U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS BRIEFING

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson

Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

March 28, 2012

TRANSCRIPT:

12:47 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: All right. Happy Wednesday, everybody.
First, before we start, welcome to all of our guests in the back of the room who are participating in the Foreign Service Institute’s information and media programming courses. These are staff from some of our embassies around the world – Cairo, Baghdad, Bratislava, London, Juba, Accra, Seoul, Hyderabad, Rio de Janeiro, and beyond, I’m told. I’m not sure who’s beyond – (laughter) – but welcome to the beyond-ers in particular. (Laughter.)
We have --
QUESTION: I think that’s in Kazakhstan. (Laughter.)
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Exactly. We have nothing at the top, so let’s go to what’s on your minds.
Hello, Arshad.
QUESTION: I don’t have anything that’s really worthy of starting the briefing, so I’ll --
QUESTION: Me either.
MS. NULAND: No? Lach?
QUESTION: Well, on Syria, the fact that the Assad regime is attacking a town in Hama province – Madiq Qalaat if I remember correctly – does that say anything about his intentions after promising to adhere to Annan’s six-point plan?
MS. NULAND: Well, not only in the town that you mentioned, Lach, but we’ve seen arrests and violence continuing today across Syria, from Daraa to Hama, so it is clear that the Assad regime has not yet taken the necessary steps to implement the commitment that it’s made to Kofi Annan. So as the Secretary said yesterday, he knows what he needs to do; we will judge him by his actions, not by his promises.
Said.
QUESTION: So yesterday, Ambassador – by the way, you forgot to mention Amman; we also have someone from the Embassy in Amman.
MS. NULAND: Excellent. Hello.
QUESTION: So --
MS. NULAND: He must be in the beyond category.
QUESTION: Okay. Great. Anyway, so yesterday, Ambassador Ford was on Capitol Hill, and he actually said emphatically that there are militant groups that are conducting – they’re doing all kinds of human rights violations and basically doing much of what the regime is doing. So will the United States come out with a stronger statement calling on the Syrian protestors and so on not to resort to arms?
MS. NULAND: Well, Ambassador Ford made precisely those points yesterday on Capitol Hill, so I obviously cannot improve on what he had to say, which is that we don’t condone this kind of activity and that it is incumbent on everybody to do what they can to end the violence and get down to the business of talking about a transition.
QUESTION: Okay. Just to take this a bit further --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- many of your allies, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and so on, seem to be aiding the opposition, sometimes with arms. Would you sort of lean on them not to aid the opposition with any arms?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know where we are on this issue, and our position hasn’t changed. With regard to what those governments may or may not be doing, I’m going to refer you to them.
Michel.
QUESTION: Toria, do you consider that Annan plan has failed since the violence is still going on?
MS. NULAND: Well, certainly we have not seen the promises that Assad made implemented. Obviously, the joint special envoy is continuing his work; his technical team continues its work in Syria. We will have the Friends of the Syrian People meeting this weekend, and I understand that Kofi Annan will also be making a report to the Security Council on Monday. So it’s incumbent on all of us to keep the pressure on Assad to meet the commitment that he’s made, and that’s our intention over the next few days.
QUESTION: Yesterday --
QUESTION: What is your understanding of the Chinese’s view of the situation now?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’m going to refer you to the Government of China, but as you know, they supported the Annan plan and the presidency statement of the Security Council. They’ve come out pretty clearly publicly, including during the Seoul meetings. So I think that they are – have also moved firmly away from any support for the violence of the Assad regime.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Secretary Clinton used some pretty strong language in saying that the United States would be pressing very hard in the next few days for the Syrian opposition to demonstrate a clear commitment to an inclusive path forward and to respecting minority rights. I don’t think she said minority rights, but it’s clear that’s, I think, what she was talking about. We’re now, I think, close to four months since she, for the first time, met them. She met them again in Tunis. Do you get any sense that the Syrian National Council is coming together at all in the direction that you wish it to?
And I ask the question partly because at an opposition meeting yesterday in Istanbul, a number of people walked out, including Syrian Kurds, saying that they felt that they were not being listened to and that their concerns were not being taken into account. Is this group coming together in any way that you feel is likely to yield a representative and inclusive group?
MS. NULAND: Well, Arshad, we did speak about this a little bit yesterday, and obviously the Secretary was very clear about her hopes and expectations for the Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Istanbul. She called on the opposition to come with a vision of the way forward. Our understanding is that that was what the Istanbul meeting has been focused on, the meetings that they’ve had in preparation for the Friends group. We are continuing to work with them.
This has not been easy, as we said yesterday. It hasn’t been easy because of all of the roadblocks that the regime has put up so that it’s very difficult for those outside Syria, those inside Syria to communicate, to work together. Even within Syria, it’s very difficult for groups to work together and come together, and then the additional fact that it’s been a political-free zone for 42 years, so it’s not surprising that this is difficult, time-consuming work.
But it is very much a focus of our efforts leading up to the Istanbul meeting to encourage them to be as unified and be as strong as they can be. They will be making a presentation at that meeting. And the Secretary will also have another chance to meet with them, and as you know, she’s been very strong since her first meeting with them that this is a group that needs to represent and include all of the groups and ethnicities and religions and women and minorities of Syria and set an example for the kind of democratic, tolerant, inclusive society that a new Syria should be.
QUESTION: Well, what would make the Istanbul meeting a success? What tangible accomplishments would make it a success?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to predict success or failure before we’ve had the meeting. But I think the Secretary was clear yesterday that, obviously, we want to see as much unity as possible among those members of the opposition, that we are continuing to try to make progress in delivering humanitarian aid, so we’ll be evaluating how we’re doing on that. We’re going to be continuing to look at what more we can do on the sanctions side to pressure the regime, so I think you’ll see action on that front. And obviously, we’ll all be comparing notes on how we can support Kofi Annan, particularly on the important point of getting Assad to meet the commitment that he’s made.
QUESTION: Are you making any progress on the delivery of humanitarian aid?
MS. NULAND: My sense is that we have made some progress, but we are – let us speak to that a little bit more as we get on the road and head towards Istanbul.
QUESTION: Do you have more ideas about the non-lethal aid you would provide the Free Syrian Army following President Obama’s talks in Seoul?
MS. NULAND: Well, as we said, I think, a couple of days ago, as Ben Rhodes said, this is an issue that we are looking at, whether we, the United States, can work with allies and partners to provide some non-lethal assistance to the civilian opposition. This is one of the subjects that we’ll be discussing on the road, so --
QUESTION: But any ideas how you would deliver it and what quantities and --
MS. NULAND: Again, these are issues that we’re going to be working on, on this trip.
QUESTION: Given today’s violence, what hope do you have that Assad will implement these commitments he made yesterday?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think I said at the top here, Brad, that this is not a good sign that the arrests and the violence continue, and we’ve all got to increase the pressure on Assad to meet his commitments.
QUESTION: Have there been any signs thus far that would give you any optimism that some sort of – that a ceasefire and then some sort of political transition will derive from this plan?
MS. NULAND: Well, Kofi Annan has had this letter from the regime. He’s also had his technical team there. He will be speaking to the Security Council on Monday. So he is the one who’s had the most direct, most current contact with the Assad regime, so I’m not going to get ahead of his report on where he thinks we are with the regime, other than to say that their conduct of the last 24 hours does not indicate that they are taking the kinds of steps the Secretary called for yesterday.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) are you getting the opposition group to sort of close ranks and stop the bickering? Because obviously, that is sort of – that is not sending the proper message as to what future Syria will have.
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the Secretary has now met with this group twice, their leaders. She will meet with them a third time. We also have a number of experts and leaders in the Department – Jeff Feltman, Fred Hof – who are working with them on a regular basis, sharing experiences of other oppositions who have come together to present transition plans, whether they are in the recent past or longer term, the kinds of things that you need to think about when you’re moving from a dictatorial regime to a transition regime. So we’ll continue to provide that support. And as we have said, we are now looking at what we might be able to do on the communications side, et cetera.
QUESTION: And a quick follow-up on the Friends of Syria: Have you been informed officially by the Russians that they are not attending?
MS. NULAND: I would refer you to the Turks. They’re the host. I’m frankly not up on what their plans are.
QUESTION: Will there be any representatives of the Free Syrian Army at this meeting?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is that the SNC will speak for the Syrian opposition, so I think we need to see who comes with them in this – to this meeting.
QUESTION: And what is your position on the linkage between the SNC – this becomes alphabet soup, sorry – between the Syrian National Council and the armed opposition with – inside – within Syria?
MS. NULAND: I don’t understand what the question was there.
QUESTION: Well, what type of linkage – do you want them speaking on behalf of the armed opposition, or do you want a clear demarcation between the political opposition and groups that may be fighting the regime in the country?
MS. NULAND: Our effort here, as you know, is to work with as many civilian groups who are working for a peaceful transition as possible. And we want to see the opposition in all of its colors come together behind a peaceful democratic transition plan that can support the six points that Kofi Annan put forward.
QUESTION: And then just lastly, in the Senate today, there was a nonbinding resolution about providing the armed opposition, so non-civilian opposition, the means to defend themselves. You’ve been clear that you don’t want to provide anything military in assistance, but do you want to at least engage in discussions or in some sort of relationship with these elements as well?
MS. NULAND: Well, I haven’t seen the text of what the Senate passed, so I’m going to defer on that one. But I think we’ve spoken to the thinking that we’re giving to what we can do on the non-lethal side.
Michel.
QUESTION: Is there any U.S. expert or official in Turkey following the opposition meeting or participating?
MS. NULAND: Our Embassy in Turkey is in touch with them. Fred Hof, who’s the Secretary’s special advisor on these issues, has been in touch with them by phone, met with some of them beforehand, is talking to them now, and – as is Jeff Feltman.
QUESTION: Can we shift slightly?
MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Wait, I just want to --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just a technical question, which --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- I asked earlier, but I’m – you seem intent on using the term Friends of the Syrian People.
MS. NULAND: That’s what the --
QUESTION: So is it – but why is this? Did someone decide that they liked the acronym FOTSP or FOSP?
MS. NULAND: FOS-P, right.
QUESTION: FOS-P --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: -- better than FOS? Or what’s going on here? Why is this – trying to – are you trying to distinguish this from Friends of Libya? Why are you --
MS. NULAND: This is --
QUESTION: We keep calling it the Friends of Syria, and every time you mention it, you say Friends of the Syrian People, so I’m just curious.
MS. NULAND: Because that’s what it was called in Tunisia by the organizers. That’s what it’s being called in Turkey by the organizers. Our understanding is that this is the name that is most welcome by the Syrians that we’re working with to differentiate --
QUESTION: Do you know why that is? Because they don’t --
MS. NULAND: Differentiates the regime from the people. Okay.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) you did not call them Friends of Democratic Syria to include people like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries? Would that – would you say that --
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into parsing the name. It wasn’t our name. It was the name of the organizers.
QUESTION: Can we go to --
MS. NULAND: Are we still on Syria? Yeah.
QUESTION: Syria.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: It’s understood that you are not arming the Syrian opposition, but what’s your position for other countries that are seriously considering to arm the opposition?
MS. NULAND: I think we’ve spoken to this issue before. I don’t have anything new on it today.
Please.
QUESTION: Yeah. It’s been reported that Syrian forces have crossed the border yesterday to fight the rebels in Lebanon. Can you confirm that? And what’s your reaction, please?
MS. NULAND: We can’t confirm that. There were all kinds of reports, so we frankly are not in a position to say one way or the other. As you know, we don’t have eyes there, so we would refer you to the Government of Lebanon.
QUESTION: Well, you have eyes in Lebanon, though. I mean, you have --
MS. NULAND: Right, but we weren’t on that border.
Please.
QUESTION: At the end of day, Kofi Annan said that it’s only Syrian people can ask the resignation of Assad. So going forward to the – these negotiation that Annan planned, I just want to make clear your position is that the Syrian opposition should sit and talk, negotiate with the Assad regime? This is what you are envisioning?
MS. NULAND: We – that is not our position. We have supported, as you know, the Arab League plan, which had a very detailed outline of how these talks could go forward, recommending that one of the other members of the government would represent the government’s views in any dialogue. With regard to how the Annan plan might be implemented, we are waiting to hear what his views are on that, but obviously, whatever will happen has to have the support of the Syrian people, and that is what we will be endorsing.
QUESTION: But these negotiations are going to be between the regime and the opposition. So who is going to be on the side of the regime? Who are you planning to negotiate with?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think I’ve answered the question that we were supportive of the way the Arab League laid this out. The Kofi Annan plan is a little less specific about how this would work. This is one of the main subjects that he is discussing not only with the government but also with as many opposition folks as he can talk to and his people can talk to. So we’re not going to prejudge the direction this might go. What we’ve been very clear about, though, is that we do not see Assad leading a democratic Syria and that he will have to go.
QUESTION: Change topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) had dibs on new topic. Can you – but it’s related. Can you shed any greater light on the – what will be the substance of the Secretary’s talks in Riyadh for the GCC meeting in advance of the Friends of Syria meeting?
MS. NULAND: Well, there are two pieces to the Secretary’s stop in Saudi Arabia. There are bilateral talks with the Saudi Government, as we announced, and then there is the meeting of the GCC + U.S. Security Cooperation Group. As you know, we have strong security relationships with all of the Gulf countries bilaterally. What we are hoping to do with this forum – and we’ll talk a little bit more about this on the road and obviously when the Secretary sees the group. We are hoping to bring this group together so that we can do more to make connections among them, to create efficiencies, to create mutually supporting programs. One of the issues that we’ve talked about is missile defense. We have missile defense cooperation with some of these countries; can we make it more efficient in a regional context, et cetera? So these are the kinds of things that we’ll be talking about.
QUESTION: Is the – just to – I’m trying to help someone who may be writing a curtain raiser on this – not me.
MS. NULAND: Not you.
QUESTION: I mean, look, should one – is this going to primarily be about Iran, and missile defense is therefore something that is related to potential Iranian threats? I mean, what is – in tangible terms, what do you expect to talk about? Is it going to be about oil and the Saudis trying to make up for those countries that are significantly reducing their Iranian crude imports? I mean, what tangibly is this about?
MS. NULAND: Well, on the bilateral side, obviously we’ll talk about the full relationship, economic security, the neighborhood, all those things. On the GCC + U.S. side, this is a security forum. It is --
QUESTION: It’s called strategic in the thing, but --
MS. NULAND: Yeah, but it’s primarily about peace and security in the neighborhood. It is about helping all of those countries work more closely together to combat the threats that they share, the threats that we work on with each of them. So we’ll be talking a little bit more about that tomorrow and the next day.
QUESTION: By those, you mean Iran?
MS. NULAND: Well, you can imagine what threats they share.
QUESTION: Would Secretary of Defense participate in this meeting?
MS. NULAND: Say again?
QUESTION: Secretary of Defense?
MS. NULAND: No, not this time. He has in the past, but not this time.
QUESTION: Do those threats include the opposition in Bahrain?
MS. NULAND: This is about the external security of these countries.
QUESTION: So that won’t come up at all?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know. I am sure that Bahrain will come up. Whether we’re going to see the Bahraini, I can’t speak to. We haven’t set the schedule.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Today marks a very important event. It’s the 10^th anniversary of the Peace Arab Initiative – at the time, total peace for total withdrawal. But it seems like time has come and gone over the years on this issue; it’s discarded. Do you still consider it to be a viable option?
MS. NULAND: Said, I don’t have anything particular to say on this subject today.
QUESTION: But at the time, and I think time again – time and again, different administrations supported the Arab Peace Initiative as a viable negotiating avenue or a peace prospect.
MS. NULAND: Well, I think --
QUESTION: Do you still support it?
MS. NULAND: I think you know where we are. We are working with the parties to try to get them back to the table. We continue to work with all the members of the Arab League in the same direction. Whether one could sort of go letter and chapter and verse of a 10-year-old document today, our main focus – all of us – is to try to get these parties back to the table.
QUESTION: So I mean, let me just probe a bit further. Do you consider it to be obsolete, that time has passed it behind?
MS. NULAND: Said, I’m not going to give it a grade 10 years on.
Please.
QUESTION: Could I --
QUESTION: New topic?
QUESTION: No, no, same --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Well, roughly the same.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday there was a bit of a kerfuffle over an announcement that was made by the Department about the travel of your boss.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Is it the State Department’s position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Well, you know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed. The first Media Note was issued in error without appropriate clearances. We reissued the note to make clear that Under Secretary – Acting Under Secretary for R, Kathy Stephens, will be traveling to Algiers, Doha, Amman, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it’s a permanent status issue; it’s got to be resolved through negotiations between the parties.
QUESTION: Is it the view of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the Embassy, the location of the U.S. Embassy?
MS. NULAND: We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.
QUESTION: Does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Jerusalem is a permanent status issue; it’s got to be resolved through negotiations.
QUESTION: That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?
MS. NULAND: I have just spoken to this issue --
QUESTION: No, no. But --
MS. NULAND: -- and I have nothing further to say on it.
QUESTION: You’ve spoken to the issue but didn’t answer the question, and I think there’s a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying – and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.
MS. NULAND: That is our --
QUESTION: What is the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is it has to be solved through negotiations. That’s all I have to say on this issue.
QUESTION: What is the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Our Embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.
QUESTION: So does that mean that you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.
Lalit, thank you.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Say again?
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: The leaders of BRIC countries are meeting in Delhi tomorrow for a summit.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: What is the U.S. position on that? And they are also planning to launch a developmental bank for the BRIC countries. Do you support that effort?
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think – we obviously look forward to hearing the outcomes of the BRIC countries summit. I don’t think we’re going to prejudge them before they’ve had their meeting. And with regard to the bank, again, if it’s a new initiative, we’ll look at it after they launch it.
QUESTION: How do you see the BRIC as a group as a whole, I mean, these developing countries coming together in one platform? Naturally, they’ll be discussing Iran and Syria. What’s your message to them?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think our message to them on Iran is pretty consistent. And we work very closely with Russia and China in the P-5+1 process, so they’re very up-to-date on our policy with regard to Iran. And with regard to Brazil and India, our message there is to continue to reduce dependence on Iranian crude.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Please, Catherine.
QUESTION: On Cuba?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we stay with Iran for one --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Just – so the Iranian state news agency IRNA is quoting the Iranian foreign minister as saying that he expects to resume – Iranian P-5+1 talks to resume on April the 13^th and that he hopes that the talks will be in Istanbul. Would you care to comment? Do you expect them also to be on the 13^th, or do we all have to knock on Lady Ashton’s door to find this out?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think when we have finished the discussions with Iran about the when and the where, Cathy Ashton’s office will announce it. As was clear in the Iranian statement where he was expressing his personal view, we’re still working on this.
QUESTION: Do you – on this subject, do you have a problem with the meeting being in Istanbul?
MS. NULAND: We are letting Cathy Ashton’s office lead this discussion --
QUESTION: That doesn’t matter. I’m not asking you that. Does the United States have a problem with the meeting being in Istanbul?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to give our – to sort of put to you what we’re discussing with the Iranians. I’m going to wait and let Cathy Ashton’s offices --
QUESTION: I’m not asking what you’re discussing with the Iranians. I’m asking, does the United States have a problem with this meeting being in Istanbul?
MS. NULAND: And again --
QUESTION: That has nothing to do with what you’re talking to the Iranians. Do you have a problem with it, considering Istanbul was the venue for the last round, which was a total failure?
MS. NULAND: Again, we are going to let Cathy Ashton’s office lead on this, and we will work together in that forum to see where the best place for this meeting’s going to be.
Catherine has been patient.
QUESTION: On Cuba, as you know, the Pope is in Havana.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you or the Department have any hopes that Alan Gross may be released? And have you been in contact with the Vatican about raising the issue?
MS. NULAND: Well, we are obviously regularly in touch with the Vatican with regard to Cuba. We were in touch with the Vatican and with the nuncio in advance of the Pope’s visit. We obviously are hopeful that the Pope will continue to be strong on all of the human rights issues in Cuba, religious freedom, and it would be a very, very good thing if the Cuban Government were to take this opportunity to release Alan Gross.
QUESTION: You think it presents an opportunity, then, that they should seize?
MS. NULAND: Obviously. Obviously. Yeah.
QUESTION: So do you have any hope from the Vatican that – I mean, what are they telling you?
MS. NULAND: Well, we would be, obviously, very grateful were the Pope to raise this issue.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Lavoy testified this morning on the Hill that, apparently, the U.S. has decided not to go forward with food aid for North Korea because of its plans to launch this rocket in mid-April. Is that accurate? And if so, under what – how did this decision come to be?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve been clear for the last week, Ros, that we’ve got an issue with the government that makes a Leap Day deal with us on the nuclear side and then turns around and announces its intention to do something that would violate it in just a number of weeks. So that, as we’ve said here, calls into question whether one can make any kind of arrangements with such a government that’ll be binding. And it would be hard to give food aid without being sure that the commitments that we are working on together, or had been working on together, were going to be honored, to ensure that the food got to the right people.
And the President made clear in Seoul we’re not going to be rewarding provocation. So it obviously makes sense that we’re not moving forward with this right now, until we see what happens.
QUESTION: And just –
QUESTION: Are the President’s comments in Seoul the marker that this discussion about emergency food aid to North Korea is done?
MS. NULAND: The President’s comments are always the marker on everything. How about that?
QUESTION: Just on this, it’s still your position that you guys made totally clear to the North Koreans that this kind of – you do not regard this as some kind of an exemption, or --
MS. NULAND: Correct. This --
QUESTION: -- the satellite launch. Is there --
MS. NULAND: This came up in the talks.
QUESTION: So this is very clear. I mean, is there some other problem? Does the Juche calendar even have a Leap Year in it? Maybe they’ve got – I mean, what have they told you?
MS. NULAND: You mean that the day didn’t exist, or --
QUESTION: I don’t know. I mean --
MS. NULAND: Is that your idea?
QUESTION: What’s the – I mean, what have they told you, other than, “We don’t regard this as a violation of what – of an – of what we signed up for?” Have they said --
MS. NULAND: It’s not clear to me that we’ve had any direct contacts with them since that day that we talked about and we made clear that this was not going to work for us.
QUESTION: That was the Thursday overnight – Thursday-Friday?
MS. NULAND: Whenever it was, yeah.
QUESTION: But what about the whole idea that you don’t link food with political discussions?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve talked about this before. We talked about it on the day that this initially came up. We don’t link food with the nuclear issue, but we do have to have confidence in the commitments that the government is making to us with regard to the monitoring situation before one could go forward. This is a government that turned around in a matter of weeks and undid what it had said on the nuclear side, so how can one have confidence in what they’ve said on the monitoring side? And we’re not going to send food to a country where it might be diverted to the elites. That’s not what the American taxpayers want to support.
QUESTION: But that does make it sound like it’s a link.
MS. NULAND: There’s a link in the sense that we don’t have confidence in the good faith of the government.
QUESTION: I’m confused by that because you said that nutritional assistance, not food aid, would be done in such a way that it would be impossible to divert. You were talking about baby vitamins and things like this.
MS. NULAND: But again, we have to be able to get it in in the way that we’ve agreed, we have to be able to distribute it with the groups that we’ve agreed, we have to be able to have the monitoring ourselves on it that we’ve agreed to. All of that requires the government’s cooperation.
QUESTION: Well, have they said that they won’t cooperate on that particular issue?
MS. NULAND: We haven’t had those conversations. We’ve simply said: Do not have your space launch here.
QUESTION: So how do you know that they wouldn’t keep their word if it were a matter of --
MS. NULAND: Because we have no confidence in their good faith right now.
Lalit.
QUESTION: But I don’t understand on it. I’m sorry. Just – I don’t understand how this is not linking your dissatisfaction with them on the nuclear and political issue and the food assistance. You don’t know whether they would make good on their commitments to allow monitors and food, on the food, because you won’t talk to them because you’re mad at them about the nuclear issue.
MS. NULAND: We don’t have confidence in their good faith. If they want to restore our confidence in their good faith, they can cancel the plans to launch this satellite.
QUESTION: No, but how is that not linking it, Toria?
MS. NULAND: We – as I said, we have concerns about whether one can make a deal of any kind with this government. It’s a – they are separate issues, but they come together at the point of whether the government’s acting in good faith.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) said that this missile is based on old technology; that is, actually, it is in existence. That’s old SCUD engine. And what the Koreans are doing is really posturing, so why make such a big deal out of it?
MS. NULAND: It’s not a matter of what they’re putting in the sky. It’s a matter of how they launch it, which uses ballistic missile technology, which is precluded under UN Security Council Resolution 1874.
Okay.
QUESTION: On Sudan?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Fighting along the border between North and South been intensified and the President Bashir postponed the Juba summit. Are you worrying about – that a full-fledged war may break out between them? And what are you going to do with this respect?
MS. NULAND: Well, the Secretary spoke very strongly on this issue yesterday afternoon with the Estonian, so I would refer you to her comments. We have our Senior Advisor Dane Smith in Sudan, and he’s going to represent the United States at the African Union/UN-Sudan consultative group in Addis on Thursday. We are also sending a team from Special Advisor Princeton Lyman’s office to observe the security and border discussions. And as the Secretary made absolutely clear yesterday, we want to see the high-level summit go forward, we want to see these agreements come together, but most importantly, we want to see the fighting and the violence end immediately.
Said.
QUESTION: The Arab summit?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can you tell us who’s going to be participating from the American side in the Arab summit, if any?
MS. NULAND: We don’t have anybody participating or observing at the Arab summit.
QUESTION: Not even Ambassador Jeffrey?
MS. NULAND: No.
Please.
QUESTION: On Burma?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: I was wondering if you’ve decided who are going to be the two election monitors.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. We have a little bit more on that. So, as you know, Burma invited us to send two election observers, so we in turn offered one slot to the National Democratic Institute and one slot to the International Republican Institute, and they will each be sending somebody. They issued – they both issued a statement yesterday. NDI’s witness will be Peter Manakis and IRI’s will be Johanna Kao, director of their Asia program.
In that context, they’ll be there March 28^th through April 3^rd to study the conduct and significance of the polling. But as they said in their own statement that they released yesterday, they will not be in a position to monitor in the traditional sense under the terms of the UN Declaration of Principles on International Election Observance, because they’re only getting there a couple of days before the election.
So the process that the Burmese have offered, although a positive advance over past elections, is not going to conform to international standards for conducting an election observation mission. But they are going to bear witness to how the voting goes forward, and we also are expecting some American journalists and international journalists there.
QUESTION: Have the Burmese given them – they can travel anywhere in the country or certain places, restriction of movement? Are there – have they set up any conditions?
MS. NULAND: I haven’t heard of any restrictions on movement, but obviously we’ll have to see how it goes when they get there.
QUESTION: Do you know if you asked or want to be able to send more?
MS. NULAND: I don’t think we pushed beyond the two. We did say to the Burmese, going back to the Secretary’s visit and before, that we considered it essential that they allow international observation when they hadn’t in the past.
QUESTION: Well, I guess what I’m getting at is: Do you think that this is acceptable?
MS. NULAND: Well, as I – as we are saying, it doesn’t meet the standard for monitoring, but it’s an advance over where they’ve been. And we are supporting the notion that they will witness the day of.
QUESTION: Right. But you don’t consider this to be them taking on board what the Secretary told them when she was there?
MS. NULAND: No. We consider that they’ve made progress. We just don’t consider that they have yet reached the international standard for observation.
QUESTION: And do you know how many journalists are going? Have they got the visa for U.S. journalists to travel to Burma to cover elections?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have a full count on how many journalists have been visaed by the Burmese. I do know that we’ve had a number of American journalists and organizations receive some visas.
QUESTION: So, more than three?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Can we go back to North Korea for a moment?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: You said that the issue of a satellite launch was raised during the discussions, correct?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Why did not the Leap Year agreement specify a – your objections to a satellite launch specifically? If it was important enough to raise in the discussions, why not put it in writing?
MS. NULAND: Well, you’ll recall the way the Leap Year agreement was structured that the DPRK undertook a number of steps, which included a moratorium on missile launches. And we undertook to affirm that this is what they had guaranteed us. So from our perspective, a launch using ballistic missile technology was covered by the Leap Day Agreement.
QUESTION: Okay. But if – I mean, given that the North Koreans have a very, very, very long history of breaking their agreements, right – I mean, very long – so why not have tried to obviate this problem by making it explicit in the agreement going beyond missile launches but specifying missile launches or the use of ballistic missile technology for any purpose, including the launching of a satellite? I mean, why not try to have achieved a higher level of – if it was important enough to bring up in the talks, why not have tried to get it into the agreement to have averted this problem?
MS. NULAND: From our perspective, it was explicit both in the negotiating record and in our understanding of the agreement that was made and the text of the agreement. And we made absolutely clear to the North Koreans during the negotiations that we would consider anything that moved using ballistic missile technology to be covered. So I don’t think we were under any ambiguity, and we don’t think they were either.
Please. Yeah.
QUESTION: Toria, are you having any coordination with the French Government with regard to the crisis in Mali? And also, are you talking to some neighboring countries of Mali who might have some leverage on the Tuareg tribes and/or the mutineers?
MS. NULAND: We are working very closely with the French on Mali. Our embassies are very closely associated, always have been on these issues. We are also talking to and working with neighboring countries. I think you know that the ECOWAS summit resulted in a decision to send a delegation of chiefs of defense today to Mali to impress upon Captain Sanogo the importance of immediately returning the country to civilian rule. And we’re expecting tomorrow six heads of state from ECOWAS, led by Cote d’Ivoire President Ouattara to arrive, to make the same points, and to try to walk this back.
Please.
QUESTION: On Mali.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have the aid – do you know how much aid you’re withholding yet?
MS. NULAND: We are still working on this. And it goes to, as I said yesterday, the question of how you define humanitarian and what programs need to continue to help the people of Mali, and it has to do with our internal analysis of the needs versus the programming. So --
QUESTION: And that takes more than three days?
MS. NULAND: It appears to take more than three days.
Please.
QUESTION: Under the previous administration, Henrietta Fore, with great pride and fanfare, talked about redoing the internal budgeting of the State Department so you could figure this stuff out much, much faster. I mean, Secretary – former Secretary Rice used to say that she’d go into meetings and she’d be like, “Well, how much aid do we give to Country X?” And she’d get these blank looks, and, “It depends.” And I mean, why is it – and we now have a deputy secretary for budgeting and stuff. Why does it take three days to figure this stuff out? It just seems – seems like if you asked a corporation, “Well, how much money do you spend in Thailand,” they’d probably know within an hour, let alone 72 hours.
MS. NULAND: We did know within an hour how much money we spend in Mali. That’s not the issue. The issue is simply --
QUESTION: You just don’t know what you spend it on.
MS. NULAND: No. And we do know what we spend it on.
QUESTION: You just can’t make decisions among what you spend it on between what’s humanitarian and what’s not humanitarian.
MS. NULAND: The issue here is that under the development program basket in particular, depending upon how you define humanitarian assistance, you could define, for example, a long-term vaccination program for children as humanitarian assistance, or you could say that’s not humanitarian assistance. For this purpose, we need to make a statement. So we are working through the various programmatics and trying to determine what is absolutely essential to continue to help the people of Mali through this difficult period and what essentially one could cut off to send our message to the government. So --
QUESTION: Are you – wait, wait. Are you trying to suggest that vaccinating children against disease is not humanitarian?
MS. NULAND: No, it is. But --
QUESTION: How is that --
MS. NULAND: But this is – but my point is that there are various – there’s – for example, long-term support to government-run hospitals. Is that humanitarian or is that government support? So these are the issues we have to work through. I understand it’s not satisfying – it’s not satisfying to me either, but it has to be worked through carefully.
QUESTION: So when you said two days ago that you suspended aid, is there a minimum amount that you know is actually suspended? Or is it between --
MS. NULAND: Well all military aid, all security support has been suspended. All programs that are non-humanitarian in nature --
QUESTION: But we don’t know what those are?
MS. NULAND: -- that go to the government. We have some clear understanding of what those programs are, but I can’t give you a firm number until we work through the rest of it.
QUESTION: Right. We’re recognizing that you do – that it is not obvious.
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: Still, three days to figure this out?
MS. NULAND: But it’s a policy process as well. There’s a budgeting process and then there’s a policy process as to where you draw the line in terms of humanitarian. So we’re working through that.
QUESTION: Back to Burma quickly?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: You had previously said that you’re going to be working with the ASEAN observers to kind of maximize the effect that you’re able to have. I was wondering if you had come to any agreement with them or where we’re at with that.
MS. NULAND: I think the expectation here is that the NDI and IRI representatives will link up with their colleagues from the ASEAN countries, many of whom they’ve worked with before, and try to make sure that we’re getting as much coverage as possible during the elections. In addition, we’ll have some of our embassy folks, and we will work with the ASEAN embassies as well to make sure that we don’t duplicate and we get as much coverage as we can.
Lalit.
QUESTION: Ambassador Grossman. Do you have any readout on his further travel after his visit to Kabul a few days ago? And where he is now – when he’s coming back?
MS. NULAND: He’s on his way home. I think he gets back this afternoon. I think you know that he was primarily going around European capitals, ISAF supporters, talking about our long-term support for Afghan national security forces in a number of capitals.
QUESTION: Can I --
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: And a neighborhood in Pakistan. This week, there had been three high profile meetings with the U.S. and Pakistan. Ambassador Grossman met President Zardari, then President Obama met Prime Minister Gillani, and today top Pentagon officials are in Islamabad for a meeting with General Kayani. Do you think that this is resumption of talks? The relationship is back on track? Your issues have been resolved?
MS. NULAND: Well again, the President spoke to the relationship when he met with Prime Minister Gillani. We – in terms of getting fully back on track, you know where we’ve been, which is to respect the parliamentary process which is continuing. Our contacts have continued all the way through this. So – but in terms of where we go from here, we’re going to wait until the Pakistani side finishes its internal debate and then we will look forward to consulting with them on the results.
QUESTION: I just want to go back to – I want to clarify something.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Perhaps give you an out on your Jerusalem answer. Is it your position that all of Jerusalem is a final status issue or do you think – or is it just East Jerusalem?
MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further to what I said 17 times on that subject. Okay?
QUESTION: All right. So hold on – so – I just want to make sure, you’re saying that all of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem, is a final status issue?
MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further on Jerusalem to what I’ve already said.
Please.
QUESTION: I have one more on the Tibetan situation. Yesterday, one Tibetan self-immolated in Delhi when President Hu Jintao was visiting there and has been increasing such incidents inside Tibet. What is your assessment of the situation inside Tibet now?
MS. NULAND: Well, we speak to this issue regularly. We remain deeply concerned about the tensions and the human rights violations in the Tibetan areas. China’s own continuing vilification of the Dalai Lama and repeated accusations with regard to the Dalai Lama and saying that he’s directly involved adds to the Tibetan grievances and just makes the situation worse. So we continue to call on China to respect the human rights of Tibetans and to allow journalists in, et cetera.
QUESTION: Do the Chinese ever respond to your concerns?
MS. NULAND: Well, we talk about this every time we meet.
All right? Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.

FIRST U.S.-RUSSIAN INNOVATION WORKING GROUP MEETING IS COMPLETED

The following excerpt is from a Department of State e-mail:
U.S.-Russia Innovation Working Group Completes Inaugural Meeting in Silicon Valley, Memorandum of Understanding Signed on Skolkovo Innovation Center
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
March 28, 2012
In the course of a day-long series of discussions, Working Group members examined policies that encourage successful innovation systems around the world, as well as concrete cooperative projects to promote innovation coordination between the United States and Russia. The group also discussed plans to link innovation centers and regional innovation clusters, assessed the legal framework for innovation, and considered ways of leveraging resources and connections in the private and academic sectors to support the commercialization of innovative technologies in Russia and the United States.

U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Robert Hormats addressed the group via video conference. U.S. Special Representative for Commercial and Business Affairs Lorraine Hariton and Russian Deputy Minister of Economic Development Oleg Fomichev led their respective delegations, chaired the meeting, and signed the Memorandum of Understanding. Working group members include innovation experts from the Russian and U.S. private sectors, non-governmental sectors, universities, and governments.

President Obama and President Medvedev created the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission (BPC) in July 2009 to improve coordination between our countries, identify areas of cooperation, and pursue joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American peoples. The BPC now consists of 20 working groups and numerous sub-working groups

U.S./MEXICO TO SHARE $6 MILLION IN FORFEITED CRIMINAL ASSETS

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Monday, March 26, 2012
U.S. and Mexican Officials Sign Letter of Intent to Share $6 Million in Forfeited Assets to Combat Financial Infrastructure of Organized Crime
WASHINGTON – U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Mexican Attorney General Marisela Morales Ibáñez today signed a letter of intent for the United States to share approximately $6 million in forfeited funds with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of Mexico (PGR) to support Mexican efforts to combat the financial infrastructure of organized criminal groups and to enhance bilateral cooperation between the two countries in forfeiture matters.

The letter of intent and anticipated fund sharing recognizes the PGR’s valuable cooperation in the investigation and resolution of the U.S. government’s case against Sigue Corporation for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.  In January 2008, Sigue entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice on charges of failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program.  As a result, Sigue forfeited $15 million to the United States and agreed to commit an additional $9.7 million to improving its anti-money laundering program.

“The Department of Justice and the Mexican PGR have built strong and collaborative working relationships in order to combat transnational organized criminal groups,” said Attorney General Holder.  “Our intention to share approximately $6 million in forfeited assets with our Mexican counterparts reflects another step forward in our successful crime prevention and public safety efforts.  In an era where crime is not limited by physical boundaries, our international partnerships are more critical than ever in the work of bringing criminals to justice.”

As outlined in the letter of intent, the PGR and the Department of Justice, through the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS), will negotiate the specific terms of the Sigue case sharing agreement and establish respective Executive Sharing Committees designed to negotiate and oversee the sharing, delivery, transfer and disbursement of the forfeited funds.

The shared assets will be used to strengthen and support the PGR’s capacity to investigate and prosecute domestic and bilateral money laundering crimes, as well as Mexico’s ability to forfeit the proceeds of crime.  This initiative is designed to complement ongoing bilateral efforts to increase pressure on the economic resources of the criminal organizations that operate in Mexico and along the U.S./Mexico border.
The case, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, arose out of transactions conducted by Sigue and its authorized agents from November 2003 through March 2005.  During this time, more than $24.7 million in suspicious transactions were conducted through registered agents of Sigue, including transactions conducted by undercover U.S. law enforcement agents using funds represented to be proceeds of drug trafficking.  Sigue did not identify broader patterns of money laundering activity, failed to prevent the unlawful activity from continuing and did not create systems and procedures to identify suspicious financial transactions being conducted by related senders and beneficiaries.

The Sigue forfeiture resulted from a case prosecuted by AFMLS and was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service.

PLANNED LAUNCH OF MISSILE CAUSES U.S. TO SUSPEND NUTRITION AID TO NORTH KOREA

The following excerpt is form the American Forces Press Service:

Officials Suspend North Korea Nutrition Aid Over Planned Launch

By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 28, 2012 - Concerns that North Korea would resume provocative behavior on the international stage in 2012 have proven true, so the United States has suspended plans to provide nutrition aid to the impoverished nation, senior defense officials told Congress today.

"Our suspicions ... were confirmed when North Korea announced on March 16 that it plans to conduct a missile launch between April 12h and 16," Peter R. Lavoy, acting assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. "This grand launch is highly provocative, because it manifests North Korea's desire to test and expand its long-range missile capability."

Army Gen. James D. Thurman, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, testified alongside Lavoy in a hearing examining the security situation on the Korean Peninsula.

After a series of U.S.-North Korean discussions in late February, the North Korean government agreed to implement a moratorium on long-range missile launches -- then announced plans for the launch just two weeks later, Lavoy explained.

The United States had agreed during the February talks to provide nutritional aid to North Korea. The World Food Program in November 2011 recommended targeted high-nutrition aid as critical to 3 million North Koreans most at risk for starvation.

Lavoy and Thurman both confirmed the United States will not deliver the planned nutrition aid.

"During those discussions, the United States made it very clear that a satellite launch would be a deal-breaker," Lavoy told the panel.

Both men said U.S. officials have worked to "delink" humanitarian aid and political concerns, but defended the decision to suspend nutritional aid.

"The fact that North Korea so brazenly violated commitments that it just so recently agreed to ... indicates that they're not reliable," Lavoy said. "We cannot expect them to meet ... the commitments that they've agreed to that are associated with the provision of nutritional assistance to the needy population in their country.

"It's regrettable that the food aid is not moving forward," he added. "The North Korean population really needs nutritional assistance. And we're prepared to provide that to North Korea."

Thurman said officials are working closely with allies and other partners in the region to try to discourage North Korea from launching the missile. Meanwhile, the general added, "we have been forced to suspend our activities to provide nutritional assistance to North Korea."

Lavoy said the threatened launch would be in direct violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874, which prohibit North Korea from conducting any launches that use ballistic missile technology.

The launch would involve a North Korean-made Kwangmyongsong-3 polar-orbiting Earth observation satellite to mark the 100th birthday of late President Kim Il Sung, a spokesman for the Korean Committee for Space Technology said in a statement.

The late president's birthday is April 15.

Lavoy said North Korea's authoritarian government, founded by Kim Il Sung and subsequently led by Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un -- his son and grandson, respectively -- seeks to provoke other nations militarily as a means of demonstrating power to its people.

"Political successions are extraordinarily difficult when you don't have a representative government, which is the case there, of course," he noted. Kim Jong Un took power after his father's death in December.

"What we're seeing now and what we anticipate is provocative behavior, because, unfortunately, this seems to be the only way that the North Korean regime can try to demonstrate its bona fides to a population that is suffering terribly," Lavoy added.

Thurman said North Korea's "military first" policy diverts national resources away from food and essential services to the people.

"They maintain the fourth-largest conventional military force in the world, the world's largest special operating force, and significant long-range artillery capabilities," the general said. "Over 70 percent of their combat powers are arrayed within 90 miles of the demilitarized zone."

South Korea, home to some 28,500 forward-based U.S. troops, is "a vibrant democracy, economic success and global security partner, currently serving beside us in Afghanistan and off the Horn of Africa," Thurman said.

"In stark contrast, one of the world's poorest, most closed and
most militarized countries, North Korea, lies less than 20 miles from the northern districts of Seoul, a city of over 24 million people," he added.

The United States and South Korea have for 60 years maintained a close partnership aimed at deterring North Korean aggression and maintaining stability on the peninsula, Thurman noted.

"We are prepared to defend the peninsula and can do that," the general said. "And we can repel any type of attack should the North Koreans decide to do that."

CONGRESSMAN DAVE CAMP'S WEBSITE STATEMENTS ON SMALL BUSINESS TAX CUT AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

The following excerpt is from Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Dave Camp’s website:
Highlights from the House: Camp Offers Job-Creating Small Business Tax Cut Act
More than Half of All Americans Still Oppose Obamacare
Last week, Congressman Dave Camp and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) introduced the Small Business Tax Cut Act H.R. 9 to put more money and resources into the hands of America's small businesses. The legislation gives businesses with fewer than 500 employees the ability to deduct 20% of their income tax. The proposal has broad support from the small business community. Former Mount Pleasant mayor and small business owner Jim Holton praised the legislation saying, "The beauty of the Small Business Tax Cut Act is its simplicity. If you are earning profits and contributing to the economy, then you can take 20 percent off your tax bill. No hoops to jump through. This is a great way for business owners like myself in the Great Lakes Bay Region and across America to help jump-start our economy."

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, at a time when the percentage of Americans opposing it has reached an all-time high: 67%. On the two-year anniversary of the law, Camp said, "Instead of lowering costs, which the President promised, health care costs continue to increase and far too many Americans are losing the insurance coverage they have and like because of the costly government mandates contained in the Affordable Care Act
Congressman Camp is leading the way in repealing the law with solutions to empower individuals, not government bureaucrats, to have control over health care decisions and help reduce costs. On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5, the Protecting Access to Health Care Act, to repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act and overhaul medical malpractice laws. Read more here. Camp has pledged to continue to working on common sense, patient-centered solutions that will lower costs and increase access to care. To date, Camp’s effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act has saved taxpayers nearly $52 billion.

U.S. GOVERNMENT SAYS LINK BETWEEN TERRORISM AND ORGANIZED CRIME IS GROWING

The following excerpt is from the American Forces Press Service:

Link Grows Between Terrorism, Organized Crime, Officials Say

By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 28, 2012 - The two missions of fighting terrorism and combating global organized crime are increasingly linked, senior Defense Department officials told Congress yesterday.

Michael A. Sheehan, assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict; Garry Reid, deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and combating terrorism; and William F. Wechsler, deputy assistant secretary of defense for counternarcotics and global threats, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee's emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee.

The hearing focused on the Pentagon's role in implementing the national strategies for counterterrorism and combating transnational organized crime under the 2013 defense budget request.

"Terrorism, drug trafficking and other forms of transnational organized crime are increasingly intertwined," Sheehan noted, adding that his office -- which is responsible for overall supervision of special operations forces -- is uniquely positioned to provide policy guidance and program oversight to the department's efforts in both missions.

Wechsler noted four trends in terrorism and transnational crime:

-- Terrorist groups are adopting criminal techniques, including drug trafficking, to raise funds;

-- Criminal organizations are adopting terrorist techniques, such as beheadings;

-- Terrorist organizations and criminal organizations that have been separate are now "working together in ways that previously we hadn't seen ... [such as] the attempted assassination of a Saudi ambassador here in the United States"; and

-- Some countries are using criminal activity to produce revenue.

Sheehan said that while the Defense Department plays a central role in fighting terrorism and a more supporting role battling transnational organized crime, the national strategies governing the two missions are complementary and mutually reinforcing.

While the counterterrorism focus on al-Qaida remains, he said, the landscape is changing. As al-Qaida and other terror groups meld with international criminal networks, DOD is expanding its efforts beyond direct strikes against terrorist targets in supporting an interagency approach, Sheehan said.

"All our national security challenges ... [are] becoming increasingly interagency," he noted.

Fighting terrorism increasingly includes targeting the global drug trade, he said. "Nowhere is the link between transnational organized crime, insurgency and terrorism more apparent than in Afghanistan, where the Taliban continues to receive a large percentage of its revenue through heroin trade," he added.

Fighting insurgents, prosecuting criminals and applying pressure to states profiting from terror or criminal activity involves agencies from DOD to the Drug Enforcement Agency to the State Department, Sheehan noted. And while direct strike is an important special operations capability, even purely military action often focuses on a partnering approach, he said.

"Just as important ... are the special operations forces' efforts that build the capability and capacity of our partners to shape the global information and ideas environment, as well as train and equip the capacity of other countries," he added.

Working with Pakistan to keep pressure on al-Qaida is essential, and Yemen serves as an important front against al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula, he noted.

"DOD continues to collaborate extensively with the Yemeni forces on operational matters, and together we are closely monitoring [al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula] and regularly improving our understanding of its external plots," Sheehan said.

Combating the nexus of terrorism and transnational organized crime, he said, "is a call to action to leverage all of the elements of national power to protect citizens and U.S. national security interests and to enable our foreign partners to do the same."

FORMER CAESARS PALACE NIGHTCLUB OWNER PLEADS GUILTY TO TAX CRIMES

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Former Caesars Palace Nightclub Owner, Head Doorman Plead Guilty to Tax Crimes
Steve Davidovici, formerly a part-owner and manager of the Pure Nightclub located within the Caesars Palace Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of filing a false federal income tax return for the 2006 tax year, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) announced today.   The Justice Department and IRS-CI also announced that Mikel Hasen, the former head doorman at the Pure Nightclub, likewise pleaded guilty to one count of filing a false federal income tax return for the 2006 tax year.   U.S.   District Court Judge Kent Dawson presided over both plea hearings.

According to information disclosed at the plea hearings, during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, in addition to fees charged for admission to the nightclub, some of Pure’s patrons made cash payments to Pure door personnel and “VIP hosts” to bypass the general admissions line and to obtain more desirable seating.   This money was collected, pooled and generally distributed on a weekly basis to the door personnel and VIP hosts, as well as to managers of Pure such as Davidovici and Hasen.   In Hasen’s case, distributions from this “tip pool” comprised the bulk of his compensation during the time he worked at Pure.   Davidovici and Hasen each concealed large amounts of this income from the IRS.

Davidovici’s and Hasen’s sentencings are set for June 27, 2012, at 9 a.m.

“With the April 15 tax deadline looming, it is important for people to have confidence that when they pay their taxes, their neighbors and competitors will do the same,” said Paul Camacho, Special Agent in Charge of the IRS-Criminal Investigation, Las Vegas Field Office.

Two VIP hosts under Davidovici’s supervision, Ali (Sean) Olyaie and Richard Chu, have also pleaded guilty to tax crimes for failing to report income earned at Pure.   At their respective plea hearings, Olyaie and Chu likewise admitted filing false federal income tax returns for 2006.  Olyaie and Chu are also awaiting sentencing.

This case is being investigated by IRS Criminal Investigation and is being prosecuted by Tax Division Trial Attorneys Christopher J. Maietta and Joseph A. Rillotta.

TYPE 1A SUPERNOVAE ORIGINS

The following excerpt is from the NASA website:

WASHINGTON -- Studies using X-ray and ultraviolet observations from 
NASA's Swift satellite provide new insights into the elusive origins 
of an important class of exploding star called Type Ia supernovae. 

These explosions, which can outshine their galaxy for weeks, release 
large and consistent amounts of energy at visible wavelengths. These 
qualities make them among the most valuable tools for measuring 
distance in the universe. Because astronomers know the intrinsic 
brightness of Type Ia supernovae, how bright they appear directly 
reveals how far away they are. 

"For all their importance, it's a bit embarrassing for astronomers 
that we don't know fundamental facts about the environs of these 
supernovae," said Stefan Immler, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard 
Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "Now, thanks to unprecedented 
X-ray and ultraviolet data from Swift, we have a clearer picture of 
what's required to blow up these stars." 

Astronomers have known for decades that Type Ia supernovae originate 
with a remnant star called a white dwarf, which detonates when pushed 
to a critical mass. The environment that sets the stage for the 
explosion, however, has been harder to pin down. 

According to the most popular scenario, a white dwarf orbits a normal 
star and pulls a stream of matter from it. This gas flows onto the 
white dwarf, which gains mass until it reaches a critical threshold 
and undergoes a catastrophic explosion. 

"A missing detail is what types of stars reside in these systems. They 
may be a mix of stars like the sun or much more massive red- and 
blue-supergiant stars," said Brock Russell, a physics graduate 
student at the University of Maryland, College Park, and lead author 
of the X-ray study. 

In a competing model, the supernova arises when two white dwarfs in a 
binary system eventually spiral inward and collide. Observations 
suggest both scenarios occur in nature, but no one knows which 
version happens more often. 

Swift's primary mission is to locate gamma-ray bursts, which are more 
distant and energetic explosions associated with the birth of black 
holes. Between these bursts, astronomers can use Swift's unique 
capabilities to study other objects, including newly discovered 
supernovae. The satellite's X-ray Telescope (XRT) has studied more 
than 200 supernovae to date, with about 30 percent being Type Ia. 

Russell and Immler combined X-ray data for 53 of the nearest known 
Type Ia supernovae but could not detect an X-ray point source. Stars 
shed gas and dust throughout their lives. When a supernova shock wave 
plows into this material, it becomes heated and emits X-rays. The 
lack of X-rays from the combined supernovae shows that supergiant 
stars, and even sun-like stars in a later red giant phase, likely 
aren't present in the host binaries. 

In a companion study, a team led by Peter Brown at the University of 
Utah in Salt Lake City looked at 12 Type Ia events observed by 
Swift's Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope (UVOT) less than 10 days after 
the explosion. A supernova shock wave should produce enhanced 
ultraviolet light as it interacts with its companion, with larger 
stars producing brighter, longer enhancements. Swift's UVOT detected 
no such emission, leading the researchers to exclude large, red giant 
stars from Type Ia binaries. 

Taken together, the studies suggest the companion to the white dwarf 
is either a smaller, younger star similar to our sun or another white 
dwarf. The X-ray findings will appear in the April 1 issue of The 
Astrophysical Journal Letters; the ultraviolet results appear in the 
April 10 edition of The Astrophysical Journal. 

The ultraviolet studies rely on early, sensitive observations. As 
Brown's study was being written, nature provided a great case study 
in SN 2011fe, the closest Type Ia supernova since 1986. Early Swift 
UVOT observations show no ultraviolet enhancement. According to the 
findings in an unpublished study led also by Brown, this means any 
companion must be smaller than the sun. 

Swift data on SN 2011fe also figure prominently in unpublished studies 
led by Alicia Soderberg at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for 
Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. Preliminary results suggest that the 
explosion was caused by merging white dwarfs. 

Swift launched in November 2004 and is managed by Goddard. It is 
operated in collaboration with Pennsylvania State University and 
other national and international partners. 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DEMANDS HUMANA INC., DIVEST SOME HOLDINGS TO PRESERVE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY COMPETITION

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Justice Department Requires Divestitures in Humana Inc.'s Acquisition of Arcadian Management Services Inc. Divestitures and Additional Relief in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas Preserve Competition for Medicare Advantage Plans Sold to Medicare Beneficiaries

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice today announced that it will require Humana Inc. and Arcadian Management Services Inc. to divest assets relating to Arcadian’s Medicare Advantage business in parts of five states in order for Humana to proceed with its acquisition of Arcadian.  The department is requiring divestitures of health plans in 51 counties and parishes in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.  The department said that the transaction, as originally proposed, would likely have resulted in higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality Medicare Advantage plans purchased by Medicare beneficiaries.

The department’s Antitrust Division filed a civil lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to block the proposed acquisition.  At the same time, the department filed a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the lawsuit and the department’s competitive concerns.

“Protecting competition in health care has been and continues to be a top priority of the Antitrust Division,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis A. Pozen in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “These divestitures preserve competition so that Medicare beneficiaries, primarily senior citizens, in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas, benefit from lower prices, better quality services and more innovative products for their health care needs.”

Individuals eligible for Medicare, primarily senior citizens, may elect to enroll in a privately provided Medicare Advantage plan instead of traditional Medicare.  In establishing the Medicare Advantage program, Congress intended that vigorous competition among private Medicare Advantage insurers would lead insurers to offer seniors a rich set of affordable benefits, provide a wide array of health-insurance choices, and be responsive to the demands of seniors.  Approximately 71,000 people are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans in these 51 counties and parishes, accounting for more than $700 million in annual commerce.

According to the complaint, the original transaction would have eliminated competition between Humana and Arcadian, two of the few significant sellers of Medicare Advantage plans in 45 of the counties and parishes, allowing Humana to increase prices and reduce the quality of Medicare Advantage plans sold to seniors there .  The original deal would have created a combined company controlling between 40 and 100 percent of the Medicare Advantage health insurance market in these counties and parishes.

Under the proposed settlement, Humana must promptly divest the Medicare Advantage plans in the 51 counties and parishes to one or more acquirers approved by the department that has the intent and capability to be an effective competitor.   The department is requiring divestitures of health plans in five additional counties and one additional parish to facilitate the divesture of the plans in the other 45 counties and parishes and make those plans more administrable.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, current enrollees of Humana and Arcadian’s Medicare Advantage plans will continue to have substantially the same access to providers, including doctors, hospitals and other medical services, after the divestitures as before the divestitures were required.  The proposed settlement contains provisions that ensure the buyers of the divested Medicare Advantage plans will have contracts with substantially all of the health care providers included in the Humana and Arcadian plans at substantially the same rates.  The department said the requirements are important because to compete effectively, a health insurer needs a network of health care providers at competitive rates.

Humana Inc., a leading health insurer in the United States, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Louisville, Ky.  In 2010, Humana reported revenues of approximately $33.6 billion.

Arcadian Management Services Inc., with approximately 62,000 Medicare Advantage members in 15 states, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Oakland, Calif.  In 2010, Arcadian had revenues of $622 million.

The proposed settlement, along with the department’s competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register, as required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act.  Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60 days of its publication to Joshua H. Soven, Chief, Litigation I Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth St., N.W., Suite 4100, Washington, D.C. 20530.  At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the court may enter the settlement upon a finding that it is in the public interest.

DENSO CORPORATION EXECUTIVE AGREES TO PRISON TIME

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:
Monday, March 26, 2012
DENSO Corporation Executive Agrees to Plead Guilty to Price Fixing and Bid Rigging on Auto Parts Installed in U.S. Cars Executive Also Agrees to Serve Significant Prison Time
WASHINGTON – An executive of Japan-based DENSO Corporation, has agreed to plead guilty and to serve time in prison for his role in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for heater control panels (HCPs) installed in U.S. cars, the Department of Justice announced today.

According to a one-count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit, Norihiro Imai, a Japanese national, along with co-conspirators, engaged in a conspiracy to rig bids for and to fix, stabilize and maintain the prices of HCPs sold to customers in the United States and elsewhere. According to the charge, Imai’s involvement in the conspiracy lasted from at least as early as August 2006 until at least June 2009. According to the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, Imai has agreed to serve one year and one day in a U.S. prison, to pay a $20,000 criminal fine and to cooperate with the department’s ongoing investigation.

“Today’s guilty plea demonstrates the Antitrust Division’s commitment to hold executives accountable for engaging in illegal conduct that leads to higher prices for American businesses and consumers,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis A. Pozen in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “Criminal antitrust enforcement is a top priority, and the division will continue to work with its law enforcement partners in the ongoing investigation in the auto parts industry.”

DENSO manufactures and sells a variety of automotive electrical parts, including HCPs. HCPs are located in the center console of an automobile and control the temperature of the interior environment of a vehicle. According to the charge, Imai and his co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by, among other things, agreeing during meetings and discussions to coordinate bids submitted to, and price adjustments requested by, automobile manufacturers.

Including Imai, eight individuals and three companies have been charged in the government’s ongoing investigation into price fixing and bid rigging in the auto parts industry. DENSO pleaded guilty on March 5, 2012, and was sentenced to pay a $78 million criminal fine. Yazaki Corporation, another Japanese automotive electrical component supplier, pleaded guilty on March 1, 2012, and was sentenced to pay a $470 million criminal fine.  Additionally, four Yazaki executives were charged on Jan. 30, 2012, and have agreed to plead guilty. On Nov. 14, 2011, Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd. pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay a $200 million fine. Three of Furukawa’s executives also pleaded guilty and were sentenced to serve prison sentences in the United States ranging from a year and a day to 18 months.

Imai is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine for individuals. The maximum fine for an individual may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

The current prosecution arose from an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section and the FBI’s Detroit Field Office with the assistance of the FBI headquarters’ International Corruption Unit.

THOUSANDS OF ARTIFACTS FOUND AT LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA

The photo and excerpt are from the Department of Defense Armed With Science website:


Archaeologists excavate land Feb. 9, 2012, at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., in order to make way for a solar array the base is planning to build. The excavation team has found thousands of artifacts dating back to 3,000 B.C. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Sandra Welch)

By Senior Airman C.J. Hatch
56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
Archaeologists here recently unearthed an ancient dwelling — just one of thousands of artifacts found here that date back as far as 3,000 B.C.
The excavation was part of the site preparation, including mitigation of surface archaeology and testing for subsurface archaeology, for a large solar array on the south side of the base,

“This site could be of importance to Arizona and the Phoenix valley,” said John Hall, the senior project director with Statistical Research, which is doing the excavation. “We had some of the artifacts dated and this site is almost 1,000 years older than any other site in the Phoenix valley.”

Since October 2010, the excavation team has found thousands of artifacts around the area to help them get an idea of how the people here lived.
“We believe the people to be nomadic,” Hall said. “We found storage holes filled with stone tools and other things. The stone used clearly comes from a river, very different from the stone around Luke.”

One of the things about the site archeologists found interesting was that it dated to the poorly understood Middle and Late Archaic periods of the Phoenix Basin and south-central Arizona between 3,000 and 1,000 B.C.

“The things we have found here will allow a very detailed examination of these ancient life ways,” Hall said. “This is an unprecedented opportunity not included in the more than 100 years of documented archaeological work in and around the Phoenix Basin.”
Archeologists have long studied the Hohokam of the Phoenix valley — one of three major prehistoric archaeological traditions of the American Southwest — including they way they lived, the farming they did and the plants they grew. The Hohokam occupied the valley and much of southern Arizona from 1 to 1450 A.D. The Hohokam grew corn, beans, squash and agave. They also built hundreds of miles of canals throughout the valley to irrigate their agricultural fields. This site has offered a new perspective into the lives of people thousands of years before that.

“This site is 2,000 years older than the Hohokam; these people could be their ancestors,” Hall said. “They were from a time before agriculture, before maze was brought up from Mexico. This will help us understand lots of things. We can get a better idea of how people got food before farming. We can narrow down the time frame when maize was brought from the south. We have 5,000 years of history right here to help us understand things. This could change our understanding of the prehistoric people of the valley.”
The location of Luke AFB attracted the Native Americans who lived here 5,000 years ago as well as the Air Force in the 1940s.

“The land here is in a great location,” Hall said. “You have the White Tank Mountains and the Aqua Fria River both right here close by. There was food and water at hand, and we think they may have moved between the foothills and the river over their course through the valley.”

The land being excavated is located by the south end of the runway and was not being used for anything before the solar array was planned. Luke AFB officials plan to build the solar array to help offset energy costs.
“We have land here that was not being utilized because of the noise from the end of the runway,” said 1st Lt Chris Warshaw, of the 56th Civil Engineer Squadron. “We have a perfect spot for a solar array that could generate almost 50 percent of the electricity the base consumes.”

The solar array is still planned to be built, but it will take longer than initially planned due to the mitigation phase.
“We need to thank Luke,” Hall said, “because if the base had not been here, the land probably would have been dug up years ago to make room for houses or farms.”

U.S. OFFICIAL SPEAKS ON GOING GREEN WHILE IN VIETNAM

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail:
Remarks on Green Growth
Remarks Robert D. Hormats
Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs National Economics University
Hanoi, Vietnam
March 21, 2012
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
Thank you for the introduction and thank you for inviting me to talk about the green economy.
More than ever before, the wellbeing of our economy, the planet, and our energy security are inextricably linked. This connection hasn’t always been so obvious.

For much of the 20th century, businesses and governments typically focused on the allocation and optimization of their labor and capital resources for growth.

Their assumption was that natural and environmental resources were so abundant that they could be treated as “free” goods.

As a result of this logic, approximately one-third of the world’s biodiversity has been lost since 1970, three-fourths of the world’s marine fisheries are fully or over exploited, and two-fifths of the planet’s original forests are gone.

Business as usual is not a viable option. We need to revise our strategy going forward for the sake of our planet and for the continued success of our economies.
Moving to a green economy doesn’t mean sacrificing economic growth or creating fewer jobs. Quite the contrary.

Transitioning to a green economy is an opportunity for businesses and governments to implement practices that are more responsible to our citizens, our planet, and budgets.
There are numerous examples of businesses and investors seizing opportunities to improve profitability through the adoption of environmentally-friendly practices.
The World Wildlife Fund (an international NGO) has partnered with The Coca-Cola Company since 2007 to conserve priority river basins around the world and integrate sustainability into Coca-Cola’s operations.

Water is the main ingredient in every one of Coca-Cola’s products. And, water is essential for the health of ecosystems and biodiversity.

Coca-Cola is on track to improve its water efficiency by 20 percent by the end of this year, compared to 2004. That means that they will have cut nearly 50 billion liters of water usage. This is a win, win partnership.

Value-added from sustainable business practices isn’t restricted to large corporations.
To demonstrate this, the State Department partnered with the World Environment Center and multinationals such as Walmart to help small and medium sized enterprises around the world improve their environmental performance, reduce costs, and improve efficiency and competitiveness.

Thirty-five small and medium sized businesses from Guatemala and El Salvador participated in the project to improve their environmental performance. They achieved a combined total savings of over $600,000 from an initial investment of approximately $300,000. That’s a very attractive return on investment, in addition to the environmental benefits.

These companies aren’t alone. More than 80 percent of Fortune 500 companies have created environmental charters and have adopted sustainability strategies because it helps their profitability.

Governments also have a role to play in driving private sector adoption of environmental technologies and investment in cleaner practices through financing and other fostering voluntary agreements, and by setting standards such as air and water pollution limits.
In addition, governments themselves have a responsibility to lead by example. That’s why, through the State Department’s Greening Diplomacy Initiative, we’re reducing energy consumption by consolidating our information technology platforms, lowering fuel costs by increasing the number of alternative fuel vehicles in our fleet, and improving the overall performance of our buildings.

Soon, approximately 45 percent of the energy delivered to the Department’s Washington, D.C. facilities will come from renewable sources. Similar to the private sector, the U.S. government simply cannot afford to waste energy.

The government of Vietnam has also made some promising strides on encouraging and adopting sustainable practices. Vietnam is an active partner with the United States, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand in the Lower Mekong Initiative, which promotes regional cooperation in education, health, environment, and infrastructure.
Through the Initiative, we’re strengthening natural resource management in the region by building capacity and strengthening institutions.

And, Vietnam’s national “Payments for Forest Environmental Services” pilot project—with support from the United States—creates a mechanism to collect and distribute a portion of the economic value of ecological services provided by forests in the Lam Dong and Son La provinces.

The program provides incentives to landowners, farmers, and forest communities to better manage their land by assigning a value to Vietnam’s shared natural resource. Already, the program has helped protect over 210,000 hectares of threatened forest land and resulted in a 50 percent decrease in illegal logging and wildlife poaching in the Da Nhim watershed area.

Efforts like these are critical to drive our transition to a green economy, but it’s important to recognize that no one entity can do it alone. Neither the private sector, nor Vietnam, nor the United States. That’s why the United States is engaging the global community at Rio+20 to build greener and more inclusive economies, smarter cities, and to strengthen institutions and networks to address current and future challenges. Our approach to Rio+20 is focused on three key areas.

First, we’re advocating for broader adoption of clean, renewable energy by creating markets that attract private sector investments to underserved populations.
On the demand side, we are connecting the conservation of natural resources to profitability, thereby protecting the environment and freeing business resources for other types of job creating activities.

We’re working to catalyze private sector investment in green infrastructure projects in rapidly urbanizing areas because cities are major consumers of energy.
Second, ecosystem management and rural development are critical to secure the wellbeing of our natural environment. Agriculture is key in this context. To increase food yields and nutrition with fewer inputs and smaller impacts on the environment, we need both innovative agricultural technologies and improved understanding of agricultural systems.
That’s why we’re extending support for sustainable, agriculture-led growth that will help lift people out of poverty through the U.S.-led Feed the Future initiative.
Finally, we need to modernize our global institutions to be effective (and some might even say, relevant) in the 21stcentury. The Internet, social media, and other connection technologies allow us to transcend the walls of traditional institutions, fostering truly global collaboration.

By embracing twenty-first century connectivity, we can deploy the collective ingenuity and capability of governments, citizens, businesses, and civil society stakeholders from around the world to promote economic development and sustainable environmental practices.
In this context, we do not need new UN organizations; we need to make the existing structures more effective, efficient, and relevant to today’s world.

How we deal with this moment—whether we succumb to a zero-sum competition over increasingly limited resources or cooperate with each other to build green economies—will determine in large part the security and prosperity of America, Vietnam, and the world in the twenty-first century.
Thank you.

U.S. SAYS MISSILE THREAT NEEDS ROBUST DEFENSES

The following excerpt is from an American Forces Press Service e-mail: 

Growing Missile Threat Needs Robust Defenses, Official Says

By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 27, 2012 - The United States is well protected against the current threat from limited intercontinental ballistic missile attacks, but the threat is growing, underscoring the need for a robust and flexible defense system, a senior Pentagon official said here yesterday.

Development and deployment of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System protects the United States against the current threats posed by nations such as North Korea and Iran, Madelyn R. Creedon, assistant secretary of defense for global strategic affairs, said at the 10th Annual U.S. Missile Defense Conference.

With 30 ground-based interceptors in place, the United States is well protected against the current threat, she said at the conference, sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

"Maintaining this advantageous position is essential," she added. "As the threat matures -- and it will -- we will continued to improve the GMD system, including enhanced performance by the [interceptors] and the deployment of new sensors."

Creedon outlined the Defense Department's ballistic missile defense plans and priorities as part of the military strategic guidance President Barack Obama issued in January. She detailed U.S. progress in sustaining a strong homeland defense, strengthening regional missile defense, and fostering increased international cooperation.

Obama's fiscal 2013 budget request to Congress includes $9.7 billion -- part of $47.4 billion over five years -- for missile defense. Though the request is down slightly from the current year, Creedon said, it adequately supports the U.S. commitment to both homeland security and regional defense.

The improved ground-based system requires a satellite tracking system, as well as the Standard Missile 3 Block IIA and IIB interceptors. "These efforts will help to ensure that the United States possesses a superior capability to counter projected threats for the foreseeable future," Creedon said.

The United States also is developing a "hedge strategy," Creedon added, to address possible delays in the development of the system or emerging threats. "The United States must be well hedged against the rapid emergence of a threat that undermines the advantage we have today," she said.

Creedon said development of the four-phase system includes:

-- Development of the two-stage ground-based interceptor and completion of 14 silos at Fort Greely, Alaska;

-- Inclusion of funding in the fiscal 2013 budget request to improve the ground-based system with early warning radars, advanced sensors, and improved command and control software, all designed to make the system increasingly more efficient;

-- Deployment of the SM-3 IIB in Europe early in the next decade, providing early interception capabilities from a possible Iranian attack and other emerging threats; and

-- The purchase of five more ground-based interceptors to improve rapid response and allow for testing and spares, as well as "to keep the GBI production line warm."

After a decade of progress in fielding capabilities against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, "the United States is now capable of significantly strengthening the protection of its forces abroad and assisting its allies and partners in providing for their own defense," Creedon said.

The short and medium ballistic missile threat is rapidly expanding in areas where the U.S. military is deployed, and Defense Department officials are reviewing the best ways to address the threat with systems that are mobile, flexible and region-specific, Creedon said. Such regional architectures will augment homeland defense, she added.

The commitment to missile defense is growing among NATO nations, Creedon said, and the United States deployed the first phase of its European-based system with the guided missile cruiser USS Monterey, carrying SM-3 interceptors, in the Mediterranean Sea.

In August, Turkish officials announced they would host a forward-based radar system, and it was deployed in December, Creedon said. And the U.S. Air Operations Center's command and control capabilities at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, now are operational, she said.

In Phase 2, a land-based SM-3 site will be developed in Romania, with Block II interceptors deployed on land and sea, and is expected to be operational in 2015, Creedon said. Spain has agreed to host four U.S. Aegis destroyers in Rota, with the first two ships scheduled to arrive in 2014, she said.

In Phase 3, a second land-based SM-3 site will be deployed to Poland, with SM-3 Block IIA interceptors deployed on land and sea, extending coverage to all NATO European countries.

In Phase 4, the SM-3 IIB will be deployed around 2020, which Creedon called "an important enhancement."

"Iran continues to develop ballistic missiles that are capable of threatening all of NATO [in] Europe," she said. "The capability will eventually enhance the protection of the United States by providing an early shot against an Iranian long-range ICBM headed to the U.S. homeland."

The administration's February 2010 missile defense review outlined these priorities:

-- Defending the homeland against the threat of a limited ballistic missile attack;

-- Defending against regional missile threats to U.S. forces while protecting allies and partners and enabling them to protect themselves;

-- Testing new technologies under operationally realistic conditions before deploying them;

-- Keeping new capabilities fiscally sustainable over the long term;

-- Ensuring capabilities are flexible enough to adapt as threats change; and

-- Seeking to lead expanded international efforts for missile defense.