S. forces, and contribute to regional stability. These purchases highlight the strong ties and common strategic interests between the United States and the UAE.
As our partners acquire greater missile defense capabilities, the United States will work to promote interoperability and information sharing among the GCC states. This will allow for more efficient missile defenses and greater security cooperation in the region.
Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
In the Asia-Pacific region, we have robust missile defense cooperation with Japan and are increasing this cooperation. Japan is one of our closest allies, a leader in missile defense within the region, and one of the United States’ closest BMD partners. The United States and Japan have made significant strides in interoperability. The United States and Japan regularly train together, and our forces have successfully executed cooperative BMD operations.
Japan has acquired a layered integrated BMD system that includes Aegis BMD ships with Standard Missile 3 interceptors, Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) fire units, early warning radars, and a command and control system. We also worked cooperatively to deploy a forward-based X-band radar in Japan. At their October 3, 2013, “2+2 meeting, U.S. and Japanese foreign and defense ministers confirmed their intention to designate the Air Self-Defense Force base at Kyogamisaki as the deployment site for a second AN/TPY-2 radar (X-band radar) system that will further enhance the defense of our two countries.
One of our most significant cooperative efforts is the co-development of a next-generation SM-3 interceptor, called the Block IIA. This co-development program represents not only an area of significant technical cooperation but also the basis for enhanced operational cooperation to strengthen regional security. The Republic of Korea (ROK) is another key U.S. ally and with the increasing North Korean missile threat, the United States stands ready to work with the ROK to strengthen its BMD capabilities. We are working together to define possible future ROK BMD requirements and the United States looks forward to taking further steps to build upon this ongoing missile defense relationship.
Defense Against Regional Threats
As we work with partners abroad, the Obama Administration is enhancing our homeland missile defenses; a development which will also provide reassurance to our Allies. On March 15, Secretary of Defense Hagel announced an increase in the number of ground-based interceptors to ensure that the United States remains well hedged against a North Korean ICBM threat. This change in our missile defenses will also provide the United States with additional defenses against an Iranian ICBM capability should that threat emerge.
We also strengthened our defenses of U.S. territory through deployment of a THAAD battery to Guam during the tensions with North Korea earlier this year. Homeland missile defenses ensure that the United States reduces the risks that come with helping to defend our Allies and allows our Allies to be confident that the United States will meet its Treaty and security commitments.
Strategic Stability
As we move forward with our programs, I want to be very clear - our missile defense deployments are not directed at Russia or China. We are committed to maintaining strategic stability with these nations. U.S. missile defenses are not designed to intercept Russian ICBMs or SLBMs, nor are they technically capable of intercepting Russian ICBMs or SLBMs. As stated in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, our homeland missile defenses are to defend against the threat of limited ballistic missile attack.
Russia and China both field advanced ICBMs and SLBMs. In addition, with just 44 ground-based interceptors scheduled to be deployed, both Russia and China’s nuclear arsenals far exceed the number of interceptors we have; thus clearly establishing that we are talking about – to use an American phrase – apples and oranges when it comes to how U.S. missile defenses impact strategic stability with those nations. There is therefore no way that U.S. missile defenses could undermine the effectiveness of Russia’s or China’s strategic nuclear forces.
Dialogue with Russia
We remain convinced that increased predictability on missile defense between the United States and Russia (and between NATO and Russia) is in the national security interests of all countries involved. For that reason, missile defense cooperation with Russia remains a priority for President Obama, as it has been for nearly 20 years with both Democratic and Republican Presidents.
As such, the United States has had discussions with the Russian Federation on increasing predictability on missile defense. Secretary of Defense Hagel and Russian Defense Minister Shoygu agreed in March to reconvene missile defense discussions between Under Secretary of Defense Jim Miller and Deputy Defense Minister Antonov. I also had discussions with my Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs counterpart, Sergei Ryabkov, on strategic stability issues, including missile defense. We are committed to a dialogue on missile defense, both bilaterally and in the NATO-Russia Council, and stand ready to begin practical discussions.
While we seek to develop ways to cooperate with Russia on missile defense, it is important to remember that in keeping with its collective security obligations, NATO alone bears responsibility for defending the Alliance from ballistic missile threats. Just as Russia must ensure the defense of Russian territory, NATO must ensure the defense of NATO territory. NATO cannot and will not outsource its Article 5 commitments. Russia continues to request legal guarantees that could create limitations on our ability to develop and deploy future missile defense systems against regional ballistic missile threats such as those presented by Iran and North Korea. We have made clear that we cannot and will not accept limitations on our ability to defend ourselves, our allies, and our partners, including where we deploy our BMD-capable Aegis ships.
The United States believes that through cooperation and transparency, Russia will see firsthand that this system is designed to respond to ballistic missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area, and that NATO missile defense systems will not undermine Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent. Cooperation would also send a strong message to proliferators that the United States, NATO, and Russia are working together to counter their efforts.
Dialogue with China
We are in the beginning stages of holding dialogues with China on these issues that span both governments’ interagencies. In May, I traveled to Beijing to hold a Security Dialogue with my Chinese counterpart. On the State Department side, there are a number of fora in which we discuss important issues, including the Strategic and Economic Dialogue led by Secretaries Kerry and Lew and the Strategic Security Dialogue led by the Deputy Secretary of State. The Defense Department also has a number of important dialogues with the Chinese, including the U.S.-China Defense Consultative Talks. General Dempsey and other senior defense officials have also met with their Chinese counterparts this year. These mechanisms and opportunities for deep discussion are important for strengthening our strategic stability with China.
Looking Ahead
Looking ahead, the United States knows that we have a lot more work to do on creating opportunities for missile defense cooperation and on defending against ballistic missile proliferation, but that is why forums like these are so important. The discussions, debates and ideas that develop here can help us move to a safer, more secure world.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)