DEPARTMENT OF STATE PRESS BRIEFING

The following excerpt is from a U.S. Department of State e-mail:
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 27, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:02 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: All right, everybody. Happy Tuesday. I have nothing at the top, so let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Can you tell us what you think about the Syrians allegedly agreeing to Kofi Annan’s plan?
MS. NULAND: Well, we certainly view the fact that Kofi Annan reports that he’s had a positive response as an important step. But as with all things with the Assad regime, the proof will be in the actual action that he takes, and particularly, we will be looking for him to take immediate action to begin implementing the Annan proposal, starting with silencing his guns and allowing humanitarian aid to go in.
QUESTION: And do you have any confidence that he will do that?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this needs to be implemented now, and that is what Kofi Annan and his team will be working on.
QUESTION: You’ve been calling for this to be implemented – I mean, just as – even as Annan arrived, and yet all during the whole – this whole process, the attack against the opposition has continued. Why would this be any different?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we have had concerns that all through this period, we’ve had continued violence. As Kofi Annan has now announced that he’s had a positive response, so presumably a positive response will lead to action; that’s what we will be looking for.
Still on Syria?
QUESTION: The Syrian opposition met today in Istanbul. Do you think they are going in the right direction, showing more (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: Well, they are obviously working on trying to bring themselves together, as we’ve been talking about, with a concerted plan for how they would want to take a dialogue about transition forward. I think these meetings are ongoing, so we need to let them continue. And then we obviously will look forward to having a chance to talk to them on the margins of the Friends of the Syrian People meeting, which the Secretary will attend on Sunday.
Before we leave Syria, though, I do want to make a statement with regard to Syrian regime attacks on places of worship. This is something that has been a concern all the way through this conflict. As you know, last year we had video footage of the regime sending armor into portions of the Othman bin Afan mosque in Deir Ez Zor. Just over the past weekend, Syrian forces reportedly killed a civilian, Mahmud Ali Alu, who was peacefully worshipping in the mosque in Sermin in Syria. In addition, we had churches and mosques in Homs that were destroyed over the last couple of weeks. We had reports of a government sniper earlier this year killing a Greek Orthodox priest, Basilious Nasser, in Hama.
So clearly, the regime has been absolutely indiscriminate in its violence, particularly concerning, to us, going after worshippers regardless of affiliation while they are worshipping.
QUESTION: Can I --
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on Syria?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just – you talked about kind of talking with Kofi Annan and the SNC on this – on the margins of the Friends of Syria. I mean, shouldn’t they be an integral part of the Friends of Syria? I mean, what is your goal in terms of achieving at this conference? Is it something that the opposition comes out with in terms of crystallizing their vision for a post-Assad Syria? Or is it the international community mapping out how it sees it and getting the Syrian’s National Council to sign onto it?
MS. NULAND: Well, absolutely right. Last time at the Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Tunisia, the SNC did make a presentation on behalf of the opposition. I would expect that the same will happen at this meeting. What I was referring to was that the Secretary met with them on the margins as well, have a chance to exchange views. We haven’t set the schedule completely for Istanbul, but it’s possible that whether it’s the Secretary or whether it’s others in the delegation, we’ll be meeting with them, have been meeting with them.
So we’ll have a chance to get their sense of how this conference among them in Istanbul went. They are working on another presentation, as I understand it, for the Istanbul meeting, as one of the goals.
QUESTION: What would you consider a kind of successful outcome of the conference?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we are still developing the agenda with our Turkish allies, so I don’t want to get ahead of that. But as you know, we’ve been working along three lines to increase the humanitarian support that is going to Syria: to prepare – not only to help those Syrians who have fled their country, but also to be able to get more assistance in, assuming we can implement the Annan plan; second, to increase the pressure that countries are putting on the Assad regime by increasing their sanctions, and they’re closing down their economic and other dealings with the regime; and then the third is, obviously, to work with the opposition to support their efforts to come together with a clear transition vision of their own.
We’ve seen some positive statements out of the conference talking about a Syria for all Syrians, a Syria that represents and protects the human rights of everyone. These are the kinds of things that we are looking for that the Secretary has been talking about in her meetings with them, that they’ve got to be reassuring, whether they are Sunni, Alawi, Kurds, Druze, Christians, women – that the Syria that they seek will be democratic and tolerant and respectful of the rights of all.
QUESTION: But don’t you think – just one more. I mean, but don’t you think, like at this point, that they should be a little bit beyond that? I mean, positive statements about these kind of issues, shouldn’t they be farther along in terms of fostering the kind of dialogue within Syria about that? Or kind of crystallizing a more specific, detailed plan for how they plan on achieving those kind of goals?
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think they or we have made any secret of the fact that it has been difficult for them to come together. Some of these – the issues that they face, obviously, within Syria are a direct result of the regime’s violence, that the regime is making it as difficult as possible for them to communicate with each other, for them to come together, is following them and persecuting them and cutting off their communications with each other, so that hasn’t made it any easier.
But it’s also the case that, as Assistant Secretary Feltman likes to say, this is a country that has been in a political coma for 42 years. So these groups are, for the first time, coming together and trying to work together. Many of them don’t know each other. They’re having to build trust, they’re having to build common ground. So it’s not surprising that it’s taking time. But this is a process that we need to continue to support and buttress, and the Friends of the Syrian People format is another way to do that.
QUESTION: In these series of presentations that they are making to the Friends of Syria meeting, is the goal or expectation that at some point, either – probably unlikely it would be this current upcoming meeting, but at some future meeting – they will present a sufficient plan which will then allow the Friends of Syria to say, okay, you guys are a legitimate representative of the Syrian people, or some other form of quasi-recognition that gives them a status that they don’t have now?
MS. NULAND: Well, you know that we took another step at the last meeting in terms of seeing the SNC as a leading representative of the Syrians.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: There are also many groups inside Syria, so we want to be respectful of the process that they are all working through – the groups inside, the groups outside – to try to come together. So we are continuing to talk to them about how their own unity is evolving and doing what we can to support them.
QUESTION: But once that unity is achieved, then there would be an additional sort of recognition that would sort of confer upon them the same status that the Libyan TNC got eventually?
MS. NULAND: Again, in Libya, it was – they were further along at the stage that we made that step than we see now. We have a number of different groups. Some of those groups are working well together and some of them have yet to cohere. So as you said, there are a number of additional diplomatic steps we can take at an appropriate time.
Please.
QUESTION: Yeah. According to today report, parts of the opposition declined to attend the meeting in Istanbul. Does the Secretary still intend to meet those opposition, or decline to participate in Istanbul meeting?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, as I said to Elise, our schedule in Istanbul hasn’t been completely set, so whether she’ll have her own meeting or whether it’ll be members of the team who meet and exactly who they meet with hasn’t been determined yet. I think we want to see the results of this conference. Some of our people have been talking to the groups over the last week, so we’ll see where all of that goes before making some decisions.
Michel.
QUESTION: President Assad has made a visit today to Baba Amr saying that the situation there would be better than it was. How do you view this visit?
MS. NULAND: Well, it’s obviously important that he see with his own eyes the destruction that his forces have wrought. What’s even more important is that he allow humanitarian aid to get in to help the poor suffering people there. So one can only hope that he will be moved by what he sees to allow humanitarian assistance not only into Baba Amr, but into all parts of Syria that have been decimated by his forces.
QUESTION: But he said that he was there to kind of help boost up the people that are protecting the homeland; i.e. the soldiers that were responsible for the destruction. So do you get the sense that he was moved from that?
MS. NULAND: Again, we’ll just have to see what happens here. But there aren’t any – there are precious few actual residents of Baba Amr still there for him to see, so – all right? Moving on?
QUESTION: Can I ask – yesterday, there was a letter from the President to the Congress mentioning that the Argentina will lost many benefits in the trade relationship with the United States, especially in the preferred system, and he mentioned in the letter that Argentina was not acting in good faith.
So my question is: How is the relation with Argentina in this moment? How – considering what the press is saying that this is a huge action or sanction against Argentina, how can you evaluate the relation between both countries considering this decision taken by the President?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we maintain a strong bilateral relationship with Argentina. We have had ongoing disputes on these issues. These are not new issues. They’ve been going on for a long time. They’ve been a matter of arbitration for a long time. So the White House’s decision yesterday to suspend Argentina particularly from GSP should not have come as much of a surprise. It was based on a finding that they were not in compliance with the GSP eligibility criteria set by the Congress.
So the President, frankly, didn’t have a lot of choice in this case. We had tried to work through it and we are still open to working through it, but frankly, they’ve got to come forward and pay the subject awards if they want to work through it.
QUESTION: But if you consider the relations from 1 to 10 in this moment --
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to give this relationship a grade. We have a lot of interests in common. We do a huge amount of business together. This is a serious bump in the road and we had no choice but to take action.
Please.
QUESTION: On the Arab Summit, what are your expectations from this summit that will be held in Baghdad?
MS. NULAND: Well, the Arab Summit has just begun in Baghdad. Let me first say that Iraq should be quite proud of its accomplishments in recent years. This is the first time in two decades that regional leaders are returning to Baghdad to attend an Arab Summit. And it’s obviously a critical Arab Summit with regard to Syria and a number of other very important regional issues in determining the direction that they’re all going to take together. So we strongly support this meeting going forward, and we look forward to seeing most of the participants and representatives of most of those participating governments either in our – on our upcoming trip to Riyadh or when we are in Istanbul, or both.
QUESTION: And any update on Assistant Secretary Feltman’s meetings with the Arab officials?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything. I think he flew yesterday and just got started today, so let us look to get you an update tomorrow on his meetings. He was – I know that he was in Yemen today, I believe, and had meetings. Let’s see what I have there. Let’s see, he had meetings today, I believe, with President Hadi in Yemen. But I don’t have a readout yet, so let me get you something on that.
Please.
QUESTION: Excuse me. On Mali, do you have any new contacts there, maybe with President Touré?
MS. NULAND: I do not have anything on contacts with President Touré, but obviously the ECOWAS meeting that is ongoing now in Abidjan, they had – did some other issues. They’ve now just turned their attention to Mali and they’ve gotten – they’re getting a report now. We have had at least one, if not two, contacts with the captain Sanogu, and our basic message to him is unchanged: It’s not too late to undo this, to allow the country to return to civilian rule and to deal with the government and the grievances that you have in a peaceful, calm manner through dialogue, and that every day that you spend trying to run the country is a day that you are not spending keeping Mali safe and secure from the threats that it faces, particularly AQIM and the Tuaregs.
QUESTION: Can I – on the aid question?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So I got the answer, but it didn’t tell me – it wasn’t really the answer to the question, which was --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: The question wasn’t how much aid --
MS. NULAND: Do we give.
QUESTION: -- do you give --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Although that is interesting in itself.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: But how much is being withheld.
MS. NULAND: Well, Matt, it turns out that this has been a little bit more complicated to unwind than we anticipated, so it’s going to take us a little bit more time to be able to give you a precise number with regard to what we’re suspending. And this goes to the issue of the fact that we don’t suspend humanitarian assistance, whether it’s food assistance or some of the medical assistance, so we have to differentiate and pull some of those programs out – what you define as humanitarian and what you define actually as institution building. And then we have some programs that are regional in scope, so some of the money goes to Mali but some goes to the region as a whole, so we’re also unwinding that. So unfortunately, I’m going to beg for your patience on exactly how much money is going to be affected here.
QUESTION: Well, is it still about what you said it was going to be yesterday?
MS. NULAND: I hope so. I hope so, otherwise I’m a liar.
QUESTION: You hope you know something you don’t know? (Laughter.)
Well, can we just – if we look at the 2011, it was 138 million which was – of which 71 million was development assistance, 56 global health programs, 10 million in Food for Peace, and 600,000 in Foreign Military Financing and IMET.
MS. NULAND: Well, certainly FMF --
QUESTION: So out of that, the IMET and the FMF would be gone, right?
MS. NULAND: Certainly. Right.
QUESTION: Would the 56 million in global health be gone?
MS. NULAND: Again, this is a question, as I mentioned, between what’s --
QUESTION: But this is 2011 so --
MS. NULAND: Right. So it’s approximately the same levels for 2012. We’re still working through some of the 2011 money. We’re into some of the 2012. So when you look at global health, how much of that is institution building through the government, which would be suspended; how much of it is urgent humanitarian health needs, which would not be suspended; so this is why it’s taking us a little bit of time to unwind this.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Okay. Scott.
QUESTION: A second day of airstrikes on the border between Sudan and South Sudan. I know that the Administration has spoken in the past about the need for Sudan to allow humanitarian access to Kordofan. This seems to be an escalation, especially along the border.
MS. NULAND: Absolutely an escalation. I think you’ll have some – at least one statement from the Administration a little bit later in the day expressing our concern and alarm. But just to say it here, we are greatly alarmed by the recent fighting in Southern Kordofan and particularly along this undemarcated border between Sudan and South Sudan. We are urging both parties to cease all military activity along the border, because it is a flash point and it could become even more dangerous and escalate out of control.
It’s particularly important to get this under control now, because I think you know that the parties are scheduled to have a summit in Juba on April 3rd under the auspices of the Joint Political Security Mechanism and the Abyei Joint Operations Committee to actually get some agreements done. These are agreements that the people of both sides need, so we’ve got to get the fighting ended.
QUESTION: I think President Bashir said he’s not going to be attending that summit --
MS. NULAND: Well --
QUESTION: -- that he’s canceled the trip due to the fighting. Does the U.S. have any initiatives up its sleeve to try to prod this thing along? I mean, is Ambassador Lyman going back? Are you – what can be done, practically speaking, to get them to pull back?
MS. NULAND: Well, Ambassador Lyman and Assistant Secretary Carson are in touch with all sides and are doing what they can. There is some question about travel in the coming days. Stand by for that.
Okay. Thank you, everybody.

WORKSHOP TO BE HELD AT U.S. EMBASSIES IN AFRICA ON WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

The following excerpt is from an American Forces Press Service e-mail: 
Central African Regional Workshop on Wildlife Trafficking and Dismantling Transnational Illicit Networks, April 3-5 in Libreville, Gabon
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
March 27, 2012
The U.S. Embassies of Gabon and the Central African Republic will hold a workshop April 3-5, 2012, in Libreville, Gabon, in response to the growing threat of poaching and trafficking of protected and endangered species. Gabon President, Ali Bongo Ondimba, will open the conference and U.S. Ambassadors to the Central African Republic and Gabon, Laurence Wohlers and Eric Benjaminson, will co-chair the proceedings.
This workshop is an important step towards creating stronger local and regional approaches and collaborative platforms to combat wildlife poaching and trafficking.
Participants will include law enforcement and government officials as well as representatives of environmental organizations from Cameroon, Central African Republic, Gabon, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Equatorial Guinea. Bringing together participants from within and outside the region offers an opportunity for Central Africa to establish a regional wildlife enforcement network, joining Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Central America in a global system of regional wildlife enforcement networks to combat these crimes.

The Department of State has been at the forefront of international efforts to develop global partnerships to dismantle transnational networks in the illegal trade of wildlife. In 2005, the Department launched the Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking and, in July 2011, the White House released the President’s National Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime and Converging Threats to National Security, which highlighted environmental crimes among the top five most lucrative criminal activities.

EPA PROPOSES CARBON POLLUTION STANDARD FOR NEW POWER PLANTS

The following excerpt is from an EPA e-mail:
March 27, 2012
EPA Proposes First Carbon Pollution Standard for Future Power Plants
Achievable standard is in line with investments already being made and will inform the building of new plants moving forward
WASHINGTON – Following a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposed the first Clean Air Act standard for carbon pollution from new power plants. EPA’s proposed standard reflectsthe ongoing trend in the power sector to build cleaner plants that take advantage of American-made technologies, including new, clean-burning, efficient natural gas generation, which is already the technology of choice for new and planned power plants. At the same time, the rule creates a path forward for new technologies to be deployed at future facilities that will allow companies to burn coal, while emitting less carbon pollution. The rulemaking proposed today only concerns new generating units that will be built in the future, and does not apply to existing units already operating or units that will start construction over the next 12 months.

“Today we’re taking a common-sense step to reduce pollution in our air, protect the planet for our children, and move us into a new era of American energy,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Right now there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that future power plants will be able to put into our skies – and the health and economic threats of a changing climate continue to grow. We’re putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can’t leave to our kids and grandkids.”

Currently, there is no uniform national limit on the amount of carbon pollution new power plants can emit. As a direct result of the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling, EPA in 2009 determined that greenhouse gas pollution threatens Americans’ health and welfare by leading to long lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of negative effects on human health and the environment.  

The proposed standard, which only applies to power plants built in the future, is flexible and would help minimize carbon pollution through the deployment of the same types of modern technologies and steps that power companies are already taking to build the next generation of power plants. EPA’s proposal is in line with these investments and will ensure that this progress toward a cleaner, safer and more modern power sector continues. The proposed standards can be met by a range of power facilities burning different fossil fuels, including natural gas technologies that are already widespread, as well as coal with technologies to reduce carbon emissions. Even without today’s action, the power plants that are currently projected to be built going forward would already comply with the standard. As a result, EPA does not project additional cost for industry to comply with this standard.

Prior to developing this standard, EPA engaged in an extensive and open public process to gather the latest information to aid in developing a carbon pollution standard for new power plants. The agency is seeking additional comment and information, including public hearings, and will take that input fully into account as it completes the rulemaking process. EPA’s comment period will be open for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL COMMENTS ON EUROPEAN BANK BAILOUTS

The following excerpt is from a Congressman Ron Paul e-mail:
A Fistful of Euros
This week, my congressional committee will hold a hearing to examine how the Federal Reserve bails out European banks, propping up spendthrift European governments in the process.  Unfortunately this bailout comes at the expense of American citizens, in the form of higher prices and diminished savings down the road.

A good analysis of the Fed’s “swap” scheme first appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in December, in an article by Gerald O’Driscoll entitled, “The Federal Reserve’s Covert Bailout of Europe.”  Essentially, beginning late last year the Fed provided U.S. dollars to the European Central Bank in exchange for Euros-- sometimes as much as $100 billion at a time.  The ECB then funneled those dollars to European banks to provide liquidity and prevent crises from bank insolvencies.  Since the currency swap was not technically a loan, the Fed did not have to embarrass itself by openly showing foreign bank debt on its balance sheet.  The ECB meanwhile did not have to print new Euros and expose the true fragility of big European banks.

The entire purpose of this unholy arrangement was to obscure the truth: namely that the Fed was bailing out Europe with U.S. dollars.

But why is it the business of the Federal Reserve to bail out European banks that find themselves short of dollars to pay their dollar-denominated contracts? After all, those
contracts often were hedges taken to protect banks against weakness of the Euro.  Hedges are supposed to reduce risk, but banks that miscalculate should suffer their own losses accordingly.  It’s not our business if the ECB chooses to create moral hazards by providing liquidity to European banks, but why should the Fed prop up Europe’s bad decisions!

The Fed has promised to provide unlimited amounts of dollars to the ECB, should circumstances require it.  It boggles the mind.  Of course when Fed officials first entered into these swap agreements with the ECB last September, they did so quietly.  The American public only found out via websites of the ECB, the Bank of England, or the Swiss Central Bank.

The Fed already has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy since 2008, and US banks currently hold $1.5 trillion of excess reserves.  So why don't American banks lend those excess trillions to European banks if they really need dollars?  If US banks could earn 1 or 2 percent on those loans, they might just be interested. But they can't compete with the ½ percent interest rate charged by the Fed to the ECB.  That's one glaring example of the harm caused by the Fed's ability to create money and loan it at below-market interest rates.

The Fed argues that these loans will be temporary, merely providing a little boost to get Europe over the hump.  But that's what they thought a few years ago when such lines of credit to the ECB were set to expire, only to see the Fed reauthorize them. What happens if the European financial system collapses?  Will the Fed be left holding a bunch of worthless Euros?  Will the ECB simply shrug and turn over the collateral it received from European banks, maybe in the form of bonds from Ireland, Italy, or Greece?  Have the 17 individual central banks backing the ECB pledged their gold holdings as collateral?

The Fed has placed a hundred-billion dollar bet on the future of the Euro, with the strength of the dollar on the line.  This is absolutely irresponsible, and directly contrary to market discipline.  Let private banks, European or otherwise, take their own risks.  Let foreign central banks inflate their own currencies and suffer the consequences.  In other words, it’s time to apply market principles to banks and money.

U.S. TOP BRASS SPEAKS ON TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

The following excerpt is from a U.S. Department of Defense American Forces Press Service e-mail:

Dempsey Discusses Combatting Transnational Organized Crime

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

MIAMI, March 26, 2012 - Transnational organized crime is not specifically mentioned in the new defense strategy, but leaders understand the threat, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said at U.S. Southern Command today.

One of the main missions of the command is to deal with the threat posed by drug cartels, human traffickers and gunrunners -- what the command calls transnational organized crime. The command works with regional allies and with U.S. interagency partners to combat this transnational threat.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey spoke during a Southcom town hall meeting before leaving for a visit to regional allies. Before the town hall, he met with Air Force Gen. Douglas Fraser, Southcom's commander, and received briefings on the range and breadth of threats and opportunities in the region.

"I want to assure you that we recognize the threat that transnational organized crime presents, not just because of what they transport to our shores, but what they could also transport -- terrorists and weapons and weapons of mass destruction," the general said.

These crime organizations present many of the same problems that other threats in the world pose the United States. "They are networked, they are decentralized and they are syndicated," he said.

Crime organizations are using 21st century technologies to commit their crimes. They are able to exercise command and control over a wide area and adapt quickly. Dempsey noted that the semi-submersible drug-running craft that is used as a display at Southcom headquarters is just a thing of the past to cocaine traffickers. They now use true submarines that carry a small crew, and a large cargo of cocaine.

The crime networks are decentralized, the chairman said, and will not mass against the United States because they will lose. Rather than challenge the American military directly, they'll work in an asymmetric manner.

Finally, they are syndicated. This means they will ally themselves with other organized crime gangs, weak governments, rebel groups, or whoever suits their needs at the time.

To defeat them, the United States has to be quicker than they are, Dempsey noted. The United States must be a partner in a regional network, and the Defense Department must be a part of a network that includes all aspects of government. The military can clear an area, but if the government cannot hold it -- and bring jobs, education and health care benefits -- it will lose that area.

WISPY TENDRILS OF HOT DUST

This photo and excerpt are from the NASA website:
Wispy tendrils of hot dust and gas glow brightly in this ultraviolet image of the Cygnus Loop Nebula, taken by NASA’s Galaxy Evolution Explorer. The nebula lies about 1,500 light-years away, and is a supernova remnant, left over from a massive stellar explosion that occurred 5,000-8,000 years ago. The Cygnus Loop extends more than three times the size of the full moon in the night sky, and is tucked next to one of the 'swan’s wings' in the constellation of Cygnus. The filaments of gas and dust visible here in ultraviolet light were heated by the shockwave from the supernova, which is still spreading outward from the original explosion. The original supernova would have been bright enough to be seen clearly from Earth with the naked eye. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

PRESIDENT OBAMA TALKS ABOUT STOPPING NUCLEAR TERROR

The following excerpt is from a U.S. Department of Defense American Forces Press Service e-mail:

Obama Cites Global Efforts to Stop Nuclear Terror

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2012 - The world is safer because the international community has made it harder than ever for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons, President Barack Obama told students at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul, South Korea, today.

The president -- who is in South Korea's capital city to attend the Nuclear Security Summit -- cited nuclear terrorism as one of the greatest threats to global security. "We're building an international architecture that can ensure nuclear safety," Obama said. "But we're under no illusions. We know that nuclear material, enough for many weapons, is still being stored without adequate protection. And we know that terrorists and criminal gangs are still trying to get their hands on it -- as well as radioactive material for a dirty bomb."

An amount of plutonium about the size of an apple could kill hundreds of thousands of people and spark global crisis, the president told the students.

"Here in Seoul, more than 50 nations will mark our progress toward the goal we set at the summit I hosted two years ago in Washington -- securing the world's vulnerable nuclear materials in four years so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists," he said.

Obama noted that since the last summit, the United States, South Korea, Japan, Pakistan and others have boosted security at nuclear facilities and are building new centers to improve nuclear security and training. Kazakhstan, Mexico and Ukraine have joined the ranks of nations that have secured or removed all the highly enriched uranium from their territory, he said.

"All told, thousands of pounds of nuclear material have been removed from vulnerable sites around the world," Obama said. "This was deadly material that is now secure and can now never be used against a city like Seoul."

The international community also is using every tool at its disposal to break up black markets in nuclear material, the president said. "Nearly 20 nations have now ratified the treaties and international partnerships that are at the center of our efforts," he added.

Obama noted that with the death of Osama bin Laden and other major blows against al-Qaida, a terrorist organization that has actively sought nuclear weapons now is on the path to defeat.

"And that's why we're here in Seoul -- we need to keep at it," he said. "And I believe we will. We're expecting dozens of nations to announce over the next several days that they've fulfilled the promises they made two years ago. And we're now expecting more commitments -- tangible, concrete action -- to secure nuclear materials and, in some cases, remove them completely."

The president said South Korea is one of the key leaders in a serious, sustained global effort the international community needs, and he pledged continued American support.

"The United States will continue to do our part -- securing our own material and helping others protect theirs," Obama said.

"And we will work with industry and hospitals and research centers in the United States and around the world to recover thousands of unneeded radiological materials so that they can never do us harm."

Obama acknowledged there are doubters "who deride our vision" and "those who say ours is an impossible goal that will be forever out of reach." But he pointed to South Korea as an example of great progress, contrasting its prosperity with conditions in North Korea.

"Come to this country, which rose from the ashes of war, turning rubble into gleaming cities," he said. "Stand where I stood yesterday, along a border that is the world's clearest contrast between a country committed to progress, a country committed to its people, and a country that leaves its own citizens to starve."

The president acknowledged that much like his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, a unified Korea may not be in immediate reach.

"But from this day until then, and all the days that follow," he added, "we take comfort in knowing that the security we seek, the peace we want is closer at hand because of the great alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea. ... And no matter the test, no matter the trial, we stand together."

MAN CHARGED BY CFTC WITH MANIPULATING FUTURES PRICES OF PALLADIUM AND PLATINUM

The following excerpt is from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission website:
CFTC Charges Joseph F. Welsh III, Former MF Global Broker, with Attempted Manipulation of Palladium and Platinum Futures Prices

Washington, DC - The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that it filed a federal court action in the Southern District of New York chargingJoseph F. Welsh III, of Northport, N.Y., with attempted manipulation of the prices of palladium and platinum futures contracts, including the settlement prices, traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).  The CFTC complaint alleges that Welsh engaged in this conduct from at least June 2006 through May 2008 and specifically on at least 12 separate occasions.

The complaint charges Welsh with directly attempting to manipulate the palladium and platinum futures prices and with aiding and abetting the attempted manipulations of Christopher L. Pia, a former portfolio manager of Moore Capital Management, LLC, a CFTC registrant.

According to the complaint, while working as a broker at MF Global Inc., Welsh employed a manipulative scheme commonly known as “banging the close.”

Welsh allegedly routinely received market-on-close orders to buy palladium and platinum futures contracts from Pia, either directly or through a clerk, and also allegedly understood that Pia wanted to buy at high prices.  To accomplish that, Welsh intentionally devised and implemented a trading strategy to attempt to maximize the price impact through trading during the two-minute closing periods of the palladium and platinum futures contracts markets (Closing Periods), the complaint charges.

The CFTC complaint also states that to push prices higher, Welsh routinely withheld entering the market-on-close buy orders until only a few seconds remained in the Closing Periods and thereby caused the orders to be executed within seconds of the close of trading.

The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties, trading and registration bans and a permanent injunction against further violations of the federal commodities laws, as charged.

The CFTC settled related actions against Moore Capital Management LLC’s successor, Moore Capital Management, LP (Moore), and its affiliates and against Pia.  On April 29, 2010, the CFTC issued an order filing and settling charges of attempted manipulation and failure to supervise against Moore and its affiliates.  The CFTC’s order imposed a $25 million civil monetary penalty, restricted Moore’s market-on-close trading in the palladium and platinum futures and options markets for two years and restricted Moore’s registration for three years (see CFTC Press Release 5815-10).

On July 25, 2011, the CFTC issued an order filing and settling charges of attempted manipulation against Pia.  The CFTC order required Pia, among other things, to pay a $1 million civil monetary penalty and permanently bans him from trading during the closing periods for all CFTC-regulated products and permanently bans him from trading CFTC regulated products in palladium and platinum (see CFTC News Release 6079-11).

The CFTC thanks the CME Group, the parent company of the NYMEX, for its assistance.
CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are Melanie Bates, Kara Mucha, James A. Garcia, August A. Imholtz III, Kassra Goudarzi, Jeremy Cusimano, Janine Gargiulo, Stephen Obie, Michael Solinsky, Gretchen L. Lowe, and Vincent A. McGonagle.

U.S SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON ON SENEGAL ELECTIONS

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail:
Presidential Elections in Senegal
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
March 26, 2012
Yesterday, the people of Senegal exercised their rights and made their voices heard through a peaceful, democratic election. This election was an important step forward for democracy in Africa and for the Senegalese people. I would like to congratulate Macky Sall on his victory and his hard-fought campaign. I also want to thank Abdoulaye Wade for his twelve years of leadership and dedicated service to the Senegalese people.

The United States applauds the people of Senegal for conducting a peaceful and well-managed presidential election. We congratulate all the Senegalese authorities and institutions responsible for the organization of the election process, which international and domestic observers agree was credible, orderly, and transparent. We look forward to continuing to strengthen our partnership with the people and government of Senegal, and we wish all the Senegalese people a future filled with peace and prosperity.

U.S. DEFENSE TO MOVE FROM "MAD" TO MUTUALLY ASSURED STABILITY "MAS"

The following excerpt is from the Department of Defense website:
Ballistic Missile Defense: Progress and Prospects
Remarks Ellen Tauscher
Special Envoy10th Annual Missile Defense Conference
Washington, DC
March 26, 2012
Thank you, Pat for that introduction. I have worked with Pat for a long time now and I appreciate his support, advice and service to this nation. When I retired from full-time government service, I kept the missile defense portfolio, in part, because I wanted to keep working with Pat.

Two-and-a-half years ago—and that seems like a lifetime ago in terms of government years—the Obama Administration rolled out the European Phased Adaptive Approach. Several months later, we completed the Ballistic Missile Defense Review. In Lisbon, last year, NATO committed to adopt missile defense as an Alliance mission. I continue to work with my Russian counterparts to find a path forward on missile defense cooperation. And we’re working more closely than ever with Israel on Arrow, Arrow 3, David Sling and more.

The Obama Administration has not only talked about supporting missile defense, we’ve actually done it. And, we have focused on effective systems. We have worked to protect and enhance our important homeland defense capabilities and to expand our regional missile defense capabilities. We demonstrated that again in the FY13 budget request, where every program and every agency is subject to cuts, we protected our most critical BMD capabilities to protect the U.S. homeland, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners.

I am going to focus on two issues. To start, I want to talk about the European Phased Adaptive Approach. And then I want to make the case for Missile Defense cooperation with Russia.

I’m not going to dwell on the specifics of what the EPAA will and will not do. Pat has undoubtedly given you a much better briefing on that than I can. I want to talk about the progress we have made in implementing the European Phased Adaptive Approach.
When I spoke at last year’s conference, we were hard at work on the agreements that would allow the implementation of all four phases of the European Phased Adaptive Approach. Then, during one incredible week last September, we made three announcements.

First, Turkey agreed to host the Phase 1 AN/TPY-2 radar.
Second, we signed the Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement with Romania to host the Phase 2 land-based SM-3 site. Today, both of those agreements have been finalized. The U.S.-Poland agreement for the Phase 3 land-based site entered into force as well.
And, last October, Spain agreed to serve as a home port for four Aegis destroyers. That’s not bad for government work.

The Obama Administration has put into place the key agreements needed to implement all four phases of the EPAA. Most importantly, we met President Obama’s goal to implement the first phase of the EPAA by the end of 2011. Right now, the Aegis Cruiser, the USS Vella Gulf, is providing our at-sea Phase 1 missile defense presence along with the AN/TPY-2 radar in Turkey.

The next big demonstration of our progress will come at the NATO Summit in Chicago in May. We expect NATO to announce that it has achieved an “interim capability.” That basically means that Allies will start operating under the same “playbook.”
NATO has done tremendous work in preparing the way for this interim capability since the agreement in Lisbon to develop a NATO BMD capability whose aim is to provide full coverage and protection for all NATO European populations, territories, and forces. We are especially grateful to those allies that have agreed to contribute to the NATO BMD system. We especially appreciate Turkey, Romania, Poland, and Spain for their willingness to host elements of NATO’s missile defense capabilities on their territory.
Other countries are making significant contributions as well. The Netherlands has decided to modify the SMART-L radars on their air defense frigates to give the ships a BMD sensor capability that can contribute to NATO missile defense. Germany is exploring developing an airborne infrared sensor. France has proposed a concept for a shared early warning satellite.

After Chicago, we will continue to cooperate with our NATO Allies to achieve full operational capability for NATO territorial missile defense, including all four phases of the EPAA as the U.S. contribution.

At the same time, I have been working with my Russian counterpart to develop mutually beneficial areas of cooperation. This could be a game changer for European security and for U.S.-Russian relations. And any cooperative agreement will not limit our ability to deploy missile defense systems and it can and will be done in a way that doesn’t compromise our commitment to NATO missile defense and all four phases of the EPAA.

Missile defense is one area where we can work together with Russia to end Cold War thinking and move away from Mutually Assured Destruction toward Mutually Assured Stability.

That means getting Russia inside the missile defense tent now, working alongside the U.S. and NATO, while we are in Phase 1. This way Russia will be able to see with its own eyes what all the phases of the EPAA really mean. Russia also will be able to see that we are focused on the threat from countries like Iran. NATO missile defense systems will not threaten Russia’s strategic nuclear capabilities. I’ll say it again: These systems will not threaten Russia’s strategic forces.

This cooperation is essential because Russia has not been convinced by our technical arguments that the NATO system isn’t a threat even despite Pat’s best efforts and I am grateful to him and MDA for their detailed technical responses to Russia’s inaccurate assumptions about our missile defense capabilities.

Cooperation will also allow Russia to see that the U.S. Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense is designed to be flexible. Should the ballistic missile threat from nations like Iran be reduced, our missile defense system can adapt accordingly.
Russia has raised the issue of a legal guarantee with a set of “military-technical criteria” that could, in effect, create limitations on our ability to develop and deploy future missile defense systems. They want a piece of paper they can point to when a U.S. ship enters certain waters or when an interceptor has a certain speed.

We certainly cannot accept limitations on where we deploy our Aegis ships. These are multi-mission ships that are used for a variety of missions around the world, not just for missile defense. We also will NOT accept limitations on the capabilities and numbers of our missile defense systems.
We would be willing to agree to a political statement that our missile defenses are not directed at Russia. In fact, this is what we have been saying all along. Let me say it again: any statement will be politically binding and it would publicly proclaim our intent to cooperate and chart the direction for cooperation, not limitations.

In order to reach the point where we can engage in genuine missile defense cooperation with Russia in ways that truly benefit U.S. national security, we may need to be more transparent and continue to build trust between our two nations. We would not give away “hit to kill technology,” telemetry, or any other types of information that would compromise our national security.

We must look for opportunities for transparency measures with the Russian Federation. To that end, we have offered for the Russian Federation to view one of our Aegis SM-3 missile defense flight tests. We are not proposing to provide them with classified information.

Rather, we are offering for them to operate in international waters, giving them the time of launch of our target (which we provide to mariners and airmen as normal course). This will be a good first step in transparency measures with the Russian Federation, allowing them to see for themselves, what we are saying about our system is accurate.
I would argue that we cannot let this opportunity pass. It is too important for the future of U.S. and European security.

Now that Russia has wrapped up its elections, I am hoping my Russian colleagues see this is an opportunity that they should take sooner rather than later. Confidence takes time to build. If Russia is truly concerned about Phases 3 and 4, it would be best for Russia to start cooperating as early as possible to better understand our capabilities as they evolve. We prefer future decision-making on this issue to be made according to on-the-ground realities, not worst-case guesses. We prefer letting data and facts inform our decision making, rather than lingering Cold War paranoia.

So we will keep working to see if we can come up with a plan for cooperation. That is one of the reasons I have stayed on as Special Envoy. I want to see this cooperation reach fruition.

On March 13th, I took the full interagency Arms Control and International Security Working Group of the Presidential Bilateral Commission to Moscow for a meeting with the Russians. I then followed up with a one-on-one meeting with my counterpart Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov last weekend. We also continue to press in the Defense and Joint Staff channels, and we will keep moving forward in the run up to May and we will keep going long after May.

Our objective is not just winning some public relations points. It’s about creating lasting cooperation and changing outdated thinking to the benefit of U.S. security.
Transforming missile defense from an issue of contention to one of cooperation will also help move us forward on the road toward greater nuclear reductions and, eventually, elimination.

Let me close by reiterating that our cooperation with Russia will not come at the expense of our plans to defend Europe from regional ballistic missile threats or for the defense of the U.S. homeland.

President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and others have all reaffirmed our commitment to the implementation of the EPAA. We look forward to continuing our work implementing the EPAA with our NATO partners as well as consulting closely with Congress and others as we move forward.

Thank you and with that, I would be happy to take a few [easy] questions.

BIOMET INC., CHARGED BY SEC WITH BRIBING DOCTORS IN THREE COUNTRIES

The following excerpt is from a Securities and Exchange Commission e-mail:
Washington, D.C., March 26, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Warsaw, Ind.-based medical device company Biomet Inc. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) when its subsidiaries and agents bribed public doctors in Argentina, Brazil, and China for nearly a decade to win business.

Biomet, which primarily sells products used by orthopedic surgeons, agreed to pay more than $22 million to settle the SEC’s charges as well as parallel criminal charges announced by the U.S. Department of Justice today. The charges arise from the SEC and DOJ’s ongoing proactive global investigation into medical device companies bribing publicly-employed physicians.

The SEC alleges that Biomet and its four subsidiaries paid bribes from 2000 to August 2008, and employees and managers at all levels of the parent company and the subsidiaries were involved along with the distributors who sold Biomet’s products. Biomet’s compliance and internal audit functions failed to stop the payments to doctors even after learning about the illegal practices.

“Biomet’s misconduct came to light because of the government’s proactive investigation of bribery within the medical device industry,” said Kara Novaco Brockmeyer, Chief of the Enforcement Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit. “A company’s compliance and internal audit should be the first line of defense against corruption, not part of the problem.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Washington D.C., employees of Biomet Argentina SA paid kickbacks as high as 15 to 20 percent of each sale to publicly-employed doctors in Argentina. Phony invoices were used to justify the payments, and the bribes were falsely recorded as “consulting fees” or “commissions” in Biomet’s books and records. Executives and internal auditors at Biomet’s Indiana headquarters were aware of the payments as early as 2000, but failed to stop it.

The SEC alleges that Biomet’s U.S. subsidiary Biomet International used a distributor to bribe publicly-employed doctors in Brazil by paying them as much as 10 to 20 percent of the value of their medical device purchases. Payments were openly discussed in communications between the distributor, Biomet International employees, and Biomet’s executives and internal auditors in the U.S. For example, a February 2002 internal Biomet memorandum about a limited audit of the distributor’s books stated:

Brazilian Distributor makes payments to surgeons that may be considered as a kickback. These payments are made in cash that allows the surgeon to receive income tax free. …The accounting entry is to increase a prepaid expense account. In the consolidated financials sent to Biomet, these payments were reclassified to expense in the income statement.

According to the SEC’s complaint, two additional subsidiaries – Biomet China and Scandimed AB – sold medical devices through a distributor in China who provided publicly-employed doctors with money and travel in exchange for their purchases of Biomet products. Beginning as early as 2001, the distributor exchanged e-mails with Biomet employees that explicitly described the bribes he was arranging on the company’s behalf. For example, one e-mail stated:

[Doctor] is the department head of [public hospital]. [Doctor] uses about 10 hips and knees a month and it’s on an uptrend, as he told us over dinner a week ago. …Many key surgeons in Shanghai are buddies of his. A kind word on Biomet from him goes a long way for us. Dinner has been set for the evening of the 24th. It will be nice. But dinner aside, I’ve got to send him to Switzerland to visit his daughter.
The SEC alleges that some e-mails described the way that vendors would deliver cash to surgeons upon completion of surgery, and others discussed the amount of payments. The distributor explained in one e-mail that 25 percent in cash would be delivered to a surgeon upon completion of surgery. Biomet sponsored travel for 20 Chinese surgeons in 2007 to Spain, where a substantial part of the trip was devoted to sightseeing and other entertainment.

Biomet consented to the entry of a court order requiring payment of $4,432,998 in disgorgement and $1,142,733 in prejudgment interest. Biomet also is ordered to retain an independent compliance consultant for 18 months to review its FCPA compliance program, and is permanently enjoined from future violations of Sections 30A, 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Biomet agreed to pay a $17.28 million fine to settle the criminal charges.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Brent S. Mitchell with Tracy L. Price of the Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit and Reid A. Muoio. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Fraud Section and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The investigation into bribery in the medical device industry is continuing.

SEC FILES ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST WELLS FARGO

The following excerpt is from the SEC website:
March 23, 2012
SEC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Wells Fargo for Failure to Produce Documents in Mortgage-Backed Securities Investigation
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has filed a subpoena enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Wells Fargo & Company. According to the filing, the Commission is investigating possible fraud in connection with Wells Fargo’s sale of nearly $60 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities to investors. Pursuant to subpoenas dating back to September 2011, the bank was obligated to produce (and agreed to produce) documents to the Commission, but has failed to do so. Accordingly, the Commission filed its Application for an Order Requiring Compliance with Administrative Subpoenas.

The Commission’s action relates to its investigation into whether Wells Fargo made material misrepresentations or omitted material facts in a series of offerings between September 2006 and early 2008. The Commission’s application explains that, in connection with the securitization of the loans, a due diligence review of a sample of the loans in each offering was performed. Certain loans within that sample would be dropped from the offering for failure to comply with Wells Fargo’s loan underwriting standards. However, according to the Commission, it does not appear that Wells Fargo took any steps to address similar deficiencies in the remainder of the loans in the pool, which were securitized and sold to investors. The Commission is investigating, among other things, whether Wells Fargo misrepresented to investors that the loans being securitized complied with the bank’s loan underwriting standards.

The staff in the Commission’s San Francisco Regional Office issued several subpoenas to Wells Fargo since September 2011 seeking, among other things, materials related to due diligence and to the bank’s underwriting guidelines. According to the Commission, Wells Fargo agreed to produce the documents, and set forth a timetable for doing so, yet has failed to produce many of the materials.

Pursuant to its Application, the Commission is seeking an order from the federal district court compelling Wells Fargo to comply with the Commission’s administrative subpoenas and to produce all responsive materials to the staff. The Commission notes that it is continuing to conduct a fact-finding inquiry and has not concluded that anyone has broken the law.

U.S. MEXICO AND CANADA COMPLETE JOINT NUCLEAR SECURITY PROJECT

The following excerpt is from a Department of Defense American Forces Press e-mail: 

Trilateral Agreement Highlights Nuclear Security Summit

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2012 - The United States, Canada and Mexico have completed a joint nuclear security project to convert the fuel in Mexico's research reactor from highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium.

Representatives from the three nations presented the project's completion today at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea.

The project was initiated at the Nuclear Security Summit here two years ago and the three countries worked closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency in carrying it out, officials said. The full conversion of the reactor supports the goal of minimizing the use of highly enriched uranium for civilian purposes, they added, and by converting its research nuclear reactor, Mexico has contributed to nonproliferation.

"With this decision, Mexico reaffirms its commitment to building a world free of the nuclear threat," Mexican President Felipe Calderon said. "Each country must do its share to reach a safer North America and a safer planet. This is a clear example of the significant work we can do together in the North American region."

President Barack Obama, who is in Seoul, South Korea, for the Nuclear Security Summit, praised the effort.

"I would like to thank Mexico, Canada and the IAEA for their support of our joint nuclear security efforts," Obama said. "Our strong trilateral partnership, supported by the IAEA, has made our people safer and advanced our international nuclear security effort leading into the Seoul Summit."

Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper said the project's completion demonstrates concrete steps countries can take collectively.

"We will continue to work with the United States and Mexico to enhance nuclear security in our region and worldwide," Harper said.
 

GENERAL JOHN ALLEN, COMMANDER INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCE IN AFGHANISTAN SPEAKS AT PENTAGON

The following excerpt is from the Department of Defense website:
Presenter: General John Allen, Commander, International Security Assistance Force March 26, 2012
DOD News Briefing with Gen. Allen from the Pentagon
             Assistant Secretary Doug Wilson:  Good morning.  I'd like to welcome to the Pentagon Press Room and to the podium General John Allen, the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.  General Allen will have a short statement, and then we'll take your questions.  Captain John Kirby, Pentagon spokesman, will moderate and answer -- direct your questions to him, and he'll call on you.
            General Allen.

            GENERAL JOHN ALLEN:  Ladies and gentlemen, good morning, and thanks for your coming and for giving me this opportunity to join you today.

            Now, some of you may have seen my congressional testimony last week.  And in fact, I have seen a good bit of the coverage from those hearings, so I suspect you're familiar with the basic points that I tried to make about the progress that we're making in Afghanistan.  I won't repeat it all for your here this morning, but I'd like to make a few points before we take your questions.

            First, in the case of Staff Sergeant Bales, I extend once again my sincere condolences to the loved ones, family members and friends of those who were killed and injured in that senseless act of violence.  I also extend my deepest sympathies to the Bales family, who are going through a great deal right now.  They too deserve our support as they come to grips with the inevitable and drastic changes that will cause change in their lives.

            Charges, as you know, have been preferred against Staff Sergeant Bales.  Compensation payments to the family -- the families of the victims, in keeping with cultural norms, have been paid.  And both the criminal investigation as well as an administrative investigation continues.

   I'm sure you can understand that because these investigations are ongoing and jurisdiction has been passed to officials at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, I will not be able to go into more detail about this case today.  But I can assure you that the investigators have and will retain my full support to let the facts take them where they may.  We must let the investigative and judicial processes play out in their own time in accordance with our own regulations.  Speculation in the media and through anonymous commentary serves no one's purpose in our interest and in our earnest desire to see justice done here.  

            Second, on the issue of future troop levels, I was very clear in my testimony that after we recover the surge this September, I'll conduct an analysis of the kinds of combat power we will need in 2013. I said I believe the power -- that power to be significant, but I do not say that it will need to rest at any certain level throughout this year or 2013.  The truth is there is no way I can know that right now, certainly not until after we've emerged from the fighting season and not until after I've had the chance to assess the state of the insurgency in the aftermath of the fighting season, the operational environment that we anticipate in 2013.

            And the capabilities of the Afghan national security forces going forward is not just a matter of what to do with the remaining 68,000 U.S. troops.  I must also carefully consider the combination of forces in theater.  There will still be some 40,000 ISAF forces in the field and an increasingly capable and increasingly numerous Afghan security forces.  Force levels then will represent a composite number.  That's a key point.  It's American forces as a component of the international and indigenous force, not a separate and distinct entity.  

            And as I said, it is not just about the numbers either.  It's about the operational environment in which we will find ourselves in 2013.

            We've done much to degrade the Taliban's capabilities this winter, to deny them resources and sanctuary.  I believe we've made it harder for them to succeed in a spring offensive of their own, but we need to get through this fighting season for me to fully understand that amount of combat power that we'll need in 2013.

            I owe the president and my chain of command a comprehensive recommendation about all of this.  I owe them options to consider and to think through.  And I know I have their support to take the time I need in the fall to develop those options further.

Finally, a word about transition:  I meant what I said about translation being the linchpin of our success.  Of the four priorities I laid out to our command when I took command on the 18th of July, the first of these was to keep up the pressure on the enemy, and we've certainly done that.  But a very close second was to focus even more sharply on our efforts to grow and to develop ANSF capabilities.  They really are better than we thought that they would be at this point. More critically, they are better than they thought that they would be at this point.

            I use as an example the bravery and the skill which they demonstrated when they attempted to quell the violence that resulted from the protests last month, bravery that cost them two lives and more than 60 wounded.  But I could just as easily point to the literally thousands of operations, some large, some small, that they conduct alongside ISAF troops and often in the lead every month as we go forward.  In just the last two weeks alone Afghan security forces across the country on their own arrested more than 50 and killed nearly half a dozen insurgents, including several who were planning to assassinate the governor of Balkh province.  And over the course of what turned out to be more than 20 operations nationwide, they've also captured several caches of explosives, weapons and bomb-making materials.

            And it isn't just about their Army doing good work.  The police too have been contributing to the security in the cities and the towns, most recently protecting the Nowruz celebrations.

            I know people will look at these and other examples and say they're anecdotal, that we still face real challenges in attrition and ethnic composition, even corruption in some of the ranks.  I'm not saying things are perfect, and much work remains to be done.  But for every bribe accepted and for every insider threat, or what is known as a green-on-blue incident -- and I think you're aware that tragically we had one overnight, as two young British soldiers were killed in Helmand province -- for every one Afghan soldier that doesn't return from leave, I can cite hundreds of other examples where they do perform their duties, where the partnership is strong, where the competence of the Afghan forces is building, and where the trust and confidence we have in them and that they have in themselves grows steadily.

            Those who would make the argument otherwise will never convince me that these brave men don't have the will to fight for their government and for their country and for their fellow citizens, and that willingness, I believe, is the thing most hopeful about the entire effort of transition.  They want this responsibility, they want to lead, and we're going to help them to do that.
            With that, I'll happily take your questions.  

 Q:  General, one quick housekeeping thing and then a question. There's been some ongoing confusion over the jump in the number of casualties from 16 to 17.  I was wondering if you might be able to discuss that briefly.

            And then secondly, considering the corruption and the green-on-blue incidents, can you talk a little bit about how you think the United States can give the Afghans some advance notice or use some sort of warrant-like procedure for the night raids?  And how do you think that can be done without damaging or hurting operations?

            GEN. ALLEN:  I'm getting your one question in three parts here, so give me just a second.  And if I miss one, let me -- just tell me.

            There is a -- there was an increase in the number of what we believe to have been those who were killed tragically in this event. But this is -- the number increased was based upon the initial reporting by the Afghans.  And so we should not be surprised that in fact, as the investigation went forward, that an -- that an additional number was added to that.  So that is something that we understand and we accept, and as the investigation goes forward, we'll get greater clarity in that.

            On green on blue, what we also call the insider threat, we're going to continue very closely to partner with the Afghans.  As I think you're aware, we've done that significantly in the last several months.  The Afghans themselves, who also suffer from what is euphemistically called green on green, they have taken a lot of steps themselves with an eight-step vetting process.  They've worked very closely within the National Directorate of Security to place counterintelligence operatives inside their schools, inside their recruiting centers and inside their ranks, the idea being to spot and assess the potential emergence of an individual who could be an extremist or in fact a Taliban infiltrator.

            They've done that themselves.  We've taken action within ISAF with respect to a tactical directive, orders that I have issued, pre- deployment -- that we have asked the services to undertake both within the U.S. context, but the NATO context as well, to better prepare our forces across the board.

            So I think between what the Afghans have done for themselves, what we're doing for ourselves and how we're partnering together, we seek to reduce this tragedy to the maximum extent possible.

            And with respect to the night operations MOU, we are actually at a -- at a pretty delicate moment in the negotiations.  I am confident that we will end up where we want to be on both sides, and I'll just leave it there.

So thank you for the questions.
            STAFF:  Yeah, Craig.

            Q:  General, Craig Whitlock with The Washington Post.
 
            GEN. ALLEN:  Hi, Craig.

            Q:  Speaking of green on blue, about a month ago, at the Afghan Interior Ministry, there were two American military officers who were killed, murdered, as people here at the Pentagon put it.  Initially Afghan officials said they had a suspect in that case, a driver for an Afghan official.  I think recently you told CNN that there are no suspects in the case at this point.  Could you elaborate on where that investigation stands?  And how can there be no suspect or arrest made in a case where a building's highly secured, where there're cameras, where people would know who was going in and out of that building?  

            GEN. ALLEN:  We'll need -- we'll need to let this develop a bit more.  At this juncture, I think there is still significant investigation that remains not just on who they believe might have conducted the shooting, but also where ties may be elsewhere outside the building into the Taliban.  So more investigation needs to be conducted at this point.

            Q:  Is there a suspect in that case?

            GEN. ALLEN:  Not that we have been -- not that we have been presented at this point.

            Q:  And have you allowed all the advisers to go back into the ministries?  

            GEN. ALLEN:  I have permitted my commanders to do assessments on all those areas where our advisers are involved, and they will come back to me with their assessment that the situation is now sufficiently secure for our advisers to go back.  Most of them are back at this point.  But we'll continue to evaluate the security situation as it develops.

            Q:  Thank you.

            GEN. ALLEN:  You're welcome.

            Q:  If I could follow up, General, there were 15 -- with the two deaths today, 15 ISAF service members have been killed in these green- on-blue incidents.  

            That's about 25 percent -- almost 25 percent of all the ISAF casualties so far this year.  Is this -- what accounts for the increase in these kinds of attacks on ISAF forces?  Is it a -- do you consider it a significant threat?  And is there evidence that the Taliban is actually purposely planting, infiltrating the Afghan forces, or are these just random acts?

             GEN. ALLEN:  That's an important question.  The Taliban of course takes credit for all of them when in fact the majority are not in fact a direct result of Taliban infiltration.

            It's also no secret that the Taliban has had as an objective for some period of time infiltrating the ranks of both the ANSF and those elements that support us directly on board our camps.

            It's difficult to tell right now whether this is an increase in the operational tempo, but I think that we can all probably assume that with the some of the incidents that have occurred in the last several months, that that has been a potential causal factor in some of the extremism that resulted in a green-on-blue event.
            Q:  And if I could follow, how does a -- how does a U.S. -- how does a British -- a French -- how can they work side by side, and in many cases sleeping in the same encampment, with this kind of threat looming over them?
            GEN. ALLEN:  In many cases the relationship is very strong.  In fact in most cases the relationship is very strong.  They know each other well.

            We have taken steps necessary on our side to protect ourselves with respect to, in fact, sleeping arrangements, internal defenses associated with those small bases in which we operate, the posture of our forces, to have someone always overwatching our forces.

            On the Afghan side, they're doing the same thing.  I mean they're -- they are helping the troops to understand how to recognize radicalization or the emergence of extremism in some of those -- in individuals who may in fact be suspect.  But they're also being trained, and through the use of the NDS, they're also very quick to be able to report this as well.

             There have been some breakthroughs, in fact, in Afghan investigations, in arrests that have been made of elements that have been found in ranks that potentially could have been a perpetrator for a green-on-blue.  So the process is actually working.  But your question is a very important one, and we will watch that very closely to see if this is a trend over which we have to take even more measures.  Thank you.
             CAPTAIN JOHN KIRBY:  Tony.

            Q:  Could I follow up on that?  To what extent are you concerned about revenge killings based upon the Bales case and perceptions in Afghanistan that he may be getting a free ride or justice isn't being done?  And then I have a second -- a second question.

             GEN. ALLEN:  Yeah, I don't connect the two of those.  But in any case, there -- it is prudent for us to recognize that, as you know, revenge is an important dimension in this culture.  So we would be prudent ourselves in looking for the potential for that to emerge.  So it is something that we will keep an eye on.  I have seen no indications yet that it has emerged as a potential factor, but we will certainly keep an eye on that.

             Q:  A quick -- on a second question, on Pakistan and the FATA, the safe havens, the two major challenges you pointed out last week to Congress was corruption and the safe havens.  What level of degradation to the safe havens do you need to see over the next year to give the president some comfort level that as you transition, the safe havens still won't remain a vibrant sanction for the Taliban and Haqqani network?

             GEN. ALLEN:  Sure, an important question.  We'll need to see the cross-border movement of insurgents, have the safe havens reduced. We believe that, as a result, if you've been following -- and I'm sure you have -- the reduction in enemy-initiated attacks over the year, if we see that a second year, we think that there will be important indicators about whether the safe havens have in fact or are operationally relevant to the insurgency, but we'll also continue to push for as much velocity as we can achieve in reintegration.  That has also helped us, recalling that many of the folks who live in the safe havens actually live in Afghanistan; they're there for a short period of time.  If we can accelerate the value of reintegration in their minds, that's another means of neutralizing the safe havens.

             And then, of course, the process of reconciliation -- I'm not personally involved in reconciliation, but it is a peacemaking process which could, in fact, should a political outcome ultimately emerge from reconciliation, in conjunction with the reintegration process, it could in fact deflate in fact the value of the safe havens ultimately to the insurgency because many insurgents will simply go home, to become part of the future rather than to become continued insurgents.

             Q:  (Off mic) -- you see more Pakistan military involvement and a greater offensive thrust there?

             GEN. ALLEN:  Well, we would always enjoy Pakistani military assistance across the border, but I will tell you that they're deeply engaged across the border.  In the last couple of years, they've suffered 3,000 dead and a couple of thousand wounded, and they have an IED problem from the Taliban on their side of the border that is substantial as well.

             So while I would not purport to dictate to General Kayani how he should conduct his operations, there are vigorous operations across the border.  And my hope is that as his relationship and mine continues to unfold, we could perhaps cooperate with complementary operations across the border.
             CAPT. KIRBY:  (Off mic.)

             Q:  Can I just follow up?

             CAPT. KIRBY:  (Off mic) -- one question, please.

             Q:  General, given the string of incidents that you've talked about, do you think that there is a problem with leadership by your senior NCOs?  Have they been worn out by repeated deployments and so therefore are missing things or not enforcing things?  Is leadership breakdown a common thing, between the urination incident, the Quran burning, the killing of the Afghan civilians?  And what might you be doing about that, if so?

             GEN. ALLEN:  Well, each one of those was a result of a leadership failure in some form or another.  But I think as I understand your question, as I think back across how many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of our forces have served in Afghanistan and these incidents have been so infrequent; as I know the force myself -- and I have to speak more as a Marine, necessarily, than as a soldier, although I believe that there's virtually no difference in the institution of the Army and the Marine Corps in this regard -- after this period of time of war, we find that our staff NCOs and our noncommissioned officers -- and our young officers are extraordinarily well-trained; and so repeated tours in Afghanistan and, prior to that, in Iraq, don't inherently reduce the effectiveness of the force or reduce the effectiveness of small-unit leadership.

             Indeed, over the years in our school systems -- and I recently spoke at one of the schools down at Quantico, for example -- the kinds of institutional emphasis by our great Army and Marine Corps on ensuring that high standards of leadership and supervision are not just sustained, but enhanced, still remains at the core of those two institutions.

             And so those were failures.
             But when I think back across so many of our service members that have served successfully in Afghanistan, I'm encouraged, frankly, by the NCO leadership, by the staff NCO leadership and that of our junior officers.  And so I think we can always work to look at the individual incidents in an after-action review to ensure we understand how those incidents occurred and then learn from them and then roll those lessons learned back into our training institutions and our leadership academies.  And so I'm confident that the institution is solid and that we will continue to work to develop those small-unit leaders, which, as you well know, Julian (sp), at the -- at the -- in a counterinsurgency is where the most important leadership occurs on any given day.

             CAPT. KIRBY:  Luis.

             Q:  Sir, can you please explain why there was a decision to pay out compensation to victims' relatives before we even have a verdict?

             GEN. ALLEN:  It is a natural and a cultural norm that we would pursue.  We've done that in the past.  And in this case, it was appropriate, we believed, given the circumstances of this particular tragedy.

             CAPT. KIRBY:  (Off mic.)

             Q:  Sorry, follow-up?  (Inaudible.)

             CAPT. KIRBY:  (Off mic.)

             Q:  Can we get a total of the compensation paid out for this incident and for the war on whole?  And can you explain a little bit of how it's done?  Are these, you know, suitcases of cash given to poor families and their -- what's --

             GEN. ALLEN:  We can provide all that to you.  We'll get you that information.

             CAPT. KIRBY:  Cami.

            Q:  General, could you elaborate at all about this Defense Department-ordered review of the anti-malaria drug, when you were made aware of that, including for deployed troops, and what explanation you were given for it?

             GEN. ALLEN:  I was actually made aware of this morning.  The review was a natural course of periodic reviews, as I understand it, within the department.  So that -- I think that's the best I can do for you on this.

             Q:  You were not told that there was a specific concern regarding troops that were deployed being given this drug?

             GEN. ALLEN:  No.

             There are reviews constantly of our medical processes and procedures.  That's not uncommon at all.  And so when I hear that one of the anti-malarial prophylaxis drugs is under a periodic review, I think that's a very natural and important process that is pursued regularly in the Office of Secretary of Defense.  So I would suggest that you ask them that question.

             CAPT. KIRBY:  We'll come back to the front here again.

             Q:  Sir, when do you expect the border with Pakistan to be opened?  And have you asked that the Haqqani group be listed as a terrorist group?

             GEN. ALLEN:  I think the border -- I don't know specifically on when the border might be opened.  But as you know, there's a review of the relationship under way in the Pakistani parliament, and I believe that probably, as a result of that review of the policy relationship by the Parliamentary Committee of National Security, I believe it's called, we might find a recommendation in that -- in that review. Otherwise, I have no particular indicators at this point.

             Q:  Have you asked for the Haqqani group to be listed?

             GEN. ALLEN:  I did, yes.

             Q:  And why not charge anyone in the killing of the 24 Pakistani troops?

             GEN. ALLEN:  Well, the investigation was clear that there was no criminal dereliction of duty that was found in the investigation.  But I did take administrative measures.

             CAPT. KIRBY (?):  (Please watch ?) the follow-ups -- (inaudible).

             Q:  Sir, do you share the analysis of some in NATO that most of the heavy lifting for transition is on track to be completed by mid- 2013?

             If so, how does that affect your analysis of what continued troop components you'll need?  And when you talk about analyzing the combat power that you'll need, after this fighting season, where are you looking for that distribution, to consolidate gains in the south, to perhaps launch a greater offensive in the east?
             GEN. ALLEN:  Those are two very different questions, but I'll try to bring them together.
             I'm -- and I'm not sure that there has been analysis that says specifically, the heavy lifting on transition is done by the latter part of 2013.  What will happen -- if you know about the Lisbon summit transition, there are five tranches of Afghan geography which ultimately move into a process of transition.  The fifth and final of those tranches will occur -- President Karzai will announce it probably in the latter part of the summer of 2013.  We'll begin to implement that tranche in the -- probably the early fall.  And with that, technically, the ANSF moves into security lead, with that fifth tranche, across the entire country.

            But that process will continue until we reach the end of 2014, where technically, the ANSF is fully in the lead across the country. So from that point where the fifth tranche enters implementation, enters into the transition process, we will then be in support of the ANSF as they move into the lead for security across the country.
             Did I get to your question then?
             Q:  Well, do you think that we are on -- that you are on track to actually do that?  And if so, how does that impact your thinking -- (inaudible)?
             GEN. ALLEN:  Great, thank you.  Thanks for the follow-up on that.
             As you might imagine, some of those tranches or some of the components, the elements of the tranche four and five, are in the east.  And so we would both anticipate that in the -- in the natural course of the campaign, which we'll emphasize this coming year consolidating our holds in the south while still operating -- conducting counterinsurgency operations in the east, we will see eventually a confluence of the movement of geography into the transition process and the campaign seeking ultimately to facilitate and accelerate Afghan security operations in the south and ultimately in the east.
             So the two come together.
             Q:  And they will come together, you believe, in 2013?
             GEN. ALLEN:  Probably 2013, but it will continue in '14.
             CAPT. KIRBY:  We have time for just -- two more.
             Elizabeth?
             Q:  General, going back to green -- to the green-on-blue incidents, Secretary Panetta has suggested in his comments recently that this -- we're not seeing  -- we're not going to see the end of these and that this is part of the price of war.  Would you agree with that?
             GEN. ALLEN:  I think it is a characteristic of counterinsurgencies that we've experienced before.  We experienced these in Iraq.  We experienced them in Vietnam.  And on any occasion where you're dealing with an insurgency and where you're also growing an indigenous force which ultimately will be the principal opposition to that insurgency, the enemy's going to do all that they can to disrupt both the counterinsurgency operations, but also disrupt the integrity of the indigenous forces that developed.  So we should be -- we should expect that this will occur in counterinsurgency operations and as we saw it in Iraq and we've seen it in -- historically in counterinsurgencies, but also in Vietnam.  It is a characteristic of this kind of warfare.

            Q:  (Off mic) -- 16 versus 17, did the -- just to be clear -- did the Afghans miscount?  Did someone die after the initial assessment?
             GEN. ALLEN:  We'll have to let that come out in the investigation.
             CAPT. KIRBY:  This'll be the last question.
             (Off mic.)
             Q:  General Allen, I want to go back to Julian's question if I might.

             On the question of command climate, if you will, how do you know -- how do you know yourself that the troops aren't exhausted to a breaking point, commanders, NCOs aren't exhausted?  The notion that there is alcohol on a base, that people go off and on a base is not what anyone would think of as typical in your area of command.
             So how do you know?  How do you know that you don't have troops at the breaking point, some troops, from PTSD or traumatic brain injury?

             GEN. ALLEN:  Well --

             Q:  What are you doing -- what are YOU doing you look at these questions yourself?

             GEN. ALLEN:  Well, I -- on a regular basis I talk with our command chaplain, I talk to our command surgeon, I talk to my command sergeant major, all of whom are traveling, all of whom are taking the temperature, if you will, within their areas of responsibility, and all of those have a very important interconnection.

             I'm traveling myself on a regular basis.  Just before I came back here, I met with the commanders of every one of the regional commands, and they gave me an assessment on the state of their command and the state of their campaign as they see it unfolding right -- not just today, but how they see it unfolding in 2012.  And I'm very interested in small-unit leadership because small-unit leadership, in the end, is what generates success at the point of impact in a counterinsurgency.

             So there could be, Barbara --- as your question implies -- there could be troops that at an individual level do in fact demonstrate or evidence the traits of PTSD.  But I have to compliment the services on this regard.  The Army and the Marine Corps have gone a very long way to try to help both in pre-deployment preparation for the deployments to Afghanistan but also while we're in theater, with our behavioral health and operational stress teams, the religious support teams, the constant review by leaders of how the troops are doing in the context of an after-action review, and then when they go home what the services do for the troops on the return from their deployment.

             Q:  But sir, to be blunt, something went terribly wrong. Investigation pending.  Something went terribly wrong.  How are you making sure something like that doesn't happen again?

             GEN. ALLEN:  Yeah, very important question.  We're investigating this one very thoroughly, and I'm looking at command climate, in fact, as --

             Q:  Of the unit?

             GEN. ALLEN:  -- of that unit, in fact, as a direct result of these actions.  And while I'm not going to get into the details about describing the unit or the -- this particular event, I will be satisfied when I get the report that we have looked closely at the potential contributing factors that might have permitted this event to have unfolded tragically.

             CAPT. KIRBY:  Thanks, everybody.  Appreciate it.  That's all the time we have .

             GEN. ALLEN:  Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  Have a good morning.