WHY THE U.S. SHOULD JOIN THE "LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION"

Picture:  Jolly Rodger.  Credit:  Wikimedia.

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Winnefeld: Time for U.S. to Join Law of Sea Convention

By Cheryl Pellerin

WASHINGTON, June 14, 2012 - Accession to the longstanding United Nations Law of the Sea Convention will have a positive impact on U.S. operations across the maritime domain, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said here today.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr. called himself a career sailor and former combatant commander who has come to his own judgment on the value for the United States of the treaty's legal framework governing uses of the oceans.

Winnefeld appeared before the panel with five of the nation's top military officers.

It is "a privilege to appear alongside another generation of military leaders," he said, "as we join in sharing the view that now is the time for the United States to join the Law of the Sea Convention."

The treaty opened for signature in December 1982 and became effective in November 1994, after 60 countries had signed. Today, 162 parties -- including most close U.S. allies -- have ratified the Law of the Sea Convention.

"The convention improves on previous agreements, including the 1958 Geneva Convention," Winnefeld said.

The treaty will protect U.S. access to the maritime domain, fortify U.S. credibility as the world's leading naval power, the admiral added, and will allow the United States to bring to bear the full force of its influence on maritime disputes.

"In short," he said, "it preserves what we have and it gives us yet another tool to engage any nation that would threaten our maritime interests."

But not everyone agrees that the treaty will benefit the United States, Winnefeld acknowledged, adding that defense officials take these concerns seriously.

"Some say that joining the convention would result in a loss of sovereignty for the United States. I believe just the opposite to be true," the admiral said. "Some would say ... that joining the convention will open U.S. Navy operations to the jurisdiction of international courts. We know this is not true."

In 2007, the Senate proposed what it called "declarations and understandings" to the treaty that specifically express the right to exempt military activities from the convention, Winnefeld said. "Many other nations that have acceded [or ratified the treaty] have already exempted their military activities from the treaty without dispute," he noted.

Some believe the convention would require the United States to surrender its sovereignty over warships and other military vessels, the admiral said.

"I can assure you that we will not let this happen and the convention does not require it," he told the Senate panel. "If anything, it further protects our sovereignty in this regard well before we would have to resort to any use of force."

Winnefeld added that joining the convention will protect the United States from "ongoing and persistent efforts on the part of a number of nations, including those with growing economic and military power, to advance their national laws and set precedents that could restrict our maritime activities, particularly within the bounds of their exclusive economic zones."

The term "lawfare" describes such efforts to erode the protections of customary international law, he said.

"It's a trend that's real and pressing and that could place your Navy at legal disadvantage unless we join the convention," the admiral said. "And the nations that would challenge us in this and other ways are, frankly, delighted that we are not a party to the convention."

Winnefeld told the senators that along with Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he finds it awkward to suggest that other nations should follow rules to which the United States has not yet agreed. Ratifying the treaty will give the United States the ability to influence key decisions that could affect the nation's sovereign rights and those of its partners and friends in the Arctic and elsewhere, he said. "This grows more important each day," he added.

The real question, Winnefeld said, is whether the United States will choose to lead in the maritime environment from the inside or follow from the outside.

U.S. military leaders over two decades have studied the problem closely and arrived at the same conclusion, Winnefeld said: "that ratification is in our best interests."

"I join these officers, including every chairman of the Joint Chiefs since 1994, in giving my support to the Law of the Sea Convention and in asking for your advice and consent," he said.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESSES "CULTURE OF WASTEFUL SPENDING" BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE

FROM:  U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Hearing on “Addressing GSA's Culture of Wasteful Spending”
DANIEL TANGHERLINI
ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
"ADDRESSING GSA'S CULTURE OF WASTEFUL SPENDING"
April 16, 2012
Good afternoon Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the Committee.  My name is Daniel Tangherlini, and I am the Acting Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).

I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee today. First and foremost, I want to state my agreement with the President that the waste and abuse outlined in the Inspector General’s (IG) report is an outrage and completely antithetical to the goals and directives of this Administration.  We have taken strong action against those officials who are responsible and will continue to do so where appropriate.  We are taking steps to improve internal controls and oversight to ensure this never happens again.  I look forward to working in partnership with this Committee to ensure there is full accountability for these activities so that we can begin to restore the trust of the American people.

At the same time I am committed to renewing GSA’s focus on its core mission: saving taxpayers’ money by efficiently procuring supplies, services, and real estate, and effectively disposing of unneeded government property. There is a powerful value proposition to a single agency dedicated to this work, especially in these fiscal times, and we need to ensure we get back to basics and conduct this work better than ever.

Promoting Efficiency and Reducing Costs –
The shocking activities and violations outlined in the IG report run counter to every goal of this Administration. The Administration makes cutting costs and improving the efficiency of the Federal government a top priority. On June 13, 2011, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government.” This EO emphasized the importance of eliminating waste and improving efficiency, establishing the Government Accountability and Transparency Board to enhance transparency of Federal spending and advance efforts to detect and remediate fraud, waste, and abuse.

The President further established the goals of this Administration in E.O. 13589, “Promoting Efficient Spending,” which set clear reduction targets for travel, employee information technology devices, printing, executive fleets, promotional items, and other areas. The President’s FY 2013 budget request for GSA would achieve $49 million in savings under this EO, including $9.7 million in travel.

Holding Officials Responsible –
It is important that those responsible for the abuses outlined in the IG’s report be held accountable. We are taking aggressive action to address this issue and to ensure that such egregious actions will never occur again. We have taken a series of personnel actions, including the removal of two senior political appointees. We have also placed ten career employees on administrative leave, including five senior officials.

I intend to uphold the highest ethical standards at this agency and take any action that is necessary and appropriate. If we find any irregularities, I will immediately engage the Inspector General. As I indicated in my joint letter with GSA’s Inspector General, I intend to set a standard that complacency will not be tolerated, and waste, fraud, or abuse must be reported.

I believe this commitment is critical, not only because we owe it to the American taxpayers, but also because we owe it to the many GSA employees who conform to the highest ethical standards and deserve to be proud of the agency for which they work.

Taking Action –
I have taken a number of steps since I began my tenure on April 3, 2012 to ensure this never happens again. GSA has consolidated conference oversight in the new Office of Administrative Services, which is now responsible for:
Oversight of contracting for conference space, related activities, and amenities;
Review and approval of proposed conferences for relation to GSA mission;
Review and approval of any awards ceremonies where food is provided by the Federal government;
Review and approval of conference budgets as well as changes to those budgets;
Oversight and coordination with GSA conference/event planners and contracting officers on conference planning;

Review of travel and accommodations related to conference planning and execution;
Handling of procurement for all internal GSA conferences; and
Development of mandatory annual training for all employees regarding conference planning and attendance.
Additionally, we have cancelled the 2012 Western Regions Conference as well as a number of other conferences that only or primarily involved internal staff. To date, I have cancelled 35 conferences,1 saving taxpayers $995,686. As we put in place greater controls and oversight, we are reviewing each event to make sure that any travel is justified by a mission requirement.

We have also begun review of employee relocations at government expense, and will require all future relocations to be approved centrally by both the Chief People Officer and the Chief Financial Officer.

To strengthen internal controls, we are bringing in all Public Buildings Service regional budgets under the direct authority of GSA’s Chief Financial Officer. The autonomy of regional budget allocations is, in part, what led to this gross misuse of taxpayer funds on both the regional conference and the employee rewards program known as “Hats Off.” The additional approvals and centralized oversight are intended to mitigate the risk of these problems.

In response to concerns over spending on employee rewards programs, I have eliminated the “Hats Off” store that was operating in the Pacific Rim Region, as well as all similar GSA programs.

I am moving aggressively to recapture wasted taxpayer funds. As a first step, on April 13th, I directed that letters be sent to Bob Peck, Jeff Neely, and Robert Shepard demanding reimbursement for private, in-room receptions at the Western Regions Conference. I will pursue other fund recovery opportunities.
I am engaged in a top to bottom review of this agency. I will continue to pursue every initiative necessary to ensure this never happens again and to restore the trust of American taxpayers.

Conclusion –
The unacceptable and inappropriate activities at the Western Regions Conference stand in direct contradiction to the express goals of this agency and the Administration, and I am committed to ensuring that we take whatever steps are necessary to hold those responsible accountable and to make sure that this never happens again. At the same time, I believe that the need for a high quality GSA is more acute today than in any time in its history. We need to refocus this agency and get back to the basics: streamlining the administrative work of the Federal government to save taxpayers money.

I look forward to working with this Committee moving forward and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions.
 Thank you.

1A conference is “a symposium, seminar, workshop, or other organized or formal meeting lasting portions of 1 or more days where people assemble to exchange information and views or explore or clarify a defined subject, problem or area of knowledge.”

STANFORD GETS 110 YEARS FOR INVESTMENT FRAUD

FROM:  U.S. DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE
 Thursday, June 14, 2012
Allen Stanford Sentenced to 110 Years in Prison for Orchestrating $7 Billion Investment Fraud Scheme
WASHINGTON – R. Allen Stanford, the former board of directors chairman of Stanford International Bank (SIB), was sentenced today in Houston to a total of 110 years in prison for orchestrating a 20-year investment fraud scheme in which he misappropriated $7 billion from SIB to finance his personal businesses.

The sentencing was announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson of the Southern District of Texas; FBI Assistant Director Kevin Perkins of the Criminal Investigative Division; Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration Phyllis C. Borzi; Chief Postal Inspector Guy J. Cottrell; and Richard Weber, Chief of Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).

On March 6, 2012, Stanford, 62, was convicted on 13 of 14 counts by a federal jury following a six-week trial and approximately three days of deliberation.  The jury also found that 29 financial accounts located abroad and worth approximately $330 million were proceeds of Stanford’s fraud and should be forfeited.

Stanford was sentenced by U.S. District Judge David Hittner.  After considering all the evidence, including more than 350 victim impact letters that were sent to the court, Judge Hittner sentenced Stanford to 20 years for conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, 20 years on each of the four counts of wire fraud as well as five years for conspiring to obstruct a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation and five years for obstruction of an SEC investigation.  Those sentences will all run consecutively.  He also received 20 years for each of the five counts of mail fraud and 20 years for conspiracy to commit money laundering which will run concurrent to the other sentences imposed today for a total sentence of 110 years.

As part of Stanford’s sentence, the court also imposed a personal money judgment of $5.9 billion, which is an ongoing obligation for Stanford to pay back the criminal proceeds.  The court found that it would be impracticable to issue a restitution order at this time.  However, all forfeited funds recovered by the United States will be returned to the fraud victims and credited against Stanford’s money judgment.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, the vehicle for Stanford’s fraud was SIB, an offshore bank owned by Stanford and based in Antigua and Barbuda that sold certificates of deposit (CDs) to depositors.  Stanford began operating the bank in 1985 in Montserrat, the British West Indies, under the name Guardian International Bank.  He moved the bank to Antigua in 1990 and changed its name to Stanford International Bank in 1994.  SIB issued CDs that typically paid a premium over interest rates on CDs issued by U.S. banks.  By 2008, the bank owed its CD depositors more than $8 billion.
According to SIB’s annual reports and marketing brochures, the bank purportedly invested CD proceeds in highly conservative, marketable securities that were also highly liquid, meaning the bank could sell its assets and repay depositors very quickly.  The bank also represented that all of its assets were globally diversified and overseen by money managers at top-tier financial institutions, with an additional level of oversight by SIB analysts based in Memphis, Tenn.

As shown at trial, this purported investment strategy and management of the bank’s assets was followed for only about 10-15 percent of the bank’s assets.  Stanford diverted billions in depositor funds into various companies that he owned personally, in the form of undisclosed “loans.”  Stanford was thus able to continue the operations of his personal businesses, which ran at a net loss each year totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, at the expense of depositors.  These businesses were concentrated primarily in the Caribbean and included restaurants, a cricket tournament and various real estate projects.  Evidence at trial established Stanford also used the misappropriated CD money to finance a lavish lifestyle, which included a 112-foot yacht and support vessels, six private planes and gambling trips to Las Vegas.

According to evidence presented at trial, Stanford continued the scheme by using sales from new CDs to pay existing depositors who redeemed their CDs.  In 2008, when the financial crisis caused a slump in new CD sales and record redemptions, Stanford lied about personally investing $741 million in additional funds into the bank to strengthen its capital base.  To support that false announcement, Stanford’s internal accountants inflated on paper the value of a piece of real estate SIB had purchased for $63.5 million earlier in 2008 by 5,000 percent to $3.1 billion, despite the fact there were no independent appraisals or improvements to the property.
         
The trial evidence also showed that Stanford perpetuated his fraud by paying bribes from a Swiss slush fund at Societe Generale to C.A.S. Hewlett, SIB’s auditor (now deceased), and Leroy King, the then-head of the Antiguan Financial Services Regulatory Commission.
         
In addition to Stanford, a grand jury in the Southern District of Texas previously indicted several of his alleged co-conspirators, including: James Davis, the former chief financial officer; Laura Holt, the former chief investment officer; Gil Lopez, the former chief accounting officer; Mark Kuhrt, the former controller; and King.  Davis has pleaded guilty and faces up to 30 years in prison under the terms of his plea agreement.  The trial of Holt, Kuhrt and Lopez, which was severed from Stanford’s trial, is scheduled to begin before Judge Hittner on Sept. 10, 2012.  They are presumed innocent unless and until convicted through due process of law.

The investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Houston Field Office, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, IRS-CI and the U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration.  The case was prosecuted by Deputy Chief William Stellmach and Trial Attorney Andrew Warren of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and former Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Gregg Costa of the Southern District of Texas.  AUSA Kristine Rollinson of the Southern District of Texas and Trial Attorney Kondi Kleinman of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division assisted with the forfeiture proceeding, and AUSA Jason Varnado and Fraud Section Deputy Chief Jeffrey Goldberg assisted with the sentencing proceeding.

The Justice Department also wishes to thank several countries for their ongoing cooperation during the investigation and prosecution of Stanford and his co-conspirators, including the Governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Switzerland, the Cook Islands, the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man.

REMARKS BY CLINTON, PANETTA AND KOREAN DEFENSE MINISTER KIM KWN-JIN

Photo:  Refueling Over Korea.  Credit:  U.S. Air Force. 
FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-Hwan and Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-Jin After Their Meeting




Remarks Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea Kim Sung-Hwan, Minister of National Defense of the Republic of Korea Kim Kwan-Jin
Thomas Jefferson Room
Washington, DC
June 14, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me welcome all of you, particularly our Korean friends, to the Thomas Jefferson Room here in the State Department. Today, Secretary Panetta and I hosted the second session of the U.S.-Republic of Korea Foreign and Defense Ministerial Consultation, what we call our 2+2 meeting. And it is a great pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Kim and Defense Minister Kim to Washington as we continue to find ways to strengthen the global alliance and cooperation between our countries.

Today we discussed how our partnership has advanced in the three years since our two presidents set forth their joint vision for the alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States. We are combating piracy together in the Indian Ocean, investing in sustainable development in Africa, promoting democracy and the rule of law and human rights around the world. It would be difficult to list all the ways we are working together.

We touched on how we are deepening our economic cooperation. Just a few months ago, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement officially entered into force, and it is already creating jobs and opportunities on both sides of the Pacific.

It is fitting that today is the Global Economic Statecraft Day at the State Department, because around the world in all of our embassies we are highlighting economic cooperation. And our relationship with the Republic of Korea is a textbook example of how our economic statecraft agenda can boost growth and create jobs.

As Korea has developed into an economic powerhouse, it has also steadily assumed greater responsibilities as a global leader. Today, it is an anchor of stability in the Asia Pacific and a go-to partner for the United States.

On the security side of our dialogue, we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic alliance between our countries. Secretary Panetta will speak to our military cooperation, but I want to emphasize that the United States stands shoulder to shoulder with the Republic of Korea, and we will meet all of our security commitments. As part of this, we discussed further enhancements of our missile defense and ways to improve the interoperability of our systems.

Today we also agreed to expand our security cooperation to cover the increasing number of threats from cyberspace. I am pleased to announce that the United States and Korea will launch a bilateral dialogue on cyber issues. Working together, we can improve the security of our government, military, and commercial infrastructure, and better protect against cyber attacks.

With regard to North Korea, our message remains unchanged. North Korea must comply with its international obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874. It must abandon its nuclear weapons and all existing nuclear programs, including programs for uranium enrichment. And it must finally put the welfare of its own people first and respect the rights of its own citizens. Only under these circumstances will North Korea be able to end its isolation from the international community and alleviate the suffering of its people.

So again let me thank the ministers for our excellent discussions. And let me thank the Korean people for the friendship between our countries that continues to grow.
And now let me turn it over to Foreign Minister Kim.

FOREIGN MINISTER KIM: (Via interpreter) Let me first thank Secretary Clinton and Secretary Panetta for inviting Minister Kim and I to the ROK-U.S. 2+2 ministerial meeting. This meeting was first held for the first time in 2000 in Seoul. That was 60 years since the Korean War. And I am pleased that we held today the second 2+2 ministerial meeting this time in Washington. We took note that a number of alliance issues are proceeding as planned, and we had our agreement in that this will contribute to a greater combined defense system.

And we also agreed that should North Korea provoke again, then that we will show a very decisive response to such provocation. But we also shared our view that the road to dialogue and cooperation is open should North Korea stop its provocation and show a genuine change in its attitude by taking concrete measures.

Also, in order to enhance deterrence against North Korea’s potential provocation using nuclear and conventional forces, we decided to develop more effective and concrete (inaudible) policies. We also agreed to promote bilateral cooperation regarding North Korea, just as Secretary Clinton just mentioned, against cyber security threats, and will in this regard launch a whole-of-government consultative body.

We are concerned the human rights situation, the quality of life of the North Korean people, have reached a serious level and urge the North Korean Government to respect the human rights of its people and to improve their living condition.

The Republic of Korea welcomes the U.S. policy that places emphasis on the Asia Pacific. We agree that the increased U.S. role within the Asia Pacific region will greatly contribute to peace and stability in this region. We welcome the efforts of the Government of Myanmar to advance democracy and improve human rights and continue supporting such efforts.

Today’s meeting was very productive and meaningful in that it allowed us to review the current status of the alliance. And we also agreed to discuss a way forward for our strategic cooperation. We’ll continue to hold this 2+2 ministerial meeting in the future.

SECRETARY PANETTA: Secretary Clinton, Ministers, I was very pleased to be able to participate in this very important 2+2 meeting. I want to commend Secretary Clinton for her leadership in guiding us through this discussion, and also thank both ministers for their participation.

I’ve been very fortunate over the past year, since becoming Secretary of Defense, to have developed a very strong working relationship with my Korean counterparts. I’ve been – I made a visit to Korea last fall, and we have had a series of consultations such as this 2+2. I just returned, as many of you know, from a two-week trip to the Asia Pacific region, where I met with Minister Kim at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. And at the time, I made clear that the United States has made an enduring commitment to the security and prosperity of the Asia Pacific region, including the Korean Peninsula.

I also made clear that our military will rebalance towards the Asia Pacific region as part of our new defense strategy. As part of that strategy, even though the U.S. military will be smaller in the future, we will maintain a strong force presence in Korea which reflects the importance that we attach to that relationship and to the security mission that we are both involved with.

The United States and the Republic of Korea face many common security challenges in the Asia Pacific region and around the world, and today, we affirmed our commitment to forging a common strategic approach to addressing those challenges. I’m very pleased that we are progressing on our schedule to achieve the goals that we outlined in our Strategic Alliance 2015 base plan. We remain on track to transition operational control by December 2015 in accordance with the base plan timeline.

As the Strategic Alliance 2015 initiative proceeds, we will continue to consult closely with the Republic of Korea in order to ensure that the steps that we are taking are mutually beneficial and strengthen our alliance. During our meeting, we also discussed ways that we can further strengthen our alliance, including greater cooperation in the area of cyber security. To that end, we are making our bilateral military exercises more realistic through the introduction of cyber and network elements.

Another way to strengthen and modernize our alliance is by expanding our ongoing trilateral collaboration with Japan. On my trip to Asia, I was pleased to participate in a trilateral discussion that included the Republic of Korea and Japan, because this kind of security cooperation helps strengthen regional security and provides the additional deterrent with respect to North Korea. I’d like to thank the ministers again for their commitment to this alliance, and I look forward to hosting Minister Kim in Washington for the 44th Security Consultative Meeting in October. This alliance has stood the test of time, and today, we affirmed that it will remain an essential force for security and for prosperity in the 21st century.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Defense Minister.

DEFENSE MINISTER KIM: (Via interpreter) Today’s 2+2 ministerial meeting was held at a strategically critical moment amid continuing provocation threats from North Korea and volatile security environment in North Korea, a time which calls for a proactive alliance response.

Through today’s meeting, the two countries confirmed once again that the ROK-U.S. alliance is more solid than ever, and made it very clear that the alliance will strongly and consistently respond to any North Korean provocation, in particular regarding North Korean nuclear and missile threat. The ROK and the U.S. agreed to strengthen policy coordination to reaffirm the strong U.S. commitment to provide extended deterrents and to develop extended deterrent policies in an effective and substantial way. We also agreed to strengthen alliance capability against North Korea’s increasing asymmetric threats such as cyber threats like the DDoS attack and GPS jammings.

Furthermore, the two countries confirmed that the 2015 transition of operational control and the building of a new combined defense system are progressing as planned. We also confirmed that they were – ROK military will acquire the critical – military capabilities needed to lead the combined defense, and the U.S. military will provide bridging and engineering capabilities.

The two countries also confirmed that USFK bases relocation projects such as YRP and LPP are well underway and agreed to work to ensure that these projects are completed in time. We assess that combined exercises in the West Sea and Northwest Islands deter North Korean provocation and greatly contribute to the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula. We agreed to continue these exercises under close bilateral coordination.

Next year marks the 60th anniversary of the ROK-U.S. alliance which was born in 1953 with the signing of the ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty. In the past six decades, the two countries worked to ensure a perfect security of the peninsula and have developed the alliance into the most successful alliance in history. In the future, the two countries will expand and deepen the scope and level of defense cooperation from the Korean Peninsula, and to the regional and global security issues, will continue evolving the alliance into the best alliance in the world for the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula, and of the world. Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Scott starts.

QUESTION: Can we do it the reverse? I’m sorry. Scott and I always do this, get it a little confused. But in any case, thank you, Madam Secretary. I’d like to start out with Egypt, please. What is your reaction to dissolving parliament? Is this a step backwards?

And then also on Syria: For the second day in the media and the news, we’re talking about the weapons and the helicopters. By making this such a high-profile issue – and by pinning your strategy of shaming the Russians, are you running the risk of allowing Moscow to define what happens or doesn’t happen in Syria? In other words, I guess, where is the American strategy?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, with regard to Egypt, we are obviously monitoring the situation. We are engaged with Cairo about the implications of today’s court decision. So I won’t comment on the specifics until we know more.

But that said, throughout this process, the United States has stood in support of the aspirations of the Egyptian people for a peaceful, credible, and permanent democratic transition. Now ultimately, it is up to the Egyptian people to determine their own future. And we expect that this weekend’s presidential election will be held in an atmosphere that is conducive to it being peaceful, fair, and free. And in keeping with the commitments that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces made to the Egyptian people, we expect to see a full transfer of power to a democratically elected, civilian government.

There can be no going back on the democratic transition called for by the Egyptian people. The decisions on specific issues, of course, belong to the Egyptian people and their elected leaders. And they’ve made it clear that they want a president, a parliament, and a constitutional order that will reflect their will and advance their aspirations for political and economic reform. And that is exactly what they deserve to have.

Let me also note that we are concerned about recent decrees issued by the SCAF. Even if they are temporary, they appear to expand the power of the military to detain civilians and to roll back civil liberties.

Now regarding Syria, I spoke extensively about Syria yesterday. Our consultations with the United Nations, our allies and partners, and the Syrian opposition continue on the best way forward. Today, my deputy, Bill Burns, had a constructive meeting in Kabul with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. We don’t see eye to eye on all of the issues, but our discussions continue. And President Obama will see President Putin during the G-20 in Mexico.

We’re also intensifying our work with Special Envoy Kofi Annan on a viable post-Assad transition strategy. And I look forward to talking to him in the days ahead about setting parameters for the conference that he and I have discussed and that he is discussing with many international partners. Our work with the Syrian opposition also continues. Ambassador Ford is in Istanbul today for a conference with the opposition that Turkey is hosting.

So we’re working on multiple fronts. I think our strategy is very clear. We want to see an end to the violence, and we want to see the full implementation of Kofi Annan’s plans, including the political transition so that the people of Syria have the same opportunity that the people of the Republic of Korea or the United States have to choose their own leaders and to build their own future. And the work is urgent, because as you know, the Syrian Government continues to attack its own people, and the bloodshed has not ceased. And we have to do everything we can to end the violence and create a framework for a transition.

MS. NULAND: Next question: Kang Eui-Young from Yonhap News, please.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Thank you for the opportunity to give you question. I’m – name is Kang from the Yonhap News Agency. My question is for Minister – Defense Minister Kim. It is written in this statement that you have decided to develop a comprehensive alliance approach towards the missile defense. I want to know what this means. If you are referring to the missile defense, are you intending to build a Korea air missile defense or are you saying that you will be integrated into a U.S.-led missile defense? Could you elaborate on what missile defense system you are envisioning? You mention comprehensive alliance defense system. What – how does this build into the U.S.-led assistance?

DEFENSE MINISTER KIM: (Via interpreter) The position of the ROK military regarding the missile defense is this given the terrain of the Korean Peninsula. The most effective approach is a low-tier defense. And how will this be linked to the U.S. missile defense system? This is of the analysis – the studies that are being conducted right now. That’s what I mean by saying an effective combined air defense system.

QUESTION: Secretary Panetta, is the United States expanding intelligence gathering across Africa using small, unarmed, turbo-prop aircraft disguised as private planes, as reported by The Washington Post?

SECRETARY PANETTA: Well, I’m not going to discuss classified operations in that region, other than to say that we make an effort to work with all of the nations in that region to confront common threats and common challenges. And we have closely consulted and closely worked with our partners to develop approaches that make sure that the nations of that very important region do not confront the kind of serious threats that could jeopardize their peace and prosperity.

MODERATOR: Today’s last question will be from Ju Young Jim of SBS.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Reporter from the SBS, Ju. This is a question for Defense Minister Kim and Secretary Panetta. Right now, the Korean media is dealing – covering very extensively about the range extension of the Korean ballistic missiles and that the ROK side is insisting on 800 kilometer whereas the U.S. is insisting on 500 kilometer, where although the countries have agreed on the payload. Senator Carl Levin said that he is positive when it comes to the range extension. Has this issue been discussed at the 2+2, and will the two countries be able to show a concrete outcome by the end of the year?
One additional question is – this one is for Secretary Clinton. Kim Jong-un, the new leader, he has taken over his father, deceased father, and is now already six month as the new leader. How do you assess his leadership so far?

DEFENSE MINISTER KIM: (Via interpreter) Let me first address this range extension issue. This is still being discussed on the working level. This issue was not dealt at today’s 2+2 ministerial meeting.

SECRETARY PANETTA: In consultation and negotiations with the Republic of Korea with regards to this area, I think we’re making good progress. And our hope is that we can arrive at an agreeable solution soon.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Regarding the new leader in North Korea, I believe leaders are judged by what they do to help their people have better lives, whether they create stability and security, prosperity, opportunity. And this new young leader has a choice to make, and we are hoping that he will make a choice that benefits all of his people.

And we also believe strongly that North Korea will achieve nothing by threats or provocations, which will only continue to isolate the country and provide no real opportunity for engagement and work toward a better future. And so we hope that the new leadership in Pyongyang will live up to its agreements, will not engage in threats and provocations, will put the North Korean people first. Rather than spending money on implements of war, feed your people, provide education and healthcare, and lift your people out of poverty and isolation.

This young man, should he make a choice that would help bring North Korea into the 21st century, could go down in history as a transformative leader. Or he can continue the model of the past and eventually North Korea will change, because at some point people cannot live under such oppressive conditions – starving to death, being put into gulags, and having their basic human rights denied. So we’re hoping that he will chart a different course for his people.

MS. NULAND: Thank you very much.

THE CLOSING OF THE JP MORGAN LOOPHOLE AND THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF AMERICA

FROM:  U.S. SENATOR CARL LEVIN’S WEBSITE
Why Michigan Needs Us to Close the JPMorgan Loophole
You’ve probably seen the recent news coverage of losses at the nation’s largest bank, JPMorgan Chase. And you may have seen some of the resulting coverage about bank regulations and something called the “Volcker Rule.” I want to give you my sense of why this is such an important issue to Michigan families and businesses.

JPMorgan is a bank, and it does the things you and I use banks for – it offers checking and savings accounts, makes loans for people to buy cars or houses or to invest in their businesses, and so on. But other parts of JPMorgan get involved in little-known financial markets. That’s where JPMorgan made a very big and complicated bet that now has gone very wrong. When JPMorgan first disclosed the problem, it said the bank would lose at least $2 billion, and those losses are likely to grow.

This is bad news for JPMorgan. But is it bad news for the rest of us? Yes, for two major reasons.

First, the bank accounts that consumers and businesses have deposited at JPMorgan are insured by the federal government. That means if the bank loses so much money that it goes out of business, the FDIC has to cover those bank accounts, and that’s a hit to the federal treasury.

Second, JPMorgan is a very big bank – so big, in fact, that if it went out of business, or even was significantly weakened, it could cause problems for the whole economy.
That’s what happened in 2007 and 2008 during the financial crisis. Large financial institutions made big, risky bets, just like the bets JPMorgan is now losing. Those losses got so big that the institutions either failed or had to be bailed out by taxpayers to keep them from failing. The crisis shut down credit markets and decimated the economy; only the fact that the federal government stepped in with taxpayer dollars to stop the bleeding prevented a full-blown depression.

In 2010, Congress took action to prevent this cycle of big-bank losses and financial crisis. We passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. This historic legislation plugged lots of different holes in our financial system. The provision relevant to the JPMorgan scandal is one that I wrote along with Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

Our legislation put into law something known as the “Volcker Rule.” It’s named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who has said that banks that hold federally insured deposits, or are so large that their failure would put the economy at risk, should not be allowed to make the kind of risky financial bets that are now costing JPMorgan so much money. Sen. Merkley and I fought hard during the Wall Street reform debate to put that principle into law, and despite lots of opposition from Wall Street, we succeeded.

The law we wrote, if enforced, would have prevented these trades. But the battlefield moved from Congress to the federal agencies that must write detailed rules to implement our law and then enforce those rules. JPMorgan and other banks lobbied those agencies to delay the law and to put a loophole in the rules that would allow these kinds of risky bets. A preliminary draft of the rules included just such a loophole.

Sen. Merkley and I and other members of Congress are pushing back. We want to strengthen the spines of our regulatory agencies and make sure that the final rules, due in a few weeks, eliminate the “JPMorgan loophole” that would allow banks to continue making risky bets.

Financial crises start on Wall Street, but they hit Michigan hard. The last crisis came at the worst moment for Michigan, at a vulnerable time for our auto companies. It hit us when we had already been suffering tough economic times. Tens of thousands of Michiganians lost jobs, homes or businesses because of the last crisis.

Now that Michigan is bouncing back, we can’t let another crisis sparked by risky bets on Wall Street put us all in danger. I’ll keep working with my colleagues to make sure that rules are in place to help prevent another crisis.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ARMY

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS
Panetta Praises Legacy on Army's 237th Birthday
WASHINGTON, June 14, 2012 - In a message congratulating the Army on its 237th birthday, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta today praised soldiers who built the service's legacy and those who now carry it forward.
Here is the text of the secretary's message:
As we mark the birthday of the United States Army, I want to congratulate this great American institution for 237 years of distinguished service in defense of this country. The proud story of the American soldier is one of honor, valor, patriotism, and sacrifice in the service of their countrymen. From those earliest volunteers who stepped forward to join the ranks of the Continental Army to those who fought at Gettysburg, in the Argonne Forest, at Normandy, Bastogne, in Korea and Vietnam, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American soldier has shaped the course of world history.

I am proud of the opportunity I had to serve in the ranks of the United States Army. I¹ll always cherish those memories of Army life, and the honor I felt in being part of an extraordinary team.

For ten long years the Army has shouldered a heavy burden, fighting in Iraq¹s city streets and in the mountains of Afghanistan. And through it all, American soldiers stepped bravely forward, marched off towards the sound of the guns, and gave everything to provide for our security, to give all Americans a better, safer future. They have done everything this country has asked of them and more.

I have been deeply fortunate in my position as Secretary of Defense over this past year to have visited many Army installations and thousands of soldiers serving around the world, including those on the front lines. These soldiers, and their families, carry forward the proud and distinguished legacy we celebrate today, and because of their dedication, the United States Army will remain the strongest in the world.

LT. COLONEL SENTENCED FOR BRIBERY IN IRAQ

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Sentenced to 41 Months in Prison for Bribery Related to Contracting in Support of Iraq WarDefendant Accepted $250,000 in Bribes Related to Bottled Water Contracts in Kuwait

WASHINGTON – A retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army was sentenced yesterday to 41 months in prison for engaging in bribery related to his work as a contracting officer’s representative in Kuwait from 2004 to 2006, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

Derrick L. Shoemake, 50, of Moreno Valley, Calif., was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee in the Central District of California.  In addition to his prison term, Shoemake was sentenced to two years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $181,900 in restitution and forfeit $68,100.

Shoemake pleaded guilty in June 2011 to two counts of bribery.  According to court documents, Shoemake was deployed to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, as a contracting officer’s representative in charge of coordinating and accepting delivery of bottled water in support of our troops in Iraq.  While serving in Kuwait, Shoemake agreed to assist a contractor with his delivery of bottled water.  In return, the contractor paid Shoemake a total of approximately $215,000, most of which was delivered to Shoemake’s designee in Los Angeles.  Shoemake received an additional $35,000 from a second contractor for his perceived influence over the award of bottled water contracts in Afghanistan.  All told, Shoemake admitted receiving approximately $250,000 from these two government contractors in 2005 and 2006.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Richard B. Evans of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and Trial Attorney Mark W. Pletcher of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section.  The case is being investigated by the Army Criminal Investigations Division, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the FBI, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security and members of the National Procurement Fraud Task Force and the International Contract Corruption Task Force (ICCTF).

RENEWABLE ENERGY COMMITMENT AND THE SERVICE

Photo Credit:  Wikipedia.
FROM AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE 
Service Officials Affirm Commitment to Renewable Energy
By Amaani Lyle
WASHINGTON, June 13, 2012 - Army and Air Force senior leaders said they remain confident that industry partnerships will help develop large-scale renewable energy projects on the services' posts and installations.

During the Joint U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force Industry Day yesterday, Katherine Hammack, assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment, and Terry Yonkers, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics, explored ways to leverage private sector capital in pursuit of cost-effective energy security strategies.

Ideas range from alternative fuel research and development, rooftop solar panels, and power-generating wind turbines, according to Hammock and Yonkers.
Hammack said behavioral changes and efficiency measures such as smart grid technology can reduce base and installation electrical loads.

"We hope to get energy security, and access to secure reliable uninterrupted power on posts and installations and do it at a lower cost," she said.

"It all adds up to overall energy security on our installations and the reduced cost of doing business -- that's really the focus," Yonkers said. "It's a pragmatic, practical approach to energy security, economic security and diversifying our portfolio."

As the cost of alternative and biofuels decreases over time, service officials said they also want to strengthen domestic capabilities by upping purchasing power for tactical and non-tactical operations.

"We are ... ready and willing to purchase about 2 billion gallons of [alternative and biofuels] on an annual basis," Yonkers said.

Yonkers and Hammack said they will continue dialogue with industry to ensure policies and procedures are as transparent and predictable as possible.

While officials assert the Army's and Air Force's overall goal of developing 1 gigawatt, equivalent to 1 billion watts, of renewable power on their installations by 2025, is attainable, costs could run has high as $7-8 billion per gigawatt, leaving the DOD to rely heavily on third-party investors to overcome technical challenges, build renewable energy capacity, and strengthen energy security, Yonkers and Hammack said.

CHILDREN AND ARMED CONFLICTS

Photo:  Handing Out Candy In Afghanistan.  Credit: U.S. Department of Defense.
FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Children Affected by Armed Conflict
Overview
The use of child soldiers is well documented. Over 300,000 children under the age of 18 are fighting as soldiers in over 30 countries for government forces or armed groups. While some child soldiers are as young as 7, most are between the ages of 14 and 18 and many others are between the ages of 10 and 14. Many are abducted from their families or from the streets. Some are abducted from schools. Other children are driven into armed forces by poverty or alienation from their families and communities. Orphans, refugees and other displaced children are particularly at risk.

The involvement of children in armed conflict exposes them to the risk of death and serious injury. Many times the experience can leave children traumatized and hinder efforts to readapt to ordinary life. Children that do not directly participate in fighting but are attached to armed units also engage in hazardous work such as carrying heavy loads and walking long distances. Like children involved in armed conflict and children attached to armed units, children who live in areas experiencing armed conflict frequently miss out on years of education and other opportunities to develop social and economic skills. They are exposed to a variety of other risks, including HIV/AIDS and, in the case of girls, pregnancy and early motherhood.

Key International Agreements
The "forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict" is recognized as one of the worst forms of child labor under International Labor Organization Convention No. 182, which the United States ratified in 1999.

In December 2002, the United States also ratified the UN Optional Protocol on the Use of Children in Armed Conflict, which raises the minimum compulsory recruitment age to 18 for service in State Party armed forces. The Optional Protocol also calls on ratifying governments to work to ensure that members of their armed forces who are under 18 do not take direct part in hostilities, and it promotes international cooperation in the rehabilitation and social integration of victims of acts contrary to the protocol.

SMALL PLANETS DON'T NEED STARS WITH HEAVY METAL CONTENT TO FORM

MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. -- The formation of small worlds like Earth
previously was thought to occur mostly around stars rich in heavy
elements such as iron and silicon. However, new ground-based
observations, combined with data collected by NASA's Kepler space
telescope, shows small planets form around stars with a wide range of
heavy element content and suggests they may be widespread in our
galaxy.

A research team led by Lars A. Buchhave, an astrophysicist at the
Niels Bohr Institute and the Centre for Star and Planet Formation at
the University of Copenhagen, studied the elemental composition of
more than 150 stars harboring 226 planet candidates smaller than
Neptune.

"I wanted to investigate whether small planets needed a special
environment in order to form, like the giant gas planets, which we
know preferentially develop in environments with a high content of
heavy elements," said Buchhave. "This study shows that small planets
do not discriminate and form around stars with a wide range of heavy
metal content, including stars with only 25 percent of the sun's
metallicity."

Astronomers refer to all chemical elements heavier than hydrogen and
helium as metals. They define metallicity as the metal content of
heavier elements in a star. Stars with a higher fraction of heavy
elements than the sun are considered metal-rich. Stars with a lower
fraction of heavy elements are considered metal-poor.

Planets are created in disks of gas and dust around new stars. Planets
like Earth are composed almost entirely of elements such as iron,
oxygen, silicon and magnesium. The metallicity of a star mirrors the
metal content of the planet-forming disk. Astronomers have
hypothesized that large quantities of heavy elements in the disk
would lead to more efficient planet formation. It has long been noted
that giant planets with short orbital periods tend to be associated
with metal-rich stars.

Unlike gas giants, the occurrence of smaller planets is not strongly
dependent on the heavy element content of their host stars. Planets
up to four times the size of Earth can form around stars with a wide
range of heavy element content, including stars with a lower
metallicity than the sun. The findings are described in a new study
published in the journal Nature.

"Kepler has identified thousands of planet candidates, making it
possible to study big-picture questions like the one posed by Lars.
Does nature require special environments to form Earth-size planets?"
said Natalie Batalha, Kepler mission scientist at NASA's Ames
Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif. "The data suggest that small
planets may form around stars with a wide range of metallicities --
that nature is opportunistic and prolific, finding pathways we might
otherwise have thought difficult."

The ground-based spectroscopic observations for this study were made
at the Nordic Optical Telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands;
Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory on Mt. Hopkins in Ariz.; McDonald
Observatory at the University of Texas at Austin; and W.M. Keck
Observatory atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii.

Launched in March 2009, Kepler searches for planets by continuously
monitoring more than 150,000 stars, looking for telltale dips in
their brightness caused by passing, or transiting, planets. At least
three transits are required to verify a signal as a planet. Follow-up
observations from ground-based telescopes are also needed to confirm
a candidate as a planet.

Ames manages Kepler's ground system development, mission operations
and science data analysis. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, Calif., managed the Kepler mission development.

Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. in Boulder, Colo., developed the
Kepler flight system and supports mission operations with the
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of
Colorado in Boulder.

The Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore archives hosts and
distributes Kepler science data. Kepler is NASA's 10th Discovery
Mission and is funded by NASA's Science Mission Directorate at the
agency's headquarters in Washington.

ISAF JOINT COMMAND REPORT FOR AFGHANISTAN JUNE 14, 2012

Photo:  U.S. and Afghan Forces Fighting Insurgents.  Credit:  U.S. Army.

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE

Combined Force Kills Taliban Leader

Compiled from International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Releases

WASHINGTON, June 14, 2012 - An Afghan-led, coalition-supported security force killed the Taliban commander, Fayez Jan, and one additional insurgent during an operation in the Daman district of Afghanistan's Kandahar province today, military officials reported.

As Afghan and coalition troops approached Fayez Jan's location, they were attacked with small-arms fire, officials said. The security force returned fire, killing Fayez Jan and one additional insurgent.

Fayez Jan constructed, distributed and directed the placement of improvised explosive devices throughout Daman and Shah Wali Kot districts, officials said. At the time of his death, Fayez Jan was planning to launch an IED attack against Afghan and coalition convoys in the area.

Two Afghan males injured in the battle were transported to coalition medical facilities for treatment, officials said.

In other Afghanistan operations today:

-- A combined force captured a Taliban leader and detained two suspects in the Nawah-ye Barakzai district of Helmand province. The captured leader armed and coordinated the movement of Taliban insurgents throughout the region. He also instructed insurgents on the use and placement of IEDs.

-- A combined force detained several suspects while searching for a Taliban leader in the Kajaki district of Helmand province. The leader commands more than a dozen Taliban insurgents and directs attacks throughout the region.

In June 13 operations:

-- Combined forces killed three insurgents during a firefight in Kunar province's Watahpur district.

-- Combined forces detained four insurgents in the Maidan Shahr district of Warkak province.

-- Combined forces detained one insurgent in the Baraki Barak district of Logar province.

In June 11 operations:

-- Combined forces killed several insurgents, detained several suspects, and seized drugs, weapons and ammunition during a helicopter-enabled operation in the Reg-e Khan Neshin district of Helmand province. Afghan forces stopped a suspicious vehicle and conducted a search, resulting in the detention of several individuals. The search of the vehicle yielded 1,606 pounds of dry opium and 3,500 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition. One of the detainees led the security forces to another vehicle that was hidden in the desert. Within the second vehicle the security forces found one rocket-propelled grenade launcher, four RPG anti-tank rounds, four machine guns, five hand grenades, several IED-making components, and 440 pounds of homemade explosives.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE BAY REMEMBERED IN FLAG DAY COMMEMORATIONS

FROM:  AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE
The amphibious dock landing ship USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) transits past Naval Station Norfolk, Va., as part of OpSail 2012 in Norfolk, Va., commemorating the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, June 6, 2012. The parade includes an international fleet of naval vessels as well as waterborne and air assets from the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Army Corps of Engineers and other government and private organizations. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Julie Matyascik







Navy Ships Participate in Flag Day, War of 1812 Commemorations
By Donna Miles
WASHINGTON, June 14, 2012 - Ten Navy ships, including USS Fort McHenry, are commemorating Flag Day today at the site of the historic War of 1812 battle 200 years ago that inspired the National Anthem.

Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen will take part in Flag Day events at Fort McHenry, the star-shaped fortress that endured what's become one of the most remembered engagements of the war.

On the night of Sept. 13, 1814, British ships in Baltimore harbor bombarded the outgunned U.S. resistance at the fort for 25 solid hours. Francis Scott Key, a civilian lawyer who was sent to Baltimore to negotiate an American hostage's release, found himself in a front-row seat to the battle aboard a British ship.

As dawn broke the following morning, Key stood on the ship's deck, amazed to see the U.S. flag still flapping in the breezes over the battered fort. He was so moved that he penned the poem that became the lyrics of the National Anthem.

The Navy ships in Baltimore are part of a flotilla making its way up the Eastern Seaboard to mark the bicentennial of the war that historians say marked the dawn of U.S. naval power.

Eighteen tall ships, including the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Eagle, and navy vessels from Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico and Norway are accompanying the Navy gray hulls in the "Star Spangled Sailabration."
The flotilla spent 12 days in Norfolk before arriving today in Baltimore for a week of activities including a tall ship parade, an air show by the Navy's Blue Angels flight demonstration squadron, fireworks and a parachute jump into Camden Yards.

The festivities, co-sponsored by Operation Sail Inc., are part of a lineup of bicentennial commemorations that kicked off in April in New Orleans and will continue through 2015. Organizers hope to engage the public with educational events and programs across the South, the Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes regions and into Canada to highlight America's maritime heritage and the War of 1812.

Beyond the Battle of Fort McHenry, many Americans have little understanding of what's been called America's first forgotten war.

The War of 1812 centered on maritime disputes between the United States and Great Britain. In the early 1800s, the Royal Navy, which was at war with France, was stopping American ships to search for sailors born in England, then forcibly pressing them into service for the crown. Both the French and English began seizing American ships, and later imposed an embargo on American vessels going to Europe that nearly bankrupted the industry. President James Madison ultimately declared war against England in 1812.
Among the most remembered events was the burning of the White House, the Capitol and the Washington Navy Yard. Dolly Madison, alone with her servants when British troops torched the White House, personally saved the famous Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington by carting it off in a wagon to Georgetown.

Army Gen. Andrew Jackson became a national hero as he led the Battle of New Orleans, ending Britain's long string of land victories.

But with naval battles in North America, off South America and Great Britain, and in the Pacific and Indian oceans, the War of 1812 was predominantly a sea campaign. It served as a defining moment for the fledging U.S. Navy, which fought the British as they tried to blockade the Atlantic coast and support land forces from Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, leading to the birth of America's modern sea services.

"The War of 1812 is significant because it paved the way for future development of the U.S. Navy," said U.S. Naval War College Professor Kevin McCranie, author of the soon-to-be-released book, "Utmost Gallantry: The U.S. and Royal Navies at Sea in the War of 1812."

"Challenging the most dominant naval power of the time, the less powerful U.S. Navy found ways to protract the war and incurred significant costs for Great Britain," he said. "That's why the War of 1812 is important for national leaders to study."

The war also helped establish the Navy's legacy of heroes. Oliver Hazard Perry, who had been dispatched from Newport, R.I., constructed ships on the shores of Lake Erie that went on to defeat a large British armada assembled there. Capt. James Lawrence, aboard the U.S. frigate Chesapeake as it was taken by HMS Shannon, uttered as his last words, the famous battle cry, "Don't give up the ship."

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who announced the bicentennial celebration last year, said the activities will recognize the men and women who continue to carry on this tradition. He called the bicentennial an opportunity to celebrate the U.S. Navy's heritage and its continued commitment to securing unobstructed access and free use of the world's oceans that are vital to national security and prosperity.

"This 'second war of independence,' fought 200 years ago, established U.S. sea power as a force in the world, and our continuing presence in the great blue and beyond," he said. "As we commemorate Old Glory and the War of 1812, we ought to remember the delicate weaving of history that has brought America to this place of great influence and greater responsibility."

Event organizers also call it a way to underscore the importance of a strong international goodwill. William Armstrong Jr., from Operation Sail pointed out that the three combatants in the conflict have become close allies.

The United States and Canada share the longest unprotected national boundary in the world, he noted during the May Parade of Sail event in Norfolk. Meanwhile, the United States and Great Britain have become not only trading partners, but also military and political allies.

U.S. ECONOMIC RELATIONS IN AFRICA AND THE AGOA FORUM

Photo:  Cargo Ship.  Credit:  Wikimedia.
FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Briefing on U.S. Trade and Investment Policy in Africa and the Upcoming AGOA Forum
Special Briefing Johnnie Carson
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs Deputy Trade Representative Ambassador Demetrios Marantis
Via Teleconference
June 13, 2012

MR. VENTRELL: Hi, everyone, and good afternoon. Thanks for being patient as we’re a couple minutes late here today. But today’s call is on-the-record. We have with us Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, and Deputy Trade Representative Ambassador Demetrios Marantis. They’re both here to discuss and to preview U.S. participation in the upcoming AGOA Forum.
And so without further ado, I’m going to turn it over to Assistant Secretary Carson. Go ahead.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: Okay. Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be with all of you this afternoon to talk a little bit about the African Growth and Opportunity Act. AGOA was created in May of 2000, and the session which begins tomorrow is the 12th in a row. Last year’s African Growth and Opportunity Forum was held in Lusaka, Zambia. The AGOA is our most important trade legislation in respect to opening up our markets for African goods and services. We remain committed to AGOA. We believe that it has brought substantial economic, commercial, and trade benefits to a number of the countries that have participated. It is a program which is widely valued across the African continent. And it is a program which has resulted in a substantial increase in African exports into the United States market.

At this AGOA Forum, we will be hearing from the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk, but we will also be hearing from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has been very, very engaged in the AGOA Forum since becoming Secretary of State in 2009. She has been a co-host with Ambassador Kirk of the forum here in Washington in 2010. She attended the forum in Kenya in 2009, and also, again, the AGOA Forum in Lusaka, Zambia in 2011.
I’ll stop right there.

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: And hi, this is Demetrios Marantis from USTR. I just want to echo that – what Johnnie said. We are really excited to be hosting the AGOA Forum this year. You all know that AGOA really is the cornerstone of our trade and economic relationship with Sub-Saharan Africa. As Johnnie said, we have had major success with AGOA over the years. It’s really helped to promote new nontraditional and value-added exports from Africa. There’s been a pretty substantial increase in trade over the past year. In particular with AGOA trade, it’s up 22 percent over last year.
But the big purpose, I think, of the AGOA Forum over the next two days is to talk about how to enhance Africa’s infrastructure for trade. And that’s important because our market is fully open to products coming from Africa. And the challenge over the years that AGOA has been in place is: How do African countries best avail themselves of the opportunities presented by AGOA? And one of the key bottlenecks has been in the area of infrastructure. And so by working through this AGOA Forum to help enhance Africa’s trade infrastructure, we hope that we will help our partners in Sub-Saharan Africa better take advantage of the opportunities that AGOA provides so that they may have better access to our market.

Another key issue that will come up that many of you have heard a lot about is third-country fabrics, which, as many of you know, is a critical provision of AGOA. It expires in September of this year if Congress doesn’t renew it. This provision really is fundamental to the survival of Africa’s textile and apparel sector, as well as to the continued effectiveness and success of AGOA. President Obama is ready to sign a third-country fabric legislation as soon as it gets to his desk once it’s passed by Congress, and I expect this issue will be front and center of the minds of our African counterparts who rely on third-country fabrics to help promote growth and opportunity in Africa.
So with that, I think we can move on to questions.

MR. VENTRELL: Operator, can we go ahead and get our first question?

OPERATOR: Thank you. And once again, if you do have a question, please press *1 to ask a question. The first question comes from Matt Schewel with the Inside U.S. Trade. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, thank you for taking the call. This question is for Ambassador Marantis. You mentioned the third-country fabric provision, and Ambassador Kirk earlier today said he shared the frustration that Congress has delayed passing that. I guess in the Senate, it appears that Senator Hatch stopped an effort by Senator Baucus to move that forward. Has USTR and State engaged with Senator Hatch on this? And what’s been the outcome?

And secondly, would you say – how high on your priority list would you say that the passage of this AGOA third-country fabric bill along with the CAFTA fixes – how big of a priority is it for the Administration prior to when it expires in September? And if you can’t get it done by then, would you make those provisions retroactive so that they would apply from September 2012, whenever it is passed? Thanks.

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: Thank you. This is a huge priority of the Administration, from the President on down. We have been working very hard interagency to urge Congress to renew the third-country fabric provision. We strongly support the bill that’s out there that contains renewal of third-country fabric as well as the CAFTA fixes, and we will continue to do everything we can to urge Congress to pass this as quickly as possible. The danger is the longer this stays out there the certainty that’s essential to buyers who want to source their goods from Africa, it becomes much less certain. And so the sooner Congress passes third-country fabric, the more certainty we can provide for both our African colleagues as well as for the U.S. companies that rely on AGOA third-country fabric for their sourcing.

QUESTION: Would you say that it’s a top priority? I mean, maybe after Russia PNTR? Or how would you characterize it on your trade policy legislative agenda?

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: No one likes to pick among their children, but this is a top priority for us. This is critical that we get it done. And as I think Ambassador Kirk said today in his speech, the President intends to sign legislation renewing the third-country fabric provision as soon as Congress sends it to his desk. So we’re ready to go, and we will continue to do whatever we can to urge Congress to get it done.

QUESTION: Would you make it retroactive, or is that even a thought right now?

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: I mean, that’s a question for Congress in terms of what legislation they pass. But we are working very hard to get this done quickly, and I hope we’re not in that position.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Emily Glass with newspaper Le Mauriciem. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes. Hi. This is actually Pamela Glass with Le Mauriciem (inaudible). In follow-up to that good question about the third-country fabric, I had actually two parts. First of all, it was mentioned by your earlier questioner about Senator Hatch having a hold on this really in getting it to the floor. And I was wondering what the Administration is planning to do as part of its strategy to get the senator to finally release this, if I could use that term, and support the legislation. And also, how aware is Congress, do you think, that this is such an important issue to the economies of many countries like Mauritius in terms of employment and trade issues? And those are my two questions. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: Sure. On your first one, I mean, we have a very close working relationship with our committees of jurisdiction on trade issues, the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committee. And we are working closely with them to urge swift passage of the third-country fabric provision. I do think that there is increased awareness in Congress about how essential this is, as you said, to employment and to the continued survival of Africa’s textile and apparel sector. What’s going to be, I think, very valuable at the AGOA Forum is we are providing opportunities for interaction between our African counterparts and congressional staff and members of Congress so that they can have a continued dialogue amongst themselves about how important third-country fabric is to many countries from Mauritius to Lesotho to Kenya, you name it.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: Demetrios, Johnnie Carson. Let me, if I could, add to what you’ve just said and note that we also in the Department of State have a very close relationship with the senior members of – in the House and the Senate on the Africa subcommittees. To this end, at the AGOA Forum, we have set aside time for the ranking Democrat and the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to actually address the AGOA Forum participants about third-country fiber and where it stands on the Hill, as well as to talk about other trade-related issues. So the Democratic chairman, Senator Coons, is scheduled to speak, and his counterpart, Senator Johnny Isakson, the ranking Republican from Georgia, is also scheduled to speak.

I and my other senior colleagues here in the Department of State have talked with both of those senators as well as others on the House and the Senate side on the Foreign Relations Committee about this. We also know that delegations of African ambassadors have also met with members of the House and the Senate, and there is, in fact, widespread discussion, at least on the Foreign Affairs committee, as we can see about this issue.

QUESTION: What do you think is the real hang up on this? Are we playing some politics going into the elections?

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: I think there’s a widespread recognition that it’s important to renew third-country fabric. And I think we are – we the Administration – State, USTR – are working closely with Congress in order to do that.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: But I would underscore that we have worked with members on both sides of the aisle and in both parties on this. And as I point out that Senator Johnny Isakson and Senator Coons will both be sharing of the stage together tomorrow on this issue. And both of them have a similar set of principles.

QUESTION: But what is your understanding as to why this hasn’t moved forward, with all the support coming out of the Administration?

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: Should we move – I mean, I think we should probably move on to the next question.

QUESTION: Can we get an answer to that one, please?

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: As I said, the – we are working very closely with our – with the House and Senate to try to get this done. I mean, we’re not in a position to speculate as to why something is moving quickly or not moving quickly. We are all working together with the same goal, which is to get third-country fabric done as soon as possible.

OPERATOR: Thank you. The next question comes from Len Bracken with Bloomberg. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Oh, hi, Ambassador Marantis. If I remember right, last year you spoke a little bit about possible AGOA reform. And I wonder if you could give us an update on some of the conversations you’ve had in that regard over the course of the past year. And also if you could remind me, what it will take – I mean, sort of the – for the seamless renewal of AGOA, when does it expire, and that sort of thing, and also what you would be on the lookout for in terms of infrastructure. Will there be any new initiatives on that front?

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: Sure. Well, as you pointed out, at last year’s AGOA Forum, Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Kirk both announced that the Obama Administration supports a seamless renewal of AGOA. AGOA – the third-country fabric provision of AGOA expires in September, but the larger AGOA statute expires in 2015. And we are working to ensure, as Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Kirk said, that there is a seamless renewal. Again, it’s important for the certainty that our African counterparts, as well as those who rely on AGOA, that they have the certainty that AGOA will not expire and that there is a very smooth transition between the current AGOA and the future AGOA.

What AGOA will look like will ultimately be a decision for Congress, since they will have to work very carefully through the current statute and whether and how to amend it. But we are working very closely on an interagency basis to think about a lot of the questions that we are asked about AGOA and how to make the program work better. And I think the conference over the next two days will help answer some of the questions about infrastructure. For example, I think the participants in this year’s AGOA forum will focus on questions like how to develop the infrastructure to improve Africa’s competitiveness, how to improve the business climate, and how to improve effective regulation of key infrastructure sectors to promote more investment in infrastructure so that these countries in Sub-Saharan Africa can better take advantage of AGOA. How do you advance Africa’s regional economic integration by promoting things like trade facilitation, regulatory harmonization, et cetera?

So there are a lot of questions about how to secure a seamless renewal of AGOA and what a post-2015 AGOA should look like. And I hope that this forum this year we will get a lot of input from our counterparts in Africa as to what’s been working, what’s not been working, and that can help factor into the decisions that we and Congress will have to make before 2015.

OPERATOR: Next question comes from Doug Palmer with Reuters. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks for doing this. Hey, Ambassador Marantis, could you just briefly explain to me, since I haven’t been following the issue, what it is the CAFTA fixes would do?

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: Sure, Doug. The CAFTA fixes are designed to help promote the use of regional fabric in our trade with our CAFTA partners. We will get you, after this call, a more detailed fact sheet, because there are a number of prongs to the CAFTA fixes that I don’t remember off the top of my head.

QUESTION: Okay. Okay. And then my other questions have all been asked, kind of, in one way or another, but I thought I would try one more time. I mean, at the Brookings Institution today, Ambassador Kirk said that he’s – it seemed like there was almost universal support in Congress for this measure, but it seems like partisan politics was getting in the way of getting it done. So, I mean, are you all saying that Republicans for one reason or another, perhaps to embarrass the Administration by not having this done before the forum, have held up action on this?

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: No, decidedly not, actually. I mean, we have strong bipartisan support, as Johnnie was saying, for third-country fabric. There is a wide recognition among Democrats and Republicans in Congress that AGOA third-country fabric is a vital provision for AGOA, for the competitiveness of Africa’s textile and apparel sector, and for the kinds of jobs that AGOA produces in Africa by creating opportunities to trade with the United States. So this is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of just getting – how do we best get it done as quickly as possible, what’s the right legislative vehicle to do it, and just how to move this quickly through the House and Senate calendars.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Mr. Akande with the Empowered Newswire. Your line is open.

Mr. Akande, please check your mute button. Your line is open.
Mr. Akande, did you have a question?

MR. VENTRELL: Let’s go ahead to the next question.

QUESTION: Yes. My name is Laolu Akande. I’m sorry. I just got (inaudible). I just wanted to ask specifically, how will – how can the U.S. Government summarize the impact of AGOA on sub-Saharan countries, especially like Nigeria, in the last two years? And while we are still in the area of the economy, I’d like to know whether the United States as a leading member of the G-20 is ever going to consider bringing Nigeria to the G-20 or what it thinks a country like Nigeria ought to be doing to be a member of the G-20 club. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: I can talk about that from the economic perspective, and Johnnie will, I’m sure, have things to add. I mean, AGOA has been a big success. It’s achieved measurable results over the years in terms of increasing bilateral trade between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa to, I believe, the figure is approximately $95 billion. And what’s been so important, I think, is that what AGOA has helped to do is to diversify trade between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa in terms of new products, value-added ag products, textile and apparel products, processed food, things that really weren’t traded between the U.S. and Africa before.

Nigeria has been a big beneficiary of AGOA. I believe that two-way trade between the U.S. and Nigeria is approximately $38 billion, and that’s up roughly 12 percent from last year. Nigeria has been a benefit – a big beneficiary under AGOA for petroleum products. But they’ve – but Nigeria has also benefitted from non-oil products, particularly cocoa, rubber, seeds, grains, nuts, and those types of products. And our challenge with Nigeria, as with any of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, is how do we take the success that we’ve had in AGOA and multiply it, and how do we work to increase the opportunities that Nigerians and other Sub-Saharan exporters have under AGOA to export to the United States.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: Let me just add just two quick comments to say that since the inception of AGOA in the year 2000, there has been a 300 percent increase in total two-way trade between the United States and in Africa. And this shows substantial growth in non-oil sectors but especially textiles and leather-related goods, including shoes. South Africa has taken probably the greatest advantage in the diversity of products that it exports from that country into the U.S. market, including some exports of motor vehicles coming in from that country.

Let me say something about Nigeria otherwise as well. Nigeria is one of the two most important countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, along with South Africa. Its market is one of the largest given the fact that it has a population of 160-170 million people. It stands to benefit enormously from continued economic growth there. We hope that the benefit that it derives from AGOA will help to stimulate even further its economic growth and development, and we want generally to be a strong, engaged trading partner with Nigeria, given its large population and the enormous economic promise and potential that it holds for those who are engaged in commerce with it.

OPERATOR: The next question comes from Ababe with the Voice of Germany African Disk. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you so much. I have two questions. One is for Mr. Marantis. As we all know, there seems to be a shift in international trade and infrastructure in the Horn of Africa especially. China is becoming a major player in trade and economic infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa. I can mention Ethiopia. How do you think this shift of partnership in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially in Ethiopia, affect U.S. access to African markets?

And the second question is for Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson. How do you relate building economic partnership with Sub-Saharan African countries with addressing the situation of democracy and human rights and good governance in those countries?
Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARANTIS: On your first question, I mean, what’s been remarkable about particularly the past decade in Sub-Saharan Africa is the expansion of trade with the United States, with China, but more importantly the expansion of trade among Sub-Saharan African countries. And I think the work – whether it’s us, whether it’s the Chinese, whether it’s the EU does in terms of helping to develop Africa’s infrastructure – really helps to reinforce Africa’s own efforts to achieve regional economic integration. And that’s a huge priority of ours in the United States is to help underpin the initiatives underway, whether it’s through the tripartite negotiations to achieve a free trade agreement in Sub-Saharan Africa, whether it’s efforts that the East African Community is undertaking to further liberalize trade amongst its members. And there’s just – it’s been, and we’ve seen the effects of that in terms of increased trade – increased trade, increased investment, and increased prosperity.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: On the issue of democracy and economic development, there is no tension between strengthening democratic institutions and promoting good governance and economic development and sustained economic growth. In fact, we like to believe – and I think we’re right – that countries that do in fact practice democracy, who do in fact have good governance, that have good government institutions, good rule of law, good judicial systems, and that have respect for contracts that fight corruption – all things that are common in democratic societies – also help to produce better environments for free market economic activities.

We think that democratic values help to put in place a respect for the rules of the game, whether it is respect for human rights or respect for labor contracts or respect for contracts between two companies or a company and an individual or a company and a government. Democratic values help to underpin respect for corporate contracts, protection of patents, protection of mining agreements, and protection of intellectual property. So there is no tension between democracy and market economies. And as I say, democracy with good institutions and judicial systems help to strengthen the opportunity for greater economic development and market growth.

MR. VENTRELL: Okay, everyone. I don’t think we have any additional questions in the queue, so thank you all for joining and take care this afternoon.