STATE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES TESTIFIES ON NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR TESTING

Bridge of No Return.  Korean Border.  Credit:  CIA World Factbook.

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Policy Toward North Korea
Testimony
Glyn Davies
Special Representative for North Korea Policy
Testimony Before the Senate Committee On Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
March 7, 2013

Chairman Menendez, Senator Corker, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on U.S. policy toward the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

Nearly sixty years have passed since the conclusion of the armistice that ended the hostilities of the Korean War, yet North Korea still persists as one of the thorniest challenges confronting the United States and the international community. Pyongyang’s February announcement of a third nuclear test—conducted in brazen defiance of the demands of the United Nations Security Council—and its subsequent threats to conduct even more follow-on "measures" are only the latest in a long line of reminders that the DPRK’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and proliferation activities pose serious threats to U.S. national security, to regional security in the Asia-Pacific, and to the global nonproliferation regime.

Pyongyang continues to violate its international obligations and commitments, including to denuclearize. Its human rights record remains deplorable. Its economy is stagnant. Its people are impoverished. It pours significant sums into nuclear and ballistic missile programs that are forbidden by the United Nations. The leadership’s choices are isolating North Korea from the international community. International outrage against North Korea and its provocative and threatening actions, meanwhile, continues to grow.

The DPRK has consistently failed to take advantage of the alternatives available. The United States offered—and has continued to offer—Pyongyang an improved relationship with the United States and integration into the international community, provided North Korea demonstrated a willingness to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and address other concerns. The DPRK rebuffed these offers and instead responded with a series of provocations that drew widespread international condemnation.

Pyongyang appeared prepared to enter a period of serious diplomatic engagement in mid-2011, and the United States responded with a proactive, nearly-year-long diplomatic effort to push forward on denuclearization in a way that would lay the groundwork for improved bilateral relations. Starting in July 2011 and continuing over the next ten months, the United States and the DPRK held three rounds of bilateral denuclearization talks on three continents. In our meetings, we worked to forge the conditions necessary for resuming the Six-Party Talks, which had been stalled since 2008. Shortly after Kim Jong Un’s assumption of power, we reached a modest but potentially important bilateral understanding announced on February 29, 2012.

Pyongyang announced its commitment to, among other things, a moratorium on nuclear tests, long-range missile launches, and all nuclear activity, including uranium enrichment activity, at the Yongbyon nuclear complex. North Korea also committed to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to return to Yongbyon to monitor the cessation of uranium enrichment and confirm the disablement of plutonium-related facilities there.

But just 16 days later, North Korea reneged on these commitments by announcing its intent to launch a satellite into orbit. Such launches use ballistic missile technology proscribed by multiple UN Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs), and we had made it abundantly clear during our negotiations that such a launch, even if characterized as a satellite launch, would be a deal-breaker. Pyongyang nevertheless conducted such a launch on April 13 and was greeted by deep international opprobrium. All five Six-Party partners—China, Russia, the United States, the Republic of Korea (ROK), and Japan—joined a long list of states publicly condemning Pyongyang’s provocation. The UN Security Council unanimously issued a Presidential Statement condemning the act as a "serious violation" of UNSCRs 1718 and 1874, tightened existing sanctions, and made clear its commitment to "take action accordingly" in the event of another launch.

North Korea again brazenly defied the international community on December 12, 2012, with another long-range missile launch, again characterized by the DPRK as a satellite launch, in flagrant violation of UN Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874 and in the face of united public and private calls by the international community to desist. Over 60 countries and international organizations issued statements criticizing the launch. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted UNSCR 2087, which condemned the launch, further expanded the scope of sanctions on the DPRK, and promised "significant action" in the event of a future DPRK missile launch or nuclear test.


The announcement of a nuclear test which Pyongyang proclaimed was targeted against the United States, represents an even bolder threat to U.S. national security, the stability of the region, and the global nonproliferation regime. The international response has been unprecedented. Over 80 countries and international organizations from all corners of the world have decried the test. Many are speaking out against DPRK provocations for the first time. As the list continues to grow, it is increasingly clear that an international consensus is coalescing in opposition to North Korea’s destabilizing activities.

We are working with the international community to make clear that North Korea’s nuclear test has costly consequences. In adopting Resolution 2087 in January after the December launch, the UN Security Council pledged to take "significant action" in the event of a nuclear test; we are working hard at the UN Security Council to make good on that pledge. We are intensively engaged with our Six-Party partners, members of the UN Security Council, and other UN member states on a strong and credible response by the international community.

China’s support for firm action remains key, and we are deeply engaged with the Chinese in shaping an appropriate response. We are strengthening our close coordination with our Six-Party partners and regional allies. And—through a whole-of-government approach, working closely with our partners in the Department of Defense and other agencies—we will take the steps necessary to defend ourselves and our allies, particularly the ROK and Japan. We have reassured both Seoul and Tokyo, at the highest levels, of our commitment to extended deterrence through the U.S. nuclear umbrella, conventional capabilities, and missile defense.

North Korea’s WMD, ballistic missile, conventional arms, and proliferation activities constitute a serious and unacceptable threat to U.S. national security, to say nothing of the integrity of the global nonproliferation regime, which many around the world have labored—over generations—to devise, nurture, and enforce. Effective, targeted multilateral and national sanctions will consequently remain a vital component of our efforts to impede the DPRK’s efforts to advance its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and proliferation activities. UNSCR 2087 was an important step forward in this regard. Combined with the measures in resolutions 1718 and 1874, UNSCR 2087 further constricts North Korea’s efforts to procure weapons components, send agents abroad, smuggle dual-use items, and make headway on its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

Full and transparent implementation of these resolutions by all UN member states, including China, is critical. We are actively engaged with the international community to underscore the importance of full enforcement of these measures.

We also continue to exercise national authorities to sanction North Korean entities, individuals, and those that support them in facilitating programs that threaten the American people. Most recently, on January 24, the Departments of State and the Treasury designated a number of North Korean individuals and entities under Executive Order 13382, which targets actors involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters. The Department of State designated the Korean Committee for Space Technology—North Korea’s space agency—and several officials directly involved in North Korea’s April 2012 and December 2012 launches, which contributed to the DPRK’s long-range ballistic missile development efforts. The Department of the Treasury designated several Beijing-based North Korean officials linked to the DPRK’s Tanchon Commercial Bank, which has been designated by the UN and the United States for its role in facilitating the sales of conventional arms, ballistic missiles, and related items. The Treasury Department also targeted Leader (Hong Kong) International Trading Limited, a Hong Kong-based firm, for its links to the Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation, the DPRK’s premier arms dealer and exporter of missile- and weapon-related goods.

We will continue to take national measures as appropriate. We are also working closely with the UN Security Council’s DPRK sanctions committee and its Panel of Experts, the EU and like-minded partners, and others around the globe to harmonize our sanctions programs and to ensure the full and transparent implementation of UNSCRs 1718, 1874, and 2087, which remain the heart of the multilateral sanctions regime.

Sanctions are not a punitive measure, but rather a tool to impede the development of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs and proliferation-related exports, as well as to make clear the costs of North Korea’s defiance of its international obligations. Working toward our endgame—the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner—will require an openness to meaningful dialogue with the DPRK. But the real choice is up to Pyongyang.

We remain committed to authentic and credible negotiations to implement the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and to bring North Korea into compliance with its international obligations through irreversible steps leading to denuclearization. The President made this clear last November when he said, "…let go of your nuclear weapons and choose the path of peace and progress. If you do, you will find an extended hand from the United States of America." But let me state the obvious: North Korea’s reckless provocations have certainly raised the bar for a return to dialogue.

The United States will not engage in talks for the sake of talks. Rather, what we want are negotiations that address the real issue of North Korea’s nuclear program. Authentic and credible negotiations therefore require a serious, meaningful change in North Korea’s priorities demonstrating that Pyongyang is prepared to meet its commitments and obligations to achieve the core goal of the September 2005 Joint Statement: the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.

This leads to some other important principles. First and foremost, the United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state. We will not reward the DPRK for the absence of bad behavior. We will not compensate the DPRK merely for returning to dialogue. We have also made clear that U.S.-DPRK relations cannot fundamentally improve without sustained improvement in inter-Korean relations and human rights. Nor will we tolerate North Korea provoking its neighbors. These positions will not change.

In the meantime, active U.S. diplomacy on North Korea—on a wide range of issues—continues. Close coordination with our valued treaty allies, the ROK and Japan, remains central to our approach.

ROK President Park Geun-hye and President Obama agree on the need for continued close U.S.-ROK coordination on a range of security issues, including North Korea. We are confident of President Park’s commitment to the U.S.-ROK alliance and anticipate close consultation with her administration on its North Korea strategy. Close consultation will also continue with Japan. During his visit to Washington in late February, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Obama agreed to continue working together closely in responding to the threat posed by North Korea, including through coordination on sanctions measures.

We have also expanded our engagement by developing new dialogues on North Korea with key global actors who have joined the rising chorus of regional and global voices calling on North Korea to fulfill its commitments, comply with its international obligations, and refrain from provocative acts that undermine regional security and the global nonproliferation regime.

China, however, remains central to altering North Korea’s cost calculus. Both geography and history have endowed the People’s Republic of China with a unique—if increasingly challenging—diplomatic, economic, and military relationship with the DPRK. Close U.S.-China consultations on North Korea will remain a key locus of our diplomatic efforts in the weeks and months ahead as we seek to bring further pressure to bear on North Korea and, over the longer term, seek genuine diplomatic openings to push forward on denuclearization.

While denuclearization remains an essential focus of U.S. policy, so, too, does the welfare of North Korea’s nearly 25 million people, the vast majority of whom bear the brunt of their government’s decision to perpetuate an unsustainable, self-impoverishing military-first policy. While the DPRK devotes limited resources to developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and devising ways to avoid sanctions, one in three North Korean children is chronically malnourished, according to a 2009 UNICEF estimate. An elaborate network of political prison camps in the country is reportedly estimated to contain 100,000-200,000 inmates, who are subjected to forced labor, torture, and starvation. It has been reported that whole families have been condemned—in most cases without trial—when one member commits an alleged crime. The courageous and charismatic Shin Dong-hyuk, whose life story is chronicled in Blaine Harden’s excellent book, Escape from Camp 14, was born in one of the most infamous political prison camps and spent the first 23 years of his life there. He was not only tortured and subjected to forced labor, but was also cruelly made to witness—at the age of 14—the execution of his mother and his brother.

Even outside this prison-camp system, the North Korean government dictates nearly all aspects of people’s lives through a highly structured social classification system called songbun, which it uses to divide North Korea’s population into categories. This system, in turn, determines access to education and health care, employment opportunities, place of residence, and marriage prospects. Improving human rights conditions is an integral part of our North Korea policy, and how the DPRK addresses human rights will have a significant impact on prospects for improved U.S.-DPRK ties.

The world is increasingly taking note of the grave, widespread, and systematic human rights violations in the DPRK and demanding action. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has called for an in-depth international inquiry to document abuses. We support this call, and next week, my colleague Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues Robert King will travel to Geneva to attend the UN Human Rights Council’s 22nd session, where he will call attention to North Korea’s human rights record and urge the adoption of an enhanced mechanism of inquiry into the regime’s abuses against the North Korean people.

We continue, meanwhile, to engage countries across the globe to raise awareness about North Korea and enlist their help in pushing for action. We are also working with international and non-governmental organizations to improve the situation on the ground for the North Korean people, including by supporting the flow of independent information into the DPRK. Working with the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and independent broadcasters in the ROK, we aim to provide information to the North Korean people and—over the longer term—plant the seeds for the development of civil society.

The Obama Administration’s dual-track policy of engagement and pressure toward the DPRK reflects a bipartisan recognition that only a policy of openness to dialogue when possible, combined with sustained, robust pressure through sanctions when necessary, can maximize prospects for progress in denuclearizing North Korea.

Progress on this decades-old problem will not be achieved easily or quickly. We cannot and should not dignify or, worse, feed the North Korean narrative that U.S. actions determine DPRK behavior. North Korea makes its own choices, selects its own timing, and is alone responsible for its actions. Similarly, we need to bear in mind that this is certainly not now—if it ever truly was—solely or even primarily a bilateral U.S.-DPRK issue. It is, rather, increasingly a global issue that requires an entrepreneurial approach, multilateral diplomacy and—yes—continuing, robust American leadership.

But above all else, genuine progress requires a fundamental shift in North Korea’s strategic calculus. The DPRK leadership must choose between provocation or peace, isolation or integration. North Korea will not achieve security, economic prosperity, and integration into the international community while it pursues nuclear weapons, threatens its neighbors, tramples on international norms, abuses its own people, and refuses to fulfill its longstanding obligations and commitments.

The international community has been increasingly clear about this, and so have we. The DPRK leadership in Pyongyang faces sharp choices. And we are working to further sharpen those choices. If the North Korean regime is at all wise, it will re-embark on the path to denuclearization for the benefit of the North Korean people, the Northeast Asia region, and the world.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

"THE EVOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION" INFORMATION FROM THE CIA WORLD FACTBOOK

FROM: CIA WORLD FACTBOOK

The evolution of what is today the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's hybrid intergovernmental and supranational organization of 27 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history. Dynastic unions for territorial consolidation were long the norm in Europe; on a few occasions even country-level unions were arranged - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were examples. But for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is unique.

Although the EU is not a federation in the strict sense, it is far more than a free-trade association such as ASEAN, NAFTA, or Mercosur, and it has certain attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, currency (for some members), and law-making abilities, as well as diplomatic representation and a common foreign and security policy in its dealings with external partners.

Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries.

Following the two devastating World Wars in the first half of the 20th century, a number of European leaders in the late 1940s became convinced that the only way to establish a lasting peace was to reconcile the two chief belligerent nations - France and Germany - both economically and politically. In 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert SCHUMAN proposed an eventual union of all Europe, the first step of which would be the integration of the coal and steel industries of Western Europe. The following year the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was set up when six members, Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, signed the Treaty of Paris.

The ECSC was so successful that within a few years the decision was made to integrate other elements of the countries' economies. In 1957, envisioning an "ever closer union," the Treaties of Rome created the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), and the six member states undertook to eliminate trade barriers among themselves by forming a common market. In 1967, the institutions of all three communities were formally merged into the European Community (EC), creating a single Commission, a single Council of Ministers, and the body known today as the European Parliament. Members of the European Parliament were initially selected by national parliaments, but in 1979 the first direct elections were undertaken and they have been held every five years since.

In 1973, the first enlargement of the EC took place with the addition of Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The 1980s saw further membership expansion with Greece joining in 1981 and Spain and Portugal in 1986. The 1992 Treaty of Maastricht laid the basis for further forms of cooperation in foreign and defense policy, in judicial and internal affairs, and in the creation of an economic and monetary union - including a common currency. This further integration created the European Union (EU), at the time standing alongside the European Community. In 1995, Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined the EU/EC, raising the membership total to 15.

A new currency, the euro, was launched in world money markets on 1 January 1999; it became the unit of exchange for all EU member states except the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark. In 2002, citizens of those 12 countries began using euro banknotes and coins. Ten new countries joined the EU in 2004 - Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia - and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania joined, bringing the membership to 27, where it stands today.

In an effort to ensure that the EU could function efficiently with an expanded membership, the Treaty of Nice (signed in 2000) set forth rules aimed at streamlining the size and procedures of EU institutions. An effort to establish a "Constitution for Europe," growing out of a Convention held in 2002-2003, foundered when it was rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands in 2005. A subsequent effort in 2007 incorporated many of the features of the rejected Constitution while also making a number of substantive and symbolic changes. The new treaty, initially known as the Reform Treaty but subsequently referred to as the Treaty of Lisbon, sought to amend existing treaties rather than replace them. The treaty was approved at the EU intergovernmental conference of the 27 member states held in Lisbon in December 2007, after which the process of national ratifications began. In October 2009, an Irish referendum approved the Lisbon Treaty (overturning a previous rejection) and cleared the way for an ultimate unanimous endorsement. Poland and the Czech Republic signed on soon after. The Lisbon Treaty, again invoking the idea of an "ever closer union," came into force on 1 December 2009 and the European Union officially replaced and succeeded the European Community.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AWARDS $1 MILLION FOR GUN EDUCATION

Photo Credit:  Wikimedia Commons. 

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Thursday, March 7, 2013
Department of Justice Awards $1 Million to the National Crime Prevention Council to Support Gun Safety Campaign
Award Allocated for the Development of a National Public Education Campaign on Responsible Gun Ownership Encouraging Safe Storage

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) awarded $1 million to the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to support the development of a National Public Education Campaign on the subject of responsible gun ownership and safe gun storage. With the award, NCPC will create, produce, and distribute television, radio, and outdoor Public Service Announcements (PSAs) that encourage gun owners to safely store their firearms so that they do not fall into the wrong hands. The campaign will also emphasize the importance of immediately reporting lost or stolen guns to local law enforcement to ensure public safety.

"As part of President Obama's comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence, the Administration is committed to working with firearm owners and enthusiasts to prevent tragic accidents and keep guns from falling into the wrong hands," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "We are determined to implement the kinds of common-sense solutions that our citizens - and especially our young people - deserve."

Ensuring the public is educated in responsible gun ownership and firearm safety is a critical aspect to reducing gun violence. Gun owners, community groups and businesses must be aware and reminded to practice safe firearm storage and to make certain that firearms in the home are not casually accessible. This public awareness campaign will endeavor to decrease the threat of gun violence by promoting principles of responsible firearm ownership nationwide and providing guidelines for the safe usage and storage of firearms.

NCPC, founded in 1982, is the nation’s nonprofit leader in crime prevention. For 30 years, they have delivered crime prevention tips and public service advertising campaigns that empower citizens individually and collectively to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe from crime.

It is planned that the PSAs created through this award will be distributed to more than 1,700 television stations, nearly 15,000 radio stations and more than 500 cable networks in 210 markets in summer 2013.

THE FUTURE OF AIRCRAFT FROM NASA DRYDEN

NASA Dryden: Writing Stories of the Future Today
Prefaced by NASA Dryden Flight Research Center director David McBride's comments at the California Science Center's Space Shuttle Endeavour exhibit grand opening, this fast-paced video highlights some of the unique aircraft, aeronautical research, airborne Earth and space science missions and educational outreach activities conducted by NASA Dryden in 2012 and planned for 2013.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT FOR WEEK ENDING MARCH 2, 2013

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending March 2, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 340,000, a decrease of 7,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 347,000. The 4-week moving average was 348,750, a decrease of 7,000 from the previous week's revised average of 355,750.
The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.4 percent for the week ending February 23, unchanged from the prior week's unrevised rate. The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending February 23 was 3,094,000, an increase of 3,000 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,091,000. The 4-week moving average was 3,121,750, a decrease of 37,500 from the preceding week's revised average of 3,159,250.

UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 333,389 in the week ending March 2, an increase of 23,198 from the previous week. There were 368,433 initial claims in the comparable week in 2012.

The advance unadjusted insured unemployment rate was 2.8 percent during the week ending February 23, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the prior week's unrevised rate. The advance unadjusted number for persons claiming UI benefits in state programs totaled 3,589,315, an increase of 52,854 from the preceding week's revised level of 3,536,461. A year earlier, the rate was 3.2 percent and the volume was 3,988,890. The total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending February 16 was 5,401,893, a decrease of 362,275 from the previous week. There were 7,387,649 persons claiming benefits in all programs in the comparable week in 2012.  Extended Benefits were available only in Alaska during the week ending February 16. Initial claims for UI benefits filed by former Federal civilian employees totaled 1,138 in the week ending February 23, a decrease of 214 from the prior week. There were 2,188 initial claims filed by newly discharged veterans, a decrease of 115 from the preceding week. There were 20,902 former Federal civilian employees claiming UI benefits for the week ending February 16, a decrease of 1,780 from the previous week. Newly discharged veterans claiming benefits totaled 38,482, a decrease of 984 from the prior week. States reported 1,780,626 persons claiming EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) benefits for the week ending February 16, a decrease of 225,365 from the prior week. There were 2,929,210 persons claiming EUC in the comparable week in 2012. EUC weekly claims include first, second, third, and fourth tier activity. The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending February 16 were in Alaska (6.0), Montana (4.3), Puerto Rico (4.3), New Jersey (4.1), Pennsylvania (4.1), Rhode Island (4.1), Wisconsin (3.9), Idaho (3.7), Massachusetts (3.7), Connecticut (3.6), Illinois (3.6), and Oregon (3.6).The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending February 23 were in Massachusetts (+4,024), North Carolina (+1,995), Illinois (+1,782), Rhode Island (+988), and Connecticut (+733), while the largest decreases were in California (-40,352), New York (-2,070), Texas (-1,334), Florida (-878), and Pennsylvania (-781).

A Quiet Interlude in Solar Max

A Quiet Interlude in Solar Max

Press Briefing | The White House

Press Briefing | The White House

ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR'S STATEMENT ON THE MINIMUM WAGE

FROM: U.S. DEPATMENT OF LABOR
Statement by acting Secretary of Labor Seth D. Harris on America’s workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics has released a report titled "Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012." The report shows that 75.3 million workers in the United States age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2 million had wages below the federal minimum.

The report also shows that nearly one-half of those earning at or below the federal minimum wage is at least 25 years old, and women make up nearly two-thirds of those earning at or below the federal minimum wage. More than a third of those earning at or below the current federal minimum wage is working full-time. Finally, 15 percent of those earning at or below the federal minimum wage is African-American, and one-fifth is Latino or Hispanic.

Acting Secretary of Labor Seth D. Harris has issued the following statement about the report:

"Workers earning the federal minimum wage have not had a raise in nearly four years. As the report makes clear, many are working adults with full-time jobs, and we know that some low-wage workers are holding down more than one job.

"It is an outrage that someone who works full time should have to raise his or her family in poverty. Ensuring hard work is rewarded is the right thing to do for these workers and our economy. That's why the president has called for raising the federal minimum wage to $9.00 per hour by 2015, and indexing it to inflation thereafter. The BLS report looked at only those currently earning at or below the federal minimum wage. According to the White House Council of Economic Advisers, raising the federal minimum wage will result in nearly 15 million low-wage workers getting a raise in their take-home pay. That money will be spent locally at the grocery store, to buy school supplies and clothing for children, to pay rent and utility bills, and in many other ways to support families.

"In fiscal year 2012, the department's Wage and Hour Division found minimum wage violations in more than 12,500 investigations — more than a third of all cases concluded by the agency that fiscal year. These cases resulted in $35.2 million in back minimum wages for more than 107,000 workers, more than twice what we recovered in similar investigations in fiscal year 2009. Unfortunately, our ability to enforce the law and protect our most vulnerable workers will be threatened if Congress fails to act to avert the coming sequester.

"Over the next few weeks, our economy, national security and services that are important to middle-class families will be affected by automatic, arbitrary and irresponsible cuts if Congress fails to act. The president has offered a compromise plan. Congress must act immediately."

NEWS FROM AFGHANISTAN FOR MARCH 7, 2013

U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Kody King engages enemy positions with an M2HB .50-caliber machine gun during Operation Bullseye in Kajaki in Afghanistan's Helmand province, Feb. 27, 2013. King, a machine gunner, is assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 7. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Kowshon Ye

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Combined Force Makes Arrests After Firefight With Insurgents
From an International Security Assistance Force Joint Command News Release

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 7, 2013 - A combined Afghan and coalition security force arrested a Haqqani network facilitator and detained a wounded insurgent after a firefight in the Sayyid Karam district of Afghanistan's Paktia province today, military officials reported.

The facilitator is believed to be responsible for housing Haqqani and Taliban militants during operations, and for coordinating the movement of weapons and ammunition for attacks on Afghan and coalition forces.

As the security force approached, insurgents opened fire. The security force returned fire, wounding one attacker.

The security force also seized an assault rifle, two ammunition magazines and a fragmentary grenade.

In other Afghanistan operations today:

-- A combined force in Nimroz province arrested a Taliban facilitator and detained four other insurgents in Khash Rod. The facilitator is believed to be a significant link for the Taliban's supply chain in the Helmand River Valley. He also is accused of supervising distribution of weapons, improvised explosive devices and IED components to insurgents for attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.

-- In Logar province's Baraki Barak district, a combined force arrested a Taliban leader and detained three other insurgents. The leader is alleged to be responsible for planning and conducting attacks against Afghan and coalition forces and to be instrumental in acquiring, transferring and selling weapons for insurgent operations. The security force seized a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a grenade, a block of military-grade explosives, a mortar tube and tripod, and 20 mortar fuses in the operation.

COMMANDER OF CENTCOM APPROVES OFAFGHAN PRISONER TRANSFERS

Centcom Chief Supports Afghan Prisoner Transfers
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 6, 2013 - The commander of U.S. Central Command told Congress today that he supports the decision to release high-value prisoners to the Afghan justice system and described how he envisions ending the threat of IEDs.

Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis testified before the House Armed Services Committee here, where he was asked his thoughts on the transfer of high-value prisoners to Afghan custody and using premature detonation to end the threat of improvised explosive devices.

"In this case, I fully support it," he explained. "Two reasons. First, Ashraf Ghani, who is in charge of that portfolio for the Afghan government, [is] very trusted, very knowledgeable, has identified clearly the legal authority they have to hold people in what you and I would call admin detention."

Afghans have a different term for it, Mattis said, but the bottom line is they don't get released.

"There is also a process, dual-key, I would call it, where if they decide to release someone and we think it's an enduring threat, then, obviously, we can go in and stop that," he said.

"In other words, we work together, and it takes both, eventually, at the highest level, both sides in this effort to hold on to them or to release them," Mattis said.

Mattis said he knows these individuals will not become "force-protection threats" because they will be detained under the Afghan's legal authority.

"So based on those two premises, I do support this," he said. "And that's a change from if I had been up here, even as short as two months ago, where we were not certain we had the legal authority and we had to work out the process to make certain that there was a [procedure], if they were going to release someone that we did not want released."

The Marine general also discussed steps being undertaken to defeat improvised explosive devices.

"It's a multi-faceted campaign, as you know so well, of training, of technology, of scientists," Mattis said. "I've talked to as many scientists as I could find."

The electro-magnetic spectrum, he said, "is a big part of the problem, and it's so enormous, as you know, for ways to trigger one of these," he said.

Mattis said there have been ongoing improvement efforts with Pakistan to countering IEDS over the last two months.

"But, ultimately, I'll tell you ... what we are going to have to do is find a way to prematurely detonate these, so the time and place of detonation is no longer determined by the enemy," he said.

Premature detonation of IEDs "is ultimately going to be our way that we turn this weapon against the enemy," Mattis said.

Yesterday, the Senate confirmed that Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, currently the vice chief of staff of the Army, will succeed Mattis as the next commander of U.S. Central Command. Mattis is slated to retire this year.

HOMELAND SECURITY TOUTS REMOTE VEHICLE CAPTURE DEVICES

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Arresting a Fleeing Vehicle at the Push of a Button

In 2010, the characteristics of a squid’s sticky tendrils were combined with the concept of Spiderman’s super-strong webbing to create a prototype of the first remote device to stop vehicles in their tracks: the
Safe, Quick, Undercarriage Immobilization Device (SQUID).

The need to stop vehicles remotely was identified by the law enforcement community. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Office in the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) issued a solicitation for this need and SQUID was the response.

With funding from S&T and the expertise of Engineering Science Analysis Corporation’s (ESA) engineers, the SQUID prototype was a success. At the push of a button, spiked arms shot out and entangled in a car’s axles—bringing the vehicle to a screeching halt, but, the engineers and law enforcement recognized that the SQUID had room for improvement.

"ESA engineers further examined the SQUID to identify spiral technologies that could be gleaned from the design. The law enforcement community told us it had to be lighter and smaller," said ESA president Martín Martínez.

Combining smarts, the brainiacs of ESA, their technology and manufacturing partner Pacific Scientific Energetic Materials Company (PSEMC), and S&T went back to the Border Patrol agents and police officers operating the security checkpoints; asking what equipment does law enforcement need to operate faster and safer? The answer was simple: take SQUID apart and create two individual devices.

Recently patented and made commercially available, the especially unique Pit-BUL™ and NightHawk™ can stop anything from a compact car to a full-size SUV. In recent months, there have been numerous inquiries from every corner of the globe about these products.

Spawned from the original concept of the SQUID, the Pit-Ballistic Undercarriage Lanyard (Pit-BUL™) essentially is a tricked out speed bump. Hidden inside is a set of spikes attached to a net. When deployed, the spikes puncture the tires and the net tangles in the car’s axles. Made of easy to combine panels, Pit-BUL™ can be set up for single or double lane coverage.

"If a driver blows through a checkpoint, the agent can press a button and the car’s tires are spiked and netted in milliseconds," said Mark Kaczmarek, the SQUID program manager in S&T’s Borders and Maritime Security Division. "No high-speed pursuit is needed, and no one’s life is put at risk."

Pit-BUL™ can also be equipped with a motion activated sensor for locations needing secondary security. For example, the Pit-BUL™ can be placed near the gate of a facility. If somebody crashes through the gate when no officers are on duty, the sensor activates the Pit-BUL™ to deploy. The alleged gate crasher can be netted and stopped and then apprehended on the spot. PSEMC has performed more than 225 tests that prove Pit-BUL’s instantaneous vehicle stopping power.

Evolved from the arms of the original SQUID, the NightHawk™, was also developed by PSEMC along with its partner, Stop Stick Ltd. The NightHawk™ is a remote-controlled spike strip disguised as a small suitcase. Currently, spike strips are placed by hand in the fleeing driver’s path, usually at the last second so as not to impede other traffic. The NightHawk™, placed on the roadside, does not require an officer to stand nearby to deploy the device.

Traditional methods of deploying spike strips by hand in the path of a fleeing driver can put an officer’s life in danger, and are not always effective. Martínez explains: "When an officer is radioed that a fleeing vehicle is approaching, they can quickly place NightHawk™ on the side of the road and move a safe distance away. When the target vehicle approaches, before the driver has a chance to react, the officer can remotely trigger the spiked arm to deploy across the street and puncture the vehicle’s tires."

Pressing the remote’s button a second time retracts the spikes out of the way of oncoming traffic. Within seconds, NightHawk™ can be placed, deployed, and retracted.

"It all comes down to officer safety," said Kaczmarek. "When somebody flees, they put their life, the officers’ lives, and nearby pedestrians’ or commuters’ lives in danger. Pit-BUL™ and NightHawk™ provide law enforcement officers the added safety as well as the ability to halt feeling vehicles from a distance."

"Police departments with a ‘no pursuit policy’ now have a way to bring cars to a controlled stop, said S&T Deputy Under Secretary Dan Gerstein. "Criminals are caught and police don’t have to give chase. These first generation devices are the start of a change in the decades old game of cat and mouse."

　

WOMAN CONVICTED OF IMPERSONATING AID TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
California Woman Convicted for Impersonating Congressional Aide to Deceive Tax Client

The operator of a California-based tax consulting business has been convicted by a federal jury in Fresno, Calif. for impersonating an aide to a U.S. Congressman in order to deceive a client, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

Susan Tomsha-Miguel, 52, of Atwater, Calif., was convicted late yesterday, Feb. 26, 2013, of the sole count in the indictment against her: impersonating an officer or employee of the United States. The jury deliberated for only 15 minutes before returning a guilty verdict.

As the evidence at trial showed, Tomsha-Miguel operated a tax consulting and bookkeeping business in Atwater. A client, who owned a commercial business in Merced, Calif., hired Tomsha-Miguel to resolve a tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Tomsha-Miguel requested help with the tax problems from the office of U.S. Representative Dennis A. Cardoza, who represents the 18th Congressional District – which includes Merced County, as well as parts of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Madera and Fresno Counties. As the evidence revealed, Representative Cardoza’s office agreed to help, and transmitted written material – including a form printed under his official Congressional letterhead – to Tomsha-Miguel.

According to the evidence presented in court, Tomsha-Miguel then sent her client a counterfeit letter written under Representative Cardoza’s official letterhead and purportedly written and signed by a congressional aide. The letter falsely claimed that due to Tomsha-Miguel’s efforts on behalf of her client, the aide had contacted an IRS official. The counterfeit letter claimed that the IRS official had agreed to make resolving the client’s tax dispute his "number one priority" after he returned from "Washington, D.C. for an emergency strategy meeting with the U.S. Treasury Secretary and others for a planning session in the event a budget does not get passed by both the House and Senate."

In reality, the aide did not exist, and Tomsha-Miguel had forged the letterhead by copying the official letterhead onto a blank sheet of paper. The evidence also showed that Tomsha-Miguel had written the letter from the non-existent aide herself and then sent it to her client in order to mislead him into believing she had succeeded in alleviating his tax problems.

Tomsha-Miguel faces a maximum potential penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine at sentencing, currently scheduled for June 24, 2013 before U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, who presided over the trial.

The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Barak Cohen of the Public Integrity Section in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and investigated by the Sacramento, Calif. Division of the FBI.

MAN SENTENCED TO PRISON AND WILL PAY $34.5 MILLION FOR ROLE IN SILVER BULLION PONZI SCHEME





FROM: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION



CFTC Settles Charges against Ronnie Gene Wilson of South Carolina and His Company, Atlantic Bullion and Coin, for Operating a Multi-Million Dollar Silver Bullion Ponzi Scheme

Federal court in South Carolina orders Wilson to pay over $34.5 million dollars in restitution and a civil monetary penalty

In a parallel criminal action, Wilson pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 235 months in prison

Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced that Judge J. Michelle Childs of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina issued an Order requiring Defendant Ronnie Gene Wilson to pay a $23 million civil monetary penalty and $11,530,000 of restitution to defrauded investors in connection with a multi-million dollar silver bullion Ponzi scheme. The Consent Order of Permanent Injunction also imposes permanent trading and registration bans against Wilson and his company, Atlantic Bullion & Coin, Inc. (Atlantic Bullion), both of Easley, S.C., and prohibits them from violating the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC Regulations, as charged.

The Order stems from a CFTC Complaint filed on June 6, 2012, charging violations under the CFTC’s new authority contained within the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) prohibiting the use of any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud in connection with a contract of sale of a commodity in interstate commerce. Wilson and Atlantic Bullion were charged with fraudulently selling contracts of sale of silver to investors in a nationwide scheme that spanned 11 years.

In the Consent Order, the court concludes that the Defendants fraudulently obtained at least $11.53 million from at least 237 investors for the purchase of contracts of sale of silver bullion between August 15, 2011, and February 29, 2012 (the relevant period), which corresponds to the time period during which the CFTC possessed jurisdiction over the Defendants’ actions pursuant to new provisions contained within the Dodd-Frank Act. The Order further finds that, during the relevant period, the Defendants failed to purchase any silver whatsoever. Instead, the Order concludes that the Defendants misappropriated the entirety of the investors’ funds and issued false account statements to investors in an attempt to conceal their fraud.

In a related criminal proceeding in November 2012, Wilson was sentenced to serve the maximum 235 months imprisonment under the applicable federal sentencing guidelines and ordered to pay $57,401,009 in restitution to his victims for his involvement in the Ponzi scheme (US v. Wilson, 8:12-00320, D. SC).

The CFTC appreciates the cooperation and assistance in this matter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina (including Assistant U.S. Attorney George J. Conits and Assistant United States Attorney William J. Watkins, Jr.), the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office, and the U.S. Secret Service.

The CFTC Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are A. Daniel Ullman II, George H. Malas, Antoinette Chance, John Einstman, Richard Foelber, Paul G. Hayeck, and Joan M. Manley.

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK APPROVED LOAN TO HONDURAN POWER COMPANY FOR $28.6 MILLION

Map: Honduras. Credit: CIA World Factbook.

FROM: U.S. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
U.S. Exports Will Expand Wind Farm in Honduras:
Ex-Im Bank Supports 200 Jobs in Six States

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Two hundred Pennsylvanian workers will assemble twelve high-tech wind turbines for export, because the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) approved a $28.6 million direct loan to a Honduran power company. The transaction helps to expand a project first supported by the Bank in 2010, when its long-term financing of 51 U.S.-built turbine generators established the Cerro de Hula Wind Farm in Santa Ana, Honduras. The project developer and borrower, Energía Eólica de Honduras S.A., will sell the electricity to the Central American nation’s utility, Empresa Nacional de Energía Eléctrica.

"Building on the success of this impressive project, Ex-Im Bank is demonstrating the importance of its role to fill gaps in financing for creditworthy borrowers," explained Fred P. Hochberg, chairman and president of Ex-Im Bank. "With this project, we’ve achieved an impressive win all around: for exporters, for U.S. workers, and for energy consumers in Honduras, because the wind-driven generators cost less to operate than their equivalent in fossil-fueled equipment."

Gamesa Wind US, LLC, a technology firm based in Trevose, Pennsylvania, will manufacture and export six each of its high-efficiency model G87 and G-97, 2.0 MW turbines to generate electric power in rural Honduras. Gamesa operates two facilities in the U.S., a blades factory in Ebensburg, near Johnstown, and a nacelle plant outside Philadelphia. In 2011, Gamesa was named Ex-Im Bank’s "Renewable Energy Exporter of the Year." Other U.S. exporters involved in the project will also benefit. They include engineering contractors, financial and legal advisors, and represent jobs in the states of Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas.

The Cerro de Hula Wind Farm now produces about six percent of the electrical power in Honduras. With the additions from this transaction, the wind farm will have 63 wind turbines and a total installed capacity of 126MW providing power to the national electric utility.

"The Americas are still far from realizing the full potential of a clean energy economy," said Gamesa North American chairman David Flitterman. "But at Gamesa, we’re proud to manufacture American-made wind turbines that get shipped from our U.S. plants to countries far and wide. While the U.S. wind industry slowly is recovering after late renewal of the U.S. Production Tax Credit in January, thanks to Ex-Im Bank these export projects are creating new business opportunities in emerging markets, and are supporting good-paying jobs throughout the entire supply chain."

The exporter is a technology firm with manufacturing operations in Pennsylvania, and is a subsidiary of Gamesa Technology Corporation, a sustainable-energy concern headquartered in northern Spain. It ranks as the fourth-largest manufacturer of wind turbines and is in the top ten globally for wind farm development. Gamesa builds photovoltaic power stations and wind farms on land and off-shore. Although the parent company is Spanish, Ex-Im Bank provides financing only for goods and services associated with production by U.S. workers.

RUSSIAN METEOR MAKES NOISE OVER AMERICA

Hole in the ice at Russia's Lake Chebarkul, said to be caused by the meteor. Credit: NSF/Wikimedia Commons
 

FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Incoming! Then Outgoing! Waves Generated by Russian Meteor Recorded Crossing the U.S.

A network of seismographic stations recorded spectacular signals from the blast waves of the meteor that landed near Chelyabinsk, Russia, as the waves crossed the United States.

The National Science Foundation- (NSF) supported stations are used to study earthquakes and the Earth's deep interior.

While thousands of earthquakes around the globe are recorded by seismometers in these stations--part of the permanent Global Seismographic Network (GSN) and EarthScope's temporary Transportable Array (TA)--signals from large meteor impacts are far less common.

The meteor explosion near Chelyabinsk on Feb. 15, 2013, generated ground motions and air pressure waves in the atmosphere. The stations picked up the signals with seismometers and air pressure sensors.

The ground motions were recorded by the GSN and the TA. The pressure waves were detected by special sensors that are part of the TA.

"The NSF-supported Global Seismic Network and EarthScope Transportable Array made spectacular recordings of the Chelyabinsk meteor's impact," says Greg Anderson, program director in NSF's Division of Earth Sciences.

"These recordings of seismic waves through the Earth, and sound waves through the atmosphere, are good examples of how these facilities can help global organizations better monitor earthquakes, clandestine nuclear tests and other threats."

Incoming! Then outgoing!

The Chelyabinsk meteor exploded in the atmosphere at approximately 9.20 a.m. local time.

The blast caused significant damage in the city, breaking thousands of windows and injuring more than 1,000 people.

Energy from the blast created pressure waves in the atmosphere that moved rapidly outward and around the globe. The blast also spread within the Earth as a seismic wave.

The two wave types--seismic wave and pressure wave--travel at very different speeds.

Waves in the ground travel quickly, at about 3.4 kilometers per second. Waves in the atmosphere are much slower, moving at about 0.3 kilometers per second, and can travel great distances.

GSN stations in Russia and Kazakhstan show the ground-traveling wave as a strong, abrupt pulse with a duration of about 30 seconds.

The atmospheric waves--referred to as infrasound--were detected across a range of inaudible frequencies and were observed at great distances on infrasound microphones.

When the infrasound waves reached the eastern United States--after traveling 8.5 hours through the atmosphere across the Arctic from the impact site in Russia--they were recorded at TA stations at the Canadian border.

The infrasound waves reached Florida three hours later, nearly 12 hours after the blast.

Infrasound sensors at TA stations along the Pacific coast and in Alaska also recorded the blast, but with signatures that were shorter and simpler than those recorded by stations in the mid-continent and along the southeastern seaboard.

The duration of the signals, and the differences between the waveforms in the east and west, scientists believe, are related to the way in which energy travels and bounces on its long path through the atmosphere.

EarthScope Transportable Array

The Transportable Array is operated by the IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology) Consortium as part of NSF's EarthScope Project. It consists of 400 stations traversing the United States, recording at each site along the way for two years.

Each of the TA stations was originally equipped with sensitive broadband seismometers for measuring ground motions, but in 2010, NSF awarded the University of California, San Diego, in cooperation with IRIS, funding to add pressure and infrasound sensors.

These special sensors help scientists understand how changes in pressure affect ground motions recorded by the TA's seismometers and provide a view of regional pressure changes related to weather patterns.

The sensors also record events such as tornadoes, derechos, rocket launches, chemical explosions--and meteor impacts.

The Chelyabinsk meteor is the largest signal recorded to date.

In 2013, the Transportable Array will reach states in the Northeast, completing its traverse of the contiguous United States and southern Canada.

Global Seismographic Network

The GSN's primary mission is collecting data to monitor worldwide earthquakes and to study the Earth's deep interior.

It's funded jointly by NSF and the U.S. Geological Survey and is managed and operated by IRIS in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey's Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory and the University of California, San Diego.

As part of a worldwide network of seismic stations, data from the GSN have contributed over the past three decades to the monitoring of nuclear explosions at test sites in the United States, the former Soviet Union, India, Pakistan and Korea. For example, GSN stations provided observations of the Korean nuclear test on Feb. 12, 2013.

USNS MONTFORD POINT CHRISTENED

130302-N-PB383-020 SAN DIEGO (March 2, 2013) The Mobile Landing Platform USNS Montford Point (T-MLP 1) is moored pier side in San Diego during the ship's christening ceremony. Montford Point is the first ship of its class and will serve as a floating base for amphibious operations and operates as a transfer point between large ships and small landing craft. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Dominique Pineiro/Released)

　

　
FROM: U.S. NAVY
USNS Montford Point Christened in San Diego
Sarah Burford, Military Sealift Command Pacific Public Affairs

SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- The Navy's first mobile landing platform ship, USNS Montford Point (T-MLP 1), was christened at the General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard in San Diego, March 2.

Owned and operated by Military Sealift Command, Montford Point was christened by its sponsor, Alexis "Jackie" Bolden, the wife of current NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. Gen. James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, delivered the ceremony's principal address and Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, commander of MSC, also spoke on behalf of the ship and crew.

"This ship, with its unique capabilities, will become the centerpiece of sea-basing, allowing the U.S. Navy to raise forward-operations to a new level," said Buzby.

"Wherever the call, whatever the need, USNS Montford Point will be part of the Navy's global force for good," he said.

The first of three MLPs being built for MSC by NASSCO, Montford Point will join MSC's Maritime Prepositioning Force as a seagoing pier in the event that accessibility to onshore bases is denied.

Montford Point is named in honor of the 20,000 African-American Marine Corps recruits who trained at Montford Point Camp, N.C., from 1942 to 1949. It's the corner stone of the Navy's sea-base concept, serving as a transfer point for a Marine Corps amphibious landing force between large ships and ship-to-shore landing craft. The ship also provides the ability to transfer vehicles and equipment at sea while interfacing with surface connectors to deliver the vehicles and equipment ashore, improving the Navy's ability to deliver equipment and cargo from offshore to an amphibious objective.

Its flexibility is critical for humanitarian response to natural disasters and for support to warfighters ashore. The size allows for 25,000 square feet of vehicle and equipment stowage space and 380,000 gallons of JP-5 fuel storage. A crew of 34 civilian mariners employed by MSC will operate the ship once delivered to the fleet.

"I salute the ship's first master, Capt. Kurt Kleinschmidt, his chief engineer, Bill Maus, and the rest of the U.S. Merchant Marine crew," said Buzby.

"Their determination will stand this ship and its mission in good stead as they sail anywhere on the globe that the mission sends them," he said.

MSC operates approximately 110 noncombatant, civilian-crewed ships that replenish U.S. Navy ships, conduct specialized missions, strategically preposition combat cargo at sea around the world and move military cargo and supplies used by deployed U.S. forces and coalition partners.

U.S. TRANSCOM COMMAND CHIEF SAYS SEQUESTER WILL NOT AFFECT DRAWDOWN IN AFGHANISTAN

U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Chris Kusnierz watches his sectors of fire during Operation Bullseye in Kajaki in Afghanistan's Helmand province, Feb. 27, 2013. Kusnierz, a machine gunner, is assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 7. Troops conducted the Afghan-led operation to clear Pay Sang village. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Kowshon Ye

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Transcom Chief: Sequester Won't Affect Afghan Drawdown
By Nick Simeone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 6, 2013 - The chief of U.S Transportation Command told Congress today that cuts in defense spending triggered by the budget sequester should not have an impact on the withdrawal of U.S. troops and materiel from Afghanistan, but may have other "unintended" consequences.

Air Force Gen. William M. Fraser III told members of the House Armed Services Committee that bringing equipment and personnel home from Afghanistan as part of a planned drawdown over the coming months is a concern because of the impact of $46 billion in defense cuts triggered by the sequester.

However, Fraser said, "There has been direction by the department to ensure that the resources are there which should cover the retrograde that we're talking about."

Apart from the impact of sequestration, the ability to withdraw troops and equipment from landlocked Afghanistan, where the U.S.-led NATO mission is set to expire at the end of next year, has been a concern, given the history of the country's border with Pakistan, through which much of the materiel is expected to transit.

For months last year, the Pakistani government closed overland routes into Afghanistan in response to a cross-border attack by NATO forces in November 2011 that accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

During questioning, Fraser told lawmakers he concluded a visit to Pakistan last month "encouraged" about the border situation.

"We're going to continue to ramp up," he told legislators, and that "everything seems to be moving in the right direction with lots of different lanes ... and that we do have the resources."

However, Fraser was less sanguine about the impact the budget sequester will have on the military in general.

"The lack of budget certainty right now is going to have an unintended consequence on our command," he said, especially for commercial partners who contract with Transcom.

The military budget situation also raises a readiness issue, he added, by increasing "our risk in the future to respond in a very timely manner."

Based at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, Transcom oversees the Defense Department's global air, land and sea transportation and distribution enterprise, providing the military with global mobility.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ON SITUATION IN VENEZUELA

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARMTNE
Background Briefing on the Situation in Venezuela
Special Briefing
Senior State Department Officials
Via Teleconference
March 6, 2013

　

MODERATOR: Hello, everyone, and thanks for joining us this afternoon. Today we have with us two senior State Department officials to discuss the situation in Venezuela. We have with us [Senior State Department Official One] and [Senior State Department Official Two]. Hereafter for the rest of the call, they will be Senior State Department Official One and Senior State Department Official Two. This call is on background, so for all attribution we will refer to them as Senior State Department Officials.

So without further ado, I’m going to turn it over to Senior State Department Official Number One for some opening remarks before we get to your questions. Go ahead, Senior Official One.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you very much, [Moderator], and thanks to everyone for being on the line. Good afternoon. Let me start off just with a couple of quick things and then we can go to questions.

Yesterday was obviously a very, very busy day on Venezuela. First we had the press conference by Vice President Maduro in which there were a lot of allegations made about the United States and two of our officials were expelled, or PNG’d; and then just hours later, Vice President Maduro, of course, announced President Chavez’s death. The White House has put out a statement on the death of President Chavez. We, of course, have also responded to inquiries.

It’s a very difficult time for Venezuela right now. We are aware of that, and we have conveyed our belief that as they look forward beyond the death of President Chavez there will be elections upcoming according to the Venezuelan constitution, and we are hopeful that those elections will go forward according to their constitution, according to the regional documents, the Inter-American documents on democratic practices that we’ve all signed up to, in the coming days and months.

Let me also just say a word about one other thing that we have obviously been paying some attention to over the last 24 hours, which is the security situation in Venezuela, both for our official Americans and for American citizens more generally. The situation is really very calm. We have had conversations with all of the Venezuelan various security services – police, military – and they have been very responsive to us. We have no concerns about our own security at this point. We did put out – our Embassy did put out a Warden Message last night for Americans, the kind of thing that we do pretty regularly when we think there are reasons for Americans to be cautious. So we put that out yesterday.

My understanding is that because of the national days of mourning, the schools are closed today. Our Embassy did not process visas this morning because they felt that it was better if they did not. So people who had not gotten the word that we were not going to do our visa appointments today were turned away this morning, but there were no problems with that. So I just want to make mention of the fact that we are very conscious of security issues but that everything seems to be going very well for now.

With that, I think I’ll stop unless Official Number Two has anything to add.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Nope, I don’t. Let’s go ahead.

MODERATOR: Operator, let’s go ahead to our Q&A session. Go ahead and get our first question.

OPERATOR: Certainly. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, please press * then 1 on your phone (inaudible). If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. Once again, any questions, please press * then 1 at this time.

And our first question will come from the line of Elise Labott with CNN. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks for doing this. Can you talk a little bit more about – I mean, this – the White House statement was kind of a little bit curt, didn’t necessarily offer condolences. We understand that Senior Official One put out a statement. If you could release that to the rest of the – of us, that would be great. It just seems as if you’re unsure how to respond in terms of showing condolences. The rhetoric coming not only from some of the Republicans on the Hill, talking about the fact that it’s good that he’s dead. I’m wondering, given what’s going on on both sides, what you see the prospect is for improved relations between the U.S. and Venezuela as you move forward.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, Elise. Let me start out by saying that I can’t really explain or otherwise characterize rhetoric that may be coming out from members of Congress or others. Let me say that I think it’s really important that I make clear that we definitely wanted to – we definitely understand that Venezuela is going through this incredibly difficult period. Their leader has died. We – and I don’t see any problem with making that available – and in the guidance that we’ve used have made clear that we expressed our sympathy to his family and to the Venezuelan people. I think frankly, the way I was raised, when someone dies, you always express condolences. So we’ve done that.

But it’s obviously been a pretty complicated relationship, and this announcement was preceded by a 90-minute press conference in which we were accused of some pretty awful things that were pretty outrageous. But I think that reflects to some extent just how difficult it’s been to try and have the positive relationship with Venezuela that we’d like. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of conflict over President Chavez’s death. He was the leader of Venezuela. There are a lot of people who are feeling the effects of that death, taking it quite personally. There is a family involved here. We sympathize with that.

Looking forward and how the relationship will go in the future, I think we’ve also been pretty clear that we would like a productive, more functional relationship with the Venezuelan Government. And we remain, perhaps because we’re Americans, optimistic that that can be the case. But we’ll have to see how that progresses going forward. Obviously, yesterday’s first press conference, if you will, the first address, was not encouraging in that respect. It disappointed us.

OPERATOR: And next in queue we’ll go to the line of Luis Alonso. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hello, everybody. Many thanks for doing this call. I have two quick questions. The first one is if the United States will reciprocate the expulsion of the two military officers in Caracas, will ask Venezuela to do something similar? And the second question is, after these accusations yesterday by Vice President Maduro, do you plan to have any direct contact with him like the November contact that there was? Is there any prospect, any plan for talks in the near future? Thank you.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, Luis. I think on the question of reciprocal action for the expulsion of our two officials, that’s something that we’re obviously reviewing right now and we’ll see where we go from here. It’s obviously always our right to take that action, and so we’re not ruling anything out at this point.

On the issue of contact with Vice President Maduro, [Senior State Department Official has] not had contact with him since November, but contact between others [in the State Department] have continued, not in a while now. We’ll see whether those can continue at this point.

Official Number Two, did you want to add anything to that?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No, I think that’s right.

OPERATOR: And next we’ll go the line of Jo Biddle, AFP. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hello, my question was actually just answered, which was about the rhetoric and whether there’d be any reciprocal actions by the United States on – after the expulsion of these two Air Force officers. But perhaps going forward, maybe you could talk a little bit more about how you think you might be able to build your relationship with Venezuela perhaps once we get past the elections and where you would like to see that going in the future.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you. I think that we’ve – we’ve said from the beginning that we think the best way to move ahead in this relationship is twofold. One is to have conversations on things where I think there may be mutual interest in moving ahead, and there are clearly some areas in which we think that could be possible – counternarcotics, counterterrorism, economic or commercial issues including energy.

But the second part of this is – and we’ve always been clear on this as well, I think – that we are going to continue to speak out when we believe there are issues of democratic principle that need to be talked about, that need to be highlighted. Obviously, Venezuela will also speak out and speak its own mind on – the Venezuelan Government will speak its own mind on issues they think that they have to speak out about.

So I think that’s part of this equation, but there clearly are issues in which we have mutual interest, and I think that’s the way you start this. You start by talking about the things that matter to both of us and seeing if we can make progress on those issues on those functional areas, and then you move on to trying to build on that as you build confidence. So for us, it’s a step-by-step process during which we will continue to speak out and to defend democratic principles if that is the appropriate thing to do.

OPERATOR: And next in queue we’ll go directly to the line of Brad Clapper with Associated Press. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, yes. Thank you for doing the call. I just wanted to ask for your reaction to the late-night tweet by Venezuelan State Television saying that Defense Minister Molero was pledging military support for Maduro’s candidacy. Is that something that worries you, and do you see already these democratic principles that you have said you would speak out in favor of already being challenged?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, Brad. I actually had not seen that tweet, but I do think that it’s important that the elections be free and fair, that they be – that the democratic principles enshrined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter and other documents be respected. It seems to me that if government entities guaranteeing a free and fair election, then that’s one thing; if they are acting on behalf of an individual candidate, that would probably cause us some concern.

It’s important that, to the greatest extent possible, everybody have a level playing field and a clear field, whether that’s candidates or voters or political groups, to express themselves, to have a vote that is secret and counted and not influenced by those outside the electoral process. So we’ll obviously be taking a look at all of these things as we go forward.

Official Number Two?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The only thing I’d say in addition to that is, and this is not – Official Number One’s comments about how we respond to this, I think, is right on. This is no different from positions that have been taken by the armed forces in the past, including things – saying things like we’re married to the revolution, et cetera. And the fundamental point here is about – and the separation of powers and ensuring that institutions in the democratic structure have the independence that they need to function as designed.

OPERATOR: And next, we’ll go to the line of Lucia Leal with EFE News Service. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for making this call. I was wondering if you could comment on the specific process announced by Vice President Maduro up until the elections next month, because some analysts are saying that the constitution provides for Mr. Cabello and not him to head the interim government. So I just wanted to know what your views are on that. Thank you.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, Lucia. We’ve obviously seen lots of comments by analysts. It’s not going to be our place to interpret the Venezuelan constitution for Venezuelans, so I really – I’m not going to make a comment on whether that interpretation is accurate or not.

From what I understand – and then I’m going to turn it over to Official Number Two, who is a much better expert on the process going forward – but from what I understand, there – like any constitution, there are rules that are laid out, and then interpretations of the same. We’ve also seen reports that elections need to be held in 30 days, which is an incredibly short timeframe. Or there have been comments that elections need to be called within 30 days.

So all of this will have to be worked out going forward. I think the most important thing is that the rules be applicable across the board to everybody, and that there be an opportunity for Venezuelans to organize and to vote and to be independent in that vote. But beyond that, I’m not going to interpret Venezuela’s constitution.

[Senior State Department Official Two]?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. I mean, this is right. I mean, it’s a constitution like many constitutions. It’s subject to differential interpretations. For their part, the Venezuelans and the Venezuelan Supreme Court in the past – and they had the tradition of judicial review – the Venezuelan Supreme Court ruled that Maduro didn’t need to be inaugurated because there was a continuity of government. And as – the whole theory behind two-thirds of that article is that you would need to move the acting presidency to the president of the National Assembly because there was no inauguration.

So the point is, is that the judicial branch has kind of looked at this already. For our part, what’s important now is less that issue and more the conditions under which the election, which must be held, which Chavez, before he went to – back to Cuba said would be held, that that election take place in conditions that are demonstrably free and fair and that conform to the rules that the hemisphere had set up for itself with respect to democratic practice.

OPERATOR: And next we’ll go to the line of Karen DeYoung with The Washington Post. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: My question’s been asked and answered. Thank you.

OPERATOR: You’re welcome. Thank you. Next we’ll go to the line of Juan Lopez, CNN Espanol. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. So what happens now? Will the U.S. send a delegation for Friday? Who will be in that delegation? How do you take it from here? And how do you deal? You’re saying you want – there’s a moment of pause and waiting to see what could happen in the relationship, but for example, Cabello is – he’s still on the kingpin list. And how does that affect any possible change for the future?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks, Juan Carlos. I’m going to start – let me start at the beginning, I think, if I can remember all the questions. You’ll let me know if I’ve missed some.

The question of what happens next, obviously, things are still pretty much in flux. It’s sort of early days. Whether a delegation will be sent for the funeral and ceremony that’s going to be held at the end of the week, I think on that all I would say is that’s a White House decision but I do expect that there will be a delegation. So, basically, stay tuned for that. I don’t want to preempt the White House on that.

In terms of moving forward, obviously we began a dialogue very initially with Vice President Maduro, and then with others beyond that, because we felt it was important to see if we could kind of reconstruct this relationship, starting with the issues where we have mutual interests. That’s been a little bit of a rocky road, obviously. And I think all of us know that electoral campaigns may not always be the best time to make – to break new ground on policy.

So we will continue to desire that positive relationship, to be open to having those conversations to try and move that ahead, while recognizing that it may take a little while before the Venezuelan Government that emerges from the elections that will be coming up is ready to have that conversation a bit more regularly and a bit more seriously.

But I think we’ve set out sort of a roadmap, if you will, of the way we’d like to do this, a sort of step-by-step process. And to some extent, it’s up to the Venezuelans to whether they want to head down that path and explore whether it’ll work.

Official Number Two, what am I missing of those questions? I can’t recall.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah. What – there was another question at the end there. Can you repeat that question?

Apparently not. Locked out.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: There was a question about Cabello, I think, at the end.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, the only – I mean, I heard – it may have gone to the constitution question, but one just point of fact is the questioner suggested that Cabello was on the kingpin list, which is not accurate. I mean, there are eight Venezuelans who are on the kingpin list, but he is not currently one of them.

MODERATOR: And next, we’ll go to the line of Lori Montenegro with Telemundo Network. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, good afternoon. Senator Marco Rubio, in his statement, was encouraging the Administration and others in what he called the democratic community to be aware and be vigilant of the security situation in Venezuela during the coming weeks and months. Is there – do you have any indication of – that there should be concern about the security situation in Venezuela and how that could affect security in the rest of the region?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you. I started with security in part to try and get at this issue, but I appreciate sort of coming back to it.

We have no indication right now that there is any threat to our personnel or Americans in Venezuela. Now obviously, after you have the kind of broadside, if you will, that Vice President Maduro launched against the United States yesterday, we obviously have security concerns, and we will remain very vigilant and review security issues regularly within our Embassy and here in Washington. And we’ll put out any additional notices to the public that we think necessary.

But at this point, I have to say, cooperation with the Venezuelan security services has been excellent, and we have no reason to think that there is any unusual threat against Americans or our personnel. And as far as I know, so far today, things have been very quiet and very peaceful, although obviously I think there are people out in the street in mourning, et cetera. So, so far, I think things have been quite quiet.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: If I could just add, just briefly here, is the only other thing is that all that is so, and we need to concern ourselves with the security of American citizens and of our mission. But let’s be clear; I mean, Venezuela is one of the most violent countries in the world with 20,000 murders, 19,000 murders annually being registered, a rate which is five times what it was in 1999. It’s inherently a violent place.

But there’s a distinction there between that sort of violence and then violence which might be – and it would appear that the comment of the senator was directed about sort of political violence. And Senior Official One’s comments were on point in that regard.

MODERATOR: And next we’ll go to the line of Ginger Thompson, New York Times. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, you all, and thanks for doing the call. I’m wondering if, [Senior State Department Official One], you could give us a few more details about what has happened specifically in the relationship between your – the time of that phone call with Vice President Maduro to yesterday’s press conference. I mean, there was the phone call. Have there been regular diplomatic communications between the two governments? Were there meetings planned? How did things begin to sort of unravel, if you will – not that they were ever fully together?

SENIOR STATE DEPATMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. I think, Ginger, what you’re asking for is a more logical progression than actually exists. (Laughter.) The phone calls took place at the end of November. There were some – a couple of follow-up meetings after that phone call. We laid out, if you will, what we thought was kind of a good plan and where we could start. And to be honest, we did not get much response. We didn’t really begin the substantive portion of those conversations. We were still kind of meeting to meet and laying out what we would talk about.

So we really hadn’t gotten very far and were not sure whether the Government of Venezuela wanted to continue down that road when yesterday occurred. I could not tell you that there was a lot of preparation or anticipation of what happened yesterday, or something that’s built up or that tensions were growing, and that’s why yesterday occurred. In fact, I don’t think that’s the case.

I think yesterday was a part of an election campaign, and therefore not necessarily directly related to the process we’ve had of trying to improve the relationship. But it is directly related, from our perspective, obviously, that is to say regardless of reasons for it, there were some outrageous charges leveled against the United States publicly yesterday. And that’s really unfortunate and we rejected those.

But I can’t tell you that those two events are linked – the process that we’ve had to try and improve to have a conversation on the functional issues, as I call them, and what happened yesterday.

OPERATOR: The next in queue, we’ll go directly to the line of Jay Newton-Small with Time Magazine. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. Yes, I wanted to know whether you see relations improving in the short or in the medium term now that Chavez is gone. Was he the biggest hurdle in this relationship, or are there other hurdles?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks. I’m going to start this one off and then I’m going to ask Official Two to continue a little bit.

I think one of the things that happens over 14 years in a government like Venezuela’s is it really did revolve around one man. So while I hesitate to say that a change in an individual or the passing of an individual completely changes the relationship, I do think your question, in a way, comes from an acknowledgement that he played an outsized role in that government, and therefore his absence can have an outsized implication, if you will.

But it’s very hard for me to tell. Obviously, there’s an election that’s going to take place in the coming weeks or months. And that campaign itself may raise issues; it may be a difficult campaign for many. We will no doubt continue to hear things about the United States that will not help improve this relationship. But it’s very hard for us to know right now whether the current government, as they preside over elections, or the government that comes out of those elections will, in fact, either accelerate or continue or stop the momentum towards a better relationship. [Senior State Department Official Two], you want to jump in?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The only thing I would add there is if you go back over time and look at how Hugo Chavez managed things politically in his country, one of the consistent elements was using us as a foil, using us as sort of a straw man that could be attacked.

And the regrettable part about this is that, notwithstanding his political needs, there are issues on which we’re really compelled to cooperate or at least talk to one another because there’s – they’re generally issues of mutual interest, where our interests coincide.

The speech yesterday, the first speech yesterday by Maduro, was very consistent with the way that this government has traditionally addressed these matters. And in that respect, it wasn’t very encouraging. On the other hand, it’s our obligation to see if there’s any space to work these things, and I think that if there’s space to do so on their side, then we’ll find out. But we can’t make these decisions for them, only they can.

MODERATOR: Operator, we’ve only got time for two more questions.

OPERATOR: Very good. We’ll go directly to the line of Keith Johnson with the Wall Street Journal. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks a lot for doing this call. The main question I had, just to broaden things out a little bit, I mean in recent years, despite all of the provocations – and [Senior State Department Official Two], you just mentioned his use of the U.S. as a foil constantly, but the U.S. had consistently sort of refused to take that bait. And I wonder, dealing with this post-Chavez transition and all the uncertainty there, if this is going to have any impact on the broader western hemisphere agenda that you’ve laid out, whether it’s energy cooperation, Connect 2020, democracy institutions, social inclusion. I mean, does this change your broader goals for relations with Latin America? Does this create any sort of openings or should it basically not alter the path you guys have already laid out?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. Let me start that one. I guess my own view is that, at least initially, I don't see this changing that much. What we said from the beginning was we’ve laid out, obviously, the issues that we think are important to move ahead on, includes defense of democracy, economic opportunity and social inclusion, moving on energy, including clean energy, citizen security issues, which obviously, as Official Number Two pointed out, are critical in Venezuela. But I don't see the overall goals in the hemisphere changing or being affected all that radically by these events.

That said, the other thing that we’ve done procedurally, if you will, since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the first term, is we’ve sought partnerships with countries that wish to partner with us, where we have things in common that we want to achieve. And we’ve tried to continue to say we want to have a positive relationship, even with countries that seem not to demonstrate much will to do so, to leave that door open, to make sure that they recognize that we’re ready to do so should things change.

Now, that’s what we’re hoping for Venezuela, that whether before, during President Chavez’s years, or now, that they’re ready to actually have that relationship that’s more productive around stuff that I think matters a lot to Venezuelans, not just to Americans, whether it’s working on citizen security issues, whether it’s talking about counternarcotics and the way it’s impacting both of our countries. I mean, this is the kind of discussion we want to have.

I don't know whether more space has opened up to have that discussion now. I do know that, as Official Number Two pointed out earlier, if you look at what’s affecting Venezuelans day to day, whether it’s the highest inflation rate in the hemisphere, or whether it’s number of homicides and other crimes, or whether we’re talking about shortages of foodstuffs on the shelves, Venezuelans are not, I don’t think, in a very good place right now. There’s a lot of things that they are demanding of their leaders that I’m not sure are being met. That’s not something that the United States can necessarily do for Venezuela. Those are things the Venezuelans have to decide to prioritize and their leaders have to decide to respond to.

But surely these are conversations throughout the hemisphere on common issues that Venezuela would benefit from greater engagement in, and that’s what we would hope. So I don't see changes in our policy, but I would love and be very encouraged if we found Venezuela joining those conversations more actively.

OPERATOR: And our final question at this time will come from the line of Margaret Warner, PBS NewsHour. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you for doing this. Just back to the concerns about the coming election and your wish that it be – hope that it be free and fair, what is it in the conduct, if anything, of past elections, like the one in October, that would raise concerns on that score?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Well, thank you, Margaret. I think that we’ve been pretty clear that one of the ways that you ensure that elections really do qualify as free and fair is you invite in observers, international election observers. Election observers in this hemisphere have a particularly long and distinguished history. Election observers have been deployed most recently to Ecuador. Former President of Costa Rica Oscar Arias is heading an election observation mission right now in Paraguay to prepare for their elections.

Venezuela has not invited the OAS to observe its elections in at least certainly the October elections. I’m not sure much before that. [Senior State Department Official Two] may recall. But that would be one thing where the absence, frankly, often concerns us and the presence would be extremely helpful we think. There are lots of groups that do election observation, the OAS being one. The EU is another that does a good job. So it can be any of a number of organizations, but they haven’t been allowed to do so.

But we also think it’s really important that the playing field be as level as it can. The opposition, obviously, is looking to try and get its message across, just as the government is doing, but the government has resources that are used in that process. And it’s important that fairness and some kind of equal shot be given to all the participants. And so we think that would be pretty important. That hasn’t always been the case.


Most people that we talk to in Venezuela – and I think – let me mention about election observation – it is perhaps even more critical not just that international observers observe an election but that domestic observation groups in Venezuela be allowed to observe any and all electoral processes that they can. And I think that’s going to be critical moving forward, and that always – hasn’t always been as transparent as it should be.

On the day of election, in general terms, election observers in Venezuela have felt that things go pretty well. But it’s often in the preparations of elections that kind of the fairness and the evenness of the space gets laid, and I think that’s what we’ll be looking for as things move ahead.

[Senior State Department Official Two].

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think that that’s exactly right. I don't have anything to add to that.

MODERATOR: Thank you all for joining us this afternoon. That’s the conclusion of our call.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you all very much.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Thanks.