Thursday, June 12, 2014

U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR JUNE 12, 2014

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

CONTRACTS

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

City Light & Power, Inc.,* Long Beach, California, has been awarded a maximum $281,622,253 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for assumption of ownership, operation and maintenance of the electrical distribution system, and will furnish all necessary labor, management, supervision, permits, equipment, supplies, materials, transportation and any other incidental services for the complete ownership, operation, maintenance, repairs, upgrades, and improvements to the utility system. This contract was a competitive acquisition with one offer received. This is a 50-year base contract with no option periods. Location of performance is California and Utah, with a December 2064 performance completion date. Using military service is Air Force. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, Fort Belvoir, Virginia (SP0600-14-C-8291).
American Medical Depot,* Miramar, Florida, has been awarded a maximum $60,000,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for distribution of medical surgical items to all contiguous United States and Outside Contiguous United States facilities that participate in the electronic catalog program. This contract was a competitive acquisition with six offers received. This is an 18-month base contract with three 1-year option periods and one 7-month option period. Location of performance is Florida with an Oct. 31, 2015, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPM2DE-14-D-7603).

Crown Clothing Co.,* Vineland, New Jersey, has been awarded a maximum $7,709,253 modification (P00102) exercising the first option period on a 1-year base contract (SPM1C1-13-D-1059) with four 1-year option periods. This is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for various types of men’s coats. Location of performance is New Jersey with a June 23, 2015, performance completion date. Using military service is Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

CORRECTION: The contract announced on June 3, 2014, for Sysco Seattle, Kent, Washington (SPE300-14-D-3009), for $173,507,460, was announced with an incorrect award date. The correct award date is June 9, 2014.

CORRECTION: The contract announced on June 3, 2014, for Sysco Seattle, Kent, Washington (SPE300-14-D-3010), for $110,818,565, was announced with an incorrect award date. The correct award date is June 9, 2014.

CORRECTION: The contract announced on June 3, 2014, for ScImage, Inc.,* Los Altos, California (SPE2D1-14-D-8302), for $45,000,000, was announced with an incorrect award date. The correct award date is June 4, 2014.

ARMY

BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Inc., Nashua, New Hampshire, was awarded a sole source $70,100,000 firm-fixed-price contract for systems procurement with services on a cost-plus-fixed- fee basis for the low rate initial production for up to 30 tactical signals intelligence payload systems and engineering support services. The estimated completion date is June 11, 2016. Funding and work location will be determined with each order. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W15P7T-14-D-C015).
AAI Corp., Hunt Valley, Maryland, was awarded a $22,474,050 modification (P00011) to contract W58RGZ-13-C-0108 to acquire Sub-ESM 411 Shadow Reliability Technology Refreshments and Changes II to cover efforts to incorporate the following reliability improvements and technology insertions: Air Vehicle (AV) fuel system improvements; Engine Control Unit communications failure correction; Universal Ground Data Terminal reliability improvements; Tactical Automatic Landing System multipath fixes; AV Global Positioning System card initialization correction; Manned-to-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) technology insertions; Automated/electronic operator checklists implementation; and 2kW generator replacement. This Sub-ESM covers the effort required to investigate, integrate, test and field these Shadow improvements. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $22,474,050 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is June 12, 2015. Work will be performed in Hunt Valley, Maryland. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.

Kisaq, LLC.,* Carlsbad, California, was awarded an $18,197,353 firm-fixed-price contract with options, for construction of an Army Reserve Center at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego, California, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 19, 2015. Bids were solicited via the Internet with two received. Fiscal 2010 military construction funds in the amount of $17,889,479 and fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance (Army) funds in the amount of $307,874 are being obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky, is the contracting activity (W912QR-14-C-0022).
Bryan Construction, Inc., Colorado Springs, Colorado, was awarded a $9,832,807 firm-fixed-price contract with options, for work on Butts Army Airfield runway, Fort Carson, Colorado, with an estimated completion date of July 1, 2015. Bids were solicited via the Internet with six received. Fiscal 2014 military construction funds in the amount of $9,832,807 are being obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, is the contracting activity (W9128F-14-C-0012).

NIITEK, Dulles, Virginia, was awarded a $7,347,924 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with options, to develop enhanced downward-looking ground penetrating radar technology for real time detection of buried high and low metal antitank landmines and improvised explosive devices. Work will be performed in Dulles, Virginia, with an estimated completion date of June 11, 2018. Fiscal 2014 research, development, testing and evaluation funds in the amount of $3,272,048 are being obligated at the time of the award. Army Contracting Command, Alexandria, Virginia, is the contracting activity (W909MY-14-C-0021).

NAVY

Armtec Countermeasures Co., Coachella, California, is being awarded a three- year $20,928,143 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the manufacture of chaff cartridges in support of the airborne chaff countermeasures. This contract combines purchases for the Navy, Marine Corps (60 percent), Air Force (38 percent), and the governments of Australia (1.8 percent) and United Arab Emirates (.2 percent), under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Lillington, North Carolina, and work is expected to be completed by June 2017. Fiscal 2014 procurement of ammunition (Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force) funding and FMS funding in the amount of $4,694,307 will be obligated at the time of award, and will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with one offer received in response to the solicitation. NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity (N00104-14-D-K084).

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded $10,236,136 for cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order 0200 against a previously issued Basic Ordering Agreement (N00019-11-G-0001) to conduct an engineering change proposal for the 5th and 6th Receiver Channel Wiring in support of the AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radio Detection and Ranging. Work will be performed in Andover, Massachusetts (40 percent); Forest, Mississippi (30 percent); El Segundo, California (20 percent); and St. Louis, Missouri (10 percent), and is expected to be completed in January 2016. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $10,236,136 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

Form Fit and Function, LLC,* Patterson, New Jersey, is being awarded a $9,809,330 firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the manufacture of peculiar support equipment for the V-22 aircraft, to include hub and blade stands, blade trailer adapters, restraint tools, and actuators. Work will be performed in Patterson, New Jersey, and is expected to be completed in June 2017. Fiscal 2012 aircraft procurement (Navy and Air Force) and 2013 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $1,774,585 are being obligated at time of award, $855,861 of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via HUB Zone set-aside electronic request for proposals; four offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (N68335-14-D-0024).

AIR FORCE

L-3 Communications Display Systems, Alpharetta, Georgia, has been awarded an $8,137,400 firm-fixed-price contract for ALR-69 Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) legacy system improvement program (LSIP) kits. The contractor will provide 110 LSIP kits for the Royal Netherlands Air Force and 90 LSIP kits for the Royal Norwegian Air Force. This contract involves 100 percent foreign military sales. Work will be performed at Alpharetta, Georgia, with an expected completion date of Nov. 30, 2016. This contract was a sole-source acquisition. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity (FA8540-14-C-0010).

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY

Mapp Biopharmaceutical, Inc, San Diego, California, is being awarded an $8,152,103 cost- plus-fixed-fee contract for the development of a broad-spectrum monoclonal cocktail for prevention of VEEV, WEEV and EEEV, in support of the research and development enterprise. Work will be performed in San Diego, California, and various subcontractor locations; work is expected to be completed May 2017. Bids were solicited and nine were received. The contracting activity is Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia (HDTRA1-14-C-0115).

*Small business

DOD COUNSEL SAYS SGT. BERGDAHL PRISONER SWAP PART OF LONG TRADITION DURING WARTIME

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Right:  Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Defense Department General Counsel Stephen W. Preston during testimony June 11, 2014, at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the transfer of five detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. DOD photo by Marine Corps Sgt. Aaron Hostutler.  

Prisoner Swap Part of Long Tradition, DOD Counsel Says
By Claudette Roulo

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2014 – The exchange that led to the return of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is part of a tradition of prisoner exchanges between opposing forces during wartime, Defense Department General Counsel Stephen W. Preston told members of Congress today.

During a hearing called by the House Armed Services Committee to discuss the prisoner swap, Preston explained that it wasn’t necessary to classify detainees as prisoners of war to make them eligible for such an exchange.

“What we had here were detained combatants held by opposing forces in the same armed conflict,” he said.

“Now, it is true that the Taliban is not the conventional nation state that has been party to conventional armed conflict in the past,” Preston said. “But it's not the character of the holding party, it's the character of the detainee that inspires and motivates our commitment to the recovery of service members held abroad.”
The exchange doesn’t set a precedent, he added, because a long tradition of prisoner swaps already existed at the time of the exchange.

A potential exchange of the five Taliban detainees for Bergdahl’s release was first discussed with Taliban representatives in late 2011, and Congress was briefed on the dialogue in November of that year, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the committee members.

After sporadic discussions between the United States and Taliban representatives broke down in March 2012, the government of Qatar offered in September 2013 to act as an intermediary, he said.

“But there was never a point in time where, either directly or through the Qataris, we were negotiating with Haqqani,” Preston said. “There were no demands made or concessions made by or to the Haqqanis as far as I'm aware of, period.”
Hagel told Congress that a proof-of-life video was received in January that showed Bergdahl’s physical and emotional health to have deteriorated considerably in comparison to earlier videos. Bergdahl’s condition in the video intensified the discussions with Qatar about security assurances if Taliban prisoners were to be placed in their custody, the defense secretary noted.
As discussions with the Qataris wrapped up -- but before any agreement was signed, Preston said -- the department sought authoritative guidance from the Justice Department on the legal and constitutional issues around the requirements for Congressional notification.

Section 1035 of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act required that several congressional committees be notified at least 30 days before any transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. However, the section does not provide for time-sensitive negotiations, the general counsel said.

With only a small window of opportunity to rescue Bergdahl, and with negotiations in an extraordinarily fragile state, “the administration determined that it was necessary to forego the full 30-day formal notice to the eight committees,” Preston said.

The concern was that delaying the transfer for 30 days to notify Congress “would scuttle the deal and could possibly further endanger … Bergdahl,” he said.
Less than 96 hours passed between the signing of the agreement on May 27 and the actual prisoner exchange on May 31, Preston noted.

The president has a constitutional duty to protect American citizens, the general counsel said, and when this duty conflicts with a statute, the statute must yield, “either as a matter of interpretation or through the application of separation-of-powers principles.”

Preston said in response to questioning that it is not true that the government will be obligated to release Guantanamo detainees who were captured in Afghanistan when the combat mission there ends this year. Both the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists and international laws governing armed conflict provide the government with the authority to hold these detainees until the cessation of hostilities with the Taliban and al-Qaida, he said.

“There will come a point in time where the armed conflicts we're engaged in with the Taliban and al-Qaida and their associates come to an end, and at that point, the law of war rationale for continuing to hold these unprivileged belligerents would end -- unless there were some other basis for continuing to hold them, such as prosecution,” Preston said.

U.S. CONGRATULATES PEOPLE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ON THEIR INDEPENDENCE DAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Republic of the Philippines Independence Day

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 11, 2014




On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I am delighted to send best wishes to the people of the Republic of the Philippines as you celebrate the anniversary of your nation’s independence on June 12.

My personal appreciation for your nation reaches far back into my own family tree: a century ago, my grandfather’s cousin, William Cameron Forbes, served as Governor-General of the Philippines. And in 1986, I came here as an observer of the historic elections that restored democracy to a people who, like all people, aspire to be free. I will never forget being in Danao and Manila and seeing thousands of people at a time in line. They were standing there in the hot sun just waiting for the privilege of voting – of having their fingers stamped in order to make democracy work.

I saw that same courage and commitment on my most recent trip to Manila and Tacloban in December. It was impossible to land in Tacloban and not feel the dramatic impact of our partnership. The devastation that Typhoon Yolanda left behind was staggering: entire communities leveled, water that rose up to the second story of an airport tower, trees split in half all the way up the mountains. But when Mother Nature brought her worst, our people brought out the best in each other. Together, we showed the deepest values that bind our nations.

The United States is proud of our rich history and enduring alliance with the Philippines. Our shared democratic values, growing trade and investment, and strong people-to-people ties will continue to unite us in the future. And as President Obama said at MalacaƱang Palace on April 28, we are honored and proud to call the Philippines an ally and friend.

As you celebrate from Cagayan de Oro to Calbayog to Cabanatuan, the United States stands with you as an unwavering ally, partner and friend. I wish the people of the Philippines peace and prosperity in the years to come.

NSA ADVISOR SUSAN RICE'S ADDRESS AT CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY CONFERENCE

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Remarks by National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice Keynote Address at the Center for a New American Security Annual Conference

Remarks by National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice
“The Strength of American Leadership, the Power of Collective Action”

Keynote Address at the Center for a New American Security Annual Conference
Washington, DC

As Prepared for Delivery
Thank you so much Richard for that kind welcome.  And, to my good friends and former colleagues— Michele Flournoy and Kurt Campbell— I can’t help but note how well-rested you both look.  I’m only a little bitter.  Still, I want to thank you for your stellar service to our country both from inside government and now, again, as leading thinkers on national security.
CNAS, which you founded, does a remarkable job of preparing our next generation of national security leaders.  That work is critical, because our nation needs bright, dedicated young women and men who care deeply about our world.  We need a diverse pipeline of talent ready and eager to carry forward the mantle of American leadership.  So, thank you all. 
As President Obama told West Point’s graduating class two weeks ago, the question is not whether America will lead the world in the 21st century, but how America will lead.  No other nation can match the enduring foundations of our strength.  Our military has no peer.  Our formidable economy is growing.  We are more energy independent each year.  Our vibrant and diverse population is demographically strong and productive.  We attract hopeful immigrants from all over the world.  Our unrivaled global network of alliances and partnerships makes us the one nation to which the world turns when challenges arise.  So, American leadership is and will remain central to shaping a world that is freer, more secure, more just and more prosperous.
At West Point, President Obama outlined how America will lead in a world that is more complex and more interdependent than ever before.  As we move out of a period dominated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will lead by drawing on every element of our national power.  That power starts with our unparalleled military might, used wisely and when necessary to defend America’s core interests – the security of our citizens, our economy, and our allies.  We will lead by strengthening effective partnerships to counter an evolving terrorist threat.  We will lead by rallying coalitions and marshaling the resources of our partners to address regional and global challenges.  And, we will lead by standing firm in defense of human dignity and equality, while steering the course of history toward greater justice and opportunity for all. 
Today, I’d like to focus on one pillar of that strategy—mobilizing coalitions.  Indeed, galvanizing the international community to address problems that no one nation can solve alone is the bread and butter of our global engagement.  And, in many ways, it’s both the hardest and the most important element of how America leads on the world stage.          
This concept is not new.  Collective action has long been the hallmark of effective American leadership.  The United Nations, NATO and our Asian alliances were all built on the foundation of American strength and American values.  American leadership established the Bretton Woods system and supported open markets, spurring a rapid rise in global living standards.  Nor is this approach the province of one political party.  It was President Reagan who negotiated the Montreal Protocol, hailed today as our most successful international environmental treaty.  President George H.W. Bush insisted on UN backing and assembled a broad coalition before sending American troops into the Gulf.  And, President Clinton led the campaign to enlarge NATO, opening Europe’s door to the very nations who, as Secretary Albright put it, “knocked the teeth out of totalitarianism in Europe.”  Our history is rich with successes won not as a lone nation, but as the leader of many. 
Now, our approach must meet the new demands of a complex and rapidly changing world.  The architecture that we built in the 20th century must be re-energized to deal with the challenges of the 21st.  With emerging powers, we must be able to collaborate where our interests converge but define our differences and defend our interests where they diverge. Our coalitions may be more fluid than in the past, but the basics haven’t changed.  When we spur collective action, we deliver outcomes that are more legitimate, more sustainable, and less costly.   
As global challenges arise, we turn first, always, to our traditional allies.  When Russia trampled long-established principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law with its illegal annexation of Crimea, the United States rallied the international community to isolate Russia and impose costs. With American leadership, the world condemned the seizure of Crimea through an overwhelming vote in the UN General Assembly.  We expelled Russia from the G8.  Last week, the G7 met for the first time in 17 years, and we continued to concert our approach to Ukraine and other pressing global challenges.  We’ve reinforced the unity of our NATO Alliance and bolstered our commitment to Article 5.  President Obama has pledged to invest an additional $1 billion to bolster the security of our Eastern European allies against threats or intimidation.  More U.S. Army and Air Force units are now deployed to Central and Eastern Europe, more American ships patrol the Black Sea, more American planes police the Baltic skies.  And, meanwhile, with the support of the international community, Ukrainians have the chance to write a new chapter in their history. 
By working in lockstep with the EU and other partners, we imposed sanctions that are biting the Russian economy.  The IMF, the World Bank and private sector estimates all suggest that $100-200 billion in capital will flow out of Russia this year, as investors move their money to more reliable markets.  Russia’s economy contracted in the first quarter, and the IMF has declared that the country is likely in recession.  Its credit now rates just above junk status.  Russia has lost standing, influence, and economic clout by the day.  With our closest partners—Europe, the G7 and other key allies —we continue to send a common message:  Russia must cease aggression against Ukraine, halt support for violent separatists in the East, seal the border, and recognize the newly elected Ukrainian government.  If Russia does not, it faces the very real prospect of greater pressure and significant additional sanctions.
The speed and unity of our response demonstrates the unique value of America’s leadership.  Unilateral sanctions would not have had the same bite as coordinated efforts with the EU.  American condemnations alone do not carry the same weight as the UN General Assembly.  Bilateral U.S. assistance to Ukraine could not match the roughly $15 billion IMF program.  And, for our Eastern allies, American security guarantees are most powerful when augmented by NATO’s security umbrella.  
The United States’ commitment to the security of our allies is sacrosanct and always backed by the full weight of our military might.  At the same time, we expect our partners to shoulder their share of the burden of our collective security.  Collective action doesn’t mean the United States puts skin in the game while others stand on the sidelines cheering.  Alliances are a two-way street, especially in hard times when alliances matter most. 
As we approach the NATO summit in Wales this September, we expect every ally to pull its full weight through increased investment in defense and upgrading our Alliance for the future.  Europe needs to take defense spending seriously and meet NATO’s benchmark—at least two percent of GDP—to keep our alliance strong and dynamic.  And, just as we reassure allies in the face of Russia’s actions, we must upgrade NATO’s ability to meet challenges to its south—including by reinforcing the President’s commitment to build the capacity of our counterterrorism partners. 
Likewise, our historic alliances in Asia continue to underwrite regional stability, as we move toward a more geographically distributed and operationally resilient defense posture.  In the face of North Korea’s increasing provocations, we’ve developed a tailored deterrence strategy and counter provocation plan with South Korea, and we are updating our defense cooperation guidelines with Japan for the first time in almost two decades.  We aim also to deepen trilateral security cooperation and interoperability, which President Obama made a central focus of his summit with the leaders of Japan and Korea in March and his trip to the region in April. 
Improved coordination is a necessity in the Middle East as well.  The 35,000 American service members stationed in the Gulf are a daily reminder of our commitment to the region and clear evidence that the United States remains ready to defend our core interests, whether it’s disrupting al-Qa’ida or preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  At the same time, we look to our partners, both individually and through the Gulf Cooperation Council, to cooperate on missile defense and develop other critical deterrence capabilities, including in the spheres of counter-piracy, maritime security, counterterrorism and counter-proliferation. 
America will always maintain our iron-clad commitment to the security of Israel, ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge and can protect its territory and people.  Equally, we consistently defend Israel’s legitimacy and security in the UN and other international fora.  In turn, we expect Israel to stand and be counted with the US and other partners on core matters of international law and principle, such as Ukraine.
Drawing on the strength of our alliances and the reach of our partnerships, the United States’ brings together countries in every region of the world to advance our shared security, expand global prosperity, and uphold our fundamental values.    
Let me start with our shared security.  To responsibly end our war in Afghanistan, President Obama first rallied our NATO allies and ISAF partners to contribute more troops to the coalition, surging resources and helping Afghan forces take charge of their nation’s security.  As we bring America’s combat mission to an end, we’ve enlisted our allies and partners to make enduring commitments to Afghanistan’s future—so that Afghan Security Forces continue to have the resources they need, and the Afghan people have our lasting support.
Partnership is also the cornerstone of our counter-terrorism strategy designed to meet a threat that is now more diffuse and decentralized.  Core al-Qa’ida is diminished, but its affiliates and off-shoots increasingly threaten the U.S. and our partners, as we are witnessing this week in Mosul.  The United States has been fast to provide necessary support for the people and government of Iraq under our Strategic Framework Agreement, and we are working together to roll back aggression and counter the threat that the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant poses to the people of the region.  Yet, as President Obama said at West Point, we must do more to strengthen our partners’ capacity to defeat the terrorist threat on their home turf by providing them the necessary training, equipment and support.  That is why the President is asking Congress for a new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund of up to $5 billion to assist nations on the frontlines of terrorism to fight al-Qa’ida, its affiliates, and groups that embrace its violent extremist ideology.   
To shrink terrorist safe-havens and end civil conflicts, which can be breeding grounds for transnational threats, we continue to lead the international community to strengthen the foundations of peace and security.  The U.S. is the largest supporter of UN peace operations, which both reduce the need to deploy our own armed forces and mitigate the risks that fragile and failed states pose.  When violence in South Sudan broke out in December, and the world’s youngest country reached the brink of all-out war, the United States led the Security Council to augment the UN mission in South Sudan and re-focus it on protecting civilians, while we recruited, trained and equipped additional peacekeepers.  Since December, nearly 2,000 more troops have surged into South Sudan, with approximately another 1,700 expected this month. 
In Syria, by contrast, we have seen the failure of the UN Security Council to act effectively, as Russia and China have four times used their vetoes to protect Assad.  With fighting escalating, terrorist groups associated with al-Qa’ida are gaining a greater foothold in Syria, the horrific humanitarian costs are mounting, and the stability of neighboring countries is threatened.  So, while Russia and Iran continue to prop up the regime, the United States is working with our partners through non-traditional channels to provide critical humanitarian assistance and, through the London-11 group, to ramp up our coordinated support for the moderate, vetted Syrian opposition— both political and military.      
Yet, even as we strongly oppose Russia on Syria and Ukraine, we continue to work together to eliminate Assad’s chemical weapons and to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  We built an unprecedented sanctions regime to pressure Iran while keeping the door open to diplomacy.  As a consequence, working with the P5+1, we’ve halted Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon and rolled it back in key respects.  Now, we are testing whether we can reach a comprehensive solution that resolves peacefully the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and bolsters our shared security.
In today’s world, the reality is: many transnational security challenges can only be addressed through collective action.  Take the threat of nuclear material in terrorist hands.  One unlocked door at any of the facilities worldwide that house weapons-usable material is a threat to everyone.  That’s why President Obama created the Nuclear Security Summit.  So far, 12 countries and 24 nuclear facilities have rid themselves of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium.  Dozens of nations have increased security at their nuclear storage sites, built counter-smuggling teams, or enhanced their nuclear security training.  Our nuclear security regime is stronger today, because we created a coalition to address the problem, and we’ll keep the momentum going when we host the fourth Nuclear Security Summit in 2016.
Consider, as well, infectious diseases like MERS, bird flu or Ebola, which present yet another type of threat to our security.  In 2012, 80 percent of countries failed to meet the World Health Organization’s deadline for preparedness against outbreaks.  The international community needed a shot in the arm.  So, the United States brought together partners from more than 30 countries and multiple international institutions to develop the Global Health Security Agenda, which we launched in February.  Our strategy, backed by concrete commitments, will move us towards a system that reports outbreaks in real time and ensures nations have the resources to contain localized problems before they become global pandemics.
As we confront the grave and growing threat of climate change, the United States is leading the world by example.  As National Security Advisor, part of my job is to focus on any threat that could breed conflict, migration, and natural disasters.  Climate change is just such a creeping national security crisis, and it is one of our top global priorities. 
Our new rule, announced last week, to reduce carbon pollution from power plants by 30 percent compared to 2005 levels is the most ambitious climate action ever taken in the U.S.  It’s the centerpiece of our broader climate action plan.  And, as we work toward the meeting in Paris next year to define a new global framework for tackling climate change, we’re challenging other major economies to step up too.  We’re working intensively with China, the world’s biggest emitter, to bend down their emissions curve as fast as possible.  We’ve built international coalitions to address short-lived climate pollutants like black carbon, HFCs and methane.  And, we’ve led in encouraging private investment in green infrastructure projects overseas, while reducing incentives for high-carbon energy investment.    
Our security also relies on defining and upholding rules that govern our shared spaces—rules that reject aggression, impede the ability of large nations to bully smaller ones, and establish ways to resolve conflicts peacefully.  A key element of our Asia Rebalance is collaborating with our partners to strengthen regional institutions and international norms.  That’s why we are working with ASEAN to advance a code of conduct for the South China Sea that would enhance maritime security, reinforce international law, and strengthen the regional rules of the road. 
Similarly, we are building partnerships to set standards of behavior to protect the open, reliable, and interoperable Internet, and to hold accountable those who engage in malicious cyber activity.  That’s why we’re working with our partners to expand international law enforcement cooperation and ensure that emerging norms, including the protection of intellectual property and civilian infrastructure, are respected in cyberspace.   For example, last week, working with 10 countries and numerous private sector partners, we successfully disrupted a “botnet” that had been used to steal hundreds of millions of dollars and filed criminal charges against its Russia-based administrator.  Last month, the Department of Justice indicted five Chinese military officials for hacking our nation’s corporate computers, making it clear there’s no room for government-sponsored theft in cyberspace for commercial gain.  We are working with our allies through efforts like the Freedom On-Line Coalition and the Internet Governance Forum to preserve the open Internet as driver for human rights and economic prosperity.
This brings me to the second key reason we mobilize collective action—to expand our shared prosperity.  In 2009, facing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, President Obama led to establish the G20 as the premier forum for international economic cooperation.  We needed more voices at the table, writing the rules for the global economy and committing to dramatic measures to restore growth.  Our efforts included mobilizing more resources for the IMF and World Bank to support the most vulnerable countries.  And, thanks to a broad and concerted international effort, the global economy has turned the corner.
Last year, we played a key role in enabling the 157 members of the WTO to reach a landmark agreement that will modernize the entire international trading system.  In every region of the world, we’ve brought nations together to increase trade and develop high-standard agreements to further boost growth and job creation.  This is a key pillar of our rebalance to Asia, where we’re working with 12 economies, representing almost 40 percent of global GDP, to finalize an ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership.  With the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, we’re taking what is already the largest trading partnership in the world to a new level.  To increase trade both within Africa and between Africa and the United States, we will join with Congress to extend and update the African Growth and Opportunity Act before it expires next year. 
In regions brimming with economic potential, including Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, we’re supporting entrepreneurship and fostering private sector investment.  Our Power Africa initiative will double access to electricity across the continent through more than $15 billion in private sector commitments.  We’re assisting young people throughout Africa and South East Asia to develop their business and entrepreneurship skills, as well as their leadership. 
As we approach 2015, we’re pressing our partners to deliver on the Millennium Development Goals and to devise bold new goals that will guide the next phase of the fight against poverty.  Building on the extraordinary progress in many developing countries, our approach isn’t simply about pledging more money, it’s about bringing together resources and expertise from every sector to do more with what we have and to support models of economic growth that fuel new markets.  We’re building public-private partnerships, investing in academic breakthroughs, supporting non-profits that translate ideas into action, and creating stronger connections among them all.   
Take, for example, the progress we’ve made in agricultural development.  Back in 2009, at the G8 meeting in L’Aquila, President Obama made food security a global priority backed by billions of dollars in international commitments.  In 2012, the President launched the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, which has now grown to ten African countries, more than 160 companies, and delivered more than $7 billion in responsible planned investments in African agriculture.  And through our Feed the Future partnerships, millions of smallholder farmers are planting better seeds, using better fertilizers, and seeing their incomes rise. 
Which leads me to the third key reason we mobilize collective action.  For, however much we might like to, we rarely can force nations to respect the rights of their citizens.  So we must catalyze the international community to uphold universal values, build broad coalitions to advance human rights, and impose costs on those who violate them.  
Human rights must be protected for everyone, especially traditionally marginalized communities such as ethnic or religious minorities, LGBT persons, migrant workers, and people with disabilities.  That’s why President Obama decided to join the UN Human Rights Council, so we could lead in reforming that flawed institution from within.  In fact, we have made it more effective.  Because of our efforts, the Council has spent far more time spotlighting abuses in Qadhafi’s Libya, Syria, Sudan, North Korea and Iran than demonizing Israel. 
At the same time, the Open Government Partnership initiated by President Obama in 2011, has grown from eight countries to 64, all working together to strengthen accountable and transparent governance.  Our Equal Futures Partnership unites two dozen countries in a commitment to take concrete steps to empower women in their societies both economically and politically.  And, as civil society comes under attack in more and more places, we’re bringing countries and peoples together to counter restrictions and strengthen protections for civil society.
Moreover, we’ve focused the global community on elevating that most basic aspect of human dignity—the health and well-being of the most vulnerable people.  We’re partnering with nations that invest in their health systems.  We’re working with NGOs to improve child and maternal health, end preventable diseases, and make progress towards a goal that was inconceivable just a decade ago—the world’s first AIDS-free generation. 
Across all these vital and far-reaching challenges, we continue to bring the resources of the United States and the reach of our partnerships to bear to forge a safer and more prosperous world.  Our goals are bold and won’t be realized overnight, but the essence of U.S. leadership, as always, remains our ambition, our determination, and our dauntless vision of the possible – the pursuit of a world free of nuclear weapons; a world where extreme poverty is no more; where people are free to choose their own leaders; and where no child’s potential is cut short by a circumstance of her birth. 
We’ve earned our unparalleled position in the world through decades of responsible leadership.  We affirm our exceptionalism by working tirelessly to strengthen the international system we helped build.  We affirm it daily with our painstaking efforts to marshal international support and rally nations behind our leadership.  We affirm it by taking strong action when we see rules and norms broken by those who try to game the system for their own gain.  As President Obama told those graduating cadets at West Point, “What makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it’s our willingness to affirm them through our actions.” 
As we leave an era of American foreign policy dominated by war, we are in a much stronger position to shape a more just and secure peace.  In doing so, we will be vigilant against threats to our security, but we also recognize that we are stronger still when we mobilize the world on behalf of our common security and common humanity.  That is the proud tradition of American foreign policy, and that is what’s required to shape a new chapter of American leadership.
Thank you very much. 

FTC PROPOSES IMPROVING ENERGY LABELS

FROM:  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 
FTC Proposes Improvements to Energy Labels for Consumers

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on a variety of proposed changes to its Energy Labeling Rule affecting labels for light bulbs, appliances, room air conditioners, ceiling fans, refrigerators, and furnaces.

Under the Rule, manufacturers must attach yellow EnergyGuide labels to certain products, stating an annual operating cost and an energy consumption rating, and a range for comparing the highest and lowest energy consumption for all similar models.  The labels appear on clothes washers, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, room air conditioners, central air conditioners, furnaces, boilers, heat pumps, pool heaters, and  televisions.

In March 2012, as part of its systematic review of all FTC rules and guides, the agency sought public comments on proposed improvements to the labeling requirements under the Rule. In January 2013, the FTC issued final amendments to streamline data reporting and improve online disclosures, and proposed new labels to help consumers comparison shop for refrigerators and clothes washers under new Department of Energy test procedures. In July 2013, it issued final amendments for those issues, and updates to comparability ranges.

The FTC now seeks comments on several proposed amendments for expanded light bulb label coverage, an online label database, more durable labels for appliances, room air conditioner labels on boxes, improved ceiling fan labels, consolidated ranges on refrigerator labels, and updates to furnace labels.

For more information about EnergyGuide labels, read Shopping for Home Appliances? Use the EnergyGuide Label.

The Commission vote approving the Federal Register Notice was 5-0.  It is available on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release and will be published in the Federal Register soon.  Instructions for filing comments appear in the Federal Register.

FALSE PROMISES SPAMMERS SETTLE CHARGES WITH FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

FROM:  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Scammers Settle FTC Charges They Sent Millions of Spam Text Messages
Deceptive Messages Promised “Free” $1,000 Gift Cards to Major Retailers

Two affiliate-marketing scammers and their company have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they sent millions of unwanted text messages to consumers across the U.S. with false promises of $1,000 gift cards to retailers like Best Buy, Target and Walmart.

Under the terms of their settlement with the FTC, Scott A. Dalrymple of Pennsylvania and Robert Jerrold Wence of Texas, who operated a company called Advert Marketing, Inc., will be permanently banned from sending unwanted or unsolicited commercial text messages or assisting others in doing so. In addition, the two will also be prohibited from misrepresenting to consumers whether a product is “free,” whether they have won a prize or been selected for a gift, or other behavior related to the nature of the scam.

Dalrymple, Wence and Advert Marketing were among the defendants named in the FTC’s 2013 enforcement sweep against text message spammers and affiliate marketers who used false promises of free gift cards to draw consumers into websites that asked them to provide credit card information to sign up for trial offers.

The settlement contains a monetary judgment for $4.2 million, which is partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay. Under the terms of the settlement, Dalrymple and Wence will be required to pay $15,000 each to the Commission, and will be required to destroy any consumer data they may have collected while conducting the text message spam operation.

The Commission vote approving the proposed stipulated final judgment was 5-0. The FTC filed the proposed stipulated final judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and the Court entered the stipulated final judgment on June 10, 2014.

NOTE: Stipulated final judgments have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.

U.S. FACT SHEET: G-7 DECLARATION ON NON-PROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT FOR 2014

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

G-7 Declaration on Non-Proliferation and Disarmament for 2014

Fact Sheet
Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
June 5, 2014


1. We are committed to seeking a safer world for all. Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery remains a top priority. Such proliferation poses a major threat to international peace and security as recognized in UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) 1540, 1673, 1810, 1887, and 1977. During this tenth anniversary year of UNSCR 1540, we reaffirm our commitment to working together towards full implementation of the resolution by 2021 and to strengthen our efforts to combat the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and their means of delivery.

2. In seeking this safer world, we reiterate our commitment to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the goals of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), in a way that promotes international stability, based on the principle of equal and undiminished security for all, and underlining the vital importance of non-proliferation for achieving this goal.

3. We reaffirm our unconditional support for all three pillars of the NPT, which remains the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

4. We call on all NPT Parties to fulfill their obligations under the Treaty and to preserve and strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. The 2015 NPT Review Conference presents a vital opportunity for all NPT Parties to further strengthen the Treaty in all its aspects. We recall the successful, consensus outcome of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, including its Action Plan. We remain fully committed to the Action Plan’s implementation, and call on all States Parties to implement its actions. In this regard, we welcome and encourage continued engagement of and among the NPT nuclear-weapon States on verification, transparency and confidence-building measures, with a view to strengthening implementation of all three pillars of the NPT. We welcome the April 2014 meeting of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States (P5) in Beijing, the latest in this ongoing dialogue, and welcome the timely submission of the individual reports made to the third session of the NPT Preparatory Committee in New York in April, 2014, pursuant to Actions 5, 20, and 21 of the Action Plan. We encourage all States Parties, consistent with Action 20 of the Action Plan, to make similar reports.

5. The G7 partners continue to attach great importance to the development of internationally recognized nuclear weapon free zones, established on the basis of agreements freely arrived at among States of the regions concerned, in line with the principles set out by the UN Disarmament Commission in 1999 and recognize the legitimate interest of non-nuclear-weapon States in receiving security assurances from nuclear-weapon States in the framework of the relevant legally binding protocols of nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. These protocols enhance regional and international security by helping to build confidence between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states. We welcome the signature of the protocol to the Treaty on a Nuclear Weapon-Free-Zone in Central Asia. We also welcome the commitment of the P5 States to continue to consult with the States Parties to the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.

6. We reaffirm the importance of commitments and assurances given by the NPT nuclear weapons States to the NPT non-nuclear weapon States. We deplore the recent and ongoing breaches of the commitments given to Ukraine by the Russian Federation in the Budapest Memorandum. In this Memorandum, the Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States reaffirmed their commitment to respect Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty and existing borders; reaffirmed their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine to refrain from economic coercion. We consider that Ukraine’s historic decisions in 1994 were significant steps in promoting its own and wider regional and international security. We also welcome Ukraine’s statement at the 2014 Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee that Ukraine remains committed to the provisions of the NPT.

7. The G-7 strongly support the goal of a zone free of nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery in the Middle East. Recalling the decision at the 2010 NPT Review Conference to hold a Conference on the establishment of such a zone, we strongly support Finnish Ambassador Laajava’s work as facilitator of the Conference, and welcome the continued commitment of the co-sponsors of the 1995 Resolution (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States). We call upon the States of the region to continue their direct engagement with each other in order to finalize the preparation and convening of the Conference in the nearest future.

8. While acknowledging the right of withdrawal from the NPT contained in Article X.1, we consider that modalities and measures to address withdrawal from that Treaty are needed as demonstrated by North Korea’s announcement of withdrawal. We underscore the role of the UN Security Council in addressing announcements of withdrawal promptly and without delay, assessing the consequences of such withdrawal, including possible adoption of measures in this regard. We also emphasize that a State Party will remain responsible under international law for violations of the NPT committed prior to its withdrawal. We also underscore that nuclear transfers received prior to withdrawal should remain in peaceful uses and subject to IAEA safeguards. We welcome the growing recognition that this issue needs to be addressed urgently at the 2015 Review Conference and we support the adoption of appropriate recommendations on measures that address withdrawal in the Final Document.

Nuclear Proliferation Challenges

9. We underscore our support for E3+3 efforts led by High Representative Ashton to reach a long-term comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear issue that resolves fully the international community’s concerns regarding the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program and ensures Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. We welcome the implementation of the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) between the E3+3 and Iran and the essential role played by the IAEA in verifying the nuclear-related measures. We commend those states which made financial contributions in this context for the monitoring work of the IAEA. We reaffirm our strong support for the IAEA’s ongoing efforts to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program and we call on Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA to resolve all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program, the satisfactory resolution of which will be critical for a long-term comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.

10. We call on Syria to remedy its noncompliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations, and to cooperate fully with the IAEA in resolving all outstanding questions regarding the nature of its nuclear program.

11. We will not accept North Korea as a nuclear armed state and urge North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs, and to return, at an early date, to the NPT and to IAEA safeguards and come into full compliance with its nonproliferation obligations. We condemn in the strongest possible terms North Korea’s continued development of its nuclear and ballistic missile programs in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1718, 1874, 2087 and 2094. In this regard, we condemn North Korea’s February and March 2014 ballistic missile launches in clear violation of its UNSCR obligations and call on North Korea to refrain from further provocations. We urge North Korea to halt any efforts to restart, readjust, and expand its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, and cease immediately all nuclear activities including the ones related to its uranium enrichment and plutonium programs. We reaffirm our collective hope for lasting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and call on North Korea to refrain from any actions that escalate tensions in the region. We firmly support diplomatic efforts to implement the 2005 Joint Statement and to bring North Korea into compliance with its UN Security Council obligations, and call on North Korea to take concrete steps toward complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization. We commend the international community’s unified resolve in the face of North Korea’s defiance of it and urge continued vigilance by all states to curtail North Korea’s proliferation activities and impede the continued pursuit of its proscribed nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Nuclear Disarmament

12. We encourage the P5 to continue their important dialogue, including on nuclear arms reductions and their work on confidence-building and transparency that represent major steps in accordance with Article VI of the NPT and the Action Plan adopted by the NPT Review Conference in May 2010. We welcome the continued implementation of the New START Treaty by the U.S. and Russia and the disarmament-related actions already made by France and the UK, as well as urge others that possess nuclear weapons but have not yet engaged in nuclear disarmament efforts to reduce their arsenals.

13. Early entry into force and universalization of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is in the security interests of every nation. States that have yet to sign or ratify the Treaty should do so without waiting for others. For the Treaty to be an effective mechanism for nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, we believe all States must maintain the political will and provide adequate resources to complete the Treaty’s verification regime and maximize the capabilities of the Provisional Technical Secretariat. We welcome the voluntary adherence to unilateral moratoria on nuclear explosive tests and call on all States to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty. We also welcome the establishment of the Group of Eminent Persons and support its activities, which will inject new energy and dynamics into the push for entry into force.

14. The Conference on Disarmament (CD) and its predecessor bodies have a long history of delivering landmark agreements, but we share the growing impatience of many in the international community at the impasse at the CD. We believe the next logical step in multilateral negotiations to advance both nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament goals is the negotiation of a Treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT), on the basis of document CD/1299 and the mandate contained therein. While we welcome declared moratoria by some states on the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, a binding and verifiable ban on such production is a necessary step toward a world without nuclear weapons. We welcome the work of the UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), which will make recommendations on possible aspects that could contribute to a future Treaty, and can build momentum towards eventual negotiations in the CD.

Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy

15. All States Parties to the NPT have an inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in compliance with their international obligations. We reiterate our willingness to cooperate with States that meet their nuclear non-proliferation obligations and wish to develop a civil nuclear program in a manner that meets the highest standards of safety, security, non-proliferation, and respect for the environment.

16. We urge strong support for implementation of the IAEA’s Nuclear Safety Action Plan, including working towards establishing a global nuclear liability regime, and welcome the progress in enhancing the effectiveness of the Convention on Nuclear Safety. We emphasize the importance of the establishment, implementation and continuous improvement of national emergency preparedness and response measures.

17. Multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle contribute to nuclear energy programs. We support the IAEA’s work to establish a bank of Low Enriched Uranium in Kazakhstan and urge the conclusion of a Host State Agreement at an early date in order to allow for the beginning of operation of the bank.

IAEA Safeguards

18. We support the central role of the IAEA, and in particular its safeguards system, which remains essential for the effective implementation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The IAEA must continue to have the necessary resources and legal authorities to be able to carry out its mission in full, in accordance with its statutory mandate. We will continue to help promote an IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement together with an Additional Protocol as the universally accepted international verification standard, which should be a consideration in decisions on the supply of nuclear fuel, equipment, or technology. We call on all States which have not yet done so to sign and bring into force the Additional Protocol and apply its provisions as soon as possible.

Nuclear Security

19. We welcome the outcomes of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague on 24-25 March 2014 where 58 world leaders worked to further reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism by securing vulnerable nuclear and other radioactive material around the globe. The Hague Summit participants agreed to a Communique that reaffirms the fundamental responsibility of States, the need to further strengthen and coordinate international cooperation, and the need for a strengthened and comprehensive international security architecture. Many countries agreed to multilateral joint commitments intended to advance the goal of nuclear security. We highlight Belgian and Italian work to complete the removal of their excess supplies of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for elimination, and Japan for announcing that it will work with the United States to eliminate hundreds of kilograms of nuclear material from one of its experimental reactors. We call on others to take additional transparency measures. We also continue to encourage nations to join existing relevant international initiatives that support Summit goals.

20. We urge all States Parties to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) to ratify, accept or approve the 2005 Amendment to the Convention as soon as possible. In addition to securing nuclear and radiological material at their source, we recognize the need to locate and secure material currently available on the illicit market and prosecute those involved in the trafficking of these materials.

21. We commend the work of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and other international efforts to counter nuclear smuggling and combat nuclear terrorism. The ongoing occurrence for more than 20 years of nuclear and radioactive trafficking highlights the threat that terrorists or other malicious actors can acquire these dangerous materials. The international community must be vigilant to prevent the world’s most dangerous materials from falling into the wrong hands.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group

22. We welcome the call by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) on all states to exercise vigilance to ensure that the supply of nuclear related technologies and materials is for peaceful purposes and to make best efforts to ensure that none of their exports of goods and technologies contributes to the spread of nuclear weapons. In this regard, we recognize that the NSG Guidelines serve as the standard for nuclear and nuclear-related dual-use exports. We call on NSG Participating Governments to strictly observe the Guidelines and encourage nuclear supplier states that are not NSG participating governments to act in conformity with the Guidelines on a voluntary basis. We also support the discussion of the Additional Protocol as a condition of supply to enhance nuclear non-proliferation efforts. We welcome the progress that is being made by the Technical Experts Group to ensure that control lists remain current, and we welcome the Group’s outreach efforts to enhance non-proliferation. We welcome the membership of Mexico in 2012 and Serbia in 2013.

Chemical Weapons

23. We reaffirm our unconditional support for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the functions of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). We applaud the success of the Convention and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the OPCW for its ongoing work to eliminate an entire class of WMD and toward preventing the re-emergence of chemical weapons. We look forward to continuing the work set out in the final document of the 2013 Review Conference and support efforts to ensure the universalisation and effective implementation of the Convention, and we call on all states not party to the Convention to adhere to it now. Destroying chemical weapons remains a key objective of the Convention together with refraining from the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, use and proliferation of chemical weapons. We welcome the progress being made by the possessor states as reported recently to the OPCW Executive Council (EC) and Conference of the States Parties. We encourage all possessor states to continue to take every necessary measure to complete their destruction processes as soon as possible in a transparent fashion, and within the framework of the existing verification regime. We reiterate the importance of an effective industry verification regime.

24. We share deep concern over the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against its citizens. We share further concern about the more recent allegations of use of a toxic chemical as a weapon in Syria and we support the OPCW fact-finding mission. We urge the regime to cooperate fully with the mission to ensure those who are responsible for such attacks are brought to account. The continued possession of chemical weapons material by the Assad regime represents a sustained danger to Syria’s population and all of its neighbors. We support the full implementation of the OPCW Executive Council Decision of September 27, 2013 and UN Security Council Resolution (2118), which resulted from the Russia U.S. Geneva framework to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons program. We welcome the efforts of the Joint OPCW-UN Mission and the assistance provided by individual States and by the international community at large to support safe elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons program. Whilst efforts have been made, the removal process remains behind schedule. We call upon Syria to make sustained efforts in meeting its obligations under the CWC, OPCW EC decisions and UNSCR 2118. International confidence that the program has been completely eliminated requires further review of Syria’s declaration of its CW program. Syria must also take immediate steps to physically destroy the remaining 13 chemical production facilities in accordance with the CWC.

Biological Weapons

25. We welcome the work undertaken so far to implement the outcome of the Seventh Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). We are committed to achieving real progress to promote national implementation, confidence-building measures, and cooperation and assistance, to reviewing developments in science and technology, and to strengthening the Convention’s Article VII on responding to use of biological or toxin weapons. We support further exploration or consideration of practical approaches to promote the exchange of best practices, enhance transparency, and build trust among states parties, such as peer review, voluntary transparency visits and briefings, and constructive approaches to raising and addressing concerns where they arise. Such approaches may play a role in strengthening implementation and enhancing assurance of compliance with BWC obligations. We reaffirm our commitment to promote universal membership of the BTWC, and we are determined to work with all the State Parties to reinforce its regime.

Addressing the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

26. WMD and delivery means- related export controls by members of the international nonproliferation regimes (Australia Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Nuclear Suppliers Group) and the Zangger Committee has significantly reduced the availability to proliferators of support from countries with the most advanced technology. These controls, and the information-sharing, best practices, and patterns of cooperation fostered by the regimes, have made it more difficult, time-consuming, and costly for proliferators to produce or acquire WMD and their delivery systems. We plan to continue to work through the regimes to reduce the global proliferation threat and urge all countries to unilaterally adopt and apply on a national basis the guidelines and standards of the regimes.

27. We fully support the key role played by the United Nations Security Council in addressing proliferation issues. We welcome the adoption by the Security Council of Resolution 1977, which renewed the mandate of the 1540 Committee for ten years and reaffirmed Resolution 1540’s obligations. We invite all States to nominate a national point of contact and to work toward full implementation of UNSCR 1540. We stand ready to provide assistance to States in this regard and we reiterate our support to the 1540 Committee in the discharge of its mandate.

28. We strongly believe that the proliferation of missiles, especially those capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, continues to be a serious concern to us all and a threat to international peace and security, as reaffirmed in UN Security Council Resolutions 1540, 1887, and 1977. We believe that a multilateral response and international norms are the most adequate and effective way to address this issue. We strongly endorse the MTCR and the Hague Code of Conduct in that regard.

29. We affirm our commitment to the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Material of Mass Destruction (Global Partnership) and this commitment remains unwavering. We therefore commend the Global Partnership on its efforts to coordinate and collaborate on programs and activities in the areas of nuclear and radiological security, biological security, chemical security, scientist engagement and countering knowledge proliferation, and in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1540. The Global Partnership has continued its valuable work on engagement with centers of excellence and the expansion of its membership. Since 2013, the Global Partnership has welcomed the Philippines, Hungary and Spain as new members. Members of the Global Partnership also welcome the ongoing participation and closer cooperation of relevant international organizations and bodies in global efforts to improve information sharing and coordination of WMD threat reduction projects. The sub-groups that focused on each of the substantive areas of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological security helped the Global Partnership improve information sharing, funding and project coordination. The Global Partnership has provided significant funding for the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria. In addition, strengthened matchmaking has begun to enable the Global Partnership to improve coordination of projects globally.

30. We continue to promote robust counter-proliferation tools. We support the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The list of endorsing nations continues to grow, with Vietnam recently being the 104th endorsing nation. We commit to undertake further measures to enhance the capabilities and authorities required to interdict shipments of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. We promote outreach for enhanced participation in the PSI and continue to focus on legal and operational issues.

Conventional

31. Conventional arms play a legitimate role in enabling governments to defend their citizens, as enshrined in the UN Charter. However, in the wrong hands they pose a threat to global, regional and national security. Improperly controlled, they can fuel terrorism and threaten peace and stability. For this reason, we welcome the adoption of UNSCR 2117 and stress the need for full and effective implementation by States at the national, regional and international levels, of the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. In this context, we also reiterate our support for full implementation of UNSCR 2017 in order to stem arms proliferation from Libya. In addition, the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-use Goods and Technologies contributes to preventing de-stabilizing accumulations of these arms, goods and technologies. We urge those which currently sit outside the regime to make every effort to apply the Wassenaar Arrangement’s standards and control lists. Conventional arms agreements and commitments can also address specific regional security concerns. The Vienna Document and Open Skies Treaty have provided useful transparency about military activities in Ukraine and western Russia in recent months, reflecting the importance of continued implementation and modernization of these agreements and commitments.

32. We welcome the rapid progress that has been made towards entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty since it was opened for signature on 3 June 2013. We call upon States who have not yet done so to join the Treaty as soon as possible. Effective implementation of the Treaty’s obligations will contribute to saving lives, reducing human suffering, protecting human rights, preventing the diversion of conventional arms to the illegal market and combating terrorism, while upholding the legitimate trade in arms, which is vital for national defense and security. We urge States in a position to do so to render assistance in capacity building to enable States Parties needing such assistance to fulfill and implement the Treaty’s obligations.

Outer Space

33. Outer space activities continue to play a significant role in the social, economic, scientific, and technological development of states, as well as in maintaining international peace and security. We acknowledge the need to take collaborative, timely, and pragmatic steps to enhance the long-term safety, security, sustainability, and stability of the space environment. In this context, the G-7 supports and encourages constructive discussion on the development and implementation of transparency and confidence building measures to enhance stability in space, taking into account the recommendations of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space. The G7 continues to support ongoing efforts to develop a non-legally-binding International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities and strongly encourages completion of the Code in the near future or in the first half of 2015 at the latest. We also support the efforts to complete the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Guidelines on Long-Term Sustainability for Space Activities in 2015.

FERTILIZERS AND GREENHOUSE GAS

A Growing Summer Squash Plant
FROM:  NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION  

How much fertilizer is too much for Earth's climate?
Helping farmers around the globe combat greenhouse gas emissions and climate change
Helping farmers around the globe apply more precise amounts of fertilizer nitrogen can combat climate change.

That's the conclusion of a study published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In the paper, researchers at Michigan State University (MSU) provide an improved prediction of nitrogen fertilizer's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural fields.

The study uses data from around the world to show that emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas produced in soil following nitrogen addition, rise faster than previously expected when fertilizer rates exceed crop needs.

Nitrogen-based fertilizers spur greenhouse gas emissions by stimulating microbes in the soil to produce more nitrous oxide.

Nitrous oxide is the third most important greenhouse gas, behind carbon dioxide and methane.

Agriculture accounts for about 80 percent of human-caused nitrous oxide emissions worldwide, which have increased substantially in recent years due to increased nitrogen fertilizer use.

"Our motivation is to learn where to best target agricultural efforts to slow global warming," says MSU scientist Phil Robertson. Robertson is also director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Kellogg Biological Station Long-term Ecological Research (LTER) site, one of 25 such NSF LTER sites around the globe, and senior author of the paper.

"Agriculture accounts for 8 to 14 percent of all greenhouse gas production globally. We're showing how farmers can help reduce this number by applying nitrogen fertilizer more precisely."

The production of nitrous oxide can be greatly reduced if the amount of fertilizer needed by crops is exactly the amount that's applied to farmers' fields.

When plants' nitrogen needs are matched with the nitrogen that's supplied, fertilizer has substantially less effect on greenhouse gas emissions, Robertson says.

"These results vastly improve the ability of research to inform climate change, food security and the economic health of the world's farmers," says Saran Twombly, a program director in NSF's Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research through the LTER Program.

Lead author and MSU researcher Iurii Shcherbak notes that the research is especially applicable to fertilizer practices in under-fertilized areas such as sub-Saharan Africa.

"Because nitrous oxide emissions won't be accelerated by fertilizers until crops' nitrogen needs are met, more nitrogen fertilizer can be added to under-fertilized crops without much affecting emissions," says Shcherbak.

Adding less nitrogen to over-fertilized crops elsewhere, however, would deliver major reductions to greenhouse gas emissions in those regions.

The study provides support for expanding the use of carbon credits to pay farmers for better fertilizer management and offers a framework for using this credit system around the world.

Carbon credits for fertilizer management are now available to U.S. corn farmers, says Robertson.

The research was also funded by MSU, the U.S. Department of Energy's Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center and the Electric Power Research Institute.

-- Cheryl Dybas, NSF
-- Layne Cameron, MSU
Investigators
Douglas Landis
Thomas Schmidt
Katherine Gross
Stephen Hamilton
G. Philip Robertson

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

DEFENSE SECRETARY DEFENDS BERGDAHL RECOVERY BEFORE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel: Bergdahl Recovery Consistent With U.S. Laws, Values
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2014 – The recovery of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban was fully consistent with U.S. law, U.S. interests and the U.S. military’s core values, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the House Armed Services Committee today.

The secretary assured the committee that he would not sign off on any decision that wasn’t in the best interests of the United States.

“The prisoner exchange was done legally, with substantial mitigation of risk and in the national interest of our country,” Hagel said.

Since his disappearance in 2009, Bergdahl was officially listed as missing-captured. “No charges were ever brought against him, and there are no charges pending now,” Hagel said, noting that all aspects of government worked to recover the sergeant.

“We never stopped trying to get him back, as the Congress knows, because he is a soldier in the United States Army,” the secretary said.

Any questions about the sergeant’s capture are separate from these facts, Hagel said, “because we do whatever it takes to recover any U.S. service member held in captivity. This pledge is woven into the fabric of our nation and its military.”
In 2011, the Obama administration conducted talks with the Taliban on a detainee exchange involving the five Taliban detainees who ultimately were transferred after the release of Bergdahl. Congress knew of these talks and knew the Taliban broke off these discussions in March 2012, the secretary said. “We have not had direct talks with the Taliban since this time,” he added.

In September 2013, the Qatari government offered to serve as an intermediary with the Taliban, Hagel said, and the United States requested a proof-of-life video of the sergeant.

“In January, we received that video, and it was disturbing,” the secretary said. “It showed a deterioration in his physical appearance and mental state compared to previous videos. The intelligence community carefully analyzed it and concluded that Sergeant Bergdahl’s health was poor, and possibly declining.”

Acting on the exchange therefore became more urgent, he said.

On May 12, the United States and Qatar signed a memorandum of understanding detailing the specific security measures that would be undertaken and enforced by Qatar if any Taliban detainees were transferred to their custody, Hagel told the House panel. These include risk mitigation measures and Qatar’s commitments to travel restrictions, monitoring, information sharing, limitations on activities and more, he said.

Soon after the memo was signed, the secretary continued, Qatari intermediaries said that time was not an ally. “This indicated that the risks to Sergeant Bergdahl’s safety were growing,” Hagel said. “We moved forward with indirect negotiations on how to carry out the exchange of five detainees, and agreed to the mechanics of the exchange on the morning of May 27, following three days of intensive talks.”
Also on May 27, President Barack Obama received a personal commitment from Qatari Amir Tamim bin Hamid al Thani to uphold and enforce the security arrangements. The final decision was made to move forward with the exchange, Hagel said. With recovery imminent, U.S. officials were concerned that any delay, or any leaks, could derail the deal and further endanger Bergdahl, he told the panel.

“We were told by the Qataris that a leak would end the negotiations for Bergdahl’s release,” Hagel said. “We also knew that he would be extremely vulnerable during any movement, and our military personnel conducting the handoff would be exposed to a possible ambush or other deadly scenarios in very dangerous territory. And we had been given no information on where the handoff would occur.”

This was why the military moved “quickly, efficiently, and quietly,” Hagel said. “We believed this exchange was our last, best opportunity to free him.”
After the exchange was set in motion, Hagel said, only 96 hours passed before Bergdahl was in American hands. Uncertainty ruled, he acknowledged.
“We did not know the general area of the handoff until 24 hours before,” Hagel said. “We did not know the precise location until one hour before. And we did not know until the moment Sergeant Bergdahl was handed over safely to U.S. special operations forces that the Taliban would hold up their end of the deal. So it wasn’t until we recovered Bergdahl on May 31 that we moved ahead with the transfer of the five Guantanamo detainees.”

Hagel called Obama’s decision to move forward with the transfer of these detainees a tough call. “But I support it and stand by it,” he added.
The five Afghan Taliban members exchanged for Bergdahl are enemy belligerents and were held in the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. “They have not been implicated in any attacks against the United States, and we had no basis to prosecute them in a federal court or military commission,” Hagel said. “It was appropriate to consider them for an exchange. And if any of these detainees ever try to rejoin the fight, they would be doing so at their own peril.

“The secretary of state, the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security, the director of national intelligence, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all supported this transfer,” the secretary continued. “There was complete unanimity on this decision. The president and I would not have moved forward unless we had complete confidence that we were acting lawfully, in the national interest, and in the best traditions of our military.”

Specifically, the process complied with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 by determining that the risk the detainees posed to the United States, American citizens and U.S. interests was substantially mitigated and that the transfer was in the national security interests of the United States, Hagel said, and the recovery fulfilled the U.S. commitment to recover all military personnel held captive.

“We followed the precedent of past wartime prisoner exchanges, a practice in our country that dates back to the Revolutionary War and has occurred in most wars America has fought,” Hagel said.

Bergdahl was not a hostage, but a detained combatant being held by an enemy force, he noted. That being the case, it “was fully consistent with our long-standing policy not to offer concessions to hostage takers,” the secretary said. “The Taliban is our enemy, and we are engaged in an armed conflict with them.”
The effort was consistent with previous congressional briefings, “reflecting our intent to conduct a transfer of this nature with these particular five individuals,” Hagel said.

The administration was supposed to provide 30 days advance notice to Congress before transferring any individuals held at Guantanamo, but Hagel said the circumstances required quick action.

“Under these exceptional circumstances -- a fleeting opportunity to protect the life of an American service member held captive and in danger -- the national security team and the president agreed that we needed to act swiftly,” he said. “In consultation with the Department of Justice, the administration concluded that the transfer of the five could lawfully proceed.”

Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed