U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING

FROM U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 9, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:41 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Happy Monday, everybody. I hope that everybody who had holidays this weekend had a great weekend and that everybody else just enjoyed the great weather.
Let’s – I have two things to do at the top, then we’ll go to what’s on your minds. The first is with regard to the attack on Russian journalist Elena Milashina over the weekend. The United States has long been deeply concerned about violent attacks on journalists in Russia. Journalists and representatives of civil society everywhere must be free to report without fear of reprisal or intimidation.
Most recently in Moscow, late on the evening of April 4th, Novaya Gazeta reporter, Elena Milashina and her friend, who was a representative of a nongovernmental organization, Freedom House, were brutally assaulted. We’re concerned that this attack may have been related to the journalistic work of Ms. Milashina as an investigative reporter. We urge the authorities in Russia to work quickly to bring those responsible to justice.
Our second note is with regard to the passing of Chinese democracy advocate Fang Lizhi. We are saddened by the passing of democracy advocate and physicist Fang Lizhi who was a champion of human rights and democratic reform in China. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and loved ones.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Where to begin?
MS. NULAND: Yes. It is going to be a very, very busy week.
QUESTION: Yeah. I guess, let’s start with what may be the shortest of your answers, and that’s North Korea. So the North has showed off its new missile that they’re – or its new rocket – satellite-bearing rocket that they’re about the launch. And then there are also signs – at least according to the South Koreans – that they’re preparing for a possible nuclear test. I’m wondering what you all have to say about that beyond, “Just don’t do it.”
MS. NULAND: Well, our position remains: Don’t do it. North Korea’s launch of a missile would be highly provocative, it would pose a threat to regional security, and it will be inconsistent with its recent undertakings to refrain from any kind of long-range missile launches. And as you know, we consider that it would be a violation of UN Security Council resolution 1718 and 1874. So we are continuing to make the point that it is a bad idea to do this.
As the President said in Seoul, we are also working with our Six-Party counterparts to try to make the same points to North Korea and to urge all of the countries in the Six-Party Talks to use their influence with the DPRK. We believe in particular that China joins us in its interest in seeing a denuclearized Korean peninsula, and we are continuing to encourage China in particular to act more effectively in that interest.
QUESTION: But what about the signs of a possible nuclear test?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, that would be equally bad, if not worse.
QUESTION: Do you see any such signs?
MS. NULAND: I’m not in a position to confirm one way or the other, and certainly not to share any intelligence that we might have.
QUESTION: Are you asking those nations in the region to be on high alert because of this North Korean missile launch and other threats?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think everybody needs to be vigilant at this time, obviously.
QUESTION: What about Japan’s --
MS. NULAND: Behind you, Ros.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you have any concern if condemning North Korea after the launch it might give them, like, excuse that they will do the nuclear test?
MS. NULAND: Well, they shouldn’t be doing either. And any of these types of action are just going to further isolate them and make it harder for them to be part of the world community and to give their people a better quality of life.
Ros.
QUESTION: Japan has been making some comments suggesting that it might respond in some way if this missile launch does happen. Have you cautioned Tokyo to dial down its rhetoric at all?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve been consulting with all of our Six-Party counterparts on all of this; our position, as you know, has been that Japan, Korea, any of the countries in the region, obviously, have the right to self-defense.
Please.
QUESTION: Change topic?
QUESTION: No, no, no. I’m not --
MS. NULAND: Stay on DPRK?
QUESTION: Yeah, North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Yeah. North Korean official announcement yesterday that if and when the United States have additional sanctions against the North Korea, then North Korea will regard it as an act of war. What is your comment on that?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’m not going to get into all kinds of hypothetical, “we do this and they do that,” situations. The bottom line is we strongly urge North Korea not to do this.
Please, right here. And then come back to you, Matt.
QUESTION: North Korea is now all set to launch the long-range rocket. And the sanctions made have not been working very well so far. So do you have any new good ideas to prevent them to doing so?
MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, we’re making clear we think this is a very bad idea. With regard to what kinds of consequences there are going to be, I’m not going to predict at this point.
QUESTION: Well, at this point --
MS. NULAND: Let me go back to Matt.
QUESTION: That’s okay.
MS. NULAND: No? No.
QUESTION: Mine’s very brief.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea invited all over the world in journalists. Has North Korea invited any U.S. journalists?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know the answer to that. But obviously we would be discouraging of that.
Matt.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. You would be discouraging of what?
MS. NULAND: Of folks going and celebrating this launch, which we consider a violation of --
QUESTION: Celebrating? Or – I’m sorry, celebrating or just witnessing --
QUESTION: Covering.
QUESTION: Covering.
QUESTION: Covering --
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, there’s been plenty of coverage.
QUESTION: -- this propaganda.
QUESTION: Well, you don’t have a problem with reporters going to cover it, do you?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’re not in a position to tell reporters what to do one way or the other, as you guys well know.
QUESTION: Okay. I was just – right. I just wanted – the last time we talked about this, you were not aware – or you were aware that there had been no direct contact between you and the North Koreas with this warning or this appeal not to do it. Do you know if that’s changed? Has there been any direct contact? Or is your message pretty much – this is how you’re delivering the message?
MS. NULAND: We wouldn’t say anything different in private that we’re not saying here.
QUESTION: No, I know, but --
MS. NULAND: So, to my knowledge, we haven’t had any additional private contact with them, other than the day that they advised us they were going to do this and we said --
QUESTION: That Thursday?
MS. NULAND: Yes. Exactly.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: The North Koreans inviting the journalists, showing them really it has no armament value whatsoever. You don’t believe them? Do you consider that to be just a public relations stunt?
MS. NULAND: Said, we’ve talked about this many times.
QUESTION: I know, but --
MS. NULAND: They can’t launch the thing without using ballistic missile technology which is precluded by UN Security Council Resolution 1874. So regardless of what they say about it, it’s still a violation.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: All three stages of the rocket are ready on the launch pad, so how much hope do you actually have that you’re going to be able to convince North Korea to not do this in the next few days? It’s already there.
MS. NULAND: We’re not in the hope business here. We’re simply making clear we think this would be a very bad idea.
QUESTION: The Chinese Government has been convincing North Korea to – not to launch this rocket?
MS. NULAND: Well, you heard me say that we are continuing to urge all of the countries that may have influence on the DPRK, most notably China, to continue to use that influence to make clear that they also disapprove of this and think it would be a bad idea and will just further isolate the DPRK.
QUESTION: It seems like we go through these periodic moments of DPRK appears to be reconciling with the U.S. and other members in the Six-Party talk regime, then we have some sort of provocation, to use the U.S. Government’s term, and then we repeat. What’s it going to take to break this cycle if the DPRK continues to engage in what the U.S. and others country consider provocative and destabilizing behavior?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we’d share your assessment that it is extremely disheartening that we seem to be in this cycle of thinking that we are coming to some sort of an agreement, as we did on Leap Day, and then having new threats of provocative activity or provocative activity itself. Our concern is for the people of the – of North Korea, who are just further and further in isolated – whose quality of life is not improving, and this – and the regime, who seems bound and determined to isolate their country rather than rejoining the community of nations.
Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MS. NULAND: Say again.
QUESTION: Syria?
MS. NULAND: Syria, yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Could I just stay on North Korea?
MS. NULAND: One more North Korea; then we’re going to move on. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Is it fair to say you are not very satisfied with the way – how Chinese Government is pressurizing or not pressurizing North Korea, or – and could there be specific measure, action, taken by the Beijing to prevent it?
MS. NULAND: I think we continue to encourage China to do all that it can, and we are hopeful that they will continue to use their influence in the hours and days ahead.
On Syria?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just – Victoria, the deadline is fast approaching for a – the Assad regime to pull its forces out of the cities and neighborhoods and so on, and obviously they’re not doing that. So once the deadline has come and gone, what will be your next trip – next step, I’m sorry – to deal with this issue?
MS. NULAND: Well, before we get to the step that might follow a day from now or the day after, let’s start with the news today, which are the reports of cross-border violence across the Turkish border. Let me just start by saying that we strongly condemn any attack by the Syrian regime on refugees in bordering countries, and we’re absolutely outraged by today’s report. We join the Turkish Government in calling for the Syrian regime to immediately cease fire. And these incidents are just another indication that the Assad regime does not seem at all willing to meet the commitments that it made to Kofi Annan. Not only has the violence not abated; it has been worse in recent days.
QUESTION: So does that mean that you are not – you don’t trust the regime in following through on its commitment to cease fire by the 10th of April?
MS. NULAND: Well, we see no indication that it is preparing to do so. It’s done some moving around of its tanks and artillery but only so that it can use them in other places. There are new, horrific reports in addition that over 100 people were summarily executed in the last period outside of Aleppo, that there were 200 bodies found in Idlib in similar conditions. So are we optimistic that he’s going to meet his commitments? No. But obviously, we’re going to wait for tomorrow’s deadline and take it from there.
Ros.
QUESTION: Does this cross-border attack raise any alarms among the NATO alliance? And what sorts of discussions have started because of what happened overnight?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we’re all consulting with our Turkish counterparts in trying to ascertain what the facts are. I would not be surprised if the Turks do raise this in Brussels. I haven’t heard that that’s the case yet.
Please.
QUESTION: In addition to the attack on Turkey’s (inaudible) killed a Lebanese journalist today inside the Lebanese borders. Are you aware of that?
MS. NULAND: I’m not aware of that, Samir. We’re – we’ll look into that. But again, was this another cross-border incident? Is that what you understood? Again, the violence clearly hasn’t abated at all.
Please.
QUESTION: You stated that all the indications show the Assad regime is not prepared to follow up Annan plan. What is – what are you preparing to do after tomorrow? It is not months; it’s just tomorrow. What are you going to do?
MS. NULAND: Well, tomorrow we’re expecting that there will be a report from Kofi Annan’s representative in the Security Council, probably in the afternoon. I think we will wait and see what his evaluation is and then what he recommends, but as we have said, we expect that we will be having intensive consultations in the Security Council. And then, as you know, we have G-8 countries in Washington this week for ministerial meetings with Secretary Clinton. I’m sure that Syria will be a subject of discussion here, too.
QUESTION: Can we go back to the cross-border incident?
QUESTION: Do you still have any hope for the Annan plan to – at any rate be implemented at this point?
MR. NULAND: Well, again, we’re going to wait until tomorrow. The deadline is tomorrow. But based on what we’re seeing today, we are not hopeful.
QUESTION: What is it that you understand transpired on the border? Our early reports said it was not clear whether people were deliberately targeted or whether this might have been stray or accidental fire. Are you convinced that the people in Turkey were deliberately targeted by Syrian forces?
MR. NULAND: That is the view of the Turkish officials who have been briefing us, that the regime knew that it was firing across the border, that it was pursuing activists and that these were intentional acts. But we are obviously continuing to consult with the Turks who are there.
QUESTION: And how does this – if that is what happened, how does that differ from, say, hot pursuit, say, from Afghanistan into Pakistan?
MR. NULAND: This is – you’re talking about apples and oranges. In the Pakistan-Afghanistan situation, as you know, along that border, we have a complex but very intensive dialogue and set of protocols between Afghan forces, Pakistani forces, and NATO as to how you manage when insurgents are seen crossing the border, et cetera. The reports that we’re having from Turkish officials indicate that these were firings on innocents. These were not in response to any kind of fire.
Said.
QUESTION: Victoria, the regime has requested that the opposition put down in writing that they are ceasing fire. One, how could they possibly do that? And conversely, how would the regime be assured that these groups, who probably number a hundred or something like this, would actually cease fire?
MR. NULAND: Well, precisely. This is just more chaff being thrown up in the air at the last minute to deflect attention from the fact that the regime is not meeting the commitments that they made to Kofi Annan. Remember, it wasn’t simply that the accepted the plan, but that they reported to Annan some – about a week ago or even less that they had started to withdraw - none of which seems to be the case. And now two days before the deadline, they’re asking for written guarantees from groups that are loose and amorphous and have themselves declared that if they saw the regime cease fire that they would also cease fire. So this is just another way to stall for time.
QUESTION: Is there a new estimate on how many people in Syria may have been killed since the – overall since the uprising began? I mean, you just mentioned a hundred people found here, several dozen found over there. I mean, what’s – what figure are we talking about now?
MR. NULAND: My understanding that the figure that the UN Human Rights Council has been using is around 9,000, but I would refer you to their figures. I don’t think anybody has a complete and accurate accounting, obviously, because we’re not able to get into Syria.
QUESTION: Does this death toll, seemingly rising by the day, add any additional urgency? I mean, we’re more than a year on into this and there’s no security, it seems, for the Syrian people. We saw the satellite images put out by Ambassador Ford on Friday afternoon. Tanks are still sitting on Homs, and they’re still sitting across Idlib province. What’s it going to take for the U.S. and other countries to actually do something against Bashar al-Assad’s regime?
MR. NULAND: Ros, let me take issue with the premise. I mean, first of all, let’s start with the fact that this has been urgent for months and months and months. Remember that the President called for Assad to go way back in November, I believe it was, if not earlier. What we have done is marshaled an enormous coalition of countries that are now sanctioning Assad. We talked last week about all of the measures taken at the Friends of the Syrian People conference: crippling sanction not only from the U.S. and the EU and the Arab League, but now globally; the effort to assist now the Syrian opposition, in our case on a nonlethal basis, other countries choosing to do other things to help them to defend themselves; the humanitarian assistance; the effort to take – to stand up an accountability center so that we can help the Syrian people document the abuses; et cetera. And we will keep squeezing and isolating this guy until the violence ends.
Ilhan.
QUESTION: Should people in Syria assume that unless the Assad regime decides to just stop its attacks that each day could be their last?
MR. NULAND: Ros, we are all horrified by the violence, and we are doing what we can to increase the pressure on Assad, and we will continue to stand with the Syrian people until they have the future that they want and that they deserve.
Please.
QUESTION: From the beginning, you have been supporter of the Annan plan. In fact, the UN envoy, Ms. Susan Rice, said this outstanding choice for Mr. Annan and the best solution was cited. My question is: Do you have any regret that the Assad regime agreed to Arab League plan, agreed to different plans, and now you again supported this Annan plan, and now over a thousand people just past week have died. Do you take any kind of responsibility for your choice of policy on the Annan plan?
MR. NULAND: Look, the Annan plan is based on all of the efforts that all of us have been making for months now to try to end this violence. He is a highly respected diplomat. He put forward something that was accepted by the entire international community, which was not the state that we were in before he joined this effort, and that was accepted by Assad. The fact that it hasn’t worked yet doesn’t change the fact that having the international community increasingly united and increasingly willing to pressure Assad will not eventually bring him down. He will go down. The question is when and the question is how many of his supporters, how many of his military are going to continue to execute his orders right up until the end and face the justice that is coming to them as well.
Please, Goyal.
QUESTION: So you don’t have any regret – should we understand that you don’t have any regret supporting the Annan plan?
MS. NULAND: Kofi Annan is doing what he can to represent the will of the international community. We’re going to see what he has to say tomorrow when his representative reports on the outcome, not only in terms of how he appraises what’s happened, but what he proposes for next steps.
Please.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: No. Wait, I just – back to the question about NATO.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. – what does the U.S. think about this? Does the U.S. believe that there are NATO implications for the – for what happened?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, I can’t --
QUESTION: Or that there could be? And do you know, given your past expertise or current expertise of NATO, does an aggrieved country have to ask for Article 5 to be invoked? Because I don’t remember what happened after 9/11. Did the U.S. ask for Article 5 to be invoked, or did it – did others invoke it on our behalf?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, with regard to whatever the Turkish conversation might be in NATO, Ros asked if that has happened. I said that I didn’t know whether Turkey had briefed the NATO council, so --
QUESTION: No, no, but I don’t – I’m not interested in whether they have or not.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. With regard to --
QUESTION: I’m interested in if the U.S. believes that it – if there are Article 5 – NATO Article 5 implications.
MS. NULAND: I don’t think that we have gotten to that point in our analysis. We’re still trying to ascertain the facts here.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: With regard to how NATO works, Article 5 is invoked by consensus, so any member of the council can propose --
QUESTION: Can say – so the Turks don’t have to go and say we want this invoked; the Greeks could do --
MS. NULAND: Any member of the council can propose something and then the council would have to be unanimous in its support.
QUESTION: Another subject?
QUESTION: (Inaudible) follow-up on Matt’s --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- on the NATO thing. Suppose Turkey decided that this is really a hostile act and decided to take a military response to this thing. Would NATO automatically give support in this case? I mean, from your experience --
MS. NULAND: You’re getting me into 17 layers of hypotheticals, Said --
QUESTION: I mean, from your personal experience in --
MS. NULAND: -- which you can imagine I’m not going to get into.
QUESTION: -- that area, how would it happen? I mean, they --
MS. NULAND: NATO works by consensus. Any NATO action has to be proposed in the council and has to be supported by all member states.
Okay.
QUESTION: India and --
QUESTION: Sorry, what’s that date on the issue of having safe havens for the refugees? Is this an issue under discussion with the Turkish Government?
MS. NULAND: Well, the Turks, as you know, have provided safe haven inside Turkey in a number of locations along the border, and they are continuing to feed and house and care for a growing number of Syrian refugees. We have all offered our support to that effort. International humanitarian organizations are supporting that effort inside Turkey.
QUESTION: India and Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So there is nothing going in Syria? Because even today and yesterday, Turkish officials have been talking about – we have seen different reports that Turkey is seriously considering these safe havens within Turkey. What is your position on this idea right now?
MS. NULAND: You’re talking about expanding the refugee centers --
QUESTION: Inside.
MS. NULAND: -- within Turkey?
QUESTION: Within Syria.
MS. NULAND: Within Syria. We’ve seen the same reports that you have, that various Turkish officials have said that they’re looking at it, studying it. I would refer you to Turkish officials.
QUESTION: But Turkish officials have not told your – briefed U.S. on this matter so far?
MS. NULAND: Our understanding is that at various levels, Turkish officials have studied or are studying this. I don’t think we would have any comment unless and until those studies were complete.
Please, Goyal.
QUESTION: It was a great diplomatic week between India and Pakistan.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: President Zardari of Pakistan, he took a mission – what he called – in Delhi and also at – religious pilgrimage, that this mission is for peace between the two countries and forget the past, whatever we have done. But a new chapter was started between the two countries’ relations. And both agree now that they will work at the highest level, including prime minister visiting Pakistan on the invitation of President Zardari.
So what is the future of this relationship goes as far as the U.S. is concerned, this quasi -- moreover, a diplomatic and religious mission for peace?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, we are very pleased that Prime Minister Singh and President Zardari had a chance to meet in New Delhi yesterday, and that Prime Minister Singh has accepted President Zardari’s invitation to visit Pakistan in the near future. As we have said for a long time, we believe that expanded and improved engagement between these neighbors are not only going to help the neighbors - they’re going to help the entire region and provide opportunities for millions of citizens in the neighborhood to live in a more secure and stable region. So we applaud the trend. We hope that India and Pakistan continue to build on this progress, and we look forward to more such meetings.
Please.
QUESTION: On Burma?
MS. NULAND: On Burma.
QUESTION: There are – several reports came out saying Derek Mitchell will be named as a next ambassador to Burma. When will you be ready to make the announcement?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we don’t make announcements about presidential personnel decisions from this podium. If there’s something to announce, I’m sure the White House will announce it.
Please.
QUESTION: The sanctions. In the days which are --
MS. NULAND: Still Burma?
QUESTION: Burma. I’m sorry.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is sanctions in the near future coming down for Burma or are you going up, lifting the sanctions?
MS. NULAND: Well, you heard the Secretary make some announcements when she saw the press after the Thaci meeting. I can review those for you again, but essentially, in addition to continuing to work to name an ambassador as soon as we can; she talked about opening the USAID office in Burma. She talked about normalizing UNDP country program opportunities for Burma, lifting travel restrictions on key Burmese officials and parliamentarians, and also beginning the process of easing some of the restrictions that we’ve had on U.S. financial services and investments into Burma. So those are the things that we are looking at. Remember that we always said action for action, so these come in the wake of the good round of parliamentary elections.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS. NULAND: Said? Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes, ma’am. Very quickly --
MS. NULAND: Let’s talk to Said and then go to --
QUESTION: -- there are groups in Iraq that are opposing the appointment of Ambassador Brett McGurk to --
MS. NULAND: We’re in Iraq? I heard Iran. Yeah.
QUESTION: In Iraq. Yes, Iraq. I’m sorry. Yeah. The new ambassador-designate to Iraq, they oppose his appointment, including Alawi and many other groups. Does that in any way influence your decision?
MS. NULAND: The President has nominated Brett McGurk to be our new ambassador, and he made a strong statement in his support, that he will greatly – that our nation will be greatly served by his talents and by his experience in Iraq, and we look forward to the Senate’s advice and consent on his appointment.
QUESTION: Okay. And follow-up. Yeah. Go ahead. Follow-up on Iraq?
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Okay. Barzani was in town, and he called Maliki the new dictator of Iraq. He says that he’s the minister of defense, the minister of interior - he’s the head of the armed forces, now he’s trying to even become the president of the Central Bank, and this is really unprecedented action. So do you feel that Maliki is the new dictator of Iraq?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the Vice President and the Secretary and Deputy Secretary Burns had a chance to meet with Mr. Barzani and have a full exchange on his views. We continue to believe that the tensions and the concerns and the disagreements between the different political groups in Iraq are best solved by dialogue among them. We want to see them get together in a national unity conversation and air their differences and work through them.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the new appointment of Mr. McGurk, who is apparently close to Mr. Maliki or has had good relations with him, would that in any way influence these negotiations?
MS. NULAND: Well, the President nominated Mr. McGurk because he thought that he would strongly represent U.S. interests --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: -- and that his experience in Iraq could be put to good use. As you know, our current ambassador plays a strong role in trying to help the various different political factions stay in contact with each other, encouraging dialogue among them, and I would expect that the same would be true of the future ambassador, assuming confirmation.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up on that, and then I want to go to Iran. But if I understand it correctly, the White House never announces a nomination until you have obtained agrement from the government in question, correct?
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: So the fact that some Iraq political figures might be complaining about his choice – yeah, I mean, from your point of view, you’ve got the government’s acceptance, and it’s just a matter for the Senate, correct?
MS. NULAND: I would have to confirm, but it is, I think, always practice that we seek agrement before we put a nomination forward.
QUESTION: Seek and obtain, right?
MS. NULAND: Seek and obtain. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. And then on Iran, so obviously you’re well aware of the decision to hold the P-5+1 meetings in Istanbul on the 14th.
MS. NULAND: Didn’t we tell you guys it was going to be Istanbul?
QUESTION: Is it only going to be on the 14th, or is it possible that it will run for more than one day?
MS. NULAND: Well, the meetings of the P-5+1 with the Iranians are going to be on the 14th. I don’t think there’s any expectation that it will run longer, but I wouldn’t want to preclude it from this podium. Obviously, we’ll see how it goes.
QUESTION: Aren’t there --
QUESTION: Like --
QUESTION: Well, just on the scheduling of this, isn’t – aren’t the P-5+1 minus Iran meeting on the 13th?
MS. NULAND: There may be a preliminary meeting of our group on the 13th. I think there probably will be. That’s usually the practice.
QUESTION: And it will, indeed, be Under Secretary Sherman who represents the United States?
MS. NULAND: It will.
QUESTION: What, if anything, can you say about The New York Times report that came out Saturday night, saying that the United States wants Iran to cease enrichment at 20 percent, turn over its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium, and close the – and immediately close the Fordo facility?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’re obviously not going to conduct our P-5+1 negotiations with Iran before the meeting or from this podium or in public, so I’m not going to get into the details of what the P-5+1 might be proposing to Iran. I’m sure that we’ll have some information for you all as those talks go forward.

What I would say is that our concerns with regard to Iran’s behavior are well-known, they’re well-documented, they’re spelled out clearly in numerous IAEA reports – IAEA reports that we’ve all signed up to. And as the Secretary said at her own press conference in Istanbul about a week ago, we don’t have any problem with peaceful civilian nuclear power by Iran. And the Iranians themselves have said, at the level of the supreme leader, that they don’t have any weapons intention. Well, if it that is, in fact, the case, then it ought to be relatively straightforward for them to demonstrate that to the international community’s satisfaction. And that’s what we’ll be talking about when we see them.
QUESTION: So everything that the Secretary said in that April 1st press conferences still stands?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Because I’m looking at the transcript of it, and it says, “The government” – this is quoting her. “That government policy” – i.e., the Iranian Government’s policy – “can be demonstrated in a number of ways: by ending enrichment – the enrichment of highly enriched uranium to 20 percent; by shipping out such highly enriched uranium out of the country; and by opening up to constant inspection and – inspections and verifications,” which is basically, I think, the Secretary saying on the record what The New York Times – what The New York Times had to source to senior officials. Isn’t, in fact – did she, in fact, say exactly that?
MS. NULAND: She, in fact, said exactly that.
QUESTION: -- on the record on April 1st --
MS. NULAND: On the record.
QUESTION: -- eight days before this great, exclusive story appeared in The New York Times?
MS. NULAND: Matt has a particular thing with New York Times reporting.
QUESTION: Well, with one in particular, I suppose. But I just – I just – I mean, so I don’t understand your response to Arshad’s question, though.
MS. NULAND: Well, I did make note of the press conference --
QUESTION: I mean, if she said this --
MS. NULAND: I didn’t have an encyclopedic --
QUESTION: She said all of this on the record.
MS. NULAND: She did.
QUESTION: More than a week ago.
MS. NULAND: She did.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. NULAND: I mean, look --
QUESTION: Well, why not come out and – why not repeat it?
MS. NULAND: I could have repeated it. I didn’t have it in front of me.
QUESTION: Oh. Okay.
MS. NULAND: But I’m glad you did. Thank you very much, Matt. You did my job for me. I appreciate it, as ever.
QUESTION: So –
MS. NULAND: Still on Iran?
QUESTION: One other one on this.
MS. NULAND: And then to Said.
QUESTION: Is it still – a couple of – actually, on this. Is it still the U.S. Government’s position that in line with multiple UN Security Council resolutions, Iran should cease all uranium enrichment pending its having satisfied the international community with the peaceful nature of its program?
MS. NULAND: Our position with regard to UN Security Council resolutions is unchanged.
QUESTION: So why then does the Secretary make reference to the – only the highly enriched uranium, the 20 percent level, and not the 3.5 percent level?
MS. NULAND: Again, the Secretary’s comments came in the context of a broad answer on Iran on the talks. I don’t think that she was looking to be exhaustive. She was looking to give a set of examples of the kinds of things that we are concerned about as an international community – all things that have been well documented as areas of concern by the IAEA.
QUESTION: But as you know, the Secretary can be exquisitely precise in her language.
MS. NULAND: She can. I think you are parsing the – you are cutting this salami too finely, looking to try to read through it.
QUESTION: I would hate – I would hate to be her spokesperson and suggest that that was a deliberate – that it was just accidental and, in fact, she meant that they should cease enrichment entirely, not just the 20 percent, and she just somehow got it wrong. I mean, I think she said 20 percent for a reason.
MS. NULAND: Arshad, again, we’re not going to have these negotiations with the Iranians from this podium. She’s given the parameters of what we’re seeking, and we’ll have to see how these negotiations go.
QUESTION: So you’re not --
MS. NULAND: Said.
QUESTION: One last one here. You’re not actually then seeking their – at least in the first instance, their suspension of uranium enrichment to 3.5 percent?
MS. NULAND: We are seeking their compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions. We are seeking to be able to verify that compliance through inspections and other means. And beyond that, I’m not going to slice the salami thin enough for you to read through. I’m sorry.
Said.
QUESTION: Toria, you always cite that – Iran’s behavior. I mean, in the old days when they cited Saddam’s behavior - he had attacked Iran, he had attacked Kuwait and occupied Kuwait and all these things. But what in Iran’s behavior that really placed it in such a rogue status where it could not do this or pursue this nuclear thing in a peaceful fashion?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, go back and read this exquisite press conference on April 1st --
QUESTION: I did.
MS. NULAND: -- where the Secretary spoke not only about our concerns vis-a-vis Iran with regard to the nuclear docket, which are about a weapons program. They are not about civilian nuclear power. But she also spoke about the export of terrorism from Iran, about Iran’s internal human rights record, and about its destabilizing behavior in the neighborhood.
QUESTION: So --
MS. NULAND: So all of these are issues of concern. These talks are about our nuclear concerns.
QUESTION: So although the – Khamenei, the supreme leader, said that we have no intention – in fact, there is a fatwa – they issued a fatwa against acquiring nuclear weapons --
MS. NULAND: And the Secretary made reference to that on April 1st, too.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Victoria --
MS. NULAND: I’m sorry. Here and then back there. Go ahead.
QUESTION: You were just saying that you don’t want to get into the conversation on the subject, on the P-5+1 talks with Iran. But actually, it seems like the conversation has already started. What the Secretary has said they have already taken as conditions, they’re saying we won’t talk with preconditions. And on the enrichment, again they’re saying we’re going to continue the 20 percent enrichment until we have enough for our research reactor. Don’t you think this is a nonstarter already?
MS. NULAND: Again, we’re going to get to Istanbul. We’re going to sit down with the Iranians. We’ll hear what they have to say. From our perspective, it’s relatively straightforward if, in fact, their program is purely peaceful, for them to be able to demonstrate it to everybody’s satisfaction.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: I have two questions. One, getting back to Pakistan, is there anything further to add --
MS. NULAND: Sorry. Let’s finish Iran, then we’ll come back to Pakistan. Okay? Arshad.
QUESTION: Iranian media quoted Iran’s nuclear chief Fereidoun Abbasi Davani as dismissing the idea of a revival of the TRR deal under which they would have received more highly enriched uranium to run that reactor. But he then goes on to say that once Iran has obtained sufficient more highly enriched uranium, it would – quote, “We will scale back production and maybe even convert it to 3.5 percent uranium.”
Is it at all hopeful to you that an Iranian official is talking about, however hedged or conditioned, the idea of at some point ceasing to enrich to the higher level?
MS. NULAND: Again, I don’t think it’s productive four days before these talks start to be reacting to Iranian comments to the press. What we want to do is have productive talks in the room that show a sustained effort to demonstrate the peaceful intent of the program. That’s what we’ll be looking for, but I’m not going to react to stray Iranian press comments.
Please. Back to Pakistan?
QUESTION: Do you have anything further to add on the Siachen tragedy? And did Pakistan – you’ve sent nine – the U.S. has sent nine experts to help in rescue efforts in Siachen. Has an effort been made to send – are more experts being sent, or has Pakistan asked for more help from the United States?
MS. NULAND: This is with regard to the avalanche --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. NULAND: -- over the weekend or early – at the end of last week. At the request of the Government of Pakistan, the USG did deploy an eight-man U.S. military alpine search-and-rescue team from Kabul to Islamabad. They arrived yesterday. The team is currently in Islamabad, has not yet deployed to the region. We’re discussing with the Pakistani military how best they might be used. But we stand by to assist, and to my knowledge, we haven’t had any additional requests from Pakistan.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up, another question, different matter. Center for Constitutional Rights based in Washington, DC says that a lawyer who represents drone victims in Pakistan isn’t being given a visa by the U.S. Embassy to come attend a conference on drones in Washington later this month. He says that he has not received any reply from the U.S. Embassy. And his name is Shahzad Akbar and he represents drone victims in Pakistan.
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to an individual visa case. I’ll send you to our Embassy in Islamabad for an update on that one.
QUESTION: This might be better directed to the Pentagon, but do you have any more details on this deployment of an eight-man search and rescue? I mean, the Pakistanis actually invited U.S. military into their country?
MS. NULAND: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: Oh, so it’s okay, then, for them to do that and tell you to – just give you the short end of the stick? I mean, how did they get there? Did they fly in on their own helicopter or plane?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know how they got in. They – this was obviously a humanitarian request, a horrible situation with the --
QUESTION: Well, it’s very nice of you to --
MS. NULAND: -- avalanche and --
QUESTION: Considering how nice they’ve been to you lately, it’s very nice of you to send your troops there.
MS. NULAND: Well, we felt it was --
QUESTION: Are you sure that they’re safe?
MS. NULAND: We felt it was important to respond to their request. As I said, they haven’t left Islamabad yet, but they’re ready to help.
QUESTION: Are they – is their presence there at all covered by the parliamentary review of relations between the two countries? Is this – are they going to make a special exception so that these guys – it’s okay for them to come in?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is that the Pakistanis asked for this specialized help, that we made them available. And we are delighted to have them help in any way they can.
Scott.
QUESTION: Nigeria?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Still on Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Still on Pakistan.
QUESTION: This is a follow-up of the avalanche tragedy, which, in a way, the deployment there is a result of the India-Pakistan conflict. And you have been very vocal in the recent past about better relations between both countries and your willingness that they should try to resolve their issues. Could you also play a role in trying to reach a diplomatic and political settlement of the Siachen conflict?
MS. NULAND: Of the Kashmir conflict?
QUESTION: Siachen.
QUESTION: The Siachen conflict.
MS. NULAND: Of the Siachen conflict. Well, we have made clear to both India and Pakistan that we are prepared to be supportive in any way that might be helpful but that primarily we see this being settled by dialogue between them.
On to Nigeria?
QUESTION: Please.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Another violent Easter in Nigeria, at least 36 dead now from that blast in Kaduna. Response – the United States has assisted in investigations into Boko Haram in the past. Are you involved in this as well?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that the United States strongly condemns yesterday’s attacks on two churches in Kaduna and Jos, Nigeria. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and the loved ones of those who were killed and injured. This violence has no place in a democracy. We support the Nigerian authorities in their efforts to bring the perpetrators of these violent acts to justice, and we stress the importance nonetheless of respecting the human rights and protecting civilians in any security operation.
To my knowledge, we have not been asked for any direct support for this investigation but obviously would be prepared to consider a request like that if it came to us.
QUESTION: Can I ask an ECOWAS question as well? On Mali, you have, in the last week, 10 days, supported the ECOWAS approach on Mali. ECOWAS has decided to lift its sanctions because it’s satisfied with the deal that was cut on Friday. Will you follow suit and resume your suspended aid?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that we commend the strong leadership of ECOWAS throughout this episode in brokering the agreement with the junta leaders and fully restoring civilian rule. As you know, President Toure has now taken the step to stand down in order to restore peace and security and democracy in Mali, and the National Assembly Speaker Traore will now head a transition government. So this is a very good step in the restoration of democracy in Mali.
We obviously want to see these steps consolidated. We will look over the coming days at whether enough progress has been made to restore our full programming, but we don’t have any decisions today.
QUESTION: So the message is the stepping down of a duly elected president following a military coup is a good thing in terms of the restoration of democracy?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the issue here arose because there were unresolved grievances between the military and the leadership of the country. These escalated to the point of the situation that we saw, which was a complete overturning of the democratic system in Mali.
Is it ideal to have to broker a deal where the president steps down and you have to have an interim president until elections? Of course, it’s not ideal. But it does mark a very important restoration of civilian rule, without which we didn’t think Mali was going to be able to move forward. And as the same time, as you know, there have been very dangerous gains in the north by not only Tuareg militants, but also AQ elements that have taken advantage of the instability.
So we wanted civilian rule reestablished so that dialogue can now commence with the Tuaregs that redresses their grievances within a unified Mali, and real effort can be made to secure the country against the AQ elements that have taken advantage.
QUESTION: The only problem is that in accepting such an outcome, does it not send a signal potentially to other militaries that if they have longstanding – or if they have any grievances with their elected government, they can just mutiny, stage a coup, oust them, and then try to work out a way to make the ouster permanent?
MS. NULAND: Well, recall that that was not the junta leaders’ first choice. The junta leaders’ first choice was to run the country themselves. So from our perspective, restoring civilian rule to Mali was absolutely paramount. There are new elections planned anyway this spring, so we were going to have a government change shortly. And if we have to have an interim head in order to get to that stage where the people of Mali can make their choice – as I said, the situation should never have arisen in the first place. That’s a message that we and ECOWAS and the AU sent, and there were strong sanctions put in place by everyone. That said, we are very pleased now to see civilian rule reestablished so that we can get to the elections that the people of Mali deserve.
QUESTION: And then just to go back to Scott’s question, because maybe you answered it and I didn’t hear it. But have you guys made a decision about restoring your suspended assistance?
MS. NULAND: We have not. We want to see this restoration of civilian rule consolidated. So I don’t have anything to announce today, but we’ll look at it on a day-by-day basis.
QUESTION: So – but just on that, because it’s, I think, an important point, leaving aside the inconsistency over whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing, I think it’s a good point that you made that all they had to do was to wait for this election anyway. There never had to be a mutiny. Did you – when you suspended the aid, knowing that it took you so long to do it or to figure out how much was suspended, did you actually come to the determination that a coup had taken place, that there had been an undemocratic change in a – or an unconstitutional change to a democratically elected government?
MS. NULAND: Well, in terms of our congressional notification of suspension, we didn’t actually invoke the “c” word --
QUESTION: You did not?
MS. NULAND: -- because it was such a fluid situation --
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: -- which we were hoping was on its way to reversal.
QUESTION: Does that then mean that – normally, when that does happen, there has to be an actual election and an elected government come to power before the aid can be restored. In this case, does it mean that simply you can turn the switch back on as soon as there’s – you’re satisfied that there’s a civilian leadership without an election?
MS. NULAND: We can turn the switch back on when we are satisfied that civilian rule has been reestablished.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes, the Palestinian issue.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Wednesday, you’re set to meet on the periphery of the G-8 – the Quartet is set to meet. But also on the same day, Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad is set to meet with Netanyahu and give him a letter. Basically, the Palestinians are saying that unless you respond positively, we’re going to go back to the UN. So do you have a comment on all this?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you said, we do have Quartet envoys meeting – we have Quartet ministers meeting at Secretary Clinton’s level on Wednesday morning, so I don’t want to get ahead of the events of Wednesday. I think we’ll take it one step at a time, Said.
QUESTION: Are they likely to discuss the topics that are allegedly in the letter that Abbas is sending to Prime Minister Netanyahu?
MS. NULAND: I think you won’t be surprised if they discuss where we are in the proposal that they made in September, where we are in supporting the Palestinian authorities and maintaining stability, maintaining good quality of life for the Palestinian people. They’ll be talking about the full range of issues, I would guess.
QUESTION: I’ve got two very brief --
MS. NULAND: Two. Please.
QUESTION: -- Gulf questions. One on Bahrain. I understand the Administration has taken some interest in the case of this Norwegian Bahraini dual-national.
MS. NULAND: Danish. Yeah.
QUESTION: Danish. Sorry. Danish dual-national who’s on a hunger strike.
MS. NULAND: We are very concerned about the case of Mr. al-Khawaja particularly with regard to his health. We are in touch with the Bahrainis and with our international partners, and we are urging a humanitarian solution.
QUESTION: Do you know how – when you say we’re in touch, do you know who has been in touch with who?
MS. NULAND: Jeff Feltman’s been in touch – Assistant Secretary Feltman. We’ve been in touch at the embassy level, and more contacts are planned.
QUESTION: And what about – on this. What about his daughter, who was reported to – last week was reported to have been arrested? I think the interior ministry, if I’m not mistaken, said that she had – I think an interior ministry source was quoted as saying she had assaulted someone. Do you have any views on her case?
MS. NULAND: We’re also seeking more clarity on her case.
QUESTION: Did you say that someone from the Embassy has been to see Mr. al-Khawaja?
MS. NULAND: No, we’ve been in contact with Bahraini authorities about the case.
QUESTION: But no one has visited and then saw how bad--
MS. NULAND: To my mind – knowledge, no. He’s not an American citizen.
QUESTION: And the other one is on the Emirates and the case – this NDI situation. Is that completely resolved now, as far as you know?
MS. NULAND: In terms of the American who was involved --
QUESTION: Not in terms of the American, because I believe she left the country.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. In terms of the Serb national who worked for NDI, to my knowledge, that is not completely resolved.
QUESTION: And are there contacts going on on that?
MS. NULAND: There are. There was.
QUESTION: And do you know when the last one was?
MS. NULAND: I don’t. I don’t.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: All right, thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.

AFGHAN FORCES TO TAKE LEAD IN ALL SPECIAL OPERATIONS

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

U.S.-Afghan Pact Shows Relationship's Evolution, Official Says

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 9, 2012 - A special operations agreement U.S. and Afghan officials signed yesterday is part of the "natural evolution" as Afghans take on more security responsibility in Afghanistan, a senior Pentagon official said today.

A memorandum of understanding that will lead to Afghan forces taking the lead on all special operations missions in Afghanistan is a step forward and marks progress in the transition of security responsibility to Afghan security forces, George Little, acting assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, told reporters.

Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan, and Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak signed the memorandum in the Afghan capital of Kabul. While the agreement does cover night raids, Little said, it reaches beyond that aspect to all special operations activities in the country.

The agreement "codifies what has been happening for some time -- that is Afghan-led operations," Little said. The night raids have been an effective tool for U.S. and Afghan special operations forces, he added, and the vast majority of the raids are planned and led by Afghans. Afghans are responsible for entering private residences.

Special operations have been highly effective in the past, and today most of such operations conducted in Afghanistan are Afghan-led, Little said.

"Our expectation is that they will continue, and we will work closely to coordinate with the Afghans now that they are in the lead," he said. "We have every expectation that we will continue to pursue [these operations]."

The agreement specifies that special operations will be approved by the Afghan Operational Coordination Group. The operations will be conducted by Afghan forces "with support from U.S. forces in accordance with Afghan laws."

The Afghan coordination group will review and approve all special operations missions. The group will participate in intelligence fusion, monitor mission execution and make notifications to provincial governors. The Afghan security forces will establish regional operational coordination groups.

A bilateral committee co-chaired by Wardak and Allen will ensure coordination between Afghan and U.S. forces.

"The United States is prepared to engage in the full range of support activities for Afghan-led special operations missions," Little said. The support includes providing intelligence, air support, medical evacuation support, security and other means of support.

Even before the agreement, officials said, more than 97 percent of night operations are combined operations involving both coalition and Afghan forces.

Almost 40 percent of night operations are now Afghan-led. About 90 percent of these operations occur without a shot being fired, and less than 1 percent result in civilian casualties.
 

BRIEF HISTORY OF ARMS CONTROL SINCE THE COLD WAR

FROM:  U.S STATE DEPARMENT
History of the CTBT
Fact Sheet
Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
April 9, 2012
Key Point: The effort to end nuclear explosive testing has spanned five decades with efforts culminating in theComprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was opened for signature in 1996.

The first nuclear explosive test was conducted by the United States on July 16, 1945. The Soviet Union followed with its first nuclear test on August 29, 1949. By the mid-1950s, the United States and the Soviet Union were both conducting high-yield thermonuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere. The radioactive fallout from those tests drew criticism from around the globe. The international community’s concern about the effects on health and the environment continued to grow. In 1954, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proposed a ban on all nuclear testing. The increasing public concern over explosive tests led to the negotiation and entry into force of the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty(LTBT). This Treaty banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, outer space, and under water, but underground tests were still permitted.

When the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was being negotiated in 1968, a comprehensive test ban was discussed, but the international community failed to reach agreement on the issue. Advocates for a ban on explosive testing persisted.
In 1974, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Treaty on the Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests, also known as the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT). It established a nuclear "threshold" by prohibiting the United States and the Soviet Union from conducting tests that would produce a yield exceeding 150 kilotons (equivalent to 150,000 tons of TNT). The mutual restraint imposed by the Treaty reduced the explosive force of new nuclear warheads and bombs, which could otherwise be tested for weapons systems. The TTBT was not intended as a substitute for a comprehensive test ban. Article I of the Treaty states that, “the Parties shall continue their negotiations with a view toward achieving a solution to the problem of the cessation of all underground nuclear weapon tests.”

In 1976, scientists from different countries formed the Group of Scientific Experts (GSE) and began conducting joint research into monitoring technologies and data analysis methods for the verification of a comprehensive test ban.

Almost two decades later, the Cold War ended, bringing with it increased possibilities for progress on disarmament and self-imposed testing moratoriums from the United States and the former Soviet Union. Capitalizing on this momentum, the United Nations’ disarmament body, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, began formal negotiations on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1994. Capitalizing on the GSE’s research, the CD was able to reach consensus on the verification regime. Other parts of the negotiations proved more difficult, but members of the CD were able to find common ground and move forward. Australia submitted the Treaty to the U.N. General Assembly, where it was adopted on September 10, 1996 and opened for signature on September 24, 1996.

Since then, 183 nations have signed the Treaty, and 156 have ratified it. Of the 44 nations whose ratifications are specifically required by the Treaty for it to enter into force, 41 have signed and 36 have ratified.

U.S. AND BRAZIL HAVE EXPANDED COLLABORATION ON OUTER SPACE

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The United States and Brazil: Space Cooperation
Fact Sheet
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
April 9, 2012
Since Presidents Obama and Rousseff met in March 2010, the United States and Brazil have expanded our collaboration on outer space. Our two countries recognize that we stand to gain from cooperation given our extensive research and development (R&D) capacities, our long history of cooperation in civil remote sensing, space exploration, and other space activities, and the opportunity to strengthen the long-term sustainability of the space environment for future generations. By working bilaterally and multilaterally on using outer space for civilian purposes, mitigating space congestion, and increasing our knowledge base via research and development, the United States and Brazil will continue to enjoy a strong and collaborative partnership.

To highlight our progress in collaboration in outer space activities and to discuss additional opportunities for cooperation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Administrator Charles Bolden traveled to Brazil in October 2011. Capping the visit, Administrator Bolden spoke about the importance of science education with a live student audience and the simulcast participation of nearly 3,000 viewers around Brazil. In September 2011, the Brazilian government declared the Apollo 14 “moon tree” – which grew from one of a few seeds exposed to zero gravity during the 1971 Apollo 14 mission and was donated to Brazil by the United States in 1980 – a protected entity that may not be cut down. The tree is planted at the Institute for Environment and Natural Renewable Resources (IBAMA) headquarters.

The United States and Brazil cooperate on space activities through research and development agencies as well as their respective space agencies. On March 12-13, 2012, during the U.S.-Brazil Joint Commission Meeting on Science and Technology, the President’s Advisor for Science and Technology and senior officials from the U.S. Geological Survey oversaw a discussion on Earth Observation for Natural Hazard Prevention. Brazil plays a key role in disseminating National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) meteorological satellite data to users in South America, and is an active advocate with the United States in promoting data democracy, a global effort to make data available to all users in a standard, easy-to-implement format that does not presuppose prior experience or substantial resources.

Implementing Arrangement for Cooperation between NASA and the Agencia Espacial Brasileira (AEB) in the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission (GPM)
During the NASA Administrator’s visit to Brazil in October 2011, NASA and AEB signed an Implementing Arrangement that will allow for a scientific and engineering feasibility study for potential cooperation in GPM-related scientific research, ground validation of GPM satellite data, and other related activities. The GPM mission is a multi-satellite constellation project being jointly developed by NASA and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). The data acquired by the GPM mission will be beneficial for monitoring and predicting climatological and meteorological changes, and for improving the accuracy of weather and precipitation forecasts. The GPM mission will provide sufficient measurement sampling to acquire high-quality rainfall accumulation products needed by many disciplines, including hydrology, meteorology, oceanography and climate model validation.

Implementing Arrangement for Cooperation between NASA and AEB on Ozone Study Cooperation
During the Administrator’s visit to Brazil in October 2011, NASA and AEB signed an agreement to enable cooperation on an ozone study. The objective of the project is to study the concentrations of various atmospheric constituents in order to contribute to the understanding of the Earth’s ozone layer, its generation, and its depletion, and to help to calibrate and verify satellite remote sensors. The program would supplement measurements being made from Wallops Island, Virginia, and other sites, for coverage of high Earth latitudes.

Participation in Earth Observation Coordination and Bilateral Cooperation
The United States and Brazil participate jointly in several Earth-observation international coordination groups, such as the Group on Earth Observation (GEO), the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS), and the International Charter, Space and Major Disasters. GEO is creating the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), which will link observing systems around the world. GeoNetCast Americas is the Western Hemisphere’s contribution to this global initiative. This system can help the international community protect itself against damages from natural and man-made disasters, respond to climate change, and improve weather forecasts. NOAA and Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE), who currently operates two GeoNetCast stations are working together to expand the program in the Western Hemisphere. NOAA, NASA, USGS, and other U.S. government agencies work closely with AEB and INPE on Earth observation and space research. These initiatives foster collaboration among space agencies to produce and share scientific data that are critical to climate change prediction, environmental monitoring, and management of crises arising from major natural or technological disasters.

U.S. – Brazil Space Security Dialogue
The United States and Brazil held their first bilateral Space Security Dialogue in Brasilia on April 5, 2012. This Dialogue affirms both nations’ commitment to collaboration in working toward a more long-term sustainable, stable, safe, and secure space environment. The Space Security Dialogue is an opportunity to build upon our successful civil space cooperation by discussing opportunities to collaborate on space security initiatives and capabilities.

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON SAYS BRAZIL AND U.S. HAVE "SPECIAL OBLIGATION TO STAND FOR OUR VALUES"

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks to the U.S.-Brazil Partnership for the 21st Century
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Washington, DC
April 9, 2012
Good morning. It’s wonderful to be here to celebrate the strong ties between Brazil and the United States, and to talk, starting this morning and going through the day, about how we can strengthen and deepen those ties.

I want to thank Tom Donohue and the extraordinary staff of the chamber for the work that you do every day, and in particular, for your commitment to this relationship. You know, as does our government, that it is one of the most consequential relationships for the 21st century. And I want to welcome my friend and colleague, the foreign minister of Brazil. It’s a great pleasure to work with Antonio on a broad range of issues, but none more important than our commitment to seeking out new, creative, enduring ways to really bind the peoples of our two countries together.

I am delighted that we also have this visit of President Rousseff here today, because when I think about the extraordinary leadership she is providing to Brazil, it makes eminent sense that she would be leading the way for Brazil and the United States’ relationship, along with President Obama, to find those lasting ties and illustrate in a very public, visible way how important they are.

Everyone knows we are the two largest and most diverse democracies, the two largest economies, in our hemisphere. But what may not be known is that the United States and Brazil, because we are democracies, have a special obligation to stand for our values. It is, of course, important that we promote our economic ties, that we try in every way possible to raise the standard of living of our two peoples, but we do so within a strong framework of commitment to democratic values. And we increasingly have a responsibility to work together on behalf of those values. The policies we embrace and the investments that we make will shape our shared future, and we are developing strong habits of partnership and cooperation. And that is not, as you know so well, a job solely for governments. In fact, it is actually more the job for the private sectors, our universities, our civil societies, our citizens. And therefore, we need to draw on all sources of our respective national strengths to build this partnership for the future. And I look out at this audience, and I see many Americans whom I know well who are deeply committed to doing just that.

Now, the fact that this meeting is here at the chamber points to the importance of our economic ties. We see in Brazil an inspiring success story: a dynamic economy that has lifted millions of people into the middle class; a country that is helping to fuel the global economy; that produces everything from commodities, of course, but also aerospace technologies, whose goods and services are facing increasing demand across the globe.

And as the United States works to increase our own competitiveness, create jobs here in our country, we look to our neighbors. The proximity that we have here in the Western Hemisphere to some of the fastest growing economies and some of the most vibrant democracies is a great strength for us all. And we seek to be a partner, an equal partner, to promote sustainable, diversified, innovation-driven growth that translates into inclusive, long-lasting progress. We want, together, Brazil and the United States, to work toward creating economic opportunity, a system in which everyone has a fair chance to compete.

Now, as I look at what we’ve already committed to doing together, we see those ties in action. The Brazilian company that buys materials and components from the U.S. and the American company that opens a factory in Brazil, many businesses have already discovered how much we have to offer each other. And as our economic relationship continues maturing, investment will increase in both directions, trade will grow and diversify, more businesses from both Brazil and the United States will find markets in the other country. I know this is a priority for both of our presidents, and I particularly applaud President Rousseff’s commitment, her historic pledge to end extreme poverty in her country.

Now, later today, the foreign minister and I will sign the U.S.-Brazil Aviation Partnership Memorandum, which builds on our Open Skies Agreement and will promote more and safer air travel between our countries. We think that’s a win-win. It will promote not only our aviation industries and business travel, but also more tourism and exchanges.

And the United States will be opening two new consulates in Brazil. Some of you know that we’ve been working very hard at the State Department to meet the demand in two countries – Brazil and China – that has far exceeded our capacity up until now. And we’ve made a lot of progress, and the opening of these two consulates – one in Belo Horizonte and one in Porto Alegre – keeps up with our expanding relationship. We’re trying to make it easier to get those visas, easier to travel, knock down some of the barriers that have been put up, and continue to promote people-to-people contact.

But we know that the progress we wish to make is not going to be measured alone by flight traffic or trade or investment figures, or even by visas. We have to have more cooperation and partnership between and among our universities, our science and tech sectors, our civil societies. Now, Brazil knows how important it is for a nation to invest in its people, and starting in the ‘90s, when I was privileged to travel to Brazil, I have followed with great interest the innovative social programs serving Brazil’s children. This tradition of innovation of conditional cash transfers and other investments in the human beings of Brazil is paying off. You can see the results. It’s not only fueled the rapid expansion of Brazil’s middle class, but it has demonstrated that an economy growing is not an end in itself; it is a means to improving the lives of the people of a country, and Brazil is a model for that.

So now we want to do more to innovate together, and our two presidents have launched path-breaking initiatives. President Rousseff’s Science without Borders program will send 100,000 Brazilian students to the world’s top universities to study science, technology, energy, and math – engineering and math, the stem subjects. And we’ve already welcomed 700 of those Brazilian students to the United States. We expect thousands more in the next few years. And the State Department is working with our extensive contacts in our higher education community to pave the way. We know that the students who are here today are studying at universities in 42 states, and many of their educational programs are supported by the private sectors from both of our countries. This program is an excellent complement to President Obama’s educational initiative, which is called 100,000 Strong in the Americas. Our goal is to increase the numbers of Latin American and Caribbean students in the United States to 100,000 each year, and we want to send 100,000 American students to the region over the next 10 years as well.

I personally believe that having more interaction between our young people, going north to south, east to west within our hemisphere is one of the keys to that shared future. Educational exchange programs like these will help us prepare the workforce to give our students the skills, experiences, and relationships that a global economy requires.

Consider the Brazilian company Tecsis, which makes the blades used in wind turbines. It happens to be one of the largest blade manufacturers in the world, founded by three Brazilian engineers. Now, all of them attended ITA, a top Brazilian technical institute that was created with strong support from MIT, and one of the company founders also studied at Harvard. And I’m delighted that President Roussef will be going to both MIT and Harvard tomorrow.

Well today, Tecsis is a leader in the U.S. market. It exports more than half its blades to the United States. Eighty percent of the raw material it uses to make the blades actually comes from the United States. One of its top customers is GE. And a partnership between the two companies has helped GE become a top wind energy equipment provider in the United States.

So in addition to employing more than 5,000 people in Brazil, Tecsis has created a subsidiary company in Houston which employs more than 150 workers to repair and maintain the blades used in the United States. This kind of partnership – call it cross-pollination, if you will – is increasingly achievable, and we want to see more of this.

The foreign minister and I were talking earlier before we came in that our values, our common commitment to democracy, to human rights, to freedom, to the full potential of every individual, is such an advantage in the world today. And there is tremendous untapped potential in both of our countries. We’ve only begun to explore how we can work and prosper together.

So I urge all of you here for today’s conference to identify concrete ways for collaboration in business and education, energy, and any other critical field. And the foreign minister and I will do the same here in Washington and then when I travel to Brazil next week, where we will convene the next meeting of the U.S.-Brazil Global Partnership Dialogue.

Now, when we look at the rise of powers around the world, the story of Brazil stands out. Yes, it is becoming one of the largest economies in the world; it’s already one of the largest democracies. It increasingly has an impact on global stability and security. We face complex challenges in our region and beyond, and Brazil is a responsible actor. Our countries have to be partners. We want to be. But even in today’s world, that want is matched by need. Because whether we’re taking advantage of shared opportunities or facing shared threats, we have to do all we can to work effectively together.
And I am confident that this relationship will serve to stabilize our hemisphere, our economies, but even reach far beyond. Because what we want to see is the progress in Brazil that has been so laudable over the last several decades continue and grow from strength to strength. And we want to see the United States, with our great, diverse, pluralistic population, being the kind of model inspiration that we have historically been over our own history.

As today’s conference makes clear, the work between the two countries is well underway. And I want to commit this government and our country to the peace, prosperity, and progress that will, I am sure, ensue because we will build an even stronger relationship for years to come.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT PROVIDES $13 MILLION GRANT TO PROVIDE LAW SCHOOL EDUCATION FOR AFGHANS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The United States Government Provides Grant to University of Washington Law School for Legal Educators Support Program for Afghanistan
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 9, 2012
The State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) announced a $13 million grant to the University of Washington (UW) Law School’s Asian Law Center to continue an innovative legal education program for Afghanistan. The Legal Educators Support Program - Afghanistan (LESPA), administered through the University of Washington Law School, provides graduate education opportunities to Afghan law deans, professors, and other professionals who will return to Afghanistan to continue as legal educators in universities. This grant will fund the University of Washington program for an additional five years.

The University of Washington grant was originally awarded in late 2004, and allows participant Afghan legal educators to gain advanced LLM degrees at the University of Washington Law School. The program also exposes participants to the American system of higher legal education and offers support for professors interested in increasing pedagogy and research skills. Legal educators from most university law schools in Afghanistan have participated in the program, including the Shari’a and Law & Political Science faculties of Albironi, Balkh, Herat, Kabul, Kandahar, Khost, Kunduz, Nangahar, and Takhar Universities. Participant study takes place both in Afghanistan and at the University of Washington in Seattle. Since the program began, 229 Afghan legal educators, deans and students have participated in the project, including 36 women. Fifteen educators have completed their advanced LL.M degrees in Seattle since the program’s inception.

The program focuses on building strong relationships among legal educators. Upon return to Afghanistan, graduates of the program actively collaborate with each other to teach and lead the next generation of Afghan law students. Graduates of the program have set up the first law school-affiliated legal clinics in Afghanistan. LESPA alumni are at the forefront of scholarly and pedagogical reform in Afghanistan, and new program recruits cite the stellar reputation of the UW graduate network as a key element in their desire to participate in the program.

VETERANS AFFAIRS AND OCCUPATIONAL THRAPY

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Occupational Therapy: Helping Vets Live an Independent Life
“He Taught Us All A Lesson.”
Occupational therapy (OT) is a discipline that aims to promote health by enabling people to perform meaningful and purposeful activities.

As the largest health care system in the nation, VA is the single largest employer of occupational therapists. According to Eric Lipton of the VA Palo Alto Health Care System, the primary goal of VA’s occupational therapists is to help Veterans optimize their functional performance in areas that are meaningful to their lives.
Lipton is currently Occupational Therapy Supervisor for the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. Prior to becoming supervisor, he primarily worked with Veterans in Community Living Centers (CLC).

Occupational Therapists use a holistic approach and address activities of daily living, such as dressing, bathing and grooming, as well as more advanced activities such as cooking, shopping, driving, parenting, and returning to work.

Occupational Therapists use a holistic approach and address activities of daily living, such as dressing, bathing and grooming, as well as more advanced activities such as cooking, shopping, driving, parenting, and returning to work.

They are skilled at assessing performance, analyzing the components of tasks, and helping to improve performance through adapting the way a person is performing the task, the use of equipment, or by adapting the environment.
“I can’t believe I get paid to do this.”

Help for Vets of All Ages
VA occupational therapists work with individuals who suffer from a mentally, physically, developmentally or emotionally disabling condition by utilizing treatments that develop, recover, or maintain clients’ activities of daily living.
VA works with thousands of Veterans of all ages.
The therapist helps clients not only to improve their basic motor functions and reasoning abilities, but also to compensate for permanent loss of function.
Mr. Lipton describes an example of just one of his patients:
“One Veteran had Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (commonly called Lou Gehrig’s disease).
“I needed to address different areas as his disease progressed. The initial focus was on retraining for activities of daily living, and eventually became how to maximize his comfort as he was dying. The Veteran went from utilizing a walker to a scooter, and eventually to a highly adapted power wheelchair.

“When it got to the point that he could only move his head, OT treatment shifted to maintaining his ability to safely operate his power wheelchair independently, keeping him well positioned, emphasizing wound prevention, preventing his body from becoming contracted, and pain management.

“I will never forget his spirit as he participated in life until the end. The image I remember most is seeing him with a big smile, dancing by just moving his head to the beat. He taught us all a lesson how to live life to the fullest, and I feel OT helped to facilitate that.”
Dedicated to his profession, Lipton explains his commitment to helping Vets overcome some of the hurdles life has given them.

“I have had the great honor to work with Veterans who represent a very large span of American history, including Veterans from World War I all the way to the current Global War on Terror. They have made huge sacrifices that often have long-term consequences to their health.
“That’s why the VA Health Care System is so important. We really understand the specialized needs of our Veterans.”

Wide Variety of Occupational Therapy Treatments
The focus of occupational therapy treatment in a VA Community Living Center (CLC) varies greatly, depending on the needs of the Veteran being served. Occupational Therapists in this setting may work with a patient following a stroke to be able to safely and independently dress, bathe, and cook so they can return home.
Another Veteran may have a spinal cord injury and live at the CLC. Their occupational therapy treatment may be focused on the operation of a power wheelchair, preventing pressure ulcers, and maintaining strength and range of motion. Or a Veteran may have Alzheimer’s disease and the focus may be to keep the Veteran safe and as functional as possible by adapting the environment or through staff or caregiver training.
Lipton feels “lucky” to be working with Vets.

“My favorite work setting was working on a unit that specialized in gero-psychiatry (treating mental illness in the elderly). I felt lucky to be working there. It was a great opportunity to work with Veterans who still want to contribute to the world.
“I led therapeutic groups and the patients were fully engaged in the activities. It was energizing for both the patients and staff. I consistently walked away thinking, ‘I love working here. I can’t believe I get paid to do this.’
“I would love to see the profession of occupational therapy, the VA Health Care System, and health care in general, focus more on preventive health and wellness. We can dramatically impact quality of life by teaching people how to engage in healthier lifestyle habits. Occupational Therapists are well suited to doing this, as we take a holistic approach when working with people.”

April is Occupational Therapy Month, a perfect time to reflect on the work VA does to help Veterans live a full and productive life.

THREE SIBLINGS DEPLOYED TO AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Army Warrant Officer Weldon Malbrough Jr. shows a family photo with younger brother, Philip, and twins, Jessica and Jordan. Like Weldon, the twins both enlisted and are also deployed in Afghanistan. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Mike McLeod

Face of Defense: Family Sends 3 Soldiers to Afghanistan
By Army Sgt. Mike McLeod
1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division
GHAZNI PROVINCE, Afghanistan, April 9, 2012 - As Army Warrant Officer Weldon Malbrough Jr. goes about his business on this dust-choked, dirt-basket-rimmed base here, he is one of many -- a paratrooper among paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division's "Devils in Baggy Pants" 1st Brigade Combat Team.

The 30-year-old force-protection staff officer also is one of three Malbroughs now deployed to Afghanistan. Jordan and Jessica, the family twins, followed Weldon into the Army, and with the pace of deployments in recent years, it was only a matter of time until their deployments overlapped.

It's not the first time their mother, Windy, has worried about more than one child in a war zone. Army Staff Sgt. Jordan Malbrough enlisted in 2005 and joined Weldon in Baghdad as part of the surge in 2007. Jordan now serves as an artillery radar operator with the 25th Infantry Division's 4th Brigade at Forward Operating Base Apache in Afghanistan's Khost province.

In recent years, the idea of families sending multiple children to the front lines has become part of the national consciousness thanks in large part to the movie, "Saving Private Ryan," in which three brothers are killed during World War II, and the last surviving brother is caught up in the Normandy invasion.
Windy has seen the movie, but it's one she has never internalized, with three of her four children deployed to Afghanistan.

"It's something they chose to do," she said. "To keep peace with my mind, I try to think happy thoughts." She still lives in metropolitan New Orleans, where she raised her children. Another son, Philip, works on an offshore oil rig.
"There is no worry-free time for mom," Windy said. "My kids are my heroes."
"She is such a strong woman," Jessica said.

Jordan enlisted at 17, and Jessica earned a college degree before enlisting. She was interested in an Army program to become a physician assistant or nurse, but that required three years of service. While her brothers pushed her hard to "drop a packet" and become an officer, she chose to enlist as a combat medic.

"I didn't want to push papers for three years," Jessica said.

Sgt. Jessica Malbrough deployed for the first time with the 4th Infantry Division's 4th Brigade to Kandahar, Afghanistan, a year ago. She has worked in the orderly room, provided cultural support on missions to capture insurgent leaders, and called in medevac helicopters to evacuate wounded soldiers.

"In the Army, you meet people and gain experiences that you just can't get anywhere else," she said.

The Malbroughs are a tight-knit family. Both sets of grandparents live within a few blocks. Being away from home for so long is difficult, Jessica said. It helps, she added, that she can call the man she looks up to the most, Weldon, or her best friend, Jordan. They relate to her Army service, and they're even in the same time zone -- a big deal when one is on the other side of the world from home, she said.

Back home, Windy uses her kids as a conversation piece with patrons of the accounting office that she manages. Most of the time, she feels like she is serving alongside her children, she said.
"People just say, 'Wow.' They don't understand how three siblings can be there at the same time," she said. "They all have great love for their country."

Weldon said people sometimes note that as the eldest of the three, he probably feels responsible for his siblings' well-being.

"We all enlisted during a time of war," Weldon said. "We all knew we were going to deploy. It was only a matter of time until they overlapped. I appreciate people's sentiments, but we all took an oath to do what we are doing."

WHITE HOUSE PASSOVER SEDER DINNER 2012

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama host a Passover Seder Dinner for family, staff and friends, in the Old Family Dining Room of the White House, April 6, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

YOUNG VET UNEMPLOYMENT TRENDING DOWNWARD

FROM:  VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
10.3 Percent Unemployment Among Younger Vets; Trend Still Downward
April 6, 2012 by Brandon Friedman
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released Veteran unemployment data for the month of March. The unemployment rate for one closely watched group, Iraq and Afghanistan-era Veterans (or Gulf War II-era Veterans), was 10.3 percent. While this reflects a higher number than in February, the trend over the past 27 months—since January 2010—remains downward for America’s most recent Veterans.

Tracking Veteran unemployment is notoriously difficult, and we often see significant swings from one month to the next—which is why looking at the long-term trend is critically important. While we’re heartened that the unemployment rate among younger Veterans has fallen over the long term, it is still too high as long as thousands of returning Veterans still can’t find meaningful work.

If anything, today’s figure reminds us that there’s still much work to be done. VA, in conjunction with the White House and our private sector partners, remains committed to ensuring that the unemployment rate for all Veterans continues its downward path.

FROM:  NATIONAL WILDLIFE HEALTH CENTER
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
URL: http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov
Amphibian Malformations and Declines
Amphibians around the world are suffering from deformities, diseases and population declines. USGS National Wildlife Health Center personnel have examined over 100 different species of amphibians from national wildlife refuges, national parks, and private lands across the country to help identify the causes of these problems and suggest effective solutions.

Frog malformations are the result of environmental factors affecting development during early tadpole stages. USGS studies have shown that the range, complexity, and recurring patterns found in hind limb malformations in frogs at several different locations suggest that both site-specific and time-dependent influences contribute to the development of these malformations. The variations in malformation type between sites suggest multiple causes are involved in this worldwide problem; four major causes have been identified to date, including injuries from predators, a specific minute parasite (fluke), nutritional deficiencies, and contaminants.

Both well-known (established) diseases and newly discovered pathogens can affect amphibian populations. An alarming number of amphibian deaths at numerous sites were found to be caused by iridoviruses. In the western United States, the endangered Wyoming toad and the boreal toad have been found to be afflicted with a recently identified infection, a chytrid fungus. A newly identified pathogen, to be named Anuraperkinsus emelandra, was identified as the cause of large-scale tadpole mortalities in ten states; this new disease agent is now threatening the last known breeding population of the endangered Mississippi gopher frog.

Every year, hundreds of eggs as well as larval and adult salamanders, frogs and toads from all over the country are submitted for health screening to the USGS National Wildlife Health Center. This nationwide health monitoring - part of the Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative - has lead to the discovery of new diseases and the development of new molecular techniques to more rapidly identify diseases, giving researchers a better idea of how to contain and manage declining amphibian populations.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON SALUTES INTERNATIONAL ROMA DAY

International Roma Day
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
April 8, 2012
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I want to send best wishes to all Roma as they mark International Roma Day. Today we celebrate the history, impact and culture of Romani people. From music and art to science and literature, Romani people have contributed in ways large and small to the fabric of countless societies.

But too often and in too many places, they are forced to live on the margins. They are segregated, beaten, and systematically discriminated against. They are denied access to an education and to jobs. Despite a decade of progress, during this global economic downturn incidents of anti-Roma rhetoric and violence are on the rise.

Romani people are on the frontlines of the struggle for greater human rights and dignity. That is why the United States is working to protect Roma minorities and end discrimination. We are helping improve opportunities for Roma to participate in the political, social, economic, and cultural lives of their communities. Roma everywhere deserve the opportunity to have a better and brighter future. As I said in Bulgaria at a meeting with young Roma professionals, the United States is committed to working with civil society groups and governments to make a real difference in the lives of Roma.

We believe governments have a special responsibility to ensure that members of the Roma community – and all minority communities – have the tools to succeed as productive members of society. So let us continue to forge new partnerships, discover new areas of understanding and respect, and redouble our efforts to address the plight of Roma on behalf of a freer, fairer and more inclusive Europe.

WILDFIRE AWARENESS WEEK APRIL 9-13

FROM FEMA
Wildfire Awareness Week Reminds Texans to Get Prepared
AUSTIN, Texas -- Any time is a good time to safeguard your home and family against wildfires, but Texas’ April 9-13 Wildfire Awareness Week offers the perfect opportunity. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of Texas suggest Texans use the week to learn their wildfire risk and get prepared.

“Wildfire Awareness Week is an opportune time to plan for wildfire season, especially with the continuing risk due to the state’s drought conditions,” said Texas Division of Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd. “Educating yourself about the wildfire threat and taking steps to protect yourselves and your property could help prevent the kind of destruction Texas experienced last year.”

“Whether you own your home or rent, it’s important to have a plan in place to protect your personal property, family and pets from the devastation of a wildfire,” said Kevin Hannes, FEMA’s federal coordinating officer for the 2011 Texas wildfire recovery missions. “Make a plan, build a disaster supply kit and stay informed. Those are the three key components to staying safe under any hazardous conditions.”

Those living in historically high-risk areas for wildfires or in the Wildland Urban Interface, an area where homes or other structures meet and mix with undeveloped, natural landscapes, should be particularly aware of their surroundings and make preparedness a top priority, said Hannes. It’s also good idea review your homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy before a fire breaks out, he added.

FEMA and TDEM suggest taking proactive, preventative measures to protect a home against wildfire destruction, such as creating defensible space and hardening the home.
Defensible Space:
Create a fire-safe landscape zone ranging from 30 to 100 feet around the home.
Plant only fire-resistant shrubs and trees. For example, hardwood trees are less flammable than pine, evergreen, eucalyptus or fir trees. Carefully space tree plantings to avoid creating pockets of fuel.
Create “fuel breaks,” such as driveways and gravel walkways.
Remove ground fuels like grass, leaves, pine needles, dead limbs and twigs within 30 feet of the home. Clear all flammable vegetation and other materials. Remove branches that extend over the roof or power lines. Mow grass regularly.
Trim all dead branches from trees in the yard and prune low hanging limbs to prevent fire from climbing to the crowns of the trees.
Harden the Home:
Use fire-resistant roofing material, such as ceramic or slate tile, or standing-seam metal roofing.
Protect the home’s eaves with stucco or plaster to prevent flying embers from starting a fire. Consider designing the home without overhangs or use fire-resistant soffits to protect it from embers and hot gases.
Ensure that exterior wall coverings are fire-resistant and not susceptible to melting. Concrete, fiber-cement panels or siding, stucco, masonry and metal are some recommended materials.
Use metal mesh screens to keep fast-flying embers out of vents and chimneys. Vents should also be made of metal.

FEMA’s resource, the “Home Builder’s Guide to Construction in Wildfire Zones,” www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3646, provides excellent information about wildfire behavior and recommendations for building design and construction methods in areas prone to wildfires. Additional information on preparing homes and families from wildfire threats is at www.wildlandfirersg.org/index.cfm.
Texans can follow FEMA tweets about wildfire recovery at www.twitter.com/femaregion6. Other online resources are blog.fema.gov,www.facebook.com/fema and www.youtube.com/fema.
FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.

WHITE HOUSE BREAKS DOWN HEALTH CARE LAW AND YOUNG ADULTS

FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
Breaking it Down: The Health Law and Young Adults
Chris Stenrud
March 21, 2012
Ed note: This was originally posted on healthcare.gov
The Affordable Care Act – the new health care law – gives hard-working families the security they need and important new benefits. The law holds insurance companies accountable, gets rid of the worst insurance industry practices and puts patients first. It is also expanding young adults’ affordable options for health insurance. A new study shows that 30% of young adults ages 19 to 25 who initially had private health insurance in 2008 were uninsured for at least one month over the next two years. Young adults were particularly at risk of losing coverage because they may have aged out of their parents’ coverage, moved between school and employment or changed jobs. Yet now, the number of young adults with health insurance continues to rise under the health care law.

Here are five ways the law helps young adults:
Young adults can stay on their parent’s health insurance up to the age of 26. This is the case even if they’re married or live on their own. This provision resulted in 2.5 million young people gaining coverage. For young adults, this new protection means that they will have the freedom to make career choices based on what they want to do, not on where they can get health insurance. And for parents, it means they can breathe a little easier knowing their children are covered.

The law offers free prevention benefits that keep people healthy. Now, young adults can receive recommended preventive  services, like flu shots, HIV and cancer screenings, contraceptive counseling and FDA-approved birth control, with no cost sharing. Visit  www.healthcare.gov/prevention for a full list of services and plan dates.

Coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. For people who have been uninsured for six months and can’t buy private insurance because of a pre-existing condition, they may be able to join the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan. And under the new law, no plan can deny coverage to people under age 19 because of a pre-existing condition. To find out about plans available in your State, please visithttp://www.pcip.gov.

Insurers cannot put limits on coverage. In the past, some people with cancer or other chronic illnesses ran out of insurance coverage because their health care expenses reached a dollar limit imposed by their insurance company. Under the health care law, insurers can no longer impose lifetime dollar limits on essential health benefits and annual limits are being phased out by 2014. Also, insurance companies can no longer drop people when they get sick due to a mistake you made on your application.

Starting in 2014, there will be more options through the Affordable Care Act for coverage for young adults. New Affordable Insurance Exchanges, tax credits and the improvements to Medicaid will result in at least 30 million more insured people, including as many as 10 million young adults. For young adults, lacking affordable health care will soon become a thing of the past.

SEVEN FOREIGN CITIZENS HAVE ASSETS FROZEN OVER SEC INSIDER TRADING CHARGES

FROM:  SEC
Washington, D.C., April 6, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has obtained a court-ordered freeze of the assets of six Chinese citizens and one British Virgin Islands entity charged with insider trading in Zhongpin Inc., a China-based pork processor whose shares trade in the U.S.
The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago on April 4, alleges the defendants reaped more than $9 million by trading in Zhongpin ahead of a March 27 announcement of a proposal to take the company private.  The complaint names as defendants one entity, Prestige Trade Investments Ltd., and six individuals, Siming Yang, Caiyin Fan, Shui Chong (Eric) Chang, Biao Cang, Jia Wu, and Ming Ni.  The SEC alleged that Yang formed Prestige in January and funded its U.S. brokerage account in March with $29 million transferred from a Hong Kong bank.

According to the SEC’s complaint, the seven defendants bought substantial quantities of common stock and call options in Zhongpin between March 14 and March 26. Zhongpin’s stock price jumped 21.8% on March 27 when the company publicly announced that its Chairman and CEO Xianfu Zhu had made a non-binding offer to acquire all of Zhongpin’s outstanding stock at $13.50 a share, a 46% premium over the previous day’s closing price.

“The defendants in this action – all with seemingly limited resources - suddenly and inexplicably purchased more than $20 million in Zhongpin securities just before an important public announcement,” said Merri Jo Gillette, Director of the SEC’s Chicago Regional Office. “The SEC’s swift action to secure a judicial freeze order prevented millions of dollars from moving offshore.”

The SEC alleges that the purchases of Zhongpin stock and options were inconsistent with the defendants’ financial situations and prior investment behavior.  In particular:
The defendants’ trades made up a significant portion of the trading in Zhongpin between March 14 and March 26.  Prestige’s purchases alone represented about 41% of the common stock trading in this period.

Only one of the defendants had traded in Zhongpin before March 14.

For most of the individual defendants, the purchases of Zhongpin securities equaled or exceeded their stated annual income and represented a significant portion of their net worth.

Yang identified himself to his broker as an accountant in China with an annual income of $52,500 and a net worth of less than $250,000, when at the time he was a research analyst with a New York–based registered investment adviser.

Each of the defendants placed at least some of their trades from computer networks and hardware that other defendants also used to place trades.
The SEC alleges that the defendants violated federal anti-fraud laws, namely Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition to the emergency relief, the SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties. The emergency court order that the SEC obtained on April 4 on an ex parte basis froze defendants’ assets held in U.S. brokerage accounts, grants expedited discovery and prohibits the defendants from destroying evidence.
Jedediah B. Forkner, Marlene B. Key and John E. Kustusch in the Chicago Regional Office conducted the SEC’s investigation, which is continuing.  Timothy S. Leiman will lead the SEC’s litigation effort.

The Commission thanks the Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for their assistance in this matter.