SEC. OF STATE CLINTON'S REMARKS AT STRATEGIC DIALOGUE WITH CIVIL SOCIETY 2012 SUMMIT

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society 2012 Summit
Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton
   Secretary of State Tomicah S. Tillemann
   Senior Advisor for Civil Society and Emerging Democracies Tara Sonenshine
   Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
May 16, 2012
MR. TILLEMANN: Good morning. I’m Tomicah Tillemann, and I serve as the State Department’s Senior Advisor for Civil Society in Emerging Democracies. Today, it is my privilege to welcome you to the 2012 Summit of our Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society. This event brings together civil society representatives from more than 40 countries who have gathered here in Washington and thousands more who are participating via the internet and at embassy viewing parties around the world.

This summit is taking place at a moment of profound change. The world is witnessing a fundamental renegotiation of the relationships that have historically defined interactions between citizens and governments. Civil society has been at the forefront of that change, and this dialogue represents our recognition of the rapidly expanding role that you and your organizations play in shaping our world. This dialogue now involves more than 50 bureaus and offices at the State Department and USAID. We’ll hear more about that in a moment, but it is providing a platform for translating your ideas into foreign policy. And our work on this initiative is a concrete manifestation of our commitment to elevating civil society as a full partner in our diplomacy alongside other governments.

Now, we know that the work of civil society is never easy. And in too many places it is truly dangerous. But amid this multitude of challenges and opportunities, we are fortunate to have women and men leading the State Department who understand the value and the potential of civil society as a force for progress in our country and around the world. And we are particularly fortunate that two of those women are with us today for this global town hall.

We are glad to welcome our Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been working with and for civil society since her first job out of law school, and our Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Tara Sonenshine, who recently joined our State Department family after serving with great success in many civil society organizations and who will moderate this town hall.

Our sole speaker this morning will be Secretary Clinton, and her vision is the catalyst that brings us together today. Six months before a Tunisian vegetable seller remade the political landscape of an entire region, she spelled out the centrality of civil society in our foreign policy at a keynote address to the community of democracies. During the cold autumn that preceded the Arab Spring, she created an office on her staff that was dedicated to engaging civil society. And long before TIME magazine named the protester as the person of the year, she understood what you could accomplish.

She has been supporting civil society since before it was hip. She has been fearless, focused, and farsighted in her efforts. And frankly, as the most admired woman in the world, she needs no introduction. (Laughter.) Our Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very, very much, and thank you, Tomicah. Tomicah has done an absolutely superb job in taking this idea of a strategic dialogue with civil society and putting real flesh on the bones. And this second summit is certainly evidence of that.

So it is a pleasure to welcome you here to the State Department. A lot has happened since we launched this initiative with the summit last year. When we met for the first time in last February, the revolutions that Tomicah referenced had begun to unfold across the Middle East and North Africa. Citizens were demanding their rights and their voices which, for too long, had been denied. And amid the tumult, civil society groups everywhere sprang up to push for democracy and change. Now some emerged from those quiet places where they had been operating for years. Others formed overnight as a great result of social media connections.

But in any event, it was brave men and women, including many of you in this room, who came together to plan for a new future, and you spoke eloquently about the need for civil society. Well, your work and the work of millions of others around the world has never been more important. We are seeing people stepping up to fill the space between government and the economy.

In 1998, I gave a speech at Davos about a firm foundation for any society being like a three-legged stool where you had to have a responsive, effective, accountable government, and you had to have a dynamic, job-creating, free market economic sector. And then you had to have a strong civil society. If one of the legs got too long or too short, the balance would be thrown off. And to make the case for civil society, it’s really quite simple, because government cannot and should not control any individual’s life, tell you what to do, what not to do. The economy has to be in the hands of those who are the entrepreneurs and the creative innovators. But it’s in civil society where we live our lives. That’s where our families are formed; that’s where our faith is practiced; that’s where we become who we are, through voluntary activities, through standing up for our common humanity.

And so as we see the explosion of civil society groups around the world, we want to support you. I think that in the United States, civil society does the work that touches on every part of our life. It really reflects what Alexis de Tocqueville called the habits of the heart that America has been forming and practicing from our very founding, because we early on understood that there had to be a role for government and a role for the economy, but everything else was a role for us – individuals charting our own course, making our own contributions.

And we turn to you to help us support civil society around the world. Now this initiative is a striking example of how government and civil society, often supported by the private sector, can work together. And under Tomicah’s leadership, we’ve spent the past year consulting with civil society groups through the Strategic Dialogue and our working groups, asking you for ideas about what we in government can do more effectively, looking for more opportunities to collaborate.

Now I don’t want to give the impression – because it would be a false one – that cooperation between civil society and government is always easy, even if this dialogue sometimes makes it look that way. Most of you will not be shocked to hear that civil society and government, even in my own country, do not always agree. We have found ways to disagree without being disagreeable. But I started my career working in civil society. I did a lot to take on my own government starting in the 1970s. The first issue I worked on was to try to help change the laws about how we treated people with disabilities. And I worked for a group that went door to door in certain parts of America asking families, “Do you have a child who’s not in school, and if so, why?” And we found blind children and deaf children and children in wheelchairs and children who had been kicked out of school with no alternative. And I was a very small part of a really large effort to require that American public schools find a place for every one of our children.

And so I know that you have to sometimes stand up to your own governments. You have to sometimes help your government do things that, in the absence of the pressure you are bringing, they either could not or would not do themselves. So we understand that the space that civil society operates in, in many places around the world, is dangerous; that many of you in this room and those who are following this on the internet really do put yourselves on the line. And we want to be your partners.

Now we know too that in the face of an upsurging civil society, some governments have responded by cracking down harder than ever. Recent headlines from too many countries paint a picture of civil society under threat. But each time a reporter is silenced, or an activist is threatened, it doesn’t strengthen a government, it weakens a nation. A stool cannot balance on one leg or even two. The system will not be sustainable.

So the United States is pushing back against this trend. We’ve provided political and financial support for embattled civil society groups around the world. Just two weeks ago, our Democracy and Human Rights Working Group met with bloggers and reporters from across the region in Tunis to hear about challenges to freedom of expression. And we are trying to lead by example. We hope that by holding meetings like this one, we can demonstrate that civil society should be viewed not a threat, but an asset.
I’m very proud to announce today that the State Department is acting on every one of the eight policy recommendations that have been generated by civil society through this dialogue so far. Now, I won’t go through all of them for you – I hope that you’ll have a briefing on all of those; we’re putting the details online for everyone to see – but let me just make a few highlight comments.

First, we are expanding the reach and deepening our commitment to this dialogue by setting up embassy working groups. Our posts will help us tap the ideas and opinions of local civil society groups, and then we will channel their input back to Washington to inform our policies. We’ve already received commitments from 10 posts stretching from Brazil to Bangladesh, from the Czech Republic to Cameroon. I know many of these posts are watching live via the internet right now, and I want to extend a special word of thanks to them.

Second, our Working Group on Religion and Foreign Policy has focused on how we can strengthen our engagement with the large section of civil society comprised of faith-based organizations. Our posts in every region of the globe work with faith-based organizations and religious communities to bolster democracies, protect human rights, and respond to the humanitarian need of citizens. So these groups are our natural allies on a multitude of issues, including advancing religious freedom, and we want to work with them wherever possible. These recommendations will support our officers in the field who are engaging with religious communities to make sure they have the appropriate training to carry out their efforts.

Third, our Labor Working Group has examined opportunities to facilitate discussions among governments, businesses, and labor groups to make sure all points of view are represented at the international level and in multilateral institutions. Labor groups are another well-organized and important category of civil society, and we want to help them connect with one another and pursue shared approaches as we defend and advance workers’ rights.

And finally, bringing us back to the great changes throughout the Middle East and North Africa, our Women’s Empowerment Working Group is building awareness for women’s rights in countries undergoing political transition. And we will work closely with civil society groups and governments in the region to help make women’s rights part of new constitutions, protected and practiced, and understood as critical to the development of democratic, successful societies.

Now, our new policy recommendations do not end here. Later this afternoon, the dialogue will hear new ideas developed by our Working Groups on Governance and Accountability to improve transparency and combat corruption. And we will continue engaging with you to identify new ideas and opportunities. This summer, we will also be adding a new Global Philanthropy Working Group to our dialogue, chaired by Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Tara Sonenshine. This group will expand our cooperation with leading foundations and develop partnerships to support civil society.
Now, conversations and actions like these have ripple effects, and we have had some positive responses from governments over the last year who are reaching out and developing their own mechanisms for engaging with their own civil society. Some of the representatives from those governments are here today, and we greatly appreciate your presence, and we also stand ready to offer any assistance we can.

So thank you for being here. Thank you for what you do. Please know that are enthusiastic about the future of civil society and we want to use this dialogue, as we have for the past year, to be a vehicle for the exchange of ideas, for the promotion of new approaches, and for an accounting, because we want to do what works and quit doing what doesn’t work. So we want to be very clear that we’re going to be holding ourselves accountable and going to be looking to civil society to be held accountable as well.
So I’m looking forward to taking some questions about our dialogue and having this exchange with you and then hearing more about the work that each and every one of you are doing. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: Well, thank you, Madam Secretary, for the opportunity to moderate this very inspiring and loud program. I do want to welcome all of you, and particularly those who are here on ECA-funded civil society programs, the IVLP folks, the Humphrey fellows, if you’re out there somewhere. We particularly welcome you here today.

In just a few moments, we’ll be taking some questions from the audience, so as you do have a question, if you would signal us and we will get a microphone to you. But in the meantime, I’m going to begin, Madam Secretary, by picking up on this very inspired and moving thought: Each time a reporter is silenced or an activist is threatened, it doesn’t strengthen a government, it weakens a nation. So how do we explain this rise of challenges and crackdowns on civil society? And are these isolated events, or is there a trend here that we’re going to see in the years outward?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think – this is loud. (Laughter.) I hope it can be turned down. I think that the world is going through an extraordinary historic change. More people are living under governments of their own choosing and more people have the opportunity to do so than ever before in human history. But it’s also true that old habits die hard. There are all kinds of cultural, political, economic, even religious, ethnic, racial – all kinds of mindsets that are difficult to change in a short period of time.
I am very optimistic about the future, but I am also very realistic that the pathway to that future of greater democracy, freedom, human rights, human dignity is going to be a hard road for many millions and millions of people around the world. And therefore, we have to continue making the case for respect and tolerance and openness that is at the root of any true sustainable democracy while recognizing that many leaders, both old and new, are going to find such a transition very personally threatening, threatening to their group, threatening to their assumptions about power and order. And we have to continue to make the case.

So I am humbled by the courage of so many people around the world right now – dissidents, activists, political actors – who are contributing to this historic tide that is building. But I also realize that it’s not going to happen overnight, and therefore, we have to be smart about how we help you move forward on this agenda for civil society, democracy, and human rights.

So I really think, Tara, that we have to, also in the United States, remind ourselves of our own long journey. We’re living in a time of instant communication and 24-hour news, but we did not recognize every American’s human rights, we did not have fully representative one-person, one-vote democracy, when we started out. We had to fight a civil war. We had to amend our Constitution. So we have to be, I think, always advancing what we believe are universal human values, best realized within the context of representative democracy but with enough humility to understand that different peoples, different countries have different histories, different cultures, different mindsets.

So what we want to do is support real change, not just score political points or get on the evening news. At the end of the day, we want our help and support for civil society and political change to actually have advanced the cause of freedom and human dignity and human rights and democracy, and not to be used as an excuse or a rationale for clamping down even more. So navigating through all of that is especially difficult if you’re in such a country, but it’s also difficult for us who are trying to help those of you who are on the frontlines.

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: Let me go to the audience here first, and then we’ll go overseas. I notice the first hand is in the second row, three seats in. And if you would not mind identifying yourself and also asking folks to keep questions relatively short so that we can work our way around the room. Please.

QUESTION: Hello, I am Shatha Al-Harazi, a political human rights journalist from Yemen. I am so honored to be here today with you and so inspired by your speech. I have only one question. You just spoke about universal human values. When it comes to that, that just reminds me that – of a friend of mine who just told me to tell you face-to-face that Yemenis are not less important than American, and if you want to work hand to hand and counter terrorism, you have to work with the civil society. You have to strengthen the civil society. And we thank you here for the great work that NDI and the USAID are doing, but still the drone strikes are disrupting everything and it’s getting our civilian killed. So I’m just asking you here, is there any consideration or any plans on working with civil society on counterterrorism? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we certainly intend to and are working with civil society on counterterrorism, because one of the long-term solutions to terrorism is building up civil society, giving people the feeling of empowerment: their voices are heard; they don’t need to turn to violence because they can participate fully and equally in a political process.

We also are committed to working with civil society to counter violent extremism; to counter the messages of extremists who promote violence; who are not respectful of human rights or even human life, but instead are intent upon undermining the political order and, in effect, capturing it to promote a certain ideological or religious point of view.

So we do have to do more with civil society. There is absolutely total agreement on that. And in a conflict situation, as we see in many places around the country, we do try to do both. We try to support the government or the political system against the threat from violent extremism while trying to work to enhance civil society as a way of diminishing either the attractiveness or the reach of extremism.

So it’s not either/or in our view. It’s primarily on the political-civil society front, but I’m not going to sit here and mislead you. There are also people who are trying to kill Americans, kill Europeans, and kill Yemenis; who are not going to listen to reason; who don’t want to participate in a political process; who have no interest in sitting around a table and hearing your view because, with all due respect, you’re a woman. And so they cannot be given the opportunity to kill their way to power, so we will support governments who are trying to prevent that from happening while we also try to build up civil society, help move a country like Yemen on a path to true democracy with representative government.

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: We’re going to go from Yemen to Morocco. I believe we have a video –

PARTICIPANT: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: Okay, I think we’re first going to go to the real Morocco, which is a video question we have via YouTube. And if we could queue up the first overseas question for the Secretary and play our first video.

QUESTION: My name is Manelle Ilitir and I’m from Morocco. Unemployment is the most pressing issue in our MENA region. Expectations are high, and youth are demanding action now. The complexity of the (inaudible) of this urgency only creates more tension. So my question to you, Secretary Clinton, is: How can civil society drive a social dialogue among the concerned stakeholders where there is public, private, academia, NGO; a social dialogue that is result-oriented, that reinforces their collaboration, amplifies what already exists, and delivers the jobs needed in the immediate future? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you very much. And I think that young woman’s question is one of the most common I’m asked around the world, because 60 percent of the world’s population is under 30; the highest percentage of the unemployed are under 30. Young people are very worried about what kind of futures they will have across the world. But in particular, when those worries collide with the rising expectations produced by political reform and even revolution, it’s a volatile mix.

So I think there are several things. First of all, governments have to have good policies. That is obvious. And it is more difficult in the 21st century for a lot of reasons which you say are complicated. I agree. But civil society can be a great catalyst and partner with government and with the private sector on job creation. What do I mean by that? Civil society can help with the acquisition of job skills and training for certain kinds of jobs that are available in the marketplace. Now, we have this problem in our own country. We have lots of jobs available in lots of industries without enough people either willing or able to take those jobs. So doing job training, doing outreach, helping prepare young people for the jobs that are there.

Secondly, we have formed a partnership called the Partnership for a New Beginning that is in North Africa and the Middle East. And when I was just in Morocco, I met with the leaders of this effort who are leaders of corporations, small businesses, entrepreneurs, innovators and we are working with them to try to increase their economic reach so that they can offer more jobs. What can they do to improve their exports? What can they do with our help to break down barriers so that they can get into new markets? Now one of the things that would particularly help in the Maghreb, if you look at from Morocco through Egypt, those countries trade less with each other than any contiguous countries in the world. You have the border between Morocco and Algeria closed. You have continuing difficulties with other countries in terms of trade agreements, open borders – the kind of free flow of commerce that does create jobs. And so the more that can be done to integrate the economies of the Maghreb, the more I believe you will have greater opportunities for young people.

Then I think civil society can take a strong stand against corruption, because corruption is a job killer. Corruption is a cancer that eats away at economic opportunity. So civil society needs to be loudly and clearly speaking out against, acting against corruption, and using social media – posting anonymous pictures of people taking bribes, posting anonymous stories of officials who stand in the way of the creation of your small business. So take that stand against corruption. We will work with you. We will help you on that.
And then look at the ways that technology can create more jobs and do an examination of what are the barriers within your government to the creation of businesses and jobs. Because there is a ranking that is done by an independent organization that ranks every country in the world in the ease of doing business. How easy is it if I show up tomorrow in Morocco or Tunisia or Jordan or Yemen and I say, “I want to start a business, and I think if I’m successful I could employ 10, 20, 30 people. How long does it take?” Sometimes it takes more than a year. How discouraging is that to people who want to get started and want to get going with their own energy to create something? Sometimes you have to pay many bribes. Sometimes you have to get all kinds of licenses that have nothing to do with actually starting your business, but it’s just to keep somebody in the government employed. If the government employment takes up too much of the sector of employment in a society, it squeezes out the opportunity for business to flourish to create jobs in the market.

So these are some of the things that civil society can do in cooperation with both government and business, and we’re working on all of those through this Department to be of support to you.

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: I know there was a gentleman had his hand up first, right on the edge there. And we will, again, try to move as quickly as we can here and overseas.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you very much. It’s an honor to be here. I just want to ask you a question. We have teams – my name is Marc Gopin. I’m from CRDC George Mason University, and I have teams that work in some countries that are adversaries of the United States like Syria and others that are allies. And I want to ask your advice about how we can do what we do better in terms of civil society, conflict management, and social transition that will help you balance the challenge of working with allies that you need to keep as allies, but at the same time are hurting our people. So how can we do what we do more effectively in a way that will help American policy provide positive pressure that’s constructive and that what we do is constructive and helpful to what you’re trying to do?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think you’re putting your finger on a difficult issue because, if I heard you right, you do conflict mediation, resolution, in countries with which we have both good and not so good relations. And even sometimes in the ones we have good relations, very often they don’t have the best track records in how they support civil society and treat their own people, which we are well aware of.
Look, I think there are a couple of things. Why do countries change? Why do leaders change? Why do they decide one day that they are going to go in a different direction? There’s a certain level of mystery to this, but a large part of the answer is because they become convinced they’re on the wrong track. We’re watching with great interest the opening in Burma over the last months. And there’s been a lot written about why did these former generals who had been part of a very oppressive regime for a very long time – the prisons were filled with political prisoners; Aung San Suu Kyi was a prisoner in her own home – why did they decide this is the wrong direction? I don’t know that there’s any specific answer, but I’ll tell you some of the answers that have been suggested, which I think are more general.

First, there were leaders in other countries who had gone through the process who reached out and began in a very respectful way to talk about what democracy could mean to the future of Burma. It’s been in the public record, but one was the president of Indonesia, a former general during a very difficult time of dictatorship, who took off his uniform, ran for office. Now Indonesia, the largest Muslim population in the world, is a thriving democracy where women and men are equal participants. And so President Yudhoyono began to reach out the generals in Burma through ASEAN, through other organizations, to say, “Let me tell you about my experience. Not like, ‘you must go do this’ but let me tell you what we did in Indonesia.” The generals began to travel, and they began to see that their country was not as developed. It didn’t have as much prosperity. It didn’t have jobs for young people like other countries nearby. Thailand had been under military rule; now it was booming. It was next door.
So these personal experiences and the outreach of other leaders or people who can relate to those in power in oppressive countries, coming from similar backgrounds, having similar experiences – never underestimate the power of personal relationships and personal experiences. We talk about geopolitical strategy, and sometimes it seems way up in the sky, but I’ve often found it’s the personal connection.

I remember going to Nelson Mandela’s inauguration, and there were many, many very important people there. And after he was inaugurated, we went back to the president’s home for an inaugural lunch, and he stood up and he said, “I want you to meet three – the three most important people to me who are here today.” They were three former jailers of his on Robben Island; three hard-bitten white men who had overseen his imprisonment, but who had treated him with dignity and respect. And I remember asking him in one of the conversations I was privileged to have with him, “How did you come out not embittered, wanting revenge, wanting to do to them what they had done to you?” And he said, “Well, I knew if I walked out embittered, I’d still be in prison.” He said, “But I also knew from those years in prison there were people who saw me as a human being, and I, therefore, had to see them as human beings.”

Now I tell you those stories because a lot of time conflict mediation or resolution is very formalistic. People are engaged in dialogue. But what happens that’s most important is, I think, outside the dialogue, where they talk about their families, their interests, when they decide that that person of another religion, of another race, of another tribe is also a human being. So I think you’ve got to try to engage leaders and countries that are oppressive in those kinds of personal ways. It doesn’t always work. There are some really hard cases in the world. We know that. But it might help in the person who comes after, or it might help in the guy standing on the sidelines who said, “We can do this better.” And – but just persist. You never know what’s going to make an impression.

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: Let’s go quickly to another part of the world, Brazil, and let’s hear from our Brazilian civil society leader and include them in the conversation here. So we’ll queue up Brazil, we’ll come back here, and keep moving along as quickly as we can.

QUESTION: My name is Marlon Reis. I am a state judge in Brazil. I take part on the Brazilian movement against electoral corruption. My movement was responsible for conquest of the (in Portuguese), the law of clean slate. I would like to ask: How could we improve our relationship, the partnership between U.S. Government and social movements on fighting against corruption? Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: Let me suggest we’re going to run a couple of these, just to give you a chance to wrap them together. If we could go to Afghanistan very quickly, because I know some of these civil society leaders worked very hard to be heard here, and I’d like to have a few of them and we’ll wrap them together.

QUESTION: (In foreign language.)

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: So I happen to have a translation of the question for those who couldn’t follow it, but it does address the gender issues in Afghanistan, and I think the rule of law questions on the Brazil. So if you want to take on both of those, and then we’ll probably have time for one more here and one more there.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, with respect to the Brazilian question on corruption, I just want to reiterate what I said. The more civil society can be a force against corruption, the more likely the reforms you’re seeking, whether it’s in the economy, in the environment, in any area of human rights or dignity, are more likely to have a chance to succeed. And taking on corruption should be the job of governments, but very often governments need civil society to push them and pull them into doing even more.
Regarding the question about women in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of NATO-ISAF troops over the next two years, this is a great concern to the United States. It is to me personally. There has been an enormous amount of great progress made in Afghanistan. This young woman is an example of that, running a radio station, something that would’ve been absolutely unheard of, punishable under the Taliban. And we have made it our priority to do everything we can to help support civil society, the rule of law, women’s empowerment, and the enforcement of the laws and constitution of Afghanistan, which clearly lay out the rights of men and women to be treated equally under the laws. I mean, that is not too much to ask for. And that is what every person, man and woman, is entitled to.

So we will continue working with civil society and the government, making it clear that that has to be a redline, and do all we can to support the brave women of Afghanistan who are out there every single day saying, “I have a right to go to school,” “I have a right to be a practicing doctor,” “I have a right to be a teacher,” “I have a right to open my business.” And we just think that that goes with being a democracy. And women have the same right to make the choices that are right for them and their families, as any man does. So we have to keep making that absolutely clear. (Applause.)

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: So we’re in the last few moments. The Secretary has to leave. What I’m going to suggest is a very quick question here, a very short question from Kazakhstan, and we will wrap up. The Secretary has to leave. I will stay behind and help answer some of the questions or pass them along to her.
So very quickly here, Kazakhstan, and we will close.

QUESTION: Thank you. I’m Hamid from Morocco, the first country that recognized the United States. And I know that you love it. (Laughter.)
So I’m talking about civil society in Morocco, but I think it’s the same in the Maghreb. There is an increasing role in the last 10 years of the role of civil society, yes, but there is some threats, lack of transparency. We know one number saved by the minister of – in Morocco that 90 percent of public aid for civil – for NGOs in Morocco goes to only 10 percent of NGOs. It means that the states control the funding of civil society.
And also the foreign aid for civil society don’t goes to the real NGOs in the ground, which they work close to people. And they don’t know what are the mechanism that you use to help NGOs in the grounds to work with people. And I think it’s something very interesting. You can give a lot of money, but if it don’t goes to the goal that you want to do, it’s a waste of your money. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you for that. Let me quickly say that we need your help – that’s why you’re here – to advise us about how to be more effective with the aid that we give to NGOs. Because you’re right, sometimes we are told by governments that we cannot give aid to any NGOs that they don’t approve of, and that puts us in a very difficult position because we don’t want to accept that, but we also don’t want to fail to support even the NGOs that are approved of.

So we have to make a tough decision. Sometimes, governments make it so difficult for us to help, as you say, grassroots NGOs that it becomes impossible. So we can’t find them; we can’t interact with them; we can’t convey support to them. So we need your feedback. What can we do better? And we’ve got a lot of our top officials from the State Department and USAID here, and we need to hear from you about what will work.

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: So we’re going to close on a subject we didn’t spend much time on, the internet and technology. We’re going to run a short question on that from Kazakhstan. And then the Secretary, I want to thank in advance for being here, and all of these senior government officials and civil society leaders and promise to stay and collect your questions. So we will do our final video and then we will end the session.

QUESTION: Dear Madam Secretary, my name is Alina Khamatdinova and I am from Kazakhstan. I once participated in your meeting with NGO in 2010 in Astana. With internet development, many possibilities for civic engagement have emerged. Many group of civic activities online are very popular now and their impact is very visible. What do you think about this trend? Is it good or bad? And especially for traditional NGOs who focused on human species, what kind of plans does State Department have for this tendency? Thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much from Kazakhstan. Well, we think it’s so important to help civil society utilize technology that we have a whole program to do just that. We have been running tech camps around the world where we invite civil society activists to come. In fact, there’ll be one in a few months in Kyrgyzstan, right? So --
PARTICIPANT: Kazakhstan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: When is it?

PARTICIPANT: Kazakhstan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Kazakhstan. It’s going to be in Kazakhstan. So we will have a tech camp where civil society can – representatives can come together to learn everything we can share with you about how to use technology – how to use it to promote the ideas and programs of the NGO you’re part of; how to use it to reach out and enlist more people to support you; how to use it to convey information to the people you serve. We’re doing a lot of work – if you take women’s health, something I’m very interested in, how do you get information to women about how to take better care of their health? If you are interested in small farmers, how do you get more information to them about how to help them be more productive? So we think technology, on balance, is a great gift and opportunity for civil society.

Now, there’s always a downside. That’s human nature. The good often comes with the not-so-good. And so there will be people on the internet who could attack you, who could try to interfere with you, could try to shut you down, both independent, government-sponsored – we’re aware of that. But, on balance, we want you to be as equipped as you can to use technology to promote and protect civil society across the world.
Thank you all very much.

UNDER SECRETARY SONENSHINE: Thank you, Madam Secretary. (Applause.)

THE ALLEGED BOILER-ROOM ENTREPRENEUR

FROM:  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C., May 16, 2012 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Hawaii resident and two firms he used to orchestrate a scheme in which he covertly founded small companies, installed management, and recruited overseas boiler rooms that pressured investors into buying their stock while he pocketed more than $2 million in consulting fees from proceeds of the fraudulent stock sales.

The SEC alleges that Nicholas Louis Geranio worked behind the scenes to create eight U.S.-based companies used to raise money through the sale of Regulation S stock, which is exempt from SEC registration under the securities laws because it is offered solely to investors located outside the United States. Geranio handpicked the management for the companies, primarily Keith Michael Field of Sherman Oaks, Calif., who served as an officer, director, or investor relations representative for each company and also is charged in the SEC’s complaint. Geranio then set up consulting arrangements through his firms — The Good One Inc. and Kaleidoscope Real Estate Inc. — so he could instruct management on how to run the companies and raise money offshore. Geranio extracted consulting fees from the companies, which generally had few or no employees, little or no office space, and no sales or customers.

The SEC alleges that Field drafted misleading business plans, marketing materials, and website information about the companies that were provided to investors as part of fraudulent solicitation efforts by teams of telemarketers operating in boiler rooms that Geranio recruited primarily in Spain. The boiler rooms used high-pressure sales tactics and false statements about the companies to raise more than $35 million from investors. Meanwhile, Geranio instructed Field and others to buy and sell shares in some of the companies to create an illusion of trading activity and manipulate upwards the price of the publicly-traded stock.

“Geranio covertly set up companies and manipulated the market for their stock to profit from aggressive offshore boiler room activity,” said Stephen L. Cohen, Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Geranio pulled the strings while Field scripted the show for the boiler rooms to bring a payday to everyone but the investors.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Geranio was the subject of a previous SEC enforcement action in 2000. In his latest misconduct, he concealed his role from investors and the public at all times by acting through The Good One and Kaleidoscope. The scheme lasted from April 2007 to September 2009. Geranio began by locating and acquiring shell companies to create the issuers used in the scheme: Blu Vu Deep Oil & Gas Exploration Inc., Green Energy Live Inc., Microresearch Corp., Mundus Group Inc., Power Nanotech Inc., Spectrum Acquisition Holdings Inc., United States Oil & Gas Corp., and Wyncrest Group Inc. Geranio then appointed management for these companies, in some cases turning to business associates, friends, or others. For example, the former CEO of Blu Vu was someone Geranio met while kite surfing in Malibu.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Geranio worked behind the scenes to keep the companies’ publicly-traded shares trading at prices conducive to the boiler room sales. He did this by directing Field, personal friends, and others to open accounts and buy or sell shares in at least five of the companies as part of matched orders and manipulative trades that created the false impression of active trading and market value in these stocks. The manipulative trades allowed the boiler rooms to sell the Regulation S shares to overseas investors at higher prices.

The SEC alleges that boiler room representatives recruited by Geranio induced investors by using aggressive techniques consistent with boiler room activity. For instance, they promised immediate and substantial investment returns, convinced investors that they needed to purchase the shares immediately or miss the grand opportunity altogether, and threatened legal action if an investor did not agree to purchase shares that the representatives believed the investor had already agreed to purchase. The boiler rooms also used “advance fee” solicitations, telling investors that only if they purchased shares in one of these companies would the boiler room agree to sell their other shares. Many of the investors were elderly and living in the United Kingdom.

According to the SEC’s complaint, investors were directed to pay for their Regulation S stock by sending money to U.S.-based escrow agents. As arranged by Geranio, the escrow agents paid 60 to 75 percent of the approximately $35 million raised from investors to the boiler rooms as their sales markups, kept 2.5 percent as their own fee, and paid the remaining proceeds back to the companies that Geranio created. The companies (or in some cases the escrow agents) then funneled approximately $2.135 million of the proceeds back to Geranio through The Good One and Kaleidoscope in the form of consulting fees, and paid Field approximately $279,000.

The SEC alleges that Geranio also assisted in diverting $240,000 in investor funds toward an undisclosed down payment on a property to start a Hawaiian wedding planning company.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Geranio, Field, The Good One and Kaleidoscope violated Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. The complaint alleges that Field also violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and aided and abetted the companies’ violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder, and Geranio is liable as a control person of The Good One and Kaleidoscope under Exchange Act Section 20(a). The SEC is seeking financial penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, penny stock bars, and permanent injunctions against all of the defendants, as well as officer and director bars against Geranio and Field. The complaint seeks disgorgement and prejudgment interest against relief defendant BWRE Hawaii LLC based on its alleged receipt of investor funds.
The SEC's investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Ricky Sachar, Carolyn Kurr, and Wendy Kong under the supervision of Josh Felker with assistance from Jim Daly in the Office of International Affairs. Richard Simpson will lead the litigation. The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the City of London Police, Macedonian Securities and Exchange Commission, Macedonian Public Prosecutor, Lithuanian Securities Commission, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Comision Nacional del Mercado de Valores (Spain), and Financial Market Supervisory Authority (Switzerland).

BATTLESHIP MOVIE SPECIAL SCREENING FOR SAILORS AND FAMILIES

FROM:  U.S. NAVY
CNIC's MWR Brings Battleship to Bases Nationwide
By Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class (SW/AW) Monique K. Hilley, Commander, Navy Installations Command Public Affairs
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Navy Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR), in coordination with Universal Studios, will be offering special screenings of Battleship to Sailors and their families prior to the nationwide release of the movie May 18.

The film's director, Peter Berg, kicked off the free screenings at Naval Base Coronado and Naval Base San Diego May 11. Special screenings also took place at Camp Lejeune, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Naval Submarine Base New London and Joint Base Little Creek-Fort Story.

Berg, director of Battleship, will also attend the Joint Base Little Creek-Fort Story screening. Future screenings will take place in Washington, D.C. May 14, at Naval Air Station Jacksonville May 15 and onboard USS Missouri May 16.

Those interested in attending the special screenings should contact their local MWR offices for show times and locations.

Following Department of Defense (DoD) approval in 2010, the film's production began in early 2010 and principal photography took place during the Pacific Fleet's RIMPAC training exercise later that year. Because filming took place on top of already scheduled training events, it did not impair the exercise and there was no cost to the Navy or American taxpayers.

Additional filming also took place in Hawaii, San Diego, and on a film set in Baton Rouge, La., constructed by Universal Studios.

The end result is a film that provides movie-goers with a realistic look of the Navy and our Sailors operating at sea in an action-packed Hollywood film.

Battleship is a 2012 American science fiction action naval war film. The film was directed by Peter Berg and released by Universal Pictures. The film stars Taylor Kitsch, Alexander Skarsgård, Rihanna, Brooklyn Decker and Liam Neeson.

Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) operates the MWR program worldwide to enhance quality of life for Sailors and their families.

EX-IM BANK APPROVES $350 MILLION LOAN GUARANTEE TO SUPPORT TEXTRON’S EXPORTS OF CESSNA AIRCRAFT AND BELL HELICOPTERS

FROM:  U.S. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK 

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) has approved a guarantee of a $350 million loan facility to provide the funds to assist Textron Inc. in financing the exports by two of its companies, Cessna Aircraft Company and Bell Helicopter Textron. The guaranteed lender is PNC Bank in Pittsburgh, Pa.

The Ex-Im Bank-guaranteed loan facility will enable Textron’s Finance segment to provide financing to international customers that take delivery of new Cessna aircraft and Bell commercial helicopters. The facility will be guaranteed by Textron's captive finance company, Textron Financial Corporation (TFC). The repayment term is 12 years.

This is the second financing facility approved by the Bank to assist TFC in supporting Textron’s exports. In May 2009, Ex-Im Bank authorized a $500 million direct-loan facility that has helped to finance the export of over 100 Cessna business jets and six Bell helicopters.

The announcement of the new facility was made today by Ex-Im Bank Chairman and President Fred P. Hochberg at the 12^th annual European Business Aviation Convention and Exhibition (EBACE), being held in Geneva, Switzerland, May 14-16.

“Business aircraft and helicopters are an important part of America’s aerospace industry, which is helping to boost U.S. exports to all-time highs. Ex-Im Bank is pleased to approve a second financing facility to support Textron’s exports of Cessna aircraft and Bell helicopters. We anticipate that this facility will add to the success of the first such financing for Textron, which has helped to support hundreds of manufacturing jobs in Kansas, Georgia and Texas,” Chairman Hochberg said.
"This guaranteed loan facility for the export of Cessna and Bell aircraft is a wonderful example of Ex-Im Bank fulfilling its purpose – facilitating exports to foreign markets where financing isn't otherwise readily available and preserving American jobs. We greatly value our relationship with Ex-Im Bank, and we are proud of the work they do," said John Klopfer, president and CEO of Textron’s Aviation Finance Group.
 The Ex-Im Bank-guaranteed loan facility will enable Textron’s Finance segment to continue to finance exports of Cessna aircraft and Bell helicopters with competitive interest rates and repayment terms. TFC will be the ultimate source of repayment for the loan facility and will retain credit risk of the international buyers. The loan facility will be disbursed on a periodic basis, reimbursing Textron’s Finance segment for financings of eligible aircraft and helicopters that have been exported.

Textron is a multi-industry company with a global network of aircraft, defense, industrial and finance businesses. Cessna Aircraft Company currently employs more than 11,000 workers at its manufacturing plants in Wichita and Independence, Kan., and Columbus, Ga. Bell Helicopter Textron is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, and also has a manufacturing facility in Amarillo, Texas. Bell Helicopter has approximately 8,100 U.S. employees.

TFC is a commercial finance company that provides financing for products manufactured by its parent company, Textron Inc.

Hochberg also announced at EBACE in Geneva today that Ex-Im Bank has approved a new credit process to facilitate and expedite the Bank’s financing for business-aircraft and helicopter exports from other U.S. manufacturers that do not have a captive financing company. Under the new process, Ex-Im Bank will work with qualified industry experts to perform due diligence and credit analysis for these business-aircraft and helicopter transactions.

In FY 2011, Ex-Im Bank authorized more than $12.6 billion in financing to support the export of U.S.-manufactured aircraft of all types, including approximately $90 million for 10 business aircraft and helicopters exports to four countries – Brazil, Mexico, Panama and Switzerland.

About Ex-Im Bank:
Ex-Im Bank is an independent federal agency that helps create and maintain U.S. jobs by filling gaps in private export financing at no cost to American taxpayers. In the past five years, Ex-Im Bank has earned for U.S. taxpayers $1.9 billion above the cost of operations. The Bank provides a variety of financing mechanisms, including working capital guarantees, export-credit insurance and financing to help foreign buyers purchase U.S. goods and services.

Ex-Im Bank approved $32.7 billion in total authorizations in FY 2011 -- an all-time Ex-Im record. This total includes more than $6 billion directly supporting small-business export sales -- also an Ex-Im record. Ex-Im Bank's total authorizations are supporting an estimated $41 billion in U.S. export sales and approximately 290,000 American jobs in communities across the country. For more information, visit www.exim.gov.

GENERAL DEMPSEY TELLS NORWICH UNIVERSITY GRADUATES TO "LIVE UNCOMMON LIVES"

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE 
Chairman Urges Norwich Grads to Live 'Uncommon Lives'
By Jim Garamone
WASHINGTON, May 13, 2012 - Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, today urged Norwich University graduates to live "uncommon lives" of leadership based on time-honored virtues.

Norwich, located in the town of Northfield, Vt., is the oldest of six senior military colleges and is considered the birthplace of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.

"Norwich has started you on an uncommon road of selflessness and courage, to go out and contribute and serve our nation," Dempsey said in prepared remarks. "Realize it or not, you have internalized the Norwich virtues of courage, honesty, temperance and wisdom -- guideposts that will serve you as you lead our nation's future."

Norwich is a private university whose student body features a Corps of Cadets as well as traditional civilian students. Some of this year's graduates are joining the U.S. military as commissioned officers. Others will go on to eventually take leadership roles in business, industry, politics, government, and other fields of endeavor.

The experiences the university provides will serve all of the graduates in good stead, because leadership is important in all aspects of life, Dempsey said.

Norwich University dates from 1819 and it boasts a long list of famous leaders as graduates, from Admiral of the Navy George Dewey of Spanish-American War fame to retired Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, who had served as the Army chief of staff in the early 1990s and now serves as president and chief operating officer of the Association of the United States Army headquartered in Arlington, Va.

Dempsey said the university "would be little more than a beautiful monument to the past glory of American leaders if not for you, its next generation of leaders."
Now it is up to the graduates to make the most of their experiences at Norwich -- and the ones they will have in the future -- to make a difference and have an impact, he said.
Living an uncommon life means achieving "the outcome that is necessary in whatever particular line of work you choose." Dempsey said.

Dempsey also spoke about trust. "It doesn't get any more fundamental than trust," he said. "It's one of the pillars of the strength of our nation. At every level, trust wins, and it starts with trust in yourself."

There's also "a broader trust between the citizen and the nation, and nation-to-nation with our allies and partners, as well," Dempsey said, noting that the pursuit of U.S. security interests today involves more than just military power.

"Our security commitments cut across the lines of diplomacy, intelligence, economics, and social progress," he said. "It demands the support of an array of professions and skills as well as alliances, international systems and volunteer organizations. And it requires the best from each of us and all of us."

In today's changing world, the challenge for Americans involves "doing what's right for ourselves, our family, our nation, and the global community," Dempsey said.
"We can only make it work," he added, "if we consistently and persistently leverage every opportunity to build confidence in each other, building trust."

DOOR OPENS ONTO A SUSPECTED EXPLOSIVES FACTORY

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
An Afghan villager unlocks the door of a suspected homemade explosives factory for U.S. Army Spc. Timothy Rodgers in Afghanistan's Ghazni province, May 4, 2012. Rodgers is assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

PRESIDENT OBAMA WELCOMES NEW STAGE IN AFGHAN SECURITY TRASITION

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Obama Welcomes New Stage of Afghan Security Transition
WASHINGTON, May 13, 2012 - President Barack Obama welcomed Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's announcement of his government's list of areas intended for the third stage of the transition of security responsibility from NATO's International Security Assistance Force to Afghan security forces.

"I welcome President Karzai's announcement today of the third tranche of areas to transition to Afghan security lead, which is an important step forward in our effort to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan," Obama said in a statement issued today.

"As transition proceeds in these areas," Obama said, "nearly 75 percent of the population of Afghanistan will be living in provinces, districts and villages where Afghan forces are leading."

The Afghan government will now enter the third of five tranches or stages, as they continue to move forward in the process of taking the responsibility of national security, ISAF officials said in a news release issued today.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan's national security forces "are strengthening their capacity as we remain on track to meet our goal of having the Afghan government fully responsible for security across the country by the end of 2014," Obama said in his statement.

A week from now, Obama said, world leaders will gather at the May 20-21 NATO Summit in Chicago "to discuss how we can effectively advance the transition process as our forces move from combat to a support role and demonstrate our enduring support for the Afghan government and Afghan National Security Forces."

Obama said he "looks forward to meeting with President Karzai and my fellow leaders in Chicago to discuss these critical steps that will strengthen Afghan sovereignty while responsibly winding down the war."

DEFENSE BACKS PRODUCTION OF F-35 STRIKE FIGHTER

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and U.S. Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland look at the cockpit of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with Navy Capt. Erik "Rock" Etz on Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., Jan. 20, 2012. Panetta and Hoyer toured several facilities related to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is in its test phases at the base. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo    



Officials Emphasize Commitment to Joint Strike Fighter
By Amaani Lyle
WASHINGTON, May 9, 2012 - Senior leaders from the Air Force and Navy affirmed yesterday that the F-35 joint strike fighter remains the centerpiece of the tactical aircraft program and will play a large part in the services' ongoing modernization plans.

Navy Vice Adm. David J. Venlet, F-35 Lightning II program executive officer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee's airland subcommittee that the F-35's basic engine designs were deemed sound and deliverable after a battery of tests and observations over the past year.

"While there is still risk in the program, it is risk-balanced," Venlet said. "I have confidence in the resilience of the plan to absorb further learning discovery and stay on track."

Still, Venlet said, the program will "not execute itself," and will require resources, tools and processes to enable disciplined decisions on development and incremental capability delivery.

Technical and cost issues exist, the admiral acknowledged, but he added that the joint strike fighter's enhanced capability can be the backbone of fifth-generation fighters.
Carrier test pilots conducting approaches at Patuxent River, Md., have lauded the handling characteristics of the F-35's aircraft carrier variant, he said, and short takeoff and vertical landing results have demonstrated solid performance.

"It is a testimony to the very effective and impressive marriage of engine and airframe," Venlet said, adding that measures will stay in place to ensure the program's long-term effectiveness. "Rigorous management control by the joint program office, supported by the service system commands, will be applied with a ... focus on production and affordable delivery capability -- our only meaningful external result."

Navy Vice Adm. W. Mark Skinner, principal military deputy in the office of the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, said affordability will be a key focus in delivering capabilities.

"During these austere times, we must persist in modernizing and recapitalizing our naval aviation forces and increase our capability through force multipliers, such as the Navy Integrated Fire Control Counter-Air and using 'should-cost/will-cost' processes to bring more affordable systems to our warfighters," Skinner said.

Lt. Gen. Janet C. Wolfenbarger, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, told the panel the fiscal 2013 budget aligns with the Air Force's tactical aviation program as the service shifts its national security strategy to counter modern-day threats.
"Our rapidly aging aircraft fleet drives the urgent need to balance procurement of new inventory with sustainment of our current fleet," Wolfenbarger said.

RETIRED GENERAL KEVIN CHILTON INDUCTED INTO NASA'S ASTRONAUT HALL OF FAME

FROM:  U.S. AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND
Space shuttle astronauts Franklin Chang Díaz, retired Gen. Kevin Chillton and Charlie Precourt celebrate their induction into the Astronaut Hall of Fame at the Kennedy Space Center, Fla., May 5, 2012. More than 30 Hall of Fame astronauts and hundreds of guests gathered to witness the annual induction ceremony. Chilton is a 1976 graduate of the Air Force Academy. His wife, Brig. Gen. Cathy Chilton, is the mobilization assistant to the Academy superintendent. (NASA photo) 


Former AFSPC/CC named to  
Astronaut Hall of Fame 
By Don Branum
Air Force Academy Public Affairs

5/11/2012 - Kennedy Space Center, Fla -- Retired Gen. Kevin Chilton was inducted into NASA's Astronaut Hall of Fame during a ceremony May 5 at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Chilton is the former commander of Air Force Space Command and U.S. Strategic Command, a 1976 graduate of the Air Force Academy, the husband of Academy Mobilization Assistant Brig. Gen. Cathy Chilton and the father of Cadet 1st Class Madison Chilton.

Chilton piloted the Space Shuttle Endeavour on its maiden voyage during the Space Transportation System-49 mission, his first as an astronaut. Highlights of that mission included NASA's first three-person extravehicular activity during an operation to capture and repair a non-functional Intelsat VI satellite. He also piloted the 11-day STS-59 mission aboard Endeavour, which used radar imaging to map parts of the U.S., Europe and Asia for climate research.

Chilton commanded STS-76 aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis on his third mission. STS-76 highlights included docking with the Mir space station and a six-hour EVA by astronauts Michael Clifford and Linda Godwin.

His career also includes a joint assignment as the Joint Staff's director of politico-military affairs for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East regions. He held commands at Air Force Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., the Joint Functional Component Command for Space and Global Strike at Offutt AFB, Neb., 8th Air Force at Barksdale AFB, La., and the 9th Reconnaissance Wing at Beale AFB, Calif.

Chilton was a rated pilot with more than 5,000 flying hours in several airframes, including the F-4 Phantom, F-15 Eagle, B-52 Stratofortress and U-2 Dragon Lady. He holds a master's degree in mechanical engineering from Columbia University in New York. He retired Feb. 1, 2011.

Also honored during Saturday's ceremony were Franklin Chang Díaz and Charles Precourt. Díaz, NASA's first Latino astronaut, flew on seven space shuttle flights and logged more than 1,600 hours in space, according to NASA's website. Precourt flew on four space shuttle missions: STS-55 (Columbia), STS-71 (Atlantis), STS-84 (Atlantis) and STS-91 (Discovery).

The ceremony brings the total number of astronauts named to the Astronaut Hall of Fame to 82. Previous inductees include astronauts from the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz programs, according to NASA.

MASSIVE BLACK HOLE RELEASES TORRENTS OF ENERGY

FROM:  NASA
New data from the Herschel Space Observatory shows that galaxies with the most powerful, active, supermassive black holes at their cores produce fewer stars than galaxies with less ones. Supermassive black holes are believed to reside in the hearts of all large galaxies. When gas falls upon these monsters, the materials are accelerated and heated around the black hole, releasing great torrents of energy. In the process, active black holes often generate colossal jets that blast out twin streams of heated matter. Inflows of gas into a galaxy also fuel the formation of new stars. In a new study of distant galaxies, Herschel helped show that star formation and black hole activity increase together, but only up to a point. Astronomers think that if an active black hole flares up too much, it starts spewing radiation that prevents raw material from coalescing into new stars. This artist concept of the local galaxy Arp 220, captured by the Hubble Space Telescope, helps illustrate the Herschel results. The bright core of the galaxy, paired with an overlaid artist's impression of jets emanating from it, indicate that the central black hole's activity is intensifying. As the active black hole continues to rev up, the rate of star formation will, in turn, be suppressed in the galaxy. Astronomers want to further study how star formation and black hole activity are intertwined. Herschel is a European Space Agency cornerstone mission, with science instruments provided by consortia of European institutes, with important participation by NASA. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

CFTC CHAIRMAN CHILTON'S SPEECH ON FINANCIAL REFORM

Photo:  CBOT.  Credit:  Wikimedia.
FROM:  U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Speech of Commissioner Bart Chilton before Americans for Financial Reform, Washington, DC
May 9, 2012
Introduction
Thank you for the introduction. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today to discuss cost/benefit analysis (CBAs). As we know, this has been the matter of lawsuits and countless meetings in the wake of the passage of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, otherwise known as Dodd-Frank. It is an important topic.
Load of Compromisin’

For me, most things that are resolved in this town result from an appropriate equilibrium. The truth or answer isn’t found on the outskirts of issues; they reside on the inside, in the medium. Most things I’ve worked upon or have seen worked upon seem to resolve themselves better when there is cooperation and compromise. That usually means some level of concession from all parties. When something is approved and everyone is grumbling a bit, that typically indicates it is legitimately worthy, in general. At least, that is what I’ve found.

The thing is: in order to reach an agreement, to reach that balance, sometimes it is sort of like that oldRhinestone Cowboy lyric, “There’ll be a load of compromisin’ on the road to my horizon.” For those of you who were too young, or don’t recall the song, made famous by country singer Glen Campbell, it is your loss. It was a huge hit. By the way, I saw a neat tee shirt last weekend. On it was written, “I’m old, but I got to see all the cool bands.” Nevertheless, for most things good to get done in this town, the fact of the matter is that there is a load of compromisin’ on the road to that horizon.
The D.C. Quadrakill

My experience, however, is once upon a time in a faraway land when and where people actually wanted to get some things done. There is a contingent now that simply wishes to take the Nancy Reagan approach to a lot of things and “Just say no.” (By the way, one is getting old when a lot of your references seem like they need references, or foot notes). Not gonna do it on that one. She was a great First Lady. If you don’t know “Just say no,” that’s why we have Google. Nowadays, there are a lot of people who just say “no” to a lot of things. There is no load of compromisin’ going on. There is no compromisin’ period. And, that’s why precious little legislation is coming from the Hill these days and why frustration with Washington is rampant.

I do have a point. We are working toward cost/benefit analysis. Hang on my brothers and sisters. There is a little-articulated Washington play book section. I call it the D.C. Quadrakill. It isn’t an innovative thing, and it is a tried and true strategy, for sure. First, if you don’t like a bill, amendment or provision thereof, you try to defeat it with a vote. Just say, then vote, no (or nay, or whatever). If that fails, go to stage two. You can try to defund it through the appropriations process. If that doesn’t work, there is stage three. This is where you can try to stop it, change it or delay it through the regulatory rulemaking process. If all of those things fail, you can go to DEFCON four: litigation. That’s the D.C. Quadrakill: 1. kill bill; 2. defund it; 3. regulate it; and, 4. litigate it.

There is no shame in availing yourself of this Quadrakill strategy, although not everyone can do the full meal Quadrakill deal. Sure people can lobby their Representatives and Senators regarding voting for, or funding of, some legislation. Maybe they will get some gallery chamber passes, too. Perhaps they will have a quick photo op. That stuff takes place all the time. But the thing is: the other two stages of the Quadrakill—regulate and litigate—those are for serious societies—the class of folks who have some buckaroos. No lobbyist wants a tour of the CFTC or a photo with a Commissioner. It is all work. And as far as litigation, watch out. That’s long, laborious and lavish—only those with the big bucks can do stage four Quadrakill: litigation.

This brings me to my point, and I do have one, despite those that questioned it. The thing is: we are seeing a lot of stage four Quadrakill dialogue and action out there. There is more trash talk and more action regarding litigation related to financial regulation than ever before. Frankly, it has become an unprecedented problem and a dilemma for regulators. Unfortunately, the thing is: that is part of the purpose of those that talk about or live to litigate.

More Perfect Regulation 
I think we all need to take a step back and think about Quadrakill stage four a little more. Let’s take a breath and think thoughtfully, and a little more calmly than seems to me to have been done in the last several months. This event is the perfect venue to do just that.
In the preamble to the Constitution of the United States, there is this wonderful aspirational language:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“In order to form a more perfect union.”   Those words, “in order to”—they meant that our forefathers were working toward, hoping, aspiring, to form a more perfect union. It wasn’t perfect, and it might not reach perfection, but they were trying to get there.  Here’s something to think about:  those wonderful “planks” toward making that “more perfect union”—establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare—each one of those distinct factors didn’t in and of themselves create “The More Perfect Union.”  Rather, each facet was a building block that the Founding Fathers intended to use to “get there,” to get to that “More Perfect Union.”   In other words, “providing for the common defense,” wasn’t the be all and end all, but instead it was one of the important pieces used to get to the ultimate goal:  a more perfect union.

 In a similar approach, cost/benefit analyses in regulatory rulemaking are analogous to those discrete building block factors in the Constitution’s preamble.  The thing is: a CBA is not the ultimate goal of rulemaking, although if you listen to some you might think it so.  A CBA is an important piece of reaching the ultimate goal:  a “more perfect regulation.”  Like the framers of our Constitution, regulators aspire to reach objectives that protect the common weal.  That’s our job.  In the recent past, however, our jobs have been made significantly more difficult by a contortion. The thing is: we have seen an obnoxious bastardization of the conduct and use of CBAs in regulatory rulemaking.

This by no means is a new phenomenon. It isn’t a paranormal event.  It has cropped up over the years, time and again, as a convenient tool to scuttle regulatory initiatives.  Its’ use at this moment in history is, however, particularly rampant and greatly galling, given the focus of the regulations that are being decelerated and the harm that was caused to the public as a result of the economic crisis of 2008.

There are a bevy of bellowers booing about the “costs” of regulation.  To those catcalls, I’d simply ask, what were the complete “costs” of the $414 billion taxpayer funded bailout?  What are the “costs” of families losing their homes or of folks who can’t get a job?  What are the “costs” to our economy of skyrocketing oil and gas prices, fueled by unbridled excessive speculative activity?  What could be the added “costs” if regulations that Congress and the President have required are not put in place? My view is that there is not a single benefit to not doing these regulations, but there are unacceptable costs if we don’t go forward. Without these rules and regulations, there will be unacceptable costs to consumers, to businesses, to markets, to our economy and our country.

I wouldn’t go so far as paraphrasing Samuel Johnson and saying that litigation is the last refuge for scoundrels. But, the cost-benefit bellowers are openly trying to impose a discredited economic philosophy (that just happens to serve their financial interests) on regulators by beseeching the courts to adopt their extreme interpretation of our statutory duty to “consider” the costs and benefits of our regulations. This economic philosophy is, in short, that the financial markets work just fine on their own and there’s no need for regulators to ensure a minimum level of safety in these markets or a maximum level of speculation. The market can police itself, thank you very much. They want us to write off the 2008 financial crisis as an aberration and ignore countless reputable scholars who’ve found that the costs of opaque, unregulated derivatives markets are borne by the public. The truth is speculation without limits can fuel bubbles, and left unaccountable, the captains of finance may veer the economy into dangerous waters in search of bigger and riskier profits. In short, these bellowers want us to go beyond a “consideration” of costs and benefits to making their narrow conception of costs (discounting the social costs to the public of deregulation) and benefits (discounting the social benefits of the public of smart regulation), the crucible for judging all financial regulations.

The thing is: CBAs are being used, as I have said before, as a Sword of Damocles over regulatory agencies.  We are virtually paralyzed by intimidation—or, indeed, the reality—of lawsuits brought (haphazardly, in my assessment) on the foundations of allegedly poor CBAs.  When this occurs, regulators are sort of like those ghost hunters seen on television, looking for the scary litigation risk in every corner or closet. Did you hear what it said? “Wha, wha, wha.” We used an especially sensitive machine and after analysis in the lab, it appears that what the voice said was this: “If you regulate, we will litigate,” or perhaps “Ready for stage four Quadrakill.” Hmm, because I thought it just sounded like “Wha, wha, wha.” The thing is: either way, the rulemaking action slows, or slogs to a stop—and that is the clear-cut intent of some of those who threaten, design, and bring, these lawsuits.

Take this example: our position limits rule took up 81 pages in the Federal Register. Guest how much of the text was cost/benefit analysis? 19 pages. Yup, almost a fourth—and yet we’re still getting sued.

At the same time, American citizens and businesses and our economy endure more than is fair for a gallon of gas and the resultant impact on our Gross Domestic Product. We continue to see devalued homes, and continue to face higher-than-they-could-be unemployment rates. The potential for further damage due to a still yet unimplemented new regulatory regime is out there. How do we measure those harsh “costs?”  If those costs are not more scary than the threat of litigation due to cost/benefit analysis, then regulators should seek a new line of work.

So today, I’m suggesting that CBAs be expanded to include not just the quantitative, quantifiable elements of a rule but its qualitative aspects as well. In other words the social costs and benefits need to be taken into account. I by no means want to slow the rulemaking process down in any way but I really believe some of the most important cost-benefit effects of rules go beyond P & L statements, so I’ll ask my colleagues to consider painting a more complete picture of what—without these rules—the societal cost might be. Memories fade with time and we need to be mindful of the costs of not doing these things right in the context of the colossal calamity of late ’08.

The thing is: it’s time to put some sense (and cents) back into CBAs, and to criticisms of rules.  By that I mean, I’d like to see reasonable, accurate, and well-supported analyses, and those who criticize our CBAs should berequired to provide, not “masked data,” with no clear or hard figures, but real, verifiable dollars and cents to rebut our analyses.  If we are all held to the same reasonable standards, not just trying to create ghastly ghosts in an effort to slow the process down, CBAs might actually be useful as they were intended:  as a factor in forming “more perfect regulations.”
Conclusion

Look, I understand that people have to represent themselves and take advantage of the opportunities which exist to make their case, on the Hill, in the agencies, or in court. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with them. It seems to me this has gone too far. They may mean well. I’m just not sure they are well.

The thing is: we had, and have, an economic mess created by lax or non-existent regulations in our financial markets. That isn’t a joke or a scary story for millions of people. It is an unfortunate and seemingly unforgiving reality. We need to do all we can to appropriately implement the Dodd-Frank rules to not only protect consumers, businesses, and markets alike, but to fuel inject the economic engine of our democracy. This new law—and the regulations that go with it if done properly—are the blueprints for how our economy can thrive. If we all work together as honest partners in the rulemaking process, I am confident we not only can, but will move our nation forward.
Thank you.

BACKGROUND NOTES: REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS

Photo:  Souillac.  Credit:  Wikipedia.
FROM;  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT  
Geography 
Area: 2,040 sq. km. (787 sq. mi.); 500 miles east of Madagascar, in the Indian Ocean.
Dependencies: Rodrigues Island, the Agalega Islands and Cargados Carajos Shoals; Mauritius also claims sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, where U.S. Naval Support Facility at Diego Garcia is located.

Cities: Capital--Port Louis (pop. 148,638). Other cities--Beau Bassin and Rose Hill (110,687), Vacoas-Phoenix (108,186), Curepipe (84,487), Quatre Bornes (81,773).
Terrain: Volcanic island surrounded by coral reefs. A central plateau is rimmed by mountains.
Climate: Tropical; cyclone season mid-December-April.

HISTORY
While Arab and Malay sailors knew of Mauritius as early as the 10th century AD and Portuguese sailors first visited in the 16th century, the island remained uninhabited until colonized in 1638 by the Dutch. Mauritius was populated over the next few centuries by waves of traders, planters and their slaves, indentured laborers, merchants, and artisans. The island was named in honor of Prince Maurice of Nassau by the Dutch, who abandoned the colony in 1710.

The French claimed Mauritius in 1715 and renamed it Ile de France. It became a prosperous colony under the French East India Company. The French Government took control in 1767, and the island served as a naval and privateer base during the Napoleonic wars. In 1810, Mauritius was captured by the British, whose possession of the island was confirmed 4 years later by the Treaty of Paris. French institutions, including the Napoleonic code of law, were maintained. The French language is still used more widely than English.

Mauritian Creoles trace their origins to the plantation owners and slaves who were brought to work the sugar fields. Indo-Mauritians (primarily Hindus, but also Muslims and Christians) are descended from immigrants who arrived in the 19th century from the Indian subcontinent to work as indentured laborers after slavery was abolished in 1835. Franco-Mauritians still control most of the large sugar estates and are active in business and banking. As the Indo-Mauritian population became numerically dominant and the voting franchise was extended, political power shifted from the Franco-Mauritians and their Creole allies to the Indo-Mauritian Hindus.

Elections in 1947 for the newly created Legislative Assembly marked Mauritius' first steps toward self-rule. An independence campaign gained momentum after 1961, when the British agreed to permit additional self-government and eventual independence. A coalition composed of the Mauritian Labor Party (MLP), the Muslim Committee of Action (CAM), and the Independent Forward Bloc (IFB)--a traditionalist Hindu party--won a majority in the 1967 Legislative Assembly election, despite opposition from Franco-Mauritian and Creole supporters of Gaetan Duval's Mauritian Social Democratic Party (PMSD). The contest was interpreted locally as a referendum on independence. Following a period of communal strife, brought under control with assistance from British troops, Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, MLP leader and chief minister in the colonial government, became the first prime minister at independence, on March 12, 1968.

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS
Mauritian politics are vibrant and characterized by coalition and alliance building. All parties are centrist and reflect a national consensus that supports democratic politics and a relatively open economy with a strong private sector. Mauritius became a republic on March 12, 1992. The most immediate result was that a Mauritian-born president became head of state, replacing Queen Elizabeth II. Under the amended constitution, political power remained with parliament, with the office of the president being largely ceremonial. The National Assembly elects the president. The Council of Ministers (cabinet), responsible for the direction and control of the government, consists of the prime minister (head of government, who is also the leader of the majority party in the legislature), and about 24 ministers. The unicameral National Assembly has up to 70 deputies. Sixty-two are elected by universal suffrage, and as many as eight "best losers" are chosen from the runners-up by the Electoral Supervisory Commission using a formula designed to give at least minimal representation to minority ethnic communities. Elections are scheduled at least every 5 years. Parliamentary elections were last held in May 2010. The next elections are expected to be held in 2015.

Mauritian law is an amalgam of French and British legal traditions. The Supreme Court--a chief justice and 18 other judges--is the highest judicial authority. There is an additional right of appeal to the Queen's Privy Council in London. Local government has nine administrative divisions, with municipal and town councils in urban areas and district and village councils in rural areas. The island of Rodrigues forms the country's 10th administrative division.

Alone or in coalition, the Mauritius Labor Party (MLP) ruled from 1947 through 1982, returning to power from 1995 to 2000, and again regaining power in 2005. From 1982 through 1995, power was in the hands of the Mauritian Militant Movement (MMM), the Mauritian Socialist Party (PSM), and the Militant Socialist Movement (MSM) in various combinations and alliances. In December 1995, the MLP returned to power, this time in coalition with the MMM. Labor's Navinchandra Ramgoolam, son of the country's first prime minister, became prime minister himself. Ramgoolam dismissed his MMM coalition partners in mid-1997, leaving Labor in power with several small parties allied with it. Elections in September 2000 saw the re-emergence of the MSM-MMM as a winning alliance, and Anerood Jugnauth once again became the prime minister with the caveat that mid-term, the leader of the MMM party would take over as prime minister and Prime Minister Jugnauth would become the next President of the Republic. In September 2003, in keeping with the campaign promise which forged the coalition, Jugnauth stepped down as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Paul Raymond Berenger became Prime Minister. One month later, the Berenger-led National Assembly elected Anerood Jugnauth as President of the Republic. Berenger became the first Catholic, Franco-Mauritian to head the government. The move created a historic precedent of having a non-Hindu, non-majority member head the national government. The 2005 parliamentary elections returned Navinchandra Ramgoolam to office as prime minister, and he retained that position following the 2010 elections. President Jugnauth resigned his office on March 31, 2012. Vice President Monique Ohsan Bellepeau became acting President. The Mauritian constitution provides that in the event of a vacancy in the office of president, the vice president assumes the office, but only until such time as the prime minister appoints, and the National Assembly concurs, in the appointment of a new president.

Mauritius ranked first among all African countries in the 2011 Ibrahim Index, a product of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation that measures the effective delivery of public goods and services to citizens in Africa. The index ranked 53 African countries according to four overarching dimensions: safety and rule of law, participation and human rights, sustainable economic opportunity, and human development.

FOREIGN RELATIONS
Mauritius has strong and friendly relations with the international community, including with India and the countries of southern and eastern Africa. It is a member of the African Union (AU), World Trade Organization (WTO), the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Indian Ocean Commission, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), and the Indian Ocean Rim Association.

Trade, commitment to democracy, colonial and cultural ties, and the country's small size are driving forces behind Mauritian foreign policy. The country's political history and dependence on Western markets have led to close ties with the European Union and its member states, particularly the United Kingdom and France, which exercises sovereignty over neighboring Reunion.

Considered part of Africa geographically, Mauritius has friendly relations with other African states in the region, particularly South Africa, by far its largest continental trading partner. Mauritian investors have gradually begun entering African markets, such as nearby Madagascar and Mozambique (though the pace of investment in Madagascar has cooled considerably since the 2009 coup d’etat in that country). Mauritius coordinates much of its foreign policy with the Southern African Development Community and the African Union.

Relations with India are strong for both historical/cultural and commercial reasons. Foreign embassies in Mauritius include Australia, China, Egypt, France, India, Libya, Madagascar, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

DEFENSE
Mauritius does not have a standing army. All military, police, and security functions are carried out by approximately 10,000 active-duty personnel under the command of the Commissioner of Police. The 8,000-member National Police is responsible for domestic law enforcement. The roughly 1,200-member Special Mobile Force (SMF) and the roughly 740-member National Coast Guard are the only two paramilitary units in Mauritius. Both units are composed of police officers on lengthy rotations to those services.

The SMF is organized as a ground infantry unit and engages extensively in civic works projects. The Coast Guard, led by a detailee from the Indian Navy, has four patrol craft for search-and-rescue missions and surveillance of territorial waters, and 41 small craft for coastal surveillance and search and rescue. The Coast Guard is also equipped with three aircraft (two Dornier and one Defender aircraft). A 90-member police helicopter squadron assists in search-and-rescue operations. There also is a special supporting unit of nearly 400 personnel trained in riot control.

Military advisers from the United Kingdom and India work with the SMF, the Coast Guard, and the Police Helicopter Unit, and Mauritian police officers are trained in the United Kingdom, India, and France. The United States provides training to Mauritian security officers in such fields as counterterrorism methods, forensics, seamanship, and maritime law enforcement. In May 2010, the U.S. Government donated three Safeboat Harbor Patrol boats with an estimated value of $1.1 million to the Government of Mauritius.

U.S.-MAURITIAN RELATIONS
Official U.S. representation in Mauritius dates from the end of the 18th century. An American consulate established in 1794 closed in 1911. It was reopened in 1967 and elevated to embassy status upon the country's independence in 1968. Since 1970, the mission has been directed by a resident U.S. ambassador.

Relations between the United States and Mauritius are cordial and revolve largely around trade and investment. The United States is Mauritius' third-largest market but ranks 13th in terms of exports to Mauritius. Principal imports from the United States include plastic articles, agricultural/construction/industrial machinery and equipment, medical and surgical instruments, precious stones and jewelry, aircraft parts (for Air Mauritius), automatic data processing machines, casino slot machines, outboard motors, books and encyclopedias, and industrial chemicals.

Mauritian exports to the United States include apparel, sugar, non-industrial diamonds, jewelry articles, live animals, sunglasses, processed specialty foods, rum, and cut flowers. Mauritian products that meet the rules of origin are eligible for duty- and quota-free entry into the U.S. market under the African Growth and Opportunity Act. In September 2006, the Governments of Mauritius and the United States signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement to remove impediments and further enhance trade and investment relations between the two countries. Negotiations for a Bilateral Investment Treaty are ongoing.

More than 200 U.S. companies are represented in Mauritius. About 25 have offices in Mauritius, serving the domestic and/or the regional market, mainly in the information technology, textile, fast food, express courier, and financial services sectors. U.S. brands are sold widely. Several U.S. franchises, notably Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, and McDonald's have been operating for a number of years in Mauritius.

The United States funds a small military assistance program. The embassy also manages development assistance funds, special self-help funds for community groups and nongovernmental organizations, and a democracy and human rights fund.

U.S. ARMY PFC AND AFGHAN SECURITY GUARD PULL SECURITY

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U.S. Army Pfc. Jeffery Penning and an Afghan security guard pull security during a roving patrol on Observation Post Mustang in Afghanistan's Kunar province, May 3, 2012. Penning is assigned to the 4th Infantry Division's Company C, 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Jenny Luince, May 3, 2012.

U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MEETS WITH CROWN PRINCE OF BAHRAIN

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, right, escorts Bahrain's Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa to a meeting at the Pentagon, May 11, 2012. The two leaders discussed issues of mutual concern. DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo. 

Panetta, Bahraini Crown Prince Meet at Pentagon
WASHINGTON, May 11, 2012 - Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta and Bahraini Crown Prince Salman Bin Hamad Al Khalifa met today at the Pentagon to discuss regional and bilateral issues, a senior DOD official said.

Panetta affirmed the long-standing commitment of the United States to a strong partnership with both the people and the government of Bahrain, said Navy Capt. John Kirby, deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations.

The two leaders discussed the full range of regional and bilateral issues, including Bahrain's support of United States Naval Forces Central Command, Kirby said.

They also discussed the Bahraini government's ongoing efforts to implement the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry report, Kirby said. The commission was established by the King of Bahrain in late June 2011 to investigate the civil unrest that had occurred in Bahrain in February and March of that year.

The defense secretary noted the steps already taken to implement the report's recommendations, Kirby said. But Panetta, he added, also expressed his belief that work remains to fully address ongoing human rights issues, including individual cases.

Panetta also acknowledged the release of previously requested items and services that will help Bahrain maintain its external defense capabilities, Kirby said. The United States government, he added, will continue to withhold materials that are predominantly intended for use by police and other internal security forces.

MEMBER OF HIGH PEACE COUNCIL MURDERED IN AFGHANISTAN

Photo:  Sunset in Afghanistan. Credit:  U.S. Air Force
FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
ISAF: Murdered Afghan Official Rejected Insurgents' Agenda
From an International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Release
KABUL, Afghanistan, May 13, 2012 - An influential member of Afghanistan's High Peace Council and Islamic Council member, Moulavi Arsala Rahmani, was murdered while reportedly riding in a vehicle on his way to work today, International Security Assistance Force officials reported.

The ISAF offers its condolences and prayers to Rahmani's family and loved ones, officials said.

Rahmani, a former Taliban member, chose to make a positive contribution to his nation by turning his back on an insurgent movement that continues to be wholly detrimental to the future of Afghanistan, officials said.

Rahmani's decision to help make the future brighter for Afghans serves as an inspiration to all, and his contributions will be missed, officials said.

The only possible aim of this attack is to intimidate those, who like Rahmani, want to help make Afghanistan a better place for its citizens and the region, officials said. This attack is clear evidence that those who oppose the legitimate government of Afghanistan have absolutely no interest in supporting the peace process on any level but through murder, thuggery, and intimidation.

No one is underestimating the challenges in Afghanistan, or the desires of the enemies of peace to continue threatening the Afghan people and their government, officials said. The entire coalition is steadfast in its resolve, officials added, and remains ever-more confident that the government of Afghanistan is up to the tasks that lie ahead.

The ISAF and Afghan National Security Forces remain committed to stop acts of terror in order to build a secure environment that promotes lasting peace and prosperity for the Afghan people, officials said