AMBASSADOR DONALD YAMAMOTO STATEMENT ON THE LORD'S RESISTANCE ARMY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Testimony for Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs
“Countering the Lord’s Resistance Army”
Ambassador Donald Yamamoto,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to update the committee about
our ongoing efforts to help end the threat posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army
(LRA).  Over the last several years, the governments of the region have made
progress dispersing the LRA and reducing its numbers.  However, despite this
progress, the LRA continues to abduct, terrorize, and uproot communities across
three countries – the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (DRC), and South Sudan.  The LRA is a weakened force, but its
humanitarian impact remains disproportionate.  The UN Office of Coordination for
Humanitarian Affairs estimated that more than 465,000 people were displaced or
living as refugees during 2011 as a result of the LRA threat.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the LRA’s actions are an affront to human
dignity and a threat to regional stability.  Joseph Kony and the LRA’s top leaders
should be brought to justice.

We appreciate Congress’ strong interest and longstanding concern about the
LRA, especially the attention given by this Committee over the years.  We view
Congress as a critical partner in our ongoing efforts.  The United States has worked
for many years to help address the suffering caused by the LRA.  Consistent with
the legislation passed in 2010, we continue to pursue a multi-faceted strategy to
help the governments and people of this region in their efforts to end the threat
posed by the LRA and address the human consequences of the LRA’s atrocities.  
Let me stress that the governments of Uganda, CAR, DRC, and South Sudan
are in the lead.  Their troops are making the most important sacrifices, and their
people are confronting the LRA’s terror.  These governments are the ones that are
ultimately responsible for ending this threat and protecting local communities.  The
United States is trying to help them fulfill that responsibility.  We have a strong
interest in enhancing the capacity and cooperation of our partners in Africa to
address threats to peace and security, such as the LRA, and to better protect their
citizens.

Continued leadership and cooperation by these governments is essential to
keep the pressure on the LRA.  As we have seen in the past, the LRA can exploit
any reduction in military or diplomatic pressure to regroup and rebuild its forces.
Over recent years, the State Department has provided support to enable counterLRA operations by our regional partners.  Since 2008, we have obligated
approximately $50 million in logistical support to help the Ugandan military
sustain its operations and increase its mobility.  We continue to provide this
support.

In the DRC, the State Department funded training and equipment for a light
infantry battalion of the Congolese army that is now operating in LRA-affected
areas of the DRC.  This battalion is engaged in targeted military operations against
the LRA in coordination with the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the
DRC (MONUSCO).  The State Department continues to fund two mentors who are
working with this battalion.  We are also engaging with the militaries of CAR and
South Sudan as they increase their efforts to counter the LRA and protect their
populations.

Mr. Chairman, we continue to look at ways that we can improve our security
assistance and enhance the capacity of these militaries to succeed in their mission.
Last October, President Obama authorized the deployment of a small number of
U.S. military forces to serve as advisors to the national military forces pursuing the
LRA and seeking to protect local populations.  The President announced yesterday
that the United States will continue the deployment.  My colleague from the
Department of Defense will go into more detail on the work of these advisors.  We
believe they are helping the partner forces to enhance their cooperation,
intelligence-sharing and fusion, and operational planning.
The U.S. military advisors are coordinating closely with the UN
peacekeeping missions in the region, especially to promote civilian protection.

MONUSCO, in particular, has stepped up its efforts to address the LRA in the
DRC.  MONUSCO conducts targeted military operations unilaterally as well as
jointly with the Congolese military to help protect civilians.  We have encouraged
the UN to scale up its efforts, when possible, to help address the LRA threat in
CAR and South Sudan.  The new UN Regional Office for Central Africa is
overseeing the developing of a regional UN strategy for addressing the LRA,
which will be presented to the UN Security Council next month.  We have been
working with the UN to develop this strategy and look forward to helping the UN
implement it.

We are also working closely with the African Union as it increases its efforts
to address the LRA.  Last month, the AU officially launched its Regional 3
Cooperation Initiative for the Elimination of the LRA.  Although many operational
details are still being worked out, we believe the AU’s involvement can strengthen
coordination, information-sharing, and trust among the four militaries pursuing the
LRA.  We also believe the AU can help the governments in the region to develop a
common approach to encouraging LRA defections and ensuring effective
repatriation and reintegration of those who defect.  Our military advisors in the
field are coordinating with the AU staff as they stand up this initiative on the
ground, and our embassies are working closely with the AU’s Special Envoy on
the LRA issue, Francisco Madeira.

These new initiatives, united together, offer real promise.  However, as
Chairman Kerry wrote in The Huffington Post earlier this month, we have to level
with the American public that ending the LRA threat is not an easy mission.  The
LRA operates in very small groups across vast territory roughly the size of
California, much of it densely-forested.  Regional forces have had success in
tracking down LRA groups, but the LRA’s leaders are savvy.  They exploit
communal conflicts and attack remote communities, which lack basic road,
telecommunications and governance infrastructure.  Moreover, the governments in
this region have limited capabilities and numerous security challenges.
Mr. Chairman, effectively ending the LRA threat requires simultaneously
removing the top leadership from the battlefield and addressing the conditions that
leave communities so vulnerable to predatory groups such as the LRA.  This is
precisely why the United States is seeking to pursue a multi-faceted strategy to
enhance both military and civilian capacity in the region.   In partnership with
USAID, the State Department is supporting projects to increase civilian protection,
enhance early warning capabilities, deliver humanitarian relief, and strengthen the
overall resiliency of communities.  We also continue to encourage other
international donors to increase their efforts in these areas.  As we have seen in
northern Uganda and parts of South Sudan, development can play a critical role in
pushing out the LRA and keeping it from returning.

We also believe that targeted efforts, in coordination with increased military
pressure, to encourage LRA fighters to peacefully surrender can have a great effect
on reducing the LRA’s numbers.  Since 2000, more than 12,000 fighters and
abductees have left the group and been reintegrated and reunited with their families
through Uganda’s Amnesty Commission.  The successful rehabilitation and
reintegration of those who leave the LRA creates a positive feedback cycle that
encourages others to defect.

MONUSCO is undertaking critical efforts in the DRC to encourage LRA
defections, including by setting up assembly points where LRA fighters and
associated persons can safely surrender.  The Mission is publicizing the locations
of these assembly points through targeted radio broadcasts and leaflets.  We
strongly support these efforts and have encouraged the UN to initiate similar,
coordinated activities in CAR and South Sudan.  We are also looking at ways that
we can augment these activities through our programs and presence on the ground.
The State Department has deployed a civilian officer to the region who is working
with our military advisors and embassies to identify critical gaps and opportunities
for further U.S. support.  We plan to deploy a second officer soon.

Mr. Chairman, we believe there is an opportunity for further U.S. support to
the counter-LRA effort using the State Department’s War Crimes Rewards
Program.  This program allows the Secretary of State to publicize and pay rewards
for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of targeted war criminals.
This program has been very effective in bringing fugitives to justice, but the
present statutory authority is limited to fugitives indicted by the International
Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the Special Court
for Sierra Leone.

We welcome legislation that would expand the authority for the War Crimes
Reward Program so it could be used to target foreign nationals accused of war
crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide by any international criminal
tribunal, including hybrid or mixed courts.  This would shift the program from
being court-specific to crime-specific.  Fugitives would only be added to the
program after careful review and approval by an interagency committee, and
ultimately the Secretary of State.

Under this expanded authority, we could use the program to target Joseph
Kony and other top LRA commanders.  We could publicize rewards for
information about LRA leaders using leaflets, radio broadcasts, and other
communications mechanisms.  We believe, and our colleagues at the Defense
Department agree, that this would provide an important tool to generate
information about the whereabouts of top LRA leaders, especially to encourage
non-indicted LRA fighters to defect and provide such information.
In closing, let me reiterate that it is our partners in the region – governments and
civil society organizations – who are in the lead in countering the LRA threat and
its impacts.  But the United States can provide critical capabilities and support to help them succeed in their efforts.  We believe doing so puts us on the right side of
history, on the right side of our values, and on the right side of our strategic
interests.   We appreciate Congress’ strong commitment to countering the LRA,
and we look forward to working with you in the months ahead.

FOUR ALLEGED MEMBERS OF INTERNET GROUP "IMAGINE" INDITICTED

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Four Alleged Members of the Internet Piracy Group “IMAGiNE” Indicted in Virginia
WASHINGTON – Four individuals have been charged in the Eastern District of Virginia for their alleged roles in an Internet piracy group that distributed via the Internet copies of movies showing only in theaters, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Neil H. MacBride and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton announced today.

An indictment returned on April 18, 2012, and unsealed yesterday charges Jeramiah Perkins, 39, of Portsmouth, Va.; Gregory Cherwonik, 53, of New York; Willie Lambert, 57, of Pennsylvania; and Sean Lovelady, 27, of California; with one count of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and two counts of criminal copyright infringement.  Perkins, Cherwonik and Lambert are charged with two additional counts of criminal copyright infringement, and Perkins and Cherwonik are charged with a sixth count of criminal copyright infringement of a work being prepared for commercial distribution.

Perkins, Cherwonik and Lambert were arrested yesterday and Lovelady reported to authorities today.  The defendants are scheduled to be arraigned on May 9, 2012.
“These four defendants are charged with serious intellectual property crimes,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer.  “Through IMAGiNE, they allegedly sought to become the leading source of pirated movies on the Internet.  This Justice Department, working with our partners at ICE, has made fighting intellectual property crime a top priority, and we will continue to bring cases against individuals and entities devoted to cheating consumers and undermining artistic pursuits.”

“Piracy is outright theft, regardless of the technology or business model used,” said U.S. Attorney MacBride.  “Large-scale copyright infringement is a serious crime that hurts not only those in the entertainment industry but also those who legally pay for that entertainment.”

“The indictment in this case demonstrates ICE Homeland Security Investigations’ commitment to identifying and dismantling pirates that are weakening our economy through their illegal acts,” said ICE Director Morton.  “Criminals engaged in piracy are stealing from the 2.4 million Americans employed by the entertainment industry.  ICE, along with our partners at the Justice Department, will continue to vigorously investigate and prosecute cases involving piracy and counterfeiting.”

According to the indictment, the defendants and their co-conspirators identified themselves as the IMAGiNE Group and sought to become the premier group to first release Internet copies of new movies only showing in theaters.  From September 2009 until September 2011, they allegedly reproduced and distributed over the Internet tens of thousands of illegal copies of copyrighted works.  The indictment charges that the group regularly and illicitly obtained copies of the video and audio components of motion pictures showing in theaters and then edited and combined them into one infringing movie file, which thousands of members of the group shared with one another by use of BitTorrent file sharing technology and then released to the Internet.

The indictment alleges that the IMAGiNE Group rented computer servers to host websites that included member profiles, a server called a torrent tracker that assists in communications among members using BitTorrent file sharing technology, discussion forums, a message board and news, rules and other information about making donations to and using the website.

The maximum prison sentence for the charge of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement and for each count of criminal copyright infringement is five years in prison.
Charges contained in an indictment are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The investigation of the case and the arrests were conducted by agents with ICE Homeland Security Investigations.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert J. Krask of the Eastern District of Virginia and Senior Counsel John H. Zacharia of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section are prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States.

This case is part of efforts being undertaken by the Department of Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property (IP Task Force) to stop the theft of intellectual property.  Attorney General Eric Holder created the IP Task Force to combat the growing number of domestic and international intellectual property crimes, protect the health and safety of American consumers, and safeguard the nation’s economic security against those who seek to profit illegally from American creativity, innovation and hard work.  The IP Task Force seeks to strengthen intellectual property rights protection through heightened criminal and civil enforcement, greater coordination among federal, state and local law enforcement partners, and increased focus on international enforcement efforts, including reinforcing relationships with key foreign partners and U.S. industry leaders

U.S. SENDS BEST WISHES TO AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND ON ANZAC DAY

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
ANZAC Day
Press Statement Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC
April 24, 2012
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I am delighted to send best wishes to the people of Australia and New Zealand on ANZAC Day this April 25th.
Today we pay tribute to all the men and women in the armed forces of Australia and New Zealand who have served with dedication, courage, and sacrifice. We remember those who have given their lives and the families and friends who mourn them -- they are the heroes who we honor every day by working to make our world safer and more secure.

This year, as we commemorate ANZAC Day, we also remember those brave soldiers who were working for peace seventy years ago. At that time, the Pacific faced an uncertain future, but American, Australian, and New Zealand troops joined together and stood up for the tenets of democracy. Because of their sacrifices and dedication, today we enjoy countless freedoms. As we commemorate ANZAC Day, we must recommit ourselves to their mission: the pursuit of freedom, prosperity, and democracy throughout the world.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING APRIL 24, 2012

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 24, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:59 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: All right. Happy Tuesday, everybody. Further to our Free the Press daily highlight as we walk up to World Press Freedom Day, today’s highlighted journalist is Dilmurod Sayid, an independent Uzbek journalist. He wrote for opposition websites including The Voice of Freedom and was a member of the Ezgulik Human Rights Society. He was a particularly staunch critic of corruption in Uzbekistan, and he was convicted in a closed trial that did not meet international standards. So we take this opportunity to again call on the Government of Uzbekistan to release him, and we call your attention to his case on HUMANRIGHTS.GOV.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one thing about this, the human rights?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Was there a call that was sent out to embassies to kind of come up with people that you’re going to highlight, or how do these – how were these people chosen?
MS. NULAND: Our Human Rights Bureau, working with embassies and working with our Annual Human Rights Report, came up with the list of journalists that we’re particularly highlighting. Do you have somebody in particular you want to add to the list?
QUESTION: Well, I was going to add me. (Laughter.) No --
MS. NULAND: We all have concerns about your human rights – (laughter) – and about our human rights at your hand. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I’m sure that’s the case. No, I was just curious as to – I mean, how many are there going to be total?
MS. NULAND: We started this about a week ago and we’re doing it up through May 3rd, which is International Press Freedom Day.
QUESTION: Have you seen any kind of – has there been any response to this that you’re aware of yet?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’re seeing quite a bit of coverage in the various regions that these individuals are from.
QUESTION: But any actual action from the governments who are involved?
MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one. I don’t think that we’ve had any formal responses to these, but sometimes these things take time. And sometimes when we shout out these cases, it emboldens folks in the region or in the host country to do more on their behalf.
QUESTION: Okay. Moving on to the issue of the day, or at least one of them, the situation in Sudan seems to be really deteriorating, even though there was a hopeful – possibly hopeful sign earlier in the week. It’s gotten worse. I’m wondering what your take on that is. What have the contacts been with both North and South? Where is Princeton Lyman now? Is he back? Is he still out there?
QUESTION: He was in the cafeteria about 20 minutes ago.
QUESTION: Thank you. Well, then I don’t need to – you don’t have to answer the last one.
MS. NULAND: Excellent. Well, as we said yesterday, we had the good news of South Sudan withdrawing from Heglig; but rather than responding in kind, we’ve had Sudan increase its aerial bombardment over the last 24 hours. And so these reprehensible bombings are targeting civilians. They are causing casualties all over the place. And they are obviously gross violations of international law, and we continue to call for an immediate cessation.
As the Secretary has been saying over the last week in particular, these countries have to work together if they are each going to succeed. They have got to come back to the table and settle these issues. So I think the concern that we had was, after the trip that Princeton Lyman made where he was in both Juba and Khartoum, where he worked with the parties, where the – we – working with the AU and others, we convinced the South to pull out of Heglig. Rather than that pulling both sides back to the table, the Sudanese seem to have taken negative advantage of it. So it’s very, very concerning. You saw the President’s statement of a week ago.
Ambassador Lyman is here, but he remains in contact with the parties and he remains in contact with a variety of international partners on a daily basis.
QUESTION: And what is the Administration doing, if anything, at the moment, directly with the two sides? Is there – other than Ambassador Lyman’s, I guess now, phone calls, is there anything else?
MS. NULAND: Well, in addition to the presidential statement of the weekend and his direct appeal to the sides, we’re also working with the AU on a package of increased pressure if we can’t get these --
QUESTION: And the UN?
MS. NULAND: And the UN, of course. Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go to Israel?
QUESTION: And the West Bank?
QUESTION: Please.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Hold on. Sudan, just for a second?
MS. NULAND: Why don’t we stay with Shaun and then come to you.
QUESTION: Sure. Just President Kiir was in Beijing.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: I just wanted to see if you had an assessment of China’s role. China traditionally has been quite close to Khartoum, has received some criticism for that. How do you perceive China’s role in this?
MS. NULAND: Well, China has played a role in both Sudan and South Sudan. We actually have been in very close touch with the Chinese. The Secretary has raised the issue of Sudan with Foreign Minister Yang. Princeton Lyman has been in contact with Ambassador Zhang here. He’s traveled to Beijing. So our hope is that Beijing will play a constructive role. They have in the past in trying to encourage the sides to come back to the negotiating table. China has investments throughout the area and also benefits from stability, so we have been working to enlist Beijing and to work together on a common message.
QUESTION: Victoria, just a quick follow-up. Would you say that the withdrawal of the Southern forces is a direct result of the involvement of Ambassador Lyman? And if so, what did he get in return from the North? I mean, he went to both Juba and Khartoum.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is a process of trying to work with both sides and get them back to the table. He works, as you know, in extremely close partnership with the African Union, with the UN peacekeeping forces on the ground. But his own personal relationships and his own diplomacy have been very important to this process.
So I think this is the issue of concern, that Sudan wanted to see the withdrawals from Heglig. Those happened. And the response was – instead of being a response in kind, was a violent response. So that’s extremely concerning.
QUESTION: But the rhetoric today from al-Bashir, the president, is quite belligerent. Is anyone in contact with him from this Administration at the present time?
MS. NULAND: No, of course. And Ambassador Lyman is in regular contact with him, but so are others. And we will continue to be.
QUESTION: Hold on a second. Really? With President Bashir himself? I thought there was a kind of de facto ban on direct contacts between U.S. officials and President Bashir because of his status with the ICC.
MS. NULAND: I think that Princeton has been in contact with him directly. But if that’s not the case, I’ll get back to you.[1]
Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Change of topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just one more on that?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Jill.
QUESTION: This is the immediate problem, the fighting.
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: But there are underlying issues that are fueling this, such as borders. Is there any attempt at this point to even begin to sort that out?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, as part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that created the two states that led to the velvet divorce creating South Sudan, there were unresolved issues of borders and resources and other things that had to be settled. There is a process that is internationally managed that the AU supervises for their negotiators to come to the table and work on these things. But every time we have serious flare-ups of violence, those talks break down, stall, get off the rail. So this is the problem, that they can’t move past the immediate difficulties to get to the underlying settlement of the remaining underlying issues.
And as the Secretary has said again and again, as the President said over the weekend, unless they can settle these issues, neither one of them is going to benefit from the potential to be reintegrated with the international community, to benefit from the resources, and to really invest in their people who are so long-suffering.
QUESTION: Is there a feeling that the AU is not putting enough pressure on either side, or specifically Sudan?
MS. NULAND: I think we’re all looking once again, as we have so many times in this process, at what pressure we can bring to bear – economic pressure, political pressure – but frankly, the AU has done a superb job speaking for the region on these issues. And we continue to work very closely with them on a daily basis.
QUESTION: Just one more on this. And I have to admit that I am not a Sudan expert, but – and this phrase “velvet divorce” is new to me. Is this – but given this – the incidents or the developments, is this --
MS. NULAND: No, of course, of course. I mean there was so much violence.
QUESTION: -- doesn’t really seem to be so much velvet --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- left to it.
MS. NULAND: Well, suffice to say that it was the result of a negotiated settlement, so it was not – the violence, obviously, was the backdrop, but ultimately they came to the table and decided how they were going to divide themselves. So --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Sorry.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Yeah, please, please, please.
QUESTION: Are you coordinating with the Arab League on the issue of Sudan?
MS. NULAND: We are.
QUESTION: I know you have coordinated on Syria, but are you --
MS. NULAND: We are, and we have Arab League meeting, I think, later this week, where we expect that Sudan will be on the agenda as well.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So there are reports out of Israel that the Israeli Government has legalized three so-called settlement outposts. I think it’s the U.S. Government position that such outposts are illegal, but what is your – A, what is your view on Israel’s decision to, quote, “legalize these three outposts,” close quote? And B, how does that affect your efforts to bring the parties back into a direct negotiation?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you’re talking about the reports that there has been a request for a stay of court decisions with regard to the settlements. Is that what you’re referring to?
QUESTION: I – and I’m sorry I don’t have – although I tried to email it to myself --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- I don’t have it in front of me.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: My understanding was that it was not just a request for a stay, but rather a determination that had been made. But maybe I misunderstood.
MS. NULAND: No, I think it’s a request for a court decision. We are, obviously, concerned by the reports that we’ve seen. We have raised this with the Israeli Government and we are seeking clarification. You know where we are on settlements. We don’t think this is helpful to the process and we don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.
QUESTION: And when you say we have raised this, you’ve raised this with them since these reports emerged? In other words --
MS. NULAND: My understanding is we raised it in Tel Aviv today. That’s my understanding.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up, three settlements – Bruchin, Rechelim, and Sansana, and they are on privately owned Palestinian land, they have for 15 years or 16 years – have been declared illegal. And a lot of people are interpreting it as a response to Abbas’s letter. Do you see it that way?
MS. NULAND: Again, we’re seeking clarification from the Israeli Government as to their intentions and making our own views very clear about this.
QUESTION: Yeah, but the office of the prime minister issued a statement that they are legal, that they have been deemed from this point on forward as legal settlements.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, you know where we stand on this. And as I said, we are raising it.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I know where you stand, but what measures are you willing to take in case that the Israeli Government goes forward with this?
MS. NULAND: Again, Said, you know where we are on these things. We make this case every time we have an incident like this that it is not helpful to the process; it doesn’t get us where we need to go. We will continue to raise it, as we have.
QUESTION: Well, beside raising the issue with the Israeli Government, what measures is the United States Government willing to take?
MS. NULAND: Well --
QUESTION: You have constantly taken measures when similar activities are taken by other governments. What measures are you willing to take in this particular case?
MS. NULAND: Again, my understanding is that we have a government statement with regard to its intentions. We are seeking to clarify that. So I’m not going to predict what further response there might be on our side.
QUESTION: Do you know --
QUESTION: Do you feel that the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage efforts by David Hale?
MS. NULAND: David Hale has been in the region all week trying to work on the issues involved here and bring the parties back to the table. I don’t think that we would characterize that at all – the situation at all the way you just have.
QUESTION: And finally, do you see this as boding really ill to Palestinian landowners whose land is shrinking from underneath them?
MS. NULAND: I missed the beginning of your sentence, Said.
QUESTION: I mean, this new decision by the Israeli Government bodes very ill for Israeli landowners, how – for Palestinian landowners, however, that land is shrinking, so to speak.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is the backdrop for the statements that we always make about this kind of activity, but we want to get some more clarification from the Israelis.
QUESTION: So in this case, why wouldn’t the United States Government support an initiative by the United Nations to term the settlements, or these at least illegal outposts, as illegal?
MS. NULAND: Said, you know where we are on these things, and we are going to continue to talk to the Israelis about these issues.
Jill.
QUESTION: Can you just update – you mentioned David Hale. Can you update us on some of his --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah. So he was in Jerusalem yesterday. He met with his Israeli counterpart, the Israeli negotiator Mr. Molho. Today he met with Palestinian negotiator Erekat and with Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh. He also now plans to go on to Qatar and Egypt. And thereafter, his travel plans are up in the air.
QUESTION: Did he meet them separately, with Erekat and Foreign Minister Judeh?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah. I think he went to Amman to see Foreign Minister Judeh.
QUESTION: And so do you know if – was this an issue? Had it happened yet by the – had this government announcement happened by the time he had had his meetings? Do you know if he raised it, or when you say it was raised in Tel Aviv, was it raised by someone else?
MS. NULAND: He was in Jerusalem yesterday. He was with the Palestinians today. So my understanding is this announcement was sometime today, was this morning. So my – what I had was that the Embassy had raised it with the Israelis. If that is not --
QUESTION: Do you know if it was the ambassador or someone else?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have that.
QUESTION: And hadn’t he originally planned to go to Saudi, too? Is that now off the itinerary?
MS. NULAND: I think – no, he was in Riyadh at the beginning of the – oh, sorry. I’ve got it here at the very beginning. Yeah, he’s also in Riyadh today, currently in Riyadh for meetings with the senior Saudi officials. Jerusalem yesterday. Something’s not right here. Riyadh’s on this agenda; I don’t know when, though, because I also have that he is today with the Jordanians and with the Palestinians, but Riyadh is still on the agenda.
QUESTION: Okay. And his – and post – his post-Gulf – you had mentioned earlier that after the Gulf, he was probably going to go back to Israel and the PA. Is that – you said that’s now up in the air. It is because – is that because of this announcement?
MS. NULAND: No, I don’t think it has anything to do with that. I think he just wants to see where he is and whether there’s a need for him to come back to Washington and report first.
Please, Goyal.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: India.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: A number of education ministers from different Indian states were or are in the U.S. studying the U.S. community colleges system and the U.S. education system, and planning to open maybe hundreds of community colleges in India with the U.S. education system help, which Prime Minister Singh and President Obama and knowledge initiative was signed between the two leaders. What role do you think State Department playing in this role?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we support this initiative. We have been working with the Indian side to flesh out the initiative that was agreed between the President and the prime minister through our Education Bureau here. And obviously, we are responsible for the visa issuance for the various folks studying in the United States.
QUESTION: And as far as Indian students now, over 125,000, I believe, in the U.S. What will be their status when these community college will be open in India? Because right now, when they graduate from an Indian university or colleges and their degrees are not really accepted or agreed to here in the U.S.
MS. NULAND: I guess I don’t understand the question, Goyal. You’re asking if they had graduate from Indian college, are those degrees accepted in the United States?
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: I think it’s a case-by-case issue depending upon where they graduate from and where they’re looking to get accredited from, and et cetera. So obviously, if there’s a sister university relationship, sometimes those accreditations can be recognized, but it just depends on what they want to do. I don’t think there’s a blanket way of looking at that.
QUESTION: And finally --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. As far as the U.S. visa for the Indian students coming to higher study in the U.S., is there a change now? Because some feel that the requirements are more or higher than after this incident took place at the various (inaudible) universities, so-called, in the California area.
MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’ve changed our policy with regard to the way we interview applicants. I think what we are doing is making sure that the sponsoring organizations truly are what they say they are in the United States; that if they say that they are bringing students over to educate them, that they intend to educate them, not put them to work, et cetera, so – yeah.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please, Ros.
QUESTION: In the WikiLeaks case, the judge in the Bradley Manning case this morning ordered the State Department, among other agencies, to turn over some of their documents to the defense in order to help the Manning team better prepare its case. Is the State Department going to turn over those documents? And my follow-up is: Does the U.S. still see a negative impact on its relations with other countries in diplomacy because of what happened in the alleged leaking of these documents?
MS. NULAND: Let me take the last part first. I think our view of the entire WikiLeaks incident has not changed at all in terms of the negative effects. With regard to what the court has ordered, Ros, I haven’t seen it, so let me take it and see what we know about what’s been requested of us and what our response is.
Jill.
QUESTION: Russia?
MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The Russian ambassador here in Washington is concerned about legislation that is moving forward, the Magnitsky legislation. And he’s saying essentially that this is just a way of – if you get rid of Jackson-Vanik, this is just another way of punishing Russia. He’s quite concerned about it. I know the State Department has been talking with Congress. Do we know what the status of Magnitsky is? Is the State Department encouraging, discouraging this legislation? What’s the view?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we do support the goals of the legislation. We have programs already in place to ensure that we are sanctioning those who are responsible for human rights abuses, and we are continuing our dialogue with the Congress about how we can appropriately make the views of the Congress and the American people known; at the same time, that we strongly favor the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik legislation, as really being a relic of the past that doesn’t apply to today’s situation. So this is an ongoing conversation that we’re having with the Hill.
QUESTION: Why is Magnitsky needed if the State Department really does have the ability right now legally to refuse visas to people who have been involved in crime, or at least, I guess, maybe alleged – I’m not quite sure how we can define that. But don’t you have the tools already to exclude people and not give them a visa?
MS. NULAND: We do have many of the tools in this legislation. I think it’s a matter of – from the Congress’s point of view, obviously, I would refer you to them. But our understanding in the conversations that we’ve had is that there’s a desire and an interest to make this a matter of law; and particularly, if we are going to make the point with members of Congress that the days are over for the kinds of sanctions that we had under Jackson-Vanik, but that we still have other human rights concerns that need to be taken into account.
So I think there are – there’s a feeling on the Hill that putting this in legislation will create a systemic, routine way of dealing with it and a clear set of guidelines that the Congress and the Administration agree to and understand and that are clear on the Russian side. So let’s see where this legislation goes as it goes through the Congress.
Please.
QUESTION: Thank you. On North Korea, they reported that North Korea is almost ready for the nuclear test. And so I would like to know, what’s the assessment from the U.S. Government?
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think our position on any of this has changed: No launching, no testing, no nothing if you want to have a better relationship with the international community. All of these are provocations, all of them take the DPRK in the wrong direction, so our message on all of this hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: But they say if the U.S. agree in a peace treaty with them, they may abandon the nuclear test. What’s your reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: Starting with the Leap Day deal that the North Koreans have abrogated, we were beginning a conversation again about a step-by-step process that could convince the Six Parties, could convince the international community that this new North Korean leadership was interested in coming back into compliance with its international obligations. Those – was a small first step, and unfortunately now we’re going backwards. So it’s really up to the DPRK to demonstrate that it wants a better relationship with all of us and that it wants to put its energy into peace and stability and taking care of its people rather than expensive weapons.
QUESTION: And last question --
QUESTION: Haven’t they already done that? Haven’t they demonstrated their interest already?
MS. NULAND: Demonstrated their interest?
QUESTION: Or lack of interest?
MS. NULAND: Unfortunately, they are demonstrating a lack of interest, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And then can you just (inaudible), you said no launching, no testing no nothing. I mean, what is that – no nothing? They can’t do anything? (Laughter.) I mean, what if they decide they’re going to free all political prisoners and have democratic elections tomorrow? I mean, is that – that’s bad, too?
MS. NULAND: What they can and should do is take care of their people, open their country, begin to reform the system, and demonstrate to the international community that they’re prepared to meet their international obligations. And they haven’t done any of those things. So what I meant by “no nothing” was no provocative nuclear actions of any kind.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up.
MS. NULAND: Keeping me on my toes.
QUESTION: On this – at the coming U.S.-China S and ED, what’s the U.S. expectation from China on North Korea issue, specifically?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we said very clearly that we have encouraged China to continue to use all of its influence with the DPRK and particularly with the new young leader to encourage a positive course and to discourage the negative course. So I’m sure that we will be exchanging views on North Korea and getting a better sense of how the Chinese side analyzes the situation, what messages they’ve been willing to send, able to send, and what pressure they think they can bring to bear, because it’s absolutely essential we all work together here.
Please, Michel.
QUESTION: On Iran? Iran has warned today that the new U.S. sanctions targeting its access to surveillance technology were negative and could affect its crucial talks next month with the P-5+1 in Baghdad. Do you have any reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that the sanctions that the President announced yesterday were designed to address a different set of concerns that we have with regard to Iran’s behavior, and that’s Iran’s behavior with regard to their own citizens, with regard to the dignity, human rights, standard of living for their own citizens. So frankly, putting sanctions on companies that help Iran spy on their own citizens and having complaints about that begs the question as to why the Government of Iran thinks it needs to spy on its own citizens and block their access to the internet in the first place. So these – this is a set of sanctions that are designed to support the humans rights, freedoms, dignity of the Iranian people.
QUESTION: But do you expect these sanctions to affect the upcoming negotiations in Baghdad – or talks?
MS. NULAND: Well, our hope is that we will have a productive round in Baghdad. We discussed very clearly in Istanbul what it’s going to take to continue to move forward. So it’s really up to Iran. But frankly, what we have done with the President – the sanctions that the President announced yesterday, don’t even have anything to do with the nuclear file. They have to do with our separate concerns about the human rights situation.
QUESTION: Can I just ask a question on these sanctions? The net effect – I mean, one could argue about the effect of these sanctions, whether they actual do anything, whether these companies or institutions actually have any assets that can be blocked, or whether any Americans were doing business in the first place, but that’s not – well, my question is: With the exception of one, the internet provider in Iran, all of these entities and the one individual in Iran and Syria were already under numerous layers of other sanctions that did exactly the same thing. So I’m just wondering, there was no net effect on the IRGC, on the intelligence ministries, on the head of the Syrian intelligence directorate, was there?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think --
QUESTION: I mean, it didn’t do anything new to them. They were already under sanctions that did exactly what these sanctions do.
MS. NULAND: Frankly, I’m not sure that your premise is right, Matt, that there was no – nothing new, that this was an additional layer and all of these same folks and entities had already been sanctioned. I think the larger point here, though, is to express our concern about the circumvention, the importing of foreign technology to be used against your own citizens to deny them access to the internet, to deny them the ability communicate freely.
So regardless of whether it’s an additional layer on top of the same people and entities, the political point here is to express our concern about what these governments, whether they’re Syrian – the Syrian Government or the Iranian Government, are doing to block access to the internet, to block the ability of their people to communicate, to chill the environment for civil discourse and for civil society.
QUESTION: Doesn’t that happen in quite a few countries? In Equatorial Guinea, in Zimbabwe, in --
MS. NULAND: It happens in a number of countries and the Secretary --
QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.
MS. NULAND: -- there are number of countries that as we – as the Secretary has spoken out on many, many times, that seek to limit the right of their citizens to free speech, to free association, to the internet, and we will continue to speak out. But there are particular governments who are now in the business of acquiring the most sophisticated Western technology they can find and targeting it back on their own citizens and squeezing them, in human rights terms, with it. So this is an area of increasing concern.
QUESTION: So that would be the standard then for which countries would in the future those sanctions would apply to, whether they’re acquiring (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think we’re going to take this on a case-by-case basis. But in this case, the President was making the point, and we were making the point more broadly that these two governments are particularly egregious in this area as, if you will, state-sponsors of censorship.
QUESTION: Victoria, could you explain something regarding the board – the atrocity prevention board that the President announced on the sanctions?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Now, is it -- how is the State Department involved? I mean, since we know that Samantha Power is going to lead that effort. Who’s from the State Department? Who will sit on that board?
MS. NULAND: The State Department representative on the board is Under Secretary of State Maria Otero.
QUESTION: Maria Otero. Okay.
MS. NULAND: And the first meeting of the board was yesterday.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: And the board is designed to get together this group of very experienced people to look at how we can, as a government, do more to support accountability and to stop atrocities.
QUESTION: Okay. And one related issue: Last week it was announced – the Open Government Initiative?
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: Is that in any way connected to this – there’s going to be a center of – a connection with this board?
MS. NULAND: Well, some of the people who work on the Open Government Partnership are the same people who work on this atrocities board – as you said, Samantha Power, Under Secretary Otero. But the initiatives are not linked.
What I would say is that when we announced at the Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Istanbul that we were standing up this atrocities clearinghouse for Syria, that’s an example of the kind of initiative that this group of people on the atrocities board brought to bear. They were the sort of idea factory for that idea, and it’s the kind of thing that, assuming that it works well in a Syrian context, we can replicate in other contexts.
Yeah.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Do you have – does the State Department have any additional information on the two Cuban actors who were granted temporary visas and have since disappeared?
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge – and frankly, this is yesterday information and I didn’t have an update from today, so if it’s not right, we’ll get back to you – but neither we nor the film festival has any further information about where the two actors are.
QUESTION: So that hasn’t changed, then, --
MS. NULAND: I do not believe that has changed since yesterday. Okay.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Pakistan. As far as Secretary Grossman’s visit to Pakistan is concerned, and also last week Secretary Panetta told the Pentagon press that the Haqqani Network is the most dangerous, and is also now going back and forth from Pakistan to Afghanistan, Afghanistan to Pakistan. Is that going to be a topic? Because this is the main concern or main issue between the two countries and the security in Afghanistan is concerned.
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have any travel to announce today, Goyal, but I think you know that we’ve been pretty clear. Secretary was clear, Secretary Panetta was clear last week, that we have concerns about the Haqqani Network in – with regard to the most recent incident in Afghanistan. And as the Secretary said in Brussels, we will continue to try to work with Pakistan because this is a threat to both of us.
QUESTION: And finally, are you planning to include Haqqani Network in the Reward for Justice or any other sanctions against this network?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we have sanctions on individual members of the Haqqani Network, and we’re continuing to look at what more we can do there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: A follow-up on Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday, State Department announced Grossman – Marc Grossman visit to three different countries, but Pakistan is not included. And there are some media reports in Pakistan that Pakistani official are getting ready to meet with him, and talk about all issues, including reopening of a NATO supply line. And they also talk about the trilateral core group meeting, including Afghanistan. So do you have any update of his visit? Is he going to Islamabad? Do you confirm that?
MS. NULAND: I think I just said that I don’t have any travel to announce today, but as you know, both Afghanistan and Pakistan fall within his purview. But I don’t have anything to announce today.
Okay?
QUESTION: No. I just want --
MS. NULAND: Sorry.
QUESTION: -- to go back to the WikiLeaks question. When you said that your position had not changed as to whether this – whether the release of these documents have done damage to the national security, what – can you be more – what does that mean? You say that it did damage?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you be more explicit about how it did damage?
MS. NULAND: I think we were quite explicit at the time, and I’m not going to come back to it today.
QUESTION: Well, no, at – well, at the time, you said that it had the potential – well, not you personally; it was your predecessor – but had the potential to do damage and that there was the concern in the – in this building in particular that ambassadors or embassies would be less than forthcoming about what they wrote in cables coming back, knowing that they had been – that it had been compromised.
Has there been any evidence? Is this building concerned or is there evidence that shows that this building is not getting full accounting, full reporting, honest, candid reporting from its embassies abroad in the wake of WikiLeaks?
MS. NULAND: Our embassies abroad continue to do a superb job of working with governments and societies where they are accredited and giving us a good, strong picture of what’s going on. That doesn’t change the fact that there was enormous turbulence in many of our bilateral relationships when this happened, and that there have been impacts on individuals. As you know, we’ve talked about that at the time.
QUESTION: Right. But when you say enormous turbulence in bilateral relationships, has – what has – what can you – what is there that --
MS. NULAND: I don’t think I’m going to go any further than we went at the time. We had concerns from many of our interlocutors.
QUESTION: Well, I know you had concerns --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- but that – but concern is – that does not that mean that there’s – that something has been damaged?
MS. NULAND: I think we’ve got an ongoing lawsuit, and I’m not going to go any further right now.
QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious, though. If the – do you see – has the U.S. ability to conduct its foreign relations been compromised or damaged because of WikiLeaks? Can you point to one or two examples of how that – of how this has done harm to the U.S. national security or U.S. --
MS. NULAND: Matt --
QUESTION: -- ability to conduct diplomacy?
MS. NULAND: -- given the fact that we have an ongoing legal case, I don’t think I’m going to comment any further on this set of issues today.
QUESTION: Well, fair enough, but --
MS. NULAND: Michel, did you have something else?
QUESTION: -- you do understand this is exactly what you’re being asked to produce in court.
MS. NULAND: I understand. And --
QUESTION: And if you’re saying that, “Yes, it did damage, but I’m sorry, I can’t tell you what the damage is because it’s a secret,” that’s what – is that what you’re saying?
MS. NULAND: What I’m saying is there’s ongoing legal work now, and if there are legal responsibilities of this building, we’ll do it in a court of law, not here.
QUESTION: Well, but in terms of the one thing that you did answer, you – there isn’t any evidence that this has affected embassies’ ability or – to report back honestly and accurately about what’s going on in their host countries. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to give a grade to our embassies. We expressed our concern at the time. Those concerns were very clearly stated. I’m not going to get into evaluating, from this podium, what’s come back, what hasn’t come back. We’ve got an ongoing legal case.
Michel.

QUESTION: One clarification still on this, please.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I thought the concern was less that embassies would not report stuff back in cables but that their interlocutors would not tell them stuff in the first place because they no longer had faith that the U.S. Government could keep their conversations or communications private, given the vast leak of cables. So I think the question might be better posed as: Has the State Department discerned a diminution in the candor of its foreign interlocutors as a result of this gross breach of confidentiality?

MS. NULAND: Again, we said what we wanted to say at the time on this case. We now have this case in the courts, and I just don’t think it’s appropriate for me to be commenting any further.
Michael, did you have something else? Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. Any new assessment about the UN observers’ work in Syria?

MS. NULAND: As I said yesterday, we’re continuing to watch this day by day. I think the concern remains that we only have a small number of monitors in, which means that they can stay in some of these towns for only a short time. They were in Zabadani; they were in parts of Hama and Homs in the last couple of days, but we don’t have enough yet to be able to leave them there. And there are concerns that no sooner do they leave when violence restarts. So this is something we’re just going to have to watch going forward.
Please.

QUESTION: There was a bomb that exploded today in Marjeh, which is a densely populated area within Damascus. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND: Well, we were just getting reporting on this as I was coming down. Obviously, any acts of violence of that kind are reprehensible.
Please.

QUESTION: Does the State Department have any comment on Egypt’s decision not to register, I think it’s eight NGOs, pro-democracy NGOs, including the Carter Foundation?

MS. NULAND: I have to say that we are – we don’t have a full picture of what has happened and what hasn’t happened with regard to these NGOs. So we are in the process of trying to figure it out, and we’re seeking clarification from the Egyptian side.
QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks, everybody.

UN SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS ATTACK ON AFRICAN UNION-UN PATROL IN DARFUR

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
UN Security Council Press Statement on the Attack on UNAMID
Susan E. Rice
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations New York, NYApril 24, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the attack on an African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) patrol in West Darfur on 20 April, in which four peacekeepers were wounded, one of whom subsequently died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack.

The members of the Security Council expressed their condolences to the family of the peacekeeper killed in the attack, as well as to the Government of Togo. They called on the Government of Sudan to bring the perpetrators to justice and stressed that there must be an end to impunity for those who attack peacekeepers.

The members of the Security Council reiterated their full support for UNAMID and called on all parties in Darfur to co-operate with the mission.

COLLABORATION AND COOPERATION AT ICN CONFERENCE

FROM:  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION
Antitrust Division Promotes Collaboration and Cooperation at ICN Conference
WASHINGTON — The International Competition Network (ICN) launched and approved three new initiatives on international enforcement cooperation, the investigative process in competition cases and working with the courts, the Department of Justice announced today. The ICN also adopted new materials on unilateral conduct investigations, raising anti-cartel awareness and explaining the benefits of competition.

The 11th annual ICN conference, hosted by the Brazilian Competition Policy System, was held on April18-20, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. More than 450 delegates participated, representing more than 80 antitrust agencies from around the world, and included competition experts from international organizations and the legal, business, consumer and academic communities. Acting Assistant Attorney General Sharis A. Pozen of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Edith Ramirez led the U.S. delegates at the conference. The conference showcased the achievements of ICN working groups on mergers, unilateral conduct, cartels, competition advocacy and competition agency effectiveness.

“The ICN has become a central forum for dialogue within the global antitrust community to share experiences and develop practical recommendations,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Pozen. “Its work is enabling more effective and efficient antitrust enforcement worldwide, to the benefit of competition agencies and, ultimately, consumers.”

The ICN Steering Group introduced and members approved three new initiatives. The Department of Justice and the Turkish Competition Authority co-chaired the international competition enforcement cooperation initiative, which was presented by the Acting Assistant Attorney General Pozen. The FTC and the European Commission's Competition Directorate co-chaired the investigative process initiative, which was presented by the Competition Directorate's Director General Alexander Italianer. The working with courts and judges initiative, co-chaired by the Chilean Competition Tribunal and Poland's Office of Competition and Consumer Protection,was presented by Malgorzata Krasnodebska-Tomkiel, President of the Polish authority.

The ICN's working groups also presented their work to the conference. The Merger Working Group, co-chaired by the Department of Justice, the Irish Competition Authority and the Italian Competition Authority, aims to promote best practices in the design and operation of merger review regimes. Acting Assistant Attorney General Pozen led the conference discussion of current trends and developments in merger enforcement, including developments in economic analysis and effective merger remedies.

The Cartel Working Group produced a paper on cartel awareness and outreach efforts and compiled comparative information on information exchanges in cartel cases. Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division Scott D. Hammond, led a panel discussion focused on the challenges of bid-rigging enforcement.

The ICN's Unilateral Conduct Working Group, co-chaired by the FTC, Germany's Bundeskartellamt and the Swedish Competition Authority, promotes convergence and sound enforcement of laws governing conduct by firms with substantial market power. The working group drafted chapters on the objectives of unilateral conduct laws and on predatory pricing for its workbook for agency investigators. FTC Counsel Cynthia Lagdameo led a panel discussion on predatory pricing by dominant firms.

The Advocacy Working Group finalized a competition advocacy toolkit with guidance tools for agencies and a handbook on conducting market studies. In addition, the group issued a report on raising awareness of the benefits of competition.

The conference also highlighted the work of the Agency Effectiveness Working Group, which is developing a competition agency manual as a resource to enhance agencies' effectiveness and presented new material on knowledge management and human resources management. Former FTC Chairman William E. Kovacic participated in a discussion on resource management for competition authorities.

The conference's Brazilian host agencies conducted a special project devoted to effective settlements in competition cases, including cartel, merger and unilateral conduct enforcement areas. FTC Commissioner Ramirez presented remarks and participated in the discussion focusing on settlements of unilateral conduct cases.

“Designing and implementing effective remedies in unilateral conduct cases presents one of the most important, yet daunting challenges competition authorities face,” stated FTC Commissioner Ramirez. “While the right remedy can restore much needed competition in a market, an ill-advised remedy can turn what could be a big victory for consumers into little more than a Pyrrhic victory.”

The conference showcased the ICN Curriculum Project, a project led by the FTC to create a “virtual university” of training materials on competition law and practice. Randolph W. Tritell, Director of the FTC's Office of International Affairs, presented the curriculum project at the conference.

The ICN also approved new leadership positions. Chairman Eduardo Pérez Motta of the Mexican Federal Competition Commission was selected as the new chair of the ICN Steering Group. He succeeds outgoing chair Chief Executive John Fingleton of the United Kingdom's Office of Fair Trading. The Department of Justice will co-chair the Cartel Working Group and the FTC will co-chair the Agency Effectiveness Working Group.

The ICN was created in October 2001, when the Department of Justice and the FTC joined antitrust agencies from 13 other jurisdictions to increase understanding of competition policy and promote convergence toward best practices around the world. The ICN now includes 123 member agencies from 108 jurisdictions.

U.S. GOVERNMENT SAYS MILITARY RECRUITMENT WAS STRONG THROUGH MARCH

FROM: AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Recruiting Remains Strong Through March, Officials Say

WASHINGTON, April 23, 2012 - All of the active components and five of the six reserve components met or exceeded their fiscal 2012 recruiting goals through March, Pentagon officials reported today.

Here are the active components' accession numbers for the first six months of the fiscal year, which began Oct. 1:

-- Army: 27,701 accessions, 101 percent of its goal of 27,550;

-- Navy: 15,151 accessions, 100 percent of its goal of 15,151;

-- Marine Corps: 10,625 accessions, 100 percent of its goal of 10,591; and

-- Air Force: 14,353 accessions, 100 percent of its goal of 14,353.

The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force all exhibited strong retention through the first sixth months of fiscal 2012, officials said.

Here are the reserve-component accessions through March:

-- Army National Guard: 24,706 accessions 95 percent of its goal of 25,991;

-- Army Reserve: 14,095 accessions, 110 percent of its goal of 12,852;

-- Navy Reserve: 3,756 accessions, 100 percent of its goal of 3,756;

-- Marine Corps Reserve: 4,485 accessions, 106 percent of its goal of 4,216;

-- Air National Guard: 4,206 accessions, 100 percent of its goal of 4,192; and

-- Air Force Reserve: 4,255 accessions, 100 percent of its goal of 4,255.

All reserve components are on target to achieve their fiscal year attrition goals, officials said.

OHIO CONSTRUCTION FIRM SETTLES FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS

FROM:  U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, April 23, 2012
Ohio Construction Firm Agrees to Pay $500,000 to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Firm Allegedly Submitted False Claims Related to Use of Disadvantaged Business Entities

Anthony Allega Cement Contractor Inc., a Cleveland construction firm, has agreed to pay the United States $500,000 to resolve allegations that it knowingly submitted false claims related to a federally-funded construction project, the Justice Department announced today.  The United States alleged that Allega submitted false claims that made it appear that the company was in compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program, as required in order to obtain and maintain Allega’s contract with the government.  The DBE program provides opportunities to businesses owned by minorities and women, as well as socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, to participate in federally-funded construction and design projects.
         
Allega was the prime contractor on a project to construct and pave a new runway at Cleveland’s Hopkins International Airport between 2001 and 2006.  To obtain and maintain its contract, Allega was required to comply with DOT DBE regulations and to accurately report DBE participation on the project. The United States alleged that Allega claimed that materials and services for the project were provided by a company known as Chem-Ty Environmental, when in fact Chem-Ty was merely a “pass-through” entity used to make it appear as if a DBE had performed the work.
         
“The Disadvantaged Business Enterprises program helps businesses owned by minorities and women work on federal construction projects,” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Those who falsely claim credits under the program in order to obtain federal funds take advantage both of the taxpayers and the businesses that the program is designed to assist.”

The government’s claims were based upon an investigation conducted by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio, DOT’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Federal Aviation Administration.

 “When businesses misrepresent those working with them to obtain government contracts, they violate the law and economically harm subcontractors who already face numerous disadvantages in the workplace,” added Steven M. Dettelbach, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. “This resolution helps to correct that injustice in this instance.”    

 “Preventing and detecting DBE fraud are priorities for the Secretary of Transportation and the USDOT-OIG,” said Michelle McVicker, OIG regional Special Agent in Charge. “Prime contractors and subcontractors are cautioned not to engage in fraudulent DBE activity and are encouraged to report any suspected DBE fraud to the USDOT-OIG. Our agents will continue to work with the Secretary of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administrator, and our law enforcement and prosecutorial colleagues to expose and shut down DBE fraud schemes throughout Ohio and the United States.”

The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

The Justice Department’s total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 have topped $9.2 billion.

ARMY CEELBRATES THE COMMUNITY COVENANT PROGRAM

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Volunteers with the Richfield, Utah, community covenant team pose in the back of the White House where they were among five winners of the Joining Forces Community Challenged recognized at an April 11, 2012 event. From left, they are Mike Turner, Richfield city councilman; Army Capt. Cody Workman, commander of Richfield's Utah National Guard unit; DonaMae Workman, family readiness group leader for the unit; and Richard Barnett, a city councilman and founder of "Coins for a Camouflage Christmas." U.S. Army photo  

Communities Step Up as Army Celebrates Covenant

By Lisa Daniel

WASHINGTON, April 18, 2012 - When the Army began its Community Covenant program four years ago this week, few could have imagined the grassroots momentum that would take hold, or the effect if would have for families across the services.

Former Army Secretary Pete Geren started the program as an extension of the Army Family Covenant to give extra support to military families. The idea was for communities to fill in gaps where the military couldn't.

"The Army can't send someone out to cut your grass and take care of your pets, but the community can," said Maria Lloyd, who leads the three-person headquarters team in the Pentagon for the community covenant program.

The first community covenant was signed with Columbus, Ga., outside of Fort Benning; now each of the Army's more than 700 garrisons has a signed community covenant, Lloyd said. How active communities are in supporting the covenant -- a nonbinding, largely ceremonial document of support -- is up to them, she added.

Lloyd and others say the program has taken off in big and surprising ways. Some of the most-supported covenants are in small communities, many not even close to active military installations.

Also, communities determined on their own that their support, by way of the covenants, should support military personnel of all services -- active, reserve and National Guard -- and their families, as well as many that support veterans, said Robert Hansgen, also with the Army community covenant office.

"We don't view this as an Army program, we view it as an armed forces program," he said.

Throughout the country, communities are answering the needs of military families -- with priority for those of the deployed -- by taking care of lawns and home repairs, offering legal and tax services, hosting job fairs, giving rides, babysitting and in many other ways, Hansgen and others said. And many are celebrating service members in their communities by hosting social events, having parades, and entertaining military children, he added.

"It's grown in ways we couldn't even have envisioned," Hansgen said. "The more we've empowered them, the more they've taken off on their own."

The program complements the efforts of "Joining Forces," a campaign First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden, wife of Vice President Joe Biden, began last year to energize Americans around supporting military families. The city of Richfield, Utah, was among five winners of the Joining Forces Community Challenge -- from 300 entries -- and was recognized in an April 11 White House ceremony.

Richfield was recognized for its support of its local Army National Guard unit, which has deployed four times since 9/11. Its support, officials say, has ranged from publishing and distributing a city resource guide to military families to waving public utility fees and entertaining the children of deployed members. The community covenant the city signed with the Army in May 2011 formalized that support.

Local communities' initiatives have solved "this challenge of how we connect the national to the local," Hansgen said.

In Chelmsford, Mass., the town government signed a covenant with Hanscom Air Force Base and Fort Devens in 2009 to give structure to the help local people wanted to give, said Pat Wojtas, a member of the town's board of selectmen.

"It's one of those things that if you can't serve, you want to do the next best thing and help those who do serve," she said.

The board, including a member who had just left active duty, created a task force to reach out to local people and businesses to see what offers they might make, then created a database on its website for military families to access the resources.

Chelmsford has provided grocery shopping, snow shoveling, lawn care, legal services, social events, and even remodeled the home of a deployed service member under the covenant that Wojtas said creates a clearinghouse of support.

That soldier, Master Sgt. Ed Devine of the 804th Medical Brigade at Fort Devens, thanked the community at an April 12 community covenant appreciation event for the work they did on his home and other support before he returned from a year-long deployment to Iraq in November 2011.

"When I came home, you would not believe my yard," Devine said. "It was absolutely beautiful. ... They did shopping for us, people cooked dinners. They came to my house and shampooed carpets. I mean, I could go on and on and on."

Sometimes community covenants are led by people who also are part of the military community, such as when Julianne Sanford spearheaded the effort to sign a covenant in Jacksonville, Texas, last year. Sanford, an Army wife, registered nurse and mother of four, was the volunteer readiness leader of the Loan Star Military Resource Group when she decided military families and veterans would be better served if more support came from the civilian community.

With vast knowledge and access to state resources, Sanford put her nursing career on hold and worked to start community support efforts and, ultimately, the signing of a community covenant in May 2011.

"I had all that information," she said. "The year before my husband's unit was to deploy, I said, 'What if we had family readiness for the community, rather than the unit?'

"With all those resources, and the Army suicide rate at an all-time high, I had a burning desire to do something, and I had all these resources in my back pocket," she added.

With the covenant adding credence and structure, Sanford said, the community came together with a resource book, job support, transportation, financial counseling, home maintenance, spiritual counseling, child care services and behavioral health support.

"Because I can speak the military language, I had a bit of an advantage," she said. "If someone in the community wanted to do it, it would help to have that guide."

As an adjunct professor at University of Texas-Tyler, Sanford educated her students about combat disabilities, only to find that three of them are combat veterans, she said. Together, they created information packets with compact discs, including Sanford's contact information and that of specialists who treat combat-related disorders, and distributed them to 60 doctors' offices.

With an email contact list of more than 400, Sanford said, she provided networking, education and outreach, and encouraged health care providers, homeless shelters and employers to ask the people they serve if they are veterans -- an important part of people getting proper treatment and benefits.

Sanford acknowledged that communities can support military families without a covenant, but it would be harder, she said.

"The covenant gave us a little more structure to go by, and something for the community to sink its teeth into," she said. "There's really no wrong way to do it, but the community covenant gives them the basic steps to get started."

CRYOGENICS: THE MILITARY CAN KEEP THINGS COLD

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ARMED WITH SCIENCE
Written on APRIL 23, 2012 AT 7:54 AM by JTOZER
Keeping Cool: Cryogenics And The Military
Story written by Airman 1st Class Zachary Perras
U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Dustin Volpi, 354th Logistics Readiness Squadron fuels distribution supervisor, issues liquid nitrogen to a liquid nitrogen cart. Liquid nitrogen can temporarily shrink mechanical components during machine assembly to perform press fits - the process of fastening two parts by friction. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Jim Araos)
The word “cryogenic” is derived from the Greek words kruos, for frost, and genos, for origin of creation. In essence, cryogenics is the technology and art behind producing low temperatures. Here at Eielson, that art is imperative to the flying mission.

As the dedicated cryogenics expert at Eielson, Staff Sgt. Dustin Volpi knows how the process should function, how to handle and manage liquid nitrogen and oxygen and how to maintain operational readiness for Eielson’s fliers.

“We keep the mission going,” said Volpi, 354th Logistics Readiness Squadron fuels distribution superviser. “Without us, the planes don’t fly. That’s what we do.”

In cryogenics, there is liquid oxygen, primarily used as aviator breathing oxygen, and liquid nitrogen, used to service the emergency power unit, the emergency source of electrical and hydraulic power in the event the onboard generators or engine fails on the F-16 Fighting Falcon. Cryogenics is a heavily inclusive part of the flying mission because of this, Volpi said.

However, cryogenics here is quite different from any other base. When temperatures drop to 50 below zero, limitations arise, affecting the capabilities and how quickly a task can be finished. On top of this, frostbite can easily occur. Since liquid nitrogen boils at minus 321 degrees Fahrenheit and liquid oxygen boils at minus 297 degrees Fahrenheit, the potential for danger rises.

“You can only stay out there for so long because it’s so cold,” Volpi said. “It’s even colder standing by the equipment because the cryogenics are so cold. If you add the environment from the gases boiling off, it gets cold really quick.”

Volpi works with two gases that have been cooled and compressed into a liquid. Just like anything else that has been compressed and sealed, accidents can happen should procedures be overlooked.

“I’ve always tried to keep a real sharp eye and stay one step ahead,” said Volpi. “When things do go wrong in cryogenics, generally it’s not, ‘That was a close call.’ People get injured. If you don’t check the hoses well for deterioration, they could explode. There are no rubber pieces on the hoses – it’s all braided metal and aluminum and it’s all wrapped together to form a tight seal. So when they burst, it sends shrapnel everywhere.”
While cryogenics may seem like a hazardous career field, Volpi has found an admiration for what he works with every day.

“You have to have a healthy respect for the product,” Volpi said. “You always have an inherent danger. Liquid oxygen is combustible and liquid nitrogen displaces oxygen, so there’s the risk of asphyxiation. As long as you’re aware of the dangers and you do what you’re supposed to do, you mitigate those dangers to a very minimal level.”

Despite these risks and the cold environment, Volpi enjoys what he does. Cryogenics has been part of his life for nearly 10 years, making it more than just work.

“It’s a fun job,” he said. “You get to work with stuff that nobody else in the Air Force does. Even though there is no real way to compensate for the cold, it’s part of your job – so you just deal with it and press at it.”
Regardless of how dangerous cryogenics is, Volpi and his team constantly work to provide the necessary means for the F-16s. After all, Eielson’s flying mission largely depends on a functioning cryogenics shop – a shop which Volpi is proud to lead.

RECENT SECURITY OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Afghan, Coalition Forces Capture Insurgent Leaders

Compiled from International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Releases

WASHINGTON, April 24, 2012 - Afghan and coalition forces captured multiple insurgents in eastern Afghanistan today, including three who were leaders in the Taliban and Haqqani networks, military officials reported.

A combined Afghan and international force detained two of the insurgent leaders in Logar province's Pul-e 'Alam district. One is a Haqqani leader who directed roadside bombings and other attacks against Afghan and coalition security forces and provided weapons, ammunition, and explosives to insurgents in the area. The other was a Taliban leader who coordinated attacks against Afghan and coalition troops in the Baraki Barak district.

Also today in the Zurmat district of Paktiya province, a combined force captured a Taliban leader who organized suicide bombings and other attacks against Afghan and coalition forces throughout the district. Serving as a Taliban judge, the man ordered beheadings and other punishments for Afghan civilians living in the area.

The security force detained several additional insurgents in both operations.

In other security operations in Afghanistan today:

-- A combined force detained a Taliban insurgent in Logar province's Baraki Barak district. The man is an explosives expert who coordinated roadside bombings against Afghan and coalition security forces throughout the district.

-- In the Dand district of Kandahar province, a combined security force detained multiple suspects during an operation to detain a Taliban leader who distributes weapons to insurgents for attacks against Afghan and coalition security forces.

-- A combined force detained multiple insurgents during an operation to detain a Taliban leader in the Sangin district of Helmand province. The leader plans and supervises roadside bombings and other attacks against Afghan and coalition security forces.

In operations yesterday:

-- In the Shinwar district of Nangarhar province, an Afghan provincial response team advised by coalition forces detained a Taliban leader and improvised explosive device expert who was responsible for transporting and emplacing IEDs throughout the province, as well as attacks against security forces. Several additional insurgents also were detained.

-- An Afghan provincial response team, working with Afghan security forces and coalition advisors, seized an insurgent weapons cache during an operation to disrupt insurgent weapons trafficking and secure transportation routes in Nangarhar province's Achin district. The cache, consisting of five recoilless rifles, eight rocket-propelled grenades, some small-arms ammunition and IED components, was destroyed on site.

DOOLITTLE RAIDERS HONORED AT CEREMONY MARKING 70Th ANNIVERSARY OF HISTORIC MISSION

Doolittle raiders honored at ceremony marking 70th anniversary of historic mission

PAKISTAN SAFE HAVENS ADD TO PROBLEMS IN AFGHANISTAN

FROM AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Pakistan, Corruption Affect South, West Afghanistan

By Jim Garamone

WASHINGTON, April 24, 2012 - Pakistani safe havens add to the difficulty in Afghanistan's Helmand province, and corruption also retards progress, the former commander of NATO forces in the region said here today.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. John A. Toolan, commander of the 2nd Marine Division and the former commander of Regional Command-South West, told the Defense Writers' Group that during his year-long tour in command of the region the problem of Pakistan frustrated him.

His area of operations in Afghanistan -- the provinces of Helmand and Nimruz and Regional Command-South centered around Kandahar -- are particularly susceptible to interference coming from Pakistan.

Pakistan represents a safe haven for terror groups working inside Afghanistan. The two places inside Pakistan that were problematic are Chaman -- a Pakistani city near Spin Bolduk -- and Bahram Chah. Chaman is a major port of entry on the road to Kandahar. It is free-flowing trade hub and the enemy has built up huge caches of bomb-making material and Taliban supplies.

Bahram Chah is a hub where drugs go out of the country and lethal aid is coming in, Toonan said. "We saw it. We interdicted a lot," he said.

His Marines and their Afghan allies interdicted about $78 million in drugs. "But it's a pittance," he said. "I'm told by DEA that it's less than 12 percent of the opium that's moving across the border."

The Pakistani Army's 12th Corps was positioned across the border, he said. In his year-long tour, Toolan said he didn't have the opportunity to sit down with 12th Corps commanders and say, "'Here's what we're doing on our side of the border. If you can do this on your side of the border, we can really take care of this problem.'"

The problem is, he said, Pakistan has worries of its own and Balochistan, which borders Afghanistan's Helmand and Nimruz provinces, has its own separatist movement underway.

"The Pakistani military knows, "if they start doing things, they could stir up the Balochistan beehive, so they just sit there. And it's frustrating.

Diplomatic pressure on Pakistan is important, "but we don't want to break the Pakistani government," Toolan said.

"From my perspective as a military commander having to deal with the problem, it's like I can't shut the water off, I just keep mopping up the floor," Toolan said. "If I could turn the water off in Pakistan it would be a lot better."

The biggest threat inside Afghanistan is corruption, Toolan said. This threat, he said, consists of two types: parasitic and predatory. Parasitic corruption, he said, is from government officials feathering their own nests.

The general cited an Afghan senator from his area who is "a bad influencer in the south of Afghanistan. He's connected to the drug industry and his influence is to keep that alive."

Toolan said the man in question actively works to weaken the authority of Afghanistan's central government. "As long as the central government allows people like that to operate, it keeps it weak," he said.

Predatory corruption is something military commanders can deal with, Toolan said. This is the abuse of power, he said. This is soldiers or police who abuse their official positions for profit.

"While I was in Helmand province, there were indications that predatory corruption was occurring," the general said. "What we tried to do was to identify it quickly ... and actually hold people accountable."

During his tour in the province, Toolan said the rule of law was starting to take root and the provincial governor and police chief also wanted to crack down on such predatory corruption.

There are solutions, but they will take time, the general said.

"We need to work really hard at strengthening the central government to take on the parasitic corruption, and maintain a close watch and cooperation with government officials to identify predatory corruption," Toolan said.