Tuesday, May 12, 2015
PRESS AVAILABILITY: SECRETARY KERRY WITH RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER SERGEY LAVROV
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
05/12/2015 06:13 PM EDT
Press Availability With Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Sochi, Russia
May 12, 2015
MODERATOR: (In progress) (Via interpreter) ready to start the press conference. Heads of the foreign policy agencies of the U.S. and Russia.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, thanks a lot for your patience and waiting till the end of all today’s negotiations. Our negotiations took place in (inaudible) the presidential part has just ended, and before that we took very substantive negotiations of the ministerial level with my counterpart Mr. Kerry.
Let me tell you straight ahead that our meeting has taken place during the days of celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Second World War. And we started our today’s events with the common ceremony of laying the wreath to the war memorial. That war memorial was built in honor and in memory of the victims of the World War II, and I believe that all the people of Sochi highly appreciated that Secretary Kerry visited the war memorial.
During our negotiations, both at the ministerial level and during the conversation with the president, we discussed the most pressing issues of the modern world. We touched upon counteracting terrorism and other contemporary threats, as well as ensuring security and stability. We also discussed the factors that influence achieving the task of maintaining strategic stability.
One of the key issues in our discussion was the crisis in the Ukraine. There are certain contradiction and divergences between Russia and the U.S., as related to the origins of the crisis and our contemporary assessments of the way it is developing. But we definitely shared a view that it is only possible to resolve the issue through peaceful ways – through a comprehensive and full implementation of the Minsk agreements. And of course, it requires to launch a full-fledged dialogue between Kyiv on the one hand and Donetsk and Luhansk on the other hand.
This is enshrined in the Minsk agreements that were adopted on the 12th of February. They envisage a launch of the constitutional reform, with due consideration of the opinion of people from Donetsk and Luhansk. It also envisages holding the local elections, as well as resolving the issues related to the blockade that had been introduced by Kyiv towards Donetsk and Luhansk. So all the provisions of the Minsk agreements are fully required to be implemented. We, Secretary Kerry and I, agreed to (inaudible) implement all the agreements that had been achieved in Minsk.
We also discussed the ways to settle the conflict in Syria. We agreed to continue or probably even to build up our efforts and that – ensuring the launch of the process that could lead to implementing the agreements that we envisage in the Geneva communique adopted on the 30th of June.
And we also agreed that the problem of the ISIL’s activities, as well as the activities of Jabhat al-Nusrah are also very dangerous. Those armed groups are getting even more powerful, and they are threatening the peace not only in the Middle East region but also beyond it. We are absolutely convinced that it is necessary to join our efforts and act together more efficiently. It requires efforts of all leading powers. We believe that it is absolutely necessary to consistently fight that evil with no double standards based on the universally recognized principles of international law.
Among other things, we shared our views on the implementation of our agreements aimed at resolving the Iran’s nuclear program. We also discussed the situation in Yemen, Libya, and other Middle East countries. We also discussed the situation in Afghanistan, in the Korean Peninsula, and we emphasize that both U.S. and Russia are advocating denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
Of course, we discussed the state of our bilateral relations, including some specific irritators that have been in place recently. But in a broader context, we also discussed our views related to bigger problems that had been accumulating for several years. Sometimes our opinions diverged and we did not always find common understanding of the issues. But we fully understand that it is absolutely necessary to avoid any steps that could further detriment relations between Russia and U.S. We believe that it is necessary to continue the cooperation between our countries, especially given the fact that resolution of many international problems really depends on our joint efforts – on the joint efforts of Russia and the U.S. – and I believe this is one of the main ideas about today’s negotiations, one of the main conclusions and outcomes of today.
Our president firmly emphasized that we are ready for as broad cooperation as possible and as close interaction as possible with the U.S.A. based on equal rights and mutual respect of interests and positions of each other. I’m very grateful to you, Secretary Kerry, for this long and productive day. The floor is yours. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Foreign Minister Lavrov, Sergey. I greatly appreciate your comments just now and I agree with your summary of the day. I’m particularly glad to be here in Sochi, and I really want to start by thanking President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov for hosting our discussions here today – excuse me. Sergey and I talk pretty regularly, but we rarely have the chance to be able to speak for as long as we did today, as uninterrupted as it was today, and obviously there are a number of very critical issues that President Obama wanted me to be able to share with President Putin and with Foreign Minister Lavrov.
As all of you know, we have just in the last days celebrated the 70th anniversary of VE Day, the day that the United States, Russia, and our allies defeated the scourge of Nazism. And earlier today, I had the privilege of attending, with the mayor of Sochi and with Foreign Minister Lavrov, the war memorial here in Sochi where more than 4,000 of the millions of courageous then-Soviets who died in World War II are buried. And it’s a very beautiful memorial and I was very moved by the young children who were there taking part in the ceremony. And I think Sergey and I both came away from this ceremony with a very powerful reminder of the sacrifices that we shared to bring about a safer world, and of what our nations can accomplish when our peoples are working together towards the same goal.
We are obviously in the midst of a challenging time. And here in Sochi today, I was privileged to spend many hours with Foreign Minister Lavrov and with President Putin discussing a number of global issues on which both of our countries are very focused. I’m grateful to President Putin for the significant amount of time that he made available to this discussion, for his directness, and for his very detailed explanations of Russia’s position with respect to some of these challenges, and of the ways that he believed that we have an ability to be able to work constructively together in order to resolve these problems.
I think the fact that leaps out at me, certainly, from this day’s discussions which is precisely what brought me here in the first place, is that there is no substitute for talking directly to key decision makers, particularly during a period that is as complex and fast-moving as this is. To start with, as Sergey said, we discussed Iran, where Russia and the United States and our other P5+1 partners are working very hard through the nuclear negotiations with Iran. We are now coming into the last six weeks of those negotiations. And we all understand that unity has been key to bringing us where we are today. It is also going to be the key to completing a good deal and to our being confident that that deal will be able to be well-implemented. The United States and Russia remain closely aligned in this effort, as do the rest of our P5+1 allies and friends, EU partners.
We also discussed today the real and present danger of Daesh – ISIL, as many call it – and while Russia is not a formal member of the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, Russia is a very important partner in the global effort against violent extremism. And countering violent extremism is a first-order priority for both Russia and the United States. No one should doubt that the reach of groups like Daesh extends far beyond the particular region of its operations, and it affects every single one of us – the United States, Russia, and the rest of the world. And we are in unity with respect to our commitment to continue to push back against Daesh, and ultimately, to drive Daesh out of Iraq, out of Syria, and to eliminate it as a threat to any of us.
From the Geneva communique to the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons, I would emphasize that we have seen what happens when Russia and the United States work together. It is clearly possible to make real progress and make important things happen. And Sergey just referenced that in his comments. I would underscore it myself. And it is that confidence in our ability to be able to make a difference on some important issues that help to bring us here today to discuss the road ahead. There is an urgent need, we agree, for that same kind of cooperation that brought about the removal of weapons from Syria – chemical weapons – that has characterized our cooperation on Iran. The same kind of effort is now necessary on some other challenges that we face together.
For one thing, while we have come a long way with respect to the chemical weapons, we also both see reports of the current potential attacks on innocent people. In addition, the threat of violent extremism in the region continues to grow. And as we’ve said many times, the United States believes that Syria will never be at peace until there is a political solution, a political transition in Syria. What we need is that political outcome, and negotiated by and for Syrians, and supported and facilitated by key external powers.
So today, we discussed at some length how the United States and Russia might work together on this in the days ahead, and Foreign Minister Lavrov and I agreed to examine specific concepts, but more importantly, to continue that conversation in the coming weeks with increased focus and purpose.
We also discussed other regional issues – Libya, Yemen, and President Obama’s upcoming summit with the GCC countries. And of course, we did spend time on Ukraine, as Sergey has mentioned. I reiterated America’s view that the Minsk agreements are absolutely, in our judgment, by far the best path, the principal path, to peace, and those agreements must be fully implemented, the sooner the better.
I must say we found a fair amount of agreement even as Sergey has accurately disclosed that we continue to disagree on certain components of the walkup to it or certain facts, but we are both in significant agreement on the most important issue of all, which is it will be resolved by the full implementation of Minsk, and we both – all of us and other friends and allies – have responsibilities to undertake in order to effect that implementation. If and when Minsk is fully implemented, it is clear the U.S. and EU sanctions can begin to be rolled back.
But I also made clear our deep concerns regarding the situation on the ground – continued perceived violations of ceasefire in Shyrokyne and at the Donetsk airport; the continued arming, training, command and control of separate forces. And we believe that this fighting, the fighting that is taking place as a result of this – on any side, whoever has instigated it – that it has gone on for too long. And today, I underscored the steps that the United States hopes to see taken by the parties in the coming – excuse me – in the coming days and weeks.
We really believe that a genuine ceasefire in Shyrokyne needs to be undertaken. I think Sergey and President Putin agreed that that is important, as well as the withdrawal of weapons and the demilitarization and monitoring by the OSCE.
Second, there needs to be a real discussion within the Minsk political working groups regarding the path to elections in the Donbas, elections that could be monitored properly and conformed to the Ukrainian constitution, as it set out in Minsk, and also regarding the decentralization that is important, the decentralization status that is important for that region.
We also believe that humanitarian access needs to gain greater freedom of movement – and important very much to the Ukrainian and the U.S. and the UN agencies. We would like, clearly, to see the release of political prisoners, including Nadia Savchenko, and finally, the inspection by the OSCE or IRCC – ICRC of cargo that travels into Ukraine, including humanitarian cargo.
Now, all of these steps can and we believe should be taken quickly, and all of them would make a real difference to the quality of life in Donbas. And they would give all of us the confidence that we need that Minsk is going to be fully implemented and that the conflict can come to an end with that full implementation.
Obviously, I want to leave time for questions, but I want to again say thank you to Russia, to Foreign Minister Lavrov for his very generous welcome here to Sochi today. This was an important visit at an important time, and we didn’t come here with an expectation that we were going to define a specific path forward with respect to one crisis or another, or have a major breakthrough. We came here purposefully to have a very full and open dialogue with Russia’s leaders, the kind of dialogue that is absolutely essential in making progress on the many challenges that we face today.
And I am particularly grateful and I want to express my appreciation to President Putin for the very significant and serious conversation that he engaged in for the very significant amount of time that he committed to this discussion. And I express President Obama’s gratitude for Russia’s willingness to engage in this discussion at a time when the exchange of views could not be more important. So we thank them for talking through these issues face-to-face as we try to come together and find workable solutions to very important issues to all of us.
Thank you.
MODERATOR: (Via interpreter) Dear colleagues, now let us proceed to your question. The first question is for the U.S. side.
MS HARF: Matt Lee of the Associated Press, and I think there’s a microphone coming.
QUESTION: Thank you. Is this working? It’s been a long day, so I’ll be as brief as possible. But there’s so much to go over, it’s a multi-part question. These are for both ministers, please.
Your governments routinely accuse each other of spreading misinformation about the situation in Ukraine and the ceasefire violations. What is the real truth here? Are both sides violating the terms of the Minsk agreement, or is it just one side or some sides of it? And what exactly are you going to do to rein this in and get into compliance?
One (b) would be on Syria. You said you agreed to build up and examine new specific concepts on the political transition plan. What are those new concepts, and how exactly are you going to address the concerns about the reports of new chemical weapons use?
Lastly on Iran, Secretary Kerry, did you ask the Russians again to hold off on the transfer of the S-300 missile system? And Minister Lavrov, if he did, what is the Russian response to that? Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: I will make your life easy. He didn’t.
QUESTION: He didn’t.
SECRETARY KERRY: I’ll begin with the last first. I think it is known that we have concerns about the transfer of the S-300, but it is also known that this has been a transfer that was, I think, almost five years ago in the making and was contemplated in the UN resolution as a transfer that was permissible. So it’s not a question of any law or rule or judgment being broken; it’s a question of timing, in our judgment, as well as impact. But we have already talked about it previously and we did not go into it today.
With respect to the issue of violations, et cetera, my sense is, Matt, that we’ve had that conversation today. We’ve talked about the perceptions of violations. What’s important is now to make sure that both sides are making the choices to move forward in implementing the Minsk agreement in its full measure.
And I had a brief conversation with President Poroshenko yesterday. I will have a further conversation with him to debrief him with respect to the meetings here today. And I urge him as I urged the Russians today: Everybody who has any control over anybody needs to take every step possible to fully implement Minsk, and clearly, that means including preventing any breaches whatsoever with respect to the ceasefire.
We talked today about the movement of heavy weapons. We talked today about the need to, particularly, as I talked about a moment ago in Shyrokyne, hopefully that is a ceasefire that might be able to be negotiated in full. I certainly called attention to the fact that whichever side is responsible for firing the first shot, there is not yet a full implementation of the ceasefire that was contemplated by Minsk, and we need to work harder in order to try to see that be put into full effect. We are going to engage with all parties in an effort to try to encourage that to happen.
I will tell you that both the president – President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov reiterated their desire to see Minsk fully implemented, and we talked about ways in which we might be able to accelerate that and break down some of the mistrust on both sides which has prevented that from happening.
With respect to Syria, I’m not going to go into any details about the conversation except to say that we both understand and fully accept the degree to which the situation in Syria is increasingly not only unsustainable, but dangerous for the region. We both agree that the rise of Daesh within Syria and the increased efforts of other extremist groups threatens not only the Assad regime itself, but threatens the region as a consequence, and that it is even more urgent for all of us to find willing partners who are prepared to do what is necessary to be able to implement the principles of Geneva, which are a transition to a government that can be secular, maintain the institutions of the state, and transition to peace and stability, protecting all of the minorities and all of the people of Syria simultaneously. That’s the goal, and we intend to redouble our efforts jointly in order to try to reach it.
On the CW, we talked about exchanging specific information regarding the current situation, which we will do. And subsequent to that, we’ll see what our mutual observations are about that information and what steps might be appropriate.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) On my behalf, I’d like to say the following. I agree that John – I agree with John that the ceasefire violations – ceasefire regime violations are still taking place, that the violations of heavy equipment withdrawal are still taking place. Sometimes they occur more often on one side, sometimes on the other.
Today we discussed that just in general terms and we discussed the reports presented by the special monitoring mission of the OSCE. The monitors are carrying out their job quite professionally, though sometimes public officials declare that the monitors are biased, though I do not think that such behavior is in accordance with the Minsk agreements. I know that the – I hope that the Ukrainian authorities have made some conclusions in accordance with the measures that the OSCE monitors took.
There is one more mechanism, which is the Joint Center of Coordination and Control, that is to monitor the withdrawal of heavy armaments. The center was created based on the request of President Poroshenko. Several teams of Russian and Ukrainian officials are working there, and they established quite a good mode of cooperation and they are cooperating with the OSCE monitoring mission as well. They have a very good professional relationship. They have understanding at the personal level, and I believe it is also a very good mechanism of monitoring the violations of the regime. We all hope to reduce the number of violations and in prospect to eliminate violations at all.
Mr. Kerry mentioned some incidents near the engagement line. We’d prefer to call it a disengagement line. We’d prefer it to be a disengagement line, actually. During the preparation for the contact group meeting and the work of its subgroups on the May 6th in Minsk, there were some drafts developed; one of them was dealing with the demilitarization of Shyrokyne and there was another draft that was actually a proposal aimed at supplementing Minsk agreements with withdrawing tanks and armaments with the caliber below 100 millimeters, including mortars.
The representatives of Donetsk and Luhansk were ready to sign the document, as well as the representatives of Russia in the contact group. And as far as I understand, the OSCE representatives to the contact group also were ready to sign that. But the document was not signed and the discussion will continue during the meeting of the subgroup on security that is going to take place this week. I hope that if these documents are signed and are starting to be implemented, it will definitely help us to reduce the risks of ceasefire violations and it will help us to implement all the provisions aimed at withdrawing heavy elements more efficiently.
As for Syria, I agree to Mr. Kerry that we work together to be able to find out the best ways to implement the Geneva communique – of Geneva communique as of 30th of June. The key task of Geneva communique is to resolve all the issues through a direct dialogue of all Syrian parties and to be able to reach agreements on all the necessary reforms, including on transition based on the mutual consent of Syrian parties.
We have been taking every effort to stimulate work in that direction. After two years ago in Montreux, there was a conference that we participated in – and that was followed by the negotiations between the delegation of the opposition of Syria’s national coalition and the Government of Syria – it quickly became clear that it was absolutely necessary to make the delegation of the opposition as representative as possible. We have always stated that it was necessary to engage all the groups – as many groups as possible – through the opposition delegation, including the groups that are not part to the national coalition.
With that view, in Cairo, with the efforts that Egypt has been taking, we organized two meetings in Moscow. All opposition groups without any exception were invited to take part in that meeting. There were two meetings, and at final stages the delegations were joined by the delegation of the Syrian Government. Those meetings were indeed very useful, and the last contact in Moscow resulted in agreeing the document that is called Moscow platform. We regret that the coalition did not attend the meeting, and as far as I understand, they experienced some problems with – in relation with attending the conference that Mr. de Mistura is starting now.
With regard to Syria, our positions with our U.S. partners are very similar. We believe that this process should be representatives, but given the contradictions within the opposition groups themselves, it is very important that all the external actors that can influence these other group have to encourage them to continue negotiations and to implement the Geneva communique as of June 30th. And it requires work with different Syrian groups and units, and it also requires participation of some external actors. We have discussed that today as well. We have various ideas regarding the issue, and I hope that we’ll continue discussion both between Russia and the U.S. and maybe with other countries – with the countries of the region as well as the states that can also participate in the process.
And regarding the most recent report about chemical weapons and the use of chemical weapons in Syria, let me say that we’ve seen the report and we believe that there is a certain directorate of the UN Organization on Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that has to deal with this report. They really have to implement a thorough investigation and to prevent any efforts similar to those that we witnessed in August of 2014. There should be no attempts to use the issue of alleged use of chemical weapons to exercise any political pressure. Sometimes those attempts were taken to encourage the use of force against Syrian Government. (Inaudible.) That’s it I wanted to say.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Now the question of the Russian mass media. (Inaudible), TV Channel Russia. If you don’t mind, let me continue the topic of Minsk agreements. Mr. Kerry, you’ve said several times that Minsk agreements is the best way to proceed to settle the Ukraine conflict. What can you say about what Mr. Poroshenko said when talking to the representatives of Kyiv army when he said that they are going to gain back the Donetsk airport?
And my next question goes to Mr. Lavrov. We all know that U.S. is really very capable of influencing the current Kyiv authorities. Could you please dwell more on that? How do you think the U.S. can influence the Kyiv authorities in order to settle the crisis in the Ukraine? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much. I have not had a chance – I have not read the speech. I haven’t seen any context. I have simply heard about it in the course of today. But if indeed President Poroshenko is advocating an engagement in a forceful effort at this time, we would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be.
Now, it may be he was talking about in the long term. He may have been talking about the context of a final resolution or settlement; I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that resort to force by any party at this point in time would be extremely destructive at a moment when everyone has brought together the working groups, the working groups have met, and the working groups have an ability to try to provide a path forward on all of those issues that many of us have been concerned about over the course of the last months. My strongest urging would be for everybody to give the working groups their effort, to stay invested in the Minsk agreement, to continue to push for the political resolution, and to hold back anybody from engaging in self-help through force.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) Let me tell you that I absolutely agree to what John Kerry – John has just said, that any attempts to engage again in a forceful scenario could be really undermining the efforts that we have been taking. Let me emphasize one more time that we have to strictly follow our path to implementing the Minsk agreements. Russia and the U.S. fully share an opinion that we have to provide for their full implementation. And today, we agreed to take every effort in order to intensify the process and to speed it up as much as possible.
We discussed also the specific measures that we could take. But let me only tell you that various countries maintain contacts with the Kyiv authorities and with the representatives of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk republics. And we agreed to have meetings with everyone that can affect the implementation of Minsk agreements. We are going to encourage all the sides to the conflict to implement every provision of the Minsk agreements. While the methods to ensure that can vary and the forms of our cooperation can be various, we are fully aware of what diplomatic mechanisms are available, and we are going to further use them.
Thanks a lot for your participation in the press conference. That was our final question. Thank you.
05/12/2015 06:13 PM EDT
Press Availability With Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Sochi, Russia
May 12, 2015
MODERATOR: (In progress) (Via interpreter) ready to start the press conference. Heads of the foreign policy agencies of the U.S. and Russia.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, thanks a lot for your patience and waiting till the end of all today’s negotiations. Our negotiations took place in (inaudible) the presidential part has just ended, and before that we took very substantive negotiations of the ministerial level with my counterpart Mr. Kerry.
Let me tell you straight ahead that our meeting has taken place during the days of celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Second World War. And we started our today’s events with the common ceremony of laying the wreath to the war memorial. That war memorial was built in honor and in memory of the victims of the World War II, and I believe that all the people of Sochi highly appreciated that Secretary Kerry visited the war memorial.
During our negotiations, both at the ministerial level and during the conversation with the president, we discussed the most pressing issues of the modern world. We touched upon counteracting terrorism and other contemporary threats, as well as ensuring security and stability. We also discussed the factors that influence achieving the task of maintaining strategic stability.
One of the key issues in our discussion was the crisis in the Ukraine. There are certain contradiction and divergences between Russia and the U.S., as related to the origins of the crisis and our contemporary assessments of the way it is developing. But we definitely shared a view that it is only possible to resolve the issue through peaceful ways – through a comprehensive and full implementation of the Minsk agreements. And of course, it requires to launch a full-fledged dialogue between Kyiv on the one hand and Donetsk and Luhansk on the other hand.
This is enshrined in the Minsk agreements that were adopted on the 12th of February. They envisage a launch of the constitutional reform, with due consideration of the opinion of people from Donetsk and Luhansk. It also envisages holding the local elections, as well as resolving the issues related to the blockade that had been introduced by Kyiv towards Donetsk and Luhansk. So all the provisions of the Minsk agreements are fully required to be implemented. We, Secretary Kerry and I, agreed to (inaudible) implement all the agreements that had been achieved in Minsk.
We also discussed the ways to settle the conflict in Syria. We agreed to continue or probably even to build up our efforts and that – ensuring the launch of the process that could lead to implementing the agreements that we envisage in the Geneva communique adopted on the 30th of June.
And we also agreed that the problem of the ISIL’s activities, as well as the activities of Jabhat al-Nusrah are also very dangerous. Those armed groups are getting even more powerful, and they are threatening the peace not only in the Middle East region but also beyond it. We are absolutely convinced that it is necessary to join our efforts and act together more efficiently. It requires efforts of all leading powers. We believe that it is absolutely necessary to consistently fight that evil with no double standards based on the universally recognized principles of international law.
Among other things, we shared our views on the implementation of our agreements aimed at resolving the Iran’s nuclear program. We also discussed the situation in Yemen, Libya, and other Middle East countries. We also discussed the situation in Afghanistan, in the Korean Peninsula, and we emphasize that both U.S. and Russia are advocating denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
Of course, we discussed the state of our bilateral relations, including some specific irritators that have been in place recently. But in a broader context, we also discussed our views related to bigger problems that had been accumulating for several years. Sometimes our opinions diverged and we did not always find common understanding of the issues. But we fully understand that it is absolutely necessary to avoid any steps that could further detriment relations between Russia and U.S. We believe that it is necessary to continue the cooperation between our countries, especially given the fact that resolution of many international problems really depends on our joint efforts – on the joint efforts of Russia and the U.S. – and I believe this is one of the main ideas about today’s negotiations, one of the main conclusions and outcomes of today.
Our president firmly emphasized that we are ready for as broad cooperation as possible and as close interaction as possible with the U.S.A. based on equal rights and mutual respect of interests and positions of each other. I’m very grateful to you, Secretary Kerry, for this long and productive day. The floor is yours. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Foreign Minister Lavrov, Sergey. I greatly appreciate your comments just now and I agree with your summary of the day. I’m particularly glad to be here in Sochi, and I really want to start by thanking President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov for hosting our discussions here today – excuse me. Sergey and I talk pretty regularly, but we rarely have the chance to be able to speak for as long as we did today, as uninterrupted as it was today, and obviously there are a number of very critical issues that President Obama wanted me to be able to share with President Putin and with Foreign Minister Lavrov.
As all of you know, we have just in the last days celebrated the 70th anniversary of VE Day, the day that the United States, Russia, and our allies defeated the scourge of Nazism. And earlier today, I had the privilege of attending, with the mayor of Sochi and with Foreign Minister Lavrov, the war memorial here in Sochi where more than 4,000 of the millions of courageous then-Soviets who died in World War II are buried. And it’s a very beautiful memorial and I was very moved by the young children who were there taking part in the ceremony. And I think Sergey and I both came away from this ceremony with a very powerful reminder of the sacrifices that we shared to bring about a safer world, and of what our nations can accomplish when our peoples are working together towards the same goal.
We are obviously in the midst of a challenging time. And here in Sochi today, I was privileged to spend many hours with Foreign Minister Lavrov and with President Putin discussing a number of global issues on which both of our countries are very focused. I’m grateful to President Putin for the significant amount of time that he made available to this discussion, for his directness, and for his very detailed explanations of Russia’s position with respect to some of these challenges, and of the ways that he believed that we have an ability to be able to work constructively together in order to resolve these problems.
I think the fact that leaps out at me, certainly, from this day’s discussions which is precisely what brought me here in the first place, is that there is no substitute for talking directly to key decision makers, particularly during a period that is as complex and fast-moving as this is. To start with, as Sergey said, we discussed Iran, where Russia and the United States and our other P5+1 partners are working very hard through the nuclear negotiations with Iran. We are now coming into the last six weeks of those negotiations. And we all understand that unity has been key to bringing us where we are today. It is also going to be the key to completing a good deal and to our being confident that that deal will be able to be well-implemented. The United States and Russia remain closely aligned in this effort, as do the rest of our P5+1 allies and friends, EU partners.
We also discussed today the real and present danger of Daesh – ISIL, as many call it – and while Russia is not a formal member of the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, Russia is a very important partner in the global effort against violent extremism. And countering violent extremism is a first-order priority for both Russia and the United States. No one should doubt that the reach of groups like Daesh extends far beyond the particular region of its operations, and it affects every single one of us – the United States, Russia, and the rest of the world. And we are in unity with respect to our commitment to continue to push back against Daesh, and ultimately, to drive Daesh out of Iraq, out of Syria, and to eliminate it as a threat to any of us.
From the Geneva communique to the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons, I would emphasize that we have seen what happens when Russia and the United States work together. It is clearly possible to make real progress and make important things happen. And Sergey just referenced that in his comments. I would underscore it myself. And it is that confidence in our ability to be able to make a difference on some important issues that help to bring us here today to discuss the road ahead. There is an urgent need, we agree, for that same kind of cooperation that brought about the removal of weapons from Syria – chemical weapons – that has characterized our cooperation on Iran. The same kind of effort is now necessary on some other challenges that we face together.
For one thing, while we have come a long way with respect to the chemical weapons, we also both see reports of the current potential attacks on innocent people. In addition, the threat of violent extremism in the region continues to grow. And as we’ve said many times, the United States believes that Syria will never be at peace until there is a political solution, a political transition in Syria. What we need is that political outcome, and negotiated by and for Syrians, and supported and facilitated by key external powers.
So today, we discussed at some length how the United States and Russia might work together on this in the days ahead, and Foreign Minister Lavrov and I agreed to examine specific concepts, but more importantly, to continue that conversation in the coming weeks with increased focus and purpose.
We also discussed other regional issues – Libya, Yemen, and President Obama’s upcoming summit with the GCC countries. And of course, we did spend time on Ukraine, as Sergey has mentioned. I reiterated America’s view that the Minsk agreements are absolutely, in our judgment, by far the best path, the principal path, to peace, and those agreements must be fully implemented, the sooner the better.
I must say we found a fair amount of agreement even as Sergey has accurately disclosed that we continue to disagree on certain components of the walkup to it or certain facts, but we are both in significant agreement on the most important issue of all, which is it will be resolved by the full implementation of Minsk, and we both – all of us and other friends and allies – have responsibilities to undertake in order to effect that implementation. If and when Minsk is fully implemented, it is clear the U.S. and EU sanctions can begin to be rolled back.
But I also made clear our deep concerns regarding the situation on the ground – continued perceived violations of ceasefire in Shyrokyne and at the Donetsk airport; the continued arming, training, command and control of separate forces. And we believe that this fighting, the fighting that is taking place as a result of this – on any side, whoever has instigated it – that it has gone on for too long. And today, I underscored the steps that the United States hopes to see taken by the parties in the coming – excuse me – in the coming days and weeks.
We really believe that a genuine ceasefire in Shyrokyne needs to be undertaken. I think Sergey and President Putin agreed that that is important, as well as the withdrawal of weapons and the demilitarization and monitoring by the OSCE.
Second, there needs to be a real discussion within the Minsk political working groups regarding the path to elections in the Donbas, elections that could be monitored properly and conformed to the Ukrainian constitution, as it set out in Minsk, and also regarding the decentralization that is important, the decentralization status that is important for that region.
We also believe that humanitarian access needs to gain greater freedom of movement – and important very much to the Ukrainian and the U.S. and the UN agencies. We would like, clearly, to see the release of political prisoners, including Nadia Savchenko, and finally, the inspection by the OSCE or IRCC – ICRC of cargo that travels into Ukraine, including humanitarian cargo.
Now, all of these steps can and we believe should be taken quickly, and all of them would make a real difference to the quality of life in Donbas. And they would give all of us the confidence that we need that Minsk is going to be fully implemented and that the conflict can come to an end with that full implementation.
Obviously, I want to leave time for questions, but I want to again say thank you to Russia, to Foreign Minister Lavrov for his very generous welcome here to Sochi today. This was an important visit at an important time, and we didn’t come here with an expectation that we were going to define a specific path forward with respect to one crisis or another, or have a major breakthrough. We came here purposefully to have a very full and open dialogue with Russia’s leaders, the kind of dialogue that is absolutely essential in making progress on the many challenges that we face today.
And I am particularly grateful and I want to express my appreciation to President Putin for the very significant and serious conversation that he engaged in for the very significant amount of time that he committed to this discussion. And I express President Obama’s gratitude for Russia’s willingness to engage in this discussion at a time when the exchange of views could not be more important. So we thank them for talking through these issues face-to-face as we try to come together and find workable solutions to very important issues to all of us.
Thank you.
MODERATOR: (Via interpreter) Dear colleagues, now let us proceed to your question. The first question is for the U.S. side.
MS HARF: Matt Lee of the Associated Press, and I think there’s a microphone coming.
QUESTION: Thank you. Is this working? It’s been a long day, so I’ll be as brief as possible. But there’s so much to go over, it’s a multi-part question. These are for both ministers, please.
Your governments routinely accuse each other of spreading misinformation about the situation in Ukraine and the ceasefire violations. What is the real truth here? Are both sides violating the terms of the Minsk agreement, or is it just one side or some sides of it? And what exactly are you going to do to rein this in and get into compliance?
One (b) would be on Syria. You said you agreed to build up and examine new specific concepts on the political transition plan. What are those new concepts, and how exactly are you going to address the concerns about the reports of new chemical weapons use?
Lastly on Iran, Secretary Kerry, did you ask the Russians again to hold off on the transfer of the S-300 missile system? And Minister Lavrov, if he did, what is the Russian response to that? Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: I will make your life easy. He didn’t.
QUESTION: He didn’t.
SECRETARY KERRY: I’ll begin with the last first. I think it is known that we have concerns about the transfer of the S-300, but it is also known that this has been a transfer that was, I think, almost five years ago in the making and was contemplated in the UN resolution as a transfer that was permissible. So it’s not a question of any law or rule or judgment being broken; it’s a question of timing, in our judgment, as well as impact. But we have already talked about it previously and we did not go into it today.
With respect to the issue of violations, et cetera, my sense is, Matt, that we’ve had that conversation today. We’ve talked about the perceptions of violations. What’s important is now to make sure that both sides are making the choices to move forward in implementing the Minsk agreement in its full measure.
And I had a brief conversation with President Poroshenko yesterday. I will have a further conversation with him to debrief him with respect to the meetings here today. And I urge him as I urged the Russians today: Everybody who has any control over anybody needs to take every step possible to fully implement Minsk, and clearly, that means including preventing any breaches whatsoever with respect to the ceasefire.
We talked today about the movement of heavy weapons. We talked today about the need to, particularly, as I talked about a moment ago in Shyrokyne, hopefully that is a ceasefire that might be able to be negotiated in full. I certainly called attention to the fact that whichever side is responsible for firing the first shot, there is not yet a full implementation of the ceasefire that was contemplated by Minsk, and we need to work harder in order to try to see that be put into full effect. We are going to engage with all parties in an effort to try to encourage that to happen.
I will tell you that both the president – President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov reiterated their desire to see Minsk fully implemented, and we talked about ways in which we might be able to accelerate that and break down some of the mistrust on both sides which has prevented that from happening.
With respect to Syria, I’m not going to go into any details about the conversation except to say that we both understand and fully accept the degree to which the situation in Syria is increasingly not only unsustainable, but dangerous for the region. We both agree that the rise of Daesh within Syria and the increased efforts of other extremist groups threatens not only the Assad regime itself, but threatens the region as a consequence, and that it is even more urgent for all of us to find willing partners who are prepared to do what is necessary to be able to implement the principles of Geneva, which are a transition to a government that can be secular, maintain the institutions of the state, and transition to peace and stability, protecting all of the minorities and all of the people of Syria simultaneously. That’s the goal, and we intend to redouble our efforts jointly in order to try to reach it.
On the CW, we talked about exchanging specific information regarding the current situation, which we will do. And subsequent to that, we’ll see what our mutual observations are about that information and what steps might be appropriate.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) On my behalf, I’d like to say the following. I agree that John – I agree with John that the ceasefire violations – ceasefire regime violations are still taking place, that the violations of heavy equipment withdrawal are still taking place. Sometimes they occur more often on one side, sometimes on the other.
Today we discussed that just in general terms and we discussed the reports presented by the special monitoring mission of the OSCE. The monitors are carrying out their job quite professionally, though sometimes public officials declare that the monitors are biased, though I do not think that such behavior is in accordance with the Minsk agreements. I know that the – I hope that the Ukrainian authorities have made some conclusions in accordance with the measures that the OSCE monitors took.
There is one more mechanism, which is the Joint Center of Coordination and Control, that is to monitor the withdrawal of heavy armaments. The center was created based on the request of President Poroshenko. Several teams of Russian and Ukrainian officials are working there, and they established quite a good mode of cooperation and they are cooperating with the OSCE monitoring mission as well. They have a very good professional relationship. They have understanding at the personal level, and I believe it is also a very good mechanism of monitoring the violations of the regime. We all hope to reduce the number of violations and in prospect to eliminate violations at all.
Mr. Kerry mentioned some incidents near the engagement line. We’d prefer to call it a disengagement line. We’d prefer it to be a disengagement line, actually. During the preparation for the contact group meeting and the work of its subgroups on the May 6th in Minsk, there were some drafts developed; one of them was dealing with the demilitarization of Shyrokyne and there was another draft that was actually a proposal aimed at supplementing Minsk agreements with withdrawing tanks and armaments with the caliber below 100 millimeters, including mortars.
The representatives of Donetsk and Luhansk were ready to sign the document, as well as the representatives of Russia in the contact group. And as far as I understand, the OSCE representatives to the contact group also were ready to sign that. But the document was not signed and the discussion will continue during the meeting of the subgroup on security that is going to take place this week. I hope that if these documents are signed and are starting to be implemented, it will definitely help us to reduce the risks of ceasefire violations and it will help us to implement all the provisions aimed at withdrawing heavy elements more efficiently.
As for Syria, I agree to Mr. Kerry that we work together to be able to find out the best ways to implement the Geneva communique – of Geneva communique as of 30th of June. The key task of Geneva communique is to resolve all the issues through a direct dialogue of all Syrian parties and to be able to reach agreements on all the necessary reforms, including on transition based on the mutual consent of Syrian parties.
We have been taking every effort to stimulate work in that direction. After two years ago in Montreux, there was a conference that we participated in – and that was followed by the negotiations between the delegation of the opposition of Syria’s national coalition and the Government of Syria – it quickly became clear that it was absolutely necessary to make the delegation of the opposition as representative as possible. We have always stated that it was necessary to engage all the groups – as many groups as possible – through the opposition delegation, including the groups that are not part to the national coalition.
With that view, in Cairo, with the efforts that Egypt has been taking, we organized two meetings in Moscow. All opposition groups without any exception were invited to take part in that meeting. There were two meetings, and at final stages the delegations were joined by the delegation of the Syrian Government. Those meetings were indeed very useful, and the last contact in Moscow resulted in agreeing the document that is called Moscow platform. We regret that the coalition did not attend the meeting, and as far as I understand, they experienced some problems with – in relation with attending the conference that Mr. de Mistura is starting now.
With regard to Syria, our positions with our U.S. partners are very similar. We believe that this process should be representatives, but given the contradictions within the opposition groups themselves, it is very important that all the external actors that can influence these other group have to encourage them to continue negotiations and to implement the Geneva communique as of June 30th. And it requires work with different Syrian groups and units, and it also requires participation of some external actors. We have discussed that today as well. We have various ideas regarding the issue, and I hope that we’ll continue discussion both between Russia and the U.S. and maybe with other countries – with the countries of the region as well as the states that can also participate in the process.
And regarding the most recent report about chemical weapons and the use of chemical weapons in Syria, let me say that we’ve seen the report and we believe that there is a certain directorate of the UN Organization on Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that has to deal with this report. They really have to implement a thorough investigation and to prevent any efforts similar to those that we witnessed in August of 2014. There should be no attempts to use the issue of alleged use of chemical weapons to exercise any political pressure. Sometimes those attempts were taken to encourage the use of force against Syrian Government. (Inaudible.) That’s it I wanted to say.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Now the question of the Russian mass media. (Inaudible), TV Channel Russia. If you don’t mind, let me continue the topic of Minsk agreements. Mr. Kerry, you’ve said several times that Minsk agreements is the best way to proceed to settle the Ukraine conflict. What can you say about what Mr. Poroshenko said when talking to the representatives of Kyiv army when he said that they are going to gain back the Donetsk airport?
And my next question goes to Mr. Lavrov. We all know that U.S. is really very capable of influencing the current Kyiv authorities. Could you please dwell more on that? How do you think the U.S. can influence the Kyiv authorities in order to settle the crisis in the Ukraine? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much. I have not had a chance – I have not read the speech. I haven’t seen any context. I have simply heard about it in the course of today. But if indeed President Poroshenko is advocating an engagement in a forceful effort at this time, we would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be.
Now, it may be he was talking about in the long term. He may have been talking about the context of a final resolution or settlement; I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that resort to force by any party at this point in time would be extremely destructive at a moment when everyone has brought together the working groups, the working groups have met, and the working groups have an ability to try to provide a path forward on all of those issues that many of us have been concerned about over the course of the last months. My strongest urging would be for everybody to give the working groups their effort, to stay invested in the Minsk agreement, to continue to push for the political resolution, and to hold back anybody from engaging in self-help through force.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) Let me tell you that I absolutely agree to what John Kerry – John has just said, that any attempts to engage again in a forceful scenario could be really undermining the efforts that we have been taking. Let me emphasize one more time that we have to strictly follow our path to implementing the Minsk agreements. Russia and the U.S. fully share an opinion that we have to provide for their full implementation. And today, we agreed to take every effort in order to intensify the process and to speed it up as much as possible.
We discussed also the specific measures that we could take. But let me only tell you that various countries maintain contacts with the Kyiv authorities and with the representatives of the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk republics. And we agreed to have meetings with everyone that can affect the implementation of Minsk agreements. We are going to encourage all the sides to the conflict to implement every provision of the Minsk agreements. While the methods to ensure that can vary and the forms of our cooperation can be various, we are fully aware of what diplomatic mechanisms are available, and we are going to further use them.
Thanks a lot for your participation in the press conference. That was our final question. Thank you.
READOUT: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CALL WITH KING al-SAUD OF SAUDI ARABIA
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
May 11, 2015
Readout of the President’s Call with King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia
King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia called President Obama today to express his regret at not being able to travel to Washington this week and confirmed he was sending Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to represent the Kingdom. The President and King Salman reviewed the agenda for the upcoming meetings and agreed on the necessity of working closely, along with other GCC member states, to build a collective capacity to address more effectively the range of threats facing the region and to resolve regional conflicts. The President and King Salman also discussed the importance of a comprehensive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran that verifiably ensures the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. The President welcomed Saudi Arabia’s announcement of a cease-fire and humanitarian pause in Yemen and both leaders agreed on the need to address the urgent humanitarian situation in the country.
The two leaders emphasized the strength of the two countries’ partnership, based on their shared interest and commitment to the stability and prosperity of the region, and agreed to continue our close consultations on a wide range of issues.
May 11, 2015
Readout of the President’s Call with King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia
King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia called President Obama today to express his regret at not being able to travel to Washington this week and confirmed he was sending Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to represent the Kingdom. The President and King Salman reviewed the agenda for the upcoming meetings and agreed on the necessity of working closely, along with other GCC member states, to build a collective capacity to address more effectively the range of threats facing the region and to resolve regional conflicts. The President and King Salman also discussed the importance of a comprehensive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran that verifiably ensures the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. The President welcomed Saudi Arabia’s announcement of a cease-fire and humanitarian pause in Yemen and both leaders agreed on the need to address the urgent humanitarian situation in the country.
The two leaders emphasized the strength of the two countries’ partnership, based on their shared interest and commitment to the stability and prosperity of the region, and agreed to continue our close consultations on a wide range of issues.
DOD EXERCISE "NOBLE PARTNER" BEGINS IN THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA
Right: American paratroopers from Troop C, 1st Squadron, 91st Cavalry Regiment 173rd Airborne Brigade arrive at Joint Aviation Base Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia, May 8, 2015. The paratroopers were welcomed by Republic of Georgia soldiers during a small ceremony. The paratroopers arrived from Grafenwoehr, Germany, to train alongside other U.S. soldiers from Company A, 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, and Georgian Land Forces troops in Exercise Noble Partner. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Daniel Cole.
Eucom, Georgia Join for Exercise ‘Noble Partner’
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, May 11, 2015 – The Defense Department announced today the start of Exercise “Noble Partner” between U.S. European Command and the Republic of Georgia, which will assist in fulfilling troop commitments to the NATO Response Force.
During a press availability session with Pentagon reporters, DoD spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren explained the exercise’s intent.
“Today, Eucom kicks off Exercise ‘Noble Partner,’” Warren said, “which will be held at a training area in the Republic of Georgia and will run through [May 24].”
Critical Training
This exercise “is a critical part of Georgia’s training for their contribution of a light infantry company to the NATO Response Force,” Warren said.
According to the colonel, a total of approximately 600 military personnel are participating in the exercise.
Of those 600, Warren said, 200 are American soldiers, including “Sky Soldiers” from the U.S. Army’s Vicenza, Italy-based 173rd Airborne Brigade, as well as “Dog-Faced” soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Georgia, which will serve as the Army’s continental U.S.-based contribution to the NATO Response Force.
Focusing on Unified Land Operations
“This exercise will focus on unified land operations,” he said, “and will include a field training exercise and a live-fire exercise.”
Warren noted Bradley Fighting Vehicles involved in the training exercise are the same vehicles he announced two weeks ago were being transported across the Black Sea via ferry.
DOD REPORTS ON RECENT AIRSTRIKES AGAINST ISIL IN SYRIA AND IRAQ
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Military Airstrikes Hit ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, May 11, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
Officials reported details of the latest strikes, which took place between 8 a.m. yesterday and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Airstrikes in Syria
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Syria:
-- Near Hasakah, six airstrikes struck one large and one small ISIL tactical unit, destroying three ISIL fighting positions, three ISIL vehicles, two ISIL mortar positions, four ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL supply point.
-- Near Raqqah, one airstrike destroyed two ISIL vehicles.
-- Near Kobani, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL mortar position and an ISIL vehicle.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:
-- Near Beiji, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, destroying an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Fallujah, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, destroying four ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Haditha, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Mosul, two airstrikes struck an ISIL fighting position and struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
-- Near Ramadi, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Sinjar, one airstrike struck an ISIL large tactical unit, destroying four ISIL buildings and three ISIL heavy machine guns.
Part of Operation Inherent Resolve
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations.
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Military Airstrikes Hit ISIL in Syria, Iraq
From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, May 11, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
Officials reported details of the latest strikes, which took place between 8 a.m. yesterday and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Airstrikes in Syria
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Syria:
-- Near Hasakah, six airstrikes struck one large and one small ISIL tactical unit, destroying three ISIL fighting positions, three ISIL vehicles, two ISIL mortar positions, four ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL supply point.
-- Near Raqqah, one airstrike destroyed two ISIL vehicles.
-- Near Kobani, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL mortar position and an ISIL vehicle.
Airstrikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:
-- Near Beiji, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, destroying an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Fallujah, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, destroying four ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Haditha, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Mosul, two airstrikes struck an ISIL fighting position and struck land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage.
-- Near Ramadi, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Sinjar, one airstrike struck an ISIL large tactical unit, destroying four ISIL buildings and three ISIL heavy machine guns.
Part of Operation Inherent Resolve
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations.
Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
FOMER CIA OFFICER SENT TO PRISON FOR LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, May 11, 2015
Former CIA Officer Sentenced to 42 Months in Prison for Leaking Classified Information and Obstruction of Justice
Jeffrey A. Sterling, 47, of O’Fallon, Missouri, was sentenced today to 42 months in prison for disclosing national defense information and obstructing justice. Sterling disclosed classified information about a clandestine operational program concerning Iran’s nuclear weapons program to a New York Times reporter in 2003.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente of the Eastern District of Virginia and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew McCabe of the FBI’s Washington, D.C. Field Office made the announcement.
“For his own vindictive purposes, Jeffrey Sterling carelessly disclosed extremely valuable, highly classified information that he had taken an oath to keep secret,” said U.S. Attorney Boente. “His attempt to leverage national security information for his own malicious reasons brought him to this sentence today. I would like to thank the trial team and our partners at the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the Central Intelligence Agency for their hard work and commitment to this case.”
“The sentence handed down by a federal judge is the culmination of a lengthy investigation, a protracted prosecution and a unanimous decision by a federal jury to convict Mr. Sterling for the unauthorized disclosure of national security information,” said Assistant Director in Charge McCabe. “The time and effort dedicated to this case by FBI special agents, intelligence analysts and prosecutors working on this matter exemplify the extent the FBI will undertake in pursuit of justice.”
Sterling was found guilty by a federal jury on Jan. 26, 2015. According to court records and evidence at trial, Sterling was employed by the CIA from May 1993 to January 2002. From November 1998 through May 2000, he was assigned to a classified clandestine operational program designed to undermine the Iranian nuclear weapons program. He was also the operations officer assigned to handle a human asset associated with that program, a person identified at trial as Merlin. Sterling was reassigned in May 2000, at which time he was no longer authorized to receive or possess classified documents concerning the program or the individual.
In connection with his employment, Sterling, who is a lawyer, signed various security, secrecy and non-disclosure agreements in which he agreed never to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons, acknowledged that classified information was the property of the CIA, and also acknowledged that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information could constitute a criminal offense. These agreements also set forth the proper procedures to follow if Sterling had concerns that the CIA had engaged in any “unlawful or improper” conduct that implicated classified information. These procedures permit such concerns to be addressed while still protecting the classified nature of the information. The media was not an authorized party to receive such classified information.
In August 2000, Sterling pursued administrative and civil actions against the CIA. Evidence at trial showed that Sterling, in retaliation for the CIA’s refusal to settle those actions on terms favorable to him, disclosed information concerning the classified operational program and the human asset to a New York Times reporter working on an unpublished article in early 2003 and a book the reporter published in January 2006. Sterling’s civil and administrative claims were ultimately dismissed by the court.
Evidence demonstrated that in February and March 2003, Sterling made various telephone calls to the reporter’s residence and e-mailed a newspaper article about the weapons capabilities of a certain country that was within Sterling’s previous clandestine operational assignment. While the possible newspaper article containing the classified information Sterling provided was ultimately not published in 2003, evidence showed that Sterling and the reporter remained in touch from December 2003 through November 2005 via telephone and e-mail. In January 2006, the reporter published a book that contained classified information about the program and the human asset.
Evidence at trial showed that Sterling was aware of a grand jury investigation into the matter by June 2006 when he was served a grand jury subpoena for documents relating to the reporter’s book. Nevertheless, between April and July 2006, Sterling deleted the e-mail containing the classified information he had sent from his account in an effort to obstruct the investigation.
This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office, with assistance in the arrest from the FBI’s St. Louis Field Office. This case was prosecuted by Deputy Chief Eric G. Olshan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and Senior Litigation Counsel James L. Trump and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Fitzpatrick of the Eastern District of Virginia.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Former CIA Officer Sentenced to 42 Months in Prison for Leaking Classified Information and Obstruction of Justice
Jeffrey A. Sterling, 47, of O’Fallon, Missouri, was sentenced today to 42 months in prison for disclosing national defense information and obstructing justice. Sterling disclosed classified information about a clandestine operational program concerning Iran’s nuclear weapons program to a New York Times reporter in 2003.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente of the Eastern District of Virginia and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew McCabe of the FBI’s Washington, D.C. Field Office made the announcement.
“For his own vindictive purposes, Jeffrey Sterling carelessly disclosed extremely valuable, highly classified information that he had taken an oath to keep secret,” said U.S. Attorney Boente. “His attempt to leverage national security information for his own malicious reasons brought him to this sentence today. I would like to thank the trial team and our partners at the FBI’s Washington Field Office and the Central Intelligence Agency for their hard work and commitment to this case.”
“The sentence handed down by a federal judge is the culmination of a lengthy investigation, a protracted prosecution and a unanimous decision by a federal jury to convict Mr. Sterling for the unauthorized disclosure of national security information,” said Assistant Director in Charge McCabe. “The time and effort dedicated to this case by FBI special agents, intelligence analysts and prosecutors working on this matter exemplify the extent the FBI will undertake in pursuit of justice.”
Sterling was found guilty by a federal jury on Jan. 26, 2015. According to court records and evidence at trial, Sterling was employed by the CIA from May 1993 to January 2002. From November 1998 through May 2000, he was assigned to a classified clandestine operational program designed to undermine the Iranian nuclear weapons program. He was also the operations officer assigned to handle a human asset associated with that program, a person identified at trial as Merlin. Sterling was reassigned in May 2000, at which time he was no longer authorized to receive or possess classified documents concerning the program or the individual.
In connection with his employment, Sterling, who is a lawyer, signed various security, secrecy and non-disclosure agreements in which he agreed never to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons, acknowledged that classified information was the property of the CIA, and also acknowledged that the unauthorized disclosure of classified information could constitute a criminal offense. These agreements also set forth the proper procedures to follow if Sterling had concerns that the CIA had engaged in any “unlawful or improper” conduct that implicated classified information. These procedures permit such concerns to be addressed while still protecting the classified nature of the information. The media was not an authorized party to receive such classified information.
In August 2000, Sterling pursued administrative and civil actions against the CIA. Evidence at trial showed that Sterling, in retaliation for the CIA’s refusal to settle those actions on terms favorable to him, disclosed information concerning the classified operational program and the human asset to a New York Times reporter working on an unpublished article in early 2003 and a book the reporter published in January 2006. Sterling’s civil and administrative claims were ultimately dismissed by the court.
Evidence demonstrated that in February and March 2003, Sterling made various telephone calls to the reporter’s residence and e-mailed a newspaper article about the weapons capabilities of a certain country that was within Sterling’s previous clandestine operational assignment. While the possible newspaper article containing the classified information Sterling provided was ultimately not published in 2003, evidence showed that Sterling and the reporter remained in touch from December 2003 through November 2005 via telephone and e-mail. In January 2006, the reporter published a book that contained classified information about the program and the human asset.
Evidence at trial showed that Sterling was aware of a grand jury investigation into the matter by June 2006 when he was served a grand jury subpoena for documents relating to the reporter’s book. Nevertheless, between April and July 2006, Sterling deleted the e-mail containing the classified information he had sent from his account in an effort to obstruct the investigation.
This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office, with assistance in the arrest from the FBI’s St. Louis Field Office. This case was prosecuted by Deputy Chief Eric G. Olshan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and Senior Litigation Counsel James L. Trump and Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Fitzpatrick of the Eastern District of Virginia.
SEC WARNS INVESTORS TO LOOK OUT FOR GOVERNMENT IMPERSONATORS
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Updated Investor Alert: SEC Warns of Government Impersonators
May 11, 2015
SEC staff is issuing this updated Investor Alert because we are aware of continuing fraudulent solicitations that purport to be affiliated with or sponsored by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The SEC does not endorse investment offers, assist in the purchase or sale of securities, or participate in money transfers. SEC staff will not, for example, contact individuals by telephone or email for purposes of:
seeking assistance with a fund transfer;
forwarding investment offers to them;
advising individuals that they own certain securities;
telling investors that they are eligible to receive disbursements from an investor claims fund or class action settlement; or
offering grants or other financial assistance (especially for an upfront fee).
SEC staff do not make these types of unsolicited communications, including emails or telephone calls asking for detailed personal and financial information, such as shareholdings and PIN numbers. If you receive a telephone call or email from someone claiming to be from the SEC (or another government agency), always verify the person’s identity. Use the SEC’s personnel locator, (202) 551-6000, to verify whether the caller is an SEC staff member and to speak with him or her directly. In addition, you can call the SEC at (800) SEC-0330 for general information, including information about SEC enforcement actions and any investor claims funds. Our online Question Form is another way you can ask us about a solicitation.
If you have been contacted by someone misrepresenting himself as an SEC staff member, please let us know by either calling us or submitting a Complaint Form. You may also report the incident to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at www.ic3.gov.
It’s not hard to figure out who the real regulators are and how you can contact them. You’ll find a list of international securities regulators on the website of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and a directory of state and provincial regulators in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. on the website of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA). If someone encourages you to verify information about a deal with an entity that doesn't appear on these lists, you should be wary.
For additional tips on investing wisely and avoiding fraud, please visit the following web pages on the SEC’s website and Investor.gov:
Updated Investor Alert: Investors Beware of Government Impersonators (April 2013)
Updated Investor Alert: Investors Beware of Government Impersonators (November 2012)
Investor Alert: Investors Beware of Government Impersonators> (February 2012)
Investor Alert: Investors Beware of Government Impersonators (October 2010)
Investor Alert: SEC Warns of Government Impersonators (April 2010)
Advance Fee Fraud Schemes
PAUSE List of Fictitious Governmental Agencies and International Organizations Associated with Soliciting Entities
Worthless Stock: How to Avoid Doubling Your Losses
Fake Seals and Phony Numbers: How Fraudsters Try to Look Legit
FTC Identity Theft Site
The Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has provided this information as a service to investors. It is neither a legal interpretation nor a statement of SEC policy. If you have questions concerning the meaning or application of a particular law or rule, please consult with an attorney who specializes in securities law.
Updated Investor Alert: SEC Warns of Government Impersonators
May 11, 2015
SEC staff is issuing this updated Investor Alert because we are aware of continuing fraudulent solicitations that purport to be affiliated with or sponsored by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The SEC does not endorse investment offers, assist in the purchase or sale of securities, or participate in money transfers. SEC staff will not, for example, contact individuals by telephone or email for purposes of:
seeking assistance with a fund transfer;
forwarding investment offers to them;
advising individuals that they own certain securities;
telling investors that they are eligible to receive disbursements from an investor claims fund or class action settlement; or
offering grants or other financial assistance (especially for an upfront fee).
SEC staff do not make these types of unsolicited communications, including emails or telephone calls asking for detailed personal and financial information, such as shareholdings and PIN numbers. If you receive a telephone call or email from someone claiming to be from the SEC (or another government agency), always verify the person’s identity. Use the SEC’s personnel locator, (202) 551-6000, to verify whether the caller is an SEC staff member and to speak with him or her directly. In addition, you can call the SEC at (800) SEC-0330 for general information, including information about SEC enforcement actions and any investor claims funds. Our online Question Form is another way you can ask us about a solicitation.
If you have been contacted by someone misrepresenting himself as an SEC staff member, please let us know by either calling us or submitting a Complaint Form. You may also report the incident to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at www.ic3.gov.
It’s not hard to figure out who the real regulators are and how you can contact them. You’ll find a list of international securities regulators on the website of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and a directory of state and provincial regulators in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. on the website of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA). If someone encourages you to verify information about a deal with an entity that doesn't appear on these lists, you should be wary.
For additional tips on investing wisely and avoiding fraud, please visit the following web pages on the SEC’s website and Investor.gov:
Updated Investor Alert: Investors Beware of Government Impersonators (April 2013)
Updated Investor Alert: Investors Beware of Government Impersonators (November 2012)
Investor Alert: Investors Beware of Government Impersonators> (February 2012)
Investor Alert: Investors Beware of Government Impersonators (October 2010)
Investor Alert: SEC Warns of Government Impersonators (April 2010)
Advance Fee Fraud Schemes
PAUSE List of Fictitious Governmental Agencies and International Organizations Associated with Soliciting Entities
Worthless Stock: How to Avoid Doubling Your Losses
Fake Seals and Phony Numbers: How Fraudsters Try to Look Legit
FTC Identity Theft Site
The Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has provided this information as a service to investors. It is neither a legal interpretation nor a statement of SEC policy. If you have questions concerning the meaning or application of a particular law or rule, please consult with an attorney who specializes in securities law.
KEYNOTE REMARKS: BIOEONOMY AND CLIMATE CHANGE FORUM
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Keynote Remarks at the Bioeconomy and Climate Change Forum
05/06/2015 01:10 PM EDT
Keynote Remarks at the Bioeconomy and Climate Change Forum
Remarks
Charles H. Rivkin
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
Washington, DC
May 6, 2015
As prepared
Thank you, Eric, for that introduction.
Good morning everyone, and a special welcome to our ambassadors and others from the foreign diplomatic corps here today.
Before I continue, I’d like to thank the many people responsible for today’s event, including our partner, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, or BIO. I look forward to hearing from Jim Greenwood, President and CEO, in just a few minutes.
I also want to thank all the people in the State Department who worked on this event for their outstanding support and participation in making this event happen. That includes, in particular, the Foreign Service Institute, as well as the Office of Global Food Security, the Office of the Science and Technology Advisor, the Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Scientific Affairs, and of course our own Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.
With that, I am delighted to kick off today’s event which will explore some of the innovative and exciting things this extended community is doing to address climate change. This is really one of the most challenging issues of our time but it is truly bringing out the best and brightest among us to respond.
As I thought about climate change and how far we have come, I thought about Homer’s Iliad, the ancient story of Helen of Troy – whose face launched a thousand ships to bring her back to Greece.
But before those ships could launch, they needed a favorable wind. So they consulted a prophet named Calchas, a man who examined animal entrails and observed the flight of birds to make his prognostications. He told the Greeks they would get their wind if their leader sacrificed his only daughter to the gods.
Back then, that’s what passed for climate science. Today, every Greek warrior would simply pull out a smartphone and check his weather app!
Of course, the Iliad’s a myth, set more than 3,000 years ago. But I use it to show just how far science has come and how technology is literally in our hands, letting us do things previous generations would have considered beyond the power of mere mortals. Most importantly, we are using the great discoveries of biotechnology to address climate change in more effective, sustainable and widely applicable ways.
Last fall, I went to Des Moines, Iowa, to attend the World Food Prize, and to speak about biotechnology as a tool for hunger alleviation and job creation. While there, I had the opportunity to join a farmer in central Iowa, sit in the buddy seat of his John Deere S670 combine harvester, and watch him work.
As we moved through the cornfields, his combine gathered, husked and shelled 12 rows of corn at a time, turning them into bushels of instant grain. He checked his progress with onboard computers and GPS technology. These helped him deposit seed and fertilizer precisely, and even showed if he had missed a single ear of corn!
While he was doing this, he spoke about the importance of international markets for American agriculture, and how he had once hosted President Xi Jinping of China at his farm.
In just one ride on a combine, I saw a farmer using technology to enhance his livelihood and engage fully within the global economy. I also saw how biotechnology was helping farmers to use sustainable techniques that reduce our carbon footprint and address climate change.
Of course, climate change cuts across all sectors of the bioeconomy, which not only include agriculture but health, industry and energy. It is one of the biggest threats of our time with a decisive role in everything from pandemic diseases to crop damage, and from famine to widespread destruction of homes and habitats.
One question for our time is this: Can we direct the kind of innovation that has already built the bioeconomy towards addressing these enormous challenges?
The answer is “yes,” if we continue to build on the incredible innovative progress we have made so far – and are making right now – in the biosciences.
It’s “yes,” as long as we share the same consensus mission: to provide for humanity’s ever growing needs while reducing our carbon footprint.
Finally, it’s “yes,” if we ensure that our breakthroughs not only create benefits for society but are sustainable in the global market.
Right now, in the United States, the bioeconomy is worth more than $300 billion dollars and already supports 1.6 million jobs. It can, and it should, grow more because, quite simply, we have no choice: We have to invent our way to solutions or face the consequences.
The good news is, innovation is central to our DNA. That’s clearly evident in the bioeconomy. We are finding ways to transform our waste into valuable resources. We are making our production processes more efficient and sustainable. Instead of addressing disease with chemically derived medicines that respond to symptoms, we are using biologically derived vaccines that work on the causes. And we are creating sustainable biofuels to drive our cars, warm our homes, and light up our workplaces.
But innovation needs support from many corners, from the funding of research to the protection of intellectual property rights; from a free and open internet to the imaginative partnerships that government and the private sector can create so that more people are free to make those powerful discoveries that benefit us all.
From the government corner, we need to address macro policies that respond to climate change. We need to agree on global commitments that count, metrics that matter, and standards that improve conditions.
The Obama administration has already shown its ongoing commitment in this space. It recently announced a target of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent in 2025 compared with 2005.
Last November, President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China made an historic Joint Announcement of our intended targets, with China agreeing for the first time to a peak year for its CO2 emissions of around 2030 and to an ambitious target of 20 percent clean energy in its energy mix by 2030.
This December in Paris, we are looking to establish, for the first time, an ambitious, durable climate regime that applies to all countries, is fair, and focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resilience.
Our commitment to address climate change is as widespread as it is focused.
We launched the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture, which works to produce more food, adapt to a changing climate, and reduce greenhouse gases.
We support the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Climate Technology Center and Network, and the Green Climate Fund, both of which support the efforts of developing countries in different ways to adapt to climate change.
That includes work to protect forests, support resilient agricultural sectors, and reduce greenhouse gases, while generating economic opportunities for their citizens.
We also invest billions in research and development of low carbon technologies and energy efficiency.
On other fronts, my Bureau has a leading role in making sure investors, entrepreneurs, researchers and the entire bio-economic extended community can be more connected, integrated, efficient and profitable.
For example, we advocate in world forums for a free internet to keep open channels of information, commerce and trade. We are integral to the negotiations in two ongoing multilateral trade deals that will not only break down barriers to trade and investment but set new environmental standards for member nations.
We also foster innovation by establishing legal frameworks that protect intellectual property rights, minimize corruption, and reward entrepreneurship.
The government has unique assets in at least two other ways. First of all, we have convening authority: We can assemble political leaders, scientists, economists, university leaders, business leaders and multilateral bodies to pursue mutually agreed upon goals.
Secondly, we have 270 embassies and posts around the world – our shoes on the ground, you might say – to extend our messages and outreach with citizens, political leaders and civil society organizations everywhere.
While the U.S. Government works to play its part, there are roles for a wide array of other actors in the bioeconomy, including other governments, multilateral bodies, businesses, universities, entrepreneurs, and scientists.
As I glance around this room, I can see a good representation of that global community. I look forward to hearing more about the stories you have to tell.
We have so much to build on; so many success stories in biotechnology, as we work to combat the effects of climate change. As I mentioned, one of the consequences of climate change is the increased risk of insect-borne disease exposure, such as dengue and malaria, in places such as Florida and Texas. The National Science Foundation has supported research that reengineers microorganisms to produce an anti-malarial drug. It’s called artemisinin and new companies are already putting it on the market.
That’s a perfect illustration of the bioeconomy at its best: Funded innovative research addresses a serious problem, using cross-disciplinary biosciences. The private sector brings it to market and makes it available globally. The problem is addressed.
As I learned on my trip to Iowa, the agricultural sector continues to benefit from innovation. We are making more sustainable use of land and water. We are developing drought tolerant varieties of corn, nutritionally enhanced rice, and disease resistant oranges. These are crucial breakthroughs as we also try to feed a global population that will reach an estimated 9 billion by the year 2050.
These and other stories prove to me that, despite the size and scale of our challenges, we are rising to meet them head on. I believe it’s because, throughout human history, we have made productive use of innovation since we first learned to rub two sticks together.
Back then it was sticks. Now we’re creating genetically modified mosquitos that don’t carry malaria. We are turning algae into jet fuel. We are making apples that don’t brown and potatoes that produce fewer carcinogens when fried.
Of course, with innovation comes change – and inevitably resistance. Charles Kettering, an American inventor and former head of research at General Motors, who owned 186 patents, once said: “The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress.”
The bioeconomy is all about progress, from the cellular level to the macro-economic level, as we work to grow an ecosystem of invention and reinvention that creates the products and processes for a more sustainable future. We may not seem as powerful and impressive as those ancient Greek warriors, waiting for their favorable wind. But if you compare the stakes we face, we can make the case that we’re more modern heroes. By creating a viable, sustainable bioeconomy, we are not only enhancing and sustaining society; we are contributing to a more ecologically balanced planet. For my money, that beats getting Helen back from Troy any time!
Thank you.
Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Keynote Remarks at the Bioeconomy and Climate Change Forum
05/06/2015 01:10 PM EDT
Keynote Remarks at the Bioeconomy and Climate Change Forum
Remarks
Charles H. Rivkin
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
Washington, DC
May 6, 2015
As prepared
Thank you, Eric, for that introduction.
Good morning everyone, and a special welcome to our ambassadors and others from the foreign diplomatic corps here today.
Before I continue, I’d like to thank the many people responsible for today’s event, including our partner, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, or BIO. I look forward to hearing from Jim Greenwood, President and CEO, in just a few minutes.
I also want to thank all the people in the State Department who worked on this event for their outstanding support and participation in making this event happen. That includes, in particular, the Foreign Service Institute, as well as the Office of Global Food Security, the Office of the Science and Technology Advisor, the Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Scientific Affairs, and of course our own Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.
With that, I am delighted to kick off today’s event which will explore some of the innovative and exciting things this extended community is doing to address climate change. This is really one of the most challenging issues of our time but it is truly bringing out the best and brightest among us to respond.
As I thought about climate change and how far we have come, I thought about Homer’s Iliad, the ancient story of Helen of Troy – whose face launched a thousand ships to bring her back to Greece.
But before those ships could launch, they needed a favorable wind. So they consulted a prophet named Calchas, a man who examined animal entrails and observed the flight of birds to make his prognostications. He told the Greeks they would get their wind if their leader sacrificed his only daughter to the gods.
Back then, that’s what passed for climate science. Today, every Greek warrior would simply pull out a smartphone and check his weather app!
Of course, the Iliad’s a myth, set more than 3,000 years ago. But I use it to show just how far science has come and how technology is literally in our hands, letting us do things previous generations would have considered beyond the power of mere mortals. Most importantly, we are using the great discoveries of biotechnology to address climate change in more effective, sustainable and widely applicable ways.
Last fall, I went to Des Moines, Iowa, to attend the World Food Prize, and to speak about biotechnology as a tool for hunger alleviation and job creation. While there, I had the opportunity to join a farmer in central Iowa, sit in the buddy seat of his John Deere S670 combine harvester, and watch him work.
As we moved through the cornfields, his combine gathered, husked and shelled 12 rows of corn at a time, turning them into bushels of instant grain. He checked his progress with onboard computers and GPS technology. These helped him deposit seed and fertilizer precisely, and even showed if he had missed a single ear of corn!
While he was doing this, he spoke about the importance of international markets for American agriculture, and how he had once hosted President Xi Jinping of China at his farm.
In just one ride on a combine, I saw a farmer using technology to enhance his livelihood and engage fully within the global economy. I also saw how biotechnology was helping farmers to use sustainable techniques that reduce our carbon footprint and address climate change.
Of course, climate change cuts across all sectors of the bioeconomy, which not only include agriculture but health, industry and energy. It is one of the biggest threats of our time with a decisive role in everything from pandemic diseases to crop damage, and from famine to widespread destruction of homes and habitats.
One question for our time is this: Can we direct the kind of innovation that has already built the bioeconomy towards addressing these enormous challenges?
The answer is “yes,” if we continue to build on the incredible innovative progress we have made so far – and are making right now – in the biosciences.
It’s “yes,” as long as we share the same consensus mission: to provide for humanity’s ever growing needs while reducing our carbon footprint.
Finally, it’s “yes,” if we ensure that our breakthroughs not only create benefits for society but are sustainable in the global market.
Right now, in the United States, the bioeconomy is worth more than $300 billion dollars and already supports 1.6 million jobs. It can, and it should, grow more because, quite simply, we have no choice: We have to invent our way to solutions or face the consequences.
The good news is, innovation is central to our DNA. That’s clearly evident in the bioeconomy. We are finding ways to transform our waste into valuable resources. We are making our production processes more efficient and sustainable. Instead of addressing disease with chemically derived medicines that respond to symptoms, we are using biologically derived vaccines that work on the causes. And we are creating sustainable biofuels to drive our cars, warm our homes, and light up our workplaces.
But innovation needs support from many corners, from the funding of research to the protection of intellectual property rights; from a free and open internet to the imaginative partnerships that government and the private sector can create so that more people are free to make those powerful discoveries that benefit us all.
From the government corner, we need to address macro policies that respond to climate change. We need to agree on global commitments that count, metrics that matter, and standards that improve conditions.
The Obama administration has already shown its ongoing commitment in this space. It recently announced a target of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent in 2025 compared with 2005.
Last November, President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China made an historic Joint Announcement of our intended targets, with China agreeing for the first time to a peak year for its CO2 emissions of around 2030 and to an ambitious target of 20 percent clean energy in its energy mix by 2030.
This December in Paris, we are looking to establish, for the first time, an ambitious, durable climate regime that applies to all countries, is fair, and focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resilience.
Our commitment to address climate change is as widespread as it is focused.
We launched the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture, which works to produce more food, adapt to a changing climate, and reduce greenhouse gases.
We support the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Climate Technology Center and Network, and the Green Climate Fund, both of which support the efforts of developing countries in different ways to adapt to climate change.
That includes work to protect forests, support resilient agricultural sectors, and reduce greenhouse gases, while generating economic opportunities for their citizens.
We also invest billions in research and development of low carbon technologies and energy efficiency.
On other fronts, my Bureau has a leading role in making sure investors, entrepreneurs, researchers and the entire bio-economic extended community can be more connected, integrated, efficient and profitable.
For example, we advocate in world forums for a free internet to keep open channels of information, commerce and trade. We are integral to the negotiations in two ongoing multilateral trade deals that will not only break down barriers to trade and investment but set new environmental standards for member nations.
We also foster innovation by establishing legal frameworks that protect intellectual property rights, minimize corruption, and reward entrepreneurship.
The government has unique assets in at least two other ways. First of all, we have convening authority: We can assemble political leaders, scientists, economists, university leaders, business leaders and multilateral bodies to pursue mutually agreed upon goals.
Secondly, we have 270 embassies and posts around the world – our shoes on the ground, you might say – to extend our messages and outreach with citizens, political leaders and civil society organizations everywhere.
While the U.S. Government works to play its part, there are roles for a wide array of other actors in the bioeconomy, including other governments, multilateral bodies, businesses, universities, entrepreneurs, and scientists.
As I glance around this room, I can see a good representation of that global community. I look forward to hearing more about the stories you have to tell.
We have so much to build on; so many success stories in biotechnology, as we work to combat the effects of climate change. As I mentioned, one of the consequences of climate change is the increased risk of insect-borne disease exposure, such as dengue and malaria, in places such as Florida and Texas. The National Science Foundation has supported research that reengineers microorganisms to produce an anti-malarial drug. It’s called artemisinin and new companies are already putting it on the market.
That’s a perfect illustration of the bioeconomy at its best: Funded innovative research addresses a serious problem, using cross-disciplinary biosciences. The private sector brings it to market and makes it available globally. The problem is addressed.
As I learned on my trip to Iowa, the agricultural sector continues to benefit from innovation. We are making more sustainable use of land and water. We are developing drought tolerant varieties of corn, nutritionally enhanced rice, and disease resistant oranges. These are crucial breakthroughs as we also try to feed a global population that will reach an estimated 9 billion by the year 2050.
These and other stories prove to me that, despite the size and scale of our challenges, we are rising to meet them head on. I believe it’s because, throughout human history, we have made productive use of innovation since we first learned to rub two sticks together.
Back then it was sticks. Now we’re creating genetically modified mosquitos that don’t carry malaria. We are turning algae into jet fuel. We are making apples that don’t brown and potatoes that produce fewer carcinogens when fried.
Of course, with innovation comes change – and inevitably resistance. Charles Kettering, an American inventor and former head of research at General Motors, who owned 186 patents, once said: “The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress.”
The bioeconomy is all about progress, from the cellular level to the macro-economic level, as we work to grow an ecosystem of invention and reinvention that creates the products and processes for a more sustainable future. We may not seem as powerful and impressive as those ancient Greek warriors, waiting for their favorable wind. But if you compare the stakes we face, we can make the case that we’re more modern heroes. By creating a viable, sustainable bioeconomy, we are not only enhancing and sustaining society; we are contributing to a more ecologically balanced planet. For my money, that beats getting Helen back from Troy any time!
Thank you.
Monday, May 11, 2015
AG LYNCH MAKES STATEMENT ON OFFICER SHOOTINGS IN HATTIESBURG
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, May 11, 2015
Statement by Attorney General Lynch on Officer Shootings in Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch released the following statement on the death of two officers in Hattiesburg, Mississippi:
“The shocking assault on law enforcement officers in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, struck at the heart of that great city. The Department of Justice stands ready to offer any possible aid to the Hattiesburg community as they investigate this appalling incident. And we will continue to do all that we can to protect our officers across the country and support all those who wear the badge.
“Officer Benjamin Deen and Officer Liquori Tate were committed and courageous public safety officials, dedicated to their community and devoted to their mission. They exemplified the very best that our country has to offer. And as we go forward, the Department of Justice intends to honor their service and their sacrifice by fighting for the values they protected every day, and defending the American people they were proud to serve.
“Their loss is made even more tragic by the fact that, on the day they were killed this past Saturday, the country began observing Police Week – a time when we pause to remember and honor the more than 20,000 law enforcement officers who have been killed in the line of duty. The murder of these young men is a devastating reminder that the work our brave police officers perform every day is extremely dangerous, profoundly heroic, and deeply deserving of our unequivocal support. All Americans owe these courageous citizens a debt of gratitude. The Department of Justice stands in solidarity with our brothers and sisters at every level of law enforcement as we mourn this most recent loss.”
Monday, May 11, 2015
Statement by Attorney General Lynch on Officer Shootings in Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch released the following statement on the death of two officers in Hattiesburg, Mississippi:
“The shocking assault on law enforcement officers in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, struck at the heart of that great city. The Department of Justice stands ready to offer any possible aid to the Hattiesburg community as they investigate this appalling incident. And we will continue to do all that we can to protect our officers across the country and support all those who wear the badge.
“Officer Benjamin Deen and Officer Liquori Tate were committed and courageous public safety officials, dedicated to their community and devoted to their mission. They exemplified the very best that our country has to offer. And as we go forward, the Department of Justice intends to honor their service and their sacrifice by fighting for the values they protected every day, and defending the American people they were proud to serve.
“Their loss is made even more tragic by the fact that, on the day they were killed this past Saturday, the country began observing Police Week – a time when we pause to remember and honor the more than 20,000 law enforcement officers who have been killed in the line of duty. The murder of these young men is a devastating reminder that the work our brave police officers perform every day is extremely dangerous, profoundly heroic, and deeply deserving of our unequivocal support. All Americans owe these courageous citizens a debt of gratitude. The Department of Justice stands in solidarity with our brothers and sisters at every level of law enforcement as we mourn this most recent loss.”
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO UN CONCERNED BURUNDI IS SLIDING INTO VIOLENT TURMOIL
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
May 8, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Good afternoon. We just heard a very concerning briefing from Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the Great Lakes Region, Said Djinnit, about the situation in Burundi.
This is the third time the Council has come together just in the last month to address the need for all parties in Burundi to refrain from violence and intimidation before, during, and after elections, and to actively support the conditions for a peaceful, timely, credible, and inclusive elections process.
What we are seeing is a Burundi sliding into violent turmoil. The intensity of the violence has increased this week. Live rounds, water cannons, and arbitrary arrest have been used against protestors. We’ve now seen reports of grenade attacks.
While reports of those killed and arrested vary, we know that on May 4th at least three protestors were shot dead. On May 6th, another half dozen people were reportedly killed, and over the last three days, we have started to see more gruesome attacks against alleged members of the Imbonerakure, including a lynching and separate burning.
Amidst this increase in violence, refugee flows into Rwanda, Tanzania, and the DRC have skyrocketed to over 50,000 people. Any further violence carries with it the risk of irreversible consequences not just for Burundian citizens, but for the people of the Great Lakes region writ-large.
This violence is due to two very foreseeable and very preventable events. First, President Nkurunziza’s decision to seek a third term, which the United States has clearly stated is a violation of the Arusha Agreement. Despite warnings from multiple parts of Burundian society and the international community that such a move would lead to violence, Nkurunziza decided to move forward. He rejected, and indeed was extremely dismissive, of the possibility that his moving out in abrogation of the Arusha Agreement would generate protests and would result in violence. He ruled that out – out of hand – and now we are seeing, unfortunately, the consequence of his decisions and of his dismissiveness of these risks. Second, the government’s continued and relentless crackdown against the people’s rights to peacefully protest and freely express their views has itself increased violence. The severe restrictions placed on the media – traditional and social – have only exacerbated these problems.
While the government claims that President Nkurunziza’s third term is constitutional, and the Constitutional Court ruling this week supported that finding, we must underscore the apparent lack of judicial impartiality that led to this decision. The Vice President of Burundi’s Constitutional Court fled to safety in Rwanda this week and refused to succumb to the government’s pressure to validate President Nkurunziza’s third term.
This Vice President said judges, “were subjected to enormous pressure and even death threats,” stating that, “those opposed to a third term - violating the constitution and the Arusha Agreement - were afraid, because they were put under pressure.” “We risk our lives,” he said, “so judges had to get behind the third term and join the camp supporting it.”
We welcome the leadership being shown by the region. The foreign ministers of Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya and Angola were in Burundi this week to engage all parties to seek a way out the crisis. The heads of state of the East African Community will meet next week in Dar es Salaam, where we hope the crisis in Burundi is front and center – and we have every reason to believe it will be.
We also welcome African Union Chairwoman Dlamini-Zuma’s statement yesterday that Nkurunziza should not seek a third term and that what is most important at this critical time is to ensure a peaceful environment conducive to elections.
The government of Burundi has a window to stop and reverse the outbreak of violence by agreeing to allow for peaceful protests, easing restrictions to media, respecting human rights, and preventing violence by the Imbonerakure and the security forces. To date neither President Nkurunziza nor his government has condemned the violence by the youth militia or called for restraint by the police. We urge them to do so immediately; failure to take these steps will only heighten the scale of violence and increase the risk of this turning into a regional crisis.
With that, I’m happy to take a few questions.
Reporter: Madame Ambassador, thank you. What more can the Council do on this issue, given that Russia has sort of made clear that they think it’s a constitutional issue that the Council shouldn’t get involved in. Did you raise the possibility of threatening sanctions? And, what can you tell us about these reports that the President’s security are distributing weapons throughout the country and training militia? How concerned are you by this and what do you know about it?
Ambassador Power: Okay, let me get all of this. Let me just start with the reports that you mentioned. You might recall that, now, more than six months ago, the security advisor to the prior UN mission in Burundi was expelled from Burundi because of the leak of a report alleging the massive distribution of weapons to the Imbonerakure.
Now, we hear that some of those weapons are being used. We hear of threats by the youth militia toward people who peacefully protest against President Nkurunziza’s decision to pursue a third term. These are extremely alarming reports. There’s no question that there are weapons in the hands of people who are not affiliated with the traditional security establishment—with the armed forces and with the police. And the fact that these reports are increasing, not decreasing; the fact that prior reports appear to be credible; and the fact that the government’s only response to those reports was in effect to shoot the messenger—not literally, thankfully—but to expel the BNUB security advisor and indeed to end the prior mission, which had much more of a monitoring role than the current election-related mission. These are all extremely worrying facts.
In terms of sanctions, let me just say that the United States is very carefully monitoring the situation, and we are prepared to take targeted measures, including visa bans or sanctions, against those who plan or participate in wide-spread violence of the kind that we all fear. The United Nations Security Council has threatened action, and it remains to be seen what action the Council would come together in support of.
I think for all of the disagreement perhaps here or there about the constitution, there is no disagreement about the need for the Council to do everything in its power to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. I mean, the Council is alarmed. I don’t think there’s been a period, maybe even in the last decade, where the Council has met this many times on Burundi consecutively. So right now, we’re emphasizing support for Said Djinnit, who’s actually trying to bring the parties together and see if there’s a peaceful way out of this crisis, and I think we will get at the “what are the next steps” again if these negotiations cannot bear fruit.
Reporter: Thank you. You have been to Bangui not once, but twice. So I must ask you, in light of these horrific allegations, are you satisfied that both France and the United Nations initiated this investigation quickly enough? Made sure that the soldiers were removed from that mission quickly enough? And that all the steps towards accountability have been taken? And related, does this draw new attention to all the reforms that have been called for in the past, on how to handle sex abuse in peacekeeping?
Ambassador Power: Thank you for the question. It’s an extremely important one. The allegations are completely horrific. You know, the fact that soldiers who are entrusted with the protection of civilians, the protection of young people—if these allegations prove true, again, it is such a profound violation, not only of the dignity and physical security of individuals in their most vulnerable state, but it is a complete abrogation of trust, between those who are alleged to come as protectors and those who violate that trust and take advantage of, again, the most acute vulnerability any of us could imagine experiencing. A vulnerability that comes from being desperate for food. From being desperate for protection.
So we don’t know, again, the full facts of the case at this stage—that is the case of the allegations of sexual abuse—whether those will be borne out. They are certainly very credible and very disturbing allegations. So it is essential that those countries whose soldiers are alleged to have been involved in crimes of this magnitude act aggressively to track down the facts and to punish anybody responsible.
In terms of the UN and the member state’s handling of the issue, I think it is extremely important that an impartial investigation be done also of that, on top of investigating the allegations themselves. When allegations like this are made, and sadly, this is not the first time that peacekeepers have been accused of sexual abuse of civilians who’ve put their faith in the international community. When allegations like these are made, speed is essential, absolutely imperative, because for as long, potentially, as crimes like these are being committed, then individuals are vulnerable to the same individuals who are alleged to be carrying out the crimes.
The safety of those who are brave enough to come forward, notwithstanding having potentially been abused, the safety of those individuals, those witnesses—the confidentiality of their testimony—that’s also essential.
So there are a number of elements to the appropriate handling of cases like this, and we need this impartial investigation of the handling to be carried out swiftly. We need all individuals, both in member states themselves and within the UN organization who were involved in the handling of this, again, grave and grotesque set of allegations, to involve themselves and come forward and make everything that they know available. And, I think the investigation needs to span, again, from start to finish. Because there were a lot of different stages to this.
But we need a system here, number one, where peacekeepers are vetted appropriately before they go into the field. Number two, at the slightest hint that peacekeepers could be carrying out abuses—that needs to be reported up the chain and investigated extremely swiftly. And we, again, like everyone, are concerned about the length of time between the alleged crimes and the time at which the appropriate authorities were made aware, and the lag between the time at which the appropriate authorities took the required action.
Reporter: Follow up on that? One question? Thanks. Appreciate it. One issue that has arisen that may not even need to wait for an investigation is that the Central African Republic says that they were never told of this, and given that these were their citizens, I wonder if you—does the U.S. think that when the UN system becomes aware of charges such as these, that the host country should be told? There’s also this issue, in the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling, that the Under Secretary General of Peacekeeping was reported, and the UN didn’t seem to dispute it, to have said that the whistleblower should resign or be suspended. And I wonder, this seems like a pretty serious charge. What do you think of that? Do you think that that is appropriate? What do you think of the treatment of the whistleblower who brought it to light?
Ambassador Power: I think, on a lot of these issues, we’re all going to be better off if we allow an impartial investigation to take hold. And, I think, you raise a really, really important issue about host country involvement, and we’d want to, again, get the facts on that. Certainly, it is the case that the host country itself, of course, has the sovereign responsibility for the protection of its citizens, and so, looking at what role Central African Republic authorities played or didn’t play has to be part of this.
And then, in terms of the individual who disclosed the allegations, who worked for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, again, it’s extremely important that any individual who comes into possession of allegations of this gravity acts swiftly. It is also extremely important that victim and witness safety be a very significant, a primary consideration as well. And so again, the impartial investigation will look at the handling and how both the issue of speed and the issue of victim and witness protection—how those issues were handled.
Ambassador Power: I think on a lot of these issues we’re all going to be better off if we allow an impartial investigation to take hold. And I think you raise a really important issue on host country involvement
Looking at what role Central African Republic authorities played or didn’t play has to be part of this.
It’s extremely important that any individual who comes into possession of allegations of this gravity acts swiftly, it is also extremely important that victim ad witness safety be a very significant, a primary consideration, as well.
Reporter: Ambassador, back to Burundi: I wonder if you could talk about the way the international architecture is set up. There’s been a lot of criticism from the Burundians themselves that the international community has been very slow on this issue – the fact that we do have 50,000 refugees and when the international community has been very well aware of what was going to happen. What can you say about how the international community responds to these issues, given what we’ve seen in South Sudan and Syria today?
Ambassador Power: Well, the international community, as represented by the UN Security Council, has actually been quite aggressive in the preventive diplomacy phase. I mean, the fact that just two months ago, or whenever it was, we all traveled all the way to Burundi as a way of sending a message to President Nkurunziza about what the risks were if he went ahead in violation of the letter and the spirit of the Arusha agreement. That’s actually quite unusual. And everybody on the Security Council, just as in the broader international community, is well aware of the history in Burundi, and of course the broader region, and how quickly political disputes can get – can descend into ethnic disputes. And Arusha enshrined a social compact that has allowed Burundi to make tremendous progress. And, you know, for the sake of Burundians who suffered so much and worked so hard to reconcile, and to get to the place they have gotten to, in terms of stability, including relative political stability – for that to be endangered. Sub-regional organizations sent the message that that was imperiled; regional organizations sent that message, including Dlamini-Zuma – not just yesterday, but over the course of recent months – and the Security Council traveled all the way there to send that message. I myself have been to Burundi twice in the last year to send that message. I believe the first Cabinet member to travel to Burundi in a long time, on behalf of President Obama, in order to send that message. So it is clear things are not going well in Burundi; and all of us want to learn if there was more we could have done. But at the end of the day, President Nkurunziza has to put his people first. The international community can’t make him privilege the welfare of his people, privilege the end of violence, over his own personal desire to seek a third term. He has to make that choice. And I think the message from the international community was loud and clear, and it’s a message that he has chosen not to hear. Thank you.
Reporter: (Inaudible, off mic) Syria?
Ambassador Power: I’ll just do that real quick. I’m not going to get ahead of the diplomatic discussions, but you all know that resolution 2118 – best remembered as the resolution that dismantled Syria’s declared chemical weapons program – bans the use of chemical weapons. And you know that resolution 2209 – the chlorine resolution – makes very clear that the use of chlorine as a weapon is chemical weapons use. And we heard in the Arria session devastating reports. I believe you all met as well with the doctors who treated the victims of chlorine attacks. So we believe, and it’s clear that many Council members agree, that we have got to have a means of establishing who was carrying out these chlorine attacks. To us, the Fact Finding Mission’s report was very clear – from the OPCW – it described hundreds of witnesses with the same symptoms. Victims who died without a cut on their bodies, just because they suffocated on this gas; and witnesses who described the smell of chlorine emanating at just the moment a helicopter came and dropped a barrel bomb on a particular building; the victims themselves smelled like chlorine. There are no allegations of how chlorine could be disbursed in the manner the OPCW has described it has been disbursed absent, again, these air attacks. Everybody who has been interviewed has described a correlation between the chlorine-related deaths and the dropping of what appear to be chlorine barrel bombs from helicopters. And, as you know, only the regime has helicopters. So we believe the factual record is quite straightforward and devastating in terms of Syrian regime use. But it is, as a factual matter, true that no one in the international system is mandated to establish attribution for these attacks; and we need to fix that. So we hope that we can make progress on a resolution to ensure that there is a mechanism that will not only establish chlorine use, but establish who carried out that use.
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
May 8, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Good afternoon. We just heard a very concerning briefing from Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the Great Lakes Region, Said Djinnit, about the situation in Burundi.
This is the third time the Council has come together just in the last month to address the need for all parties in Burundi to refrain from violence and intimidation before, during, and after elections, and to actively support the conditions for a peaceful, timely, credible, and inclusive elections process.
What we are seeing is a Burundi sliding into violent turmoil. The intensity of the violence has increased this week. Live rounds, water cannons, and arbitrary arrest have been used against protestors. We’ve now seen reports of grenade attacks.
While reports of those killed and arrested vary, we know that on May 4th at least three protestors were shot dead. On May 6th, another half dozen people were reportedly killed, and over the last three days, we have started to see more gruesome attacks against alleged members of the Imbonerakure, including a lynching and separate burning.
Amidst this increase in violence, refugee flows into Rwanda, Tanzania, and the DRC have skyrocketed to over 50,000 people. Any further violence carries with it the risk of irreversible consequences not just for Burundian citizens, but for the people of the Great Lakes region writ-large.
This violence is due to two very foreseeable and very preventable events. First, President Nkurunziza’s decision to seek a third term, which the United States has clearly stated is a violation of the Arusha Agreement. Despite warnings from multiple parts of Burundian society and the international community that such a move would lead to violence, Nkurunziza decided to move forward. He rejected, and indeed was extremely dismissive, of the possibility that his moving out in abrogation of the Arusha Agreement would generate protests and would result in violence. He ruled that out – out of hand – and now we are seeing, unfortunately, the consequence of his decisions and of his dismissiveness of these risks. Second, the government’s continued and relentless crackdown against the people’s rights to peacefully protest and freely express their views has itself increased violence. The severe restrictions placed on the media – traditional and social – have only exacerbated these problems.
While the government claims that President Nkurunziza’s third term is constitutional, and the Constitutional Court ruling this week supported that finding, we must underscore the apparent lack of judicial impartiality that led to this decision. The Vice President of Burundi’s Constitutional Court fled to safety in Rwanda this week and refused to succumb to the government’s pressure to validate President Nkurunziza’s third term.
This Vice President said judges, “were subjected to enormous pressure and even death threats,” stating that, “those opposed to a third term - violating the constitution and the Arusha Agreement - were afraid, because they were put under pressure.” “We risk our lives,” he said, “so judges had to get behind the third term and join the camp supporting it.”
We welcome the leadership being shown by the region. The foreign ministers of Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya and Angola were in Burundi this week to engage all parties to seek a way out the crisis. The heads of state of the East African Community will meet next week in Dar es Salaam, where we hope the crisis in Burundi is front and center – and we have every reason to believe it will be.
We also welcome African Union Chairwoman Dlamini-Zuma’s statement yesterday that Nkurunziza should not seek a third term and that what is most important at this critical time is to ensure a peaceful environment conducive to elections.
The government of Burundi has a window to stop and reverse the outbreak of violence by agreeing to allow for peaceful protests, easing restrictions to media, respecting human rights, and preventing violence by the Imbonerakure and the security forces. To date neither President Nkurunziza nor his government has condemned the violence by the youth militia or called for restraint by the police. We urge them to do so immediately; failure to take these steps will only heighten the scale of violence and increase the risk of this turning into a regional crisis.
With that, I’m happy to take a few questions.
Reporter: Madame Ambassador, thank you. What more can the Council do on this issue, given that Russia has sort of made clear that they think it’s a constitutional issue that the Council shouldn’t get involved in. Did you raise the possibility of threatening sanctions? And, what can you tell us about these reports that the President’s security are distributing weapons throughout the country and training militia? How concerned are you by this and what do you know about it?
Ambassador Power: Okay, let me get all of this. Let me just start with the reports that you mentioned. You might recall that, now, more than six months ago, the security advisor to the prior UN mission in Burundi was expelled from Burundi because of the leak of a report alleging the massive distribution of weapons to the Imbonerakure.
Now, we hear that some of those weapons are being used. We hear of threats by the youth militia toward people who peacefully protest against President Nkurunziza’s decision to pursue a third term. These are extremely alarming reports. There’s no question that there are weapons in the hands of people who are not affiliated with the traditional security establishment—with the armed forces and with the police. And the fact that these reports are increasing, not decreasing; the fact that prior reports appear to be credible; and the fact that the government’s only response to those reports was in effect to shoot the messenger—not literally, thankfully—but to expel the BNUB security advisor and indeed to end the prior mission, which had much more of a monitoring role than the current election-related mission. These are all extremely worrying facts.
In terms of sanctions, let me just say that the United States is very carefully monitoring the situation, and we are prepared to take targeted measures, including visa bans or sanctions, against those who plan or participate in wide-spread violence of the kind that we all fear. The United Nations Security Council has threatened action, and it remains to be seen what action the Council would come together in support of.
I think for all of the disagreement perhaps here or there about the constitution, there is no disagreement about the need for the Council to do everything in its power to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. I mean, the Council is alarmed. I don’t think there’s been a period, maybe even in the last decade, where the Council has met this many times on Burundi consecutively. So right now, we’re emphasizing support for Said Djinnit, who’s actually trying to bring the parties together and see if there’s a peaceful way out of this crisis, and I think we will get at the “what are the next steps” again if these negotiations cannot bear fruit.
Reporter: Thank you. You have been to Bangui not once, but twice. So I must ask you, in light of these horrific allegations, are you satisfied that both France and the United Nations initiated this investigation quickly enough? Made sure that the soldiers were removed from that mission quickly enough? And that all the steps towards accountability have been taken? And related, does this draw new attention to all the reforms that have been called for in the past, on how to handle sex abuse in peacekeeping?
Ambassador Power: Thank you for the question. It’s an extremely important one. The allegations are completely horrific. You know, the fact that soldiers who are entrusted with the protection of civilians, the protection of young people—if these allegations prove true, again, it is such a profound violation, not only of the dignity and physical security of individuals in their most vulnerable state, but it is a complete abrogation of trust, between those who are alleged to come as protectors and those who violate that trust and take advantage of, again, the most acute vulnerability any of us could imagine experiencing. A vulnerability that comes from being desperate for food. From being desperate for protection.
So we don’t know, again, the full facts of the case at this stage—that is the case of the allegations of sexual abuse—whether those will be borne out. They are certainly very credible and very disturbing allegations. So it is essential that those countries whose soldiers are alleged to have been involved in crimes of this magnitude act aggressively to track down the facts and to punish anybody responsible.
In terms of the UN and the member state’s handling of the issue, I think it is extremely important that an impartial investigation be done also of that, on top of investigating the allegations themselves. When allegations like this are made, and sadly, this is not the first time that peacekeepers have been accused of sexual abuse of civilians who’ve put their faith in the international community. When allegations like these are made, speed is essential, absolutely imperative, because for as long, potentially, as crimes like these are being committed, then individuals are vulnerable to the same individuals who are alleged to be carrying out the crimes.
The safety of those who are brave enough to come forward, notwithstanding having potentially been abused, the safety of those individuals, those witnesses—the confidentiality of their testimony—that’s also essential.
So there are a number of elements to the appropriate handling of cases like this, and we need this impartial investigation of the handling to be carried out swiftly. We need all individuals, both in member states themselves and within the UN organization who were involved in the handling of this, again, grave and grotesque set of allegations, to involve themselves and come forward and make everything that they know available. And, I think the investigation needs to span, again, from start to finish. Because there were a lot of different stages to this.
But we need a system here, number one, where peacekeepers are vetted appropriately before they go into the field. Number two, at the slightest hint that peacekeepers could be carrying out abuses—that needs to be reported up the chain and investigated extremely swiftly. And we, again, like everyone, are concerned about the length of time between the alleged crimes and the time at which the appropriate authorities were made aware, and the lag between the time at which the appropriate authorities took the required action.
Reporter: Follow up on that? One question? Thanks. Appreciate it. One issue that has arisen that may not even need to wait for an investigation is that the Central African Republic says that they were never told of this, and given that these were their citizens, I wonder if you—does the U.S. think that when the UN system becomes aware of charges such as these, that the host country should be told? There’s also this issue, in the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling, that the Under Secretary General of Peacekeeping was reported, and the UN didn’t seem to dispute it, to have said that the whistleblower should resign or be suspended. And I wonder, this seems like a pretty serious charge. What do you think of that? Do you think that that is appropriate? What do you think of the treatment of the whistleblower who brought it to light?
Ambassador Power: I think, on a lot of these issues, we’re all going to be better off if we allow an impartial investigation to take hold. And, I think, you raise a really, really important issue about host country involvement, and we’d want to, again, get the facts on that. Certainly, it is the case that the host country itself, of course, has the sovereign responsibility for the protection of its citizens, and so, looking at what role Central African Republic authorities played or didn’t play has to be part of this.
And then, in terms of the individual who disclosed the allegations, who worked for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, again, it’s extremely important that any individual who comes into possession of allegations of this gravity acts swiftly. It is also extremely important that victim and witness safety be a very significant, a primary consideration as well. And so again, the impartial investigation will look at the handling and how both the issue of speed and the issue of victim and witness protection—how those issues were handled.
Ambassador Power: I think on a lot of these issues we’re all going to be better off if we allow an impartial investigation to take hold. And I think you raise a really important issue on host country involvement
Looking at what role Central African Republic authorities played or didn’t play has to be part of this.
It’s extremely important that any individual who comes into possession of allegations of this gravity acts swiftly, it is also extremely important that victim ad witness safety be a very significant, a primary consideration, as well.
Reporter: Ambassador, back to Burundi: I wonder if you could talk about the way the international architecture is set up. There’s been a lot of criticism from the Burundians themselves that the international community has been very slow on this issue – the fact that we do have 50,000 refugees and when the international community has been very well aware of what was going to happen. What can you say about how the international community responds to these issues, given what we’ve seen in South Sudan and Syria today?
Ambassador Power: Well, the international community, as represented by the UN Security Council, has actually been quite aggressive in the preventive diplomacy phase. I mean, the fact that just two months ago, or whenever it was, we all traveled all the way to Burundi as a way of sending a message to President Nkurunziza about what the risks were if he went ahead in violation of the letter and the spirit of the Arusha agreement. That’s actually quite unusual. And everybody on the Security Council, just as in the broader international community, is well aware of the history in Burundi, and of course the broader region, and how quickly political disputes can get – can descend into ethnic disputes. And Arusha enshrined a social compact that has allowed Burundi to make tremendous progress. And, you know, for the sake of Burundians who suffered so much and worked so hard to reconcile, and to get to the place they have gotten to, in terms of stability, including relative political stability – for that to be endangered. Sub-regional organizations sent the message that that was imperiled; regional organizations sent that message, including Dlamini-Zuma – not just yesterday, but over the course of recent months – and the Security Council traveled all the way there to send that message. I myself have been to Burundi twice in the last year to send that message. I believe the first Cabinet member to travel to Burundi in a long time, on behalf of President Obama, in order to send that message. So it is clear things are not going well in Burundi; and all of us want to learn if there was more we could have done. But at the end of the day, President Nkurunziza has to put his people first. The international community can’t make him privilege the welfare of his people, privilege the end of violence, over his own personal desire to seek a third term. He has to make that choice. And I think the message from the international community was loud and clear, and it’s a message that he has chosen not to hear. Thank you.
Reporter: (Inaudible, off mic) Syria?
Ambassador Power: I’ll just do that real quick. I’m not going to get ahead of the diplomatic discussions, but you all know that resolution 2118 – best remembered as the resolution that dismantled Syria’s declared chemical weapons program – bans the use of chemical weapons. And you know that resolution 2209 – the chlorine resolution – makes very clear that the use of chlorine as a weapon is chemical weapons use. And we heard in the Arria session devastating reports. I believe you all met as well with the doctors who treated the victims of chlorine attacks. So we believe, and it’s clear that many Council members agree, that we have got to have a means of establishing who was carrying out these chlorine attacks. To us, the Fact Finding Mission’s report was very clear – from the OPCW – it described hundreds of witnesses with the same symptoms. Victims who died without a cut on their bodies, just because they suffocated on this gas; and witnesses who described the smell of chlorine emanating at just the moment a helicopter came and dropped a barrel bomb on a particular building; the victims themselves smelled like chlorine. There are no allegations of how chlorine could be disbursed in the manner the OPCW has described it has been disbursed absent, again, these air attacks. Everybody who has been interviewed has described a correlation between the chlorine-related deaths and the dropping of what appear to be chlorine barrel bombs from helicopters. And, as you know, only the regime has helicopters. So we believe the factual record is quite straightforward and devastating in terms of Syrian regime use. But it is, as a factual matter, true that no one in the international system is mandated to establish attribution for these attacks; and we need to fix that. So we hope that we can make progress on a resolution to ensure that there is a mechanism that will not only establish chlorine use, but establish who carried out that use.
CARIBOU, MAINE SETTLES DOJ LAWSUIT CONCERNING SEX DISCRIMINATION
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
City of Caribou, Maine, Agrees to Settle Justice Department Lawsuit Alleging Sex Discrimination
The Justice Department announced today that it has agreed to enter into a consent decree with the city of Caribou, Maine, that, if approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, will resolve allegations that Caribou discriminated against a female employee based upon her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The department’s complaint alleges that Caribou discriminated against a female city employee when she was regularly subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace by the city’s former Fire Chief, Roy Woods. According to the complaint, the sexual harassment of the victim included both unwanted touching and comments, culminating in Mr. Woods sexually assaulting the victim. At the time of the assault, the victim was 18 years old and worked for Caribou under Mr. Woods’ supervision. Mr. Woods was 66.
According to the department’s complaint, Caribou did not take reasonable steps to prevent Woods’ unlawful acts. For instance, supervisory employees with Caribou knew that Woods had a history of sexually harassing women in the workplace but Caribou never took any action to stop his harassment. Caribou did not take any corrective action at all until Dec. 27, 2011, after Woods had assaulted the victim. The victim was never provided with Caribou’s sexual harassment policy and was unaware of the process for reporting Woods’ illegal conduct before it escalated to an assault. The department’s complaint was based on a charge of discrimination filed by the victim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Maine Human Rights Commission that was forwarded to the department by the EEOC’s Boston Office.
Under the terms of the consent decree, once approved by the district court, Caribou is required to review and revise its sexual harassment policies in order to protect its employees from sexual harassment in the workplace. Caribou must provide training to its employees on its newly revised policies for the prevention of sexual harassment. The consent decree also requires Caribou to pay the victim a monetary award of $85,000.
“All Americans are entitled to a workplace that is free of unlawful harassment based upon sex,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. “The early resolution of this case, without contested litigation, was in the best interests of all parties concerned.”
The United States is represented in this case by Civil Rights Division attorney Allan Townsend.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
City of Caribou, Maine, Agrees to Settle Justice Department Lawsuit Alleging Sex Discrimination
The Justice Department announced today that it has agreed to enter into a consent decree with the city of Caribou, Maine, that, if approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, will resolve allegations that Caribou discriminated against a female employee based upon her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The department’s complaint alleges that Caribou discriminated against a female city employee when she was regularly subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace by the city’s former Fire Chief, Roy Woods. According to the complaint, the sexual harassment of the victim included both unwanted touching and comments, culminating in Mr. Woods sexually assaulting the victim. At the time of the assault, the victim was 18 years old and worked for Caribou under Mr. Woods’ supervision. Mr. Woods was 66.
According to the department’s complaint, Caribou did not take reasonable steps to prevent Woods’ unlawful acts. For instance, supervisory employees with Caribou knew that Woods had a history of sexually harassing women in the workplace but Caribou never took any action to stop his harassment. Caribou did not take any corrective action at all until Dec. 27, 2011, after Woods had assaulted the victim. The victim was never provided with Caribou’s sexual harassment policy and was unaware of the process for reporting Woods’ illegal conduct before it escalated to an assault. The department’s complaint was based on a charge of discrimination filed by the victim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Maine Human Rights Commission that was forwarded to the department by the EEOC’s Boston Office.
Under the terms of the consent decree, once approved by the district court, Caribou is required to review and revise its sexual harassment policies in order to protect its employees from sexual harassment in the workplace. Caribou must provide training to its employees on its newly revised policies for the prevention of sexual harassment. The consent decree also requires Caribou to pay the victim a monetary award of $85,000.
“All Americans are entitled to a workplace that is free of unlawful harassment based upon sex,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. “The early resolution of this case, without contested litigation, was in the best interests of all parties concerned.”
The United States is represented in this case by Civil Rights Division attorney Allan Townsend.
SBA EXPANDS HELP TO MATCH LENDERS WITH ENTREPRENEURS
FROM: U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
SBA Administrator Announces Major Expansion to LINC
Online Tool that Matches Entrepreneurs and Lenders is
Now Available to All 7(a) Lenders Nationwide
WASHINGTON– Today, the head of the U.S. Small Business Administration Maria Contreras-Sweet announced a major expansion to the recently launched online tool LINC –Leveraging Information and Networks to Access Capital - a platform that matches entrepreneurs with SBA lenders. Administrator Contreras-Sweet made the announcement during her keynote speech at the National Government Guaranteed Lenders annual conference in San Antonio, Texas, while on her nationwide tour for National Small Business Week, May 4-8.
“Effective today, all SBA lenders can participate in LINC, a platform that is bringing entrepreneurs and SBA lenders together to increase access to capital. There's a hunger among entrepreneurs to find financing to get their business off the ground or take the next big step in their expansion plan. The SBA stands there ready to help them, now with a few simple clicks,” said Contreras-Sweet.
LINC was originally launched last February as a pilot program and was available only to nonprofit lenders. The LINC matchmaking tool is now available to all 7(a) lenders nationwide, which constitutes a huge step toward giving small business entrepreneurs access to essential sources of capital in all 50 states and the U.S. territories.
“Since we launched this program in February, close to 14,000 matches have been made, and I have personally heard about the great success both our lenders and our entrepreneurs are having with LINC. If you have a bankable business idea backed by good credit and sound financial planning, the SBA is streamlining the process for you to get the capital you need,” said Contreras-Sweet.
SBA Administrator Announces Major Expansion to LINC
Online Tool that Matches Entrepreneurs and Lenders is
Now Available to All 7(a) Lenders Nationwide
WASHINGTON– Today, the head of the U.S. Small Business Administration Maria Contreras-Sweet announced a major expansion to the recently launched online tool LINC –Leveraging Information and Networks to Access Capital - a platform that matches entrepreneurs with SBA lenders. Administrator Contreras-Sweet made the announcement during her keynote speech at the National Government Guaranteed Lenders annual conference in San Antonio, Texas, while on her nationwide tour for National Small Business Week, May 4-8.
“Effective today, all SBA lenders can participate in LINC, a platform that is bringing entrepreneurs and SBA lenders together to increase access to capital. There's a hunger among entrepreneurs to find financing to get their business off the ground or take the next big step in their expansion plan. The SBA stands there ready to help them, now with a few simple clicks,” said Contreras-Sweet.
LINC was originally launched last February as a pilot program and was available only to nonprofit lenders. The LINC matchmaking tool is now available to all 7(a) lenders nationwide, which constitutes a huge step toward giving small business entrepreneurs access to essential sources of capital in all 50 states and the U.S. territories.
“Since we launched this program in February, close to 14,000 matches have been made, and I have personally heard about the great success both our lenders and our entrepreneurs are having with LINC. If you have a bankable business idea backed by good credit and sound financial planning, the SBA is streamlining the process for you to get the capital you need,” said Contreras-Sweet.
STATE DEPT.-SAN DIEGO PORT DISTRICT PARTNER TO ENHANCE MARITIME SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO ASIA, LATIN AMERICA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Law Enforcement, Narcotics, Anti-corruption: U.S. Department of State Announces Partnership with the San Diego Unified Port District
05/06/2015 04:35 PM EDT
U.S. Department of State Announces Partnership with the San Diego Unified Port District
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 6, 2015
Ambassador William R. Brownfield, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), signed a formal Memorandum of Understanding with the Port of San Diego to launch a partnership that will enhance the Department’s maritime security assistance to Asia and Latin America.
Under this partnership, the vast expertise and experience of the Port’s Harbor Police Department will be put to work helping partner nations improve border security in the face of increased criminal threats. The Harbor Police Department is the law enforcement agency that patrols San Diego Bay, surrounding waterfront areas, and San Diego International Airport. Its 120 sworn officers are highly trained, with a range of expertise in a variety of subjects including maritime firefighting, counter smuggling, human trafficking, K-9 detection of explosives/narcotics, aviation security, vessel operations, maritime tactical training and dive operations. By providing training and mentorship, the Harbor Police will assist in efforts to combat transnational crime and build partner nations’ capacity to establish effective port and maritime security. The Harbor Police will be a unique partner for INL in addressing those challenges in addition to providing partner nations a regional perspective on port and maritime security.
This new relationship with the Port of San Diego is INL’s second port partnership and builds on the Bureau’s existing work with PortMiami to provide security assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean.
Law Enforcement, Narcotics, Anti-corruption: U.S. Department of State Announces Partnership with the San Diego Unified Port District
05/06/2015 04:35 PM EDT
U.S. Department of State Announces Partnership with the San Diego Unified Port District
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
May 6, 2015
Ambassador William R. Brownfield, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), signed a formal Memorandum of Understanding with the Port of San Diego to launch a partnership that will enhance the Department’s maritime security assistance to Asia and Latin America.
Under this partnership, the vast expertise and experience of the Port’s Harbor Police Department will be put to work helping partner nations improve border security in the face of increased criminal threats. The Harbor Police Department is the law enforcement agency that patrols San Diego Bay, surrounding waterfront areas, and San Diego International Airport. Its 120 sworn officers are highly trained, with a range of expertise in a variety of subjects including maritime firefighting, counter smuggling, human trafficking, K-9 detection of explosives/narcotics, aviation security, vessel operations, maritime tactical training and dive operations. By providing training and mentorship, the Harbor Police will assist in efforts to combat transnational crime and build partner nations’ capacity to establish effective port and maritime security. The Harbor Police will be a unique partner for INL in addressing those challenges in addition to providing partner nations a regional perspective on port and maritime security.
This new relationship with the Port of San Diego is INL’s second port partnership and builds on the Bureau’s existing work with PortMiami to provide security assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
A VIEW OF THE CLOUDY EARTH
FROM: NASA
 |
Decades of satellite observations and astronaut photographs show that clouds dominate space-based views of Earth. One study based on nearly a decade of satellite data estimated that about 67 percent of Earth’s surface is typically covered by clouds. This is especially the case over the oceans, where other research shows less than 10 percent of the sky is completely clear of clouds at any one time. Over land, 30 percent of skies are completely cloud free.
Earth’s cloudy nature is unmistakable in this global cloud fraction map, based on data collected by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA's Aqua satellite. While MODIS collects enough data to make a new global map of cloudiness every day, this version of the map shows an average of all of the satellite’s cloud observations between July 2002 and April 2015. Colors range from dark blue (no clouds) to light blue (some clouds) to white (frequent clouds).
There are three broad bands where Earth’s skies are most likely to be cloudy: a narrow strip near the equator and two wider strips in the mid-latitudes. The band near the equator is a function of the large scale circulation patterns—or Hadley cells—present in the tropics. Hadley cells are defined by cool air sinking near the 30 degree latitude line north and south of the equator and warm air rising near the equator where winds from separate Hadley cells converge. (The diagram here illustrates where Hadley cells are located and how they behave.) As warm, moist air converges at lower altitudes near the equator, it rises and cools and therefore can hold less moisture. This causes water vapor to condense into cloud particles and produces a dependable band of thunderstorms in an area known as the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).
Clouds also tend to form in abundance in the middle latitudes 60 degrees north and south of the equator. This is where the edges of polar and mid-latitude (or Ferrel) circulation cells collide and push air upward, fueling the formation of the large-scale frontal systems that dominate weather patterns in the mid-latitudes. While clouds tend to form where air rises as part of atmospheric circulation patterns, descending air inhibits cloud formation. Since air descends between about 15 and 30 degrees north and south of the equator, clouds are rare and deserts are common at this latitude.
Image Credit: NASA Earth Observatory image by Jesse Allen and Kevin Ward, using data provided by the MODIS Atmosphere Science Team, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Caption: Adam Voiland, with information from Steve Platnick and Tom Arnold
Last Updated: May 9, 2015
Editor: Sarah Loff
|
U.S. LABOR DEPT. OFFERS FIVE THINGS TO KNOW REGARDING APRIL EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS
FROM: U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT
OPA News Release
Five things you should know about the April employment numbers
WASHINGTON — With the release of the April 2015 Employment Situation Report today, U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez says there are five things you should know about the numbers:
With 223,000 jobs added in April, private-sector employment has grown for 62 consecutive months — the longest streak on record — to the tune of 12.3 million jobs over that time.
The national unemployment rate fell to 5.4 percent in April, the lowest it's been since May 2008.
The unemployment rate a year ago, in April 2014, was 6.2 percent. Since that time, the labor force participation rate has held steady, which means the decline in the unemployment rate has been due to people getting jobs.
Job growth last month was particularly strong in three sectors: construction, professional and business services, and education and health services. These are sectors that have historically provided good-paying middle-class jobs.
Despite all of the progress made, wages continue to be the unfinished business of the recovery. Wage growth has been picking up, with the average hourly wage increasing by 2.2 percent over the last year. But too many working people are still earning poverty wages. It's long past time for Congress to act to raise the minimum wage so that every person can share in the prosperity being created
OPA News Release
Five things you should know about the April employment numbers
WASHINGTON — With the release of the April 2015 Employment Situation Report today, U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez says there are five things you should know about the numbers:
With 223,000 jobs added in April, private-sector employment has grown for 62 consecutive months — the longest streak on record — to the tune of 12.3 million jobs over that time.
The national unemployment rate fell to 5.4 percent in April, the lowest it's been since May 2008.
The unemployment rate a year ago, in April 2014, was 6.2 percent. Since that time, the labor force participation rate has held steady, which means the decline in the unemployment rate has been due to people getting jobs.
Job growth last month was particularly strong in three sectors: construction, professional and business services, and education and health services. These are sectors that have historically provided good-paying middle-class jobs.
Despite all of the progress made, wages continue to be the unfinished business of the recovery. Wage growth has been picking up, with the average hourly wage increasing by 2.2 percent over the last year. But too many working people are still earning poverty wages. It's long past time for Congress to act to raise the minimum wage so that every person can share in the prosperity being created
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)