FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Hagel, Russian Counterpart Discuss Mutual Security Issues
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 26, 2013 - Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu made a congratulatory call to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and the two leaders discussed a range of issues, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said yesterday.
Hagel and Shoygu discussed the ongoing security transition in Afghanistan, Little said in a statement.
"Secretary Hagel assured his counterpart that the handover of security responsibilities is progressing as the capabilities of the Afghan national security forces continue to improve," he added.
Hagel said the United States would keep Russia and all concerned apprised throughout the process, and he encouraged close bilateral cooperation on other issues, including Syria, North Korea and Iran.
"Minister Shoygu expressed his desire to reconvene missile defense discussions with the U.S. at the deputy minister level," Little said. "Secretary Hagel agreed and reiterated that this is an important part of U.S.-Russian relations."
Hagel assured the minister that these discussions would continue and be carried forward by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller, the press secretary noted.
"Secretary Hagel expressed his appreciation for the call, as well as his desire to continue close coordination on a range of global issues," Little said.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
NSF REPORTS ON ENDANGERED LEMURS' GENOME SEQUENCING
 |
| Photo: Aye-Aye Lemur. Credit: Wikimedia Commons. |
Endangered Lemurs' Genomes Sequenced
For the first time, the complete genomes of three populations of aye-ayes--a type of lemur--have been sequenced and analyzed.
The results of the genome-sequence analyses are published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
The research was led by George Perry, an anthropologist and biologist at Penn State University; Webb Miller, a biologist and computer scientist and engineer at Penn State; and Edward Louis of the Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium in Omaha, Neb., and Director of the Madagascar Biodiversity Partnership.
The aye-aye--a lemur that is found only on the island of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean--was recently re-classified as "Endangered" by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
"The biodiversity of Madagascar is like nowhere else on Earth, with all 88 described lemur species restricted to the island, but with less than 3 percent of its original forest remaining," said Simon Malcomber, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Environmental Biology, which in part funded the research.
"It's essential to preserve as much of this unique diversity as possible," Malcomber said.
Added Perry, "The aye-aye is one of the world's most unusual and fascinating animals."
"Aye-ayes use continuously growing incisors to gnaw through the bark of dead trees. They have long, thin, flexible middle fingers to extract insect larvae, filling the ecological niche of a woodpecker.
"Aye-ayes are nocturnal, solitary and have very low population densities, making them difficult to study and sample in the wild."
Perry and other scientists are concerned about the long-term viability of aye-ayes as a species, given the loss and fragmentation of forest habitats in Madagascar.
"Aye-aye population densities are very low, and individual aye-ayes have huge home-range requirements," said Perry.
"As forest patches become smaller, there's a risk that there won't be sufficient numbers of aye-ayes in an area to maintain a population over multiple generations.
"We were looking to make use of new genomic-sequencing technologies to characterize patterns of genetic diversity among some of the surviving aye-aye populations, with an eye toward the prioritization of conservation efforts."
The researchers located aye-ayes and collected DNA samples from the animals in three regions of Madagascar: the northern, eastern and western regions.
To discover the extent of the genetic diversity in present-day aye-ayes, the scientists generated the complete genome sequences of 12 individual aye-ayes.
They then analyzed and compared the genomes of the three populations.
They found that, while Eastern and Western aye-ayes are somewhat genetically distinct, aye-ayes in the northern part of the island and those in the east show a more significant genetic distance, suggesting an extensive period during which interbreeding has not occurred between the populations in these regions.
"Our next step was to compare aye-aye genetic diversity to present-day human genetic diversity," said Miller.
"This analysis can help us gauge how long the aye-aye populations have been geographically separated and unable to interbreed."
To make the comparison, the team gathered 12 complete human DNA sequences--the same number as the individually generated aye-aye sequences--from publicly available databases for three distinct human populations: African agriculturalists, individuals of European descent, and Southeast Asian individuals.
Using Galaxy--an open-source, web-based computer platform designed at Penn State for data-intensive biomedical and genetic research--the scientists developed software to compare the two species' genetic distances.
The researchers found that present-day African and European human populations have a smaller amount of genetic distance than that between northern and eastern aye-aye populations, suggesting that the aye-aye populations were separated for a lengthy period of time by geographic barriers.
"We believe that northern aye-ayes have not been able to interbreed with other populations for some time," said Miller. "Although they are separated by a distance of only about 160 miles, high plateaus and major rivers may have made intermingling relatively infrequent."
The results suggest that the separation of the aye-aye populations stretches back longer than 2,300 years, when human settlers first arrived on Madagascar and started burning the aye-ayes' forest habitat and hunting lemurs.
"This work highlights an important region of aye-aye biodiversity in northern Madagascar, and this unique biodiversity is not preserved anywhere except in the wild," said Louis.
"There is tremendous historical loss of habitat in northern Madagascar that's continuing at an unsustainable rate today."
In future research, the scientists would like to sequence the genomes of other lemur species--more than 70 percent of which are considered endangered or critically endangered--as well as aye-ayes from the southern reaches of Madagascar.
In addition to Perry, Miller and Louis, scientists who contributed to the research include Stephan Schuster, Aakrosh Ratan, Oscar Bedoya-Reina and Richard Burhans of Penn State; Runhua Lei of the Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium and Steig Johnson of the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada.
Funding for aye-aye sample collection was provided by Conservation International, the Primate Action Fund and the Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foundation, along with logistical support from the Ahmanson Foundation and the Theodore F. and Claire M. Hubbard Family Foundation.
Additional support came from the National Institutes of Health, the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the College of the Liberal Arts at Penn State University.
-NSF-
PRESIDENT OF SOVEREIGN CITIZEN NATION FACES UP TO 164 YEARS IN PRISON FOR TAX CRIMES
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEMonday, March 25, 2013
Self-Proclaimed "President" of Sovereign Citizen Nation Convicted in Alabama of Federal Tax Crimes
A federal jury in Montgomery, Ala., found James Timothy Turner, also known as Tim Turner, guilty late Friday of conspiracy to defraud the United States, attempting to pay taxes with fictitious financial instruments, attempting to obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), failing to file a 2009 federal income tax return and falsely testifying under oath in a bankruptcy proceeding, the Justice Department, the IRS and the FBI announced today.
Based on the evidence introduced at trial and court filings, Turner, the self-proclaimed "president" of the so-called sovereign citizen group "Republic for the United States of America" (RuSA), traveled the country in 2008 and 2009 conducting seminars teaching attendees how to defraud the IRS by preparing and submitting fictitious "bonds" to the United States government in payment of federal taxes. Although the evidence at trial revealed the bonds are fictitious and worthless, witnesses testified that Turner used special paper, financial terminology and elaborate borders in an effort to make them look "real" and more likely to succeed in defrauding the recipient. Turner was convicted of sending a $300 million "bond" in his own name and of aiding and abetting others in sending fifteen other "bonds" to the Treasury Department to pay taxes and other debts.
The evidence at trial also established that Turner taught people how to file retaliatory liens against government officials who interfered with the processing of fictitious "bonds." Turner filed a purported $17.6 billion maritime lien in Montgomery County, Ala., Probate Court against another individual. Finally, evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the FBI began an investigation after Turner and three other individuals sent demands to all 50 governors in the United States in March 2010 ordering each governor to resign within three days or be "removed."
"The jury’s verdict in this case sends a message that defrauding the government and others through the use of bogus financial documents will not be tolerated," said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division Kathryn Keneally. "Disagreement with the law is no excuse for the real harm caused by these self-interested tax defiers."
"These sovereign citizen groups use these retaliatory tax liens and fraudulent tax schemes as weapons against the United States and its citizens," stated Acting U.S. Attorney Sandra J. Stewart. "It is only the hard work of law enforcement that can stop these criminals from using these financial weapons. I would like to thank the law enforcement officers who worked vigilantly on this case to bring this criminal to justice."
"Those who create elaborate schemes and fraudulent tax elimination tactics run a high risk of prosecution," stated Richard Weber, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation. "Mr. Turner’s attempts to thwart the IRS, as well as the assistance and training he provided to others, was not tax planning, it was criminal activity. IRS-Criminal Investigation is committed to vigorously pursuing those who promote illegal financial transactions designed to evade the payment of taxes. For those who would consider similar behavior, let this case be a strong warning that there is no secret formula for evading the payment of taxes and no one is above the law."
Turner remains in federal custody pending sentencing. Turner faces a potential maximum prison term of 164 years, a maximum potential fine of $2,350,000 and mandatory restitution.
"The prosecution of individuals who intentionally impede the IRS by submitting fictitious and frivolous documents, in an attempt to avoid paying federal taxes, is a vital element in maintaining public confidence in our tax system," stated Veronica Hyman-Pillot, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation. "Hopefully the verdict will send a message to other individuals like Turner, that this conduct will not be tolerated."
"This joint investigation exemplifies the government’s commitment to investigate and prosecute those, who through tax schemes, attempt to cheat and steal from the government," stated Stephen Richardson, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, Mobile Division.
This case was investigated by special agents of the FBI and IRS-Criminal Investigation, and is being prosecuted by Tax Division Trial Attorney Justin Gelfand and Middle District of Alabama Assistant U.S. Attorney Gray Borden.
THE U.S. AT THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 22ND SESSSION
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Key U.S. Outcomes at the UN Human Rights Council 22nd Session
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 25, 2013
The 22nd Session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) underscored the importance of robust engagement at the Council, where the United States continues to work with a diverse range of countries from all regions of the world to address urgent human rights concerns. This was the first session of the United States’ second term on the Council, after our re-election by the General Assembly in New York last November. U.S. leadership helped to keep the Council at the forefront of international efforts to promote and protect human rights. We continue to engage strategically with the goal of making the HRC a more effective and credible multilateral forum for promoting and protecting human rights. At the same time, the Council’s biased and disproportionate focus on Israel remains a major challenge, as exemplified by the annual Item 7 resolutions. As a member of the Council, our mission remains to emphasize key human rights issues while vigorously opposing efforts to shield human rights violators.
MULTILATERAL RESPONSES TO COUNTRY SITUATIONS
Sri Lanka: The United States, along with a group of 41 cross-regional co-sponsors, introduced a resolution that encouraged the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report, as well as recommendations from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, on issues of reconciliation, accountability, human rights, and democratic governance. The resolution, built on a 2012 Council resolution, re-affirmed the Council’s call for the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its public commitments to its own people on these longstanding issues of reconciliation and accountability. By adopting the Resolution, the Council reiterated that Sri Lanka must take meaningful action on these areas in order to move forward in the wake of its 27 year civil war.
DPRK: The United States co-sponsored a landmark resolution on North Korea, establishing a Commission of Inquiry (COI) to investigate the grave and systematic violations of human rights in the DPRK. The creation of a COI sends an important message that the global community is paying close attention to the DPRK, not just on the nuclear front, but on the human rights front as well. The resolution was adopted by consensus.
Syria: The Council once again took decisive action regarding the crisis in Syria. The Commission of Inquiry on Syria made a forceful presentation regarding the violations of international law committed by all sides, and highlighted the egregious crimes committed by the Assad regime. The Council voted to extend the mandate of the Commission for one year to investigate ongoing human rights violations in Syria. Sadly, this extended mandate reflects the growing brutality of this crisis, and the COI’s work will aid efforts to document abuses for use in future Syrian led transitional justice and accountability processes. The resolution passed with the strongest level of support so far, with only one country, Venezuela, voting to oppose.
Iran: A cross-regional group of sponsors, including the United States, led the Council in renewing the mandate for the Special Rapporteur on Iran, which passed by the largest vote margin yet--only two "no" votes. Ahmed Shaheed, the former Foreign Minister of the Maldives appointed as the Special Rapporteur on Iran two years ago, continues to work to maintain international attention on Iran’s ongoing and serious violations of human rights. Importantly, the renewal resolution calls on Iran to allow entry for the Special Rapporteur and to cooperate with his work, which Iran so far has refused to do.
Burma: The Council adopted by consensus a resolution that focuses on the human rights situation in Burma by welcoming positive developments and urging further progress. The resolution asks Burma to set a timetable for establishing an office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the country and renews the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. The resolution also took note of the troublesome situation of ethnic minorities in Rakhine and Kachin states.
Libya: The Council adopted its second technical assistance and cooperation resolution on Libya that will further cement cooperation between the Libyan government and the United Nations to address ongoing problems in the country. The High Commissioner for Human Rights will report on this progress at the 25th session of the HRC.
Mali: The Council adopted by consensus a resolution on the human rights situation in Mali, which calls for an Independent Expert to look into human rights violations and abuses in the entirety of the country. The United States co-sponsored this important resolution, which also calls for the government of Mali to guarantee freedom of expression and to hold free and transparent elections.
Israel: This Council session was once again marred by six separate resolutions targeting Israel under the Council’s biased Agenda Item 7. The United States strongly opposed all six resolutions, including a resolution following up on the report of the Fact Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements, created at the Council last March.
CROSS-CUTTING HUMAN RIGHTS PRIORITIES
Human Rights Defenders: The Council adopted by consensus an important resolution calling on states and the international community to protect human rights defenders and to recognize the legitimacy of their work. The United States, along with 63 other countries, co-sponsored this resolution which reflects one of our most foremost cross-regional human rights priorities.
Genocide Prevention Resolution: The United States was a co-sponsor of this important resolution. The resolution emphasized early warning to prevent genocide and underscored the importance of prevention mechanisms to prevent other types of atrocities, issues that are a focus of the U.S. Atrocities Prevention Board.
Freedom of Religion or Belief and Combating Religious Intolerance, Discrimination, and Violence (16/18): The Council extended by consensus the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur’s most recent report focuses on threats against religious minority communities. In addition, the Council adopted another resolution proposed by the Organization for Islamic Cooperation on combating religious intolerance, discrimination and violence. The resolution outlines positive steps to address these challenges in a manner consistent with protecting the fundamental freedoms of expression and religion.
Key U.S. Outcomes at the UN Human Rights Council 22nd Session
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 25, 2013
The 22nd Session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) underscored the importance of robust engagement at the Council, where the United States continues to work with a diverse range of countries from all regions of the world to address urgent human rights concerns. This was the first session of the United States’ second term on the Council, after our re-election by the General Assembly in New York last November. U.S. leadership helped to keep the Council at the forefront of international efforts to promote and protect human rights. We continue to engage strategically with the goal of making the HRC a more effective and credible multilateral forum for promoting and protecting human rights. At the same time, the Council’s biased and disproportionate focus on Israel remains a major challenge, as exemplified by the annual Item 7 resolutions. As a member of the Council, our mission remains to emphasize key human rights issues while vigorously opposing efforts to shield human rights violators.
MULTILATERAL RESPONSES TO COUNTRY SITUATIONS
Sri Lanka: The United States, along with a group of 41 cross-regional co-sponsors, introduced a resolution that encouraged the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report, as well as recommendations from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, on issues of reconciliation, accountability, human rights, and democratic governance. The resolution, built on a 2012 Council resolution, re-affirmed the Council’s call for the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its public commitments to its own people on these longstanding issues of reconciliation and accountability. By adopting the Resolution, the Council reiterated that Sri Lanka must take meaningful action on these areas in order to move forward in the wake of its 27 year civil war.
DPRK: The United States co-sponsored a landmark resolution on North Korea, establishing a Commission of Inquiry (COI) to investigate the grave and systematic violations of human rights in the DPRK. The creation of a COI sends an important message that the global community is paying close attention to the DPRK, not just on the nuclear front, but on the human rights front as well. The resolution was adopted by consensus.
Syria: The Council once again took decisive action regarding the crisis in Syria. The Commission of Inquiry on Syria made a forceful presentation regarding the violations of international law committed by all sides, and highlighted the egregious crimes committed by the Assad regime. The Council voted to extend the mandate of the Commission for one year to investigate ongoing human rights violations in Syria. Sadly, this extended mandate reflects the growing brutality of this crisis, and the COI’s work will aid efforts to document abuses for use in future Syrian led transitional justice and accountability processes. The resolution passed with the strongest level of support so far, with only one country, Venezuela, voting to oppose.
Iran: A cross-regional group of sponsors, including the United States, led the Council in renewing the mandate for the Special Rapporteur on Iran, which passed by the largest vote margin yet--only two "no" votes. Ahmed Shaheed, the former Foreign Minister of the Maldives appointed as the Special Rapporteur on Iran two years ago, continues to work to maintain international attention on Iran’s ongoing and serious violations of human rights. Importantly, the renewal resolution calls on Iran to allow entry for the Special Rapporteur and to cooperate with his work, which Iran so far has refused to do.
Burma: The Council adopted by consensus a resolution that focuses on the human rights situation in Burma by welcoming positive developments and urging further progress. The resolution asks Burma to set a timetable for establishing an office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the country and renews the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. The resolution also took note of the troublesome situation of ethnic minorities in Rakhine and Kachin states.
Libya: The Council adopted its second technical assistance and cooperation resolution on Libya that will further cement cooperation between the Libyan government and the United Nations to address ongoing problems in the country. The High Commissioner for Human Rights will report on this progress at the 25th session of the HRC.
Mali: The Council adopted by consensus a resolution on the human rights situation in Mali, which calls for an Independent Expert to look into human rights violations and abuses in the entirety of the country. The United States co-sponsored this important resolution, which also calls for the government of Mali to guarantee freedom of expression and to hold free and transparent elections.
Israel: This Council session was once again marred by six separate resolutions targeting Israel under the Council’s biased Agenda Item 7. The United States strongly opposed all six resolutions, including a resolution following up on the report of the Fact Finding Mission on Israeli Settlements, created at the Council last March.
CROSS-CUTTING HUMAN RIGHTS PRIORITIES
Human Rights Defenders: The Council adopted by consensus an important resolution calling on states and the international community to protect human rights defenders and to recognize the legitimacy of their work. The United States, along with 63 other countries, co-sponsored this resolution which reflects one of our most foremost cross-regional human rights priorities.
Genocide Prevention Resolution: The United States was a co-sponsor of this important resolution. The resolution emphasized early warning to prevent genocide and underscored the importance of prevention mechanisms to prevent other types of atrocities, issues that are a focus of the U.S. Atrocities Prevention Board.
Freedom of Religion or Belief and Combating Religious Intolerance, Discrimination, and Violence (16/18): The Council extended by consensus the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur’s most recent report focuses on threats against religious minority communities. In addition, the Council adopted another resolution proposed by the Organization for Islamic Cooperation on combating religious intolerance, discrimination and violence. The resolution outlines positive steps to address these challenges in a manner consistent with protecting the fundamental freedoms of expression and religion.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
PRESIDENT OBAMA SPEAKS TO MILITARY MEMBERS AT NATURALIZATION CEREMONY
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Obama Commends Military Members During Naturalization Ceremony
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 - Twenty-eight people representing 26 countries, including 13 service members, took their oath of U.S. citizenship during a naturalization ceremony in the White House's East Room today.
"In each of you, we see the true spirit of America," Obama said. "And we see a bit of ourselves, too, because most of our stories trace back to moments just like this one ... to an ancestor who, ... like the men and women here today, –- raised their right hand and recited that sacred oath."
A full list of the service members, their ranks and affiliations was not available, but the president singled two of them out by name in his remarks: Nikita Kirichenko and Elrina Brits.
Kirichenko came to the United States at age 11 from Ukraine, the president said. "His mother saw America as the one place on Earth where her son could do anything he wanted," he added. "And a few years ago, Nikita decided that he wanted to join the Air Force so that, in his words, 'I could give back to a country that took me in and gave me a better life.'
"Thank you, Nikita," Obama continued. "Today, we proudly salute him not just as a member of our military, but also as a citizen of our country."
Brits was born in South Africa, and grew up in Washington state, Obama said. "When Elrina decided to join the Navy, somebody told her that she wouldn't be able to cut it," he added. "But even though she wasn't yet American on paper, she had that American quality of being defiant when somebody says you can't do something, so she proved them wrong."
Brits deployed twice to the Middle East and once to Haiti, the president said, "showcasing another quintessentially American impulse, and that's helping others in need. And as a new citizen, Elrina hopes to serve her country in a new way -– as a police officer."
Obama commended all of the service members at the ceremony, noting their willingness to serve their adopted country.
"Elrina, Nikita [and] every member of the military with us have shown incredible patriotism -- a willingness to risk their lives in defense of a nation that was not yet their own," he said. "And that's a remarkable act, and it made each of them one of us. It made each of them in some ways American, even before it was official, because that kind of service and sacrifice has defined our nation for more than two centuries."
Obama Commends Military Members During Naturalization Ceremony
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 - Twenty-eight people representing 26 countries, including 13 service members, took their oath of U.S. citizenship during a naturalization ceremony in the White House's East Room today.
"In each of you, we see the true spirit of America," Obama said. "And we see a bit of ourselves, too, because most of our stories trace back to moments just like this one ... to an ancestor who, ... like the men and women here today, –- raised their right hand and recited that sacred oath."
A full list of the service members, their ranks and affiliations was not available, but the president singled two of them out by name in his remarks: Nikita Kirichenko and Elrina Brits.
Kirichenko came to the United States at age 11 from Ukraine, the president said. "His mother saw America as the one place on Earth where her son could do anything he wanted," he added. "And a few years ago, Nikita decided that he wanted to join the Air Force so that, in his words, 'I could give back to a country that took me in and gave me a better life.'
"Thank you, Nikita," Obama continued. "Today, we proudly salute him not just as a member of our military, but also as a citizen of our country."
Brits was born in South Africa, and grew up in Washington state, Obama said. "When Elrina decided to join the Navy, somebody told her that she wouldn't be able to cut it," he added. "But even though she wasn't yet American on paper, she had that American quality of being defiant when somebody says you can't do something, so she proved them wrong."
Brits deployed twice to the Middle East and once to Haiti, the president said, "showcasing another quintessentially American impulse, and that's helping others in need. And as a new citizen, Elrina hopes to serve her country in a new way -– as a police officer."
Obama commended all of the service members at the ceremony, noting their willingness to serve their adopted country.
"Elrina, Nikita [and] every member of the military with us have shown incredible patriotism -- a willingness to risk their lives in defense of a nation that was not yet their own," he said. "And that's a remarkable act, and it made each of them one of us. It made each of them in some ways American, even before it was official, because that kind of service and sacrifice has defined our nation for more than two centuries."
THE MILSTAR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
FROM: U.S. AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND
Milstar is a joint service satellite communications system that provides secure, jam resistant, worldwide communications to meet essential wartime requirements for high priority military users. The multi-satellite constellation will link command authorities with a wide variety of resources, including ships, submarines, aircraft and ground stations.
U.S. RESPONSE TO HUMANITARIAN PROBLEMS IN SAHEL
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Responds to Humanitarian Needs in the Sahel
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 25, 2013
I am pleased to announce that the United States is providing an additional $51 million in humanitarian assistance to the people of the Sahel region.
The Sahel is one of the poorest regions of the world, and is experiencing a complex crisis of drought, flooding, failed harvests, and disrupted livelihoods, all of which are exacerbated by the conflict in Mali.
Our support is addressing food insecurity across the entire Sahel region and the protection and assistance needs of refugees and internally displaced persons.
In 2012, an estimated 18.7 million people in the Sahel were at risk of food insecurity, including one million children at risk of severe acute malnutrition. Since the beginning of the conflict in Mali in January 2012, nearly 450,000 Malians have been displaced internally or across borders as refugees.
This new humanitarian assistance will assist food insecure and conflict-affected populations in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger. We remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis in the Sahel and urge others to contribute generously for humanitarian operations.
This brings our total humanitarian contribution to the region to nearly $520 million since fiscal year 2012.
U.S. Responds to Humanitarian Needs in the Sahel
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 25, 2013
I am pleased to announce that the United States is providing an additional $51 million in humanitarian assistance to the people of the Sahel region.
The Sahel is one of the poorest regions of the world, and is experiencing a complex crisis of drought, flooding, failed harvests, and disrupted livelihoods, all of which are exacerbated by the conflict in Mali.
Our support is addressing food insecurity across the entire Sahel region and the protection and assistance needs of refugees and internally displaced persons.
In 2012, an estimated 18.7 million people in the Sahel were at risk of food insecurity, including one million children at risk of severe acute malnutrition. Since the beginning of the conflict in Mali in January 2012, nearly 450,000 Malians have been displaced internally or across borders as refugees.
This new humanitarian assistance will assist food insecure and conflict-affected populations in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger. We remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis in the Sahel and urge others to contribute generously for humanitarian operations.
This brings our total humanitarian contribution to the region to nearly $520 million since fiscal year 2012.
RECENT U.S. NAVY PHOTOS
 FROM: U.S. NAVY - German frigate FGS Hamburg (F220) and the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) steam alongside fast combat support ship USNS Bridge (T-AOE 10) while guided-missile cruiser USS Hue City (CG 66) steams astern of Hamburg during a replenishment-at-sea. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Hue City and Hamburg are deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility promoting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ryan D. McLearnon (Released) 130323-N-GC639-175  130322-N-PK218-119 NORFOLK (March 22, 2013) The amphibious transport dock ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Arlington (LPD 24) is positioned at its berth at its new homeport of Naval Station Norfolk. Arlington was named for Arlington County, Va., and honors first responders and the 184 victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Nick Scott/Released) |
NEWS FROM AFGHANISTAN FOR MARCH 26, 2013
 |
| An Afghan national army soldier observes his sector during a clearing operation near Camp Shorabak in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, March 16, 2013. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Staff Sgt. Ezekiel R. Kitandwe |
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Combined Force in Kandahar Province Arrests Taliban Leader
From an International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Release
KABUL, Afghanistan, March 26, 2013 - A combined Afghan and coalition security force arrested a Taliban leader and detained another insurgent in the Shah Wali Kot district of Afghanistan's Kandahar province today, military officials reported.
The leader is accused of ordering assassinations of Afghan government officials, coordinating the movement of weapons and supplies for insurgent operations and leading attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.
Also today, a combined force in Helmand province's Nad-e Ali district arrested a Taliban facilitator who is believed to be responsible for procuring weapons and distributing them to insurgents. The security force also detained several other insurgents.
In Kunduz province's Kunduz district yesterday, a combined force arrested an Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan leader who is believed to lead a cell of insurgent fighters responsible for attacks on Afghan and coalition forces. Before his arrest, officials said, he was believed to be actively planning to assassinate an Afghan national security forces official.
GENERAL STAVRIDIS WANTS MORE NATO DIALOGUE WITH RUSSIA
Stavridis Presses for More NATO-Russia Dialogue
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 - Noting increased cooperation between NATO and Russia in several key areas, the top NATO and U.S. European Command commander emphasized today the importance of working through stumbling blocks in what he called a "complicated partnership."
In a blog post, Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis cited concerted efforts by both parties since NATO's 2010 summit in Lisbon, Portugal, where the alliance's 28 heads of state and government agreed on the need to pursue "a true strategic partnership" between NATO and Russia and noted in the strategic concept that they expect reciprocity from Russia.
Stavridis recognized several areas where increased cooperation has shown signs of paying off: counterpiracy; support for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, military exchanges and training exercises, counterterrorism and counternarcotics, among them.
"Overall, we enjoy cooperation and some level of partnership in a variety of important areas," he said. "On the other hand, there are clearly challenges in the relationship."
Stavridis noted Russia's objections to the European phased adaptive approach for missile defense. "Russia sees the NATO missile defense system as posing a threat to their strategic intercontinental ballistic missile force," he said. "We strongly disagree, and feel that the system is clearly designed to protect populations against Iran, Syria and other ballistic-missile-capable nations that threaten the European continent."
NATO and Russia also disagree over Russian forces stationed in Georgia and NATO's role in Libya, Stavridis said.
"We maintain that we operated under the U.N. Security Council mandate to establish a no-fly zone, provide an arms embargo and protect the people of Libya from attacks," he said, calling NATO's actions "well within the bounds of the [U.N.] mandate and the norms of international law.
"Russia sees this differently," Stavridis continued, "and whenever I discuss this with Russian interlocutors, we find little room for agreement. This tends to create a differing set of views about the dangerous situation in Syria as well."
Stavridis noted Russian Ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko's stated concerns that these differences -- and the installation of NATO military infrastructure closer to Russia's borders -- threaten to unravel progress made in their relations.
"Notwithstanding differences on particular issues, we remain convinced that the security of NATO and Russia is intertwined," Stavridis said, quoting the NATO strategic concept agreed to in Lisbon. "A strong and constructive partnership based on mutual confidence, transparency and predictability can best serve our security," it states.
Stavridis recognized areas in which the growing NATO-Russian relationship is bearing fruit:
-- Counterpiracy: Loosely coordinated efforts by NATO and Russian ships have reduced piracy by 70 percent over the past year and caused the number of ships and mariners held hostage to plummet in what the admiral called "a very effective operation."
-- Afghanistan support: Russia contributed small arms and ammunition to the Afghan security forces and sold MI-17 helicopters and maintenance training to the Afghan air force. In addition, Russia provides logistical support, including a transit arrangement that helps to sustain NATO-led ISAF forces and redeployment efforts.
-- Military exchanges and exercises: Russian service members are participating in more of these engagements with the United States and NATO. These exchanges, including port calls in Russia, have been well-received by both militaries, Stavridis noted.
-- Arctic cooperation: Russia is collaborating with other members of the Arctic Council, including the United States, Norway, Denmark, Canada and Iceland, to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of cooperation.
-- Counterterrorism: In the lead-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, NATO is offering assistance and information-sharing via a variety of channels, Stavridis reported.
-- Counternarcotics: NATO and Russia are working together to stem the flow of heroin from Afghanistan, a high priority for Russia.
Expressing hopes that NATO and Russia can continue to build on this cooperation, Stavridis said areas of tensions and disagreements need to be addressed.
"No one wants to stumble backwards toward the Cold War, so the best course for the future is open discussion, frank airing of disagreements, and hopefully seeking to build the 'true strategic partnership' set out in the NATO strategic concept," he said. "Clearly, we have some work to do."
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 - Noting increased cooperation between NATO and Russia in several key areas, the top NATO and U.S. European Command commander emphasized today the importance of working through stumbling blocks in what he called a "complicated partnership."
In a blog post, Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis cited concerted efforts by both parties since NATO's 2010 summit in Lisbon, Portugal, where the alliance's 28 heads of state and government agreed on the need to pursue "a true strategic partnership" between NATO and Russia and noted in the strategic concept that they expect reciprocity from Russia.
Stavridis recognized several areas where increased cooperation has shown signs of paying off: counterpiracy; support for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, military exchanges and training exercises, counterterrorism and counternarcotics, among them.
"Overall, we enjoy cooperation and some level of partnership in a variety of important areas," he said. "On the other hand, there are clearly challenges in the relationship."
Stavridis noted Russia's objections to the European phased adaptive approach for missile defense. "Russia sees the NATO missile defense system as posing a threat to their strategic intercontinental ballistic missile force," he said. "We strongly disagree, and feel that the system is clearly designed to protect populations against Iran, Syria and other ballistic-missile-capable nations that threaten the European continent."
NATO and Russia also disagree over Russian forces stationed in Georgia and NATO's role in Libya, Stavridis said.
"We maintain that we operated under the U.N. Security Council mandate to establish a no-fly zone, provide an arms embargo and protect the people of Libya from attacks," he said, calling NATO's actions "well within the bounds of the [U.N.] mandate and the norms of international law.
"Russia sees this differently," Stavridis continued, "and whenever I discuss this with Russian interlocutors, we find little room for agreement. This tends to create a differing set of views about the dangerous situation in Syria as well."
Stavridis noted Russian Ambassador to NATO Alexander Grushko's stated concerns that these differences -- and the installation of NATO military infrastructure closer to Russia's borders -- threaten to unravel progress made in their relations.
"Notwithstanding differences on particular issues, we remain convinced that the security of NATO and Russia is intertwined," Stavridis said, quoting the NATO strategic concept agreed to in Lisbon. "A strong and constructive partnership based on mutual confidence, transparency and predictability can best serve our security," it states.
Stavridis recognized areas in which the growing NATO-Russian relationship is bearing fruit:
-- Counterpiracy: Loosely coordinated efforts by NATO and Russian ships have reduced piracy by 70 percent over the past year and caused the number of ships and mariners held hostage to plummet in what the admiral called "a very effective operation."
-- Afghanistan support: Russia contributed small arms and ammunition to the Afghan security forces and sold MI-17 helicopters and maintenance training to the Afghan air force. In addition, Russia provides logistical support, including a transit arrangement that helps to sustain NATO-led ISAF forces and redeployment efforts.
-- Military exchanges and exercises: Russian service members are participating in more of these engagements with the United States and NATO. These exchanges, including port calls in Russia, have been well-received by both militaries, Stavridis noted.
-- Arctic cooperation: Russia is collaborating with other members of the Arctic Council, including the United States, Norway, Denmark, Canada and Iceland, to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of cooperation.
-- Counterterrorism: In the lead-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, NATO is offering assistance and information-sharing via a variety of channels, Stavridis reported.
-- Counternarcotics: NATO and Russia are working together to stem the flow of heroin from Afghanistan, a high priority for Russia.
Expressing hopes that NATO and Russia can continue to build on this cooperation, Stavridis said areas of tensions and disagreements need to be addressed.
"No one wants to stumble backwards toward the Cold War, so the best course for the future is open discussion, frank airing of disagreements, and hopefully seeking to build the 'true strategic partnership' set out in the NATO strategic concept," he said. "Clearly, we have some work to do."
U.S.-KOREA HOLD LABOR AFFAIRS COUNCIL MEETING
WASHINGTON — Senior officials from the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Trade Representative today issued a joint statement with their counterparts from the Republic of Korea following the first meeting of the Labor Affairs Council under the 2012 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
The council is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the labor chapter of the free trade agreement and activities related to labor obligations. At the meeting, officials reaffirmed their commitments under the Labor Chapter of the free trade agreement and focused on areas for future cooperation, including the collection and analysis of employment and labor statistics, and collaboration on advancing corporate compliance with international labor standards in global supply chains.
"We are very pleased with the progress that's been made over the past two days," said acting Deputy Undersecretary of Labor for International Affairs Carol Pier. "We look forward to continuing the productive discussions we started here and to pursuing our shared goals of closer cooperation on important labor issues of common interest."
 |
| Credit: U.S. DOL |
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Department of Labor hosts 1st Labor Affairs Council meeting under US-Korea Free Trade Agreement
WASHINGTON — Senior officials from the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Trade Representative today issued a joint statement with their counterparts from the Republic of Korea following the first meeting of the Labor Affairs Council under the 2012 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
The council is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the labor chapter of the free trade agreement and activities related to labor obligations. At the meeting, officials reaffirmed their commitments under the Labor Chapter of the free trade agreement and focused on areas for future cooperation, including the collection and analysis of employment and labor statistics, and collaboration on advancing corporate compliance with international labor standards in global supply chains.
"We are very pleased with the progress that's been made over the past two days," said acting Deputy Undersecretary of Labor for International Affairs Carol Pier. "We look forward to continuing the productive discussions we started here and to pursuing our shared goals of closer cooperation on important labor issues of common interest."
U.S..-SOUTH KOREA SIGN PLAN TO COUNTER THREATS FROM NORTH KOREA
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Officials Sign Plan to Counter North Korean Threats
From a Combined Forces Command News Release
YONGSAN GARRISON, South Korea, March 24, 2013 - The chairman of the South Korean military's Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Army general who leads the Republic of Korea-United States Combined Forces Command have signed a combined plan to counter future threats from North Korea.
Gen. Jung Seung-jo and Gen. James D. Thurman, who also commands U.S. Forces Korea, signed the Combined Counter-Provocation Plan on March 22.
The South Korean-led, U.S.-supported contingency plan was developed by mutual agreement between the Joint Chiefs chairmen of both countries after a November 2010 North Korean artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island.
Officials said the plan includes procedures for consultation and action. It also improves the readiness posture to allow for a strong and decisive combined South Korean and U.S. response to North Korean provocations and threats, they added.
Officials Sign Plan to Counter North Korean Threats
From a Combined Forces Command News Release
YONGSAN GARRISON, South Korea, March 24, 2013 - The chairman of the South Korean military's Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Army general who leads the Republic of Korea-United States Combined Forces Command have signed a combined plan to counter future threats from North Korea.
Gen. Jung Seung-jo and Gen. James D. Thurman, who also commands U.S. Forces Korea, signed the Combined Counter-Provocation Plan on March 22.
The South Korean-led, U.S.-supported contingency plan was developed by mutual agreement between the Joint Chiefs chairmen of both countries after a November 2010 North Korean artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island.
Officials said the plan includes procedures for consultation and action. It also improves the readiness posture to allow for a strong and decisive combined South Korean and U.S. response to North Korean provocations and threats, they added.
NSF REPORTS TRIASSIC VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS CAUSED MASS EXTINCTION
 |
| Photo: Volcanic Killer. Credit: NSF |
Before Dinosaurs' Era, Volcanic Eruptions Triggered Mass Extinction
More than 200 million years ago, a massive extinction decimated 76 percent of marine and terrestrial species, marking the end of the Triassic period and the onset of the Jurassic.
The event cleared the way for dinosaurs to dominate Earth for the next 135 million years, taking over ecological niches formerly occupied by other marine and terrestrial species.
It's not clear what caused the end-Triassic extinction, although most scientists agree on a likely scenario.
Over a relatively short time period, massive volcanic eruptions from a large region known as the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP) spewed forth huge amounts of lava and gas, including carbon dioxide, sulfur and methane.
This sudden release of gases into the atmosphere may have created intense global warming, and acidification of the oceans, which ultimately killed off thousands of plant and animal species.
Now, researchers at MIT, Columbia University and other institutions have determined that these eruptions occurred precisely when the extinction began, providing strong evidence that volcanic activity did indeed trigger the end-Triassic extinction.
Results of the research, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), are published this week in the journal Science.
"These scientists have come close to confirming something we had only guessed at: that the mass extinction of this ancient time was indeed related to a series of volcanic eruptions," says Lisa Boush, program director in NSF's Division of Earth Sciences.
"The effort is also the result of the EARTHTIME initiative, an NSF-sponsored project that's developing an improved geologic time scale for scientists to interpret Earth's history."
The scientists determined the age of basaltic lavas and other features found along the East Coast of the United States, as well as in Morocco--now-disparate regions that, 200 million years ago, were part of the supercontinent Pangaea.
The rift that ultimately separated these landmasses was also the site of CAMP's volcanic activity.
Today, the geology of both regions includes igneous rocks from the CAMP eruptions as well as sedimentary rocks that accumulated in an enormous lake. The researchers used a combination of techniques to date the rocks and to pinpoint CAMP's beginning and duration.
From its measurements, they reconstructed the region's volcanic activity 201 million years ago, discovering that the eruption of magma--along with carbon dioxide, sulfur and methane--occurred in repeated bursts over a period of 40,000 years, a short span in geologic time.
"This extinction happened at a geological instant in time," says Sam Bowring, a geologist at MIT. "There's no question the extinction occurred at the same time as the first eruption."
In addition to Bowring, the paper's co-authors are Terrence Blackburn and Noah McLean of MIT; Paul Olsen and Dennis Kent of Columbia; John Puffer of Rutgers University; Greg McHone, an independent researcher from New Brunswick, N.J.; E. Troy Rasbury of Stony Brook University; and Mohammed Et-Touhami of the Université Mohammed Premier (Mohammed Premier University) Oujda, Morocco.
Blackburn is the paper's lead author.
More than a coincidence
The end-Triassic extinction is one of five major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years of Earth's history.
For several of these events, scientists have noted that large igneous provinces, which provide evidence of widespread volcanic activity, arose at about the same time.
But, as Bowring points out, "just because they happen to approximately coincide doesn't mean there's cause and effect."
For example, while massive lava flows overlapped with the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs, scientists have linked that extinction to an asteroid collision.
"If you want to make the case that an eruption caused an extinction, you have to be able to show at the highest possible precision that the eruption and the extinction occurred at exactly the same time," Bowring says.
For the time of the end-Triassic, Bowring says that researchers have dated volcanic activity to right around the time fossils disappear from the geologic record, providing evidence that CAMP may have triggered the extinction.
But these estimates have a margin of error of one to two million years. "A million years is forever when you're trying to make that link," Bowring says.
For example, it's thought that CAMP emitted a total of more than two million cubic kilometers of lava.
If that amount of lava were spewed over a period of one to two million years, it wouldn't have the same effect as if it were emitted over tens of thousands of years.
"The timescale over which the eruption occurred has a big effect," Bowring says.
Tilting toward extinction
To determine how long the volcanic eruptions lasted, the group combined two dating techniques: astrochronology and geochronology.
The former is a technique that links sedimentary layers in rocks to changes in the tilt of the Earth.
For decades, scientists have observed that the Earth's orientation changes in regular cycles as a result of gravitational forces exerted by neighboring planets.
The Earth's axis tilts at regular cycles, returning to its original tilt every 26,000 years. Such orbital variations change the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, which in turn has an effect on the planet's climate, known as Milankovich cycles.
This cyclical change in climate can be seen in the types of sediments deposited in the Earth's crust.
Scientists can determine a rock's age by first identifying cyclical variations in deposition of sediments in quiet bodies of water, such as deep oceans or large lakes.
A cycle of sediment corresponds with a cycle of the Earth's tilt, established as a known period of years.
By seeing where a rock lies in those sedimentary layers, scientists can get a good idea of how old it is. To obtain precise estimates, researchers have developed mathematical models to determine the Earth's tilt over millions of years.
Bowring says the technique is good for directly dating rocks up to 35 million years old, but beyond that, it's unclear how reliable the technique is.
He and colleagues used astrochronology to estimate the age of the sedimentary rocks, then tested those estimates against high-precision dates from 200-million-year-old rocks in North America and Morocco.
The geologists broke apart rock samples to isolate tiny crystals known as zircons, which they analyzed to determine the ratio of uranium to lead.
The technique enabled the team to date the rocks to within approximately 30,000 years--a precise measurement in geologic terms.
Taken together, the geochronology and astrochronology techniques gave the geologists precise estimates for the onset of volcanism 200 million years ago.
The techniques revealed three bursts of magmatic activity over 40,000 years--a short period of time during which massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other gas emissions may have drastically altered Earth's climate.
While the evidence is the strongest thus far for linking volcanic activity with the end-Triassic extinction, Bowring says that more work can be done.
"The CAMP province extends from Nova Scotia all the way to Brazil and West Africa," he says. "I'm dying to know whether those are exactly the same age."
-NSF-
Monday, March 25, 2013
NEWS FROM AFGHANISTAN FOR MARCH 25, 2013
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Officials Confirm Deaths of Taliban Leaders in Helmand
From an International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Release
KABUL, Afghanistan, March 25, 2013 - Afghan and coalition military officials today confirmed that two key Taliban leaders in Afghanistan's Helmand province were killed in recent operations.
Taliban leader Tamim was killed in a March 18 operation in the province's Nahr-e Saraj district, and Gul Ahmad Akhund was killed a day earlier in the Nad-e Ali district.
Tamim was responsible for planning and directing attacks against Afghan and coalition forces, facilitating weapons to fighters throughout Helmand, and serving as a vital link in the local Taliban's intelligence apparatus, officials said. He also served as a member in illegitimate Taliban judicial proceedings and actively recruited civilians to join insurgent cells.
Akhund had operational control over a cell of insurgent fighters directly responsible for numerous attacks targeting Afghan and coalition forces, officials said. He was instrumental in acquiring and distributing weapons and ammunition to his fighters.
STATE DEPARTMENT ON GEORGIAN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Approval of Georgian Constitutional Amendment
Press Statement
Patrick Ventrell
Acting Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 25, 2013
Today the Georgian parliament voted unanimously to approve an amendment that, consistent with international constitutional norms, removes the president’s unilateral power to appoint a new government without parliamentary approval. The United States congratulates the leadership of Georgia and the parliamentary majority and minority on this important, bipartisan measure. It paves the way for the consolidation of Georgian democracy and renewed focus on the many issues facing the government today. We are encouraged by the political consensus underlying this agreement and urge all political actors to maintain a constructive, forward-looking tone in public discourse, in the interest of ensuring further progress for the good of Georgia and its citizens.
Approval of Georgian Constitutional Amendment
Press Statement
Patrick Ventrell
Acting Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
March 25, 2013
Today the Georgian parliament voted unanimously to approve an amendment that, consistent with international constitutional norms, removes the president’s unilateral power to appoint a new government without parliamentary approval. The United States congratulates the leadership of Georgia and the parliamentary majority and minority on this important, bipartisan measure. It paves the way for the consolidation of Georgian democracy and renewed focus on the many issues facing the government today. We are encouraged by the political consensus underlying this agreement and urge all political actors to maintain a constructive, forward-looking tone in public discourse, in the interest of ensuring further progress for the good of Georgia and its citizens.
SPECIAL BRIEFING: U.S. OFFICIALS EN ROUTE TO KABUL
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing: Senior Adminitration Officials
Special Briefing
Senior Administration Officials
En Route To Kabul
March 25, 2013
MODERATOR: So just a reminder, this is a background briefing embargoed until we land, which is easy to implement, with [Senior Administration Official One] who will have some opening remarks, and [Senior Administration Official Two]. So I’ll turn it over to [Senior Administration Official One]. Just as a reminder, we’ll just go around. Everyone gets a question after [Senior Administration Official One]’s done.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, [Moderator]. Let me just try to, in a few minutes, kind of give a broad overview of the trip, and then we’ll get into more detailed Q&As. But obviously, as you all know, Secretary Kerry came to this position with deep experience on Afghanistan and with very established relationships with many of the key leaders, including President Karzai. He was here five times during the course of the first term of this Administration alone, and obviously has worked very closely with the Afghan people and has deep respect for the hopes and aspirations of the Afghan people and understanding of how these hopes and aspirations are connected to our core goals, which at the end of the day is a strong and stable Afghanistan that’s in the national security interests of both the Afghan and the U.S. people.
So --
QUESTION: If you could (inaudible). (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Sorry. I’ll try to – all right.
QUESTION: Did he see Karzai five times?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, I’m sure that he is. We’ll confirm, but I’m almost confident that every time he’s come Karzai has been there. I, in fact – in the first term – I traveled with him in two of those times in my current position, and certainly both those times Karzai was there. I’m almost certain that’s the case.
But this is a trip – this is an opportunity for him to meet in person with President Karzai and other officials now in his new position as Secretary, and really to hear directly from Afghans who, while looking forward to a future of a sovereign Afghanistan, are obviously also very concerned about what the transition at the end of 2014 actually entails and what it means in terms of their – the real world implications in their lives. So he particularly wants to discuss progress both with President Karzai and in his other meetings with the whole range of Afghan stakeholders on the ongoing security, political, and economic transitions, and really with a special emphasis on the elections scheduled for next year.
He will make clear that the U.S. will have an enduring commitment in Afghanistan that will last beyond transition, and that there will always be bumps in the road, that it’s a relationship that can withstand those. Look, I want to be as clear-eyed and pragmatic as possible. The process of winding down our current position and role in Afghanistan and stepping into more of a support role as Afghans increasingly take over their own security and development is not going to be a smooth process at all times. Issues of security and sovereignty are always going to be difficult, but the most important thing is that we are honest with each other when there are differences between us, and you’ve seen some of these differences play out recently. So we’ll see more of these, undoubtedly, as a very kind of necessary but complicated processes continue to unfold.
We want to look at, in the broader picture, the more strategic picture. And we believe that we continue to be committed to the same strategy and the same goals of a fully sovereign Afghanistan without al-Qaida and responsible for its own security. We value our partnership with the Afghan people, per our implementation of the Security Partnership Agreement that we signed last year, our continued discussions on a bilateral security agreement, and working to strengthen governance and increase economic opportunity.
Let me run through just highlights of the kind of the key issues on transition. On security transition, he’s obviously interested in hearing how this final phase is going as Afghans take the lead for security across their entire country. As you know, by the end of next year, the security transition is complete, Afghans take full responsibility, and it’s something that should make Afghans very proud.
On the political transition, Secretary Kerry’s very focused on how the U.S. can best support Afghan elections next year. As many of you know, he was very personally engaged in the elections in 2009, and he wants to ensure that the U.S. can help to support and strengthen Afghanistan, keeping faith with the Afghan people.
And on – also with regard to elections, what was signed last year in Tokyo lays out kind of very specific aspects on how we can we best help ensure the conduct of credible, inclusive, transparent elections, and working with really all Afghan stakeholder – not only the government, but independent Afghan electoral institutions, Afghan political parties, civil society – all stakeholders to do what’s necessary for preparation. He will focus on this quite a bit, but we want to make sure that these preparations are in line with the constitution and ultimately result in a process that’s inclusive and consultative and transparent and secure and ultimately something that is hopefully unifying for the country.
On the economic transition, we recognize that the long-term interests of the country depend on the ability to continue to attract investment and have a more viable economic stability. Also in Tokyo, you saw that the international community pledged $16 billion to fill what the World Bank hole was of about – close to $4 billion a year through 2015. Some countries committed to pledging far more after that. The U.S. committed to seeking assistance, civilian assistance, from Congress for at least a few years after that. But the important thing is that we will have to be on a glide path away from assistance over the longer term.
So while our commitments to continued assistance are real and will extend beyond 2014, what we really have to do is try to find ways to make the economic situation in Afghanistan more sustainable. So we’re looking at ways to address fraud and corruption and for the Afghans to really take on the reform commitments that they themselves laid out in the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework.
Let must just say a quick work on reconciliation. We continue to be committed to a peace process between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, and as our presidents confirmed when President Karzai visited in January, Afghan-led peace and reconciliation is the surest way to end violence and ensure lasting stability in Afghanistan and in the region. So we’re looking for any ways we can to support and accelerate the efforts that lead to a strong and a unified Afghanistan. So as we said in January, we support an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations between the Afghans and the Taliban, and we continue to join with President Karzai in calling on the Taliban to join a political process, including by taking those steps necessary to open that office in Doha.
The very last point I want to make before Q&A is that originally Secretary Kerry was hopeful that he would be able to go to Pakistan on this trip as well, but as the government there really enters a very historic period in this electoral process, we wanted to fully respect those institutions and the ongoing process, and so not travel there this time but go there at an appropriate time in the future.
I think what’s currently occurring in Pakistan is quite remarkable. We welcome the announcement of the caretaker Prime Minister yesterday, and as we will hopefully see with elections scheduled in May, the first-ever civilian-to-civilian government, peaceful transition of power in the country. But during this election period, we also wanted to make sure that we continued our ongoing dialogue with Pakistan on the whole series of shared interests that we have, including combating terrorism and ensuring a peaceful resolution in Afghanistan.
So last night, Secretary Kerry had a unique opportunity to meet General Kayani. They happened to overlap in Amman for an evening. General Kayani was there on an official visit to Jordan to meet with his counterpart today. That was announced by the Pakistanis several days ago. And so given the overlap, they met last night to discuss these range of bilateral security issues, including on counterterrorism, on combating safe havens, and on issues that are important to the future of Afghanistan, to Pakistan, and to us.
This was ahead of, obviously, Secretary Kerry’s meetings with President Karzai today, and so he plans to fully readout his conversation with General Kayani last night, and help to continue to inform the ongoing process of transparency and communication between all three of us. And in that same interest, our acting Special Representative David Pearce is in Kabul, he’ll meet us when we land, and he will go to Pakistan quite soon to continue to engage with the civilian government that’s currently there, at this point the technocratic government, if in fact we don’t yet have caretaker appointments in some of these processes, and continue this process of regional confidence building.
MODERATOR: Great. Why don’t we start here?
Andrea.
QUESTION: How – thank you very much – you think I would know how to use a microphone.
MODERATOR: It’s like a press (inaudible). Go ahead.
QUESTION: How does Secretary Kerry plan to address the most recent comments by President Karzai when Secretary Hagel was there, and in what context can he handle that? Does he have to ignore it, smooth it over, challenge it? I mean, what is the approach to Karzai, given what has happened most recently with the new Secretary of Defense?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Certainly the focus on the bilateral relationship will be one of the critical pieces that they talk about. I think in its – he’s very well served by having the lengthy personal relationship with him. I think that they start from a position of some trust of each other, and at the end of the day, that our interests are still very much aligned and that we are all working towards a sovereign and unified Afghanistan, and that we will continue to work together, which is exactly what I was trying to say kind of at the outset of this. This doesn’t mean that there won’t be problems; there undoubtedly will be. But I think that we will continue to be able to achieve some constructive resolution of them in much the same way that we’ve managed to do just over the course of the last week or two.
I don’t have any final confirmation of it, but I think while we’ve been in the air, hopefully there’s been a transfer ceremony to take care of the detentions issue at Parwan, which was obviously one of the issues that was a sticking point. Our teams continue to meet about it. We hammered out a resolution to everyone’s satisfaction and in everyone’s mutual interest. And it supports the long-term sovereignty of Afghanistan.
So I think going into it with – on the basis of their history, given the joint interests, and seeing what we can achieve constructively in the time ahead will be very much the kind of touchstone of their conversations.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Andrea, the only thing I’d add is that since many of those comments were first made, both Secretary Kerry has spoken to President Karzai, but more recently and more frequently, Secretary Hagel talked to President Karzai twice. And as [Senior Administration Official One] mentioned, I mean, we’ve moved forward and past several of the issues that were part of that conflation of friction points. The most prominent one that antagonized that period, which was – I don’t want to downplay it – it was – I mean, it was, of course, of concern to us – was the detentions issues. And Ambassador Cunningham and General Dunford have been negotiating almost daily with President Karzai and his advisors to bring this to resolution, and we believe we have a favorable resolution now. So I think we can start to look past this, or at least we’re hopeful that we can.
QUESTION: Just following up on Andrea’s question, I understand that there have now been some private conversations between Karzai and Hagel and Kerry. But publicly are you going to ask Karzai to disavow the claim that the U.S. is somehow collaborating with the Taliban, which seems so far out given the U.S. military and economic commitment to Afghanistan? And further – so does he need to state, "No. I didn’t actually mean that"? And secondly, given what he’s recently said about his plans to go to Qatar in the coming days, tell us a little bit more about reconciliation and what you’re going to advocate for, since he was claiming that the U.S. was secretly negotiating with the Taliban behind his back. So what kind of a private and public conversation can you have about that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Look, I think the response of Americans across the board, whether those in our Congress, whether officials, whether our publics, has made very clear what they thought was some of President Karzai’s comments. And we will see what he has to say in his public comments today at his – at the press availability and others. I think that we are beyond this incident, and we need to continue to focus on what – how we can most effectively work together and be constructive in how we resolve these.
We’re not there to lecture him or chide him. We’re partners in this, and we were quite clear in terms of what the U.S. has and has not done, and obviously we deny that there has been any daily contact with Taliban, which there has not been. But we do support an ongoing reconciliation process, and as we agreed in January, we think that the – that an office in Doha is the best and most effective way to get there. And so President Karzai going to Qatar, which is primarily for a – for bilateral purposes between the Afghans and the Qataris, but it helps to promote that working relationship, and given that a Doha office will undoubtedly be part of the conversations when he’s there with the Qataris, it’s very much in keeping with the goals that we all committed to back in January when he was in Washington. So we see that as quite positive.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: There has been no – as we said, the Taliban broke off contact over a year ago. At this point, there has not been any contact.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, we’ve addressed this with President Karzai. I mean, to the comment he made that we were meeting with the Taliban daily, we’ve gone privately to him to clarify that – what we’ve told him previously, we’ve been transparent with him throughout and that we haven’t met with them in over a year. And we’ve, of course, corrected the record on that publicly.
I mean, there’s a separate concern about the claim that there’s collusion aside from meeting daily with the Taliban, and I won’t go into all of the particulars of that. I mean, it’s – it was actually fairly – I mean, one has to get into what he actually said in Pashto, how it was translated in English, how it was reported, and so on. But I mean, we’ve gone through some level of detail in clarifying with him already. And like I said, I hope at this point we can begin to move forward and look past this.
QUESTION: This is a follow-up to Andrea’s question. How would you describe your relationship with President Karzai?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, on a variation of a theme, it’s not always going to be easy. There’s difficult issues at stake here. We’re going to have differences. But we are committed to working through them as partners and ensuring that we resolve these issues constructively, because that’s what’s in the best interests of both the American and the Afghan people, and we’ll continue to do so.
QUESTION: Just going back to President Karzai’s visit to Qatar, you said most of the issues are bilateral, but the question of opening up a Taliban office is sure to come up. Is there anything particularly significant to the fact that he is going there? Does this imply greater progress towards setting up the office or not? Do you think it is completely irrelevant in some ways? I mean, does this show significant movement or not?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I wouldn’t want to overplay it, but I think that it’s a very positive sign. It’s another step on a continued path towards what we think is the most effective and efficient way of getting to some sort of reconciliation process. So to the degree that Doha itself and the Qataris will play a key role in there, the closer the relationship is between the Afghan Government and the Qataris Government the better. And the fact that he’s going there, I think, is quite positive in trying to continue to build some momentum from what we agreed to with – between our presidents in January. But nobody is expecting that he will open an office there in a week. Nobody’s expecting that he will be sitting down with Taliban in week. This is a long process, and this is one more small but positive step in that ongoing process.
QUESTION: What’s the status of the BSA at this point in time? And in what specific ways will Secretary Kerry try to move that process forward on this trip?
MODERATOR: (Inaudible) BSA.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Status of the bilateral security agreement. Negotiations are ongoing at quite intensive pace between our chief negotiators, Ambassador Warlick for us and Ambassador Hakimi. There’s going to be a lot of difficult issues there as well. We gave ourselves a year to try to negotiate it from the time it started, per the Strategic Partnership Agreement, and we will continue our efforts there.
QUESTION: What specifically is Kerry – Secretary Kerry going to do on this trip to (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s – it will just be part of the broader strategic conversations with President Karzai on how we continue to align our interests between the two countries and what we can do to continue to support our processes.
QUESTION: Is there a particular (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll have to see.
QUESTION: What’s going to be the impact of the Wardak withdrawal, of the impact of the withdrawal of forces from Wardak?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I actually think – [Senior Administration Official Two] may have something more on what it may mean militarily. From our vantage point, I think it’s another very positive sign in terms of how we’ve resolved ongoing issues. And so to the degree that this was another sticking concern and a potential thorn that we managed to resolve in the interest, again, of kind of Afghan sovereignty, but in a way that both sides felt very comfortable with the result, as General Dunford announced right afterwards, I think it’s a sign that we can continue to resolve and work through our differences constructively.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think [Senior Administration Official One]’s exactly right, that I think both sides feel like there was a favorable resolution. Unlike the detentions issue, the debate was kept private, the deliberations were kept private. General Dunford and the Afghan Government reached a resolution. I don’t want to speak for ISAF, but I believe that we’re relatively comfortable with it. And I think it’s important to look at it in the context of transition, which is essentially how it was resolved. I mean, it wasn’t a complete departure of U.S. security forces from Wardak province; it was a transition from U.S. security forces to Afghan security forces in a small section of Wardak in the end. And I think in the end, the potential consequences or implications of that were mitigated to a very manageable level.
QUESTION: Thanks. How many troops would Secretary Kerry like to see in Afghanistan post 2014, and will those be a serious part of the negotiations? And do you have assurances from Karzai that he won’t be releasing prisoners, now that he’s got control of Parwan?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Obviously, anything on troop numbers we can’t speak to. What’s still – decision making that’s still occurring within the interagency, or I wouldn’t speak for Secretary Kerry on that.
In terms of the detention, we have to ourselves actually get – see what happened in kind of the final resolution. But assuming the MOU was executed this morning between the Afghans and the U.S. and the transfer ceremony took place, we felt quite comfortable that the enduring threat, the kind of the detainees that were of most concern would be held according to Afghan law in a humane manner, respecting Afghan sovereignty but also addressing our national security interests.
QUESTION: Thanks. I feel like a tour guide on this. Can you hear me? Okay. Can you hear me? I’m used to working with mikes. Unfortunately, I can’t use this one.
Going back to the question – [Senior Administration Official One], I think you said with the Taliban there have not been any contact; you said there not had been direct contact. Can you just clarify whether direct contact with the Taliban, U.S. and Taliban, or through a third party, is necessary in this reconciliation process? And can you explain how this Doha center is supposed to work, or how it’s envisioned in terms of reconciliation? What is the process?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I’ll defer on some of this to [Senior Administration Official Two], who follows this more closely than I do. But the idea of a Doha office is that there will be a specific place for Afghans to speak with other Afghans, Afghan Taliban, about the future of Afghanistan, ideally through President Karzai’s vision, with the High Peace Council sitting down to meet with the Afghan Taliban. And so the more that we can do to facilitate this forum and venue, the sooner that those key stakeholders can start conversations amongst themselves about what the future may look like and how they can get there.
In terms of contacts, I don’t know how else you want to –
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, no, just that – I mean, we – we’re pretty clear about the direct contacts, obviously, and we can be. The Taliban have continued, since direct talks stopped, continued to talk to other governments. They talk to multilateral kind of NGO fora. Some of that has been covered in the media pretty widely. To say we have indirect access via people they have spoken to more or less goes without saying. But it’s not of interest or deliberate to avoid a direct contact. I mean, it’s just – I mean, indirect – we get indirect readouts of what they tell other people through all manner of sources, so – but the channel of significance, where there was direct, deliberate talks, we’ve been clear, and that has not continued at all.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFFICIAL TWO: I mean, it’s hard to say what’s going to be necessary. And that’s – goes to your second question. I mean, that’s really what about – the Doha office is about. I think at some point effective talks, even though it’s going to take time and considerable effort over time, will involve direct talks between the interested parties. And of course, the United States will remain an interested party. But we continue to maintain that the most interested party is the Afghan Government, and they need to be in the lead, and at some point they need to be in direct talks.
QUESTION: Thanks. Sorry, following on from that: Firstly, to what end these talks would you – what are your redlines? Would you accept the Taliban being brought into the government in some kind of broader reconciliation? And secondly, in your negotiations over the BSA, after Panjwai, immunity seems highly unlikely for U.S. troops. Has that been offered as part of these talks?
MODERATOR: Both of you answer it too.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What was the first question again?
QUESTION: The first question was: Would you accept Taliban --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Oh, oh, oh. The redlines for the necessary outcomes from a reconciliation process have been consistently the same for many years now, and articulated by Secretary Clinton several years ago and which we maintain, which is that they break from al-Qaida, they lay down arms, and they respect and embrace the Afghan constitution, including its rights of women and minorities. So those have not changed as necessary outcomes for a process.
QUESTION: And to what extent (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: If there – this is – it’s for Afghans --
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The redlines? Yeah. The redlines have to be said – [Moderator] asked me to repeat our – a break from al-Qaida, laying down arms, and embracing the Afghan constitution, including its rights of women and minorities. If there are ways for them to be engaged in the political process, which is clearly one area that the Afghans themselves have floated as a potential, that’s for them to sort out once conversations actually start taking place.
In terms of the immunity issue, it’s – whether bilateral security agreements, SOFAs, whatever they are, these are going to be extremely contentious documents to negotiate. Immunity is probably undoubtedly, across the world, going to be one of the hardest ones to negotiate within that, and it’s going to be one of many issues that we deal with. But there’s – but beyond taking a very general approach to that, there’s nothing more specific I have on that.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It’s – I honestly couldn’t even tell you what the current state of the negotiations are or what issues they’re focusing on right now. I mean, it’s one of many issues that are on the table.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll have to see. This is still very early days of negotiation.
QUESTION: Can you provide us a bit more detail on how the decision was made for the Secretary not to go to Pakistan on this trip? Did the Pakistani leadership advise that in the current political climate, with attitudes about Americans being what they are, it might make sense for him to stay away? I mean, was there a specific recommendation that he stay in Afghanistan?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It was purely our judgment call, in consultation with our experts at the State Department, both in Pakistan and the U.S. and elsewhere. He wanted to go. Obviously, he’s got an equally long relationship with Pakistan that he – as he does with Afghanistan, having visited many times, having been responsible for the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, having ties with – many personal ties with many of the civilian and military leadership.
But given the kind of historic nature of where Pakistan is right now, we wanted to be holier than the Pope on this one on staying away until – while the electoral process unfolded. Given the state of conspiracy theorists, given the state of anything else, we did not want to lead anyone to conclude anything about where our interests may lie. So we’re delighted that this – that the National Assembly served its full five-year term. We’re delighted that the caretaker Prime Minister was appointed per the constitution in a way that is enshrined and that I think strengthens the civilian institutions and the constitutional institutions. We look forward to the elections in May. And as soon as there’s a government in place, I think you can expect to see Secretary Kerry there.
Anne.
QUESTION: I just wanted to go back briefly to reconciliation. The discussion of the Doha office as a future concern sort of seems to skip over the fact that some business being transacted there somehow now – how – do you guys have a view on that? Is what the Taliban is doing in Doha now useful and productive toward opening an office full time? And are you in any way involved in it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What was – Anne, what was the last part? I want to --
QUESTION: Is the U.S. – is the United States involved at all in sort of these preliminary set-up negotiations?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, on the last part, I mean, of course we’ve been in normal bilateral discussions with a close ally, and it, of course, includes their readiness to host what could be this office and what we’re hopeful will be the office. I mean, we couldn’t have gotten to the point where we’re publicly – the President’s publicly expressing his support for a Taliban office in Doha without having worked with them on a bilateral basis.
As far as what’s going on with the Taliban in Doha before the opening of an office, to be frank, I think that there’s probably a mixture there in – to the extent it’s toward a political process. As long as it’s leading toward a political process, contributing toward an eventual political process, we’re supportive. Otherwise, we’re not, and we take the steps that we would take anywhere, diplomatically and otherwise, to address it depending on how much concern there is.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: But the – so fundraising would be an example. I mean, anything that the Taliban’s doing in furtherance of their cause, outside of steps towards a political process, in our view, is – remains off-limits. And that’s not a change. That’s not isolated to Doha. That would be the case anywhere. The only peculiar status that Doha enjoys is that I think there’s an expectation that some of that presence could contribute eventually to this political process. And as long as that’s the case, there will be continued support. If that’s not the case, then I think it’s pretty clear that we wouldn’t support it.
QUESTION: Just – I wasn’t clear exactly how the issue of the detainees was resolved, and if you could explain that again, and whether they did give you – I know you were asked, but I didn’t hear the answer, whether you were given commitments that these guys would not be released again.
And then given that they – that you’ve resolved this, what do you want to hear from Karzai on this trip? I mean, are you asking for anything specific? What makes this – what would make this a successful trip?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the detentions issue, I would point you back to the readout of Secretary Hagel’s call with President Karzai on Saturday, which referenced that they had reached an agreement to transfer, that there will be this transfer ceremony scheduled for this morning, following an intensified round of discussions. And the Secretary welcomed President Karzai’s commitment that the transfer will be carried out in a way that ensures the safety of the Afghan people and coalition forces by keeping dangerous individuals detained in a secure and humane manner in accordance with Afghan law.
QUESTION: So now that you – now that this has been resolved (inaudible) Karzai (inaudible), are you expecting anything different from them (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, I don’t want to set the bar too high or too low here. I mean, we – there are some key issues of – that prove to be thorns in the relationship over the course of the last few weeks. Some of them have obviously gone on, like the detainee issue, far longer than that. The fact that we resolved those, I think, is significant.
Does that completely change the calculus? No, not at all, but I think we’re both committed to elevating our conversation at this point, being more strategic about it, and really focusing on what we have to do together in terms of our joint partnership and really trying to ensure that that partnership is enduring.
I mean, I think the thing about transition – I sketched out the three different transitions, but it’s also really an opportunity for all of us, after the SPA, beyond 2014, to enter a new phase in our relationship and one between sovereign nations. And we will continue to focus on responsibility and accountability, and there’s a range of things that we have to continue to talk about as we flesh out the terms of what that partnership will look like. And this is an opportunity to do that.
So if we’re able to do that and continue to be constructive, then I think it would be a success.
MODERATOR: Thank you, everyone.
Background Briefing: Senior Adminitration Officials
Special Briefing
Senior Administration Officials
En Route To Kabul
March 25, 2013
MODERATOR: So just a reminder, this is a background briefing embargoed until we land, which is easy to implement, with [Senior Administration Official One] who will have some opening remarks, and [Senior Administration Official Two]. So I’ll turn it over to [Senior Administration Official One]. Just as a reminder, we’ll just go around. Everyone gets a question after [Senior Administration Official One]’s done.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, [Moderator]. Let me just try to, in a few minutes, kind of give a broad overview of the trip, and then we’ll get into more detailed Q&As. But obviously, as you all know, Secretary Kerry came to this position with deep experience on Afghanistan and with very established relationships with many of the key leaders, including President Karzai. He was here five times during the course of the first term of this Administration alone, and obviously has worked very closely with the Afghan people and has deep respect for the hopes and aspirations of the Afghan people and understanding of how these hopes and aspirations are connected to our core goals, which at the end of the day is a strong and stable Afghanistan that’s in the national security interests of both the Afghan and the U.S. people.
So --
QUESTION: If you could (inaudible). (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Sorry. I’ll try to – all right.
QUESTION: Did he see Karzai five times?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, I’m sure that he is. We’ll confirm, but I’m almost confident that every time he’s come Karzai has been there. I, in fact – in the first term – I traveled with him in two of those times in my current position, and certainly both those times Karzai was there. I’m almost certain that’s the case.
But this is a trip – this is an opportunity for him to meet in person with President Karzai and other officials now in his new position as Secretary, and really to hear directly from Afghans who, while looking forward to a future of a sovereign Afghanistan, are obviously also very concerned about what the transition at the end of 2014 actually entails and what it means in terms of their – the real world implications in their lives. So he particularly wants to discuss progress both with President Karzai and in his other meetings with the whole range of Afghan stakeholders on the ongoing security, political, and economic transitions, and really with a special emphasis on the elections scheduled for next year.
He will make clear that the U.S. will have an enduring commitment in Afghanistan that will last beyond transition, and that there will always be bumps in the road, that it’s a relationship that can withstand those. Look, I want to be as clear-eyed and pragmatic as possible. The process of winding down our current position and role in Afghanistan and stepping into more of a support role as Afghans increasingly take over their own security and development is not going to be a smooth process at all times. Issues of security and sovereignty are always going to be difficult, but the most important thing is that we are honest with each other when there are differences between us, and you’ve seen some of these differences play out recently. So we’ll see more of these, undoubtedly, as a very kind of necessary but complicated processes continue to unfold.
We want to look at, in the broader picture, the more strategic picture. And we believe that we continue to be committed to the same strategy and the same goals of a fully sovereign Afghanistan without al-Qaida and responsible for its own security. We value our partnership with the Afghan people, per our implementation of the Security Partnership Agreement that we signed last year, our continued discussions on a bilateral security agreement, and working to strengthen governance and increase economic opportunity.
Let me run through just highlights of the kind of the key issues on transition. On security transition, he’s obviously interested in hearing how this final phase is going as Afghans take the lead for security across their entire country. As you know, by the end of next year, the security transition is complete, Afghans take full responsibility, and it’s something that should make Afghans very proud.
On the political transition, Secretary Kerry’s very focused on how the U.S. can best support Afghan elections next year. As many of you know, he was very personally engaged in the elections in 2009, and he wants to ensure that the U.S. can help to support and strengthen Afghanistan, keeping faith with the Afghan people.
And on – also with regard to elections, what was signed last year in Tokyo lays out kind of very specific aspects on how we can we best help ensure the conduct of credible, inclusive, transparent elections, and working with really all Afghan stakeholder – not only the government, but independent Afghan electoral institutions, Afghan political parties, civil society – all stakeholders to do what’s necessary for preparation. He will focus on this quite a bit, but we want to make sure that these preparations are in line with the constitution and ultimately result in a process that’s inclusive and consultative and transparent and secure and ultimately something that is hopefully unifying for the country.
On the economic transition, we recognize that the long-term interests of the country depend on the ability to continue to attract investment and have a more viable economic stability. Also in Tokyo, you saw that the international community pledged $16 billion to fill what the World Bank hole was of about – close to $4 billion a year through 2015. Some countries committed to pledging far more after that. The U.S. committed to seeking assistance, civilian assistance, from Congress for at least a few years after that. But the important thing is that we will have to be on a glide path away from assistance over the longer term.
So while our commitments to continued assistance are real and will extend beyond 2014, what we really have to do is try to find ways to make the economic situation in Afghanistan more sustainable. So we’re looking at ways to address fraud and corruption and for the Afghans to really take on the reform commitments that they themselves laid out in the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework.
Let must just say a quick work on reconciliation. We continue to be committed to a peace process between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, and as our presidents confirmed when President Karzai visited in January, Afghan-led peace and reconciliation is the surest way to end violence and ensure lasting stability in Afghanistan and in the region. So we’re looking for any ways we can to support and accelerate the efforts that lead to a strong and a unified Afghanistan. So as we said in January, we support an office in Doha for the purpose of negotiations between the Afghans and the Taliban, and we continue to join with President Karzai in calling on the Taliban to join a political process, including by taking those steps necessary to open that office in Doha.
The very last point I want to make before Q&A is that originally Secretary Kerry was hopeful that he would be able to go to Pakistan on this trip as well, but as the government there really enters a very historic period in this electoral process, we wanted to fully respect those institutions and the ongoing process, and so not travel there this time but go there at an appropriate time in the future.
I think what’s currently occurring in Pakistan is quite remarkable. We welcome the announcement of the caretaker Prime Minister yesterday, and as we will hopefully see with elections scheduled in May, the first-ever civilian-to-civilian government, peaceful transition of power in the country. But during this election period, we also wanted to make sure that we continued our ongoing dialogue with Pakistan on the whole series of shared interests that we have, including combating terrorism and ensuring a peaceful resolution in Afghanistan.
So last night, Secretary Kerry had a unique opportunity to meet General Kayani. They happened to overlap in Amman for an evening. General Kayani was there on an official visit to Jordan to meet with his counterpart today. That was announced by the Pakistanis several days ago. And so given the overlap, they met last night to discuss these range of bilateral security issues, including on counterterrorism, on combating safe havens, and on issues that are important to the future of Afghanistan, to Pakistan, and to us.
This was ahead of, obviously, Secretary Kerry’s meetings with President Karzai today, and so he plans to fully readout his conversation with General Kayani last night, and help to continue to inform the ongoing process of transparency and communication between all three of us. And in that same interest, our acting Special Representative David Pearce is in Kabul, he’ll meet us when we land, and he will go to Pakistan quite soon to continue to engage with the civilian government that’s currently there, at this point the technocratic government, if in fact we don’t yet have caretaker appointments in some of these processes, and continue this process of regional confidence building.
MODERATOR: Great. Why don’t we start here?
Andrea.
QUESTION: How – thank you very much – you think I would know how to use a microphone.
MODERATOR: It’s like a press (inaudible). Go ahead.
QUESTION: How does Secretary Kerry plan to address the most recent comments by President Karzai when Secretary Hagel was there, and in what context can he handle that? Does he have to ignore it, smooth it over, challenge it? I mean, what is the approach to Karzai, given what has happened most recently with the new Secretary of Defense?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Certainly the focus on the bilateral relationship will be one of the critical pieces that they talk about. I think in its – he’s very well served by having the lengthy personal relationship with him. I think that they start from a position of some trust of each other, and at the end of the day, that our interests are still very much aligned and that we are all working towards a sovereign and unified Afghanistan, and that we will continue to work together, which is exactly what I was trying to say kind of at the outset of this. This doesn’t mean that there won’t be problems; there undoubtedly will be. But I think that we will continue to be able to achieve some constructive resolution of them in much the same way that we’ve managed to do just over the course of the last week or two.
I don’t have any final confirmation of it, but I think while we’ve been in the air, hopefully there’s been a transfer ceremony to take care of the detentions issue at Parwan, which was obviously one of the issues that was a sticking point. Our teams continue to meet about it. We hammered out a resolution to everyone’s satisfaction and in everyone’s mutual interest. And it supports the long-term sovereignty of Afghanistan.
So I think going into it with – on the basis of their history, given the joint interests, and seeing what we can achieve constructively in the time ahead will be very much the kind of touchstone of their conversations.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Andrea, the only thing I’d add is that since many of those comments were first made, both Secretary Kerry has spoken to President Karzai, but more recently and more frequently, Secretary Hagel talked to President Karzai twice. And as [Senior Administration Official One] mentioned, I mean, we’ve moved forward and past several of the issues that were part of that conflation of friction points. The most prominent one that antagonized that period, which was – I don’t want to downplay it – it was – I mean, it was, of course, of concern to us – was the detentions issues. And Ambassador Cunningham and General Dunford have been negotiating almost daily with President Karzai and his advisors to bring this to resolution, and we believe we have a favorable resolution now. So I think we can start to look past this, or at least we’re hopeful that we can.
QUESTION: Just following up on Andrea’s question, I understand that there have now been some private conversations between Karzai and Hagel and Kerry. But publicly are you going to ask Karzai to disavow the claim that the U.S. is somehow collaborating with the Taliban, which seems so far out given the U.S. military and economic commitment to Afghanistan? And further – so does he need to state, "No. I didn’t actually mean that"? And secondly, given what he’s recently said about his plans to go to Qatar in the coming days, tell us a little bit more about reconciliation and what you’re going to advocate for, since he was claiming that the U.S. was secretly negotiating with the Taliban behind his back. So what kind of a private and public conversation can you have about that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Look, I think the response of Americans across the board, whether those in our Congress, whether officials, whether our publics, has made very clear what they thought was some of President Karzai’s comments. And we will see what he has to say in his public comments today at his – at the press availability and others. I think that we are beyond this incident, and we need to continue to focus on what – how we can most effectively work together and be constructive in how we resolve these.
We’re not there to lecture him or chide him. We’re partners in this, and we were quite clear in terms of what the U.S. has and has not done, and obviously we deny that there has been any daily contact with Taliban, which there has not been. But we do support an ongoing reconciliation process, and as we agreed in January, we think that the – that an office in Doha is the best and most effective way to get there. And so President Karzai going to Qatar, which is primarily for a – for bilateral purposes between the Afghans and the Qataris, but it helps to promote that working relationship, and given that a Doha office will undoubtedly be part of the conversations when he’s there with the Qataris, it’s very much in keeping with the goals that we all committed to back in January when he was in Washington. So we see that as quite positive.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: There has been no – as we said, the Taliban broke off contact over a year ago. At this point, there has not been any contact.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, we’ve addressed this with President Karzai. I mean, to the comment he made that we were meeting with the Taliban daily, we’ve gone privately to him to clarify that – what we’ve told him previously, we’ve been transparent with him throughout and that we haven’t met with them in over a year. And we’ve, of course, corrected the record on that publicly.
I mean, there’s a separate concern about the claim that there’s collusion aside from meeting daily with the Taliban, and I won’t go into all of the particulars of that. I mean, it’s – it was actually fairly – I mean, one has to get into what he actually said in Pashto, how it was translated in English, how it was reported, and so on. But I mean, we’ve gone through some level of detail in clarifying with him already. And like I said, I hope at this point we can begin to move forward and look past this.
QUESTION: This is a follow-up to Andrea’s question. How would you describe your relationship with President Karzai?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, on a variation of a theme, it’s not always going to be easy. There’s difficult issues at stake here. We’re going to have differences. But we are committed to working through them as partners and ensuring that we resolve these issues constructively, because that’s what’s in the best interests of both the American and the Afghan people, and we’ll continue to do so.
QUESTION: Just going back to President Karzai’s visit to Qatar, you said most of the issues are bilateral, but the question of opening up a Taliban office is sure to come up. Is there anything particularly significant to the fact that he is going there? Does this imply greater progress towards setting up the office or not? Do you think it is completely irrelevant in some ways? I mean, does this show significant movement or not?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I wouldn’t want to overplay it, but I think that it’s a very positive sign. It’s another step on a continued path towards what we think is the most effective and efficient way of getting to some sort of reconciliation process. So to the degree that Doha itself and the Qataris will play a key role in there, the closer the relationship is between the Afghan Government and the Qataris Government the better. And the fact that he’s going there, I think, is quite positive in trying to continue to build some momentum from what we agreed to with – between our presidents in January. But nobody is expecting that he will open an office there in a week. Nobody’s expecting that he will be sitting down with Taliban in week. This is a long process, and this is one more small but positive step in that ongoing process.
QUESTION: What’s the status of the BSA at this point in time? And in what specific ways will Secretary Kerry try to move that process forward on this trip?
MODERATOR: (Inaudible) BSA.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Status of the bilateral security agreement. Negotiations are ongoing at quite intensive pace between our chief negotiators, Ambassador Warlick for us and Ambassador Hakimi. There’s going to be a lot of difficult issues there as well. We gave ourselves a year to try to negotiate it from the time it started, per the Strategic Partnership Agreement, and we will continue our efforts there.
QUESTION: What specifically is Kerry – Secretary Kerry going to do on this trip to (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s – it will just be part of the broader strategic conversations with President Karzai on how we continue to align our interests between the two countries and what we can do to continue to support our processes.
QUESTION: Is there a particular (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll have to see.
QUESTION: What’s going to be the impact of the Wardak withdrawal, of the impact of the withdrawal of forces from Wardak?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I actually think – [Senior Administration Official Two] may have something more on what it may mean militarily. From our vantage point, I think it’s another very positive sign in terms of how we’ve resolved ongoing issues. And so to the degree that this was another sticking concern and a potential thorn that we managed to resolve in the interest, again, of kind of Afghan sovereignty, but in a way that both sides felt very comfortable with the result, as General Dunford announced right afterwards, I think it’s a sign that we can continue to resolve and work through our differences constructively.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: I think [Senior Administration Official One]’s exactly right, that I think both sides feel like there was a favorable resolution. Unlike the detentions issue, the debate was kept private, the deliberations were kept private. General Dunford and the Afghan Government reached a resolution. I don’t want to speak for ISAF, but I believe that we’re relatively comfortable with it. And I think it’s important to look at it in the context of transition, which is essentially how it was resolved. I mean, it wasn’t a complete departure of U.S. security forces from Wardak province; it was a transition from U.S. security forces to Afghan security forces in a small section of Wardak in the end. And I think in the end, the potential consequences or implications of that were mitigated to a very manageable level.
QUESTION: Thanks. How many troops would Secretary Kerry like to see in Afghanistan post 2014, and will those be a serious part of the negotiations? And do you have assurances from Karzai that he won’t be releasing prisoners, now that he’s got control of Parwan?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Obviously, anything on troop numbers we can’t speak to. What’s still – decision making that’s still occurring within the interagency, or I wouldn’t speak for Secretary Kerry on that.
In terms of the detention, we have to ourselves actually get – see what happened in kind of the final resolution. But assuming the MOU was executed this morning between the Afghans and the U.S. and the transfer ceremony took place, we felt quite comfortable that the enduring threat, the kind of the detainees that were of most concern would be held according to Afghan law in a humane manner, respecting Afghan sovereignty but also addressing our national security interests.
QUESTION: Thanks. I feel like a tour guide on this. Can you hear me? Okay. Can you hear me? I’m used to working with mikes. Unfortunately, I can’t use this one.
Going back to the question – [Senior Administration Official One], I think you said with the Taliban there have not been any contact; you said there not had been direct contact. Can you just clarify whether direct contact with the Taliban, U.S. and Taliban, or through a third party, is necessary in this reconciliation process? And can you explain how this Doha center is supposed to work, or how it’s envisioned in terms of reconciliation? What is the process?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I’ll defer on some of this to [Senior Administration Official Two], who follows this more closely than I do. But the idea of a Doha office is that there will be a specific place for Afghans to speak with other Afghans, Afghan Taliban, about the future of Afghanistan, ideally through President Karzai’s vision, with the High Peace Council sitting down to meet with the Afghan Taliban. And so the more that we can do to facilitate this forum and venue, the sooner that those key stakeholders can start conversations amongst themselves about what the future may look like and how they can get there.
In terms of contacts, I don’t know how else you want to –
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, no, just that – I mean, we – we’re pretty clear about the direct contacts, obviously, and we can be. The Taliban have continued, since direct talks stopped, continued to talk to other governments. They talk to multilateral kind of NGO fora. Some of that has been covered in the media pretty widely. To say we have indirect access via people they have spoken to more or less goes without saying. But it’s not of interest or deliberate to avoid a direct contact. I mean, it’s just – I mean, indirect – we get indirect readouts of what they tell other people through all manner of sources, so – but the channel of significance, where there was direct, deliberate talks, we’ve been clear, and that has not continued at all.
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFFICIAL TWO: I mean, it’s hard to say what’s going to be necessary. And that’s – goes to your second question. I mean, that’s really what about – the Doha office is about. I think at some point effective talks, even though it’s going to take time and considerable effort over time, will involve direct talks between the interested parties. And of course, the United States will remain an interested party. But we continue to maintain that the most interested party is the Afghan Government, and they need to be in the lead, and at some point they need to be in direct talks.
QUESTION: Thanks. Sorry, following on from that: Firstly, to what end these talks would you – what are your redlines? Would you accept the Taliban being brought into the government in some kind of broader reconciliation? And secondly, in your negotiations over the BSA, after Panjwai, immunity seems highly unlikely for U.S. troops. Has that been offered as part of these talks?
MODERATOR: Both of you answer it too.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What was the first question again?
QUESTION: The first question was: Would you accept Taliban --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Oh, oh, oh. The redlines for the necessary outcomes from a reconciliation process have been consistently the same for many years now, and articulated by Secretary Clinton several years ago and which we maintain, which is that they break from al-Qaida, they lay down arms, and they respect and embrace the Afghan constitution, including its rights of women and minorities. So those have not changed as necessary outcomes for a process.
QUESTION: And to what extent (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: If there – this is – it’s for Afghans --
QUESTION: (Off mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The redlines? Yeah. The redlines have to be said – [Moderator] asked me to repeat our – a break from al-Qaida, laying down arms, and embracing the Afghan constitution, including its rights of women and minorities. If there are ways for them to be engaged in the political process, which is clearly one area that the Afghans themselves have floated as a potential, that’s for them to sort out once conversations actually start taking place.
In terms of the immunity issue, it’s – whether bilateral security agreements, SOFAs, whatever they are, these are going to be extremely contentious documents to negotiate. Immunity is probably undoubtedly, across the world, going to be one of the hardest ones to negotiate within that, and it’s going to be one of many issues that we deal with. But there’s – but beyond taking a very general approach to that, there’s nothing more specific I have on that.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It’s – I honestly couldn’t even tell you what the current state of the negotiations are or what issues they’re focusing on right now. I mean, it’s one of many issues that are on the table.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We’ll have to see. This is still very early days of negotiation.
QUESTION: Can you provide us a bit more detail on how the decision was made for the Secretary not to go to Pakistan on this trip? Did the Pakistani leadership advise that in the current political climate, with attitudes about Americans being what they are, it might make sense for him to stay away? I mean, was there a specific recommendation that he stay in Afghanistan?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: It was purely our judgment call, in consultation with our experts at the State Department, both in Pakistan and the U.S. and elsewhere. He wanted to go. Obviously, he’s got an equally long relationship with Pakistan that he – as he does with Afghanistan, having visited many times, having been responsible for the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, having ties with – many personal ties with many of the civilian and military leadership.
But given the kind of historic nature of where Pakistan is right now, we wanted to be holier than the Pope on this one on staying away until – while the electoral process unfolded. Given the state of conspiracy theorists, given the state of anything else, we did not want to lead anyone to conclude anything about where our interests may lie. So we’re delighted that this – that the National Assembly served its full five-year term. We’re delighted that the caretaker Prime Minister was appointed per the constitution in a way that is enshrined and that I think strengthens the civilian institutions and the constitutional institutions. We look forward to the elections in May. And as soon as there’s a government in place, I think you can expect to see Secretary Kerry there.
Anne.
QUESTION: I just wanted to go back briefly to reconciliation. The discussion of the Doha office as a future concern sort of seems to skip over the fact that some business being transacted there somehow now – how – do you guys have a view on that? Is what the Taliban is doing in Doha now useful and productive toward opening an office full time? And are you in any way involved in it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: What was – Anne, what was the last part? I want to --
QUESTION: Is the U.S. – is the United States involved at all in sort of these preliminary set-up negotiations?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, on the last part, I mean, of course we’ve been in normal bilateral discussions with a close ally, and it, of course, includes their readiness to host what could be this office and what we’re hopeful will be the office. I mean, we couldn’t have gotten to the point where we’re publicly – the President’s publicly expressing his support for a Taliban office in Doha without having worked with them on a bilateral basis.
As far as what’s going on with the Taliban in Doha before the opening of an office, to be frank, I think that there’s probably a mixture there in – to the extent it’s toward a political process. As long as it’s leading toward a political process, contributing toward an eventual political process, we’re supportive. Otherwise, we’re not, and we take the steps that we would take anywhere, diplomatically and otherwise, to address it depending on how much concern there is.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: But the – so fundraising would be an example. I mean, anything that the Taliban’s doing in furtherance of their cause, outside of steps towards a political process, in our view, is – remains off-limits. And that’s not a change. That’s not isolated to Doha. That would be the case anywhere. The only peculiar status that Doha enjoys is that I think there’s an expectation that some of that presence could contribute eventually to this political process. And as long as that’s the case, there will be continued support. If that’s not the case, then I think it’s pretty clear that we wouldn’t support it.
QUESTION: Just – I wasn’t clear exactly how the issue of the detainees was resolved, and if you could explain that again, and whether they did give you – I know you were asked, but I didn’t hear the answer, whether you were given commitments that these guys would not be released again.
And then given that they – that you’ve resolved this, what do you want to hear from Karzai on this trip? I mean, are you asking for anything specific? What makes this – what would make this a successful trip?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: On the detentions issue, I would point you back to the readout of Secretary Hagel’s call with President Karzai on Saturday, which referenced that they had reached an agreement to transfer, that there will be this transfer ceremony scheduled for this morning, following an intensified round of discussions. And the Secretary welcomed President Karzai’s commitment that the transfer will be carried out in a way that ensures the safety of the Afghan people and coalition forces by keeping dangerous individuals detained in a secure and humane manner in accordance with Afghan law.
QUESTION: So now that you – now that this has been resolved (inaudible) Karzai (inaudible), are you expecting anything different from them (inaudible)?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Again, I don’t want to set the bar too high or too low here. I mean, we – there are some key issues of – that prove to be thorns in the relationship over the course of the last few weeks. Some of them have obviously gone on, like the detainee issue, far longer than that. The fact that we resolved those, I think, is significant.
Does that completely change the calculus? No, not at all, but I think we’re both committed to elevating our conversation at this point, being more strategic about it, and really focusing on what we have to do together in terms of our joint partnership and really trying to ensure that that partnership is enduring.
I mean, I think the thing about transition – I sketched out the three different transitions, but it’s also really an opportunity for all of us, after the SPA, beyond 2014, to enter a new phase in our relationship and one between sovereign nations. And we will continue to focus on responsibility and accountability, and there’s a range of things that we have to continue to talk about as we flesh out the terms of what that partnership will look like. And this is an opportunity to do that.
So if we’re able to do that and continue to be constructive, then I think it would be a success.
MODERATOR: Thank you, everyone.
HHS SAYS 1 IN 6 PEOPLE WILL GET SICK FROM A FOODBORNE ILLNESS THIS YEAR
FROM: U.S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES
From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I’m Nicholas Garlow with HHS HealthBeat.
One in 6 people will get a foodborne illness this year. A new study at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at which foods are more likely to make us sick. Produce accounted for nearly half of all illnesses. Poultry and meat accounted for the most deaths.
Dr. John Painter is an epidemiologist at the CDC.
"Keep eating your vegetables. As it turns out, many foodborne illnesses are attributed to vegetables, but one reason for that is we eat so many of them."
Contamination of food can occur anywhere from the farm to the table. But you can protect yourself by taking these steps: Wash your hands and food prep surfaces. Separate raw meat, poultry, seafood, and eggs from foods that will not be cooked. Cook and chill foods to proper temperatures.
From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I’m Nicholas Garlow with HHS HealthBeat.
One in 6 people will get a foodborne illness this year. A new study at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at which foods are more likely to make us sick. Produce accounted for nearly half of all illnesses. Poultry and meat accounted for the most deaths.
Dr. John Painter is an epidemiologist at the CDC.
"Keep eating your vegetables. As it turns out, many foodborne illnesses are attributed to vegetables, but one reason for that is we eat so many of them."
Contamination of food can occur anywhere from the farm to the table. But you can protect yourself by taking these steps: Wash your hands and food prep surfaces. Separate raw meat, poultry, seafood, and eggs from foods that will not be cooked. Cook and chill foods to proper temperatures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)