REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY, GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER STEINMEIER

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Remarks With German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier After Their Working Lunch
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Benjamin Franklin Room
Washington, DC
February 27, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. It’s my great pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Steinmeier of Germany to Washington this afternoon. And I’m really happy to be able to do this because the foreign minister and Chancellor Merkel gave me a terrific welcome and hosted me in Germany about a month ago, and it’s nice to be able to return the favor so quickly. The chancellor[1] will be here for – through tomorrow and he’ll have a series of meetings in Washington on a number of the topics we discussed today, and we very much welcome Chancellor Merkel’s upcoming visit. Our nations are both old friends and close friends, and we have the ability to talk candidly with each and to find a way to cooperate together on critical issues that engage both of us.

Frank-Walter and I spoke candidly about how we can continue to move beyond some of the current tensions that have existed and to deepen our transatlantic ties. And I appreciate the conversation that we’ve just had enormously. We had the opportunity to discuss our bilateral relationship at length, including finding the right balance between security of our citizens and the privacy of our citizens. And that is a discussion which the foreign minister will continue while he’s here in Washington and particularly tomorrow have a couple of meetings on it.

At the direction of President Obama and Chancellor Merkel, we’ve been discussing additional steps to strengthen our intelligence cooperation, and we are going to continue that conversation in the months ahead. And I certainly appreciate the serious and appropriate way in which Germany is engaged with us in that discussion.

We discussed today how to deepen and broaden our existing partnership with respect to a number of global challenges, cybersecurity being one of them, obviously. And our experts are going to meet tomorrow morning on that.

Obviously, Ukraine is at the forefront of our minds, and we spent a fair amount of our lunch talking about Ukraine. I’m very grateful to the foreign minister for his leadership, his personal leadership, his engagement with several other foreign ministers who went to Kyiv and become engaged and helped to shape, particularly with Foreign Minister Steinmeier’s leadership, the agreement that was reached.

The United States really is appreciative of that kind of leadership. It’s a shared burden, and I know that together with our French and Polish colleagues – and I talked earlier today with Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski – together we were able to make – create a framework within which this change was able to be carried out after the huge violence that took place in a mostly peaceful way after that.

Today, the Rada voted overwhelmingly to approve a new transition government – technical government, importantly – and that technical government will serve until the election can be held in May. We – the United States welcomes this development and we look forward to working closely with this transitional government.

This morning, I called Foreign Minister Lavrov and we talked at some length about the transition and the events in Ukraine and in the region. And I asked specifically that Russia work with the United States and with our friends and allies in order to support Ukraine, to rebuild unity, security, and a healthy economy. And we also discussed the very tense situation in Crimea. I think it’s very important to underscore that Foreign Minister Lavrov relayed to me directly from President Putin a reaffirmation of the conversation that President Putin had over the weekend with President Obama. And he stated that both the military exercise which has been conducted is not related to the Ukraine and was previously scheduled, but also – importantly – reaffirmed President Putin’s statement that Russia will respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

And we believe that everybody now needs to step back and avoid any kind of provocations. And we want to see in the next days ahead, obviously, that the choices Russia makes conform to this affirmation that we received today. We are also making the same point about reducing tensions in Crimea to the Ukrainians, and it is very important that the process continue in a thoughtful and respectful way.

Let me also reiterate that as we see this technical government come into place, I want to confirm that the United States supports and welcomes this democratic step that has been taken today by the Rada to create this transitional technical government. And we look forward to working with this new government to restore national unity, security, and the protection of the rights of all Ukrainians, and that includes all minorities. We also strongly support the new government’s decision to work closely with the IMF in order to stabilize the economy, and we will support these efforts that provide bilateral support in conjunction with the IMF program. And that is our objective over these next days.

Frank-Walter and I also discussed other regional issues, including our shared interest in completing the ambitious Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The United States and Germany already enjoy very strong economic ties, but we both know that TTIP would lead to even more investments, more innovations, more trade, and ultimately more jobs with more economic growth in our countries as well as throughout Europe.

And finally, we discussed our shared efforts to promote peace and stability around the world. The United States welcomes Germany’s growing role in addressing global challenges. We really value Germany’s support in Afghanistan, where Germany’s ISAF contributions have been essential, along with their commitment to a post-2014 NATO mission and their financial support for the Afghan security forces.

We also value Germany’s support in the Middle East. Chancellor Merkel just made a trip to the Middle East, and I am enormously appreciative for the support that Germany is giving to the Middle East peace process and their continued interest and effort to try to help not only support us in that but bring about a final status agreement.

We also are very appreciative for Germany’s key role as a P5+1 member in the effort to try to reach agreement with Iran over Iran’s nuclear program. And we talked a little bit about that and the prospects for that over the next days. Germany joins us in making clear to everybody that Iran is not open for business, that the sanctions regime continues, and that we will maintain unity within the P5+1 as we proceed forward in this negotiation.

We value also Germany’s increasing international pressure on the Assad regime to bring about an end to the horrific war in Syria, and we talked about some of the challenges that we face with respect to the road ahead.

So Frank-Walter, you said recently that Germany is just too big to comment on world events from the sideline, and I want you to know that we couldn’t agree more. We all need Germany as a partner in these efforts. We need you on the field and engaged, and we welcome that. In Munich, I called for a transatlantic renaissance starting in 2014, and today I want to underscore that the renewal that we need is also an important strengthening of the relationship and engagement between Germany and the United States.

So I look forward to continuing to work closely on the wide range of issues that face our countries, the region, and the world, and we’re grateful to have a strong partner like Germany in that effort. Thank you, sir.

FOREIGN MINISTER STEINMEIER: (Via interpreter) Thank you, not only for inviting me here but also for the very friendly words you found right at the beginning of this press conference. I’ve only been in office for roughly 10 weeks, and we’ve met quite often, given the shortness of my term in office. We’ve met in Geneva and in other parts of the world. I am delighted about that, and I would wish to see that frequency be kept up.

But of course, the frequency of our exchanges is also tied to the international challenges we have to confront these days. Thus I would like to begin by thanking you for the initiative you have taken to make sure that the two-state solution for the Middle East can become a reality. Many efforts had been undertaken in the past that have failed, and I’m happy to see that you are engaging like hardly any other person. You are putting your political career at stake in a way, working for this two-state solution, engaging with energy and stamina, trying to convince both sides, trying to be successful where others failed before you. I very much hope that both parties in the Middle East – the Israeli Government and the Palestinian leaders – are aware of the fact that this provides an opportunity that both have to seize. They have to do that and they owe it to their respective peoples.

Now, in the immediate vicinity of Israel and Palestine, a dangerous conflict has arisen where until now we have not succeeded in putting an end to the bloodshed. The number of casualties of people who have died in the war in Syria is going into the thousands, and especially the neighboring region is affected, for refugees are fleeing to Lebanon, to Jordan, to Turkey, millions of them. And the suffering is immeasurable and it continues. The conflict is hardening and it is no longer only a battle between the government and the opposition of Syria, but it is a battle, a fight between different groups of the opposition.

We should take that as a warning, a word of caution to us to make sure that the Syria conference that in Geneva has not brought the hoped-for success – that this conference ought to continue, and we ought to apply greater strategic strictness in doing so. Mr. Brahimi, who is heading the negotiations, happens to be in Germany right now. We are in close touch with him and we are trying to convince both sides, all parties involved, of the need for a new beginning in order to see that the talks which have proven – have not proven successful so far can succeed at the end of the day.

Some of the parties involved in the Syria conference have to do their bit. We have to impress upon them that they cannot use their negotiations in order to simply play for time. They both, in the face of the suffering of the people of Syria, have to do their bit. They have to give access to humanitarian aid organizations so that they can reach out to the threatened parts of the population. And we very much hope that at least in parts of the country, a ceasefire can be agreed upon.

Of course, these days, there is one issue that is dominating our agenda and is very much on our minds. John Kerry mentioned it and made a decisive reference to the ongoing development in the Ukraine. The bloodshed in Ukraine has been stopped and we are all happy and relieved to see that that is the case. But nevertheless, Ukraine continues to be a major challenge. In the last few days since the agreement was signed between the political leadership and the opposition in Ukraine, we have witnessed that. We have seen a stormy development going far beyond the timeline that we had set ourselves only a week ago.

Today, an interim government has been appointed, mainly a government consisting of technocrats. That is good. We wanted to see a government in power quickly, speedily, that not only assumes responsibility for the decisions that have to be taken, but that can also act as a partner for negotiations with the international community, also when it comes to assessing the need for support and aid and financial support.

I underline what John Kerry just said – it’s not sufficient to form a government as such. The government now has to prove or furnish proof of the fact that it is the government of the whole of Ukraine – the north, the south, the east, and the west – that they actually stand up for those parts of the country. I, for one, believe that legislative measures to insure the disadvantaged minorities in the Ukraine, as have been taken recently, have to be made redundant. We have to make sure that that is the case. What has to be done now – and I hope that all the parties involved attend to this – is to ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine. If one were not to attend to that, we would create tension and create instability in the region as a whole, and we cannot allow that to happen.

This is why both of us – the United States of America and Germany – place great value on the fact that given the critical situation, the country, the Ukraine – Ukraine is given some breathing space, a reprieve in order to stabilize the situation on the ground. It ought not to be our ambition at this particular point in time to draw the Ukraine – draw Ukraine towards the west or the east, Russia to the east, we, the European Union, through the west. Ukraine needs a reprieve, as I said. They need time to find footing again.

We ought to strive hard as Europeans with our partners in Europe, with the United States, with the IMF, hopefully also together with Russia, to make sure that the country – that Ukraine is given and granted the financial assistance it dearly needs in order to not be left behind in the next few days.

Dear John Kerry, we’ve been able to talk about all these matter in a sense and spirit of trust and confidence because we’re working on the foundation of a long, traditional partnership. It has grown over the decades and the years. It is based on shared values. It is a foundation that allows us to also sometimes disagree and to openly speak about it. This is why we use the opportunity today to also speak about the recent reporting over the last few weeks and months regarding activities – or, rather, surveillance activities, eavesdropping and monitoring the mobile phones of members of the German Government and others. We talked about it. And we both agree that we cannot leave it at that between both administrations. We have taken note of the fact that we have different views as regards the meaning of security and privacy, and I think we have to talk about this in a spirit of seriousness.

I am very happy to see you, and I’m grateful to you, John. I’m happy to see that the debate that has been mainly led by the media now leads us to a serious dialogue involving all the stakeholders, involving also members of civil society, a bilateral cyber-dialogue, which is to be initiated starting today. I know that the United States are quite ambitious as far as that is concerned; I will have the pleasure to meet with John Podesta tomorrow who is responsible for the review of big data and the future of privacy here in the United States. I believe that that will provide us this – provide us with the forum to talk about our different views, but also work together – let us work together in order to define privacy and protection of civil liberties.

I’m also delighted to see that though we have a conflict here in our bilateral relations, we are both working hard together. You spoke of the renaissance, and I think part and parcel of that renaissanc,e is a very ambitious project we’re negotiating right now. TTIP, I believe, constitutes a major opportunity we ought to seize. It’s not about uniformity. This is not what it is about, TTIP. Rather, we want to maintain and protect diversity in Europe amongst the individual European countries and the United States. But what we want to do is to do away with hurdles, which make it more difficult to reach out to each other. That’s the more difficult part of it. And we’re trying to achieve this in a spirit of great transparency as far as the Europeans are concerned with regard to publishing where we are making progress in the negotiations. And I hope that we will be able to take our public along, our people along on that path.

Thus, we had a very substantial agenda internationally, but also bilaterally – a very busy schedule. We’ve met four times in the last four weeks, and I think it won’t be – we will keep up. We will keep up that interval in the next few weeks to come. Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: (Inaudible) will be from Catherine Chomiak of NBC News.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, just a follow-up on Ukraine on two things that you mentioned in your remarks. On the Crimea region, we saw armed gunmen seize the parliament building and raise the Russian flag. Did Mr. Lavrov give you assurances that they were in no way operating under the auspices of the Russian Government?

And also on the troop movements, whether they were pre-planned or not, it’s hard to see how this doesn’t increase tensions in that region. How concerned are you by these exercises, and did you ask Mr. Lavrov to postpone or scale down them? And today, Mr. Yanukovych said that he’s still the lawful president of Ukraine. What do you say to that?

And to Mr. Foreign Minister, how much money is the EU willing to give Ukraine to stand up its economy? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Catherine, with respect to the events and the takeover of the Rada today, yes, of course, we talked about it. And he has said – he indicated to me that he’d actually watched it on TV and he’d seen what had happened, but he disclaimed that they had anything to do with any formal Russian initiative. And on the contrary, they’re concerned about it, and he expressed a concern about it.

They at least expressed concern that they do not want to see a breakdown into violence and into any kind of sectarian initiative, and I think they understand that to keep faith with their affirmation about protecting the territorial integrity, you can’t be encouraging a separatist movement or some other effort. The – I indicated to him that the minister of defense acting at that point in time was traveling to the region in order to indicate that they were fully prepared to live up to the Sevastopol port agreement with Russia. They had no intention of changing any of the existing laws or agreements, and that they fully intended to uphold the rights of all minorities.

And we talked today with Foreign Minister Steinmeier about one entity or another. There are several that have been proposed that might be able to be engaged in Ukraine to help in any kind of mediation and resolution of these kinds of questions. With respect to – but I think we all have to understand that nowhere is there a greater connection to or link to Russia in several different ways than there is in Crimea, but that as the days unfold, this should not become a tension or a struggle between the United States, Russia, East, West, et cetera. This is about the people of Ukraine being able to make their decisions. And I said that to the foreign minister, and the foreign minister confirmed that this is about the people of Ukraine writ large, not one group or another. So that’s what we’re focused on.

With respect to the fleet and exercises, I don’t think that they are so long or prolonged that it is something that is going to have an impact on the events there. And I think the very specific message from President Putin is one that we need to process. But as I said earlier, we will look to Russia for the choices that it makes in the next days for their confirmation of these statements. Statements are statements, words are words. We have all learned that it’s actions and the follow-on choices that make the greatest difference.

So we will watch very careful and very hopefully that Russia will join us in the effort to help shore up the economy, hold the country together, and provide a road forward. We are absolutely ready, all of us, to welcome Russia to the table of creating a democratic, pluralistic, fully inclusive Ukraine according to what the people of Ukraine are defining. It’s not our choice. It’s not Russia’s choice. It’s the choice of the people of Ukraine. And they spoke very clearly when their legislature voted to impeach the existing president and to move on to a new technical government. This was their movement, spontaneous, speedy, definitive, without any encouragement from the outside. In fact, I think most of us were taken quite by surprise by those events.

So that said, with respect to Mr. Yanukovych, Mr. Yanukovych left the field of engagement. He voluntarily departed, and he signed an agreement, and then without signing the law that was the precondition to the implementation of the rest of the agreement, he departed and took off to parts unknown and was unavailable to those of us who were trying to reach him. The Vice President of the United States had a call in to him for some 12 to 14 hours, unanswered. So I think it is clear that events have now overtaken whatever legitimacy he claimed. There is now a government, and we are looking forward to working with the government that was appointed by the legitimately elected members of the legislature and through their legitimate process.

FOREIGN MINISTER STEINMEIER: (Via interpreter) The political future is in the hands of the Ukrainians. It is for them now to decide about their future, and I hope they will do so in a way that will allow for an inclusive government that considers itself to be responsible for the people of the country as a whole. As far as economic support is concerned, I don’t think the people of Ukraine will be able to master the challenge on their own. Too many negative decisions and faulty decisions have been taken by the previous government, and Ukraine finds itself in a dire economic situation, and I don’t think they can master that challenge on their own.

But I’m not only looking to Ukraine when I’m saying what I’m going to say now. I think this would also be true for each and every one of us. Given the situation of the country and the depth of the economic crisis, anyone present here would be challenged in a way he could not cope on his own. Thus it would be good for all of us to get our support coordinated. Let us all come in and help the IMF, the United States of America – I will meet Christine Lagarde tomorrow morning. Hopefully, Russia will come in and help. We hope they also will engage in the efforts to stabilize the economic situation in Ukraine. No one will benefit from this country teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. We need political stabilization to be accompanied by economic stabilization.

Before coming to the question you put to me, how much is the European Union going to make available, before I address that question, we will have to figure out how much Ukraine needs. We have heard many different figures being placed on the table. It’s difficult for anyone to give you an exact idea of how much Ukraine needs. Yanukovych has kept the figures hidden under his desk. We very much hope that the new prime minister of Ukraine happens – who happens to be a former head of a central bank, and I think thus he will be much better suited than many other people to assess the situation.

I’m pleased, though, that Christine Lagarde has already announced that a team of experts of the IMF will leave already tomorrow in order to provide us with the respective data and give us an idea of the dimension of the challenge we have to address. I hope that the IMF stands ready to provide funds from a kind of emergency fund. Quick assistance is what’s required. I heard – I was delighted to hear that the United States are also standing ready to assist, roughly $1 billion, and the European Union would probably also follow suit about the same amount of funds.

Right now – and I beg your understanding for the fact – we are at a point where we have to admit that these decisive steps have only been taken in the last few days. And the international organizations, the European Union, all the countries are still trying to identify what best to do. But I think we’re all quite aware of the responsibility we have to bear and the need for assistance to be granted by us.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Martin Klingst of Die Zeit.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Foreign Minister, do you both trust President Putin? And vice versa, can he trust you? What are you going to – what are you willing to offer him that you keep Russia engaged?

And is Ukraine’s possible membership in the EU and NATO still on the table, or do you think also about other options, like Mr. Brzezinski, the Finland option, keeping Ukraine or taking Ukraine as a member into the EU but keeping it out of NATO? And what can you do to support the respect for minorities in Ukraine? Are you willing to link the support to economic support?

And are you going home, Mr. Foreign Minister, with concrete offers of confidence-building measures regarding NSA and the surveillance matters? Do you have anything concrete in your hand to calm the German public? Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER STEINMEIER: (Via interpreter) First, as regards Ukraine, I think you will understand that we are trying whatever we can in order to make sure that we get our acts together and that we don’t sort of split up international responsibility and everyone is to pursue his or her individual interest. That is what I tried – is the point I tried to make at the beginning. Let’s not focus on attracting the Ukraine, attracting Ukraine more to the East or the West. This is not the task at hand. This is not the central task we have to attend to. This is not what I would identify as the basic needs of Ukraine.

This is also why we have undertaken manyfold efforts – I am one of the people who’ve done so – to tell Ukraine that the end of the bloodshed and our endeavors to bring that about was not directed against Russia in any way. I think it was something that had to be done. We wanted to avoid a civil war in Ukraine. Preventing such a civil war ought also to be in the interest of Russia, and thus I appeal to Russia, I urge Russia, to also participate in the endeavors that will be undertaken now.

I know that there are expectations on the part of minorities, especially on the part of the Russian minority in Ukraine. They want their rights to be respected. And I believe that protecting the rights of minorities is something that the new government has to provide for and has to be very clear and outspoken, not only in their words but also with the respective legislative action. In the coming days we will be in a position to see whether it will be possible to make sure that the international community, in conjunction with Russia, will work in the same direction and stand side by side in order to impress this upon Ukraine.

As regards your second question, if you were referring to the fact that I had come here expecting that this was the way in which the day* ought to go and that John Kerry would then hand over a signed no-spy agreement to me saying me – saying to me at the same time, good that we talked about it, this is not what brought me here. And the last few weeks and months have made it clear that this a bit more complicated than that, and this is why I said we have to realize that at this point in time we don’t always agree, we do have different assessments as regards the importance of privacy and security and granting civil liberties. We have different perspectives, different assessments. But in making that point, I am not going to say that we have to begin negotiating a bilateral no-spy agreement, but we have to talk about the fact that we are not always in agreement here, explain our point of view, describe our arguments. Our arguments are not always shared by the other side, but there will be points where we perhaps won’t ever be able to agree 100 percent.

This is why I said, given the efforts that have been undertaken in the past and that will no doubt continue in the weeks and days to come in the framework of the European Union, negotiating with the United States on a data protection agreement and negotiations that will continue between the European Union and the United States of America about adding to and complementing the Safe Harbor Agreement. But alongside with these endeavors we have to have an honest and frank dialogue about the future of protecting privacy in the age of the internet. And I’m happy to see that the American side has accepted that wish that we have expressed and is willing to talk to us about this, not only at the level of the respective administrations’ governments, that is, but also involving the stakeholders and civil society in that dialogue.

SECRETARY KERRY: I’ll just comment very quickly on the last part of the foreign minister’s answer to your question, and I just want to make it clear from an American perspective. When I was in the United States Senate, I was a coauthor, with Senator John McCain, of the Internet Privacy Act. And I also was a powerful proponent for internet neutrality. And I have always maintained that it is critical to have an internet that has an open architecture. And that’s the way the internet works most effectively. That’s the way most of our countries will be well served.

At the same time, I well understand the need to have a balance. I mean, as the author of the Privacy Act, where we were clearly trying to prevent – protect people, I’m more than acutely aware of the need for people to have their information, their rights, protected, their information protected. Their personal protection, their medical, all of that, needs to be protected. But I’m also well aware that we live in a very dangerous world, that there are many people plotting very dangerous acts in all parts of the world. No one is free from this.

Currently in Syria, there are in the – somewhere in the range of 7- to 11,000 foreign fighters. And those foreign fighters are learning the worst methods of persuasion – terror. And many of them will return to the countries from which they have come. And that includes many countries in Europe, it includes the United States, it includes Australia, it includes parts of the Middle East, South Central Asia, and Asia. And I’ve talked to leaders in those countries who are deeply concerned about what those people may do when they return to their country.

So we have a global interest in trying to know what terrorists are going to do before they do it. There was information available to people before the events of 9/11. There were telephone conversations made back and forth and so forth. We believe there’s a balance that permits law enforcement and national security to be preserved in their interests and also to preserve privacy. There have been instances where it’s gone over a line. President Obama has said that. That’s why he engaged in the most far-reaching reevaluation and review of our practices, and that’s why he issued new instructions in order precisely to deal with this issue.

So Germany does not have a protagonist here – an antagonist. We’re not adversarial. We have the same interest. And we want to make sure that all of our citizens are protected in both ways, in their privacy and in their security. And we believe there’s a balance, and we’re determined to try to get at that through a reasonable and thoughtful discussion, and I appreciate the foreign minister’s approach to it.

With respect to President Putin and the issue of trust and the question of what’s going to unfold with respect to Ukraine, let me say this. The conduct of foreign affairs is based on relationships and on discussions and the exchanges that leaders have, but it is not based solely on trust in any case that I know of. It’s always based on a concrete set of actions that people agree to take or agree to refrain from. We learned this a long time ago with Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev, where they said trust but verify. In this case, we’re not just – and I said this in my last answer – this is not about words. It’s about actions. And we will look in the days ahead to see the confirmation of the words in the choices that are taken, and I think we’d be naive otherwise.

But I don’t want to suggest that when the leader of a country tells you he’s going to do or she is going to do something, that you shouldn’t take some value in that and try to work with it. That doesn’t mean that’s all you’re relying on. And so we will work in the days ahead to come up with a process that assists all of us in guaranteeing a transition.

And with respect to the reforms and the IMF and the protection of minorities, part of the IMF will rely on reforms. Reforms will have to be taken. And clearly, to the degree the Congress of the United States or others are going to be prepared to put either a loan guarantee or a direct budget assistance agreement on the table, it’s going to require that Ukraine is moving in a certain direction that is able to be understood and measured, that it’s accountable. And I think everybody will look for accountability as we go forward.

But again, it’s important to note that these are just the beginning days. They’re always the most complicated. I think it is a good sign that within a few days the government has now been announced. It’s a technical government. We know some of the players who are involved in it. They are capable and they are people we believe we can work with effectively in order to get to elections so the people of Ukraine can make their decision.

Final part of your question: With respect to the Association Agreement and with respect to NATO, obviously, the people of Ukraine have to make their decision. This is not our decision. This is their decision. That’s part of what prompted this upheaval in the first place. My counsel to Ukrainians – unasked for but nevertheless, I think, may be pertinent – would be to focus on the things that need to be focused on now. Let the election be about the choices of the future. That’s a good thing to have a platform on and to run on. It’s a good thing for the people to have a chance to vote for.

And I think it would be good for all the parties concerned to allow some space here. This should not be solely about NATO or consolidation or association. This should be about the democratic process, the economy, the ability to protect minorities, the ability to pull Ukraine together. And I think they would be well served to hold off on those other issues until that choice has been made by the people and they have a government chosen by the people that is ready to move forward on those kinds of choices.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT FOR WEEKENDING FEBRUARY 22, 2014

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT
          SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending February 22, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 348,000, an increase of 14,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 334,000. The 4-week moving average was 338,250, unchanged from the previous week's revised average.

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.3 percent for the week ending February 15, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate. The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending February 15 was 2,964,000, an increase of 8,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 2,956,000. The 4-week moving average was 2,954,750, an increase of 4,000 from the preceding week's revised average of 2,950,750.

UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 310,816 in the week ending February 22, a decrease of 10,598 from the previous week. There were 310,389 initial claims in the comparable week in 2013.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.6 percent during the week ending February 15, unchanged from the prior week. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 3,384,598, a decrease of 26,636 from the preceding week. A year earlier, the rate was 2.7 percent and the volume was 3,536,462.

The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending February 8 was 3,486,060, a decrease of 26,388 from the previous week. There were 5,764,168 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2013.

No state was triggered "on" the Extended Benefits program during the week ending February 8.

Initial claims for UI benefits filed by former Federal civilian employees totaled 1,178 in the week ending February 15, a decrease of 21 from the prior week. There were 1,676 initial claims filed by newly discharged veterans, a decrease of 439 from the preceding week.
There were 22,308 former Feder
al civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending February 8, an increase of 776 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 29,570, a decrease of 100 from the prior week.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending February 8 were in Alaska (6.1), New Jersey (4.2), Rhode Island (4.2), Pennsylvania (3.9), Connecticut (3.8), Illinois (3.8), Montana (3.8), California (3.7), Wisconsin (3.7), and West Virginia (3.6).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending February 15 were in California (+5,832), Michigan (+2,129), Oregon (+1,574), Missouri (+1,045), and Nevada (+196), while the largest decreases were in Georgia (-7,759), Pennsylvania (-3,677), Wisconsin (-3,227), Illinois (-2,780), and North Carolina (-2,644).

BIG CHILL BRINGS BIG ICE OVER THE GREAT LAKES

FROM:  NASA

On Feb. 19, 2014 the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) aboard NASA’s Aqua satellite flew over the Great Lakes and captured this striking false-colored image of the heavily frozen Great Lakes – one of the hardest freeze-ups in four decades. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), ice cover on North America’s Great Lakes peaked at 88.42% on Feb. 12-13 – a percentage not recorded since 1994. The ice extent has surpassed 80% just five times in four decades. The average maximum ice extent since 1973 is just over 50%. Unusually cold temperatures in the first two months of the year, especially in January, are responsible for the high ice coverage. Very cold air blowing over the surface of the water removes heat from the water at the surface. When the surface temperature drops to freezing, a thin layer of surface ice begins to form. Once ice formation begins, persistently cold temperatures, with or without wind, is the major factor in thickening ice. This false-color image uses a combination of shortwave infrared, near infrared and red (MODIS bands 7,2,1) to help distinguish ice from snow, water and clouds. Open, unfrozen water appears inky blue-black. Ice is pale blue, with thicker ice appearing brighter and thin, melting ice appearing a darker true-blue. Snow appears blue-green. Clouds are white to blue-green, with the colder or icy clouds appearing blue-green to blue.  Image Credit: NASA/Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA GSFC.

WHITE HOUSE, FDA ANNOUNCE NEW NUTRITION FACTS LABEL

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
The White House and FDA Announce Proposed Updates to Nutrition Facts Label

First Lady Michelle Obama and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg announce proposed updates to the Nutrition Facts label as part of an effort to help families make healthier choices 

Washington, DC – Today, First Lady Michelle Obama joined Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg at the White House to announce proposed revisions to the Nutrition Facts label, which has been significantly updated only once since its initial release twenty years ago.  The Nutrition Facts label is found on roughly 700,000 products.  The updates announced today support the First Lady’s Let’s Move! initiative in its ongoing efforts to provide parents and families with access to information that helps them make healthier choices.

“Our guiding principle here is very simple: that you as a parent and a consumer should be able to walk into your local grocery store, pick up an item off the shelf, and be able to tell whether it’s good for your family,” said First Lady Michelle Obama.  “So this is a big deal, and it’s going to make a big difference for families all across this country.”

The proposed updates are intended to reflect the latest scientific information about the link between diet and chronic diseases such as obesity and heart disease.  The proposed label would also replace out-of-date serving sizes to better align with the amount consumers actually eat, and it would feature a fresh design to highlight key parts of the label such as calories and serving sizes.

“For 20 years consumers have come to rely on the iconic nutrition label to help them make healthier food choices,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. “To remain relevant, the FDA’s newly proposed Nutrition Facts label incorporates the latest in nutrition science as more has been learned about the connection between what we eat and the development of serious chronic diseases impacting millions of Americans.”

Some of the FDA’s proposed changes to the Nutrition Facts label are:

Require information about the amount of “added sugars” in a food product. Based on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans determination that calorie intake from added sugar is too high in the U.S. population and should be reduced.  The FDA proposes to include “added sugars” on the label to help consumers know how much sugar has been added to the product.
Update serving size requirements to reflect the amounts people currently eat. What and how much people eat and drink has changed since the serving sizes were first put into place in 1994.  By law, serving sizes must be based on the portion consumers actually eat, rather than the amount they “should” be eating.
Present calorie and nutrition information for the whole package of certain food products that could be consumed in one sitting or in multiple sittings.
Refresh the format to emphasize certain elements, such as calories, serving sizes and Percent Daily Value, which are important in addressing current public health problems like obesity and heart disease.

CHILEAN SHIPPING SERVCIES COMPANY PLEADS GUILTY IN ANTITRUST CASE

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

SOUTH AMERICAN COMPANY AGREES TO PLEAD GUILTY TO PRICE FIXING
ON OCEAN SHIPPING SERVICES FOR CARS AND TRUCKS

First Charges in the Department’s Antitrust Investigation Involving Ocean Shipping Services; Conspiracy Affected Global Cargo Shipments, Including at Port of Baltimore

WASHINGTON — Compañía Sud Americana de Vapores S.A. (CSAV), a Chilean corporation, has agreed to plead guilty and to pay an $8.9 million criminal fine for its involvement in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate customers and rig bids of international ocean shipping services for roll-on, roll-off cargo, such as cars and trucks, to and from the United States and elsewhere, the Department of Justice announced today.

According to a one-count felony charge filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, CSAV engaged in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating customers and routes, rigging bids and fixing prices for the sale of international ocean shipping services of roll-on, roll-off cargo to and from the United States and elsewhere, including the Port of Baltimore.  CSAV participated in the conspiracy from at least January 2000 to September 2012.  CSAV has also agreed to cooperate with the department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.  The plea agreement is subject to court approval.

Roll-on, roll-off cargo is non-containerized cargo that can be both rolled onto and rolled off of an ocean-going vessel.  Examples of this cargo include new and used cars and trucks, as well as construction, mining and agricultural equipment.

“Today’s charges are the f

irst to be filed in the Antitrust Division’s investigation into bid rigging and price fixing of ocean shipping services,” said Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.  “Because of the growth in the automobile ocean shipping industry over the past 40 years, the conspiracy substantially affected interstate and foreign commerce.  Prosecuting international price-fixing conspiracies remains a top priority for the division."

According to the charge, CSAV and its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by, among other things, agreeing – during meetings and communications – on prices, allocating customers, agreeing to refrain from bidding against one another and exchanging customer pricing information.  The department said the companies then charged fees in accordance with those agreements for international ocean shipping services for certain roll-on, roll-off cargo to and from the United States and elsewhere at collusive and non-competitive prices.

CSAV is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of a $100 million criminal fine for corporations.  The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

Today’s charge is the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging, and other anticompetitive conduct in the international ocean shipping industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section and the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office, along with assistance from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Internal Affairs, Washington Field Office/Special Investigations Unit.

DOD REPORTS SYRA SLOW TO TRANSPORT CHEMICAL MATERIALS FOR DESTRUCTION

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Syria Slow in Meeting Obligations, DOD Spokesman Says
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 27, 2014 – Chemical materials designated for destruction are slowly being transported for consolidation at the Syrian port of Latakia, and the United States is urging the Syrian government to accelerate this process, Defense Department spokesman Army Col. Steven Warren told reporters here today.

The U.S. vessel MV Cape Ray has been specially fitted to accommodate destruction of the Syrian chemical materials, and it arrived Feb. 13 in Rota, Spain, to stand by for the mission.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons announced yesterday that the Syrian government had transported a fourth shipment of chemical materials to Latakia, Warren said. This shipment contained sulfur mustard, he added.
“Of note,” Warren said, “the materials in this shipment are the first which will ultimately be transloaded to the Cape Ray for follow-on destruction.”
The United States continues to urge the Syrian government to meet its obligation and accelerate efforts to deliver the entire declared stockpile to Latakia for transportation and destruction, Warren said. The plan for transloading the chemical weapons onto the Cape Ray, he added, further increase the need for Syria hasten its efforts.

“The plan is that there will be one transload onto the Cape Ray,” he said. “So we have to wait until all the chemicals are out of Syria and on the Danish or Norwegian ships. They’ll then be moved onto the Cape Ray … [and] then be destroyed. We are calling on the Syrians to accelerate their movement of these chemical weapons into the port of Latakia so we can get them all onto the Danish and Norwegian ships and transload them onto the Cape Ray.”

The Syrians, he noted, have obligations that they need to live up to. “These are international obligations, and I know they’ve submitted a plan for a 100-day long extension, and we find that unacceptable,” Warren said. “They have to live up to their obligation. They have to get those chemical weapons out of the country so we can destroy them.”

The DOD spokesman also provided observations on North Korean missile tests conducted yesterday, and the situation in Ukraine.

North Korea launched several short-range scud missiles late last night, Warren said. They impacted off North Korea’s east coast and didn’t appear to target anyone, he added.

“We view this as an unannounced weapons test we see somewhat regularly,” Warren said, noting two to four missiles were launched.
Meanwhile, Warren said, officials are monitoring developments in Ukraine closely. He affirmed America’s strong support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

“We expect other nations to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and avoid provocative actions,” Warren said. “We expect Russia to be transparent about its activities, particularly its recently announced training exercise. We urge them not to take any steps that could be misinterpreted or lead to miscalculation during this delicate time.”

U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR FEBRUARY 27,2014

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
CONTRACTS
 ARMY

VS2 LLC, Alexandria, Va., was awarded a $41,950,284 modification (0001) to contract W52P1J-13-G-0029 for logistics support services, at the Logistics Readiness Center, Fort Benning, Ga., to include materiel maintenance, supply and transportation services.  Fiscal 2013 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $41,950,284 were obligated at the time of the award.  Estimated completion date is Feb. 27, 2019.  Work will be performed at Fort Benning, Ga.  Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., is the contracting activity.

Diversified Construction of Oklahoma*, Edmund, Okla., was awarded a $22,500,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for minor construction, sustainability, repairs and maintenance to the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Okla.  Funding and performance location will be determined with each order.  Estimated completion date is Feb. 25, 2019.  Bids were solicited via the Internet with 15 received.  Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa, Okla., is the contracting activity (W912BV-14-D-0002).

BAE Systems Technology Solutions, Rockville, Md., was awarded a $21,391,241 modification (P00230) to contract W912CN-08-C-0085 for logistical support and services consisting of maintenance, transportation and supply on the islands of Oahu and Hawaii.  Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $10,591,365 were obligated at the time of the award.  Estimated completion date is Feb. 28, 2015.  Work will be performed at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.  Army Contracting Command, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, is the contracting activity.

QED Systems LLC*, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., was awarded a $7,443,765 cost plus-fixed-fee contract for program management, engineering, logistics, business, administrative, operations, and security service support for product manager meteorological and target identification capabilities.  Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $7,443,765 were obligated at the time of the award.  Estimated completion date is Feb. 26, 2017.  Bids were solicited via the Internet with three received.  Work will be performed at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.  Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., is the contracting activity (W15P7T-14-C-C012).

Truestone, Herndon*, Va., was awarded a $6,685,148 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for reverse engineering, limited prototyping for exploitation, test and evaluation, and target validation.  The contractor shall provide program management, engineering, and technical support related to a wide range of technologies managed in the Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate, Technical Characterization and Exploitation Branch, Cyber Offensive Operations Division.  Fiscal 2012 research, development, testing and evaluation funds in the amount of $40,764; fiscal 2012 other procurement funds in the amount of $550,000; fiscal 2013 research, development, testing, and evaluation funds in the amount of $13,258 and fiscal 2013 other procurement funds in the amount of $2,553,200 were obligated at the time of the award.  Estimated completion date is Feb. 26, 2015.  Bids were solicited via the Internet with six received.  Work will be performed at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.  Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen, Md., is the contracting activity (W15P7T-14-C-A159).

Raytheon, McKinney, Texas, was awarded a $6,651,471 modification (P00226) to contract W31P4Q-07-C-0088 to procure services for the improved target acquisition system for the Tube Launched, Optically Tracked, Wireless Guided Missile System.  Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $6,651,471 were obligated at the time of the award.  Estimated completion date is Dec. 30, 2014.  Work will be performed in McKinney, Texas, is the contracting activity.

NAVY

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $49,816,500 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-10-C-0030) for the full rate production of 3,500 Precision Laser Guidance Set (PLGS) units and 5,000 kits to convert the PLGS units from the DSU-38/B configuration to the DSU-38A/B for the U.S. Air Force.  Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (57 percent); St. Charles, Mo. (17 percent); Cincinnati, Ohio (12 percent); Greenville, S.C. (5 percent); Minneapolis, Minn. (4 percent); Glen Riddle, Pa. (3 percent); Danville, Va. (1 percent); and Georgetown, Texas (1 percent), and is expected to be completed in February 2016.  Fiscal 2014 procurement of ammunition, Air Force funds in the amount of $49,816,500 will be obligated at time of award; none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, Va. (N00421-10-D-0005); Deloitte Consulting LLP, Alexandria, Va. (N00421-10-D-0006); National Technologies Associates Inc., Alexandria, Va. (N00421-10-D-0007); and Science Applications International Corp., McLean, Va. (N00421-10-D-0008), are each being awarded modifications to previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contracts to exercise options for management, organizational, and business improvement services, financial and business solutions, and human resources services supporting Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Corporate Operations and Comptroller offices.  The aggregate not-to-exceed amount for these options is $17,665,000, and the companies will have the opportunity to compete on each individual task order.  Work will be performed in Patuxent River, Md., however, services also may be performed in the following NAVAIR locations:  Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division St. Inigoes, Md.; Lakehurst N.J.; Point Mugu, Calif.; China Lake, Calif.; Orlando Fla.; Cherry Point, N.C.; Jacksonville, Fla., and North Island, Calif.  Work performed under these contracts is expected to be completed in February 2015.  No funds will be obligated at time of award.  Funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued.  The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

IAP World Services Inc., Cape Canaveral, Fla., is being awarded a $9,190,177 modification under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N40080-13-D-3003) to extend the contract completion date for base operating support services at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Webster Field Annex, Solomon’s Recreation Center Annex and Point Lookout, Md.  The work to be performed provides for base operating services including all labor, supervision, management, tools, materials, equipment, facilities, transportation, and other items necessary to provide facility, refuse collection, swimming pools, wastewater, water and environmental maintenance services.  The total contract amount after award of this modification will be $41,151,389.  Work will be performed in Patuxent River, Md. (91 percent); Solomons, Md. (five percent); St. Inigoes, Md. (two percent) and Point Lookout, Md. (two percent), and work is expected to be completed June 2014.  Fiscal 2014 working capital funds, Defense; fiscal 2014 health program, Defense; fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy; and fiscal 2014 non-appropriated funds contract funds in the amount of $6,790,177 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, Public Works Department, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

Avox Systems Inc., Lancaster, N.Y., has been awarded a maximum $19,011,985 modification (P00101) exercising the first option year on a two-year base contract (SPM8EG-12-D-0006) with three one-year option periods for breathing apparatus.  This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract.  Location of performance is New York with a Mar. 27, 2015 performance completion date.  Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.  Type of appropriation is fiscal year 2014 defense working capital funds.  The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa. (Awarded Feb. 25, 2013)

Petro Star Inc.*, Anchorage, Alaska, has been awarded a maximum $7,939,809 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for fuel.  This contract is a competitive acquisition, and two offers were received.  This is a four-year base contract with no option periods.  Location of performance is Alaska with a March 31, 2018 performance completion date.  Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies.  Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2018 defense working capital funds.  The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Va., (SP0600-14-D-0058).

DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE

Immixtechnology, Inc., McLean, Va., is being awarded a $7,843,432 modification (P00012) to previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (HQ0423-12-F-0028) to exercise the second option year to provide Business Activity Monitoring Services to identify improper payments across various payment systems.  Work will be performed in Indianapolis, Ind., and Atlanta, Ga, and is expected to be completed Feb. 28, 2015.  Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Contract Services Directorate, Columbus, Ohio is the

U.S. CONGRATULATES PEOPLE ON DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ON THEIR INDEPENDENCE DAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Secretary's Remarks: Dominican Republic's Independence Day
02/27/2014 09:32 AM EST
Dominican Republic's Independence Day

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 27, 2014

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the Government and people of the Dominican Republic on the 170th anniversary of your independence.

The United States is proud of its thriving Dominican-American community. Each and every day, some 1.5 million Dominican-Americans contribute to our nation’s economic vitality and culture while maintaining a deep connection with their Dominican roots.

In the spirit of friendship and mutual respect, the people of the United States are working with the people of the Dominican Republic on citizen security, economic opportunity, clean energy development, and respect for human rights.

As you gather in celebration, I wish you a happy Independence Day.

U.S. ARMY TRAINS WITH TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENSE FORCE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
A U.S. UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter hovers over members of U.S. 7th Special Forces Group and Trinidad and Tobago defense force as they prepare to fast rope off Chacachacare Island, the western-most island off Trinidad, Feb. 14, 2014. U.S. Army photo by Capt. Daisy C. Bueno .

 U.S. soldier fires at a target in flight with Trinidad and Tobago defense force members aboard an MH-60 Black Hawk helicopter off Chacachacare Island, the western-most island off Trinidad, Feb. 15, 2014. The soldier is assigned to the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. U.S. Army photo by Capt. Daisy C. Bueno.

FDIC SAYS COMMERCIAL BANK NET INCOME INCREASED $5.8 BILLION IN 4TH QUARTER OF 2013

FROM:  FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 

Commercial banks and savings institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reported aggregate net income of $40.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2013, a $5.8 billion (16.9 percent) increase from the $34.4 billion in earnings that the industry reported a year earlier. This is the 17th time in the last 18 quarters — since the third quarter of 2009 — that earnings have registered a year-over-year increase. The improvement in earnings was mainly attributable to an $8.1 billion decline in loan-loss provisions. Lower income stemming from reduced mortgage activity and a drop in trading revenue contributed to a year-over-year decline in net operating revenue (the sum of net interest income and total noninterest income). More than half of the 6,812 insured institutions reporting (53 percent) had year-over-year growth in quarterly earnings. The proportion of banks that were unprofitable fell to 12.2 percent, from 15 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"The trend of slow but steady improvement that has been underway in the banking industry since 2009 continued to gain ground," said FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg. "Asset quality improved, loan balances were up, and there were fewer troubled institutions. However, challenges remain in the industry. Narrow margins, modest loan growth, and a decline in mortgage refinancing activity have made it difficult for banks to increase revenue and profitability. Nonetheless, these results show a continuation of the recovery in the banking industry."

The average return on assets (ROA), a basic yardstick of profitability, rose to 1.10 percent in the fourth quarter from 0.96 percent a year ago. The average return on equity (ROE) increased from 8.53 percent to 9.87 percent.

Fourth quarter net operating revenue totaled $166.1 billion, a decline of $2.8 billion (1.7 percent) from a year earlier, as noninterest income fell by $4.2 billion (6.6 percent) and net interest income increased by $1.4 billion (1.3 percent). The average net interest margin — the difference between the average yield banks earn on loans and other investments and the average cost of funding those investments — was 3.28 percent, the highest average of any quarter in 2013, but down from 3.34 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Total noninterest expenses were $5.8 billion (5.3 percent) lower than in the fourth quarter of 2012, as litigation expenses fell by $3.1 billion at one large institution. Banks set aside $7 billion in provisions for loan losses, a reduction of $8.1 billion (53.7 percent) compared to a year earlier. This is the 17th consecutive quarter that the industry has reported a year-over-year decline in quarterly loss provisions.

Asset quality indicators continued to improve as insured banks and thrifts charged off $11.7 billion in uncollectible loans during the quarter, down $6.8 billion (37 percent) from a year earlier. The amount of noncurrent loans and leases — those 90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status — fell by $14 billion (6.3 percent) during the quarter. The percentage of loans and leases that were noncurrent declined to 2.62 percent, the lowest level since the 2.35 percent posted at the end of the third quarter of 2008.

Net income over the full year of 2013 totaled $154.7 billion, an increase of $13.6 billion (9.6 percent) compared to 2012. The average full-year ROA rose to 1.07 percent from 1.00 percent in 2012. More than half of all institutions (54.2 percent) reported higher net income in 2013, while only 7.8 percent were unprofitable. This is the lowest annual proportion of unprofitable institutions since 2005.

Financial results for the fourth quarter of 2013 and the full year are contained in the FDIC's latest Quarterly Banking Profile, which was released today. Also among the findings:

Total loan balances increased. Loan balances increased by $90.9 billion (1.2 percent) in the three months ending December 31, as all major loan categories except one- to four-family residential real estate loans experienced growth during the quarter. Loans to commercial and industrial (C&I) borrowers increased by $27.3 billion (1.7 percent), loans secured by nonfarm nonresidential real estate properties rose by $17.1 billion (1.6 percent), and credit card balances posted a $14.3 billion (2.1 percent) increase. Home equity loan balances declined for a 19th consecutive quarter, falling by $6.9 billion (1.3 percent). Balances of other loans secured by one- to four-family residential real estate properties fell by $13 billion (0.7 percent), as the amount of mortgage loans sold during the quarter exceeded by $29 billion the amount of mortgage loans originated and intended for sale. For the 12 months through December 31, total loan and lease balances were up by $197.3 billion (2.6 percent).

Mortgage activity remained well below year-ago levels. One- to four-family residential real estate loans originated and intended for sale were $307.7 billion (62 percent) lower than in the fourth quarter of 2012, as rising interest rates in the first half of 2013 reduced the demand for mortgage refinancings. Noninterest income from the sale, securitization and servicing of mortgages was $2.8 billion (34 percent) lower than a year ago. Realized gains on available-for-sale securities also were lower than a year ago, as higher medium- and long-term interest rates reduced the market values of fixed-rate securities. Banks reported $506 million in pretax income from realized gains in the fourth quarter, a decline of $1 billion (66.6 percent) from a year ago.

The number of "problem banks" fell for the 11th consecutive quarter. The number of banks on the FDIC's "Problem List" declined from 515 to 467 during the quarter. The number of "problem" banks is down by almost half from the recent high of 888 at the end of the first quarter of 2011. Two FDIC-insured institutions failed in the fourth quarter of 2013, down from eight in the fourth quarter of 2012. For all of 2013, there were 24 failures, compared to 51 in 2012.

The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) balance continued to increase. The unaudited DIF balance — the net worth of the fund — rose to $47.2 billion as of December 31 from $40.8 billion as of September 30. Assessment income and a reduction in estimated losses from failed institution assets were the primary contributors to growth in the fund balance. Estimated insured deposits increased 0.7 percent, and the DIF reserve ratio — the fund's balance as a percentage of estimated insured deposits — rose to 0.79 percent as of December 31 from 0.68 percent as of September 30. A year ago, the DIF reserve ratio was 0.44 percent. By law, the DIF must achieve a minimum reserve ratio of 1.35 percent by 2020.

JUSTICE ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF MILTON HALL DEATH INVESTIGATION

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Justice Department Announces Results of Investigation into the Death of Milton Hall

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the FBI announced today that they will not be pursuing federal criminal civil rights charges against the Saginaw Police Department (SPD) officers who shot and killed Milton Hall on July 1, 2012.  After a thorough investigation, federal authorities have determined that this tragic event does not present sufficient evidence of willful misconduct to lead to a federal criminal prosecution of the police officers involved.

The Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the FBI conducted an independent investigation that carefully considered all of the evidence.  During the investigation, prosecutors thoroughly reviewed the criminal investigation previously conducted by the Michigan State Police in conjunction with the Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office and the Michigan Attorney General’s Office.  State authorities collected the physical evidence at the scene; photographed the scene; interviewed the two non-shooting SPD officers and dozens of eyewitnesses; acquired the patrol car dashcam and civilian videos of the incident; gathered the dispatch logs, 911 calls and other investigative materials related to the incident; obtained the involved officers’ police reports; and conducted a ballistics and autopsy examination.  At the conclusion of the state investigation, the Saginaw County Prosecutor and the Michigan Attorney General declined to prosecute any of the SPD officers involved in the incident.

In addition to reviewing the evidence previously collected, FBI agents interviewed a number of witnesses who had not been interviewed during the state investigation, including individuals whose names were provided to prosecutors by Hall’s family.

To pursue prosecution under Section 242 in the U.S. Code, the applicable criminal civil rights statute, the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the SPD officers deprived Hall of his constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable use of force.  The government would also have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers acted willfully, that is, for the specific purpose of violating the law.  Law enforcement actions based on fear, panic, misperception or even poor judgment do not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.

The evidence in this case shows that on July 1, 2012, SPD officers responded to the Riverview Plaza in Saginaw, Mich., after receiving a 911 call about a confrontation between a man, later identified as Hall, and a clerk at a Mobil gas station.  An SPD sergeant was the first officer to arrive at the scene, where she located Hall in the plaza’s parking lot and saw that he was carrying a knife with an approximately three-inch blade.  After encountering Hall and seeing that he was armed with a knife, the sergeant requested backup.  When the second officer arrived, Hall approached that officer’s patrol car and jabbed the hood of the vehicle with a knife.  The six remaining SPD officers on duty that day, including a K-9 officer and his dog, reported to the plaza, approached Hall and repeatedly ordered him to drop his knife.  Hall did not comply with the officers’ commands, and verbally responded that he would not put the knife down.  While the SPD officers came together on the scene, the K-9 officer and his dog approached and retreated from Hall several times.  During this time, Hall was intermittently shifting his feet and getting into and out of a crouching stance.  When Hall, with the knife still in his hand, moved toward the K-9 officer and his dog, six SPD officers fired at him and fatally wounded him.

Two SPD patrol car dashcams captured a video recording, with no audio, of much of the encounter between Hall and the SPD officers.  The dashcams on the other SPD patrol cars were either not operational or not activated during this incident.  Several civilians witnessed the incident and recorded portions of it on their cellular phones.

After the shooting, all of the SPD officers at the scene wrote reports.  In these reports, the officers who discharged their weapons explained that they did so because they believed Hall posed an imminent threat to the officers’ safety.  

A fter a careful review of all of the evidence, experienced prosecutors from the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan have determined that t he evidence in this case is insufficient to prove , beyond a reasonable doubt, that the SPD officers willfully shot Hall for an unlawful purpose, rather than for their stated purpose of preventing Hall from harming SPD staff.  Even if the officers were mistaken in their assessment of the threat posed by Hall, this would not establish that the officers acted willfully, or with an unlawful intent, when using deadly force against Hall.  Accordingly , this tragic event does not present sufficient evidence of willful misconduct to give rise to a federal criminal prosecution of the police officers involved.

SECRETARY KERRY, AMBASSADOR RUSSEL MAKE REMARKS ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
Discussion on Ending and Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Situations
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Catherine M. Russell
Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues 
Benjamin Franklin Room
Washington, DC
February 25, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you very, very much for joining us here. We’re really honored to have all of you.

But also, I’m privileged to have Foreign Secretary William Hague here today. He has really been the leader on this issue, not just a leader, but the leader. And I was privileged to be with him in London – as a matter of fact, today is the anniversary of my leaving on my first trip as Secretary of State, and my first stop was in London, where I received a magnificent naval sword given to me by the Secretary, which I keep down in my office to manage the staff with. (Laughter.) And the – now some 350,000 miles later, the secretary’s coming back to visit us here, and we’re very honored to have him here. And I’m delighted to take part with him in this initiative and in these initiatives that we’re engaged in to deal with the problem of sexual violence in conflict.

Let me just say at the outset – and I think William wants to join me in saying a word in a few moments when I introduce him – we are all watching – and not just watching, but deeply engaged in trying to help this extraordinary transition that is taking place in Ukraine. And both of us are committed to doing our part to support the efforts of people in Ukraine who have spoken out on their own with passion for their ability to have pluralistic, democratic future.

This is not a zero-sum game. It is not a West versus East. It should not be. It is not a Russia or the United States or other choices. This is about the people of Ukraine and Ukrainians making their choice about their future. And we want to work with Russia, with other countries, with everybody available to make sure this is peaceful from this day forward, because obviously the terrible violence that took place in the Maidan was a shock to everybody in the world. So we’re committed to that effort and we hope everybody else will be as committed as we are.

Before I say any further words about this, I might just to ask William if he wants to say a couple words about Ukraine also, and then we’ll come back.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, thank you very much, indeed, John. And thank you all for joining us here today. And it is a great pleasure to be here, as always, with Secretary Kerry. It is, indeed – I had forgotten it was a year today since you came to London on your first visit, and I gave you a sword with which you manage your staff. You gave me some cowboy boots – (laughter) – with which I manage my staff. (Laughter.) So this was a very good reciprocal gift.

And we’ve had some very good talks today, and we will come in a moment to this subject, which I feel very passionately about and on which we are solidly committed to work together over the coming years between the United Kingdom and the United States.

But as Secretary Kerry has just said, we are both not only witnessing but actively speaking to those who’ve taken part in the – this extraordinary transition, as he has said, in Ukraine. I think we’re clear from our talks today that we see this in exactly the same way. This is about the rights of a free people, a free, democratic Ukraine to make their own decisions.

And we don’t see it in a zero-sum way in international affairs. Our national interests are in the people of Ukraine being able to make their own decisions about their future. And so we encourage them to form an inclusive government that enables a new political consensus to take shape in their country, to change a political culture, where corruption has been pervasive, to hold free elections, as they have decided in May, that are fair to everyone in their country.

It is urgent to prepare financial support, but urgent also that they are – they prepare themselves to meet the necessary conditions for that financial support. And we’ve discussed some of the potential details of that today. I will have meetings with the International Monetary Fund here in Washington tomorrow. And we’ve both had discussions with the foreign minister of Russia, Foreign Minister Lavrov, over recent days about this, seeking to work with Russia on this subject. So I welcome the opportunity to have discussions about this and many other issues with Secretary Kerry today.

But of course, we want to go on to the subject of today’s meeting, and I look forward to our discussion about that. Thank you, John.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, William, very, very much.

Turning to the subject of today’s meeting, there’s really no way to adequately describe the depths of depravity and the extraordinary violence of rape as a tool of war, as violence against women as a tool of intimidation, coercion, submission, and power. And I think that those of us who have known about this for a long time are disturbed by the levels at which this is used as exactly that kind of tool in too many parts of the world.

I know William, who I said is the leader, he has traveled extensively, he’s been to Darfur, he’s been to Goma, he’s seen hospitals in which women are laid out on gurneys telling stories of having been raped like animals, and he feels this issue passionately. I attended a conference with him in London that he organized with the G-8 when we were there, and we were joined by a terrific advocate on this, Angelina Jolie, who eloquently spoke of what is happening in so many places.

This is an issue that I really became aware of, actually, here in our country – not in that form, obviously, but I was a prosecutor, and I started the first rape counseling/victim witness assistance program in our county back in the late-1970s, and nobody had heard of it. Nobody knew what it was – what victim witness meant or how you deal with this. And subsequently in the Senate I was proud to join then-Senator Joe Biden in the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, which he authored, and after that was very pleased to bring the International Violence Against Women Act before the – the treaty before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and ultimately through the Senate.

So I have seen this also, personally, in ways around the world in too many places of conflict. And today, we’re making certain something additional; even though we’ve been aware of it, we haven’t sent yet an embassy-wide message, which I am sending today, that no one, and I mean no one at the highest level of military or governance, who has presided over or engaged in or knew of or conducted these kinds of attacks, is ever going to receive a visa to travel into the United States of America from this day forward. We’re not going to allow that. (Applause.) And every embassy will engage – every embassy and post will be alert to this and to report any of these kinds of incidences, but most importantly there has to be a price attached, and that’s one of the things we need to do.

The way we will make a difference on this issue is, frankly, by heeding the example of people who’ve gone before us who broke the back of slavery and other oppressive acts that were being applied to the life of people in various times in history. William Wilberforce, historic figure in Great Britain, stood up against slavery and set an example for people elsewhere. And it was that example that helped us ultimately to break the back of Jim Crow in the United States when people learned that you needed to put yourselves on the line, and you needed to take risks as a matter of moral conscience in order to be able to make the difference.

That’s really what we’re going to have to summon here, is that kind of moral commitment to fighting back against and holding accountable those people who engage in these kinds of activities on a global basis. So as I said earlier, there is no more committed leader globally than my colleague William Hague, and we’re honored – honored to have here today the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General Zainab Bangura. I’m very, very grateful for her being here today. Particularly grateful to Cathy Russell who is our Assistant Secretary for Global Women’s – Special Representative for Global Women’s Affairs who has helped put this together. And I appreciate Anne Richard who is here, and as our assistant secretary, she has played a key role in all of this and decided not to add numbers to our panel, but we’re deeply appreciative to her commitment and leadership for this. And I’m so honored that Katharine Weymouth has taken time off from The Washington Post’s duties to come over here today to actually be the host of the panel, which I will give up momentarily.

But I do want to introduce my good colleague, about whom I’ve said a fair amount in terms of his leadership on this, but we’re really happy to have him here today to take part in this event. William, thank you. (Applause.)

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you very much, John. Thank you very much, and I applaud the commitment of Secretary Kerry and of the United States of America on this subject. I believe that the sort of measure that he just announced, that clarity and clear measure on visas for anyone wishing to enter the United States, is exactly the sort of thing that governments should be doing all over the world as we bring our various powers together in order to tackle this subject.

And as you’ve heard it’s a subject I feel very strongly about that started for me back in – about eight years ago visiting Darfur and visiting camps of displaced people and hearing about how they were raped every time they went out for firewood. And I’ve seen many other examples around the world, now. And then when Angelina Jolie made her film, The Land of Blood and Honey, about events in Bosnia in the 1990s, she and I decided to create the campaign – the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict campaign. It is a subject we cannot and should not ignore, because now we know about it. We now know things that were previously – because they were out of sight of most people in the world, were out of mind as well.

But now the extent of warzone rape has been documented in Bosnia, in Colombia, in Guatemala, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Liberia, in many continents of the world. And what would it say about our societies and our civilizations if we knew those things and chose to do nothing about it? It’s a moral responsibility, but it’s also about preventing conflict, about helping communities to work together after conflict that is a fundamental part of conflict prevention, as well as a crucial moral cause of our times. And great work has been done on this subject by people like Zainab Bangura at the UN and by NGOs all over the world.

But I felt two years ago that what had been missing from this was some of the major governments of the world really throwing their weight behind it. And so I decided to throw the weight of the United Kingdom behind – we have one of the biggest diplomatic networks in the world. We have one of the biggest development budgets in the world. We are a country, particularly it’s when we work – when we work with the United States and others, that can move the dial in international affairs. And so we are setting out to create international action on this, and we have made agreements with the G8 foreign ministers that Secretary Kerry took part in last April. I took it to the UN Security Council in June, and we strengthened the tools available to the United Nations. And we held a meeting at the General Assembly last year, where now 140 countries in the world, as a result of that, have signed my declaration on ending sexual violence.

I’m going to host in London in June a global summit on this issue, which will be like no summit ever before. It is going to go on around the clock, around the world. It is going to be open to the public. It is going to communicate digitally with people in every continent of the world. We are going to involve militaries, judiciaries. We’re going to ask governments to take practical steps to end sexual violence, to do the sort of thing we’ve done now of deploying teams of experts to areas that help to gather the evidence and make sure prosecutions can take place. And we’re going to do even more than that. We are going to set about changing global attitudes on this subject so that the stigma that has always been attached to the victims to the victims of these crimes is attached to the perpetrator instead.

It is an ambitious agenda, but it really can be done. And I know there are sometimes quiet cynics who say, “Well, isn’t this just part of war?” Well, we have rules of even war in other respects. We have Geneva conventions about the treatment of prisoners of war. We have conventions and rules about subjects from landmines to cluster munitions. We need to have accepted rules on this subject as well. And there are people who say, “Well, it’s too big and too difficult a subject to do anything about,” or they perhaps think that even if they don’t say it. But no campaign would ever have succeeded against slavery or against racial discrimination or anything else if anybody started out with that thought in their minds that it was impossible.

And so it is now possible to do something on this subject to take practical actions at many levels and to change the entire global attitude on this subject, and our objective should be nothing less than that. And in that spirit, and I am waging this campaign, and I look forward to, without saying anything more at this point, to hearing your views and questions about that. Thank you very much indeed. (Applause.)

MS. WEYMOUTH: Thank you both, Secretary Hague and Foreign – I’m sorry, Secretary Hague and Secretary Kerry.

Let me start with you, Special Representative Bangura. Secretary Hague referred to the stigma of women who are abused sexually during conflict and seeking to remove that stigma and put that stigma on the perpetrator, something that we would all like to see, but we know that there are strong cultural pulls. In many cultures, women don’t want to report rapes, they don’t want to get an abortion, they’re forced to marry the rapist. Can you talk a little bit about what you are doing about those issues and what you think that the governments can do about those issues?

MS. BANGURA: Thank you very much. And I have to congratulate the two great gentlemen. And I think when I took this job, the first thing the Secretary-General said to me, “If you want to succeed, you have to have men on your side.” So I can say in the United Nations, I’m the luckiest woman, because at least I have men who have stood up and say, we will support you. That is very important.

What we have been able to do with the support of the United States and the United Kingdom, like the foreign secretary said, we’ve got the global legal framework. By various resolutions in the Security Council, we’ve got all the tools. And the challenge is why, the foreign secretaries (inaudible) conference, is actually how do we make sure at the national level the governments take ownership and responsibility and implement the decision that we have agreed at the United Nations? And I think we have succeeded within the last one year. The momentum developed by the initiative launch by foreign secretary, which saw it at the G8’s – the foreign ministers at the G8 actually adopted a declaration, and there are now 140 countries.

So the political momentum has been created, which has helped us at a national level to have firm commitment. We have signed a joint framework with the DRC, with (inaudible). When I visited DRC for the first time, visited together with Foreign Secretary Hague, and were able to see President Kabila. I think with the pressure that we’ve been able to put on those leaders, we’ve got firm political commitment from them in writing. We’re working now with a team of experts in my office to ensure that we build their capacity, we have this commitment interpreted into firm, concrete action at the national level. And I think that’s where the next phase of this mandate is. So I can tell you that we have done – been very extremely successful with the DRC, with Somalia, even with the Central Africa. Now with Resolution 2106, we’re putting it as part of peace agreements in mediation, so it’s also been included in most of the negotiations that are going in peace agreement – is ceasefire violation.

So I think we’ve done tremendously well, and I think it’s making sure that we implement it on the ground at the national level where the crimes are being committed. So I want to congratulate you, Secretary of State Hague and Kerry with this decision you’ve taken now with making so people who commit this crime are not given visa. These are all part of the tools and the support we need, because once we’re able to identify the people, we need to name and shame them. We need to let them understand that wherever they are, whoever they are, we will go after them and we’ll get them.

MS. WEYMOUTH: So let me pick up on that. Secretary Kerry, you’ve just announced this new rule regarding visas, which implies that these are people who have been found to have committed crimes. We know that one of the challenges is getting the information out. Taking the crisis that’s happening right now on the ground in Syria, we know we’re having trouble getting reports, that we don’t have firm reports, we know abuse is happening. What is the role of the U.S. Government or the British Government or any government during a conflict like that?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I think there are several roles. One is – first of all, our first role now, which we’re working on, is really to create a greater awareness and to have more people in the world, more governments particularly, recognize their responsibility. You’ve got to create accountability. If you have impunity, it’s very difficult to make progress in this. So our response – I mean, our – hopefully our collective leadership can bring governments to hold people accountable.

You need a massive education effort. You’ve got to go out and people have to be aware that this is something you can – I’m not going to tell you you can wipe it out and prevent it altogether. But boy, can you create a different attitude in people about the accountability, the hierarchy, the consequences. And in organized kinds of campaigns, like a place in Syria, where you have an army and you’ve got greater capacity to have a discipline within the ranks, you can make a difference.

In some places in the world today, you don’t have that. You have young kids carrying guns, you have 16, 17, 18-year-olds, 12-year-olds in some cases. And to some degree, there’s a cultural attitude that encourages that kind of behavior as – literally as an instrument of winning and of intimidating people. In those cases, it’s going to take longer, but we can make a difference.

I’ll give you an example. In the Great Lakes region, we have just – in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where M23 was active, in the Kampala Accord, which Special Envoy Russ Feingold and Mary Robinson from the United Nations and others were engaged in helping to negotiate, we have a section in there that specifically talks about accountability and prevention of rape as a tool of – and holding people accountable in M23 for these acts.

So that accountability starts to become known. And as a consequence of that, you have some measure of deterrence. I can’t tell you how much yet, but the key is eliminating impunity, educating people ahead of time, having consequences up and down the chain.

MS. WEYMOUTH: Thank you. Did you want to add something?

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: And just to add to what Secretary Kerry has said as an example to that, the UK in the Syria conflict has trained human rights activists to document such crimes and to gather evidence of such crimes. I mentioned earlier we have created a team – I’ve created a team of 70 experts. These are doctors, forensic experts, gender-based violence experts. Some of them have deployed to the Syrian border, again, to help the gathering of evidence so that one day prosecutions can take place and people can start to become aware of that.

And in the decision we took recently to bring into the United Kingdom some of the Syrian refugees, a small number relative to the total of course, but to be able to bring some of them into the United Kingdom, we are giving priority to those who have been vulnerable to violence, including sexual violence. And then we will also be able to arrange medical care for them.

So there is a whole string of things that countries can do. Even as we try now and when we haven’t succeeded in resolving the conflict and ending the conflict, which is our overriding priority, there are things we can do in the meantime to try to help people who are victims of sexual violence in a conflict such as Syria now.

MS. WEYMOUTH: Thank you. Ambassador Russell --

AMBASSADOR RUSSELL: Can I make --

MS. WEYMOUTH: Yeah. Go ahead.

AMBASSADOR RUSSELL: I just --

MS. WEYMOUTH: I think it’s on.

AMBASSADOR RUSSELL: I’d like to make one point, which is that one thing is in –

SECRETARY KERRY: Pull it up closer, Cathy.

AMBASSADOR RUSSELL: -- if you look at World War I, I think then five percent of the casualties were people who were civilians. And now, when you look at conflicts, we’re up to 90 percent of the casualties are civilians. And so we’re dealing with situations that are so different from situations that we’ve seen in the past. And of course, women and children are almost always more likely to be victims in these conflicts.

And so we’ve seen certainly situations where both secretaries described, where women are intentionally victims and where rape is used a strategic decision on the part of commanders to really go in and either try to move communities out, try to pillage, try to terrorize, try to brutalize communities. And I think we’re all trying to adjust to how to deal with that. I think the biggest challenge we all are facing is that a lot of these commanders who do this, individual soldiers, are doing it with just unbelievable impunity. And we’re all struggling to address that.

And I think the biggest challenge is we can – and the United States does this, the UK does this, we provide a lot of services for victims. But we’re all interested in figuring how to avoid it in the first place. And I think one of the challenges is trying to make sure that people understand that there will be consequences for this.

One of the things that we’ve come up or that we’re supporting are mobile courts that have been very effective in the DRC. Because now there have been prosecutions in The Hague, which have been effective, but they’re – they take a long time to get done and we do very few of them just because of the nature of the tribunals for Rwanda cases, Yugoslavia cases. But for these DRC cases, we have judges or Congolese prosecutors, judges who go out and they travel around, and they hear the cases in the communities. It takes two weeks for a case to be heard, and justice is meted out immediately. People see the justice happen in front of them. People who have committed these cases, who never believed they would be prosecuted, are prosecuted.

That sort of thing makes a difference. It builds up the sort of trust in the judicial system. It builds up the infrastructure, so there is justice and there’s a possibility that there will be kind of a judicial system maybe that will work in the future. And I think those are the sorts of things that ultimately will have some impact.

And I think what we’re looking to do is to find places where we can sort of build up these societies so that they’ll have sort of rule of law, respect for law, so that ultimately we won’t be in a situation where we’re trying to deal with survivors, deal with services for survivors, but we’re having a place where they respect the rule of law and we don’t have these situations in the first place.

MS. WEYMOUTH: And is there a difference in the way we ought to address – there’s the violence that happens during a conflict and then there’s the violence that happens post-conflict. We know in Darfur some of the women were raped going to get firewood and water from refugee camps. Is there a difference in the way that we ought to address those?

AMBASSADOR RUSSELL: Well, I mean, I would just say if you don’t address it during the conflict, there is a lack of respect for law and there is an increase in violence. I mean, we see it in Sierra Leone where you – where that – you have that brutality. When the conflict is over, it continues.

MS. WEYMOUTH: Yeah.

AMBASSADOR RUSSELL: And if it’s not dealt with and there aren’t sort of some services built up and there aren’t punishments, then it just continues into the post-conflict area, post-conflict.

MS. WEYMOUTH: Did you want to add to that?

MS. BANGURA: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I think the challenges are the same, whether in conflict or post-conflict. Today as we speak, we have 50,000 women in Bosnia that were raped during the conflicts in Bosnia. And if you don’t deal with them, there is a problem that reconciliation becomes very difficult. But I think the most challenging, it’s that these issues are integrated into communities when not addressed.

MS. WEYMOUTH: Yeah, yeah.

MS. BANGURA: We have the incident of Liberia today as I speak to you. My youngest victim is from Liberia, three months old. And a report was done by Save The Children: 90 percent of those who were sexually abused were children. So once you don’t address it during a conflict, it gets integrated into community life. It becomes a much bigger problem for you to deal with.

MS. WEYMOUTH: And apart from governments, what is the role that men can play? I mean men in the communities. Because we’re talking about women being abused here, but we know men and boys are also abused in smaller numbers, but they are. But apart from those victims, what is the role of men in these communities?

MS. BANGURA: I think the important issue is that most of this community live under traditional rules and regulation. You have traditional leaders who are controlled by men religious leaders. So they are the gatekeepers, we call them. So they are the one who normally control these communities and they give the instructions. I mean, in the case of Libya, for example, we have – a religious leader gave a fatwa that when you rape somebody, you are forced to marry the perpetrator. So because the men make the laws and because this is a crime that is commanded --

MS. WEYMOUTH: Right.

MS. BANGURA: -- it is important that you give the command to stop it.

MS. WEYMOUTH: Yes.

MS. BANGURA: So the only people who can give the command to stop it are the men. So they have a very critical role to play.

MS. WEYMOUTH: And there are some examples, are there not, of conflicts that did not have sexual and violence as a hallmark?

MS. BANGURA: Well, very few, if there’s any --

MS. WEYMOUTH: But they’re – yeah.

MS. BANGURA: -- because all the conflicts we are dealing with you, you might not be able to see it or read it, but when you go deeper and you look for it, you find out that sexual violence has taken place. And that’s a surprise thing we get with now, because once you get involved in it and you start talking, you start looking deeper into it. And I think the problem is because of the stigma of a culture of silence and the stigma associated with it. So there’s a reluctance for people to report and to deal with it if they don’t have the support and the support is coming.

MS. WEYMOUTH: Secretary Hague, you mentioned the team of experts that you have built in the UK. Can you talk a little bit about the work that they’ve done and the successes they’ve had?

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, they are – as I say, in the UK we’ve assembled a team of more than 70 experts. We will send them on – we will deploy them to half a dozen different places in the course of this year. And then they have the necessary skills to support local organizations and local administrations in the gathering of evidence. Because here, the crucial thing is the shattering of impunity. Now, that is what we have to achieve. That is in line with Secretary Kerry’s remarks, in line with what Zainab Bangura has just been saying. This is the crucial ingredient so that people know they will not get away with it.

And for that, you need the experts, you need the lawyers, you need the doctors, you need the forensic experts. And we need something now that I hope we can add to this, which is agreed international standards for the investigation and documentation of these crimes so that information can be shared, so that the gathering of evidence is of sufficient quality.

And one of my objectives for the global summit in June is for us to agree an international protocol on the documentation and investigation of such crimes so that such evidence can be more easily shared and used all over the world. It won’t be a new body of international law, but it will be an agreed way of trying to implement the laws that exist against these crimes. So that is the way we’re going to follow up the creation of the team of experts.

MS. WEYMOUTH: So at your summit in June, part of the role will be to get the world’s attention to this issue?

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: It is. We have to get the world – to change the attitude, to change the stigma in every part of the world, we have to get the world’s attention. And we are increasingly getting the world’s attention, but I hope it will be another big step forward in that when we hold the global summit in June.

But it won’t just be about attention. It will be about agreeing the international protocol. It will be asking the countries involved to build this into their military training, into the – I’ve just been to Colombia last week where many crimes of sexual violence have taken place during the decades of conflict in Colombia. And the defense ministry in Colombia is now adopting a protocol on sexual violence into its military training so that exactly what Zainab has been saying to armies all over the world is – will happen then. And she makes quite a forceful job of it when she tells them that they must not do these things anymore.

So that we’ll be asking armies, we’ll be asking judiciaries to build this into their thinking. So that the summit is about changing global attitudes, but it’s also about a whole set of practical actions, some of which we can take internationally and some of which we need national governments to take.

MS. WEYMOUTH: Special Representative Bangura, we were talking outside about your first visit to the United States. Can you mention that?

MS. BANGURA: I started – as you know, I started my career as a human rights activist, as a women’s rights activist, but I actually got inspired by the visits I made in the United States as the program International Visitors Program. And I think – I had studied political science at the university – (cheers and applause). I had studied political science at the university, but I was not in a democratic state. At this time, we had a military government in Sierra Leone. So for about two to three decades, we had had continuously one (inaudible) military government, and then I was invited to participate in this program.

At the end of the program, I made a decision. I said I think the future of my country is actually being a democratic state. I went to the American Embassy on my return to brief the ambassador, and I said to her I want to work on democracy. She looked at me and she said, “Are you crazy?” (Laughter.) Yeah. I said, “No, I will.” And so that’s how I started. I got my first grant from the United States, $25,000, and I started treating women in the American Embassy. They provided a venue for me. And that’s how we took the women to the streets to fight for democracy.

So after three decades, we won. We became a democratic state. Today, we’ve had all our three elections, successive elections, and it’s one of the fast-growing economies in the world. So I think that influence – influence greatly and greatly help me and my country. So I was never the same person. I quitted my job as an insurance executive and that’s it. (Laughter.)

AMBASSADOR RUSSELL: So see where this can lead you?

MS. BANGURA: For the rest of my life, I’m working on democracy and human rights.

MS. WEYMOUTH: You’ve accomplished great things since then. (Applause.) We have about five minutes left. Secretary Kerry, you wrote in an op-ed on International Women’s Day – and I love this as a woman – “No country can get ahead if it leaves half of its people behind.” So there is education, there is enforcement. Do you think it makes a difference to have women in the military creating policy, in positions of government, in addition to those measures?

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, sure. I mean, absolutely, of course it does. When I came to the United States Senate, there was one woman. And I watched this transition. I think we got up to 20-something, whatever the number was. Extraordinary, extraordinary difference to the quality of our caucuses, to the quality of debate, to the points of view that were brought forward. I mean, it’s hard for me to imagine how it was the way it was for as long as it was, but it’s hard for a lot of people to imagine it the way it is today, too.

We’ve got a long way to go. We still have a glass ceiling in the United States. And if we still have a glass ceiling on something as straightforward as employment and equal jobs, equal pay for that job, imagine the sort of push it’s going to take to get people to deal with something they’re as uneasy with as sex and sexual violence. A lot of people don’t understand that rape is used as a tool in war. Many people say, well, no, it’s just – it happens or people dismiss it. You can’t. We can’t allow people to do that.

And so women being a part of this dialogue at the highest levels will help bring a level of both personal experience and credibility and reality to the debate that, for better or worse, as hard as men try to or want to, is always going to be hard for them to be able to do. So it makes all the difference in the world. And I think the key here, though, remains getting people to understand what is happening, how impactful it is on a society, and how crushing it is to the capacity of that society to ever sort of break out and be culturally whole and come into modernity.

And so there’s a big education role that has to take place now to get people to understand, number one, that this is an issue worth caring about; and then, to jump from the caring about it to what do you actually do to make a difference. And if you don’t create accountability up and down the chain, you won’t make that difference. So we have to keep pushing on the education front. We have to keep pushing on the governance regulatory enforcement front. And that’s how, ultimately, we’re going to make a difference.

But I think one of the biggest ways to make a difference is holding people accountable in these very visible conflicts now, like Syria or like the Central African Republic or a number of other places. We do that; that’s going to do more to send a message than any other single thing, probably.

FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: And just to add a final word from me on that, this is an immensely important subject in itself, and we’ve all said how crucial it is, but it is a part of an even bigger picture relevant to your question. And I will argue in a speech I’ll make in a few hours’ time in Georgetown that the even bigger picture is that the great strategic prize of the 21st century is the full economic and social and economic empowerment of women everywhere. And that has got to be our goal. (Applause.)

MS. WEYMOUTH: I think we can all applaud that. (Applause.) Thank you all so much.

SECRETARY KERRY: On that note, folks, I think Katharine has yielded back. Cathy, do you want to wrap it up for us? You’re all set?

Well, let me just say to everybody I know this is scratching the surface, but it’s clear from Williams’s announcement about this conference that he’s going to have in London and his own speech this afternoon and other efforts that we will continue, we’re going to stay at this. And we’re going to continue to try to create accountability where there isn’t any, end the impunity that as you heard from Cathy and from Zainab, that’s the key here. We have to end the impunity. And that will come when all of you help us to create accountability.

So thank you all for being here today. Appreciate it. (Applause.)

FTC SAYS CONSUMERS LOST MILLIONS FROM HOME BUSINESS SCAM

FROM:  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 
FTC Halts Multi-Million Dollar Work-From-Home Business Coaching Scheme

Consumers Lost Thousands of Dollars Each After Being Told They Could Earn Income Through Online Businesses

At the Federal Trade Commission’s request, a federal court entered a temporary restraining order halting a deceptive work-from-home scheme that conned millions of dollars from consumers by falsely telling them they could easily earn thousands of dollars a month by purchasing bogus business coaching services and establishing their own Internet businesses. According to the FTC, consumers who bought into the scheme lost thousands – sometimes tens of thousands – of dollars each, most of it through racking up huge credit card charges at the defendants’ urging.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah froze the assets of the defendants, who did business under a variety of names, including Essent Media, LLC, Net Training, LLC, YES International, Coaching Department, and Apply Knowledge, and appointed a temporary receiver to take control of the operations, pending the outcome of a preliminary injunction hearing set for March 20, 2014. The FTC seeks to put a permanent stop to the operations and return money to consumers.

“This case halts a massive scam that bilked consumers out of millions for useless work-at-home kits and business coaching services,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The defendants duped consumers into thinking they could earn thousands working from home. Protecting consumers from such pernicious schemes remains a top priority.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants’ websites told numerous false “rags to riches” stories, using photos – obtained from stock photo agencies – of supposed users of the defendants’ services, and made false and unsubstantiated claims about how much money consumers could earn. The defendants’ scheme had three inter-connected phases. In the first phase, the defendants used deceptive emails and websites to induce consumers to purchase relatively inexpensive work-at-home kits. They sold these kits, which typically cost from $37 to $99, with claims such as:

If You Can Spare 60 Minutes A Day, We Can Offer You a Certified, Proven And Guaranteed Home Job To Make $379/Day From Home!

“Important: Read my full report now as only 15 people are accepted into this program per city at any given time . . . because of the personal support given to each new member to ensure everyone’s quick financial success.  Don’t hesitate . . . this page is taken down (literally) when the limit is reached, so read on . . .

But instead of showing consumers how to earn this income, the websites tried to sell them more products or services. In the second phase of their scheme, the defendants promised consumers that they would earn thousands of dollars a month using defendants’ coaching program to assist them in establishing their own online businesses. The defendants also encouraged consumers to put the entire cost of the program, generally from $3,000 to $12,000, on their credit card, claiming they would be able to pay it off within a few months. In the third phase of their scheme, the defendants pretended to provide consumers with the promised “coaching” services, while pitching yet additional costly add-on services such as business formation, website design, website development, accounting and tax filing services, and drop-shipping services, none of which proved helpful.

According to the FTC, most people who bought the defendants’ services did not get a functional online business, earned little or no money, and ended up heavily in debt.

The FTC has alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting likely earnings and the nature of their services and also violated the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule by misrepresenting material aspects of their investment opportunities.

The corporate defendants are Apply Knowledge LLC, also doing business as Apply Knowledge Institute and Coaching Department; Dahm International LLC; Dominion of Virgo Investments Inc.; eCommerce Support LLC; Essent Media Inc.; eVertex Solutions LLC; EVI LLC, also d/b/a Members Learning Center; Nemrow Consulting LLC; Novus North LLC, also d/b/a Mymentoring, Yes International LLC, and Your Ecommerce Support International LLC; Purple Buffalo LLC, also d/b/a Netmarketing; Supplier Source LLC; 365DailyFit LLC, also d/b/a Net Training; Vensure International LLC; and VI Education LLC.

The individual defendants are David Gregory Bevan, Jessica Bjarnson, Phillip Edward Gannuscia, Chad Huntsman, Scott Nemrow, Jeffrey Nicol, Thomas J. Riskas III, Babata Sonnenberg, and Ken Sonnenberg.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. On February 11, 2014, the court issued the temporary restraining order against the defendants.

OVERFISHING AND CORAL KILLING-SPONGES

FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 
Overfishing of Caribbean coral reefs favors coral-killing sponges
Caribbean-wide study shows protected coral reefs dominated by sponges with chemical defenses

Scientists had already demonstrated that overfishing removes angelfish and parrotfish that feed on sponges growing on coral reefs--sponges that sometimes smother the reefs. That research was conducted off Key Largo, Fla.

Now, new research by the same team of ecologists suggests that removing these predators by overfishing alters sponge communities across the Caribbean.

Results of the research, by Joseph Pawlik and Tse-Lynn Loh of the University of North Carolina Wilmington, are published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

"In fact," says Pawlik, "healthy coral reefs need predatory fish--they keep sponge growth down."

The biologists studied 109 species of sponges at 69 Caribbean sites; the 10 most common species made up 51 percent of the sponge cover on the reefs.

"Sponges are now the main habitat-forming organisms on Caribbean coral reefs," says Pawlik.

Reefs in the Cayman Islands and Bonaire--designated as off-limits to fishing--mostly have slow-growing sponges that manufacture chemicals that taste bad to predatory fish.

Fish numbers are higher near these reefs. Predatory fish there feast on fast-growing, "chemically undefended" sponges. What's left? Only bad-tasting, but slow-growing, sponges.

Overfished reefs, such as those off Jamaica and Martinique, are dominated by fast-growing, better-tasting sponges. "The problem," says Pawlik, "is that there are too few fish around to eat them." So the sponges quickly take over the reefs.

"It's been a challenge for marine ecologists to show how chemical defenses influence the structure of ocean communities," says David Garrison, a program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences, which funded the research.

"With this clever study, Pawlik and Loh demonstrate that having--or not having--chemical defenses structures sponge communities on Caribbean coral reefs."

The results support the need for marine protected areas to aid in coral reef recovery, believes Pawlik.

"Overfishing of Caribbean coral reefs, particularly by fish trapping, removes sponge predators," write Loh and Pawlik in their paper. "It's likely to result in greater competition for space between faster-growing palatable sponges and endangered reef-building corals."

The researchers also identified "the bad-tasting molecule used by the most common chemically-defended sponge species," says Pawlik. "It's a compound named fistularin 3."

Similar chemical compounds defend some plants from insects or grazers (deer, for example) in onshore ecosystems, "but the complexity of those ecosystems makes it difficult to detect the advantage of chemical defenses across large areas," says Pawlik.

When it comes to sponges, the view of what's happening is more direct, he says. "The possibility of being eaten by a fish may be the only thing a reef sponge has to worry about."

And what happens to reef sponges may be critical to the future of the Caribbean's corals.

-NSF-

WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT ON UKRAINE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
Statement by the Press Secretary on Ukraine

The United States strongly supports Ukrainian leaders’ ongoing work to form an inclusive, multiparty government to represent all the people of Ukraine as they prepare for May elections, and to restore order, stability, and unity to the country.  As the process moves forward, the United States again calls on all parties in Ukraine and in the region to support reconciliation and the country’s return to political and economic health, and will work with the international community in building an economic assistance package based upon Ukraine’s achievements in crafting a unity government.  An inclusive, broad-based government committed to reconciliation and to economic reform is the necessary foundation for international assistance.  We call on Ukraine’s leaders to do their utmost to protect the security and human rights of all their citizens, including the rights of minorities, to recommit to honor the state’s international obligations, and to avoid divisive policies.  We urge outside actors in the region to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, to end provocative rhetoric and actions, to support democratically established transitional governing structures, and to use their influence in support of unity, peace, and an inclusive path forward.  We remind all governments of their political commitments to transparency about military activities under the Vienna Document 2011 and other OSCE principles designed to ensure peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic region.