Wednesday, April 11, 2012

U.S WORKS FOR COOPERATION IN CYBERSPACE AMONG NATIONS


FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE   



DOD Expands International Cyber Cooperation, Official Says


By Cheryl Pellerin
WASHINGTON, April 10, 2012 - The Defense Department is moving beyond its traditional treaty allies to expand partnerships in cyberspace, a senior defense office said today.

Steven Schleien, DOD's principal director for cyber policy, said DOD officials are working toward long-term goals of collective cyber self-defense and deterrence.

Schleien spoke at Georgetown University's second annual International Engagement on Cyber here where experts from Washington, the Netherlands and Russia spoke about national security and diplomatic efforts in cyberspace before several hundred students and experts in the field.

"We started with our traditional treaty allies, those with whom we have commitments," Schleien said.
The department started there in accordance with President Barack Obama's international cyberspace strategy, released in May 2011, which says that "hostile acts in cyberspace could compel actions under our mutual defense treaties," he said.

Defense officials worked with DOD allies and NATO staff during the 2010 Lisbon Summit, Schleien said, to bring all NATO networks, civilian and military, under the NATO Cyber Incident Response Center, which is expected to be complete later this year.

Most recently, he said, DOD officials are starting to talk with the Japanese, South Korean and New Zealand defense ministries about cyber security, while working closely with the British and Australian ministries "to talk about a whole spectrum of cyber interoperability."

Cyberspace is a novel arena for defense partnerships, said Schleien, a former arms control official. "In our view ..., arms control doesn't work in cyberspace," he said. " ... I don't know what we would monitor, [or] how we would verify anything in terms of cyber weapons or cyber tools -- an issue my Russian defense colleagues have raised."

Internationally, though, "we do believe that we need to establish norms of international behavior for cyberspace," he added.
"The law of armed conflict comes to mind as one that's essential to DOD," Schleien said, "because in our view, [it] applies to cyberspace as it does to the other operational domains."
U.S. Cyber Command finds it necessary to share information with other countries, but harder to accomplish given its national security mission, Navy Rear Adm. Samuel Cox, Cybercom's director of intelligence, said at the forum.
Cybercom Commander Army Gen. Keith B. Alexander also is the director of the National Security Agency, which Cox called a unique Defense Department and national intelligence collection organization responsible for exploiting potentially adversarial foreign networks for intelligence purposes, within the cyber realm.
"From our perspective, what we're looking at is a global cyber arms race [that] is not proceeding as a leisurely or even linear fashion but is, in fact, accelerating," he said.

The increasingly vertical nature of the threat, Cox added, "is what is motivating my boss and others for a particular sense of urgency in being able to move forward on this."
It's relatively easy to engage with longstanding international partners like the United Kingdom and Australia, as well as Canada and New Zealand, he said.

Beyond those nations, Cox said, "it gets significantly harder."
One of the impediments is the high-level classification of the information, which has "very strict rules on how you can share this with foreign governments," he said.

The bottom line is that military cooperation with foreign countries in cyberspace "is still an extremely difficult environment to try to navigate through," Cox said.

But because cyber defense is a global problem, the admiral added, "if we don't work together with many of those key allies, then we will not be able to make a significant improvement in the current threat environment."
In the United States, Obama's issuance of international cyber strategy was a landmark event in raising critical awareness of the cyber security issue, Christopher Painter, the State Department's coordinator for cyber issues, told the audience.

"The threat certainly has become more acute," he added, but the issue has evolved from a narrow, technical issue to "a national security issue and a foreign policy issue -- and a foreign policy priority."
A growing number of countries have released national cyber security strategies and "organized their government around this issue," Painter said.

When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced Obama's international strategy, he added, she characterized the range of cyber-related issues as constituting "a new foreign policy imperative."
Painter added, "I think that is important because it raises the level of dialogue to something that those people who often didn't play in this sandbox before -- foreign ministries at the heads-of-government level -- are now dealing with."

What the United States is doing domestically feeds into what the nation is doing internationally, he said.

U.S. NAVY SEA HAWK HELICOPTER LANDS ON DECK OF USS INDEPENDENCE

FROM:  U.S. NAVY
Boatswain's Mate 3rd Class Robert Chittenden signals for an MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter assigned to the Swamp Foxes of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 74 to take off from the flight deck of the littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS 2). Sailors from Independence's Gold crew and embarked Mine Countermeasures Detachment 1 are underway for the ship's transit to San Diego after successfully completing testing on the mine countermeasures mission package. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Trevor Welsh (Released) 120409-N-ZS026-514

SILENCE OF THE DAMS


FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ARMED WITH SCIENCE
(Photo courtesy Bill Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Written on APRIL 10, 2012 AT 7:14 AM by JTOZER
Stop that ‘Dam’ Noise: ONR, Engineers Tackle Noise at Hydroelectric Plants
By Tammy J. White, Office of Naval Research
Using research designed to protect warfighters from noise-induced hearing loss in the naval environment, the Office of Naval Research has joined the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to turn down the volume at the nation’s power plants.

ONR will lend its extensive expertise in noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) to help identify noise sources and propose engineering controls at dams and hydroelectric plants nationwide as part of the interagency agreement.

“The Navy in general, and ONR in particular, is leading the curve when it comes to understanding the dangers of noise,” says Kurt Yankaskas, a program manager in ONR’s Warfighter Performance Department. “It’s a serious problem not only in the Navy and Marine Corps, but across modern society.”

The added project scope results in $14,000 in additional federal funding, bringing the total to $109,000, to evaluate and seek new controls for protecting plant workers from hearing damage sustained on the job.
Noise is a research area ONR knows all too well.
“Within ONR, we’re addressing noise-induced hearing loss from all perspectives—engineering, audiology, acquisition programs, medical research and more,” Yankaskas says. “The American public is starting to learn how pervasive our noise exposures are.”
The Bureau of Reclamation maintains and operates 476 dams and 58 hydroelectric power plants across 17 western states. Collectively, dams like the Grand Coulee in Washington and the Hoover in Colorado produce more than 40 billion kilowatts of energy.
By its estimates, that’s enough power to satisfy the needs of 9 million people for one year, offsetting the need for an equivalent 6.8 billion tons of coal or 23.5 million barrels of oil.
It’s no wonder the dams have been labeled national strategic assets. But that power comes at a substantial cost.

“Of our worker’s comp costs, about 20-25 percent is due to hearing loss compensation,” says James Meredith, who manages safety and occupational health, security safety and law enforcement at the Bureau of Reclamation. “That amounts to $1.5 to 2 million dollars per year … Dollar-wise, it’s the largest single component of claims that we have.”
The intense roar of the water threatens the hearing of approximately 5,300 of the organization’s workers across the country, despite attempts to provide employees with personal hearing protection.

“Down near the lower elevations of the power plant, where the water is coming down through the pen stocks and coming down over the turbines, noise can range as much as 115-120 decibels, which is quite loud,” Meredith says. “And [for] every five decibels, that increases by seven or eight factors of loudness.”

That’s louder than the sound output at an average rock concert or music venue, which is estimated to range between 110-115 decibels by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Six sites, of varying sizes, will undergo an initial round of noise surveys this spring, with additional surveys slated later this year for plants operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

“In essence, we’re being asked to help look into the issue of noise control to reduce noise exposures,” says ONR’s Yankaskas. “This is an opportunity to transition the approaches we’ve been developing for Sailors and Marines ONR to other federal agencies.”
The Corps’ infrastructure includes power-generating units and plants that provide 25 percent of the nation’s hydropower capacity—but its reach expands to a host of other facility types, says Andrea Pouliot, industrial hygiene program manager.
Some 25,000 miles of commercially navigable channels, 225 lock chambers and 2,500 recreational areas fall under the Corps’ charge. At one facility, the John Day Lock and Dam along the Columbia River, the Corps estimates more than 2.5 million gallons of water crashes down every second the dam operates at 100 percent water discharge capacity.

Pouliot attributes safety controls, such as covering turbine generators, to limiting personnel’s exposure.

“We still do have hearing loss cases, and we are excited and interested in trying to figure out how to control the noise so that we’re able to prevent them,” Pouliot says.
Field measurements, including acoustic octave band and vibration analyses, will be taken at selected facilities in the Pacific Northwest and Colorado regions through May 2012: Grand Coulee, Roza, Chandler, Dalles, Detroit, Estes, Mary’s Lake and Flatiron.
Following a data evaluation period this summer, ONR will propose areas for noise improvement through a range of engineering and technology controls.
Sustained exposure to high sound levels attributed to water, aircraft engines, machine shops and other areas in the naval environment—and sudden intense noises like improvised explosive devices encountered in the field—can all contribute to noise-induced hearing loss over time.

Through the interagency partnership, ONR officials continue their efforts to demonstrate the broad applications of naval science and technology across government and industry as well as sectors such as public health, energy and power.

ONR’s Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Program takes a multi-pronged approach at devising sound solutions in the naval environment: reducing noise at the source; developing personal protective equipment; developing medical prevention and treatment strategies; and evaluating incidence and susceptibility.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REACHES SETTLEMENT IN E-BOOK PRICE FIXING CASE


FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REACHES SETTLEMENT WITH THREE OF THE
LARGEST BOOK PUBLISHERS AND CONTINUES TO LITIGATE AGAINST
APPLE INC. AND TWO OTHER PUBLISHERS TO RESTORE PRICE
COMPETITION AND REDUCE E-BOOK PRICES
Department Settles with Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster;
Litigates Against Apple, Macmillan and Penguin to Prevent Continued
Restrictions on Price Competition
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement with three of the largest book publishers in the United States– Hachette Book Group (USA), HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. and Simon & Schuster Inc.–and will continue to litigate against Apple Inc. and two other publishers–Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC, which does business as Macmillan, and Penguin Group (USA)–for conspiring to end e-book retailers' freedom to compete on price, take control of pricing from e-book retailers and substantially increase the prices that consumers pay for e-books. The department said that the publishers prevented retail price competition resulting in consumers paying millions of dollars more for their e-books.

The civil antitrust lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster. At the same time, the department filed a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the department's antitrust concerns with Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster, and would require the companies to grant retailers–such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble–the freedom to reduce the prices of their e-book titles.

"As a result of this alleged conspiracy, we believe that consumers paid millions of dollars more for some of the most popular titles," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "We allege that executives at the highest levels of these companies–concerned that e-book sellers had reduced prices–worked together to eliminate competition among stores selling e-books, ultimately increasing prices for consumers."

"With today's lawsuit, we are sending a clear message that competitors, even in rapidly evolving technology industries, cannot conspire to raise prices," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis A. Pozen in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. "We want to undo the harm caused by the companies' anticompetitive conduct and restore retail price competition so that consumers can pay lower prices for their e-books."

The department's Antitrust Division and the European Commission cooperated closely with each other throughout the course of their respective investigations, with frequent contact between the investigative staffs and the senior officials of the two agencies. The department also worked closely with the states of Connecticut and Texas to uncover the publishers' illegal conspiracy.

According to the complaint, the five publishers and Apple were unhappy that competition among e-book sellers had reduced e-book prices and the retail profit margins of the book sellers to levels they thought were too low. To address these concerns, they worked together to enter into contracts that eliminated price competition among bookstores selling e-books, substantially increasing prices paid by consumers. Before the companies began their conspiracy, retailers regularly sold e-book versions of new releases and bestsellers for, as described by one of the publisher's CEO, the "wretched $9.99 price point." As a result of the conspiracy, consumers are now typically forced to pay $12.99, $14.99, or more for the most sought-after e-books, the department said.

The department alleges the conspiracy began in the summer of 2009. CEOs from the publishing companies met privately as a group about once per quarter. The meetings took place in private dining rooms of upscale Manhattan restaurants and were used to discuss confidential business and competitive matters, including Amazon's e-book's retailing practices.

The complaint states that the companies accomplished their conspiracy by agreeing to stop the longstanding practice of selling e-books, as they long sold print books, on wholesale to bookstores, and leaving it to the bookstores to set the price at which they would sell the e-books to consumers. Through their conspiracy, the companies imposed a new model under which the publishers seized e-book pricing authority from all of their retail bookstores and raised prices for e-books.

As stated in the department's complaint, one publisher's CEO said, "Our goal is to force Amazon to return to acceptable sales prices through the establishment of agency contracts in the USA. . . . To succeed our colleagues must know that we entered the fray and follow us."

The publishers also agreed with Apple to pay Apple a 30 percent commission for each e-book purchased through Apple's iBookstore and promised, through a retail price-matching most favored nation (MFN) provision, that no other e-book retailer would sell an e-book title at a lower price than Apple.
As stated in the department's complaint, Apple's then-CEO Steve Jobs said, "the customer pays a little more, but that's what you [publishers] want anyway."  Based on the commitments to Apple, the publishers imposed agency terms, over some objections, on all other e-book retailers.  As a result, no e-book retailer is able to compete by using its commission to discount or reduce the price that the publishers set for their e-book titles or offer any special sales promotions to encourage consumers to purchase those e-books. The department said that the intent and effect of the publishers' contracts with Apple was to raise the prices that consumers nationwide pay for e-books.

Under the proposed settlement agreement with Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster, they will terminate their agreements with Apple and other e-books retailers and will be prohibited for two years from entering into new agreements that constrain retailers' ability to offer iscounts or other promotions to consumers to encourage the sale of the publishers' e-books.  The settlement does not prohibit Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster from entering new agency agreements with e-book retailers, but those agreements cannot prohibit the retailer from reducing the price set by the publishers.

The proposed settlement agreement also will prohibit Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster for five years from again conspiring with or sharing competitively sensitive information with their competitors. It will impose a strong antitrust compliance program on the three companies, which will include a requirement that each provide advance notification to the department of any e-book ventures they plan to undertake jointly with other publishers and that each regularly report to the department on any communications they have with other publishers. Also for five years, Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster will be forbidden from agreeing to any kind of MFN that could undermine the effectiveness of the settlement agreement.

The ongoing litigation against Apple, Macmillan and Penguin seeks to restore price competition among e-book retailers in the sale of the litigating publishers' e-books. Under the existing agency agreements, Macmillan and Penguin prohibit e-book retailers from exercising any pricing discretion on their titles, and Apple is freed from any price competition with other retailers in selling those e-books.
Hachette Book Group USA has its principal place of business in New York City. It publishes e-books and print books through its publishers such as Little, Brown and Company and Grand Central Publishing.

HarperCollins Publishers, L.L.C. has its principal place of business in New York City. It publishes e-books and print books through publishers such as Harper and William Morrow.

Macmillan has its principal place of business in New York City. It publishes e-books and print books through publishers such as Farrar, Straus and Giroux, and St. Martin's Press. Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH owns Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC, which does business as Macmillan, and has its principal place of business in Stuttgart, Germany.

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. has its principal place of business in New York City. It publishes e-books and print books through publishers such as The Viking press and Gotham Books. Penguin Group (USA) Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of The Penguin Group, a division of Pearson plc, which has its principal place of business in London.

Simon & Schuster Inc. has its principal place of business in New York City. It publishes e-books and print books through publishers such as Free Press and Touchstone.

Apple Inc. has its principal place of business in Cupertino, Calif. Among many other businesses, Apple distributes e-books through its iBookstore.
The proposed settlement, along with the department's competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register, as required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60-days of its publication to John R. Read, Chief, Litigation III Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the court may enter the final judgment upon a finding that it serves the public interest.

The court will determine a pretrial schedule for the case against Apple, Macmillan and Penguin once the companies file their responses to the government's lawsuit.

White Board: Brian Deese on the Buffett Rule | The White House

White Board: Brian Deese on the Buffett Rule | The White House

PRESIDENT OBAMA DOES PUSH-UPS


FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
President Barack Obama does push-ups on the White House Basketball Court after a member of the Harlem Globetrotters made a shot, April 9, 2012. The President participated in "Shoot for Strength", a game where children did push-ups for every basketball shot made by the pros, during the 2012 White House Easter Egg Roll festivities. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

U.S. OFFICIAL SPEAKS ABOUT UNCONVENTIONAL GAS


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks Robert F. Cekuta
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs University of Warsaw Library
Warsaw, Poland
March 7, 2012
Thank you Mr. Deputy Prime Minister and please let me first of all warmly thank Poland’s Ministry of the Economy, Mexico’s Ministry of Energy, and the International Energy Agency for developing and hosting today’s event.
Today’s is exactly the sort of meeting which can be extremely useful in advancing both global energy security and global economic well being.

The United States has greatly benefitted from this development of shale gas and other unconventional gas resources. As President Obama said in his State of the Union address this past January, we now estimate that the United States has a supply of natural gas which can last America for 100 years. In 2009, the United States became the world’s leading producers of natural gas, to a significant degree because of the judicious use of new technologies that made once inaccessible deposits of natural gas able to be opened, tapped, and developed.

As a result of the development of unconventional natural gas, the United States may well begin exporting natural gas – LNG – by 2014 or 2015. Experts now speak of the United States being self sufficient in natural gas by 2035. Development of unconventional gas resources, resources which amount to over half the U.S. natural gas resources, will support over 600,000 jobs in the United States by the end of this decade.
I should join other speakers in pointing to the benefits in natural gas, a fuel that can back out others that are higher in GHG emissions and other pollutants when burned. Along these lines, there is a considerable amount of attention focused on the further development of natural gas as a fuel for transportation. There is also already a sense that the development of unconventional natural gas has rejuvenated the chemical industry in the United States with experts suggesting we could see a repeat of the 1920’s when the discoveries of oil and natural gas in the United States produced all sorts of breakthroughs and innovations in the chemical sector.

However, we also need to bear in mind the important reality that the development of unconventional natural gas, like the development or realization of other industrial or extractive processes, needs to be done carefully with due attention to potential downsides.

In the United States, this has meant the government, civil society, and private sector enterprises paying attention to the environmental factors associated with the development of natural gas. It has meant particular attention being given to all the aspects of water usage associated with the development of unconventional gas. It has meant study of reports that certain seismic events may be associated with the tapping of shale gas. It has meant too attention and study of the impacts that development of shale or other unconventional natural gas can have on communities and a society. These impacts include the influx of people to areas that had previously been less populated or had been losing population.

It means realizing and taking into account the fact technologies for developing shale or other unconventional gas are not static, but rather are changing and we need to be thinking about how to take into account these technologies and engineering innovations. Awareness of these factors highlights that we need to be attentive to the various technical, environmental, and social aspects that accompany development of unconventional natural gas deposits.

In the United States we have been continuing to work to understand these aspects of the development of unconventional gas and to act upon what we have learned. With the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board Subcommittee on Shale Gas Production, the U.S. has sought to develop – and to share – best practices from government, private, and public sectors. My colleague from Department of Energy, DAS Chris Smith, will be discussing the work of this group later on today.

Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting an on- going study on hydraulic fracturing and its possible impacts on drinking water. Again, the United States is pursuing science-based studies to inform policy making as well as the discussions taking place among the public on unconventional gas.

We are engaging with others countries which may have significant shale or other unconventional gas. In doing so, we make a conscious effort to acquaint them with a much variety of views. Our sense is that there needs to be informed dialogue if we are to get out ahead of potential problems in unconventional gas development.

If are all talking about rules here today, I would like to urge that we look at the experience in the United States, including the need for the involvement, the engagement, of the various stake-holders. I would argue as well that just as the work will continue on the technical and engineering aspects of developing unconventional gas deposits, work will need to continue on the rules applying to how these deposits are developed. I would strongly urge that development of any regulations take into account sound science as a basis.

Our conviction is that if developed in a responsible, environmentally sound manner, unconventional gas can have a beneficial impact on the global energy outlook just as it has had in the United States.
Thank you.



TREASURY NAMES GUATEMALAN NATIONAL AS "SPECIALLY DESIGNATED NARCOTICS TRAFFICKER"


FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF THE TRESURY
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today announced the designation of Guatemalan national Horst Walter Overdick Mejia, a critical link in the drug trade between Colombian producers and the violent Mexican drug cartel Los Zetas, as a specially designated narcotics trafficker. Today’s action, taken pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act), prohibits U.S. persons from conducting financial or commercial transactions with this individual and freezes any assets the designee may have under U.S. jurisdiction.
 
Last week, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed an indictment of Overdick Mejia for his narcotics trafficking and related firearms activities. On April 3, Guatemalan authorities arrested Overdick Mejia, the head of a major drug trafficking and money laundering organization based in Guatemala. A veteran spice buyer, he used his local contacts and his business acumen to smuggle thousands of kilograms of cocaine to Mexico and on into the United States. It is widely believed that Overdick Mejia is responsible for bringing Los Zetas into Guatemala in 2008 in order to eliminate a competing trafficker and who later became their most important ally in Guatemala. He also laundered millions of U.S. dollars in narcotics proceeds generated by both his own organization as well as Los Zetas. 
 
“Overdick Mejia’s drug trafficking activities and close ties to the Los Zetas makes him a dangerous and critical figure in the Central American narcotics trade,” said OFAC Director Adam J. Szubin. “By designating Overdick Mejia, OFAC is demonstrating its support for the Guatemalan government in its struggle against the threats and violence posed by these international drug gangs.”
 
OFAC coordinated this designation action with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. Today’s action is part of ongoing efforts pursuant to the Kingpin Act to apply financial measures against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations worldwide. The Treasury Department has designated more than 1,000 individuals and entities pursuant to the Kingpin Act since June 2000. 
 
“These are necessary tools we use to ensure that we put dangerous drug trafficking organizations out of business and ensure they cannot exploit the U.S. financial system,” said DEA Chief of Financial Operations John Arvanitis. “Overdick Mejia was a vital link between Colombian drug producers and Mexican cartels such as Los Zetas. This case is yet another example of the united front that law enforcement and regulators must utilize to ensure that organizations such as this one are put out of business forever.”
 
Penalties for violations of the Kingpin Act range from civil penalties of up to $1.075 million per violation to more severe criminal penalties. Criminal penalties for corporate officers may include up to 30 years in prison and fines up to $5 million. Criminal fines for corporations may reach $10 million. Other individuals face up to 10 years in prison and fines pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code for criminal violations of the Kingpin Act.
 

INTERNET AND TEXT MESSAGES ARE USED TO FIGHT DISEASE


FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ARMED WITH SCIENCE
Local doctors in Iquitos conduct a follow-up visit with a young Peruvian child as part of NAMRU-6 project on febrile surveillance. (Courtesy of National Naval medical Research Unit 6)
Epidemic Intelligence: Using the Internet & Text Messages to Fight Disease
Filed under EDUCATION & CULTURE, TECHNOLOGY{Local doctors in Iquitos conduct a follow-up visit with a young Peruvian child as part of NAMRU-6 project on febrile surveillance. (Courtesy of National Naval medical Research Unit 6)
In the fiel

In the field of ‘epidemic intelligence,’ public health experts often turn to formal and informal data sources to learn about disease events occurring around the world. Advances in technology have been largely responsible for spurring the ability to augment the type and nature of potential data sources.

For example, unstructured data gleaned from the Internet in near real-time can be of significant value in identifying cues or signals that may indicate a disease outbreak is occurring in somewhere  in the world. This information can then be used to help guide response activities among public health officials when appropriate. The massive amount of data contained on the Internet, along with easy to use search tools and computerized language translation software, help make this work possible.

Websites hosted all over the world allow data to be uploaded from virtually anywhere – for instance, in the middle of the Congo with a cellular or satellite phone – making the Internet a very useful tool for discovering novel outbreaks. Where CNN and the BBC are less likely to provide news coverage, the multitude of non–English websites can provide access to information in remote towns in faraway places.

Surveillance of media and other Internet-based sites has become such a rapid method to learn about incipient outbreaks among humans, animals, and even plants, that agencies such as the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control have specialized programs to do this work.

Even the Department of Defense has embraced these new tools to help partner nations fight disease. One such tool developed by the DoD is called the Suite for Automated Global Electronic bioSurveillance (SAGES). Launched in 2008, SAGES is a collection of freely-available software tools to use for disease surveillance in countries with limited resources. SAGES was developed jointly by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC) and the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. It is based on an existing, well-known surveillance tool called ESSENCE, or Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-based Events. The SAGES suite contains a variety of data collection tools to capture disease data, including web forms, e-mail, digital logbooks, text messages (SMS) and interactive voice response technology.

Of particular interest are text messages that can be sent from points of care – such as clinics, hospitals or the field – directly to local and national offices of a country’s ministry of health. That data could provide information on an individual patient or a group of patients in a clinic, which health officials can then use to identify unusual spikes in disease activity and further investigate. One of the benefits of SAGES is that it operates with little overhead, few technical requirements, and without the need for prior knowledge of circulating diseases. These minimal technical requirements allow for the system to be used in urban centers as well as hard-to-reach rural settings. Data collection via SAGES is currently in use among AFHSC partners in Peru, Cambodia, and the Philippines; and 12 other countries are currently in various stages of SAGES implementation.

By design, such epidemic intelligence tools are far more sensitive than specific to make sure as many events as possible – whether they are naturally occurring or intentionally caused – are captured by the system. Despite their lack of specificity, internet and cellular technologies have made easy and fast access to disease indications and warnings about outbreaks, allowing experts to stop outbreaks sooner than ever possible due to rapid identification, investigation and verification.

TALIBAN FACILTATOR CAPTURED


FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE



Combined Force Captures Taliban Facilitator

Compiled from International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Releases
WASHINGTON, April 10, 2012 - An Afghan and coalition security force captured a Taliban facilitator in the Nahr-e Saraj district of Afghanistan's Helmand province today, military officials reported.

The facilitator trained and equipped insurgents throughout northern Helmand province and also built several improvised explosive devices used in attacks against Afghan and coalition security forces, officials said.

The security force also detained several additional insurgents and seized bomb-making materials, officials said.

Also today, an Afghan-led force captured a Taliban facilitator and detained one other suspected insurgent in the Arghandab district of Kandahar province. The facilitator provided roadside bombs and ammunition to insurgents for attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.
In Afghanistan operations yesterday:

-- A coalition force seized nearly 400 pounds of suspected narcotics during a patrol in the Nad-e Ali district of Helmand province.

-- A combined force killed Izatullah, the head of the Taliban commission in Faryab province, and two other insurgents in the province's Pashtun Kot district. Izatullah provided weapons and equipment to other Taliban members for attacks against Afghan and coalition forces. He also managed the Taliban's financial network in the province and tried to impose Taliban law on local civilians. Izatullah recently replaced Numan, an insurgent leader who was killed March 27 during an operation in the Shirin Tagab district.
In April 7 Afghanistan operations:

-- An Afghan provincial response company supported by coalition forces detained several suspects, confiscated drugs, and seized IED-making components in the Gulistan district of Farah province. A subsequent search of a nearby compound resulted in discovery of hashish, multiple IED-making components and three Afghan police uniforms. All of the items were confiscated and destroyed.

Last week, a provincial response company, along with Afghan and coalition forces, killed several insurgents, detained several other suspected insurgents, seized about 3,190 pounds of poppy seeds and 198 pounds of wet opium and confiscated weapons in Helmand's Baghran district.
 

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT ON U.N. TRANSPARENCY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Statement on Action Taken on Fifth Committee Resolutions from the First Resumed Session of the 66th GA, General Assembly04/10/2012 08:53 AM EDT
Statement by Ambassador Joseph Torsella, U.S. Representative for UN Management and Reform, on Action Taken on Fifth Committee Resolutions from the First Resumed Session of the 66th GA, General Assembly
Ambassador Joseph M Torsella
U.S. Representative for UN Management and Reform
U.S. Mission to the United Nations New York, NYApril 9, 2012

AS DELIVERED
Mr. President,
We are grateful by strong Fifth Committee action on the Capital Master Plan, but are disappointed in the lack of responsible action on public disclosure of the Office of Internal Oversight Services audit reports, air travel reforms, and other items.
Mr. President,

In particular we note, the Fifth Committee and the General Assembly had an opportunity this session to strengthen the UN’s accountability framework and to promote a more modern, efficient and transparent UN that responsibly stewards resources to deliver better results.  But despite the common ground on a number of important areas related to accountability, many Member States took regrettable and premature action to force a vote on and sidetrack the Secretary General’s change management initiative before it has even begun.  This unnecessary action, on an item not even on the agenda for this session, undermines the Charter authority of the Secretary-General and his successors’ as Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization.

The United States strongly supports a more modern, engaged and efficient Secretariat.  We commend the collegial spirit in which the Secretary General shared his internal Change Management Plan with Member States. We also appreciate the Secretary-General’s commitment to forging relationships based on mutual trust, greater flexibility and accountability as outlined in his Change Plan.  We trust that he will consult, as he and his predecessors have, with Member States where our approval is required.  And we note that the Fifth Committee and General Assembly will have ample opportunity to assert their prerogatives on specific initiatives in the normal course of events.

My delegation, therefore, did not support the draft resolution contained in paragraph 17 of A/66/638/Add. 1, and instead proposed a constructive and balanced amendment, allowing Member States to express their concerns while not unduly constraining the Secretary General’s authority.

The resolution as passed indeed erodes rather than promotes a culture of accountability, by attempting to delay the implementation of approximately 50% of all the recommendations of his Change Management Team, claiming these areas as the uncontested prerogative of the General Assembly.  Just one example illustrates the overreach of that claim: Recommendation 40 simply asks the Secretary General to direct his own senior managers to fly economy class for travel of less than six hours on one continent.

My delegation profoundly regrets that some Member States did not seek to achieve the broadest possible agreement on this issue, even when presented with a compromise chairman’s text.   They have departed from the long-standing principle of consensus-based decision-making in the Fifth Committee by including provisions that a significant number of delegations clearly oppose.  We regret that consensus, the legitimate basis of all Fifth Committee decisions, was not achieved this session despite being so clearly within our grasp.  The United States stands ready to work collaboratively to achieve such consensus in the future, as we have always done in the past.
Thank you, Mr. President.



NASA SUPPORTED ROBOTICS COMPETITION


FROM:  NASA
2012 FIRST Robotics Competition included more than 50 teams competing for the Regional championship title.
Image credit: NASA Ames Research Center

NASA-Supported FIRST Robotics Teams Advance to International Championship
High school teams from around the San Francisco Bay area demonstrated their engineering, electronics and programming skills as they designed and built robots for this year’s challenge called Rebound Rumble. The championship games for the Silicon Valley FIRST Robotics Regional Competition were held March 29 – 30, 2012 at San Jose State University (SJSU), Calif.

2012 marked the 21st season of the For Inspiration and Recognition of and Science and Technology (FIRST) Robotics Competition, and included more than 50 teams competing for the Regional championship title that would give them a shot at the international championships in April.

“NASA Ames is extremely pleased with the performance of our star teams. Not only did they take first and second in the tournament, but also executed many impressive technologies,” said Mark Leon, manager of the NASA Robotics Alliance Project at NASA’s Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

More than 2,500 fans attended the competition at the SJSU Event Center, where teams from San Jose, Palo Alto, Cupertino, Mountain View and Saratoga represented the South Bay area. Total team membership included 1,500 students who were highly motivated pursuing science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) academics.

NASA Ames mentored teams Space Cookies #1868 and Cheesy Poofs #254 as part of NASA’s STEM effort, and both teams received NASA grants to support their robotics efforts. This year, both teams won all quarter and semi-finals. The all girl Space Cookies went undefeated until the finals, where they lost to the more experienced Cheesy Poofs. In the past five weeks, NASA-sponsored teams won 232 awards nationwide at FIRST Robotics Regional/District Competitions.

“I couldn’t attend the Silicon Valley Regional, but I watched the scores and rankings on my home computer. I was cheering for the Space Cookies team. I was ecstatic to see they had 10 wins and no losses in the qualifier,” said John Bowland, a NASA Ames employee and faithful fan of the Space Cookies since its start in 2006.

NASA is the largest sponsor of the national FIRST program, supporting five regional competitions and more than 280 teams.

NEW RAPID PRODUCTION OF CANCER-TREATMENT AGENT SHOWS PROMISE


FROM:  LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Cancer Therapy Gets a Boost from New Isotope
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO, April 11, 2012—A new medical isotope project at Los Alamos National Laboratory shows promise for rapidly producing major quantities of a new cancer-treatment agent, actinium 225 (Ac-225).

Using proton beams, Los Alamos and its partner Brookhaven National Laboratory could match current annual worldwide production of the isotope in just a few days, solving critical shortages of this therapeutic isotope that attacks cancer cells. A collaboration between Los Alamos, Brookhaven, and Oak Ridge national laboratories is developing a plan for full-scale production and stable supply of Ac-225.
Ac-225 emits alpha radiation. Alpha particles are energetic enough to destroy cancer cells but are unlikely to move beyond a tightly controlled target region and destroy healthy cells. Alpha particles are stopped in their tracks by a layer of skin—or even an inch or two of air.

One of the primary barriers to wider use of Ac-225 has been the lack of an economically viable supply. Scientists at the LANL Isotope Production Facility (IPF) recently completed a successful research and development project in which they explored the accelerator-based production of the isotope. Since 2005, a primary mission for IPF has been production of medical imaging isotopes such as strontium-82 for positron emission tomography, known as PET scans. In addition to medical imaging applications, IPF has had the mission of making isotopes available for national security, environmental studies and a variety of industrial and R&D applications. The Ac-225 work is a first and important step toward the addition of IPF-produced isotopes for medical therapy applications.
The development of new cancer therapies such as Ac-225 was recognized by President Barack Obama in his 2012 State of the Union address, in which he cited the development of such new cancer therapies as Ac-22: “Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched.”

New sources for the isotope are desperately needed, experts note. Ac-225 has historically been produced in an annual volume of between 600 and 800 millicuries through the natural decay of thorium 229 from uranium 233. But the current need for Ac-225 far outstrips the supply made possible by the traditional method of production, and annual demand could reach 100 times as much, perhaps 50,000 millicuries by 2014. In fact, the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee’s isotope group recently cited the gap between production and demand, saying that the United States should “invest in new production approaches of alpha emitters with highest priority for 225Ac.”
The work by Los Alamos helps address the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee’s recommendation has focused on production of research-scale quantities of Ac-225. Production is done by a specialized particle accelerator at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE), by irradiating thorium target foils. Scientists use a 100 MeV (million-electron-volt) proton beam supplied to the Lab’s Isotope Production Facility and a 200-800 MeV beam supplied to LANL’s Weapons Neutron Research Facility—both of which are part of LANSCE.
“Preliminary experiments indicate that accelerator-based production will be viable at the scale required to support clinical applications,” said Meiring Nortier, the lead LANL scientist on the project.

The Los Alamos proof-of-concept work received recognition at a meeting of International Atomic Energy Agency consultants meeting in 2011. There Nortier presented details about Ac-225 production using accelerators, and he described the nuclear data needs for medical isotope production.

The Ac-225 effort is now shifting to the development of high-power targetry and bulk-scale radiochemical processing to potentially provide this material as a routinely available medical isotope. Los Alamos will be pursuing this goal in conjunction with research teams at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory.

The research indicates that it will be possible to match current annual worldwide production of Ac-225 in just two to five days using the accelerator at Los Alamos and similar facilities at Brookhaven. Estimates are that two to three years of production scale-up and process development will be required before Ac-225 can be produced routinely.

This project was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science via an award from Office of Nuclear Physics, Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications. The Los Alamos Isotope Program has generated isotopes since the 1970s, with production since 2005 coming from the IPF.

FROM POVERTY IN NIGERIA TO CAPT. IN U.S. AIR FORCE


FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Air Force Capt. George Okorodudu stands in front of one of his squadron's fuel tankers at Travis Air Force Base, Calif., Feb. 22, 2012. U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Madelyn Ottem

Face of Defense: Airman Lives His American Dream
By Air Force Airman 1st Class Madelyn Ottem
60th Air Mobility Wing
TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., April 10, 2012 - The 60th Logistics Readiness Squadron fuels flight commander here is in the process of accomplishing his own definition of "the American dream."

Through hard work, perseverance and a bit of luck, Capt. George Okorodudu made his way from a poverty-stricken village in Nigeria to a commission in the U.S. Air Force.
The youngest of nine children, Okorodudu grew up in Lagos, Nigeria. Hunger was prevalent, and the education system was severely undeveloped, he said.
"After 12 years of school, I did not have the ability to form words with the alphabet," Okorodudu said. "My sisters had a huge Oxford dictionary. I would wake up with it and fall asleep with it until I had learned how to form words."

When he was about 23 years old, an opportunity arose that changed his life. He applied for a U.S. visa through the National Diversity Visa Program. Though coming to America seemed like an unreachable dream, he said, Okorodudu was one of 300 people in Nigeria selected to go through a screening process before being sent to the United States with green cards in 2000.

Okorodudu joined the Air Force soon after, enlisting on April 25, 2001. He said he joined the Air Force over other services because it fit his nature as a strategic thinker.
"The Air Force gave me everything," Okorodudu said. "My military training has made me a better citizen. I believe the Air Force has enabled me to positively affect several lives, and I am very grateful."

Though he is proud of his Air Force service, he said, his proudest moment occurred two years later.

"The greatest thing that happened to me occurred, Aug. 21, 2003," he said. "That's when I received my citizenship. It was a remarkable moment."

Okorodudu distinguished himself an enlisted airman. He received Airman of the Year honors, was promoted to senior airman below the zone, and earned the Leadership Award and John L. Levitow Award at Airman Leadership School, among many other accomplishments.

He finished his bachelor's degree, and was commissioned as an Air Force officer Jan. 18, 2008. Though he didn't learn to read for the first 17 years of his life, Okorodudu also earned his master's degree with a 3.9 grade point average in 2010, and he pinned on his captain bars three months ago.

The crime, poverty and illiteracy that threatened to hold Okorodudu back while he lived in Nigeria proved to be no match for his determination. Because of his background, he said, he has been able to form an unfailingly positive perspective of the opportunities America and the Air Force have provided him.

"To me, my life has improved so greatly all because of the United States Air Force, and it has provided so many opportunities," Okorodudu said. "It's just a question of applying oneself, and you can have it all."

SECRETARY OF HHS KATHLEEN SEBELIUS SPEAKS AT NATIONAL HEALTH PROMOTION SUMMIT


FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
DELIVERED BY SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES KATHLEEN SIEBELIUS
National Health Promotion Summit
April 10, 2012
Washington, DC
I’m glad to be with you this morning because I believe nothing is more important to America’s future than our health.  On a national level, you can look at any of our biggest goals as a country – increasing productivity and economic growth, making our businesses more competitive around the world, helping our children succeed in school, reducing our government deficits.  Improving health contributes to every single one of them.

On an individual level, health is fundamental to opportunity.  The healthier we are, the more freedom we have to pursue our dreams and contribute to our families and communities.  A healthier country is one in which many more Americans have the chance to reach their full potential.

We have a clear and powerful national interest in promoting our country’s health.  And we know from decades of research that the most effective way to do that is prevention.  It’s not only easier to keep people healthy than treat them once they get sick.  It’s usually less costly too.

And yet, as you know better than anyone, we have often treated prevention as an afterthought in this country.  When this Administration came into office, prevention and public health accounted for less than 4 cents out of every health care dollar.
There were many reasons for this.  The benefits of prevention can take a while to appear.  When a dramatic surgery saves the life of a heart attack victim, we see the results right away.  When a healthy diet helps prevent a deadly heart attack, it may not show up until years later as a data point in a study.

Health promotion is also complicated.  There is no prevention pill.  Instead, we know that health can be affected by everything from the air we breathe, to the food we eat, to the neighborhood we live in, to our job and income, to our family background.  It can be hard to know where to start.

As a result, prevention too often became a talking point – an idea that generated lots of conversation but not enough action, especially from the federal government.
Today, I’m proud to say that this is changing.  While much more work remains to be done, this Administration has made prevention a top priority – and an integral part of our health strategy – beginning in our first days in office.

From the First Lady’s historic Let’s Move campaign, to the Recovery Act’s community health investments, to the health care law, to a new emphasis on environmental justice, to a first of its kind National Prevention Strategy – we have made prevention a focus for the federal government over the last three years in a way it has never been before.
And that means the entire federal government.  Prevention is no longer just the work of health agencies.  Our National Prevention Strategy was developed with input from the Departments of Transportation, Education, Housing and Urban Development and more.  And it gives these agencies responsibilities too.

So for those of you working on the front lines to promote better health in cities and towns across the country, my pledge to you this morning is that this Administration is going to be your partner.  And today, I want to focus on one of the areas where we have the biggest opportunity to make a difference together, which is our work to reduce tobacco use.

It has now been nearly 50 years since the first Surgeon General’s report on the dangers of smoking.  Back then, in the America I grew up in, smoking was everywhere: on airplanes, in offices, at the dinner table.  Nearly half of all Americans were smokers.
The work we have done since then to reduce smoking rates is one of the great health triumphs of the last century.  A report from the National Cancer Institute earlier this year found that between 1975 and 2000, these efforts saved the lives of 800,000 Americans who would have otherwise died of lung cancer.  And that’s looking at a single disease in a 25 year window.

In the late 90s, it looked like this progress would continue as states invested money from the master settlement agreement and tobacco excise taxes in anti-tobacco ad campaigns and other prevention efforts.  There was a feeling that tobacco use was on an inevitable decline.

But then we saw a pattern that is too familiar in prevention.  Budgets tightened, and resources started getting diverted to areas with a more visible and immediate payoff.  By the time this Administration came into office, smoking rates that had been falling for decades were stalled.

Today, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death, killing an estimated 443,000 Americans – more than died in all of World War II – each year.  And for every person who dies from smoking, at least two young smokers take their place. In total, nearly 4,000 young people smoke their first cigarette every day, beginning what may become a deadly addiction before they’re even eligible to vote.

This was the challenge facing the country when this Administration came into office.  But there was some good news too: we knew what worked.  In large part because of the incredible work many of you have done in states and communities, we already had a set of proven interventions that we knew could prevent illness and save lives.
We know comprehensive smoke-free laws work because states and cities that have put them in place have seen hospitalizations from heart attacks drop an average of up to 17 percent.

We know that helping people quit works because when Massachusetts expanded tobacco cessation benefits for Medicaid recipients, their smoking rates were cut by 26 percent.
And we know how effective comprehensive tobacco control programs can be because California’s has brought smoking levels down to near 12 percent.
These interventions save lives.  And they save money too.  On average, smokers have $2,000 more in health care costs a year than the general population.  That means every time we keep a young person from starting, we could be saving more than $100,000 over his or her lifetime.  At a time when health care costs have become one of the biggest items on the budgets of families, businesses, and state and federal government, we can’t afford not to expand these efforts.

So over the last three years, that’s exactly what we’ve done.  In areas where the federal government can make a difference, we’re stepping up.  For example, using the new regulatory powers it got in the 2009 tobacco control legislation, the FDA is now restricting the use of misleading terms like light or low-tar.
Beginning next year, they’ll also require tobacco companies to disclose the quantities of harmful and potentially harmful chemicals that they put in their products.  Today, we know everything about the food we put in our bodies down to the food coloring but have little idea what’s in our cigarettes.  That’s going to change.

And FDA has also announced a final rule that will require that cigarette packaging and ads to carry new warning graphic warning labels.  This is the most significant change to cigarette warnings in 25 years in the United States, and it ensures that when people pick up a pack of cigarettes, they’ll have much better information about the risk they’re taking.
We’re also doing more to help the 45 million Americans who already smoke quit – something nearly 70 percent of them say they want to do.  We know from new research that even long-time smokers’ bodies begin to heal almost immediately if they quit.  After just 24 hours, their chances of having a heart attack drop.  Within a few weeks, their lungs are working better.

So we’re making it easier for people to break their tobacco addictions.  All Americans in new health plans can now get smoking cessation counseling without paying a co-pay or deductible.   And we’ve changed a Medicare policy that forced beneficiaries to wait until after symptoms started to appear to get help quitting.  Now, seniors can get help before they get sick.

Last month, we also did something that the federal government has never done before: we launched a national tobacco control media campaign.  We estimate the new ads will lead more than half a million smokers to seek out the resources they need to quit, saving $170 million over the next three years.  And I’m happy to report that in the week after the campaign went on the air, we saw the number of calls to our national quit line more than double.

These are all steps it makes sense to take at the federal level.  But we also recognize that most of the work in our battle against tobacco use has and will continue to happen at the state and local level.  So with funding from the Recovery Act and the health care law, we’re funding proven community efforts like establishing smoke-free policies in parks and housing projects that we hope can become national models.  We’re reaching out to employers too, helping them establish smoke-free workplaces that improve health and productivity.  And we’re working with states to step up inspections to ensure that retailers don’t sell tobacco products to kids.

Our approach, in other words, is to take every proven intervention we have – and then do them all.  That’s important because, personal decisions around tobacco use are not easy.  One person may quit because they see an ad on television.  Another may stop because of the inconvenience of not being able to smoke at their workplace or favorite restaurant.  A third may kick the habit with the help of a counseling program.  But more often, it’s a combination of all these factors that helps people break their addictions.  That means we need to cover all the bases.

When you put all these steps together, this is the most ambitious federal tobacco control effort in several decades.  But there is much more work to be done.  If we are going to get tobacco rates falling again, we need to continue to expand smoke-free policies.  We need health care providers to treat start treating tobacco addiction like the potentially deadly condition it is and refer their patients to resources that can help them quit.  We need more employers to cover tobacco cessation treatment in their health plans, for the sake of their employees and their bottom lines.  We need retailers to continue their efforts to avoid selling tobacco to youth.
If we can do all of this, I believe we have a real shot to achieve our Health People 2020 goal of cutting the share of Americans who smoke to 12 percent.  It won’t be easy, but the payoff would be huge.  Even if we only got halfway to that goal, we would save millions of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

And that’s just tobacco.  We’re also seeing new progress in areas from HIV/AIDS, where a new national strategy is in place, to childhood obesity, where the First Lady and others have helped inspire a new sense of urgency and spirit of partnership.
In all these prevention efforts, we’re guided by a few key principles.
First, we need to commit the resources.  Prevention cannot just be a talking point.
Second, we need to focus those resources on the interventions that have proven to be effective.  We need to pay close attention to the latest science – like the recent discovery that HIV/AIDS treatment is itself one of the best forms of prevention – and let that science inform our work.
Third, we can’t rely on any one intervention.  There are no silver bullets.  We need a comprehensive approach.

Fourth, no organization can do it on its own.  It needs to be the federal, state and local government, schools, the business community, health care providers, community-based organizations, researchers, families and individuals all working together.
Fifth, and most important, we need to sustain these efforts.  We have seen time and time again in public health, from tobacco to TB to HIV/AIDS, that we cannot coast to better health.  We need to keep our foot down on the accelerator.

No one would ever propose giving our kids half an immunization.  Or purifying half a city’s water supply.  And we should be just as insistent when it comes to sustaining other life-saving prevention programs too.

We know it will not be easy.  But we can no longer afford - from a financial perspective or a health perspective – to rely on delivering better care in intensive care units and emergency rooms as our primary strategy for improving health.  It’s about time we as a country got serious about prevention, and this Administration is going to work with you every step of the way to make that happen.
Thank you.

NAVAL COMMANDER ON GUAM SIGNS PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH



FROM:  U.S. NAVY
SANTA RITA, Guam (April 9, 2012)
Capt. Richard Wood, commanding officer of U.S. Naval Base Guam, signs a proclamation in recognition of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, with the support of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) advocates from various commands and the Fleet and Family Support Center. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Corey Hensley (Released) 120409-N-UE250-004

PROLIFERATION THREAT AND COUNTER-PROLIFERATION


FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
The Proliferation Threat and Counter-proliferation: Why It Matters for the GCC
Remarks Vann Van Diepen
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation Key Note Address, U.S. Gulf Cooperation Council Workshop
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
April 12, 2012
Introduction
Good Morning, Dr. Saeed Al Shamsi, Consul General Siberell, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
I would like to extend my thanks to the Government of the United Arab Emirates for co-hosting with the United States this Gulf Cooperation Council Counterproliferation Workshop. It is a pleasure for me to be back in Dubai.

I am particularly pleased to be here with all of you today, and gratified that we have representatives from all the GCC countries. I think that is an indication of the importance your governments have placed on countering the threat of proliferation -- as well as an indication of the value you have placed on working together on this issue, with each other, and with the United States.

I want to take a few minutes to set the stage for the conference by outlining in broad strategic terms the threat that proliferation poses to international peace and security, to the stability of this region, and to all of the countries gathered here.

I then want to briefly discuss why it is so important for GCC countries to work to counter this proliferation threat, not only nationally, but in cooperation with each other and in cooperation with other friendly countries such as the United States.

I will then briefly note how the rest of the workshop will focus in on the broad spectrum of interlocking measures that each of us can use to combat, impede, and ultimately thwart proliferation – and by so doing improve the national security and economic viability of all of our countries.

Proliferation: The Strategic Threat
The international community has long recognized the threat that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons – and their delivery systems pose to global and regional security. And all of us are fully aware of the fact that this threat is posed not only by countries of concern, but by terrorists.

The use of WMD – especially against cities -- would have horrendous physical, psychological, and economic consequences, and could even threaten the maintenance of civil order in the countries where it is used. Even the presence of WMD in countries of concern:
can lead those countries to threaten their neighbors in order to extract political and economic concessions;
it can embolden those countries to engage in conventional aggression or terrorism against their neighbors; and
it risks promoting arms races where neighboring states decide they must acquire WMD of their own, potentially resulting in an expanding spiral of insecurity and instability.
And you are all well aware this threat is not just theoretical. It exists in the real world, and it affects this region as well as others. For example...

Iran has been acquiring, developing, and deploying for over 20 years ballistic missiles that are inherently capable of delivering WMD, missiles with ranges that easily cover all the GCC countries and even southeastern Europe. It is actively pursuing yet longer-range systems that can cover Western Europe and beyond.
Iran is violating its United Nations (UN) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations by continuing to enrich uranium, in the process clearly demonstrating the technical capability to produce highly enriched uranium for use in nuclear weapons.
The IAEA has formally reported that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device, some of which may be ongoing, and that these past activities included some related to the development of a nuclear payload for a ballistic missile.
There is mounting evidence that Iran did not declare and has not destroyed all aspects of its offensive chemical weapons program under the Chemical Weapons Convention – which raises questions about it declarations concerning biological weapons (BW) as well.

North Korea openly admits to developing and having tested nuclear weapons. It deploys WMD-capable ballistic missiles able to threaten its neighbors, has tried to flight-test missiles able to reach the United States, and sells missiles and missile technology to any country willing to pay – including to countries in the Middle East. North Korea also is widely believed to have substantial CW and BW programs.

Syria, too, has a large CW program and ballistic missiles capable of targeting the entire region. It has been researching biological weapons, and attempted unsuccessfully to conceal construction of a nuclear reactor that had no logical purpose other than the production of plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

Beyond these examples of nation-state proliferation, it is clear that Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are interested in acquiring WMD. Terrorists – both groups and individuals – can operate in any country, and can engage in attacks against any country. CW and BW in particular can be developed using technology available worldwide. Terrorists actually have used sarin nerve gas and anthrax bioweapons.

Why Counterproliferation Matters
It is very clear from these examples that all of our countries face a direct security threat from the potential for countries of concern or terrorists to use WMD directly against us. We also face the threat of political and economic instability caused by the use of WMD against others, as well as from the mere possession of WMD by countries of concern and terrorists.

In addition, however, the national and economic security of all of our countries is undermined by proliferators’ efforts to acquire WMD and their delivery systems, and the ability to make them, by misusing the territories, economies, and institutions of our countries. Proliferators do so in four key ways.

First, proliferators seek to acquire items for their WMD and missile programs directly from our countries – not just the United States, but increasingly from the other countries in this room as your economies and technology levels develop.
Second, in order to disguise their actual intention to use the items in proliferation programs, proliferators pretend that reputable countries such as yours are the destination for items they buy in third countries. Proliferators do this by:
1. falsely listing countries such as yours as end-users in export paperwork;
2. by diverting to their countries items imported into y countries such as yours from elsewhere; and
3. by having brokers and front companies – often, small import/export companies -- based in countries such as yours purchase the goods from third countries on the proliferant country’s behalf.

For example, a multi-million dollar procurement network has been using a series of companies in a third country to procure steel and aluminum alloys for use in a proliferant ballistic missile program.

Third, proliferators seek to move through countries such as yours goods they have purchased elsewhere for use in their WMD and missile programs, by misusing the common commercial practices of transit and transshipment to camouflage illicit activities. Indeed, proliferators have singled out transshipment hubs such as those in this region as a critical part of their efforts to evade the global framework of trade controls.
For example, in 2009 a UN Member State inspecting a cargo ship passing through its busy transshipment port on the way elsewhere discovered anti-tank ammunition and other munitions. The ship's manifest revealed the weapons were actually on their way to another country in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions.
Nor are proliferant transits and transshipments only by sea. Last year, during a routine check, authorities in another UN Member State discovered weapons aboard a cargo aircraft traveling through its airspace from a neighboring country to a country of concern.
Just a few weeks ago, a UN Member State discovered two independent truck shipments, one with missile-related items and one with CW-related items, moving through its territory from one neighbor to a country of concern.
Fourth, proliferators seek to use banks or middlemen in countries such as yours to pay for the items they need for their WMD and missile programs.
For example, a Chinese citizen who procures items for proliferation programs in another country used front companies and false names to route payments through New York bank accounts to sell graphite to a proliferant ballistic missile program.
Increasingly, proliferators are applying several of these approaches simultaneously.
For example, a proliferator with Canadian citizenship imported from the United States pressure transducers, dual-use items that can be used in uranium enrichment.
Since enrichment is not something that happens in Canada, that part of the transfer did not raise suspicions, as the proliferator intended.
But the proliferator then exported the items from Canada to a proliferation program by falsifying the description and cost of the shipment, and routing it via a third country.

In all of these cases, proliferators are misusing our territories and economies against our will -- using stealth, lies, and manipulation to obtain support for WMD and missile programs that directly threaten our security. These same actions by proliferators also:
subvert legitimate trade,
call into question the good reputations of our companies and ports, and
thus undermine the confidence needed for legitimate trade to grow.
This directly inhibits our countries’ economic prosperity, not just our national security. And the proliferators are not standing still. They are increasingly adaptive and creative:
seeking alternative suppliers, such as overseas distributors;
using front companies, cut-outs, and brokers to facilitate and conceal diversion;
falsifying documentation, end-users, and end-uses; and
using circuitous shipping routes and multiple transshipment points to obscure the actual destination of their shipments.

In addition, proliferators are increasingly interested in procuring items not on multilateral control lists. Proliferators use these non-listed items, which also have legitimate commercial applications, to help produce WMD and missiles, either directly or to substitute for items on the multilateral lists.

Counterproliferation Cooperation is the Answer
I hope I have clearly demonstrated the importance of the issue to all of our countries, and the magnitude of the challenge we face. The threats posed by, and activities of, proliferators are global in scope – and they bear heavily on this region as well.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the answer to countering and reducing this threat also is global in scope, and requires work in this region as well. Fortunately, the international community has developed effective methods against the proliferation threat that our countries and other responsible countries can bring to bear. Analyzing and discussing these various methods, how they work, and how to implement them will be the focus of the bulk of this workshop.

Let me briefly outline the tools and solutions that we will be discussing together.
We will start at the global and multilateral level, briefly examining the international authorities and control regimes that provide foundational sources and legal bases for combating proliferation. We also look forward in that segment to hearing more about the GCC Customs Union.

We then will move to a discussion of national level solutions, where we want to analyze the core elements of strategic trade controls and share experiences.
I noted earlier the challenge of proliferators seeking items not on, or below the thresholds of, the multilateral regime control lists, and their misuse of transshipment – both techniques proliferators commonly use against this region. So the next segment in the workshop will focus on catch-all controls and transshipment best practices.
Then the session on combating proliferation financing will highlight tools to prevent proliferators from misusing your banking systems to facilitate illicit trade.

Finally, we want to make you aware of some of the resources that are available to you to help build capacity in your countries to fight proliferation, and to implement these various tools.

And at the end of our second day together, we will have a “table top” exercise that will give us an opportunity to interact, directly and dynamically, to see how all the tools we’ve been discussing fit together in the real world. I hope this will help us develop some new ideas about how to work together and assist each other.

In conclusion, let me suggest that a recurring theme of this workshop is that the central element of effectively countering proliferation is cooperation:
cooperation between different ministries within each country, and between government and industry;
cooperation between neighbors within a region; and
cooperation with friends and trading partners from outside the region and with the broad international community.

Just as proliferators use networks to procure goods and services, we need to be a network of nonproliferators, employing best practices, and creating a layered, mutually reinforcing defense strategy against proliferation and its associated procurement efforts. All of the countries here today have a key role to play in this network. And I am quite sure that our workshop will promote the cooperation and collaboration needed to combat the proliferation threat that endangers the security and prosperity of us all.
Thank you.



Navy Investigates Unmanned Helicopter Mishaps

Navy Investigates Unmanned Helicopter Mishaps

U.S. OFFICIAL REMARKS ON WHY COUNTER-PROLIFERATION MATTERS FOR GCC


FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The Proliferation Threat and Counterproliferation: Why It Matters for the GCC
Remarks Vann Van Diepen
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation Key Note Address, U.S. Gulf Cooperation Council Workshop
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
April 12, 2012
Introduction
Good Morning, Dr. Saeed Al Shamsi, Consul General Siberell, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
I would like to extend my thanks to the Government of the United Arab Emirates for co-hosting with the United States this Gulf Cooperation Council Counterproliferation Workshop. It is a pleasure for me to be back in Dubai.
I am particularly pleased to be here with all of you today, and gratified that we have representatives from all the GCC countries. I think that is an indication of the importance your governments have placed on countering the threat of proliferation -- as well as an indication of the value you have placed on working together on this issue, with each other, and with the United States.

I want to take a few minutes to set the stage for the conference by outlining in broad strategic terms the threat that proliferation poses to international peace and security, to the stability of this region, and to all of the countries gathered here.
I then want to briefly discuss why it is so important for GCC countries to work to counter this proliferation threat, not only nationally, but in cooperation with each other and in cooperation with other friendly countries such as the United States.
I will then briefly note how the rest of the workshop will focus in on the broad spectrum of interlocking measures that each of us can use to combat, impede, and ultimately thwart proliferation – and by so doing improve the national security and economic viability of all of our countries.

Proliferation: The Strategic Threat
The international community has long recognized the threat that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons – and their delivery systems pose to global and regional security. And all of us are fully aware of the fact that this threat is posed not only by countries of concern, but by terrorists.
The use of WMD – especially against cities -- would have horrendous physical, psychological, and economic consequences, and could even threaten the maintenance of civil order in the countries where it is used. Even the presence of WMD in countries of concern:
can lead those countries to threaten their neighbors in order to extract political and economic concessions;
it can embolden those countries to engage in conventional aggression or terrorism against their neighbors; and
it risks promoting arms races where neighboring states decide they must acquire WMD of their own, potentially resulting in an expanding spiral of insecurity and instability.
And you are all well aware this threat is not just theoretical. It exists in the real world, and it affects this region as well as others. For example...
Iran has been acquiring, developing, and deploying for over 20 years ballistic missiles that are inherently capable of delivering WMD, missiles with ranges that easily cover all the GCC countries and even southeastern Europe. It is actively pursuing yet longer-range systems that can cover Western Europe and beyond.
Iran is violating its United Nations (UN) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations by continuing to enrich uranium, in the process clearly demonstrating the technical capability to produce highly enriched uranium for use in nuclear weapons.
The IAEA has formally reported that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device, some of which may be ongoing, and that these past activities included some related to the development of a nuclear payload for a ballistic missile.
There is mounting evidence that Iran did not declare and has not destroyed all aspects of its offensive chemical weapons program under the Chemical Weapons Convention – which raises questions about it declarations concerning biological weapons (BW) as well.

North Korea openly admits to developing and having tested nuclear weapons. It deploys WMD-capable ballistic missiles able to threaten its neighbors, has tried to flight-test missiles able to reach the United States, and sells missiles and missile technology to any country willing to pay – including to countries in the Middle East. North Korea also is widely believed to have substantial CW and BW programs.
Syria, too, has a large CW program and ballistic missiles capable of targeting the entire region. It has been researching biological weapons, and attempted unsuccessfully to conceal construction of a nuclear reactor that had no logical purpose other than the production of plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

Beyond these examples of nation-state proliferation, it is clear that Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are interested in acquiring WMD. Terrorists – both groups and individuals – can operate in any country, and can engage in attacks against any country. CW and BW in particular can be developed using technology available worldwide. Terrorists actually have used sarin nerve gas and anthrax bioweapons.

Why Counterproliferation Matters
It is very clear from these examples that all of our countries face a direct security threat from the potential for countries of concern or terrorists to use WMD directly against us. We also face the threat of political and economic instability caused by the use of WMD against others, as well as from the mere possession of WMD by countries of concern and terrorists.

In addition, however, the national and economic security of all of our countries is undermined by proliferators’ efforts to acquire WMD and their delivery systems, and the ability to make them, by misusing the territories, economies, and institutions of our countries. Proliferators do so in four key ways.
First, proliferators seek to acquire items for their WMD and missile programs directly from our countries – not just the United States, but increasingly from the other countries in this room as your economies and technology levels develop.
Second, in order to disguise their actual intention to use the items in proliferation programs, proliferators pretend that reputable countries such as yours are the destination for items they buy in third countries. Proliferators do this by:
1. falsely listing countries such as yours as end-users in export paperwork;
2. by diverting to their countries items imported into y countries such as yours from elsewhere; and
3. by having brokers and front companies – often, small import/export companies -- based in countries such as yours purchase the goods from third countries on the proliferant country’s behalf.

For example, a multi-million dollar procurement network has been using a series of companies in a third country to procure steel and aluminum alloys for use in a proliferant ballistic missile program.

Third, proliferators seek to move through countries such as yours goods they have purchased elsewhere for use in their WMD and missile programs, by misusing the common commercial practices of transit and transshipment to camouflage illicit activities. Indeed, proliferators have singled out transshipment hubs such as those in this region as a critical part of their efforts to evade the global framework of trade controls.
For example, in 2009 a UN Member State inspecting a cargo ship passing through its busy transshipment port on the way elsewhere discovered anti-tank ammunition and other munitions. The ship's manifest revealed the weapons were actually on their way to another country in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions.

Nor are proliferant transits and transshipments only by sea. Last year, during a routine check, authorities in another UN Member State discovered weapons aboard a cargo aircraft traveling through its airspace from a neighboring country to a country of concern.
Just a few weeks ago, a UN Member State discovered two independent truck shipments, one with missile-related items and one with CW-related items, moving through its territory from one neighbor to a country of concern.
Fourth, proliferators seek to use banks or middlemen in countries such as yours to pay for the items they need for their WMD and missile programs.
For example, a Chinese citizen who procures items for proliferation programs in another country used front companies and false names to route payments through New York bank accounts to sell graphite to a proliferant ballistic missile program.

Increasingly, proliferators are applying several of these approaches simultaneously.
For example, a proliferator with Canadian citizenship imported from the United States pressure transducers, dual-use items that can be used in uranium enrichment.
Since enrichment is not something that happens in Canada, that part of the transfer did not raise suspicions, as the proliferator intended.

But the proliferator then exported the items from Canada to a proliferation program by falsifying the description and cost of the shipment, and routing it via a third country.
In all of these cases, proliferators are misusing our territories and economies against our will -- using stealth, lies, and manipulation to obtain support for WMD and missile programs that directly threaten our security. These same actions by proliferators also:
subvert legitimate trade,
call into question the good reputations of our companies and ports, and
thus undermine the confidence needed for legitimate trade to grow.
This directly inhibits our countries’ economic prosperity, not just our national security. And the proliferators are not standing still. They are increasingly adaptive and creative:
seeking alternative suppliers, such as overseas distributors;
using front companies, cut-outs, and brokers to facilitate and conceal diversion;
falsifying documentation, end-users, and end-uses; and
using circuitous shipping routes and multiple transshipment points to obscure the actual destination of their shipments.
In addition, proliferators are increasingly interested in procuring items not on multilateral control lists. Proliferators use these non-listed items, which also have legitimate commercial applications, to help produce WMD and missiles, either directly or to substitute for items on the multilateral lists.

Counterproliferation Cooperation is the Answer
I hope I have clearly demonstrated the importance of the issue to all of our countries, and the magnitude of the challenge we face. The threats posed by, and activities of, proliferators are global in scope – and they bear heavily on this region as well.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the answer to countering and reducing this threat also is global in scope, and requires work in this region as well. Fortunately, the international community has developed effective methods against the proliferation threat that our countries and other responsible countries can bring to bear. Analyzing and discussing these various methods, how they work, and how to implement them will be the focus of the bulk of this workshop.

Let me briefly outline the tools and solutions that we will be discussing together.
We will start at the global and multilateral level, briefly examining the international authorities and control regimes that provide foundational sources and legal bases for combating proliferation. We also look forward in that segment to hearing more about the GCC Customs Union.

We then will move to a discussion of national level solutions, where we want to analyze the core elements of strategic trade controls and share experiences.
I noted earlier the challenge of proliferators seeking items not on, or below the thresholds of, the multilateral regime control lists, and their misuse of transshipment – both techniques proliferators commonly use against this region. So the next segment in the workshop will focus on catch-all controls and transshipment best practices.
Then the session on combating proliferation financing will highlight tools to prevent proliferators from misusing your banking systems to facilitate illicit trade.
Finally, we want to make you aware of some of the resources that are available to you to help build capacity in your countries to fight proliferation, and to implement these various tools.

And at the end of our second day together, we will have a “table top” exercise that will give us an opportunity to interact, directly and dynamically, to see how all the tools we’ve been discussing fit together in the real world. I hope this will help us develop some new ideas about how to work together and assist each other.

In conclusion, let me suggest that a recurring theme of this workshop is that the central element of effectively countering proliferation is cooperation:
cooperation between different ministries within each country, and between government and industry;
cooperation between neighbors within a region; and
cooperation with friends and trading partners from outside the region and with the broad international community.

Just as proliferators use networks to procure goods and services, we need to be a network of nonproliferators, employing best practices, and creating a layered, mutually reinforcing defense strategy against proliferation and its associated procurement efforts. All of the countries here today have a key role to play in this network. And I am quite sure that our workshop will promote the cooperation and collaboration needed to combat the proliferation threat that endangers the security and prosperity of us all.

Thank you.

Search This Blog

Translate

White House.gov Press Office Feed