FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Florida Hospital System Agrees to Pay the Government $85 Million to Settle Allegations of Improper Financial Relationships with Referring Physicians
Halifax Hospital Medical Center and Halifax Staffing Inc. (Halifax), a hospital system based in the Daytona Beach, Fla., area, have agreed to pay $85 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by submitting claims to the Medicare program that violated the Physician Self-Referral Law, commonly known as the Stark Law, the Justice Department announced today.
The Stark Law forbids a hospital from billing Medicare for certain services referred by physicians who have a financial relationship with the hospital. In this case, the government alleged that Halifax knowingly violated the Stark Law by executing contracts with six medical oncologists that provided an incentive bonus that improperly included the value of prescription drugs and tests that the oncologists ordered and Halifax billed to Medicare. The government also alleged that Halifax knowingly violated the Stark Law by paying three neurosurgeons more than the fair market value of their work.
“Financial arrangements that compensate physicians for referrals encourage physicians to make decisions based on financial gain rather than patient needs,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “The Department of Justice is committed to preventing illegal financial relationships that undermine the integrity of our public health programs.”
In a Nov. 13, 2013, ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled that Halifax’s contracts with its medical oncologists violated the Stark Law. The case was set for trial on March 3, 2014, on the government’s remaining claims against Halifax when the parties reached this settlement.
“This settlement illustrates our firm commitment to pursue health care fraud," said U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida A. Lee Bentley III. “Medical service providers should be motivated, first and foremost, by what is best for their patients, not their pocketbooks. Where necessary, we will continue to investigate and pursue these violations in our district.”
As part of the settlement announced today, Halifax also has agreed to enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), which obligates Halifax to undertake substantial internal compliance reforms and to submit its federal health care program claims to independent review for the next five years.
“Patients deserve to know that recommendations are based on sound medical practice, not illegal financial relationships between providers,” said Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Daniel R. Levinson. “Halifax now also is required to hire a legal reviewer to monitor provider arrangements and an additional compliance expert to assist the board in fulfilling its oversight obligations. Both of these independent reviewers will submit regular reports to my agency.”
The settlement announced today stems from a whistleblower complaint filed by an employee of Halifax Hospital, Elin Baklid-Kunz, pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private persons to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the government and to share in the proceeds of the suit. The Act also permits the government to intervene and take over the lawsuit, as it did in this case as to some of Baklid-Kunz’s allegations. Baklid-Kunz will receive $20.8 million of the settlement.
This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $19 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $13.4 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
The investigation and litigation was conducted by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida and HHS-OIG. The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability, except as determined by the court’s Nov. 13, 2013, ruling.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
U.S. CONGRATULATES PEOPLE OF MAURITIUS ON THEIR INDEPENDENCE DAY
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Statement on the Occasion of the Republic of Mauritius' National Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 11, 2014
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate all citizens of Mauritius as you celebrate the 46th year of your independence on March 12. The American people share your pride in the long-established democratic traditions that form the bedrock of our nations’ friendship. Mauritius has embraced the principles of democratic governance, economic reform, and social tolerance that serve as a model to others around the world. The United States appreciates Mauritius’ support for efforts to promote regional security and economic development. As you celebrate with family and friends, we wish the people of Mauritius continued peace and prosperity.
Statement on the Occasion of the Republic of Mauritius' National Day
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 11, 2014
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate all citizens of Mauritius as you celebrate the 46th year of your independence on March 12. The American people share your pride in the long-established democratic traditions that form the bedrock of our nations’ friendship. Mauritius has embraced the principles of democratic governance, economic reform, and social tolerance that serve as a model to others around the world. The United States appreciates Mauritius’ support for efforts to promote regional security and economic development. As you celebrate with family and friends, we wish the people of Mauritius continued peace and prosperity.
SEC CHARGES ANIMAL FEED COMPANY AND EXECUTIVES WITH ACCOUNTING FRAUD
FROM: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged an animal feed company and top executives with conducting a massive accounting fraud in which they repeatedly reported fake revenues from their China operations in order to meet financial targets and prop up the stock price.
The SEC alleges that four executives in China orchestrated the scheme at AgFeed Industries Inc., which was based in China and publicly traded in the U.S. before merging with a U.S. company in September 2010 and spreading its operations between the two countries. With the bulk of its hog production operations in China, the executives used a variety of methods to inflate revenue from 2008 to mid-2011, including fake invoices for the sale of feed and purported sales of hogs that didn’t really exist. They later tried to cover up their actions by saying the fake hogs died. Because fatter hogs bring higher market prices, they also inflated the weights of actual hogs sold and correspondingly inflated the sales revenues for those hogs.
The SEC also charged a company executive and a company director in the U.S. with scheming to avoid or delay disclosure of the accounting fraud once they learned about it in 2011 while engaged in efforts to raise capital for expansion and acquisitions. The director, K. Ivan (Van) Gothner, was chair of AgFeed’s audit committee. He sought advice from a former director and company advisor who responded in e-mail communications that there was “not just smoke but fire” and recommended that AgFeed hire professional investigators guided by outside legal counsel. However, Gothner ignored the recommendation and internalized the situation while false financial reporting continued.
The SEC also reached a settlement with another U.S.-based company executive and a cooperation agreement with a different executive in the U.S. The eight executives involved in the SEC’s case are no longer at AgFeed, which is headquartered in Hendersonville, Tenn., and has filed for bankruptcy.
“AgFeed’s accounting misdeeds started in China, and U.S. executives failed to properly investigate and disclose them to investors,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “This is a cautionary tale of what happens when an audit committee chair fails to perform his gatekeeper function in the face of massive red flags.”
The SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee charges executive chairman Songyan Li, CEO Junhong Xiong, CFO Selina Jin, and controller Shaobo Ouyang as the management in China behind the scheme, which began in 2008 after AgFeed acquired 29 Chinese farms for its new hog production division. The inflated numbers that included sales of fake hogs and bloated weights of actual hogs were recorded in a fake “outside” set of books that the company provided to its outside auditors. The “inside” real set of books contained accurate, lower revenue numbers that were hidden from auditors. Li, Xiong, Jin, and Ouyang caused AgFeed to report false revenues of approximately $239 million.
According to the SEC’s complaint, U.S. management learned of the accounting fraud by early June 2011, but failed to take adequate steps to investigate and disclose it to investors. Gothner and the CFO who replaced Jin after the merger, Edward J. Pazdro, specifically learned that AgFeed’s China operations kept two sets of accounting books and that Ouyang had admitted to the fraud. Gothner and Pazdro even obtained a partial copy of the two sets of books as well as a memo from AgFeed’s in-house counsel from China that concluded – based on witness accounts and documentary evidence – that the company was involved in a widespread accounting fraud. The memo noted that two sets of accounting books were maintained “in order to make AgFeed’s revenue and net income look better.” The memo concluded that Xiong and Jin had directed the accounting fraud, and Xiong had ordered the destruction of the second set of books.
The SEC alleges that instead of fulfilling their responsibilities as the company’s stewards of financial reporting, Gothner and Pazdro failed to conduct or prompt the company to conduct any further meaningful investigation into the misconduct. Not only did they fail to disclose the fraud to investors or law enforcement, but Gothner and Pazdro instead engaged in efforts to spin off the company’s feed division and raise capital for expansion and acquisitions that would enable profits for AgFeed and them personally. Even as additional red flags arose in June and July 2011, they failed to take appropriate actions. They misled AgFeed’s outside auditor and caused the company to issue false and misleading press releases and SEC filings.
“Officers and directors have an obligation to exercise diligence and ensure that their financial reporting is accurate,” said Julie Lutz, director of the SEC’s Denver Regional Office. “Despite learning about false and misleading financial information, AgFeed executives failed to come clean with investors or law enforcement.”
The SEC’s complaint charges AgFeed, Xiong, Li, Jin, Ouyang, Gothner, and Pazdro with violating or aiding and abetting violations of the anti-fraud, reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws. Xiong, Li, Jin, Ouyang, Gothner, and Pazdro also are charged with making false statements to AgFeed’s outside auditors. The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest as well as financial penalties and officer-and-director bars. The SEC also seeks to suspend Jin, Ouyang, and Pazdro from practicing as accountants on behalf of any publicly-traded company or other entity regulated by the SEC.
AgFeed’s former chairman and interim CEO John A. Stadler separately consented to an SEC order barring him from acting as an officer or director and requiring him to pay a $100,000 penalty and cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-11, 13a-13, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder. He neither admitted nor denied the findings in the order.
AgFeed’s former CFO Clayton T. Marshall, who replaced Pazdro, entered into a cooperation agreement with the SEC. The terms of his settlement reflect his assistance in the SEC’s investigation and anticipated cooperation in the pending court action. Marshall agreed to be suspended from practicing as an accountant on behalf of any publicly-traded company or other entity regulated by the SEC for a period of at least five years. Without admitting or denying the findings, he consented to an SEC order requiring him to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 12b-20, 13a-13, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder. Whether a financial penalty should be imposed against Marshall will be determined at a later date.
AgFeed consented to an SEC order pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act that revokes the registration of each class of its securities. The SEC’s case against AgFeed in federal court is continuing.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Michael Cates, Rachael Clarke, Donna Walker, and Ian Karpel of the Denver Regional Office. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Nancy Gegenheimer and Gregory Kasper.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged an animal feed company and top executives with conducting a massive accounting fraud in which they repeatedly reported fake revenues from their China operations in order to meet financial targets and prop up the stock price.
The SEC alleges that four executives in China orchestrated the scheme at AgFeed Industries Inc., which was based in China and publicly traded in the U.S. before merging with a U.S. company in September 2010 and spreading its operations between the two countries. With the bulk of its hog production operations in China, the executives used a variety of methods to inflate revenue from 2008 to mid-2011, including fake invoices for the sale of feed and purported sales of hogs that didn’t really exist. They later tried to cover up their actions by saying the fake hogs died. Because fatter hogs bring higher market prices, they also inflated the weights of actual hogs sold and correspondingly inflated the sales revenues for those hogs.
The SEC also charged a company executive and a company director in the U.S. with scheming to avoid or delay disclosure of the accounting fraud once they learned about it in 2011 while engaged in efforts to raise capital for expansion and acquisitions. The director, K. Ivan (Van) Gothner, was chair of AgFeed’s audit committee. He sought advice from a former director and company advisor who responded in e-mail communications that there was “not just smoke but fire” and recommended that AgFeed hire professional investigators guided by outside legal counsel. However, Gothner ignored the recommendation and internalized the situation while false financial reporting continued.
The SEC also reached a settlement with another U.S.-based company executive and a cooperation agreement with a different executive in the U.S. The eight executives involved in the SEC’s case are no longer at AgFeed, which is headquartered in Hendersonville, Tenn., and has filed for bankruptcy.
“AgFeed’s accounting misdeeds started in China, and U.S. executives failed to properly investigate and disclose them to investors,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “This is a cautionary tale of what happens when an audit committee chair fails to perform his gatekeeper function in the face of massive red flags.”
The SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee charges executive chairman Songyan Li, CEO Junhong Xiong, CFO Selina Jin, and controller Shaobo Ouyang as the management in China behind the scheme, which began in 2008 after AgFeed acquired 29 Chinese farms for its new hog production division. The inflated numbers that included sales of fake hogs and bloated weights of actual hogs were recorded in a fake “outside” set of books that the company provided to its outside auditors. The “inside” real set of books contained accurate, lower revenue numbers that were hidden from auditors. Li, Xiong, Jin, and Ouyang caused AgFeed to report false revenues of approximately $239 million.
According to the SEC’s complaint, U.S. management learned of the accounting fraud by early June 2011, but failed to take adequate steps to investigate and disclose it to investors. Gothner and the CFO who replaced Jin after the merger, Edward J. Pazdro, specifically learned that AgFeed’s China operations kept two sets of accounting books and that Ouyang had admitted to the fraud. Gothner and Pazdro even obtained a partial copy of the two sets of books as well as a memo from AgFeed’s in-house counsel from China that concluded – based on witness accounts and documentary evidence – that the company was involved in a widespread accounting fraud. The memo noted that two sets of accounting books were maintained “in order to make AgFeed’s revenue and net income look better.” The memo concluded that Xiong and Jin had directed the accounting fraud, and Xiong had ordered the destruction of the second set of books.
The SEC alleges that instead of fulfilling their responsibilities as the company’s stewards of financial reporting, Gothner and Pazdro failed to conduct or prompt the company to conduct any further meaningful investigation into the misconduct. Not only did they fail to disclose the fraud to investors or law enforcement, but Gothner and Pazdro instead engaged in efforts to spin off the company’s feed division and raise capital for expansion and acquisitions that would enable profits for AgFeed and them personally. Even as additional red flags arose in June and July 2011, they failed to take appropriate actions. They misled AgFeed’s outside auditor and caused the company to issue false and misleading press releases and SEC filings.
“Officers and directors have an obligation to exercise diligence and ensure that their financial reporting is accurate,” said Julie Lutz, director of the SEC’s Denver Regional Office. “Despite learning about false and misleading financial information, AgFeed executives failed to come clean with investors or law enforcement.”
The SEC’s complaint charges AgFeed, Xiong, Li, Jin, Ouyang, Gothner, and Pazdro with violating or aiding and abetting violations of the anti-fraud, reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws. Xiong, Li, Jin, Ouyang, Gothner, and Pazdro also are charged with making false statements to AgFeed’s outside auditors. The SEC’s complaint seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest as well as financial penalties and officer-and-director bars. The SEC also seeks to suspend Jin, Ouyang, and Pazdro from practicing as accountants on behalf of any publicly-traded company or other entity regulated by the SEC.
AgFeed’s former chairman and interim CEO John A. Stadler separately consented to an SEC order barring him from acting as an officer or director and requiring him to pay a $100,000 penalty and cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B), and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-11, 13a-13, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder. He neither admitted nor denied the findings in the order.
AgFeed’s former CFO Clayton T. Marshall, who replaced Pazdro, entered into a cooperation agreement with the SEC. The terms of his settlement reflect his assistance in the SEC’s investigation and anticipated cooperation in the pending court action. Marshall agreed to be suspended from practicing as an accountant on behalf of any publicly-traded company or other entity regulated by the SEC for a period of at least five years. Without admitting or denying the findings, he consented to an SEC order requiring him to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 12b-20, 13a-13, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder. Whether a financial penalty should be imposed against Marshall will be determined at a later date.
AgFeed consented to an SEC order pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act that revokes the registration of each class of its securities. The SEC’s case against AgFeed in federal court is continuing.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Michael Cates, Rachael Clarke, Donna Walker, and Ian Karpel of the Denver Regional Office. The SEC’s litigation will be led by Nancy Gegenheimer and Gregory Kasper.
U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR MARCH 11, 2014
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTS
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Draeger Medical Inc., Telford, Pa., has been awarded a maximum $140,000,000 modification (P00067) exercising the third option period on a five-year base contract (SPM200-07-D-8003) with five one-year option periods for anesthesia machines, monitors, ventilators and related accessories. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Location of performance is Pennsylvania with a March 11, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, federal civilian agencies, and Department of Veterans Affairs. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
Genesis Vision, doing business as Rochester Optical*, Rochester, N.Y., has been awarded a maximum $50,000,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for optical frames. This is a three-year base contract with two one-year option periods. Location of performance is New York with a March 10, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPM2DE-14-D-7559).
NAVY
Computer Systems Center Inc.*, Springfield, Va., is being awarded a $12,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the development and fielding of command, control, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting systems for Deployable Tactical Operations Center Components. Work will be performed in Springfield, Va., and is expected to be completed in March 2018. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation, Navy funds in the amount of $1,200,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, Calif., is the contracting activity (N68936-14-D-0013).
Mikel, Inc.*, Fall River, Mass., is being awarded a $6,689,497 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-11-C-6295) to exercise options for engineering and technical services for combat systems of the future. Work will be performed in Middletown, R.I. (77 percent), Fall River, Mass. (10 percent), Manassas, Va. (10 percent); Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (2 percent) and North Kingstown, R.I. (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 2014. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy funding in the amount of $365,000 will be obligated at time of award and contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured, as award is being made under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(5)-Authorized or Required by Statue 15 U.S.C. 638 (r)-Aid to Small Business. The Naval Sea System Command, Washington D.C., is the contracting activity.
AIR FORCE
The Boeing Co., Defense, Space and Security, Kent, Wash., has been awarded a $10,814,354 modification (001) on an existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (F19628-01-D-0016) for trade studies and analysis for the Japan AWACS mission computing upgrade DMS 3.X requirements planning and hardware procurement to procure end of life hardware. This contract action is implemented as a modification to delivery order #0097 under the AWACS modernization and sustainment support basic contract. Work will be performed at Kent, Wash., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2014. This is an unclassified foreign military sales contract for Japan. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/HBSK, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., is the contracting activity.
*Small Business
CONTRACTS
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
Draeger Medical Inc., Telford, Pa., has been awarded a maximum $140,000,000 modification (P00067) exercising the third option period on a five-year base contract (SPM200-07-D-8003) with five one-year option periods for anesthesia machines, monitors, ventilators and related accessories. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Location of performance is Pennsylvania with a March 11, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, federal civilian agencies, and Department of Veterans Affairs. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
Genesis Vision, doing business as Rochester Optical*, Rochester, N.Y., has been awarded a maximum $50,000,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for optical frames. This is a three-year base contract with two one-year option periods. Location of performance is New York with a March 10, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPM2DE-14-D-7559).
NAVY
Computer Systems Center Inc.*, Springfield, Va., is being awarded a $12,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the development and fielding of command, control, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting systems for Deployable Tactical Operations Center Components. Work will be performed in Springfield, Va., and is expected to be completed in March 2018. Fiscal 2014 research, development, test and evaluation, Navy funds in the amount of $1,200,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, Calif., is the contracting activity (N68936-14-D-0013).
Mikel, Inc.*, Fall River, Mass., is being awarded a $6,689,497 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-11-C-6295) to exercise options for engineering and technical services for combat systems of the future. Work will be performed in Middletown, R.I. (77 percent), Fall River, Mass. (10 percent), Manassas, Va. (10 percent); Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (2 percent) and North Kingstown, R.I. (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 2014. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Navy funding in the amount of $365,000 will be obligated at time of award and contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured, as award is being made under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(5)-Authorized or Required by Statue 15 U.S.C. 638 (r)-Aid to Small Business. The Naval Sea System Command, Washington D.C., is the contracting activity.
AIR FORCE
The Boeing Co., Defense, Space and Security, Kent, Wash., has been awarded a $10,814,354 modification (001) on an existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (F19628-01-D-0016) for trade studies and analysis for the Japan AWACS mission computing upgrade DMS 3.X requirements planning and hardware procurement to procure end of life hardware. This contract action is implemented as a modification to delivery order #0097 under the AWACS modernization and sustainment support basic contract. Work will be performed at Kent, Wash., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2014. This is an unclassified foreign military sales contract for Japan. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/HBSK, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., is the contracting activity.
*Small Business
RENT-TO-OWN COMPANY SETTLES WEBCAM AND OTHER CONSUMER SPYING CHARGES WITH FTC
FROM: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges that Aaron’s Inc. Allowed Franchisees to Spy on Consumers via Rental Computers
Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that Aaron’s Inc., a national rent-to-own retailer, knowingly played a direct and vital role in its franchisees’ installation and use of software on rental computers that secretly monitored consumers, including taking webcam pictures of them in their homes.
Under the terms of a consent agreement, first announced in October 2013, Aaron’s is prohibited from using monitoring technology to gather consumers’ information from rental computers, or receiving, storing or communicating such information, except to provide technical support at a consumer’s request. The terms of the settlement also bar the company from gathering information from any consumer product via geophysical location tracking technology without clearly notifying and obtaining express consent from consumers at the time of rental. Aaron’s is further prohibited from installing or activating such technology on rental computers that does not clearly notify consumers of its presence immediately before each use, including via a prominent icon on the computer.
The order further bars Aaron’s from deceptively gathering information about consumers, and from using improperly obtained information to collect debt, money or property as part of a rent-to-own transaction. The company must delete or destroy any information it has collected improperly, and can transmit information obtained via monitoring or location tracking only if it is encrypted. In addition, the order requires Aaron’s to conduct annual monitoring and oversight of its franchisees for compliance with the terms of the agreement, act immediately to ensure compliance, and terminate any franchisee that fails to comply.
The Commission vote approving the final order and letters to members of the public who commented on it was 4-0. (FTC File No. 1123264.
FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges that Aaron’s Inc. Allowed Franchisees to Spy on Consumers via Rental Computers
Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that Aaron’s Inc., a national rent-to-own retailer, knowingly played a direct and vital role in its franchisees’ installation and use of software on rental computers that secretly monitored consumers, including taking webcam pictures of them in their homes.
Under the terms of a consent agreement, first announced in October 2013, Aaron’s is prohibited from using monitoring technology to gather consumers’ information from rental computers, or receiving, storing or communicating such information, except to provide technical support at a consumer’s request. The terms of the settlement also bar the company from gathering information from any consumer product via geophysical location tracking technology without clearly notifying and obtaining express consent from consumers at the time of rental. Aaron’s is further prohibited from installing or activating such technology on rental computers that does not clearly notify consumers of its presence immediately before each use, including via a prominent icon on the computer.
The order further bars Aaron’s from deceptively gathering information about consumers, and from using improperly obtained information to collect debt, money or property as part of a rent-to-own transaction. The company must delete or destroy any information it has collected improperly, and can transmit information obtained via monitoring or location tracking only if it is encrypted. In addition, the order requires Aaron’s to conduct annual monitoring and oversight of its franchisees for compliance with the terms of the agreement, act immediately to ensure compliance, and terminate any franchisee that fails to comply.
The Commission vote approving the final order and letters to members of the public who commented on it was 4-0. (FTC File No. 1123264.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP CONTRACT AWARDS ANNOUNCED
FROM: U.S. NAVY
Fiscal Year 2014 Littoral Combat Ship Contract Awards Announced
Story Number: NNS140310-12
Release Date: 3/10/2014 9:15:00 PM
From Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ships (PEO LCS) Public Affairs
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Today, contract modifications were issued to Lockheed Martin Corporation and Austal USA under their respective Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) block buy contracts to add funding for construction of two fiscal year 2014 Littoral Combat Ships each.
These are the seventh and eighth ships fully funded for each contractor under its previously-awarded, fixed-price incentive "block buy" contract for the design and construction of up to ten LCS Flight 0+ ships. The two block buy contracts provide for the acquisition of a total of up to 20 Littoral Combat Ships from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015, subject to availability of appropriations.
The amount of funds added under the block buy contract with Lockheed Martin Corporation for the fiscal year 2014 LCS ships is $699 million. The amount of funds added under the block buy contract with Austal USA for the fiscal year 2014 LCS ships is $684 million. The ships will be built at Fincantieri Marinette Marine Corporation in Marinette, Wis., and Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., respectively.
The prices for the fiscal year 2014 ships were determined based on the competitive, LCS dual block buy contracts that were awarded December 29, 2010.
The additional funding obligated is for the 17th - 20th ships in the LCS class. Presently, four LCS ships have been delivered to the Navy. USS Freedom (LCS 1) concluded its first deployment in December 2013 and is currently at its home port in San Diego. USS Independence (LCS 2) is undergoing Mine Countermeasures developmental testing in San Diego. USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) is scheduled to begin initial operational testing and evaluation of its surface warfare mission module in March, and Coronado (LCS 4) is scheduled to be commissioned April 5, 2014, in Coronado, Calif.
LCS is needed to fill critical, urgent warfighting requirement gaps that exist today. LCS is required to establish and maintain U.S. Navy dominance in the littorals and sea lines of communication choke points around the world.
Fiscal Year 2014 Littoral Combat Ship Contract Awards Announced
Story Number: NNS140310-12
Release Date: 3/10/2014 9:15:00 PM
From Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ships (PEO LCS) Public Affairs
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Today, contract modifications were issued to Lockheed Martin Corporation and Austal USA under their respective Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) block buy contracts to add funding for construction of two fiscal year 2014 Littoral Combat Ships each.
These are the seventh and eighth ships fully funded for each contractor under its previously-awarded, fixed-price incentive "block buy" contract for the design and construction of up to ten LCS Flight 0+ ships. The two block buy contracts provide for the acquisition of a total of up to 20 Littoral Combat Ships from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015, subject to availability of appropriations.
The amount of funds added under the block buy contract with Lockheed Martin Corporation for the fiscal year 2014 LCS ships is $699 million. The amount of funds added under the block buy contract with Austal USA for the fiscal year 2014 LCS ships is $684 million. The ships will be built at Fincantieri Marinette Marine Corporation in Marinette, Wis., and Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., respectively.
The prices for the fiscal year 2014 ships were determined based on the competitive, LCS dual block buy contracts that were awarded December 29, 2010.
The additional funding obligated is for the 17th - 20th ships in the LCS class. Presently, four LCS ships have been delivered to the Navy. USS Freedom (LCS 1) concluded its first deployment in December 2013 and is currently at its home port in San Diego. USS Independence (LCS 2) is undergoing Mine Countermeasures developmental testing in San Diego. USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) is scheduled to begin initial operational testing and evaluation of its surface warfare mission module in March, and Coronado (LCS 4) is scheduled to be commissioned April 5, 2014, in Coronado, Calif.
LCS is needed to fill critical, urgent warfighting requirement gaps that exist today. LCS is required to establish and maintain U.S. Navy dominance in the littorals and sea lines of communication choke points around the world.
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS ON ANNIVERSARY OF EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE
FROM: STATE DEPARTMENT
Third Anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 11, 2014
I will never forget hearing the news in my Senate office on that bleak Friday morning: a devastating 8.9-magnitude earthquake had ripped through Japan. The images were gut-wrenching: entire cities reduced to rubble; homes razed or washed out to sea; raging waters sweeping away not just cars and trucks and buildings, but the very fabric of people’s lives.
My cousin had recently left for Japan with her husband. I thought of them and of the many other families, Japanese and American, I had personally never met but whose fates were inextricably linked on that tragic day.
Three years have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011. Today, we remember the courage of the citizens of the Tohoku region and all of Japan. We remember the volunteers from nations around the world who dug deep and pitched in. And we remember the outpouring of emotion, from public condolences to those who shared their grief in private ways – and still do.
I’ve made two trips to Japan as Secretary of State. Every time I visit, in every meeting, I am deeply impressed by the strength of the Japanese people in overcoming the devastation of 3/11. And I know U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy shares in that pride. Like so many members of her family, Ambassador Kennedy has always understood the vital importance of advancing a cause greater than one’s self. That’s why she visited the Tohoku region on her first official trip outside of Tokyo. And that’s why the United States will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Japanese friends as they rebuild their lives and communities.
On this solemn anniversary, I join all Americans in sending our thoughts and prayers to the people of Japan.
Third Anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 11, 2014
I will never forget hearing the news in my Senate office on that bleak Friday morning: a devastating 8.9-magnitude earthquake had ripped through Japan. The images were gut-wrenching: entire cities reduced to rubble; homes razed or washed out to sea; raging waters sweeping away not just cars and trucks and buildings, but the very fabric of people’s lives.
My cousin had recently left for Japan with her husband. I thought of them and of the many other families, Japanese and American, I had personally never met but whose fates were inextricably linked on that tragic day.
Three years have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011. Today, we remember the courage of the citizens of the Tohoku region and all of Japan. We remember the volunteers from nations around the world who dug deep and pitched in. And we remember the outpouring of emotion, from public condolences to those who shared their grief in private ways – and still do.
I’ve made two trips to Japan as Secretary of State. Every time I visit, in every meeting, I am deeply impressed by the strength of the Japanese people in overcoming the devastation of 3/11. And I know U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy shares in that pride. Like so many members of her family, Ambassador Kennedy has always understood the vital importance of advancing a cause greater than one’s self. That’s why she visited the Tohoku region on her first official trip outside of Tokyo. And that’s why the United States will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Japanese friends as they rebuild their lives and communities.
On this solemn anniversary, I join all Americans in sending our thoughts and prayers to the people of Japan.
TWO STORMS BRINGING TROUBLE TO AUSTRALIA
 |
Right: NASA's Aqua satellite passed over Queensland on March 10 at 04:00 UTC and captured Tropical Cyclones Gillian (left) in the Gulf of Carpentaria, just west of Queensland's York Peninsula, and Hadi (right) in the Coral Sea, east of Queensland. Image Credit: NASA Goddard MODIS Rapid Response Team
Gillian and Hadi Spell Double Tropical Trouble Around Queensland
On Friday, March 7 there were two tropical lows located east and west of Queensland, Australia. Those lows organized and intensified into Tropical Cyclone Gillian and Hadi and were caught together in one amazing image from NASA's Aqua satellite. While Gillian has already made one landfall and is expected to make another, Hadi is turning tail and running from the mainland.
NASA's Aqua satellite passed over Queensland on March 10 at 04:00 UTC and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer instrument known as MODIS captured Tropical Cyclones Gillian in the Gulf of Carpentaria, just west of Queensland's York Peninsula, and Hadi in the Coral Sea, east of Queensland.
On March 10 at 0300 UTC, Tropical Cyclone Gillian, formerly known as the low pressure area "System 98P" had maximum sustained winds near 35 knots/40 mph/62 kph. It was located about 230 nautical miles northeast of Mornington Island. Gillian is moving to the southeast at 5 knots/5.7 mph/9.2 kph, but is expected to re-curve to the southwest.
The Joint Typhoon Warning Center or JTWC noted that animated multi-spectral satellite imagery and radar from Weipa showed that the center made landfall in the northwestern coast of the York Peninsula. Gillian's center is also being battered by moderate northeasterly vertical wind shear, which is preventing any further intensification, but that's expected to change as Gillian turns back toward the Gulf. The JTWC expects Gillian to re-emerge in the Gulf of Carpentaria and head in a southwesterly direction, passing west of Mornington Island (located in the southern Gulf). JTWC forecasts Gillian to make its second and final landfall on the mainland near the Northern Territory/Queensland border on March 13.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology noted on March 10, that residents from Burketown to the Queensland / Northern Territory border, including Mornington Island and Sweers Island should consider what action they will need to take if the cyclone threat increases.
Tropical Cyclone Hadi, formerly tropical low pressure area "System 96P" lingered off the coast of eastern Queensland near Willis Island on March 8 and 9 and is now being pushed northeast and out to sea.
On March 10 at 0900 UTC/5 a.m. EDT, Tropical Cyclone Hadi had maximum sustained winds near 35 knots/40 mph/62 kph. It was located about 176 nautical miles east-southeast of Willis Island, near 18.8 south and 151.3 east. Hadi was moving slowly to the east-southeast at 4 knots/4.6 mph/7.4 kph.
Satellite imagery showed moderate to strong vertical wind shear, between 20 and 30 knots/23.0 and 34.5 mph / 37.0 and 55.5 kph pushed the strongest thunderstorms south of the center of circulation. The JTWC expects Hadi to strengthen to 55 knots/63.2 mph/101.9 kph as it tracks to the northeast over the next several days.
RECENT U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT PHOTOS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Army Rangers prepare their equipment before loading into an aircraft on Fort Benning, Ga., March 3, 2014. The Rangers are assigned to 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Earnest Knight.
Army Rangers provide security during a multilateral airborne operation on Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., March 3, 2014. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Teddy Wade.
OBSTRUCTION GUILTY PLEA OBTAINED IN BRIBERY CASE INVOLVING MINING RIGHTS IN REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, March 10, 2014
French Citizen Pleads Guilty to Obstructing Criminal Investigation into Alleged Bribes Paid to Win Mining Rights in the Republic of Guinea
Frederic Cilins, 51, a French citizen, pleaded guilty today in the Southern District of New York to obstructing a federal criminal investigation into whether a mining company paid bribes to win lucrative mining rights in the Republic of Guinea.
Mythili Raman, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York; and George Venizelos, the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office, made the announcement.
Cilins pleaded guilty to a one-count superseding information filed today, which alleges that Cilins agreed to pay money to induce a witness to destroy, or provide to him for destruction, documents sought by the FBI. According to the superseding information, those documents related to allegations concerning the payment of bribes to obtain mining concessions in the Simandou region of the Republic of Guinea.
According to publicly filed documents, Cilins allegedly attempted to obstruct an ongoing federal grand jury investigation concerning potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and laws proscribing money laundering. Court documents state the federal grand jury was investigating whether a particular mining company and its affiliates – on whose behalf Cilins had been working – transferred into the United States funds in furtherance of a scheme to obtain and retain valuable mining concessions in the Republic of Guinea’s Simandou region. During monitored and recorded phone calls and face-to-face meetings, Cilins allegedly agreed to pay substantial sums of money to induce a witness to the bribery scheme to turn over documents to Cilins for destruction, which Cilins knew had been requested by the FBI and needed to be produced before a federal grand jury. Court documents also allege that Cilins sought to induce the witness to sign an affidavit containing numerous false statements regarding matters under investigation by the grand jury.
Court documents allege that the documents Cilins sought to destroy included original copies of contracts between the mining company and its affiliates and the former wife of a now-deceased Guinean government official, who at the relevant time held an office in Guinea that allowed him to influence the award of mining concessions. The contracts allegedly related to a scheme by which the mining company and its affiliates offered the wife of the Guinean official millions of dollars, which were to be distributed to the official’s wife as well as ministers or senior officials of Guinea’s government whose authority might be needed to secure the mining rights.
According to court documents, the official’s wife incorporated a company in 2008 that agreed to take all necessary steps to secure the valuable mining rights for the mining company’s subsidiary. That same contract stipulated that $2 million was to be transferred to the official’s wife’s company and an additional sum was to be “distributed among persons of good will who may have contributed to facilitating the granting of” the valuable mining rights. According to the complaint, in 2008, the mining company and its affiliates also agreed to give 5 percent of its ownership of particular mining areas in Guinea to the official’s wife.
The case is being investigated by the FBI. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Tarek Helou of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant United States Attorney Elisha J. Kobre of the Southern District of New York. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs and Office of Enforcement Operations also assisted in the investigation.
Monday, March 10, 2014
French Citizen Pleads Guilty to Obstructing Criminal Investigation into Alleged Bribes Paid to Win Mining Rights in the Republic of Guinea
Frederic Cilins, 51, a French citizen, pleaded guilty today in the Southern District of New York to obstructing a federal criminal investigation into whether a mining company paid bribes to win lucrative mining rights in the Republic of Guinea.
Mythili Raman, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York; and George Venizelos, the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office, made the announcement.
Cilins pleaded guilty to a one-count superseding information filed today, which alleges that Cilins agreed to pay money to induce a witness to destroy, or provide to him for destruction, documents sought by the FBI. According to the superseding information, those documents related to allegations concerning the payment of bribes to obtain mining concessions in the Simandou region of the Republic of Guinea.
According to publicly filed documents, Cilins allegedly attempted to obstruct an ongoing federal grand jury investigation concerning potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and laws proscribing money laundering. Court documents state the federal grand jury was investigating whether a particular mining company and its affiliates – on whose behalf Cilins had been working – transferred into the United States funds in furtherance of a scheme to obtain and retain valuable mining concessions in the Republic of Guinea’s Simandou region. During monitored and recorded phone calls and face-to-face meetings, Cilins allegedly agreed to pay substantial sums of money to induce a witness to the bribery scheme to turn over documents to Cilins for destruction, which Cilins knew had been requested by the FBI and needed to be produced before a federal grand jury. Court documents also allege that Cilins sought to induce the witness to sign an affidavit containing numerous false statements regarding matters under investigation by the grand jury.
Court documents allege that the documents Cilins sought to destroy included original copies of contracts between the mining company and its affiliates and the former wife of a now-deceased Guinean government official, who at the relevant time held an office in Guinea that allowed him to influence the award of mining concessions. The contracts allegedly related to a scheme by which the mining company and its affiliates offered the wife of the Guinean official millions of dollars, which were to be distributed to the official’s wife as well as ministers or senior officials of Guinea’s government whose authority might be needed to secure the mining rights.
According to court documents, the official’s wife incorporated a company in 2008 that agreed to take all necessary steps to secure the valuable mining rights for the mining company’s subsidiary. That same contract stipulated that $2 million was to be transferred to the official’s wife’s company and an additional sum was to be “distributed among persons of good will who may have contributed to facilitating the granting of” the valuable mining rights. According to the complaint, in 2008, the mining company and its affiliates also agreed to give 5 percent of its ownership of particular mining areas in Guinea to the official’s wife.
The case is being investigated by the FBI. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Tarek Helou of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant United States Attorney Elisha J. Kobre of the Southern District of New York. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs and Office of Enforcement Operations also assisted in the investigation.
TRANSCRIPT: STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING FOR MARCH 10, 2014
FROM: THE STATE DEPARTMENT
Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 10, 2014
TRANSCRIPT:
1:23 p.m. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. All right. I don’t have anything at the top, so Matt, let’s get to what’s on your mind.
QUESTION: You have nothing at the top?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything at the top.
QUESTION: All right. Well, let’s start with --
MS. PSAKI: I’m sure you all saw, we just put out a statement, though --
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: -- which I’m happy to reiterate. But I just wanted to make sure you’d seen that as well.
QUESTION: Are there any plans – on Ukraine. Are there any plans for any kind of communication between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov, or anyone else for that matter, on Ukraine? And – well, I’ll let you answer that first before I ask the next one.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, as you know, Secretary Kerry has been in close contact with Foreign Minister Lavrov over the course of the last couple of weeks. He spoke with them as recently as Saturday and he – we put out a readout of that. I don’t have any calls to predict, but I expect they will be in close contact in the coming 24 to 48 hours.
QUESTION: Okay. One of the things in this rather extraordinary transcript of a – of the meeting between President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov that has appeared on Russian – the Russian websites, it talks about how – that Lavrov invited the Secretary to visit Russia – I don’t know if it was Moscow or Sochi – today, or as early as today, and that the Secretary was kind of ambivalent, but then on Saturday called – in the call – Lavrov called and said he basically couldn’t make it today. Is that still a possibility?
MS. PSAKI: That we will go to Russia today? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No. No, no. That there will be some kind of – that there will be a face-to-face meeting between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov before Sunday when the referendum is supposed to happen in Crimea.
MS. PSAKI: Well, there is always a possibility. We evaluate day to day. And this was in the statement but just let me reiterate because I know we just put it out. When Secretary Kerry spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov this weekend, he made clear that he would welcome further discussions focused on how to de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine if and when we see concrete evidence that Russia is prepared to engage on these proposals.
You’ve traveled – all of you have traveled with the Secretary quite a bit. He never shies away from hopping on a plane or having an in-person meeting, but we want to ensure that that is undertaken with seriousness on the other end as well.
QUESTION: Fair enough. So your caveat there is if and when Russia is prepared to engage. Have you seen any willingness on the part of the Russians to engage on these ideas, either the initial ideas that were presented or any amended follow-up briefs?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there have been, as you know because there have been kind of a range of reports here – some from Foreign Minister Lavrov, some in the statement we put out – about there’s been an ongoing dialogue, whether that’s been on the phone or in person, through paper, not through paper, verbal ideas, about ideas. And they address all of the issues that we have been talking about, so: letting OSCE monitors in, international observers; the mechanism for a meeting through a contact group. So we’re having that discussion day by day. Obviously, the Russians continue to be engaged in that discussion, but we haven’t, of course, agreed on – we’re waiting for a response to the recent questions that we sent over.
QUESTION: Okay, so I’m going to take that as the answer to my question is no, you have not yet seen any movement from the Russians that they’re willing to engage on what – your proposals.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re engaging, but no, we have not decided – right.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can I follow up with Ukraine?
MS. PSAKI: Let’s – Ukraine, okay. And then we’ll go to Michael, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah, on the Ukraine. You said you have international monitors. To monitor what? To do what?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there has been an ongoing focus – we’ve called for it many times, as have many of our international partners --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: -- to let OSCE monitors in – because the Russians have conveyed concerns about how minorities are treated. If they feel very – as strongly about that as they say they do, they should let these monitors in. The monitors have attempted many times and haven’t had the ability to get in.
QUESTION: Okay, so lest then be any confusion, the monitor is just to see how the minorities are faring – not, let’s say, some sort of an endorsement for the referendum in any way, to look at the referendum or the possible referendum next week. Is it?
MS. PSAKI: No, I think we’ve spoken to the referendum pretty extensively. The OSCE monitors is specifically for the reasons I laid out.
Michael.
QUESTION: Hi, Jen. The Russians announced today that Secretary Kerry had presented a one – a paper, a document of some kind, to their side last week in Europe. What are the main elements of the paper? Since they’ve deemed it to be insufficient, and they’ve said it’s not a basis for going forward, it’d be helpful to know what the main elements of your document are.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I just mentioned, but let me --
QUESTION: Or just tell us what’s in the paper.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I’m not going to provide all the details of the paper, but you are also --
QUESTION: Did the --
QUESTION: What are the elements of the paper?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. PSAKI: Let me – I’m just going to answer Michael’s question. Obviously, the discussion, whether that’s the paper or whether it’s verbal discussions, whether it’s meetings we’re having, is all about what the mechanism can be for the Russians and the Ukrainians to meet to engage person to person. There are other issues as well as letting monitors in, as well as mechanisms for the meeting that we’re discussing. But I think it’s important to note here there is paper exchanged all the time, as you all know, through diplomatic processes. It doesn’t mean – this is not a treaty document that was given.
QUESTION: Jen, I didn’t say it was a treaty document.
MS. PSAKI: I know that. But some people --
QUESTION: The Russians are --
MS. PSAKI: -- are over-emphasizing the importance of the paper.
QUESTION: Excuse me. I’m trying to --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: I’m giving you an opportunity --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- which you’re not taking --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- to explain what your document is, which the Russians have announced they’ve received a document. They’ve commented on this document. They’ve put down this document. And I didn’t say it was a treaty. What I’m asking you is: What is the main elements of the document, and also what are the Saturday questions that you felt compelled to ask following – after giving them this document?
MS. PSAKI: I understand what you’re asking. What I’m conveying is that I’m not going to outline every specific of what’s being discussed through diplomatic channels. You know what the issues are. The issues are: How can we come up – come to agreement on a mechanism for the Ukrainians and the Russians to talk? What’s the format? Is it through an international contact group?
Obviously, the Russians haven’t agreed to that; otherwise, that would be happening now. So that’s the big focus of any of these ideas that are being tossed back and forth between our sides. But I’m not going to outline every element of the document.
QUESTION: Jen, Jen –
MS. PSAKI: I understand.
QUESTION: -- just to be fair --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- I didn’t ask you to outline every element.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: So it’s not really fair, I don’t think, to take my words and --
MS. PSAKI: That wasn’t my intention.
QUESTION: -- distort them.
MS. PSAKI: Wasn’t my intention.
QUESTION: I didn’t ask you for every element. What I asked you was if you could explain what the main elements or main thoughts in the paper and the questions were. You don’t want to do that. Okay, I accept that.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: But I didn’t ask you – I didn’t say it was a treaty and I didn’t ask you to present every element.
MS. PSAKI: I understand. I did not mean to distort your words in any way. I would not do that. I know people are asking a range of questions about it.
QUESTION: Well --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Elise.
QUESTION: I mean, it looks as if the Russians are putting the onus back on you. Instead of you kind of explaining what you’re trying to do with the Russians, the Russians are saying that Secretary Kerry is refusing to negotiate, they’re disparaging the proposal that you supposedly made to the Russians.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: So I mean, they’re – basically, you’re allowing them to create the narrative by --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think – I think – let me just state where we stand. We want to see a cessation of Russian military activities in Ukraine, including in Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula. We want to see a halt in the drive for annexation of Crimea, an end of provocative steps to provide space, of course, as you all know. We’ve all been talking about – Secretary Kerry was there – many of you were with him – all of last week, talking about a mechanism and a format for bringing the Ukrainians and the Russians together to engage in a conversation. That’s a big – that is the focus of what we’re having discussions about, whether that was when he was talking to Foreign Minister Lavrov this weekend, if they engage in the next 24 to 48 hours. I don’t think there’s a secret about what we would like to see here, what we’re proposing --
QUESTION: So if there’s no secret, why can’t you tell us?
MS. PSAKI: I’m just telling you exactly what there’s a discussion about. And as I mentioned, obviously there have been a series of questions we have posed back addressing all of those issues. We’re waiting to hear a response back to those. But that’s exactly where we want to see things move.
QUESTION: What other questions could there be about these things – other will you do these things or not?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again --
QUESTION: I mean, what types of questions?
MS. PSAKI: Elise, I think a big part of the discussion is the mechanism for how we’re going to have a format for the two sides to get together. There’s a range of questions that can be posed about that, and also about the issue writ large. So that’s what we’re waiting to hear back on. The Secretary is always happy to have a diplomatic engagement, whether that’s in person or on the phone, and I expect he’ll be in touch in the coming 24 to 48 hours.
QUESTION: So can I just check --
QUESTION: Also on Ukraine --
MS. PSAKI: Let’s just do one at a time. Go ahead, Jo.
QUESTION: I think you addressed this as I was running from the bullpen to the --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- to here. But so Foreign Minister Lavrov did invite the Secretary to come to Moscow today, correct?
MS. PSAKI: I think there was a discussion about when he might visit. But again, as I said, we have clear steps we think the Russians need to take in order for that to take place.
QUESTION: So in other words, the reason for not going today, or tomorrow, was that you don’t feel that the Russians have taken the steps needed?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I – I think as I said earlier, we think there needs to be concrete evidence that Russia is prepared to engage on these proposals and in these discussions in a serious way.
QUESTION: And so what would constitute concrete evidence in your view?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t know if I can define that for you too easily. Obviously, a big --
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you are defining it.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Obviously, a big part of this is taking the process seriously in terms of a discussion about how the two sides can meet and about that diplomatic step, which I think the international community agrees is a really important part in terms of where we are in the process at this stage.
QUESTION: So are you saying that behind this there’s a problem with the contact group that you want to set up? Is that – when you say there’s a problem about how the two sides meet --
MS. PSAKI: There’s not --
QUESTION: -- you’re talking about Ukrainians and the Russians?
MS. PSAKI: -- a problem. There’s not a problem. But obviously, we need to determine when there is an appropriate seriousness on the Russian side about engaging on discussions about steps forward. That is not a scientifically easy thing to answer in terms of when we’ll know. We’ll know when we know that it’s the appropriate time to engage in person.
QUESTION: Sorry, just to close this out.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So you say the Russians are not prepared to meet with the Ukrainians?
MS. PSAKI: Right. The new government. Right.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Ukraine. Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: It’s reported that Mr. Yarosh now has a position in this new government in a national security role. Is the United States concerned that the head of a fascist organization is representing in a government that we are supporting, in fact, that we have really kind of put together? Are there concerns about this and will this be taken up when President Yats comes here on Wednesday, meeting with the President?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the White House has pretty clearly outlined what the purpose of that meeting is. Obviously, it’s continued engagement, given the situation on the ground. The new government was – we certainly recognize the legitimacy of that, but it was put together with the support of the parliament on the ground. So I don’t think I have any further comment for you.
Go ahead, Elise.
QUESTION: Can I --
QUESTION: Can you say on Secretary Lavrov – Foreign Minister Lavrov put forward a proposal that he wants an OSCE investigation of the people behind the shootings in the Maidan. There were a lot of reports. We know about the phone call with the Estonian foreign minister, that there were reports that the people – the groups on the Maidan had put this thing together. There were reported military – security – private security companies which were on the ground in the Maidan, perhaps even Blackwater has been mooted. Isn’t this worth an investigation to find out one of the decisive elements of this so-called revolt that led to this new government? Is the U.S. not interested in --
MS. PSAKI: Again, I think the OSCE monitors are not even being let into Crimea right now, so perhaps that can be a first step.
Elise.
QUESTION: No, I just want to put a fine point on it.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: When you talk about that one of the reasons that the Secretary didn’t go was because you didn’t sense an appropriate seriousness by the Russians in terms of engaging. So basically, the fact that they’re not prepared to meet with the new government is your indicator of whether they’re serious or not?
MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s about their willingness to engage and how to de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine. Obviously, they say that’s their focus. We want to see the evidence.
QUESTION: Have they given you any ideas on how they feel that you --
MS. PSAKI: There is an ongoing discussion about it, Elise. But we need – that is a key proponent. It’s not about requiring they meet with the – I’m not saying you’re saying this, but just to be clear – requiring they agree to meet with the new government. But it needs to be a discussion about the mechanisms for moving forward. It’s not that we are never going. We may go. It’s always possible. We evaluate day by day. But that is why we’re not there this moment.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, I understand that you don’t agree with the premise, but the Russian Government does not recognize this new government. So that’s why they don’t want to meet with them; isn’t that right?
MS. PSAKI: Well, the Ukraine parliament recognizes the new government. The international community recognizes the new government. So the issue here is: How do we move forward and engage the Russians with the new government that is broadly supported across the country?
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS. PSAKI: Ukraine? Any more on Ukraine? Okay, Iraq. Okay. Did you – are you – okay.
QUESTION: Until now I just --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, in the back. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, yes, yes. I don’t understand yet what is your interpretation that the Secretary of State canceled his visit to Moscow regarding --
MS. PSAKI: There wasn’t a visit planned.
QUESTION: -- regarding --
MS. PSAKI: There wasn’t a visit planned, so nothing’s canceled. We travel all the time. Secretary Kerry saw Foreign Minister Lavrov just last week. We still keep the option open, of course, of traveling at any point in time.
QUESTION: To Moscow, not to the other places.
MS. PSAKI: It could be a range of locations. It hasn’t been determined because we don’t have a trip planned at this moment.
QUESTION: And what else you have in your diplomacy arsenal now to deal with the Ukraine crisis?
MS. PSAKI: What else do we have in our diplomat – what are the other options, or --
QUESTION: Yes, diplomacy options.
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think as I said in the beginning, that I expect the Secretary will be in touch with Foreign Minister Lavrov in the coming 24 to 48 hours. As you’ve seen over the weekend, President Obama has been closely engaged with a range of partners around the world from a broad list of countries. And so we continue to have discussions. Our focus is on coordinating with the international community about everything from sanctions and steps we will take to put the appropriate pressure on, while also leaving the off-ramp opportunity for the Russians and laying out clearly what they could do at this point. So those conversations are ongoing on a daily basis.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS. PSAKI: Do we have any more on Ukraine? Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly --
MS. PSAKI: On Ukraine. Go ahead.
QUESTION: A follow up on the phone call – I know President Obama spoke with the Chinese President Xi Jinping.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What’s your expectation from China on Ukraine? And given the close tie between China and Russia, are you concerned China may go further to support Russia?
MS. PSAKI: Well, our hope continues to be that many members of the international community, including China, are in coordination and cooperation about the illegal steps that Russia took in this case and the pressure that needs to be exerted from not just the United States, but countries around the world.
QUESTION: But where do you see China stands now?
MS. PSAKI: I think I just addressed it.
Said?
QUESTION: Does China – a follow up. Does China really accept that premise that this was an illegal operation, or is it simply concerned over the uncertainty that they would like to resolve that’s the basis of their cooperation? Have they really accepted the U.S. attitude towards --
MS. PSAKI: I will let China speak to that.
Said.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask very quickly on Iraq.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki issued a statement bluntly accusing two of your allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, of being behind the sectarian war that is taking place in Iraq. I wonder if you have any comments on that.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well – sorry, Said. Can you repeat your question one more time just to make sure I’m addressing the right one here?
QUESTION: My question was that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki accused overtly both the countries of the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar of being behind --
MS. PSAKI: Yes. Yes, yes, yes.
QUESTION: -- the escalation of the sectarian violence that is taking place.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Iraq has made significant progress in improving relations with some countries in the region, such as Kuwait and Jordan, but progress with others has been limited. We continue to encourage improved ties between Iraq and its Arab neighbors, particularly the GCC. The situation in Syria has certainly fueled tensions in the region and foreign fighters are making their way into Iraq from Syria. We are particularly concerned, of course, about this. We share Iraq’s concern over the levels of violence, and we are working with the Iraqis to implement a holistic strategy. I would, of course, refer you otherwise to the Government of Iraq.
QUESTION: Do you agree – or, I mean – does your intelligence – I don’t know if – what they see, or the Embassy in Baghdad, that is a very large Embassy. Do they also see or do they detect activities by the Saudis and the Qataris that are actually exacerbating the sectarian violence there?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speak to that, Said. We, of course, broadly speaking – broadly speaking – we have been concerned, of course, about the influx of foreign fighters in Iraq in recent months. That has certainly exacerbated the security situation. That said, of course we continue to advise and assist Iraq in developing strategies with understanding – with the understanding of their own security operations and capabilities, and we’re in close touch with them about that.
QUESTION: Can we stay roughly in the region?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: I know you were asked about this last week when it actually happened – this is the Israeli seizure of the Iranian weapons.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: I just want to know if your position has evolved at all on the question of whether or not this is going to have any impact on the P5+1 talks with the Iranians on the nuclear issue, or if you see them as totally separate entities.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we do. As we’ve said in the past --
QUESTION: You do (inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: -- we do see them separately. As we have said in the past, even while things were proceeding on the P5+1 negotiations we still have maintained our concerns about terrorist activities, about human rights violations. As you know, there are a range of UN Security Council resolutions – or – that remain in place. And so in this case, we of course strongly condemn the violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1929 even as we continue to resolve our efforts in this regard.
QUESTION: So, but Prime Minister Netanyahu does not seem to be too pleased with that position. He thinks that this is a – just another sign of the fact, he would say, that you can’t trust Iran, that they’re going to – so you disagree with him in – when he says – or you would disagree with him when he says that the negotiations clearly can’t achieve anything because the Iranians aren’t interested and the Iranians can’t be trusted?
MS. PSAKI: We would. We don’t think this about trust; same with the negotiations. We will continue to actively oppose and counter Iranian support of terrorism both in the region and internationally, as we will in this case. And obviously, there’s an entire process that will be underway in that regard that the Israelis will lead. We also retain the ability to target and sanction Iranian support for terrorism in the region, as we have many times before, and we’ve also expressly indicated this to Iranian officials. So in our view, we have – it’s in everyone’s interest to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. There are remaining concerns we have about their terrorist activities, about – or activities tied to terrorism, including the transfer, of course, of weapons, and as well as human rights abuses, and we’ll continue to hold them accountable.
QUESTION: But he --
QUESTION: Today published in Israel --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: The Secretary, in his speech, he said that, “We are working towards a zero option for Iran to have enriched uranium,” and so on. So is -- has that message conveyed to the Iranians? Is that what they are – what they believe in? Is that what they --
MS. PSAKI: In Netanyahu’s piece – speech?
QUESTION: Right – no, no, the Secretary’s speech before AIPAC. He said that, “We are working towards a goal where Iran would have zero ability to enrich uranium, not 20 percent, not 5 percent,” and so on, as if this position was clearly made to the Iranians. Do they also espouse the same thing, the Iranians?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, as you know, the comprehensive negotiations are going to kick off again next week. We’re not going to outline end state goals here as a matter of policy. Others may have their own thoughts and views and share those, and that certainly is their prerogative, but we’re not going to from here.
Go ahead – or, Elise, did you – we’ll go to you next.
QUESTION: Israel --
QUESTION: It’s about (inaudible).
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: Excuse me. Today, published in Israel, there are the states going to supply and support Israel by another 12 Iron Dome systems. Do you really believe that by this step, you can facilitate the obstacles in the way to the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there’s an ongoing effort that’s been underway for months led by General Allen to ensure that, when there is a final status agreement, that Israel is stronger than they are today. So I think – I’m not sure if that’s what you’re referring to, but that’s an important part of this effort and is an important part of the discussion. There are obviously several components of what will be discussed – continue to be discussed as a part of the negotiation.
Elise.
QUESTION: This is on the Malaysian Airlines.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: There are some – it seems as if – about these stolen passports that two of the travelers were using, that an Iranian national had purchased these particular – both of these passports, and was just wondering if that raises your concern about any potential Iranian hand in what went on here, and just what your consultation is with other allies in terms of involved in this incident revolving – involving the stolen passport?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I don’t have any more information to offer on this. Obviously, as National Security – Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken said yesterday, certainly these details – or the details of the fact the reports said there were two stolen passports raised concerns and questions, but I don’t have any other confirmation of what you just said from our end or any other details into the investigation. Obviously, it’s being looked into.
Any more on Malaysia?
QUESTION: Well, I just have one more on Malaysia.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead, Elise.
QUESTION: Is it – does the United States use – check – it seems as – part of the problem was that these passports were not checked by Interpol.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And I’m wondering, like, what your arrangement is with other countries in terms of the use of Interpol. Do you check every passport through Interpol when you – when people are boarding U.S. flights?
MS. PSAKI: Well, here’s what I know, and I can venture to get you more details on that if we can answer it: We provide Interpol with electronic updates on lost and stolen U.S. passports. That information is posted as soon as we are aware of it. Obviously, it’s up to Interpol to access the information, but it’s accessible to member law enforcement authorities worldwide. We’re one of the top providers of lost and stolen information to Interpol, and we have provided passport records to Interpol’s stolen and lost documents database since 2004.
In terms of what we specifically do here, Elise, my bet is that is a DHS lead, but let me check on that and see. And is your question – just to clarify here, is your question what the United States airlines do or what we do at our airports, or --
QUESTION: Well, I was interested in your providing information to Interpol and --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- the access procedures on that. And then I was also interested on what your procedures are.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Let me check and see if that’s something we can provide, or I’ll get you the appropriate contact for that.
More on Malaysia?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Have you been in contact with the family of the two American children that were on board? Is it clear that – were their parents passengers? Have you been able to reach any family member?
MS. PSAKI: Let me see here. There were, as you noted, three U.S. citizens. We can confirm those U.S. citizens. I think the information is out there, but let me do that for all of you. Philip Wood, Nicole Meng, and Leo Meng were on board. We don’t have any further information to share regarding these individuals at this point. Obviously, this sometimes can be ongoing in processes like these, so let me see where we are at the end of the day, and if there’s more we can detail for all of you.
More on Malaysia? Go ahead, in the back.
QUESTION: Oh, no, not Malaysia.
MS. PSAKI: Not Malaysia. Malaysia?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Jen, could you give us the whole picture of what the role the U.S. is playing now? What assistance are you providing and are you going to provide?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, two United States-based representatives of the NTSB, joined by two FAA representatives, arrived in Kuala Lumpur on March 10th, so that is today, of course. Our Kuala Lumpur-based law enforcement officials are also cooperating closely with their counterparts. In addition – and I think this came out from DOD, but just so you have all the information – we also provided – P-3 surveillance aircraft and two destroyers are also involved in the search efforts as well. So – and we’re, of course, closely in contact, but those are the specific materials we’ve provided, and individuals.
QUESTION: Are you going to share the spy satellite image with those countries? Because that may indicate explosion or something like that.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more specifics for you on what information will be shared, but obviously, we’re doing everything we can to be helpful in this case.
New topic? Let’s go to the back, just because he hasn’t had any question, and then we’ll go to you next. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. It’s about Japan’s comfort women. The Japanese Government is going to reexamine the process, how it was made by the previous government in early ’90s. It’s called about the Kono Statement on comfort women. And Japanese Government also said that it’s not going to change the statement per se.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So I was wondering if you have – can any comment or view on this process.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, the apologies extended by previous Prime Minister Murayama and former Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono marked an important chapter in Japan improving relations with its neighbors. We note that Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga stated to the press on March 3rd – so last week – that the position of the Abe government is to uphold the Kono statement. We encourage Japan’s leadership to approach this and other issues arising from the past in a manner that is conducive to building stronger relations with its neighbors, so we felt that was a positive step.
Let’s just go around to – and make sure everybody – go ahead.
QUESTION: Staying in Japan, tomorrow, and actually today, in Japan marks the third – three years since the earthquake and tsunami hit Tohoku region, so I have a couple questions about that.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: One, does the State Department have any – a couple comments on the three year anniversary?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Two would be, in what significant ways does the State Department continue to cooperate with Japan to help the residents of the region recover?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And lastly, does the State Department have any lingering concerns about the efforts to clean up the nuclear fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi plant?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, let me see if I can address all of your questions here. One, we’ll – the anniversary, I believe, is tomorrow.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: So we’ll have a statement out tomorrow, so look out for that. And we remain, of course, closely engaged with the Government of Japan regarding the situation at Fukushima nuclear power plant. Since the initial incident in 2011, we have had ongoing exchanges at various levels regarding the situation and remedial actions, reflecting our close alliance and relationship, and of course, shared expertise – and we’ve shared our expertise.
For example, the Department of State provides funding and other assistance to the implementation of the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety, developed in the wake of the Fukushima accident to strengthen nuclear security worldwide, including in Japan. We’ve also worked to assist the remediation and decommissioning effort in Japan, including helping to ensure that the experience and skill of U.S. firms can be available for that work.
Many other U.S. Government agencies and officials are also engaged on the issues related to Fukushima, and that has been ongoing over the course of the last couple of years, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and many others. So that is the broad range of our engagement, which I expect will continue.
QUESTION: Do you have anything specific for the residents there other than just – because I think mostly what you mentioned there was specific towards the nuclear disaster, but what about relief efforts for residents? Do you have programs to provide assistance?
MS. PSAKI: We have a range of programs. I’m sure we can get you a longer list of those, but it is interagency across many government agencies. So I just didn’t want to outline everything from here, but I’m sure we can get you more details if that’s helpful.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Jo.
QUESTION: Can I go to Syria, please?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: I don’t know if you saw the news today that the group of nuns that were kidnapped in December have been released today in a prisoner swap. I wondered if you had a reaction to that.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, of course, we are relieved by the reports that the nuns have been released. We continued to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all those who remain unjustly detained in Syria. I know there have been a range of details out there. I’m not in a position to confirm any of those details. I know the Government of Lebanon has been a resource in terms of specifics, so I would point you to them.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: On Syria?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. Mokhtar Lamani, who’s Lakhdar Brahimi top aide, resigned, like, last week.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There are talks or rumors that Brahimi himself is resigning. Update us, if you would, on what’s going on. He’s supposedly submitting a report before the Security Council this week sometime, on the 13th. What kind of diplomatic activity is ongoing under the leadership of Larry Silverman?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I think, one, there are a range of officials who work on issues related to Syria throughout the building, whether that is people who work on refugee issues or assistance or chemical weapons issues. And so that – all of those activities and tracks are ongoing on a daily basis. Larry Silverman has been – let me see if I have an update on his activities. I think I had something I could have – I think I had something in there. Let me just – give me a moment.
He is, as we confirmed a couple of weeks ago, has been in that acting role. He’s planning to meet – he was planning to meet late last week with some members of the opposition, so let me see if we can get an update for you on the details of that meeting.
QUESTION: Okay. On the – during the meeting between the Secretary of State and the King of Jordan --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- in the last couple days, there is talk about U.S. special forces who are training somebody – training Syrian opposition forces. Could you – I’m sure that topic may have come up during the discussion. Could you update us?
MS. PSAKI: I think you’re referring to the – and I think DOD confirmed this --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: -- but I’m happy to do that as well, that we recently sent a small contingent of Special Operations personnel to Jordan to participate in military-to-military training exchange – a military-to-military training exchange with Jordanian and Iraqi counterterrorism forces. The training will – was meant to – will – is meant to bolster skills in counterterrorism and special operations tactics, techniques, and procedures. But this is, again, a training exchange with Jordanian and Iraqi counterterrorism forces. So I would point you, though, to DOD for more specifics on that.
QUESTION: So is it --
QUESTION: Are there any Syrians involved?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: That – those are – that is what I have on this specific issue. This is a mil-to-mil on this specific case.
Iraq or a different – we can change topics. That’s fine.
QUESTION: Yeah, we can change topics.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I have on North Korea and one on Japan if that’s all right.
MS. PSAKI: Sure, okay.
QUESTION: One is, I was just wondering if you have any reaction to elections, using the term loosely, in North Korea, or the --
MS. PSAKI: I will simply say that is not a model for democracy around the world.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Japan?
QUESTION: And then – yeah --
QUESTION: Wait a second. Are you suggesting that it’s necessarily wrong for one candidate to get 100 percent of the vote? (Laughter.) What if that’s an – what if it was actually free and fair and that happened?
MS. PSAKI: It would be a historic outcome, Matt. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: What if he’s the only one that wanted to run, though?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t know that I have much more analysis for all of you, as fun as this is. (Laughter.)
Go ahead. Japan?
QUESTION: Yeah. There was a recent report – I think it was today that it was released by the Center for Public Integrity – on a new nuclear power plant that’s set to open in Japan, which will produce uranium and plutonium that could be weapons – used for weapons. Is the U.S. concerned at all that there are security issues or that the site might become a target for terrorists?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have all the details on that. Let me talk to our team about it. You know how closely we coordinate and cooperate with Japan on a range of – on defense issues. We were just there last October for the 2+2 meeting, so let me check with our team and see if there’s concerns that we want to express on that front.
QUESTION: Yes, please. Just wondered if you have a chance to study or understand better the ongoing – I mean, the tension between GCC countries. I mean, or – because the last week you said you are following it, and I don’t know if you have a chance to – you have a point of view about it or you have something to say about it?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new to offer from last week.
QUESTION: I mean, you prefer not to say something, you mean?
MS. PSAKI: That’s right. I prefer not to add to what I already said last week.
QUESTION: Okay. There is another question. You released yesterday a press release about the illicitly shipment of oil from Libya.
MS. PSAKI: From Libya, mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Yeah, and was just wondering, what is the significance or the importance of this issue regarding foreign policy?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what the – oftentimes, we release statements for a range of issues, and we are asked to comment on a range of issues around the world. So that was an expression of what was happening here. And this is a violation, as we understand it, of Libyan law, given the circumstances on the ground.
QUESTION: Yes. I was trying to figure out if it’s something new or it’s an ongoing something that then you discovered it now.
MS. PSAKI: In terms of the specific event that took place?
QUESTION: I mean – now – no, in general, this illicitly – shipment of oil from Libya was – it’s a phenomenon now or it’s an incident?
MS. PSAKI: I think we were commenting on the specific incident, so that was the purpose of the statement we put out yesterday.
QUESTION: Can I go back to Iran just for one second?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: This has to do with not Levinson, recognizing that there was a statement about him and the anniversary of his disappearance, but do you have anything new on the status of the other Americans who – recognizing that you’re not saying that – where Levinson actually is, but do you have anything new on the Americans who you know are being held in Iranian prisons now?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any new details. It’s an understandable question. I mean, what I could provide probably is an update on when our protecting power has most recently reached out, so let me do that. Beyond that, I don’t have additional updates.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Any more questions?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: No, I’ve got --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I got two real brief ones.
MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: There seems to be some confusion over some comments that you made on Friday about the whole recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I’m wondering if you can address those. Has the Administration changed its position on this?
MS. PSAKI: We have not. Our position has been for quite some time that Israel is a Jewish state.
QUESTION: Okay. And is it also your position that the Israeli demand for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is something to be determined in the negotiations?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: It’s not a precondition?
QUESTION: And that is not a precondition?
MS. PSAKI: We’re not going to negotiate, I’m not going to negotiate what should or should not be in a framework. Obviously, that’s going to happen between the parties. Our position has remained the same.
QUESTION: Okay. But your position that Israel is a Jewish state does not in any way preclude, let’s say, a different outcome by the two parties, correct?
MS. PSAKI: That is our position. I’m not going to comment further.
QUESTION: All right. My last one is just a housekeeping thing from a subject that I wish was – well, whatever. Have you – are you aware that – if the State Department or the Embassy in Cairo has lodged a formal complaint with the Egyptians over the treatment of Medea Benjamin when she was detained at the airport?
MS. PSAKI: They have not. Let me give you a little more information on just how this typically works. We do not – we would not inquire about a – about treatment unless that was a question posed by the individual asking us to do that. That has not happened in this case.
QUESTION: So --
MS. PSAKI: We have been in touch, as I said, about other issues, including our inability to reach her last week or the week before.
QUESTION: You’ve been in touch with her about that?
MS. PSAKI: We’ve reached out to Egyptian authorities about that, as I said on Friday.
QUESTION: You’ve reached out to Egyptian authorities as to why you were not able to see her before she was deported?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Okay. But she has not – and if I understand what you said correctly, she has not asked you to make a complaint to the Egyptians about her treatment. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: Correct. We have not received such a request from Ms. Benjamin at this time.
QUESTION: Is that a requirement for you to lodge a protest?
MS. PSAKI: It is standard practice for us to gain an individual’s permission before raising allegations of mistreatment, so that has not happened in this case.
QUESTION: Okay. But presumably, if the situation was dire enough, you don’t – I mean, it’s not a requirement for you to have permission or a request from the person who was allegedly mistreated, is it?
MS. PSAKI: Well --
QUESTION: You can do it without that?
MS. PSAKI: Not to get too technical here, but I’ll just go there. In the Foreign Affairs Manual --
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: -- it says that we must “gain the permission to protest the abuse or mistreatment.” So that is outlined in the Foreign Affairs Manual in that capacity.
QUESTION: And absent that, you are not allowed to protest?
MS. PSAKI: I will have to check with more specific details about what we are and aren’t allowed to do, but that is standard operating procedure, so that’s why we’ve proceeded in this manner.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 10, 2014
TRANSCRIPT:
1:23 p.m. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. All right. I don’t have anything at the top, so Matt, let’s get to what’s on your mind.
QUESTION: You have nothing at the top?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything at the top.
QUESTION: All right. Well, let’s start with --
MS. PSAKI: I’m sure you all saw, we just put out a statement, though --
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: -- which I’m happy to reiterate. But I just wanted to make sure you’d seen that as well.
QUESTION: Are there any plans – on Ukraine. Are there any plans for any kind of communication between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov, or anyone else for that matter, on Ukraine? And – well, I’ll let you answer that first before I ask the next one.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, as you know, Secretary Kerry has been in close contact with Foreign Minister Lavrov over the course of the last couple of weeks. He spoke with them as recently as Saturday and he – we put out a readout of that. I don’t have any calls to predict, but I expect they will be in close contact in the coming 24 to 48 hours.
QUESTION: Okay. One of the things in this rather extraordinary transcript of a – of the meeting between President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov that has appeared on Russian – the Russian websites, it talks about how – that Lavrov invited the Secretary to visit Russia – I don’t know if it was Moscow or Sochi – today, or as early as today, and that the Secretary was kind of ambivalent, but then on Saturday called – in the call – Lavrov called and said he basically couldn’t make it today. Is that still a possibility?
MS. PSAKI: That we will go to Russia today? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No. No, no. That there will be some kind of – that there will be a face-to-face meeting between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov before Sunday when the referendum is supposed to happen in Crimea.
MS. PSAKI: Well, there is always a possibility. We evaluate day to day. And this was in the statement but just let me reiterate because I know we just put it out. When Secretary Kerry spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov this weekend, he made clear that he would welcome further discussions focused on how to de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine if and when we see concrete evidence that Russia is prepared to engage on these proposals.
You’ve traveled – all of you have traveled with the Secretary quite a bit. He never shies away from hopping on a plane or having an in-person meeting, but we want to ensure that that is undertaken with seriousness on the other end as well.
QUESTION: Fair enough. So your caveat there is if and when Russia is prepared to engage. Have you seen any willingness on the part of the Russians to engage on these ideas, either the initial ideas that were presented or any amended follow-up briefs?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there have been, as you know because there have been kind of a range of reports here – some from Foreign Minister Lavrov, some in the statement we put out – about there’s been an ongoing dialogue, whether that’s been on the phone or in person, through paper, not through paper, verbal ideas, about ideas. And they address all of the issues that we have been talking about, so: letting OSCE monitors in, international observers; the mechanism for a meeting through a contact group. So we’re having that discussion day by day. Obviously, the Russians continue to be engaged in that discussion, but we haven’t, of course, agreed on – we’re waiting for a response to the recent questions that we sent over.
QUESTION: Okay, so I’m going to take that as the answer to my question is no, you have not yet seen any movement from the Russians that they’re willing to engage on what – your proposals.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re engaging, but no, we have not decided – right.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can I follow up with Ukraine?
MS. PSAKI: Let’s – Ukraine, okay. And then we’ll go to Michael, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah, on the Ukraine. You said you have international monitors. To monitor what? To do what?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there has been an ongoing focus – we’ve called for it many times, as have many of our international partners --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: -- to let OSCE monitors in – because the Russians have conveyed concerns about how minorities are treated. If they feel very – as strongly about that as they say they do, they should let these monitors in. The monitors have attempted many times and haven’t had the ability to get in.
QUESTION: Okay, so lest then be any confusion, the monitor is just to see how the minorities are faring – not, let’s say, some sort of an endorsement for the referendum in any way, to look at the referendum or the possible referendum next week. Is it?
MS. PSAKI: No, I think we’ve spoken to the referendum pretty extensively. The OSCE monitors is specifically for the reasons I laid out.
Michael.
QUESTION: Hi, Jen. The Russians announced today that Secretary Kerry had presented a one – a paper, a document of some kind, to their side last week in Europe. What are the main elements of the paper? Since they’ve deemed it to be insufficient, and they’ve said it’s not a basis for going forward, it’d be helpful to know what the main elements of your document are.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I just mentioned, but let me --
QUESTION: Or just tell us what’s in the paper.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I’m not going to provide all the details of the paper, but you are also --
QUESTION: Did the --
QUESTION: What are the elements of the paper?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. PSAKI: Let me – I’m just going to answer Michael’s question. Obviously, the discussion, whether that’s the paper or whether it’s verbal discussions, whether it’s meetings we’re having, is all about what the mechanism can be for the Russians and the Ukrainians to meet to engage person to person. There are other issues as well as letting monitors in, as well as mechanisms for the meeting that we’re discussing. But I think it’s important to note here there is paper exchanged all the time, as you all know, through diplomatic processes. It doesn’t mean – this is not a treaty document that was given.
QUESTION: Jen, I didn’t say it was a treaty document.
MS. PSAKI: I know that. But some people --
QUESTION: The Russians are --
MS. PSAKI: -- are over-emphasizing the importance of the paper.
QUESTION: Excuse me. I’m trying to --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: I’m giving you an opportunity --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- which you’re not taking --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- to explain what your document is, which the Russians have announced they’ve received a document. They’ve commented on this document. They’ve put down this document. And I didn’t say it was a treaty. What I’m asking you is: What is the main elements of the document, and also what are the Saturday questions that you felt compelled to ask following – after giving them this document?
MS. PSAKI: I understand what you’re asking. What I’m conveying is that I’m not going to outline every specific of what’s being discussed through diplomatic channels. You know what the issues are. The issues are: How can we come up – come to agreement on a mechanism for the Ukrainians and the Russians to talk? What’s the format? Is it through an international contact group?
Obviously, the Russians haven’t agreed to that; otherwise, that would be happening now. So that’s the big focus of any of these ideas that are being tossed back and forth between our sides. But I’m not going to outline every element of the document.
QUESTION: Jen, Jen –
MS. PSAKI: I understand.
QUESTION: -- just to be fair --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- I didn’t ask you to outline every element.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: So it’s not really fair, I don’t think, to take my words and --
MS. PSAKI: That wasn’t my intention.
QUESTION: -- distort them.
MS. PSAKI: Wasn’t my intention.
QUESTION: I didn’t ask you for every element. What I asked you was if you could explain what the main elements or main thoughts in the paper and the questions were. You don’t want to do that. Okay, I accept that.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: But I didn’t ask you – I didn’t say it was a treaty and I didn’t ask you to present every element.
MS. PSAKI: I understand. I did not mean to distort your words in any way. I would not do that. I know people are asking a range of questions about it.
QUESTION: Well --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Elise.
QUESTION: I mean, it looks as if the Russians are putting the onus back on you. Instead of you kind of explaining what you’re trying to do with the Russians, the Russians are saying that Secretary Kerry is refusing to negotiate, they’re disparaging the proposal that you supposedly made to the Russians.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: So I mean, they’re – basically, you’re allowing them to create the narrative by --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think – I think – let me just state where we stand. We want to see a cessation of Russian military activities in Ukraine, including in Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula. We want to see a halt in the drive for annexation of Crimea, an end of provocative steps to provide space, of course, as you all know. We’ve all been talking about – Secretary Kerry was there – many of you were with him – all of last week, talking about a mechanism and a format for bringing the Ukrainians and the Russians together to engage in a conversation. That’s a big – that is the focus of what we’re having discussions about, whether that was when he was talking to Foreign Minister Lavrov this weekend, if they engage in the next 24 to 48 hours. I don’t think there’s a secret about what we would like to see here, what we’re proposing --
QUESTION: So if there’s no secret, why can’t you tell us?
MS. PSAKI: I’m just telling you exactly what there’s a discussion about. And as I mentioned, obviously there have been a series of questions we have posed back addressing all of those issues. We’re waiting to hear a response back to those. But that’s exactly where we want to see things move.
QUESTION: What other questions could there be about these things – other will you do these things or not?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again --
QUESTION: I mean, what types of questions?
MS. PSAKI: Elise, I think a big part of the discussion is the mechanism for how we’re going to have a format for the two sides to get together. There’s a range of questions that can be posed about that, and also about the issue writ large. So that’s what we’re waiting to hear back on. The Secretary is always happy to have a diplomatic engagement, whether that’s in person or on the phone, and I expect he’ll be in touch in the coming 24 to 48 hours.
QUESTION: So can I just check --
QUESTION: Also on Ukraine --
MS. PSAKI: Let’s just do one at a time. Go ahead, Jo.
QUESTION: I think you addressed this as I was running from the bullpen to the --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- to here. But so Foreign Minister Lavrov did invite the Secretary to come to Moscow today, correct?
MS. PSAKI: I think there was a discussion about when he might visit. But again, as I said, we have clear steps we think the Russians need to take in order for that to take place.
QUESTION: So in other words, the reason for not going today, or tomorrow, was that you don’t feel that the Russians have taken the steps needed?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I – I think as I said earlier, we think there needs to be concrete evidence that Russia is prepared to engage on these proposals and in these discussions in a serious way.
QUESTION: And so what would constitute concrete evidence in your view?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t know if I can define that for you too easily. Obviously, a big --
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you are defining it.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Obviously, a big part of this is taking the process seriously in terms of a discussion about how the two sides can meet and about that diplomatic step, which I think the international community agrees is a really important part in terms of where we are in the process at this stage.
QUESTION: So are you saying that behind this there’s a problem with the contact group that you want to set up? Is that – when you say there’s a problem about how the two sides meet --
MS. PSAKI: There’s not --
QUESTION: -- you’re talking about Ukrainians and the Russians?
MS. PSAKI: -- a problem. There’s not a problem. But obviously, we need to determine when there is an appropriate seriousness on the Russian side about engaging on discussions about steps forward. That is not a scientifically easy thing to answer in terms of when we’ll know. We’ll know when we know that it’s the appropriate time to engage in person.
QUESTION: Sorry, just to close this out.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So you say the Russians are not prepared to meet with the Ukrainians?
MS. PSAKI: Right. The new government. Right.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Ukraine. Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: It’s reported that Mr. Yarosh now has a position in this new government in a national security role. Is the United States concerned that the head of a fascist organization is representing in a government that we are supporting, in fact, that we have really kind of put together? Are there concerns about this and will this be taken up when President Yats comes here on Wednesday, meeting with the President?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the White House has pretty clearly outlined what the purpose of that meeting is. Obviously, it’s continued engagement, given the situation on the ground. The new government was – we certainly recognize the legitimacy of that, but it was put together with the support of the parliament on the ground. So I don’t think I have any further comment for you.
Go ahead, Elise.
QUESTION: Can I --
QUESTION: Can you say on Secretary Lavrov – Foreign Minister Lavrov put forward a proposal that he wants an OSCE investigation of the people behind the shootings in the Maidan. There were a lot of reports. We know about the phone call with the Estonian foreign minister, that there were reports that the people – the groups on the Maidan had put this thing together. There were reported military – security – private security companies which were on the ground in the Maidan, perhaps even Blackwater has been mooted. Isn’t this worth an investigation to find out one of the decisive elements of this so-called revolt that led to this new government? Is the U.S. not interested in --
MS. PSAKI: Again, I think the OSCE monitors are not even being let into Crimea right now, so perhaps that can be a first step.
Elise.
QUESTION: No, I just want to put a fine point on it.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: When you talk about that one of the reasons that the Secretary didn’t go was because you didn’t sense an appropriate seriousness by the Russians in terms of engaging. So basically, the fact that they’re not prepared to meet with the new government is your indicator of whether they’re serious or not?
MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s about their willingness to engage and how to de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine. Obviously, they say that’s their focus. We want to see the evidence.
QUESTION: Have they given you any ideas on how they feel that you --
MS. PSAKI: There is an ongoing discussion about it, Elise. But we need – that is a key proponent. It’s not about requiring they meet with the – I’m not saying you’re saying this, but just to be clear – requiring they agree to meet with the new government. But it needs to be a discussion about the mechanisms for moving forward. It’s not that we are never going. We may go. It’s always possible. We evaluate day by day. But that is why we’re not there this moment.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, I understand that you don’t agree with the premise, but the Russian Government does not recognize this new government. So that’s why they don’t want to meet with them; isn’t that right?
MS. PSAKI: Well, the Ukraine parliament recognizes the new government. The international community recognizes the new government. So the issue here is: How do we move forward and engage the Russians with the new government that is broadly supported across the country?
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS. PSAKI: Ukraine? Any more on Ukraine? Okay, Iraq. Okay. Did you – are you – okay.
QUESTION: Until now I just --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, in the back. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, yes, yes. I don’t understand yet what is your interpretation that the Secretary of State canceled his visit to Moscow regarding --
MS. PSAKI: There wasn’t a visit planned.
QUESTION: -- regarding --
MS. PSAKI: There wasn’t a visit planned, so nothing’s canceled. We travel all the time. Secretary Kerry saw Foreign Minister Lavrov just last week. We still keep the option open, of course, of traveling at any point in time.
QUESTION: To Moscow, not to the other places.
MS. PSAKI: It could be a range of locations. It hasn’t been determined because we don’t have a trip planned at this moment.
QUESTION: And what else you have in your diplomacy arsenal now to deal with the Ukraine crisis?
MS. PSAKI: What else do we have in our diplomat – what are the other options, or --
QUESTION: Yes, diplomacy options.
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think as I said in the beginning, that I expect the Secretary will be in touch with Foreign Minister Lavrov in the coming 24 to 48 hours. As you’ve seen over the weekend, President Obama has been closely engaged with a range of partners around the world from a broad list of countries. And so we continue to have discussions. Our focus is on coordinating with the international community about everything from sanctions and steps we will take to put the appropriate pressure on, while also leaving the off-ramp opportunity for the Russians and laying out clearly what they could do at this point. So those conversations are ongoing on a daily basis.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS. PSAKI: Do we have any more on Ukraine? Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly --
MS. PSAKI: On Ukraine. Go ahead.
QUESTION: A follow up on the phone call – I know President Obama spoke with the Chinese President Xi Jinping.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What’s your expectation from China on Ukraine? And given the close tie between China and Russia, are you concerned China may go further to support Russia?
MS. PSAKI: Well, our hope continues to be that many members of the international community, including China, are in coordination and cooperation about the illegal steps that Russia took in this case and the pressure that needs to be exerted from not just the United States, but countries around the world.
QUESTION: But where do you see China stands now?
MS. PSAKI: I think I just addressed it.
Said?
QUESTION: Does China – a follow up. Does China really accept that premise that this was an illegal operation, or is it simply concerned over the uncertainty that they would like to resolve that’s the basis of their cooperation? Have they really accepted the U.S. attitude towards --
MS. PSAKI: I will let China speak to that.
Said.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask very quickly on Iraq.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki issued a statement bluntly accusing two of your allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, of being behind the sectarian war that is taking place in Iraq. I wonder if you have any comments on that.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well – sorry, Said. Can you repeat your question one more time just to make sure I’m addressing the right one here?
QUESTION: My question was that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki accused overtly both the countries of the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar of being behind --
MS. PSAKI: Yes. Yes, yes, yes.
QUESTION: -- the escalation of the sectarian violence that is taking place.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Iraq has made significant progress in improving relations with some countries in the region, such as Kuwait and Jordan, but progress with others has been limited. We continue to encourage improved ties between Iraq and its Arab neighbors, particularly the GCC. The situation in Syria has certainly fueled tensions in the region and foreign fighters are making their way into Iraq from Syria. We are particularly concerned, of course, about this. We share Iraq’s concern over the levels of violence, and we are working with the Iraqis to implement a holistic strategy. I would, of course, refer you otherwise to the Government of Iraq.
QUESTION: Do you agree – or, I mean – does your intelligence – I don’t know if – what they see, or the Embassy in Baghdad, that is a very large Embassy. Do they also see or do they detect activities by the Saudis and the Qataris that are actually exacerbating the sectarian violence there?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speak to that, Said. We, of course, broadly speaking – broadly speaking – we have been concerned, of course, about the influx of foreign fighters in Iraq in recent months. That has certainly exacerbated the security situation. That said, of course we continue to advise and assist Iraq in developing strategies with understanding – with the understanding of their own security operations and capabilities, and we’re in close touch with them about that.
QUESTION: Can we stay roughly in the region?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: I know you were asked about this last week when it actually happened – this is the Israeli seizure of the Iranian weapons.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: I just want to know if your position has evolved at all on the question of whether or not this is going to have any impact on the P5+1 talks with the Iranians on the nuclear issue, or if you see them as totally separate entities.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we do. As we’ve said in the past --
QUESTION: You do (inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: -- we do see them separately. As we have said in the past, even while things were proceeding on the P5+1 negotiations we still have maintained our concerns about terrorist activities, about human rights violations. As you know, there are a range of UN Security Council resolutions – or – that remain in place. And so in this case, we of course strongly condemn the violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1929 even as we continue to resolve our efforts in this regard.
QUESTION: So, but Prime Minister Netanyahu does not seem to be too pleased with that position. He thinks that this is a – just another sign of the fact, he would say, that you can’t trust Iran, that they’re going to – so you disagree with him in – when he says – or you would disagree with him when he says that the negotiations clearly can’t achieve anything because the Iranians aren’t interested and the Iranians can’t be trusted?
MS. PSAKI: We would. We don’t think this about trust; same with the negotiations. We will continue to actively oppose and counter Iranian support of terrorism both in the region and internationally, as we will in this case. And obviously, there’s an entire process that will be underway in that regard that the Israelis will lead. We also retain the ability to target and sanction Iranian support for terrorism in the region, as we have many times before, and we’ve also expressly indicated this to Iranian officials. So in our view, we have – it’s in everyone’s interest to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. There are remaining concerns we have about their terrorist activities, about – or activities tied to terrorism, including the transfer, of course, of weapons, and as well as human rights abuses, and we’ll continue to hold them accountable.
QUESTION: But he --
QUESTION: Today published in Israel --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: The Secretary, in his speech, he said that, “We are working towards a zero option for Iran to have enriched uranium,” and so on. So is -- has that message conveyed to the Iranians? Is that what they are – what they believe in? Is that what they --
MS. PSAKI: In Netanyahu’s piece – speech?
QUESTION: Right – no, no, the Secretary’s speech before AIPAC. He said that, “We are working towards a goal where Iran would have zero ability to enrich uranium, not 20 percent, not 5 percent,” and so on, as if this position was clearly made to the Iranians. Do they also espouse the same thing, the Iranians?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, as you know, the comprehensive negotiations are going to kick off again next week. We’re not going to outline end state goals here as a matter of policy. Others may have their own thoughts and views and share those, and that certainly is their prerogative, but we’re not going to from here.
Go ahead – or, Elise, did you – we’ll go to you next.
QUESTION: Israel --
QUESTION: It’s about (inaudible).
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: Excuse me. Today, published in Israel, there are the states going to supply and support Israel by another 12 Iron Dome systems. Do you really believe that by this step, you can facilitate the obstacles in the way to the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there’s an ongoing effort that’s been underway for months led by General Allen to ensure that, when there is a final status agreement, that Israel is stronger than they are today. So I think – I’m not sure if that’s what you’re referring to, but that’s an important part of this effort and is an important part of the discussion. There are obviously several components of what will be discussed – continue to be discussed as a part of the negotiation.
Elise.
QUESTION: This is on the Malaysian Airlines.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: There are some – it seems as if – about these stolen passports that two of the travelers were using, that an Iranian national had purchased these particular – both of these passports, and was just wondering if that raises your concern about any potential Iranian hand in what went on here, and just what your consultation is with other allies in terms of involved in this incident revolving – involving the stolen passport?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I don’t have any more information to offer on this. Obviously, as National Security – Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken said yesterday, certainly these details – or the details of the fact the reports said there were two stolen passports raised concerns and questions, but I don’t have any other confirmation of what you just said from our end or any other details into the investigation. Obviously, it’s being looked into.
Any more on Malaysia?
QUESTION: Well, I just have one more on Malaysia.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead, Elise.
QUESTION: Is it – does the United States use – check – it seems as – part of the problem was that these passports were not checked by Interpol.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And I’m wondering, like, what your arrangement is with other countries in terms of the use of Interpol. Do you check every passport through Interpol when you – when people are boarding U.S. flights?
MS. PSAKI: Well, here’s what I know, and I can venture to get you more details on that if we can answer it: We provide Interpol with electronic updates on lost and stolen U.S. passports. That information is posted as soon as we are aware of it. Obviously, it’s up to Interpol to access the information, but it’s accessible to member law enforcement authorities worldwide. We’re one of the top providers of lost and stolen information to Interpol, and we have provided passport records to Interpol’s stolen and lost documents database since 2004.
In terms of what we specifically do here, Elise, my bet is that is a DHS lead, but let me check on that and see. And is your question – just to clarify here, is your question what the United States airlines do or what we do at our airports, or --
QUESTION: Well, I was interested in your providing information to Interpol and --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- the access procedures on that. And then I was also interested on what your procedures are.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Let me check and see if that’s something we can provide, or I’ll get you the appropriate contact for that.
More on Malaysia?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Have you been in contact with the family of the two American children that were on board? Is it clear that – were their parents passengers? Have you been able to reach any family member?
MS. PSAKI: Let me see here. There were, as you noted, three U.S. citizens. We can confirm those U.S. citizens. I think the information is out there, but let me do that for all of you. Philip Wood, Nicole Meng, and Leo Meng were on board. We don’t have any further information to share regarding these individuals at this point. Obviously, this sometimes can be ongoing in processes like these, so let me see where we are at the end of the day, and if there’s more we can detail for all of you.
More on Malaysia? Go ahead, in the back.
QUESTION: Oh, no, not Malaysia.
MS. PSAKI: Not Malaysia. Malaysia?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Jen, could you give us the whole picture of what the role the U.S. is playing now? What assistance are you providing and are you going to provide?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, two United States-based representatives of the NTSB, joined by two FAA representatives, arrived in Kuala Lumpur on March 10th, so that is today, of course. Our Kuala Lumpur-based law enforcement officials are also cooperating closely with their counterparts. In addition – and I think this came out from DOD, but just so you have all the information – we also provided – P-3 surveillance aircraft and two destroyers are also involved in the search efforts as well. So – and we’re, of course, closely in contact, but those are the specific materials we’ve provided, and individuals.
QUESTION: Are you going to share the spy satellite image with those countries? Because that may indicate explosion or something like that.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more specifics for you on what information will be shared, but obviously, we’re doing everything we can to be helpful in this case.
New topic? Let’s go to the back, just because he hasn’t had any question, and then we’ll go to you next. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. It’s about Japan’s comfort women. The Japanese Government is going to reexamine the process, how it was made by the previous government in early ’90s. It’s called about the Kono Statement on comfort women. And Japanese Government also said that it’s not going to change the statement per se.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So I was wondering if you have – can any comment or view on this process.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, the apologies extended by previous Prime Minister Murayama and former Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono marked an important chapter in Japan improving relations with its neighbors. We note that Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga stated to the press on March 3rd – so last week – that the position of the Abe government is to uphold the Kono statement. We encourage Japan’s leadership to approach this and other issues arising from the past in a manner that is conducive to building stronger relations with its neighbors, so we felt that was a positive step.
Let’s just go around to – and make sure everybody – go ahead.
QUESTION: Staying in Japan, tomorrow, and actually today, in Japan marks the third – three years since the earthquake and tsunami hit Tohoku region, so I have a couple questions about that.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: One, does the State Department have any – a couple comments on the three year anniversary?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Two would be, in what significant ways does the State Department continue to cooperate with Japan to help the residents of the region recover?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And lastly, does the State Department have any lingering concerns about the efforts to clean up the nuclear fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi plant?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, let me see if I can address all of your questions here. One, we’ll – the anniversary, I believe, is tomorrow.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: So we’ll have a statement out tomorrow, so look out for that. And we remain, of course, closely engaged with the Government of Japan regarding the situation at Fukushima nuclear power plant. Since the initial incident in 2011, we have had ongoing exchanges at various levels regarding the situation and remedial actions, reflecting our close alliance and relationship, and of course, shared expertise – and we’ve shared our expertise.
For example, the Department of State provides funding and other assistance to the implementation of the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety, developed in the wake of the Fukushima accident to strengthen nuclear security worldwide, including in Japan. We’ve also worked to assist the remediation and decommissioning effort in Japan, including helping to ensure that the experience and skill of U.S. firms can be available for that work.
Many other U.S. Government agencies and officials are also engaged on the issues related to Fukushima, and that has been ongoing over the course of the last couple of years, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and many others. So that is the broad range of our engagement, which I expect will continue.
QUESTION: Do you have anything specific for the residents there other than just – because I think mostly what you mentioned there was specific towards the nuclear disaster, but what about relief efforts for residents? Do you have programs to provide assistance?
MS. PSAKI: We have a range of programs. I’m sure we can get you a longer list of those, but it is interagency across many government agencies. So I just didn’t want to outline everything from here, but I’m sure we can get you more details if that’s helpful.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Jo.
QUESTION: Can I go to Syria, please?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: I don’t know if you saw the news today that the group of nuns that were kidnapped in December have been released today in a prisoner swap. I wondered if you had a reaction to that.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, of course, we are relieved by the reports that the nuns have been released. We continued to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all those who remain unjustly detained in Syria. I know there have been a range of details out there. I’m not in a position to confirm any of those details. I know the Government of Lebanon has been a resource in terms of specifics, so I would point you to them.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: On Syria?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. Mokhtar Lamani, who’s Lakhdar Brahimi top aide, resigned, like, last week.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There are talks or rumors that Brahimi himself is resigning. Update us, if you would, on what’s going on. He’s supposedly submitting a report before the Security Council this week sometime, on the 13th. What kind of diplomatic activity is ongoing under the leadership of Larry Silverman?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I think, one, there are a range of officials who work on issues related to Syria throughout the building, whether that is people who work on refugee issues or assistance or chemical weapons issues. And so that – all of those activities and tracks are ongoing on a daily basis. Larry Silverman has been – let me see if I have an update on his activities. I think I had something I could have – I think I had something in there. Let me just – give me a moment.
He is, as we confirmed a couple of weeks ago, has been in that acting role. He’s planning to meet – he was planning to meet late last week with some members of the opposition, so let me see if we can get an update for you on the details of that meeting.
QUESTION: Okay. On the – during the meeting between the Secretary of State and the King of Jordan --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- in the last couple days, there is talk about U.S. special forces who are training somebody – training Syrian opposition forces. Could you – I’m sure that topic may have come up during the discussion. Could you update us?
MS. PSAKI: I think you’re referring to the – and I think DOD confirmed this --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: -- but I’m happy to do that as well, that we recently sent a small contingent of Special Operations personnel to Jordan to participate in military-to-military training exchange – a military-to-military training exchange with Jordanian and Iraqi counterterrorism forces. The training will – was meant to – will – is meant to bolster skills in counterterrorism and special operations tactics, techniques, and procedures. But this is, again, a training exchange with Jordanian and Iraqi counterterrorism forces. So I would point you, though, to DOD for more specifics on that.
QUESTION: So is it --
QUESTION: Are there any Syrians involved?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: That – those are – that is what I have on this specific issue. This is a mil-to-mil on this specific case.
Iraq or a different – we can change topics. That’s fine.
QUESTION: Yeah, we can change topics.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I have on North Korea and one on Japan if that’s all right.
MS. PSAKI: Sure, okay.
QUESTION: One is, I was just wondering if you have any reaction to elections, using the term loosely, in North Korea, or the --
MS. PSAKI: I will simply say that is not a model for democracy around the world.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Japan?
QUESTION: And then – yeah --
QUESTION: Wait a second. Are you suggesting that it’s necessarily wrong for one candidate to get 100 percent of the vote? (Laughter.) What if that’s an – what if it was actually free and fair and that happened?
MS. PSAKI: It would be a historic outcome, Matt. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: What if he’s the only one that wanted to run, though?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t know that I have much more analysis for all of you, as fun as this is. (Laughter.)
Go ahead. Japan?
QUESTION: Yeah. There was a recent report – I think it was today that it was released by the Center for Public Integrity – on a new nuclear power plant that’s set to open in Japan, which will produce uranium and plutonium that could be weapons – used for weapons. Is the U.S. concerned at all that there are security issues or that the site might become a target for terrorists?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have all the details on that. Let me talk to our team about it. You know how closely we coordinate and cooperate with Japan on a range of – on defense issues. We were just there last October for the 2+2 meeting, so let me check with our team and see if there’s concerns that we want to express on that front.
QUESTION: Yes, please. Just wondered if you have a chance to study or understand better the ongoing – I mean, the tension between GCC countries. I mean, or – because the last week you said you are following it, and I don’t know if you have a chance to – you have a point of view about it or you have something to say about it?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new to offer from last week.
QUESTION: I mean, you prefer not to say something, you mean?
MS. PSAKI: That’s right. I prefer not to add to what I already said last week.
QUESTION: Okay. There is another question. You released yesterday a press release about the illicitly shipment of oil from Libya.
MS. PSAKI: From Libya, mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Yeah, and was just wondering, what is the significance or the importance of this issue regarding foreign policy?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what the – oftentimes, we release statements for a range of issues, and we are asked to comment on a range of issues around the world. So that was an expression of what was happening here. And this is a violation, as we understand it, of Libyan law, given the circumstances on the ground.
QUESTION: Yes. I was trying to figure out if it’s something new or it’s an ongoing something that then you discovered it now.
MS. PSAKI: In terms of the specific event that took place?
QUESTION: I mean – now – no, in general, this illicitly – shipment of oil from Libya was – it’s a phenomenon now or it’s an incident?
MS. PSAKI: I think we were commenting on the specific incident, so that was the purpose of the statement we put out yesterday.
QUESTION: Can I go back to Iran just for one second?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: This has to do with not Levinson, recognizing that there was a statement about him and the anniversary of his disappearance, but do you have anything new on the status of the other Americans who – recognizing that you’re not saying that – where Levinson actually is, but do you have anything new on the Americans who you know are being held in Iranian prisons now?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any new details. It’s an understandable question. I mean, what I could provide probably is an update on when our protecting power has most recently reached out, so let me do that. Beyond that, I don’t have additional updates.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Any more questions?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: No, I’ve got --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I got two real brief ones.
MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: There seems to be some confusion over some comments that you made on Friday about the whole recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I’m wondering if you can address those. Has the Administration changed its position on this?
MS. PSAKI: We have not. Our position has been for quite some time that Israel is a Jewish state.
QUESTION: Okay. And is it also your position that the Israeli demand for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is something to be determined in the negotiations?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: It’s not a precondition?
QUESTION: And that is not a precondition?
MS. PSAKI: We’re not going to negotiate, I’m not going to negotiate what should or should not be in a framework. Obviously, that’s going to happen between the parties. Our position has remained the same.
QUESTION: Okay. But your position that Israel is a Jewish state does not in any way preclude, let’s say, a different outcome by the two parties, correct?
MS. PSAKI: That is our position. I’m not going to comment further.
QUESTION: All right. My last one is just a housekeeping thing from a subject that I wish was – well, whatever. Have you – are you aware that – if the State Department or the Embassy in Cairo has lodged a formal complaint with the Egyptians over the treatment of Medea Benjamin when she was detained at the airport?
MS. PSAKI: They have not. Let me give you a little more information on just how this typically works. We do not – we would not inquire about a – about treatment unless that was a question posed by the individual asking us to do that. That has not happened in this case.
QUESTION: So --
MS. PSAKI: We have been in touch, as I said, about other issues, including our inability to reach her last week or the week before.
QUESTION: You’ve been in touch with her about that?
MS. PSAKI: We’ve reached out to Egyptian authorities about that, as I said on Friday.
QUESTION: You’ve reached out to Egyptian authorities as to why you were not able to see her before she was deported?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Okay. But she has not – and if I understand what you said correctly, she has not asked you to make a complaint to the Egyptians about her treatment. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: Correct. We have not received such a request from Ms. Benjamin at this time.
QUESTION: Is that a requirement for you to lodge a protest?
MS. PSAKI: It is standard practice for us to gain an individual’s permission before raising allegations of mistreatment, so that has not happened in this case.
QUESTION: Okay. But presumably, if the situation was dire enough, you don’t – I mean, it’s not a requirement for you to have permission or a request from the person who was allegedly mistreated, is it?
MS. PSAKI: Well --
QUESTION: You can do it without that?
MS. PSAKI: Not to get too technical here, but I’ll just go there. In the Foreign Affairs Manual --
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: -- it says that we must “gain the permission to protest the abuse or mistreatment.” So that is outlined in the Foreign Affairs Manual in that capacity.
QUESTION: And absent that, you are not allowed to protest?
MS. PSAKI: I will have to check with more specific details about what we are and aren’t allowed to do, but that is standard operating procedure, so that’s why we’ve proceeded in this manner.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
HERBEVORES AND FERTILIZER CAN INCREASE PLANT BIODIVERSITY
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Herbivores + light = more plant biodiversity in fertilized grasslands
Research on six continents shows that it all comes down to the light
It all comes down to the light. At least in plant species diversity in fertilized grasslands.
Fertilizing by humans and plant-eating by herbivores can combine to benefit plant biodiversity--if enough light still reaches the ground, according to results of a study by ecologists Elizabeth Borer and Eric Seabloom of the University of Minnesota and colleagues.
The findings, published this week in the online edition of the journal Nature, are important in a world where humans are changing both where herbivores are found and the supply of plant nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
Enter the Nutrient Network
To conduct the study, Borer and Seabloom enlisted the help of the Nutrient Network, or NutNet, an experiment they and other researchers began as a way to understand how grasslands around the world respond to changing environments.
NutNet scientists at 40 sites set up plots with and without added fertilizer and with and without fences to keep out local herbivores such as deer, kangaroos, sheep or zebras.
The research took place in the United States, Canada, China, Australia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, South Africa, Tanzania, Germany and Argentina.
The scientists' hypothesis was that grassland plant species losses caused by eutrophication (overfertilization) could be offset by the increased light availability that results when taller plants are munched down by herbivores like deer and sheep.
This "trimming" by herbivores ultimately lets in more light, fueling increased plant growth.
The experiment, replicated in 40 grasslands on six continents, demonstrated that the researchers had it right.
New explanation for grassland plant biodiversity
"Global patterns of biodiversity have largely defied explanation due to many interacting, local driving forces," says Henry Gholz, a program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Environmental Biology, which funded coordination of the research, along with the many institutions involved.
"These results show that grassland biodiversity is likely largely determined by the offsetting influences of nutrition and grazing on light capture by plants," Gholz says.
In the study, the ecologists measured the amount of plant material, the light reaching the ground and the number of species of plants in the plots.
When the scientists compared results across the sites, they found that fertilizer both reduced the number of plant species in the plots and favored those that were faster-growing. Species less able to tolerate a lack of light in shady conditions were literally overshadowed by their faster-growing neighbors.
So there were fewer kinds of plants, but taller-growing ones.
An herbivore is an herbivore is an herbivore?
In both fertilized and unfertilized plots, removal of vegetation by herbivores increased the amount of light reaching the ground. The taller plants were eaten by the herbivores. Then plant species diversity increased.
The results were the case whether the grassland was in Minnesota, the United Kingdom or Tanzania, and whether the herbivores were rabbits, sheep or elephants.
"This suggests that these effects dovetail with changes in light availability at the ground level," says Borer. "That appears to be a big factor in maintaining or losing biodiversity in grasslands."
Light a key piece of the puzzle
In short, Borer says, "where we see a change in light, we see a change in biodiversity" for the better.
The findings offer important insights into how humans are affecting prairies, savannas, alpine meadows and other grasslands by adding fertilizers.
In showing how fertilization, grazing, light availability and biodiversity are linked, scientists are closer to understanding grassland ecosystems in a changing world.
-- Cheryl Dybas
Investigators
Elizabeth Borer
Related Institutions/Organizations
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Herbivores + light = more plant biodiversity in fertilized grasslands
Research on six continents shows that it all comes down to the light
It all comes down to the light. At least in plant species diversity in fertilized grasslands.
Fertilizing by humans and plant-eating by herbivores can combine to benefit plant biodiversity--if enough light still reaches the ground, according to results of a study by ecologists Elizabeth Borer and Eric Seabloom of the University of Minnesota and colleagues.
The findings, published this week in the online edition of the journal Nature, are important in a world where humans are changing both where herbivores are found and the supply of plant nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
Enter the Nutrient Network
To conduct the study, Borer and Seabloom enlisted the help of the Nutrient Network, or NutNet, an experiment they and other researchers began as a way to understand how grasslands around the world respond to changing environments.
NutNet scientists at 40 sites set up plots with and without added fertilizer and with and without fences to keep out local herbivores such as deer, kangaroos, sheep or zebras.
The research took place in the United States, Canada, China, Australia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, South Africa, Tanzania, Germany and Argentina.
The scientists' hypothesis was that grassland plant species losses caused by eutrophication (overfertilization) could be offset by the increased light availability that results when taller plants are munched down by herbivores like deer and sheep.
This "trimming" by herbivores ultimately lets in more light, fueling increased plant growth.
The experiment, replicated in 40 grasslands on six continents, demonstrated that the researchers had it right.
New explanation for grassland plant biodiversity
"Global patterns of biodiversity have largely defied explanation due to many interacting, local driving forces," says Henry Gholz, a program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Environmental Biology, which funded coordination of the research, along with the many institutions involved.
"These results show that grassland biodiversity is likely largely determined by the offsetting influences of nutrition and grazing on light capture by plants," Gholz says.
In the study, the ecologists measured the amount of plant material, the light reaching the ground and the number of species of plants in the plots.
When the scientists compared results across the sites, they found that fertilizer both reduced the number of plant species in the plots and favored those that were faster-growing. Species less able to tolerate a lack of light in shady conditions were literally overshadowed by their faster-growing neighbors.
So there were fewer kinds of plants, but taller-growing ones.
An herbivore is an herbivore is an herbivore?
In both fertilized and unfertilized plots, removal of vegetation by herbivores increased the amount of light reaching the ground. The taller plants were eaten by the herbivores. Then plant species diversity increased.
The results were the case whether the grassland was in Minnesota, the United Kingdom or Tanzania, and whether the herbivores were rabbits, sheep or elephants.
"This suggests that these effects dovetail with changes in light availability at the ground level," says Borer. "That appears to be a big factor in maintaining or losing biodiversity in grasslands."
Light a key piece of the puzzle
In short, Borer says, "where we see a change in light, we see a change in biodiversity" for the better.
The findings offer important insights into how humans are affecting prairies, savannas, alpine meadows and other grasslands by adding fertilizers.
In showing how fertilization, grazing, light availability and biodiversity are linked, scientists are closer to understanding grassland ecosystems in a changing world.
-- Cheryl Dybas
Investigators
Elizabeth Borer
Related Institutions/Organizations
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Monday, March 10, 2014
RHEA BY DAY
 |
| Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute. |
FROM: NASA
Rhea's Day in the Sun
A nearly full Rhea shines in the sunlight in this recent Cassini image. Rhea (949 miles, or 1,527 kilometers across) is Saturn's second largest moon.
Lit terrain seen here is on the Saturn-facing hemisphere of Rhea. North on Rhea is up and rotated 43 degrees to the left. The image was taken in visible light with the Cassini spacecraft narrow-angle camera on Sept. 10, 2013.
The view was obtained at a distance of approximately 990,000 miles (1.6 million kilometers) from Rhea. Image scale is 6 miles (9 kilometers) per pixel.
The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. The Cassini orbiter and its two onboard cameras were designed, developed and assembled at JPL. The imaging operations center is based at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo.
U.S. NAVY AIDS SEARCH FOR MALAYSIAN AIRLINER
 |
| U.S. Navy photo by Senior Chief Petty Officer Chris D. Boardman |
U.S. Aids Search for Missing Malaysian Airliner
A U.S. Navy MH-60R Seahawk helicopter lands aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS Pinckney during a crew swap before returning to search for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight in the Gulf of Thailand, March 9, 2014. The flight, which dropped off the radar of Subang, Indonesia, traffic controllers early Saturday morning while over the South China Sea, had 227 passengers from 14 nations and 12 crew members. The Seahawk is from the Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 78.
The USS Pinckney and USS Kidd are conducting search-and-rescue operations in the Gulf of Thailand to support the Malaysian government, a Pentagon spokesman said, March 10. 2014. A P-3 Orion from Kadena Air Base, Japan, and the USNS John Ericsson also are assisting in the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which disappeared March 8 during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR MARCH 10, 2014
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTS
NAVY
Lockheed Martin Corp., Baltimore, Md., is being provided funding in the amount of $698,911,656 under previously awarded contract (N00024-11-C-2300) for construction of two fiscal 2014 littoral combat ships. The three contract line items being funded for each ship are for the basic seaframe construction, selected ship systems integration and test, and selected ship systems equipment. Work will be performed in Marinette, Wis. (56 percent), Walpole, Mass. (14 percent), Washington, D.C. (12 percent), Oldsmar, Fla. (4 percent), Beloit, Wis. (3 percent), Moorestown, N.J. (2 percent), Minneapolis, Minn. (2 percent), and various locations of less than 1 percent each totaling 7 percent, and is expected to be complete by August 2018. Fiscal 2014 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy contract funds in the amount of $698,911,656 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
Austal USA, Mobile, Ala., is being provided funding in the amount of $683,716,119 under previously awarded contract (N00024-11-C-2301) for construction of two fiscal 2014 littoral combat ships. The three contract line items being funded for each ship are for the basic seaframe construction, selected ship systems integration and test, and selected ship systems equipment. Work will be performed in Mobile, Ala. (51 percent), Pittsfield, Mass. (13 percent), Cincinnati, Ohio (4 percent), Baltimore, Md. (2 percent), Burlington, Vt. (2 percent), New Orleans, La. (2 percent), and various locations of less than two percent each totaling 26 percent, and is expected to be complete by June 2018. Fiscal 2014 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy contract funds in the amount of $683,716,119 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
Communications & Power Industries, Beverly, Mass. (N00164-14-D-GR39), and L-3 Communications, Williamsport Pa. (N00164-14-D-GR65), are each being awarded firm-fixed-price, five-year, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple-award contract with a cumulative value of $67,715,539 for the evaluation, rebuild and new production of double-duty cross field amplifiers utilized in the AN/SPY-1D(V) Radar System. Double-duty cross field amplifiers are used on Navy destroyers and Aegis Ashore systems, and by foreign militaries for radar power amplification. Initial delivery orders in the amount of $184,985 for Communications & Power Industries and $168,000 for L-3 will be awarded as the minimum ordering amount at time of award; subsequent orders will be competed between the two awardees. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (95 percent) and the governments of Australia (2 percent), Spain (1 percent), Japan (1 percent) and South Korea (1 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Beverly Mass. (50 percent), and Williamsport Pa. (50 percent), and is expected to be completed by March 2019. Fiscal 2014 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy funding in the amount of $352,985 will be obligated at the time of the award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. These contracts were not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Ind., is the contracting activity.
Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded a $57,167,957 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to the previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-2101) for the planning and execution of the USS Minnesota (SSN 783) post shakedown availability (PSA). Electric Boat will also procure long lead time material in preparation to accomplish the maintenance, repair, alterations, testing, and other work on the USS Minnesota during its scheduled PSA. Work will be performed in Groton, Conn. (99 percent) and Quonset Point, R.I. (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by February 2015. Fiscal 2008, 2013 and 2014 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy funding in the amount of $37,575,000 will be obligated at time of the award. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding Conversion and Repair, Groton, Conn., is the contracting activity.
Sierra Nevada Corp., Sparks, Nev., is being awarded a $43,488,133 modification to a previously awarded contract (N00174-09-D-0003) for the procurement and support of the transmitting set, countermeasures AN/PLT-5 to support explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel. Joint service EOD forces have a requirement for man-portable equipment and support for the EOD Counter Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare (CREW) program. The EOD CREW program provides all military EOD services with an electronic warfare capability to counter the threat from improvised explosive devices. Work will be performed in Sparks, Nev., and is expected to be completed by March 2015. No funds will be obligated at the time of award and contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, Indian Head, Md., is the contracting activity.
Northrop Grumman Laser Systems Inc., Apoka, Fla., is being awarded a $12,400,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for special operating force laser aiming marker (SOFLAM), ground laser target designator (GLTD), provision item order spares and repairs. The SOFLAM/GLTD is a lightweight, integrated, highly specialized, laser target designator viewing device that provides the operator with a ruggedized system utilizing technology designed for terminal guidance of precision munitions. The SOFLAM/GLTD provides the specialized capability of combining two distinct guidance choices; hand-off to aircraft or standalone terminal guidance. This requirement not only supports the U.S. but also includes foreign military sales (FMS) to Romania (71.4 percent) and Lithuania (28.6 percent) though the support of Building Partnership Capacity programs. Work will be performed in Apopka, Fla., and is expected to be completed by March 2018. FMS contract funds in the amount of $2,366,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with the statutory authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Ind., is the contracting activity (N00164-14-D-JQ16).
Correction: The Seaport-e rolling admission contract originally announced on Nov. 19, 2013 inadvertently left off seven winning companies. Included in this announcement should have been ASG Solutions Corp., doing business as American Systems Group San Diego, Calif.; ANSOL Inc., San Diego, Calif.; BlueWater Federal Solutions Inc., Chantilly, Va.; CTI Resource Management Services Inc., Jacksonville, Fla.; GBL Systems Corp., Camarillo, Calif.; Roccomar Inc., Falls Church, Va.; and Hodges Transportation Inc., doing business as Nevada Automotive Test Center, Silver Springs, Nev.
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.*, Cypress, Calif., has been awarded a maximum $13,701,394 modification (P00007) exercising the third option period on a two-year base contract (SPM8EG-10-D-0001) with three one-year option periods for rigid concrete repair. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-quantity contract. Location of performance is California with a March 10, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
ARMY
Defense Engineering Inc., Alexandria, Va., was awarded a $12,313,615 firm-fixed-price, multi-year contract for enterprise data storage services for the U.S. Information Technology Agency, Storage Services Branch. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $10,813,615 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Feb. 28, 2019. Twelve bids were solicited with five received. Work will be performed in Washington, D.C. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52P1J-14-F-3003).
IBM Corp. Bethesda, Md. was awarded an $8,465,976 modification (2A0328) to contract W91QUZ-06-D-0010 to exercise option year three of the Army Learning Management System which delivers training around the clock training for soldiers and Army civilians. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $4,121,993 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is March 20, 2015. Work will be performed at Fort Eustis, Va. Army Contracting Command, Fort Eustis, Va., is the contracting activity.
*Small Business
CONTRACTS
NAVY
Lockheed Martin Corp., Baltimore, Md., is being provided funding in the amount of $698,911,656 under previously awarded contract (N00024-11-C-2300) for construction of two fiscal 2014 littoral combat ships. The three contract line items being funded for each ship are for the basic seaframe construction, selected ship systems integration and test, and selected ship systems equipment. Work will be performed in Marinette, Wis. (56 percent), Walpole, Mass. (14 percent), Washington, D.C. (12 percent), Oldsmar, Fla. (4 percent), Beloit, Wis. (3 percent), Moorestown, N.J. (2 percent), Minneapolis, Minn. (2 percent), and various locations of less than 1 percent each totaling 7 percent, and is expected to be complete by August 2018. Fiscal 2014 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy contract funds in the amount of $698,911,656 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
Austal USA, Mobile, Ala., is being provided funding in the amount of $683,716,119 under previously awarded contract (N00024-11-C-2301) for construction of two fiscal 2014 littoral combat ships. The three contract line items being funded for each ship are for the basic seaframe construction, selected ship systems integration and test, and selected ship systems equipment. Work will be performed in Mobile, Ala. (51 percent), Pittsfield, Mass. (13 percent), Cincinnati, Ohio (4 percent), Baltimore, Md. (2 percent), Burlington, Vt. (2 percent), New Orleans, La. (2 percent), and various locations of less than two percent each totaling 26 percent, and is expected to be complete by June 2018. Fiscal 2014 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy contract funds in the amount of $683,716,119 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
Communications & Power Industries, Beverly, Mass. (N00164-14-D-GR39), and L-3 Communications, Williamsport Pa. (N00164-14-D-GR65), are each being awarded firm-fixed-price, five-year, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple-award contract with a cumulative value of $67,715,539 for the evaluation, rebuild and new production of double-duty cross field amplifiers utilized in the AN/SPY-1D(V) Radar System. Double-duty cross field amplifiers are used on Navy destroyers and Aegis Ashore systems, and by foreign militaries for radar power amplification. Initial delivery orders in the amount of $184,985 for Communications & Power Industries and $168,000 for L-3 will be awarded as the minimum ordering amount at time of award; subsequent orders will be competed between the two awardees. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (95 percent) and the governments of Australia (2 percent), Spain (1 percent), Japan (1 percent) and South Korea (1 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Beverly Mass. (50 percent), and Williamsport Pa. (50 percent), and is expected to be completed by March 2019. Fiscal 2014 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy funding in the amount of $352,985 will be obligated at the time of the award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. These contracts were not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Ind., is the contracting activity.
Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded a $57,167,957 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to the previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-2101) for the planning and execution of the USS Minnesota (SSN 783) post shakedown availability (PSA). Electric Boat will also procure long lead time material in preparation to accomplish the maintenance, repair, alterations, testing, and other work on the USS Minnesota during its scheduled PSA. Work will be performed in Groton, Conn. (99 percent) and Quonset Point, R.I. (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by February 2015. Fiscal 2008, 2013 and 2014 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy funding in the amount of $37,575,000 will be obligated at time of the award. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding Conversion and Repair, Groton, Conn., is the contracting activity.
Sierra Nevada Corp., Sparks, Nev., is being awarded a $43,488,133 modification to a previously awarded contract (N00174-09-D-0003) for the procurement and support of the transmitting set, countermeasures AN/PLT-5 to support explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel. Joint service EOD forces have a requirement for man-portable equipment and support for the EOD Counter Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare (CREW) program. The EOD CREW program provides all military EOD services with an electronic warfare capability to counter the threat from improvised explosive devices. Work will be performed in Sparks, Nev., and is expected to be completed by March 2015. No funds will be obligated at the time of award and contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, Indian Head, Md., is the contracting activity.
Northrop Grumman Laser Systems Inc., Apoka, Fla., is being awarded a $12,400,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for special operating force laser aiming marker (SOFLAM), ground laser target designator (GLTD), provision item order spares and repairs. The SOFLAM/GLTD is a lightweight, integrated, highly specialized, laser target designator viewing device that provides the operator with a ruggedized system utilizing technology designed for terminal guidance of precision munitions. The SOFLAM/GLTD provides the specialized capability of combining two distinct guidance choices; hand-off to aircraft or standalone terminal guidance. This requirement not only supports the U.S. but also includes foreign military sales (FMS) to Romania (71.4 percent) and Lithuania (28.6 percent) though the support of Building Partnership Capacity programs. Work will be performed in Apopka, Fla., and is expected to be completed by March 2018. FMS contract funds in the amount of $2,366,000 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with the statutory authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Ind., is the contracting activity (N00164-14-D-JQ16).
Correction: The Seaport-e rolling admission contract originally announced on Nov. 19, 2013 inadvertently left off seven winning companies. Included in this announcement should have been ASG Solutions Corp., doing business as American Systems Group San Diego, Calif.; ANSOL Inc., San Diego, Calif.; BlueWater Federal Solutions Inc., Chantilly, Va.; CTI Resource Management Services Inc., Jacksonville, Fla.; GBL Systems Corp., Camarillo, Calif.; Roccomar Inc., Falls Church, Va.; and Hodges Transportation Inc., doing business as Nevada Automotive Test Center, Silver Springs, Nev.
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.*, Cypress, Calif., has been awarded a maximum $13,701,394 modification (P00007) exercising the third option period on a two-year base contract (SPM8EG-10-D-0001) with three one-year option periods for rigid concrete repair. This is a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-quantity contract. Location of performance is California with a March 10, 2015 performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2014 through fiscal 2015 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
ARMY
Defense Engineering Inc., Alexandria, Va., was awarded a $12,313,615 firm-fixed-price, multi-year contract for enterprise data storage services for the U.S. Information Technology Agency, Storage Services Branch. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $10,813,615 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is Feb. 28, 2019. Twelve bids were solicited with five received. Work will be performed in Washington, D.C. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52P1J-14-F-3003).
IBM Corp. Bethesda, Md. was awarded an $8,465,976 modification (2A0328) to contract W91QUZ-06-D-0010 to exercise option year three of the Army Learning Management System which delivers training around the clock training for soldiers and Army civilians. Fiscal 2014 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $4,121,993 were obligated at the time of the award. Estimated completion date is March 20, 2015. Work will be performed at Fort Eustis, Va. Army Contracting Command, Fort Eustis, Va., is the contracting activity.
*Small Business
U.S. INCREASES AIR OPERATIONS IN POLAND
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Will Beef Up Air Operations in Poland
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Mar. 10, 2014 – More U.S. F-16 Fighting Falcons will deploy to Poland in the coming days and weeks, a Pentagon official said here today.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Polish Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak spoke yesterday, and Siemoiniak thanked the secretary for looking at options for basing, said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman.
“No decision [have been made] on numbers yet,” he added. “That decision has not been finalized.”
U.S. European Command would provide the aircraft once a decision is made, the colonel told reporters.
The decision has been made to increase the size of the U.S. aviation detachment in Poland, Warren said. Ten U.S. Air Force personnel are stationed at Lask Air Base in Poland, “but there is no permanent jet presence there,” he added.
The airmen support quarterly rotations of U.S. F-16s and C-130s for joint training with the Polish air force. They are part of the 52nd Fighter Wing based in Spangdahlem, Germany.
Typically, there are four annual aircraft rotations to the air base, with at least two weeks of flying per rotation.
“What we are doing is reassuring our allies that we are there for them,” Warren said. “This is an important time for us to make it crystal clear to all our allies and partners in the region that the United States of America stands by them.”
This is just one of the visible actions the United States has taken since the Russian incursion into Ukraine. The United States sent six more F-15C Eagle aircraft to beef up the air policing mission in the Baltics. In addition, the USS Truxton has been deployed to the Black Sea.
These are examples, Warren said, of U.S. commitments to allies and partners in the region.
U.S. Will Beef Up Air Operations in Poland
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Mar. 10, 2014 – More U.S. F-16 Fighting Falcons will deploy to Poland in the coming days and weeks, a Pentagon official said here today.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Polish Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak spoke yesterday, and Siemoiniak thanked the secretary for looking at options for basing, said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman.
“No decision [have been made] on numbers yet,” he added. “That decision has not been finalized.”
U.S. European Command would provide the aircraft once a decision is made, the colonel told reporters.
The decision has been made to increase the size of the U.S. aviation detachment in Poland, Warren said. Ten U.S. Air Force personnel are stationed at Lask Air Base in Poland, “but there is no permanent jet presence there,” he added.
The airmen support quarterly rotations of U.S. F-16s and C-130s for joint training with the Polish air force. They are part of the 52nd Fighter Wing based in Spangdahlem, Germany.
Typically, there are four annual aircraft rotations to the air base, with at least two weeks of flying per rotation.
“What we are doing is reassuring our allies that we are there for them,” Warren said. “This is an important time for us to make it crystal clear to all our allies and partners in the region that the United States of America stands by them.”
This is just one of the visible actions the United States has taken since the Russian incursion into Ukraine. The United States sent six more F-15C Eagle aircraft to beef up the air policing mission in the Baltics. In addition, the USS Truxton has been deployed to the Black Sea.
These are examples, Warren said, of U.S. commitments to allies and partners in the region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)