FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT RETIREMENT
Service Members Should Start Saving Early for Retirement
By Terri Moon Cronk
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 2013 - It's never too soon to start savinge for retirement, Barbara Thompson, the director of the Defense Department's office of family policy/children and youth advised service members today.
Enlistees as young as 18 might not be thinking about saving for retirement or the importance of their Thrift Savings Plan, but that's when they should, because retirement creeps up quickly, Thompson said.
"The vast majority of service members don't go the full 20 years for military retirement, so they need to, from the very beginning, think about their futures," she said. "When [service members] get out of the military, they will have something to show in a retirement plan they've had all along while serving."
Sometimes "you have to start small, because that's what you can afford, but the goal is to build up, so you're saving more and more every year," Thompson said.
The Thrift Savings Plan, Thompson said, offers two types of approaches: one that is tax-deferred until age 59-and-a-half when taxes on that money will be paid; and the Roth Thrift Savings Plan, in which taxes are paid up front.
"It's an individual decision based on [service members'] circumstances, and I would highly suggest they utilize the financial resources that DOD provides," Thompson said.
Saving for retirement is not only about financial readiness, it's also critical for service members' financial well-being, she said. And DOD offers numerous resources to help with retirement account guidance, Thompson added. Military OneSource has financial counselors who are available by phone, online or in person, she said. Its online calculations also show service members how their savings will develop over time.
Military installations offer personal financial managers at base family centers, Thompson added. The counselors are certified in financial counseling and can help families decide which of the two plans best meet their needs.
Banks and credit unions also offer financial education, and the Thrift Savings Plan website offers a wealth of information as well, Thompson said.
Regardless of the Thrift Savings Plan service members and families choose, they should periodically revisit their retirement accounts and stay informed by researching financial matters, Thompson said.
"It's not now, it's the future you need to be thinking of," she said. "We're seeing a trend in the United States [in which] people are reaching retirement age and they're realizing they may not have enough [money] as they get into their 80s and 90s. You want to make sure all those years are covered so you don't become a burden to your children or to society."
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL AND UAE CROWN PRINCE DISCUSS SECURITY
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Hagel, UAE Crown Prince Discuss Regional Security Issues
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and United Arab Emirates' Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan today spoke by phone and discussed regional security issues, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a statement issued today.
Little's statement reads as follows:
Secretary Hagel spoke with United Arab Emirates' (UAE) Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan today to consult on regional issues. Secretary Hagel emphasized the U.S. commitment to regional security and noted that the strong U.S.-UAE bilateral relationship remains integral to regional stability. Secretary Hagel reaffirmed U.S. commitment to the strategic partnership with Egypt, and discussed the recent decision about U.S. security assistance to Egypt.
On Iran, Secretary Hagel noted that the United States intends to test the prospects for diplomacy and assured H.E. Mohamed bin Zayed that, as we pursue a peaceful resolution of the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program, the United States remains firm in its commitment to the security of the region and to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Finally, Secretary Hagel highlighted the success of the recent U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Strategic Cooperation Forum and urged the need for further collaboration between the United States and GCC on shared issues, particularly on regional defense initiatives.
Hagel, UAE Crown Prince Discuss Regional Security Issues
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and United Arab Emirates' Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan today spoke by phone and discussed regional security issues, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a statement issued today.
Little's statement reads as follows:
Secretary Hagel spoke with United Arab Emirates' (UAE) Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan today to consult on regional issues. Secretary Hagel emphasized the U.S. commitment to regional security and noted that the strong U.S.-UAE bilateral relationship remains integral to regional stability. Secretary Hagel reaffirmed U.S. commitment to the strategic partnership with Egypt, and discussed the recent decision about U.S. security assistance to Egypt.
On Iran, Secretary Hagel noted that the United States intends to test the prospects for diplomacy and assured H.E. Mohamed bin Zayed that, as we pursue a peaceful resolution of the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program, the United States remains firm in its commitment to the security of the region and to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Finally, Secretary Hagel highlighted the success of the recent U.S.-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Strategic Cooperation Forum and urged the need for further collaboration between the United States and GCC on shared issues, particularly on regional defense initiatives.
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS AT THE FOURTH GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP SUMMIT IN KUALA LUMPUR
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks at The Fourth Global Entrepreneurship Summit
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
October 11, 2013
Selamat Pagi.. Good morning. (Applause.) Four thousand seven hundred delegates, 123 countries – this is really remarkable. And it’s a pleasure – (applause). Yes, it is remarkable. (Applause.)
And it’s a great, great pleasure for me to be in this beautiful, dynamic city. I want to thank Prime Minister Najib. Thank you so much for your welcome, your generous leadership. (Applause.) And the Minister of Finance Two Husni, and the Government of Malaysia, I thank you all for your very generous hospitality and all of your Excellencies, and particularly if I may single her out, our Secretary of Commerce who is here, Penny Pritzker, and the First Lady I see here. Thank you, we enjoyed a wonderful evening the other night. Nice to see you here. (Applause.)
I want to thank you for partnering with the United States to put together the largest-ever Global Entrepreneurship Summit ever conceived. (Applause.) And I especially thank you for promoting entrepreneurship through your policies, which benefit us all.
I also want to thank Startup Malaysia for the exceptional work that you’ve done on this Summit, and for working hard every day – (cheers and applause). They have their special cheering section over here. (Laughter.) But I want to thank them for helping young people across the country – and around the world – to chase their dreams of building their own businesses. As we were walking in here, the Prime Minister said to me, “This is something people want more than anything else today, to start their own business.” Thank you also for bringing together the Global Startup Youth, who I understand are here in full force. (Cheers and Applause.) I was about to say they were here in full force, but they announced that themselves. (Laughter.)
And as you know, this Summit is very, very close to President Obama’s heart. I trust you also understand why the situation in Washington has kept President Obama close to home. But I woke up today to television reports that things are beginning to break a bit, so you can see it was worth his staying and important. But he will be back in Malaysia soon, I promise you. (Applause.)
Let me reiterate very quickly, because I don’t want to spend time on it, that what is happening in our capital in Washington is really nothing more than a moment of politics, and it will pass. But I’ll say this: If only the small group of people who have held us back in these past days were as forward-thinking and collaborative as the people in this room, we would all do a lot better. (Cheers and Applause.)
So I know the President is disappointed that he can’t be here today, but I assure you that his commitment to what you’re doing is as strong as ever – and he joins me in saying with great admiration: “Malaysia negara hebat.” (Applause.)
It’s very fitting that this year’s Summit has brought us together in this incredible country. The many Malaysians who are turning novel ideas into new businesses are strongly supported by a government that is constantly rooting them on and encouraging them.
Malaysia’s Finance Ministry just launched the “One Met” program to train thousands in tech skills, and Prime Minister Najib’s government has set the ambitious and admirable goal of having small- and medium-sized enterprises comprise 40 percent of Malaysia’s GDP by 2015. That’s an extraordinary goal, and I’m confident Malaysia will meet it. If anyone can meet it, it’s Malaysia. (Applause.)
This is the country that reached for the sky not once, but twice, with the iconic twin towers that stand just outside this convention center.
And when most of the world was still discovering the World Wide Web in the 1990s, guess what? This country created Cyberjaya, the first city on earth to be fully wired with high-speed internet. (Cheers and Applause.)
This nation has given the world visionary businesspeople like Jimmy Choo, who made his first pair of shoes at the age of 11. (Applause.) And by the time he was in his twenties, his designs were being worn on sidewalks and catwalks from Los Angeles to London.
And Tony Fernandes, who long before he started hosting “The Apprentice: Asia” – in fact, even before he even turned 30 years old – started the budget airline Air Asia. And with that bold vision, my friends, he revolutionized the way that people connect with one another throughout the region.
As I have walked into this hall and felt the energy here, I have to tell you it’s extraordinary all of the young people who are here. I’m sure you share that feeling. There’s an excitement here, an excitement about possibilities. I actually can almost feel my hair turning brown again. (Laughter.)
It astounds me to think that three in five citizens of ASEAN nations are under the age of 35. Sixty percent of your population. Just imagine what that means for all of the new products and the new services that Southeast Asia can bring to the world. My friends, it really is all in your hands.
And it’s equally fitting that we meet in Kuala Lumpur because this is a multi-cultural city at the heart of a multi-ethnic, multi-faith country, and history has proven time and again that diversity is one of the most important catalysts for discovery.
Here in Malaysia, people of different heritages have been in conversation for a long, long time. You see it in the open houses that you host during holidays, welcoming people of different faiths into your living rooms.
You see it in the Petronas Towers that I mentioned a moment ago, which are a beautiful fusion of modern engineering, traditional Muslim design - of an American architect, of Japanese and Korean construction, and a uniquely Malaysian vision.
Together, they all blended a masterpiece that is recognized around the world and a soaring reminder that Malaysia is much more than a marketplace. It is a human and an economic mosaic – and it is a model for the world. Your open-mindedness and cooperative spirit – these are literally the keys to the future.
When President Obama announced the creation of this Summit in Cairo four years ago, he did so because he understands that freedom of opportunity is humanity’s most powerful motivator.
This is true for all people, regardless of geography or gender, regardless of race or religion. It always has been true, and I’ve got news for you; it always will be.
What unfolded in the historic city of Cairo just a short time after the speech the President gave – and in Tunis, and in Tripoli, and in Sana’a – they all proved the point. The world watched young people just like you – young men and women with great aspirations. They watched them demand the chance to be able to fashion their futures, to be able to have a say in the future, to define it, and just like you are doing today as you turn your dreams into businesses.
President Obama also understands that entrepreneurship is about so much more than profits. It’s about how you build a society that values competition and compassion at the same time.
So much of the work that we’re doing together isn’t just about making money. It’s about making people’s lives better through education, health care, and basic human rights.
A few years ago, a study that was conducted in the United Kingdom showed that the most entrepreneurial countries in the world are also the most prosperous. That’s not an accident. This study also found that entrepreneurship also makes people happier and more fulfilled.
The places where citizens have the freedom to dream up a new idea, where you have an opportunity to share that idea freely with other people, where you can be you own boss – and even, importantly, where you are free to fail. These societies are both the most successful and they are the most cohesive and the most satisfied. Never underestimate how important that is.
And just as there’s nowhere better to talk about innovation than here in Malaysia, there is no one better to talk about innovation than young people. As they say in Bahasa, “Melentur buluh, biar dari rebung nya.” (Applause and Cheers.) “To bend a bamboo, start when it’s still a shoot.”
I look out at this audience here and I see that truth in the proverb. Every step towards progress actually does start with young people:
Mozart composed his first piece of music at the age of 5 years old.
Mandela was 25 when he started fighting against apartheid.
Martin Luther King was 26 when he led the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Mark Zuckerberg was 19 when Facebook went live.
Malala Yousafzai was only 11 when she started blogging about life under the Taliban.
It is young people who push us forward, always by building something that no one else thought to build – who push us forward by saying aloud something that no one else had the courage to say.
In fact, the first man to hold the office of Secretary of State of the United States, the office I obviously occupy today, was Thomas Jefferson – who, by the way, also happened to be an inventor who helped establish our patent system. He was 33 when he wrote our Declaration of Independence – the mission statement of a risky start-up called the United States of America.
So I am honored to, and I am inspired to be with so many of you – young people who energize us and give us hope by continuing that proud tradition. I’ve actually learned something about a few of you.
I’m thinking of entrepreneurs who are here like Nermin Sa'd, who has come to this Summit from Jordan. And when Nermin talked with female engineers like herself across the Middle East, she realized that so many of their talents were being squandered in countries where cultural norms make it difficult for women to work outside of their homes.
And so Nermin created an online platform where female engineers could freelance from home.
And Nermin’s dream is that in five years, her website will be the first engineering company in all of the Middle East and North Africa staffed completely by women. (Applause and Cheers.)
And I am inspired by entrepreneurs like Tonee Ndungu of Kenya, who’s also come to Kuala Lumpur this week.
The first company that Tonee built failed. But he didn’t give up. He did what any of you would do: he just tried again.
And Tonee’s latest innovation lets students rent textbooks electronically – a book at a time, a chapter at a time, or even a page at a time.
And by making textbooks more affordable, he gives lower-income students a chance to learn that they might not otherwise ever have had.
But that’s not his only motivation, my friends. Tonee is dyslexic, and when he was a student he had to listen to cassette tapes of audio books.
So Tonee’s dream is to lower all kinds of barriers to education in the developing world.
And I’m inspired by young entrepreneurs like 24-year-old Saimum Hossain.
Saimum is here today from Bangladesh, where of 7 million of his countrymen who are homeless and many more have unsuitable housing. So Saimum and some friends set out to put a roof over as many heads as possible – literally.
They started an environmentally friendly company that turns natural materials from plants into sophisticated corrugated sheets that are more durable than metal roofs and provide good shelter.
Saimum’s dream is that soon they will be cheaper than metal so that more of the world’s 100 million homeless can afford sustainable housing. That’s a great dream. (Applause.)
I’m proud to tell you that Nermin, Tonee and Saimum all belong to a program that was born from President Obama’s call to action in Cairo. It’s called Global Innovation through Science and Technology. (Cheers.) And these young people embody the President’s famous affirmation that anything is possible: “Yes, we can!” – or as you say in Malaysia, “Malaysia boleh!” (Applause.)
The Obama Administration is really inspired by the kind of work that the young people here are doing, and that’s why we are going to continue promoting entrepreneurship around the world.
Supporting your creativity and persistence is a key component of our foreign policy agenda – which today, more than ever before, is about economic policy, too.
When entrepreneurs here in Malaysia succeed, I’ll tell you something; they create economic opportunity for Malaysians, of course, but also for people all over the world, including in the United States.
Americans benefit from the success of small businesses around the world through trading and collaborating with them, and by using their goods and services. So President Obama is going to continue doing everything he can to support young people who want to turn their ideas into businesses or non-profit organizations.
And we’ll do that in a few major ways.
First, we’re going to create an environment where people can easily form personal relationships and broad networks with people from every background and every expertise. We’re also going to help them with the training and support that they need to turn their ideas into businesses, and then to bring them to scale.
And when we think of the most successful entrepreneurs, we often think of someone like Steve Jobs, who was sitting in a garage somewhere with a buddy or two. But the truth is, no one makes all of this happen all alone. It takes the private sector working hand-in-hand with NGOs, universities, and governments. And in the end, the networks that we build only make all of us stronger.
So I am proud to announce a new collaboration between the United States State Department and Up Global, which over the next few years will support and train half a million entrepreneurs in 1,000 cities around the world – including right here in Kuala Lumpur. (Applause.)
The second initiative we’re going to launch will connect these entrepreneurs with mentors who can show them the ropes – because as you know better than anyone, starting a business is a daunting task.
And by the end of the year, President Obama will announce the inaugural members of the President’s Committee on Global Entrepreneurship. Penny Pritzker, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce who I introduced earlier, who is herself a very experienced executive and entrepreneur, she will lead this committee of role models who are going to act as partners, as teachers, and as champions for a new generation of success stories.
And third and finally, we must make sure governments support entrepreneurs and the amazing work that you’re all doing. That’s why President Obama is joining forces with organizations like the Kauffman Foundation, the World Bank, and others in order to create a new research network that will help policymakers promote growth and start-ups.
So I can’t tell you how exciting it is, how many great programs are underway or on the way in order to connect innovators with capital, market demands, and lift some of the poorest communities in the world out of poverty.
And I’m especially proud of a new program called Beehive Malaysia. Babson College – which is a school in my home state of Massachusetts – will partner with the U.S. Department of State and Malaysian universities and businesses to give social entrepreneurs a collaborative, shared workspace where they can solve some of the world’s toughest challenges.
My friends, the United States is doing all that we can to support you because we know that the best ideas are never bound by borders. And it’s your ideas that have always created the lion’s share of jobs in our country and in yours.
Just think: As more and more young people join the labor market, the world will need about a half a billion new jobs by 2030, many of which just haven’t been invented yet.
I want to leave you with a thought from a man who inspired me when I was growing up – a younger brother of the youngest man ever elected President, and a visionary leader in his own right – Robert Kennedy.
Robert Kennedy said: “Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events – and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.” “In the total of all those acts.”
Nearly a half a century later, you have more tools at your fingertips than any generation in history, and so you have all the more power to bend history for the better – to bend that bamboo in the ancient Malaysian proverb.
It happens that we also have many more complex challenges today, and it will take even more hard work to move the world forward. And without question, how many countries like mine and yours harness your talents? That is what will shape global economic prosperity and opportunity for generations to come.
As your generation continues to invent and reinvent and push us forward, you will invariably hear a lot of people call you the leaders of tomorrow. But I got news for you: That sells you short.
I know you’re not content to be relegated to the future – you are the present. You are the leaders of today. You are changing the world even as we speak. And I am confident that the rest of us are in your exceedingly capable hands.
So thank you all for all that you do, and all that you will do to bring opportunity to the many around the world. Terima kasih. (Applause.)
It is now my honor to present a message from the man whose vision created the Summit, the President of the United States, Barack Obama: (Applause.)
“Hello, everyone. I had really hoped to be with you in person. Unfortunately, events here in Washington made that impossible. But I am pleased that the United States is being represented at the Summit by two outstanding members of my cabinet, Secretaries John Kerry and Penny Pritzker. And I wanted to take this opportunity to speak directly to each of you about the cause that brings you together today.
To Prime Minister Najib and our Malaysian friends, thank you so much for your leadership in hosting the Fourth Summit – a tribute to Malaysia’s example as a dynamic economy, an engine for regional prosperity, and a country that’s increasingly connected to the global economy.
“Likewise, Malaysia’s diversity, tolerance, and progress can be a model for countries around the world. As I’ve told Prime Minister Najib, I look forward to visiting Malaysia in the future as we continue to deepen the partnership between our two great nations.
“To everyone gathered at this Summit, especially so many young entrepreneurs, thank you for your commitment to the call I issued four years ago in Cairo – the need for new partnerships between the United States and Muslim communities around the world. I was proud to host the First Entrepreneurship Summit and I’m proud of the progress we’ve made since, empowering a new generation of entrepreneurs, including women, with new skills, training, and access to capital, helping small businesses grow and forging new collaborations in science and technology.
“We do all this because we believe that whether you live in Kuala Lumpur or Kuwait or Kansas City, when you’re free to have your own ideas, pursue your dreams, start your own businesses, serve your communities, it isn’t just good for your nations; it means more prosperity and progress for us all. It’s the same daring spirit that brings us together to meet other challenges as well, from hunger to health to climate change. And it’s the spirit you can sustain.
“The United States is proud to do our part. In partnership with Up Global, we’ll help support 500,000 new entrepreneurs and their startups around the world. Some of America’s most successful leaders in business will serve as entrepreneurship ambassadors, mentoring and nurturing the next generation. A new research network will equip governments with proven tools to help entrepreneurs succeed. And we’ll continue to expand the partnerships and exchanges that help entrepreneurs like you learn from each other and turn your ideas into reality.
“Those of you there today, you’re risk takers and dreamers who imagine the world as it ought to be. But you also have the talents and drive to actually build the future you seek, and the United States of America wants to be your partner. We want you to succeed. And when I think of your passion and creativity, I could not be more optimistic about the future we can build together.
“So have a wonderful Summit. May God bless you all and may God’s peace be upon you.”
(Applause.)
Remarks at The Fourth Global Entrepreneurship Summit
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
October 11, 2013
Selamat Pagi.. Good morning. (Applause.) Four thousand seven hundred delegates, 123 countries – this is really remarkable. And it’s a pleasure – (applause). Yes, it is remarkable. (Applause.)
And it’s a great, great pleasure for me to be in this beautiful, dynamic city. I want to thank Prime Minister Najib. Thank you so much for your welcome, your generous leadership. (Applause.) And the Minister of Finance Two Husni, and the Government of Malaysia, I thank you all for your very generous hospitality and all of your Excellencies, and particularly if I may single her out, our Secretary of Commerce who is here, Penny Pritzker, and the First Lady I see here. Thank you, we enjoyed a wonderful evening the other night. Nice to see you here. (Applause.)
I want to thank you for partnering with the United States to put together the largest-ever Global Entrepreneurship Summit ever conceived. (Applause.) And I especially thank you for promoting entrepreneurship through your policies, which benefit us all.
I also want to thank Startup Malaysia for the exceptional work that you’ve done on this Summit, and for working hard every day – (cheers and applause). They have their special cheering section over here. (Laughter.) But I want to thank them for helping young people across the country – and around the world – to chase their dreams of building their own businesses. As we were walking in here, the Prime Minister said to me, “This is something people want more than anything else today, to start their own business.” Thank you also for bringing together the Global Startup Youth, who I understand are here in full force. (Cheers and Applause.) I was about to say they were here in full force, but they announced that themselves. (Laughter.)
And as you know, this Summit is very, very close to President Obama’s heart. I trust you also understand why the situation in Washington has kept President Obama close to home. But I woke up today to television reports that things are beginning to break a bit, so you can see it was worth his staying and important. But he will be back in Malaysia soon, I promise you. (Applause.)
Let me reiterate very quickly, because I don’t want to spend time on it, that what is happening in our capital in Washington is really nothing more than a moment of politics, and it will pass. But I’ll say this: If only the small group of people who have held us back in these past days were as forward-thinking and collaborative as the people in this room, we would all do a lot better. (Cheers and Applause.)
So I know the President is disappointed that he can’t be here today, but I assure you that his commitment to what you’re doing is as strong as ever – and he joins me in saying with great admiration: “Malaysia negara hebat.” (Applause.)
It’s very fitting that this year’s Summit has brought us together in this incredible country. The many Malaysians who are turning novel ideas into new businesses are strongly supported by a government that is constantly rooting them on and encouraging them.
Malaysia’s Finance Ministry just launched the “One Met” program to train thousands in tech skills, and Prime Minister Najib’s government has set the ambitious and admirable goal of having small- and medium-sized enterprises comprise 40 percent of Malaysia’s GDP by 2015. That’s an extraordinary goal, and I’m confident Malaysia will meet it. If anyone can meet it, it’s Malaysia. (Applause.)
This is the country that reached for the sky not once, but twice, with the iconic twin towers that stand just outside this convention center.
And when most of the world was still discovering the World Wide Web in the 1990s, guess what? This country created Cyberjaya, the first city on earth to be fully wired with high-speed internet. (Cheers and Applause.)
This nation has given the world visionary businesspeople like Jimmy Choo, who made his first pair of shoes at the age of 11. (Applause.) And by the time he was in his twenties, his designs were being worn on sidewalks and catwalks from Los Angeles to London.
And Tony Fernandes, who long before he started hosting “The Apprentice: Asia” – in fact, even before he even turned 30 years old – started the budget airline Air Asia. And with that bold vision, my friends, he revolutionized the way that people connect with one another throughout the region.
As I have walked into this hall and felt the energy here, I have to tell you it’s extraordinary all of the young people who are here. I’m sure you share that feeling. There’s an excitement here, an excitement about possibilities. I actually can almost feel my hair turning brown again. (Laughter.)
It astounds me to think that three in five citizens of ASEAN nations are under the age of 35. Sixty percent of your population. Just imagine what that means for all of the new products and the new services that Southeast Asia can bring to the world. My friends, it really is all in your hands.
And it’s equally fitting that we meet in Kuala Lumpur because this is a multi-cultural city at the heart of a multi-ethnic, multi-faith country, and history has proven time and again that diversity is one of the most important catalysts for discovery.
Here in Malaysia, people of different heritages have been in conversation for a long, long time. You see it in the open houses that you host during holidays, welcoming people of different faiths into your living rooms.
You see it in the Petronas Towers that I mentioned a moment ago, which are a beautiful fusion of modern engineering, traditional Muslim design - of an American architect, of Japanese and Korean construction, and a uniquely Malaysian vision.
Together, they all blended a masterpiece that is recognized around the world and a soaring reminder that Malaysia is much more than a marketplace. It is a human and an economic mosaic – and it is a model for the world. Your open-mindedness and cooperative spirit – these are literally the keys to the future.
When President Obama announced the creation of this Summit in Cairo four years ago, he did so because he understands that freedom of opportunity is humanity’s most powerful motivator.
This is true for all people, regardless of geography or gender, regardless of race or religion. It always has been true, and I’ve got news for you; it always will be.
What unfolded in the historic city of Cairo just a short time after the speech the President gave – and in Tunis, and in Tripoli, and in Sana’a – they all proved the point. The world watched young people just like you – young men and women with great aspirations. They watched them demand the chance to be able to fashion their futures, to be able to have a say in the future, to define it, and just like you are doing today as you turn your dreams into businesses.
President Obama also understands that entrepreneurship is about so much more than profits. It’s about how you build a society that values competition and compassion at the same time.
So much of the work that we’re doing together isn’t just about making money. It’s about making people’s lives better through education, health care, and basic human rights.
A few years ago, a study that was conducted in the United Kingdom showed that the most entrepreneurial countries in the world are also the most prosperous. That’s not an accident. This study also found that entrepreneurship also makes people happier and more fulfilled.
The places where citizens have the freedom to dream up a new idea, where you have an opportunity to share that idea freely with other people, where you can be you own boss – and even, importantly, where you are free to fail. These societies are both the most successful and they are the most cohesive and the most satisfied. Never underestimate how important that is.
And just as there’s nowhere better to talk about innovation than here in Malaysia, there is no one better to talk about innovation than young people. As they say in Bahasa, “Melentur buluh, biar dari rebung nya.” (Applause and Cheers.) “To bend a bamboo, start when it’s still a shoot.”
I look out at this audience here and I see that truth in the proverb. Every step towards progress actually does start with young people:
Mozart composed his first piece of music at the age of 5 years old.
Mandela was 25 when he started fighting against apartheid.
Martin Luther King was 26 when he led the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Mark Zuckerberg was 19 when Facebook went live.
Malala Yousafzai was only 11 when she started blogging about life under the Taliban.
It is young people who push us forward, always by building something that no one else thought to build – who push us forward by saying aloud something that no one else had the courage to say.
In fact, the first man to hold the office of Secretary of State of the United States, the office I obviously occupy today, was Thomas Jefferson – who, by the way, also happened to be an inventor who helped establish our patent system. He was 33 when he wrote our Declaration of Independence – the mission statement of a risky start-up called the United States of America.
So I am honored to, and I am inspired to be with so many of you – young people who energize us and give us hope by continuing that proud tradition. I’ve actually learned something about a few of you.
I’m thinking of entrepreneurs who are here like Nermin Sa'd, who has come to this Summit from Jordan. And when Nermin talked with female engineers like herself across the Middle East, she realized that so many of their talents were being squandered in countries where cultural norms make it difficult for women to work outside of their homes.
And so Nermin created an online platform where female engineers could freelance from home.
And Nermin’s dream is that in five years, her website will be the first engineering company in all of the Middle East and North Africa staffed completely by women. (Applause and Cheers.)
And I am inspired by entrepreneurs like Tonee Ndungu of Kenya, who’s also come to Kuala Lumpur this week.
The first company that Tonee built failed. But he didn’t give up. He did what any of you would do: he just tried again.
And Tonee’s latest innovation lets students rent textbooks electronically – a book at a time, a chapter at a time, or even a page at a time.
And by making textbooks more affordable, he gives lower-income students a chance to learn that they might not otherwise ever have had.
But that’s not his only motivation, my friends. Tonee is dyslexic, and when he was a student he had to listen to cassette tapes of audio books.
So Tonee’s dream is to lower all kinds of barriers to education in the developing world.
And I’m inspired by young entrepreneurs like 24-year-old Saimum Hossain.
Saimum is here today from Bangladesh, where of 7 million of his countrymen who are homeless and many more have unsuitable housing. So Saimum and some friends set out to put a roof over as many heads as possible – literally.
They started an environmentally friendly company that turns natural materials from plants into sophisticated corrugated sheets that are more durable than metal roofs and provide good shelter.
Saimum’s dream is that soon they will be cheaper than metal so that more of the world’s 100 million homeless can afford sustainable housing. That’s a great dream. (Applause.)
I’m proud to tell you that Nermin, Tonee and Saimum all belong to a program that was born from President Obama’s call to action in Cairo. It’s called Global Innovation through Science and Technology. (Cheers.) And these young people embody the President’s famous affirmation that anything is possible: “Yes, we can!” – or as you say in Malaysia, “Malaysia boleh!” (Applause.)
The Obama Administration is really inspired by the kind of work that the young people here are doing, and that’s why we are going to continue promoting entrepreneurship around the world.
Supporting your creativity and persistence is a key component of our foreign policy agenda – which today, more than ever before, is about economic policy, too.
When entrepreneurs here in Malaysia succeed, I’ll tell you something; they create economic opportunity for Malaysians, of course, but also for people all over the world, including in the United States.
Americans benefit from the success of small businesses around the world through trading and collaborating with them, and by using their goods and services. So President Obama is going to continue doing everything he can to support young people who want to turn their ideas into businesses or non-profit organizations.
And we’ll do that in a few major ways.
First, we’re going to create an environment where people can easily form personal relationships and broad networks with people from every background and every expertise. We’re also going to help them with the training and support that they need to turn their ideas into businesses, and then to bring them to scale.
And when we think of the most successful entrepreneurs, we often think of someone like Steve Jobs, who was sitting in a garage somewhere with a buddy or two. But the truth is, no one makes all of this happen all alone. It takes the private sector working hand-in-hand with NGOs, universities, and governments. And in the end, the networks that we build only make all of us stronger.
So I am proud to announce a new collaboration between the United States State Department and Up Global, which over the next few years will support and train half a million entrepreneurs in 1,000 cities around the world – including right here in Kuala Lumpur. (Applause.)
The second initiative we’re going to launch will connect these entrepreneurs with mentors who can show them the ropes – because as you know better than anyone, starting a business is a daunting task.
And by the end of the year, President Obama will announce the inaugural members of the President’s Committee on Global Entrepreneurship. Penny Pritzker, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce who I introduced earlier, who is herself a very experienced executive and entrepreneur, she will lead this committee of role models who are going to act as partners, as teachers, and as champions for a new generation of success stories.
And third and finally, we must make sure governments support entrepreneurs and the amazing work that you’re all doing. That’s why President Obama is joining forces with organizations like the Kauffman Foundation, the World Bank, and others in order to create a new research network that will help policymakers promote growth and start-ups.
So I can’t tell you how exciting it is, how many great programs are underway or on the way in order to connect innovators with capital, market demands, and lift some of the poorest communities in the world out of poverty.
And I’m especially proud of a new program called Beehive Malaysia. Babson College – which is a school in my home state of Massachusetts – will partner with the U.S. Department of State and Malaysian universities and businesses to give social entrepreneurs a collaborative, shared workspace where they can solve some of the world’s toughest challenges.
My friends, the United States is doing all that we can to support you because we know that the best ideas are never bound by borders. And it’s your ideas that have always created the lion’s share of jobs in our country and in yours.
Just think: As more and more young people join the labor market, the world will need about a half a billion new jobs by 2030, many of which just haven’t been invented yet.
I want to leave you with a thought from a man who inspired me when I was growing up – a younger brother of the youngest man ever elected President, and a visionary leader in his own right – Robert Kennedy.
Robert Kennedy said: “Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events – and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation.” “In the total of all those acts.”
Nearly a half a century later, you have more tools at your fingertips than any generation in history, and so you have all the more power to bend history for the better – to bend that bamboo in the ancient Malaysian proverb.
It happens that we also have many more complex challenges today, and it will take even more hard work to move the world forward. And without question, how many countries like mine and yours harness your talents? That is what will shape global economic prosperity and opportunity for generations to come.
As your generation continues to invent and reinvent and push us forward, you will invariably hear a lot of people call you the leaders of tomorrow. But I got news for you: That sells you short.
I know you’re not content to be relegated to the future – you are the present. You are the leaders of today. You are changing the world even as we speak. And I am confident that the rest of us are in your exceedingly capable hands.
So thank you all for all that you do, and all that you will do to bring opportunity to the many around the world. Terima kasih. (Applause.)
It is now my honor to present a message from the man whose vision created the Summit, the President of the United States, Barack Obama: (Applause.)
“Hello, everyone. I had really hoped to be with you in person. Unfortunately, events here in Washington made that impossible. But I am pleased that the United States is being represented at the Summit by two outstanding members of my cabinet, Secretaries John Kerry and Penny Pritzker. And I wanted to take this opportunity to speak directly to each of you about the cause that brings you together today.
To Prime Minister Najib and our Malaysian friends, thank you so much for your leadership in hosting the Fourth Summit – a tribute to Malaysia’s example as a dynamic economy, an engine for regional prosperity, and a country that’s increasingly connected to the global economy.
“Likewise, Malaysia’s diversity, tolerance, and progress can be a model for countries around the world. As I’ve told Prime Minister Najib, I look forward to visiting Malaysia in the future as we continue to deepen the partnership between our two great nations.
“To everyone gathered at this Summit, especially so many young entrepreneurs, thank you for your commitment to the call I issued four years ago in Cairo – the need for new partnerships between the United States and Muslim communities around the world. I was proud to host the First Entrepreneurship Summit and I’m proud of the progress we’ve made since, empowering a new generation of entrepreneurs, including women, with new skills, training, and access to capital, helping small businesses grow and forging new collaborations in science and technology.
“We do all this because we believe that whether you live in Kuala Lumpur or Kuwait or Kansas City, when you’re free to have your own ideas, pursue your dreams, start your own businesses, serve your communities, it isn’t just good for your nations; it means more prosperity and progress for us all. It’s the same daring spirit that brings us together to meet other challenges as well, from hunger to health to climate change. And it’s the spirit you can sustain.
“The United States is proud to do our part. In partnership with Up Global, we’ll help support 500,000 new entrepreneurs and their startups around the world. Some of America’s most successful leaders in business will serve as entrepreneurship ambassadors, mentoring and nurturing the next generation. A new research network will equip governments with proven tools to help entrepreneurs succeed. And we’ll continue to expand the partnerships and exchanges that help entrepreneurs like you learn from each other and turn your ideas into reality.
“Those of you there today, you’re risk takers and dreamers who imagine the world as it ought to be. But you also have the talents and drive to actually build the future you seek, and the United States of America wants to be your partner. We want you to succeed. And when I think of your passion and creativity, I could not be more optimistic about the future we can build together.
“So have a wonderful Summit. May God bless you all and may God’s peace be upon you.”
(Applause.)
FDIC SAYS CREDIT RISK IN SHARED NATIONAL PORTFOLIO UNCHANGED IN 2013
FROM: FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Credit Risk in the Shared National Credit Portfolio Unchanged
The credit quality of large loan commitments owned by U.S. banking organizations, foreign banking organizations (FBOs), and nonbanks was relatively unchanged in 2013 from the prior year, federal banking agencies said Thursday.
The volume of criticized assets remained elevated at $302 billion, or 10 percent of total commitments, which was approximately twice the percentage of pre-crisis levels. The stagnation in credit quality follows three consecutive years of improvements. A criticized asset is rated special mention, substandard, doubtful, or loss as defined by the agencies' uniform loan classification standards. The Shared National Credits (SNC) annual review was completed by the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Leveraged loans--transactions characterized by a borrower with a degree of financial leverage that significantly exceeds industry norms--totaled $545 billion of the 2013 SNC portfolio and accounted for $227 billion, or 75 percent, of criticized SNC assets. Material weaknesses in the underwriting of leveraged loans were observed, and 42 percent of leveraged loans were criticized by the agencies.
The federal banking agencies issued updated leveraged lending supervisory guidance on March 21, 2013. After declining during the financial crisis, the volume of leveraged lending has since increased and underwriting standards have deteriorated. The agencies expect supervised firms to properly evaluate and monitor credit risks in their leveraged loan commitments and ensure borrowers have sustainable capital structures.
Refinancing risk continued to ease in 2013 with only 15 percent of SNCs maturing over the next two years, compared with 23 percent for the same time frame in the previous review. Borrowers continued to refinance and extend loan maturities during the past year.
Other highlights:
- Total SNC commitments increased by $219 billion to $3.01 trillion, an 8 percent gain from the 2012 review. Total SNC loans outstanding increased $199 billion to $1.36 trillion, an increase of 10 percent.
- Criticized assets represented 10 percent of the SNC portfolio, compared with 11 percent in 2012.
- Classified assets, which are rated as substandard, doubtful, and loss, represented 6 percent of the SNC portfolio, compared with 7 percent in 2012.
- Credits rated special mention, which exhibit potential weakness and could result in further deterioration if uncorrected, increased from $99 billion to $115 billion, representing approximately 4 percent of the portfolio, a slight increase from 2012.
- Adjusted for losses, nonaccrual loans declined from $82 billion to $61 billion, a 26 percent reduction.
- The distribution of credits across entities, (U.S. banking organizations, FBOs, and nonbanks) remained relatively unchanged. U.S. banking organizations owned 44 percent of total SNC loan commitments, FBOs owned 36 percent, and nonbanks owned 20 percent.
- Nonbanks continued to own a larger share of classified (67 percent) and nonaccrual (72 percent) assets than their total share of the SNC portfolio. Institutions insured by the FDIC owned 12 percent of classified assets and 7 percent of nonaccrual loans.
The SNC program was established in 1977 to provide an efficient and consistent review and analysis of SNCs. A SNC is any loan or formal loan commitment, and asset such as real estate, stocks, notes, bonds, and debentures taken as debts previously contracted, extended to borrowers by a federally supervised institution, its subsidiaries, and affiliates that aggregates $20 million or more and is shared by three or more unaffiliated supervised institutions. Many of these loan commitments are also shared with FBOs and nonbanks, including securitization pools, hedge funds, insurance companies, and pension funds.
In conducting the 2013 SNC Review, the agencies reviewed $800 billion of the $3.01 trillion credit commitments in the portfolio. The sample was weighted toward noninvestment grade and criticized credits. The results of the review are based on analyses prepared in the second quarter of 2013 using credit-related data provided by federally supervised institutions as of December 31, 2012, and March 31, 2013.
Monday, October 14, 2013
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS WITH UN SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE LAKHDAR BRAHIMI
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi Following Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Winfield House
London, United Kingdom
October 14, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, it’s my pleasure this morning to welcome Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi here to Winfield House in London – it’s the home of our American ambassador – and to have a conversation, an important conversation, about the urgency of the convening of the Geneva conference, to try to achieve peace for a new Syria. And we talked about all aspects of this current crisis.
Special Representative Brahimi and I agree, as do many others, that there is no military solution in Syria, and we believe it is urgent to set a date, convene the conference, and work towards a new Syria.
We also, expressing my own point of view – because he’s the negotiator and it’s not his point of view to say this – but we believe that President Assad has lost the legitimacy necessary to be able to be a cohesive force, that could bring people together, and that it is clear that in implementing Geneva 1, which is the only purpose for having the Geneva conference now, there has to be a transition government. There has to be a new governing entity in Syria in order to permit the possibility of peace.
This will require all the parties to come together in good faith. The Special Representative will be traveling shortly to the region, meeting with all of the relevant countries, as well as the relevant parties. And he will be working on the question of the process for a Geneva 2 conference.
But for our part, the United States of America, together with the Russians, as we talked about it in the Far East a few days ago, are deeply committed to trying to set a date very soon, to moving towards an inclusive conference that will offer the best opportunity to end the violence, to provide for a new Syria, to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe that is only getting worse by the day, and ultimately to try to find a way to have peace and stability, not just in Syria but in the region.
And we are very, very appreciative to the Special Representative, for his commitment to this, for his hard work, for his team and their efforts. We believe that we’re in a position to try to get started. It will require good faith by everybody, but that’s exactly what we’re going to continue to work towards.
Mr. Representative, thank you.
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE BRAHIMI: Thank you very much, indeed.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, my friend.
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE BRAHIMI: And I am extremely grateful to you, Secretary of State, for the opportunity you have given me, of heading for a new after your time in the Far East and your discussions with the Russians, who are your partners. You started this on the 7th of May in Moscow together. And we have joined with you in these trilateral discussions that we are having in Geneva several times. And we agree 100 percent that there is no military solution in Syria. There can be, there will be a political solution if everybody gets together and works for it.
I think that when we met in New York – with the P5 and the Secretary General and myself – we have said that this conference, Geneva 2, to implement Geneva 1, has to meet in November. And I think that very soon we’ve got now to set it. The (inaudible) for the conference to start and we look forward to everybody who can help the Syrians solve their problems must be there. And of course the Syrians themselves have to have private place in that conference, because the negotiations will be depend on them.
As you said, Secretary, I’m going to the region immediately after (inaudible) to see as many people as I can to discuss with them, hear from them, what are their preoccupations, what are their ideas, how they can contribute to make this Geneva conference that is coming success, for the Syria people, for our region, and for everybody. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, my friend. We are very appreciative of your work. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
Remarks With UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi Following Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Winfield House
London, United Kingdom
October 14, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Well, it’s my pleasure this morning to welcome Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi here to Winfield House in London – it’s the home of our American ambassador – and to have a conversation, an important conversation, about the urgency of the convening of the Geneva conference, to try to achieve peace for a new Syria. And we talked about all aspects of this current crisis.
Special Representative Brahimi and I agree, as do many others, that there is no military solution in Syria, and we believe it is urgent to set a date, convene the conference, and work towards a new Syria.
We also, expressing my own point of view – because he’s the negotiator and it’s not his point of view to say this – but we believe that President Assad has lost the legitimacy necessary to be able to be a cohesive force, that could bring people together, and that it is clear that in implementing Geneva 1, which is the only purpose for having the Geneva conference now, there has to be a transition government. There has to be a new governing entity in Syria in order to permit the possibility of peace.
This will require all the parties to come together in good faith. The Special Representative will be traveling shortly to the region, meeting with all of the relevant countries, as well as the relevant parties. And he will be working on the question of the process for a Geneva 2 conference.
But for our part, the United States of America, together with the Russians, as we talked about it in the Far East a few days ago, are deeply committed to trying to set a date very soon, to moving towards an inclusive conference that will offer the best opportunity to end the violence, to provide for a new Syria, to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe that is only getting worse by the day, and ultimately to try to find a way to have peace and stability, not just in Syria but in the region.
And we are very, very appreciative to the Special Representative, for his commitment to this, for his hard work, for his team and their efforts. We believe that we’re in a position to try to get started. It will require good faith by everybody, but that’s exactly what we’re going to continue to work towards.
Mr. Representative, thank you.
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE BRAHIMI: Thank you very much, indeed.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, my friend.
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE BRAHIMI: And I am extremely grateful to you, Secretary of State, for the opportunity you have given me, of heading for a new after your time in the Far East and your discussions with the Russians, who are your partners. You started this on the 7th of May in Moscow together. And we have joined with you in these trilateral discussions that we are having in Geneva several times. And we agree 100 percent that there is no military solution in Syria. There can be, there will be a political solution if everybody gets together and works for it.
I think that when we met in New York – with the P5 and the Secretary General and myself – we have said that this conference, Geneva 2, to implement Geneva 1, has to meet in November. And I think that very soon we’ve got now to set it. The (inaudible) for the conference to start and we look forward to everybody who can help the Syrians solve their problems must be there. And of course the Syrians themselves have to have private place in that conference, because the negotiations will be depend on them.
As you said, Secretary, I’m going to the region immediately after (inaudible) to see as many people as I can to discuss with them, hear from them, what are their preoccupations, what are their ideas, how they can contribute to make this Geneva conference that is coming success, for the Syria people, for our region, and for everybody. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, my friend. We are very appreciative of your work. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
GUARD MEMBERS OFFER FLOOD RELIEF IN COLORADO
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Local, Utah Guard Members Aid Colorado Flood Response
By Army Capt. Adam Musil
36th Infantry Division
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 11, 2013 - The 36th Infantry Division's Domestic All-Hazards Response Team-West continues to coordinate assistance requests and support for the Colorado flood relief effort.
"The floods have stopped, but the damage that remains provides huge problems for the people in the area," said Army Capt. Robert Anspaugh, the planner for Domestic All-Hazards Response Team-West, or DART-W. "The type of destruction ranges from simple road damage to roads being completely washed away, leaving large craters. Some people can't get to their homes and are having to backpack-in fuel and food."
The DART-W was notified of the flood weeks ago during a training exercise focused on hurricane and flood response. Within a few days of the notification, DART-W had soldiers on the ground to assist with coordinating the relief effort. DART-W helped establish the reception, staging, and onward movement centers for incoming troops and assessed unit capability gaps.
"Once we established the needs of the mission, we reached out to Guard units in the surrounding areas for additional support. The Utah National Guard will be the first to assist the Colorado units already in place," Anspaugh said.
The Colorado National Guard's 947 Engineer Company was the first to respond to the floods. The unit was activated Sept. 20. Within 48 hours, they were filling damaged roads. The Utah National Guard will provide additional engineers and equipment to double the engineer assets. The additional manpower will enable the units to set up rotations and provide continuous operations.
"We have assembled a rotational plan of Army and Air guards that will carry through November 25," said Army 1st Sgt. Christopher Schrag, DART-W noncommissioned officer-in-charge. "This will allow the units time to complete the entire Highway 36 and take on the smaller side roads before the major impact of the weather."
With already one snow this season, officials believe snow and cold weather will greatly hinder the units' ability to restore the roads.
"Realistically, we have until about the end of November to get all the roads fixed before the weather gets too bad," Anspaugh said.
Schrag, who returned early this week from Colorado, believes procedures have been set in place to provide for an effective response.
"This operation is a Joint Guard initiative. We have Guard units from two states [Colorado, Utah] on the ground now and Air and Army Guard units from an additional seven states [Kansas, Tennessee, New Mexico, South Dakota, Montana, Florida, Virginia] set to rotate in. I'm confident we can get the job done," Schrag said.
Comprised of Texas Army National Guard soldiers, the DART-W, based in Austin, Texas, at Camp Mabry, is responsible for synchronizing the National Guard response to major hurricanes, earthquakes and wildfires west of the Mississippi River.
The DART-W is one of two primary DAR headquarters. The other, DART-East is commanded by the 29th Infantry Division, and headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Va. Command of each headquarters rotates annually between Army National Guard divisions. The 36th Infantry Division has been selected to lead DART-W for two years.
Local, Utah Guard Members Aid Colorado Flood Response
By Army Capt. Adam Musil
36th Infantry Division
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 11, 2013 - The 36th Infantry Division's Domestic All-Hazards Response Team-West continues to coordinate assistance requests and support for the Colorado flood relief effort.
"The floods have stopped, but the damage that remains provides huge problems for the people in the area," said Army Capt. Robert Anspaugh, the planner for Domestic All-Hazards Response Team-West, or DART-W. "The type of destruction ranges from simple road damage to roads being completely washed away, leaving large craters. Some people can't get to their homes and are having to backpack-in fuel and food."
The DART-W was notified of the flood weeks ago during a training exercise focused on hurricane and flood response. Within a few days of the notification, DART-W had soldiers on the ground to assist with coordinating the relief effort. DART-W helped establish the reception, staging, and onward movement centers for incoming troops and assessed unit capability gaps.
"Once we established the needs of the mission, we reached out to Guard units in the surrounding areas for additional support. The Utah National Guard will be the first to assist the Colorado units already in place," Anspaugh said.
The Colorado National Guard's 947 Engineer Company was the first to respond to the floods. The unit was activated Sept. 20. Within 48 hours, they were filling damaged roads. The Utah National Guard will provide additional engineers and equipment to double the engineer assets. The additional manpower will enable the units to set up rotations and provide continuous operations.
"We have assembled a rotational plan of Army and Air guards that will carry through November 25," said Army 1st Sgt. Christopher Schrag, DART-W noncommissioned officer-in-charge. "This will allow the units time to complete the entire Highway 36 and take on the smaller side roads before the major impact of the weather."
With already one snow this season, officials believe snow and cold weather will greatly hinder the units' ability to restore the roads.
"Realistically, we have until about the end of November to get all the roads fixed before the weather gets too bad," Anspaugh said.
Schrag, who returned early this week from Colorado, believes procedures have been set in place to provide for an effective response.
"This operation is a Joint Guard initiative. We have Guard units from two states [Colorado, Utah] on the ground now and Air and Army Guard units from an additional seven states [Kansas, Tennessee, New Mexico, South Dakota, Montana, Florida, Virginia] set to rotate in. I'm confident we can get the job done," Schrag said.
Comprised of Texas Army National Guard soldiers, the DART-W, based in Austin, Texas, at Camp Mabry, is responsible for synchronizing the National Guard response to major hurricanes, earthquakes and wildfires west of the Mississippi River.
The DART-W is one of two primary DAR headquarters. The other, DART-East is commanded by the 29th Infantry Division, and headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Va. Command of each headquarters rotates annually between Army National Guard divisions. The 36th Infantry Division has been selected to lead DART-W for two years.
SAVING MONEY AND LIVES THROUGH THE RETROGRADE PROCESS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Retrograde Process Saves Lives, Money
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11, 2013 - As the December 2014 Afghanistan drawdown deadline relentlessly draws near, thousands of service members and civilians at bases around Afghanistan are preparing tens of thousands of vehicles and containers filled with equipment and supplies for an intricate journey.
That journey -- whether it ends at a depot in the United States, or with a return to the field, sale to a foreign partner, or demilitarization -- could include transportation by air, ground or sea, or even some combination of the three. And the work won't end until the last containers and vehicles arrive at their destinations.
Determining the final disposition of the more than 24,000 pieces of rolling stock and 20,000 container equivalent sets in Afghanistan is the job of the unsung heroes of the Centcom Materiel Recovery Element, said Army Brig. Gen. Duane A. Gamble, the deputy commander of 1st Theater Sustainment Command, based at Fort Bragg, N.C. The command is responsible for supplying and moving troops throughout Afghanistan.
The fact that the CMRE exists speaks to the major difference between the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gamble said. When the drawdown in Iraq happened, theater-supplied materiel -- equipment and vehicles that stay in theater and are transferred from outgoing units to incoming units -- could be sent to Kuwait and sorted through there.
"Kuwait was our 'catcher's mitt' in Iraq," Gamble said.
With no precedent for need for an Army recovery unit, the task fell to the newly established CMRE and the 401st Army Field Support Brigade. They established central retrograde sorting facilities at Kandahar and Bagram Air Fields and began picking through the masses of equipment and vehicles arriving daily from across Afghanistan.
In April, that work was shifted out to the forward operating bases when seven joint field teams started performing the cost-benefit analysis of moving retrograde materiel, Gamble said.
Each team consists of a military forward retrograde element and a Defense Logistics Agency hub-based disposal operations team. The teams move from base to base, Gamble said, opening and sorting through containers and rolling stock.
"They're enabled with our standard Army retail supply system, where they're actually zapping each item and then ... it tells what the disposition is," he said.
As recently as this spring, there were thousands of containers waiting to be processed at the sort yards in Kandahar and Bagram, Gamble said, but the advent of the joint sorting teams helped eliminate that backlog.
"We hit a tilting point in about July where we were retro sorting and demilitarizing and shipping back to the United States more from our forward locations than we were from [Bagram] and [Kandahar]," he said.
Altogether, the CMRE and joint sorting teams are recovering about 91 percent of the value of the retrograde equipment, the general said.
"So, the high-dollar value items are being retained and shipped back to [the U.S.], where the high-volume, low-dollar items that don't make sense to retain or are just plain excess to requirements are either being redistributed forward or being disposed of forward," Gamble said.
Reducing the number of convoys moving retrograde equipment to and from centralized facilities, this setup saves time and money, he said, but more importantly, it saves lives.
"It keeps soldiers off the road, it keeps us from spending money on host-nation trucking to move stuff only to sort it out later and find out that maybe it wasn't worth that much money to begin with," the general added.
The retrograde process is saving lives in another way, too, Gamble said. Every piece of equipment is screened to determine if it's needed by another unit -- either in theater or elsewhere -- and in the case of the MaxxPro Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected models with survivability upgrades, "that is absolutely getting turned around to another unit that doesn't have the best and the latest," the general said.
The upgraded vehicles save lives, he said. "I've seen it. I've been here two months and we had four soldiers in this command hit an IED in one of those things and they all walked away," Gamble said.
At the same time retrograde equipment is transiting through Afghanistan and onward, units are still rotating in and out of the country. And their equipment rotates with them.
"Forces come and go all the time -- even during the surge we were still redeploying forces as some came in," Gamble said.
Equipment and materiel belonging to units that are deploying or redeploying has a higher transportation priority than retrograding equipment, Gamble said, because those units need it to operate in theater and they'll need it again when they get back to their home stations.
"Those forces have to go home and reset themselves to some level ... in order to get on with their next mission and be available in the force pool," he said.
Most of this equipment will leave Afghanistan via 'multi-modal' by air, to various sea ports for movement back to the U.S., Gamble said. The actual volume will vary from month to month based on the sizes of the units rotating in and out of theater.
In contrast, equipment and materiel that is being retrograded is being moved out of theater over various land routes or flown to a multi-modal site. From there it will move by sea back to depots in the U.S. to be prepared for redistribution and reuse. The routes are directed by U.S. Transportation Command, but the destinations are determined by the type of equipment being retrograded.
That means, for the Army, vehicles are sent to a 'hard iron' depot like Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, while replacement parts or supplies are sent to supply depots like Sierra Army Depot in California, which processes conventional ammunition.
The same holds true for the other services, the general noted. The Air Force and Marine Corps send their equipment to their own depots.
With the total cost of the retrograde estimated to be between $5 and $7 billion, according to a senior defense official, there's particular emphasis on using the most economical routes to move retrograding equipment.
In its route planning, Transcom must balance cost with external factors like the political climate and the effect of holidays on the availability of labor with internal security conditions and with the need to "keep most routes warm," Gamble said.
For example, in August, 60 percent of retrograding equipment was transported via air -- both direct and multi-modal -- in a deliberate strategy to mitigate the effects of Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr, he said. And in February, 100 percent of the retrograde equipment was transported by air because the Pakistan Ground Lines of Communication were closed.
However, very little of this movement is ever via direct air, the general noted. What little retrograde equipment does arrive in the U.S. via direct air is usually "opportune air," he said. By pre-staging retrograde equipment at airfields, the military is able to take advantage of available cargo slots on transport aircraft.
In normal circumstances, "the amount of retrograde that goes back direct air to the United States ... is so small it's not even worth mentioning, so when we say air for retrograde, we're talking multi-modal almost exclusively," Gamble said.
With several different routes and means available for retrograding equipment, Transcom directs the movement of retrograde equipment based on traffic and price, the general said, noting that price is usually the deciding factor.
The Northern Distribution Network presents several challenges. The network transits several countries with restrictions on the types of equipment that may enter or be visible. So, Gamble said, cargo sent via the NDN must be containerized.
"We just finished a trial run with some armored vehicles, but they had to be containerized, so that limits it -- if you have to put it inside a container to transit the countries, that's quite limiting ... we don't have a lot of small armored vehicles," he said.
The route isn't as fast as the Pakistan GLOC, but it will serve containerized equipment very well, Gamble said.
"So, we're mostly for October scheduling materiel like repair parts, etc., in containers to go out the NDN," he noted.
The Pakistan GLOC is the cheapest route, said the senior defense official, but it reopened only recently after Pakistan closed it in 2011 and Afghanistan closed it briefly again earlier this year.
After the Pakistan GLOC reopened, it quickly became the dominant route for retrograde, Gamble said.
By September, 70 percent of all retrograde equipment was moved out of the country over land, and 98-99 percent of that movement was via the Pakistan GLOC, he said. For September and October, approximately 60 percent of all retrograde equipment will be moved out of the country by land.
"When the ground is working, or it's not interrupted by holidays, we take advantage of the ground and we minimize the air. When the ground isn't as attractive because of stuff like holidays, then we tilt the other direction," Gamble said.
"It's this flexibility that keeps us very confident that we can continue the retrograde mission no matter what Mother Nature throws at us, no matter what the holiday seasons throw at us," the general said.
Retrograde Process Saves Lives, Money
By Claudette Roulo
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11, 2013 - As the December 2014 Afghanistan drawdown deadline relentlessly draws near, thousands of service members and civilians at bases around Afghanistan are preparing tens of thousands of vehicles and containers filled with equipment and supplies for an intricate journey.
That journey -- whether it ends at a depot in the United States, or with a return to the field, sale to a foreign partner, or demilitarization -- could include transportation by air, ground or sea, or even some combination of the three. And the work won't end until the last containers and vehicles arrive at their destinations.
Determining the final disposition of the more than 24,000 pieces of rolling stock and 20,000 container equivalent sets in Afghanistan is the job of the unsung heroes of the Centcom Materiel Recovery Element, said Army Brig. Gen. Duane A. Gamble, the deputy commander of 1st Theater Sustainment Command, based at Fort Bragg, N.C. The command is responsible for supplying and moving troops throughout Afghanistan.
The fact that the CMRE exists speaks to the major difference between the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gamble said. When the drawdown in Iraq happened, theater-supplied materiel -- equipment and vehicles that stay in theater and are transferred from outgoing units to incoming units -- could be sent to Kuwait and sorted through there.
"Kuwait was our 'catcher's mitt' in Iraq," Gamble said.
With no precedent for need for an Army recovery unit, the task fell to the newly established CMRE and the 401st Army Field Support Brigade. They established central retrograde sorting facilities at Kandahar and Bagram Air Fields and began picking through the masses of equipment and vehicles arriving daily from across Afghanistan.
In April, that work was shifted out to the forward operating bases when seven joint field teams started performing the cost-benefit analysis of moving retrograde materiel, Gamble said.
Each team consists of a military forward retrograde element and a Defense Logistics Agency hub-based disposal operations team. The teams move from base to base, Gamble said, opening and sorting through containers and rolling stock.
"They're enabled with our standard Army retail supply system, where they're actually zapping each item and then ... it tells what the disposition is," he said.
As recently as this spring, there were thousands of containers waiting to be processed at the sort yards in Kandahar and Bagram, Gamble said, but the advent of the joint sorting teams helped eliminate that backlog.
"We hit a tilting point in about July where we were retro sorting and demilitarizing and shipping back to the United States more from our forward locations than we were from [Bagram] and [Kandahar]," he said.
Altogether, the CMRE and joint sorting teams are recovering about 91 percent of the value of the retrograde equipment, the general said.
"So, the high-dollar value items are being retained and shipped back to [the U.S.], where the high-volume, low-dollar items that don't make sense to retain or are just plain excess to requirements are either being redistributed forward or being disposed of forward," Gamble said.
Reducing the number of convoys moving retrograde equipment to and from centralized facilities, this setup saves time and money, he said, but more importantly, it saves lives.
"It keeps soldiers off the road, it keeps us from spending money on host-nation trucking to move stuff only to sort it out later and find out that maybe it wasn't worth that much money to begin with," the general added.
The retrograde process is saving lives in another way, too, Gamble said. Every piece of equipment is screened to determine if it's needed by another unit -- either in theater or elsewhere -- and in the case of the MaxxPro Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected models with survivability upgrades, "that is absolutely getting turned around to another unit that doesn't have the best and the latest," the general said.
The upgraded vehicles save lives, he said. "I've seen it. I've been here two months and we had four soldiers in this command hit an IED in one of those things and they all walked away," Gamble said.
At the same time retrograde equipment is transiting through Afghanistan and onward, units are still rotating in and out of the country. And their equipment rotates with them.
"Forces come and go all the time -- even during the surge we were still redeploying forces as some came in," Gamble said.
Equipment and materiel belonging to units that are deploying or redeploying has a higher transportation priority than retrograding equipment, Gamble said, because those units need it to operate in theater and they'll need it again when they get back to their home stations.
"Those forces have to go home and reset themselves to some level ... in order to get on with their next mission and be available in the force pool," he said.
Most of this equipment will leave Afghanistan via 'multi-modal' by air, to various sea ports for movement back to the U.S., Gamble said. The actual volume will vary from month to month based on the sizes of the units rotating in and out of theater.
In contrast, equipment and materiel that is being retrograded is being moved out of theater over various land routes or flown to a multi-modal site. From there it will move by sea back to depots in the U.S. to be prepared for redistribution and reuse. The routes are directed by U.S. Transportation Command, but the destinations are determined by the type of equipment being retrograded.
That means, for the Army, vehicles are sent to a 'hard iron' depot like Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, while replacement parts or supplies are sent to supply depots like Sierra Army Depot in California, which processes conventional ammunition.
The same holds true for the other services, the general noted. The Air Force and Marine Corps send their equipment to their own depots.
With the total cost of the retrograde estimated to be between $5 and $7 billion, according to a senior defense official, there's particular emphasis on using the most economical routes to move retrograding equipment.
In its route planning, Transcom must balance cost with external factors like the political climate and the effect of holidays on the availability of labor with internal security conditions and with the need to "keep most routes warm," Gamble said.
For example, in August, 60 percent of retrograding equipment was transported via air -- both direct and multi-modal -- in a deliberate strategy to mitigate the effects of Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr, he said. And in February, 100 percent of the retrograde equipment was transported by air because the Pakistan Ground Lines of Communication were closed.
However, very little of this movement is ever via direct air, the general noted. What little retrograde equipment does arrive in the U.S. via direct air is usually "opportune air," he said. By pre-staging retrograde equipment at airfields, the military is able to take advantage of available cargo slots on transport aircraft.
In normal circumstances, "the amount of retrograde that goes back direct air to the United States ... is so small it's not even worth mentioning, so when we say air for retrograde, we're talking multi-modal almost exclusively," Gamble said.
With several different routes and means available for retrograding equipment, Transcom directs the movement of retrograde equipment based on traffic and price, the general said, noting that price is usually the deciding factor.
The Northern Distribution Network presents several challenges. The network transits several countries with restrictions on the types of equipment that may enter or be visible. So, Gamble said, cargo sent via the NDN must be containerized.
"We just finished a trial run with some armored vehicles, but they had to be containerized, so that limits it -- if you have to put it inside a container to transit the countries, that's quite limiting ... we don't have a lot of small armored vehicles," he said.
The route isn't as fast as the Pakistan GLOC, but it will serve containerized equipment very well, Gamble said.
"So, we're mostly for October scheduling materiel like repair parts, etc., in containers to go out the NDN," he noted.
The Pakistan GLOC is the cheapest route, said the senior defense official, but it reopened only recently after Pakistan closed it in 2011 and Afghanistan closed it briefly again earlier this year.
After the Pakistan GLOC reopened, it quickly became the dominant route for retrograde, Gamble said.
By September, 70 percent of all retrograde equipment was moved out of the country over land, and 98-99 percent of that movement was via the Pakistan GLOC, he said. For September and October, approximately 60 percent of all retrograde equipment will be moved out of the country by land.
"When the ground is working, or it's not interrupted by holidays, we take advantage of the ground and we minimize the air. When the ground isn't as attractive because of stuff like holidays, then we tilt the other direction," Gamble said.
"It's this flexibility that keeps us very confident that we can continue the retrograde mission no matter what Mother Nature throws at us, no matter what the holiday seasons throw at us," the general said.
SPECIAL BRIEFING ON BILATERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Background Briefing: Senior State Department Officials and Senior Administration Official on Bilateral Security Agreement
Special Briefing
ERT London, England
October 12, 2013
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. So we're just going to do a quick backgrounder on the meetings that Secretary Kerry just had in Afghanistan, and a readout of those. And we have Senior State Department Official One, Senior Administration Official One here. And if I have anything, I'll be Number Two.
So, I think we'll do an overview first, and then do some questions, if that works.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: So the visit, obviously, was focused on the Bilateral Security Agreement. It comes 11-ish months into the negotiations. It was generally productive. From our vantage, positive in that we reached a basic agreement on all of the key issues.
The President – when President Karzai visited Washington last January, the President announced our objectives for a post-2014 presence as being, first, a train, advise, and assist mission under NATO leadership, and then also a CT mission, by which --
QUESTION: Train, advise, and what?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Train, advise, and assist mission.
QUESTION: Assist.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And also a counter-terrorism mission, by which we could pursue the remnants of al-Qaida.
And the language of the agreement as it stands right now provides what we need for both of those missions. And, more importantly, as with every status of forces agreement worldwide, the language also provides what we need in terms of assurances and guarantees for rights of self-defense, for force protection, and the jurisdiction issues that are obviously so important to us.
So, overall, the text, we believe, is in a good place. And I think we stayed a little bit longer than we had hoped, but I think it was worth it in that we were able to come to that basic agreement.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Why don't we do some questions?
QUESTION: Before we get into the – what the Secretary was talking about – strike that. (Laughter.) Before we get into the area that is not – that still is awaiting – the most contentious issue, the jurisdictional issue, can you explain to us what exactly the – has been agreed, in terms of the counterterrorism stuff and in terms of sovereignty? Like, Karzai made a big deal out of the definition of "invasion" and the definition of "sovereignty." Can you explain what that is, or is it just like a standard dictionary definition?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The most important thing President Karzai had said to us he needed out of the Bilateral Security Agreement was the ability to take it to his Afghan people and explain how it was going to bring security to Afghanistan beyond 2014.
The other thing that he said he needed was – and this was coming out of the Strategic Partnership Agreement – was improved understanding between the two of us in terms of what threats faced Afghanistan, both externally and internally. And what we were able to do, I think, in very broad terms, is find that common understanding in these 24 hours of talks, both in terms of the threats that Afghanistan faces internally and externally, the final language to characterize those threats, and then, more importantly, to characterize our commitment to enable the Afghans to defend themselves against those threats. And I think that was one of the major very difficult issues that was left to this late stage that we needed to work through.
QUESTION: Can you say what it – what the language says?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No.
QUESTION: Is that because – and you can't say because you're waiting for – you don't want to preempt the Loya Jirga, or --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. I think we would want to wait until the right time, until the internal processes are more mature. We --
QUESTION: Yours or theirs?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Both. We have to put ours through a very technical, internal legal review. They have to put theirs through their interagency equivalent process with their national security council, and then prepare it to take to their people. And we certainly wouldn't want to disclose dimensions or parts of the language prematurely.
QUESTION: But it will be at some point.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The language will be public, eventually.
QUESTION: [Senior Administration Official One], you were talking about defining the threats to Afghanistan and their ability to defend themselves. Is this the reference to the part about Afghanistan wanting the U.S. to give it a sort of defense pact, and that we would defend them against outside threats, presumably from Pakistan? That is part one of the question.
Part two is the issue on counterterrorism and them wanting us to hand over our intel and they do their own ops, and how did you address that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, on the first part, that the Bilateral Security Agreement is clearly something that stopped short of a mutual defense pact. And the language that we found, I think, is sufficient to both parties in terms of not overreaching the bounds of what can be – what kind of commitments we can come to.
On the counterterrorism language, it's a broad concept of cooperation at this point, which I think allows for enough flexibility in terms of their evolving capabilities, but also our needs to take actions in a joint, cooperative manner, when we need to. So, it's not so clear as, "Hand over the intel and we'll take care of it." It's not at that kind of an evolved stage.
QUESTION: When you say, "when you need to," for joint actions, did you clarify when that would be? When would those joint actions take place? I mean is – would you have to define under what circumstances?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I think the circumstances are any circumstances where the – there is a transnational threat, one that could impact upon U.S. homeland, U.S. allies, U.S. interests. But in all cases, that we would do so in a manner that was cooperative, in some cases – in many cases, partnered.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I think it's important to add that that's the way we would describe how we're handling CT right now. This is not a dramatic departure from the way that we're handling those operations under current policy guidance, the difference being that this is – when it goes into force, it would be a legally
binding agreement.
QUESTION: Can you please describe what – on this issue of immunity? Because from where we were sitting, it sounded, or personally to me, that this really couldn't be a deal unless that was agreed upon. And if the Secretary – or if an official is saying that it is in the text, well, then there is an agreement. But he was pretty clear in his quotes during the news conference that they weren’t --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Let me put it this way. We've agreed on language that can be put to his Loya Jirga for their consideration.
QUESTION: In terms of the U.S. side, though, other than just this interagency review, I mean, the Pentagon is not going to come back and say, "Sorry, this doesn't work for us." It's a done deal, from the U.S. perspective.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I mean, that's the corollary to what [Senior Administration Official One] – the elaboration on what [Senior Administration Official One] said is the language that is in the text that goes to the Loya Jirga is satisfactory for our purposes on the --
QUESTION: So it’s the same question. As far as you're concerned, what you got is good, and it – and then – and I have this question I asked [Senior State Department Official One] earlier. Who signs it, if it gets approved by --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Don't know yet.
QUESTION: But is it a presidential thing, or is it a Secretary --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We don't know what yet.
QUESTION: Who would sign it?
QUESTION: You don't know?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, we don't know the details of the signing phase.
QUESTION: Why not? I mean, and – obviously, I guess not. But, I mean, other agreements like this --
QUESTION: Procedurally. Like, who signs it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think it could be signed by a number of --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There are a lot of options.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: -- Cabinet or Administration people.
QUESTION: So it doesn't need to be president and president? It can be --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Not necessarily.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No. It could technically be a range of people.
And the other piece on the – just process-wise, is that the Secretary spoke with Secretary Hagel a number of times over the last 24 hours. He spoke with Susan Rice a number of times, other people on the team. And you guys would know better all the people that were – you were in contact with. But – about the text and the progress.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We were in constant contact with the legal support team in Washington, and, as [Senior State Department Official Two] said, both --
QUESTION: And then my last one is --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I can't say whether Ambassador Rice was in touch with the President. But the Secretary was in direct contact with Ambassador Rice several times.
QUESTION: My last one here, and you can – it's a chance for you to talk up your boss. What was it – I mean, this stuff hadn't been agreed to beforehand. So what was it that the Secretary brought into this that got it done, basically? What – I mean, how did he change the dynamic? For 11 months, you haven't had a deal. You still don't, technically, but you got what could be a deal. So what was it that he was able to do to change the dynamic to get something done?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I can start, but – I know. But still, I can talk just --
QUESTION: Just don’t make it too hagiographic.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Too what?
QUESTION: Hagiographic.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Hagiographic?
QUESTION: Hagiographic.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Too – okay. One is their personal relationship and the fact that it goes back for a number of years, and you all know the details of that because we’ve talked about that previously and many of you covered it. Two is persistence. You’ve all covered the Secretary on a number of these occasions, on a number of these journeys to try to get agreement, right? And he is somebody who will sit there for hours and talk through the substantive issues, and this is something they can add more to. And three is probably patience. I didn’t even mean to do a three-piece. But patience, because obviously he wanted to --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I didn’t plan it. (Laughter.) But --
QUESTION: What about personality?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Sure. But they can add a little more perhaps from in the room, but, I mean, I think those are some of the characters and characteristics of these --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Fully agree with all that, and I would say also that sometimes you get to a point in these sorts of negotiations where both sides need higher-level political involvement to sort of get things further along. And it’s not clear the degree to which President Karzai had been engaged on the text before these last couple of days. Secretary Kerry obviously had been monitoring the negotiations, but had not been personally involved until the last couple of days. And having that kind of higher-level political push, I think, was essential to the progress that was achieved.
QUESTION: So would you agree with the characterization that this is really kind of a deal, or at least the last points fell into place – the last points falling into place is a deal between Karzai and the Secretary?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s a deal between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: I know. In closing the circle, it was him and Karzai.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The high-level political involvement was key to getting it to where it is now. There is no doubt about that.
QUESTION: To follow on that, so can you say now, then, that the purpose of this trip really was for the Secretary to close the deal? I mean, there was a lot of discussion ahead of time about --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think we had a – I think we had to see where things stood. I mean, I don’t think I – I certainly didn’t deliberately mislead you when I said the other night he wasn’t coming here to close the deal, and I think he had a positive conversation with Karzai a week ago. Did we know, when he had a positive conversation, that the result if we showed up here was going to be getting what we got? No. But he knew that it was worth testing the proposition, and so here we are.
QUESTION: Was there any discussion about troop levels?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t think so.
QUESTION: So are there going to be (inaudible)?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So I defer to [Senior Administration Official One] on this.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I didn’t hear.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: About troops (inaudible).
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, all of our troops are trained and capable of conducting combat operations. There will be no combat mission after 2014. And what is clear is that combat operations would be much more exceptional after 2014 --
QUESTION: Much more what?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Exceptional.
QUESTION: So CT doesn’t fall under combat, it’s a separate category?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No, I think it could. I think that the range of combat operations that you would have seen will be greatly reduced from what you have now. Frankly, they would be, again, the counterterrorism mission to go after residual transnational threats, and then there could be some combat operations in terms of the troops that are working inside the training, advise and assist mission. And then of course, if there were ever a contingency where you have a force protection mission, that could also be a combat operation, but that would be as a contingency, not as a general rule.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: All right. They’re trying to serve dinner.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: And what was the time of the meetings? Was there a time today?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Let’s see, 9:30 to 12:15, then they broke for about two hours, though there were still talks between the teams, and the national security advisor hosted the lunch. So – and then they reconvened at 2:15. That went until about four-something, 4:30 maybe. They had about 30 minutes by themselves. Then --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, at the end. Then they came back at 6:30, and we did the press avail at 9:00. So – and they had maybe 10 minutes by themselves before the avail. So, okay, I don’t know if anybody was adding that up.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Eight hours today.
QUESTION: And then yesterday?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And yesterday, yeah, it was about three hours. Yeah.
QUESTION: And on the calls, were they back to Washington?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah.
QUESTION: When were they?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, they were throughout the last 24 hours. I mean, Secretary Kerry spoke with Hagel around this morning, before the day began. He spoke with him again, I believe. I’ll double check this. I can probably get you guys a list of the calls he did. But he spoke with Hagel and Rice a number of times. Other people on the team spoke with a number of other officials as well. Like, the Admiral, I think, spoke with somebody from the Joint Chiefs, and so on and so forth. But --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Secretary’s answer to my question on the Taliban (inaudible) some confusion over communication (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There’s a chain of command.
QUESTION: Did Karzai ask him (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Not that I am aware of. I mean with – I don’t know that there’s much more we’re going to add on that, but I’ll talk to folks who were in all the meetings.
QUESTION: Afghan security forces (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. I’ll ask and see if there was more talk of it aside from the one that we mentioned last night.
QUESTION: Was he trying to (inaudible) answer to the question of why there was, like, a miscommunication on the U.S. side when the Secretary --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Not the U.S. side.
QUESTION: Oh. See, I kind of assumed (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t think he was implying the U.S. side.
QUESTION: So he was implying there was a miscommunication (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I will talk to folks and see if there is more we can explain.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, I get it. Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
Background Briefing: Senior State Department Officials and Senior Administration Official on Bilateral Security Agreement
Special Briefing
ERT London, England
October 12, 2013
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. So we're just going to do a quick backgrounder on the meetings that Secretary Kerry just had in Afghanistan, and a readout of those. And we have Senior State Department Official One, Senior Administration Official One here. And if I have anything, I'll be Number Two.
So, I think we'll do an overview first, and then do some questions, if that works.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: So the visit, obviously, was focused on the Bilateral Security Agreement. It comes 11-ish months into the negotiations. It was generally productive. From our vantage, positive in that we reached a basic agreement on all of the key issues.
The President – when President Karzai visited Washington last January, the President announced our objectives for a post-2014 presence as being, first, a train, advise, and assist mission under NATO leadership, and then also a CT mission, by which --
QUESTION: Train, advise, and what?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Train, advise, and assist mission.
QUESTION: Assist.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: And also a counter-terrorism mission, by which we could pursue the remnants of al-Qaida.
And the language of the agreement as it stands right now provides what we need for both of those missions. And, more importantly, as with every status of forces agreement worldwide, the language also provides what we need in terms of assurances and guarantees for rights of self-defense, for force protection, and the jurisdiction issues that are obviously so important to us.
So, overall, the text, we believe, is in a good place. And I think we stayed a little bit longer than we had hoped, but I think it was worth it in that we were able to come to that basic agreement.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Why don't we do some questions?
QUESTION: Before we get into the – what the Secretary was talking about – strike that. (Laughter.) Before we get into the area that is not – that still is awaiting – the most contentious issue, the jurisdictional issue, can you explain to us what exactly the – has been agreed, in terms of the counterterrorism stuff and in terms of sovereignty? Like, Karzai made a big deal out of the definition of "invasion" and the definition of "sovereignty." Can you explain what that is, or is it just like a standard dictionary definition?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: The most important thing President Karzai had said to us he needed out of the Bilateral Security Agreement was the ability to take it to his Afghan people and explain how it was going to bring security to Afghanistan beyond 2014.
The other thing that he said he needed was – and this was coming out of the Strategic Partnership Agreement – was improved understanding between the two of us in terms of what threats faced Afghanistan, both externally and internally. And what we were able to do, I think, in very broad terms, is find that common understanding in these 24 hours of talks, both in terms of the threats that Afghanistan faces internally and externally, the final language to characterize those threats, and then, more importantly, to characterize our commitment to enable the Afghans to defend themselves against those threats. And I think that was one of the major very difficult issues that was left to this late stage that we needed to work through.
QUESTION: Can you say what it – what the language says?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No.
QUESTION: Is that because – and you can't say because you're waiting for – you don't want to preempt the Loya Jirga, or --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. I think we would want to wait until the right time, until the internal processes are more mature. We --
QUESTION: Yours or theirs?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Both. We have to put ours through a very technical, internal legal review. They have to put theirs through their interagency equivalent process with their national security council, and then prepare it to take to their people. And we certainly wouldn't want to disclose dimensions or parts of the language prematurely.
QUESTION: But it will be at some point.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The language will be public, eventually.
QUESTION: [Senior Administration Official One], you were talking about defining the threats to Afghanistan and their ability to defend themselves. Is this the reference to the part about Afghanistan wanting the U.S. to give it a sort of defense pact, and that we would defend them against outside threats, presumably from Pakistan? That is part one of the question.
Part two is the issue on counterterrorism and them wanting us to hand over our intel and they do their own ops, and how did you address that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, on the first part, that the Bilateral Security Agreement is clearly something that stopped short of a mutual defense pact. And the language that we found, I think, is sufficient to both parties in terms of not overreaching the bounds of what can be – what kind of commitments we can come to.
On the counterterrorism language, it's a broad concept of cooperation at this point, which I think allows for enough flexibility in terms of their evolving capabilities, but also our needs to take actions in a joint, cooperative manner, when we need to. So, it's not so clear as, "Hand over the intel and we'll take care of it." It's not at that kind of an evolved stage.
QUESTION: When you say, "when you need to," for joint actions, did you clarify when that would be? When would those joint actions take place? I mean is – would you have to define under what circumstances?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I think the circumstances are any circumstances where the – there is a transnational threat, one that could impact upon U.S. homeland, U.S. allies, U.S. interests. But in all cases, that we would do so in a manner that was cooperative, in some cases – in many cases, partnered.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I think it's important to add that that's the way we would describe how we're handling CT right now. This is not a dramatic departure from the way that we're handling those operations under current policy guidance, the difference being that this is – when it goes into force, it would be a legally
binding agreement.
QUESTION: Can you please describe what – on this issue of immunity? Because from where we were sitting, it sounded, or personally to me, that this really couldn't be a deal unless that was agreed upon. And if the Secretary – or if an official is saying that it is in the text, well, then there is an agreement. But he was pretty clear in his quotes during the news conference that they weren’t --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Let me put it this way. We've agreed on language that can be put to his Loya Jirga for their consideration.
QUESTION: In terms of the U.S. side, though, other than just this interagency review, I mean, the Pentagon is not going to come back and say, "Sorry, this doesn't work for us." It's a done deal, from the U.S. perspective.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, I mean, that's the corollary to what [Senior Administration Official One] – the elaboration on what [Senior Administration Official One] said is the language that is in the text that goes to the Loya Jirga is satisfactory for our purposes on the --
QUESTION: So it’s the same question. As far as you're concerned, what you got is good, and it – and then – and I have this question I asked [Senior State Department Official One] earlier. Who signs it, if it gets approved by --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Don't know yet.
QUESTION: But is it a presidential thing, or is it a Secretary --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: We don't know what yet.
QUESTION: Who would sign it?
QUESTION: You don't know?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, we don't know the details of the signing phase.
QUESTION: Why not? I mean, and – obviously, I guess not. But, I mean, other agreements like this --
QUESTION: Procedurally. Like, who signs it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I think it could be signed by a number of --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There are a lot of options.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: -- Cabinet or Administration people.
QUESTION: So it doesn't need to be president and president? It can be --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Not necessarily.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No. It could technically be a range of people.
And the other piece on the – just process-wise, is that the Secretary spoke with Secretary Hagel a number of times over the last 24 hours. He spoke with Susan Rice a number of times, other people on the team. And you guys would know better all the people that were – you were in contact with. But – about the text and the progress.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: We were in constant contact with the legal support team in Washington, and, as [Senior State Department Official Two] said, both --
QUESTION: And then my last one is --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I can't say whether Ambassador Rice was in touch with the President. But the Secretary was in direct contact with Ambassador Rice several times.
QUESTION: My last one here, and you can – it's a chance for you to talk up your boss. What was it – I mean, this stuff hadn't been agreed to beforehand. So what was it that the Secretary brought into this that got it done, basically? What – I mean, how did he change the dynamic? For 11 months, you haven't had a deal. You still don't, technically, but you got what could be a deal. So what was it that he was able to do to change the dynamic to get something done?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I can start, but – I know. But still, I can talk just --
QUESTION: Just don’t make it too hagiographic.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Too what?
QUESTION: Hagiographic.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Hagiographic?
QUESTION: Hagiographic.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Too – okay. One is their personal relationship and the fact that it goes back for a number of years, and you all know the details of that because we’ve talked about that previously and many of you covered it. Two is persistence. You’ve all covered the Secretary on a number of these occasions, on a number of these journeys to try to get agreement, right? And he is somebody who will sit there for hours and talk through the substantive issues, and this is something they can add more to. And three is probably patience. I didn’t even mean to do a three-piece. But patience, because obviously he wanted to --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I didn’t plan it. (Laughter.) But --
QUESTION: What about personality?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Sure. But they can add a little more perhaps from in the room, but, I mean, I think those are some of the characters and characteristics of these --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Fully agree with all that, and I would say also that sometimes you get to a point in these sorts of negotiations where both sides need higher-level political involvement to sort of get things further along. And it’s not clear the degree to which President Karzai had been engaged on the text before these last couple of days. Secretary Kerry obviously had been monitoring the negotiations, but had not been personally involved until the last couple of days. And having that kind of higher-level political push, I think, was essential to the progress that was achieved.
QUESTION: So would you agree with the characterization that this is really kind of a deal, or at least the last points fell into place – the last points falling into place is a deal between Karzai and the Secretary?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s a deal between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: I know. In closing the circle, it was him and Karzai.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The high-level political involvement was key to getting it to where it is now. There is no doubt about that.
QUESTION: To follow on that, so can you say now, then, that the purpose of this trip really was for the Secretary to close the deal? I mean, there was a lot of discussion ahead of time about --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think we had a – I think we had to see where things stood. I mean, I don’t think I – I certainly didn’t deliberately mislead you when I said the other night he wasn’t coming here to close the deal, and I think he had a positive conversation with Karzai a week ago. Did we know, when he had a positive conversation, that the result if we showed up here was going to be getting what we got? No. But he knew that it was worth testing the proposition, and so here we are.
QUESTION: Was there any discussion about troop levels?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t think so.
QUESTION: So are there going to be (inaudible)?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So I defer to [Senior Administration Official One] on this.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I didn’t hear.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: About troops (inaudible).
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, all of our troops are trained and capable of conducting combat operations. There will be no combat mission after 2014. And what is clear is that combat operations would be much more exceptional after 2014 --
QUESTION: Much more what?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Exceptional.
QUESTION: So CT doesn’t fall under combat, it’s a separate category?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: No, I think it could. I think that the range of combat operations that you would have seen will be greatly reduced from what you have now. Frankly, they would be, again, the counterterrorism mission to go after residual transnational threats, and then there could be some combat operations in terms of the troops that are working inside the training, advise and assist mission. And then of course, if there were ever a contingency where you have a force protection mission, that could also be a combat operation, but that would be as a contingency, not as a general rule.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: All right. They’re trying to serve dinner.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: And what was the time of the meetings? Was there a time today?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Let’s see, 9:30 to 12:15, then they broke for about two hours, though there were still talks between the teams, and the national security advisor hosted the lunch. So – and then they reconvened at 2:15. That went until about four-something, 4:30 maybe. They had about 30 minutes by themselves. Then --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, at the end. Then they came back at 6:30, and we did the press avail at 9:00. So – and they had maybe 10 minutes by themselves before the avail. So, okay, I don’t know if anybody was adding that up.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Eight hours today.
QUESTION: And then yesterday?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: And yesterday, yeah, it was about three hours. Yeah.
QUESTION: And on the calls, were they back to Washington?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah.
QUESTION: When were they?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, they were throughout the last 24 hours. I mean, Secretary Kerry spoke with Hagel around this morning, before the day began. He spoke with him again, I believe. I’ll double check this. I can probably get you guys a list of the calls he did. But he spoke with Hagel and Rice a number of times. Other people on the team spoke with a number of other officials as well. Like, the Admiral, I think, spoke with somebody from the Joint Chiefs, and so on and so forth. But --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Secretary’s answer to my question on the Taliban (inaudible) some confusion over communication (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There’s a chain of command.
QUESTION: Did Karzai ask him (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Not that I am aware of. I mean with – I don’t know that there’s much more we’re going to add on that, but I’ll talk to folks who were in all the meetings.
QUESTION: Afghan security forces (inaudible)?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. I’ll ask and see if there was more talk of it aside from the one that we mentioned last night.
QUESTION: Was he trying to (inaudible) answer to the question of why there was, like, a miscommunication on the U.S. side when the Secretary --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Not the U.S. side.
QUESTION: Oh. See, I kind of assumed (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t think he was implying the U.S. side.
QUESTION: So he was implying there was a miscommunication (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I will talk to folks and see if there is more we can explain.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, I get it. Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)