FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
May 11, 2015
Remarks by the President at Global Entrepreneurship Event
South Court Auditorium
3:29 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much. (Applause.) Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Please have a seat. Welcome to the White House.
We have more than 20 countries represented here today. So to those of you visiting for the first time, welcome to the United States. We have a lot of brainpower here. We’ve got innovators and investors, business leaders, entrepreneurs. We’ve even got a few Sharks. (Laughter.) Mark and Damon and Barbara, they were having a chance to talk to some of these young entrepreneurs, and the young entrepreneurs I think decided they were pretty nice sharks, as sharks go. (Laughter.)
I want to welcome Senator Coons, who’s here and a great champion of our engagement with Africa. And I want to thank Secretary Penny Pritzker -- (applause) -- as well as our Small Business Administrator, Maria Contreras-Sweet -- (applause) -- and all the leaders from across the administration for their work to empower entrepreneurs like you.
We’re here today because we believe in the power of entrepreneurship -- the basic notion that if you’ve got an idea and if you really work hard and you’re able to pick yourself up if you stumble a couple of times, you can eventually turn that idea into a reality. And this matters to us because encouraging the spirit of entrepreneurship can help us to tackle some of the greatest challenges that we face around the world.
At a time when we’re still working to sustain the global economic recovery and put people back to work, helping folks to start new business can spur broad-based growth, here at home and around the world. At a time when the world is more interconnected than ever, we’ve got unprecedented opportunities to help more people access capital and resources and networks that they need to succeed. At a time that we’re facing challenges that no country can meet by itself -— lifting people out of poverty, combating climate change, preventing the spread of disease -- helping social entrepreneurs mobilize and organize brings more people together to find solutions.
And entrepreneurship breaks down barriers between cultures and between faiths at a time when we need more than ever the capacity to understand and work across borders.
And no one understands this better than our young people, like those of you who are here today. I do have to say, as a quick aside, I feel kind of old hanging out with you. (Laughter.) I used to think of entrepreneurs as kind of old, grizzled people, and now I'm the old grizzled person -- (laughter) -- and the entrepreneurs are all young and extraordinarily good-looking group of entrepreneurs.
But more than half the world’s population is under the age of 30. In some countries, it’s an overwhelming majority. And yet, there are also countries where youth unemployment can exceed 35 percent. And when so many young people don’t see a future for themselves, if they don’t see a path to success, it holds the entire nation back. It’s a recipe for instability and conflict and violence.
And around the world, we’ve seen how violent extremists are exploiting and tapping into these frustrations of young people who feel that they’ve got no opportunity to improve their lives. And what they offer are dead ends. And yet, if these young people don’t feel that there is a positive path for themselves, then they’re vulnerable.
Poverty alone does not cause terrorism or sectarian violence, but investments in youth entrepreneurship and education are some of our best antidotes that we have to that kind of disorder. So all of this matters to us -— to our shared prosperity and to our shared security.
And that’s why, from the very beginning of my administration, I’ve elevated our support for entrepreneurship to make it easier for young people -- and people generally -- to start a new business or a new social venture. I hosted the first Global Entrepreneurship Summit back in 2010, and over the past five years we’ve helped to train and empower thousands of aspiring entrepreneurs. We’ve helped small businesses expand into new markets, mobilized new investments, connected emerging innovators with mentors and networks, and expanded access to capital.
As part of our Young African Leaders Initiative, we’re offering training and grants, and online resources and courses, and leadership centers to help young entrepreneurs build businesses that can drive growth in Africa. As part of our initiative in South East Asia, we’ve connected young people across the ASEAN countries, and this is a region that will only grow in importance for the global economy.
Last month, I was in Jamaica -- not only to visit Bob Marley’s house, which was very cool. (Laughter.) Mark, I’m telling you, if you can go, it’s -- (laughter) -- it’s cool. But also to launch our initiative for young entrepreneurs in the Caribbean and Latin America. And everywhere you go, you meet these incredibly inspiring young people. Young Palestinians I met in Ramallah, working to improve the lives of people across the West Bank through business, and creating opportunity. A young man in rural Malawi, his town currently in darkness, but he’s building generators to deliver electricity. Young Malaysians, harnessing technology and connecting their communities to the global economy. And just like you, they’re daring to dream and dedicating themselves to building something lasting for themselves, but also for their countries.
So all told, we’ve set a goal of generating $1 billion in new investment for emerging entrepreneurs worldwide by 2017. (Applause.) And half of that money is going to support young entrepreneurs and women entrepreneurs. And we're calling it the Spark Global Entrepreneurship Initiative -- brings together some of the most successful entrepreneurship programs across our government and makes sure that they're working with the private sector in ways that allow for long-term, sustained success.
So today, we’re taking some next steps. First, we’re going to step up our efforts to support young entrepreneurs and women, which is just smart business. We want to spur entrepreneurship in places where it can do the most good and have the greatest impact. And we’re going to work even harder to reach entrepreneurs who face the highest hurdles when it comes to accessing the essential tools of entrepreneurship -— finance, support networks, mentors.
Second, I’m proud to announce that more of America’s business leaders and innovators are joining us in this effort. We call them our ambassadors for global entrepreneurship. They do not have to be confirmed by the Senate -- (laughter and applause) -- which is worth cheering. Our first class of ambassadors has been doing extraordinary work. Steve Case, who, from the day I came into office, has been working with me on promoting entrepreneurship here in the United States and now overseas -- he just ended his Rise of the Rest bus tour, investing in young entrepreneurs in 14 cities across the United States.
Today, we’re welcoming nine new ambassadors from companies working on shared challenges -— how to build a business in underserved communities; how to improve the affordability and accessibility of medical care; how to inspire young girls to pursue science and engineering. And each of our ambassadors has committed to a signature project focused on the communities we’re looking to help.
I’m just going to give you two examples, although each one of these entrepreneurs have amazing stories and are doing some extraordinary partnering with us. So Brian Chesky of Airbnb -- where’s Brian? There he is. (Applause.) In addition to stealing a few of my employees -- (laughter) -- is going to help the Cuban people navigate new business opportunities as their economy opens up to greater Internet connectivity and modern payment systems, which provides enormous opportunities for individuals inside of Cuba at a time when things are transitioning and changing.
Julie Hanna. Where is Julie? There she is. (Applause.) Julie will use her expertise leading Kiva to increase access to capital around the world. Her project commits to delivering $100 million in crowdfunded loans to 200,000 women and young entrepreneurs across 86 different countries.
So I want to thank all our global entrepreneurship ambassadors for stepping forward and being part of this important work. Can you guys all stand up? And our global ambassadors, I want to just give them a big round of applause because they're doing really important work. (Applause.)
And finally, I’m challenging our partners across the private sector and around the world to join this effort. We’ve already got the backing of some of the world’s leading entrepreneurial foundations and organizations. They’ve joined together to form the Spark Global Entrepreneurship Coalition, which will coordinate this work and help us mobilize even more funding to support entrepreneurs.
But today, I’m also urging governments and companies and organizations and individuals to make their own commitments. Whether that’s through training and mentorship programs, or helping entrepreneurs access capital and connect to markets, or improving educational opportunities and exchanges, everybody has a part to play. Everybody can do something.
And this summer, I’ll travel to Kenya. While I’m there, I’ll participate -- all right, yo. (Laughter.) Habari. (Applause.) And so we're going to participate in the sixth Global Entrepreneurship Summit. And I’ll have the opportunity to meet some of the brilliant young entrepreneurs from across Africa and around the world. If enough folks respond to the challenge that I’m issuing today, I believe that at the summit in Nairobi we’ll be able to announce new investments and commitments that will pay off for years to come.
We want to empower people in ways that empower societies and ultimately empower the world. Women like Jimena Florez of Colombia -- where’s Jimena? There she is. (Applause.) So I just had a chance to meet with her. She started her own company making healthy foods -- which Michelle would be very pleased with -- (laughter) -- and she started her company entirely with fellow women entrepreneurs -- which Michelle would also be happy with. And through our support for women entrepreneurs, we’ve helped Jimena connect to mentors and training so that she can access new trade opportunities and grow her business. And through her work, she’s also helping Colombian farmers adopt organic farming and benefit from access to new markets as well.
So we want to thank you, Jimena, for helping to lift up your community. We’re very, very proud of you. (Applause.)
We want to empower pioneers like Ziad Sankari. Where’s Ziad? There he is, right next to her. When he was 17, he lost his father to a heart attack. And Ziad first came to the United States to study on a Fulbright. Then, through one of our science and technology competitions, he earned seed funding to develop his innovation, which is a heart-monitoring technology that clips to your waistband. So today he’s improving the way we respond to cardiac incidents, which will have enormous ramifications not just in places like Lebanon but potentially all around the world.
So, thank you, Ziad, for helping to save lives. (Applause.)
And we want to empower leaders of social change like Lina Khalifeh of Jordan. Where’s Lina? There she is. (Applause.) After seeing one of her close friends abused, Lina said that’s enough. She had a background in martial arts. (Laughter.) And so she opened SheFighter, a self-defense studio for women. So far, she has helped about 10,000 women learn how to protect themselves. And now, she’s competing for funding to expand her mission across the Middle East.
So thank you, Lina. (Applause.) We want to be your partner helping women to live with dignity and safety.
So Jimena, Ziad, Lina -- to all the young entrepreneurs out here -- you are the face of change. You have the power to drive creative solutions to our pressing challenges. You know how to bring people together to work toward a common goal. And I believe in all of you. And as I travel around the country -- I was telling some of the entrepreneurs earlier -- when you go to some of the toughest places in the world, where violence and deprivation are, sadly, daily facts of life, what people are most eager to hear about is opportunities to start a business. What they’re most interested in hearing about is the power of entrepreneurship to allow them to shape their own destinies, not just to be subject to the whims of aid agencies or geopolitics, but to be part of something that allows them to pursue their dreams -- and by doing so, empowers all of us.
I believe that entrepreneurs like you can make the world a better place, one idea at a time. And you’re going to be how change happens -- one person, one step, one business, one city, one country at a time.
There are brilliant young people and hardworking women and innovative thinkers from communities all around the world -- people just like you, ready to make a difference. But they haven’t been given the chance yet. And we can change that. And together, we can help make sure that anyone who’s got the creativity and drive to work hard, no matter where they’re from, what they look like, what their background is, they get a fair shot at pursuing their dreams. And we’ll all be better for it.
That’s what this is about. And that’s why America is going to keep supporting entrepreneurs like you. And as long as I’m President, this is going to be a critical part of our engagement and our diplomacy with countries and peoples around the world, and I suspect I’ll still be working on it well after I’m President as well.
So thank you very much, everybody. I’m proud of you. Keep it up. Thank you. (Applause.)
END
3:46 P.M. EDT
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH SAUDI FOREIGN MINISTER ADEL AL-JUBEIR
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Secretary's Remarks: Press Availability with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir
05/08/2015 05:12 PM EDT
Press Availability with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Paris, France
May 8, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon, everybody, and thank you very much for your patience. This afternoon we’re going to do this a little bit differently. It’s my pleasure to first introduce my friend and the distinguished Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia Adel al-Jubeir, and then I will have a few comments, and then we’ll be open to some questions.
So welcome to the Embassy of the United States in Paris, and thank you for your help and cooperation through a very productive day.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: Thank you very much, John, for hosting the GCC foreign ministers at this beautiful building in Paris. We had what I thought was a very productive discussion about the status of the P5+1 talks regarding Iran’s nuclear program. We also – we had an extensive briefing about the technical aspects of the talks that lasted over two hours.
We also spent another hour and a half on Camp David and the objectives of Camp David and the issues that will be discussed at Camp David. Don’t ask me to talk about it because I won’t; I can just tell you in general terms that they have to do with the intensifying and strengthening the security-military relationship between the United States of America and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, as well as dealing with new challenges that we face in the region, foremost of which is the Iranian interference in the affairs of the countries of the region.
We were very pleased with the discussions. I thought they were very – extremely productive, very useful. And we believe that now we have a much clearer sense of the – what we will be discussing at Camp – what our leaders will be discussing at Camp David. And having said so, I will leave that part here. Thanks, John, for hosting that meeting and for having it be such a productive and useful meeting for all of us. We look forward to visiting Washington and Camp David.
I wanted to also pick up on something that I mentioned to you yesterday when we announced that we were looking at a five-day ceasefire in Yemen for humanitarian purposes in order to allow the flow of humanitarian assistance to Yemen. We have made a decision that the ceasefire will begin this Tuesday, May 12th, at 11:00 p.m. and will last for five days and is subject to renewal if it’s – if it works out.
The requirements are first and foremost that there is a commitment by the Houthis and their allies, including Ali Abdullah Saleh and those forces that are loyal to him, to abide by the ceasefire. As I said yesterday at Riyadh, this ceasefire will be throughout Yemen or nowhere in Yemen, and the matter is entirely up to the Houthis and their allies. During the ceasefire there will be a continuation of the air and sea interdiction regarding the flow of weapons to the Houthis and their allies in Yemen.
I’m also happy and pleased to announce that the King Salman Humanitarian and Relief Center in Riyadh will be operational on this Sunday, May 10th. It will be the location in Riyadh where a number of organizations and UN efforts and any other country that wants to participate in the distribution of aid to Yemen to coordinate is free to come and be part of it. We believe that it is critically important that all countries be able to send as much relief supplies as efficiently and as quickly to as many Yemenis as possible.
As you know, that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, ordered the contribution of $274 million to the United Nations for emergency relief efforts in Yemen. This is above and beyond the assistance that we are deploying to Yemen every day as well as the assistance that we will be providing to Yemen going forward.
It is our hope and our desire that the Houthis will come to their senses and realize that the interests of Yemen and the Yemeni people are – should be the top priority for everyone. And I want to make sure that I make clear that the ceasefire will end should the Houthis or their allies not live up to the agreement contained in this issue. This is, I believe, a chance for the Houthis to show that they care about their people and that they care about the Yemeni people, and we hope that they take up this offer for the good of Yemen and the people of Yemen.
So thank you very much once again, John. Thank you for hosting the GCC foreign ministers in this wonderful building. It’s always a pleasure to be here and be with you and exchange views and ideas, and I think we did this today in a very positive spirit, so we thank you for this.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Adel, thank you very much. It was indeed constructive and positive and very, very productive, and I’m grateful to you and all of our colleagues who came here together in order to help make it that. It was well prepared, and I think in the end has really set the stage for a constructive meeting at Camp David.
I’ll say a word just first, if I may, I want to start by expressing my congratulations to Prime Minister Cameron and to my counterpart Secretary of State Philip Hammond and their party for their defying the polls and winning an outright majority in the elections yesterday. As everybody knows, we have a very special relationship with Great Britain. We have deeply shared interests and values. We work together on almost every issue that there is, and now there will obviously be continuity in the relationships built and in the work that we have invested on a number of different priorities and initiatives. So I look forward to continuing to work with Prime Minister Cameron and with Philip on all of our efforts in order to advance global peace and stability, and particularly in this next month and a half to finish our work together on a number of very pressing security issues.
The Gulf Cooperation Council and our Gulf partners have really been at the very center of America’s national interests for a long period of time. And today we find ourselves cooperating on more and more challenges within the region. It is a region that is facing particular challenge at this time, so obviously, by necessity, we – with common interests and with our mutual security and other interests at stake, we have found that it is critical for us to be able to dig into the relationship deeper in terms of ways we can cooperate to have a greater impact on these challenges that we face. And the United States is grateful for and fortunate to have partners who have been willing to stand up with us in the coalition on Daesh, on any other number of vital interests in the region.
Yesterday in Riyadh, for instance, I was privileged to meet with King Salman, who had both the courage and the vision to embrace a full ceasefire for five days. And we said that here in Paris, we would fill out the details a little bit, and with the announcement that the foreign minister has made on behalf of His Majesty King Salman, we now know that to a certainty, on Tuesday at 11:00 p.m. Yemen time, a ceasefire will take place countrywide, providing – providing that the Houthi agree that there will be no bombing, no shooting, no movement of their troops or maneuvering to reposition for military advantage, no movement of heavy weapons or others – that the ceasefire is conditioned on the Houthis agreeing to live by these commitments. And it is a renewable commitment. In other words, if they live by it and if this holds, it opens the door to the possibility of extension and the possibility of a longer period of time for the political process to help resolve these differences.
So anyone who cares about Yemeni people or asserts that they do should take clear notice of the fact that a humanitarian catastrophe is building, and that they are running out of food, they’re running out of medicine, they’re running out of fuel, and clearly, it is an important moment. His Majesty King Salman has recognized that. And despite the fact that he has had cross-border attacks and other challenges, he has made the decision to try to fight for a peaceful resolution. We applaud that. And we believe that all those who have been supportive of the Houthi need at this time to encourage the leadership, and all the way down through the rank and file, to live by this opportunity that is a very important one and very significant in the potential consequences for Yemen itself.
The United States is working with the international community now to try to organize as much humanitarian assistance as possible to be able to flow once that ceasefire takes effect, working with and through the United Nations. And anybody who hears this who has an idea that they want to get assistance into the people, there are organizations – World Food Organization, International Red Cross, others – who work through the United Nations, whom they should be in contact with so that this is an organized and clearly not military movement of goods in any way whatsoever.
Now, I want to be very clear about another thing. A ceasefire is not peace. Ultimately, the parties are going to have to find a way back to the table. And they’re going to have to make tough choices about more than just a ceasefire, because even the most durable of ceasefires is not a substitute for peace. Even the most durable of ceasefires is not a substitute for an inclusive, Yemeni-led political dialogue that all sides can support. And King Salman of Saudi Arabia has made another initiative in order to try to create that dialogue. He has announced a conference in Riyadh to which he invites all Yemeni parties. Now, it may be that not everybody shows up. We don’t know. But they’re invited.
And we support that conference with the hopes that it might produce some further steps forward to have the political resolution, but knowing that everyone agrees that that will lead into the subsequent talks to be held under the auspices of the United Nations and the UN envoy. And we’re very pleased that Saudi Arabia has agreed to support the UN in efforts to also try to help find a peaceful resolution to the situation in Yemen. Only a political solution by Yemenis for Yemenis, in the end, will actually bring an end to Yemen’s crisis. And we are committed to working toward the rapid, unconditional resumption of all party negotiations that will allow Yemen to be able to resume an inclusive transition process that brings peace and stability.
In addition to Yemen, we discussed with our GCC counterparts today preparations for the summit, as Foreign Minister Jubeir – al-Jubeir just said, and that’s going to address a wide range of security issues, folks. It’s going to discuss the threat of regional terrorism, the metastasizing of various terrorist organizations that has become prevalent. It will discuss, obviously, the challenge of Iranian support in some of those particular conflicts. It will discuss the threat of terrorism broadly. And it will discuss how to resolve more effectively those regional conflicts themselves.
So let me be very clear also. Our effort to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue with respect to Iran does not stem from any lessening of our concerns about all of these other destabilizing events within the region. And it’s obvious to all, I think, that it’s easier to address those events if the potential of a nuclear weapon has been eliminated from the equation with respect to the challenges that we face.
We’re also very focused on a continuing basis with the challenge of Daesh and the other terrorist groups. And together, we believe that we are making real progress. A large part of that was, frankly, because of the nations that are represented in the room there. There’s been a very significant diminution of the capacity of Daesh within Iraq to be able to control the territory it used to control, to be able to communicate the way it used to communicate, to be able to move the way they used to be able to move. And so we believe, steadily, that that stranglehold is appropriately ending, and we are forcing them to change tactics. And that is encouraging progress, but we still need more.
And that’s why we were meeting here today in addition to the other reasons that I’ve described, because we need to, all of us, come together in the most effective way possible to meet these newer challenges of this moment in history. And President Obama completely understands the stakes, and that’s why today and at Camp David, we are fleshing out a series of new commitments that will create, between the United States and the GCC, a new security understanding, a new set of security initiatives, that will take us beyond anything that we have had before in ways that will ask our partners to work with us, and they will contribute and we will contribute. It is not a one-way street. It is a two-way street with mutual interests and mutual needs that need to be addressed.
That is why we are also strengthening, together, the moderate opposition in Syria against Daesh and against a regime that has committed an organized, wholesale effort of torture, used chemical weapons against its own people, dropped barrel bombs indiscriminately on women and children in schools and hospitals, and blocked whole communities from getting food and medical supplies to civilians in need.
So we have a big agenda. That’s why we met. And that agenda is marked by new developments almost every single day. I came here to share our views, and we listened a lot today to other views, and I am confident that with Camp David, those views are going to take shape in a form that will greatly enhance our ability to meet the needs of our people and the needs of all those people who want a future that is free of terrorism, free of coercion, free of violence – a future that is reflected by the opportunities that this incredible world we live in today offers people who have that kind of peace and stability. That’s what we’re working for and that’s what we will continue to work for.
Thank you, and we’d be happy to take a few questions.
MODERATOR: Okay. Is this on? The first question is – can you hear me? Hello? Okay. I’ll just speak loudly. The first question’s from Nicolas Revise of AFP. Go ahead. I hope your microphone works.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Foreign Minister. Mr. Secretary, first on Yemen: Do you think that the Houthis will accept the ceasefire, and are you going to talk to your Iranian and Russian counterparts to ask them to use their influence? Secondly, Mr. Secretary, on France: The French president made a landmark visit to Riyadh. What’s your take on this growing strategic relationship between the French and the Saudis? Do you see it affecting the unity of the P5+1 negotiating with Iran? And what are your thoughts on the Corker bill passing the Senate in the United States?
And Mr. Foreign Minister, if I may, the coalition has declared all of Sadah in Yemen a military target. How can you talk about a ceasefire and at the same time expand military operations? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Do you want to go first?
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: Very simple. We set the ceasefire at five days, on Tuesday at mid – at 11 p.m. in the evening. The operations in Sadah are in direct response to the Houthis attacking civilians in Saudi Arabia and killing civilians in Saudi Arabia. This is something that we will not tolerate. This was a grave escalation on the part of the Houthis that we had to respond to. We cannot allow people to lob missiles into our territory and murder our people. It’s just not going to happen without there being a very, very severe response. And that’s what we’re doing.
But the ceasefire will begin on Tuesday at 11 p.m. It will last initially for five days. We are in touch with international relief organizations and UN organizations to see how we can facilitate the flow of humanitarian supplies into Yemen. There are a lot of supplies in the region. We want to be able to get them into Yemen, distribute them. Whether or not we succeed in doing so will depend on what the Houthis and their allies do. If they interdict, if they advance, if they commit aggression, there will be no ceasefire. If they abide by the terms of the ceasefire, then there will be an opportunity to help the people of Yemen.
So whether there is a ceasefire or not is entirely in the hands of the Houthis.
SECRETARY KERRY: I would just add to that, if I may quickly, sort of honing in on that issue, but I think it’s an important one for all of us. Really, it is not hard if you pass the word and give strict orders to your people to condition the behavior of people in the context of five days of requirement here. And our hope is that the Houthis will spread the word rapidly. That is the reason that it’s not beginning till Tuesday. The reason is to give time, assuming people accept it, to both accept it, to have their deliberations, not to miss an opportunity, to let the people outside weigh in in order to give good counsel, and ultimately to get the word down to the rank and file what the rules are.
And the rules are very straightforward: Don’t shoot. Don’t move around and start to reposition and take advantage of this. This is a humanitarian pause, and they should treat it accordingly. And if that could happen, that could be the beginning of an opportunity for a genuine transition. So as the foreign minister has said, Saudi Arabia has made the big decision – they were the ones with the aircraft, they control the airspace, they were flying, and they totally said we’re not going to fly. We’re not going to bomb. And they’re not in every community on the ground to be the ones to initiate an action. So if the Houthi will live by this, there is a chance to move forward, and we hope that they will take every advantage to pass the word down the ranks.
Now it is possible in one place or another that somebody misses the word and something doesn’t happen and something – but the Saudis have indicated they’re not going to not break this up over some mistake or some minor thing. They’re going to try to keep this alive, but not for some bold, significant, clear effort to attack people, move people, reposition equipment, and so forth. The rules are pretty clear. And we hope people will understand that.
The – and we encourage the countries that have the greatest influence with them and we will be in touch with those countries in order to try to encourage them to take advantage of this moment.
With respect to whether they will accept, however – or not, obviously – we hope they will. We’ve had some indications that that might take place, but no certainty, and the diplomacy will now take place to try to increase that possibility.
With respect to Saudi Arabia’s visit – the visit that was made by the French president to Saudi Arabia, that’s normal course of business, terrific. We have no issue whatsoever with it. We’ve received a full debrief. We appreciate the relationship of Saudi Arabia with many countries. And I met this morning with Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius; we had a good discussion. I met briefly, obviously, at the Arc de Triomphe with the president. We’re all on the same page, and France and the United States agree completely, as we do with the rest of the P5+1, about what we need to achieve in the agreement with Iran and what the standards are that need to apply to it. We all agree it needs to be robust, it needs to be clear, it needs to be defined, and that’s what we’re working towards. So we think that the visit enhances the relationship between all of us and Saudi Arabia, and that’s important. And we welcome it.
With respect to the bill in Congress, let me just say that we’ve been very, very clear that the bill that was passed out by this Foreign Relations Committee was really the kind of reasonable and acceptable compromise that the President was prepared to support. And that’s why he did support it, because it was changed from the original. And we’re pleased to see that it’s overwhelmingly passed the Senate, staying true to the bipartisan compromise. And we’re very hopeful that the House is going to similarly protect this in the same way that the Senate did and give Congress the opportunity that we think and I, as a 28-year veteran of Congress, believe ought to have to be able to review this deal in a responsible way. I was also very pleased to see that 151 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter supporting the President’s efforts to achieve this deal, to achieve a good deal, and they supported the idea the President ought to be able to continue to negotiate without interference on the terms of that negotiation by the Congress.
So all in all, I think it was very constructive, and we welcome where we are. Now the necessity is to get down to the nitty-gritty of the tough part of the negotiations to get the details pinned down over the course of the next weeks.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: If I may, could I follow up on your questions with regards to Yemen? I want to make clear that no country in the world has given more economic assistance to Yemen than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has over the last 40-plus years. No country in the world will give more to Yemen going forward in the future than Saudi Arabia, I have no doubt about it. We want what’s best for Yemen. We want Yemen to overcome the difficult period it is going through. It was Saudi Arabia and the GCC countries that came up with the GCC initiative which set the stage for the transition in Yemen.
It was, ironically, the GCC initiative that brought the Houthis into the political process from which they were excluded. The transition was then negatively affected by former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and by the Houthis, and they tried to take over the country by force, which we will not allow. They had a militia that operated outside the control of the Yemeni Government, which should not be allowed. The last thing we need on our border is a militia armed with missiles, in control of an air force, that is loyal to Iran and Hizballah. It’s just not going to happen. You cannot have a normal country where one group has arms. And so our advice to the Houthis is: You are part of Yemen. You have a role to play in Yemen. You have a right to be in the Yemeni Government like every other Yemeni group, but you cannot have a privileged position where you have veto power over the country or where you take over the country.
So it was extremely painful for us to take the step of using force in Yemen. It was a last resort. Had we not done this, Yemen would have fallen. And so we responded to the request by the legitimate government in order to protect the Yemeni people and to protect the legitimate government of Yemen. The intention was not to commit aggression against the Houthis – quite the contrary; it was to stop the Houthis from committing aggression against Yemen and its people.
And so I hope that the Houthis will accept the terms of the ceasefire, that they will stop their aggression against the Yemeni people and against Yemen, and that they will allow relief to flow into Yemen so we can help the Yemeni people. And I hope that they will be able to participate in the political process so that we can resolve Yemen’s problems peacefully around the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield.
MODERATOR: Hussein Kneiber of al-Arabiya.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you said yesterday in Riyadh and you have just repeated it now that the United States is concerned deeply about Iran’s action in the region. Yesterday, also in Riyadh, you said that there are some steps to provide greater stability and security in the region. What are these steps, and are they related with the military cooperation that you intend to widen with Saudi Arabia?
A question for Excellency al-Jubeir – Foreign Minister al-Jubeir. (In Arabic.)
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: (Via interpreter) -- the assurances are there and the will is there on both sides, by the U.S. and the GCC. And it does not require assurances.
As for the assurances concerning defending the GCC, these have been in place for over six or eight decades. We have witnessed in the ’80s when the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan, the United States worked with Saudi Arabia to support – to defend against the Mujahedeen, and when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, also the U.S. worked to establish an international coalition of more than 30 countries to liberate Kuwait and defend the region as a whole.
The United States and Saudi Arabia are working closely also with our partners and allies in the region to face – to confront terrorism, extremism, and Daesh, and also to protect the navigation routes.
And now I expect in the coming period there will be further strengthening and enhancement of these efforts so that the relations or joint action will be more effective and more expansive in all areas, whether it relates to cyber security or defense against ballistic missiles or training – military training or equipping. These are further progress in issues that we are already working on, and it’s natural for them to be enhanced and intensified between friendly countries.
SECRETARY KERRY: So today and yesterday I referenced sort of concerns about one particular country, but I think that you know, everybody knows, that no security arrangement or agreement among a whole group of countries, particularly in that region, is confined to one concern. We have a broad array of concerns, which we will be expressing in the context of Camp David, which relate to destabilizing efforts by anybody in the region, which relate to terrorist organizations that are spreading in the region. You have, obviously, al-Shabaab in Somalia; you’ve had Boko Haram in Mali; you have Daesh in Libya; you have al-Nusrah and al-Qaida and ISIL and others all through. I mean, those are the concerns: the destabilization of the region by a number of different entities, and obviously we all know that Iran has supported Hizballah and has supported Houthis and other efforts.
So – but this is not one-country specific as an initiative. This is a broad understanding that countries that want to have stability and peace and play by the rules and live up to international law and not have UN sanctions against them and begin to live to standards, that’s what we’re seeking and our belief is that the challenges we’re facing in terms of these predatory entities that come into challenged governing spaces or no governing spaces. As we learned in Afghanistan, the absence of governed – ungoverned spaces filled often by the worst – the worst actors, and we saw the results in 2001 and we’ve seen them in other times.
So we are banding together to expand our capacity to deal with the future. And that is not limited only to – it’s not a military arrangement. The last choice for everybody ought to be military. It’s how do you prevent these things from happening, how do you stop them metastasizing, how do you eliminate intrusive activities in your country that aren’t an overt attack externally but are rather a insidious kind of eating away at the innards of a country through various nefarious activities that take place. And so we have to guard against the breadth of that kind of activity in various ways, and we’re going to explore that very, very thoroughly in the context of this arrangement.
But I think that – the other parts of it that we all have agreed we need to work on are making sure that a lot of young people have jobs, making sure that there’s opportunity for the future, making sure that people are included in global aspirations and in global possibilities. And that will come about by working at these things, listening to each other, understanding the differences of culture, the differences of history, the transitional timeframes that are possible and so forth. And there’s no stereotype. There’s no cookie-cutter stamp that can be put on any one of these countries in any way. And I think the more we sit together and the more we talk about these challenges, the more we become aware of the subtleties that have to be taken into account as you try to find a common way forward.
That’s what we’re doing. That’s what I think makes this particularly healthy as a discussion, as an enterprise, and we look forward to trying to see our leaders come out of Camp David with a common understanding of that way forward.
MODERATOR: Great. Thank you all very much.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, all.
Secretary's Remarks: Press Availability with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir
05/08/2015 05:12 PM EDT
Press Availability with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir
Press Availability
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Paris, France
May 8, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good afternoon, everybody, and thank you very much for your patience. This afternoon we’re going to do this a little bit differently. It’s my pleasure to first introduce my friend and the distinguished Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia Adel al-Jubeir, and then I will have a few comments, and then we’ll be open to some questions.
So welcome to the Embassy of the United States in Paris, and thank you for your help and cooperation through a very productive day.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: Thank you very much, John, for hosting the GCC foreign ministers at this beautiful building in Paris. We had what I thought was a very productive discussion about the status of the P5+1 talks regarding Iran’s nuclear program. We also – we had an extensive briefing about the technical aspects of the talks that lasted over two hours.
We also spent another hour and a half on Camp David and the objectives of Camp David and the issues that will be discussed at Camp David. Don’t ask me to talk about it because I won’t; I can just tell you in general terms that they have to do with the intensifying and strengthening the security-military relationship between the United States of America and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, as well as dealing with new challenges that we face in the region, foremost of which is the Iranian interference in the affairs of the countries of the region.
We were very pleased with the discussions. I thought they were very – extremely productive, very useful. And we believe that now we have a much clearer sense of the – what we will be discussing at Camp – what our leaders will be discussing at Camp David. And having said so, I will leave that part here. Thanks, John, for hosting that meeting and for having it be such a productive and useful meeting for all of us. We look forward to visiting Washington and Camp David.
I wanted to also pick up on something that I mentioned to you yesterday when we announced that we were looking at a five-day ceasefire in Yemen for humanitarian purposes in order to allow the flow of humanitarian assistance to Yemen. We have made a decision that the ceasefire will begin this Tuesday, May 12th, at 11:00 p.m. and will last for five days and is subject to renewal if it’s – if it works out.
The requirements are first and foremost that there is a commitment by the Houthis and their allies, including Ali Abdullah Saleh and those forces that are loyal to him, to abide by the ceasefire. As I said yesterday at Riyadh, this ceasefire will be throughout Yemen or nowhere in Yemen, and the matter is entirely up to the Houthis and their allies. During the ceasefire there will be a continuation of the air and sea interdiction regarding the flow of weapons to the Houthis and their allies in Yemen.
I’m also happy and pleased to announce that the King Salman Humanitarian and Relief Center in Riyadh will be operational on this Sunday, May 10th. It will be the location in Riyadh where a number of organizations and UN efforts and any other country that wants to participate in the distribution of aid to Yemen to coordinate is free to come and be part of it. We believe that it is critically important that all countries be able to send as much relief supplies as efficiently and as quickly to as many Yemenis as possible.
As you know, that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, ordered the contribution of $274 million to the United Nations for emergency relief efforts in Yemen. This is above and beyond the assistance that we are deploying to Yemen every day as well as the assistance that we will be providing to Yemen going forward.
It is our hope and our desire that the Houthis will come to their senses and realize that the interests of Yemen and the Yemeni people are – should be the top priority for everyone. And I want to make sure that I make clear that the ceasefire will end should the Houthis or their allies not live up to the agreement contained in this issue. This is, I believe, a chance for the Houthis to show that they care about their people and that they care about the Yemeni people, and we hope that they take up this offer for the good of Yemen and the people of Yemen.
So thank you very much once again, John. Thank you for hosting the GCC foreign ministers in this wonderful building. It’s always a pleasure to be here and be with you and exchange views and ideas, and I think we did this today in a very positive spirit, so we thank you for this.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Adel, thank you very much. It was indeed constructive and positive and very, very productive, and I’m grateful to you and all of our colleagues who came here together in order to help make it that. It was well prepared, and I think in the end has really set the stage for a constructive meeting at Camp David.
I’ll say a word just first, if I may, I want to start by expressing my congratulations to Prime Minister Cameron and to my counterpart Secretary of State Philip Hammond and their party for their defying the polls and winning an outright majority in the elections yesterday. As everybody knows, we have a very special relationship with Great Britain. We have deeply shared interests and values. We work together on almost every issue that there is, and now there will obviously be continuity in the relationships built and in the work that we have invested on a number of different priorities and initiatives. So I look forward to continuing to work with Prime Minister Cameron and with Philip on all of our efforts in order to advance global peace and stability, and particularly in this next month and a half to finish our work together on a number of very pressing security issues.
The Gulf Cooperation Council and our Gulf partners have really been at the very center of America’s national interests for a long period of time. And today we find ourselves cooperating on more and more challenges within the region. It is a region that is facing particular challenge at this time, so obviously, by necessity, we – with common interests and with our mutual security and other interests at stake, we have found that it is critical for us to be able to dig into the relationship deeper in terms of ways we can cooperate to have a greater impact on these challenges that we face. And the United States is grateful for and fortunate to have partners who have been willing to stand up with us in the coalition on Daesh, on any other number of vital interests in the region.
Yesterday in Riyadh, for instance, I was privileged to meet with King Salman, who had both the courage and the vision to embrace a full ceasefire for five days. And we said that here in Paris, we would fill out the details a little bit, and with the announcement that the foreign minister has made on behalf of His Majesty King Salman, we now know that to a certainty, on Tuesday at 11:00 p.m. Yemen time, a ceasefire will take place countrywide, providing – providing that the Houthi agree that there will be no bombing, no shooting, no movement of their troops or maneuvering to reposition for military advantage, no movement of heavy weapons or others – that the ceasefire is conditioned on the Houthis agreeing to live by these commitments. And it is a renewable commitment. In other words, if they live by it and if this holds, it opens the door to the possibility of extension and the possibility of a longer period of time for the political process to help resolve these differences.
So anyone who cares about Yemeni people or asserts that they do should take clear notice of the fact that a humanitarian catastrophe is building, and that they are running out of food, they’re running out of medicine, they’re running out of fuel, and clearly, it is an important moment. His Majesty King Salman has recognized that. And despite the fact that he has had cross-border attacks and other challenges, he has made the decision to try to fight for a peaceful resolution. We applaud that. And we believe that all those who have been supportive of the Houthi need at this time to encourage the leadership, and all the way down through the rank and file, to live by this opportunity that is a very important one and very significant in the potential consequences for Yemen itself.
The United States is working with the international community now to try to organize as much humanitarian assistance as possible to be able to flow once that ceasefire takes effect, working with and through the United Nations. And anybody who hears this who has an idea that they want to get assistance into the people, there are organizations – World Food Organization, International Red Cross, others – who work through the United Nations, whom they should be in contact with so that this is an organized and clearly not military movement of goods in any way whatsoever.
Now, I want to be very clear about another thing. A ceasefire is not peace. Ultimately, the parties are going to have to find a way back to the table. And they’re going to have to make tough choices about more than just a ceasefire, because even the most durable of ceasefires is not a substitute for peace. Even the most durable of ceasefires is not a substitute for an inclusive, Yemeni-led political dialogue that all sides can support. And King Salman of Saudi Arabia has made another initiative in order to try to create that dialogue. He has announced a conference in Riyadh to which he invites all Yemeni parties. Now, it may be that not everybody shows up. We don’t know. But they’re invited.
And we support that conference with the hopes that it might produce some further steps forward to have the political resolution, but knowing that everyone agrees that that will lead into the subsequent talks to be held under the auspices of the United Nations and the UN envoy. And we’re very pleased that Saudi Arabia has agreed to support the UN in efforts to also try to help find a peaceful resolution to the situation in Yemen. Only a political solution by Yemenis for Yemenis, in the end, will actually bring an end to Yemen’s crisis. And we are committed to working toward the rapid, unconditional resumption of all party negotiations that will allow Yemen to be able to resume an inclusive transition process that brings peace and stability.
In addition to Yemen, we discussed with our GCC counterparts today preparations for the summit, as Foreign Minister Jubeir – al-Jubeir just said, and that’s going to address a wide range of security issues, folks. It’s going to discuss the threat of regional terrorism, the metastasizing of various terrorist organizations that has become prevalent. It will discuss, obviously, the challenge of Iranian support in some of those particular conflicts. It will discuss the threat of terrorism broadly. And it will discuss how to resolve more effectively those regional conflicts themselves.
So let me be very clear also. Our effort to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue with respect to Iran does not stem from any lessening of our concerns about all of these other destabilizing events within the region. And it’s obvious to all, I think, that it’s easier to address those events if the potential of a nuclear weapon has been eliminated from the equation with respect to the challenges that we face.
We’re also very focused on a continuing basis with the challenge of Daesh and the other terrorist groups. And together, we believe that we are making real progress. A large part of that was, frankly, because of the nations that are represented in the room there. There’s been a very significant diminution of the capacity of Daesh within Iraq to be able to control the territory it used to control, to be able to communicate the way it used to communicate, to be able to move the way they used to be able to move. And so we believe, steadily, that that stranglehold is appropriately ending, and we are forcing them to change tactics. And that is encouraging progress, but we still need more.
And that’s why we were meeting here today in addition to the other reasons that I’ve described, because we need to, all of us, come together in the most effective way possible to meet these newer challenges of this moment in history. And President Obama completely understands the stakes, and that’s why today and at Camp David, we are fleshing out a series of new commitments that will create, between the United States and the GCC, a new security understanding, a new set of security initiatives, that will take us beyond anything that we have had before in ways that will ask our partners to work with us, and they will contribute and we will contribute. It is not a one-way street. It is a two-way street with mutual interests and mutual needs that need to be addressed.
That is why we are also strengthening, together, the moderate opposition in Syria against Daesh and against a regime that has committed an organized, wholesale effort of torture, used chemical weapons against its own people, dropped barrel bombs indiscriminately on women and children in schools and hospitals, and blocked whole communities from getting food and medical supplies to civilians in need.
So we have a big agenda. That’s why we met. And that agenda is marked by new developments almost every single day. I came here to share our views, and we listened a lot today to other views, and I am confident that with Camp David, those views are going to take shape in a form that will greatly enhance our ability to meet the needs of our people and the needs of all those people who want a future that is free of terrorism, free of coercion, free of violence – a future that is reflected by the opportunities that this incredible world we live in today offers people who have that kind of peace and stability. That’s what we’re working for and that’s what we will continue to work for.
Thank you, and we’d be happy to take a few questions.
MODERATOR: Okay. Is this on? The first question is – can you hear me? Hello? Okay. I’ll just speak loudly. The first question’s from Nicolas Revise of AFP. Go ahead. I hope your microphone works.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Foreign Minister. Mr. Secretary, first on Yemen: Do you think that the Houthis will accept the ceasefire, and are you going to talk to your Iranian and Russian counterparts to ask them to use their influence? Secondly, Mr. Secretary, on France: The French president made a landmark visit to Riyadh. What’s your take on this growing strategic relationship between the French and the Saudis? Do you see it affecting the unity of the P5+1 negotiating with Iran? And what are your thoughts on the Corker bill passing the Senate in the United States?
And Mr. Foreign Minister, if I may, the coalition has declared all of Sadah in Yemen a military target. How can you talk about a ceasefire and at the same time expand military operations? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Do you want to go first?
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: Very simple. We set the ceasefire at five days, on Tuesday at mid – at 11 p.m. in the evening. The operations in Sadah are in direct response to the Houthis attacking civilians in Saudi Arabia and killing civilians in Saudi Arabia. This is something that we will not tolerate. This was a grave escalation on the part of the Houthis that we had to respond to. We cannot allow people to lob missiles into our territory and murder our people. It’s just not going to happen without there being a very, very severe response. And that’s what we’re doing.
But the ceasefire will begin on Tuesday at 11 p.m. It will last initially for five days. We are in touch with international relief organizations and UN organizations to see how we can facilitate the flow of humanitarian supplies into Yemen. There are a lot of supplies in the region. We want to be able to get them into Yemen, distribute them. Whether or not we succeed in doing so will depend on what the Houthis and their allies do. If they interdict, if they advance, if they commit aggression, there will be no ceasefire. If they abide by the terms of the ceasefire, then there will be an opportunity to help the people of Yemen.
So whether there is a ceasefire or not is entirely in the hands of the Houthis.
SECRETARY KERRY: I would just add to that, if I may quickly, sort of honing in on that issue, but I think it’s an important one for all of us. Really, it is not hard if you pass the word and give strict orders to your people to condition the behavior of people in the context of five days of requirement here. And our hope is that the Houthis will spread the word rapidly. That is the reason that it’s not beginning till Tuesday. The reason is to give time, assuming people accept it, to both accept it, to have their deliberations, not to miss an opportunity, to let the people outside weigh in in order to give good counsel, and ultimately to get the word down to the rank and file what the rules are.
And the rules are very straightforward: Don’t shoot. Don’t move around and start to reposition and take advantage of this. This is a humanitarian pause, and they should treat it accordingly. And if that could happen, that could be the beginning of an opportunity for a genuine transition. So as the foreign minister has said, Saudi Arabia has made the big decision – they were the ones with the aircraft, they control the airspace, they were flying, and they totally said we’re not going to fly. We’re not going to bomb. And they’re not in every community on the ground to be the ones to initiate an action. So if the Houthi will live by this, there is a chance to move forward, and we hope that they will take every advantage to pass the word down the ranks.
Now it is possible in one place or another that somebody misses the word and something doesn’t happen and something – but the Saudis have indicated they’re not going to not break this up over some mistake or some minor thing. They’re going to try to keep this alive, but not for some bold, significant, clear effort to attack people, move people, reposition equipment, and so forth. The rules are pretty clear. And we hope people will understand that.
The – and we encourage the countries that have the greatest influence with them and we will be in touch with those countries in order to try to encourage them to take advantage of this moment.
With respect to whether they will accept, however – or not, obviously – we hope they will. We’ve had some indications that that might take place, but no certainty, and the diplomacy will now take place to try to increase that possibility.
With respect to Saudi Arabia’s visit – the visit that was made by the French president to Saudi Arabia, that’s normal course of business, terrific. We have no issue whatsoever with it. We’ve received a full debrief. We appreciate the relationship of Saudi Arabia with many countries. And I met this morning with Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius; we had a good discussion. I met briefly, obviously, at the Arc de Triomphe with the president. We’re all on the same page, and France and the United States agree completely, as we do with the rest of the P5+1, about what we need to achieve in the agreement with Iran and what the standards are that need to apply to it. We all agree it needs to be robust, it needs to be clear, it needs to be defined, and that’s what we’re working towards. So we think that the visit enhances the relationship between all of us and Saudi Arabia, and that’s important. And we welcome it.
With respect to the bill in Congress, let me just say that we’ve been very, very clear that the bill that was passed out by this Foreign Relations Committee was really the kind of reasonable and acceptable compromise that the President was prepared to support. And that’s why he did support it, because it was changed from the original. And we’re pleased to see that it’s overwhelmingly passed the Senate, staying true to the bipartisan compromise. And we’re very hopeful that the House is going to similarly protect this in the same way that the Senate did and give Congress the opportunity that we think and I, as a 28-year veteran of Congress, believe ought to have to be able to review this deal in a responsible way. I was also very pleased to see that 151 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter supporting the President’s efforts to achieve this deal, to achieve a good deal, and they supported the idea the President ought to be able to continue to negotiate without interference on the terms of that negotiation by the Congress.
So all in all, I think it was very constructive, and we welcome where we are. Now the necessity is to get down to the nitty-gritty of the tough part of the negotiations to get the details pinned down over the course of the next weeks.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: If I may, could I follow up on your questions with regards to Yemen? I want to make clear that no country in the world has given more economic assistance to Yemen than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has over the last 40-plus years. No country in the world will give more to Yemen going forward in the future than Saudi Arabia, I have no doubt about it. We want what’s best for Yemen. We want Yemen to overcome the difficult period it is going through. It was Saudi Arabia and the GCC countries that came up with the GCC initiative which set the stage for the transition in Yemen.
It was, ironically, the GCC initiative that brought the Houthis into the political process from which they were excluded. The transition was then negatively affected by former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and by the Houthis, and they tried to take over the country by force, which we will not allow. They had a militia that operated outside the control of the Yemeni Government, which should not be allowed. The last thing we need on our border is a militia armed with missiles, in control of an air force, that is loyal to Iran and Hizballah. It’s just not going to happen. You cannot have a normal country where one group has arms. And so our advice to the Houthis is: You are part of Yemen. You have a role to play in Yemen. You have a right to be in the Yemeni Government like every other Yemeni group, but you cannot have a privileged position where you have veto power over the country or where you take over the country.
So it was extremely painful for us to take the step of using force in Yemen. It was a last resort. Had we not done this, Yemen would have fallen. And so we responded to the request by the legitimate government in order to protect the Yemeni people and to protect the legitimate government of Yemen. The intention was not to commit aggression against the Houthis – quite the contrary; it was to stop the Houthis from committing aggression against Yemen and its people.
And so I hope that the Houthis will accept the terms of the ceasefire, that they will stop their aggression against the Yemeni people and against Yemen, and that they will allow relief to flow into Yemen so we can help the Yemeni people. And I hope that they will be able to participate in the political process so that we can resolve Yemen’s problems peacefully around the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield.
MODERATOR: Hussein Kneiber of al-Arabiya.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you said yesterday in Riyadh and you have just repeated it now that the United States is concerned deeply about Iran’s action in the region. Yesterday, also in Riyadh, you said that there are some steps to provide greater stability and security in the region. What are these steps, and are they related with the military cooperation that you intend to widen with Saudi Arabia?
A question for Excellency al-Jubeir – Foreign Minister al-Jubeir. (In Arabic.)
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-JUBEIR: (Via interpreter) -- the assurances are there and the will is there on both sides, by the U.S. and the GCC. And it does not require assurances.
As for the assurances concerning defending the GCC, these have been in place for over six or eight decades. We have witnessed in the ’80s when the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan, the United States worked with Saudi Arabia to support – to defend against the Mujahedeen, and when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, also the U.S. worked to establish an international coalition of more than 30 countries to liberate Kuwait and defend the region as a whole.
The United States and Saudi Arabia are working closely also with our partners and allies in the region to face – to confront terrorism, extremism, and Daesh, and also to protect the navigation routes.
And now I expect in the coming period there will be further strengthening and enhancement of these efforts so that the relations or joint action will be more effective and more expansive in all areas, whether it relates to cyber security or defense against ballistic missiles or training – military training or equipping. These are further progress in issues that we are already working on, and it’s natural for them to be enhanced and intensified between friendly countries.
SECRETARY KERRY: So today and yesterday I referenced sort of concerns about one particular country, but I think that you know, everybody knows, that no security arrangement or agreement among a whole group of countries, particularly in that region, is confined to one concern. We have a broad array of concerns, which we will be expressing in the context of Camp David, which relate to destabilizing efforts by anybody in the region, which relate to terrorist organizations that are spreading in the region. You have, obviously, al-Shabaab in Somalia; you’ve had Boko Haram in Mali; you have Daesh in Libya; you have al-Nusrah and al-Qaida and ISIL and others all through. I mean, those are the concerns: the destabilization of the region by a number of different entities, and obviously we all know that Iran has supported Hizballah and has supported Houthis and other efforts.
So – but this is not one-country specific as an initiative. This is a broad understanding that countries that want to have stability and peace and play by the rules and live up to international law and not have UN sanctions against them and begin to live to standards, that’s what we’re seeking and our belief is that the challenges we’re facing in terms of these predatory entities that come into challenged governing spaces or no governing spaces. As we learned in Afghanistan, the absence of governed – ungoverned spaces filled often by the worst – the worst actors, and we saw the results in 2001 and we’ve seen them in other times.
So we are banding together to expand our capacity to deal with the future. And that is not limited only to – it’s not a military arrangement. The last choice for everybody ought to be military. It’s how do you prevent these things from happening, how do you stop them metastasizing, how do you eliminate intrusive activities in your country that aren’t an overt attack externally but are rather a insidious kind of eating away at the innards of a country through various nefarious activities that take place. And so we have to guard against the breadth of that kind of activity in various ways, and we’re going to explore that very, very thoroughly in the context of this arrangement.
But I think that – the other parts of it that we all have agreed we need to work on are making sure that a lot of young people have jobs, making sure that there’s opportunity for the future, making sure that people are included in global aspirations and in global possibilities. And that will come about by working at these things, listening to each other, understanding the differences of culture, the differences of history, the transitional timeframes that are possible and so forth. And there’s no stereotype. There’s no cookie-cutter stamp that can be put on any one of these countries in any way. And I think the more we sit together and the more we talk about these challenges, the more we become aware of the subtleties that have to be taken into account as you try to find a common way forward.
That’s what we’re doing. That’s what I think makes this particularly healthy as a discussion, as an enterprise, and we look forward to trying to see our leaders come out of Camp David with a common understanding of that way forward.
MODERATOR: Great. Thank you all very much.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, all.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)